Is there still son preference in the United States?

In this paper, we use 2008–2013 American Community Survey data to update and further probe evidence on son preference in the USA. In light of the substantial increase in immigration, we examine this question separately for natives and immigrants. Dahl and Moretti (Review of Economic Studies 75, 1085...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of population economics 2020-07, Vol.33 (3), p.709-750
Hauptverfasser: Blau, Francine D., Kahn, Lawrence M., Brummund, Peter, Cook, Jason, Larson-Koester, Miriam
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 750
container_issue 3
container_start_page 709
container_title Journal of population economics
container_volume 33
creator Blau, Francine D.
Kahn, Lawrence M.
Brummund, Peter
Cook, Jason
Larson-Koester, Miriam
description In this paper, we use 2008–2013 American Community Survey data to update and further probe evidence on son preference in the USA. In light of the substantial increase in immigration, we examine this question separately for natives and immigrants. Dahl and Moretti (Review of Economic Studies 75, 1085-1120, 2008) found earlier evidence consistent with son preference in that having a female first child raised fertility and increased the probability that the family was living without a father. We find that for our more recent period, having a female first child still raises the likelihood of living without a father, but is instead associated with lower fertility, particularly for natives. Thus, by the 2008–2013 period, any apparent son preference in fertility decisions appears to have been outweighed by factors such as cost concerns in raising girls or increased female bargaining power. In contrast, some evidence for son preference in fertility persists among immigrants. Immigrant families that have a female first child have significantly higher fertility and are more likely to be living without a father (though not significantly so). Further, gender inequity in source countries is associated with son preference in fertility among immigrants. For both first- and second-generation immigrants, the impact of a female first-born child on fertility is more pronounced for immigrants from source countries with less gender equity. Finally, we find no evidence of sex selection for the general population of natives and immigrants, suggesting that it does not provide an alternative mechanism to account for the disappearance of a positive fertility effect for natives.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00148-019-00760-7
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2400151063</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>48742217</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>48742217</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-a3e559515c3cdc2be2e1abceefa5bc89c947f66eb3e0950779a2d412ddcb776b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkE1LxDAQhoMouK7-AUEoeJTq5KtpTyLFj4UFD7rn0KZT7bIma5JF_Pdmraw38ZRJ8j4z876EnFK4pADqKgBQUeZAqzxdC8jVHplQwVlOhZL7ZAIV56nm_JAchbAEAF6WYkL4LGTxFT1mIQ6rVRaczdYe-_RiDWaD3f5mCztE7LKn2EQM18fkoG9WAU9-zilZ3N0-1w_5_PF-Vt_McyMkxLzhKGUlqTTcdIa1yJA2rUHsG9masjKVUH1RYMsRKglKVQ3rBGVdZ1qlipZPyfnYd-3d-wZD1Eu38TaN1Ewkw5JCwZOKjSrjXQhpdb32w1vjPzUFvQ1Hj-HoFI7-DkerBJUj9IGt64MZtm53YEpHckpVUaYKaD0k34OztdvYmNCL_6NJzUd1SAr7gv7Xw5_rnY3UMkTnd81FqQRjVPEvHRGQiA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2400151063</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Is there still son preference in the United States?</title><source>Business Source Complete</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Web of Science - Social Sciences Citation Index – 2020&lt;img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" /&gt;</source><creator>Blau, Francine D. ; Kahn, Lawrence M. ; Brummund, Peter ; Cook, Jason ; Larson-Koester, Miriam</creator><creatorcontrib>Blau, Francine D. ; Kahn, Lawrence M. ; Brummund, Peter ; Cook, Jason ; Larson-Koester, Miriam</creatorcontrib><description>In this paper, we use 2008–2013 American Community Survey data to update and further probe evidence on son preference in the USA. In light of the substantial increase in immigration, we examine this question separately for natives and immigrants. Dahl and Moretti (Review of Economic Studies 75, 1085-1120, 2008) found earlier evidence consistent with son preference in that having a female first child raised fertility and increased the probability that the family was living without a father. We find that for our more recent period, having a female first child still raises the likelihood of living without a father, but is instead associated with lower fertility, particularly for natives. Thus, by the 2008–2013 period, any apparent son preference in fertility decisions appears to have been outweighed by factors such as cost concerns in raising girls or increased female bargaining power. In contrast, some evidence for son preference in fertility persists among immigrants. Immigrant families that have a female first child have significantly higher fertility and are more likely to be living without a father (though not significantly so). Further, gender inequity in source countries is associated with son preference in fertility among immigrants. For both first- and second-generation immigrants, the impact of a female first-born child on fertility is more pronounced for immigrants from source countries with less gender equity. Finally, we find no evidence of sex selection for the general population of natives and immigrants, suggesting that it does not provide an alternative mechanism to account for the disappearance of a positive fertility effect for natives.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0933-1433</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1475</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00148-019-00760-7</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Science + Business Media</publisher><subject>Business &amp; Economics ; Child sex preferences ; Children ; Demography ; Disappearance ; Economics ; Economics and Finance ; Females ; Fertility ; Gender ; Immigrants ; Immigration ; Inequality ; Labor Economics ; LEAD ARTICLE ; Noncitizens ; Original Paper ; Population Economics ; Second generation ; Social Policy ; Social Sciences</subject><ispartof>Journal of population economics, 2020-07, Vol.33 (3), p.709-750</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>true</woscitedreferencessubscribed><woscitedreferencescount>33</woscitedreferencescount><woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid>wos000531176800001</woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-a3e559515c3cdc2be2e1abceefa5bc89c947f66eb3e0950779a2d412ddcb776b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-a3e559515c3cdc2be2e1abceefa5bc89c947f66eb3e0950779a2d412ddcb776b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6646-3794</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/48742217$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/48742217$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,804,27929,27930,28254,41493,42562,51324,58022,58255</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Blau, Francine D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kahn, Lawrence M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brummund, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cook, Jason</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Larson-Koester, Miriam</creatorcontrib><title>Is there still son preference in the United States?</title><title>Journal of population economics</title><addtitle>J Popul Econ</addtitle><addtitle>J POPUL ECON</addtitle><description>In this paper, we use 2008–2013 American Community Survey data to update and further probe evidence on son preference in the USA. In light of the substantial increase in immigration, we examine this question separately for natives and immigrants. Dahl and Moretti (Review of Economic Studies 75, 1085-1120, 2008) found earlier evidence consistent with son preference in that having a female first child raised fertility and increased the probability that the family was living without a father. We find that for our more recent period, having a female first child still raises the likelihood of living without a father, but is instead associated with lower fertility, particularly for natives. Thus, by the 2008–2013 period, any apparent son preference in fertility decisions appears to have been outweighed by factors such as cost concerns in raising girls or increased female bargaining power. In contrast, some evidence for son preference in fertility persists among immigrants. Immigrant families that have a female first child have significantly higher fertility and are more likely to be living without a father (though not significantly so). Further, gender inequity in source countries is associated with son preference in fertility among immigrants. For both first- and second-generation immigrants, the impact of a female first-born child on fertility is more pronounced for immigrants from source countries with less gender equity. Finally, we find no evidence of sex selection for the general population of natives and immigrants, suggesting that it does not provide an alternative mechanism to account for the disappearance of a positive fertility effect for natives.</description><subject>Business &amp; Economics</subject><subject>Child sex preferences</subject><subject>Children</subject><subject>Demography</subject><subject>Disappearance</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Economics and Finance</subject><subject>Females</subject><subject>Fertility</subject><subject>Gender</subject><subject>Immigrants</subject><subject>Immigration</subject><subject>Inequality</subject><subject>Labor Economics</subject><subject>LEAD ARTICLE</subject><subject>Noncitizens</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Population Economics</subject><subject>Second generation</subject><subject>Social Policy</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><issn>0933-1433</issn><issn>1432-1475</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ARHDP</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkE1LxDAQhoMouK7-AUEoeJTq5KtpTyLFj4UFD7rn0KZT7bIma5JF_Pdmraw38ZRJ8j4z876EnFK4pADqKgBQUeZAqzxdC8jVHplQwVlOhZL7ZAIV56nm_JAchbAEAF6WYkL4LGTxFT1mIQ6rVRaczdYe-_RiDWaD3f5mCztE7LKn2EQM18fkoG9WAU9-zilZ3N0-1w_5_PF-Vt_McyMkxLzhKGUlqTTcdIa1yJA2rUHsG9masjKVUH1RYMsRKglKVQ3rBGVdZ1qlipZPyfnYd-3d-wZD1Eu38TaN1Ewkw5JCwZOKjSrjXQhpdb32w1vjPzUFvQ1Hj-HoFI7-DkerBJUj9IGt64MZtm53YEpHckpVUaYKaD0k34OztdvYmNCL_6NJzUd1SAr7gv7Xw5_rnY3UMkTnd81FqQRjVPEvHRGQiA</recordid><startdate>20200701</startdate><enddate>20200701</enddate><creator>Blau, Francine D.</creator><creator>Kahn, Lawrence M.</creator><creator>Brummund, Peter</creator><creator>Cook, Jason</creator><creator>Larson-Koester, Miriam</creator><general>Springer Science + Business Media</general><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>17B</scope><scope>ARHDP</scope><scope>BLEPL</scope><scope>DVR</scope><scope>EGQ</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88F</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1Q</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6646-3794</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200701</creationdate><title>Is there still son preference in the United States?</title><author>Blau, Francine D. ; Kahn, Lawrence M. ; Brummund, Peter ; Cook, Jason ; Larson-Koester, Miriam</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-a3e559515c3cdc2be2e1abceefa5bc89c947f66eb3e0950779a2d412ddcb776b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Business &amp; Economics</topic><topic>Child sex preferences</topic><topic>Children</topic><topic>Demography</topic><topic>Disappearance</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Economics and Finance</topic><topic>Females</topic><topic>Fertility</topic><topic>Gender</topic><topic>Immigrants</topic><topic>Immigration</topic><topic>Inequality</topic><topic>Labor Economics</topic><topic>LEAD ARTICLE</topic><topic>Noncitizens</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Population Economics</topic><topic>Second generation</topic><topic>Social Policy</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Blau, Francine D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kahn, Lawrence M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brummund, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cook, Jason</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Larson-Koester, Miriam</creatorcontrib><collection>Web of Knowledge</collection><collection>Web of Science - Social Sciences Citation Index – 2020</collection><collection>Web of Science Core Collection</collection><collection>Social Sciences Citation Index</collection><collection>Web of Science Primary (SCIE, SSCI &amp; AHCI)</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Military Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Proquest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Military Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of population economics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Blau, Francine D.</au><au>Kahn, Lawrence M.</au><au>Brummund, Peter</au><au>Cook, Jason</au><au>Larson-Koester, Miriam</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Is there still son preference in the United States?</atitle><jtitle>Journal of population economics</jtitle><stitle>J Popul Econ</stitle><stitle>J POPUL ECON</stitle><date>2020-07-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>709</spage><epage>750</epage><pages>709-750</pages><issn>0933-1433</issn><eissn>1432-1475</eissn><abstract>In this paper, we use 2008–2013 American Community Survey data to update and further probe evidence on son preference in the USA. In light of the substantial increase in immigration, we examine this question separately for natives and immigrants. Dahl and Moretti (Review of Economic Studies 75, 1085-1120, 2008) found earlier evidence consistent with son preference in that having a female first child raised fertility and increased the probability that the family was living without a father. We find that for our more recent period, having a female first child still raises the likelihood of living without a father, but is instead associated with lower fertility, particularly for natives. Thus, by the 2008–2013 period, any apparent son preference in fertility decisions appears to have been outweighed by factors such as cost concerns in raising girls or increased female bargaining power. In contrast, some evidence for son preference in fertility persists among immigrants. Immigrant families that have a female first child have significantly higher fertility and are more likely to be living without a father (though not significantly so). Further, gender inequity in source countries is associated with son preference in fertility among immigrants. For both first- and second-generation immigrants, the impact of a female first-born child on fertility is more pronounced for immigrants from source countries with less gender equity. Finally, we find no evidence of sex selection for the general population of natives and immigrants, suggesting that it does not provide an alternative mechanism to account for the disappearance of a positive fertility effect for natives.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Science + Business Media</pub><doi>10.1007/s00148-019-00760-7</doi><tpages>42</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6646-3794</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0933-1433
ispartof Journal of population economics, 2020-07, Vol.33 (3), p.709-750
issn 0933-1433
1432-1475
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2400151063
source Business Source Complete; SpringerNature Journals; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Web of Science - Social Sciences Citation Index – 2020<img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" />
subjects Business & Economics
Child sex preferences
Children
Demography
Disappearance
Economics
Economics and Finance
Females
Fertility
Gender
Immigrants
Immigration
Inequality
Labor Economics
LEAD ARTICLE
Noncitizens
Original Paper
Population Economics
Second generation
Social Policy
Social Sciences
title Is there still son preference in the United States?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-14T21%3A52%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Is%20there%20still%20son%20preference%20in%20the%20United%20States?&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20population%20economics&rft.au=Blau,%20Francine%20D.&rft.date=2020-07-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=709&rft.epage=750&rft.pages=709-750&rft.issn=0933-1433&rft.eissn=1432-1475&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00148-019-00760-7&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E48742217%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2400151063&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=48742217&rfr_iscdi=true