Details
Title
W poszukiwaniu demograficznych efektów rządowego programu „Rodzina 500 Plus”Journal title
Studia SocjologiczneYearbook
2022Issue
No 1Affiliation
Bartnicki, Sławomir : Uniwersytet w Białymstoku ; Alimowski, Maciej : Szkoła Doktorska Nauk Społecznych Uniwersytetu w BiałymstokuAuthors
Keywords
demografia społeczna ; „Rodzina 500 plus” ; Bayesian StructuralTime Series (BSTS) ; CausalImpactDivisions of PAS
Nauki Humanistyczne i SpołeczneCoverage
193-219Publisher
Instytut Filozofii i Socjologii PAN ; Komitet Socjologii PAN ; Wydział Socjologii UWBibliography
1. Abadie, Alberto. 2005. Semiparametric difference-in-differences estimators. The Review of Economic Studies, 72, 1: 1–19. DOI: 10.1111/0034-6527.00321.2. Acs, Gregory. 1996. The Impact of Welfare on Young Mothers’ Subsequent Childbearing Decisions. The Journal of Human Resources, 31, 4: 898–915. DOI: 10.2307/146151.
3. Athey, Susan, Guido W. Imbens. 2017. The State of Applied Econometrics: Causality and Policy Evaluation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 31, 2: 3–32. DOI: 10.1257/jep.31.2.3.
4. Balbo, Nicoletta, Francesco C. Billari, Melinda Mills. 2013. Fertility in Advanced Societies: A Review of Research. European Journal of Population, 29: 1–38. DOI: 10.1007/s10680-012-9277-y.
5. Bauernschuster, Stefan, Timo Hener, Helmut Rainer. 2016. Children of a (policy) revolution: The introduction of universal child care and its effect on fertility. Journal of the European Economic Association, 14, 4: 975–1005. DOI: 10.1111/jeea.12158.
6. Bernal, James L., Steven Cummins, Antonio Gasparrini. 2017. Interrupted time series regression for the evaluation of public health interventions: a tutorial. International Journal of Epidemiology, 46, 1: 348–355. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyw098.
7. Borg, Mary O`Malley. 1989. The Income-Fertility Relationship: Effect of the Net Price of a Child. Demography, 26, 2: 301–310. DOI: 10.2307/2061527
8. Brodersen, Kay H., Fabian Gallusser, Jim Koehler, Nicolas Remy, Steven L. Scott. 2015. Inferring Causal Impact Using Bayesian Structural Time-Series Models. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 9, 1: 247–274. DOI: 10.1214/14-AOAS788.
9. Brzozowska, Zuzanna, Isabella Buber-Ennser, Bernard Riederer. 2021. Didn`t Plan One but got One: Unintended and sooner-than-intended Parents in the East and the West of Europe. European Journal of Population, 37: 727–767. DOI: 10.1007/ s10680-021-09584-2.
10. Cattaneo, Matias D., Nicolas Idrobo, Rocio Titiunik. 2019. A practical introduction to regression discontinuity designs: Foundations. Cambridge University Press. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.09511.pdf. Dostęp 1.08.2021.
11. Cohen, Alma, Rajeev Dehejia, Dmitri Romanov. 2013. Financial Incentives and Fertility. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95, 1: 1–20. DOI: 10.1162/rest_a_00342.
12. Docquier, Frederic. 2004. Income Distribution, Non-convexities and the Fertility-Income Relationship. Economica, 71, 282: 261–273. DOI: 10.1111/j.0013-0427.2004.00369.x.
13. Feroze, Navid. 2020. Forecasting the patterns of COVID-19 and causal impacts of lockdown in top five affected countries using Bayesian Structural Time Series Models. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 140: 110196. DOI: 10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110196.
14. Fick, Stephen E., Travis W. Nauman, Colby C. Brungard, Michael C. Duniway. 2020. Evaluating natural experiments in ecology: using synthetic controls in assessments of remotely sensed land treatments. Ecological Applications, 31, 3. DOI: 10.1002/ eap.2264.
15. Fihel, Agnieszka, Marta Kiełkowska, Agnieszka Radziwinowiczówna, Anna Rosiń- ska. 2017. Determinanty spadku płodności w Polsce – próba syntezy. Studia Demograficzne, 172, 2: 35–69.
16. Fox, Jonathan, Sebastian Klusener, Mikko Myrskyla. 2019. Is a Positive Relationship Between Fertility and Economic Development Emerging at the Sub-National Regional Level? Theoretical Considerations and Evidence from Europe. European Journal of Population, 35: 487–518. DOI: 10.1007/s10680-018-9485-1.
17. Garganta, Santiago, Leonardo Gasparini, Mariana Marchionni, Mariano Tappatá. 2016. The Effect of Cash Transfers on Fertility: Evidence from Argentina. Population Research and Policy Review, 36, 1: 1–24. DOI: 10.1007/s11113-016-9417-x.
18. George, Edward I., Robert E. McCulloch. 1993. Variable selection via Gibbs sampling. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88, 423: 881–889. DOI: 10.1080/01621459.1993.10476353.
19. George, Edward I., Robert E. McCulloch. 1997. Approaches for Bayesian variable selection. Statistica sinica: 339–373.
20. González, Libertad. 2013. The Effect of a Universal Child Benefit on Conceptions, Abortions, and Early Maternal Labor Supply. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5, 3: 160–188. DOI: 10.1257/pol.5.3.160.
21. Gromada, Anna. 2018. Czemu służy program rodzina 500 plus? Analiza celów polityki publicznej i polityki partyjnej. Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny, 80, 3: 231–244.
22. Guzowski, Piotr. 2019a. Rodzina chłopska. W: P. Guzowski, C. Kuklo, red. Rodzina i jej gospodarstwo na ziemiach polskich w geografii europejskich struktur rodzinnych do połowy XX w. Białystok: Instytut Badań nad Dziedzictwem Kulturowym Europy, 39–62.
23. Guzowski, Piotr. 2019b. Rodzina chłopska. W: P. Guzowski, C. Kuklo, red. Rodzina i jej gospodarstwo na ziemiach polskich w geografii europejskich struktur rodzinnych do połowy XX w. Białystok: Instytut Badań nad Dziedzictwem Kulturowym Europy, 241–263.
24. Heidelberger, Philip, Peter D. Welch. 1981. A spectral method for confidence interval generation and run length control in simulations. C ommunications of the ACM 24, 4: 233–245. DOI: 10.1145/358598.358630.
25. Heidelberger, Philip, Peter D. Welch. 1983. Simulation run length control in the presence of an initial transient. Operations Research 31, 6: 1109–1144. DOI: 10.1287/opre.31.6.1109.
26. Kotowska, Irena E. 2017. Panelowe badanie przemian relacji między pokoleniami, w rodzinie oraz między kobietami i mężczyznami jako podstawa diagnozowania zmian demograficznych w Polsce. Studia Demograficzne, 172, 2: 23–34.
27. Inglot, Tomasz. 2020. The Triumph of Novelty over Experience? Social Policy Responses to Demographic Crises in Hungary and Poland since Eu Enlargement. East European Politics and Societies and Cultures, 34, 4: 984–1004. DOI: 10.1177/0888325419874421.
28. Ishwaran, Hemant, Sunil J. Rao. 2005. Spike and slab variable selection: Frequentist and Bayesian strategies. The Annals of Statistics, 33, 2: 730–773. DOI: 10.1214/009053604000001147.
29. Jones, Larry, Alice Schoonbroodt, Michele Tertilt. 2011. Fertility Theories: Can They Explain the Negative Fertility-Income Relationship? University of Chicago Press, 43–106.
30. Joyce, Ted, Robert Kaestner, Sanders Korenman. 2003. Welfare Reform and Non-Marital Fertility in the 1990s: Evidence from Birth Records. The B.E. J ournal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 3, 1: 1–36. DOI: 10.2202/1538-0637.1108.
31. Kalwij, Adriaan. 2010. The impact of family policy expenditure on fertility in western Europe. Demography, 47, 2: 503–519. DOI: 10.1353/dem.0.0104.
32. Kravdal, Øystein. 1994. The importance of economic activity, economic potential and economic resources for the timing of first births in Norway. Population Studies, 48: 249–267.
33. Lalive, Rafael, Josef Zweimüller. 2009. How does Parental Leave Affect Fertility and Return to Work? Evidence from Two Natural Experiments. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124, 3: 1363–1402. DOI: 10.1162/qjec.2009.124.3.1363.
34. Laroque, Guy, Bernard Salanié. 2013. Identifying the response of fertility to fiincentives. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 29, 2: 314–332. DOI: 10.1002/jae.2332
35. Levine, Phillip. 2002. The Impact of Social Policy and Economic Activity Throughout the Fertility Decision Tree. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w9021/w9021.pdf. DOI: 10.3386/w9021.
36. Luci-Greulich, Angela, Olivier Thévenon. 2013. The Impact of Family Policies on Fertility Trends in Developed Countries. European Journal of Population, 29, 4: 387–416. DOI: 10.1007/s10680-013-9295-4.
37. Magda, Iga, Michał Brzeziński, Agnieszka Chłoń-Domińczak, Irena E. Kotowska, Michał Myck, Mateusz Najsztub, Joanna Tyrowicz. 2019. „Rodzina 500+” – ocena programu i propozycje zmian. Raport Instytutu Badań Strukturalnych. Warszawa: IBS.
38. Malak, Natalie, Mahbubur M. Rahman, Terry A. Yip. 2019. Baby bonus, anyone? Examining heterogeneous responses to a pro-natalist policy. Journal of Population Economics, 32, 4: 1205–1246. DOI: 10.1007/s00148-019-00731-y.
39. Matysiak, Anna. 2011. Posiadanie własnego mieszkania a rodzicielstwo w Polsce. Studia Demograficzne, 159, 1: 37–55.
40. Merlo, Rosangela. 1995. First Birth Timing in Australia. Journal of the Australian opulation Association, 12, 2: 131–146.
41. Milligan, Kevin. 2005. Subsidizing the Stork: New Evidence on Tax Incentives and Fertility. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 87, 3: 539–555. DOI: 10.1162/0034653054638382
42. Moffitt, Robert, A. 1998. The effect of welfare on marriage and fertility. In: R. A. Moffitt, eds. Welfare, The Family, and Reproductive Behavior. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 50–97.
43. Mynarska, Monika, Marta Styrc. 2014. Preferencje i ograniczenia. Czynniki determinujące intencje posiadania pierwszego i drugiego dziecka. W: A. Matysiak, red. Nowe wzorce formowania i rozwoju rodziny w Polsce. Przyczyny oraz wpływ na zadowolenie z życia. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, 54–79.
44. Najwyższa Izba Kontroli. 2019. Realizacja programu “Rodzina 500 plus”. Informacja o wynikach kontroli. https://www.nik.gov.pl/plik/id,21260,vp,23894.pdf. Dostęp 1.08.2021.
45. Nandi, Arindam, Ramanan Laxminarayan. 2015. The unintended effects of cash transfers on fertility: evidence from the Safe Motherhood Scheme in India. Journal of Population Economics, 29, 2: 457–491. DOI: 10.1007/s00148-015-0576-6.
46. Perles-Ribes, Jose Francisco, Ana Belen Ramon-Rodriguez, Luis Moreno-Izquierdo, Maria Teresa Torregrosa Marti. 2018. Winners and losers in the Arab uprisings: a Mediterranean tourism perspective. Current Issues in Tourism, 21, 16: 1810– 1829. DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2016.1225697.
47. Perles-Ribes, Jose Francisco, Ana Belen Ramon-Rodriguez, Maria Jesús Such-Devesa, Luis Moreno-Izquierdo. 2019. Effect of political instability in consolidated destinations: The case of Catalonia (Spain). Tourism management: research, policies, practice, 70: 134–139. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.08.001.
48. Pinilla, Jaime, Miguel Negrin, Beatriz Gonzalez-Lopez-Valcarcel, Francisco-José Vazquez-Polo. 2018. Using a Bayesian Structural Time-Series Model to Infer the Causal Impact on Cigarette Sales of Partial and Total Bans on Public Smoking. Journal of Economics and Statistics, 238, 5: 423–439. DOI: 10.1515/ jbnst-2017-0125.
49. PWC. 2016. Finansowe wsparcie rodzin: awans Polski do czołówki państw UE. https://www.pwc.pl/pl/pdf/politykaprorodzinnawue-2016.pdf. Dostęp 1.08.2021.
50. Raute, Anna. 2019. Can financial incentives reduce the baby gap? Evidence from a reform in maternity leave benefits. Journal of Public Economics, 169: 203–222. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.07.010.
51. R Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/. Dostęp 1.08.2021.
52. Riphahn, Regina, Frederik Wiynck. 2017. Fertility effects of child benefits. Journal of Population Economics, 30, 4: 1135–1184. DOI:10.1007/s00148-017-0647-y.
53. Santow, Gigi, Michael Bracher. 2001. Deferment of the First Birth and Fluctuating Fertility in Sweden. European Journal of Population, 17: 343–363.
54. Schoot van de, Rens, Sarah Depaoli, Ruth King, Bianca Kramer, Kaspar Martens, Mahlet G. Tadesse, Marina Vannucci, Andrew Gelman, Duco Veen, Joukje Willemsen, Christopher Yau. 2021. Bayesian statistics and modelling. Nature Review Methods Primers 1, 1. DOI: 10.1038/s43586-020-00001-2.
55. Scott, Steven L., Hal R. Varian. 2014. Predicting the present with Bayesian structural time series. International Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Optimisation, 5, 1-2: 4–23. DOI: 10.1504/IJMMNO.2014.059942.
56. Silver, Nate. 2012. Sygnał i szum. Sztuka prognozowania w erze technologii. Gliwice: Helion.
57. Sohn, Hosung, Suk-Won Lee. 2019. Causal Impact of Having a College Degree on Women’s Fertility: Evidence From Regression Kink Designs. Demography, 56, 3: 969–990. DOI: 10.1007/s13524-019-00771-9.
58. Stichnoth, Holger. 2019. Short-run fertility effects of parental leave benefits: evidence from a structural model. Empirical Economics, 59, 1: 143–168. DOI: 10.1007/ s00181-019-01673-w
59. Strategia Demograficzna 2040. Projekt. 2021. Warszawa. https://www.gov.pl/web/demografia/strategia. Dostęp 15.08.2021.
60. Sułek, Antoni. 2002. Ogród metodologii socjologicznej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
61. Sobotka, Tomáš, Éva Beaujouan. 2014. Two Is Best? The Presistence of a Two-Child Family Ideal in Europe. Population and Development Review, 40, 3: 391–419. DOI: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2014. 00691.x.
62. Vocht, de Frank, Ceryl McQuire, Alan Brennan, Matt Egan, Colin Angus, Eileen Kaner, Emma Beard, Jamie Brown, Daniela De Angelis, Nick Carter, Barbara Murray, Rachel Dukes, Elizabeth Greenwood, Susan Holden, Russell Jago, Matthew Hick- man. 2020. Evaluating the causal impact of individual alcohol licensing decisions on local health and crime using natural experiments with synthetic controls. Addiction, 115/11: 2021–2031. DOI: 10.1111/add.15002.
63. Wasilewski, Jacek. 2014. Świadomość zmian globalizacyjnych na polskiej prowincji. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
64. Xu, Yiqing. 2017. Generalized synthetic control method: Causal inference with interactive fixed effects models. Political Analysis, 25, 1: 57–76. DOI: 10.1017/ pan.2016.2.
65. Zakaria, Muhammad, Bashir Agmed Fida, Saquib Yousaf Janjua, Syed Jawad Shahzad. 2016. Fertility and Financial Development in South Asia. Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, 133, 2: 645–668. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-016-1382-6.