Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 55 references

Household Resource Allocation Dynamics and Policies: Integrating Future Earnings of Children, Fertility, Pension, Health, and Education

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper derives a closed-form household model in which the weight on children's future earnings simultaneously raises fertility and lowers current consumption, savings, health spending, and pension premiums.

desk verdict A cleanly solved household allocation model with a mislabeled central mechanism: children's future wages never enter any first-order condition. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18144 v1 pith:7G2E4EMV submitted 2024-11-27 econ.TH

Sushmita Kumari , Siddharth Gavhale This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.TH
keywords householdresourceallocationutilitymaximizationfertilityquantity-qualitytrade-offeducationinvestmentpensionsavingsfutureearningsofchildren
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Using one log-linear utility function and a single budget constraint, this paper tries to show how a household's choices about children, education, health spending, savings, and pensions can all be solved in closed form. The solution turns on a Modified Quantity-Quality Trade-off condition $\gamma_2+\gamma_5>\gamma_3$: the combined weight on having children and on their future earnings must beat the weight on per-child education, or parents choose no children. If that condition holds, putting more weight on children's future earnings reduces current consumption, savings, health spending, and pension premiums while increasing the number of children, and the education weight affects only fertility and per-child schooling. A reader would care because this turns intertwined family decisions into explicit formulas and gives a direct channel through which demographic preferences and pension or education policy reshape household budgets.

What carries the argument

The machinery is Lagrangian maximization of a seven-term log-linear utility function subject to one static budget constraint. The load-bearing object is the utility weight sum $S=\sum_{i=1,i\ne 3}^7\gamma_i$, which sits in the denominator of every non-education choice, and the Modified Quantity-Quality Trade-off condition $\gamma_2+\gamma_5>\gamma_3$, which guarantees an interior solution by requiring the joint weight on child quantity and future earnings to exceed the weight on per-child education. These two objects convert the household problem into explicit allocation formulas and organize all comparative-statics results.

What would settle it

Estimate a version in which future child earnings depend on schooling, e.g. $w_{t+1}=A e_t^\alpha$, using panel data on parental spending, schooling, and children's adult wages. The model is falsified if the data reject the cross-equation restriction that the same utility-weight sum $S$ determines consumption, savings, health spending, and pension premiums, or if they show that the education weight $\gamma_3$ changes non-education allocations through the wage channel.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the lifetime utility $u=\gamma_1\ln(c_t)+\gamma_2\ln(n_t)+\gamma_3\ln(e_t)+\gamma_4\ln(p_t)+\gamma_5\ln(n_t w_{t+1})+\gamma_6\ln(R_{t+1}s_t)+\gamma_7\ln(R^p_{t+1}q_t)$ maximized under $w_t(1-\tau n_t)=c_t+s_t+e_t n_t+p_t+q_t$ yields the exact interior choices $c_t=\gamma_1 w_t/S$, $s_t=\gamma_6 w_t/S$, $p_t=\gamma_4 w_t/S$, $q_t=\gamma_7 w_t/S$, $n_t=(\gamma_2+\gamma_5-\gamma_3)/(\tau S)$, and $e_t=\gamma_3 w_t\tau/(\gamma_2+\gamma_5-\gamma_3)$, with $S=\sum_{i\ne 3}\gamma_i$. The paper states that an interior solution requires the Modified Quantity-Quality Trade-off condition $\gamma_2+\gamma_5>\gamma_3$; otherwise the optimum is a corner with no children. The paper then derives the full table of partial derivatives, including the result that an increase in $\gamma_5$ lowers $c_t$, $s_t$, $p_t$, and $q_t$ while raising $n_t$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a child's future wage $w_{t+1}$ is a fixed number the household takes as given and that enters utility only through $\gamma_5\ln(n_t w_{t+1})$, so education never feeds back into what children will earn; if education influenced $w_{t+1}$, the closed-form solutions and every comparative-static result would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A higher weight on children's future earnings ($\gamma_5$) lowers current consumption, savings, health spending, and pension premiums while raising the optimal number of children.
  • The education weight ($\gamma_3$) does not affect consumption, savings, health spending, or pension premiums; it only trades off family size against per-child education.
  • Higher pension preference ($\gamma_7$) reduces saving, consumption, health spending, and fertility, so pension reform is also a fertility policy.
  • Lowering the fixed cost per child $\tau$ raises the optimal number of children, while raising the education weight lowers it.
  • Educational investment is separable from other household financial decisions, justifying models and policies that treat human-capital investment separately.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If children's future wages were endogenous, say $w_{t+1}=A e_t^\alpha$, the first-order conditions would no longer separate and the closed-form solutions would break; the paper's 'integration' of future earnings is a preference weight rather than a human-capital production link.
  • The model's positive fertility response to $\gamma_5$ suggests a 'family as investment' channel that runs opposite to macro-demographic narratives in which more human-capital investment lowers fertility; putting wage determination inside the model would reconcile them.
  • A testable extension would estimate the preference weights from data on household consumption, saving, pension enrollment, and fertility across cohorts with different expected child wages; the restriction that one common $S$ governs all four allocations could be checked directly.
  • Adding child-rearing time or making the wage depend on education would likely change the equal-derivative structure of Lemma 3, so policy conclusions should be read as conditional on the log-linear, static-budget setup.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a unitary-household utility maximization model in which parents choose consumption, savings, health spending, pension premiums, the number of children, and per-child education spending under a budget constraint. The utility function includes a term γ5 ln(n_t w_{t+1}) intended to capture children's future earnings. The authors derive closed-form solutions and comparative statics, introduce a 'Modified Quantity-Quality Trade-off' condition, and draw policy recommendations. The advertised central contribution is that anticipated future earnings of children shape current household decisions.

