Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Fiscal and redistributive impacts of the introduction of dynamic components in maternity benefits

Abstract

Research background: Social security systems combine several subsystems aimed at addressing the risks of temporary or permanent loss of an individual's income. The subject of the research are parametric changes of alternative public policy aimed at addressing the temporary loss of income caused by the dropout from the labour market due to childcare. The effects of public policies may be fiscally neutral from the entire system, but not from the point of view of the individual.

Purpose of the article: The purpose of this study is to examine the fiscal and redistributive effects of parametric changes in social insurance subsystem with an accent on maternity benefits in the conditions of the Slovak Republic by using a modified microsimulation model.

Methods: Using a microsimulation model, we investigate the impacts of the alternative policy setting. Microsimulation model contains four basic modules (i) macroeconomic module, (ii) demographic module simulating future population structure from 2017 to 2080 (iii) status module modelling particular attributes (characteristics), (iv) social policy module. The model is applied to maternity benefits in two scenarios in the Slovak Republic: scenario 1 ? the current legislative setting of maternity benefit policy parameters and scenario 2 ? dynamic maternity benefit.

Findings & value added: Results in the area of redistributive impacts in social insurance focused on maternity benefits show that dynamic policy parameters can positively affect work-life balance, especially for individuals with higher education. The results in the area of fiscal impacts show that the dynamic model of maternity benefits increases the efficiency of public spending and stimulates the faster return on the labour market. The results indicate the direction of possible government interventions and provide valuable information for policy makers in areas public policies that are associated with temporary labour market dropouts in the case of maternity.

Keywords

maternity benefits, social policy, work-life balance, redistribution impacts, fiscal impacts, microsimulation

