Birth order and unwanted fertility

Abstract

An extensive literature documents the effects of birth order on various individual outcomes, with later-born children faring worse than their siblings. However, the potential mechanisms behind these effects remain poorly understood. This paper leverages US data on pregnancy intention to study the role of unwanted fertility in the observed birth order patterns. We document that children higher in the birth order are much more likely to be unwanted, in the sense that they were conceived at a time when the family was not planning to have additional children. Being an unwanted child is associated with negative life cycle outcomes as it implies a disruption in parental plans for optimal human capital investment. We show that the increasing prevalence of unwantedness across birth order explains a substantial part of the documented birth order effects in education and employment. Consistent with this mechanism, we document no birth order effects in families who have more control over their own fertility.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    We follow the demographic definition of an unwanted birth as a birth in excess of total desired fertility. The broader notion of unintended birth includes both unwanted and mistimed births. Given our purposes, we do not consider mistimed births.

  2. 2.

    The birth order literature is more limited in developing countries so little is known about how these patterns generalize to that context. For a few exceptions, see Birdsall (1979, 1990), Behrman(1988), Horton (1988), Ejrnæs and Pörtner (2004), Edmonds (2006) and De Haan et al. (2014)

  3. 3.

    See Kessler (1991) for additional early references.

  4. 4.

    See among others (Baydar 1995; Kubička et al. 1995; Myhrman et al. 1995).

  5. 5.

    The indicator is not defined for those who reported being out of labor force for the entire year.

  6. 6.

    Children who result from mistimed pregnancies, particularly when these occur before marriage, may also have negative effects on outcomes later in life. See, for example, (Nguyen 2018)

  7. 7.

    Joyce et al. (2002) find that prospective and retrospective reports of pregnancy intention provide the same estimate of the effects of being an unintended child on various prenatal outcomes once they control for selective pregnancy recognition using an IV procedure. Further, they show that the extent of unwanted fertility was the same regardless of whether the assessment was during pregnancy or after birth. They show this for a subsample of women for whom pregnancy intention was assessed both prospectively (during pregnancy) and retrospectively (after birth).

  8. 8.

    In principle, since we are looking at families with two and three children, the number of first-born and second-born children should be the same. In practice however, our number of second-born children is slightly smaller than the number of first-borns because they are more likely to have missing information on our outcome of interest, completed education.

  9. 9.

    However, it is of interest to explore whether the pattern of increasing prevalence of unwanted children across birth order holds in 4-child families. Since we only know whether the first, last, or second to last child in a family was unwanted, we cannot tell whether a second-born child in a four-child family was unwanted. But we can still look at first-, third-, and fourth-born children in those families. Consistent with the patterns in Table 2, we find that in four-child families, the incidence of unwanted children grows from 16% among first-borns, to 27% among third-borns to a whopping 53% among fourth-borns.

  10. 10.

    These are families for which we identify at least one unwanted child or families for which information for pregnancy status is missing for at least one child.

  11. 11.

    We follow the religion taxonomy in Evans (2002) and classify the following religions as having a more strict attitude against abortion: Roman Catholic, Protestant, other Protestant, other Non-Christian, Latter Day Saints, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Greek/Russian/Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Christian, Christian Science, Seventh Day Adventist, Pentecostal, Jewish, Amish, and Mennonite. Mothers reporting these religions are more likely to be pro-life and less likely to use abortion to terminate unwanted pregnancies. We then classify Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Unitarians along with Agnostics and Atheists as having a less strict attitude towards abortion.

  12. 12.

    In the pooled specification, the effects for the third child are statistically significantly different from each other across the two tables.

References

  1. Ananat EO, Hungerman DM (2012) The power of the pill for the next generation: oral contraception’s effects on fertility, abortion, and maternal and child characteristics. Rev Econ Stat 94(1):37–51

    Google Scholar 

  2. Argys LM, Rees DI, Averett SL, Witoonchart BK (2006) Birth order and risky adolescent behavior. Econ Enquiry 44(2):215–233

    Google Scholar 

  3. Averett SL, Argys LM, Rees DI (2011) Older siblings and adolescent risky behavior: does parenting play a role? J Popul Econ 24(3):957–978

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bagger J, Birchenall JA, Mansour H, Urzua S (2013) Education, birth order, and family size. Working Paper 19111, National Bureau of Economic Research

  5. Bailey MJ (2010) “Momma’s got the pill”: How Anthony Comstock and Griswold v. Connecticut shaped US childbearing. Amer Econ Rev 100(1):98–129

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barmby T, Cigno A (1990) A sequential probability model of fertility patterns. J Popul Econ 3(1):31–51

    Google Scholar 

  7. Baydar N (1995) Consequences for children of their birth planning status. Fam Plan Perspect 27(6):228–245

    Google Scholar 

  8. Becker GS, Lewis HG (1973) On the interaction between the quantity and quality of children. J Polit Econ 81(2, Part 2):S279–S288