Significance. The first-order conditions are correctly solved and most reported comparative-static signs are correct; the paper is transparent about its assumptions and provides a complete table of derivatives. However, the central contribution is not realized: because w_{t+1} is exogenous and appears only additively, it cancels from every first-order condition, and all optimal choices are independent of the level of children's future wages. The model reduces to a standard quantity-quality problem with a composite child weight γ2+γ5, and Theorem 4 is a comparative static on a preference parameter rather than on future earnings. The paper's value as a substantive theoretical contribution is accordingly limited.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (1); Theorem 4] The future-earnings channel is economically inert. In Eq. (1), γ5 ln(n_t w_{t+1}) = γ5 ln n_t + γ5 ln w_{t+1}; since w_{t+1} is exogenous and enters no constraint or production function, the constant γ5 ln w_{t+1} drops out of the maximization. The first-order conditions in Appendix A contain no w_{t+1}, and the closed forms (4)-(5) are independent of the level of w_{t+1}. Thus Theorem 4 is a comparative static in the preference weight γ5, not in children's future earnings, and the paper's advertised mechanism—'integrating future earnings of children'—is not implemented. The policy discussion in Section 4 that invokes children's future earnings is therefore not grounded in the model. A local edit cannot fix this; the model would need an endogenous link such as w_{t+1}=f(e_t) or a reframing of the contribution.
  2. [Section 3.3, Theorem 4 and following paragraph; Eq. (5)] The narrative of Theorem 4 is internally inconsistent with the model's own comparative statics. The text states that a higher weight on children's future earnings leads households to reallocate resources toward increasing both the quantity (n_t) and quality (e_t) of children. But from Eq. (5), ∂e_t/∂γ5 = -γ3 w_t τ / (γ2+γ5-γ3)^2 < 0, and Table 1 reports this negative entry. A higher γ5 raises fertility but lowers per-child education spending, so the claim that households 'invest more in both the quantity and quality of children' is contradicted by the paper's own formulas.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Appendix B.8; Table 1, γ5 row] The proof of Theorem 4 contains an algebraic error: the stated derivative ∂n_t/∂γ5 = [S-(γ2+γ5)]/(τS^2) should be [S-(γ2+γ5-γ3)]/(τS^2) = (γ1+γ3+γ4+γ6+γ7)/(τS^2). The sign conclusion is unaffected, but the displayed formula should be corrected.
  2. [Appendix B.1; Table 1, γ3 row] The derivative ∂e_t/∂γ3 is misstated as w_tτ(1+γ3)/(γ2+γ5-γ3)^2; the correct expression is w_tτ(γ2+γ5)/(γ2+γ5-γ3)^2. Since the numerator is positive, the sign conclusion of Lemma 1 survives.
  3. [Section 1] There is a typo: 'childern' should be 'children'.
  4. [Section 2] The parameters γ5, γ6, and γ7 are described as 'discount factors' between 0 and 1, but they function as utility weights and γ5 appears in the same role as γ2; the terminology should be made consistent.
  5. [Lemma 1] The statement of Lemma 1 is tautological ('directly influenced by the weights assigned to them'), and the proof does not cover γ5 even though the lemma's stated domain is i∈(1,7)\{5}; the text should state explicitly that γ5 is treated separately.
  6. [Section 5] The sentence 'our model posits a single household decision-making procedure characterized by it may not be able to reflect fully intra-household bargaining dynamics' is ungrammatical and should be rewritten.
  7. [Table 1] Several cells in Table 1 are difficult to parse because of the formatting with β and fractions; every entry should be checked against direct differentiation of Eqs. (4)-(5), and the table header notation should be clarified.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'future earnings' term is an additive constant in w_{t+1}, so Theorem 4 is a preference-weight comparative static; the paper's central advertised mechanism is a relabeling.

