Journal of Population Economics

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 397–427 | Cite as

Missing time with parents: son preference among Asians in the USA

Original Paper

Abstract

We study prevalence of son preference in families of East and South Asian origin living in the USA by investigating parental time investments in children using American Time Use Surveys. Estimates show that East and South Asian mothers spend an additional hour of quality time per day with their young (aged 0–2 years) sons than with young daughters; son preference in mothers’ time allocation declines as children get older. East and South Asian fathers’ time with young children is gender neutral. We find gender specialization in time with children aged 6–17 with fathers spending more time with sons and mothers spending more time with daughters.

Keywords

Son preference Parental investments Immigrants Time use 

JEL classification

J13 J15 J16 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the editor, Junsen Zhang, the four anonymous referees, Lisa Bates, Lena Edlund, Irwin Garfinkel, Robert Kaestner, Julien Teitler, and conference participants at the Columbia Population Research Center and Population Association of America for their valuable comments.

References

  1. Abrevaya J (2009) Are there missing girls in the United States? Evidence from birth data. Am Econ J Appl Econ 1(2):1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almond D, Edlund L (2008) Son-biased sex ratios in the 2000 United States census. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(15):5681–5682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almond D, Edlund L, Milligan K (2013) Son preference and the persistence of culture: evidence from South and East Asian immigrants to Canada. Popul Dev Rev 39(1):75–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barcellos SH, Carvalho L, Lleras-Muney A (2014) Child gender and parental investments in India: are boys and girls treated differently? Am Econ J Appl Econ 6(1):157–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer J, Wang F, Riley NE, Zhao X (1992) Gender inequality in urban China. Mod China 18(3):333–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Behrman JR (1997) Intrahousehold distribution and the family. In: Rosenzweig MR, Stark O (eds) Handbook of population and family economics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 125–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bharadwaj P, Lakdawala LK (2013) Discrimination begins in the womb: evidence of sex-selective prenatal investments. J Hum Resour 48(1):71–113Google Scholar
  8. Brown PH (2006) Parental education and investment in children’s human capital in rural China. Econ Dev Cult Chang 54(4):759–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen LC, Huq E, D'Souza S (1981) Sex bias in the family allocation of food and health care in rural Bangladesh. Popul Dev Rev 7(1):55–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choi H, Joesch JM, Lundberg S (2008) Sons, daughters, wives, and the labour market outcomes of West German men. Labour Econ 15(5):795–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chung W, Das Gupta M (2007) The decline of son preference in South Korea: the roles of development and public policy. Popul Dev Rev 33(4):757–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coale AJ, Banister J (1994) Five decades of missing females in China. Demography 31(3):459–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahl GB, Moretti E (2008) The demand for sons. Rev Econ Stud 75(4):1085–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dancer D, Rammohan A (2007) Determinants of schooling in Egypt: the role of gender and rural/urban residence. Oxf Dev Stud 35(2):171–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Das Gupta M (1987) Selective discrimination against female children in rural Punjab, India. Popul Dev Rev 13(1):77–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Das Gupta M, Zhenghua J, Bohua L, Zhenming X, Chung W, Hwa-Ok B (2003) Why is son preference so persistent in East and South Asia? A cross-country study of China, India and the Republic of Korea. J Dev Stud 40(2):153–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Das Gupta M, Chung W, Shuzhuo L (2009) Evidence for an incipient decline in numbers of missing girls in China and India. Popul Dev Rev 35(2):401-416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Datar A, Kilburn MR, Loughran DS (2010) Endowments and parental investments in infancy and early childhood. Demography 47(1):145–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dayioğlu M, Kirdar MG, Tansel A (2009) Impact of sibship size, birth order and sex composition on school enrolment in urban Turkey*. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 71(3):399–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deaton A (2008) Height, health, and inequality: the distribution of adult heights in India. Am Econ Rev 98(2):468–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dyson T, Moore M (1983) On kinship structure, female autonomy, and demographic behavior in India. Popul Dev Rev 9(1):35–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. El-Badry M (1969) Higher female than male mortality in some countries of South Asia: a digest. J Am Stat Assoc 64(328):1234–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gangadharan L, Maitra P (2003) Testing for son preference in South Africa. J Afr Econ 12(3):371–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. George S, Abel R, Miller BD (1992) Female infanticide in rural south India. Econ Polit Wkly 27(22):1153–1156Google Scholar
  25. Grant MJ, Behrman JR (2010) Gender gaps in educational attainment in less developed countries. Popul Dev Rev 36(1):71–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guilmoto CZ (2009) The sex ratio transition in Asia. Popul Dev Rev 35(3):519–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haddad LJ, Peña C, Nishida C, Quisumbing AR, Slack A (1996) Food security and nutrition implications of intrahousehold bias: a review of literature. International Food Policy Research Institute FCND Discussion Paper no. 19. Retrieved from http://www.ifpri.org/publication/food-security-and-nutrition-implicationsintrahousehold-bias
  28. Heckman JJ (2006) Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science 312(5782):1900–1902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jayachandran S, Kuziemko I (2011) Why do mothers breastfeed girls less than boys? Evidence and implications for child health in India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 126(3):1485-1538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jensen RT (2010) Economic opportunities and gender differences in human capital: experimental evidence for India. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series no. 16021Google Scholar
  31. Jensen R (2012) Do labor market opportunities affect young women's work and family decisions? Experimental evidence from India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 127(2):753-792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kes A, Swaminathan H (2006) Gender and time poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Blackden CM, Wodon Q (eds) Gender, time use, and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank, Washington, DC, pp 13–38Google Scholar
  33. Khanna R, Kumar A, Vaghela J, Sreenivas V, Puliyel J (2003) Community based retrospective study of sex in infant mortality in India. BMJ Br Med J 327(7407):126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kingdon GG (2005) Where has all the bias gone? Detecting gender bias in the intrahousehold allocation of educational expenditure. Econ Dev Cult Chang 53(2):409–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lancaster G, Maitra P, Ray R (2008) Household expenditure patterns and gender bias: evidence from selected Indian states. Oxf Dev Stud 36(2):133–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Larson RW, Verma S (1999) How children and adolescents spend time across the world: work, play, and developmental opportunities. Psychol Bull 125(6):701–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Li D, Tsang MC (2003) Household decisions and gender inequality in education in rural China. China Int J 1(02):224–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lundberg S (2005) Sons, daughters, and parental behaviour. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 21(3):340–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lundberg S, Rose E (2002) The effects of sons and daughters on men’s labor supply and wages. Rev Econ Stat 84(2):251–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lundberg S, Pabilonia SW, Ward-Batts J (2007) Time allocation of parents and investments in sons and daughters. Unpublished PaperGoogle Scholar
  41. Mammen K (2011) Fathers’ time investments in children: do sons get more? J Popul Econ 24(3):839–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marcoux A (2002) Sex differentials in undernutrition: a look at survey evidence. Popul Dev Rev 28(2):275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miller BD (1985) Prenatal and postnatal sex-selection in India: the patriarchal context, ethical questions and public policy. Syracuse University Working Paper no. 107. Retrieved from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNAAX045.pdf
  44. Miller BD (1987) Female infanticide and child neglect in rural north India. In: Scheper-Hughes N (ed) Child survival. Springer, Netherlands, pp 95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mishra V, Roy TK, Retherford RD (2004) Sex differentials in childhood feeding, health care, and nutritional status in India. Popul Dev Rev 30(2):269–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Motiram S, Osberg L (2010) Gender inequalities in tasks and instruction opportunities within Indian families. Fem Econ 16(3):141–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nankhuni F (2004) Environmental degradation, resource scarcity and children’s welfare in Malawi: school attendance, school progress, and children’s health. (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  48. Nishikiori N, Abe T, Costa DG, Dharmaratne SD, Kunii O, Moji K (2006) Who died as a result of the tsunami? Risk factors of mortality among internally displaced persons in Sri Lanka: a retrospective cohort analysis. BMC Public Health 6(1):73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oldenburg P (1992) Sex ratio, son preference and violence in India: a research note. Econ Polit Wkly 27(49/50):2657–2662Google Scholar
  50. Ota M, Moffatt PG (2007) The within-household schooling decision: a study of children in rural Andhra Pradesh. J Popul Econ 20(1):223–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pabilonia SW, Ward-Batts J (2007) The effect of child gender on parents’ labor supply: an examination of natives, immigrants, and their children. Am Econ Rev 97(2):402–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pande RP (2003) Selective gender differences in childhood nutrition and immunization in rural India: the role of siblings. Demography 40(3):395–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Price J (2008) Parent-child quality time does birth order matter? J Hum Resour 43(1):240–265Google Scholar
  54. Puri S, Adams V, Ivey S, Nachtigall RD (2011) “There is such a thing as too many daughters, but not too many sons”: a qualitative study of son preference and fetal sex selection among Indian immigrants in the United States. Soc Sci Med 72(7):1169–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Qian N (2008) Missing women and the price of tea in China: the effect of sex-specific earnings on sex imbalance. Q J Econ 123(3):1251–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rahman L, Rao V (2004) The determinants of gender equity in India: examining Dyson and Moore’s thesis with new data. Popul Dev Rev 30(2):239–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ram R (1984) Market opportunities, intrafamily resource allocation, and sex-specific survival rates: an intercountry extension. Am Econ Rev 74(5):1080–1086Google Scholar
  58. Rosenzweig MR, Schultz TP (1982) Market opportunities, genetic endowments, and intrafamily resource distribution: child survival in rural India. Am Econ Rev 72(4):803–815Google Scholar
  59. Sen A (1990) More than 100 million women are missing. The New York Review of Books, 37(20). Retrieved from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1990/12/20/more-than-100-million-women-aremissing/
  60. UN (2011) Sex differentials in childhood mortality. UN, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2005) Children out of school: Measuring exclusion from primary education. Montreal, Quebec, UNESCO Institute for StatisticsGoogle Scholar
  62. World Bank (2012) World development report 2012: Gender equality and development. Washington DC, World BankGoogle Scholar
  63. Yamaguchi K (1989) A formal theory for male-preferring stopping rules of childbearing: sex differences in birth order and in the number of siblings. Demography 26(3):451–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yeung WJ, Sandberg JF, Davis-Kean PE, Hofferth SL (2001) Children’s time with fathers in intact families. J Marriage Fam 63(1):136–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Rutgers, The State University of New JerseyNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations