The objective of this article is to examine the association between women’s income and first birth risks in two fairly similar countries: Denmark and Finland. The benefit of comparing these two countries is that observed variation in fertility behaviour might be attributed to the few differences in context factors, with a special focus on detailed differences in family policies. The economic theory of fertility, as well as models about bargaining processes within the family, serve as a theoretical framework for explaining individual childbearing decisions within the specific context of each country. Discrete time multiple regressions are estimated to test the hypotheses on the data from the European Community Household Panel (1994–2001). In Denmark, women’s income has a positive effect on first birth risks, but the effect in Finland is insignificant. A second result is that Finnish women who earn more than their partner have lower first birth risks than those earning approximately the same.
AdseraA (2004) Changing fertility rates in developed countries. The impact of labor market institutions. Journal of Population Economics17(1): 17–43.
2.
AllisonPD (1984) Event History Analysis. Regression for Longitudinal Event Data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
3.
AllisonPD (1999) Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods Research28(2): 186–208.
4.
AndersonDJBinderMKrauseK (2002) The motherhood wage penalty: Which mothers pay it and why?American Economic Review92(2): 354–358.
5.
AnderssonGKnudsenLBNeyerG. (2009a) Cohort fertility patterns in the Nordic countries. Demographic Research20(14): 313–351.
6.
AnderssonGKreyenfeldMMikaT (2009b) Welfare state context, female earnings and childbearing. Working Paper 026. Germany: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.
7.
BeckerGS (1991) A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
BillingsleyS (2011) Economic crisis and recovery: Changes in second birth rates within occupational classes and educational groups. Demographic Research24(16): 375–406.
9.
BlossfeldHPGolschKRohwerG (2007) Event History Analysis with Stata. Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
BorchorstA (2002) Danish child care policy: Continuity rather than radical change. In: MichelSMahonR (eds) Child Care Policy at the Cross-roads. New York: Routledge, pp. 267–287.
11.
BrodmannSEsping-AndersenGGuellM (2007) When fertility is bargained: Second births in Denmark and Spain. European Sociological Review23(5): 599–613.
12.
CastlesFG (2003) The world turned upside down: Below replacement fertility, changing preferences and family-friendly public policy in 21 OECD countries. Journal of European Social Policy13(3): 209–227.
13.
D’AddioACD’ErcoleMM (2005) Trends and determinants of fertility rates in OECD countries: The role of policies. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 6. Paris: OECD.
14.
DiPreteTAMorganSPEngelhardtH. (2003) Do cross-national differences in the costs of children generate cross-national differences in fertility rates. Population Research and Policy Review22(5–6): 439–477.
15.
Ekert-JafféOJoshiHLynchK. (2002) Fertility, timing of births and socio-economic status in France and Britain: Social policies and occupational polarization. Population57(3): 475–507.
16.
Esping-AndersenG (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
FrejkaTSobotkaTHoemJM. (2008) Summary and general conclusions: Childbearing trends and policies in Europe. Demographic Research19(2): 5–13.
22.
FrejkaTWestoffCF (2008) Religion, religiousness and fertility in the US and in Europe. European Journal of Population24(3): 5–31.
23.
GauthierA (2007) The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: A review of the literature. Population Research & Policy Review26(3): 323–346.
24.
GersterMKeidingNKnudsenLB. (2007) Education and second birth rates in Denmark 1981–1994. Demographic Research17(8): 181–210.
25.
GonzálezMJurado-GuerreroT (2006) Remaining childless in affluent economies: A comparison of France, West Germany, Italy and Spain, 1994–2001. European Journal of Population22(4): 317–352.
26.
GornickJCMeyersMK (2003) Families That Work. Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
27.
GuoG (1993) Event-history analysis for left-truncated data. In: MarsdenPV (ed.) Sociological Methodology. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, pp. 217–243.
28.
HaatajaA (2010) Sava Para 2010. Email: anita.haataja@kela.fi [2 November 2010].
29.
HaraT (2003) Fertility trend and family policies in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and The Netherlands. Journal of Population and Social Security1(1): 169–199.
30.
HenzUSundströmM (2001) Partner choice and women’s paid work in Sweden. The role of earnings. European Sociological Review17(3): 295–316.
31.
HobsonBOláhLZ (2006) Birth strikes? Agency and capabilities in the reconciliation of employment and family. Marriage & Family Review39(3–4): 197–227.
32.
HoemJM (2005) Why does Sweden have such a high fertility. Demographic Research13(22): 559–572.
33.
HoemJM (2008) Overview Chapter 8: The impact of public policies on European fertility. Demographic Research19(10): 249–259.
34.
HoffmanLWHoffmanML (1973) The value of children to parents. In: FawcettJT (ed.) Psychological Perspectives on Population. New York: Basic Books, pp. 19–76.
35.
HookJL (2006) Care in context: Men’s unpaid work in 20 countries, 1965–2003. American Sociological Review71(4): 639–660.
36.
InglehartRNorrisP (2003) Rising Tide. Gender Equality and Cultural Change Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
JaumotteF (2003) Female Labour Force Participation: Past Trends and Main Determinants in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD.
38.
JenkinsSP (1995) Easy ways to estimate discrete time duration models. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics57(1): 129–138.
39.
JenkinsSP (2005) Survival Analysis. Colchester: ISER University of Essex.
40.
KlawonETiefenthalerJ (2001) Bargaining over family size: The determinants of fertility in Brazil. Population Research and Policy Review20(5): 423–440.
41.
KravdalØ (1992) Forgone labor participation and earning due to childbearing among Norwegian women. Demography29(4): 545–63.
42.
KravdalØ (2002) The impact of individual and aggregate unemployment on fertility in Norway. Demographic Research6(10): 263–294.
43.
KreyenfeldM (2005) Economic uncertainty and fertility postponement. Evidence from German panel data. Working Paper 034. Germany: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.
44.
LindJRasmussenE (2008) Paradoxical patterns of part-time employment in Denmark? Economic and Industrial Democracy29(4): 521–540.
45.
LundbergSPollakRA (1996) Bargaining and distribution in marriage. Journal of Economic Perspectives10(4): 139–158.
46.
ManserMBrownM (1980) Marriage and household decision-making: A bargaining analysis. International Economic Review21(1): 31–44.
47.
McElroyMBHorneyMJ (1981) Nash-bargained household decisions: Toward a generalization of the theory of demand. International Economic Review22(2): 333–349.
48.
MISSOC (2001) Soziale Sicherheit in den Mitgliedstaaten der EU und im Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum. Luxemburg: European Commission.
49.
MoodC (2010) Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about. European Sociological Review26(1): 67–82.
50.
NeyerGRAnderssonG (2008) Consequences of family policies on childbearing behavior: Effects or artifacts. Population and Development Review34(4): 699–724.
51.
NicolettiCTanturriML (2008) Differences in delaying motherhood across European countries: Empirical evidence from the ECHP. European Journal of Population24(2): 157–183.
52.
NOSOSCO (2002) Social Protection in the Nordic Countries: Scope Expenditures, Financing. Copenhagen: NOSOSCO.
53.
ÖrsalDKGoldsteinJR (2010) The Increasing Importance of Economic Conditions on Fertility. Working Paper 014. Germany: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.
54.
OttN (1991) Die Wirkung politischer Maßnahmen auf die Familienbildung aus ökonomischer und verhandlungstheoretischer Sicht. In: MayerKUJutta AllmendingerJHuininkJ (eds) Vom Regen in die Traufe: Frauen zwischen Beruf. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag, pp. 385–407.
55.
OttN (1992) Intra Family Bargaining and Household Decisions. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
56.
PetersenTPennerAHøgsnesG (2007) From motherhood penalties to fatherhood premia: The new challenge for family policy. Working Paper iirwps-154-07. Oslo: Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.
57.
RendallMSEkert-JafféOJoshiH. (2009) Universal versus economically polarized change in age at first birth: A French–British comparison. Population & Development Review35(1): 89–115.
58.
RijkenAJKnijnT (2008) Explaining Dutch fertility rates in a comparative European perspective. European Societies10(5): 763–786.
59.
RønsenM (2004) Fertility and public policies – Evidence from Norway and Finland. Demographic Research10: 143–170.
60.
RostgaardTChristoffersenMMWeiseH (1999) Parental leave in Denmark. In: MossPDevenF (eds) Parental Leave: Progress or Pitfall. Research and Policy Issues in Europe. NIDI/CBGS Publications35, 25–44.
61.
SalmiMLammi-TaskulaJ (1999) Parental leave in Finland. In: MossPDevenF (eds) Parental Leave: Progress or Pitfall. Research and Policy Issues in Europe. NIDI/CBGS Publications35, pp. 85–121.
62.
SchellekensJ (2009) Family allowances and fertility: Socioeconomic differences. Demography46(3): 451–468.
63.
SchmittC (2008) Gender-specific effects of unemployment on family formation: A cross-national perspective. DIW Discussion Papers 841. Berlin: DIW.
64.
SipiläJKorpinenJ (1998) Cash versus child care services in Finland. Social Policy and Administration32(3): 263–277.
65.
SleebosJE (2003) Low fertility rates in OECD countries – facts and policy responses. OECD Social Employment and Migration Working Paper 15. Paris: OECD.
