What Is the Case for Paid Maternity Leave?
Gordon Dahl,
Katrine Løken,
Magne Mogstad and
Kari Vea Salvanes ()
Additional contact information
Kari Vea Salvanes: Department of Economics, University of Oslo
No 09/13, Working Papers in Economics from University of Bergen, Department of Economics
Abstract:
Paid maternity leave has gained greater salience in the past few decades as mothers have increasingly entered the workforce. Indeed, the median number of weeks of paid leave to mothers among OECD countries was 14 in 1980, but had risen to 42 by 2011. We assess the case for paid maternity leave, focusing on parents' responses to a series of policy reforms in Norway which expanded paid leave from 18 to 35 weeks (without changing the length of job protection). Our first empirical result is that none of the reforms seem to crowd out unpaid leave. Each reform increases the amount of time spent at home versus work by roughly the increased numb er of weeks allowed. Since income replacement was 100% for most women, the reforms caused an increase in mother's time spent at home after birth, without a reduction in family income. Our second set of empirical results reveals the expansions had little effect on a wide variety of outcomes, including children's school outcomes, parental earnings and participation in the lab or market in the short or long run, completed fertility, marriage or divorce. Not only is there no evidence that each expansion in isolation had economically signicant effects, but this null result holds even if we cumulate our estimates across all expansions from 18 to 35 weeks. Our third finding is that paid maternity leave has negative redistribution properties. The program makes regressive transfers both from ineligibles to eligibles and within the group of eligible mothers. Since there was no crowd out of unpaid leave, the extra leave benefits amounted to a pure leisure transfer, primarily to middle and upper income families. Finally, we investigate the financial costs of the extensions in paid maternity leave. We find these reforms had little impact on parents' future tax payments and benefit receipt. As a result, the large increases in public spending on maternity leave imply a considerable increase in taxes, at a cost to economic efficiency. Taken together, our finding suggest the generous extensions to paid leave were costly, had no measurable effect on outcomes and poor redistribution properties. In a time of harsh budget realities, our findings have important implications for countries that are considering future expansions or contractions in the duration of paid leave.
Keywords: Paid maternity leave; redistribution effects of social programs (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: H42 J13 J18 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 69 pages
Date: 2013-10-23
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (23)
Downloads: (external link)
http://ekstern.filer.uib.no/svf/2013/WP9.13.pdf Full text (application/pdf)
Related works:
Journal Article: What Is the Case for Paid Maternity Leave? (2016) 
Working Paper: What Is the Case for Paid Maternity Leave? (2013) 
Working Paper: What Is the Case for Paid Maternity Leave? (2013) 
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hhs:bergec:2013_009
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Working Papers in Economics from University of Bergen, Department of Economics Institutt for økonomi, Universitetet i Bergen, Postboks 7802, 5020 Bergen, Norway. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kjell Erik Lommerud ().