IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/econjl/v136y2026i674p780-797..html

You Cannot Force Me Into Caregiving: Paternity Leave and the Child Penalty

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Eckhoff Andresen
  • Emily Nix

Abstract

Children cause large reductions in earnings for mothers, but not fathers, a stylised fact known as the ‘child penalty’ that explains a substantial portion of remaining gender income gaps. We evaluate the impact of paternity leave, a policy intended to increase fathers’ time with their young children and potentially decrease the child penalty by making caregiving more equitable. Despite fathers overwhelmingly taking up this leave, we detect no impacts on child penalties. We additionally find no impact of paternity leave on the amount of leave fathers take for subsequent children, a good proxy for gender norms within couples. Using detailed data on how mothers and fathers take leave, we highlight one possible explanation: fathers approach parental leave very differently than mothers. Fathers are much more likely to take their paternity leave during summer holidays, when their children are already in formal care, and take more part-time leave than mothers. This tendency is stronger among fathers induced to take more leave by paternity leave quotas than fathers in general, suggesting that quota-induced leave may not lead fathers to act as primary caregivers. Consequently, we show descriptive evidence that child penalties are almost 10 percentage points smaller in families where fathers voluntarily take leave than in families where fathers are induced to take leave by paternity leave quotas.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Eckhoff Andresen & Emily Nix, 2026. "You Cannot Force Me Into Caregiving: Paternity Leave and the Child Penalty," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 136(674), pages 780-797.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:econjl:v:136:y:2026:i:674:p:780-797.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ej/ueaf057
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    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:oup:econjl:v:136:y:2026:i:674:p:780-797.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/resssea.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.