PDF

References

  1. Adda, J., Dustmann, C., & Stevens, K. (2017). The career costs of children. Journal of Political Economy, 125(2), 293?337. doi: 10.1086/690952. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/690952
    View in Google Scholar
  2. Adsera, A. (2005). Vanishing children: from high unemployment to low fertility in developed countries. American Economic Review, 95(2), 189?193. doi: 10.1257 /000282805774669763. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/000282805774669763
    View in Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, D. J., Binder, M., & Krause, K. (2003). The motherhood wage penalty revisited: experience, heterogeneity, work effort, and work-schedule flexibility. Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 56(2), 273?294. doi: 10.2307/35909 38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001979390305600204
    View in Google Scholar
  4. Ayllón, S. (2019). Job insecurity and fertility in Europe. Review of Economics of the Household, 17, 1321?1347. doi: 10.1007/s1115 0-019-09450-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-019-09450-5
    View in Google Scholar
  5. Balco, M., Šebo, J., Mešťan, M., & Šebová, Ľ. (2018). Application of the lifecycle theory in Slovak pension system. Ekonomický časopis, 66(1), 64?80.
    View in Google Scholar
  6. Baroni, E., Zamac, J., & Öberg, G. (2009). IFSIM handbook. Institute for Futures Studies, Stockholm Working Paper, 7.
    View in Google Scholar
  7. Billingsley, S., Neyer, G., & Wesolowski, K. (2018). The influence of family policies on womens childbearing: a longitudinal micro-data analysis of 21 countries. Stockholm University, Stockholm Research Reports in Demography, 19. doi: 10.17045/sthlmuni.6754193.v1.
    View in Google Scholar
  8. Cazzola, A., Pasquini, L., & Angeli, A. (2016). The relationship between unemployment and fertility in Italy: a time-series analysis. Demographic Research, 34(1), 1?38. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2016.34.1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2016.34.1
    View in Google Scholar
  9. Comolli, Ch. L. (2017). The fertility response to the great recession in Europe and the United States: structural economic conditions and perceived economic uncertainty. Demographic Research, 36, 1549?1600. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2017. 36.51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2017.36.51
    View in Google Scholar
  10. Correll, S. J., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1297?1339. doi: 10.1086/511 799. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/511799
    View in Google Scholar
  11. Currie, J., & Schwandt, H. (2014). Short-and long-term effects of unemployment on fertility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(41), 14734?14739. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1408975111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1408975111
    View in Google Scholar
  12. Cygan-Rehm, K. (2016). Parental leave benefit and differential fertility responses: evidence from a German reform. Journal of Population Economics, 29(1), 73?103. doi: 10.1007/s00148-015-0562-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-015-0562-z
    View in Google Scholar
  13. Černam, M., & Dujava, D. (2021). What is cost of a child? Analysis of the impact of parenthood on mothers' and fathers' incomes. Retrieved form https://www.mfsr.sk/sk/financie/institut-financnej-politiky/publikacie-ifp/kome ntare/komentare-z-roku-2021/10-kolko-stoji-dieta-jul-2021.html (20.11.2021).
    View in Google Scholar
  14. Dančíková, Z. (2020). Even men can't have it all: maternity leave for fathers and the entry of mothers into work. Retrieved form https://www.mfsr.sk /sk/financie/institut-financnej-politiky/publikacie-ifp/komentare/komentare-z-r oku-2020/6-ani-muzi-nemozu-mat-vsetko-materska-otcov-nastup-matiek-do-pr ace-jun-2020.html (26.06.2020).
    View in Google Scholar
  15. Esping-Andersen, G. (2009). The incomplete revolution: adapting to women?s new roles. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    View in Google Scholar
  16. European Commission (2008). Work-life balance package. MEMO / 08 / 603. Retrieved form http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-08-603_en.htm.
    View in Google Scholar
  17. European Commission (2018). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the development of childcare facilities for young children with a view to increase female labour participation, strike a work-life balance for working parents and bring about sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe (the "Barcelona objectives"). Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018DC0273.
    View in Google Scholar
  18. European Commission (2019). Key data on early childhood education and care in Europe ? 2019 edition. Eurydice report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
    View in Google Scholar
  19. European Commission (2021). The childcare gap in EU member states. Retrieved form https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=837 8&furtherPubs=yes.
    View in Google Scholar
  20. European parliament (2015). Maternity, paternity and parental leave: data related to duration and compensation rates in the European Union. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/509999/IPOL_SU(2015)509999_EN.pdf.
    View in Google Scholar
  21. Fernández-Kranz, D., Lacuesta, A., & Rodríguez-Planas, N. (2013). The motherhood earnings Dip: evidence from administrative records. Journal of Human Resources, 48(1), 169?197. doi: 10.1353/jhr.2013.0007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jhr.2013.0007
    View in Google Scholar
  22. Ferragina, E. (2019). Does family policy influence women?s employment? Reviewing the evidence in the field. Political Studies Review, 17(1), 65?80. doi: 10.1177/1478929917736438. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929917736438
    View in Google Scholar
  23. Fodor, J., & Cenker, J. (2019). Default strategy in pension saving. The case of Slovakia. Institut financnej politiky. Economics analysis, 51. Retrieved form https://www.mfsr.sk/files/archiv/48/Lifecycling_analysis.pdf
    View in Google Scholar
  24. Gerbery, D. (2017). Family policy in Slovakia aimed at supporting families with dependent children. Forum Socialni Politiky, 11(4), 1?10.
    View in Google Scholar
  25. Geyer, J., Haan, P., & Wrohlich, K., (2014). The effects of family policy on maternal labour supply: combining evidence from a structural model and a quasi-experimental approach. Labour Economics, 36(13), 84?98. doi: 10.1016/j.labec o.2015.07.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2015.07.001
    View in Google Scholar
  26. Hegewisch, A., & Gornick, J. (2011). The impact of work-family policies on women's employment: a review of research from OECD countries. Community, Work & Family, 14(2), 119?138. doi: 10.1080/13668803.2011.571395. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2011.571395
    View in Google Scholar
  27. Hidas, S., & Horváthová, V. (2018). Women still can't have it all. Barriers to higher maternal employment in Slovakia. Retrieved form https://www.finance .gov.sk/sk/financie/institut-financnej-politiky/publikacie-ifp/ekonomicke-analy zy/48-women-still-cant-have-it-all-barriers-higher-maternal-employment-slova kia-maj-2018-2.html.
    View in Google Scholar
  28. Hofmann, B., & Hohmeyer, K. (2012). Perceived economic uncertainty and fertility. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(2), 503?521.doi: 10.1111/jomf.12011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12011
    View in Google Scholar
  29. Kinoshita, Y., & Guo, F. (2015). What can boost female labour force participation in Asia? IMF Working Paper, WP/15/56. doi: 10.5089/9781498329750.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5089/9781498329750.001
    View in Google Scholar
  30. Kleven, H., Landais, C., Posch, J., Steinhauer, A., & Zweimüller, J. (2019). Child penalties across countries: evidence and explanations. NBER Working Paper, 25524. doi: 10.3386/w25524. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w25524
    View in Google Scholar
  31. Kocourková, J., Šťastná, A., & Černíková, A. (2019). The impact of the economic crisis on fertility levels in EU member states. Politicka Ekonomie, 67(1), 82?104. doi: 10.18267/j.polek.1230 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18267/j.polek.1230
    View in Google Scholar
  32. Kohler, H. P., Billari, F. C., & Ortega, J. A. (2002). The emergence of lowest-low fertility in Europe during the 1990s. Population and Development Review, 28(4), 641?680. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2002.00641.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2002.00641.x
    View in Google Scholar
  33. Kreyenfeld, M., & Andersson, G. (2014). Socioeconomic differences in the unemployment and fertility nexus: evidence from Denmark and Germany. Advances in Life Course Research, 21, 59?73. doi: 10.1016/j.alcr.2014.01.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2014.01.007
    View in Google Scholar
  34. Kreyenfeld, M., Andersson, G., & Pailhe, A. (2012). Economic uncertainty and family dynamics. Demographic Research, Special Collection 12. 835?852. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2012.27.28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2012.27.28
    View in Google Scholar
  35. Leers, T., Meijdam, A. C. & Verbon, H., A. A. (2001). The politics of pension reform under ageing. CESifo Working Paper, 521. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.277367
    View in Google Scholar
  36. Liechti, L. (2017). Resource-related inequalities in mothers? employment in two family-policy regimes: evidence from Switzerland and West Germany. European Societies, 19(1), 91?112. doi: 10.1080/14616696.2016.1258083. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2016.1258083
    View in Google Scholar
  37. Luci-Greulich, A., & Thévenon, O. (2013). The impact of family policies on fertility trends in developed countries. European Journal of Population, 29(4), 387?416. doi: 10.1007/s10680-013-9295-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-013-9295-4
    View in Google Scholar
  38. Masselot, A. (2018). Family leave: enforcement of the protection against dismissal and unfavourable treatment. European Commission B-1049. Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union.
    View in Google Scholar
  39. Matysiak, A., Sobotka, T., & Vignoli, D. (2021). The great recession and fertility in Europe: a sub-national analysis. European Journal of Population, 37(1), 29?64. doi: 10.1007/s10680-020-09556-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-020-09556-y
    View in Google Scholar
  40. Matysiak, A., & Vignoli, D. (2013). Diverse effects of women?s employment on fertility: insights from Italy and Poland. European Journal of Population, 29(3), 273?302. doi: 10.1007/s10680-013-9287-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-013-9287-4
    View in Google Scholar
  41. Moene, K., O., & Wallerstein, M. (2001). Inequality, social insurance, and redistribution. American Political Science Review, 95(4), 859?874. doi: 10.1017/S000 3055400400067. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400400067
    View in Google Scholar
  42. Müller, K.-U., & Wrohlich, K. (2020). Does subsidized care for toddlers increase maternal labour supply? Evidence from a large-scale expansion of early childcare. Labour Economics, 62, 101776. doi: 10.1016/j.labeco.2019.101776. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2019.101776
    View in Google Scholar
  43. NBER (2018). US business cycle expansions and contractions. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/research/data/us-business-cycle-expansions-and-contracti ons (27.11.2021).
    View in Google Scholar
  44. Neels, K. (2010). Temporal variation in unemployment rates and their association with tempo and quantum of fertility: some evidence for Belgium, France and the Netherlands. Retrieved from https://paa2010.princeton.edu/papers/101064 (15.10.2021).
    View in Google Scholar
  45. Neyer, G., & Andersson, G. (2008). Consequences of family policies on childbearing behavior: effects or artifacts? Population and Development Review, 34(4), 699?724. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2008.00246.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2008.00246.x
    View in Google Scholar
  46. OECD (2022). OECD family database. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org /els/family/database.htm (4.3. 2021).
    View in Google Scholar
  47. Olivetti, C., & Petrongolo, B. (2017). The economic consequences of family policies: lessons from a century of legislation in high-income countries. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(1), 205?230. doi: 10.1257/jep.31.1.205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.1.205
    View in Google Scholar
  48. Pailhé, A., & Solaz, A. (2012). The influence of employment uncertainty on childbearing in France: a tempo or quantum effect? Demographic Research, 26(1), 1?40. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2012.26.1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2012.26.1
    View in Google Scholar
  49. Raute, A. (2019). Can financial incentives reduce the baby gap? Evidence from a reform in maternity leave benefits. Journal of Public Economics, 169, 203?222. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.07.010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.07.010
    View in Google Scholar
  50. Rossin-Slater, M. (2017). Maternity and family leave policy. NBER Working Paper, 23069. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2903122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2903122
    View in Google Scholar
  51. Šebo, J., Danková, D., & Králik, I. (2020). Projecting a life-cycle income ? a simulation model for the Slovak pension benefit statement. Olsztyn Economic Journal, 15(4), 271?284. doi: 10.31648/oej.6380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31648/oej.6380
    View in Google Scholar
  52. Seltzer, N. (2019). Beyond the great recession: labour market polarization and ongoing fertility decline in the United States. Demography, 56(4), 1463?1493. doi: 10.1007/s13524-019-00790-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-019-00790-6
    View in Google Scholar
  53. Skrętowicz, B., & Wójcik, M. (2016). Unemployment in selected EU countries. Olsztyn Economic Journal, 11(3), 211?226. doi: 10.31648/oej.2926. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31648/oej.2926
    View in Google Scholar
  54. Sobotka, T., Matysiak, A., & Brzozowska, Z. (2020). Policy responses to low fertility: how effective are they? UNFPA Working Paper, 1.
    View in Google Scholar
  55. Spielauer, M. (2016). Whas is dynamic social science microsimulation? Retrieved form https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/microsimulation/modgen/new/chap1-eng. pdf (27.12.2021).
    View in Google Scholar
  56. Stadelmann?Steffen, I. (2011). Dimensions of family policy and female labour market participation: analyzing group?specific policy effects. Governance, 24(2), 331?357. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2011.01521.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2011.01521.x
    View in Google Scholar
  57. Strang, L., & Broeks, M. (2017). Maternity leave policies: trade-offs between labour market demands and health benefits for children (Research report RR-1734-EC). doi: 10.7249/RR1734. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7249/RR1734
    View in Google Scholar
  58. Wesolowski, K., & Ferrarini, T. (2018). Family policies and fertility: examining the link between family policy institutions and fertility rates in 33 countries 1995-2011. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 38(11-12), 1057?1070. doi: 10.1108/IJSSP-04-2018-0052. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-04-2018-0052
    View in Google Scholar

Similar Articles

1-10 of 311

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.