Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v28y2016i4p386-409.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A network approach to economic models of fertility

Author

Listed:
  • Yoosik Youm

    (Yonsei University, South Korea)

  • Byungkyu Lee

    (Columbia University, USA)

Abstract
Since its first appearance in the late 1950s, the neoclassical economic theory of fertility, particularly as exemplified by Gary Becker’s model of household production function that assumes a unitary utility function of the household, has become one of the most popular paradigms with which to examine fertility changes. Recently, the bargaining model that assumes separate utility functions has emerged as a strong opponent to the original paradigm. This article provides network foundation to reconcile two competing economic paradigms. Our formal model predicts that the way in which separate utilities of couples are treated in their joint childbearing decisions depends on the network embeddedness of spouses (i.e. the intra-household network). If spouses are not embedded into each other’s networks, the assumption of the unitary utility function is no longer warranted, and their decision process follows the bargaining model. However, strongly embedded couples behave as if they share the common utility function, predicted by the Becker model. Our model prediction is supported by analysis of three waves of panel data, Korean Longitudinal Survey of Women and Families, collected in South Korea where a dramatic drop in the fertility rate is reported. We find that the wife’s bargaining power, measured by the income difference between couples, can exert its influence on having a new-born child only when couples’ intra-household networks are weakly embedded, whereas strongly embedded couples consistently maintain high fertility rates regardless of how much the wife earns. We conclude that social networks play a significant role in shaping how neoclassical economic models of fertility work and discuss its implication to the efforts enhancing the fertility rate.

