




































INDIAN JOURNAL OF FINANCE AND BANKING 12(1) (2022), 9-18 

9 

 

                       FINANCE AND BANKING 

                                                                  IJFB VOL 12 NO 1 (2022) P-ISSN 2574-6081  E-ISSN 2574-609X 
                                                  

        Available online at https://www.cribfb.com 

                                                                                                                                           Journal homepage: https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/ijfb 
                                                                                                                                                                                                   Published by CRIBFB, USA 

INTERFERENCE OF ABORTION LAW ON THE RELATIONSHIP 

BETWEEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND FERTILITY RATE 

OF WOMEN           

 
 Dona Ghosh (a)       Chandril Bhattacharyya (b)1     

 

(a) Assistant Professor (Economics), Department of Management, Thiagarajar School of Management, India; and  Adjunct Senior Lecturer, Taylor’s 

University, Malaysia; E-mail: phddona@gmail.com 
(b) Assistant Professor (Economics), Center for Development Studies, India; E-mail: chandrilbhattacharyya@gmail.com 

 

 
A R T I C L E I N F O 
 

 

Article History: 
 

Received: 28th October 2022 
Accepted: 11th December 2022 

Online Publication: 30th December 2022 

 
Keywords: 
 

Abortion Law, Economic Development,  

Fertility, Intertemporal Relationship 

 
JEL Classification Codes: 
 

K42, O1, J13 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

  

 
A B S T R A C T 

 
The last few decades have seen unprecedented economic growth and fertility decline. However, the 

relationship between economic development and fertility rate varies across countries due to country-

specific characteristics. There are two schools of thought in the existing literature: the first holds that 

women's fertility declines with economic development, which happens in tandem with industrialization, 

while the second holds that fertility rises with economic growth because it encourages early marriage, 

coupled with an increase in financial security. However, there needs to be more information in the 
literature regarding how various birth control regulatory systems affect the connection between fertility 

and economic development. Therefore, the present study attempts to analyze the relationship between 

birthrate and GDP per capita growth in 182 nations (using panel data from 1990 to 2012). The study 

has three major findings. First, it implies that the U-shaped association between economic progress and 

fertility rate is not universal. Second, the law affects women's fertility. More abortion restrictions boost 

a woman's fertility. Finally, cultural influences like previous periods' fertility rates affect the current 

period's fertility, indicating an intertemporal link. The study contributes to the in-depth understanding 

of the determinants of fertility rate. It identified how the abortion law influences the relationship between 
economic development and fertility rate. The findings can help design fertility control measures based 

on a country's economic development status. 

 
 

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee CRIBFB, USA. This article is an open-access article distributed 
under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license 

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).                           

 

INTRODUCTION 

The total fertility rate is "the number of children that would be born to a woman if she were to survive to the end of her 

reproductive years and bear children in accordance with existing age-specific fertility rates." Due to advances in medicine 

and societal mores, fertility rates dropped dramatically in the 20th century. As a result of this dramatic drop in fertility, a 

sizable portion of the global population is now below the replacement rate (defined as 2.1 children per woman) (Wilson, 

2004). Literature suggests a significant relationship between fertility and socioeconomic status (Lacalle-Calderon, Perez-

Trujillo, & Neira, 2017). The traditional concept of children (i.e. investment goods) and their numbers have shifted as 

societies shift from the earlier concept of having larger families to ensure economic security in old age to having fewer, 

more productive children, leading to a low fertility rate across the globe over the past few decades. As a result, rising living 

standards lead to a preference for a smaller number of high-quality children (Becker, 1981). So, sometimes family size 

control is deliberately done. It also observed that low-income families began taking contraception for population control as 

their incomes rose (Easterlin et al., 1980). 

On the other hand, economic development also makes it easier for women to join the workforce and more expensive 

for mothers to stay at home (Becker, 1965). Thus, urbanization, family planning, and women's education all negatively 

impact birth rates (Giota & Panos, 1999). However, Myrskyla, Kohler, and Billari (2009) argued that the government caring 

for its citizens could increase the birth rate. 

                                                      
1Corresponding Author: ORCID ID: 0000-0002-8103-2201 
© 2022 by the authors. Hosting by CRIBFB. Peer review under responsibility of CRIBFB, USA.  

https://doi.org/10.46281/ijfb.v12i1.1886 

 
To cite this article: Ghosh, D., & Bhattacharyya, C. (2023). INTERFERENCE OF ABORTION LAW ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND FERTILITY RATE OF WOMEN. Indian Journal of Finance and Banking, 12(1), 9-18. 

https://doi.org/10.46281/ijfb.v12i1.1886 

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1801-2985
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
https://doi.org/10.46281/ijfb.v12i1.1886
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8103-2201


Ghosh & Bhattacharyya, Indian Journal of Finance and Banking 12(1) (2022), 9-18 

 

