Advertisement

Journal of Population Economics

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 855–875 | Cite as

Sibling size and investment in children’s education: an asian instrument

  • Jungmin Lee
OriginalPaper

Abstract

This study estimates the trade-off between child quantity and quality by exploiting exogenous variation in fertility under son preferences. Under son preferences, both sibling size and fertility timing are determined depending on the first child’s gender, which is random as long as parents do not abort girls at their first childbearing. For the sample South Korean households, I find strong evidence of unobserved heterogeneity in preferences for child quantity and quality across households. The trade-off is not as strong as observed cross-sectional relationships would suggest. However, even after controlling for unobserved heterogeneity, a greater number of siblings have adverse effects on per-child investment in education, in particular, when fertility is high.

Keywords

Fertility Education Child quality 

JEL Classification

D13 J13 O12 

Notes

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank Daniel Hamermesh for his comments and guidance during this study. Also, I would like to thank the editor Junsen Zhang, anonymous referees, Steve Bronars, Robert Crosnoe, Gordon Dahl, Stephen Donald, Gerald Oettinger, Steve Trejo, and seminar participants at the University of Texas at Austin and at the 2003 annual meetings of the Society of Labor Economists.

References

  1. Angrist JD, Evans W (1998) Children and their parents’ labor supply: evidence from exogenous variation in family size. Am Econ Rev 88(3):450–477Google Scholar
  2. Angrist JD, Lavy V, Schlosser A (2005) New evidence on the causal link between the quantity and quality of children. NBER Work Pap no.11835Google Scholar
  3. Becker G, Lewis G (1973) Interaction between quantity and quality of children. J Polit Econ 81(2):S279–S288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black SE, Devereux PJ, Salvanes KG (2005) The more the merrier? The effect of family size and birth order on children’s education. Q J Econ 120(2):669–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blake J (1989) Family size and achievement. University of California Press, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  6. Bound J, Jaeger D, Baker R (1995) Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak. J Am Stat Assoc 90(430):443–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Browning M (1992) Children and household economic behavior. J Econ Lit 30(3):1434–1475Google Scholar
  8. Chun H, Oh J (2002) An instrumental variable estimate of the effect of fertility on the labor force participation of married women. Appl Econ Lett 9(10):631–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conley D, Glauber R (2005) Parental educational investment and children’s academic risk: estimates of the impact of sibship size and birth order from exogenous variation in fertility. NBER Work Pap no.11302Google Scholar
  10. Davies J, Zhang J (1995) Gender bias, investments in children, and bequests. Int Econ Rev 36(3):795–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gomes M (1984) Family size and educational attainment in Kenya. Popul Dev Rev 10(4):647–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodkind D (1996) On substituting sex preference strategies in East Asia: does prenatal sex selection reduce postnatal discrimination? Popul Dev Rev 22(1):111–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanushek E (1992) The trade-off between child quantity and quality. J Polit Econ 100(1):84–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Iacovou M (2001) Fertility and female labor force participation. Institute for social and economic research working paper no.2001-19. University of Essex, Colchester, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Imbens G, Angrist JD (1994) Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects. Econometrica 62(2):467–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim S, Lee JH (2002) Private tutoring and demand for education in South Korea. Working paper, Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin at MilwaukeeGoogle Scholar
  17. Lundberg S, Rose E (2004) Investments in sons and daughters: evidence from the consumer expenditure survey. In: Kalil A, DeLeire T (eds) Family investment in children: resources and behaviors that promote success. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp 163–180Google Scholar
  18. Park CB, Cho NH (1995) Consequences of son preference in a low-fertility society: imbalance of the sex ratio at birth in Korea. Popul Dev Rev 21(1):59–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rosenzweig M, Schultz TP (1987) Fertility and investments in human capital: estimates of the consequence of imperfect fertility control in Malaysia. J Econom 36:163–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rosenzweig M, Wolpin K (1980) Testing the quantity-quality fertility model: the use of twins as a natural experiment. Econometrica 48:227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Seth MJ (2002) Education fever: society, politics, and the pursuit of schooling in South Korea. University of Hawaii Press, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  22. Staiger D, Stock JH (1997) Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 65(3):557–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. World Bank (1994) Population and development: implications for the world bank. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics, Sam M. Walton College of BusinessUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA
  2. 2.Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)BonnGermany

Personalised recommendations