IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cir/cirpro/2004rp-06.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Fécondité et incitatifs fiscaux : quelles conclusions pouvons-nous en tirer?

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Parent

Abstract

This paper seeks to provide evidence on whether short term responses in childbearing decisions apparently induced by changes in tax incentives are permanent or transitory. Using inter-jurisdictional differences in the implementation of the Family Allowance Program in Canada in the mid 70's, we first establish that Québec families responded quite strongly to the added incentives in the short run, particularly in the case of families with two or more children prior to being exposed to the program. However, tracking down the cohorts across the 1981 and 1991 Censuses, we find that the same group of Québec women who responded strongly in the short run subsequently showed a decrease in fertility relative to the rest of Canada. These results suggest that the bulk of the program impact was transitory. In summary, while prices seem to matter, their impact in this case appears to work through a timing effect. Cette étude cherche à déterminer si l'effet de court terme des incitatifs fiscaux sur la décision d'avoir des enfants est de nature transitoire (par lequel seul le moment choisi pour avoir des enfants change) ou permanent (par lequel la taille ultime de la famille change). En utilisant des différences interprovinciales dans la mise en ?uvre du programme fédéral canadien d'allocations familiales au milieu des années 70, nous sommes en mesure d'estimer un effet de court terme substantiel pour les familles du Québec, particulièrement dans le cas des familles ayant préalablement deux enfants ou plus. Toutefois, les données des recensements de 1981 et 1991 montrent que les mêmes cohortes de femmes au Québec qui ont réagi fortement à l'incitatif financier à court terme ont ensuite diminué leur taux de fécondité comparativement aux femmes ailleurs au Canada. Ces résultats nous donnent à penser que l'impact du programme fut essentiellement transitoire. En somme, bien que le coût d'avoir des enfants ait son importance comme facteur influençant la décision d'en avoir, l'effet semble opérer sur le moment choisi et non sur le nombre.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Parent, 2004. "Fécondité et incitatifs fiscaux : quelles conclusions pouvons-nous en tirer?," CIRANO Project Reports 2004rp-06, CIRANO.
    • Handle: RePEc:cir:cirpro:2004rp-06
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cirano.qc.ca/files/publications/2004RP-06.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniela Del Boca, 2002. "The effect of child care and part time opportunities on participation and fertility decisions in Italy," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 15(3), pages 549-573.
    2. Daniel Parent & Ling Wang, 2002. "Tax Incentives and Fertility in Canada: Permanent vs. Transitory Effects," CIRANO Working Papers 2002s-29, CIRANO.
    3. 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.
    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. Edoardo Frattola, 2023. "Parental retirement and fertility decisions across family policy regimes," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 1417, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    2. Miyazawa, Kazutoshi, 2016. "Grandparental child care, child allowances, and fertility," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 53-60.
    3. Lalive, Rafael & Zweimüller, Josef, 2005. "Does Parental Leave Affect Fertility and Return-to-Work? Evidence from a "True Natural Experiment"," IZA Discussion Papers 1613, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Mörk, Eva & Sjögren, Anna & Svalelryd, Helena, 2008. "Cheaper child care, more children," Working Paper Series 2008:29, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    5. Nakajima, Ryo & Tanaka, Ryuichi, 2014. "Estimating the effects of pronatal policies on residential choice and fertility," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 179-200.
    6. Laroque, Guy & Salanié, Bernard, 2005. "Does Fertility Respond to Financial Incentives?," CEPR Discussion Papers 5007, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Rafael Lalive & Josef Zweim�ller, "undated". "Does Parental Leave Affect Fertility and Return-to-Work? Evidence from a �True Natural Experiment�," IEW - Working Papers 242, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    8. James Feyrer & Bruce Sacerdote & Ariel Dora Stern, 2008. "Will the Stork Return to Europe and Japan? Understanding Fertility within Developed Nations," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 22(3), pages 3-22, Summer.
    9. Lee, Siha & Liu, Sitian, 2024. "Fertility incentives in Canada: A cohort analysis," CLEF Working Paper Series 75, Canadian Labour Economics Forum (CLEF), University of Waterloo.
    10. Poh Lin Tan & Jeremy Lim-Soh, 2023. "Access to Ovulation Tests and Strategic Timing of Intercourse in a Low Fertility Context," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 42(1), pages 1-23, February.
    11. Katrine M. Jakobsen & Thomas H. J�rgensen & Hamish Low, 2022. "Fertility and Family Labor Supply," CEBI working paper series 22-04, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    12. Agnese Romiti, 2018. "The Effects of Immigration on Household Services, Labour Supply and Fertility," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 80(4), pages 843-869, August.
    13. Kei SAKATA & C. R. McKENZIE, 2022. "Does the expectation of having to look after parents in the future affect current fertility?," JODE - Journal of Demographic Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(3), pages 283-211, September.
    14. Ralph Lattimore & Clinton Pobke, 2008. "Recent Trends in Australian Fertility," Staff Working Papers 0806, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia.
    15. Mörk, Eva & Sjögren, Anna & Svalelryd, Helena, 2008. "Cheaper child care, more children," Working Paper Series 2008:29, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    16. Eva Mörk & Anna Sjögren & Helena Svaleryd, 2013. "Childcare costs and the demand for children—evidence from a nationwide reform," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 26(1), pages 33-65, January.
    17. 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.
    18. Arindam Nandi & Ramanan Laxminarayan, 2016. "The unintended effects of cash transfers on fertility: evidence from the Safe Motherhood Scheme in India," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 29(2), pages 457-491, April.
    19. 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.
    20. REINSTADLER Anne, 2011. "Luxembourg and France: Comparable Family Benefits, Comparable Fertility Levels?," LISER Working Paper Series 2011-65, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).

    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:cir:cirpro:2004rp-06. 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: Webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ciranca.html .

    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.