Back in November 2007, tigtog and I discussed at length the paper on the baby bonus introduction by Andrew Leigh and Joshua Gans, “Born (Again) on the First of July: Another Experiment in Birth Timing”[1]. The paper has now been revised for international publication, this time with mortality data.
Their thesis back in 2007 was there was an introduction effect “delaying” births around the time of the baby bonus introduction, and their data does show a clear change in pattern.
The introduction effect has the potential to create potential issues with hospital resource management, an issue Gans and Leigh should have stuck to. However, they boldly branched out into saying that the “delays” were leading to “high birthweight” babies, and that this could only lead to adverse health outcomes. No alternative hypothesis was considered, and their assumptions weren’t elucidated or examined.
Gans and Leigh hypothesised in their 2007 paper:
Although our study cannot speak directly to the health effects of delaying births, it seems likely that decisions to delay births for non-medical reasons can only have adverse health consequences for babies and parents. While babies born pre-term and/or underweight are less likely to be healthy, the same is also true of babies born too late and/or overweight.
Health consequences for “parents”? For a start, what are the likely health implications for fathers and non-bio parents? OK, so they’re using “parents” as a proxy for “mothers”. Where do they present data on consequences for mothers? Nowhere. The hands are flapping as fast as they can.
On to the babies. The more sensible and obstetrically-experienced among us rapidly realised that what was more likely to be happening was that “routine” inductions and C sections, typically done around 38-39 weeks, were probably being rescheduled to a time closer to when the birthdate would have naturally lain had the interventions not been performed.
