Parental investment responses to a low birth weight outcome: who compensates and who reinforces?

Abstract

This study analyzes how parental investment responds to a low birth weight (LBW) outcome and finds important differences in investment responses by maternal education. High school dropouts reinforce a LBW outcome by providing less investment in the human capital of their LBW children relative to their normal birth weight children whereas higher educated mothers compensate by investing more in their LBW children. In addition, an increase in the number of LBW siblings present in the home raises investment in a child, which is consistent with reinforcement, but this positive effect tends to be concentrated among high school dropouts. These results suggest that studies analyzing the effects of LBW on child outcomes that do not account for heterogeneity in investment responses to a LBW outcome by maternal education may overestimate effects of LBW on child outcomes for those born to low-educated mothers and underestimate such effects for those born to high-educated mothers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, LBW children have been shown to achieve poor health, cognitive and behavioral development, education, employment, and earning outcomes relative to NBW children (Currie and Hyson 1999; Case et al. 2005; Black et al. 2007; Currie and Moretti 2007; Oreopoulos et al. 2008; Fletcher 2011; Datta Gupta et al. 2013; Chatterji et al. 2014a, b; Figlio et al. 2014; Cook and Fletcher 2015).

  2. 2.

    Most studies have found evidence that parents reinforce endowment differences among their children (Rosenzweig and Schultz 1982; Rosenzweig and Wolpin 1988; Behrman et al. 1994; Behrman and Rosenzweig 2004; Rosenzweig and Zhang 2009; Aizer and Cunha 2012; Datar et al. 2010; Frijters et al. 2013; Parman 2015). Several studies have found that parents compensate for differences in their children’s endowments (Griliches 1979; Behrman et al. 1982; Pitt et al. 1990; Ashenfelter and Rouse 1998; Ermisch and Francesconi 2000; Del Bono et al. 2012; Bharadwaj et al. 2014). And a few studies have found that parents neither compensate nor reinforce endowment differences (Royer 2009; Almond and Currie 2011a; Lynch and Brooks 2013). See Almond and Mazumder (2013) for an excellent review of the literature.

  3. 3.

    Using data on siblings from rural Ethiopia, Ayalew (2005) found evidence that parents reinforce endowment differences with respect to educational investments but compensate with respect to health investments. And using data on Chinese twins, Conti et al. (2015) found that the twin who experienced a negative early-life health shock receives more health investment later in life relative to her twin sibling who did not but receives less educational investment; they conclude that families behave so as to equalize investments across children who are differentially affected by early-life health shocks.

  4. 4.

    Recent studies find evidence that the quality of the home environment is important for the cognitive and noncognitive development of children (Blau 1999; Guo and Harris 2000; Brooks-Gunn et al. 2002; Aughinbaugh and Gittleman 2003; Todd and Wolpin 2007; Cunha and Heckman 2008; Cunha et al. 2010). For example, Todd and Wolpin (2007) find that 10–20 % of the math and reading test score gaps between whites and nonwhites can be closed if home inputs (as measured by the overall HOME score) were equalized at the average level observed for white children. Blau (1999) estimates the elasticities of child development outcomes with respect to cognitive stimulation and emotional support to be in the 0.07–0.14 range, which are much larger than the estimated elasticities with respect to other inputs such as child care.

  5. 5.

    A growing body of work shows that both cognitive and noncognitive skills are important for socioeconomic success (Heckman et al. 2006; Carneiro et al. 2007).

  6. 6.

    See https://www.nlsinfo.org/content/cohorts/nlsy79-children/other-documentation/codebook-supplement/appendix-home-sf-scales (last accessed February 21, 2016) for a detailed list of the questions that contribute to HOME scores.

  7. 7.

    While I present results using the age-standardized HOME scores, an analysis of the raw scores yielded very similar results.

  8. 8.

    It is likely that mothers who care a lot about child quality have better-endowed children and also invest more in their children after birth. In this case, μ would be correlated with birth endowments and while OLS estimates would be biased, estimates using a within-family estimator would not be affected by the bias resulting from this correlation.

  9. 9.

