Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Delivering better results

By Joshua Gans and Andrew Leigh - posted Monday, 26 June 2006

Bringing down the 2004 budget on May 11, Federal Treasurer Peter Costello said he hoped every Australian family would have three children - one for the husband, one for the wife and one for the country. To show he was willing to put his money where his mouth was, the treasurer announced a new simplified “Baby Bonus”. Unlike the old payment, which had been complex to calculate and understand, this one could not be simpler: for every new baby, the mother would get $3,000.

There was a small catch. As with most budget announcements, this one did not take effect until the start of the financial year. Only babies born on or after July 1, 2004 qualified for the Baby Bonus. That means that parents who had babies in the intervening period would not receive the new Baby Bonus.

What the government may not have fully anticipated is how expectant parents would respond to these new incentives. These days there is some discretion as to the precise day you have a child. With planned caesareans and inducements, many parents really do get to pick junior’s birthday. If your baby was due in late-May and early June, this wouldn’t really matter. But what about if your child was due at the end of June?


To test the effect, we obtained three decades of daily births data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Since the mid-1970s, the population has grown, but the birthrate has declined, so the number of births per year has stayed pretty constant.

Across the last 10,000 days, one stands out. On July 1, 2004, more babies were born than on any other day in the past 30 years. The day on which the new Baby Bonus took effect might well be called “the Great Australian Birthday”.

Remember, the new Baby Bonus was only announced in May 2004, so it could not have affected conceptions. So the only way it could have had an impact was if parents chose to “move” their child’s birthday from June to July.

Using daily data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare on caesarean sections and inducements, we find that the rate of both procedures increased sharply in July 2004. Not surprisingly, the effect is largest in the final week of June and the first week of July. We estimate that about 700 births were moved by two weeks or less.

But some babies were moved further still. According to our results, the Baby Bonus caused the birth dates of about 300 babies across the country to be moved by more than two weeks. This appears to be troubling; although it may also indicate the considerable latitude that exists around scheduling these procedures.

Regardless, the impact of the 2004 Baby Bonus was considerable disruption for hospitals and expectant mothers that continued through July. Thus, maternity wards would have been placed under considerable stress for essentially a non-medical event. Whether this disruption was worth the government saving about $100 million in payouts is not clear. A comprehensive study on the health effects is yet to be done. But a sudden change in economic incentives from one day to the next is probably not the best way to make policy.


This lesson from history is particularly relevant right now. On July 1, 2006, the Baby Bonus will increase in value from $3,166 to $4,000. While there is less reason for parents to react to this change than there was in 2004, our results suggest that an extra $834 will create a fresh incentive to schedule births in July rather than June.

Maternity hospitals should take this into account when planning staffing and other factors in the next few weeks. Expect fewer babies in the last week of June and more in the first week of July (which may have flow-on effects throughout the month). For parents, consider taking advantage of the quieter time in the last week of June and follow your doctor’s advice on scheduling. In a decade’s time, you’ll be glad you let medical factors take precedence over the Baby Bonus.

And for Peter Costello, now that we know the lessons of history, how about changing how things are done for the next scheduled increase in the Baby Bonus in 2008. Perhaps a gradual rise in the bonus of $50 per month would deliver better results.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

First published in The Australian on June 20, 2006.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Authors

Joshua Gans is an economics professor at Melbourne Business School. He writes on these issues at

Andrew Leigh is the member for Fraser (ACT). Prior to his election in 2010, he was a professor in the Research School of Economics at the Australian National University, and has previously worked as associate to Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia, a lawyer for Clifford Chance (London), and a researcher for the Progressive Policy Institute (Washington DC). He holds a PhD from Harvard University and has published three books and over 50 journal articles. His books include Disconnected (2010), Battlers and Billionaires (2013) and The Economics of Just About Everything (2014).

Other articles by these Authors

All articles by Joshua Gans
All articles by Andrew Leigh

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Joshua GansJoshua GansPhoto of Andrew LeighAndrew Leigh
Article Tools
Comment 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy