Maternity benefit

What is Maternity Benefit?

Maternity benefit is an extensive set of rights, statutory protections and entitlements, framed to provide support to women during pregnancy and immediately after the attainment of motherhood, without any discrimination in the way of acquirement, let it be biological birth or surrogacy or via adoption. These are principles of human rights which a mother is inherently entitled.  

This benefit is a paid leave provided to women in active employment (temporary or permanent) for pregnancy and childbirth and shortly after attaining motherhood via any other method. This leave covers the necessary time for pre-natal care, childbirth, post-natal care, and hospitalization.

It is universally recognized that a mother has an inherent right to rest during childbirth to safeguard the health and life of both herself and her child. This right includes receiving cash benefits during the absence from active employment due to pregnancy and childbirth.

Crucially, this leave also serves to protect the working woman from potential workplace hazards during pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding.

Basically, it is a policy to allow the working mothers time away from their active employment with the guarantee of job security. Maternity leave serves as the essential foundation of a wider framework of maternity protection. It is a globally recognised standard of employment, used differently across the world with variations in the length of time granted and the level of financial compensation provided by the employers.

Maternity leave is significant because it ensures the health and well-being of the mother and child , it is a vital piece of social legislation intended to put women on an equal footing with men in the workplace, via the principle of equity, ensuring that maternity is not a source of discrimination or job loss, maternity leave acknowledges that procreation and child-rearing are valuable societal responsibilities thus allowing an easier combination of work and family life.

Official Definition of Maternity benefit

Maternity Benefit is defined as the payment a working woman is entitled to receive at the rate of her daily wage for the period of actual absence from the workplace. It is a socially beneficial piece of legislation to achieve social justice under Article 42 of the Constitution with the object of protecting the dignity of motherhood by providing for the full and healthy maintenance of women and her child when she is not working. Maternity benefits in India are primarily governed by Chapter VI of the Code on Social Security, 2020, which consolidates and replaces the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961,it establishes the legal parameters of this authorized absence, the leave itself, as the period immediately preceding the expected day of delivery, the actual day of delivery, and the period immediately following that day.

Under the Section 60 of the Code on Social Security, 2020 a working woman is allowed a maternity benefit is 26 weeks with the limit of a maximum eight weeks can precede expected delivery date. In the event a woman has two or more surviving children, the maximum period of leave is limited to 12 weeks, with no more than six weeks preceding the delivery dates. Code on Social Security, 2020 provides that the provisions of the Act would be applicable to every establishment being a factory, mine or plantation including any such establishment which belongs to the Government; and  to every shop or establishment in which ten or more employees are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months; and such other shops or establishments notified by the appropriate Government. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) the Supreme Court relied on the Directive Principles of State Policy, specifically Article 42, which mandates the State to make provisions for "just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief" and integrated it with universal principles of human rights by invoking Article 11 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (“CEDAW”), which protects women against dismissal during pregnancy and guarantees maternity leave with pay.

The applicability of the statue is across all establishments and the statutory benefit is for all workers. In the case of Noorul Islam Educational Trust v. Assistant Labour Officer, the Kerala High Court ruled that exemptions allowed to educational institutions under different Acts do not override the requirements of general labour welfare laws, and thus overturning Thomas Eapen v. Assistant Labour Officer. However, recently in the case of Chairman, PSM College v. Reshma Vinod, Kerala High Court ruled that educational institutions do not come under the purview of shops and establishments, relying on the Ruth Soren v Managing Committee, East ISSDA and others thus negating the universality of Maternity Benefit, thus prompting Kerala Government to issue a notification GO(P).No.35/2020/LBR (S.R.O. No. 184/2020) dated March 6, 2020 to include all employees, including teachers and non-teaching staff in the private and unaided education sectors under the said act.

In the case of case of Saumya Tiwari v. State of U.P. the Allahabad High Court ruled that motherhood as a fundamental right  protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the court also established that Statutory Silence is no excuse for violation of a student's fundamental rights highlighting Global and National Precedents. In the case of case of Lata Goyal v. Union of India, Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that that adoptive mothers form bonds of love and affection just as profound as biological mothers and that there should be no discrimination in maternity benefits based on whether motherhood was achieved biologically, through surrogacy, or through adoption. The court highlighted that participation of women in workforce is a constitutional right protected under Article 14, 15, 19(1)(g) & 21, and not a mere privilege.

Also known as Comparable or synonymous terms used in the Indian context

In the Indian legal and social policy context, the concept of "maternity leave" and related protections is expressed through various comparable, synonymous, and highly specific terms depending on whether the source is constitutional, statutory, or a state-sponsored welfare scheme.

Here are the key comparable and synonymous terms used in India:

Constitutional Terminology:

This is the basic term used in Article 42 of the Constitution of India, which mandates the State to make provisions for "securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief".

Statutory and Workplace Leave Terminology:

Under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and the Central Civil Services (“CCS”) (Leave) Rules, 1972, Social Security Code, 2020 several specific terms are used to denote different facets of parental and maternity absences:

• Maternity Benefit: The overarching statutory term used to describe the entitlement to paid absence (at the rate of the average daily wage) for a pregnant woman.
• Maternity Leave: Used interchangeably with maternity benefit to describe the authorized period of absence, e.g., 26 weeks for standard delivery or 180 days under CCS Rules.
• Child Care Leave (CCL): A specific entitlement granted to female government servants (and single male government servants) for a maximum period of 730 days during their entire service to take care of their two eldest surviving children for needs like education or sickness.
• Child Adoption Leave: A specific 180-day leave granted to female government servants who legally adopt a child below the age of one year.
• Paternity Leave / Paternity Leave for Child Adoption: A 15-day paid leave granted to male government servants with less than two surviving children, applicable during their wife's confinement for childbirth or upon adopting a child.
• Commuted Leave: A type of leave on a medical certificate, which female employees can take for up to 60 days in direct continuation of their maternity leave or child adoption leave without providing a medical certificate.

Social Welfare and Conditional Cash Transfer (“CCT”) Schemes:

Maternity protections meant for women in the unorganised sector or those living Below Poverty Line (“BPL”), which are provided through government cash transfer programmes, which use specific scheme names interchangeably with "maternity benefits":

• Indira Gandhi Matritva Sahyog Yojana (“IGMSY”): Also officially referred to as a Conditional Maternity Benefit (CMB), which is a centrally-sponsored scheme that provides cash directly to pregnant and lactating women to compensate for wage loss and support infant nutrition.
• Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (“PMMVY): The current flagship national maternity benefit programme aimed at providing financial disbursements to pregnant and lactating mothers.
• Janani Suraksha Yojana (“JSY”): An incentive-based term for a programme specifically meant for promoting institutional deliveries, though it mainly covers delivery costs rather than wage loss.
• Dr. Muthulakshmi Reddy Maternity Benefit Scheme (“MRMBS”) / Dr. Muthulakshmi Maternity Assistance Scheme (“DMMAS”): A state-specific conditional cash transfer scheme in Tamil Nadu that provides financial childbirth assistance to poor women.

Types of Maternity Benefit 

 Standard Maternity Leave:

Under section 60(3) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, standard maternity leave is statutorily defined as a maximum protected absence of 26 weeks, of which not more than eight weeks shall precede the date of the woman's expected delivery. The woman must have actually worked at the employer's establishment for not less than 80 days in the twelve months immediately preceding her expected delivery date. In addition to it Section 64 of Code on Social Security, 2020 provisions for a bonus of Rs 3500 if no pre-natal confinement and post-natal care is provided for by the employer free of charge. In the matter of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (“Muster Roll”) the Supreme Court ruled that this standard benefit cannot be restricted to regular employees and must be extended to women engaged on a casual or daily-wage (“muster roll”) basis. In the case of Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health the Court ruled that this statutory benefit is not coterminous with the employment tenure and can legally survive and extend beyond the expiration of a time-bound employment contract. In the case of Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal the Supreme Court held that the grant of maternity leave is intended to facilitate the continuance of women in the workplace, and childbirth must be construed in the context of employment as a "natural incident of life".