  1. self definitional [Eq. (1), Section 2; Appendix A; Theorem 4, Section 3.3; Appendix B.8]
    "u = γ1 ln(ct) + γ2 ln(nt) + γ3 ln(et) + γ4 ln(pt) + γ5 ln(ntwt+1) + γ6 ln(Rt+1st) + γ7 ln(Rp t+1qt) (1) ... ∂L/∂nt = (γ2 + γ5)/nt − λ(τ wt + et) = 0 ... Theorem 4 (Impact of Children’s Future Earnings Weight on Household Decisions): An increase in the weight assigned to children’s future earnings (γ5) ... leads to a decrease in the optimal level of current consumption (ct), savings (st), health spending (pt), or pension premiums (qt), while also leading to an increase in the number of children (nt)."

    Because w_{t+1} is exogenous and enters (1) only inside γ5 ln(n_t w_{t+1}) = γ5 ln n_t + γ5 ln w_{t+1}, the additive constant γ5 ln w_{t+1} vanishes from every first-order condition; the FOCs and closed forms (4)-(5) contain no w_{t+1}. Consequently, 'children's future earnings' do not affect any household choice. Theorem 4 is a derivative with respect to γ5, which functions purely as an extra weight on ln n_t: n_t = (γ2+γ5−γ3)/(τS) shows the only role of γ5 is to enlarge the fertility preference. The advertised 'future earnings' effect is therefore equivalent by construction to a standard taste-for-children parameter; the result is the Cobb-Douglas budget-share reallocation, not an earnings effect.

full rationale

The central circularity is formal rather than statistical. In Eq. (1), the only appearance of children's future earnings is γ5 ln(n_t w_{t+1}). Since w_{t+1} is exogenous and unmodeled, this term equals γ5 ln n_t plus the additive constant γ5 ln w_{t+1}; constants do not affect maximization. Appendix A's FOCs therefore contain no w_{t+1}, and the closed forms (4)-(5) are all w_{t+1}-free. Theorem 4's 'impact of children's future earnings weight' is actually the impact of increasing γ5, which is just an additional weight on the number of children. This is a self-definitional relabeling: the model does not implement a future-earnings channel, and the headline result is the standard Cobb-Douglas budget-share reallocation. I do not find load-bearing self-citation: references such as [3], [4], [8], [14], [36] are standard prior literature and are not doing justificatory work specific to the authors. Lemma 1 and Lemma 2 are direct derivatives of the closed forms, so they are trivially true by construction, but they are not the paper's advertised contribution; I do not count them as separate circular steps. Separately, Appendix B.8's derivative ∂n_t/∂γ5 = [S−(γ2+γ5)]/(τS^2) omits the +γ3 term from the quotient rule; the sign conclusion survives, so this is a correctness slip, not circularity. On balance, the advertised integration of future earnings reduces by construction to a preference-weight exercise, giving score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new entities. The key assumptions are the unitary household, the log-linear utility form, and the exogeneity of children's future wages, which is the most fragile assumption because it neutralizes the paper's advertised contribution.

