IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/asieco/v77y2021ics104900782100124x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Childbearing and the distribution of the reservation price of fertility: The case of the Korean baby bonus program

Author

Listed:
  • Choo, Dahae
  • Jales, Hugo

Abstract

We study the fertility effects of a Korean pro-natalist policy. We show that using the same assumptions and the same binary-choice models used in this literature, and we can estimate the entire unconditional distribution of the reservation price of fertility, which is the minimal compensation an agent must receive to induce her to have a (or an additional) child. Our estimates show that the program’s benefit level and budget would have to be orders of magnitude (about 15 times) larger for the program to bring South Korea back to desired levels of fertility. We also found that over 74% of the program’s expenditures are associated with infra-marginal births – these are births that would have occurred even in the absence of the financial incentive. We show that this is likely not a unique characteristic of the Korean pro-natalist policy but instead a problem of most programs of this nature.

Suggested Citation

  • Choo, Dahae & Jales, Hugo, 2021. "Childbearing and the distribution of the reservation price of fertility: The case of the Korean baby bonus program," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:asieco:v:77:y:2021:i:c:s104900782100124x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.asieco.2021.101395
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104900782100124X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.asieco.2021.101395?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. Haan, Peter & Wrohlich, Katharina, 2011. "Can child care policy encourage employment and fertility?: Evidence from a structural model," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 498-512, August.
    2. Regina T. Riphahn & Frederik Wiynck, 2017. "Fertility effects of child benefits," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 30(4), pages 1135-1184, October.
    3. Alma Cohen & Rajeev Dehejia & Dmitri Romanov, 2013. "Financial Incentives and Fertility," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(1), pages 1-20, March.
    4. Whittington, Leslie A & Alm, James & Peters, H Elizabeth, 1990. "Fertility and the Personal Exemption: Implicit Pronatalist Policy in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 545-556, June.
    5. Richard Crump & Gopi Shah Goda & Kevin J. Mumford, 2011. "Fertility and the Personal Exemption: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1616-1628, June.
    6. Sung Hyo Hong & Ryan Sullivan, 2016. "The Effects Of Subsidies For Childbearing On Migration And Fertility: Evidence From Korea," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 61(04), pages 1-16, September.
    7. Daniel Parent & Ling Wang, 2007. "Tax incentives and fertility in Canada: quantum vs tempo effects," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 371-400, May.
    8. Kevin Milligan, 2005. "Subsidizing the Stork: New Evidence on Tax Incentives and Fertility," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(3), pages 539-555, August.
    9. Daniel Chen, 2011. "Can countries reverse fertility decline? Evidence from France’s marriage and baby bonuses, 1929–1981," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 18(3), pages 253-272, June.
    10. Anne Gauthier, 2007. "The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: a review of the literature," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 26(3), pages 323-346, June.
    11. Becker, Gary S, 1992. "Fertility and the Economy," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 5(3), pages 185-201, August.
    12. Imbens, Guido W & Angrist, Joshua D, 1994. "Identification and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 467-475, March.
    13. Natalie Malak & Md Mahbubur Rahman & Terry A. Yip, 2019. "Baby bonus, anyone? Examining heterogeneous responses to a pro-natalist policy," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 1205-1246, October.
    14. Milovanska-Farrington, Stefani, 2019. "The effect of family welfare support on the likelihood of having another child and parents’ labor supply," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 243-263.
    15. A. D. Roy, 1951. "Some Thoughts On The Distribution Of Earnings," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 135-146.
    16. Gary S. Becker, 1960. "An Economic Analysis of Fertility," NBER Chapters, in: Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries, pages 209-240, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Reagan Baughman & Stacy Dickert-Conlin, 2009. "The earned income tax credit and fertility," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 22(3), pages 537-563, July.
    18. Richard Williams, 2012. "Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 12(2), pages 308-331, June.
    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. Elmallakh, Nelly, 2021. "Fertility, Family Policy, and Labor Supply: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from France," GLO Discussion Paper Series 984, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    2. Wookun Kim, 2023. "Baby Bonus, Fertility, and Missing Women," Departmental Working Papers 2308, Southern Methodist University, Department of Economics.
    3. Regina T. Riphahn & Frederik Wiynck, 2017. "Fertility effects of child benefits," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 30(4), pages 1135-1184, October.
    4. Pinto,Maria Florencia & Posadas,Josefina & Shapira,Gil, 2021. "Financial Incentives, Fertility, and Son Preference in Armenia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9705, The World Bank.
    5. Natalie Malak & Md Mahbubur Rahman & Terry A. Yip, 2019. "Baby bonus, anyone? Examining heterogeneous responses to a pro-natalist policy," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 1205-1246, October.
    6. Taryn Ann Galloway & Rannveig Kaldager Hart, 2015. "Effects of income and the cost of children on fertility. Quasi-experimental evidence from Norway," Discussion Papers 828, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    7. Rannveig Kaldager Hart & Taryn A. Galloway, 2023. "Universal Transfers, Tax Breaks and Fertility: Evidence from a Regional Reform in Norway," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 42(3), pages 1-32, June.
    8. Tudor, Simona, 2020. "Financial incentives, fertility and early life child outcomes," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    9. Malte Sandner & Frederik Wiynck, 2023. "The Fertility Response to Cutting Child-Related Welfare Benefits," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 42(2), pages 1-29, April.
    10. Libertad González & Sofia Karina Trommlerová, 2023. "Cash Transfers and Fertility: How the Introduction and Cancellation of a Child Benefit Affected Births and Abortions," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(3), pages 783-818.
    11. Lucia Granelli, 2016. "Family Tax Policy in a Model with Endogenous Fertility à la Barro-Becker," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2016010, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    12. 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.
    13. Wookun Kim, 2020. "Baby Bonus, Fertility, and Missing Women," Departmental Working Papers 2011, Southern Methodist University, Department of Economics.
    14. Ito, Takahiro & Tanaka, Shinsuke, 2018. "Abolishing user fees, fertility choice, and educational attainment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 33-44.
    15. Daniel Kamhoefer & Matthias Westphal, 2017. "Fertility Effects of College Education: Evidence from the German Educational Expansion," CINCH Working Paper Series 1705, Universitaet Duisburg-Essen, Competent in Competition and Health.
    16. Janna Bergsvik & Agnes Fauske & Rannveig Kaldager Hart, 2021. "Can Policies Stall the Fertility Fall? A Systematic Review of the (Quasi‐) Experimental Literature," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 47(4), pages 913-964, December.
    17. Richard Crump & Gopi Shah Goda & Kevin J. Mumford, 2011. "Fertility and the Personal Exemption: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1616-1628, June.
    18. Janna Bergsvik & Agnes Fauske & Rannveig K. Hart, 2020. "Effects of policy on fertility. A systematic review of (quasi)experiments," Discussion Papers 922, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    19. Thomas Baudin & Robert Stelter, 2023. "Kinder, Küche und Kirche, Family policies and fertility in the Third Reich," Working Papers 2023-iFlame-04, IESEG School of Management.
    20. Anna Raute, 2018. "Can financial incentives reduce the baby gap? Evidence from a reform in maternity leave benefits," Working Papers 871, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Pro-natalist policies; Fertility; Reservation price of fertility;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics
    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth
    • J18 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Public Policy

    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:eee:asieco:v:77:y:2021:i:c:s104900782100124x. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/asieco .

    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.