Journal of Family and Economic Issues

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 185–199 | Cite as

Family Structure and Children’s Education Outcome: Evidence from Uruguay

Original Paper

Abstract

As the developed world has experienced a shift away from the traditional two-biological parent family, scholars have sought to understand how children are faring in non-traditional homes. Debate has arisen over assertions that children from non-traditional families do less well in school. Concerns about selection issues as well as a paucity of cross-cultural evidence, have led some scholars to question the influence of family structure on educational attainment. Using data from the 2006 Uruguayan household survey, we evaluated the relationship of family structure with children’s education using two different methods to deal with selection problems, an instrumental variables approach and propensity score matching. Both approaches yield evidence that growing up in non-traditional family structures seems to be negative related with the schooling of Uruguayan boys, with more muted results for girls. Interestingly, Uruguay is a developing country with two peculiarities, that is, a culture that experienced fairly rapid modernization in terms of institutions—including family transition—especially compared with other South American nations, and meanwhile an intriguingly high level of school drop-out, unusually high for Uruguay’s overall level of development.

Keywords

Academic achievement Family structure Instrumental variables Propensity score Selection effects 

References

  1. Aguiar, S., Cabrera, M., & Filardo, V. (2009). Encuesta Nacional de Adolescencia y Juventud, Segundo Informe. Infamilia: Ministerio de Desarrollo Social.Google Scholar
  2. Astone, N. M., Bishai, D., & Roche, K. M. (2007). Out-of-school care and youth problem behaviors in low-income, urban areas. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 28, 471–488. doi:10.1007/s10834-007-9072-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attanasio, O., & Székely, M. (2003). The family in flux. Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  4. Berlinski, S., Galiani, S., & Manacorda, M. (2008). Giving children a better start: Preschool attendance and school-age profiles. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1416–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, S. L. (2004). Family structure and child well-being: The significance of parental cohabitation. Journal of Family and Marriage, 66, 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bucheli, M., Cabella, W., Peri, A., Piani, G., & Vigorito, A. (2002). Encuesta sobre Situaciones Familiares y Desempeños Sociales de las Mujeres. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Departamento de Economía, Documento de Trabajo 16/02.Google Scholar
  7. Bucheli, M., & Vigna, A. (2005). Un estudio de los determinantes del divorcio de las mujeres de las generaciones 1947-56 y 1957-66 en Uruguay. Working Paper Department of Economics—dECON, Uruguay, 105 Google Scholar
  8. Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics. Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cid, A., & Ferrés, D. (2008). The coexistence of degree-premium and high-dropout rates in the Uruguayan secondary education: An incentives problem. Working Paper, Economics Department—Universidad de Montevideo. http://www.um.edu.uy/docs/thecoexistenceofdegree_cid_ferres.pdf. Accessed 31 March 2012.
  10. Cid, A., Presno, I., & Viana, L. (2004). Institutions, Family and Economic Performance. Revista de Ciencias Empresariales y Economía. Universidad de Montevideo, 3. Google Scholar
  11. Dew, J. (2009). The gendered meanings of assets for divorce. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 30, 20–31. doi:10.1007/s10834-008-9138-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Díaz, R. (2003). Historia Económica del Uruguay. Montevideo, Taurus Eds.Google Scholar
  13. Dribe, M., & Stanfors, M. (2009). Education, work and parenthood: Comparing the experience of young men and women in Sweden. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 30, 32–42. doi:10.1007/s10834-008-9134-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eldar-Avidan, D., Haj-Yahia, M. M., & Greenbaum, Ch W. (2008). Money matters: Young adults’ perception of the economic consequences of their parents’ divorce. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 29, 74–85. doi:10.1007/s10834-007-9093-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Filgueira, C., Filgueira, F., & Fuentes, A. (2003). School attainment and transitions to adulthood in Latin America. In S. Duryea, A. Cox Edwards, & M. Ureta (Eds.), Critical decisions at a critical age: Adolescents and young adults in Latin America (pp. 179–218). Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  16. Forry, N. D., Hofferth, S. L., & Peters, H. E. (2010). Child support, father–child contact, and preteens’ involvement with nonresidential fathers: Racial/ethnic differences. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31, 14–32. doi:10.1007/s10834-009-9172-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frank, K., Frisco, M. L., & Muller, Ch. (2007). Parents’ union dissolution and adolescents’ school performance: Comparing methodological approaches. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 721–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frisco, M. L., Raley, R. K., & Wildsmith, E. (2005). Maternal cohabitation and educational success. Sociology of Education, 78(2), 144–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garasky, S., & Stewart, S. D. (2007). Evidence of the effectiveness of child support and visitation: Examining food insecurity among children with nonresident fathers. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 28, 105–121. doi:10.1007/s10834-006-9049-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gauthier, A. H., & Monna, B. (2008). A review of the literature on the social and economic determinants of parental time. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 29, 634–653. doi:10.1007/s10834-008-9121-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gennetian, L. A. (2005). One or two parents? Half or step siblings? The effect of family structure on young children’s achievement. Journal of Population Economics, 18, 415–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giacometti, C. (2007). Las metas del Milenio y la igualdad de género. El caso de Uruguay. Mujer y Desarrollo (CEPAL), 88.Google Scholar
