Advertisement

Journal of Population Economics

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 565–602 | Cite as

The quality–quantity trade-off: evidence from the relaxation of China’s one-child policy

  • Haoming LiuEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper uses the exogenous variation in fertility introduced by China’s family planning policies to identify the impact of child quantity on child quality. We find that the number of children has a significant negative effect on child height, which supports the quality–quantity trade-off theory. Our instrumental quantile regression approach shows that the impact varies considerably across the height distribution, particularly for boys. However, the trade-off is much weaker if quality is measured by educational attainments, suggesting that the measurement of child quality is also crucial in testing the quality–quantity trade-off theory.

Keywords

Education Fertility Quantile regression Quality–quantity trade-off 

JEL Classification

J13 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to three anonymous referees and the editor Junsen Zhang for valuable comments.

References

  1. Angrist JD, Pischke JS (2008) Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Angrist J, Lavy V, Schlosser A (2010) Multiple experiments for the causal link between the quantity and quality of children. J Labor Econ 28(4):773–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker GS, Lewis HG (1973) Part 2” was deleted in reference Becker and Lewis 1973 since issue number provided is 2. Please check if correct. On the interaction between the quantity and quality of children. J Polit Econ 81(2):S279–S288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black SE, Devereux PG, Salvanes KG (2005) The more the merrier? The effect of family composition on children’s education. Q J Econ 120(2):669–700Google Scholar
  5. 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):443–450Google Scholar
  6. Chernozhukov V, Hansen C (2005) An IV model of quantile treatment effects. Econometrica 73(1):245–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chernozhukov V, Hansen C (2006) Instrumental quantile regression inference for structural and treatment effect models. J Econ 132(2):491–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chernozhukov V, Hansen C (2008) Instrumental variable quantile regression: a robust inference approach. J Econ 142(1):379–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. J Hum Resour 41(4)Google Scholar
  10. Davin D (1985) The single-child family policy in the countryside. Chap. 2. In: Croll E, Davin D, Kane P (eds) China’s one-child family policy. Macmillan, London, pp 37–82Google Scholar
  11. Ebenstein A (2011) Estimating a dynamic model of sex selection in China. Demography 48(2):783–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanushek EA (1992) The trade-off between child quantity and quality. J Polit Econ 100(1):84–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Imbens GW, Angrist JD (1994) Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects. Econometrica 62(2):467–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee J (2008) Sibling size and investment in children’s education: an Asian instrument. J Popul Econ 21(4):855–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li H, Zhang J (2007) Do high birth rates hamper economic growth? Rev Econ Stat 89(1):110–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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):223–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McElroy M, Yang DT (2000) Carrots and sticks: fertility effects of China’s population policies. Am Econ Rev 90(2):389–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mogstad M, Wiswall M (2010). Linearity in instrumental variables estimation: problems and solutions. IZA Discussion Papers 5216. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), BonnGoogle Scholar
  19. Mogstad M, Wiswall M (2011) Testing the quantity-quality model of fertility: estimation using unrestricted family size models. Technical report. New York University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Parish W, Willis R (1993) Daughters, education, and family budgets: Taiwan experiences. J Hum Resour 28(4):863–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Qian N (2009). Quantity-quality and the one child policy: the only-child disadvantage in school enrollment in rural China. Working Paper 14973. National Bureau of Economic Research, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Rosenzweig MR, Wolpin KI (1980) Testing the quantity-quality fertility model: the use of twins as a natural experiment. Econometrica 48(1):227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosenzweig MR, Zhang J (2009) Do population control policies induce more human capital investment? Twins, birth weight, and China’s “one child” policy. Rev Econ Stud 76(3):1149–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Savage T, Derraik JG, Miles HL, Mouat F, Hofman PL, Cutfield WS (2013) Increasing maternal age is associated with taller stature and reduced abdominal fat in their children. PloS One 8(3):e58869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Scharping T (2003) Birth control in China, 1949-2000: population policy and demographic development. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Shea J (2000) Does parents’ money matter? J Public Econ 77(2):155–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Short SE, Zhai F (1998) Looking locally at China’s one-child policy. Stud Fam Plan 29(4):373–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thomas D (1994) Like father, like son; like mother, like daughter: parental resources and child height. J Hum Resour 29(4):950–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang F, Yong C, Zheng Z, Gu B (2010) How well does fertility intention predict fertility behavior? A case study from China. Technical report. Department of Sociology, University of California, IrvineGoogle Scholar
  30. Wu X, Li L (2012) Family size and maternal health: evidence from the one-child policy in China. J Popul Econ 25:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhao M, Glewwe P (2010) What determines basic school attainment in developing countries? Evidence from rural China. Econ Educ Rev 29(3):451–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations