Back to work or stay-at-home mother?Maternal employment in FinlandTapio RäsänenResearcher, KelaSosiaalipolitiikan päivät 2016Turku 27.–28.10.2016

In cooperation with:Eva Österbacka, Professor, Åbo Akademi UniversityAnita Haataja, Senior Researcher, KelaMaria Valaste, Senior Researcher, Kela

2

Maternal employment in Finland

• Maternal employment is internationally high• Child-care system in Finland

• Child home care, Private day care, Public day care

Research question:What affects the duration of mothers’ prolonged child care spells?

− Personal and family characteristics?− Previous labour market attachment?− Policy?− Business cycle?

3

Data & methodology

• 50 % random sample of Finnish mothers giving first birth between 1999 and 2009

• Each cohort is followed up until 2013• Data on

• Employment and unemployment spells• Maternity and parental leave spells• Child home care allowance spells

• We model return-to-work decision on• Personal and family characteristics• Previous work experience and labor market attachment• Policy implications, e.g. municipal supplements

4

Back to workLabour market attachment

Maximum age difference of 1st and 2nd child is 6 years.Labour market attachment, previous 2 years: High >= 22 months, Low < 22 months.

5

Back to work after 2nd childbirthReturning to work between childbirths

Maximum age difference of 1st and 2nd child is 3 years.

6

Survival analysisWhat affects stay-at-home duration?

• We analyze the effect of covariates− First visually− with Kaplan-Meier curves− with Cox proportional hazards models

• Cohorts 2002 and 2003• New mothers are followed until they are right censored or

return to work:− at next childbirth− at dissolution or− at 60 months (event = 0)− return to work (event = 1)

7

Personal and family characteristicsCohorts 2002 and 2003, high labour market attachment, one child

8

Kaplan-Meier curves 1/3Cohorts 2002 and 2003, censor at dissolution at or next childbirth

Education Wage

9

Kaplan-Meier curves 2/3Cohorts 2002 and 2003, censor at dissolution at or next childbirth

Age Municipal supplements

10

Kaplan-Meier curves 3/3Cohorts 2002 and 2003, censor at dissolution at or next childbirth

Note: Unemployed and employed Note: High labor market attachment

Immigrant Immigrant

11

Preliminary modelwith time-varying municipal supplements

Model: cohorts 2002 and 2003, high labour market attachment. N = 15 290Parameter Class Distrubiton Parameter

estimateSignificant?

Age 19-25 19 % ref.26-31 49 % *32- 32 % ***

Education low 6 % ref.medium 38 % *high 55 % ***

Mother's wage -20 000 40 % ref.20 000 to 30 000 42 % ***30 000- 17 % ***

Immigrant no 95 % ref.yes 5 % -

Partner's income -20 000 24 % ref.20 000 to 30 000 38 % -30 000- 38 % ***

Municipal supplements Neither 24 % ref.Only private care 23 % *Only child home care 6 % ***Both 48 % -

Significance levels: *** = < 0.0001, ** = < 0.01, * = < 0.05 [-0.6, 0.6]

Blue: Returns to work fasterRed: Returns to work slower

12

Discussion & Ideas

• Ideas to remove business cycle effect and/or trend?− We have access to regional unemployment rates (yearly)− Construct (dummy) variable to account most of the time

structure?

Thank you!