10 

The paradoxical effect is that the developed world has fewer children than the developing world, even though 

economic progress raises the status of women in society, leading to a drop in fertility. This suggests that a comprehensive 

study including many socioeconomic and legal elements is necessary to determine the impact of economic development on 

the fertility rate. 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

The demographic transition argument has drawn a lot of interest in demography for a long time. Although the term 

"transition" has been for a while, Notestein (1945) was the first to use it as a definition. The term "demographic transition" 

is often used to describe the natural consequence of rising living standards: the classification of many permutations of birth 

and death rates (Landry, 1987). The formal model (similar to Malthusian theory, 1965) claims that if a country's income is 

higher than the equilibrium level, the country will try to converge toward a fixed per-capita income, leading to a decrease 

in the mortality rate as both fertility and income rise. However, this idea needs to capture better the nineteenth-century 

evidence showing a fertility decline alongside rising prosperity. Therefore, the neoclassical models emerge from the 

dynamic growth process with three distinct demographic transition periods: pre-industrial society (characterized by high 

birth and death rates but slow economic growth), post-industrialization, and the era of modernization (a temporal imbalance 

exhibiting a high birth rate and low death rate as a consequence of the sudden improvement in technology); and the post-

modern era (characterized by high birth rate and low death rate) (when the birth rate drops sharply along with constant death 

rate). 

There are certain debates on demographic theories. Firstly, they assumed parents concern only about the number 

of children. It contradicts the present society's view and hence fertility rates. Demand for children in society is shaped by 

the cost of children, parents' income and their tastes. Secondly, they ignored the importance of human capital, which is a 

significant determinant of economic development. Huge wealth and time investments are required to turn into human capital 

from human – it initially requires wealth and time investments from parents (present) to children (future) side (Zhang & 

Nishimura, 1993; Hoddinott, 1992) with the expectation of old age security. So, to access better human capital with limited 

investment capacity, parents prefer to reduce no. of children causing low fertility rates. Finally, those theories are Europe-

centric and somewhat misfit to the rest of the world's experiences of demographic transition and development. 

So, what are the reasons for fertility reduction? Though a set of "proximate determinants" of socioeconomic factors 

are responsible for determining fertility (Bongaart, 1982) of society but an extended debate hovers around economic growth. 

Earlier findings exhibit positive (Kuznets, 1967) or no relation between per capita income and population growth rates. On 

the contrary, many studies found a negative relation between these two. Estimating the long-run effect using a demographic-

economic simulation model, Ashraf, Weil, and Wilde (2013) argued that fertility reduction from the U.N. medium variant 

to the low variant caused's a rise of "output per capita by 11.9 percent at a horizon of 50 years". Ahituv (2001) finds that a 

1 percent fall in fertility growth causes more than a 3 percent increase in GDP per capita growth. This is because the higher 

the population growth, the more skeletal the per-worker physical capital (Solow, 1956; Lucas, 1958), which pulls down 

economic growth. Unlike developing countries, developed countries have more outstanding per-worker physical capital, so 

their per capita income growth rate is higher (Ahituv, 2001). Bloom and his colleagues (2008) argued it as the "economic 

benefits of reduced fertility," indicating a positive association between the growth of per capita income and the growth of 

the working-age population. In this context, women's participation in the labour force is essential. Participation of women 

in the labourforce curtails the expected no. of children (Schultz, 1969). However, the story of developing countries is 

different since here, children are performers of domestic work, caretakers of their younger siblings etc. - showing a positive 

correlation between fertility and female labour supply (Bulatao & Lee, 1983) at the initial stage of development. Thus, 

fertility rate differs across countries due to heterogeneous preferences for children (Mankiw et al., 1992).  

The present study attempted to examine, firstly, whether the usual U-shaped relationship between fertility and 

economic development exists in every stage of income; and, secondly, how the abortion law influences the relationship 

between economic development and fertility of females. 

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 

Data 
The present study used secondary data from World Bank's website2 For the period 1990 to 2012. It used the data on Total 

Fertility Rate (TFR), Gross National Income Per Capita (GNIPC), Adult Literacy Rate (LIT), Household Final Consumption 

Expenditure (HFCE), Female Labor Force Participation (FLFP) and Public Spending on Education (PSE). The website 

provided data for 216 countries, but the study eliminated the countries for which data needed to be included. After 

eliminating the missing data, only 182 countries were considered for analysis. Moreover, it uses data on the quality of 

abortion laws of different countries from different websites on the internet. 

 

Descriptions of Variables 
The log of Total Fertility Rate (LTFR) is considered the dependent variable in our analysis. GNIPC was computed from 

Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) based Gross National Income (GNI). GNI "is the sum of value added by all resident 

producers plus any product taxes (fewer subsidies) not included in the valuation of output plus net receipts of primary 

income (compensation of employees and property income) from abroad" (Nizamuddin, 2021). PPP-based GNI is the gross 

national income (GNI) converted to international dollars using purchasing power parity rates. An international dollar has 

the same purchasing power over GNI as a U.S. dollar has in the United States. Data are in current international dollars based 

                                                      
2 www.data.worldbank.org/indicator accessed on 15th October 2014. 