Mothers with multiple Children:

If a woman already has two or more surviving children, the maximum period is limited to 12 weeks, with no more than six weeks preceding the expected delivery date. In the case of Commissioner of Police v. Ravina Yadav, Delhi High Court ruled that it "atrocious" to deprive a third child of a mother's touch and care immediately post-natal and the court broadened the scope of maternity leave, stating the issue must be examined not just through the lens of the mother's rights, but the fundamental rights of the child. In Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal (2022), the Supreme Court of India ruled that a woman cannot be denied maternity leave for her first biological child just because she previously took child-care leave for her stepchildren.[36] The court via this judgment intends to highlight that social welfare legislation, like maternity benefits, must be interpreted in a manner that serves the purpose of inclusion rather than exclusion.

Adoption:

The code on Social Security, 2020, it is mandated that in the event a mother legally adopts a child under the age of three months is allowed to 12 weeks of maternity benefit.[37] This legal absence from work is considered as maternity leave which is calculated from the date the child is officially adopted. In the matter of Lata Goyal v. Union of India  at the High Court of Chhattisgarh, 2025, the High Court recognised the fact that the motherly bond formed between the adoptive mother and her child is similar to the bonds formed by a biological mothers.

Surrogacy:

Under the Code on Social Security, 2020 the statutory framework addresses surrogacy by explicitly defining a "commissioning mother" as "a biological mother who uses her egg to create an embryo implanted in any other woman". When a surrogacy arrangement occurs, the amended Act grants the commissioning mother the legal entitlement to maternity benefit for a period of 12 weeks. The 12 week maternity leave and associated financial benefits starts from the date the child is officially handed over to the commissioning mother. In the matter of Lata Goyal v. Union of India at the High Court of Chhattisgarh, 2025, the court emphasised that there must be no discrimination in allowing of maternity benefits based on whether motherhood was achieved biologically, through adoption or through surrogacy. It was further affirmed that motherhood in all its forms has equal dignity and constitutional protection in order to ensure that women are not thrown out of the workforce.

Specific Medical Leaves:

The Section 65 of the Code on Social Security, 2020, the statute provides specific provisions for leaves with wages similar to maternity benefit to support women through various medical and reproductive health issues beyond standard childbirth, viz, leave for Miscarriage or Medical Termination of Pregnancy, leave for Tubectomy Operation (Section 65 (2)), leave for Illness (Section 65(3)).

Miscarriage or medical termination of pregnancy:

Under Section 65 (1), Code on Social Security, 2020, a woman is legally entitled to six weeks of leave with wages immediately following the day of her miscarriage or the medical termination of her pregnancy.

Tubectomy operation:

Under Section 65 (2), Code on Social Security, 2020, a woman who undergoes a tubectomy operation is entitled to two weeks of leave with wages immediately following the day of her operation, upon production of the prescribed medical proof.

Moreover, under Section 65 (3), Code on Social Security, 2020, the statute allows a maximum period of one additional month of leave with wages for a woman suffering from an illness arising out of pregnancy, delivery, premature birth of a child, miscarriage, medical termination of pregnancy, or a tubectomy operation. This one-month leave is provided in addition to the standard maternity leave or the specific medical leaves granted under Sections 65 (1) and 65(2).

Appearance in official databases

1.    Over 93% of India's female workforce is engaged in the informal and unorganised sector, often working as agriculture labourers, domestic workers, street vendors, and in small-scale home-based industries. This sector lacks social security, job security, and formal contracts, leading to significant economic vulnerability, lower wages compared to men, and increased risk of exploitation, in unorganized sector women are exempted from maternity benefit and child care facilities.

2.    The benefits of the Maternity Benefits are available to the female workforce in formal sectors which is monitored by the Ministry of Labour and various benefits under ESI Act are available to them, however, the benefits of the Maternity Benefit for the female workforce in unorganised sector is non-existent.

3.    Hence, the Federal Government here steps in to provide financial assistance to pregnant and lactating mothers for their first living child, helping them afford better nutrition and compensating for wage losses during pregnancy, ultimately reducing maternal and infant mortality rates under the aegis of the Ministry of Women & Child Development.

4.    The official database for maternity benefits in India is managed through the Ministry of Women & Child Development (“MWCD”) via the Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (“PMMVY”) portal.

5.     The Government of India is implementing the flagship programme named as Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (“PMMVY”) with effect starting from 1st January 2017.

6.    The Objectives of the PMMVY is to provide cash incentive for partial compensation for the wage loss so that the woman can take adequate rest before and after delivery of the first child; and to improve health seeking behaviour amongst the Pregnant Women & Lactating Mothers (“PW&LM”).

7.      The scheme also seeks to promote positive behavioural change towards girl child by providing additional cash incentive for the second child, if that is a girl child. Under this component free of charge meal, during pregnancy and six months after the childbirth, through the local Anganwadi is envisaged so as to meet the nutritional standards; and maternity benefit of not less than rupees five thousand, in two instalments will be provided to women belonging to socially and economically disadvantaged sections of society.

8.    The benefit is available to a woman for the first two living children provided the second child is a girl. In case of the first child the amount of ₹5000 in two instalments and for the second child, the benefit of ₹6000 will be provided subject to second child is a girl child in one instalment after the birth.

However, for availing benefits for second child, registration during the pregnancy shall be mandatory. This would contribute to improve the Sex Ratio at Birth and to prevent female foeticide.4.92 crores of beneficiary have enrolled and out of that 4.28 crores beneficiary have been paid and an amount of ₹ 20,150.00 crore have paid to the beneficiaries as maternity benefit.

Doctrinal Research

Research about the evolution of Applicability of Maternity Benefit in Kerala's Private Sector. This research travels through the judicial and legislative timeline in connection with the application of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 to private hospitals and educational institutions in Kerala.

The Era of Exemption: Thomas Eapen v. Assistant Labour Officer (1993):

The Kerala High Court ruled that private hospitals and nursing homes were exempt from the application of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The court banked on a 1957 government notification that allowed exemption to hospitals from the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. The Maternity Benefit Act,1961 applied to "establishments" as defined by the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, the exemption from the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act meant they were also exempt from maternity benefit obligations.

The "Industry" Distinction: Ruth Soren v. Managing Committee (2000):

The Supreme Court of India ruled that an educational institution does not come under the purview of an "establishment", if the definition means that carrying on a "business, trade, or profession". This Supreme court judgment established that, without a specific statutory notification, schools and colleges cannot be automatically treated as "commercial establishments." This created a legal dichotomy where private educational institutions could argue since they were not treated as shops and establishments they were not liable to pay maternity benefits.

The Expansionist View: Noorul Islam Educational Trust v. Assistant Labour Officer (2007):

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court overruled Thomas Eapen, holding that private hospitals are covered by the Maternity Benefit Act,1961. While expanding the umbrella to hospitals, the judgment did not take in account for the Supreme Court's precedent in Ruth Soren regarding the educational component. This left to an ambiguous situation that whether the ruling applied equally to the college side of such institutions.

The Legislative Fix: Kerala Govt. Notification (March 6, 2020):

The State Government issued G.O.(P) No. 35/2020/LBR, which mandated that private educational institutions are brought under the ambit of the Maternity Benefit Act,1961. This notification helped to close a statutory gap. Therefore, from the date of issuance of the notification by the Kerala Govt, all private educational institutions in Kerala were legally mandated to provide maternity benefits.

The Final Clarification: PSM College v. Reshma Vinod (2024):

The Kerala High Court harmonized all the previous contrary rulings. It ruled that the Maternity Benefit Act is not applicable retrospectively to private educational institutions for periods before March 6, 2020.

Empirical Research

State UTs-wise Funds Released Beneficiaries Paid Maternity Benefit under Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY) since inception as on 22.11.2021.

Sl. No.	State/UT	Total Funds released (Rs. in Crores)	Total Number of Beneficiaries Paid
1	Andaman and Nicobar Islands	5.23	6353
2	Andhra Pradesh	341.27	1048922
3	Arunachal Pradesh	18.77	21074
4	Assam	351.03	710004
5	Bihar	773.22	2193133
6	Chandigarh	14.77	24521
7	Chhattisgarh	155.67	527791
8	Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu	6.41	11984
9	Delhi	82.21	258091
10	Goa	5.01	18158
11	Gujarat	287.3	763897
12	Haryana	183.23	514767
13	Himachal Pradesh	87.9	188331
14	Jammu and Kashmir	99.76	216539
15	Jharkhand	194.2	545401
16	Karnataka	377.57	1264976
17	Kerala	198.24	672188
18	Ladakh	1.01	3787
19	Lakshadweep	0.62	1279
20	Madhya Pradesh	737.68	2461484
21	Maharashtra	687.35	2389867
22	Manipur	27.24	48321
23	Meghalaya	21.42	33345
24	Mizoram	24.2	26488
25	Nagaland	15.52	24819
26	Odisha	75.26	5
27	Puducherry	8.8	23222
28	Punjab	113.58	367951
29	Rajasthan	461.56	1403787
30	Sikkim	5.41	9515
31	Tamil Nadu	284.57	1012961
32	Telangana	75.81	NA
33	Tripura	34.52	73248
34	Uttar Pradesh	1211.91	3925356
35	Uttarakhand	95.66	196873
36	West Bengal	219.53	735443

