The Association between Conditional Cash Transfer Programmes and Cohort Fertility: Evidence from Brazil

IF 1.5 Q2 DEMOGRAPHY Comparative Population Studies Pub Date : 2021-07-12 DOI:10.12765/CPOS-2021-08
Camila F. Soares, Everton E. C. Lima
{"title":"The Association between Conditional Cash Transfer Programmes and Cohort Fertility: Evidence from Brazil","authors":"Camila F. Soares, Everton E. C. Lima","doi":"10.12765/CPOS-2021-08","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Brazil’s Bolsa Família Programme (BFP) aims to combat poverty and social inequalities through monetary transfers to families. A much-discussed indirect effect of the programme was its correlation to the fertility of the beneficiary families. In this paper, we use a cohort fertility approach with parity progression ratios that differs from existing literature, which mainly used period fertility measures, to better understand the relationship between fertility and the BFP. This study analyses the relationship between the BFP and the reproduction of Brazilian women. We use data from the 2010 Brazilian micro-censuses, the only census after the start of the BFP in 2004, to reconstruct the childbirth history of women with incomplete reproductive cycles (women aged 25 to 29), and estimate parity progression ratios (PPRs) and cohort fertility rates (CFR). In addition, we estimate propensity score matching (PSM) models comparing fertility outcomes of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of the programme. Our results show distinct differences in CFRs and PPRs. On average, BFP beneficiaries had more children than women not covered by the programme. This finding remained consistent even after controlling for educational gradients and other covariates. Our empirical findings show that women opt for a “rational” strategy, where they tend to have children in more rapid succession up until three children. These findings contradict the recent literature that has not found any correlation between BFP and fertility. The results also suggest that cohort analyses may fill certain gaps left by previous studies of period fertility. This paper is one of a few that have analysed the relationship between a conditional income transfer programme and cohort measures in Brazil.","PeriodicalId":44592,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Population Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Population Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12765/CPOS-2021-08","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Brazil’s Bolsa Família Programme (BFP) aims to combat poverty and social inequalities through monetary transfers to families. A much-discussed indirect effect of the programme was its correlation to the fertility of the beneficiary families. In this paper, we use a cohort fertility approach with parity progression ratios that differs from existing literature, which mainly used period fertility measures, to better understand the relationship between fertility and the BFP. This study analyses the relationship between the BFP and the reproduction of Brazilian women. We use data from the 2010 Brazilian micro-censuses, the only census after the start of the BFP in 2004, to reconstruct the childbirth history of women with incomplete reproductive cycles (women aged 25 to 29), and estimate parity progression ratios (PPRs) and cohort fertility rates (CFR). In addition, we estimate propensity score matching (PSM) models comparing fertility outcomes of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of the programme. Our results show distinct differences in CFRs and PPRs. On average, BFP beneficiaries had more children than women not covered by the programme. This finding remained consistent even after controlling for educational gradients and other covariates. Our empirical findings show that women opt for a “rational” strategy, where they tend to have children in more rapid succession up until three children. These findings contradict the recent literature that has not found any correlation between BFP and fertility. The results also suggest that cohort analyses may fill certain gaps left by previous studies of period fertility. This paper is one of a few that have analysed the relationship between a conditional income transfer programme and cohort measures in Brazil.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有条件现金转移支付计划与群体生育率之间的关系:来自巴西的证据
巴西的Bolsa Família计划旨在通过向家庭转移资金来消除贫困和社会不平等。该方案的一个备受讨论的间接影响是它与受益家庭生育率的相关性。在这篇论文中,我们使用了一种具有奇偶级数的队列生育方法,该方法不同于现有文献,现有文献主要使用周期生育指标,以更好地理解生育率和BFP之间的关系。本研究分析了BFP与巴西妇女生殖之间的关系。我们使用2010年巴西微观人口普查的数据,这是2004年BFP开始后的唯一一次人口普查,来重建生育周期不完全的妇女(25至29岁的妇女)的生育史,并估计生育率(PPRs)和队列生育率(CFR)。此外,我们估计了倾向得分匹配(PSM)模型,比较了该计划受益人和非受益人的生育结果。我们的结果显示CFRs和PPRs存在明显差异。平均而言,BFP受益人的子女比未纳入该计划的妇女多。即使在控制了教育梯度和其他协变量后,这一发现仍然保持一致。我们的实证研究结果表明,女性选择了一种“理性”的策略,即她们倾向于更快地连续生育孩子,直到三个孩子。这些发现与最近没有发现BFP与生育率之间任何相关性的文献相矛盾。研究结果还表明,队列分析可能会填补先前对经期生育率研究留下的某些空白。本文是分析巴西有条件收入转移计划与群体措施之间关系的少数几篇论文之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊最新文献
Did smallpox cause stillbirths? Maternal smallpox infection, vaccination, and stillbirths in Sweden, 1780-1839. Social Resources are Associated With Higher Fertility Intentions in Contemporary Finland Healthy Lifespan Statistics Derived From Cross-Sectional Prevalence Data Using the Sullivan Method are Informative Summary Measures of Population Health A Quarter Century of Change in Family and Gender-Role Attitudes in Hungary Scarred for Life? Early-Life Experience of the Post-Reunification Economic Crisis in East Germany and Physical and Mental Health Outcomes in Early Adulthood
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1