IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cir/cirpro/2024rp-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Politiques publiques de financement de la procréation assistée

Author

Listed:
  • Marie-Louise Leroux

Abstract

In the context of declining fertility rates in developed countries, researchers and policymakers are increasingly concerned with whether assisted reproductive technologies (ART) could serve as an effective tool to prevent demographic decline. According to Statistics Canada, the total fertility rate reached its lowest point in 2022 in Canada, with 1.33 children per woman. In Quebec, the rate was 1.49 in 2022, one of the lowest levels recorded since 2002. Several studies have shown that the expansion of higher education is one of the main reasons for the decline in fertility and the postponement of childbearing. On average, women choose to stay in education longer and delay motherhood to an age when their fertility is lower. Other biological factors also seem to contribute to the decline in fertility, including the emergence of health conditions that limit fertility both in women (endometriosis, endocrine disorders) and men (decline in sperm count and quality). In this study, the author proposes a normative theoretical model of non-linear taxation to determine the conditions under which a government, such as Quebec's, would have an interest in funding ART. If applicable, the study seeks to determine in which forms the state should intervene and which groups of the population should be prioritized. Dans le contexte de la baisse de fécondité dans les pays développés, les milieux de la recherche et des politiques publiques s’intéressent à la question de savoir si la procréation médicalement assistée (PMA) peut s’avérer être un outil efficace pour prévenir le déclin démographique. Selon Statistiques Canada, le taux de fertilité agrégé a atteint son niveau le plus bas en 2022 au Canada, avec 1,33 enfant par femme. Au Québec, ce taux était de 1,49 en 2022, un des niveaux les plus bas enregistrés depuis 2002. Plusieurs études ont montré que l’expansion de l’éducation supérieure représente une des raisons principales du déclin de la fertilité et du report des naissances. En moyenne, les femmes choisissent de s’éduquer plus longtemps et reportent la maternité à un âge où leur fertilité est plus basse. D’autres raisons biologiques semblent contribuer à la baisse de la fertilité avec l’émergence de conditions de santé qui limiteraient la fertilité chez les femmes (endométriose, troubles endocriniens) et chez l’homme (baisse du nombre et de la qualité des spermatozoïdes). Dans cette étude, l’auteure propose un modèle théorique normatif de taxation non linéaire afin d’établir quelles sont les conditions sous lesquelles un gouvernement, tel que celui du Québec, aurait intérêt à intervenir dans le financement de la PMA. Le cas échéant, il s’agit de déterminer sous quelles formes l’État devrait intervenir et quels groupes de la population devraient être privilégiés.

Suggested Citation

  • Marie-Louise Leroux, 2024. "Politiques publiques de financement de la procréation assistée," CIRANO Project Reports 2024rp-23, CIRANO.
  • Handle: RePEc:cir:cirpro:2024rp-23
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cirano.qc.ca/files/publications/2024RP-23.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marie-Louise Leroux & Pierre Pestieau & Gregory Ponthiere, 2011. "Optimal linear taxation under endogenous longevity," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 24(1), pages 213-237, January.
    2. Helmuth Cremer & Philippe De Donder & Darío Maldonado & Pierre Pestieau, 2012. "Taxing Sin Goods and Subsidizing Health Care," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 114(1), pages 101-123, March.
    3. Gershoni, Naomi & Low, Corinne, 2021. "The power of time: The impact of free IVF on Women’s human capital investments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    4. B. Douglas Bernheim & Antonio Rangel, 2009. "Beyond Revealed Preference: Choice-Theoretic Foundations for Behavioral Welfare Economics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(1), pages 51-104.
    5. Trude Lappegård & Marit Rønsen, 2005. "The Multifaceted Impact of Education on Entry into Motherhood," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 21(1), pages 31-49, March.
    6. Paula Gobbi, 2013. "A model of voluntary childlessness," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 26(3), pages 963-982, July.
    7. B. Douglas Bernheim & Antonio Rangel, 2007. "Toward Choice-Theoretic Foundations for Behavioral Welfare Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(2), pages 464-470, May.
    8. Tomáš Sobotka, 2008. "Overview Chapter 6: The diverse faces of the Second Demographic Transition in Europe," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 19(8), pages 171-224.
    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. Pierre Pestieau & Gregory Ponthiere, 2012. "The Public Economics of Increasing Longevity," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 200(1), pages 41-74, March.
    2. Pestieau, Pierre & Ponthiere, Gregory, 2016. "Longevity Variations And The Welfare State," Journal of Demographic Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(2), pages 207-239, June.
    3. Robert Sugden, 2011. "The behavioural economist and the social planner: to whom should behavioural welfare economics be addressed?," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2011-21, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    4. Yuta Inoue, 2020. "Growing Consideration," Working Papers 2003, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    5. Olof Johansson-Stenman & James Konow, 2010. "Fair Air: Distributive Justice and Environmental Economics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(2), pages 147-166, June.
    6. Ben McQuillin & Robert Sugden, 2012. "Reconciling normative and behavioural economics: the problems to be solved," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(4), pages 553-567, April.
    7. B. Douglas Bernheim & Andrey Fradkin & Igor Popov, 2015. "The Welfare Economics of Default Options in 401(k) Plans," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(9), pages 2798-2837, September.
    8. Marie‐Louise Leroux & Pierre Pestieau & Gregory Ponthiere, 2024. "The optimal design of assisted reproductive technologies policies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(7), pages 1454-1479, July.
    9. Gerardo Infante & Guilhem Lecouteux & Robert Sugden, 2016. "Preference purification and the inner rational agent: a critique of the conventional wisdom of behavioural welfare economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 1-25, March.
    10. John Davis & Theodore Koutsobinas, 2021. "Attribute substitution, counterfactual thinking, and heterodox economics," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 5(S3), pages 45-54, October.
    11. Rohan Dutta & Sean Horan, 2015. "Inferring Rationales from Choice: Identification for Rational Shortlist Methods," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(4), pages 179-201, November.
    12. Chu-chuan Cheng & Hsun Chu, 2018. "Optimal policies for sin goods and health care: Tax or subsidy?," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 25(2), pages 412-429, April.
    13. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Daisuke Nakajima & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2012. "Revealed Attention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2183-2205, August.
    14. Markus K. Brunnermeier & Alp Simsek & Wei Xiong, 2014. "A Welfare Criterion For Models With Distorted Beliefs," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 129(4), pages 1753-1797.
    15. Chambers, Christopher P. & Hayashi, Takashi, 2012. "Choice and individual welfare," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(5), pages 1818-1849.
    16. Antoine Beretti & Charles Figuières & Gilles Grolleau, 2019. "How to turn crowding-out into crowding-in? An innovative instrument and some law-related examples," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 417-438, December.
    17. Eddie Dekel & Barton L. Lipman, 2010. "How (Not) to Do Decision Theory," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 257-282, September.
    18. Pierre Pestieau & Gregory Ponthiere, 2014. "Policy Implications of Changing Longevity," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 60(1), pages 178-212.
    19. Dalton, P.S. & Ghosal, S., 2010. "Decisions with Endogenous Frames (Replaces CentER DP 2010-21)," Other publications TiSEM c4b257a4-972b-4e4b-a68e-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Aronsson, Thomas & Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2011. "Animal Welfare and Social Decisions," Working Papers in Economics 485, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Assisted reproduction; Fertility; Public policy; Procréation médicalement assistée; Fertilité; Politiques publiques;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H51 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Government Expenditures and Health
    • I14 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health and Inequality
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth

    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:cir:cirpro:2024rp-23. 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: Webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ciranca.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.