CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 134Work-Family Balance ChallengesGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFamily Dynamics and Relationships

The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review

Open access
Thomas, Jac, Rowe, Francisco, Williamson, Paul, Lin, Eric S.·2022·Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
DOI 10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Low fertility is set to worsen economic problems in many developed countries, and maternity, paternity, and parental leave have emerged as key pro-natal policies. Gender inequity in the balance of domestic and formal work has been identified as a key driver of low fertility, and leave can potentially equalise this balance and thereby promote fertility. However, the literature contends that evidence for the effect of leave on fertility is mixed. We conduct the first systematic review on this topic. By applying a rigorous search protocol, we identify and review empirical studies that quantify the impact of leave policies on fertility. We focus on experimental or quasi-experimental studies that can identify causal effects. We identify 11 papers published between 2009 and 2019, evaluating 23 policy changes across Europe and North America from 1977 to 2009. Results are a mixture of positive, negative, and null impacts on fertility. To explain these apparent inconsistencies, we extend the conceptual framework of Lalive and Zweimüller (2009), which decomposes the total effect of leave on fertility into the “current-child” and “future-child” effects. We decompose these into effects on women at different birth orders, and specify types of study design to identify each effect. We classify the 23 studies in terms of the type of effect identified, revealing that all the negative or null studies identify the current-child effect, and all the positive studies identify the future-child or total effect. Since the future-child and total effects are more important for promoting aggregate fertility, our findings show that leave does in fact increase fertility when benefit increases are generous. Furthermore, our extensions to Lalive and Zweimüller’s conceptual framework provide a more sophisticated way of understanding and classifying the effects of pro-natal policies on fertility. Additionally, we propose ways to adapt the ROBINS-I tool for evaluating risk of bias in pro-natal policy studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Studies suggest that leave policies need to be generous to have an effect on fertility.

    “In terms of magnitude, studies suggest that the policies need to be generous to have an effect (Thomas et al. 2022)”

    From Family Policies in Low Fertility Countries: Evidence and Reflections (2025) · cites this paper as Thomas et al. 2022

    The Conclusion says that generous increases in leave benefits can significantly increase fertility. But the Current-child effect studies section explicitly says the review cannot establish whether less generous policies would also have an effect. It supports generosity as sufficient, not as necessary. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Work-related leave schemes have been found to have a positive impact on fertility in two recent systematic reviews.

    “In two recent systematic reviews, work-related leave schemes have been found to have a positive impact on fertility (Bergsvik, Fauske, and Hart 2021; Thomas et al. 2022).”

    From Family Policies in Low Fertility Countries: Evidence and Reflections (2025) · cites this paper as Thomas et al. 2022

    The Conclusion (page unavailable) says leave can significantly increase fertility when increases in benefits are generous. The Abstract (page unavailable) reports positive, negative, and null effects, so the unqualified claim of a positive impact overstates this review’s findings. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 65

  1. Ang XL (2015) The effects of cash transfer fertility incentives and parental leave benefits on fertility and labor supply: evidence from two natural experiments. J Fam Econ Issues 36(2):263-288
  2. Balbo N, Billari FC, Mills M (2013) Fertility in advanced societies: a review of research. Eur J Popul 29:1-38
  3. Barnes MW (2015) Gender differentiation in paid and unpaid work during the transition to parenthood. Sociol Compass 9(5):348-364. https://doi.org/10. 1111/soc4.12263 · DOI
  4. Baum CL, Ruhm CJ (2016) The effects of paid family leave in California on labor market outcomes. J Policy Anal Manag 35(2):333-U135
  5. Becker GS (1973) A theory of marriage: part I. J Polit Econ 81(4):813-846
  6. Bergsvik J, Fauske A, Hart RK (2020) Effects of policy on fertility: a systematic review of (quasi)experiments. Statistics Norway, Research Department, Oslo (Discussion Papers No. 922, Feb 2020)
  7. Blome A (2016) Normative beliefs, party competition, and work-family policy reforms in Germany and Italy. Comp Polit 48(4):479-503. https://doi.org/10. 5129/001041516819197610 · DOI
  8. Bloom DE, Canning D, Fink G, Finlay JE (2010) The cost of low fertility in Europe. Eur J Popul 26(2):141-158
  9. Budig MJ, Misra J, Boeckmann I (2015) Work-family policy trade-offs for mothers? Unpacking the cross-national variation in motherhood earnings penalties. Work Occup 43(2):119-177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888415615385 · DOI
  10. Bünning M (2015) What happens after the 'Daddy Months'? fathers' involvement in paid work, childcare, and housework after taking parental leave in ger- many. Eur Sociol Rev 31:738-748. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcv072 · DOI
  11. Buttner T, Lutz W (1990) Estimating fertility responses to policy measures in the German Democratic Republic. Popul Dev Rev 16(3):539-555
  12. Caldwell JC, Caldwell P, McDonald P (2002) Policy responses to low fertility and its consequences: a global survey. J Popul Res 19(1):1-24
  13. Campbell Collaboration (2019) Campbell systematic reviews: policies and guide- lines. Campbell Policies and Guidelines Series No. 1. https://doi.org/10.4073/ cpg.2016. · DOI
  14. Chen M, Yip PSF (2017) The discrepancy between ideal and actual parity in Hong Kong: fertility desire, intention, and behavior. Popul Res Policy Rev 36(4):583-605
  15. Ciccia R, Verloo M (2012) Parental leave regulations and the persistence of the male breadwinner model: Using fuzzy-set ideal type analysis to assess gender equality in an enlarged Europe. J Eur Soc Policy 22(5):507-528. https://doi. org/10.1177/0958928712456576 · DOI
  16. Cools S, Fiva JH, Kirkebøen LJ (2015) Causal effects of paternity leave on children and parents. The. Scand J Econ 117(3):801-828
  17. Cygan-Rehm K (2016) Parental leave benefit and differential fertility responses: evidence from a German reform. J Popul Econ 29(1):73-103
  18. Dahl GB, Løken KV, Mogstad M, Vea Salvanes K (2016) What is the case for paid maternity leave? Rev Econ Stat 98(4):655-670
  19. Duvander A-Z, Lappegård T, Andersen SN, Garðarsdóttir Ó, Neyer G, Viklund I (2019) Parental leave policies and continued childbearing in Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Demogr Res 40(51):1501-1528
  20. Duvander AZ, Johansson M (2012) What are the effects of reforms promoting fathers' parental leave use? J Eur Soc Policy 22(3):319-330
  21. Esping-Andersen G (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton University Press, Princeton
  22. Ermisch JF (2003) An economic analysis of the family. Princeton University Press, Princeton
  23. Evertsson M, Duvander A-Z (2011) Parental leave-possibility or trap? does family leave length effect Swedish Women's Labour Market Opportunities? Eur Soc Rev 27(4):435-450. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcq018 · DOI
  24. Eydal GB, Rostgaard T (2018) Introduction to the Handbook on Family Policy. In: Eydal GB, Rostgaard T (eds) Handbook on family policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 2-9
  25. Fernández-Cornejo JA, Pozo-García ED, Esco L, Castellanos-Serrano C (2018) Can an egalitarian reform in the parental leave system reduce the motherhood labor penalty? Some evidence from Spain. Rev Esp Sociol 27:45-64. https:// doi.org/10.22325/fes/res.2018. · DOI
  26. Gauthier AH (2007) The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: a review of the literature. Popul Res Policy Rev 26:323-346
  27. Gauthier AH (2008) Some theoretical and methodological comments on the impact of policies on fertility. Vienna Yearb Popul Res 6:25-28. https://doi. org/10.1553/populationyearbook2008s25 · DOI
  28. Gauthier AH, Bartova A (2018) The impact of leave policies on employment, fertility, gender equality, and health. In: Shockley KM, Shen W, Johnson RC (eds) The Cambridge handbook of the global work family interface. Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 120-138
  29. Gauthier AH, Koops JC (2018) The history of family policy research. In: Eydal GB, Rostgaard T (eds) Handbook of family policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 11-23
  30. Gauthier AH, Philipov D (2018) Can policies enhance fertility in Europe? Vienna Yearb Popul Res 6:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1553/populationyearbook2008s1 · DOI
  31. 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 36:84-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. labeco.2015.07.001 · DOI
  32. Goldscheider F, Bernhardt E, Lappegård T (2015) The gender revolution: a fra- mework for understanding changing family and demographic behavior. Popul Dev Rev 41(2):207-239
  33. Haas L (2003) Parental leave and gender equality: lessons from the European Union. Rev Policy Res 20(1):89-114. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-1338.d01-6 · DOI
  34. Hegewisch A, Gornick JC (2011) The impact of work-family policies on women's employment: a review of research from OECD countries. Commun Work Fam 14:119-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2011.571395 · DOI
  35. Higgins JPT, Green S (eds.) (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (5.1.0). Retrieved from www.handbook.cochrane.org
  36. Hoem JM (1990) Social policy and recent fertility change in Sweden. Popul Dev Rev 16(4):735-748
  37. Hoem JM (1993) Public policy as the fuel of fertility: effects of a policy reform on the pace of childbearing in Sweden in the 1980s. Acta Sociol 36(1):19-31
  38. Hoem JM (2008) The impact of public policies on European fertility. Demogr Res 19(10):249-260
  39. Hong SH, Sullivan R (2016) The effects of subsidies for childbearing on migration and fertility: evidence from Korea. Singapore Econ Rev 61(4):1-16
  40. Kang JY (2019) Convergence of family policy across welfare regimes (1990 to 2010): Different connotations of family policy expansion. Int J Soc Welfare 28(2):167-178. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12331 · DOI
  41. Keng S-H, Sheu S-J (2011) Can education subsidy reverse falling fertility? The Case of Taiwan. J Deve Stud 47(11):1677-1698. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388. 2011.609585 · DOI
  42. Kotsadam A, Finseraas H (2011) The state intervenes in the battle of the sexes: Causal effects of paternity leave. Soc Sci Res 40(6):1611-1622
  43. Lalive R, Zweimüller J (2009) How does parental leave affect fertility and return to work? Evidence from two natural experiments. Q J Econ 124(3):1363-1402
  44. Lappegård T (2010) Family policies and fertility in Norway. Eur J Popul 26(1):99-116
  45. Matysiak A, Szalma I (2014) Effects of parental leave policies on second birth risks and women's employment entry. Population 69(4):599-636
  46. McDonald P (2000) Gender equity in theories of fertility transition. Popul Dev Rev 26(3):427-439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2000.00427.x · DOI · Paper page
  47. McDonald P (2006) Low fertility and the state: the efficacy of policy. Popul Dev Rev 32(3):485-510
  48. McDonald P (2008) Very low fertility: consequences, causes and policy approaches. Japan J Popul 6(1):19-23
  49. Neilson J, Stanfors M (2014) It's about time! Gender, parenthood, and household divisions of labor under different welfare regimes. J Family Issue 35:1066-1088. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14522240 · DOI
  50. Neyer G, Andersson G (2008) Consequences of family policies on childbearing behavior: effects or artifacts? Popul Dev Rev 34(4):699-724
  51. Nieuwenhuis R, Lancker WV (2020) Introduction: a multilevel perspective on family policy. In: Nieuwenhuis R, Lancker WV (eds) The Palgrave handbook of family policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 3-24 OECD (2019a) Family benefits public spending (indicator). https://doi.org/10. 1787/8e8b3273-en OECD (2019b) Gross domestic product (GDP) (indicator). https://doi.org/10.1787/ dc2f7aec-en OECD (2019c) PF1.1: Public spending on family benefits. OECD Family Database. http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm OECD (2019d) PF2.1: Parental leave systems. OECD Family Database. http://www. oecd.org/els/family/database.htm · DOI
  52. Olivetti C, Petrongolo B (2017) The economic consequences of family policies: lessons from a century of legislation in high-income countries. J Econ Per- spect 31(1):205-230
  53. Priebe J (2020) Quasi-experimental evidence for the causal link between fertility and subjective well-being. J Popul Econ 33(3):839-882
  54. Pronzato CD (2009) Return to work after childbirth: does parental leave matter in Europe? Rev Econ Househ 7(4):341-360
  55. Raybould A, Sear R (2020) Children of the (gender) revolution: A theoretical and empirical synthesis of how gendered division of labour influences fertility. Popul Stud 75(2):169-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2020.1851748 · DOI
  56. Rindfuss RR, Choe MK (eds.) (2016) Low fertility, institutions, and their policies: variations across industrialized countries. Springer, Switzerland
  57. Salles A (2006) The effects of family policy in the former GDR on nuptiality and births outside marriage. Population 61(1-2):141-151
  58. Saxonberg S (2013) From defamilialization to degenderization: toward a new welfare typology. Soc Policy Adm 47(1):26-49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-9515.2012.00836.x · DOI
  59. Schober PS (2014) Parental leave and domestic work of mothers and fathers: a longitudinal study of two reforms in West Germany. J Soc Policy 43:351-372. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279413000809 · DOI
  60. Spéder Z, Kapitány B (2014) Failure to realize fertility intentions: a key aspect of the post-communist fertility transition. Popul Res Policy Rev 33(3):393-418
  61. Spiess CK, Wrohlich K (2008) The parental leave benefit reform in Germany: costs and labour market outcomes of moving towards the Nordic Model. Popul Res Policy Rev 27:575-591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-008-9086-5 · DOI
  62. Stropnik N, Sircelj M (2008) Slovenia: generous family policy without evidence of any fertility impact. Demogr Res 19(26):1019-1058
  63. Thévenon O (2011) Family policies in OECD countries: a comparative analysis. Popul Dev Rev 37(1):57-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00390.x · DOI · Paper page
  64. Ugur ZB (2020) Does having children bring life satisfaction in Europe? J Happiness Stud 21(4):1385-1406
  65. Zabel C (2009) Eligibility for maternity leave and first birth timing in Great Britain. Popul Res Policy Rev 28:251-270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-008-9098-1 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thomas, J., Rowe, F., Williamson, P., & Lin, E. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • National Tsing Hua University (TW)
Corresponding author
Thomas, Jac
ORCID
Venue
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-08-08
Volume
9
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 2055-1045 (ISSN-L)
  • 2662-9992
DOI
10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w
OpenAlex
W4295540461
Cited by
134
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 113 · 2023: 1
FWCI
5.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
University of Liverpool
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Work-Family Balance Challenges
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
Keywords
parental leave, fertility, maternity leave, paternity leave, birth order, ROBINS-I, low fertility

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review