Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

AI Summary. Child car seat laws are estimated to have prevented about 145,000 births since 1980, with 90% of that decline since 2000, because families needing three car seats often must buy a larger vehicle. The authors estimate a woman with two children in car seats is 0.73 percentage points less likely to have a third annually.

Jordan Nickerson and David Solomon Social Science Research Network
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Car seat laws have led to 145,000 fewer births since 1980, with 90% of this decline occurring since 2000.

Do child car seat laws reduce births?

Core argument: Car seat laws have led to 145,000 fewer births since 1980, with 90% of that decline occurring since 2000, and roughly 8,000 births permanently forgone in 2017 alone.

Since 1980, car seat laws have led to 145,000 fewer births, with 90% of this decline occurring since 2000. These laws increase the cost of having a third child, as many families must purchase larger vehicles to accommodate three car seats, a significant expense given the high cost and unfashionable nature of practical options like minivans. The probability of a woman with two children giving birth to a third child decreases by 0.73 percentage points annually when both children require car seats. This effect is concentrated in households with access to a car and is more pronounced when a male is present, as both front seats are likely occupied. In 2017 alone, car seat laws resulted in a permanent reduction of approximately 8,000 births. While these laws have reduced child fatalities in car crashes, their impact on fertility rates is substantial, highlighting an unintended economic consequence of safety regulations.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Car seat laws have led to 145,000 fewer births since 1980, with 90% of that decline occurring since 2000, and roughly 8,000 births permanently forgone in 2017 alone.
  2. The probability that a woman with two children gives birth to a third falls by 0.73 percentage points annually when both existing children require car seats, as many families must buy larger vehicles to fit three seats.
  3. The fertility effect of car seat laws is concentrated in households with access to a car and is more pronounced when a male is present, since both front seats are then likely occupied.

Jordan Nickerson and David Solomon, “Car Seats as Contraception,” Social Science Research Network, September 22, 2020, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm

Bottomline, “…First, when conditioning on women that give birth to a second child, we examine the lifetime probability of having a third child. Each additional year that the two eldest children are required to be in car seats results in a 0.60 percentage point reduction in the lifetime probability of having a third child. Second, we embed our panel data estimations into dynamic simulations which incorporate potential offsetting effects. We estimate that switching from an eight-year-old mandate to a four-year-old mandate would result in the average woman having 0.0076 more children. In 2017, we estimate that car seat laws lead to a permanent reduction of approximately 8,000 births, and have prevented 145,000 births over our sample period, with 60% of this effect being since 2008. By contrast, if current laws had applied over the whole sample, we estimate there would have been a further 350,000 fewer births. When comparing simulated birth decreases with predicted changes in births from our base regressions (which only measure contemporaneous effects), we estimate that approximately 71% of the contemporaneous effect is permanent….”

Here they explain their mechanism, “…These laws can significantly raise the cost of having children for women who already have two young children, and are considering a third. While the particular type of mandated restraining device varies, many cars cannot easily accommodate three child seats in the back row of seats, as would be needed if both front seats are occupied by adults. This especially increases the cost of a third child for many families, by necessitating the purchase of a larger car. The most practical options, like minivans, have additional problems of being expensive and unfashionable. We exploit the specific nature of costs associated with a third child, along with considerable variation in mandated ages over states and years, to identify the impact of state car seat laws on fertility. Using census data on the number and age of children for each woman surveyed,we estimate the effect of these laws on birthrates from 1973 to 2017. We find that when a woman has two children below the car seat age, her chances of giving birth that year decline by 0.73 percentage points. This represents a large decline, as the probability of giving birth for a woman age 18-35 with two children already is 9.36% in our sample…”

But as the same time the associated costs of having to buy a bigger car has lowered fertility“…Using census data and state-year variation in laws,we estimate that when women have two children of ages requiring mandated car seats, they have a lower annual probability of giving birth by 0.73 percentage points. Consistent with a causal channel, this effect is limited to third child births, is concentrated in households with access to a car, and is larger when a male is present (when both front seats are likely to be occupied)…. . Simultaneously, they led to a permanent reduction of approximately 8,000 births in the same year, and 145,000 fewer births since 1980, with 90% of this decline being since 2000….”

Unintended consequences, car seat laws. They did limit child deaths, paper estimates, “…these laws prevented…57 car crash fatalities of children nationwide in 2017…”but their cumulative impact was likely limited, “…To give context, it is worth noting how many children’s car crash fatalities there are in the first place in the U.S. In 1978, the number of fatalities for children age 0-8 was 2,392. By 2017, this had declined 73% to 654 total. However, this is almost exactly the same as the 72% decline in fatalities for children ages 9-12 over the same period from 975 to 273 (who were largely unaffected by these laws). In other words, back of the envelope approximations are consistent with the small numbers we document….”

Ed Comment:You know. I’m on board with trying to grow the US population significantly. But I wouldn’t do it be trying to increase births, which adds to global warming. I would did through immigration and only by trying to recruit the brightest people. By the time I was through, there would be no smart people in the rest of the world. As people don’t replace themselves, the population will fall to zero.

Showing 102 database articles primarily about Demographics