Fifty Years of Family Planning: New Evidence on the Long-Run Effects of Increasing Access to Contraception

Abstract

This paper assembles new evidence on some of the longer-term consequences of U.S. family planning policies, defined in this paper as those increasing legal or financial access to modern contraceptives. The analysis leverages two large policy changes that occurred during the 1960s and 1970s: first, the interaction of the birth control pill's introduction with Comstock-era restrictions on the sale of contraceptives and the repeal of these laws after Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965; and second, the expansion of federal funding for local family planning programs from 1964 to 1973. Building on previous research that demonstrates both policies' effects on fertility rates, I find suggestive evidence that individuals' access to contraceptives increased their children's college completion, labor force participation, wages, and family incomes decades later.Family planning policies, defined in this paper as those increasing legal or financial access to modern contraceptives and related education and medical services, have grown increasingly controversial over the last decade. 1 In 2010 and 2011, congressional Republicans supported proposals to cut family planning funding through Title X of the Public Health Service Act, which funds U.S. family planning clinics serving over 4 million women (Cohen 2011). This represents a significant departure from the bipartisan support enjoyed by these programs over the last 40 years. The first legislation authorizing a national family planning program passed in 1970 with the strong support of Republican President Richard Nixon. In fact, public opinion surveys indicate that support for family planning programs was stronger at that time among Republicans than among Democrats. 2 Much of the current debate surrounding family planning focuses on women's reproductive rights and health. In the 1960s, however, proponents of these programs often emphasized their links to the economy. Both President Lyndon Johnson and President Nixon stressed how family planning programs would promote the opportunities of children and families and thus drive economic growth. This reasoning is consistent with a long theoretical tradition in economics, including standard formulations of the quantity-quality models of investments in children (Becker and Lewis 1973, Willis 1973, Hotz, Klerman, and Willis 1997 Contact Information: Department of Economics, University of Michigan, 611 Tappan Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109; baileymj@umich.edu. 1 In this paper I do not consider the effects of policies regarding abortion. I refer the interested reader to the large literature in economics on this topic. See, for instance, Levine and others (1999), Gruber, Levine, and Staiger (1999), Donahue and Levitt (2001), Charles and Stephens (2006), Foote and Goetz (2008), and Ananat and others (2009). 2 Today the situation is reversed, with Democrats slightly more favorable. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptBrookings Pap Econ Act. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 October 20. Published in final edited form as:Bro...

The intergenerational transmission of inequality: Maternal disadvantage and health at birth

“…The second study used historical data on the timing of access to oral contraception (which differed greatly by state) and on federal family-planning grants to poor areas in order to estimate the impact of these policies on children’s outcomes. Both types of policies resulted in declines in fertility (40). Although infant health did not improve measurably in areas that received grants to subsidize contraception/family planning, maternal resources available to children did, as did the children’s long-term well-being.…”

Do Family Planning Programs Decrease Poverty? Evidence from Public Census Data

“…Second, the mismeasurement of family planning status of parents (due to migration) should lead us to misstate the relationship of interest, and understate it if measurement error is unrelated to access to family planning. Finally, using only changes in poverty rates ignores many of the other consequences of family planning programs, which extend to population growth and labor supply, higher education, labor force participation, and wages (Bailey 2013). Nevertheless, even these conservative estimates of the cost per child or adult exiting poverty suggest that family planning programs could improve economic outcomes over the longer term.…”

How Johnson Fought the War on Poverty: The Economics and Politics of Funding at the Office of Economic Opportunity

“…Many benefits were also longer-run in nature: a growing literature argues that many War on Poverty programs were fairly successful at increasing human capital, improving health, and reducing racial inequality over the longer term (Ludwig and Miller 2007; Chay, Kim, and Swarminathan 2010; Cascio et al . 2010; Almond, Hoynes, and Schanzenbach 2011; Bailey 2012; Gillezeau 2012; Bailey and Goodman-Bacon 2012; Bailey 2013; Cunningham 2013; Almond et al . forthcoming).…”