Demonstrates a substantial reduction in employment and promotion for women, suggesting gender disparities are exacerbated by fertility policy changes.
China’s shift from strict fertility control to a pro-natalist regime may have unintentionally intensified gender inequality in labor markets. This study investigates the gendered labor-market effects of fertility policy reforms using nationally representative data from the China Family Panel Studies (CFPS). We adopt a weighted nonlinear difference-in-differences (DID) and difference-in-differences-in-differences (DDD) framework to address selection bias and unobserved heterogeneity in binary labor-market outcomes, combining survey weights with causal reweighting to enhance population-level inference. The results indicate that while aggregate DID effects appear neutral to mildly positive, triple-difference estimates reveal substantial penalties for women aged 20–39. Specifically, fertility-policy reforms reduce promotion probabilities by approximately 6–8 percentage points, employment probabilities by 3–4 percentage points, and the likelihood of earning above the median wage by about 6–7 percentage points. These effects are consistent across alternative weighting schemes and remain robust to placebo tests, event-study specifications, and additional controls for differential trends. This study contributes to the literature by demonstrating how demographic policy interventions can generate unintended distributional consequences through employer expectations and statistical discrimination. The findings highlight a policy trade-off between demographic revitalization and gender equality, suggesting that pro-natalist policies may reinforce labor-market disparities in the absence of complementary institutional reforms. These results underscore the importance of aligning demographic objectives with gender-equality policies, particularly in the context of Sustainable Development Goal 5.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: