IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gpe/wpaper/8906.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Age at motherhood and child development: Evidence from the UK Millennium Cohort

Author

Listed:
  • Hawkes, Denise
  • Joshi, Heather

Abstract

Age at entry to motherhood is increasingly socially polarised in the UK. Early childbearing typically occurs among women from disadvantaged backgrounds relative to women with later first births. The Millennium Cohort finds differentials in their children's development, cognitive and behavioural, at age 5, by mother's age. These could be due to difficulties facing immature mothers, but much of it is attributable to young mothers’ social origins, or inequalities apparent at the age 0 survey, which may also have had earlier origins. The developmental penalty left to be attributed to the mother's age per se is, at most, modest.

Suggested Citation

  • Hawkes, Denise & Joshi, Heather, 2012. "Age at motherhood and child development: Evidence from the UK Millennium Cohort," Greenwich Papers in Political Economy 8906, University of Greenwich, Greenwich Political Economy Research Centre.
  • Handle: RePEc:gpe:wpaper:8906
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stein, Jeremy C, 1988. "Takeover Threats and Managerial Myopia," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(1), pages 61-80, February.
    2. Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1983. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 741-748, September.
    3. Jennifer F. Reinganum, 1985. "Innovation and Industry Evolution," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 100(1), pages 81-99.
    4. Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, pages 701-728.
    5. A. Colin Cameron & Jonah B. Gelbach & Douglas L. Miller, 2008. "Bootstrap-Based Improvements for Inference with Clustered Errors," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, pages 414-427.
    6. Michael Polder & Erik Veldhuizen, 2012. "Innovation and Competition in the Netherlands: Testing the Inverted-U for Industries and Firms," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 67-91, March.
    7. Philippe Aghion & Mathias Dewatripont & Patrick Rey, 1999. "Competition, Financial Discipline and Growth," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 66(4), pages 825-852.
    8. Newey, Whitney & West, Kenneth, 2014. "A simple, positive semi-definite, heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", pages 125-132.
    9. Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2003. "Cluster-Sample Methods in Applied Econometrics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 133-138, May.
    10. Fama, Eugene F & MacBeth, James D, 1973. "Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(3), pages 607-636, May-June.
    11. Chiara Peroni & Ivete Ferreira, 2012. "Competition and Innovation in Luxembourg," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 93-117, March.
    12. Michael Peneder, 2012. "Competition and Innovation: Revisiting the Inverted-U Relationship," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-5, March.
    13. Irena Grosfeld & Thierry Tressel, 2002. "Competition and ownership structure: Substitutes or complements? Evidence from the Warsaw Stock Exchange," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 10(3), pages 525-551, November.
    14. Maria Rosa Battagion & Lucia Tajoli, 1999. "Ownership Structure, Innovation Process and Competitive Performance: the Case of Italy," KITeS Working Papers 120, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Nov 2000.
    15. Morton I. Kamien & Nancy L. Schwartz, 1976. "On the Degree of Rivalry for Maximum Innovative Activity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 90(2), pages 245-260.
    16. Charles Bérubé & Marc Duhamel & Daniel Ershov, 2012. "Market Incentives for Business Innovation: Results from Canada," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 47-65, March.
    17. Filippo Belloc, 2012. "Corporate Governance And Innovation: A Survey," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 835-864, December.
    18. Gilbert, Richard J & Newbery, David M G, 1982. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 514-526, June.
    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. Andrew Dickerson & Gurleen K. Popli, 2016. "Persistent poverty and children's cognitive development: evidence from the UK Millennium Cohort Study," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 179(2), pages 535-558, February.
    2. Mónica Hernández-Alava & Gurleen Popli, 2017. "Children’s Development and Parental Input: Evidence From the UK Millennium Cohort Study," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 54(2), pages 485-511, April.
    3. Jaimee Stuart & Gail Pacheco & Mary Hedges & Susan Morton, 2013. "Monkey see, monkey do? How do shifts in parental socio-economic class influence children's outcomes?," Working Papers 2013-07, Auckland University of Technology, Department of Economics.

    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:gpe:wpaper:8906. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Nadine Edwards). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/pegreuk.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.