Exploring the Simultaneity in Public Assistance and Abortion

Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:205KB) PP. 600-604
DOI: 10.4236/me.2013.49065    2,027 Downloads   3,221 Views  
Author(s)    Leave a comment

ABSTRACT

This paper studies the effects of time limits on abortion and welfare participation of low-income pregnant single females who may or may not have other children. In doing this, I explore the presence and nature (if it exists) of simultaneity in abortion and welfare participation. The results indicate that time limits, childcare and abortion subsidies, and public assistance payments are linked to abortion. In addition, the results indicate time limits simultaneously reduce welfare enrollments and increase abortion among low-income childless single pregnant females, and trigger abortion and shorter stays on welfare of low-income pregnant mothers. Thus, future empirical work should account for simultaneity of abortion and welfare participation.

Cite this paper

H. Snarr, "Exploring the Simultaneity in Public Assistance and Abortion," Modern Economy, Vol. 4 No. 9, 2013, pp. 600-604. doi: 10.4236/me.2013.49065.

References

[1] CDC, “Abortion Surveillance—United States,” 2009.
[2] M. Camasso, “Isolating the Family Cap Effect on Fertility Behavior: Evidence from New Jersey’s Family Development Program Experiment,” Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol. 22, No. 4, 2004, pp. 453-467. doi:10.1093/cep/byh034
[3] T. Joyce, R. Kaestner, S. Korenman and S. Henshaw, “Family Cap Provisions and Changes in Births and Abortions,” Population Research and Policy Review, Vol. 23, No. 5-6, 2004, pp. 475-511. doi:10.1007/s11113-004-3461-7
[4] J. Klerman, “Fertility Effects of Medicaid Funding of Abortions: A Disaggregated Analysis,” Mimeo, RAND, Santa Monica, 1998.
[5] H. Snarr and J. Edward, “Does Income Support Increase Abortions?” Social Choice and Welfare, Vol. 33, No. 4, 2009, pp. 575-599. doi:10.1007/s00355-009-0380-x
[6] Social Security Act–Sec. 401. [42 U.S.C. 601] (a)(2)
[7] Social Security Act–Sec. 401. [42 U.S.C. 601] (a)(3)
[8] 2001 TANF Annual Report to Congress. www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/ar2001/chapter08.pdf
[9] G. Rowe and J. Versteeg, “Welfare Rules Databook: State TANF Policies as of July 2003,” Urban Institute, 2005. www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411183_WRD_2006.pdf
[10] C. Harvey and M. Berkowitz, “Review of Diversion Programs,” Disability Research Institute, 2006. www.dri.uiuc.edu/research
[11] H. Snarr, “Was It the Economy or Reform That Precipitated the Steep Decline in the Welfare Caseload?” Applied Economics, Vol. 45, No. 4, 2013, pp. 525-540. doi:10.1080/00036846.2011.607135
[12] L. Stevans, “Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Non-Marital Births in the USA: An Examination of Causality,” Applied Economics, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1996, pp. 417-427. doi:10.1080/000368496328542
[13] T. Kane and D. Staiger, “Abortion Access and Teen Motherhood,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 111, No. 2, 1996, pp. 467-506. doi:10.2307/2946685
[14] H. Fang and D. Silverman, “On the Compassion of TimeLimited Welfare Programs,” Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 88, No. 7-8, 2004, pp. 1445-1470. doi:10.1016/S0047-2727(02)00183-4
[15] R. King, S. Myers and D. Byrne, “The Demand for Abortion by Unmarried Teenagers: Economic Factors, Age, Ethnicity and Religiosity Matter,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 51, No. 2, 1992, pp. 223-235. doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.1992.tb03349.x
[16] M. Medoff, “The Determinants and Impact of State Abortion Restrictions,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 61, No. 2, 2002, pp. 481-493. doi:10.1111/1536-7150.00169

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2017 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.