@article{Paas_55_25, author = {Paas, Tanel and Puur, Allan and Gortfelder, Mark}, title={{The impact of increased child benefits on tempo and quantum of fertility in Estonia}}, journal = {Demographic Research}, volume = {55}, number = {25}, pages = {811--846}, doi = {10.4054/DemRes.2026.55.25}, year = {2026}, abstract = {Background: On July 1, 2017, Estonia introduced a substantial child allowance for families with three or more children, supplementing regular child benefits. This universal, non-means-tested benefit aimed to alleviate financial burdens for larger families and encourage third and higher-order births. Objective: We examine the impact of this reform on the likelihood and timing of third births. We hypothesise that the Estonian child benefit reform had a positive impact, given that the total allowances for a family with three children amounted to 41% of the average salary at the time of implementation. Methods: We analyse longitudinal register data using a mixture cure model embedded within a difference-in-differences framework, which allows us to distinguish between changes in the probability of having a third child and changes in the timing of third births. Results: We find evidence that the reform was associated with a shortening of the time to third birth by nearly a quarter and a 4 percentage point increase in the probability of a third birth, corresponding to an 11% rise relative to the baseline third birth probability (37%). Conclusions: The results suggest that a generous child allowance can be linked to changes in both the timing and the likelihood of higher-order births. Contribution: The study contributes to the broader literature analysing the effects of family benefits on fertility by providing new evidence from longitudinal register data on the association between a generous, universal child benefit and changes in the timing and likelihood of third births in a low fertility context. }, URL = {https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol55/25/}, eprint = {https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol55/25/55-25.pdf} }