Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
Thehttps:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log inShow account info
Access keysNCBI HomepageMyNCBI HomepageMain ContentMain Navigation
pubmed logo
Advanced Clipboard
User Guide

Full text links

Free PMC article
Full text links

Actions

Share

.2012 Apr;4(2):62-97.
doi: 10.1257/app.4.2.62.

Reexamining the Impact of Family Planning Programs on US Fertility: Evidence from the War on Poverty and the Early Years of Title X()

Affiliations

Reexamining the Impact of Family Planning Programs on US Fertility: Evidence from the War on Poverty and the Early Years of Title X()

Martha J Bailey. Am Econ J Appl Econ.2012 Apr.

Abstract

Almost 50 years after domestic US family planning programs began, their effects on childbearing remain controversial. Using the county-level roll-out of these programs from 1964 to 1973, this paper reevaluates their shorter and longer term effects on US fertility rates. I find that the introduction of family planning is associated with significant and persistent reductions in fertility driven both by falling completed childbearing and childbearing delay. Although federally funded family planning accounted for a small portion of the post-baby boom US fertility decline, my estimates imply that they reduced childbearing among poor women by 19 to 30 percent. (JEL I38, J12, J13, J18).

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Federal Spending on Family Planning, 1965–2008Notes: No information is available for 1969, so a dashed line connects the 1968 and 1970 points. Title X appropriations differ from the inflation adjusted Table 14 in Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) (2000, 47), because I use the CPI-U and AGI (2000) uses the CPI for medical care.Source: “Title X Appropriations” are taken from the Office of Population Affairs (2009). “Federal Outlays from All Sources” are computed by the author using the National Archives Community Action Program Data (NACAP) and the National Archives Federal Outlays Data (NAFO).
Figure 2
Figure 2
The Establishment of Federal Family Planning Programs by Period, 1965–1973Notes: Shading indicates the year the first federal family planning program was established in each county. Counties not receiving a family planning programs grant between 1965 and 1973, including a handful of communities that received funding but with an unknown starting date, are not shaded.Source: NACAP, NAFO, and OEO (1969, 1971, 1974).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Fertility Rates and the Roll-Out of Federal Family Planning ProgramsNotes: Thex-axis plots when the first federal family planning program was established in the county. They-axis in panel A plots the 1964 GFR. They-axis in panel B plots the change in the GFR from 1960 to 1964. The dashed lines indicate the estimated relationship between thex andy variables using linear regression. The estimated slope and standard error for each relationship are indicated.Source: Family planning data: NACAP, NAFO, and OEO (1969, 1971, 1974). GFR: Hand-entered 1959–1967 county Vital Statistics and 1968–1988 Natality Detail Microdata Files (NCHS 2003). Denominators were constructed for 1959–1968 by linearly interpolating information between the 1950, 1960, and 1970 censuses; denominators for the 1969–1988 period use the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Descriptive Evidence of the Effects of Family Planning on Fertility RatesNotes: Panel A plots the evolution of the general fertility rate. Panel B plots the annual difference in the GFR between funded and unfunded counties by date range of program establishment. All estimates are unweighted.Source: See Figure 3.
Figure 5
Figure 5
The Relationship of the Roll-Out of Family Planning Programs with Other Federal GrantsNotes: Each panel plots weighted least squares estimates ofπ andτ from equation (1) including fixed effects but excludingXs (equivalent to model 2). The weights are the 1970 population of women ages 15–44. The dependent variable is equal to 1 if the county receivedany federal grant for the indicated program. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors clustered by county are used to construct point-wise, 95-percent confidence intervals, which are presented in dashed lines in each panel.Source: NACAP and NAFO.
Figure 6
Figure 6
The Effects of Federal Family Planning Programs on Fertility RatesNotes: Panels plot either weighted or unweighted estimates ofπ andτ from equation (1). Weights are the county population of women ages 15–44 in 1970. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors clustered by county construct 95 percent, point-wise confidence intervals (dashed lines).Source: See Figure 3.
Figure 7
Figure 7
The Effects of Federal Family Planning Programs on Fertility Rates, by Age and ParityNote: Panels present weighted, least squares estimates of τ from equation (1) for the indicated group for the 1968– 1988 data.Source: Outcome data taken from 1968–1988 Natality Files (NCHS 2003). Denominators were constructed for 1959–1968 by linearly interpolating information between the 1950, 1960, and 1970 censuses; denominators for the 1969–1988 period use the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data. Information on family planning programs drawn from NACAP, NAFO, and OEO (1969, , as described in text and footnote 8.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Akerlof George A, Yellen Janet L, Katz Michael L. An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1996;111(2):277–317.
    1. Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) AGI Report. New York: 2000. Fulfilling the Promise: Public Policy and U.S. Family Planning Clinics.
    1. Almond, Douglas, Hilary W. Hoynes, and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach. . National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper. 2008. Inside the War on Poverty: The Impact of Food Stamps on Birth Outcomes; p. 14306.
    1. Ananat Elizabeth Oltmans, Gruber Jonathan, Levine Phillip B, Staiger Douglas. Abortion and Selection. Review of Economics and Statistics. 2009;91(1):124–36.
    1. Ashraf Nava, Field Erica, Lee Jean. Household Bargaining and Excess Fertility: An Experimental Study in Zambia. 2010http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/field/files/Ashraf_Field_Lee_No....

Related information

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full text links
Free PMC article
Cite
Send To

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSHPMCBookshelfDisclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp