Cash support vs. tax incentives: The differential impact of policy interventions on third births in contemporary Hungary

References

• Aassve, Arnstein and Trude Lappegård. 2009. Childcare cash benefits and fertility timing in Norway, European Journal of Population 25(1): 67–88. doi: 10.1007/s10680-008-9158-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aassve, Arnstein, Francesco C. Billari, and Zsolt Spéder. 2006. Societal transition, policy changes and family formation: Evidence from Hungary, European Journal of Population 22(2): 127–152. doi: 10.1007/s10680-005-7434-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andorka, Rudolf. 1996. Demographic changes and their main characteristics from 1960 to our days, in Pál Péter Tóth and Emil Valkovics (eds), Demography of Contemporary Hungarian Society. Highland Lakes: Atlantic Research and Publication, pp. 21–36.
   Google Scholar
• Azmat, Ghazala and Libertad González. 2010. Targeting fertility and female participation through the income tax, Labour Economics 17(3): 487–502. doi: 10.1016/j.labeco.2009.09.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartus, Tamás, Lívia Murinkó, Ivett Szalma, and Bernadett Szél. 2013. The effect of education on second births in Hungary: A test of the time-squeeze, self-selection and partner-effect hypotheses, Demographic Research 28(1): 1–32. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2013.28.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berghammer, Caroline. 2009. Religious socialisation and fertility: Transition to the third birth in the Netherlands, European of Journal Population 25(3): 297–324. doi: 10.1007/s10680-009-9185-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breton, Didier and France Prioux. 2005. Two children or three? Influence of family policy and sociodemographic factors, Population English Edition 60(4): 415–445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, Mike, Anita Ratcliffe, and Sarah Smith. 2012. Does welfare reform affect fertility? Evidence from the UK, Journal of Population Economics 25(1): 245–266. doi: 10.1007/s00148-010-0332-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büttner, Thomas and Wolfgang Lutz. 1990. Estimating fertility responses to policy measures in the German Democratic Republic, Population and Development Review 16(3): 539–555. doi: 10.2307/1972835
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, Alma, Rajeev Dehejia, and Dmitri Romanov. 2013. Financial incentives and fertility, Review of Economics and Statistics 95(1): 1–20. doi: 10.1162/REST_a_00342
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corman, Diana. 2002. Family policies, work arrangements and the third child in France and Sweden, in Erik Kijzing and Martine Corijn (eds), Dynamics of Fertility and Partnership in Europe: Insights and Lessons from Comparative Research, Vol. 2. New York and Geneva: United Nations, pp. 59–71.
   Google Scholar
• D’Addio, Anna Cristina and Marco Mira d’Ercole. 2005. Trends and determinants of fertility rates: The role of policies. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 27. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Demény, Paul. 1987. Pronatalist policies in low-fertility countries: Patterns, performances and prospects, in Kingsley Davis, Mikhail S. Bemstan, and Rita Ricardo-Campbell (eds), Below-Replacement Fertility in Industrial Societies: Causes, Consequences, Policies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 335–358.
   Google Scholar
• Drago, Robert, Katina Sawyer, Karina M. Shreffler, Diana Warren, and Mark Wooden. 2011. Did Australia’s baby bonus increase the fertility intentions and births? Population Research and Policy Review 30(3): 381–397. doi: 10.1007/s11113-010-9193-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2016. Taxation Trends in the European Union. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Frejka, Tomas and Stuart Gietel-Basten. 2016. Fertility and family policies in Central and Eastern Europe after 1990, Comparative Population Studies 41(1): 3–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frejka, Tomas and Sergei Zakharov. 2013. The apparent failure of Russia’s pronatalist family policies, Population and Development Review 39(4): 635–647. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2013.00631.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gábos, András 2000. Családok helyzete és családtámogatások a kilencvenes években. [Families and the system of family supports in the 90s], in Tamás Kolosi, István György Tóth, and György Vukovich (eds), Társadalmi riport 2000. [Social Report 2000]. Budapest: TÁRKI, pp. 99-122.
   Google Scholar
• Gábos, András, Róbert Iván Gál, and Gábor Kézdi. 2009. The effects of child-related benefits and pensions on fertility by birth order: A test on Hungarian data, Population Studies 63(3): 215–231. doi: 10.1080/00324720903215293
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gauthier, Anne H. 2007. The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: A review of the literature, Population Research and Policy Review 26(3): 323–346. doi: 10.1007/s11113-007-9033-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerber, Theodore P. and Brienna Perelli-Harris. 2012. Maternity leave in turbulent times: Effects on labor market transitions and fertility in Russia, 1985–2000, Social Forces 90(4): 1297–1322. doi: 10.1093/sf/sor043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoem, Jan M. 1993. Public policy as the fuel of fertility: Effects of a policy reform on the pace of childbearing in Sweden in the 1980s, Acta Sociologica 36(1): 19–31. doi: 10.1177/000169939303600102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoem, Jan M., Alexia Prskawetz, and Gerda Neyer. 2001. Autonomy or conservative adjustment? The effect of public policies and educational attainment on third births in Austria, 1975–96, Population Studies 55(3): 249–261. doi: 10.1080/00324720127700
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ignits, Györgyi and Balázs Kapitány. 2006. A családtámogatások alakulása: célok és eszközök [The changes in family assistance: aims and means]. Demográfia 49(4): 383–401.
   Google Scholar
• Kapitány, Balázs. 2008. A “gyed-hatás”: Az 1985 és 1996 közötti családtámogatási rendszer termékenységre gyakorolt hatása [The “gyed-effect”: The impact of the family allowance system on fertility between 1985 and 1996], Demográfia 51(1): 51–78.
   Google Scholar
• Kapitány, Balázs and Zsolt Spéder. 2007. Gyermekek: vágyak és tények. Dinamikus termékenységi elemzések [Children: Desires and realizations. Dynamic analyses of fertility behaviour]. Budapest: KSH Népességtudományi Kutatóintézet.
   Google Scholar
• Kapitány, Balázs and Zsolt Spéder. 2019. Fertility, in Judit Monostori, Péter Őri, and Zsolt Spéder (eds), Demographic Portrait of Hungary 2018. Budapest: Hungarian Demographic Research Institute, pp. 47–64.
   Google Scholar
• Koycheva, Elena and Dimiter Philipov. 2008. Bulgaria: Ethnic differentials in rapidly declining fertility, Demographic Research 19(13): 361–402. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.13
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kravdal, Øystein. 2001. The high fertility of college educated women in Norway: An artefact of the separate modelling of each parity transition, Demographic Research 5(6): 187–216. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2001.5.6
   Google Scholar
• Kupa, Mihály (ed). 1988. A Személyi Jövedelmadórendszer Magyarországon [The Personal Income Tax System in Hungary]. Budapest: KJK.
   Google Scholar
• Lalive, Rafael and Josef Zweimüller. 2009. How does parental leave affect fertility and return to work? Evidence from two natural experiments, Quarterly Journal of Economics 124(3): 1363–1402. doi: 10.1162/qjec.2009.124.3.1363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laroque, Guy and Bernard Salanié. 2008. Does fertility respond to financial incentives? IZA Discussion Paper 3575. Bonn: IZA.
   Google Scholar
• Luci-Greulich, Angela and Olivier Thévenon. 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makay, Zsuzsanna. 2015. Family support system, childraising, employment, in Judit Monostori, Péter Őri, and Zsolt Spéder (eds), Demographic Portrait of Hungary 2015: Report on the Conditions of the Hungarian Population. Budapest: Hungarian Demographic Research Institute, pp. 57–74.
   Google Scholar
• Makay, Zsuzsanna. 2017. Parental leave and career interruption of mothers in France and Hungary, in Arnaud Régnier-Loilier (ed), A Longitudinal Approach to Family Trajectories in France: The Generations and Gender Survey. Paris: INED/Springer, pp. 173–197.
   Google Scholar
• Matysiak, Anna and Ivett Szalma. 2014. Effects of parental leave policies on second birth risks and women’s employment entry, Population English Edition 69(4): 599–636.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miljkovic, Dragan and Anna Glazyrina. 2015. The impact of socio-economic policy on total fertility rate in Russia. Journal of Policy Modelling 37(6): 961–973. doi: 10.1016/j.jpolmod.2015.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milligan, Kevin. 2005. Subsidizing the stork: New evidence on tax incentives and fertility, Review of Economics and Statistics 87(3): 539–555. doi: 10.1162/0034653054638382
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murinkó, Lívia and Zsolt Spéder (eds). 2016. Felhasználói kézikönyv az Életünk fordulópontjai panelkutatás 1–4. hullámához [Users’ Guide for Waves 1–4 of the Turning Points of the Life Course Panel Survey]. NKI Kutatási jelentések 97. Budapest: KSH Népességtudományi Kutatóintézet.
   Google Scholar
• Neyer, Gerda and Gunnar Andersson. 2008. Consequences of family policies on childbearing behaviour: Effects or artefacts? Population and Development Review 34(4): 699–724. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2008.00246.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. 2011. Doing Better for Families. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Ohinata, Asako. 2008. Fertility response to financial incentives: Evidence from the Working Families Tax Credit in the UK. Warwick Economic Research Papers 851. Warwick: University of Warwick.
   Google Scholar
• Oláh, Livia Sz. 2003. Gendering fertility: Second births in Sweden and Hungary, Population Research and Policy Review 22(2): 171–200. doi: 10.1023/A:1025089031871
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinclair, Sarah, Jonathan Boymal, and Ashton De Silva. 2012. A re-appraisal of the fertility response to the Australian baby bonus, Economic Record 88: 78–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4932.2012.00805.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slonimczyk, Fabán and Anna Yurko. 2014. Assessing the impact of the maternity capital policy in Russia. Labour Economics 30, 265–281. doi: 10.1016/j.labeco.2014.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sobotka, Tomáš. 2004. Postponement of Childbearing and Low Fertility in Europe. Amsterdam: Dutch University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sobotka, Tomáš, Vegard Skirbekk, and Dimiter Philipov. 2011. Economic recession and fertility in the developed world, Population and Development Review 37(2): 267–306. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00411.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spéder, Zsolt. 2016. Fertility decline and the persistence of low fertility in a changing policy environment: A Hungarian case study, in Ronald R. Rindfuss and Minja Kim Choe (eds), Low Fertility, Institutions, and their Policies. Cham: Springer, pp. 165–194.
   Google Scholar
• Št’astná, Anna and Tomáš Sobotka. 2009. Changing parental leave and shifts in second and third-birth rates in Austria. Vienna Institute of Demography Working Papers 7. Vienna: VID.
   Google Scholar
• Stropnik, Nada and Milivoja Šircelj. 2008. Slovenia: Generous family policy without evidence of any fertility impact, Demographic Research 19(26): 1019–1058. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.26
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szelewa, Dorota and Michal P. Polakowski. 2008. Who cares? Changing patterns of childcare in Central and Eastern Europe, Journal of European Social Policy 18(2): 115–131. doi: 10.1177/0958928707087589
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thévenon, Olivier. 2011. Family policies in OECD countries: A comparative analysis, Population and Development Review 37(1): 57–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00390.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thévenon, Olivier and Anne H. Gauthier. 2011. Family policies in developed countries: A ‘fertility-booster’ with side effects, Community, Work & Family 14(2): 197–216. doi: 10.1080/13668803.2011.571400
   Google Scholar
• Toulemont, Laurent, Ariane Pailhé, and Clémentine Rossier. 2008. France: High and stable fertility, Demographic Research 19(16): 503–556. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.16
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Váradi, Leventéné. 2006. Visszatérés a Munkaerőpiacra a Gyermekvállalás Után [Returning to the Labour Market after Childbearing]. Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.
   Google Scholar
• Vikat, Andres. 2004. Women’s labour force attachment and childbearing in Finland, Demographic Research 3(1): 175–212.
   Google Scholar
• Vikat, Andres, Zsolt Spéder, Gijs Beets, Francesco C. Billari, Christoph Bühler, Aline Désesquelles, Tineke Fokkema, Jan M. Hoem, Alphonse MacDonald, Gerda Neyer, Ariane Pailhé, Antonella Pinnelli, and Anne Solaz. 2007. Generations and Gender Survey (GGS): Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course, Demographic Research 17(14): 389–440. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2007.17.14
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar