AYACUCHO Distrito de San Javier de

The ‘marginal child’, the child that would not have been born in the absence of post-war optimism, could be different from the average child through two mechanisms. Section 2.2.2 established that the fertility rise is driven by both delayed fertility and unanticipated conceptions. Parents who de- layed fertility are likely different from those who faced an unanticipated conception, and so may be their children’s outcomes. First it is important to stress that parental selection after the war is not driven by the avail- ability of medical care. The medical sector expanded during war years.35

Equivalently, the number of perinatal deaths and stillbirths is not higher for the 1946 cohort, whereas child mortality is somewhat elevated (Fig- ure 2.A6). This suggests that health care conditions were sufficient, and that parental selection is driven by choices instead of available care. If anything the higher prevalence of child mortality would hint at negative parental selection for this cohort.

First, the bad socioeconomic circumstances that prevailed during the last war years, together with the expectation that the Germans would even- tually be defeated after the turning point of the war could cause parents to

35_{The number of doctors, dentists and midwifes increased from 1938 to 1942 by re-}

spectively 5%, 28% and 10%. In 1948, 22% more people were employed in the medical sector as opposed to 1938.

2.2. THE DUTCH BIRTH PEAK OF 1946 31

delay fertility until after the war. Previous literature on parental selection and economic uncertainty shows that women with better socioeconomic characteristics are more likely to respond to economic uncertainty by ad- justing fertility (Dehejia and Lleras-Muney, 2004; Del Bono et al., 2012; Currie et al., 2015; Chevalier and Marie, 2017). This would imply posi- tive parental selection for parents who delayed fertility during the war, and consequently better long-term outcomes for the ‘marginal child’. However, during a war it is unclear who is delaying fertility. It is hard to survive with the available means, and people had to use their assets to survive. Richer individuals have greater resources than poorer (in terms of money and goods) to exchange for necessary goods, which might lead to a larger impact of the war on individuals from lower socioeconomic strata during the war. However, the low social classes (i.e. laborers) were not necessar- ily worse off as they often started trading on the black market (Klemann, 2002). Hence, it is not a priori clear who is delaying in times of war.

Apart from the ambiguity of the interaction of war circumstances and parental selection, fertility delay is not by definition good for the child. Older mothers biologically have a higher probability on adverse pregnancy outcomes (e.g. Abdalla et al., 1993; Gianaroli et al., 1999; Pellicer et al., 1995; Ananth et al., 1996; Stein and Susser, 2000), which may also impact the child’s later life outcomes. These adverse health outcomes become ap- parent beyond certain age, likely around age 33-35 (e.g Royer, 2004; Miller, 2011; Bratti and Cavalli, 2014). This biological channel will likely only play a minor role in this paper, as the margin of later motherhood is centered around age 27 (see Figure 2.6 and 2.8). Additionally to take into account any biological concerns, I control for maternal age at birth in the empirical

strategy. Hence, the biological channel will likely not affect the results. Similarly delaying fertility might be good as it provides women with the opportunity to invest in their human capital before childbirth which im- proves labor market outcomes (Miller, 2011; Bratti and Cavalli, 2014), and can be beneficial for the child (Miller, 2009). However, this channel mainly works through increased parental resources and home stability induced by delayed fertility (Fergusson and Woodward, 1999). This channel may play a smaller role in the studied time period as human capital accumulation may be complicated during war times, and either way female labor force attachment was very low in the 1940s/1950s.

Second, immediate post-war optimism could lead to unanticipated con- ceptions. Women might get pregnant in the wave of optimism that pre- vailed right after the war without well considering the consequences. This is especially relevant there was no access to oral contraceptives at the time, and induced abortion was illegal. Despite the availability of other (less effective) contraceptives (i.e. rubber condoms and periodic abstinence) unintended conceptions were prone to occur, and prone to end up as un- anticipated/unplanned births. Earlier literature shows that children whose mothers got (improved) access to abortion, a measure that can prevent un- anticipated/unplanned births, have better living circumstances and adult labor market outcomes (Gruber et al., 1999; Ananat et al., 2009; Mølland, 2016). Similarly, improved access to the pill provided women the ability to plan pregnancies and is associated with a lower number of unwanted births (e.g Goldin and Katz, 2002; Bailey, 2006; Myers, 2017). The diffu- sion of the pill led to positive parental selection in the longer-run (Ananat and Hungerman, 2012), which extends towards better educational and la-

2.2. THE DUTCH BIRTH PEAK OF 1946 33

bor market outcomes for their children (Bailey, 2013). The micro-data shows that marriages of parents who conceived in-wedlock lasted on aver- age 7 months longer than marriages of parents who conceived out-wedlock (P = 0.000).36 _{Suggesting that children born in the latter marriages may}

grow up in a less stable household environment. Unanticipated pregnancies are hypothesized to be associated with negative selection into parenthood, and the ‘marginal child’ would have worse characteristics on average.

Last but not least, when studying child adult outcomes in this particu- lar setting it is important to take into account that the studied cohort may not only be different in composition, but is for sure different in size. Evi- dence shows that cohort size may negatively affect a cohort’s educational and labor market outcomes (e.g. Bound and Turner, 2007; Brunello, 2010). For the Birth Peak cohort, the entrance of large groups of pupils into pri- mary schools led to large classes (48 to 50 students were not uncommon in primary school). The cohort entered the labor market in the 1960s. Un- employment was low because the cohort’s labor market entrance coincided with a large demand for labor, and staying longer in school became a new option (Schuyt and Taverne, 2004; CBS, 2012). The large size of the cohort is hypothesized to negatively affect adult outcomes. Section 2.6.1 discusses two methods to separate parental selection effects from cohort size effects, and based on these tests I find no evidence for cohort effects.