Ghosh & Bhattacharyya, Indian Journal of Finance and Banking 12(1) (2022), 9-18 

 

11 

on the 2011 ICP round. LIT was measured by the percentage of literate people aged 15 years and above. To calculate HFCE 

(previously private consumption), the study examined the market value of all goods and services purchased by families. It 

excluded home purchases but included owner-occupied imputed rent, government permission and licence fees. The 2011 

ICP round is used to convert data to international dollars3. FLFP was measured by "the percentage of the total show the 

extent to which women are active in the labour force. The labour force comprises people ages 15 and older who meet the 

International Labour Organization's definition of the economically active population."4. PSE is calculated as the sum of all 

government spending on education (current and capital) as a percentage of GDP for a particular year. Government spending 

on education encompasses funding for public and private schools, education administration, and transfer payments and 

subsidies to individuals and families. A categorical variable, i.e. Abortion Law (ABL), has four categories. Based on these 

characteristics, abortion laws are categorized5 Into four types: 

a) Type I (abortion is legal to save the woman’s life or prohibited altogether); 

b) Type II (abortion is legal to save the woman’s life and to preserve health, however, Mental health was not 

considered); 

c) Type III (abortion is legal to save the “woman’s life, to preserve health” and on socioeconomic grounds); and 

d) Type IV (“abortion is legal without restriction as to reason”).  

 

Model Specifications 

An empirical study of this study includes two sections: bivariate and econometric analysis. The bivariate analysis includes 

a graphical representation of the Log of LTFR on the GNI Per Capita (LGNIPC) from 1990 to 2012 and for 1990, 1995, 

2000, 2005 and 2012. The econometric analysis explores panel data analysis for 182 countries and 22 years. Initially, LTFR 

is regressed on LGNIPC and LGNIPC2 (this non-linear specification is justified as unprecedented economic growth 

increases awareness among people and economic opportunities, which affects the fertility rate adversely). The endogeneity 

of the econometric model was also considered by introducing the lag values of LTFR in estimating Arrelleno-Bond panel 

data estimation.  

A total of nine models were estimated. Descriptions of the models are given below. 

Model-I: LTFRit =αij + β1LGNIPCit + β2LGNIPCit
2 + €it 

Model-II: LTFRit =αij + β1LGNIPCit + β2LGNIPCit
2 + β3ABLit + €it 

Model-III: LTFRit =αij + β1LGNIPCit + β2LGNIPCit
2 + β3LITit + €it 

Model-IV: LTFRit =αij + β1LGNIPCit + β2LGNIPCit
2 + β3LITit + β4FLFPit + €it 

Model-V: LTFRit =αij + β1LGNIPCit + β2LGNIPCit
2 + β3ABLit +β4LITit + β5FLFPit + €it 

Model-VI: LTFRit =αij+ β1LGNIPCit+ β2LLITit+ β3LHFCEit+ β4LFLFPit+ β5LPSEit+ ΣθiTi….with Time dummies 

Model-VII: LTFRit =αij+ β1LGNIPCit+ β2LLITit+ β3LHFCEit+ β4LFLFPit+ β5LPSEit +ΣθiTi……with Slope dummies 

Model-IX: LTFRit =αij+ β1LGNIPCit+ β2LGNIPCit
2+ β3ABLij+€it 

 

Dealing with Endogeneity 

To capture the impact of other factors (not included in Model 1) that may influence the impact of GNI on fertility rate, 

lagged value of the dependent variable (Model 2). It drives the possibility of correlation between the independent variable 

and the error component, which sometimes is not eradicated even using the differencing method as it suffers from 

information loss (Arellano & Bond, 1991) where Ti implies time dummies (for T=1990 to 2012). 

Model-X: LTFRit=αij+ β1LGNIPCit+ β2LGNIPC2
it+ γLTFRi(t-1) + Time Dummies 

 

RESULTS 

Descriptive Analysis 

The link between the fertility rate per woman and GNIPC from 1990 to 2012 is shown in Figure 1. The graph suggests that 

the fertility rate and GNIPC have a negative association. Individual year graphs (Appendix A1 to A5) confirm the negative 

association between fertility and GNIPC. 

 
Figure 1. Relationship between fertility rates and GNI per capita 

                                                      
3 www.ceicdata.com 
4 data.worldbank.org. 
5 as abortiongang.org. and www.abortionlaws.com. 

0
2

4
6

8

Fe
rti

lity
 R

at
e 

Pe
r W

om
an

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
GNI Per Capita PPP

Year: 1990 to 2012



Ghosh & Bhattacharyya, Indian Journal of Finance and Banking 12(1) (2022), 9-18 

 

12 

Figure 2A to 2D show the relationship between the fertility rate and GNIPC for different groups of countries. The 

countries are grouped according to the income quartiles: low-income countries, lower middle-income countries, higher 

middle-income countries, and high-income countries. 

 
Figure 2A. Fertility rates and GNI per capita for low-income countries 

 

 
Figure 2B. Fertility rates and GNI per capita for lower-middle-income countries 

 

 

 
Figure 2C. Fertility rates and GNI per capita for higher middle-income countries 

 

 

 
Figure 2D. Fertility rates and GNI per capita for high-income countries 

2
4

6
8

Fe
rti

lity
 R

at
e 

Pe
r W

om
an

0 1000 2000 3000
GNI Per Capita PPP

Low income countries

0
2

4
6

8

Fe
rti

lity
 R

at
e 

Pe
r W

om
an

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
GNI Per Capita PPP

Lower middle income countries

0
2

4
6

8

Fe
rti

lity
 R

at
e 

Pe
r W

om
an

0 10000 20000 30000
GNI Per Capita PPP

Higher middle income countries

0
2

4
6

8

Fe
rti

lity
 R

at
e 

Pe
r W

om
an

0 50000 100000 150000
GNI Per Capita PPP

High income countries



Ghosh & Bhattacharyya, Indian Journal of Finance and Banking 12(1) (2022), 9-18 

 

13 

The graphs (Figure 1 to 2D) show a convex relation between fertility and economic development. However, 

surprisingly, it was discovered that even in the low-income group, many countries have fertility rates below the replacement 

level (approximately 2.1 children per woman), and this trend has increased over time. 

 

Determinants of Fertility Rate 

The bivariate analysis shows a non-linear relationship between fertility rates and economic development. So, we used a non-

linear econometric model for analysis to capture the impact of economic development on fertility rates. Analysis of the non-

linear econometric model enables us to understand how economic development influences the fertility rate in society. 

All models (from Model I to Model X) deal with cross-section and time-series data. So, first and foremost, we must 

determine whether country-specific effects, time-specific effects, or both cause heterogeneity or individual-specific effects 

that influence the relationship between economic development and fertility rate per woman. Breusch-Pagan test (considering 

the null hypothesis as there is no country-specific effect) shows a very high χ2 value (31169.40) with p=0.000 implying that 

the null hypothesis of constant variance should be rejected at the 1% level of significance. The result suggests that panel 

data analysis will be more appropriate because individual-specific effects persist among the countries. After identifying the 

appropriateness of panel data analysis, we checked the nature of the country effect by using the Standard Hausman test (null 

hypothesis: coefficients estimated by the efficient random effects estimator are the same as the ones estimated by the 

consistent fixed effects estimator). The result (χ2=43.61, p–value=0.000) suggests that OLS and GLS are inconsistence (or, 

fixed effect model is more appropriate) and rejects the existence of a correlation between economic development and errors 

in estimation.  

 

Table 1. Results of fixed effect model (of the static panel) 

 
Variables Model-I Model-II Model-III Model-IV Model-V 

All Countries 

LGNIPC -0.63*** 

(0 .04) 

-0.63*** 

(0 .04) 

 -0.81*** 

(-0.04) 

 -0.50*** 

(-0.04) 

 -0.50*** 

(-0.04) 

LGNIPC2 0.02*** 

(-0.002) 

0 .02*** 

(-0.002) 

 0.04*** 

(0.00) 

 0.03*** 

(-0.002) 

 0.03*** 

(-0.002) 

ABL   -0.18*** 

(-0.07) 

     -0.11*** 

(-0.05) 

LIT        -0.11*** 
(-0.01) 

 -0.11*** 
(-0.01) 

FLFP      -0.95*** 

(-0.03) 

 -0.75*** 

(-0.03) 

 -0.75*** 

(-0.03) 

R2 within 0.61 0.74  0.33  0.17  0.17 

F-values 882.48 591.63  1011.55  648.29  648.29 

No. of Countries 182 182 172  167  167 

  Low-Income Countries 

LGNIPC 0.63*** 
(-0.16) 

0.63*** 
(0 .16) 

 0.46*** 
(0 .15) 

 0.93*** 
(-0.16) 

 0.93*** 
(-0.16) 

LGNIPC2 -0.07*** 

(-0.01) 

-0.07*** 

(0 .01) 

 -0.05*** 

(0 .01) 

 -0.08*** 

(-0.01) 

 -0.08*** 

(-0.01) 

ABL   Omitted       

LIT        -0.03*** 
(-0.01) 

 -0.03*** 
(-0.01) 

FLFP      -0.74*** 

(0 .09) 

 -0.03*** 

(-0.01) 

 -0.52*** 

(-0.09) 

R2 within 0.36 0.36  0.18  0.32  0.32 

F-values 343.32 343.32  276.22  228.55  228.55 

No. of Countries 31 31 31  31  31 

  Lower Middle-Income Countries 

LGNIPC -1.72*** 

(0 .21) 

