Review of Economics of the Household

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 427–452 | Cite as

Child support wage withholding and father–child contact: parental bargaining and salience effects

Article
  • 159 Downloads

Abstract

Past research on child support finds that father–child contact increases as support payments increase. Enforcement policies such as wage withholding also may affect father–child contact even when the amount of support paid is not affected if they change bargaining power between parents or the salience of fathers’ child support obligations. I develop a model of the salience of child support obligations which predicts that introduction of automatic withholding will reduce contact between noncustodial parents and children independent of payment amount. I then examine whether paying child support via wage withholding affects fathers’ frequency of contact with their children and their provision of in-kind support using instrumental variables and bounded OLS techniques for selection on unobservables. Withholding appears to decrease father–child contact. Withholding effects do not occur when payments are made to government agencies or courts but are present when payments go directly to the mother, consistent with bargaining models. More frequent payment schedules are associated with more contact, consistent with salience effects.

Keywords

Child support Father–child contact Payment method Salience Bargaining 

JEL Classification

D0 H7 I38 J1 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to Charlie Brown, Brian Cadena, Adam Cole, Josh Congdon-Hohman, Sandy Danziger, Taryn Dinkelman, Naomi Feldman, Ann Ferris, Ben Keys, Joel Slemrod, Jeff Smith, two anonymous referees, and many seminar participants for helpful comments and suggestions, and Tim Marshall at the Census for data assistance. All errors and omissions are my own. This research was supported in part by a University of Michigan Rackham One-Term Dissertation Fellowship.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11150_2016_9330_MOESM1_ESM.docx (37 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 36 kb)

References

  1. Argys, L. M., & Peters, H. E. (2001). Interactions between unmarried fathers and their children: The role of paternity establishment and child-support policies. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 91(2), 125–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argys, L. M., Peters, E., Cook, S., Garasky, S., Neopmnyaschy, L., & Sorensen, E. (2007). Measuring contact between children and nonresident fathers. In S. L. Hofferth & L. M. Casper (Eds.), Handbook of measurement issues in family research (pp. 375–398). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, L. M., Cancian, M., & Meyer, D. R. (2012). Maternal re-partnering and new partner fertility: Associations with nonresident father investments in children. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(2), 426–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernheim, B. Douglas, & Rangel, Antonio. (2009). Beyond revealed preference: Choice-theoretic foundations for behavioral welfare economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(1), 51–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlson, M. J., & Magnuson, K. (2011). Low-income fathers’ influence on children. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 635(1), 95–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Case, A. C., Lin, I.-F., & McLanahan, S. S. (2003). Explaining trends in child support: Economic, demographic, and policy effects. Demography, 40(1), 171–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chetty, R. (2009). The simple economics of salience and taxation. In NBER working paper 15246.Google Scholar
  8. Chetty, R., Looney, A., & Kroft, K. (2009). Salience and taxation: Theory and evidence. American Economic Review, 99(4), 1145–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Comanor, W. S., & Phillips, L. (2002). The impact of income and family structure on delinquency. Journal of Applied Economics, 5(2), 209–232.Google Scholar
  10. Danziger, S. K., & Radin, N. (1990). Absent does not equal uninvolved: Predictors of fathering in teen mother families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52(3), 636–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Del Boca, D. (2003). Mothers, fathers, and children after divorce: The role of institutions. Journal of Population Economics, 16, 399–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Del Boca, D., & Ribero, R. (2001). The effect of child-support policies on visitations and transfers. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 91(2), 130–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Del Boca, D., & Ribero, R. (2003). Visitations and transfers after divorce. Review of Economics of the Household, 1, 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeNavas-Walt, C., & Proctor, B. D. (2014). Income and poverty in the United States: 2013, US Census Bureau, September, Current Population Reports, P60-249. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  15. Edin, K., Tach, L., & Mincy, R. (2009). Claiming fatherhood: Race and the dynamics of paternal involvement among unmarried men. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621(1), 149–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ermisch, J. (2008). Child support and non-resident fathers’ contact with their children. Journal of Population Economics, 21, 827–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Finkelstein, A. (2009). E-ztax: Tax salience and tax rates. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(3), 969–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Furstenberg, F. F, Jr. (1992). Daddies and fathers: Men who do for their children and men who don’t. In F. F. Furstenberg Jr, K. Sherwood, & M. Sullivan (Eds.), Caring and paying: What mothers and fathers say about child support (pp. 34–56). New York: Manpower Research Demonstration Corporation.Google Scholar
  19. Garfinkel, I., & Klawitter, M. M. (1990). The effect of routine income withholding on child support collections. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 9(2), 155–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ginther, D. K., & Pollak, R. A. (2004). Family structure and children’s educational outcomes: Blended families, stylized facts, and descriptive regressions. Demography, 41, 671–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gordon, A. R. (1994). Implementation of the income withholding and medical support provisions of the 1984 child support enforcement amendments. In I. Garfinkel, S. S. McLanahan, & P. K. Robins (Eds.), Child support and well-being (pp. 61–92). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  22. Huang, C.-C., Kunz, J., & Garfinkel, I. (2002). The effect of child support on welfare exits and re-entries. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(4), 557–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. King, V., Harris, K. M., & Heard, H. E. (2004). Racial and ethnic differences in nonresident father involvement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1–21.Google Scholar
  24. Lerman, R. I. (2002). Impacts of marital status and parental presence on the material hardship of families with children. Report to the US Department of Health and Human Services, Offices of Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  25. McLanahan, S. S., Seltzer, J. A., Hanson, T. L., & Thomson, E. (1994). Child support enforcement and child well-being: Greater security or greater conflict? In I. Garfinkel, S. S. McLanahan, & P. K. Robins (Eds.), Child support and child well-being (pp. 239–256). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  26. Nepomnyaschy, L. (2007). Child support and father–child contact: testing reciprocal pathways. Demography, 44(1), 83–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Office of Child Support Enforcement (2014). FY 2013 Preliminary Report, April 1. Available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/fy2013-preliminary-report.
  28. Oster, E. (2015). Unobservable selection and coefficient stability: Theory and evidence. In Working paper, Brown University.Google Scholar
  29. Painter, G., & Levine, D. I. (2000). Family structure and youths’ outcomes: Which correlations are causal? Journal of Human Resources, 35(3), 524–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peters, H. E., Argys, L. M., Howard, H. W., & Butler, J. S. (2004). Legislating love: The effect of child support and welfare policies on father–child contact. Review of Economics of the Household, 2, 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (1998). The red and the black: Mental accounting of savings and debt. Marketing Sciences, 17(1), 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prelec, D., & Simester, D. (2001). Always leave home without it: A further investigation of the credit-card effect on willingness to pay. Marketing Letters, 12(1), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Raghubir, P., & Srivastava, J. (2008). Monopoly money: The effect of payment coupling and form on spending behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14(3), 213–225.Google Scholar
  34. Seltzer, J. (2000). Child support and child access: The experiences of marital and non-marital families. In J. T. Oldham & M. S. Melli (Eds.), Child support: The next frontier (pp. 69–87). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  35. Seltzer, J., McLanahan, S. S., & Hanson, T. L. (1998). Will child support enforcement increase father–child contact and parental conflict after separatation? In I. Garfinkel, S. S. McLanahan, D. R. Meyer, & J. A. Seltzer (Eds.), Fathers under fire: The revolution in child support enforcement (pp. 157–190). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  36. Soman, D. (2003). The effect of payment transparency on consumption: Quasi-experiments from the field. Marketing Letters, 14(3), 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sorensen, E., & Hill, A. (2004). Single mothers and their child support receipt: How well is child support enforcement doing? Journal of Human Resources, 39(1), 135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Srivastava, J., & Raghubir, P. (2002). Debiasing using decomposition: The case of memory-based credit card expense estimates. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, 253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stango, V., & Zinman, J. (2014). Limited and varying consumer attention: Evidence from shocks to the salience of bank overdraft fees. Review of Financial Studies, 27(4), 990–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stock, J. H., & Yogo, M. (2005). Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In D. W. K. Andrews & J. H. Stock (Eds.), Identification and inference for econometric models: Essays in honor of Thomas Rothenberg (pp. 80–108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tach, L., Mincy, R., & Edin, K. (2010). Parenting as a ‘package deal’: Relationships, fertility, and nonresident father involvement among unmarried parents. Demography, 47(1), 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. US Census Bureau (2013). “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2013. Table C2: Household Relationship And Living Arrangements Of Children Under 18 Years, By Age And Sex: 2013.” Available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/cps2013C.html.
  44. Weiss, Y., & Willis, R. (1985). Children as collective goods and divorce settlements. Journal of Labor Economics, 3, 268–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhang, Y. (2013). Consumption responses to pay frequency: Evidence from ‘Extra’ Paychecks. In Working paper, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, November 7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsColby CollegeWatervilleUSA

Personalised recommendations