Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy

Editor-in-Chief: Jürges, Hendrik / Ludwig, Sandra

Ed. by Auriol , Emmanuelle / Brunner, Johann / Fleck, Robert / Mendola, Mariapia / Requate, Till / Schirle, Tammy / de Vries, Frans / Zulehner, Christine

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.252
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.755

CiteScore 2016: 0.48

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.330
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.526

Online
ISSN
1935-1682
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 14, Issue 3

Issues

Volume 18 (2018)

Volume 6 (2006)

Volume 4 (2004)

Volume 2 (2002)

Volume 1 (2001)

To Work or Not to Work? The Effect of Childcare Subsidies on the Labour Supply of Parents

Tuomas Kosonen
Published Online: 2014-05-29 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2013-0073

Abstract

This paper studies the effect of childcare subsidies on parental labour supply. I use variation arising from changes in the municipality-specific supplement to Finnish child homecare allowance to identify the causal effect of subsidies on the labour force participation of parents. The variation in labour supply incentives is plausibly exogenous, since eligibility depends on municipal-level rules, but not on family income. Robustness checks indicate that the results are not driven by policy endogeneity or residential sorting. I find a robust result that 100 euros higher supplement per month reduces the maternal labour supply by 3 percentage points.

Keywords: parental labour supply; childcare subsidies; participation elasticity

JEL Classification: J22; J13; H22

References

  • Baker, M., J. Gruber, and K. Milligan. 2008. “Universal Child Care, Maternal Labour Supply and Family Well-Being.” Journal of Political Economy 116(4):709–45.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Baker, M., and K. Milligan. 2008. “How Does Job-Protected Maternity Leave Affect Mothers’ Employment?” Journal of Labour Economics 26(4):655–91.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Baker, M., and K. Milligan. 2010. “Evidence from Maternity Leave Expansions of the Impact of Maternal Care on Early Child Development.” Journal of Human Resources 45(1):1–32.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bertrand, M., E. Duflo, and S. Mullainathan. 2004. “How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 119(1):249–75.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Blundell, R., A. Duncan, J. McCrae, and C. Meghir. 2000. “The Labour Market Impact of the Working Families’ Tax Credit.” Fiscal Studies 21(1):75–104.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brewer, M., A. Duncan, A. Shephard, and M. Suaréz. 2006. “Did Working Families’ Tax Credit Work? The Impact of in-Work Support on Labour Supply in Great Britain.” Labour Economics 13:699–720.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Card, D., and P. Levine. 2000. “Extended Benefits and the Duration of UI Spells: Evidence from the New Jersey Extended Benefit Program.” Journal of Public Economics 78:107–38.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cascio, E. 2009. “Maternal Labor Supply and the Introduction of Kindergartens into American Public Schools.” Journal of Human Resources 44(1):140–69.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Eissa, N. 1995. “Taxation and Labor Supply of Married Women: The Tax Reform Act of 1986 as a Natural Experiment.” NBER Working Paper 5023.Google Scholar

  • Eissa, N., and H. Hoynes. 2004. “Taxes and the Labour Market Participation of Married Couples: The Earned Income Tax Credit.” Journal of Public Economics 88:1931–58.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Eissa, N., and J. Liebman. 1996. “Labor Supply Response to the Earned Income Tax Credit.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 111(2):605–37.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Felfe, C., M. Lechner, and P. Thiemann. 2013. “After-School Care and Parents’ Labor Supply.” IZA Discussion Paper, No. 7768.Google Scholar

  • Fitzpatrick, M. 2010. “Preschoolers Enrolled and Mothers at Work? The Effects of Universal Prekindergarten.” Journal of Labor Economics 28(1):51–85.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gathmann, C., and B. Sass. 2012. “Taxing Childcare: Effects on Family Labor Supply and Children.” IZA Discussion Paper No. 6440.Google Scholar

