The Consequences of Abortion and Contraception Policies on Young Women's Reproductive

108 Pages·2016·0.59 MB·English

UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPeennnnssyyllvvaanniiaa
SScchhoollaarrllyyCCoommmmoonnss
Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations
2015
TThhee CCoonnsseeqquueenncceess ooff AAbboorrttiioonn aanndd CCoonnttrraacceeppttiioonn PPoolliicciieess oonn
YYoouunngg WWoommeenn''ss RReepprroodduuccttiivvee CChhooiicceess,, SScchhoooolliinngg aanndd LLaabboorr
SSuuppppllyy
Diego Amador
University of Pennsylvania, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations
Part of the Demography, Population, and Ecology Commons, and the Labor Economics Commons
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Amador, Diego, "The Consequences of Abortion and Contraception Policies on Young Women's
Reproductive Choices, Schooling and Labor Supply" (2015). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 1003.
https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1003
This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1003
For more information, please contact [email protected].
TThhee CCoonnsseeqquueenncceess ooff AAbboorrttiioonn aanndd CCoonnttrraacceeppttiioonn PPoolliicciieess oonn YYoouunngg WWoommeenn''ss
RReepprroodduuccttiivvee CChhooiicceess,, SScchhoooolliinngg aanndd LLaabboorr SSuuppppllyy
AAbbssttrraacctt
I evaluate the effects of regulations that limit the availability of abortion services, as well as the impact of
policies that subsidize contraception, on abortion and contraceptive choices of young women and on
their life-cycle fertility, schooling and labor supply. I specify and structurally estimate a dynamic life-cycle
model of abortion, contraceptive use, schooling and labor supply decisions using data from the NLSY97
combined with aggregate abortion provider data from the Guttmacher Institute. Variation across time and
space in state-specific regulations and in the availability of abortion providers at the county level provides
a valuable source of identification for the model parameters. My estimation approach allows for
underreporting of abortions by NLSY respondents. Policy simulations show that restrictions on abortions
increase contraceptive use, which moderates the effect of abortion restrictions on birth rates. Eliminating
access to abortion services has significant effects on women's schooling and lifetime earnings. The
average effect of restricting access to abortion on lifetime welfare is small, but there is substantial
heterogeneity in welfare losses across women. As an alternative to abortion restrictions, I find that
providing free contraception would increase contraceptive use and decrease abortion rates substantially.
DDeeggrreeee TTyyppee
Dissertation
DDeeggrreeee NNaammee
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
GGrraadduuaattee GGrroouupp
Economics
FFiirrsstt AAddvviissoorr
Kenneth I. Wolpin
KKeeyywwoorrddss
Abortion, Contraception, Labor Market, Structural Estimation
SSuubbjjeecctt CCaatteeggoorriieess
Demography, Population, and Ecology | Labor Economics
This dissertation is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1003
THE CONSEQUENCES OF ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTION
POLICIES ON YOUNG WOMEN’S REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES,
SCHOOLING AND LABOR SUPPLY
Diego Amador Osuna
A DISSERTATION
in
Economics
Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania
in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
2015
Supervisor of Dissertation
Kenneth I. Wolpin
Professor, Department of Economics
Graduate Group Chairperson
George J. Mailath
Professor, Department of Economics
Dissertation Committee
Fla`vio Cunha
Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Rice University
Petra E. Todd
Professor, Department of Economics
Kenneth I. Wolpin
Professor, Department of Economic
THE CONSEQUENCES OF ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTION POLICIES
ON YOUNG WOMEN’S REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES, SCHOOLING AND
LABOR SUPPLY
COPYRIGHT
2015
Diego Amador Osuna
Acknowledgments
Doctoral dissertations, I believe I once heard someone say, are written in sweat and
tears. As I plan to submit my own, however, it is obvious to me that, in my case,
the missing ingredient in that rather awful combination is the support of the people
around me. They were the ones who helped me push through the hard times and
the ones who guided me when progress seemed elusive. This dissertation is their
accomplishment as much as it is mine.
I would like to begin by thanking my dissertation committee. I am extremely
gratefultoPetraToddforherfeedbackandherwonderfulinsight; toFlavioCunhafor
his incredible advise, unquestionable support and constant encouragement; and very
specially to my advisor, Ken Wolpin. His way of thinking about economics and his
commitment to produce outstanding research has been truly inspiring. But beyond
everything that I learned from his advice throughout these years, I am immensely
grateful to him for trusting my ability to make the choices I believed were right for
me. Above everyone else, I have Ken to thank for any personal growth that I may
have achieved during the past years.
I would also like to thank all of my friends and classmates in the economics and
demography departments, from my cohort to the friends I made along the way. I
could not have asked for a better group of people with whom to share the pains of the
first year, the joys of the small accomplishments or the religious visits to Don Memo.
I am especially grateful to Nicola´s, Sina, Ekim, Tzuo and Felipe. I cannot imagine
having gone through these years without their friendship.
I also feel the deepest and most sincere gratitude towards Raquel Bernal and
Ximena Pen˜a, whose mentorship, support and friendship I have always been able to
count on.
iii
Finally, I would like to thank the most important people in the world to me, the
ones who bring joy to my life and have helped me pick myself up more times than I
can ever count. Infinitas gracias a los papases, que se sienten orgullosos de mi cuando
deber´ıan sentirse orgullosos de s´ı mismos. Su amor incondicional es la bendici´on
ma´s grande de mi vida. A Toma´s, siempre listo a alegrarnos la vida a todos. A mi
hermanita Mar´ıa, a qui´en admiro profundamente, cuyo coraz´on est´a pegado al m´ıo
con un v´ınculo inquebrantable. And finally to Teresita, my socia and love of my life,
who has held my hand throughout the good times and the bad and with whom I now
happily look into the future.
iv
ABSTRACT
THE CONSEQUENCES OF ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTION POLICIES
ON YOUNG WOMEN’S REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES, SCHOOLING AND
LABOR SUPPLY
Diego Amador Osuna
Kenneth I. Wolpin
I evaluate the effects of regulations that limit the availability of abortion services, as
well as the impact of policies that subsidize contraception, on abortion and contra-
ceptive choices of young women and on their life-cycle fertility, schooling and labor
supply. I specify and structurally estimate a dynamic life-cycle model of abortion,
contraceptive use, schooling and labor supply decisions using data from the NLSY97
combinedwithaggregateabortionproviderdatafromtheGuttmacherInstitute. Vari-
ationacrosstimeandspaceinstate-specificregulationsandintheavailabilityofabor-
tion providers at the county level provides a valuable source of identification for the
model parameters. My estimation approach allows for underreporting of abortions by
NLSY respondents. Policy simulations show that restrictions on abortions increase
contraceptive use, which moderates the effect of abortion restrictions on birth rates.
Eliminating access to abortion services has significant effects on women’s schooling
and lifetime earnings. The average effect of restricting access to abortion on lifetime
welfare is small, but there is substantial heterogeneity in welfare losses across women.
As an alternative to abortion restrictions, I find that providing free contraception
would increase contraceptive use and decrease abortion rates substantially.
v
Contents
Acknowledgments iii
Abstract iv
List of Tables viii
List of Illustrations ix
1 Introduction 1
2 Related Literature 7
3 Background 11
3.1 Legal context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2 Access to abortion services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3 Abortion patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4 Contraceptive use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4 Model 18
4.1 Environment and choice set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2 Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.3 Budget constraint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.4 Wages, labor supply and schooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.5 Contraceptive choices, pregnancies and abortions . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.6 Exogenous state variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.7 Pre-determined heterogeneity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.8 Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.9 State space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.10 The problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.11 Solution of the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5 Data 30
5.1 NLSY97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2 Guttmacher Institute Census of Abortion Providers and policy reports 34
5.3 Out of pocket cost of contraception and abortion . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.4 Sample selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.5 Descriptive statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6 Estimation 38
6.1 Biased misreporting of abortions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
7 Results 43
7.1 Model fit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
vi
7.2 Characterization of unobserved types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7.3 Abortion and contraception costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7.4 The willingness to pay for an abortion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
7.5 Counterfactual policy simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
7.5.1 Perfectly enforced ban on abortions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
7.5.2 Other restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
7.5.3 Free contraception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
8 Conclusion 62
9 Appendix 64
9.1 Appendix I: Functional forms and distributional assumptions . . . . . 64
9.1.1 Functional forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
9.1.2 Distributional assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
9.2 Appendix II: Measurement error processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
9.2.1 Unbiased measurement error for discrete variables . . . . . . . 71
9.2.2 Biased measurement error process for fertility outcomes . . . . 73
9.2.3 Smoothing of ρ and age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
9.2.4 Continuous variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
9.3 Appendix III: Estimation and Parameter estimates . . . . . . . . . . 76
9.3.1 Likelihood function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
9.3.2 Calculation of standard errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
9.3.3 Parameter estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Figures and Tables 79
Bibliography 94
vii
List of Tables
1 Abortions by socio-demographic characteristics. 2008. . . . . . . . . . 82
2 Contraceptive use and method by age (%). 2006-208 . . . . . . . . . 83
3 Observations dropped at each stage of sample selection . . . . . . . . 83
4 Distribution of initial conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5 Pregnancy and choice distributions, by age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6 Distribution of selected state variables, by age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
7 Characterization of unobserved types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
8 Abortion and contraception costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
9 Willingness to pay for an abortion (if positive) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
10 Counterfactual policies. Differences with respect to baseline. . . . . . 88
11 Abortion ban: Human Capital and Earnings Losses . . . . . . . . . . 89
12 Lifetime Utility Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
13 Free contraception, effects by unobserved type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
14 Parameter Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
viii