Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does income support increase abortions?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Social Choice and Welfare Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Currently, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs in 32 American states allow low-income childless pregnant single women (CPSW) to receive monthly cash assistance, while 28 states and the District of Columbia use lump-sum payments to divert low-income families from TANF. Past research has not investigated the possible consequences on abortions of these two welfare policies. We construct a theoretical model of low-income CPSW to investigate them. The results of the theory yields the following hypotheses: (1) diversion payments to low-income mothers lower abortion incidence; and (2) diversion payments and CPSW eligibility together raise abortion incidence. We use data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Abortion Surveillance, and a system GMM dynamic panel, two-way fixed-effects empirical model to test our hypotheses. Our empirical results provide statistically significant evidence for the first hypothesis, but not the second.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adema W, Gray D, Kahl S (2003) Social assistance in Germany. OECD Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers, No. 58, OECD Publishing

  • Anderson T, Hsiao C (1982) Formulation and estimation of dynamic models using panel data. J Econom 18(1): 47–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58(2): 277–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the instrumental-variable estimation of error-component models. J Econom 68(1): 29–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bankole A, Singh S, Haas T (1999) Characteristics of women who obtain induced abortion: A worldwide review. Int Fam Plan Perspectives 25(2): 68–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber G, Daugherty B, McAdams D (2002) An alternative to TANF: experience with Kentucky’s Family Alternative Diversion Program. Presented at the National Association of Welfare Research and Statistics Annual Conference, Albuquerque, NM

  • Berggren N (1997) Rhetoric or reality? An economic analysis of the effects of religion in Sweden. J Socioecon 26(6): 571–596

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand M, Luttmer E, Mullainathan S (2000) Network effects and welfare cultures. Q J Econ 115(3): 1019–1056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettarini S, D’Andrea S (1996) Induced abortion in Italy: levels, trends and characteristics. Fam Plann Perspectives 28(6): 267–271, 277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blank R (2001) What causes public assistance caseloads to grow. J Hum Resour 36(1): 85–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blank R (1988) The effect of welfare and wage levels on the location decisions of female-headed households. J Urban Econ 24(2): 186–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blayo C (1995) L’évolution du recours a l’avortement en France depuis 1976. Population 50(3): 779–810

    Google Scholar 

  • Blundell R, Bond S (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J Econom 87(1): 115–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke V (2003) Welfare reform: TANF trends and data. Congressional Research Service Report 98–369 EPW. http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/index.txl. Accessed 25 Feb 2008

  • Camasso M (2004) Isolating the family cap effect on fertility behavior: evidence from New Jersey’s Family Development Program Experiment. Contemp Econ Policy 22(4): 453–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC (2000) Abortion Surveillance–United States, 1997. MMWR 49(SS-11). http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/sursumpv.html. Accessed 20 Dec 2008

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC (2003) Abortion Surveillance–United States, 2000. MMWR 52(SS-12). http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/sursumpv.html. Accessed 20 Dec 2008

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC (2006) Abortion Surveillance–United States, 2003. MMWR 55(SS-11). http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/sursumpv.html. Accessed 20 Dec 2008

  • Daponte B, Sanders S, Taylor L (1999) Why do low income households not use food stamps? Evidence from an experiment. J Hum Resour 34(3): 612–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David H (1992) Abortion in Europe, 1920–91: a public health perspective. Stud Fam Plan 23(1): 1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong G, Graefe D, St Pierre T (2005) Welfare reform and interstate migration of poor families. Demography 42(3): 469–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer W, Fairlie R (2004) Do family caps reduce out-of-wedlock births? Evidence from Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, New Jersey and Virginia. Popul Res Policy Rev 23: 441–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards J, Thames F, Edwards M (2006) Measuring the dissemination of volatility across levels of development. Topics Macroecon 6(2)