  • Gelbach, J. 2002. “Public Schooling for Young Children and Maternal Labor Supply.” American Economic Review 92(1):307–22.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gonzalez, L. 2013. “The Effect of a Universal Child Benefit on Conceptions, Abortions, and Early Maternal Labor Supply.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 5(3):160–88.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Goux, D., and E. Maurin. 2010. “Public School Availability for Two-Year Olds and Mothers’ Labour Supply.” Labour Economics 17:951–62.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Havnes, T., and M. Mogstad. 2011. “Money for Nothing? Universal Child Care and Maternal Employment.” Journal of Public Economics 95:1455–65.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Heckman, J. 1974. “Shadow Prices, Market Wages, and Labor Supply.” Econometrica 42(4):679–94.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lalive, R., and J. Zweimuller. 2004. “Benefit Entitlement and Unemployment Duration. The Role of Policy Endogeneity.” Journal of Public Economics 88:2587–616.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lefebvre, P., and P. Merrigan. 2008. “Child-Care Policy and the Labour Supply of Mothers with Young Children: A Natural Experiment from Canada.” Journal of Labour Economics 26(3):519–48.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lundin, D., E. Mörk, and B. Öckert. 2008. “How Far Can Reduced Childcare Prices Push Female Labour Supply?” Labour Economics 15(4):647–59.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Milligan, K., and M. Stabile. 2007. “The Integration of Child Tax Credits and Welfare: Evidence from the Canadian National Child Benefit Program.” Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier 91(1–2):305–26.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mirrlees Review. 2011. “Tax by Design: The Mirrlees Review.” In Tax by design, edited by J. Mirrlees, S. Adam, T. Besley, R. Blundell, S. Bond, R. Chote, M. Gammie, P. Johnson, G. Myles, and J. Poterba. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Naz, G. 2004. “The Impact of Cash-Benefit Reform on Parents’ Labour Force Participation.” Journal of Population Economics 17:369–83.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nollenberger, N., and N. Rodríguez-Planas. 2011. “Child Care, Maternal Employment and Persistence: A Natural Experiment from Spain.” IZA Discussion Paper No. 5888.Google Scholar

  • OECD. 2009. “Pensions at a Glance 2009: Retirement-Income Systems in OECD Countries.”Google Scholar

  • Saez, E. 2002. “Optimal Income Transfer Programs: Intensive versus Extensive Labor Supply Responses.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 117(3):1039–73.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schone, P. 2004. “Labour Supply Effects of a Cash-for-Care Subsidy.” Journal of Population Economics 17:703–27.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Simonsen, M. 2010. “Price of High-Quality Daycare and Female Employment.” Scandinavian Journal of Economics 112(3):570–94.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Viitanen, T. 2007. “Childcare Voucher and Labour Market Behaviour: Experimental Evidence From Finland.” Sheffield Economic Research Paper Series, SERP Number: 2007011, UK.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2014-05-29

Published in Print: 2014-07-01


This is subsidized from a different allowance, the private daycare allowance, and is more attractive for the third party (the carer).

This is stated in legislation. Before 1995 the law stated that every child under the age of 4 is entitled to a place in public daycare.

This system has been in place nationwide since 1997. Between 1995 and 1997 there was an experiment in 33 municipalities that provided a similar allowance. Viitanen (2007) found a positive effect on the use of private daycare, but little effect on labour force participation.

In some rare cases the supplement does depend on family income. Excluding such municipalities does not change the results, and these cases are not part of the main analysis.

There are cities in both supplement and no-supplement municipalities. However, supplement municipalities are on average more populous.

In the rotating panel each household is surveyed in two consecutive years and each year half of the sample consists of new households. Thus there are two consecutive observations for each individual.

More specifically I measured income for women between 20 and 59 years old and not on sick leave, retired or otherwise outside of the labour force.

The average net-of-tax income per month for a woman working full time is around 1,500 (own calculations).

Some of the municipal supplement rules were simplified in order to be able to calculate the leads and lags, like removing the age restrictions of the sibling extras to the supplement. These simplifications do not affect the euro amounts of the supplement much and, more importantly, do not delete or create any reforms to supplement policies. The regression included municipal and year dummies, as well as dummies for every 2 years of age of the youngest child and controls for characteristics of the mother.

Finnish municipalities are typically large in surface area. Thus moving to another municipality usually means moving to a completely different city or town.

The other definition is the number of months worked as based on a survey question. The results for this are shown in Table 11. There is a measurement error in this variable, thus I did not use it in the main estimates.

For participation essentially the same set of results emerged when the participation threshold was defined as 30% of the mean income of the education group.


Citation Information: The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, Volume 14, Issue 3, Pages 817–848, ISSN (Online) 1935-1682, ISSN (Print) 2194-6108, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2013-0073.

Export Citation

©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin / Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in