free parameters (2)
  • τ
    Fixed cost per child in the budget constraint (Eq. 2). Assumed positive; no data used.
  • γ1..γ7
    Utility weights and discount factors in Eq. (1). Assumed positive (γ1..γ4), in (0,1) for γ5..γ7. Not fitted to data; central comparative statics are derivatives with respect to these.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Unitary household model: household acts as a single decision-making unit with identical preferences.
    Stated in Section 2: 'we treat the household and the individual as analogous analytical units.'
  • domain assumption Additive logarithmic utility function with arguments c, n, e, p, s, q, and n*w(t+1).
    Eq. (1); the functional form drives all comparative statics.
  • ad hoc to paper Children's future wage w(t+1) is exogenous and unaffected by education investment e(t).
    The paper claims to integrate future earnings, but w(t+1) appears only as a constant inside ln(n_t w(t+1)). No human capital production function is specified. This makes the 'future earnings' channel vacuous.
  • ad hoc to paper Modified Quantity-Quality Trade-off condition γ2+γ5 > γ3 holds.
    Section 2.1 asserts this condition to ensure an interior solution with positive n_t and e_t. It is not derived or estimated.
  • domain assumption Budget constraint is linear in child cost τ and no other fixed costs.
    Eq. (2). Standard in the quantity-quality literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Household Resource Allocation Dynamics and Policies: Integrating Future Earnings of Children, Fertility, Pension, Health, and Education." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7G2E4EMV

@misc{pith2026241118144,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Household Resource Allocation Dynamics and Policies: Integrating Future Earnings of Children, Fertility, Pension, Health, and Education},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7G2E4EMV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18144}
}
read the original abstract

This study presents a model that examines how families make decisions about having children, managing resources, and planning for their financial security in light of social and economic factors. It explores the balance between the number of children and the quality of life parents wish to provide, including education and future income prospects. By considering parents' expectations about their children's future earnings, the model gives new insights into how families allocate their resources. It also looks at how decisions about savings and pensions are connected to daily spending and family planning, showing the complex links between these factors. The findings offer valuable guidance for policies that address these interrelated challenges and better support families in managing their resources.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    American Econom ic Review, 93 (5): 1499-1521

    Attanasio OP and Rohwedder S (2003) Pension Wealth and Househ old Saving: Evi- dence from Pension Reforms in the United Kingdom. American Econom ic Review, 93 (5): 1499-1521. DOI: 10.1257/000282803322655419

    work page doi:10.1257/000282803322655419 2003

  2. [2]

    Bazaraa MS, Sherali HD, and Shetty CM (2006) Nonlinear Progra mming: Theory and Algorithms, 3rd ed., John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    In: Universitie s-National Bureau Demographic and economic change in developed countries

    Becker GS (1960) An economic analysis of fertility. In: Universitie s-National Bureau Demographic and economic change in developed countries. C olumbia University Press, New York, pp 209-240

    work page 1960

  4. [4]

    J Polit Econ 81(2): S279-S288

    Becker GS, Lewis HG (1973) On the interaction between the quan tity and quality of children. J Polit Econ 81(2): S279-S288. DOI: https://doi.org/1 0.1086/260166

    work page 1973

  5. [5]

    J Polit Econ 84(4): S143-S162

    Becker GS, Tomes N (1976) Child endowments and the quantity an d quality of children. J Polit Econ 84(4): S143-S162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1 086/260545 20

    work page 1976

  6. [6]

    In: Brown JR Social security policy in a changing environment

    Beshears J, Choi JJ, Laibson D, Madrian BC (2009) The importan ce of default options for retirement saving outcomes: Evidence from the United States. In: Brown JR Social security policy in a changing environment. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 167-195

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    (2017) Maternal and child undernutrition and ove rweight in low-income and middle-income countries

    Black RE, et al. (2017) Maternal and child undernutrition and ove rweight in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet 382(9890): 427- 451. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60937-X

    doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)60937-x 2017

  8. [8]

    Demography 1 8(4): 421-442

    Blake J (1981) Family size and the quality of children. Demography 1 8(4): 421-442. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2060941

    work page doi:10.2307/2060941 1981

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    J Econ Lit 34(4): 1797-1855

    Browning M, Lusardi A (1996) Household saving: Micro theories a nd micro facts. J Econ Lit 34(4): 1797-1855

    1996

  2. [10]

    McGraw- Hill, New York

    Chiang AC (1984) Fundamental methods of mathematical econ omics. McGraw- Hill, New York

    1984

  3. [11]

    Eurofound, Dublin

    Eurofound (2017) Work-life balance and flexible working arrang ements in the European Union. Eurofound, Dublin. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ publications/customised-report/2017/work-life-balance-and- flexible-working- arrangements-in-the-european-union . Accessed 17 July 2024

    2017

  4. [12]

