Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 134, Issue 1, pp 339–357 | Cite as

Peers and Fertility Preferences: An Empirical Investigation of the Role of Neighbours, Religion and Education

  • Ankita MishraEmail author
  • Jaai Parasnis
Article
  • 398 Downloads

Abstract

Individual fertility preference is influenced by observed social norms. The present paper investigates the effect of the observed fertility of peers on a woman’s fertility preference. We explore the role of two peer groups: neighbourhood peers and religious peers. Data from the National Family Health Surveys (1992–1993, 1998–1999 and 2005–2006) in India is employed for empirical estimations using a multinomial logit model. We find that both neighbourhood and religious peers have a significant impact on individual fertility preferences, but their relative importance changes with family size. An increase in peer fertility increases the probability of preferring more children. We further examine the roles of education and wealth as transmission channels between the fertility norms of peers to the fertility preferences of the women and find that education plays an important role in moderating peer influences. These findings can serve as vital inputs in formulating family planning and gender policies.

Keywords

Peer effects Multinomial logit Fertility India Education Wealth status 

JEL Classification

D12 J13 

References

  1. Akerlof, G. (1997). Social distance and social decisions. Econometrica, 65(5), 1005–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Axinn, W., Marin, E. C., & Thornton, A. (1994). Family influences on family size preferences. Demography, 31(1), 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhattacharya, J., & Chakraborty, S. (2012). Fertility choice under child mortality and social norms. Economics Letters, 115(3), 338–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, Y., Jin, G. Z. & Yue, Y. (2010). Peer migration in China. NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper w15671.Google Scholar
  5. Ciliberto, F., Miller, A., Skyt Nielsen, H., & Simonsen, M. (2013). Playing the fertility game at work: An equilibrium model of peer effects. MPRA Paper 45914, University Library of Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
  6. Cochrane, S. H., Kahn, M. A., & Ibrahim, I. (1990). Education, income and desired fertility in Egypt: A revised perspective. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 38(2), 313–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Da Vanzo, J., Peterson, C. E., & Jones, N. R. (2003). How well do desired fertility measures for husbands and wives predict subsequent fertility? Evidence from Malaysia. Asia-Pacific Population Journal, 18(4), 5–24.Google Scholar
  8. Drèze, J., & Murthi, M. (2001). Fertility, education and development: Evidence from India. Population and Development Review, 27(1), 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gaviria, A., & Raphael, S. (2001). School-based peer effects and juvenile behavior. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, 257–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaudin, S. (2011). Son preference in Indian families: Absolute versus relative wealth effects. Demography, 48(1), 343–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hakim, C. (2003). A new approach to explaining fertility patterns: Preference theory. Population and Development Review, 29(3), 349–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hayford, S., & Agadjanian, V. (2012). From desires to behaviour: Moderating factors in a fertility transition. Demographic Research, 26, 511–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Klasen, S., & Launov, A. (2006). Analysis of the determinants of fertility decline in the Czech Republic. Journal of Population Economics, 19, 25–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kodzi, I. A., Johnson, D. R., & Casterline, J. B. (2010). Examining the predictive value of fertility preferences among Ghanian women. Demographic Research, 22(30), 965–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kohler, H.-P., Behrman, J. R., & Watkins, S. C. (2001). The density of social networks and family planning decisions: Evidence from South Nyanza District, Kenya. Demography, 38, 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kravdal, Ø. (2002). Education and fertility in sub-Saharan Africa: Individual and community effects. Demography, 39, 233–250.Google Scholar
  17. Kravdal, Ø. (2003). The problematic estimation of imitation effects in multilevel models. Demographic Research, 9(2), 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krishnan, P. (2002). Cultural norms, social interactions and the fertility transition in India. In Royal economic society annual conference 2002 (Vol. 117). Royal Economic Society.Google Scholar
  19. Kuziemko, I. (2006). Is having babies contagious? Estimating fertility peer effects between siblings. Mimeo, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  20. Lahno, A. M., & Serra-Garcia, M. (2014). Peer effects in risk taking. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 4057.Google Scholar
  21. Lyngstad, T., & Prskawetz, A. (2010). Do siblings’ fertility decisions influence each other? Demography, 47(4), 923–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Manski, C. (1993). Identification of endogeneous social effects: The reflection problem. Review of Economic Studies, 60(3), 531–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Manski, C. (2000). Economic analysis of social interactions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McNicoll, G. (2009). Legacy, policy and circumstance in fertility transition. Population and Development Review, 35(4), 777–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moretti, E. (2011). Social learning and peer effects in consumption: Evidence from movie sales. Review of Economic Studies, 78(1), 356–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Munshi, K., & Myaux, J. (2006). Social norms and the fertility transition. Journal of Development Economics, 80(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Quensnel-Vallée, A., & Morgan, S. P. (2003). Missing the target? Correspondence of fertility intentions and behaviour in the U.S. Population Research and Policy Review, 22(5–6), 497–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roy, T. K., Sinha, R. K., Koening, M., Mohanty, S. K., & Patel, S. (2008). Consistency and predictive ability of fertility preference indicators: Longitudinal evidence from rural India. International family Planning Perspectives, 34(3), 138–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sacerdote, B. (2011). Peer effects in education: How might they work, how big are they and how much do we know thus far? In E. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L. Woessmann (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (Vol. 3, pp. 249–277). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  30. Sathar, Z. A., Lloyd, C. B., Mate, C., & ul Haque, M. (2003). Schooling opportunities for girls as a stimulus for fertility change in rural Pakistan. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 51(3), 677–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith, S., Windmeijer, F., & Wright, E. (2015). Peer effects in charitable giving: Evidence from the (running) field. The Economic Journal, 125, 1053–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zafar, Basit. (2011). An experimental investigation of why individuals conform. European Economic Review, 55(6), 774–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zanin, L., Radice, R., & Marra, G. (2014). Modelling the impact of women’s education on fertility in Malawai. Journal of Population Economics. doi: 10.1007/s00148-013-0502-8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics, Finance and MarketingRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations