Review of Economics of the Household

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 59–81 | Cite as

The impact of biological preferences on parental investments in children and step-children

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

A remarriage typically involves significant changes in a family’s financial circumstance, and these changes, combined with the relative bargaining relationship between spouses, likely affect the well-being of the children who are part of the family. In this paper, I use the separate-spheres model, a theoretical model that explains the determinants of bargaining power in marriage, to analyze how a remarried couple’s bargaining relationship affects their child investment in stepfamilies. Based on this theoretical model, I build and estimate an empirical model that investigates the determinants of parental investment. As evidence of parental preference for biological children over stepchildren, I find that an increased wage rate of a biological mother significantly improves her child investment when her husband is a stepfather of the child, while there is no such effect for mothers living with the biological father of the child.

Keywords

Family structure Bargaining Divorce Remarriage 

JEL Classifications

J12 J13 K10 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Baker, P. C., Keck, C. K., Mott, F. L., & Quinlan, S. V. (1993). NLSY child handbook—revised edition: A guide to the 1986–1990 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth child data. Center for Human Resource Research, Ohio State University: Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  2. Blau, D. (2002). The supply of quality in child care centers. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(3), 483–496. doi: 10.1162/003465302320259484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradley, R. H. (1982). The HOME inventory—A review of the first 15 years. In W. Frankenburg, N. Anastasiow, & A. Fandal (Eds.), Identifying the developmentally delayed child (pp. 87–100). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bradley, R. H. (1994). The HOME inventory: Review and reflections. In H. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 241–288). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1988). Using the HOME inventory to assess the family environment. Pediatric Nursing, 14(2), 97–102.Google Scholar
  6. Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., & Whiteside-Mansell, L. (1996). Life at home: Same time, different places—An examination of the HOME Inventory in different cultures. Early Development and Parenting, 5(4), 251–269. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0917(199612)5:4<251::AID-EDP137>3.0.CO;2-I.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bramlett, M. D., & Mosher, W. D. (2001). First marriage dissolution, divorce and remarriage: United States, Advance data from vital and health statistics, No. 323. Hayattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
  8. Carlson, M. J., & Corcoran, M. E. (2001). Family structure and children’s behavioral and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63(3), 779–792. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00779.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Case, A., Lin, I.-F., & Paxson, C. (2001). Educational attainment in blended families. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(4), 269–289. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00069-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Case, A., & Paxson, C. (2001). Mothers and others: Who invests in children’s health? Journal of Health Economics, 20(3), 301–328. doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(00)00088-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cherlin, A., & Furstenberg, F. F. (1994). Stepfamilies in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 20, 259–281. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.20.080194.002043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chiappori, P.-A., & Weiss, Y. (2007). Divorce, remarriage, and child support. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(1), 37–74. doi: 10.1086/508731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooksey, E. C. (1997). Consequences of young mothers’ marital histories for children’s cognitive development. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59(2), 245–261. doi: 10.2307/353468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. I. (1998). The evolutionary social psychology of family violence. In C. Crawford & D. Krebs (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues and applications (pp. 431–456). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Elardo, R., & Bradley, R. H. (1981). The home observation for measurement of the environment: A review of research. Developmental Review, 1(4), 113–145. doi: 10.1016/0273-2297(81)90012-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ermisch, J. F., & Francesconi, M. (2001). Family structure and children’s achievement. Journal of Population Economics, 14(2), 249–270. doi: 10.1007/s001480000028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Folk, K. F., Beller, A. H., & Graham, J. W. (1992). Child support and remarriage: Implications for the economic well-being of children. Journal of Family Issues, 13(2), 142–157. doi: 10.1177/019251392013002002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (1987). The new extended family: The experience of parents and children after remarriage. In K. Palsey & M. Ihinger-Tallman (Eds.), Remarriage and step-parenting: Current research and theory. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gennetian, L. A. (2005). One or two parents? Half or step siblings? The effect of family composition on young children’s achievement. Journal of Population Economics, 18(3), 415–436. doi: 10.1007/s00148-004-0215-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gennetian, L. A., & Harknett, K. S. (2001). How an earnings supplement can affect union formation among low-income single mothers. Demography, 40(3), 451–478.Google Scholar
  21. 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. doi: 10.1353/dem.2004.0031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gottfried, A. W. (1984). Home environment and early cognitive development. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Guidubaldi, J. (1988). Differences in children’s divorce adjustment across grade level and gender. In S. Wolchik & P. Karoly (Eds.), Children of divorce: Perspectives and adjustment (pp. 185–231). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  24. Hao, L. (1995). Poverty, public assistance, and children in intact and single-mother families. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 16(2), 181–205. doi: 10.1007/BF02353708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hill, M. S., Yeung, W.-J. J., & Duncan, G. J. (2001). Childhood family structure and young adult behaviors. Journal of Population Economics, 14(2), 271–299. doi: 10.1007/s001480000039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoffmann, J. P., & Johnson, R. A. (1998). A national portrait of family structure and adolescent drug use. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(3), 633–645. doi: 10.2307/353534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kowaleski-Jones, L., & Dunifon, R. (2004). Children’s home environments: Understanding the role of family structure changes. Journal of Family Issues, 25(1), 3–28. doi: 10.1177/0192513X03256516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kreider, R. M. (2005) Number, timing, and duration of marriages and divorces: 2001. In US Census Bureau, Current population reports (pp. 70–97). Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  29. Krein, S. F., & Beller, A. H. (1988). Educational attainment of children from single-parent families: Differences by exposure, gender, and race. Demography, 25(2), 221–234. doi: 10.2307/2061290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. A. (1993). Separate spheres bargaining and the marriage market. The Journal of Political Economy, 101(6), 988–1010. doi: 10.1086/261912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. A. (1994). Noncooperative bargaining models of marriage. The American Economic Review, 84(2), 132–137.Google Scholar
  32. Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. A. (1996). Bargaining and distribution in marriage. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(4), 139–158.Google Scholar
  33. Manser, M., & Brown, M. (1980). Marriage and household decision-making: A bargaining analysis. International Economic Review, 21(1), 31–44. doi: 10.2307/2526238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McElroy, M. B., & Horney, M. J. (1981). Nash-bargaining household decisions: Toward a generalization of the theory of demand. International Economic Review, 22(2), 333–349. doi: 10.2307/2526280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up in a single-parent household: What hurts, what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Miller, J. E., & Korenman, S. (1994). Poverty and children’s nutritional status in the United States. American Journal of Epidemiology, 140(3), 233–243.Google Scholar
  37. Munson, M. L., & Sutton, P. D. (2005). Births, marriages, divorces, and deaths: Provisional data for 2004. National Vital Statistics Reports, 53(21), National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD.Google Scholar
  38. Pollak, R. A. (2005). Bargaining power in marriage: Earnings, wage rates and household production. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 11239. http://www.nber.org/papers/w11239.pdf. Accessed 23 March 2008.
  39. Stevenson, M., & Black, K. (1995). How divorce affects offspring. Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark.Google Scholar
  40. United States Census Bureau (2000). United States Census 2000. http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. Accessed 23 March 2008.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RTI Health SolutionsResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  2. 2.California State University, FullertonFullertonUSA

Personalised recommendations