• Alaka BasuAlaka Basu
      Alaka M. Basu is Professor, Development Sociology, Cornell University, and a member of the Guttmacher-Lancet Commission on Sexual and Reproductive Rights and Health
      Alessandro RosinaAlessandro Rosina
      Professor of Demography and Director, Center for Applied Statistics in Business and Economics, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
      Andrea BrandoliniAndrea Brandolini
      Head of Statistical Analysis Directorate, Bank of Italy
      Bruno MasquelierBruno Masquelier
      Professor of Demography, University of Louvain, Belgium
      Cheikh MbackéCheikh Mbacké
      Associate Professor, Sociology department, Laval University
      Cinzia ContiCinzia Conti
      Researcher at Istat, Head of Unit on Foreign Presence and Social Dynamics
      Corrado BonifaziCorrado Bonifazi
      Director of the Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies, National Research Council, Rome Italy
      Ernestina CoastErnestina Coast
      Associate Professor of Population Studies, London School of Economics
      Wang FengFeng Wang
      Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Irvine, USA, and Professor at Fudan University, Shanghai, China fwang(at)
      Francesco BillariFrancesco Billari
      Professor of Sociology and Demography, Department of Social and Political Sciences, Bocconi University. • Personal webpage • francesco.billari(at)
      Gilles PisonGilles Pison
      Professor at Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle and Director of Research at the French National Institute for Demographic Studies (INED) (Paris)
      Gustavo De SantisGustavo De Santis
      Professor of Demography, University of Florence, Italy
      Jacques VallinJacques Vallin
      Emeritus Research Director at INED, Paris; Honorary President of IUSSP
      John KnodelJohn Knodel
      Research Professor Emeritus, Population Studies Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan (USA) and International staff, College of Populations Studies, Chulalongkorn University (Thailand)
      Letizia MencariniLetizia Mencarini
      Associate professor of Demography, Bocconi University - Dondena Centre for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policy & Collegio Carlo Alberto; P.I. ERC P.I. ERC project n. 313617 (2013-2018) SWELLFER
      Letizia TanturriLetizia Tanturri
      Associate Professor of Demography, University of Padova, Italy
      Massimo livi BacciMassimo livi Bacci
      Emeritus Professor of Demography, University of Florence, Italy
      Monica Das GuptaMonica Das Gupta
      Research Professor of Sociology, University of Maryland, USA
      Paula Miranda-RibeiroPaula Miranda-Ribeiro
      Professor, Demography Department and Cedeplar, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil.
      Peter McDonaldPeter McDonald
      Professor of Demography in the Australian National University. Honorary President of IUSSP and winner of the Irene B. Taeuber Award
      Roberto ImpicciatoreRoberto Impicciatore
      Università di Bologna.
      Salvatore StrozzaSalvatore Strozza
      Professor of Demography, University Federico II, Naples (Italy)
      Stefano MolinaStefano Molina
      Senior Program Officer, Giovanni Agnelli Foundation, Italy
      our authors
    • N-IUSSP is a new IUSSP news magazine, which will disseminate scientific findings from demographic research carried out all over the world. The practical implications of current trends, the risks and potentialities of emerging situations, the pros and cons of specific laws are discussed in rigorous but plain language.

      Everybody is free to reproduce our articles, for free, provided the original source is cited.

      You are invited to contribute to this new publication: please check our guidelines and submit your 1000 word contribution to

How cash support and tax relief may matter for third births in Hungary
Importance du soutien financier et des allégements fiscaux pour les troisièmes naissances en Hongrie

Zsolt Spéder, Lívia Murinkó, Livia Sz. Oláh

Well targeted policy measures can influence fertility even in times of intensive social and economic change. Analysing data from the Hungarian Generations and Gender Survey, Zsolt Spéder, Lívia Murinkó and Livia Sz. Oláh show that flat-rate cash support encouraged low educated two-child parents to have a third child, and tax-relief had a similar effect among the highly educated.

Arguments about the efficiency of family policies have often been challenged in the literature, and empirical results from cross-country comparisons are mixed or inconsistent (Gauthier 2007). Interest in policy effects is nonetheless considerable, and even increases in times of extremely low fertility. Hungary, like many other countries making the transition from state-socialism to capitalism, experienced radical institutional changes, periods of major economic decline but also of prosperity, and a rapid shift from early to late family formation (postponement) resulting in extremely low period fertility. At the same time, the family support system underwent radical reform. Formerly universal, it became means-tested in 1995, and then universal again in 1999, but was accompanied by large-scale tax measures. Discontinuities like these, despite substantial family-related government spending, are not generally believed to encourage fertility, which remained low in Hungary, at about 1.3 children per woman between 1999 and 2011, and is still below 1.5 today.

