IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0137352.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relationship between Receipt of a Social Protection Grant for a Child and Second Pregnancy Rates among South African Women: A Cohort Study

Author

Listed:
  • Molly Rosenberg
  • Audrey Pettifor
  • Nadia Nguyen
  • Daniel Westreich
  • Jacob Bor
  • Till Bärnighausen
  • Paul Mee
  • Rhian Twine
  • Stephen Tollman
  • Kathleen Kahn

Abstract

Background: Social protection programs issuing cash grants to caregivers of young children may influence fertility. Grant-related income could foster economic independence and/or increase access to job prospects, education, and health services, resulting in lower pregnancy rates. In the other direction, these programs may motivate family expansion in order to receive larger grants. Here, we estimate the net effect of these countervailing mechanisms among rural South African women. Methods: We constructed a retrospective cohort of 4845 women who first became eligible for the Child Support Grant with the birth of their first child between 1998 and 2008, with data originally collected by the Agincourt Health and Socio-Demographic Surveillance System in Mpumalanga province, South Africa. We fit Cox regression models to estimate the hazard of second pregnancy in women who reported grant receipt after birth of first child, relative to non-recipients. As a secondary analysis to explore the potential for grant loss to incentivize second pregnancy, we exploited a natural experiment created by a 2003 expansion of the program’s age eligibility criterion from age seven to nine. We compared second pregnancy rates between (i) women with children age seven or eight in 2002 (recently aged out of grant eligibility) to (ii) women with children age seven or eight in 2003 (remained grant-eligible). Results: The adjusted hazard ratio for the association between grant exposure and second pregnancy was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.58, 0.75). Women with first children who aged out of grant eligibility in 2002 had similar second pregnancy rates to women with first children who remained grant-eligible in 2003 [IRR (95% CI): 0.9 (0.5, 1.4)]. Conclusions: Across both primary and secondary analyses, we found no evidence that the Child Support Grant incentivizes pregnancy. In harmony with South African population policy, receipt of the Child Support Grant may result in longer spacing between pregnancies.

Suggested Citation

  • Molly Rosenberg & Audrey Pettifor & Nadia Nguyen & Daniel Westreich & Jacob Bor & Till Bärnighausen & Paul Mee & Rhian Twine & Stephen Tollman & Kathleen Kahn, 2015. "Relationship between Receipt of a Social Protection Grant for a Child and Second Pregnancy Rates among South African Women: A Cohort Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-12, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0137352
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137352
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0137352
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0137352&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0137352?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eric Udjo, 2009. "Trends in the age pattern of fertility, 1995-2005, in the context of the child support grant in South Africa," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 289-299.
    2. Jeff Grogger & Stephen G. Bronars, 2001. "The Effect of Welfare Payments on the Marriage and Fertility Behavior of Unwed Mothers: Results from a Twins Experiment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 109(3), pages 529-545, June.
    3. Tom Moultrie & Takudzwa Sayi & Ian Timæus, 2012. "Birth intervals, postponement, and fertility decline in Africa: A new type of transition?," Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 66(3), pages 241-258.
    4. Jorge M. Aguero & Michael R. Carter & Ingrid Woolard, 2006. "The Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers on Nutrition: The South African Child Support Grant," SALDRU Working Papers 8, Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town.
    5. Ian M. Timæus & Tom A. Moultrie, 2008. "On Postponement and Birth Intervals," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 34(3), pages 483-510, September.
    6. Monde Makiwane, 2010. "The Child Support Grant and teenage childbearing in South Africa," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 193-204.
    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. Sudhanshu Handa & Silvio Daidone & Amber Peterman & Benjamin Davis & Audrey Pereira & Tia Palermo & Jennifer Yablonski, 2018. "Myth-Busting? Confronting Six Common Perceptions about Unconditional Cash Transfers as a Poverty Reduction Strategy in Africa," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 33(2), pages 259-298.
    2. Sonia Laszlo & Muhammad Farhan Majid & Laëtitia Renée, 2024. "Conditional cash transfers and women's reproductive choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(2), February.
    3. Tia Palermo & Sudhanshu Handa & Amber Peterman & Leah Prencipe & David Seidenfeld, 2016. "Unconditional government social cash transfer in Africa does not increase fertility," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 29(4), pages 1083-1111, October.
    4. Donald,Aletheia Amalia & Goldstein,Markus P. & Koroknay-Palicz,Tricia & Sage,Mathilde, 2024. "The Fertility Impacts of Development Programs," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10848, The World Bank.
    5. Zohra S. Lassi & Sophie G. E. Kedzior & Wajeeha Tariq & Yamna Jadoon & Jai K. Das & Zulfiqar A. Bhutta, 2021. "Effects of preconception care and periconception interventions on maternal nutritional status and birth outcomes in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), June.
    6. Oyenubi, Adeola & Kollamparambil, Umakrishnan, 2022. "Does the child support grant incentivise childbirth in South Africa?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 812-825.
    7. Hajdu, Flora & Granlund, Stefan & Neves, David & Hochfeld, Tessa & Amuakwa-Mensah, Franklin & Sandström, Emil, 2020. "Cash transfers for sustainable rural livelihoods? Examining the long-term productive effects of the Child Support Grant in South Africa," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 19(C).

    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. Marisa Coetzee, 2013. "Finding the Benefits: Estimating the Impact of The South African Child Support Grant," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 81(3), pages 427-450, September.
    2. Kathryn Grace & Stuart Sweeney, 2016. "Ethnic Dimensions of Guatemala’s Stalled Transition: A Parity-Specific Analysis of Ladino and Indigenous Fertility Regimes," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 53(1), pages 117-137, February.
    3. Sarah R. Hayford & Victor Agadjanian, 2019. "Spacing, Stopping, or Postponing? Fertility Desires in a Sub-Saharan Setting," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 56(2), pages 573-594, April.
    4. Bassier, Ihsaan & Budlender, Joshua & Zizzamia, Rocco & Leibbrandt, Murray & Ranchhod, Vimal, 2021. "Locked down and locked out: Repurposing social assistance as emergency relief to informal workers," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    5. Mathias Lerch & Thomas Spoorenberg, 2020. "The emergence of birth limitation as a new stage in the fertility transition in sub-Saharan Africa," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 42(30), pages 827-858.
    6. Ian M. Timæus & Tom A. Moultrie, 2020. "Pathways to Low Fertility: 50 Years of Limitation, Curtailment, and Postponement of Childbearing," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 57(1), pages 267-296, February.
    7. Audrey Light & Yoshiaki Omori, 2009. "Economic Incentives and Family Formation," Working Papers 09-08, Ohio State University, Department of Economics.
    8. van den Bold, Mara & Quisumbing, Agnes R. & Gillespie, Stuart, 2013. "Women’s empowerment and nutrition: An evidence review," IFPRI discussion papers 1294, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. Christina Paxson & Norbert Schady, 2007. "Does Money Matter? The Effects of Cash Transfers on Child Health and Development in Rural Ecuador," Working Papers 145, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Center for Economic Policy Studies..
    10. Sandner, Malte, 2019. "Effects of early childhood intervention on fertility and maternal employment: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 159-181.
    11. Lara Cockx & Nathalie Francken, 2016. "Evolution and impact of EU aid for food and nutrition security: a review," Working Papers of LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance 572519, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance.
    12. Rehman Faiz Ur & Nasir Muhammad, 2020. "In the Same Boat, but not Equals: The Heterogeneous Effects of Indirect Taxation on Child Health in Punjab-Pakistan," Asian Journal of Law and Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(3), pages 1-26, December.
    13. Ho-Po Crystal Wong, 2015. "The Quantity and Quality Adjustment of Births when Having More is Not Subsidized: the Effect of the TANF Family Cap on Fertility and Birth Weight," Working Papers 15-04, Department of Economics, West Virginia University.
    14. Waidler, Jennifer, 2016. "On the fungibility of public and private transfers: A mental accounting approach," MERIT Working Papers 2016-060, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    15. Rebecca M. Blank, 2002. "Evaluating Welfare Reform in the United States," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(4), pages 1105-1166, December.
    16. Md Ashiq Iqbal & Towfiqul Islam Khan & Tazeen Tahsina, 2008. "Macroeconomic Implications of Social Safety Nets in the Context of Bangladesh," CPD Working Paper 75, Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD).
    17. Gauthier T. Kashalala & Steven F. Koch, 2014. "The Economic Approach to Fertility: A Causal Mediation Analysis," Working Papers 201434, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    18. Handa, Sudhanshu & Peterman, Amber & Davis, Benjamin & Stampini, Marco, 2009. "Opening Up Pandora's Box: The Effect of Gender Targeting and Conditionality on Household Spending Behavior in Mexico's Progresa Program," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 1129-1142, June.
    19. Moussa Lonkila Zan & Claudine Sauvain-Dugerdil & Clémentine Rossier, 2024. "Using Modern Contraception While Wanting a Child: What Does Contraceptive Over-Use Mean for the Human Rights-Based Approach in Burkina Faso? Insights from PMA2020 Data," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, August.
    20. Sara Yeatman & Jenny Trinitapoli & Sarah Garver, 2020. "The Enduring Case for Fertility Desires," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 57(6), pages 2047-2056, December.

    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:plo:pone00:0137352. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.