IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/dyncon/v90y2018icp156-170.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differential fecundity and child custody

Author

Listed:
  • Garcia-Moran, Eva M.

Abstract

Despite U.S. child custody laws favoring joint custody since the mid 1970s, mother sole custody is still the main custody arrangement. This paper proposes that differences in fecundity between men and women play a role in accounting for this fact. Men are more likely to have more children after a divorce because they are fertile for more years than women. This acts as an incentive for couples to agree on mothers’ sole custody. I build a general equilibrium model of endogenous marriage, divorce and remarriage with differential fecundity between women and men where couples choose custody allocation. Custody depends on the fecundity differential and father’s time spent with children. I calibrate my model to be consistent with observed U.S. child custody arrangements and marriage statistics and using changes over time in assisted reproductive technology (ART) and father’s time spent with children I quantify the effect of the fecundity differential on child custody. Results show that if assisted reproductive technology was not available, the current share of couples with joint custody would be 15.67% lower. Considering that fathers’ time with children has also changed over time, I find that a reduction in the fecundity differential accounts for an increase in the share of couples with joint custody of 4%.

Suggested Citation

  • Garcia-Moran, Eva M., 2018. "Differential fecundity and child custody," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 156-170.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:dyncon:v:90:y:2018:i:c:p:156-170
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jedc.2018.02.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165188918300769
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jedc.2018.02.007?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. Francesconi, Marco & Muthoo, Abhinay, 2003. "An Economic Model of Child Custody," IZA Discussion Papers 857, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. S. Rao Aiyagari & Jeremy Greenwood & Nezih Guner, 2000. "On the State of the Union," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(2), pages 213-244, April.
    3. Garey Ramey & Valerie A. Ramey, 2010. "The Rug Rat Race," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 41(1 (Spring), pages 129-199.
    4. Martin Halla, 2013. "The Effect Of Joint Custody On Family Outcomes," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(2), pages 278-315, April.
    5. Jeremy Greenwood & Nezih Guner & Guillaume Vandenbroucke, 2017. "Family Economics Writ Large," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1346-1434, December.
    6. Cutler, David M & Katz, Lawrence F, 1992. "Rising Inequality? Changes in the Distribution of Income and Consumption in the 1980's," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(2), pages 546-551, May.
    7. Marianne Bitler & Lucie Schmidt, 2012. "Utilization of Infertility Treatments: The Effects of Insurance Mandates," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 49(1), pages 125-149, February.
    8. Aloysius Siow, 1998. "Differential Fecundity, Markets, and Gender Roles," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(2), pages 334-354, April.
    9. Maria Cancian & Daniel Meyer & Patricia Brown & Steven Cook, 2014. "Who Gets Custody Now? Dramatic Changes in Children’s Living Arrangements After Divorce," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 51(4), pages 1381-1396, August.
    10. Imran Rasul, 2006. "The Economics of Child Custody," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 73(289), pages 1-25, February.
    11. Weiss, Yoram & Willis, Robert J, 1985. "Children as Collective Goods and Divorce Settlements," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(3), pages 268-292, July.
    12. Browning, Martin, 1992. "Children and Household Economic Behavior," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(3), pages 1434-1475, September.
    13. Jeremy Greenwood & Nezih Guner & Guillaume Vandenbroucke, 2017. "Family Economics Writ Large," Working Papers wp2018_1706, CEMFI.
    14. Javier Díaz‐Giménez & Eugenio Giolito, 2013. "Accounting For The Timing Of First Marriage," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 54(1), pages 135-158, 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. Hanzhe Zhang, 2021. "An Investment-and-Marriage Model with Differential Fecundity: On the College Gender Gap," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(5), pages 1464-1486.
    2. Daniel R. Meyer & Marcia Carlson & Md Moshi Ul Alam, 2022. "Increases in shared custody after divorce in the United States," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 46(38), pages 1137-1162.
    3. Zhang, Hanzhe, 2019. "An Investment-and-Marriage Model with Differential Fecundity," Working Papers 2019-11, Michigan State University, Department of Economics.

    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. Smith, Ian, 2007. "Property division on divorce with inequity aversion," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 111-128.
    2. Hanzhe Zhang, 2021. "An Investment-and-Marriage Model with Differential Fecundity: On the College Gender Gap," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(5), pages 1464-1486.
    3. Ori Zax, 2015. "Human Capital And The Probability Of Divorce," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(S1), pages 111-134, December.
    4. Sunha Myong & JungJae Park & Junjian Yi, 2021. "Social Norms and Fertility," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(5), pages 2429-2466.
    5. Nunley, John M. & Seals, Alan, 2009. "Child-Custody Reform and Marriage-Specific Investment in Children," MPRA Paper 16313, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Christine Hauser, 2008. "Child Support Enforcement and Children's Consumption," 2008 Meeting Papers 630, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    7. Martin Halla, 2005. "Unterhalt, Obsorge und Scheidungsanwälte: Eine ökonometrische Untersuchung der einvernehmlichen Scheidung in Österreich," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 141(IV), pages 501-525, December.
    8. Nunley, John M. & Seals Jr., Richard Alan, 2011. "Child-custody reform, marital investment in children, and the labor supply of married mothers," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 14-24, January.
    9. Rainer, Helmut, 2007. "Should we write prenuptial contracts?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 337-363, February.
    10. Kranz, Daniel Fernández & Roff, Jennifer & Sun, Hugette, 2021. "Can economic incentives for joint custody harm children of divorced parents? Evidence from state variation in child support laws," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 1-27.
    11. Zhang, Hanzhe, 2019. "An Investment-and-Marriage Model with Differential Fecundity," Working Papers 2019-11, Michigan State University, Department of Economics.
    12. Daniela Vuri, 2018. "Joint custody law and mothers’ labor market outcomes: evidence from the USA," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 31(4), pages 1203-1237, October.
    13. Guido de Blasio & Daniela Vuri, 2019. "Effects of the Joint Custody Law in Italy," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 479-514, September.
    14. Ganghua Mei & Lei Yue, 2022. "Labor supply and time use: evidence from cohabiting women in the United States," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(44), pages 5133-5158, September.
    15. Charles Ka Yui Leung & Joe Cho Yiu Ng & Edward Tang, 2020. "Why is the Hong Kong Housing Market Unaffordable? Some Stylized Facts and Estimations," Globalization Institute Working Papers 380, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
    16. Jeremy Greenwood & Nezih Guner & Guillaume Vandenbroucke, 2017. "Family Economics Writ Large," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1346-1434, December.
    17. Domenico Tabasso, 2011. "With or Without You: Hazard of Divorce and Intra-household Allocation of Time," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2011n07, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    18. Giolito, Eugenio, 2004. "A Search Model of Marriage with Differential Fecundity," IZA Discussion Papers 1082, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Welling, Linda & Bearance, Marci, 2002. "Who's minding the kids? An economic comparison of sole and joint custody," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 15-29.
    20. Ingela Alger & Donald Cox, 2013. "The evolution of altruistic preferences: mothers versus fathers," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 421-446, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Remarriage; Child custody; Fecundity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J12 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Marriage; Marital Dissolution; Family Structure
    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth
    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
    • 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:dyncon:v:90:y:2018:i:c:p:156-170. 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/jedc .

    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.