Advertisement

Empirical Economics

, Volume 57, Issue 3, pp 769–803 | Cite as

School entry, afternoon care, and mothers’ labour supply

  • Ludovica Gambaro
  • Jan MarcusEmail author
  • Frauke Peter
Article
  • 170 Downloads

Abstract

The availability of childcare is a crucial factor for mothers’ labour force participation. While most of the literature examines childcare for preschool children, we specifically focus on primary school-aged children, estimating the effect of formal afternoon care on maternal labour supply. To do so, we use a novel matching technique, entropy balancing, and draw on the rich and longitudinal data of the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). We show that children’s afternoon care increases mothers’ employment rates and their working hours. To confirm the robustness of our results, we conduct a series of sensitivity analyses and apply a newly proposed method to assess possible bias from omitted variables. Our findings highlight how childcare availability shapes maternal employment patterns well after school entry.

Keywords

Afternoon care Maternal labour supply All-day schools Entropy balancing 

JEL Classification

J13 J63 J65 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge support by the College for Interdisciplinary Educational Research (CIDER). Moreover, we thank C. Katharina Spieß, Adam Lederer, Janina Nemitz, seminar participants at the University of Chicago and DIW Berlin, as well as participants of the GEBF 2016 and the 2016 ESPE conferences for valuable comments.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Allemann-Ghionda C (2009) Ganztagsschule im europäischen Vergleich. Zeitpolitiken modernisieren—Durch Vergleich Standards setzen? Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, Beiheft 54:190–208Google Scholar
  2. Altonji JG, Elder TE, Taber CR (2005) Selection on observed and unobserved variables: assessing the effectiveness of catholic schools. J Polit Econ 113:151–184Google Scholar
  3. Bildungsberichterstattung Autorengruppe (2016) Bildung in Deutschland 2016. Ein indikatorengestützter Bericht mit einer Analyse zu Bildung und Migration. W. Bertelsmann, BielefeldGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker M, Gruber J, Milligan K (2008) Universal child care, maternal labour supply, and family well-being. J Polit Econ 116(4):709–745Google Scholar
  5. Bang H, Robins J (2005) Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models. Biometrics 61(4):962–973Google Scholar
  6. Bauernschuster S, Schlotter M (2015) Public child care and mothers’ labor supply—evidence from two quasi-experiments. J Public Econ 123(C):1–16Google Scholar
  7. Beblo M, Lauer C, Wrohlich K (2005) Ganztagsschulen und Erwerbsbeteiligung von Müttern: Eine Mikrosimulationsstudie für Deutschland. Zeitschrift für ArbeitsmarktForschung (J Labour Mark Res) 38(2):357–372Google Scholar
  8. Berger LM, Hill J, Waldfolgel J (2005) Maternity leave, early maternal employment and child health and development in the US. Econ J 115(501):F29–F47Google Scholar
  9. Berlinski S, Galiani S (2007) The effect of a large expansion of pre-primary school facilities on preschool attendance and maternal employment. Labour Econ 14(3):665–680Google Scholar
  10. Berthelon M, Kruger D, Oyarzun M (2015) The effects of longer school days on mothers’ labor force participation. IZA discussion paper, 9212Google Scholar
  11. Bettio F, Plantenga J (2004) Comparing care regimes in Europe. Fem Econ 10(1):85–113Google Scholar
  12. Blau DM, Currie J (2006) Preschool, day care, and after-school care: Who’s minding the kids? In: Welch F, Hanushek EA (eds) The handbook of economics of education. Elsevier, North-Holland, pp 1163–1267Google Scholar
  13. Brilli Y, Del Boca D, Pronzato C (2013) Does child care availability play a role in maternal employment and children’s development? Evidence from Italy. Rev Econ Househ 14(1):27–51Google Scholar
  14. Caliendo M, Kopeinig S (2008) Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. J Econ Surv 22(1):31–72Google Scholar
  15. Cascio E (2009) Maternal labor supply and the introduction of kindergartens into American public schools. J Hum Resour 44(1):140–170Google Scholar
  16. Cragg JG (1971) Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica 39(5):829–844Google Scholar
  17. Daly M (2000) The gender division of welfare: the impact of the British and German welfare states. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Dehos F, Paul M (2017) The effects of after-school programs on maternal employment. SOEP papers on multidisciplinary panel data research (905)Google Scholar
  19. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (2016) Was ist der Unterschied zwischen offenen und gebundenen Ganztagsschulen? http://www.ganztagsschulen.org/archiv/188_306.php. Accessed 10 July 2016
  20. Felfe C, Lechner M, Thiemann P (2016) After-school care and parents’ labour supply. Labour Econ 42(3):64–75Google Scholar
  21. Fitzpatrick M (2012) Revising our thinking about the relationship between maternal labor supply and preschool. J Hum Resour 47(3):583–612Google Scholar
  22. Gelbach J (2002) Public schooling for young children and maternal labor supply. Am Econ Rev 92(1):307–322Google Scholar
  23. Geyer J, Haan P, Wrohlich K (2015) The effects of family policy on maternal labor supply: combining evidence from a structural model and a quasi-experimental approach. Labour Econ 36:84–98Google Scholar
  24. Gornick JC, Meyers MK (2003) Families that work: policies for reconciling parenthood and employment. Russell Sage Foundation, New York CityGoogle Scholar
  25. Goux D, Maurin E (2010) Public school availability for two-year olds and mothers’ labour supply. Labour Econ 17(6):951–962Google Scholar
  26. Hagemann K (2006) Between ideology and economy: the time politics of child care and public education in the two Germanys. Soc Polit Int Stud Gend State Soc 13(2):217–260Google Scholar
  27. Hainmueller J (2012) Entropy balancing for causal effects: a multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Polit Anal 20(1):25–46Google Scholar
  28. Hainmueller J, Xu Y (2013) Ebalance: a stata package for entropy balancing. J Stat Softw 54(7):1–18Google Scholar
  29. Havnes T, Mogstad M (2011) No child left behind: subsidized child care and children’s long-run outcomes. Am Econ J Econ Policy 3(May 2011):97–129Google Scholar
  30. Heckman J, Ichimura H, Todd P (1997) Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: evidence from evaluating a job training programme. Rev Econ Stud 64(4):605–654Google Scholar
  31. Holtappels HG, Klieme E, Rauschenbach T, Stecher L (eds) (2008) Ganztagsschule in Deutschland: Ergebnisse der Ausgangserhebung der “Studie zur Entwicklung von Ganztagsschulen (StEG)”. Juventa, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  32. Joshi H, Macran S, Dex S (1996) Employment after childbearing and women’s subsequent labour force participation: evidence from the British 1958 birth cohort. J Popul Econ 9(3):325–348Google Scholar
  33. KMK (2016). Allgemeinbildende Schulen in Ganztagsform in den Ländern in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland—Statistik 2010 bis 2014. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. https://www.kmk.org/dokumentation-und-statistik/statistik/schulstatistik/allgemeinbildende-schulen-in-ganztagsform.html
  34. Knittel T, Henkel M, Krämer L, Lopp R, Schein C (2014) Dossier Müttererwerbsstätigkeit: Erwerbstätigkeit, Erwerbsumfang und Erwerbsvolumen 2012. Prognos AG, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  35. Kosonen T (2014) To work or not to work? The effect of childcare subsidies on the labour supply of parents. BE J Econ Anal Policy 14(3):817–848Google Scholar
  36. Kullback S (1959) Information theory and statistics. Dover Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Lange J (2015) “Da war doch noch was?” Der Hort als wenig beachtete Betreuungsalternative zur Ganztagsschule im Grundschulalter. Kommentierte Daten der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe 18:9–11Google Scholar
  38. Lange J (2016) Der Hort: viel genutzt, wenig beachtet!. DJI Impulse 2:21–23Google Scholar
  39. Lefevbre P, Merrigan P (2008) Child-care policy and the labor supply of mothers with young children: a natural experiment from Canada. J Labor Econ 26(3):519–548Google Scholar
  40. Leuven E, Sianesi B (2003) PSMATCH2: stata module to perform full mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html. This version 4.0.11, accessed 22 Oct 2014
  41. Lewis J, Campbell M, Huerta C (2008) Patterns of paid and unpaid work in Western Europe: gender, commodification, preferences and the implications for policy. J Eur Soc Policy 18(1):21–37Google Scholar