    Am Econ Rev 90(4): 806-

    Galor O, Weil DN (2000) Population, technology, and growth: Fr om Malthusian stagnation to the demographic transition and beyond. Am Econ Rev 90(4): 806-

    2000

  5. [13]

    University of Califo rnia, Berkeley

    Gibbons C (2007) A utility maximization example. University of Califo rnia, Berkeley

    2007

  6. [14]

    J Polit Econ 100(1): 84-117

    Hanushek EA (1992) The trade-off between child quantity and q uality. J Polit Econ 100(1): 84-117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/261808

    1992 doi

  7. [15]

    Science 312(5782): 1900-1902

    Heckman JJ (2006) Skill formation and the economics of invest- ing in disadvantaged children. Science 312(5782): 1900-1902. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128898

    2006 doi

  8. [16]

    ILO, Geneva

    International Labour Organization (ILO) (2018) Care work a nd care jobs for the future of decent work. ILO, Geneva. https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/ books/WCMS 633135/lang--en/index.htm . Accessed 1 June 2024

    2018

  9. [17]

    ILO, Geneva

    International Labour Organization (ILO) (2019) Work for a b righter future - Global Commission on the Future of Work. ILO, Geneva. https://www.ilo.org/ global/publications/books/WCMS 662410/lang--en/index.htm . Accessed 8 June 2024. 21

    2019

  10. [18]

    J Econ Lit 52(1): 05-44

    Lusardi A, Mitchell OS (2014) The economic importance of finan cial literacy: The- ory and evidence. J Econ Lit 52(1): 05-44. DOI: https://doi.org/1 0.1257/jel.52.1.5

    2014

  11. [19]

    Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Mas-Colell A, Whinston MD, Green JR (1995) Microeconomic theo ry. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    1995

  12. [20]

    McKinsey and Company, New York

    McKinsey Global Institute (2018) Skill shift: Automation and th e future of the workforce. McKinsey and Company, New York. https://www.mckinsey.com/ featured-insights/future-of-work/skill-shift-automation-an d-the-future-of-the- workforce. Accessed 13 June 2024

    2018

  13. [21]

    Rev Econ Stat 87(3): 539-555

    Milligan K (2005) Subsidizing the stork: New evidence on tax incentives and fertility. Rev Econ Stat 87(3): 539-555. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/0034653054638382

    2005 doi

  14. [22]

    Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2020). National Education Pol- icy 2020. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload files/mhrd/files/NEP Final English 0.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2024

    2020

  15. [23]

    Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2021). Prime Minister?s Special Scholarship Scheme . https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx’PRID=1681180. Accessed 15 June 2024

    2021

  16. [24]

    Ministry of Finance, Government of India. (2021). Sukanya Samriddhi Account Scheme. https://www.india.gov.in/sukanya-samriddhi-yojna. Accessed 7 August 2024

    2021

  17. [25]

    Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. (202 1). Ayushman Bharat - Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana . https://pmjay.gov.in/about/pmjay. Accessed 15 July 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India. (2020). The Code on Social Security, 2020 . https://labour.gov.in/sites/default/files/SS Code Gazette.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2024

    2020

  19. [27]

    Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India. ( 2021). POSHAN Abhiyaan. https://icds-wcd.nic.in/nnm/home.htm. Accessed 21 August 2024

    2021

  20. [28]

    Econ J 115(500): 088-110

    Moav O (2005) Cheap children and the persistence of poverty. Econ J 115(500): 088-110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00961 .x

    2005

  21. [29]

    https://doi.org/10

    Moreno-Serra R, Smith PC (2012) Does progress towards univ ersal health cov- erage improve population health- Lancet 380(9845): 917-923. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0140-6736(12)61039-3 22

    2012

  22. [30]

    OECD, Paris

    OECD (2016) Be flexible! Background brief on how workplace flex ibility can help European employees to balance work and family. OECD, Paris. https://www.oecd. org/els/family/Be-Flexible-Backgrounder-Workplace-Flexibility.pd f Accessed 5 June 2024

    2016

  23. [31]

    OECD (2017) Starting strong 2017: Key OECD indicators on ear ly childhood education and care https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276116-en Accessed 16 June 2024

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    OECD (2020) OECD/INFE 2020 international survey of adult fin ancial literacy https://www.oecd.org/financial/education/oecd-infe-2020-inte rnational- survey-of-adult-financial-literacy.pdf Accessed 29 June 2024