  • Epstein L, Zin S (1989) Substitution, risk aversion, and the temporal behavior of consumption and asset returns: a theoretical framework. Econometrica 57(4): 937–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang H, Keane M (2004) Assessing the impact of welfare reform on single mothers. Brookings Papers Econ Activity 1: 1–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang H, Silverman D (2004) On the compassion of time-limited welfare programs. J Public Econ 88(7–8): 1445–1470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finer L, Henshaw S (2003) Abortion incidence and services in the United States in 2000. Perspectives Sex Reproductive Health 35(1): 6–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finer L, Frohwirth L, Dauphinee L, Singh S, Moore A (2006) Timing of steps and reasons for delays in obtaining abortions in the United States. Contraception 74(4): 334–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbacz C (1990) Abortion demand. Popul Res Policy Rev 9: 151–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grogger J, Karoly L, Klerman J (2002) Consequences of welfare reform: a research synthesis. Document DRU-2676-DHHS, Prepared by RAND for the Agency for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services. Santa Monica, CA, RAND

  • Harvey C, Berkowitz M (2006) Review of diversion programs. Disability Research Institute, Project number p02–07h. http://www.dri.uiuc.edu/research. Accessed 1 July 2008

  • Henshaw S, Finer L (2003) The Accessibility of abortion services in the United States, 2001. Perspectives Sex Reproductive Health 35(1): 16–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henshaw S, Kost K (1996) Abortion patients in 1994–1995: characteristics and contraceptive use. Fam Plan Perspectives 28(4): 140–147, 158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henshaw S, Silverman J (1988) The characteristics and prior contraceptive use of U.S. abortion patients. Fam Plan Perspectives 20(4): 158–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hetling A, Tracy K, Born C (2006) A rose by any other name? Lump-sum diversion or traditional welfare grant?. JPolicy Pract 5(2–3): 43–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones R, Darroch J, Henshaw S (2002) Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000–2001. Perspectives Sex Reproductive Health 34(5): 226–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones R, Zolna M, Henshaw S, Finer L (2008) Abortion in the United States: incidence and access to services, 2005. Perspectives Sex Reproductive Health 40(1): 6–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce T, Kaestner R (1996) The effect of expansions in medicaid income eligibility on abortion. Demography 33(2): 181–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce T, Kaestner R, Korenman S, Henshaw S (2004) Family cap provisions and changes in births and abortions. Popul Res Policy Rev 23(5–6): 475–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane T, Staiger D (1996) Abortion access and teen motherhood. Q J Econ 111(2): 467–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King R, Myers S, Byrne D (1992) The demand for abortion by unmarried teenagers: economic factors, age, ethnicity and religiosity matter. Am J Econ Sociol 51: 223–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klerman J (1999) U.S. abortion policy and fertility. Am Econ Rev 89(2): 261–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacey D, Hetling A, Born C (2002) Life without welfare: the prevalence and outcomes of diversion strategies in Maryland. University of Maryland, School of Social Work

  • Levine P, Whitmore D (1998) The impact of welfare reform on the AFDC caseload. In: National Tax Association Proceedings, 1997. pp 24–33

  • London R (2003) Which TANF applicants are diverted, and what are their outcomes. Soc Serv Rev 77(3): 373–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maloy K, Pavetti L, Schin P, Darnell J, Scarpulla-Nolan L (1998) Description and assessment of state approaches to diversion programs and activities under welfare reform. The George Washington University Center for Health Policy Research

  • Matthews S, Ribar D, Wilhelm M (1997) The effects of economic conditions and access to reproductive health services on state abortion rates and birthrates. Fam Plan Perspectives 29(2): 52–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medoff M (1997) A pooled time-series analysis of abortion demand. Popul Policy Rev 16(6): 597–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medoff M (1998) Estimates of the abortion demand of young and older teenagers. Popul Res Policy Rev 17: 539–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medoff M (1999) An estimate of teenage abortion demand. J Socioecon 28: 175–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Medoff M (2002) The determinants and impact of state abortion restrictions. Am J Econ Sociol 61(2): 481–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medoff M (2007) Price, restrictions and abortion demand. J Fam Econ Issues 28: 583–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier K, Haider-Markel D, Stanislawski A, McFarlane D (1996) The impact of state-level restrictions on abortions. Demography 33(3): 307–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinnish T (2005) Importing the poor: welfare magnetism and cross-border welfare migration. J Hum Resour 40(1): 57–76

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinnish T (2007) Welfare-induced migration at state borders: new evidence from micro-data. J Public Econ 91(3–4): 437–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moffitt R (2003) The role of nonfinancial factors in exit and entry in the TANF program. J Hum Resour 38(Supplement): 1221–1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan P, Parnell A (2002) Effects on pregnancy outcomes of changes in the North Carolina State Abortion Fund. Popul Res Policy Rev 21(4): 319–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell-Griner E, Trent K (1987) Sociodemographic determinants of abortion in the United States. Demography 24(4): 553–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson P, Schoenfeld G, Jain S (2001) Welfare recipients, leavers, and diverters in North Carolina, Final report of administrative records data. Reston, VA, MAXIMUS

  • Roodman D (2006) How to do xtabond2: an introduction to ‘difference’ and ‘system’ GMM in Stata. Center for Global Development Working Paper 103

  • Rossier C, Michelot F, Bajos N, COCON (2007) Modeling the process leading to abortion: an application to French survey data. Stud Fam Plan 38(3):163–172

  • Rowe G (2000) Welfare rules databook: state TANF policies as of July 1999. Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/Wrd.pdf. Accessed 30 Dec 2008

  • Rowe G, Versteeg J (2005) Welfare rules databook: state TANF policies as of July 2003. Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411183_WRD_2006.pdf. Accessed 28 Jan 2008

  • Rowe G, Murphy M (2006) Welfare rules databook: state TANF policies as of July 2006. Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411686_welfare_databook06.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2008

  • Schoeni R, Blank R (2000) What has welfare reform accomplished? Impacts on welfare participation, employment, income, poverty, and family structure. NBER Working Paper 7627

  • Skjeldestad F, Borgan J (1994) Trends in induced abortion during the 12 years since legalization in Norway. Fam Plan Perspectives 26(2): 73–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snarr H, Burkey M (2006) A preliminary investigation of welfare migration induced by time limits. J Reg Anal Policy 36(2): 124–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomal A (1999) Parental involvement laws and minor and non-minor teen abortion and birth rates. J Fam Econ Issues 20(2): 149–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trent K, Hoskin A (1999) Structural determinants of the abortion rate: a cross-societal analysis. Soc Biol 46(1–2): 62–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulemon L, Leridon H (1992) Maîtrise de la fécondité et appartenance sociale: Contraception, grossesses accidentelles et avortements. Population 47(1): 1–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Weil P (1990) Nonexpected utility in macroeconomics. Q J Econ 105(1): 29–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welfare Information Network (1999) http://www.financeproject.org/Publications/pamresourceoct.htm. Accessed 15 July 2008

  • Windmeijer F (2005) A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. J Econom 126(1): 1–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Health and Human Services, DHHS (2004) Sixth annual report to Congress http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/annualreport6/chapter05/chap05.htm. Accessed 13 Dec 2008

  • Valvano V, Goldsmith D, Abe Y, Fischer W, Tseng F (2001) Evaluation of the Colorado works program, third annual report, part 1, diversion programs and work activity participation. Berkeley Policy Associates, Oakland, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziliak J, Figlio D, Davis E, Connolly L (2000) Accounting for the decline in AFDC caseloads: welfare reform or the economy. J Hum Resour 35(3): 570–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. North Carolina A &T State University, Greensboro, NC, USA

    Hal W. Snarr & Jeffrey A. Edwards

Authors
  1. Hal W. Snarr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey A. Edwards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hal W. Snarr.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Snarr, H.W., Edwards, J.A. Does income support increase abortions?. Soc Choice Welf 33, 575–599 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-009-0380-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-009-0380-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation