The plasma myth: how parents of newborns spend their money

Parliament house flag post

The plasma myth: how parents of newborns spend their money

Posted 24/10/2012 by Luke Buckmaster

The Australian Government has announced that it intends to reduce the amount of Baby Bonus payable in respect of second or subsequent children from 1 July 2013. This is expected to result in savings of around $170 million per year ($504.9 million over the forward estimates).

According to the Government, this change recognises that costs associated with second or subsequent newborns are not as great as those associated with the first.

This post takes a look at what is known about the impact of newborns on household budgets, focusing in particular on any significant changes in spending on second or subsequent children.

Notably, the available evidence suggests that there is no significant increase in expenditure on electronic goods by families with newborns. This challenges the widespread view that couples spend their Baby Bonus on adult-focused consumer goods such as plasma televisions.
Baby Bonus is a means tested benefit paid to primary carers or their partners in order to assist with the extra costs arising from a new birth or adoption. It is paid per eligible child in 13 fortnightly instalments.

For further information on Baby Bonus, see this earlier FlagPost. The post makes the point that while it is widely thought that Baby Bonus was introduced as an incentive to increase Australia's birth rate, it is more likely that it was introduced in response to growing demands for paid maternity leave but in a way that would allow non-working mothers to access it.

Changes made to Baby Bonus following last year's Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) reduced the Baby Bonus to $5000 and froze indexation of the payment for three years.

The changes announced in this year's MYEFO reduce Baby Bonus for second or subsequent children to $3000. The full $5000 will continue to be available where the additional children are the result of a multiple birth.

According to the Government:

This change recognises that families buy the big ticket nursery items when their first child is born.
Most families don’t face the same upfront costs for a second or third child as they do for the first. Expensive items such as the cot, pram, change table and baby capsule are generally reused for younger siblings.
So, what do we know about how parents of newborns spend their money?

Until recently, most studies of the costs of children have looked at children in general, rather than focused on newborns. However, in 2011, the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) published FaHCSIA research examining how the arrival of newborns affects household budgets for stable couple families. The research was based on waves 6 to 8 of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics of Australia (HILDA) survey.

The research reported on how spending by families in a birth year differed from prior years. The findings present a more complex picture than that presented by the Government.

For example, the study found that, as would be expected, there was a significant increase in children's clothing expenditure (an average of $435 in the birth year) associated with the arrival of a first-born baby. In contrast, there was no significant increase in spending on children's clothing for couples having second or subsequent children. The researchers suggested these children probably received 'hand-me-down' clothes from an elder sibling.

The study also found a reduction in child care expenditure associated with the birth year for second born children. The authors suggest this might reflect 'employed mothers taking up maternity leave or withdrawing from the workforce'.

However, an area of expenditure that increased significantly for each birth order was health care (ranging between $532 and $641 on average), most likely arising from increased out-of-pocket costs associated with pregnancy, birth and care of a newborn. There was also a significant increase in transport spending (averaging $4922 in thee birth year) associated with the arrival of third- and subsequent-born babies, likely to be due to the purchase of larger vehicles.

The study also found that, regardless of whether the newborn was a first or subsequent child, there was no significant change in expenditure across a large range of categories, including groceries; meals eaten out and takeaway; education; furniture and appliances; general insurance; electronic goods; and telephone and Internet. Unfortunately, no information was available on items specifically for newborn such as prams, cots and child car restraints.

The absence of significant changes in expenditure on electronic goods is of particular note. While an earlier version of the research found marginally significant results for expenditure on such goods, this became non-significant with increased sample size in the most recent study. The authors argued that this 'dispell[ed] media reports that couples spend their baby bonus on adult-focused consumer goods'.

In relation to the question of whether parents expenses are lower for second and subsequent children, the picture is mixed. As noted above, there is some evidence of recycling of items for later children, specifically clothing. There is also evidence of reduced expenditure on child care for second born babies. However, health care expenditure appears to be a 'big ticket item' that increases significantly for each additional child.

Comments

  • 21/01/2014 2:29 PM
    Gabriela D'Souza said:

    The AIFS publication that's been linked to this post states under "Analytical Framework" that single mothers and mothers who are not in a relatively stable relationship, defined as 3 continuous waves living with the same partner were excluded from the analysis. Thoughts on whether or not this might skew the data?

  • 21/01/2014 2:30 PM
    Luke Buckmaster said:

    Hi Gabriela, we contacted the authors regarding your question and this is their response: "The research findings are directly applicable to partnered couples experiencing the birth of a newborn. The research is not biased against single mothers, we just didn't include them in our study because the numbers were too small to make any meaningful statistically valid inferences. I think you could draw some inferences of likely expenditure patterns for single mothers, but you would need to undertake a separate study of this population segment in order for the conclusions to be tested".

  • 21/01/2014 2:30 PM
    Carol Ey said:

    The other complication in considering the spending patterns of single mothers is that there are a variety of different circumstances included in this category.For example, the spending of a woman who is single thoughout the period under analysis (that is, the year before and the year after the birth), would probably be different to someone who separated from their partner around the time of the birth. Separation from a partner generally involves changes in spending behaviour that are largely independent of the impact of a newborn.