 -1.72*** 

(0 .21) 

 -1.55*** 

(-0.2) 

 -0.69*** 

(-0.196) 

 -0.69*** 

(-0.195) 

LGNIPC2 0.09*** 

(0 .01) 

 0.09*** 

(0 .01)) 

 0.08*** 

(-0.01) 

 0.03*** 

(-0.01) 

 0.03*** 

(-0.01) 

ABL    -0.15*** 

(0 .06) 

     -0.12*** 

(-0.04) 

LIT        -0.06*** 

(-0.01) 

 -0.06*** 

(-0.01) 

FLFP      -0.74*** 

(-0.06) 

 -0.59*** 

(-0.06) 

 -0.58*** 

(-0.06) 

R2 within 0.51 0.51  0.23  0.289  0.51 

F-values 497.34  335.07  421.33  250.44  203.07 

No. of Countries 47  47  44  42  42 

  Upper Middle-Income Countries 

LGNIPC 0.18 

(0 .17) 

0.18 

(0 .17) 

 -0.32*** 

(-0.15) 

 -0.43*** 

(-0.17) 

 -0.43*** 

(-0.17) 



Ghosh & Bhattacharyya, Indian Journal of Finance and Banking 12(1) (2022), 9-18 

 

14 

LGNIPC2 -0.02*** 

(0 .01) 

-0.02*** 

(0 .01) 

 0.01*** 

(-0.01) 

 0.02*** 

(-0.01) 

 0.02*** 

(-0.01) 

ABL   Omitted       

LIT        -0.12*** 
(-0.02) 

 -0.12*** 
(-0.02) 

FLFP     -0.93*** 

(-0.05) 

 -0.84*** 

(-0.06) 

 -0.84*** 

(-0.06) 

R2 between 0.04  0.04  0.09  0.15  0.15 

F-values 325.84  325.84  398.02  255.02  255.02 

No. of Countries 50  50  45  42  42 

  High-Income Countries 

LGNIPC 0.16 
(0 .12) 

0.16 
(0 .12) 

 -0.28*** 
(-0.1) 

 -0.091 
(-0.092) 

 -0.091 
(-0.092) 

LGNIPC2 -0.01*** 

(0 .01) 

-0.01*** 

(0 .01) 

 0.01*** 

(-0.01) 

 0.02*** 

(-0.004) 

  0.02*** 

(-0.004) 

ABL   Omitted       

LIT        -0.28*** 

(-0.02) 

  

FLFP      -1.03*** 

(-0.06) 

 -0.72*** 

(-0.07) 

  

R2 within 0 0.08  0.26  0.24  0.24 

F-values 48.08 48.08  123.95  116.73  116.73 

No. of Countries 54 54  52  52  52 

Source: Estimated by the authors. 

Note: *** implies a 1% level of significance. ** implies 5% level of significance, and * implies 10% level of significance. 

 

Table 1 shows the results of the fixed-effect static panel model. Both the values of the coefficients of the log of 

GNIPC and the square of the log of GNIPC are significant for all counties. However, the coefficients of log GNIPC are 

negative, but the coefficients of square log GNIPC show positive signs. The findings suggest that there is a U-shaped 

relationship between fertility and economic development for all countries. Interestingly there is an inverted U-shaped 

association between fertility and economic development in low-income nations, but none between the log of GNIPC and 

fertility rate in high-income countries as we assessed the models for each income category of the countries. 

 

Table 2. Results of fixed effect model (of the dynamic panel) 

 
Variables All Countries High  Upper Middle Lower Middle Low 

β z β z β z β z β z 

L1 0.63*** 26.99 0.62*** 14.9 0.87*** 20.59 0.85*** 22.13 1.63*** 41.0 

L2 0.09*** 4.32     0.07*** 1.54 0.14*** 3.11 -0.45*** -6.12 

L3 -0.02 -1.25         -0.2*** -7.05 -0.19*** -5.36 

LIT (t-1) 0.02*** 3.49 0.11*** 9.79 0.04*** 3.42 0.04*** 8.99 0*** -2.46 

LGNIPC -0.28*** -13.88 -0.46*** -6.78 -0.43*** -5.74 -0.02 -0.44 -0.01* -1.83 

LGNIPC2 0.02*** 16.29 0.03*** 7.54 0.03*** 6.27 0 0.93 0* 1.77 

Constant 1.23*** 13.13 1.85*** 5.81 1.77*** 5.48 0.07 0.33 0.07*** 3.15 

Time Dummies Present Present Present Present Present 

Wald χ2(25) 88522.01*** 10578.11 22744.49 72719.70*** 1.77e+06*** 

No. of 

Countries 

179 54 47 47 31 

Source: Estimated by the authors. 
Note: *** implies a 1% level of significance. ** implies 5% level of significance, and * implies 10% level of significance. 

