birth control and women's empowerment
DESCRIPTION
Birth control and women's empowerment. Pierre Andre Chiappori Sonia Oreffice Conference: The economics of the family London, September 2006. Introduction: Abortion and ‘Female Empowerment ’. General view: abortion as ‘empowering’ women - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Birth control and women's empowerment
Pierre Andre Chiappori
Sonia Oreffice
Conference: The economics of the family
London, September 2006
Introduction: Abortion and ‘Female Empowerment’
General view: abortion as ‘empowering’ women
• Common claim in feminist and sociological literatures
• However, not obvious: clearly some women are made better off, but should we expect all women to benefit from the reform?
• In particular:– What about women who want children / exclude abortion? – What impact on the ‘market for marriage’? – What consequences on intrahousehold allocations?
Introduction: Abortion and ‘Female Empowerment’
General view: abortion as ‘empowering’ women
• Common claim in feminist and sociological literatures
• However, not obvious: clearly some women are made better off, but should we expect all women to benefit from the reform?
• In particular:– What about women who want children? – What impact on the ‘market for marriage’? – What consequences on intrahousehold allocations?
This paper• Marriage as matching (as opposed to bargaining)• Identical men; women differ in their preferences for
children• Abortion as exogenous change in birth control
technology
This paper• Marriage as matching (as opposed to bargaining)• Identical men; women differ in their preferences for
children• Abortion as exogenous change in birth control
technology
Conclusions
• Two cases (which side in excess supply?), various regimes• Women in excess supply: all women benefit in general• Crucial conditions: technology available to single as well• Plus: comparative statics• Difference with bargaining: the commitment issue
Related work• Akerlof, Yellen and Katz (1996) on out-of-wedlock
child bearing in the United States (‘shotgun marriages’)
– Related issues, different approach– Major differences:
• ‘Change in social norms’• Intrahousehold allocation as exogenous in AYK, whereas
endogeneity crucial here
Related work• Akerlof, Yellen and Katz (1996) on out-of-wedlock
child bearing in the United States (‘shotgun marriages’)
– Related issues, different approach– Major differences:
• ‘Change in social norms’• Intrahousehold allocation as exogenous in AYK, whereas
endogeneity crucial here
• Neal (2004): matching model– Similar approach; different emphasis
• ‘Collective’ models of household behavior– Same family– Idea: endogeneize the sharing rule– Examples: Chiappori-Iyigun-Weiss
The model• Continuum of men and women; one private commodity →
intrahousehold allocation of consumption an issue; children
• Men all identical; quasi linear utility if married; zero utility of children if single.
• Women: quasi linear utility where u distributed of [0,U], density f; note that utility is transferable.
• Unwanted pregnancies, probability p• Income: men Y, women y without children, z < y with children
UHaH,k aH uH.k
Ua,k a uk
The model• Continuum of men and women; one private commodity →
intrahousehold allocation of consumption an issue; children
• Men all identical; quasi linear utility if married; zero utility of children if single.
• Women: quasi linear utility where u distributed of [0,U], density f; note that utility is transferable.
• Unwanted pregnancies, probability p• Income: men Y, women y without children, z < y with children
• Frictionless marriage market (matching model); surplus generated by children
→ equilibria as stable matches
• Mass 1 of women, M of men→ excess supply of women if M < 1
UHaH,k aH uH.k
Ua,k a uk
• Single women– If u < y – z = ū : no children– Otherwise: children
Fertility decisions
• Single women– If u < y – z = ū : no children– Otherwise: children
• Couples– Efficiency: children if maximizes total surplus
– Hence: children if u >
Fertility decisions
y z uH u ;
• Single women– If u < y – z = ū : no children– Otherwise: children
• Couples– Efficiency: children if maximizes total surplus
– Hence: children if u >
• Hence three types of women (depending on preferences): – ‘low’: u < u– ‘intermediate’: u < u < ū– ‘high’: u > ū
Fertility decisions
y z uH u ;
• Single women– If u < y – z = ū : no children– Otherwise: children
• Couples– Efficiency: children if maximizes total surplus
– Hence: children if u >
• Hence three types of women (depending on preferences): – ‘low’: u < u never want a child
– ‘intermediate’: u < u < ū want a child only when married
– ‘high’: u > ū always want a child
Fertility decisions
y z uH u ;
Basic graph: husband’s maximal utility (as a function of u)
Stable match: excess supply of women
Y + uH
Y + p.uH
uuu
H
LI
Basic graph: husband’s maximal utility (as a function of u)
Stable match: excess supply of women
u(M)
Y + uH
Y + p.uH
uuu
Married Singles
Number of males
Basic graph: husband’s maximal utility (as a function of u)
Stable match: excess supply of women
u(M)
Y + uH
Y + p.uH
uuu
Married Singles
Number of males
Hence: three cases
Y + uH
Y + p.uH
uuu
Small excess supply of women (SESW)
Hence: three cases
Y + uH
Y + p.uH
uuu
Intermediate excess supply of women (IESW)
Hence: three cases
Y + uH
Y + p.uH
uuu
Large excess supply of women (LESW)
Hence three regimes
1. ‘Large’ ESW → marginal woman high type.– Some H women not matched → out-of-wedlock births– No surplus
Hence three regimes
1. ‘Large’ ESW → marginal woman high type.– Some H women not matched → out-of-wedlock births– No surplus
2. ‘Intermediate’ ESW → marginal woman intermediate type– Marginal woman: u(M) with
– No out-of-wedlock birth unless unwanted; all married couples have children
– Surplus for all married women, increases with M, max for high type
uM
Uftdt M
Y + uH
Y + p.uH
uuu
Intermediate excess supply of women (IESW)
u(M)
Hence three regimes
1. ‘Large’ ESW → marginal woman high type.– Some H women not matched → out-of-wedlock births– No surplus
2. ‘Intermediate’ ESW → marginal woman intermediate type– Marginal woman: u(M) with
– No out-of-wedlock birth unless unwanted; all married couples have children
– Surplus for all married women, increases with M, max for high type
3. ‘Small’ ESW → marginal woman low type– No out-of-wedlock birth unless unwanted; some married couples
don’t have children– Surplus for all married women, independent of M, max for high.
uM
Uftdt M
Y + uH
Y + p.uH
uuu
Small excess supply of women (IESW)
u(M)
Excess Supply of Men
At any stable equilibrium:• All women married, receive all the surplus• ‘High’ and ‘intermediate’ types have
children• ‘Low’ type don’t.
Comparative statics: income
• Women’s welfare non decreasing in y and z. • Assume, for instance, a proportional increase in
y and z. Then: – Less H, more L → fertility decreases– The equilibrium may switch (from LESW to IESW to
SESW) → larger rents for women, smaller for men
→ In a sense, income growth alleviates ESW
uuu
u(M)
uuu
u(M)
Comparative statics: cutting male supply
• Within each regime: – No impact if LESW or SESW– IESW: higher u(M) reduces female surplus
Y + uH
Y + p.uH
Married Singles
u(M)
Y + uH
Y + p.uH
Married Singles
u(M)
Comparative statics: cutting male supply
• Within each regime: – No impact if LESW or SESW– IESW: higher u(M) reduces female surplus
• Change of regime: – All women lose – From IESW to LESW: reduces total fertility,
increases out-of-wedlock fertility.
Y + uH
Y + p.uH
uuu
From IESW to LESW
Single parent benefits
• More high type women → fertility increases
• May change regime to LESW → out-of-wedlock fertility increases
• Welfare: within a constant regime– All women gain– Married women (who do not receive the benefit)
may gain more (per capita) than most singles. – Men lose the same amount.
• If regime changes: more complex
Application: the US over three decades
Major trends:
Application: the US over three decades
Major trends:1. Per capita benefits increase then decrease
Benefits
Source: Moffit JEL 1992
Application: the US over three decades
Major trends:1. Per capita benefits increase then decrease 2. Drop in the ‘supply’ of black, HS drop-out males
Source: U.S. Department of Justice
Source: U.S. Department of Justice
Source: Western-Pettit, ILRR 2000
Source: Neal JHR 2004
Source: Neal JHR 2004
Source: Neal JHR 2004
Hence:
• Benefits: – Inverted U-shape– Note that the impact is not differentiated by race
• Supply of male: – Strong reduction of male supply… – … concentrated on young, black, HS dropouts
Hence:
• Benefits: – Inverted U-shape– Note that the impact is not differentiated by race
• Supply of male: – Strong reduction of male supply… – … concentrated on young, black, HS dropouts
Impact on marriage and fertility?
Source: Neal JHR 2004
Source: Neal JHR 2004
Source: Neal JHR 2004
Source: Neal JHR 2004
Legalizing abortion
• ESM: straightforward• ESW: more interesting
Legalizing abortion
• ESM: straightforward• ESW: more interesting
u(M)
Y + uH
uuu
Y
Y + p.uH
Legalizing abortion
• ESM: straightforward• ESW: more interesting
– Women not wanting kids gain
Legalizing abortion
• ESM: straightforward• ESW: more interesting
– Women not wanting kids gain– If LESW: no impact on married women
• Men’s welfare: cannot increase– If LESW: no difference
uuu
Legalizing abortion
• ESM: straightforward• ESW: more interesting
– Women not wanting kids gain– If LESW: no impact on married women– If S- or I-ESW: all married women gain, including
those who want childrenIntuition: single are better off, and indifference
• Men’s welfare: cannot increase– If LESW: no difference– If IESW: total surplus unchanged, wife’s share
increased
uuu
Legalizing abortion
• ESM: straightforward• ESW: more interesting
– Women not wanting kids gain– If LESW: no impact on married women– If S- or I-ESW: all married women gain, including
those who want childrenIntuition: single are better off, and indifference
• Men’s welfare: cannot increase– If LESW: no difference– If IESW: total surplus unchanged, wife’s share
increased– If SESW: LT lose unwanted births; for all others,
wife’s share increased
uuu
Legalizing abortion
• ESM: straightforward• ESW: more interesting
– Women not wanting kids gain– If LESW: no impact on married women– If S- or I-ESW: all married women gain, including
those who want childrenIntuition: single are better off, and indifference
• Men’s welfare: cannot increase– If LESW: no difference– If SESW or IESW:
net transfer to the wife!