Two predictable measures within a complex but changing family support system

Two influential policy measures to support large families and encourage third births were introduced in Hungary in the 1990s. In 1993, during the most intensive period of socio-economic and institutional change, child-rearing support was introduced for parents with three or more children. It took the form of a monthly flat-rate cash benefit, paid from the third to the eighth birthday of the youngest child. A few years later, in 1999, a comprehensive tax relief system came into effect, mainly benefiting parents of three or more children with taxable income. While the former measure was designed above all to enhance the well-being of large, disadvantaged families and to ease transitional labour market difficulties, the latter was explicitly pronatalist.

These two measures form part of a comprehensive four-tier family policy system (Makay 2019), based on

  • A guaranteed universal family allowance paid until a child’s 18th birthday;
  • a parental leave scheme with two years of wage-related benefits and another year of flat-rate benefits;
  • individual tax relief favouring large families;
  • various forms of in-kind assistance, most specifically subsidized public childcare.

In 1999, in the middle of our study period, the cash and in-kind benefits provided to families in Hungary represented 3.13 per cent of GDP, a generous level (Thévenon 2011) relative to other OECD countries.

In our study on policy effects using event history analysis (Spéder et al. 2020) we assumed that any significant increase or decrease in third-birth risks (controlling for the effects of individual factors) was attributable to measures introduced at the beginning of a policy period. This analytical strategy has been successfully applied in other studies examining policy effects on fertility (e.g. Hoem et al. 2001), even if various other confounding factors in the same period may also have influenced birth risks. We differentiated between six relevant periods (see Table 1). The two dates marking the introduction of the above-mentioned measures were obvious milestones in the partitioning of the three decades studied.

Of course, various strata in a society may react differently to specific policies. For example, flat-rate and lump-sum support may primarily motivate lower-income groups, whereas tax relief may be of particular benefit to parents with medium or high income. We took this aspect into account in our research design, using education as a proxy for social status and income class.

Differential fertility effects

Figure 1 displays policy effects by level of education and period. People with a medium (vocational or secondary) education in 1980–88 are our reference category. The hazard ratios for various educational attainment categories during the periods are significantly different from the reference category, indicating clear but varied policy effects by educational level. Third birth risks of the low educated soared in 1993, when child-rearing support for stay-at-home mothers was introduced, and remained high during the years in which this support remained unchanged. For parents with tertiary education, instead, we see a pronounced increase in third birth intensity from 1999, when tax relief for large families was introduced and then generously upgraded. The high third-birth intensity with respect to the reference also remained significantly higher during the subsequent periods. The relative risk of a third birth also increased somewhat for parents with vocational or secondary education after 1998, although to a lesser degree.

Thus, our results show that flat-rate child-rearing support during prolonged parental leave motivated parents with lower socioeconomic status to have more children. The measure may even have protected them from some negative consequences of the economic transition such as unemployment, and to some extent from child poverty, ensuring societal recognition of ‘stay-at-home motherhood’ at the same time. The tax relief, in contrast, seems to have encouraged two-child parents with high educational attainment to have a third child, with little influence on parents with low socioeconomic status. The comprehensive tax relief may not only have stimulated third childbearing but also helped mothers to strengthen their labour market position, thereby raising family income to levels that were high enough to derive full benefit from the tax concessions offered.

Although the impact of these measures on overall Hungarian fertility remains low, in part because of the fertility postponement that characterizes younger generations, the predictability of the new measures and their sizeable financial scale produced a clear effect, with interesting subgroup differences.


Financial support to the authors via the Swedish Research Council grant to the Linnaeus Center on Social Policy and Family Dynamics in Europe, SPaDE (grant number 349-2007-8701), and to the first and second authors via the Hungarian Science Foundation under the grant ‘Families in Transition’ (K109397) are gratefully acknowledged.


Gauthier, A. H. 2007. The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: A review of the literature, Population Research and Policy Review 26(3): 323–346.

Hoem, J. M., A. Prskawetz and G. Neyer. 2001. Autonomy or conservative adjustment? The effect of public policies and educational attainment on third births in Austria, 1975–96, Population Studies 55(3): 249–261.

Makay, Zs. 2019. The family support system and female employment. In J. Monostori, P. Őri and Zs. Spéder (eds.), Demographic Portrait of Hungary 2018. Budapest: Hungarian Demographic Research Institute, 85–105.

Spéder, Zs., L. Murinkó and L. Sz. Oláh 2020. Cash support vs. tax incentives: The differential impact of policy interventions on third births in contemporary Hungary. Population Studies, 74(1), 39–54.

Thévenon, O. 2011. Family policies in OECD countries: A comparative analysis, Population and Development Review 37(1): 57–87.