 

The influence of the preceding three years' fertility rates on the current fertility rate was evaluated using a dynamic 

model (Table 2). Results indicate that regardless of the income level of countries, all three previous years have a significantly 

positive impact on the present fertility rate. 

 

Table 3. Results of two-stage least square 

 
Indicators With Time Dummies With Slope Dummies 

Coefficients t-ratios/Z Coefficients t-ratios/Z 

LGNIPC -0.25*** -10.57 0 .18*** 3.53 

LLIT -0.37*** -5.63 -0.07 -1.06 

LHFCE -0.03*** -2.63 -0.18*** -4.34 

FLFP -0.37*** -5.44 -0.93*** -11.33 

LPSE -0.06 -1.52 -0.06** -2.10 

Constant 6.96*** 17.46 8.54*** 14.32 

Wald χ2(24) 678.25***   16163.59***   

R2 0.74 0.99 

RMSE 0.25 0.06 

Number of countries 237 237 

Source: Estimated by the authors. 

Note: *** implies a 1% level of significance. ** implies 5% level of significance, and * implies 10% level of significance. 

 



Ghosh & Bhattacharyya, Indian Journal of Finance and Banking 12(1) (2022), 9-18 

 

15 

Other than economic development, several socioeconomic factors may affect the fertility rate. So, the static panel 

model was extended by adopting a 2-Stage-Least Square Method (Table-3) to find out the impact of literacy rate (LIT), 

household expenditure (HFCE), female workforce participation rate (FLFP) and expenditure on education as a percentage 

of GDP (PSE) on fertility rate. The results suggest that adult literacy rate, household expenditure, female workforce 

participation and government expenditure on education have a negative relationship with the fertility rate. 

 

Effect of Abortion Law 

Table 4 demonstrates the percentage distribution of fertility rate of women across the income status and types of abortion 

laws of the countries. Most high-income and upper-middle-income countries have low fertility rates, while low-income and 

lower-middle-income nations have high fertility rates. It is noticeable that nations with high fertility rates have Type-I 

abortion laws. However, the opposite is true for countries with low fertility rates, where Type-IV abortion laws predominate. 

 

Table 4. Fertility and abortion law by income status of countries 

 
Country Groups Type of Abortion Law Fertility Rates 

High Replacement Level Low 

Low Income Type-I 13 3 0 

Type-II 18 0 0 

Type-III 0 2 0 

Type-IV 3 1 0 

Lower Middle Income  Type-I 22 8 0 

Type-II 10 1 0 

Type-III 3 1 1 

Type-IV 2 11 6 

Upper Middle Income Type-I 11 13 3 

Type-II 5 18 3 

Type-III 1 2 0 

Type-IV 1 12 18 

High Income Type-I 4 9 6 

Type-II 5 12 8 

Type-III 0 2 10 

Type-IV 2 5 45 

Source: Computed by the authors. 

 

Table 5. Results of static panel model with abortion law 

 
Indicators Coefficients t-ratios 

LGNIPC -3.34*** -24.20 

LGNIPC2 0.15*** 19.16 

ABL -0.65*** -2.96 

Constant 22.09*** 27.98 

R2 Within 0.38 

F 740.11*** 

Number of observations 3874 

Source: Estimated by the authors. 

Note: *** implies a 1% level of significance. ** implies 5% significance level and * implies 10% significance. 
 

Furthermore, we estimated the fixed effect (Model-IX) static panel to understand whether the present abortion law 

regulates the fertility rate. The results (Table 5) suggest that abortion law has a negative sign and a significant relationship 

with fertility rates. 

 

DISCUSSIONS 

The female fertility rate is a complex phenomenon with multiple determinants. The present study attempted to explain how 

abortion law influences the relationship between economic development and the fertility rate of women. The results of the 

descriptive analysis suggested a negative relationship between economic development and the fertility rate, but as we 

estimated the econometric models, the results demonstrated a U-shaped relationship between economic development and 

the fertility rate. It indicates that if economic development occurs, fertility decreases initially and then increases. These 

findings correlate with the Theory of Demographic Transition (TDT) (Heer, 1966). According to TDT, the drop in the 

fertility rate with economic development is a direct consequence of the rise in social status that accompanies 

industrialization. The most well-known relationship between economic growth and birthrates is that they move in opposite 

directions (Myrskyla et al., 2009; Bryant, 2007). However, after a certain period of economic development, the relationship 

turns positive when a country has reached a high level of economic development (Luci-Greulich & The'venon, 2014). 

Factors like increases in women's economic independence, education, and labour force participation contribute to lower 

birth rates (De Lange et al., 2014; Bryant, 2007). However, the relationship between economic developments varies across 

the income categories of the countries. 

