Family size and maternal health: evidence from the One-Child policy in China

Abstract

In this paper, we examine the impact of family size on maternal health outcomes by exploiting the tremendous change in family size under the One-Child policy in China. Using data from the China Health and Nutrition Survey 1993–2006, we find that mothers with fewer children have a higher calorie intake and a lower probability of being underweight and having low blood pressure; meanwhile, they have a higher probability of being overweight. This would occur if a smaller family size increases the food consumption of mothers, leading underweight women to attain a normal weight and normal weight women becoming overweight. Robust tests are performed to provide evidence on the hypothesis that the tradeoff between children’s quantity and mother’s “quality” is through a budget constraint mechanism, that is, having more children decreases the resource allocated to mothers and affects their health outcomes.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, e.g., Becker (1960, 1991), Becker and Lewis (1973), Becker and Tomes (1976), Rosenzweig and Wolpin (1980), Stafford (1987), Behrman et al. (1989), Kessler (1991), Guo and VanWey (1999), Gomes (1984), Goux and Maurin (2005), Angrist et al. (2006), Black et al. (2005), Qian (2009), Li et al. (2008), Rosenzweig and Zhang (2009).

  2. 2.

    Women who are pregnant are likely to develop Preeclampsia and have an increase in blood pressure after the twentieth week of pregnancy. However, after the delivery of the baby, it could be cured. (Source: NIH website http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/hbp/hbp_preg.htm).

  3. 3.

    Consider a simple model where utility function is \(U = U\left( {n, q_p , q_c , y} \right)\), n is the number of children, q p is parent’s quality, q c is children’s quality, and y is the consumption of all other commodities. The budget constraint is I = nq c p c  + q p p p  + yp y , where I is full income, p’s are respective prices. The marginal rate of substitution between n and q p would be determined by the ratio of their marginal utilities and the ratio of the market prices.

  4. 4.

    According to the 1% sample of the 1990 Population Census, people with ethnic Han account for approximately 92% of all population in China.

  5. 5.

    Beginning in 1986, in most provinces, couples living in rural areas can have a second child if the first one is a girl (Greenlaugh 1986).

  6. 6.

    BMI is a measure of body fat based on height and weight and applies to both adult men and women. It equals to weight divided by the square of height.

  7. 7.

    Source: Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.

  8. 8.

    Source: Healthwise’s website www.healthwise.org.

  9. 9.

    For the concern of sample attrition across years, we conduct a sensitivity test (available upon request) by adding the number of times each individual enters into the sample as a regressor. Its coefficient is not statistically significant, indicating that attrition does not affect our main results.

  10. 10.

    The death rate for pregnant women was 80 per 100,000 live births in 1990, a level much lower than world average (WHO).

  11. 11.

    If the degree of exposure to famine is different between the urban and rural (or between ethnic Han and minorities) residents, then the interaction terms between the timing variable and the urban dummy (or ethnic Han dummy) may pick up differences in exposure to the famine between urban and rural (or between ethnic Han and minorities) residents. In this case, these instruments may be directly correlated with the health outcomes.

  12. 12.

    Alternatively, a data set of women with adopted children would be helpful to differentiate these two mechanisms. To the best of our knowledge, no such data set with a decent sample size is available for Chinese women. Chen and Li (2009) use an adoptee children data set, but it contains little information on mothers.

  13. 13.

    According to the 1990 Population Census, mixed couples only account for 3.5% of all the married couples. In the northeastern and southwestern provinces that have a large minority population, this fraction is 7.9%.

References

  1. Almond D, Edlund L, Li H, Zhang J (2007) Long-term effects of the 1959–1961 famine: Mainland China and Hong Kong. NBER Working Paper No. 13384

  2. Angrist J, Evans W (1998) Children and their parents’ labor supply: evidence from exogenous variation in family size. Am Econ Rev 88(3):450–477

    Google Scholar 

  3. Angrist J, Lavy V, Schlosser A (2006) New evidence on the causal link between the quantity and quality of children. MIT Working Paper

  4. Becker G (1960) An econometric analysis of fertility. In Becker G (ed) Demographic and economic change in developed countries. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  5. Becker G (1991) A treatise on the family. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  6. Becker G, Lewis G (1973) On the interaction between the quantity and quality of children. J Polit Econ 81(2):279–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Becker G, Tomes N (1976) Child endowments and the quantity and quality of children. J Polit Econ 84(4):143–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Behrman J, Pollak R, Taubman P (1989) Family resources, family size and access to financing for education. J Polit Econ 97(2):389–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Black S, Devereux P, Salvanes K (2005) The more the merrier? The effect of family size and birth order on children’s education. Q J Econ 120(2):669–700

    Google Scholar 

  10. Boerma T (1987) The magnitude of the maternal mortality problem in sub-Saharan Africa. Soc Sci Med 24(6):551–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bulte E, Heerink N, Zhang X (2011) China’s One-Child policy and “the mystery of missing women”: ethinic minorities and male-biased sex ratios. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 73(1):21–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen Y, Li H (2009) Mother’s education and child health: is there a nurturing effect? J Health Econ 28(2):413–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen Y, Zhou L (2007) The long-term health and economic consequences of the 1959–1961 famine in China. J Health Econ 26(4):659–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen L, Gesche M, Ahmed S, Chowdhury A, Mosley W (1974) Maternal mortality in rural Bangladesh. Stud Fam Plann 5:334–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chopra J, Camacho J (1970) Maternal nutrition and family planning. Am J Clin Nutr 23:1043–1058

    Google Scholar 

  16. Currie J, Madrian B (1999) Health, health insurance and the labor market. In Ashenfelter O, Card D (ed) Handbook of labor economics 3c

  17. Doherty J, Norton E, Veney J (2001) China’s One-Child policy: the economic choices and consequences faced by pregnant women. Soc Sci Med 52:745–761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. EcKholm E, Newland K (1977) Too many children, too close together. War Hunger 11(4):6–7

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gomes M (1984) Family size and education attainment in China. Popul Dev Rev 10(4):647–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Goux D, Maurin E (2005) The effect of overcrowded housing on children’s performance at school. J Public Econ 89(5–6):797–819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Greenlaugh S (1986) Shifts in China’s population policy, 1984–1986: views from the central, provincial, and local levels. Popul Dev Rev 12(3):493–515

    Google Scholar 

  22. Guo G, VanWey L (1999) Sibship size and intellectual development: is the relationship causal? Am Sociol Rev 64(2):169–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kessler D (1991) Birth order, family size and achievement: family structure and wage determination. J Labor Econ 9(4):413–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Li L, Wu X (2011) Gender of children, Bargaining power and intrahousehold resource allocation in China. J Hum Resour 46(2):295–316

    Google Scholar 

  25. Li H, Zhang J (2006a) Fertility and parental labor supply: identification based on a unique population policy. Mimeo, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

  26. Li H, Zhang J (2006b) Fines, limited liability and fertility. Mimeo, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

  27. Li H, Zhang J (2007) Do high birth rates hamper economic growth? Rev Econ Stat 89(1):110–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Li H, Zhang J (2009) Testing the external effect of household behavior: the case of the demand for children. J Hum Resour 44(4):890–915

    Google Scholar 

  29. Li H, Zhang J, Zhu Y (2007) The effect of the One-Child policy on fertility in China: identification based on the differences-in-differences. Mimeo, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

  30. Li H, Zhang J, Zhu Y (2008) The quantity–quality tradeoff of children in a developing country: identification using Chinese twins. Demography 45(1):223–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. McElroy M, Yang D (2000) Carrots and sticks: fertility effects of China’s population policies. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 90(2):389–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Meng X, Qian N (2009) The long run impact of exposure to famine on survivors: evidence from China’s great famine. NBER Working Paper 14917

  33. Mu R, Zhang X (2008) Gender difference in the long-term impact of famine. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00760

  34. Park A, Rukumnnuaykit P (2004) Eat drink man woman: testing for gender bias in China using individual nutrient intake data. Working Paper, University of Michigan

  35. Prentice M, Whitehead G, Paul A (1981) Long term energy balance in child-bearing Gambian women. Am J Clin Nutr 34:2790–2799

    Google Scholar 

  36. Qian N (2009) Quantity–quality and the one child policy: the positive effect of family size on school enrollment in China. NBER Working Paper 14973

  37. Rosenzweig M, Wolpin K (1980) Testing the quantity–quality fertility model: the use of twins as a natural experiment. Econometrica 48(1):227–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rosenzweig M, Zhang J (2009) Do population control policies induce more human capital investment? Twins, birthweight, and China’s “One Child” policy. Rev Econ Stud 76(3):1149–1174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Royston E, Armstrong S (1989) Preventing maternal deaths. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  40. Schultz P, Zeng Y (1995) Fertility of rural China. Effects of local family planning and health programs. J Popul Econ 8(4):329–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Stafford F (1987) Women’s work, sibling competition and children’s school performance. Am Econ Rev 77(5):972–980

    Google Scholar 

  42. Strauss J, Zhao Y, Park A, Smith J, Shen Y (2009) Socioeconomic gradients of health using the china health and retirement longitudinal study, pilot. Paper presented at the 2009 annual meeting of Population Association of America

  43. Winikoff B (1983) The effects of birth spacing on child and maternal health. Stud Fam Plan 14(10):231–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhang J, Spencer B (1992) Who signs China’s One-Child certificates, and why? J Popul Econ 5(3):203–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Seth Sanders, Christopher McKelvey, Peter Murrell, Ginger Jin, Judy Hellerstein, William Evans, John Iceland, Melissa Kearney, Hongbin Li, seminar participants at University of Maryland, U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies, 2006 CES Shanghai Conference, 2006 Far-Eastern Meeting of the Econometric Society at Beijing, and 2008 Five Star Economic Forum at Renmin University of China, and two anonymous referees for helpful comments. Financial support from the Ministry of Education, China (10YJC790206) is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lixing Li.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Junsen Zhang

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wu, X., Li, L. Family size and maternal health: evidence from the One-Child policy in China. J Popul Econ 25, 1341–1364 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-011-0361-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Maternal health
  • Quantity–quality tradeoff
  • One-Child policy

JEL Classification

  • O15
  • J13
  • I10