               

State UT-wise Number of Beneficiaries Received Maternity Benefits under Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana as on 24-07-2023

Sl. No	State/UT	Beneficiary Paid
1	Andaman and Nicobar Islands	8027
2	Andhra Pradesh	1432333
3	Arunachal Pradesh	26520
4	Assam	1006063
5	Bihar	3135752
6	Chandigarh	32079
7	Chhattisgarh	758474
8	Delhi	383023
9	Goa	23678
10	Gujarat	1096715
11	Haryana	747231
12	Himachal Pradesh	247304
13	Jammu and Kashmir	314994
14	Jharkhand	732781
15	Karnataka	1983097
16	Kerala	936507
17	Ladakh	4686
18	Lakshadweep	1457
19	Madhya Pradesh	3318743
20	Maharashtra	3042954
21	Manipur	56358
22	Meghalaya	47960
23	Mizoram	35320
24	Nagaland	32090
25	Puducherry	32192
26	Punjab	485306
27	Rajasthan	2004544
28	Sikkim	13161
29	Tamil Nadu	1193626
30	Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu	18828
31	Tripura	100927
32	Uttar Pradesh	5558880
33	Uttarakhand	231613
34	West Bengal	1565797
	Total	30609020

                               https://sansad.in/rs/questions/questions-and-answers

The chart of number of beneficiaries paid and amount disbursed under PMMVY during last five years is as under, as on 12.03.2026.

The chart of number of beneficiaries paid and amount disbursed under PMMVY during last five years is as under, as on 12.03.2026

However, data does not show how the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, Act No.6 Of 2017, has led to upwardly increase of disposal of maternity benefit has grown in informal sector, unorganised sector and gig workers.

As per the Economic Survey 2021-22, 43.99 crore workers out of total of 53.53 crore workforce, are engaged in the unorganised sector.As on 31.03.2024, over 29.51 crore unorganised sector workers have registered on eShram Portal, on self-declaration basis. Out of these 15.67 crore are female. They are out of the Maternity Benefit Act, the government has to step in to provide cash benefit to replace the wages.

International experiences

Examination of a series of policy changes in Norway from 1987 to 1992 which increased paid maternity leave from 18 to 35 weeks while keeping job protection constant.

The paper “What Is the Case for Paid Maternity Leave?” by Gordon B. Dahl, Katrine V. Løken, Magne Mogstad and Kari Vea Salvanes published by Institute of Labor Economics uses a regression discontinuity (RD) design, exploiting six Norwegian policy reforms between 1987–1992 that expanded paid maternity leave from 18 to 35 weeks. Each reform set a cut-off date for births, with children born after the date being entitled to more paid leave. Families just before and just after each cut-off are treated as comparable, isolating the causal effect of extra weeks of paid leave.

The Four Essential Questions that became prominent were:

Does paid leave replace unpaid leave?

No.  Each reform added approximately the same number of additional weeks to paid leave as legislated, with no reduction in unpaid leave. For most mothers, income replacement was 100%, so the reforms simply increased time at home without reducing family income.

What is the effect on outcomes?

Practically none over a wide range:

Children: No meaningful difference in 9th grade test scores or high school graduation rates

Mothers: No substantive change in return-to-work rates, long-run employment, or earnings

Fathers: No change in income or employment

Gender equality: The gender employment/income gap was unchanged – and the reforms probably widened the childcare gap by keeping mothers home longer but not affecting fathers at all

Family stability: No consistent effect on fertility, marriage, or divorce.

How do the benefits compare with the costs?

Each incremental week of paid leave cost an estimated $687 per birth (2010 dollars). The full expansion from 18 to 35 weeks cost over $1 billion a year (~0.5% of GDP). The reforms didn't bring any offsetting future tax revenue (mothers didn't work more in the long run). So, costs were all on taxpayers with no measureable return in public benefit.

What are the distributional effects: progressive or regressive?

Two-fold regressive on:

Only ~74% of mothers qualified (previous earnings above a threshold). Eligible mothers were substantially better educated and wealthier than ineligible ones – disposable family income was 60% higher for eligibles the year before birth

Benefits were scaled with prior earnings (100% replacement) within eligible mothers. Thus, higher earning women in higher income families received larger transfers .

The authors characterize the extra leave as a "pure leisure transfer" to middle and upper-income families.

Comparison to the 1977 Reform: The original introduction of 18 weeks in 1977 was specifically aimed at reducing high school dropout rates. The research by the author focuses solely on extensions from 18 to 35 weeks and finds that these incremental extensions did not produce comparable gains, suggesting decreasing (or zero) returns to more leave duration beyond a certain point, estimates are internally valid only for eligible working mothers (~75% of all mothers)

The RD captures short-term parental responses; long-term adjustments of firms, e.g. hiring discrimination, changes in human capital investment, etc are harder to detect.

The Norwegian context (near-universal take-up, no crowd-out, 100% replacement) may not be transferable to countries with partial replacement or lower take-up

Policy Implications

The authors argue that while a baseline level of paid leave may be defensible, the case for longer periods of paid leave is weak. The opportunity cost is high, the authors say, because similar expenditures on early childhood education, especially for disadvantaged children, have more evidence of returns in the short and long run.

In the context of USA.

The study “Maternity Leave, Early Maternal Employment and Child Health and Development in the US” (Berger, Hill and Waldfogel, 2005) investigates how short maternity leave periods affect the welfare of children. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, the authors analysed whether a mother’s return to work during the first 12 weeks postpartum the maximum leave offered by the US Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) has negative implications for her child’s health and developmental outcomes.

Major Findings of the Study:

Lower Preventive Health Care: Early work returns causally decrease the probability of a child having regular “well-baby” preventive checkups and of completing all of their DPT/Oral Polio immunisations in their first 18 months.

Nursing reductions: The study found stark negative effects on nursing. Mothers who went back to work within 12 weeks were less likely to initiate breastfeeding and breastfed for a shorter duration.

Increased Behavioural Problems: The findings suggest that there is a causal relationship between early maternal employment and an increase in externalising behaviour problems (i.e. aggressiveness, impulsivity, defiance) at the age of four.

Full-Time Returns Have Worse Outcomes: The negative effects on child health and development are consistently larger when mothers return to work full-time within the first 12 weeks, as opposed to part-time For example, mothers returning full-time were about 14 percentage points less likely to breastfeed than those returning part-time (8 percentage points).

The authors used rigorous statistical methods, including “propensity score matching,” to ensure these findings were true causal links, and not merely correlations (selection bias). The study issues a “red flag” regarding policies that unnecessarily push a mother back to work, as the evidence suggests early returns are linked to worse health and developmental outcomes. The authors conclude that US policymakers should revisit welfare work requirements, and consider options to expand parental leave coverage, longer periods of leave, and paid leave

The study, “Maternity Leave in Turbulent Times: Effects on Labor Market Transitions and Fertility in Russia, 1985-2000” (Gerber and Perelli-Harris, 2012), investigates whether policies surrounding maternity leave were effective in alleviating the tension between women’s employment and childbearing during the massive economic and political upheavals that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Notable Results of the Study:

Attachment to the Labor Force Preserved: The research demonstrated that the use of legally protected maternity leave of up to 36 months was a regular factor in helping Russian mothers keep their foothold in the labour market. Women on leave were about half as likely to leave their jobs compared with women who were working and had similar characteristics.

Protection in Turbulent Times: There was a widespread fear that the transition to capitalism and the accompanying post-Soviet economic crisis would undermine social protections, allowing employers to disregard mandates and freely discharge new mothers. But the researchers found no evidence of this with the benefits of leave in the labour market remaining constant and protection from layoffs actually increasing. In the post-Soviet period, the layoff hazard for women on maternity leave was only 17 percent of the hazard for otherwise similar actively working women.

Improved Fertility Rates: The study found a positive relationship between maternity leave and fertility. Among first-time mothers, “extended” leaves (6 to 36 months) were associated with significantly higher rates of second conceptions after return to the workforce. The authors speculate that longer leaves provide mothers a better early child-rearing experience, reducing the stress of work and childcare and making a second child more appealing.

The instability of "excess" leave the study separated legally protected leave from "excess" leave (beyond 36 months). Excess leave was unpaid and employers were not obliged to honour it, which made taking more than three years leave an inherently unstable situation and greatly increased a woman's risk of job loss.

Authors’ Conclusions: In conclusion, the authors claim that maternity leave is an important mechanism of balancing work and family in Russia. The researchers argue that protections for maternity leave should be preserved, as these policies effectively maintained women’s labour force participation and helped buffer falling fertility rates even during times of intense institutional turbulence.

Data challenges        

Analysing the impacts and determinants of maternity leave policies presents several significant methodological and data-related challenges for researchers. These obstacles make it difficult to establish clear causal links between maternity benefits and outcomes like child development, maternal employment, and fertility.

The primary issues and challenges include:

Selection Bias and Endogeneity

One of the most persistent challenges is that women who take maternity leave or those who return to work early—are not a random sample. Mothers who return to work within the first 12 weeks may differ from other mothers in unobserved ways that correlate with their return-to-work decisions and their children's outcomes. Similarly, the decision to take an extended leave is often endogenous; for example, mothers who are already predisposed to having more children might choose to take longer leaves with their first child. Women might also self-select into "family-friendly" occupations or jobs that voluntarily offer generous maternity coverage, which skews analyses trying to measure the pure impact of the leave itself.

Confounding Income Effects vs. Time Effects

Research on how maternal employment affects child development is often inconclusive because it is difficult to isolate the effect of a mother's time from the effect of her income. Shocks to employment usually coincide with large changes to family income. Therefore, if a study finds that early returns to work harm or benefit a child, it is challenging to determine whether this is due to the mother spending less time at home or the family having more financial resources from her earnings.

Compositional Changes in the Mother Population

When a government introduces a new, generous maternity benefit programme, it can induce a change in the composition of women choosing to have children. If the policy successfully increases childbearing, the women who decide to have children post-reform may have different unobservable characteristics (such as baseline marital stability or economic security) compared to those who had children before the reform. This makes it difficult to tell if changes in post-birth outcomes are caused by the policy itself or simply by the different demographic of mothers having children.

Strategic Timing of Births:  

When researchers used quasi-experimental models to compare mothers who gave birth just before the cut off date of the policy change to those who gave birth just after, they face the threat of strategic timing. Women might attempt to manipulate their child's birth date (e.g., through induced labour or caesarean sections) or alter their employment behaviour right before the cut-off date to qualify for the expanded benefits, which can bias the research estimates.

Data and Measurement Limitations

Researchers often have to rely on administrative or retrospective survey data, which come with inherent flaws:

• Missing Variables: Administrative social security records often lack direct information on children or the exact nature of a leave of absence, forcing researchers to infer birth months from the start of a leave spell. This introduces measurement errors that can attenuate the estimated effects.
• Retrospective Blind Spots: Retrospective employment histories cannot capture a woman's exact motives, her childcare options at the time, or her spouse's characteristics, making it impossible to fully map the calculations behind her leave duration.

Reverse Causation in Policy Analysis

When trying to analyse why certain countries adopt specific maternity leave laws, researchers often look at cultural attitudes toward gender. However, using modern surveys to measure these attitudes presents a risk of reverse causation: a country's existing maternity leave policy might actively shape the public's survey responses. To bypass this, some researchers have had to rely on linguistic structures such as the number of gender-differentiated pronouns in a native language as a stable, historical proxy for cultural attitudes toward gender discrimination.

Way ahead    

While the academic studies do highlight several prevailing data challenges—such as measurement errors in administrative records, missing variables regarding spouses or childcare options, and selection bias. The data so collated primarily focus on utilizing statistical methods (like propensity score matching or regression discontinuity designs) to bypass these limitations in their own specific research contexts. They do not offer systemic, high-level recommendations for overhauling data collection or harmonising data.

References

Contributors & review status

Curated / edited bynot yet recorded

Peer reviewpending

Project reviewpending

Expert reviewpending

Page created 2026-08-21  ·  Last updated 2026-08-23