‘The Pill’
What if technology reserved to married women?
‘The Pill’
What if technology reserved to married women?
Y + p.uH
Y + uH
u2 u1 u
‘The Pill’
What if technology reserved to married women?
Married Married Singles
Y + p.uH
Y + uH
u2 u1 u
Hence:
• Women with u ≥ u2(M): married, children, lose
• Women with u (M) ≤ u < u2(M): single (instead of married), lose
• Women with u 1(M) ≤ u < u(M): single anyway, no change
• Women with u < u1(M): married (instead of single), gain
Conclusion: most married women lose
Hence:
• Women with u ≥ u2(M): married, children, lose
• Women with u (M) ≤ u < u2(M): single (instead of married), lose
• Women with u 1(M) ≤ u < u(M): single anyway, no change
• Women with u < u1(M): married (instead of single), gain
Conclusion: most married women lose
The new technology helps married women (who do not use it), but only insofar as it is available to
singles
Extension 1: costly access
Y-(1-p)c+uH
u - c u
Y + uH
Y + p.uH
Y
Y+pc
Idea: fixed cost c for all
Extension 1: costly access
• New technology favors all women in general, including those who do not want to use it
(idea: one marginal woman at least uses it)
• However, restrictions to access harm all women in general, including those who do not want to use it and those who can afford it.
• Example: Hyde Amendment (1976)!
• Problem: definition of a ‘market’!
Extension 2: heterogeneous costs
• Idea; ‘psychological’ costs differ
• Extreme case: zero for some, large for others
Extension 2: heterogeneous costs
Y-(1-p)c+uH
Y + uH
Y + p.uH
Y
Y+pc
Extension 2: shotgun marriages
Claim (AYK 96): abortion lead to disappearance of shotgun marriages, which harmed women.
Extension 3: shotgun marriages
Claim (AYK 96): abortion lead to disappearance of shotgun marriages, which harmed women.
Empirical problems (Neal 2004):
• Why only for poor and minorities?
• Adoptions did not increase.
Extension 3: shotgun marriages
Claim (AYK 96): abortion lead to disappearance of shotgun marriages, which harmed women.
Empirical problems (Neal 2004):• Why only for poor and minorities?• Adoptions did not increase.
Theoretical problem:
Intrahousehold allocation is not exogenous!
→ ‘female pauperization’ a complex issue…
Extension 3: shotgun marriages (cont.)
In our model:
• Suppressing shotgun marriage does not harm women…
• … unless it cuts the supply of men.
Empirically: unclear
Fraction of single men among all employed men (PSID)
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Year
Fraction of single men among all employed men (PSID)
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Year
Deviation from the average annual change in the fraction of single men (PSID)
-0.01
-0.008
-0.006
-0.004
-0.002
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
‘Female empowerment’: empirical test 1 (Oreffice 2004)
Basic idea: labor supply (CFL 1998)– ‘empowerment’: she receives a larger share
of household resources– If leisure normal:
• she should work less• he should work more
– Need to control for wages, education,…– Findings: Prediction confirmed!
Source: Oreffice 2004
Source: Oreffice 2004
‘Female empowerment’: empirical test 2 (Mazzocco, Chiappori 2004)
Divorce in Ireland
Stylized facts: • legalization of divorce, but actual number very small• Strong labor demand, increase in participation
Theory: • Labor demand → potential empowerment of women • Divorce law as triggering renegotiations• Working women: same effect as before• Non working women: need to ‘build up a threat point’
→ increased participation
Tests: confirm the predictions
Discussion
Heterogeneous males• by income: same• by preferences: supermodular; more complex, similar
predictions
Commitment versus bargaining• Basic insight: ‘market’ conditions matter• One interpretation: commitment (‘prenuptial agreement’)• Alternative polar case: ‘pure’ bargaining.• Differences:
– the existence of an ‘abortion threat’ matters only if credible– therefore: no impact on women unwilling to use abortion.– exclusive availability to married women does not matter
Conclusions
Very simple model …• Multiple dimensions (income,…)• Frictions• Dynamics (age of marriage; divorce;…)
… but some robust conclusions:• Intrahousehold allocation crucial; equilibrium• Various ‘submarkets’ (empirical translation?)
• General insight: an innovation (technology, but also policy,…) can have a major impact on people not directly affected
→ Cost-benefit analysis!