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  10. Behrman JR, Taubman P (1986) Birth order, schooling, and earnings. J Labor Econ 4(3, Part 2):S121–S145

    Google Scholar 

  11. Behrman JR (1988) Nutrition, health, birth order and seasonality: Intrahousehold allocation among children in rural india. J Dev Econ 28(1):43–62

    Google Scholar 

  12. Belmont L, Marolla FA (1973) Birth order, family size, and intelligence. Science 182(4117):1096–1101

    Google Scholar 

  13. Birdsall N (1979) Siblings and schooling in urban colombia. Ph.D. thesis, Yale University

  14. Birdsall N (1990) Birth order effects and time allocation. Res Popul Econ 7:191–213

    Google Scholar 

  15. Björkegren E, Svaleryd H (2017) Birth order and child health. Working paper, Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy

  16. 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):669–700

    Google Scholar 

  17. Black SE, Devereux PJ, Salvanes KG (2011) Older and wiser? birth order and iq of young men. CESifo Econ Stud 57(1):103–120

    Google Scholar 

  18. Black SE, Devereux PJ, Salvanes KG (2016) Healthy (?), wealthy, and wise: Birth order and adult health. Econ Human Biol 23:27–45

    Google Scholar 

  19. Black SE, Grönqvist E, Öckert B (2017) Born to lead? the effect of birth order on non-cognitive abilities. Working Paper 23393, National Bureau of Economic Research

  20. Booth AL, Kee HJ (2009) Birth order matters: the effect of family size and birth order on educational attainment. J Popul Econ 22(2):367–397

    Google Scholar 

  21. Breining S, Doyle J, Figlio D, Karbownik K, Roth J (2017) Birth order and delinquency: Evidence from Denmark and Florida. Working Paper 23394, National Bureau of Economic Research

  22. Brenøe AA, Molitor R (2018) Birth order and health of newborns. J Popul Econ 31(2):397–395

    Google Scholar 

  23. Charles KK, Stephens Jr M (2006) Abortion legalization and adolescent substance use. J Law Econ 49(2):481–505

  24. Child Trends (2013) Unintended births

  25. 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):722–737

    Google Scholar 

  26. De Haan M (2010) Birth order, family size and educational attainment. Econ Educ Rev 29(4):576–588

    Google Scholar 

  27. De Haan M, Plug E, Rosero J (2014) Birth order and human capital development evidence from ecuador. J Hum Resour 49(2):359–392

    Google Scholar 

  28. Do Q-T, Phung TD (2010) The importance of being wanted. Amer Econ J: Appl Econ 2(4):236–253

    Google Scholar 

  29. Donohue JJ, Grogger J, Levitt SD (2009) The impact of legalized abortion on teen childbearing. Amer Law Econ Rev 11(1):24–46

    Google Scholar 

  30. Donohue JJ, Levitt SD (2001) The impact of legalized abortion on crime. Q J Econ 116(2):379–420

    Google Scholar 

  31. Eckstein D, Aycock KJ, Sperber MA, McDonald J, Van Wiesner V, Watts III RE, Ginsburg P (2010) A review of 200 birth-order studies: Lifestyle characteristics. J Individ Psychol 66(4):408–434

  32. Edmonds EV (2006) Understanding sibling differences in child labor. J Popul Econ 19(4):795–821

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ejrnæs M, Pörtner CC (2004) Birth order and the intrahousehold allocation of time and education. Rev Econ Stat 86(4):1008–1019

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ermisch JF, Francesconi M (2001) Family structure and children’s achievements. J Popul Econ 14(2):249–270

    Google Scholar 

  35. Evans JH (2002) Polarization in abortion attitudes in u.s. religious traditions, 1972–1998. Sociol Forum 17(3):397–422

    Google Scholar 

  36. Galton F (1875) English men of science: Their nature and nurture. D. Appleton

  37. Gruber J, Levine P, Staiger D (1999) Abortion legalization and child living circumstances: who is the ”marginal child”? Q J Econ 114(1):263–291

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hao L, Hotz VJ, Jin GZ (2008) Games parents and adolescents play: Risky behaviour, parental reputation and strategic transfers. Econ J 118(528):515–555

    Google Scholar 

  39. Horton S (1988) Birth order and child nutritional status: evidence from the philippines. Econ Dev Cult Chang 36(2):341–354

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hotz VJ, Pantano J (2015) Strategic parenting, birth order and school performance. J Popul Econ 28(4):911–936

    Google Scholar 

  41. Joyce TJ, Kaestner R, Korenman S (2000) The effect of pregnancy intention on child development. Demography 37(1):83–94

    Google Scholar 

  42. Joyce TJ, Kaestner R, Korenman S (2002) On the validity of retrospective assessments of pregnancy intention. Demography 39(1):199–213

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kantarevic J, Mechoulan S (2006) Birth order, educational attainment, and earnings an investigation using the PSID. J Hum Resour 41(4):755–777

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kubička L, Matějček Z, David H, Dytrych Z, Miller W, Roth Z (1995) Children from unwanted pregnancies in prague, Czech Republic revisited at age thirty. Acta Psychiatr Scand 91(6):361–369

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lehmann J-YK, Nuevo-Chiquero A, Vidal-Fernandez M (2013) Birth order and differences in early inputs and outcomes. Discussion Paper 6755, IZA Institute of Labor Economics

  47. Lin W, Pantano J (2015) The unwanted: Negative outcomes over the life cycle. J Popul Econ 28(2):479–508

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lin W, Pantano J, Pinto R, Sun S (2017) Identification of quantity quality tradeoff with imperfect fertility control. Unpublished working paper

  49. Lindert PH (1977) Sibling position and achievement. J Hum Resour 12 (2):198–219

    Google Scholar 

  50. Mechoulan S, Wolff F-C (2015) Intra-household allocation of family resources and birth order: evidence from France using siblings data. J Popul Econ 28(4):937–964

    Google Scholar 

  51. Michael RT, Willis RJ (1976) Contraception and fertility: Household production under uncertainty. In: Household Production and Consumption. NBER, pp 25–98

  52. Miller AR (2009) Motherhood delay and the human capital of the next generation. Am Econ Rev 99(2):154–58

    Google Scholar 

  53. Myhrman A, Olsen P, Rantakallio P, Laara E (1995) Does the wantedness of a pregnancy predict a child’s educational attainment? Fam Plan Perspect 27 (3):116–119

    Google Scholar 

  54. Nguyen CV (2018) The long-term effects of mistimed pregnancy on children’s education and employment. J Popul Econ 31(3):937–968

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ozbeklik S (2014) The effect of abortion legalization on childbearing by unwed teenagers in future cohorts. Econ Inq 52(1):100–115

    Google Scholar 

  56. Pavan R (2016) On the production of skills and the birth order effect. J Hum Resour 51(3):699–726

    Google Scholar 

  57. Pop-Eleches C (2006) The impact of an abortion ban on socioeconomic outcomes of children: Evidence from romania. J Polit Econ 114(4):744–773

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  59. Rosenzweig MR, Wolpin KI (1993) Maternal expectations and ex post rationalizations: the usefulness of survey information on the wantedness of children. J Hum Resour 23(2):205–229

    Google Scholar 

  60. Schoen R, Astone NM, Kim YJ, Nathanson CA, Fields JM (1999) Do fertility intentions affect fertility behavior? J Marriage Fam 61(3):790–799

    Google Scholar 

  61. Sulloway FJ (2010) Why siblings are like darwin’s finches: Birth order, sibling competition, and adaptive divergence within the family. In: The Evolution of Personality and Individual Differences. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  62. Westoff CF, Ryder NB (1977) The predictive validity of reproductive intentions. Demography 14(4):431–453

    Google Scholar 

  63. Willis RJ (1973) A new approach to the economic theory of fertility behavior. J Polit Econ 81(2, Part 2):S14–S64

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Janet Currie, Joe Doyle, Martha Bailey and seminar participants at the University of Michigan for helpful comments. Lin acknowledges research support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.71573004) and the Key Laboratory of Mathematical Economics and Quantitative Finance (Peking University), Ministry of Education. During work on this project, Sun was supported in part by the George Katona Economic Behavior Research Award funded by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan. All errors remain our own. The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for helpful comments and suggestions.

Funding

Wanchuan Lin acknowledges research support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.71573004) and the Key Laboratory of Mathematical Economics and Quantitative Finance (Peking University), Ministry of Education. Shuqiao Sun was supported by the George Katona Economic Behavior Research Award, funded by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shuqiao Sun.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Responsible editor: Alessandro Cigno

Appendix

Appendix

Table 14 Birth order and employment—OLS
Table 15 Birth order and employment—family fixed effects
Table 16 Birth order and employment in families with evidence of perfect fertility control—family fixed effects
Table 17 Birth order and employment in families without evidence of perfect fertility control—family fixed effects
Table 18 Birth order and employment accounting for unwantedness—family fixed effects
Table 19 Birth order and employment—family fixed effects (pro-life)
Table 20 Birth order and employment—family fixed effects (pro-choice)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, W., Pantano, J. & Sun, S. Birth order and unwanted fertility. J Popul Econ 33, 413–440 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-019-00747-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Birth order
  • Unwanted births
  • Fertility intentions

JEL Classification

  • J13
  • J22
  • J24