    Since I rely on within-family variation in birth weight and HOME scores to identify parameters of interest, it is important to analyze the amount of within-family variation available to exploit in estimation. In an unreported analysis, I estimate the proportion of total variation in HOME scores and birth weight that can be explained by within-family variation, by estimating regression models that control only for a MFE. The proportion of total variation in HOME scores explained by within-family variation ranges between 36 and 50 %, and 39 % of the total variation in birth weight is explained by within-family variation. In addition, about 15.4 % of multiple-child families have at least one child who is LBW and at least one child who is NBW. And among high school dropouts and more educated mothers, the corresponding figures are 22.6 and 13.6 %, respectively.

  10. 10.

    Appendix Table 6 shows the full set of OLS and MFE regression results for panel A of Table 2.

  11. 11.

    Many studies in the literature do not estimate the impact of siblings’ endowment on investment in a child. In an unreported analysis, I omitted the measure of siblings’ endowments from regression models, which tended to slightly accentuate the estimated impact of a child’s own endowment on investment measures. This suggests that omitting a measure of siblings’ endowments from investment demand regression equations may cause a small bias in the estimated own endowment effects away from zero.

  12. 12.

    A possible explanation for the small estimated investment differences by income is measurement error in income, which tends to be exacerbated in specifications that identify parameters using within-family differences. In an alternate specification, I use average family income over all available observations for a child within a family to address the potential attenuation bias due to measurement error in income. The coefficient estimates of the interaction between LBW and average family income are similar in magnitude to those of the interaction between LBW and current family income, suggesting that measurement error in income is not causing a substantial amount of attenuation bias. In addition, coefficient estimates of the interaction between LBW and maternal education using this alternate specification are similar in magnitude to those found using the main specification. To the extent that maternal education is a proxy for “permanent income,” this unreported analysis also suggests that the interactive effects of LBW and maternal education on investment operate through channels in addition to the permanent-income channel.

  13. 13.

    I also explored the importance of several interactive effects that may drive the heterogeneity in investment responses to a LBW outcome by education and income. First, various aspects of the home environment may affect the ability of some mothers to make compensatory investments. For example, single motherhood or divorce, the lack of a child’s father in the home, and high or tightly spaced fertility could make mothers less able to compensate for their child being born with a LBW, since these children may require more time or resources than NBW children. Second, a mother’s cognitive and noncognitive skills could influence their investment response to a LBW outcome. For instance, high-educated mothers may be more productive at investing in poorly endowed children or may be better able to overcome the difficulties associated with caring for such children. In an unreported analysis, I examined these issues by adding interactions between birth endowments and the following variables to the main specification: indicator for whether a mother is married, indicator for whether the child’s father is present in the home, the total number of siblings in the home, birth order, birth spacing, and a mother’s performance on the AFQT, Rotter Locus of Control, Pearlin Mastery, and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scales. I found no evidence that these factors drive the investment differences I observe by mother’s education and family income.

  14. 14.

    In an unreported analysis, I find that the differential investment response to a very low birth weight (VLBW)—defined as a birth weight below 1500 g—outcome by education is even larger. I estimate that high school dropouts invest about 17 % of a SD less in their VLBW children while mothers with at least 4 years of college invest 16 % of a SD more in their VLBW children.

References

  1. Aizer A, Cunha F (2012) The production of human capital: endowments, investments and fertility. NBER Working Paper No. 18429

  2. Almond D, Currie J (2011a) Human capital development before age five. Handb Labor Econ 4B:1315–1486

    Google Scholar 

  3. Almond D, Currie J (2011b) Killing me softly: the fetal origins hypothesis. J Econ Perspect 25(3):153–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Almond D, Mazumder B (2013) Fetal origins and parental responses. Annu Rev Econ 5:37–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Almond D, Edlund L, Palme M (2009) Chernobyl’s subclinical legacy: prenatal exposure to radioactive fallout and school outcomes in Sweden. Q J Econ 124(4):1729–1772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ashenfelter O, Rouse C (1998) Income, schooling, and ability: evidence from a new sample of twins. Q J Econ 113(1):253–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Aughinbaugh A, Gittleman M (2003) Does money matter? a comparison of the effect of income on child development in the United States and Great Britain. J Hum Resour 38(2):416–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ayalew T (2005) Parental preference, heterogeneity, human capital inequality. Econ Dev Cult Chang 53(2):381–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barker DJ (1990) The fetal and infant origins of adult disease: the womb may be more important than the home. Br Med J 301(6761):1111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Beach B, Saavedra M (2015) Mitigating the effects of low birth weight: evidence from randomly assigned adoptees. Am J Health Econ 1(3):275–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Becker GS, Tomes N (1976) Child endowments and the quantity and quality of children. J Polit Econ 84(4):S143–S162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Behrman JR, Rosenzweig MR (2004) Returns to birth weight. Rev Econ Stat 86(2):586–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Behrman JR, Pollak RA, Taubman P (1982) Parental preferences and provision for progeny. J Polit Econ 90(1):52–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Behrman JR, Rosenzweig MR, Taubman P (1994) Endowments and the allocation of schooling in the family and in the marriage market: the twins experiment. J Polit Econ 102(6):1131–1174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bharadwaj P, Eberhard J, Neilson C (2014) Health at birth, parental investments, and academic outcomes. Unpublished manuscript. University of California, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  16. Black SE, Devereux PJ, Salvanes KG (2007) From the cradle to the labor market? The effect of birth weight on adult outcomes. Q J Econ 122(1):409–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Blau DM (1999) The effect of child care characteristics on child development. J Hum Resour 34(4):786–822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Brooks-Gunn J, Linver MR, Jean YW (2002) How money matters for young children’s development: parental investment and family processes. Child Dev 73(6):1861–1879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Buckles K, Kolka S (2014) Prenatal investments, breastfeeding, and birth order. Soc Sci Med 118:66–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Carneiro P, Crawford C, Goodman, A (2007) Which skills matter, in D. Kehoe, Practice Makes Perfect: The Importance of Practical Learning, Social Markets Foundation

  21. Case A, Fertig A, Paxson C (2005) The lasting impact of childhood health and circumstance. J Health Econ 24(2):365–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chatterji P, Kim D, Lahiri K (2014a) Birth weight and academic achievement in childhood. Health Econ 23(9):1013–1035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chatterji P, Kim D, Lahiri K (2014b) Fetal growth and neurobehavioral outcomes in childhood. Econ Human Biol 15:187–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cheadle J, Goosby B (2010) Birth weight, cognitive development, and life chances: a comparison of siblings from childhood into early adulthood. Soc Sci Res 39(4):570–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Conti G, Heckman JJ, Yi J, Zhang J (2015) Early health shocks, intra-household resource allocation and child outcomes. Econ J 125(588):F347–F371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cook CJ, Fletcher JM (2015) Understanding heterogeneity in the effects of birth weight on adult cognition and wages. J Health Econ 41:107–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Cunha F, Heckman JJ (2008) Formulating, identifying and estimating the technology of cognitive and noncognitive skill formation. J Hum Resour 43(4):738–782

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cunha F, Heckman JJ, Schennach SM (2010) Estimating the technology of cognitive and noncognitive skill formation. Econometrica 78(3):883–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Currie J, Hyson R (1999) Is the impact of health shocks cushioned by socioeconomic status? The case of low birth weight. Am Econ Rev Pap Proc 89(2):245–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Currie J, Moretti E (2007) Biology as destiny? Short- and long-run determinants of intergenerational transmission of birth weight. J Labor Econ 25(2):231–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Datar A, Rebecca KM, Loughran DS (2010) Endowments and parental investments in infancy and early childhood. Demography 47(1):145–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Del Bono E, Ermisch J, Francesconi M (2012) Intrafamily resource allocations: a dynamic structural model of birth weight. J Labor Econ 30(3):657–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ermisch J, Francesconi M (2000) Educational choice, families, and young people’s earnings. J Hum Resour 35(1):143–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Figlio D, Guryan J, Karbowniik K, Roth J (2014) The effects of poor neonatal health on children’s cognitive development. Am Econ Rev 104(12):3921–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Fletcher JM (2011) The medium term schooling and health effects of low birth weight: evidence from siblings. Econ Educ Rev 30(3):517–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Frijters P, Johnston DW, Shah M, Shields MA (2013) Intrahousehold resource allocation: do parents reduce or reinforce child ability gaps? Demography 50(6):2187–2208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Griliches Z (1979) Sibling models and data in economics: beginnings of a survey. J Polit Econ 87(5):S37–S64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Guo G, Harris KM (2000) The mechanisms mediating the effects of poverty on children's intellectual development. Demography 37(4):431–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Gupta D, Nabanita DM, Mette L (2013) The effect of low birth weight on height, weight and behavioral outcomes in the medium-run. Econ Human Biol 11(1):42–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Halla M, Zweimuller M (2014) Parental response to early human capital shocks: evidence from the Chernobyl accident. IZA Working Paper No. 1402

  41. Heckman JJ, Stixrud J, Urzua S (2006) The effects of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on labor market outcomes and social behavior. J Labor Econ 24(3):411–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hsin A (2012) Is biology destiny? Birth weight and differential parental treatment. Demography 49(4):1385–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lin M-J, Liu J, Chou S-Y (2007) As low birth weight babies grow, can well-educated parents buffer this adverse factor? A research note. Demography 44(2):335–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lynch JL, Brooks R (2013) Low birth weight and parental investment: do parents favor the fittest child? J Marriage Fam 75(3):533–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. McCarton C (1998) Behavioral outcomes in low birth weight infants. Pediatrics 102(5 Suppl E):1293–7

    Google Scholar 

  46. Oreopoulos P, Stabile M, Walld R, Roos L (2008) Short-, medium-, and long-term, consequences of poor infant health: an analysis using siblings and twins. J Hum Resour 43(1):88–138

    Google Scholar 

  47. Parman J (2015) Childhood health and sibling outcomes: nurture reinforcing nature during the 1918 influenza pandemic. Explor Econ Hist 58:22–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pitt MM, Rosenzweig MR, Hassan N (1990) Productivity, health, and inequality in the intrahousehold distribution of food in low-income countries. Am Econ Rev 80(5):1139–1156

    Google Scholar 

  49. Price J (2008) Parent–child quality time: does birth order matter? J Hum Resour 43(1):240–265

    Google Scholar 

  50. Price J (2010) The effect of parental time investments: evidence from natural within-family variation. Unpublished manuscript, Brigham Young University

  51. Rosenzweig MR, Schultz TP (1982) Market opportunities, genetic endowments, and intrafamily resource distribution: child survival in rural India. Am Econ Rev 72(4):803–815

    Google Scholar 

  52. Rosenzweig MR, Wolpin KI (1988) Heterogeneity, intrafamily distribution, and child health. J Hum Resour 23(4):437–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 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):1149–1174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Royer H (2009) Separated at girth: US twin estimates of the effects of birth weight. Am Econ J Appl Econ 1(1):49–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Todd PE, Wolpin KI (2007) The production of cognitive achievement in children: home, school, and racial test score gaps. J Hum Cap 1(1):91–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Totsika V, Sylva K (2004) The home observation for measurement of the environment revisited. Child Adolesc Mental Health 9(1):25–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Zvara BJ, Schoppe-Sullivan SJ (2010) Does parent education moderate relations between low birth weight and child cognitive development outcomes? Fam Sci 1(3–4):212–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the editor Erdal Tekin and three anonymous referees for very helpful and detailed feedback. This paper previously circulated under the title “Who Compensates and Who Reinforces? Parental Investment Responses to Child Endowment Shocks” and is based on a dissertation chapter that was completed at The Ohio State University. I would like to give special thanks to my dissertation advisor David Blau and my dissertation committee members Audrey Light and Bruce Weinberg for their guidance and support during the early stages of this project. I would also like to thank Jérôme Adda, Christian Dustmann, Belton Fleisher, Trevon Logan, Derek Neal, Matthew Neidell, and Matthias Rieger for valuable comments and suggestions. This paper also benefitted from helpful comments by seminar participants at Cleveland State University, The Ohio State University, and European University Institute, and by conference participants at the 2011 GLASS Research Symposium and 2011 Southern Economic Association Annual Meeting.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brandon J. Restrepo.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Erdal Tekin

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 The impact of child endowments on parental investment

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Restrepo, B.J. Parental investment responses to a low birth weight outcome: who compensates and who reinforces?. J Popul Econ 29, 969–989 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-016-0590-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Parental investment
  • Human capital
  • Low birth weight
  • Education
  • Income

JEL Classification

  • D13
  • I14
  • I24
  • J13