IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/bejeap/v13y2013i1p1-30n4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Women Rule: Preferences and Fertility in Australian Households

Author

Listed:
  • Fan Elliott

    (Department of Economics, National Taiwan University, Taiwan)

  • Maitra Pushkar

    (Department of Economics, Monash University, Wellington Road, Clayton Campus, VIC 3800, Australia)

Abstract

Using a unique dataset from Australia, we investigate how individual fertility preferences translate into fertility realizations. We find consistent evidence that the wife’s preference is more important than the husband’s preference in predicting subsequent births, no matter whether her initial fertility desire is higher or lower than that of her partner. We also explore the effects of the introduction of the non-means-tested Baby Bonus introduced in 2004 by testing whether the hypothesis that the cash transfers from the scheme increase the bargaining power of the partner with higher fertility desire, thus leading to an increase in fertility for couples with disagreement on fertility plans. Our findings do not support this hypothesis. They also do not suggest any significant fertility-enhancing effect of the scheme.

Suggested Citation

  • Fan Elliott & Maitra Pushkar, 2013. "Women Rule: Preferences and Fertility in Australian Households," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 1-30, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:bejeap:v:13:y:2013:i:1:p:1-30:n:4
    DOI: 10.1515/bejeap-2012-0021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2012-0021
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/bejeap-2012-0021?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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. Laroque, Guy & Salanié, Bernard, 2005. "Does Fertility Respond to Financial Incentives?," CEPR Discussion Papers 5007, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. 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.
    4. Timo Hener, 2010. "Do Couples Bargain over Fertility? Evidence Based on Child Preference Data," ifo Working Paper Series 92, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    5. 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.
    6. Mukesh Eswaran, 2002. "The empowerment of women, fertility, and child mortality: Towards a theoretical analysis," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 15(3), pages 433-454.
    7. Ronald Freedman & Deborah Freedman & Arland Thornton, 1980. "Changes in fertility expectations and preferences between 1962 and 1977: Their relation to final parity," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 17(4), pages 365-378, November.
    8. F. Dodoo, 1998. "Men matter: Additive and interactive gendered preferences and reproductive behavior in kenya," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 35(2), pages 229-242, May.
    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. Mooi-Reci, Irma & Trinh, Trong-Anh & Vera-Toscano, Esperanza & Wooden, Mark, 2023. "The impact of lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic on fertility intentions," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    2. Awaworyi Churchill, Sefa & Smyth, Russell & Trinh, Trong-Anh & Yew, Siew Ling, 2022. "Local crime and fertility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 312-331.

    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. 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.
    2. Gaitz, Jason & Schurer, Stefanie, 2017. "Bonus Skills: Examining the Effect of an Unconditional Cash Transfer on Child Human Capital Formation," IZA Discussion Papers 10525, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    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. 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.
    5. de Gendre, Alexandra & Lynch, John & Meunier, Aurélie & Pilkington, Rhiannon & Schurer, Stefanie, 2021. "Child Health and Parental Responses to an Unconditional Cash Transfer at Birth," IZA Discussion Papers 14693, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Jérôme Adda & Christian Dustmann & Katrien Stevens, 2017. "The Career Costs of Children," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(2), pages 293-337.
    10. Magdalena Smyk & Joanna Tyrowicz & Lucas van der Velde, 2021. "A Cautionary Note on the Reliability of the Online Survey Data: The Case of Wage Indicator," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 50(1), pages 429-464, February.
    11. Krzysztof Makarski & Joanna Tyrowicz & Magda Malec, 2018. "Evaluating welfare and economic effects of raised fertility," GRAPE Working Papers 25, GRAPE Group for Research in Applied Economics.
    12. Seebens, Holger, 2006. "Bargaining over Fertility in Rural Ethiopia," Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Berlin 2006 25, Verein für Socialpolitik, Research Committee Development Economics.
    13. Mizuki Komura, 2013. "Fertility and endogenous gender bargaining power," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 26(3), pages 943-961, July.
    14. Maitra, Pushkar, 2004. "Parental bargaining, health inputs and child mortality in India," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 259-291, March.
    15. Eva Beaujouan & Caroline Berghammer, 2019. "The Gap Between Lifetime Fertility Intentions and Completed Fertility in Europe and the United States: A Cohort Approach," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 38(4), pages 507-535, August.
    16. Beatrice Brunner & Andreas Kuhn, 2011. "Financial Incentives, the Timing of Births, Birth Complications, and Newborns’ Health: Evidence from the Abolition of Austria’s Baby Bonus," NRN working papers 2011-16, The Austrian Center for Labor Economics and the Analysis of the Welfare State, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    17. Alessandro Rosina & Laura Cavalli & Maria Rita Testa, 2011. "Couples’ childbearing behaviour in Italy: which of the partners is leading it?," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 9(1), pages 157-178.
    18. Givord, Pauline & Marbot, Claire, 2015. "Does the cost of child care affect female labor market participation? An evaluation of a French reform of childcare subsidies," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 99-111.
    19. Del Boca, Daniela & Locatelli, Marilena, 2006. "The Determinants of Motherhood and Work Status: A Survey," IZA Discussion Papers 2414, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Dodoo, F. Nii-Amoo & Zulu, Eliya M. & Ezeh, Alex C., 2007. "Urban-rural differences in the socioeconomic deprivation-Sexual behavior link in Kenya," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(5), pages 1019-1031, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    fertility preference; births; within couple disagreements; baby bonus; Australia; fertility preference; births; within couple disagreements; baby bonus; Australia;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J12 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Marriage; Marital Dissolution; Family Structure
    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth
    • C41 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Duration Analysis; Optimal Timing Strategies

    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:bpj:bejeap:v:13:y:2013:i:1:p:1-30:n:4. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.