IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iuj/wpaper/ems_2022_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do Financial Incentives on High Parity Birth Affect Fertility? Evidence from the Order of Glorious Mother in Mongolia

Author

Listed:
  • Cheng-Tao Tang

    (IUJ Research Institute, International University of Japan)

  • Chun Yee Wong

    (IUJ Research Institute, International University of University)

  • Ayush Batzorig

Abstract

This paper exploits the change in award criteria of a pronatalist program in the Mongolia that offers financial transfers to women achieving fertility goals at high parity birth. We implement a quasi-experiment strategy by forming treatment and control groups defined by time and child parity. We found positive effect of the program on fertility, and the fertility response is diminishing when the high fertility goal jumps from a lower one to a higher one. An extension of Barro–Becker fertility model with the inclusion of social norm can support our empirical finding.

Suggested Citation

  • Cheng-Tao Tang & Chun Yee Wong & Ayush Batzorig, 2022. "Do Financial Incentives on High Parity Birth Affect Fertility? Evidence from the Order of Glorious Mother in Mongolia," Working Papers EMS_2022_01, Research Institute, International University of Japan.
    • Handle: RePEc:iuj:wpaper:ems_2022_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iuj.ac.jp/workingpapers/index.cfm?File=EMS_2022_01.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2021
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary S. Becker, 1981. "A Treatise on the Family," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number beck81-1, March.
    2. Sandra E. Black & Paul J. Devereux & Kjell G. Salvanes, 2005. "The More the Merrier? The Effect of Family Size and Birth Order on Children's Education," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 120(2), pages 669-700.
    3. Gary S. Becker & H. Gregg Lewis, 1974. "Interaction between Quantity and Quality of Children," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of the Family: Marriage, Children, and Human Capital, pages 81-90, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Bhattacharya, Joydeep & Chakraborty, Shankha, 2012. "Fertility choice under child mortality and social norms," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(3), pages 338-341.
    5. Uri Gneezy & Stephan Meier & Pedro Rey-Biel, 2011. "When and Why Incentives (Don't) Work to Modify Behavior," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(4), pages 191-210, Fall.
    6. George A. Akerlof, 1997. "Social Distance and Social Decisions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(5), pages 1005-1028, September.
    7. Matthew Rabin & Richard H. Thaler, 2013. "Anomalies: Risk aversion," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 27, pages 467-480, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Slonimczyk, Fabián & Yurko, Anna, 2014. "Assessing the impact of the maternity capital policy in Russia," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 265-281.
    9. Barro, Robert J & Becker, Gary S, 1989. "Fertility Choice in a Model of Economic Growth," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 481-501, March.
    10. Joshua Angrist & Victor Lavy & Analia Schlosser, 2010. "Multiple Experiments for the Causal Link between the Quantity and Quality of Children," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(4), pages 773-824, October.
    11. Olga Malkova, 2018. "Can Maternity Benefits Have Long-Term Effects on Childbearing? Evidence from Soviet Russia," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 100(4), pages 691-703, October.
    12. 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.
    13. Rafael Lalive & Josef Zweimüller, 2009. "How Does Parental Leave Affect Fertility and Return to Work? Evidence from Two Natural Experiments," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(3), pages 1363-1402.
    14. Natalie Malak & Md Mahbubur Rahman & Terry A. Yip, 2019. "Baby bonus, anyone? Examining heterogeneous responses to a pro-natalist policy," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 1205-1246, October.
    15. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Wookun Kim, 2023. "Baby Bonus, Fertility, and Missing Women," Departmental Working Papers 2308, Southern Methodist University, Department of Economics.
    2. Wookun Kim, 2020. "Baby Bonus, Fertility, and Missing Women," Departmental Working Papers 2011, Southern Methodist University, Department of Economics.
    3. Claude Diebolt & Faustine Perrin, 2013. "From Stagnation to Sustained Growth: The Role of Female Empowerment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 545-549, May.
    4. Bloom, David E. & Kuhn, Michael & Prettner, Klaus, 2023. "Fertility in High-Income Countries: Trends, Patterns, Determinants, and Consequences," IZA Discussion Papers 16500, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Mehmet Soytas & Limor Golan & George-Levi Gayle, 2014. "What Accounts for the Racial Gap in Time Allocation and Intergenerational Transmission of Human Capital?," 2014 Meeting Papers 83, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    6. Chabé-Ferret, Bastien, 2019. "Adherence to cultural norms and economic incentives: Evidence from fertility timing decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 24-48.
    7. Chen, Qihui, 2021. "Population policy, family size and child malnutrition in Vietnam – Testing the trade-off between child quantity and quality from a child nutrition perspective," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    8. Doepke, Matthias & Hannusch, Anne & Kindermann, Fabian & Tertilt, Michèle, 2022. "The Economics of Fertility: A New Era," IZA Discussion Papers 15224, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Schultz, T. Paul, 2010. "Population and Health Policies," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Dani Rodrik & Mark Rosenzweig (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 4785-4881, Elsevier.
    10. Rubinstein, Yona & Juhn, Chinhui & Zuppann, Andrew, 2020. "Early Childhood Investments and the Quantity-Quality Trade-off," CEPR Discussion Papers 15032, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Natalie Malak & Md Mahbubur Rahman & Terry A. Yip, 2019. "Baby bonus, anyone? Examining heterogeneous responses to a pro-natalist policy," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 1205-1246, October.
    12. Mountford, Andrew & Rapoport, Hillel, 2011. "The brain drain and the world distribution of income," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 4-17, May.
    13. David E. Bloom & Dara Lee Luca, 2016. "The Global Demography of Aging: Facts, Explanations, Future," PGDA Working Papers 13016, Program on the Global Demography of Aging.
    14. Bloom, D.E. & Luca, D.L., 2016. "The Global Demography of Aging," Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, in: Piggott, John & Woodland, Alan (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 3-56, Elsevier.
    15. Bing Xu & Maxwell Pak, 2021. "Child-raising cost and fertility from a contest perspective," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 186(1), pages 9-28, January.
    16. Damian Clarke, 2018. "Children And Their Parents: A Review Of Fertility And Causality," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 518-540, April.
    17. Robert Fenge & Lisa Stadler, 2014. "Three Family Policies to Reconcile Fertility and Labor Supply," CESifo Working Paper Series 4922, CESifo.
    18. Ronald R. Kumar & Peter J. Stauvermann, 2019. "The Effects of a Revenue-Neutral Child Subsidy Tax Mechanism on Growth and GHG Emissions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-23, May.
    19. Chen, Qihui, 2017. "Relaxed population policy, family size and parental investments in children’s education in rural Northwestern China," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 39-50.
    20. Kota Ogasawara & Mizuki Komura, 2022. "Consequences of war: Japan’s demographic transition and the marriage market," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 35(3), pages 1037-1069, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Fertility; Pro-natalist program; Social norm; Difference-in-differences; Mongolia;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth
    • J18 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Public Policy
    • H31 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents - - - Household
    • P23 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Socialist and Transition Economies - - - Factor and Product Markets; Industry Studies; Population

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iuj:wpaper:ems_2022_01. 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: Kazumi Imai, Office of Academic Affairs (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsiujjp.html .

    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.