IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/reveho/v14y2016i3d10.1007_s11150-013-9228-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinants of contraceptive choice among Japanese women: ten years after the pill approval

Author

Listed:
  • Sayaka Nakamura

    (Nagoya University)

Abstract

The Japanese government approved the use of oral contraception (OC) in 1999, but OC users remain a small minority in Japan. Using the results of an online survey conducted in 2010, I examine the factors determining Japanese women’s choice of contraceptive method by estimating multinomial choice models. The estimation results indicate that OC use is positively associated with age, willingness to pay for contraceptive effectiveness, frequency of intercourse and experience with abortion or emergency contraception. These findings suggest that OC use increases as women learn from experience and that the low and declining frequency of intercourse in Japan offers one explanation for the slow diffusion of OC. Additionally, the findings indicate that OC use is more prevalent among women with a higher risk of unintended pregnancies. Subjective probabilities regarding each contraceptive method’s contraceptive effectiveness, disruption of romantic moods, partner disapproval, side benefits and minor, non-life-threatening side effects are important determinants of contraceptive choice. The perceived risk levels of OC side effects are significantly higher than the population-based probabilities, implying that increased medical knowledge might increase OC use.

Suggested Citation

  • Sayaka Nakamura, 2016. "Determinants of contraceptive choice among Japanese women: ten years after the pill approval," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 553-575, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:reveho:v:14:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11150-013-9228-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11150-013-9228-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11150-013-9228-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11150-013-9228-3?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. Yasamin Kusunoki & Dawn Upchurch, 2011. "Contraceptive Method Choice Among Youth in the United States: The Importance of Relationship Context," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 48(4), pages 1451-1472, November.
    2. Jere Behrman & Hans-Peter Kohler & Susan Watkins, 2002. "Social networks and changes in contraceptive use over time: Evidence from a longitudinal study in rural Kenya," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 39(4), pages 713-738, November.
    3. Claudia Goldin & Lawrence F. Katz, 2002. "The Power of the Pill: Oral Contraceptives and Women's Career and Marriage Decisions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(4), pages 730-770, August.
    4. Elizabeth Oltmans Ananat & Daniel M. Hungerman, 2012. "The Power of the Pill for the Next Generation: Oral Contraception's Effects on Fertility, Abortion, and Maternal and Child Characteristics," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(1), pages 37-51, February.
    5. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    6. Adeline Delavande, 2008. "Pill, Patch, Or Shot? Subjective Expectations And Birth Control Choice," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(3), pages 999-1042, August.
    7. Anderberg, Dan & Chevalier, Arnaud & Wadsworth, Jonathan, 2011. "Anatomy of a health scare: Education, income and the MMR controversy in the UK," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 515-530, May.
    8. Goto, Aya & Yasumura, Seiji & Reich, Michael R. & Fukao, Akira, 2002. "Factors associated with unintended pregnancy in Yamagata, Japan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(7), pages 1065-1079, April.
    9. Hans-Peter Kohler, 1997. "Learning in social networks and contraceptive choice," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 34(3), pages 369-383, August.
    10. Melanie Guldi, 2008. "Fertility effects of abortion and birth control pill access for minors," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 45(4), pages 817-827, November.
    11. Hollander, Ilyssa, 2006. "Viagra's rise above women's health issues: An analysis of the social and political influences on drug approvals in the United States and Japan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 683-693, February.
    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. Grant Miller & Aureo de Paula & Christine Valente, 2020. "Subjective Expectations and Demand for Contraception," Bristol Economics Discussion Papers 20/724, School of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.

    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. Fischer, Stefanie & Royer, Heather & White, Corey, 2017. "The Impacts of Reduced Access to Abortion and Family Planning Services: Evidence from Texas," IZA Discussion Papers 10920, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Martha J. Bailey, 2013. "Fifty Years of Family Planning: New Evidence on the Long-Run Effects of Increasing Access to Contraception," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 44(1 (Spring), pages 341-409.
    3. Caitlin Knowles Myers, 2022. "Confidential and legal access to abortion and contraception in the USA, 1960–2020," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 35(4), pages 1385-1441, October.
    4. Fischer, Stefanie & Royer, Heather & White, Corey, 2018. "The impacts of reduced access to abortion and family planning services on abortions, births, and contraceptive purchases," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 43-68.
    5. Martha J. Bailey & Brad Hershbein & Amalia R. Miller, 2012. "The Opt-In Revolution? Contraception and the Gender Gap in Wages," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(3), pages 225-254, July.
    6. Mølland, Eirin, 2016. "Benefits from delay? The effect of abortion availability on young women and their children," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 6-28.
    7. Andrew Beauchamp & Catherine R. Pakaluk, 2019. "The Paradox Of The Pill: Heterogeneous Effects Of Oral Contraceptive Access," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(2), pages 813-831, April.
    8. Abrahamsen, Signe A. & Ginja, Rita & Riise, Julie, 2021. "School Health Programs: Education, Health, and Welfare Dependency of Young Adults," IZA Discussion Papers 14546, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. 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.
    10. Rau, Tomás & Sarzosa, Miguel & Urzúa, Sergio, 2021. "The children of the missed pill," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    11. Martha J. Bailey & Jason M. Lindo, 2017. "Access and Use of Contraception and Its Effects on Women’s Outcomes in the U.S," NBER Working Papers 23465, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Nayoung Rim, 2017. "The Effect of Title IX on Gender Disparity in Graduate Education," Departmental Working Papers 58, United States Naval Academy Department of Economics.
    13. Myers, Caitlin Knowles, 2012. "Power of the Pill or Power of Abortion? Re-Examining the Effects of Young Women's Access to Reproductive Control," IZA Discussion Papers 6661, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Guldi, Melanie, 2016. "Title IX and the education of teen mothers," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 103-116.
    15. Steingrimsdottir, Herdis, 2016. "Reproductive rights and the career plans of U.S. college freshmen," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 29-41.
    16. H Peyton Young, 2014. "The Evolution of Social Norms," Economics Series Working Papers 726, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    17. Marcén, Miriam & Molina, José Alberto & Morales, Marina, 2018. "The effect of culture on the fertility decisions of immigrant women in the United States," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 15-28.
    18. Michael F. Lovenheim & Randall Reback & Leigh Wedenoja, 2016. "How Does Access to Health Care Affect Teen Fertility and High School Dropout Rates? Evidence from School-based Health Centers," NBER Working Papers 22030, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Theodore J. Joyce & Ruoding Tan & Yuxiu Zhang, 2012. "Back to the Future? Abortion Before & After Roe," NBER Working Papers 18338, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Marie, Olivier & Zwiers, Esmée, 2022. "Religious Barriers to Birth Control Access," CEPR Discussion Papers 17427, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Contraceptive choice; Oral contraceptives; Technology diffusion; Subjective probability;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    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:kap:reveho:v:14:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11150-013-9228-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.