Interestingly, there is an inverted U-shaped association between fertility and economic development in low-income 

nations, but none between the log of GNIPC and fertility rate in high-income countries as we assessed the models for each 



Ghosh & Bhattacharyya, Indian Journal of Finance and Banking 12(1) (2022), 9-18 

 

16 

income category of the countries. This might indicate that at the initial stage of economic development, the fertility rate 

increases because the economic status of the citizens improves, and they become more confident in growing up with 

additional children. On the contrary, in high-income countries, economic development loses its importance in determining 

fertility rate probably because they reach a saturation level. 

The current study estimated the fixed effect of a static panel by incorporating information about the types of 

abortion laws in the model to understand why economic development does not affect all countries uniformly. The findings 

suggest that fewer restrictions on abortion law result in a low fertility rate. The study also estimated the impact of 

socioeconomic that can influence fertility and economic development. One of these can be a cultural factor. If there was 

higher fertility in the previous period, then it helps to stimulate the fertility of the next period, implying an intertemporal 

relationship between these two. 

 

CONCLUSIONS 

The contribution of the present study is as follows: Firstly, it suggests that the usual U-shaped relationship between economic 

development and fertility rate only holds uniformly across some countries. In low-income countries, the fertility rate can 

initially increase with economic development. Secondly, the legal environment significantly influences the fertility rate of 

women. One of these can be a cultural factor. For example, more restrictions on legal abortion increase a woman's fertility 

rate. Finally, cultural factors like previous periods' fertility rates have a significant association with the fertility of the next 

period, implying an intertemporal relationship between these two. 

Based on the findings, the study suggests that implementing an abortion law is insufficient for low-income 

countries to achieve fertility control. Instead, it allows them to afford the precautions necessary for such controls. However, 

the mobility of workers from low-income to high-income countries can point to a solution to the labour resource problem 

caused by the decline in fertility in high-income countries, opening a new line of inquiry.  

 

 
 

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.G. and C.B.; Methodology, D.G.; Software, D.G.; Validation, D.G.; Formal Analysis, D.G.; Investigation, 
D.G.; Resources, D.G. and C.B.; Data Curation, D.G.; Writing – Original Draft Preparation, D.G.; Writing – Review & Editing, D.G.; Visualization, D.G. 

and C.B.; Supervision, D.G.; Project Administration, D.G.; Funding Acquisition, D.G. and C.B. Authors have read and agreed to the published version of 

the manuscript. 
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study because the research does not deal with vulnerable groups 

or sensitive issues. 

Funding: The authors received no direct funding for this research. 
Acknowledgements: The authors thank the World Bank for sharing the data. 

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. 

Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available 
due to restrictions. 

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. 

 

REFERENCES 

Ahituv, A. (2001). Be fruitful or multiply: On the interplay between fertility and economic development. Journal of 

Population Economics, 14(1), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001480050159.  

Ashraf, Q. H., Weil, D. N., & Wilde, J. (2013). The effect of fertility reduction on economic growth. Population and 

Development Review, 39(1), 97-130. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/41811954.  

Becker, G. S. (1981). A treatise on the family. Harvard University Press. Cambridge MA. Retrieved from 

https://brunofvieira.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/gary-becker-a-treatise-on-the-family.pdf.  

Bloom, D. E., Canning, D., & Fink, G. (2008). Urbanization and the wealth of nations. Science, 319(5864), 772–775. 

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1153057.   

Bryant, J. (2007). Theories of fertility decline and the evidence from development indicators. Population and Development 

Review, pp. 101–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2007.00160.x.  

Bulatao, R. A. and Lee, R. D. (1983). Determinants of fertility in developing countries. Academic Press. New York, pp. 

575–787. Retrieved from 

https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Determinants_of_Fertility_in_Developing.html?id=4ArZAAAAIAAJ&r

edir_esc=y.  

De Lange, M., Wolbers, M. H., Gesthuizen, M., & Ultee, W. C. (2014). The impact of macro-and micro-economic 

uncertainty on family formation in the Netherlands. European Journal of Population, 30(2), 161-185. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-013-9306-5.   

Easterlin, R. A., Pollack, R. A. and Waghter, M. L. (1980). Toward a more general economic model of fertility 

determination: Endogenous Preferences and Natural Fertility. University Chicago Press. Chicago. Retrieved 

from https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/population-and-economic-change-developing-countries/toward-

more-general-economic-model-fertility-determination-endogenous-preferences-and-natural. 

Giota Panopoulou & Panos Tsakloglou, (1999). Fertility and economic development: Theoretical considerations and cross-

country evidence. Applied Economics, 31(11), 1337–1351. https://doi.org/10.1080/000368499323229.  

Heer, D. M. (1966). Economic development and fertility. Demography, 3(2), 423–444. https://doi.org/10.2307/2060168. 

Hoddinott, J. (1992). Rotten kids or manipulative parents: Are children old age security in Western Kenya? Economic 

Development and Cultural Change, 40(3), 545–565. https://doi.org/10.1086/451960.  

https://doi.org/10.1007/s001480050159
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41811954
https://brunofvieira.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/gary-becker-a-treatise-on-the-family.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1153057
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2007.00160.x
https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Determinants_of_Fertility_in_Developing.html?id=4ArZAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y
https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Determinants_of_Fertility_in_Developing.html?id=4ArZAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-013-9306-5
https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/population-and-economic-change-developing-countries/toward-more-general-economic-model-fertility-determination-endogenous-preferences-and-natural
https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/population-and-economic-change-developing-countries/toward-more-general-economic-model-fertility-determination-endogenous-preferences-and-natural
https://doi.org/10.1080/000368499323229
https://doi.org/10.2307/2060168
https://doi.org/10.1086/451960


Ghosh & Bhattacharyya, Indian Journal of Finance and Banking 12(1) (2022), 9-18 

 

17 

Kuznets, S. (1967). Population and economic growth. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 111(3), 170–

193. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/985714.  

Lacalle-Calderon, M., Perez-Trujillo, M., & Neira, I. (2017). Fertility and economic development: Quantile regression 

evidence on the inverse J-shaped pattern. European Journal of Population, 33(1), 1-31. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-016-9382-4.  

Landry, A. (1987). A Rdvolution Ddmographique.. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1973031.  

Luci-Greulich, A., & Thévenon, O. (2014). Does economic advancement cause a re-increase in fertility? An empirical 

analysis for OECD countries (1960–2007). European Journal of Population, 30(2), 187-221. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-013-9309-2.  

Mankiw, N. G., Romer, D., & Weil, D. N. (1992). A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. The quarterly journal 

of economics, 107(2), 407–437. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118477.  

Myrskyla, M., Kohler, H. P., & Billari, F. C. (2009). Advances in development reverse fertility 

declines. Nature, 460(7256), 741. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08230. 

Nizamuddin, M. (2021). Debt, deficit, and economic growth in South Asia: A Comparative Analysis. In Development, 

Governance and Gender in South Asia (pp. 35–54). Springer, Singapore. Retrieved from 

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-16-5109-0.  

Notestein, F. W. (1945). Population–The long view, in food for the world. T. Schulz, Editor. Retrieved from 

https://u.demog.berkeley.edu/~jrw/Biblio/Eprints/126grad/Notestein/notestein.1945_pop.long.view.pdf.  

Poston, D. L. (2000). Social and economic development and the fertility transitions in mainland China and 

Taiwan. Population and Development Review, 26, 40–60. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3115211.  

Schultz, D. P. (1969). The human subject in psychological research. Psychological bulletin, 72(3), 214. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027880.  

Wilson, C. (2004). Fertility below replacement level. Science, 304(5668), 207–209. 

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.304.5668.207c.  

Zhang, J., & Nishimura, K. (1993). The old-age security hypothesis revisited. Journal of Development Economics, 41(1), 

191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3878(93)90047-Q.  

 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A1: Relationship between fertility rates and GNI per capita for 1990 

 

Appendix A2: Relationship between fertility rates and GNI per capita for 1995 

 

 

2
4

6
8

10

Fe
rti

lity
 R

at
e 

Pe
r W

om
an

0 10000 20000 30000
GNI Per Capita PPP

Year: 1990

0
2

4
6

8

Fe
rti

lity
 R

at
e 

Pe
r W

om
an

0 10000 20000 30000 40000
GNI Per Capita PPP

Year: 1995

https://www.jstor.org/stable/985714
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-016-9382-4
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1973031
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-013-9309-2
https://doi.org/10.2307/2118477
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08230
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-16-5109-0
https://u.demog.berkeley.edu/~jrw/Biblio/Eprints/126grad/Notestein/notestein.1945_pop.long.view.pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3115211
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0027880
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.304.5668.207c
https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3878(93)90047-Q


Ghosh & Bhattacharyya, Indian Journal of Finance and Banking 12(1) (2022), 9-18 

 

18 

Appendix A3: Relationship between fertility rates and GNI per capita for 2000 

 

Appendix A4: Relationship between fertility rates and GNI per capita for 2005 

 

Appendix A5: Relationship between fertility rates and GNI per capita for 2012 

 

 

 

Publisher’s Note: CRIBFB stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 

 

 
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee CRIBFB, USA. This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons 

Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

 
Indian Journal of Finance and Banking (P-ISSN 2574-6081 E-ISSN 2574-609X) by CRIBFB is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 

International License. 

 
 

 

0
2

4
6

8

Fe
rtil

ity
 R

ate
 P

er
 W

om
an

0 10000 20000 30000 40000
GNI Per Capita PPP

Year: 2000

0
2

4
6

8

Fe
rti

lity
 R

at
e 

Pe
r W

om
an

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
GNI Per Capita PPP

Year: 2005

0
2

4
6

8

Fe
rtil

ity
 R

ate
 P

er
 W

om
an

0 10000 20000 30000 40000
GNI Per Capita PPP

Year: 2012

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