  23. Ginther, D. K., & Pollak, R. A. (2004). Family structure and children’s educational outcomes: Blended families, stylized facts, and descriptive regressions. Demography, 41(4), 671–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guigou, N. (2006). Religión y política en el Uruguay. CivitasRevista de Ciências Sociais, 6(2), 43–54.Google Scholar
  25. Hondroyiannis, G. (2010). Fertility determinants and economic uncertainty: An assessment using European panel data. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31, 33–50. doi:10.1007/s10834-009-9178-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. INE. (2008). Indicadores Demográficos. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Retrieved from http://www.ine.gub.uy.
  27. INE. (2009). Encuesta Continua de Hogares. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Retrieved from http://www.ine.gub.uy.
  28. INE. (2010). Uruguay en Cifras. Serie Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Retrieved from http://www.ine.gub.uy.
  29. Jalovaara, M. (2003). The joint effects of marriage partners’ socioeconomic positions on the risk of divorce. Demography, 40(1), 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jeynes, W. H. (2002). Examining the effects of parental absence on the academic achievement of adolescents: The challenge of controlling for family income. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 23(2), 189–210. doi:10.1023/A:1015790701554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kalmijn, M., & Uunk, W. (2007). Regional value differences in Europe and the social consequences of divorce: A test of the stigmatization hypothesis. Social Science Research, 36(2), 447–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Langenkamp, A. G. (2009). Following different pathways: Social integration, achievement, and the transition to high school. American Journal of Education, 116(1), 69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leuven, E., & Sianesi, B. (2003). PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. Retrieved from http://www.ifs.org.uk.
  34. Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. A. (2007). The American family and family economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maiztegui, L. (2005). Orientales. Una Historia Política del Uruguay. De los Orígenes a 1865. Montevideo, Planeta Eds.Google Scholar
  36. Manacorda, M. (2006). Grade failure, drop out and subsequent school outcomes: Quasi-experimental evidence from Uruguayan administrative data. Working Paper Centre for Economic Performance—London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved from http://www.carloalberto.org.
  37. McLanahan, S. S. (1985). Family-structure and the reproduction of poverty. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 873–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McLanahan, S. S., & Sandefur, G. D. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Observatorio de la Familia. (2010). Centro de Investigaciones Aplicadas, Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay. Retrieved from http://www.um.edu.uy/centroinvestigacionesaplicadas.
  40. Observatorio de la Familia. (2008). Centro de Investigaciones Aplicadas, Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay. Retrieved from http://www.um.edu.uy/centroinvestigacionesaplicadas.
  41. Pagano, J., Pérez, V., Rossi, M., & Vairo, D. (2009). ¿Los hombres son mejores líderes políticos que las mujeres?: un estudio comparado sobre los valores de género en Uruguay y Chile. Working Paper No. 06/09. Retrieved from: http://www.fcs.edu.uy.
  42. Paredes, M. (2003). Trayectorias Reproductivas, Relaciones de Género y Dinámicas Familiares en Uruguay. Doctoral Thesis, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona. Retrieved from http://www.tdx.cat.
  43. Peri, A. (2003). Dimensiones ideológicas del cambio familiar. In UNICEF-UDELAR (Eds.), Nuevas formas de familia. Perspectivas nacionales e internacionales (pp. 141–161). Montevideo: Tradinco Press.Google Scholar
  44. Popenoe, D. (1993). American family decline, 1960–1990: A review and appraisal. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55, 527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pradere, G., & Salvador, S. (2009). Análisis de las trayectorias familiares y laborales desde una perspectiva de género y generaciones. Project “Apoyo a las políticas públicas para la reducción de las inequidades de género y generaciones G/INE/UNIFEM/UNFPA”. Retrieved from http://www.ine.gub.uy.
  46. Ravela, P. (2005). A formative approach to national assessments: The case of Uruguay. Prospects, 35(1), 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sax, L. (2006). What teachers need to know about the emerging science of sex differences. Educational Horizons, 84, 190–212.Google Scholar
  48. Schramm, D. G. (2006). Individual and social costs of divorce in Utah. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 27(1), 133–151. doi:10.1007/s10834-005-9005-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stacey, J. (1993). Good riddance to “The Family”: A response to David Popenoe. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55, 545–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thornton, A. (1985). Changing attitudes toward separation and divorce: Causes and consequences. The American Journal of Sociology, 90(4), 856–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. UNESCO. (2010). Panorama Educativo 2010: Desafíos Pendientes. UNESCO Publications. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org.
  52. Wilcox, W. B., & Wolfinger, N. H. (2007). Then comes marriage? Religion, race, and marriage in urban America. Social Science Research, 36(2), 569–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center of Applied Research on Economics, Universidad de MontevideoMontevideoUruguay
  2. 2.Samford UniversityBirminghamUSA
  3. 3.John Templeton Center for Thrift and GenerosityNew York USA

Personalised recommendations