Son Preference of Immigrants to the United States: Data from U.S. Birth Certificates, 2004–2013

  • Embry M. Howell
  • Huanjun Zhang
  • Dudley L. Poston
Original Paper
  • 81 Downloads

Abstract

Son preference has existed for centuries in many cultures and societies. In some Asian countries, including China and India, the sex ratio at birth (SRB, number of male infants divided by number of female infants times 100) is elevated above the worldwide biological norm of about 105. We investigate whether this ratio is elevated in the U.S. for immigrant women. We analyze U.S. birth certificates for 2004–2013 and categorize births by mother’s and father’s race/ethnicity; mother’s place of birth, and birth order of the child. The SRB is elevated for two groups of women: Chinese women born in China for children of birth order 2 and higher, and Indian women born in India for children of birth order 3 and higher. The SRB is not elevated for Chinese and Indian women born in the U.S., nor for Mexican women, Black women, nor White women, regardless of place of birth. The race/ethnicity of the child’s father does not appear to be a strong factor in the SRB. In the early twenty-first century the elevated SRB for Chinese and Indian women born in China and India respectively suggests sex selection for higher order births in the U.S.

Keywords

Sex ratio at birth Chinese women Indian women Birth certificates 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Embry M. Howell, Huanjun Zhang and Dudley L. Poston declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Animal and Human Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Arnold F, Liu Z. Sex preference, fertility, and family planning in China. Popul Dev Rev. 1986;12:221–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gu B, Roy K. Sex ratios at birth in China, with reference to other areas in East Asia: what we know. Asia Pac Popul J. 1995;10(3):17–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim DS. The pattern of changing trends and the regional difference in the sex ratio at birth: evidence from Korea and Jilin Province, China. Korea J Popul Dev. 1997;26:19–24.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Park CB, Cho NH. Consequences of son preference in a low fertility society: imbalance of the sex ratio at birth in Korea. Popul Dev Rev. 1995;21:59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Poston DL, Gu B, Liu P, McDaniel T. Son preference and the sex ratio at birth in China. Soc Biol. 1997;44:55–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Poston DL, Glover KS. Too many males: marriage market implications of gender imbalances in China. Genus. 2005;2:119–40.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kureishi M, Wakabayashi M. Son preference in Japan. J Popul Econ. 2011;2:873–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sahni M, Verma N, Narula D, Varghese RM, Sreenivas V, Pulliyel JM. Missing girls in India: infanticide, feticide and made-to-order pregnancies? Insights from hospital-based sex-ratio-at-birth over the last century. PLos ONE. 2008;3:e2224.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arnold F, Kishor S, Roy TK. Sex-selective abortions in India. Popul Dev Rev. 2002;4:759–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wu J, Walther CS. Patterns of induced abortion. In: Poston DL, editors. Fertility, family planning, and population policy in China. London: Routledge; 2006. p. 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhu WX, Lu L, Hesketh T. China’s excess males, sex selective abortion, and one child policy: an analysis of data from the 2005 national intercensus survey. BMJ. 2009;338:b1211.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yi Z, Ping T, Baochang G, Yi X, Bohua L, Yongping L. Causes and implications of the recent increase in the reported sex ratio at birth in China. Popul Dev Rev. 1993;19(2):283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goodkind D. The claim that China’s fertility restrictions contributed to the use of prenatal sex selection: a skeptical reappraisal. Popul Stud. 2015;69(3):263–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Poston DL, Conde E, DeSalvo B. China’s unbalanced sex ratio at birth: millions of excess bachelors and societal implications. Vulnerable Child Youth Stud. 2011;6(4):314–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hudson VM, Den Boer AM. A surplus of men, a deficit of peace. Int Secur. 2002;26:5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hudson VM, Den Boer AM. Bare branches: security implications of Asia’s surplus male population. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Junhong C. Prenatal sex determination and sex-selective abortion in rural central China. Popul Dev Rev. 2001;27:259–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ray JG, Henry DA, Urquia ML. Sex ratios among Canadian liveborn infants of mothers from different countries. Can Med Assoc J. 2012;184(9):e492–e496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Almond D, Edlund L, Milligan K. Son preference and the persistence of culture: evidence from South and East Asian immigrants to Canada. Popul Dev Rev. 2013;39(1):75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Egan JFX, Campbell WA, Chapman A, Shamshirsaz AA, Gurram P, Benn PA. Distortions of sex ratios at birth in the United States evidence for prenatal gender selection. Prenat Diagn. 2011;31(6):560–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Puri S, Adams V, Ivey S, Nachtigall R. A qualitative study of son preference and fetal sex selection among Indian immigrants in the United States. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72:1169–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    National Center for Health Statistics: Vital statistics data available online. http:// http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/vitalstatsonline.htm Accessed 8 Oct 2016.
  23. 23.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,. Detailed technical notes: natality: 2013.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guilmoto CZ. Sex imbalances at birth: Current trends, consequences and policy implications. Bangkok: UNFPA Asia and the Pacific Office; 2012.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Poston DL, Bouvier LF. Population and society, 2nd edition, New York, Cambridge University Press; 2017.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fakfoglu AL, Scott J, Hudson K. Attitudes about preconception sex selection: a focus group study with Americans. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(12):2731–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McCarthy D. Why sex selection should be legal. J Med Ethics. 2001;27:302–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dickens B. Can sex selection be ethically tolerated? J Med Ethics. 2002;28:335–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Citro B, Gilson J, Kalantry S, Stricker K: Replacing myths with facts: sex-selective abortion laws in the United States. Ithaca: Cornell Law Faculty Publications; 2014.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ethics Committee of the American College. of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Sex selection. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Embry M. Howell
    • 1
  • Huanjun Zhang
    • 2
  • Dudley L. Poston
    • 2
  1. 1.The Urban InstituteWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Texas A and M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations