Abstract
This paper sets an endogenous fertility model with a two-sector model: one for the final goods sector and the other for child care service sector. Results of theoretical analysis indicate that the subsidy for children raises the labor share of the child care service sector and that it can increase fertility. An aging population reduces fertility and the labor share of the child care service sector. In addition to these results, we consider monetary policy effects on fertility. Results show that monetary policy can raise fertility and the labor share of the child care service sector by virtue of an increase in the pension benefit if a pay-as-you-go pension exists.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
An aging population reduces fertility. Therefore, demand for the child care service sector decreases. However, some papers consider the grandparents’ child care in endogenous fertility, as demonstrated by Yasuoka et al. (2009).
Based on data from the Cabinet Office, Japan, the monetary stock increases considerably. In 2015, the monetary stock was 906.4 trillion JPY; it reached 974.0 trillion JPY. 7.4% rises. The inflation rate increased by 0.4% during 2015–2017. In some OECD countries, the policy of an increase in monetary stock is provided to avoid the bad economic status.
As shown by Ashraf et al. (2013), economic growth can reduce fertility because of an increase in the opportunity cost of having children, as shown by Galor and Weil (1996). Apps and Rees (2004) derive positive correlation between fertility and income. However, if the child care service cost depends on the income level, as shown by Yasuoka and Miyake (2010), then the fertility can not change fertility with income. Our paper depends positively on the income in the model with pension benefit because income growth raises the pension benefit. Then, an increase in lifetime income raises fertility.
This is a standard utility function in endogenous fertility model, as assumed by van Groezen et al. (2003) and others. The utility is pulled up directly by fertility.
\(\left({\sigma }_{t}^{*}-\frac{{\sigma }_{t}^{*2}}{2}\right)+{\left(1-{\sigma }_{t}^{*}\right)}^{2}\) can be shown simply by \(\frac{{\sigma }_{t}^{*2}}{2}-{\sigma }_{t}^{*}+1\). However, our paper remains in the form of \(\left({\sigma }_{t}^{*}-\frac{{\sigma }_{t}^{*2}}{2}\right)+{\left(1-{\sigma }_{t}^{*}\right)}^{2}\). Also, \(\left({\sigma }_{t}^{*}-\frac{{\sigma }_{t}^{*2}}{2}\right){w}_{t}\) and \({\left(1-{\sigma }_{t}^{*}\right)}^{2}{w}_{t}\) respectively show the labor income share of the final goods sector and the child care service sector. We retain the form of \(\left({\sigma }_{t}^{*}-\frac{{\sigma }_{t}^{*2}}{2}\right)+{\left(1-{\sigma }_{t}^{*}\right)}^{2}\) because we can not understand the economic meanings of \(\frac{{\sigma }_{t}^{*2}}{2}-{\sigma }_{t}^{*}+1\).
The tax revenue of the final goods sector and child care service sector are shown respectively as \(\varepsilon \left({\sigma }_{t}^{*}-\frac{{\sigma }_{t}^{*2}}{2}\right){w}_{t+1}\) and \(\varepsilon {\left(1-{\sigma }_{t}^{*}\right)}^{2}{w}_{t+1}\). Because of the intergenerational population ratio \({n}_{t}\), the pension benefit per capita is given as (19).
For simplicity, \(\tau =0\mathrm{ \,and }\,\varepsilon =0\) are assumed in this section. There exist child allowance and pension benefits in this model if \(\tau \mathrm{and }\varepsilon \) are not zero. The child allowance raises demand for child care service because of a decrease in net child care cost. The pension benefit raises the demand for child care services because of an increase in lifetime income. Therefore, \({\sigma }^{*}\) in the case of \(\tau >0\, \mathrm {and} \,\varepsilon >0\) is less than \({\sigma }^{*}\) in the case of \(\tau =0\mathrm{ and }\varepsilon =0\). However, the strong effects of the aging population on the labor share of child care sector and fertility do not change.
The fertility is given by (20) if we consider the pension benefit. Then, the fertility depends on income growth. Income growth raises the pension benefit and then lifetime income increases. An increase in lifetime increase income fertility. Income growth pulls up the demand for child care service because of an increase in the fertility. Then the labor share of child care service sector rises.
(33) and (34) can be reduced to \(\frac{dn}{dq}>0\). This equation can be generally obtained in an endogenous fertility model. As reported by Fanti and Gori (2009, 2012), a child allowance can not always raise fertility because of a decrease in capital stock per capita. However, our paper can always raise fertility because child care service costs depend on the wage rate. Then, by virtue of increased fertility, the demand for child care service rises and the labor share of child care service can be pulled up.
The Appendix presents a detailed proof. The model with a pension benefit brings about the dynamics. The Appendix presents dynamics of the model with a pension.
As shown by (5), the wage rate of the child care service sector depends on the wage rate of the final goods sector. In addition to an increase in wage rate of final goods sector, an increase in the demand for the child care service sector raises the wage rate of child care service sector, which leaves a decrease in \({\sigma }^{*}\).