    2020

  25. [33]

    https://www.pfrda.org.in/ index1.cshtml- lsid=84

    Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority, Governm ent of India (2021) National pension system (NPS). https://www.pfrda.org.in/ index1.cshtml- lsid=84. Accessed 1 September 2024

    2021

  26. [34]

    Pew Research Center, Washing ton DC

    Pew Research Center (2018) The age of automation: Artificial intelligence, robotics, and the future of work. Pew Research Center, Washing ton DC. https:// www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/12/10/artificial-intelligenc e-and-the-future- of-humans/

    2018

  27. [35]

    Harvar d University Press, Cambridge

    Piketty T (2014) Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvar d University Press, Cambridge

    2014

  28. [36]

    Prettner K, Bloom DE, Strulik H (2013) Declining fertility and econ omic well- being: Do education and health ride to the rescue- Labour Economic s 22: 70-79 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2012.09.001

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    Econometrica 48(1): 22 7-240

    Rosenzweig MR, Wolpin KI (1980) Testing the quantity-quality fe rtility model: The use of twins as a natural experiment. Econometrica 48(1): 22 7-240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1912026

    1980 doi

  30. [38]

    Health Policy Educ 2(3-4): 30 5-348

    Rosenzweig MR, Schultz TP (1982) Child mortality and fertility in Co lom- bia: Individual and community effects. Health Policy Educ 2(3-4): 30 5-348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-2281(82)90015-7

    1982 doi

  31. [39]

    J Hum Resour 39(1): 155-192

    Ruhm CJ (2004) Parental employment and child cognitive develop ment. J Hum Resour 39(1): 155-192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3559009

    2004 doi

  32. [40]

    McGraw-Hill, New York

    Samuelson PA, Nordhaus WD (2009) Economics. McGraw-Hill, New York

    2009

  33. [41]

    Harvard University Press

    Stokey NL, Lucas RE, Prescott EC (1989) Recursive methods in economic dynamics. Harvard University Press

    1989

  34. [42]

    OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Pape rs, No

    Thevenon O, Solaz A (2013) Labour market effects of parenta l leave policies in OECD countries. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Pape rs, No. 23 141, OECD Publishing DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/5k8xb6hw1wjf -en

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    UNES CO, Paris

    UNESCO (2018) Global education monitoring report 2018. UNES CO, Paris. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000261593. Accessed 13 july 2024

    2018

  36. [44]

    https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/report/2020/inclusion Accessed 23 july 2024

    UNESCO (2020) Global education monitoring report 2020: Inclu sion and edu- cation: All means all. https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/report/2020/inclusion Accessed 23 july 2024

    2020

  37. [45]

    Children, food and nutri- tion: Growing well in a changing world

    UNICEF (2019) The state of the world’s children 2019. Children, food and nutri- tion: Growing well in a changing world. https://www.unicef.org/reports/state-of- worlds-children-2019 Accessed 24 July 2024

    2019

  38. [46]

    Varian HR (1992) Microeconomic analysis. W. W. Norton and Comp any

    1992

  39. [47]

    Varian HR (2014) Intermediate microeconomics: A modern appr oach. W. W. Norton and Company

    2014

  40. [48]

    World Bank (2018) World development report 2018: Learning to realize educa- tion’s promise DOI: https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1096-1

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    World Bank (2019) The World Bank pension conceptual framewo rk DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1600-0

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    World Bank, Washington DC

    World Bank (2021) World development report 2021: Data for be tter lives. World Bank, Washington DC. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/ wdr2021 Accessed 2 September 2024

    2021

  43. [51]

    http://www3

    World Economic Forum (2020) The future of jobs report 2020. http://www3. weforum.org/docs/WEF Future of Jobs 2020.pdf Accessed 30 July 2024

    2020

  44. [52]

    https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/universal- health-coverage- (uhc) Accessed 17 August 2024

    World Health Organization (WHO) (2019) Universal health cover age (UHC). https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/universal- health-coverage- (uhc) Accessed 17 August 2024

    2019

  45. [53]

    World Health Organization (WHO) (2020) Global tuberculosis rep ort

    2020

  46. [828]

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.806

    doi

  47. [2020]

    https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240013131 Accessed 23 August 2024

    WHO, Geneva. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240013131 Accessed 23 August 2024. 24

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.