1. (Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Barcelona GSE)
The Effect of a Universal Child Benefit on Conceptions, Abortions, and Early Maternal Labor Supply
Libertad González
(Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Barcelona GSE)
December 2012

2. Overview
I study empirically the household-level effects of a universal child benefit.
The identification strategy exploits the sharp cutoff date determining benefit eligibility.
Families who had children “right before” the cutoff as the “control group”.
I analyze the impact on:
Fertility
Household consumption patterns,
Maternal labor supply and childcare arrangements.

3. Summary of findings The benefit increased fertility, both by:
Increasing conceptions, and
Decreasing abortions.
Households that received the benefit did not increase overall or child-related expenditure over the following year.
They actually spent less on daycare services.
Mothers took longer to return to work after childbirth.
The benefit allowed families to “buy” maternal time at home during the first year of the child’s life.

4. 1. Introduction
Many countries offer benefits to families with children.
The goals typically include:
Encouraging fertility, and/or
Improving the well-being of households with children.
Hard to assess the impact of such policies.

5. The Spanish “baby-check”
On July 3, 2007, the Spanish president announced unexpectedly that all children born from that date on would receive a one-time, €2,500 benefit.
4.5 times the monthly minimum wage for a full-time worker (more than 2 times median monthly earnings).
A natural experiment!

6. Potential effects
The benefit could increase fertility by reducing the cost of children.
The increase in income could alter household expenditure patterns.
- For instance, increasing expenditure in “inputs” relevant for child development and well-being (food, clothes, housing, books, etc).
3) Higher unearned income could also affect household labor supply.

7. Related Literature A broad literature analyzing:
The relationship between income and child outcomes.
The labor supply effects of public assistance.
Some papers evaluating the fertility effects of child benefits.
Milligan (2005), Cohen et al. (2007).
Two papers on the impact of child benefits on expenditure (different angle).
Lundberg et al. (1997), Ward-Batts (2010).
A few recent papers have analyzed the effect of benefits on child development and well-being.
Milligan & Stabile (2008, 2009), Dahl & Lochner (2008).

8. Innovation Credible identification strategy.
Fertility effect both through conceptions and abortions.
Unintended labor supply effect.
The child benefit as paid maternity leave.
First to analyze all potential channels.

9. Outline Introduction Institutional background Identification strategy
Data
Results
Conclusions

10. 2. Institutional background
In his 2007 “State of the Nation” address, the Spanish President annouced the introduction of the new subsidy.
To be paid to the mother right after childbirth.
All children born after the announcement date are eligible.
Except for immigrant mothers with less than 2 years of legal residence.
Goals: Helping families cope with the extra expenditures associated with a new child, and encouraging fertility.
More than 95% of children born in 2008 received the subsidy.

11. 3. Identification strategy
The child benefit as an unexpected income shock,
Both to women considering a pregnancy (or an abortion),
And to new mothers.

12. i) Fertility effects
The benefit introduction may have encouraged more women to conceive.
It may also have discouraged some pregnant women from having an abortion.
I look for a “jump” in the number of conceptions and abortions just at the benefit announcement date.

13. Econometric specification
N: (log) monthly number of conceptions (abortions) in Spain
Post: binary indicator indicating post-announcement months
m: month, normalized so m=0 in July 2007
X: control variables (number of days in each month)

14. Seasonality concerns
Since the data are only available monthly, we may worry about seasonality effects.
Systematic difference in June versus July.
An additional specification includes calendar month fixed-effects.
Thus, I look for a jump from June to July 2007,
Above and beyond the typical June-July difference.

15. Fertility data
Estimated monthly number of conceptions: Spanish Vital Statistics
About 37,500 conceptions per month (population).
Monthly number of abortions : regional governments official figures.
About 6,000 abortions per month.

16. Fertility results

19. Fertility results

20. Fertility results

21. Fertility results

22. Fertility results

23. Fertility results

24. ii) Expenditure and labor supply effects
Receiving the benefit may alter household consumption and labor supply.
I compare households who gave birth just before and just after benefit introduction.
Sharp cutoff date determines benefit eligibility.
Families unable to adjust date of birth around the threshold.
Close to the cutoff, treatment assignment “as good as randomized” (Lee & Lemieux, 2010).
“Treated” families: Birth on or after July 1, 2007.
“Control” families: Birth “just before”.
“Effect” of the subsidy: difference in outcomes between births right before and right after the cutoff.

25. Econometric specification
Sample: Households (i) who had a child near the cutoff,
interviewed in 2008.
Y: Household expenditure or labor supply
Post: binary indicator indicating post-announcement months
m: month, normalized so m=0 in July 2007
X: control variables (age and education of the mother, etc)

26. Variations
I explore sensitivity to number of months included and order of the polynomial.
I also estimate additional specifications with calendar month fixed-effects.

27. Expenditure and labor supply data
Household expenditure: Household Budget Survey (HBS)
About 50 births per month.
Labor supply: Labor Force Survey (LFS)
About 450 births per month.
Child care use: Survey of Income and Living Conditions (SILC) 2008.
About 20 births per month.

28. Expenditure and labor supply results
Validity checks:
Examining the density of the “running” variable, month of birth.
A jump in the density at the threshold would question the appropriateness of the RDD.
Showing that treated and control groups are similar in their observed baseline covariates.
“Randomization test.”

29. 1) Jump in births at the cutoff?
(Spanish Vital Statistics data.)
(2nd order polynomial fits)

30. Discontinuity in number of births at the threshold
Dep. var.: (Log) Number of births per month

31. 2) Balanced covariates?
Vital Statistics , linear fits.

32. Balanced covariates? (ii)
Vital Statistics , linear fits.

33. Balanced covariates? (iii)
Vital Statistics , linear fits.

34. Balance in covariates (HBS 2008)
* p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01

35. Expenditure results Overall household expenditure.
Child-related expenditure.

36. Timing All households report expenditures in 2008.
The survey captures all expenditures over the 12 months previous to the interview.
I analyze expenditure as a function of the month of birth of the child (m).
The “running variable”.

37. HBS 2008, 2nd order polynomial fit.

38. HBS 2008, 2nd order polynomial fit.

39. Expenditure regression results
Controls: Mother’s age, age squared and age cubed, maternal education dummies, immigrant status, child parity.
* p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01

40. (2-month bins, linear fits)

41. (2-month bins, linear fits)

42. Child care expenditure results

43. Why didn’t the benefit increase expenditure?
Small effect on permanent income.
Possibly compensated by a reduction in other sources of income:
Labor supply effects?

46. Maternal labor supply results

47. Other outcomes Family stability (LFS) Maternal health (SILC)
Child health (Vital Statistics)

48. Heterogeneous effects?
By parental education
By parental age
By immigrant status
By child gender
By child parity
By marital status

49. 6. Conclusions The child benefit increased fertility.
Both via conceptions and abortions.
It also decreased labor supply among new mothers.
An effective paid maternity leave.
No effect on expenditure patterns.
Probably due to reduced earnings.