Abstract
Background
Bangladesh is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. This large population predominantly affects the socioeconomic development of the people living in this country. Therefore, it is essential to identify the determinants of household size in the country and suggest implications for future interventions in similar contexts.
Objectives
The primary purpose of the present study was to explore the distribution of household size and its determinants based on the nationally representative Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS) data.
Material and Methods
The data were extracted from BDHS 2017–2018, a national survey. Individual responses from the adult women of each household were considered in this nationwide survey. We applied univariate and bivariate analyses (chi-squared test) to explore the distribution of household size and different selected determinants. The multinomial logistic regression was utilized to identify the association between household size and the selected independent determinants in our study.
Results
Findings of our multinomial logistic regression analysis showed that sex of the household head, division, decision about health, respondent’s age, residence, respondent’s education, husband’s education, wealth index, religion, husband’s occupation, and respondent’s working status were significantly associated with the household size (P ≤ 0.05). We observed that household size tended to be more prominent in rural areas, in the Sylhet division, in families where the head of the household was a male, and in families where others except the respondents and their husbands made health-related decisions. Besides, large household size was also common among respondents aged 25 years or less, respondents and their husbands with higher education, respondents from the rich and middle class, respondents who were Muslim, respondents whose husbands were businessmen and jobholders, and respondents who were workers.
Conclusions
The findings of our study suggest that household size in Bangladesh is associated with different socioeconomic factors. We recommend promoting awareness programs on family planning promotion and early marriage prevention, especially in rural areas, to prevent the rapid growth of the population. Expansion of education for both men and women and female involvement in income-generating activities should be encouraged to effectively control the household size in Bangladesh.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The household composition has a significant influence on the lives of individuals [1]. It is often determined by as well as determines socioeconomic status, cultural system, religious affiliation, biological and psychological consequences, knowledge of family planning, government policies, and political factors [2,3,4]. Therefore, it becomes essential to identify what determines the size of a household as it affects different sociocultural, political, economic, demographic, and health issues, particularly in a developing country such as Bangladesh.
Bangladesh is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. However, Bangladesh has experienced a decreasing trend in total fertility rate (TFR), and the average size of households has decreased from 4.90 (2001) to 4.06 in 2016 [5]. The household size in Bangladesh is highly influenced by religious beliefs, availability of contraceptives, son preference, extended family, grandparents’ pressure, the continuation of the next generation, security in old age, physical protection, family labor, rural power structure, awareness, and so on. On the other hand, different factors including empowerment of women, family planning program, awareness development, economic hardship, and late marriage have also contributed to the smaller household size. In addition, the government’s slogan, either boy or girl, and two children reflect the institutional endeavor to limit family size in Bangladesh.
Theories about fertility behavior emphasize how structural changes in society lead to changes in birth rates and highlight changes in family size preferences [6]. The neoclassical economic model of fertility behavior, suggested by Becker (1960) and Lewis (1973), had developed a framework in which the demand for children could be treated as durable goods (see [7]). The determinants of fertility work through the demand for children, the potential output of children, and the costs of fertility regulation [8]. Scholars have noted the impacts of income [9], occupation [10], religious affiliations [11], ethnic group [12], parental influence [13], and sex preference [14] on rising family size. Parents consider the costs of having children against the expected economic, social, and psychological outcomes. Wealthy and higher educated people desire to have optimum fertility, while poor, uneducated people have virtually uncontrolled fertility. Parents of rural families desire to have more children as they could provide labor in the rural agricultural sector and also serve as insurance in old age [15].
Women’s reproductive behavior in a given community can be affected by age at entry to marriage, access to family planning, economic status, and cultural and traditional norms in which the woman lives [16]. In 1945, Notestein [17] observed how religious doctrine encourages high fertility, and the power of values and customs could limit the influence of economic development on fertility. Regardless of the indicator used, studies have shown that the desired family size is negatively associated with economic status; couples with a low position desire to have more children than those with a higher position [18]. A substantial amount of empirical literature demonstrates that there is a strong negative correlation between educational level and fertility preferences and behavior.
