IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0192007.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A new method of identifying target groups for pronatalist policy applied to Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Mengni Chen
  • Chris J Lloyd
  • Paul S F Yip

Abstract

A country’s total fertility rate (TFR) depends on many factors. Attributing changes in TFR to changes of policy is difficult, as they could easily be correlated with changes in the unmeasured drivers of TFR. A case in point is Australia where both pronatalist effort and TFR increased in lock step from 2001 to 2008 and then decreased. The global financial crisis or other unobserved confounders might explain both the reducing TFR and pronatalist incentives after 2008. Therefore, it is difficult to estimate causal effects of policy using econometric techniques. The aim of this study is to instead look at the structure of the population to identify which subgroups most influence TFR. Specifically, we build a stochastic model relating TFR to the fertility rates of various subgroups and calculate elasticity of TFR with respect to each rate. For each subgroup, the ratio of its elasticity to its group size is used to evaluate the subgroup’s potential cost effectiveness as a pronatalist target. In addition, we measure the historical stability of group fertility rates, which measures propensity to change. Groups with a high effectiveness ratio and also high propensity to change are natural policy targets. We applied this new method to Australian data on fertility rates broken down by parity, age and marital status. The results show that targeting parity 3+ is more cost-effective than lower parities. This study contributes to the literature on pronatalist policies by investigating the targeting of policies, and generates important implications for formulating cost-effective policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Mengni Chen & Chris J Lloyd & Paul S F Yip, 2018. "A new method of identifying target groups for pronatalist policy applied to Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-13, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0192007
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192007
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192007&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0192007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nick Parr, 2011. "The contribution of increases in family benefits to Australia’s early 21st-century fertility increase: An empirical analysis," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 25(6), pages 215-244.
    2. Sarah Sinclair & Jonathan Boymal & Ashton De Silva, 2012. "A Re‐Appraisal of the Fertility Response to the Australian Baby Bonus," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 88(s1), pages 78-87, June.
    3. Anne Gauthier, 2007. "The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: a review of the literature," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 26(3), pages 323-346, June.
    4. Kevin Milligan, 2005. "Subsidizing the Stork: New Evidence on Tax Incentives and Fertility," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(3), pages 539-555, August.
    5. Ross Guest & Nick Parr, 2010. "The Effects of Family Benefits on Childbearing Decisions: A Household Optimising Approach Applied to Australia," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 86(275), pages 609-619, December.
    6. Kristjana Einarsdóttir & Amanda Langridge & Geoffrey Hammond & Anthony S Gunnell & Fatima A Haggar & Fiona J Stanley, 2012. "The Australian Baby Bonus Maternity Payment and Birth Characteristics in Western Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-5, November.
    7. John Bongaarts & Tomáš Sobotka, 2012. "A Demographic Explanation for the Recent Rise in European Fertility," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 38(1), pages 83-120, March.
    8. Mikko Myrskylä & Hans-Peter Kohler & Francesco C. Billari, 2009. "Advances in development reverse fertility declines," Nature, Nature, vol. 460(7256), pages 741-743, August.
    9. Peter Mcdonald, 2006. "Low Fertility and the State: The Efficacy of Policy," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 32(3), pages 485-510, September.
    10. John Ermisch, 1988. "Econometric Analysis of Birth Rate Dynamics in Britain," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 23(4), pages 563-576.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anam Bilgrami & Kompal Sinha & Henry Cutler, 2020. "The impact of introducing a national scheme for paid parental leave on maternal mental health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(12), pages 1657-1681, December.
    2. Mengni Chen & Stuart Gietel-Basten & Paul S. F. Yip, 2020. "Targeting and Mistargeting of Family Policies in High-Income Pacific Asian Societies: A Review of Financial Incentives," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 39(3), pages 389-413, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sinclair, Sarah & Boymal, Jonathan & de Silva, Ashton J, 2012. "Is the fertility response to the Australian baby bonus heterogeneous across maternal age? Evidence from Victoria," MPRA Paper 42725, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Nick Parr, 2011. "The contribution of increases in family benefits to Australia’s early 21st-century fertility increase: An empirical analysis," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 25(6), pages 215-244.
    3. Suzanne Bonner & Dipanwita Sarkar, 2020. "Who responds to fertility-boosting incentives? Evidence from pro-natal policies in Australia," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 42(18), pages 513-548.
    4. Louise Rawlings & Stephen J. Robson & Pauline Ding, 2016. "Socioeconomic Response by Age Group to the Australian Baby Bonus: A Multivariate Analysis of Birth Data from 2001-13," Australian Journal of Labour Economics (AJLE), Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC), Curtin Business School, vol. 19(2), pages 111-129.
    5. Thomas Fent & Belinda Aparicio Diaz & Alexia Prskawetz, 2013. "Family policies in the context of low fertility and social structure," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 29(37), pages 963-998.
    6. Nick Parr & Ross Guest, 2014. "A method for socially evaluating the effects of long-run demographic paths on living standards," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 31(11), pages 275-318.
    7. Hudde, Ansgar, 2016. "Fertility Is Low When There Is No Societal Agreement on a Specific Gender Role Model," EconStor Preprints 142175, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    8. Robert Drago & Katina Sawyer & Karina M Shreffler & Diana Warren & Mark Wooden, 2009. "Did Australia's Baby Bonus Increase the Fertility Rate?," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2009n01, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    9. Svetlana Biryukova & Oxana Sinyavskaya & Irina Nurimanova, 2016. "Estimating effects of 2007 family policy changes on probability of second and subsequent births in Russia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 68/SOC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    10. Angela Luci-Greulich & Olivier Thévenon, 2013. "The Impact of Family Policies on Fertility Trends in Developed Countries," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(4), pages 387-416, November.
    11. Fox, Jonathan & Klüsener, Sebastian & Myrskylä, Mikko, 2018. "Is a positive relationship between fertility and economic development emerging at the sub-national regional level? Theoretical considerations and evidence from Europe," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 88295, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Micaela Bassford & Hayley Fisher, 2020. "The Impact of Paid Parental Leave on Fertility Intentions," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 96(315), pages 402-430, December.
    13. Nicoletta Balbo & Francesco C. Billari & Melinda Mills, 2013. "Fertility in Advanced Societies: A Review of Research," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(1), pages 1-38, February.
    14. Gordey Yastrebov, 2016. "Intergenerational Social Mobility in Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 69/SOC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    15. Jolene Tan, 2023. "Perceptions towards pronatalist policies in Singapore," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 1-27, September.
    16. Piotr Dominiak & Ewa Lechman & Anna Okonowicz, 2015. "Fertility Rebound And Economic Growth. New Evidence For 18 Countries Over The Period 1970–2011," Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 10(1), pages 91-112, March.
    17. Alicia Adsera, 2011. "Where Are the Babies? Labor Market Conditions and Fertility in Europe [Où sont les bébés ? Conditions du marché du travail et fécondité en Europe]," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 27(1), pages 1-32, February.
    18. Bing Xu & Maxwell Pak, 2021. "Child-raising cost and fertility from a contest perspective," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 186(1), pages 9-28, January.
    19. Yeon Jeong Son, 2018. "Do childbirth grants increase the fertility rate? Policy impacts in South Korea," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 713-735, September.
    20. Taryn Ann Galloway & Rannveig Kaldager Hart, 2015. "Effects of income and the cost of children on fertility. Quasi-experimental evidence from Norway," Discussion Papers 828, Statistics Norway, Research Department.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0192007. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.