  42. Lundin D, Mörk E, Öckert B (2008) How far can reduced childcare prices push female labour supply? Labour Econ 15(4):647–659Google Scholar
  43. Marcus J (2014) Does job loss make you smoke and gain weight? Economica 81(324):626–648Google Scholar
  44. Marcus J, Nemitz J, Spiess CK (2013) Ausbau der Ganztagsschule: Kinder aus einkommensschwachen Haushalten im Westen nutzen Angebote verstärkt. DIW Wochenbericht 27Google Scholar
  45. Marcus J, Nemitz J, Spieß CK (2016) Veränderungen in der gruppenspezifischen Nutzung von ganztägigen Schulangeboten—Längsschnittanalysen für den Primarbereich. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 19(2):415–442Google Scholar
  46. Mattes M (2011) Children, families and states. Time policies of childcare, preschool and primary education in Europe. Chapter Economy and politics: the time policy of the East German childcare and primary school system. Berghahn Books, Oxford, pp 344–363Google Scholar
  47. Morgan KJ (2005) The “production” of child care: how labor markets shape social policy and vice versa. Soc Polit Int Stud Gend State Soc 12(2):243–263Google Scholar
  48. Nemitz J (2015) The effect of all-day primary school programs on maternal labor supply. ECON—working papers 213, Department of Economics, University of ZurichGoogle Scholar
  49. Nollenberger N, Rodríguez-Planas N (2015) Full-time universal childcare in a context of low maternal employment: quasi-experimental evidence from Spain. Labour Econ 36:124–136Google Scholar
  50. OECD (2011) Doing better for families. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  51. OECD (2015) Education policy outlook 2015: making reforms happen. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  52. Oster E (2013) Unobservable selection and coefficient stability: theory and validation. NBER working paper no. 19054. NBER, Cambridge MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  53. Oster E (2017) Unobservable selection and coefficient stability: theory and validation. J Bus Econ Stat.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2016.1227711
  54. Plantenga J, Remery C (2017) Out-of-school childcare: exploring availability and quality in EU member states. J Eur Soc Policy 27(1):25–39Google Scholar
  55. Rosenbaum P, Rubin D (1985) Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat 39:33–38Google Scholar
  56. Schober PS, Spiess CK (2015) Local day care quality and maternal employment: evidence from East and West Germany. J Marriage Fam 77(3):712–729Google Scholar
  57. Shure N (2016) School hours and maternal labour supply: a natural experiment from Germany. Department of quantitative social science working paper 16–13, Institute of Education, LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. Sigle-Rushton W, Waldfogel J (2007) Motherhood and women’s earnings in Anglo-American, Continental European, and Nordic countries. Fem Econ 13:55–91Google Scholar
  59. Simonsen M (2010) Price of high-quality daycare and female employment. Scand J Econ 112(3):570–594Google Scholar
  60. Solon G, Haider S, Wooldridge J (2015) What are we weighting for? J Hum Resour 50(2):301–316Google Scholar
  61. Steiner C (2011) Ganztagsschule: Entwicklung, Qualität, Wirkungen, chapter Teilnahme am Ganztagsbetrieb—Zeitliche Entwicklung und mögliche Selektionseffekte, pp 57–75Google Scholar
  62. Wagner GG, Frick JR, Schupp J (2007) The German socio-economic panel study (SOEP)—scope, evolution, and enhancements. Schmollers Jahrb 127(1):139–169Google Scholar
  63. Waldfogel J (1998) The family gap for young women in the United States and Britain: can maternity leave make a difference? J Labor Econ 16(3):505–545Google Scholar
  64. Wiezorek C, Stark S, Dieminger B (2011) Wissen Sie, die Infrastruktur ist einfach nicht so, dass ich aus dem Vollen schöpfen kann—Ganztagsschulentwicklung in ländlichen Räumen. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 15:109–124Google Scholar
  65. Wunder C, Heineck G (2013) Working time preferences, hours mismatch and well-being of couples: are there spillovers? Labour Econ 24:244–252Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DIW BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.UCL Institute of EducationLondonUK
  3. 3.Universität HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations