| Abstract [eng] |
This study aims to provide a deeper understanding of the socioeconomic factors that influence family decisions about having more children. By analyzing the relationship between income and the number of children, as well as examining differences between countries and generations, the study sheds light on the complex variables that contribute to family planning decisions. The theoretical framework of this research is based on G. Becker's economic model, which emphasizes the role of alternative costs and the potential impact of passive income on family decisions. Additionally, sociological factors such as individual desires for the number of children are analyzed to determine how they influence the actual number of children in different income groups. The empirical analysis uses data from the Gender and Generations Surveys, which are available for six countries. The study applies a logit model to identify the factors that affect the probability of an individual having more than the average number of children and to compare the results of different countries. The study finds that income is negatively related to the number of children in a family until a certain income level is reached. After that, income does not have a significant effect on the number of children. The desired number of children is much less relevant in lower-income groups than in higher-income groups. This suggests that different socioeconomic groups face different limitations when it comes to family planning. Education, marital status, and age are other important variables that influence the number of children. Overall, the study highlights the different role of various socio-ecnomic factors in shaping family decisions about the number of children. The findings suggest that policies aimed at increasing fertility rates need to take into account the empirical evidence to increase policy efficiency. In general, findings support investment into childcare services but not in universal payments for all income levels. Further research is needed to better undrestand the policy implications of this paper. |
