Open Access

Does an Introduction of a Paid Parental Leave Policy Affect Maternal Labor Market Outcomes in the Short Run? Evidence from Australia’s Paid Parental Leave Scheme

Brittany Bass
Brittany Bass
   | Jun 02, 2020
IZA Journal of Labor Policy's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Published Online: Jun 02, 2020
Page range: -
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/izajolp-2020-0004
Keywords
© 2020 Brittany Bass, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Figure 1

Family assistance example.
Family assistance example.

Figure 2

Predicted effect of maternal labor supply pre birth.
Predicted effect of maternal labor supply pre birth.

Figure 3

Predicted effect of maternal labor supply post birth.
Predicted effect of maternal labor supply post birth.

Figure 4

Births discontinuity. Notes: The log of the number of children born to mothers from November 1 2010 to February 28 2011, and separate linear fits on each side of the January 1 2011 cutoff. The vertical line denotes the PPL cutoff of January 1 2011, normalized to 0.
Births discontinuity. Notes: The log of the number of children born to mothers from November 1 2010 to February 28 2011, and separate linear fits on each side of the January 1 2011 cutoff. The vertical line denotes the PPL cutoff of January 1 2011, normalized to 0.

Figure 5

Balance in covariates around the January 1 2011 threshold: (A) Percentage of mothers who are Australian born. (B) Average age of the mother. (C) Average age of the mother’s partner. (D) Percentage of mothers with only one child.
Balance in covariates around the January 1 2011 threshold: (A) Percentage of mothers who are Australian born. (B) Average age of the mother. (C) Average age of the mother’s partner. (D) Percentage of mothers with only one child.

Figure 6

The percentage of mothers receiving the Baby Bonus. (A) Each data point corresponds to the average value of the percentage of mothers receiving the Baby Bonus by month of birth of the child in 1-month bins. The window includes all children born to mothers from January 2010 until November 2011. The vertical line denotes the PPL cutoff of January 1 2011, normalized to 0. (B) The equivalent coefficient estimates and associated 95% confidence intervals when equation 1 is estimated using 3, 4, ..., 12 month-of-birth cohorts on either side of the threshold.
The percentage of mothers receiving the Baby Bonus. (A) Each data point corresponds to the average value of the percentage of mothers receiving the Baby Bonus by month of birth of the child in 1-month bins. The window includes all children born to mothers from January 2010 until November 2011. The vertical line denotes the PPL cutoff of January 1 2011, normalized to 0. (B) The equivalent coefficient estimates and associated 95% confidence intervals when equation 1 is estimated using 3, 4, ..., 12 month-of-birth cohorts on either side of the threshold.

Figure 7

Average number of hours worked by the mother immediately before stopping work for the birth of her child. (A) Each data point corresponds to the average value of each outcome by month of birth of the child in 1-month bins. The window includes all children born to mothers from January 2010 until November 2011. The vertical line denotes the PPL cutoff of January 1 2011, normalized to 0. (B) The equivalent coefficient estimates and associated 95% confidence intervals when equation 1 is estimated using 3, 4, ..., 12 month-of-birth cohorts on either side of the threshold.
Average number of hours worked by the mother immediately before stopping work for the birth of her child. (A) Each data point corresponds to the average value of each outcome by month of birth of the child in 1-month bins. The window includes all children born to mothers from January 2010 until November 2011. The vertical line denotes the PPL cutoff of January 1 2011, normalized to 0. (B) The equivalent coefficient estimates and associated 95% confidence intervals when equation 1 is estimated using 3, 4, ..., 12 month-of-birth cohorts on either side of the threshold.

Figure 8

Average number of weeks the mother stopped work before the birth of her child. (A) Each data point corresponds to the average value of each outcome by month of birth of the child in 1-month bins. The window includes all children born to mothers from January 2010 until November 2011. The vertical line denotes the PPL cutoff of January 1 2011, normalized to 0. (B) The equivalent coefficient estimates and associated 95% confidence intervals when equation 1 is estimated using 3, 4, ..., 12 month-of-birth cohorts on either side of the threshold.
Average number of weeks the mother stopped work before the birth of her child. (A) Each data point corresponds to the average value of each outcome by month of birth of the child in 1-month bins. The window includes all children born to mothers from January 2010 until November 2011. The vertical line denotes the PPL cutoff of January 1 2011, normalized to 0. (B) The equivalent coefficient estimates and associated 95% confidence intervals when equation 1 is estimated using 3, 4, ..., 12 month-of-birth cohorts on either side of the threshold.

Figure 9

Average age of the child when the mother returned to work. (A) Each data point corresponds to the average value of each outcome by month of birth of the child in 1-month bins. The window includes all children born to mothers from January 2010 until November 2011. The vertical line denotes the PPL cutoff of January 1 2011, normalized to 0. (B) The equivalent coefficient estimates and associated 95% confidence intervals when equation 1 is estimated using 3, 4, ..., 12 month-of-birth cohorts on either side of the threshold.
Average age of the child when the mother returned to work. (A) Each data point corresponds to the average value of each outcome by month of birth of the child in 1-month bins. The window includes all children born to mothers from January 2010 until November 2011. The vertical line denotes the PPL cutoff of January 1 2011, normalized to 0. (B) The equivalent coefficient estimates and associated 95% confidence intervals when equation 1 is estimated using 3, 4, ..., 12 month-of-birth cohorts on either side of the threshold.

Figure 10

Average number of hours worked by the mother as of November 2011. (A) Each data point corresponds to the average value of each outcome by month of birth of the child in 1-month bins. The window includes all children born to mothers from January 2010 until November 2011. The vertical line denotes the PPL cutoff of January 1 2011, normalized to 0. (B) The equivalent coefficient estimates and associated 95% confidence intervals when equation 1 is estimated using 3, 4, ..., 12 month-of-birth cohorts on either side of the threshold.
Average number of hours worked by the mother as of November 2011. (A) Each data point corresponds to the average value of each outcome by month of birth of the child in 1-month bins. The window includes all children born to mothers from January 2010 until November 2011. The vertical line denotes the PPL cutoff of January 1 2011, normalized to 0. (B) The equivalent coefficient estimates and associated 95% confidence intervals when equation 1 is estimated using 3, 4, ..., 12 month-of-birth cohorts on either side of the threshold.

Discontinuity in births at the January 1 2011, threshold

2–2 m2–2 m2–2 m1–1 m1–1 m1–1 m
Births0.0980.0550.1200.1270.043-0.047
(0.082)(0.125)(0.166)(0.120)(0.168)(0.189)
N (number of days)120120120626262
Linear term in mYesYesYesYesYesYes
Quadratic term in mNoYesYesNoYesYes
Cubic term in mNoNoYesNoNoYes

Average age of the child when the mother returned to work, by income quintile

First quintileSecond quintileThird quintileFourth quintileFifth quintile
Panel I
Average age of child-0.1531.0121.2480.1710.529
(0.771)(0.675)(1.074)(0.529)(0.466)
N (number of months)2323232323
ControlsYesYesYesYesYes
Linear term in mYesYesYesYesYes
Panel II
Average age of child0.0670.3251.1600.9650.219
(1.325)(0.697)(1.480)(0.764)(0.837)
N (number of months)2323232323
ControlsYesYesYesYesYes
Quadratic term in mYesYesYesYesYes

Descriptive statistics of analysis variables

Pre-PPLPost-PPL
Panel I: outcomes
Percentage receiving Baby Bonus68.13 (5.647)19.00 (8.183)
Average number of weeks stopped work before birth3.858 (0.979)3.864 (0.775)
Average number of hours worked before stopped for birth30.07 (2.021)31.07 (2.306)
(per week)
Average age of the child when the mother returned to30.41 (5.804)12.54 (7.712)
work (in weeks)
Average number of hours worked in all jobs (per week)16.04 (3.865)4.564 (3.507)
N (number of months)1112
Panel II: covariates
Australian born (mother)78.33 (5.584)80.18 (7.324)
Age of partner35.24 (1.154)34.22 (0.877)
Age of mother32.59 (1.067)31.45 (0.943)
Only child49.48 (8.067)49.33 (6.090)
N (number of months)1112

Baby Bonus receipt

12–12 m12–12 m12–12 m
Baby bonus-46.24*** (6.595)-44.52*** (10.11)-43.06*** (7.703)
N (number of months)232323
ControlsYesYesYes
Linear term in mYesNoNo
Quadratic term in mNoYesNo
Cubic term in mNoNoYes

The effect of PPL on maternal labor market outcomes

Hours before birth (1)Weeks stop before birth (2)Age of child return (3)Hours worked, November 2011 (4)
Panel I
PPL0.046 (0.059)-0.171 (0.195)0.905** (0.357)-0.202 (0.221)
N (number of months)23232323
ControlsYesYesYesYes
Linear term in mYesYesYesYes
Panel II
PPL0.042 (0.112)-0.324 (0.272)0.036 (0.207)-0.101 (0.390)
N (number of months)23232323
ControlsYesYesYesYes
Quadratic term in mYesYesYesYes
eISSN:
2193-9004
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
Volume Open
Journal Subjects:
Business and Economics, Political Economics, Microeconomics, Macroecomics, Economic Policy, Mathematics and Statistics for Economists, Econometrics
Journal RSS Feed