The existing literature suggests a declining trend in the Bangladeshi population, and a number of influencing factors play a significant role. The number of earning persons, housing type, number of rooms, and persons living in the leading dwelling houses influence family size determination [19]. Parents expect large families because children are highly valued for their contribution to food production and household activities [20]. Similarly, residence, religious affiliation, wealth index, age, education, experiencing child death, and empowerment indicators are significantly associated with mothers’ desired number of children [21]. The discontinuation of contraceptive methods may lead to unplanned pregnancies and unwanted births in Bangladesh [22]. However, to the best of our knowledge, there have been no studies on what determines household size in Bangladesh in recent times, although such research is very important. Therefore, our study aimed to identify the distribution and determinants of household size using the latest nationally representative Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS) data. The findings of this study will benefit researchers in formulating and improvising strategic policy interventions to meet the sustainable development goals (SDGs).
2 Materials and Methods
2.1 Data source
The analysis of this study was performed using a nationally representative survey, the 2017–2018 BDHS data. National Institute of Population Research and Training of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare managed the dataset, and the survey was carried out by a Bangladeshi Research Institute named Mitra and Associates. The United States Agency provided necessary financial support for conducting this survey for International Development. We used an enumeration area with a mean of about 120 households as a primary sampling unit [23].
A two-stage stratified sampling procedure was applied during the survey period to select the respondents. We chose this particular apparatus because samples were stratified by geographical region and by urban or rural areas within each region. Initially, the smallest administrative units were labeled as enumeration areas (EAs) or clusters and selected with probability proportional to their size. Later, households were selected from each EA. We used a weighted sample of 18,891 individual women who had given birth to at least one living child in the 5-year period prior to the study.
2.2 Outcome Variable
The dependent variable for this study was household size. We categorized this variable into three types i.e., small, medium, and large.
2.3 Explanatory Determinants
In this study, we considered the following determinants as the independent determinants: sex of household head (male, female), division (Barisal, Chittagong, Dhaka, Khulna, Mymensingh, Rajshahi, Rangpur, Sylhet), a decision about health (respondent and husband, others), respondent’s age (≤ 25 or > 25 years), residence (rural, urban), respondent’s education (higher education, secondary, primary, no education), husband’s education (higher education, secondary, primary, no education), wealth index (rich, middle, poor), media access (yes, no), religion (others, Islam), husband’s occupation (businessman and jobholder, agricultural, labor and others, unemployed) and respondent’s working status (yes, no).
2.4 Statistical Analysis
We calculated descriptive statistics of selected determinants and identified the frequencies first. We employed the chi-squared test for bivariate analysis to determine the significantly associated factors with the exposure variable. The average annual rate of increase (AARI) [24, 25] was utilized to observe the household size increasing rate per year. We further applied multinomial logistic regression for this research. This model is used for identifying the relationship between independent determinants and a categorical dependent variable. It also calculates the probability of occurrence of an event by a logistic curve of fitted data. As we categorized our outcome variable into three types, multinomial logistic regression was selected to determine the factors controlling the outcome.
Logistic regression produces the coefficients, including its standard errors and level of significance. The coefficients of a formula for predicting a logistic transformation of the probability of the existence of the characteristic of interest:
where p is the probability of the existence of the attribute of interest, the logistic transformation can also be defined as the logged odds:
Alternatively,
The prime distinction of logistic regression is in estimation, which maximizes the likelihood of observing the sample values [26, 27] whereas ordinary regression minimizes the sum of squared errors.
3 Results
Table 1 shows the frequency and percentages of different selected determinants regarding household size in Bangladesh.
The results of the chi-squared test in Table 2 showed that division, sex of household head, the decision about health, residence, respondent’s education, husband’s education, wealth index, husband’s occupation, respondent’s working status, and respondent’s age are associated with the exposure variable household size (P < 0.05).
Table 3 shows the AARI in the household size in Bangladesh from 2007 to 2017. For the large household size, the AARI in the Barisal division was lowest (− 10.4%), indicating a decrease in household sizes. Male-headed households reported the lowest AARI for larger households (− 3.1%). The AARI for large household sizes was highest if decisions about health were made by the respondent or her husband (0.8%). Similarly, the AARI of urban residence people reported the lowest value for larger households (− 7.7%). Higher educated respondents reported higher AARI for large households, while husbands with no education reported the lowest AARI (− 8.6%) for the bigger households. Also, the AARI was lowest for rich people (− 4.7%), representing a large household size decrease. Households with no media access had the lowest AARI (− 3.1%), meaning a decrease in the size of large households. Unemployed husbands reported the lowest AARI (− 6.7%), representing a decrease in large household size, and other religions had the lowest AARI (− 4.0%) than respondents whose religion is Islam. The AARI for larger household sizes reported the highest value (2.9%) for working women, while respondents over 25 years had the lowest AARI (− 3.9%), representing a decrease in household size. On the other hand, respondents from the Dhaka division showed a higher AARI for medium household size (2.1%). Male- and female-headed households had the same AARI (0.7%) for medium household size in 2007 to 2017. The AARI for medium household size was 3.4% if the respondent or her husband made the decision. Respondents living in rural areas had a higher AARI (2.1%) for medium household size and higher educated respondents, and primary educated husbands had higher AARI, which was 5.0% and 2.9%, respectively, for medium households from 2007 to 2017. Respondents whose wealth index was categorized as poor had an AARI of 1.5% for medium households, and respondents who had media access had a 0.9% AARI for medium households. Muslim respondents had a higher AARI (0.8%) for medium household size compared to non-Muslims. The AARI was higher when the husband’s occupational background was agriculture, labor, and others; that is 1.1% for medium households. The average annual rate for medium household size reported the highest value (5.3%) for working women, while respondents aged older than 25 years had the highest AARI for medium households (1.4%) (see Table 4).
Multinomial logistic regression analysis showed that respondents with a male household head had a 2.730 (2.463, 3.026) times higher likelihood of a medium household size than the smaller ones. Similarly, respondents with a male household head had a 4.003 (3.478, 4.606) times higher chance of a large household size compared to the smaller ones. The probability of medium household size compared to smaller ones was smaller for all divisions compared to Sylhet. However, the P-value for Barisal and Chittagong division was not significant for medium household sizes. The probability of medium household size compared to the smaller ones was 0.776 (0.695, 0.844) times lower when the decision about health care services was taken by either the respondent or her husband instead of others in the household. Similarly, the probability of larger household size compared to smaller ones was 0.567 (0.508, 0.632) times lower when the decision about health was taken by either the respondent or her husband rather than the others.
There was a 0.567 (0.519, 0.620) times lower likelihood of medium household size compared to the smaller ones when the respondent’s age was ≤ 25 years. However, the possibility was 1.151 (1.039, 1.275) times higher in large household sizes compared to the smaller ones for the same determinant. The probability of a medium household size compared to the smaller ones in the rural area was 1.332 (1.212, 1.464) times higher than the households in an urban area (P < 0.01). When compared between small households and the large ones, we found that the probability of large household sizes compared to smaller ones in the rural area was 1.919 (1.712, 2.153) times higher than the households in an urban area (P < 0.01). When the respondent’s husband was either a businessman or a job holder, there was 1.505 (1.161, 1.953) times more likelihood of medium household size compared to the smaller ones, while there was 1.356 (1.000, 1.838) times more chance of larger households compared to the smaller ones for the same determinant. The rich people were 0.782 (0.698, 0.877) times less likely to have medium household sizes compared to smaller ones. However, the rich and middle classes were 1.328 (1.159, 1.522) times and 1.234 (1.078, 1.413) times more likely to have larger households, respectively, compared to the poor. The probability of a large household size was 0.796 (0.721, 0.879) times when the respondent was working.
The overall effectiveness of the model was assessed using the chi-squared test. The chi-squared value of 2061.343 and its respective P-value of 0.000 was less than 0.05 (see Table 5). This indicated a significant relationship between the dependent variable and the set of independent determinants in the final model.
4 Discussion
This study aimed to identify the determinants of household size based on data extracted from the BDHS 2017–2018. AARI for household size revealed that the larger household size has decreased during the last decade, but the TFR is still not up to the expected level [23]. The findings of our multinomial logistic regression showed that sex of the household head, division, decision about health, respondent’s age, residence, respondent’s education, husband’s education, wealth index, religion, husband’s occupation, and respondent’s working status were the significant determinants affecting household size in Bangladesh. We found that male-headed households tended to be larger compared to female-headed ones. This finding was consistent with a couple of previous studies from Ethiopia and Egypt [28, 29]. This might be due to the fact that men are often less interested in family planning and care less about the family size, which helps the household size grow bigger. These findings call for an emphasis on propagating awareness programs about family planning methods, particularly among males, to keep the household size smaller in Bangladesh. Dibaba and Mitike [28] also pointed out that women prefer smaller family sizes when maternal education and knowledge of family planning is higher.
Our results indicate that geographic factors influenced the household size considerably in Bangladesh. We found that all of the divisions had a smaller household size compared to Sylhet. This might be due to the fact that family planning programs have been less demonstrated in Sylhet compared to other divisions in the past [30]. Besides, the per-capita income in Sylhet is higher than that in many other areas of the country, and the finding of our study showed that larger household size is common among the wealthy class. This finding raises concerns for an area-specific family planning program focusing on the Sylhet division to reduce the population in this region. There may be additional determinants influencing the distribution of larger households in certain divisions compared to the others, and further research is required to understand those determinants as it is beyond the objective of the present study. Moreover, our study also suggests that household size was significantly influenced by who makes the decision when it comes to health issues. When respondents and their husbands made decisions regarding health themselves, the households tended to be smaller. This indicates the advantages of greater self-control about health-related choices to control the family size positively.
We found the respondent’s age to be a significant predictor of household size, which corresponds with previous studies [19, 31]. Respondents in the younger age group were more prone to having large households compared to their counterparts. The plausible explanation for this finding lies in the biological fact that age is associated with fertility in reproduction function, particularly in women [32]. Besides, the age composition of husband and wife influences the maturity of choice to form a family size. Notably, the influence of age is more prevalent among the wives [33].
Household size further varied based on residence in our study. This finding is in line with a study that indicated a similar proposition [34]. As we observed that household size tends to be larger in rural areas, the plausible explanation for this might be the reason that people living in the countryside lack education and have limited access to different types of services such as mass media [30]. Consequently, rural people have little knowledge about contraceptive use, resulting in increased household size [19]. This finding calls for greater attention to elevate awareness in rural areas and ensure the availability of access to mass media for the promotion of family planning programs. However, Ali [35] did not find any variation in household size based on their location. This may be because of the obsolescence of the study, and there have been tremendous changes in the society and culture of Bangladesh since the survey was conducted.
The results of the present study revealed that respondents with higher education were more likely to have a large household size, which is inconsistent with Pandey et al. [36], who noted that a woman’s fertility is negatively related to the level of education. One possible reason might be due to the fact that higher education for women, in general, is associated with a higher probability of involvement in income-generating activities. As a result, to look after their offspring, they need the assistance of their parents or parents-in-law, which positively influences the household size. Similarly, we found that husbands with primary and higher education were more prone to have larger household sizes compared to husbands with no education. However, this finding was inconsistent with a recent study by Laksono & Wulandari [31], who noted that husbands who have primary education have a higher possibility than husbands with no education to have a family size ≤ 4. This indicates the fact that education influences the understanding of the couple in planning the future of the family. Furthermore, children born in smaller families can often obtain better education [37, 38]. The availability of family-owned resources allocated to a smaller number of family members can be linked to this circumstance [39, 40].
Religion was significantly associated with household size in our study, which matches with some existing literature [41, 42]. We found that non-Muslim respondents were less likely to have larger households compared to their Muslim counterparts. This might be because of the ever-present debate over using family planning methods among Muslims in Bangladesh. Zito and Constantine [33] also noted that intense religiosity is associated with larger family sizes. We found a significant role of wealth in determining household size, which corresponds with Begum [19]. Respondents from the rich and middle class had a higher probability of larger household sizes in this study. This might be due to the perception that they have enough assets to support more children, consequently continuing to expand the family size.
A husband’s occupation was found to be a significant determinant of household size in our study, which corresponds with Pandey et al. [36]. The possibility of a larger household size was higher when respondent’s husband was either a businessman or a job holder than others. However, Adamchak and Mbizvo [43] did not find any such link in their study. We also noted that working respondents were more likely to have smaller households. This is because working women tend to be more aware of the limited time available to care for children, so they prefer a smaller family. However, this finding contradicts the study of Adamchak and Mbizvo [43], who reported that unemployed women had significantly fewer children than women working in agriculture. Laksono and Wulandari [31] and Pandey et al. [36] reported a similar finding from their study in Indonesia and India, respectively [31].
4.1 Strengths and Limitations
The main strength of this study is that we used the nationally representative data extracted from the latest Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 2017–2018. The large number of random data used for this research makes the study more generalized, valid, and reliable. We examined the determinants of household size from the dimensions that are less mentioned in previous studies. Besides, we used random sampling methods and multinomial logistic regression to increase the validity and reliability of our results. The findings are largely consistent with most of the previously existing literature, with a few contrasts. We suggested some important policy implications based on our findings from the recent BDHS dataset representing different society segments.
While the present study has specific strengths, we acknowledge the limitations of our study. We focused on a set of specific determinants determining household size for our analysis. This study did not include age at marriage [35, 44], sex preference, child mortality [34], entertainment, family culture background, biological factors [44], technological factors [45], mothers’ health and psychological factors [28], contraceptives using [46], and income [35], as mentioned in other studies. Additionally, the present study is quantitative in nature, and the data were collected from a secondary source, making it difficult to triangulate.
5 Conclusion
The study of what determines household size is essential in the context of Bangladesh. After analyzing the recent nationally representative BDHS data, we found that sex of the household head, division, decision about health, respondent’s age, residence, respondent’s education, husband’s education, wealth index, religion, husband’s occupation, and respondent’s working status were the important determinants affecting household size in Bangladesh. However, to our surprise, we did not find any significant link between access to media and household size in our study. Based on our analysis, we recommend that involving women in decision-making processes such as family planning, especially in rural areas, can be helpful controlling the family size. Besides, promotion of education for women as well as female involvement in income-generating activities should be encouraged to create awareness and women empowerment, which can help control the population. We suggest further qualitative research for triangulation and quantitative analysis, including additional determinants to understand this topic comprehensively.
Availability of Data and Material
The numerical data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Abbreviations
- BDHS:
-
Bangladesh demographic and health survey
- DHS:
-
Demographic and Health Survey
- OR:
-
Odds ratio
- CI:
-
Confidence interval
- ref:
-
Reference group
References
Johnson RD, Griffiths LJ, Hollinghurst JP, Akbari A, Lee A, Thompson DA, et al. Deriving household composition using population-scale electronic health record data—a reproducible methodology. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(3): e0248195.
Marmot M. Health equity in England: the Marmot review 10 years on. BMJ. 2020; p. 368.
Endo A, Uchida M, Kucharski AJ, Funk S. Fine-scale family structure shapes influenza transmission risk in households: Insights from primary schools in Matsumoto city, 2014/15. PLoS Comput Biol. 2019;15(12): e1007589.
Dodd P, Ferguson N. Approximate disease dynamics in household-structured populations. J R Soc Interface. 2007;4(17):1103–6.
Chakma J. Family size getting smaller 2017. http://m.theindependentbd.com/printversion/details/120957. Accessed 2022
Easterlin RA, Crimmins EM. The fertility revolution: a supply-demand analysis. University of Chicago Press; 1985.
Macunovich DJ. Fertility and the Easterlin hypothesis: an assessment of the literature. J Popul Econ. 1998;11(1):53–111.
Easterlin RA. An economic framework for fertility analysis. Stud Fam Plann. 1975;6(3):54–63.
Yidana A, Ziblim SD, Azongo TB, Abass YI. Socio-cultural determinants of contraceptives use among adolescents in northern Ghana. Public Health Res.2015;5(4):83–9.
Li H, Sun X, Miller E, Wang Q, Tao P, Liu L, et al. BMI, reproductive factors, and breast cancer molecular subtypes: a case-control study and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol. 2017;27(4):143–51.
Adesola AF. Determinants of family planning among married people in Lagos-State. Arab J Bus Manag Rev (OMAN Chapter). 2012;2(5):70–5.
Moore S. Sociology Alive!: Nelson Thornes; 2001.
Murphy M, Knudsen LB. The intergenerational transmission of fertility in contemporary Denmark: The effects of number of siblings (full and half), birth order, and whether male or female. Popul Stud. 2002;56(3):235–48.
Malhi P, Raina MG, Malhotra MD, Jerath JM. Preferences for the sex of children and its implications for reproductive behaviour in urban Himachal Pradesh. J Family Welf. 1999;45(1):23–30.
Caldwell JC. On net intergenerational wealth flows: an update. Popul Dev Rev. 2005;31(4):721–40.
Amente T, Tesfaye T, Addise M. Contraceptive use and family size preferences among married women of reproductive Age in Jimma Arjo District of Eastern Wellega Zone in Oromia, Ethiopia. J Community Public Health Nurs. 2017;3(3):179–87.
Notestein F. Population—The Long View. In: Schultz TW (ed) Food for the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1945. pp. 36–41.
Hyatt D, Milne W. Determinants of fertility in urban and rural Kenya: estimates and a simulation of the impact of education policy. Environ Plan A. 1993;25(3):371–82.
Begum M. Factors affecting family size in rural Bangladesh. Bangl Med Res Counc Bull. 2004;30(3):115–24.
Kabir M, Amin R, Ahmed AU, Chowdhury J. Factors affecting desired family size in Bangladesh. J Biosoc Sci. 1994;26(3):369–75.
Akram R, Sarker AR, Sheikh N, Ali N, Mozumder M, Sultana M. Factors associated with unmet fertility desire and perceptions of ideal family size among women in Bangladesh: Insights from a nationwide Demographic and Health Survey. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(5):e0233634.
Mahumud RA, Hossain MG, Sarker AR, Islam MN, Hossain MR, Saw A, et al. Prevalence and associated factors of contraceptive discontinuation and switching among Bangladeshi married women of reproductive age. Open Access J Contracept. 2015;6:13.
National Institute of Population Research and Training, ICF. Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 2017–18: key Indicators. Dhaka: NIPORT, and ICF; 2019.
Setu SP, Islam M, Halim S, Bin F. Individual and community-level determinants of institutional delivery services among women in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study. Int J Clin Pract. 2022;2022:13, Article ID 3340578. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3340578.
UNICEF. How to calculate average annual rate of reduction (AARR) of underweight prevalence. Statistics and Monitoring Section/Division of Policy and Practice Technical Note. New York, USA: UNICEF. 2007.
Cramer JS. The Origins of Logistic Regression (Technical Report). 119. Tinbergen Institute; 2002. pp. 167–178.
Kwak C, Clayton-Matthews A. Multinomial logistic regression. Nurs Res. 2002;51(6):404–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-200211000-00009. (Epub 2002/12/05. PubMed PMID: 12464761).
Dibaba M. Factors influencing desired family size among residents of Assela town. J Women’s Health Care. 2016. https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-0420.1000342.
Harbour C. Normative influence and desired family size among young people in rural Egypt. Stud Fam Plann. 2011;42(2):107–16.
Kabir A, Ali R, Islam MS, Kawsar LA, Islam MA. A comparison of regional variations of fertility in Bangladesh. Int Q Community Health Educ. 2009;29(3):275–91. https://doi.org/10.2190/IQ.29.3.f.
Laksono AD, Wulandari RD. The factors correlate to family size in Indonesia. Aspirasi Jurnal Masalah-masalah Sosial. 2021;12(1):1–13.
Smuseneto A, Musor ME. Determinants of desire for having children among generation Y Thai Muslims in Thailand. Inte J Relig Spirit Soc. 2020;11(1):171.
Zito RC, De Coster S. Family structure, maternal dating, and sexual debut: extending the conceptualization of instability. J Youth Aadolescence. 2016;45:1003–1019.
Khan HTA, Raeside R. Factors affecting the most recent fertility rates in urban-rural Bangladesh. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(3):279–89.
Ali SM. Determinants of family size preference in Bangladesh. Pak Dev Rev. 1989;28(3):207–32.
Pandey S, Kannubhai TH, Rawat CM, Jha SK, Awasthi S. Socio-demographic factors influencing family size among rural population of district Nainital, Uttarakhand. Indian J Community Health. 2012;24(4):291–6.
Weng Q, Gao X, He H, Li S. Family size, birth order and educational attainment: Evidence from China. China Econ Rev. 2019;57: 101346.
Chen Q. Relaxed population policy, family size and parental investments in children’s education in rural Northwestern China. Int J Educ Dev. 2017;54:39–50.
Shen Y. The effect of family size on children's education: evidence from the fertility control policy in China. Front Econ China. 2017;12(1):37–65.
Liang Y, Gibson J. Do siblings take your food away? Using China’s One-Child Policy to test for child quantity-quality trade-offs. China Econ Rev. 2018;48:14–26.
Uddin MI, Bhuyan KC, Islam SS. Determinants of desired family size and children ever born in Bangladesh. J Family Welf. 2011;57(2):39–47.
James G, Isiugo-Abanihe U. Adolescents’ reproductive motivations and family size preferences in North-Western Nigeria. Asian J Med Sci. 2010;2(5):218–26.
Adamchak DJ, Mbizvo MT. The impact of husband’s and wife’s education and occupation on family size in Zimbabwe. J Biosoc Sci. 1994;26(4):553–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021932000021672. (Epub 1994/10/01. PubMed PMID: 7983105).
Uddin ME, Habib TZ, Akhter MS. Socio-cultural factors affecting family size between Muslim and Santal Communities in rural Bangladesh. Antrocom Online J Anthropol. 2012;8(2):395–410.
Blake J. Family size and achie. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1980.
Zajonc RB. Family Configuration and Intelligence: variations in scholastic aptitude scores parallel trends in family size and the spacing of children. Science. 1976;192(4236):227–36.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the DHS program for providing access to the data set we used to complete this study.
Funding
The authors did not receive any funds for this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
MAI has come up with the concept, design, analysis, manuscript writing, primary editing, and supervision of the work; MSM was responsible for manuscript writing. SD was responsible for editing and manuscript writing, and SRR was responsible for the concept, manuscript writing, editing, and revision.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate
Not applicable.
Consent for Publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Islam, M.A., Mahmud, M.S., Das, S. et al. Socioeconomic Determinants of Household Size in Bangladesh: Evidence from the Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey Data. Dr. Sulaiman Al Habib Med J 5, 10–22 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44229-022-00025-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44229-022-00025-8