Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Family Size and Educational Attainment: Cousins, Contexts, and Compensation

  • Published:
European Journal of Population Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper analyses the effect of family size on children’s educational attainment using a new research design that combines fixed effects and instrumental variable (IV) approaches. We use (a) data on first cousins who belong to the same extended family but to different nuclear families to control for extended family fixed effects and (b) variation in in-married spouses’ number of siblings (a proxy for their fecundity and preferences) as an IV for variation in family size within extended families. We find that family size has a negative causal effect on educational attainment and, moreover, that the negative effect is smaller in families with stronger social ties. Our results suggest that contextual characteristics outside the nuclear family moderate the negative effect of family size on children’s educational attainment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Family size varies across (but not within) nuclear families. If we include \(c_{jk}\) in Eq. 2, we would only be able to identify the effect of explanatory variables that vary both within extended and nuclear families, i.e. the x variables.

  2. We have analysed if the variation that exists in in-married spouse’s number of siblings is similar across the distribution of Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (WLS) families’ socioeconomic characteristics (measured by A and B’s income and education). For example, it might be that individuals from high-income families tend to marry partners with less variation in family size compared to individuals from low-income families. We find no evidence that differences in in-married spouses’ number of siblings vary across the distribution of A and B’s income and education (results available upon request).

  3. This reduction does not affect our analytical sample much since more than 97% of all extended families in the WLS have more than one child.

  4. We impute missing information on total family income using data on the WLS graduate and the sibling respondent’s personal income in 1974 and household income in 1992.

  5. The WLS includes some information on the socioeconomic characteristics of the first generation (i.e.\({\text{AB}}_{ - 1}\),\({\text{A'}}_{ - 1}\), and \({\text{B'}}_{ - 1}\)). Unfortunately, although there is considerable information on \({\text{AB}}_{ - 1}\) (education, income, SES, etc.), and some information on \({\text{A'}}_{ - 1}\), the only available information on \({\text{B'}}_{ - 1}\) is family size. Given that most of our substantive analyses rely on variation within the extended family, the only variable in the first generation that we can (and do) use is family size.

  6. N is slightly higher in the OLS models than in the EFFE models (which we discuss next) because in the former we also include extended families with only one observation in the child generation. OLS results are identical if we use the restricted sample in which we only include extended families with two or more children.

  7. In addition to the results reported here, we have also run the EFFE model separately for all different gender combinations of the sibling pair A and B (i.e. two brothers, two sisters, and one brother and one sister). All combinations yield statistically significant and negative estimates of the effect of family size on educational attainment (and all estimates are statistically indistinguishable from the one presented in model 4; results are available upon request).

  8. We have replicated the traditional twin birth and sex composition IVs in our WLS data and find that neither produces a statistically significant estimate of the effect of family size on educational attainment. Results are available upon request.

References

  • Altonji, J. G., Hayashi, F., & Kotlikoff, L. J. (1992). Is the extended family altruistically linked? Direct tests using micro data. American Economic Review,82, 1177–1198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, G., Karsten, H., Rønsen, M., & Vikat, A. (2006). Gendering family composition: Sex preferences for children and childbearing behavior in the Nordic countries. Demography,43(2), 255–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angrist, J. D., Lavy, V., & Schlosser, A. (2010). Multiple experiments for the causal link between the quantity and quality of children. Journal of Labor Economics,28(4), 773–823.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argys, L. M., & Averett, S. L. (2015). The effect of family size on education: New evidence from China’s one child policy (p. 9196). No: IZA Discussion Paper Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, F., & Zhaoxiang, L. (1986). Sex preference, fertiltiy and family planning in China. Population and Development Review,12(2), 221–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Åslund, O., & Grönqvist, H. (2010). Family size and child outcomes: Is there really no trade-off? Labour Economics,17, 130–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axinn, W. G., Clarkberg, M. E., & Thornton, A. (1994). Family influences on family size preferences. Demography,31(1), 65–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baez, J. E. (2008). Does more mean better? Sibling sex composition and the link between family size and children’s quality. IZA Discussion Paper Series, No. 3472.

  • Bagger, J., Birchenall, J. A., Mansour, H., & Urzúa, S. (2013). Education, birth order, and family size. IZA Discussion Paper Series, No. 7454.

  • Becker, G. S. (1960). An economic analysis of fertility. Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries (pp. 209–240). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Becker, G. S. (1993). A treatise on the family (Enlarged ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S., & Lewis, H. G. (1973). On the interaction between the quantity and quality of children. Journal of Political Economy,81(2), S279–S288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S., & Tomes, N. (1976). Child endowments and the quantity and quality of children. Journal of Political Economy,84(4), S143–S162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhalotra, S. & Clarke, D. (2016).The twin instrument. IZA Discussion Paper Series, No. 10405.

  • Black, S. E., Devereux, P. J., & Salvanes, K. G. (2005). The more the merrier? The effect of family size and birth order on children’s education. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,120(2), 669–700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, S. E., Devereux, P. J., & Salvanes, K. G. (2010). Small family, smart family? Family size and the IQ scores of young men. The Journal of Human Resources,45(1), 33–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake, J. (1981). Family size and the quality of children. Demography,18(4), 421–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bougma, M., LeGrand, T. K., & Kobiané, J.-F. (2015). Fertility decline and child schooling in urban settings of Burkina Faso. Demography,52(1), 281–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cáceres-Delpiano, J. (2006). The Impacts of family size on investment in child quality. The Journal of Human Resources,41(4), 738–754.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, S. (2000). Son preference and sex composition of children: Evidence from India. Demography,37(1), 95–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conley, D., & Glauber, R. (2006). Parental educational investment and children’s academic risk: Estimates of the impact of sibship size and birth order from exogenous variation in fertility. Journal of Human Resources,41(4), 722–737.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crissey, S. R. (2005). Effect of pregnancy intention on child well-being and development: Combining retrospective reports of attitude and contraceptive use. Population Research and Policy Review,24(6), 593–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, J. (2013). Family influence in fertility: A longitudinal analysis of sibling correlations in first birth risk and completed fertility among Swedish men and women. Demographic Research,29(9), 233–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dang, H.-A. H., & Rogers, H. (2016). The decision to invest in child quality over quantity: Household size and household investment in education in Vietnam. World Bank Economic Review,30(1), 104–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayiouglu, M., Kirdar, M. G., & Tansel, A. (2009). Impact of sibship size, birth order and sex composition on school enrolment in urban Turkey. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics,71(3), 399–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Haan, M. (2010). Birth order, family size and educational attainment. Economics of Education Review,29, 576–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downey, D. B. (1995). When bigger is not better: Family size, parental resources. American Sociological Review,60(5), 746–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumas, C., & LeFranc, A. (2016). “Sex in marriage is a divine gift”? Evidence on the quantity-quality trade-off from the Manila contraceptive ban. The World Bank Economic Review, lhw005.

  • Duncan, O. D., Freedman, R., Coble, J. M., & Slesinger, D. P. (1965). Marital fertility and size of family of orientation. Demography,2(1), 508–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durlauf, S. N. (1996). A theory of persistent income inequality. Journal of Economic Growth,1, 75–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari, G., & Zuanna, G. D. (2010). Siblings and human capital: A comparison between Italy and France. Demographic Research,23, 587–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimons, E., & Malde, B. (2014). Empirically probing the quantity–quality model. Journal of Population Economics,27, 33–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, D. F., Freedman, R., & Whelpton, P. K. (1960). Size of family and preference for children of each sex. American Journal of Sociology,66(2), 141–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenette, M. (2011). Why do larger families reduce parental investments in child quality, but not child quality per se? Review of Economics of the Household,9(4), 523–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, B. G., Workman, J., & Downey, D. B. (2016). The (conditional) resource dilution model: State- and community-level modifications. Demography,53(3), 723–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, G., & VanWey, L. (1999). Sibship Size and Intellectual Development: Is the Relationship Causal? American Sociological Review,64(2), 169–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haider, S. J., & McGarry, K. (2018). Parental investments in college and later cash transfers. Demography,55, 1705–1725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herd, P., Deborah, C., & Roan, C. (2014). Cohort profile: Wisconsin longitudinal study (WLS). International Journal of Epidemiology,43, 34–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imbens, G., & Angrist, J. D. (1994). Identificaiton and estimation of local average treatment effects. Econometrica,62(2), 467–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jæger, M. M. (2008). Do large sibships really lead to lower educational attainment? New evidence from quasi-experimental variation in couples’ reproductive capacity. Acta Sociologica,51(3), 217–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jæger, M. M. (2012). The extended family and children’s educational success. American Sociological Review,77(6), 903–922.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalmijn, M., & van de Werfhorst, H. (2016). Sibship size and gendered resource dilution in different societal contexts. PLoS ONE,11(8), e0160953.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, C. (2011). Family size and educational investments in children: Evidence from private tutoring expenditures in South Korea. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics,73(1), 59–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keister, L. A. (2003). Sharing the wealth: The effect of siblings on adults’ wealth ownership. Demography,40(3), 521–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kissin, D. M., Schieve, L. A., & Reynolds, M. A. (2005). Multiple-birth risk associated with IVF and extended embryo culture: USA, 2001. Human Reproduction,20(8), 2215–2223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosova, G., Abney, M., & Ober, C. (2010). Heritability of reproductive fitness traits in a human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,107(suppl. 1), 1772–1778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kugler, A. D., & Kumar, S. (2017). Preference for boys, family size and educational attainment in India. Demography,54(3), 835–859.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. (2008). Sibling size and investment in children’s education: An Asian instrument. Journal of Population Economics,21, 855–875.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, H., Zhang, J., & Zhu, Y. (2008). The quantity-quality trade-off of children in a developing country: Identification using Chinese twins. Demography,45(1), 223–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindahl, L. (2008). Do birth order and family size matter for intergenerational income mobility? Evidence from Sweden. Applied economics,40(17), 2239–2257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, H. (2014). The quality–quantity trade-off: Evidence from the relaxation of China’s one-child policy. Journal of Population Economics,27, 565–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyngstad, T. H., & Prskawetz, A. (2010). Do siblings’ fertility decisions influence each other? Demography,47(4), 923–934.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maralani, V. (2008). The changing relationship between family size and educational attainment over the course of socioeconomic development: Evidence from Indonesia. Demography,45(3), 693–717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marteleto, L., & de Souza, L. R. (2012). The changing impact of family size on adolescents’ schooling: Assessing the exogenous variation in fertility using twins in Brazil. Demography,49, 1453–1477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosli, R., Miller, A., Peterson, K., Kaciroti, N., Rosenblum, K., Baylin, A., et al. (2016). Birth order and sibship composition as predictors of overweight or obesity among low-income 4-to 8-year-old children. Pediatric Obesity,11(1), 40–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, M. (1999). Is the correlation between fertility of parents and children really weak? Social Biology,46(1–2), 122–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Öberg, S. (2017). Too many is not enough: Studying how children are affected by their number of siblings and resource dilution in families. The History of the Family,22(2–3), 157–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ochiai, H., Shirasawa, T., Ohtsu, T., Nishimura, R., Morimoto, A., Obuchi, R., Hoshino, H., Tajima, N., & Kokaze, A. (2012). Number of siblings, birth order, and childhood overweight: A population-based cross-sectional study in Japan. BMC Public Health, 12(1), 766.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponczek, V., & Sousa, A. P. (2012). New evidence of the causal effect of family size on child quality in a developing country. The Journal of Human Resources,47(1), 64–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qian, N. (2009). Quantity-quality and the one child policy: The only-child disadvantage in school enrollment in rural China. NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES, Working Paper 14973.

