IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jopoec/v29y2016i1d10.1007_s00148-015-0567-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cesarean sections and subsequent fertility

Author

Listed:
  • Karen Norberg

    (National Bureau of Economic Research)

  • Juan Pantano

    (Washington University in St. Louis)

Abstract

Cesarean sections are rising all over the world and may, in some countries, soon become the most common delivery mode. A growing body of medical literature documents a robust fact: women undergoing cesarean sections end up having less children. Unlike most of the medical literature, which assumes that this association is mostly working through a physiological channel, we investigate a possible channel linking c-section and subsequent fertility through differences in maternal behavior after a c-section. Using several national and cross-national demographic data sources, we find evidence that maternal choice is playing an important role in shaping the negative association between cesarean section and subsequent fertility. In particular, we show that women are more likely to engage in active contraception after a cesarean delivery and conclude that intentional avoidance of subsequent pregnancies after a c-section seems to be responsible for part of the negative association between c-sections and subsequent fertility.

Suggested Citation

  • Karen Norberg & Juan Pantano, 2016. "Cesarean sections and subsequent fertility," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 29(1), pages 5-37, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jopoec:v:29:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s00148-015-0567-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s00148-015-0567-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00148-015-0567-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00148-015-0567-7?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. Mutryn, Cynthia S., 1993. "Psychosocial impact of cesarean section on the family: A literature review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1271-1281, November.
    2. Erin M. Johnson & M. Marit Rehavi, 2016. "Physicians Treating Physicians: Information and Incentives in Childbirth," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 115-141, February.
    3. Angrist, Joshua D & Evans, William N, 1998. "Children and Their Parents' Labor Supply: Evidence from Exogenous Variation in Family Size," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(3), pages 450-477, June.
    4. Brown, H. III, 1996. "Physician demand for leisure: implications for cesarean section rates," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 233-242, April.
    5. Jonathan Gruber & Maria Owings, 1996. "Physician Financial Incentives and Cesarean Section Delivery," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 99-123, Spring.
    6. Gruber, Jon & Kim, John & Mayzlin, Dina, 1999. "Physician fees and procedure intensity: the case of cesarean delivery," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 473-490, August.
    7. Dubay, Lisa & Kaestner, Robert & Waidmann, Timothy, 1999. "The impact of malpractice fears on cesarean section rates," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 491-522, August.
    8. Janet Currie & W. Bentley MacLeod, 2008. "First Do No Harm? Tort Reform and Birth Outcomes," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(2), pages 795-830.
    9. Karen Norberg, 2004. "Partnership Status and the Human Sex Ratio at Birth," NBER Working Papers 10920, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Price, Joseph & Simon, Kosali, 2009. "Patient education and the impact of new medical research," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 1166-1174, December.
    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. Erin Johnson & M. Marit Rehavi & David C. Chan, Jr & Daniela Carusi, 2016. "A Doctor Will See You Now: Physician-Patient Relationships and Clinical Decisions," NBER Working Papers 22666, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Halla, Martin & Mayr, Harald & Pruckner, Gerald J. & García-Gómez, Pilar, 2020. "Cutting fertility? Effects of cesarean deliveries on subsequent fertility and maternal labor supply," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    3. Facchini, Gabriel, 2022. "Low staffing in the maternity ward: Keep calm and call the surgeon," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 370-394.
    4. Hanna Mühlrad, 2022. "Cesarean sections for high‐risk births: health, fertility, and labor market outcomes," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(4), pages 1056-1086, October.

    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. Karen Norberg & Juan Pantano, 2016. "Cesarean sections and subsequent fertility," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 29(1), pages 5-37, January.
    2. Aleksandr Proshin & Alexandre Cazenave-Lacroutz & Zeynep Or & Lise Rochaix, 2018. "Impact of Diagnosis Related Group Refinement on the Choice Between Scheduled Caesarean Section and Normal Delivery: Recent Evidence from France," PSE Working Papers halshs-01812107, HAL.
    3. De Luca, Giacomo & Lisi, Domenico & Martorana, Marco & Siciliani, Luigi, 2021. "Does higher Institutional Quality improve the Appropriateness of Healthcare Provision?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    4. Jensen, Vibeke Myrup & Wüst, Miriam, 2015. "Can Caesarean section improve child and maternal health? The case of breech babies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 289-302.
    5. David Card & Alessandra Fenizia & David Silver, 2023. "The Health Impacts of Hospital Delivery Practices," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 42-81, May.
    6. Barili, Emilia & Bertoli, Paola & Grembi, Veronica, 2021. "Fee equalization and appropriate health care," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    7. Janet Currie & W. Bentley MacLeod, 2017. "Diagnosing Expertise: Human Capital, Decision Making, and Performance among Physicians," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(1), pages 1-43.
    8. Barili, E; & Bertoli, P; & Grembi, V;, 2020. "Title: Fees equalization and Appropriate Health Care," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 20/09, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    9. Halla, Martin & Mayr, Harald & Pruckner, Gerald J. & García-Gómez, Pilar, 2020. "Cutting fertility? Effects of cesarean deliveries on subsequent fertility and maternal labor supply," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    10. de Elejalde, Ramiro & Giolito, Eugenio, 2021. "A demand-smoothing incentive for cesarean deliveries," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    11. Bachner, Florian & Halla, Martin & Pruckner, Gerald J., 2024. "Do Empty Beds Cause Cesarean Deliveries?," IZA Discussion Papers 16981, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Erin M. Johnson & M. Marit Rehavi, 2016. "Physicians Treating Physicians: Information and Incentives in Childbirth," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 115-141, February.
    13. Alex Proshin & Alexandre Cazenave‐Lacroutz & Lise Rochaix, 2023. "Impact of tariff refinement on the choice between scheduled C‐section and normal delivery: Evidence from France," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(7), pages 1397-1433, July.
    14. Grant, Darren, 2022. "The “Quiet Revolution” and the cesarean section in the United States," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    15. Sofia Amaral-Garcia & Paola Bertoli & Veronica Grembi, 2015. "Does Experience Rating Improve Obstetric Practices? Evidence From Geographical Discontinuities in Italy," CEIS Research Paper 342, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 08 May 2015.
    16. Francese, Maura & Piacenza, Massimiliano & Romanelli, Marzia & Turati, Gilberto, 2014. "Understanding inappropriateness in health spending: The role of regional policies and institutions in caesarean deliveries," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 262-277.
    17. Bertoli, Paola & Grembi, Veronica, 2019. "Malpractice risk and medical treatment selection," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 22-35.
    18. Alejandro Arrieta & Ariadna García Prado, 2016. "Non-elective C-sections in public hospitals: capacity constraints and doctor incentives," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(49), pages 4719-4731, October.
    19. Lo, Joan C., 2008. "Financial incentives do not always work--An example of cesarean sections in Taiwan," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 121-129, October.
    20. Facchini, Gabriel, 2022. "Low staffing in the maternity ward: Keep calm and call the surgeon," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 370-394.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Fertility; Infertility; C-Sections; Reproductive Health;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J11 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Demographic Trends, Macroeconomic Effects, and Forecasts
    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth
    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    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:spr:jopoec:v:29:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s00148-015-0567-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.