Thank you for your comment. If it does not require moderation, it will appear shortly.

Add your comment

[Click to expand]




Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print

FlagPost

Flagpost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament


Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice

Archive

Syndication

Tagcloud

Refugees asylum immigration Australian foreign policy Parliament climate change elections women social security Australian Bureau of Statistics Employment indigenous Australians Sport illicit drugs gambling people trafficking taxation Medicare welfare reform Australian Defence Force higher education welfare policy United Nations health financing Asia Middle East criminal law disability Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency United States federal budget school education forced labour aid statistics Australian Electoral Commission WADA income management Industrial Relations emissions trading dental health Australia in the Asian Century steroids detention 43rd Parliament Private health insurance OECD ASADA labour force transport Law Enforcement Australian Federal Police people smuggling poker machines National Disability Insurance Scheme Australian Crime Commission slavery Papua New Guinea Australian Public Service constitution International Women's Day corruption Afghanistan Fair Work Act child protection Aviation debt federal election 2013 parliamentary procedure ALP New Zealand Newstart Parenting Payment Census politics High Court skilled migration election results voting mental health Federal Court terrorist groups Higher Education Loan Program HECS governance youth paid parental leave environment foreign debt gross debt net debt defence capability customs Senate doping health crime health risks multiculturalism aged care Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling sex slavery sea farers Special Rapporteur Electoral reform political parties banking firearms public policy Population violence against women domestic violence China ADRV terrorism science research and development social media pensions welfare ASIO intelligence community Australian Security Intelligence Organisation accountability public service reform Carbon Pricing Mechanism carbon tax mining military history employer employee fishing by-election European Union same sex relationships international relations coal seam gas family assistance planning Senators and Members United Nations Security Council Australian economy food vocational education and training Drugs health reform Indonesia children codes of conduct terrorist financing health system money laundering early childhood education Canada Financial sector UK Parliament national security fuel disability employment Tasmania integrity transparency Australian Secret Intelligence Service sexual abuse federal state relations World Trade Organization Australia housing affordability bulk billing water renewable energy children's health health policy Governor-General US economy export liquefied natural gas foreign bribery question time speaker superannuation expertise climate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change leadership Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry food labelling Pacific Islands reserved seats new psychoactive substances synthetic drugs UNODC carbon markets Indigenous constitutional recognition of local government local government consumer laws PISA royal commission US politics language education baby bonus Leaders of the Opposition Parliamentary remuneration Australia Greens federal election 2010 servitude Trafficking Protocol energy forced marriage rural and regional Northern Territory Emergency Response ministries Hung Parliament social citizenship human rights emissions reduction fund; climate change child care funding refugees immigration asylum procurement Indigenous health e-voting internet voting nsw state elections 44th Parliament 2015 ABS Age Pension Death penalty capital punishment execution Bali nine Bali bombings Trade EU China soft power education Fiji India Disability Support Pension Antarctica Diplomacy by-elections state and territories workers Bills anti-corruption fraud bribery corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform innovation standards NATO Members of Parliament Scottish referendum Middle East; national security; terrorism social services Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 online grooming sexual assault of minors ACT Assembly public health smoking plain packaging tobacco cigarettes Asia; Japan; international relations Work Health and Safety Migration; asylum seekers; regional processing China; United States; international relations fiscal policy Racial Discrimination Act; social policy; human rights; indigenous Australians Foreign policy Southeast Asia Israel Palestine regional unemployment asylum refugees immigration political finance donations foreign aid Economics efficiency productivity human rights; Racial Discrimination Act employment law bullying asylum seekers Animal law; food copyright Australian Law Reform Commission industry peace keeping contracts workplace policies trade unions same-sex marriage disorderly conduct retirement Parliament House standing orders public housing prime ministers election timetable sitting days First speech defence budget submarines Somalia United Kingdom GDP forestry world heritage political engagement leave loading Trade; tariffs; safeguards; Anti-dumping public interest disclosure whistleblowing Productivity Commission regulation limitation period universities Ireland cancer gene patents genetic testing suspension of standing and sessional orders animal health live exports welfare systems infant mortality middle class welfare honorary citizen railways disciplinary tribunals standard of proof World Health Organisation arts international students skilled graduate visas temporary employment visas apologies roads Italy national heritage NHMRC nutrition anti-dumping Constitutional reform referendum Rent Assistance competition policy pharmaceutical benefits scheme obesity evidence law sacrament of confession US presidential election international days DFAT UN General Assembly deregulation Regulation Impact Statements administrative law small business Breaker Morant homelessness regional engagement social determinants of health abortion Youth Allowance Members suspension citizen engagement policymaking workplace health and safety Trafficking in Persons Report marine reserves hearing TAFE Victoria astronomy resources sector YMCA youth parliament alcohol Korea rebate Australian Greens presidential nomination Racial Discrimination Act entitlements political parties preselection solar hot water Financial Action Taskforce Horn of Africa peacekeeping piracy Great Barrier Reef Stronger futures political financing political education social inclusion Social Inclusion Board maritime early childhood National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care Murray-Darling Basin Iran sanctions Norway hospitals republic President Barack Obama Presidential visits ANZUS qantas counselling

Show all
Show less
Back to top