  • Régnier-Loilier, A. (2006). Influence of own sibship size on the number of children desired at various times of life: The case of France. Population (English Edition, 2002-),61(3), 165–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, J. L., Cleveland, H. H., Van Den Oord, E., & Rowe, D. C. (2000). Resolving the debate over birth order, family size, and intelligence. American Psychologist, 55(6), 599–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, J. L., Kohler, H., Kyvik, K. O., & Christensen, K. (2001). Behavior genetic modeling of human fertility: Findings from a contemporary Danish twin study. Demography,38(1), 29–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig, M. R., & Schultz, T. P. (1987). Fertility and investment in human capital. estimates of the consequence of imperfect fertility control in Malaysia. Journal of Econometrics,36, 163–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig, M. R., & Zhang, J. (2009). Do population control policies induce more human capital investment? Twins, birth weight and China’s “One-Child” policy. Review of Economic Studies Limited,76, 1149–1174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg, J., & Rafail, P. (2014). Family size, cognitive outcomes, and familial interaction in stable, two-parent families: United States, 1997–2002. Demography,51(5), 1895–1931.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoen, R., Astone, N. M., Kim, Y. J., Nathanson, C. A., & Fields, J. M. (1999). Do fertility intentions affect fertility behavior? Journal of Marriage and Family,61(3), 790–799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavit, Y., & Pierce, J. L. (2001). Sibship size and educational attainment in nuclear and extended families: Arabs and Jews in Israel. American Sociological Review,56, 321–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silles, M. (2010). The implications of family size and birth order for test scores and behavioral development. Economics of Education Review,29, 795–803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. F., Eisenberg, M. L., Glidden, D., Millstein, S. G., Cedars, M., Walsh, T. J., et al. (2011). Socioeconomic disparities in the use and success of fertility treatments: Analysis of data from a prospective cohort in the United States. Fertility and Sterility,96(1), 95–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solon, G. (2009). A model of intergenerational mobility variation over time and place. In Generational income mobility in North America and Europe (pp. 38-47), Edited by Miles Corak. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Staiger, D., & Stock, J. H. (1997). Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica,65(3), 557–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steelman, L. C., Powell, B., Werum, R., & Carter, S. (2002). Reconsidering the effects of sibling configuration: recent advances and challenges. Annual Review of Sociology,28, 243–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, E. (1997). Couple childbearing desires, intentions, and births. Demography,34(3), 343–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, E., & Hoem, J. M. (1998). Couple childbearing plans and births in Sweden. Demography,35(3), 315–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, E., McDonald, E., & Bumpass, L. (1990). Fertility desires and fertility: Hers, His, and theirs. Demography,27(4), 579–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vohr, B. R., Tyson, J. E., Wright, L. L., Perritt, R. L., Li, L., & Poole, W. K. (2009). Maternal age, multiple birth, and extremely low birth weight infants. The Journal of Pediatrics,124(1), 498–503e2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, J. R., & Hauser, R. M. (1997). Social stratification across three generations: New evidence from the Wisconsin longitudinal study. American Sociological Review,62(4), 561–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Workman, J. (2017). Sibling additions, resource dilution, and cognitive development during early childhood. Journal of Marriage and Family,79, 462–474.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper has been presented at the 2016 RC28 Spring Meeting at the University of Bern, the 2016 Nordic Sociological Association Conference at the University of Helsinki, at the 2017 Population Association of America Conference in Chicago, and at a research seminar at Lund University. The research leading to the results presented in this paper has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007e2013)/ERC Grant No. 312906.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, Building 16, 1014, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Ea Hoppe Blaabæk & Mads Meier Jæger

  2. Centre for Economic Demography, Lund University, Scheelevägen, 15B, 223 63, Lund, Sweden

    Joseph Molitoris

Authors
  1. Ea Hoppe Blaabæk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mads Meier Jæger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joseph Molitoris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mads Meier Jæger.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 4, 5.

Table 4 Regressions of family size on children’s educational attainment
Full size table
Table 5 Results from EFFE-IV regressions of children’s educational attainment (model 8)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blaabæk, E.H., Jæger, M.M. & Molitoris, J. Family Size and Educational Attainment: Cousins, Contexts, and Compensation. Eur J Population 36, 575–600 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-019-09543-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-019-09543-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation