Skip to main content
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Working Mums and Informal Care Givers: The Anticipation Effect

  • and EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: July 16, 2013
The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy
From the journal The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy Volume 14 Issue 2

Abstract

Fertility and the provision of long-term care are connected by an aspect that has not received attention so far: both are time consuming activities that can be produced within the household or bought at the market and are, thus, connected through the intertemporal budget constraint of the household that accounts for time and money. This paper models that link and analyzes the effect of intervention in the long-term-care market on female labor-market related decisions. It shows that women’s fertility and their labor supply when young are affected by such policies. The overall effect can be decomposed into an opportunity-cost effect and a consumption-smoothing effect that each impact fertility as well as labor supply in opposite directions. Using survey data, the paper provides some evidence that in the member states of the European Union the consumption-smoothing effect is dominant.

Keywords: long-term care; child care; female labor supply; fertility
JEL Classification: J13; D91; I13

Acknowledgments

A previous version of this paper titled “The effect of long-term-care subsidies on female labor supply and fertility” was presented at the CESifo Venice Summer Institute 2012 “The Economics of Long-Term Care” and at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock. The comments of the participants, especially Eric Bonsang, Robert Fenge, Edward Norton, and Michael Rauscher, the editor of this journal, Helmuth Cremer and two anonymous referees are appreciated with gratitude.

Appendix

Table 5:

Probit model of fertility (marginal effects at the means).

Children≥2 children
Age0.0727***0.151***
(0.0155)(0.0213)
Age2–0.000786***–0.00173***
(0.000208)(0.000282)
Age_education_finished–0.0165***–0.0220***
(0.00266)(0.00362)
Partnership0.230***0.240***
(0.0204)(0.0297)
Rural0.0646***0.0868***
(0.0233)(0.0285)
ltcneed_parents0.02280.0344
(0.0264)(0.0340)
House0.005980.00284
(0.0229)(0.0309)
Native–0.0498–0.105*
(0.0394)(0.0558)
Healthy0.004050.0235
(0.0265)(0.0369)
Life_expectancy–0.00320***–0.00526***
(0.000947)(0.00130)
Low_skilled0.0896**0.121***
(0.0369)(0.0453)
Best_care_children0.003300.0371
(0.0225)(0.0304)
ltcparentspay–0.0342–0.0856**
(0.0249)(0.0334)
Country fixed effectsYesYes
Observations4,0364,036

Notes: Robust standard errors in parentheses, , , .

Table 6:

Probit model of labor supply (marginal effects at the means).

Working
Age0.0184
(0.0182)
Age2–0.000184
(0.000242)
Age_education_finished0.0283***
(0.00395)
Partnership–0.109***
(0.0253)
Rural–0.0263
(0.0244)
ltcneed_parents–0.0711**
(0.0297)
House0.0909***
(0.0263)
Native0.0892*
(0.0460)
Healthy0.170***
(0.0301)
Life_expectancy0.00440***
(0.00114)
Low_skilled–0.127***
(0.0369)
Best_care_children–0.0432
(0.0284)
ltcparentspay0.0460
(0.0299)
Country fixed effectsYes
Observations4,036

Notes: Robust standard errors in parentheses, , , .

Table 7:

IV regressions.

≥2 childrenNumber of childrenWorkingWorking hours
ltcparentspay–0.800*–1.805*1.696**60.57*
(0.486)(1.047)(0.686)(31.38)
Age0.116***0.245***0.04070.901
(0.0189)(0.0410)(0.0334)(1.337)
Age2–0.00132***–0.00270***–0.000482–0.0100
(0.000252)(0.000542)(0.000409)(0.0163)
Age_education_finished–0.0142***–0.0421***0.0123***0.503**
(0.00417)(0.0113)(0.00468)(0.241)
Partnership0.217***0.582***–0.127**–5.976***
(0.0333)(0.0740)(0.0622)(2.051)
Rural0.0631***0.0737–0.00325–1.068
(0.0148)(0.0457)(0.0220)(0.843)
ltcneed_parents0.008960.0126–0.0154–0.900
(0.0435)(0.100)(0.0525)(1.624)
House0.05100.0309–6.17e–05–0.650
(0.0556)(0.154)(0.0536)(2.183)
Native–0.0525*–0.0919–0.0166–1.956
(0.0314)(0.113)(0.0608)(2.728)
Healthy0.03400.01430.1083.708
(0.0405)(0.0708)(0.0747)(2.660)
Life_expectancy–0.00536***–0.0129***0.00703***0.287***
(0.00128)(0.00359)(0.00158)(0.0784)
Low_skilled0.0713***0.329***–0.0785–4.249**
(0.0257)(0.103)(0.0763)(2.164)
Best_care_children0.0710***0.188***–0.124***–2.600
(0.0240)(0.0521)(0.0470)(2.176)
Constant–1.077**–1.507–1.287*–40.25
(0.466)(1.026)(0.761)(32.28)
Country fixed effectsYesYesYesYes
Observations3,9833,9833,9833,880

Notes: Robust standard errors in parentheses, , , .