Suggested Citation

  • Yoosik Youm & Byungkyu Lee, 2016. "A network approach to economic models of fertility," Rationality and Society, , vol. 28(4), pages 386-409, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:28:y:2016:i:4:p:386-409
    DOI: 10.1177/1043463116658867
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1043463116658867
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1043463116658867?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kincaid, D. Lawrence, 2000. "Social networks, ideation, and contraceptive behavior in Bangladesh: a longitudinal analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 215-231, January.
    2. Christoph Bühler & Dimiter Philipov, 2005. "Social capital related to fertility: theoretical foundations and empirical evidence from Bulgaria," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2005-016, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    3. Lundberg, Shelly & Pollak, Robert A, 1993. "Separate Spheres Bargaining and the Marriage Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(6), pages 988-1010, December.
    4. Federico Ciliberto & Amalia R. Miller & Helena Skyt Nielsen & Marianne Simonsen, 2016. "Playing The Fertility Game At Work: An Equilibrium Model Of Peer Effects," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 57(3), pages 827-856, August.
    5. Karina Shreffler & Amy Pirretti & Robert Drago, 2010. "Work–Family Conflict and Fertility Intentions: Does Gender Matter?," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 228-240, June.
    6. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    7. Rebecca L. Sandefur & Edward O. Laumann, 1998. "A Paradigm For Social Capital," Rationality and Society, , vol. 10(4), pages 481-501, November.
    8. Alderman, Harold, et al, 1995. "Unitary versus Collective Models of the Household: Is It Time to Shift the Burden of Proof?," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, February.
    9. Kohler, Hans-Peter, 2000. "Fertility decline as a coordination problem," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 231-263, December.
    10. Ken Binmore & Ariel Rubinstein & Asher Wolinsky, 1986. "The Nash Bargaining Solution in Economic Modelling," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(2), pages 176-188, Summer.
    11. Gary S. Becker & H. Gregg Lewis, 1974. "Interaction between Quantity and Quality of Children," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of the Family: Marriage, Children, and Human Capital, pages 81-90, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Nicoletta Balbo & Francesco C. Billari & Melinda Mills, 2013. "Fertility in Advanced Societies: A Review of Research," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(1), pages 1-38, February.
    13. Duncan Thomas, 1990. "Intra-Household Resource Allocation: An Inferential Approach," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 25(4), pages 635-664.
    14. Lundberg, Shelly & Pollak, Robert A, 1994. "Noncooperative Bargaining Models of Marriage," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(2), pages 132-137, May.
    15. Larry E. Jones & Alice Schoonbroodt & Michèle Tertilt, 2010. "Fertility Theories: Can They Explain the Negative Fertility-Income Relationship?," NBER Chapters, in: Demography and the Economy, pages 43-100, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Doepke, Matthias, 2015. "Gary Becker On The Quantity And Quality Of Children," Journal of Demographic Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(1), pages 59-66, March.
    17. Stark, Oded, 1984. "Bargaining, Altruism, and Demographic Phenomena," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 10(4), pages 679-692.
    18. Bourguignon, Francois & Chiappori, Pierre-Andre, 1992. "Collective models of household behavior : An introduction," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(2-3), pages 355-364, April.
    19. Yoosik Youm & Edward O. Laumann, 2003. "The Effect of Structural Embeddedness on the Division of Household Labor: A Game-Theoretic Model Using a Network Approach," Rationality and Society, , vol. 15(2), pages 243-280, May.
    20. Cho, Donghun & Cho, Joonmo & Song, Bohwa, 2010. "An empirical analysis of the gender earnings gap between the public and private sectors in Korea: A comparative study with the US," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 441-456, September.
    21. Paul A. Samuelson, 1956. "Social Indifference Curves," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 70(1), pages 1-22.
    22. Torkild Lyngstad & Alexia Prskawetz, 2010. "Do siblings’ fertility decisions influence each other?," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 47(4), pages 923-934, November.
    23. Gary S. Becker & Robert J. Barro, 1988. "A Reformulation of the Economic Theory of Fertility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 103(1), pages 1-25.
    24. Shelly J. Lundberg & Robert A. Pollak & Terence J. Wales, 1997. "Do Husbands and Wives Pool Their Resources? Evidence from the United Kingdom Child Benefit," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 32(3), pages 463-480.
    25. Manser, Marilyn & Brown, Murray, 1980. "Marriage and Household Decision-Making: A Bargaining Analysis," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 21(1), pages 31-44, February.
    26. Christoph Bühler & Dimiter Philipov, 2005. "Social Capital Related to Fertility: Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Evidence from Bulgaria," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 3(1), pages 53-81.
    27. Rasul, Imran, 2008. "Household bargaining over fertility: Theory and evidence from Malaysia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 215-241, June.
    28. Gary S. Becker, 1960. "An Economic Analysis of Fertility," NBER Chapters, in: Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries, pages 209-240, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    29. Joonmo Cho & Jaeseong Lee, 2015. "Persistence of the Gender Gap and Low Employment of Female Workers in a Stratified Labor Market: Evidence from South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-27, September.
    30. T. Paul Schultz, 1990. "Testing the Neoclassical Model of Family Labor Supply and Fertility," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 25(4), pages 599-634.
    31. M. R. Rosenzweig & Stark, O. (ed.), 1997. "Handbook of Population and Family Economics," Handbook of Population and Family Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    32. Angela Vierling-Claassen, 2013. "Division of labor in child care: A game-theoretic approach," Rationality and Society, , vol. 25(2), pages 198-228, May.
    33. McElroy, Marjorie B & Horney, Mary Jean, 1981. "Nash-Bargained Household Decisions: Toward a Generalization of the Theory of Demand," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 22(2), pages 333-349, June.
    34. Suen, Wing & Chan, William & Zhang, Junsen, 2003. "Marital transfer and intra-household allocation: a Nash-bargaining analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 133-146, September.
    35. Doepke, Matthias & Kindermann, Fabian, 2014. "Intrahousehold Decision Making and Fertility," IZA Discussion Papers 8726, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    36. Shelly Lundberg & Robert A. Pollak, 1996. "Bargaining and Distribution in Marriage," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 139-158, Fall.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. YOUM Yoosik, 2011. "A Network Approach to the Economic Models of Fertility," Discussion papers 11062, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    2. Yoosik Youm & Edward O. Laumann, 2003. "The Effect of Structural Embeddedness on the Division of Household Labor: A Game-Theoretic Model Using a Network Approach," Rationality and Society, , vol. 15(2), pages 243-280, May.
    3. Robert Pollak, 2003. "Gary Becker's Contributions to Family and Household Economics," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 111-141, January.
    4. Chiappori, Pierre-André & Donni, Olivier, 2006. "Les modèles non unitaires de comportement du ménage : un survol de la littérature," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 82(1), pages 9-52, mars-juin.
    5. Olivier Bargain & Miriam Beblo & Denis Beninger & Richard Blundell & Raquel Carrasco & Maria-Concetta Chiuri & François Laisney & Valérie Lechene & Nicolas Moreau & Michal Myck & Javier Ruiz-Castillo , 2006. "Does the Representation of Household Behavior Matter for Welfare Analysis of Tax-benefit Policies? An Introduction," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 99-111, June.
    6. Doepke, Matthias & Kindermann, Fabian, 2014. "Intrahousehold Decision Making and Fertility," IZA Discussion Papers 8726, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Heggeness, Misty L., 2020. "Improving child welfare in middle income countries: The unintended consequence of a pro-homemaker divorce law and wait time to divorce," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    8. Xu, Zeyu, 2007. "A survey on intra-household models and evidence," MPRA Paper 3763, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Chiappori, Pierre-André & Donni, Olivier, 2009. "Non-unitary Models of Household Behavior: A Survey of the Literature," IZA Discussion Papers 4603, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Yoosik Youm & Edward O. Laumann, "undated". "Toward resolving the puzzle of the household division of labor: The role of trust in specifying neoclassical economic, power-dependency, and sex-role attitude explanations," University of Chicago - Population Research Center 2000-05, Chicago - Population Research Center.
    11. Kota Ogasawara & Mizuki Komura, 2022. "Consequences of war: Japan’s demographic transition and the marriage market," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 35(3), pages 1037-1069, July.
    12. Akira Yakita, 2018. "Fertility and education decisions and child-care policy effects in a Nash-bargaining family model," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 31(4), pages 1177-1201, October.
    13. Kristian Orsini & Amadéo Spadaro, 2006. "Strategic weight within couples: a microsimulation approach," Working Papers halshs-00590395, HAL.
    14. Rubalcava, L. & Thomas, D., 2000. "Family Bargaining and Welfare," Papers 00-10, RAND - Labor and Population Program.
    15. Patricia Apps & Ray Rees, 2007. "Household Models: An Historical Perspective," CESifo Working Paper Series 2172, CESifo.
    16. Bergolo, Marcelo & Galván, Estefanía, 2018. "Intra-household Behavioral Responses to Cash Transfer Programs. Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Design," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 100-118.
    17. Robert A. Pollak, 2016. "Marriage Market Equilibrium," NBER Working Papers 22309, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Alberto Alesina & Andrea Ichino & Loukas Karabarbounis, 2011. "Gender-Based Taxation and the Division of Family Chores," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 3(2), pages 1-40, May.
    19. Gillian Hewitson, 2001. "A Survey of Feminist Economics," Working Papers 2001.01, School of Economics, La Trobe University.
    20. Levin, Mark (Левин, Марк) & Matrosova, Ksenia (Матросова, Ксения), 2018. "Development and Research of Economic Behavior of Households in Changing Conditions [Разработка И Исследование Экономического Поведения Домохозяйств В Изменяющихся Условиях]," Working Papers 041825, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:28:y:2016:i:4:p:386-409. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.