and one agent can now act on his/her fertility preferences. In four of our five study countries, men desire more children than women (Appendix Table A1). We could therefore expect that an increase in female profits could translate into a boost in her bargaining power, thereby allowing her to act on her preferences and reduce fertility.

Using microdata from 48 developing countries, Vogl (2016) finds substantial variation in the relationship between economic status (proxied through asset ownership) and cumulative fertility across regions and over time. Though the relationship tends to be negatively-sloped in later periods, for African women in earlier periods—circa 1990—he finds either an increasing or hump-shaped relationship. Chatterjee and Vogl (2018) expand this analysis to study the interaction between fertility and growth since 1950, combining microeconomic data on the birth histories of 2.3 million women from 255 household surveys with macroeconomic data on economic growth. Their findings indicate that fertility responses to economic fluctuations vary depending on the duration of the economic shift and the life cycle stage at which it occurs. Specifically, fertility is procyclical with annual fluctuations, particularly among women aged 20-34 and those with lower education levels. Short-term fertility elasticity seems to be driven by economic downturns, suggesting the incapacity of poor households to smooth their income and execute their fertility plan. However, when there is sustained economic growth spanning over two decades, fertility declines and the timing of childbirth is delayed. Consistently, prior research indicates that economic crises typically correlate with a decline in fertility rates in developing countries (Council et al., 1993; Tapinos et al., 1997; Lindstrom and Berhanu, 1999; Adsera and Menendez, 2011).

Lastly, the extensive literature on cash transfers in developing countries has found either no impact or a negative impact on fertility (Baird et al., 2011; McQueston et al., 2013; Rosenberg et al., 2015; Khan et al., 2016; Palermo and Hjelm, 2016; Khan et al., 2016; Palermo and Hjelm, 2016; Anderson and Reynolds, 2017; Bastagli et al., 2019; Loeser et al., 2021).<sup>3</sup> We argue that this empirical literature can only provide constrained insights on the overall income-fertility relationship in developing countries. First, the conditional cash transfer literature does not allow one to disentangle the impact of the positive income shock from the increase in school participation, or any behavior which has been incentivized by the transfer. Second, cash transfers delivered through development programs are commonly understood to be temporary and therefore are not likely to influence fertility decisions in the same way as an increase in earnings built on skill accumulation, which is more likely to be sustained and potentially grow in the long-run.<sup>4</sup>

# **2.2.2 Fertility and property rights**

Only a very limited set of studies have examined how the formalization of property rights influences fertility. These studies find consistent results suggesting that land titling reforms have a negative impact on fertility (Field, 2003; Galiani and Schargrodsky, 2010). In light of this literature, we may expect two opposite effects of land formalization on fertility, de-

> 3In their review, Bastagli et al. (2019) note an exception related to the PRAF program in Honduras, which had positive effects on fertility. According to the authors, this is likely due to specific elements of program design, since the level of transfers given was an increasing function of the number of children.

> 4In Togo and Ethiopia, both business training programs increased the adoption of good practices in women’s businesses.

8