References

Anderson, Deborah J., Melissa Binder, and Kate Krause. 2002. “The Motherhood Wage Penalty: Which Mothers Pay It and Why?” American Economic Review 92:354–58.10.1257/000282802320191606Search in Google Scholar

Apps, Patricia, and Ray Rees. 2004. “Fertility, Taxation, and Family Policy.” Scandinavian Journal of Economics 106:745–63.10.1111/j.0347-0520.2004.00386.xSearch in Google Scholar

Boldrin, Michele, Mariacristina De Nardi, and Larry E. Jones. 2005. “Fertility and Social Security,” NBER Working Paper 11146.10.3386/w11146Search in Google Scholar

Bolin, Kristian, Bjorn Lindgren, and Petter Lundborg. 2008. “Informal and Formal Care Among Single-Living Elderly in Europe.” Health Economics 17:393–409.10.1002/hec.1275Search in Google Scholar

Bonsang, Eric. 2009. “Does Informal Care From Children to their Elderly Parents Substitute for Formal Care in Europe?” Journal of Health Economics 28:143–54.10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.09.002Search in Google Scholar

Byrne, David, Michelle S. Goeree, Bridget Hiedemann, and Steven Stern. 2009. “Formal Home Health Care, Informal Care, and Family Decision Making.” International Economic Review 50:1205–42.10.1111/j.1468-2354.2009.00566.xSearch in Google Scholar

Charles, Kerwin Kofi, and Purvi Sevak. 2005. “Can Family Caregiving Substitute for Nursing Home Care?” Journal of Health Economics 24:1174–90.10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.05.001Search in Google Scholar

Cigno, Alessandro. 1986. “Fertility and the Tax-Benefit System: A Reconsideration of the Theory of Family Taxation.” Economic Journal 96:1035–51.10.2307/2233172Search in Google Scholar

Cigno, Alessandro, Luca Casolaro, and Furio Camillo Rosati. 2003. “The Impact of Social Security on Saving and Fertility in Germany.” Finanzarchiv 59:189–211.10.1628/0015221032643209Search in Google Scholar

Cigno, Alessandro and Furio Camillo Rosati. 1996. “Jointly Determined Saving and Fertility Behaviour: Theory, and Estimates for Germany, Italy, UK and USA.” European Economic Review 40:1561–89.10.1016/0014-2921(95)00046-1Search in Google Scholar

Cigno, Allessandro, and Martin Werding. 2007. Children and Pensions. Cambridge, MA, and London: CESifo Book Series, MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7513.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, Alma, Rajeev Dehejia, and Dmitri Romanov. 2007. “Do Financial Incentives Affect Fertility?” NBER Working Paper 13700.10.3386/w13700Search in Google Scholar

Colombo, Francesca, Ana Llena-Nozal, Jérôme Mercier, and Frits Tjadens. 2011. “Help Wanted?: Providing and Paying for Long-Term Care.” Paris: OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing.10.1787/9789264097759-enSearch in Google Scholar

Del Boca, Daniela. 2002. “The Effect of Child Care and Part-time Opportunities on Participation and Fertility Decisions in Italy.” Journal of Population Economics 15:549–73.10.1007/s001480100089Search in Google Scholar

Engers, Maxim, and Steven Stern. 2002. “Long-Term Care and Family Bargaining.” International Economic Review 43:73–114.10.1111/1468-2354.t01-1-00004Search in Google Scholar

Fanti, Luciano, and Luca Gori. 2012. “Fertility and PAYG Pensions in the Overlapping Generations Model.” Journal of Population Economics 25:955–61.10.1007/s00148-011-0359-7Search in Google Scholar

Fernandez, Jose-Luis, Julien Forder, and Martin Knapp. 2011. “Long-Term Care.” In The Oxford Handbook of Health Economics, edited by Sherry Glied and Peter C. Smith, 578–601. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199238828.013.0024Search in Google Scholar

Grabowski, David C., Edward C. Norton, and Courtney H. Van Houtven. 2012. “Informal Care.” In The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, second edition, edited by Andrew M. Jones, 318–28. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing.10.4337/9780857938138.00043Search in Google Scholar

Gurrίa, Angel. 30 January 2009. “Strategic Options to Finance Pensions and Healthcare in a Rapidly Ageing World.” Opening remarks by Angel Gurrίa, OECD Secretary-General, Davos (Industry Partners Session).Search in Google Scholar

Hanaoka, Chie, and Edward C. Norton. 2008. “Informal and Formal Care for Elderly Persons: How Adult Childrens Characteristics Affect the Use of Formal Care in Japan.” Social Science & Medicine 67:1002–8.10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.05.006Search in Google Scholar

Jones, Larry E., Alice Schoonbroodt, and Michele Tertilt. 2011. “Fertility Theories: Can They Explain the Negative Fertility-Income Relationship?” In Demography and the Economy, edited by John B. Shoven, 43–100. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Keeley, Brian. 2009. International Migration: The Human Face of Globalisation. Paris: OECD Publishing.10.1787/9789264055780-enSearch in Google Scholar

Laroque, Guy, and Bernard Salanié. 2008. “Does Fertility Respond to Financial Incentives?” CESifo Working Paper 2339.10.2139/ssrn.1157260Search in Google Scholar

Lo Sasso, Anthony T., and Richard W. Johnson. 2002. “Does Informal Care From Adult Children Reduce Nursing Home Admissions for the Elderly?” Inquiry 39:279–97.10.5034/inquiryjrnl_39.3.279Search in Google Scholar

Mookherjee, Dilip, Silvia Prina, and Debraj Ray. 2012. “A Theory of Occupational Choice with Endogenous Fertility.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 4:1–34.10.1257/mic.4.4.1Search in Google Scholar

Moscovice, Ira, Gestur Davidson, and David McCaffrey. 1988. “Substitution of Formal and Informal Care for the Community-Based Elderly.” Medical Care 26:971–81.10.1097/00005650-198810000-00005Search in Google Scholar

Norton, Edward C. 2003. “Long-Term Care.” In Handbook of Health Economics, edited by A.J. Culyer and J.P. Newhouse, 955–94. North-Holland: Elsevier.Search in Google Scholar

OECD. 2011a. OECD Employment Outlook 2002. Paris: OECD Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

OECD. 2011b. Society at a Glance – OECD Social Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Papacostas, Antonis. 2010. Eurobarometer 67.3: Health Care Service, Undeclared Work, EU Relations with Its Neighbor Countries, and Development Aid, May–June 2007. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Search in Google Scholar

Pezzin, Liliana E., Peter Kemper, and James Reschovsky. 1996. “Does Publicly Provided Home Care Substitute for Family Care?: Experimental Evidence with Endogenous Living Arrangements.” Journal of Human Resources 31:650–76.10.2307/146270Search in Google Scholar

Stern, Steven. 1995. “Estimating Family Long-Term Care Decisions in the Presence of Endogenous Child Characteristics.” Journal of Human Resources 30:551–80.10.2307/146035Search in Google Scholar

Van Houtven, Courtney H., and Edward C. Norton. 2004. “Informal Care and Health Care Use of Older Adults.” Journal of Health Economics 23:1159–80.10.1016/j.jhealeco.2004.04.008Search in Google Scholar

Van Houtven, Courtney H., and Edward C. Norton. 2008. “Informal Care and Medicare Expenditures: Testing for Heterogeneous Treatment Effects.” Journal of Health Economics 27:134–56.10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.03.002Search in Google Scholar

Viitanen, Tarja K. 2010. “Informal Eldercare across Europe: Estimates from the European Community Household Panel.” Economic Analysis & Policy 40:149–78.10.1016/S0313-5926(10)50023-7Search in Google Scholar

Waldfogel, Jane. 1997. “The Effect of Children on Women’s Wages.” American Sociological Review 62:209–17.10.2307/2657300Search in Google Scholar

Wilde, Elizabeth Ty, Lily Batchelder, and David T. Ellwood, “The Mommy Track Divides: The Impact of Childbearing on Wages of Women of Differing Skill Levels,” NBER Working Paper 16582.Search in Google Scholar

  1. 1

    Colombo et al. (2011) state that in Germany the shares of people aged over 65 and 80 are 20% and 5%, respectively; the corresponding data for France are 16.9% and 5.5% and those for Sweden are 18% and 5.3%.

  2. 2

    The OECD Secretary General, Angel Gurra made a corresponding statement in January 2009 [see Gurrίa (2009) cited after Fernandez et al. (2011)].

  3. 3

    In some countries, there is a compulsory long-term-care insurance as part of the social security system. However, it covers part of the costs only and is mostly means tested [see Colombo et al. (2011)].

  4. 4

    For a recent overview of these considerations, see, e.g. Fanti and Gori (2012).

  5. 5

    For a unifying approach, see Mookherjee et al. (2012); a recent survey of models that explain the relation between fertility and income is provided by Jones et al. (2011).

  6. 6

    Stern and co-authors [see, for instance, Engers and Stern (2002) and Byrne et al. (2009)] focus on intra-familial bargaining and choose a finer-grained model of the period-2 household production. They do, however, not connect child-care and long-term care. As our model aims at assessing the average effect of an institutional frame and not the intra-familial mechanisms, we omit these aspects. In the same spirit, intra-household time allocation is not included to keep the model as simple and to keep the focus on the (household–external) tradeoff between household time and market time.

  7. 7

    The integer constraint on the number of children is disregarded.

  8. 8

    Derivatives are indicated by subscripts.

  9. 9

    Due to the absence of altruism toward the children, the mother neglects the effect that fertility decisions have on the burden of long-term care services provided by their children.

  10. 10

    If were 0, all these effects would also be 0.

  11. 11

    Since our model makes ambiguous predictions, any result on the relative strength of these effects does not provide an empirical test of the model per se.

  12. 12

    We left out those six women that had no full-time education at all.

  13. 13

    Since Northern Ireland and East Germany are weighted separately, there are 29 country clusters.

  14. 14

    We have not included the wage as more direct control for the opportunity costs of time and the value of the time endowment, because the survey provides only gross income and not enough information to simulate the tax burden. Furthermore, since no information on wages of non-employed women is provided, the number of observations would be much smaller and a selection bias would occur.

  15. 15

    Working hours of formal employment are included in the Eurobarometer 67.3 survey, because the survey focused on health and undeclared work.

  16. 16

    On the effect of social security on fertility see, for instance, Cigno and Rosati (1996), Cigno et al. (2003), and Boldrin et al. (2005).

  17. 17

    According to the OECD’s (2011b) collection of social indicators, the fertility rate in 2009 has been 1.99 in France, 1.36 in Germany, and 1.94 in Sweden.

  18. 18

    Including migrants into the labor market to a bigger extent is another means. However, in a recent OECD study, Keeley (2009) shows the limits of such an inclusion.

  19. 19

    Details on differences in these arrangements are described in Colombo et al. (2011).

Published Online: 2013-7-16

©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin / Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. The Economics of Long-Term Care: An Introduction
  4. Advances
  5. The Economics of Long-Term Care
  6. Informal Care and Inter-vivos Transfers: Results from the National Longitudinal Survey of Mature Women
  7. Long-Term Care Insurance and Family Norms
  8. Long-Term Care, Altruism and Socialization
  9. Working Mums and Informal Care Givers: The Anticipation Effect
  10. Endogenous Altruism, Redistribution, and Long-Term Care
  11. Do Local Governments Respond to (Perverse) Financial Incentives in Long-Term Care Funding Schemes?
  12. Behavioral Biases and Long-Term Care Insurance: A Political Economy Approach
  13. Physical Activity and Policy Recommendations: A Social Multiplier Approach
https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2012-0023
Keywords for this article
long-term care; child care; female labor supply; fertility

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. The Economics of Long-Term Care: An Introduction
  4. Advances
  5. The Economics of Long-Term Care
  6. Informal Care and Inter-vivos Transfers: Results from the National Longitudinal Survey of Mature Women
  7. Long-Term Care Insurance and Family Norms
  8. Long-Term Care, Altruism and Socialization
  9. Working Mums and Informal Care Givers: The Anticipation Effect
  10. Endogenous Altruism, Redistribution, and Long-Term Care
  11. Do Local Governments Respond to (Perverse) Financial Incentives in Long-Term Care Funding Schemes?
  12. Behavioral Biases and Long-Term Care Insurance: A Political Economy Approach
  13. Physical Activity and Policy Recommendations: A Social Multiplier Approach
Downloaded on 2.5.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/bejeap-2012-0023/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button