Does Biology Drive Child Penalties? Evidence from Biological and Adoptive Families

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Standard

Does Biology Drive Child Penalties? Evidence from Biological and Adoptive Families. / Søgaard, Jakob Egholt; Kleven, Henrik; Landais, Camille.

I: American Economic Review: Insights, Bind 3, Nr. 2, 2021, s. 183-198.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Søgaard, JE, Kleven, H & Landais, C 2021, 'Does Biology Drive Child Penalties? Evidence from Biological and Adoptive Families', American Economic Review: Insights, bind 3, nr. 2, s. 183-198. https://doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20200260

APA

Søgaard, J. E., Kleven, H., & Landais, C. (2021). Does Biology Drive Child Penalties? Evidence from Biological and Adoptive Families. American Economic Review: Insights, 3(2), 183-198. https://doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20200260

Vancouver

Søgaard JE, Kleven H, Landais C. Does Biology Drive Child Penalties? Evidence from Biological and Adoptive Families. American Economic Review: Insights. 2021;3(2):183-198. https://doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20200260

Author

Søgaard, Jakob Egholt ; Kleven, Henrik ; Landais, Camille. / Does Biology Drive Child Penalties? Evidence from Biological and Adoptive Families. I: American Economic Review: Insights. 2021 ; Bind 3, Nr. 2. s. 183-198.

Bibtex

@article{9661eced89b445e686a3d5f9db1b3397,
title = "Does Biology Drive Child Penalties? Evidence from Biological and Adoptive Families",
abstract = "This paper investigates whether the impact of children on the labor market outcomes of women relative to men—child penalties—can be explained by the biological links between mother and child. We estimate child penalties in biological and adoptive families using event studies around the arrival of children and almost 40 years of adoption data from Denmark. Short-run child penalties are slightly larger for biological mothers than for adoptive mothers, but their long-run child enalties are virtually identical and precisely estimated. This suggests that biology is not a key driver of child-related gender gaps.",
author = "S{\o}gaard, {Jakob Egholt} and Henrik Kleven and Camille Landais",
year = "2021",
doi = "10.1257/aeri.20200260",
language = "English",
volume = "3",
pages = "183--198",
journal = "American Economic Review: Insights",
issn = "2640-205X",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does Biology Drive Child Penalties? Evidence from Biological and Adoptive Families

AU - Søgaard, Jakob Egholt

AU - Kleven, Henrik

AU - Landais, Camille

PY - 2021

Y1 - 2021

N2 - This paper investigates whether the impact of children on the labor market outcomes of women relative to men—child penalties—can be explained by the biological links between mother and child. We estimate child penalties in biological and adoptive families using event studies around the arrival of children and almost 40 years of adoption data from Denmark. Short-run child penalties are slightly larger for biological mothers than for adoptive mothers, but their long-run child enalties are virtually identical and precisely estimated. This suggests that biology is not a key driver of child-related gender gaps.

AB - This paper investigates whether the impact of children on the labor market outcomes of women relative to men—child penalties—can be explained by the biological links between mother and child. We estimate child penalties in biological and adoptive families using event studies around the arrival of children and almost 40 years of adoption data from Denmark. Short-run child penalties are slightly larger for biological mothers than for adoptive mothers, but their long-run child enalties are virtually identical and precisely estimated. This suggests that biology is not a key driver of child-related gender gaps.

U2 - 10.1257/aeri.20200260

DO - 10.1257/aeri.20200260

M3 - Journal article

VL - 3

SP - 183

EP - 198

JO - American Economic Review: Insights

JF - American Economic Review: Insights

SN - 2640-205X

IS - 2

ER -

ID: 284285287