References
Apps P, Rees, R (2004) Fertility, Taxation and Family Policy. Scandinavian J Econ 106(4):745–763
Aronsson T, Sjögren T, Dalin T (2009) optimal taxation and redistribution in an OLG model with unemployment. In Tax Public Finance 16:198–218
Ashraf Q, Weil D, Wilde J (2013) the effect of fertility reduction on economic growth. Popul Dev Rev 39:97–130
Bhattacharya J, Haslag J, Martin A (2009) Optimal monetary policy and economic growth. Eur Econ Rev 53:210–221
Blundell R, Duncan A, Meghir C (1998) estimating labor supply responses using tax reforms. Econometrica 66(4):827–862
Blundell R, Duncan A, McCrae J, Meghir C (2000) The labour market impact of the working families tax credit. Fiscal Stud 21(1):75–103
Blundell R, Costa DM, Meghir C, Shaw J (2016) Female labor supply, human capital, and welfare reform. Econometrica 84(5):1705–1753
Caselli F (1999) Technological revolutions. Am Econ Rev 89(1):78–102
Chang W, Chen Y, Chang J (2013) Growth and welfare effects of monetary policy with endogenous fertility. J Macroecon 35:117–130
De Gregorio J (1993) Inflation, taxation, and long-run growth. J Monet Econ 31:271–298
Eissa N, Hoynes H (2004) Taxes and the labor market participation of married couples: the earned income tax credit. J Public Econ 88(9–10):1931–1958
Fanti L (2012) Fertility and money in an OLG model. In: Discussion Papers 2012/145, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Fanti L, Gori L (2009) Population and neoclassical economic growth: a new child policy perspective. Econ Lett 104(1):27–30
Fanti L, Gori L (2012) A note on endogenous fertility, child allowances and poverty traps. Econ Lett 117(3):722–726
Francesconi M (2002) A joint dynamic model of fertility and work of married women. J Labor Econ 20(2):336–380
Galor O, Weil D (1996) the gender gap, fertility, and growth. Am Econ Rev 86(3):374–387
Grossman G, Yanagawa N (1993) Asset bubbles and endogenous growth. J Monet Econ 31(1):3–19
Hashimoto K, Tabata K (2010) Population aging, health care, and growth. J Popul Econ 23(2):571–593
Kim KH (1989) Optimal linear income taxation, redistribution and labour supply. Econ Model 6(2):174–181
Meckl J, Zink S (2004) Solow and heterogeneous labour: a neoclassical explanation of wage inequality. Econ J 114(498):825–843
Mino K, Shibata A (1995) Monetary policy, overlapping generations, and patterns of growth. Economica 62:179–194
Romer P (1986) Increasing returns and long-run growth. J Political Econ 94(5):1002–1037
Shindo Y, Yanagihara M (2011) Education subsidies, tax policies and human capital accumulation in Japan: a general equilibrium analysis of the economy using heterogenous households. Stud Reg Sci 41(4):867–882 (In Japanese)
Sidrauski M (1967) Rational choice and patterns of growth in a monetary economy. Am Econ Rev 57:534–544
van Groezen B, Meijdam L (2008) Growing old and staying young: population policy in an ageing closed economy. J Popul Econ 21(3):573–588
van Groezen B, Leers T, Meijdam L (2003) Social security and endogenous fertility: pensions and child allowances as Siamese twins. J Public Econ 87(2):233–251
Walsh C (2010) Monetary theory and policy, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge
Werning I (2007) Optimal fiscal policy with redistribution. Q J Econ 122(3):925–967
Yakita A (2006) Life expectancy, money, and growth. J Popul Econ 19(3):579–592
Yasuoka M (2018a) Money and pay-as-you-go pension. Econ MDPI Open Access J 6(2):1–15
Yasuoka M (2018b) Elderly care service in an aging society. J Econ Stud 46(1):18–34
Yasuoka M, Goto N (2015) How is the child allowance to be financed? By income tax or consumption tax? Int Rev Econ 62(3):249–269
Yasuoka M, Miyake A (2010) Change in the transition of the fertility rate. Econ Lett 106(2):78–80
Yasuoka M, Azetsu K, Akiyama T (2009) Intergenerational child care support and the fluctuating fertility: a note. Econ Bull 29(4):2488–2501
Yasuoka M, Goto N (2011) Pension and child care policies with endogenous fertility. Econ Model 28(6):2478–2482
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for the beneficial comments. Research for this paper was supported financially by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 17K03746 and 17K03791. Nevertheless, any remaining errors are the authors’ responsibility.
Funding
JSPS KAKENHI Grant numbers 17K03746 and 17K03791.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest statement.
Availability of data and material (data transparency)
Our paper does not use data analysis.
Appendices
Appendix
The Sign of \(\frac{{\varvec{d}}{{\varvec{\sigma}}}^{\boldsymbol{*}}}{{\varvec{d}}{\varvec{g}}}\) (37)
Defining \(L= \alpha \left(\left(1-\varepsilon \right)\left(\left({\sigma }^{*}-\frac{{\sigma }^{*2}}{2}\right)+{\left(1-{\sigma }^{*}\right)}^{2}\right)+\frac{\varepsilon n\left(1+g\right)}{1+r}\right)\) and \(R={\left(1-{\sigma }^{*}\right)}^{2}\) as shown by (21), respectively, we can depict the following figure. (Fig.
2).
We can obtain the intersection of L and R and demonstrate that an increase in \(g\) reduces \({\sigma }^{*}\).
Dynamics in the Model with a Pay-as-you-Go Pension
With a pay-as-you-go pension, the dynamics occurs in the model. The dynamics in this model is shown as
We replace (41), (43), and (44) with the following equations as
The values of \(\frac{d{\sigma }_{t+1}}{d{\sigma }_{t}}\) are shown as
The local stability condition is \(-1<\frac{d{\sigma }_{t+1}}{d{\sigma }_{t}}<1\) in the steady state.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shintani, M., Yasuoka, M. Fertility, Inequality and Income Growth. Ital Econ J 8, 29–48 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40797-021-00143-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40797-021-00143-6