1. Martha J. Bailey Department of Economics, University of Michigan and National Bureau of Economic Research

2. This Talk  Reflections on the 20 th Century How has women’s work and childbearing changed? Big question: Why has women’s work and childbearing changed?  Quantify the Role of the Birth Control Pill Demography 275, February 20112

3. Reflections on the 20 th Century  “the Female Century” Economist, September 1999  “the demographic century” Joseph Chamie, 2003 Director Population Division of the UN Dept. of Economic & Social Affairs Demography 275, February 20113

4. The Female Century 1. Big changes in the number of women working for pay 2. Big changes in the age of women participating in the paid labor force 3. Big changes in the proportion of women graduating from college (and majors & occupations they choose) 4. Big changes in women’s pay Demography 275, February 20114

5. Women’s Labor-Force Participation Source: 1890-1940, Goldin (1990: 17); 1940-1960 IPUMS, Ruggles and Sobek (1997) ; 1963-2001 March CPS, Unicon (2001) 5Demography 275, February 2011

6. Women’s Labor-Force Participation, Selected Countries, 1960-2000 6Demography 275, February 2011

7. Women’s labor force participation, by birth cohort and age 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1955 1900 1970 7Demography 275, February 2011

8. Ratio of Median Earnings of Women to Men Source: Goldin (2006). Plots the median female-male earnings ratio for full-time year round civilian workers. 8Demography 275, February 2011

9. The Demographic Century 1. Big changes in the number of children women have 2. Big changes in certainty and timing of childbirth Demography 275, February 20119

10. General Fertility Rate, United States 1895-1980 Source: Historical Statistics 10Demography 275, February 2011

11. Distribution of Children Ever Born 1910 1920 1949 1940 1930 11Demography 275, February 2011

12. What We Know about Why?  Fundamental changes in women’s work and childbearing outcomes  Harder to say why things changes occurred Demography 275, February 201112

13. Debate about the Answers  Industrial changes increased “demand” for women in market work ○ Clerical work, manufacturing during WWII, demand for teachers, microcomputer revolution  Home production increased “supply” of women to market work ○ Household: Indoor plumbing, electrification and household appliances ○ Birth regulation: Childbearing becomes deliberate  Institutional changes affected labor supply and demand ○ Changing norms, discrimination, and regulation Demography 275, February 201113

14. Do the Answers Matter?  Empowerment of women Equity based arguments Expands the talent pool directly Associated with education and health of children, reductions in poverty, and longer- term economic development  But how to do it? Stimulating certain sectors, regulating labor markets Subsidizing home appliances, family planning Demography 275, February 201114

15. Quantifying the Importance of “the Pill”  Enovid approved as the first oral contraceptive in 1960 and was “wildly popular”  Isolating its role difficult in the 1960s is difficult Demography 275, February 201115

16. General Fertility Rate, 1910-1980 Enovid approved for long-term use as contraceptive Enovid approved for the regulation of menses 1957 1960 16Demography 275, February 2011

17. Second Wave Feminism and Cultural Changes Demography 275, February 201117

18. How Important Was the Pill? “The ‘contraceptive revolution’ … ushered in by the pill has probably not been a major cause of the sharp drop in fertility in recent decades” ~Gary Becker “The impact of the Pill is overrated.” ~Gloria Steinem 18Demography 275, February 2011

19. How Important Was the Pill? “There is a straight line between the Pill and the changes in family structure we see now…22% of women earning more than their husbands. In 1970, 70% of women with children under 6 were at home; 30% worked—now that’s roughly reversed.” ~Terry O’Neill, National Organization for Women Demography 275, February 201119

20. Two Studies of the Pill  #1 The Pill’s Effect on Marital Fertility (AER, 2010)  #2 The Pill’s Effect on the Careers of Young Women (QJE 2006, 2009 joint with Brad Hershbein and Amalia Miller 2010) Demography 275, February 201120

21. A Little Economics max U(Z,N) s.t. pN+Z  M Assumptions: (1) averting births costless (2) choice of births occurs with certainty 21Demography 275, February 2011

22. Modified Set-Up Let N=N N – A where N N : “natural fertility” and A: averted births max U(Z, N N – A) s.t. p(N N – A) + Z + C(A)  M 22Demography 275, February 2011

23. Marginal Benefit of Averting Births Expected Fertility Expected Births Averted 8080 3535 1717 0808 2626 4444 5353 6262 7171 23Demography 275, February 2011

24. Adding Marginal Costs Expected Fertility Expected Births Averted 8080 3535 1717 0808 2626 4444 5353 6262 7171 Zero marginal cost of averting births 24Demography 275, February 2011

25. Adding Marginal Costs Expected Fertility Expected Births Averted 8080 3535 1717 0808 2626 4444 5353 6262 7171 Positive marginal cost of averting births 25Demography 275, February 2011

26. The “Pill” Affects Supply of Births 1. Lowers the marginal cost of averting births  Decreases price of child quality (w.r.t. quantity)  Taken separate from time of intimacy (reduces behavioral costs, psychic costs; eliminates bargaining and coordinating) 2. Reduces uncertainty surrounding terminal number and timing 26Demography 275, February 2011

27. Marginal Benefit Expected Fertility Expected Births Averted 8080 3535 1717 0808 2626 4444 5353 6262 7171 Positive marginal cost of averting births Marginal cost of averting births with the Pill 27Demography 275, February 2011

28. #1 The Pill and Marital Fertility Estelle Griswold Executive Director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut 1873: Federal Comstock Act passed 1960: 33 states had Comstock laws surviving; 25 sales bans; 11 had sales bans without physician exceptions 1965: US. Supreme Court decision Griswold enjoins Connecticut’s statute—states across the nation revised their statutes 28Demography 275, February 2011

29. 1. Claim: Different language of Comstock laws imply different marginal costs of using the Pill within year 2. Test of how much Pill matters: Examine how contraceptive use and birth rates changed in places with sales bans Empirical Strategy 29Demography 275, February 2011

30. Empirical Test 1957 FDA approves Enovid 1965 Griswold decision Comstock Laws enacted 1900 30Demography 275, February 2011 Laws relatively ineffective preventing sales/use of contraceptives

31. Empirical Test 1957 FDA approves Enovid 1965 Griswold decision Comstock Laws enacted 1900 Laws interact with Pill technology : 1.Doctors reluctant to prescribe it/pharmacists to supply illegally 2.Black market unlikely to function 3.Marginal cost falls differentially in states without sales bans 31Demography 275, February 2011

32. Empirical Test 1957 FDA approves Enovid 1965 Griswold decision Comstock Laws enacted 1900 1970 States repeal or revise laws and prices converge 32Demography 275, February 2011

33. Ever Used Oral Contraception (Comstock Sales Ban-No Restriction) 33Demography 275, February 2011

34. Changes in Observables?  Not really Geography Age Race Religion Education Ideal number of children  Regressions that adjust for these differences imply lower use in states with sales bans of 25 % Demography 275, February 201134

35. Changes in Unobservables? Differences in attitudes or reporting?  Differences in 1955 use or attitudes about contraception? No  Differences in 1965 use of other contraceptives (accounts for reporting)? No  Differences in 1970 use of Pill or other contraceptives (after bans disappear)? No  Differences in price due to legal regime Demography 275, February 201135

36. Sales Bans and Birth Rates ≈ 7 births/1000 Relative to states in same census region 1957:FDA approves Enovid 1965: Griswold 36Demography 275, February 2011

37. The Big Picture ≈18/30 births =0.60 37Demography 275, February 2011

38. #2: The Pill and Young Women’s Careers 1. In 1960, married women had already made their career and family decisions without the Pill 2. How did young women’s decisions about family and career change once they knew they had control of childbearing? 38Demography 275, February 2011

39. Women’s Labor Force Participation, by cohort and age 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1955 1900 1970 39Demography 275, February 2011

40. Natural Experiment in “Early Legal Access” (ELA) to Pill  Legal age of majority Today: 18 1960: 21  Changes in the legal age, 1960 to 1976  Within-cohort variation in access to the Pill at age 18 40Demography 275, February 2011

41. “Early legal access” Random Assignment of ELA 18 21 Treatment group Legal access to Pill at age 18 or marriage Comparison group Legal access to Pill at age 21 Age  41Demography 275, February 2011

42. Empirical Strategy a: ages broken into 5-year groups, g. s: state of residence at age 21 c: birth cohorts 1943-1953 OLS for continuous DVs Probits for binary DVs (APEs reported) Fixed effects for state, cohort, age group Standard errors clustered at state-level

43. ELA Women’s decisions: 1.Marriage timing and first birth timing 2.Expectations about work 3.Investments in career 4.Wages Subsequent “treatments” like abortion Baseline characteristics cov(ELA,  )  0 cov(ELA,Pill|Z)>0

44. Testing Identifying Assumptions  Valid strategy? Is ELA correlated with the error? ○ Baseline assignment not conditionally random?

45. Random Assignment? Demography 275, February 201145

46. Women’s Career Investments Demography 275, February 201146

47. Women’s Work for Pay Demography 275, February 201147

48. Women’s Lifetime Earnings Demography 275, February 201148

49. Quantitative Conclusions  Innovations in birth control sped change in the post-1960 period Timing of changes in work and childbearing relate closely to the diffusion of the Pill Evidence from “natural experiments” shows that the Pill reduced childbearing and boosted young women’s career investment Demography 275, February 201149

50. Broader Conclusions  Welfare effects Economic empowerment of women Panacea? Effects on children?  But, the Pill was not the only thing The “demand” curve Pill was a tool that allowed women to capitalize on the growing opportunities One part of the larger story of the 20 th century 50Demography 275, February 2011