IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/bejeap/v20y2020i3p39n4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hi-tech Sexism? Evidence from Bangladesh

Author

Listed:
  • Hoque Nazmul

    (Department of Economics, East West University, Dhaka, Bangladesh)

  • Boulier Bryan L.

    (Department of Economics, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA)

Abstract

With the advent of modern technology for fetal sex determination, selective abortion is found to be responsible for a significant number of “missing women” in countries like China and India. Using a competing risk hazard model, we investigate whether son preference translates into selective abortion and accounts for any of the “missing women” in Bangladesh. Data suggest that son preference leads to shorter birth intervals if previous births are girls. For example, if the first birth is a girl, the odds of having another child each quarter is about 15% higher and the birth interval is about 2 months shorter for more educated urban women in recent years (1990–2011). However, there is no evidence that selective abortion contributes to missing women in Bangladesh.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoque Nazmul & Boulier Bryan L., 2020. "Hi-tech Sexism? Evidence from Bangladesh," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 20(3), pages 1-39, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:bejeap:v:20:y:2020:i:3:p:39:n:4
    DOI: 10.1515/bejeap-2019-0269
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2019-0269
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/bejeap-2019-0269?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Javed, Rashid & Mughal, Mazhar, 2020. "Preference for boys and length of birth intervals in Pakistan," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 140-152.
    2. Monica Das Gupta & Jiang Zhenghua & Li Bohua & Xie Zhenming & Woojin Chung & Bae Hwa-Ok, 2003. "Why is Son preference so persistent in East and South Asia? a cross-country study of China, India and the Republic of Korea," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 153-187.
    3. Gipson, J.D. & Hindin, M.J., 2008. ""Having another child would be a life or death situation for her": Understanding pregnancy termination among couples in rural Bangladesh," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 98(10), pages 1827-1832.
    4. Lambert, Sylvie & Rossi, Pauline, 2016. "Sons as widowhood insurance: Evidence from Senegal," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 113-127.
    5. John Bongaarts & Christophe Z. Guilmoto, 2015. "How Many More Missing Women? Excess Female Mortality and Prenatal Sex Selection, 1970–2050," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 41(2), pages 241-269, June.
    6. Lixing Li & Xiaoyu Wu, 2011. "Gender of Children, Bargaining Power, and Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in China," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 46(2), pages 295-316.
    7. Jenkins, Stephen P, 1995. "Easy Estimation Methods for Discrete-Time Duration Models," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 57(1), pages 129-138, February.
    8. Quanbao Jiang & Ying Li & Jesús Sánchez-Barricarte, 2016. "Fertility Intention, Son Preference, and Second Childbirth: Survey Findings from Shaanxi Province of China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 125(3), pages 935-953, February.
    9. Avinash Kishore & Dean Spears, 2014. "Having a Son Promotes Clean Cooking Fuel Use in Urban India: Women's Status and Son Preference," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 62(4), pages 673-699.
    10. Stephan Klasen & Claudia Wink, 2003. ""Missing Women": Revisiting The Debate," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2-3), pages 263-299.
    11. Mizanur Rahman & Julie DaVanzo, 1993. "Gender preference and birth spacing in matlab, Bangladesh," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 30(3), pages 315-332, August.
    12. Naila Kabeer & Lopita Huq & Simeen Mahmud, 2014. "Diverging Stories of “Missing Women” in South Asia: Is Son Preference Weakening in Bangladesh?," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(4), pages 138-163, October.
    13. Andrea den Boer & Valerie Hudson, 2017. "Patrilineality, Son Preference, and Sex Selection in South Korea and Vietnam," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 43(1), pages 119-147, March.
    14. Zimmermann, Laura V, 2012. "It's a Boy! Women and Non-Monetary Benefits from a Son in India," IZA Discussion Papers 6847, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Woojin Chung & Monica Das Gupta, 2007. "The Decline of Son Preference in South Korea: The Roles of Development and Public Policy," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 33(4), pages 757-783, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Asadullah, M. Niaz & Mansoor, Nazia & Randazzo, Teresa & Wahhaj, Zaki, 2021. "Is son preference disappearing from Bangladesh?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    2. Ebert, Cara & Vollmer, Sebastian, 2022. "Girls unwanted – The role of parents’ child-specific sex preference for children’s early mental development," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    3. Sara Tafuro, 2020. "An Economic Framework for Persisting Son Preference: Rethinking the Role of Intergenerational Support," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 39(6), pages 983-1007, December.
    4. Rashid Javed & Mazhar Mughal, 2022. "Changing patterns of son preference and fertility in Pakistan," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(6), pages 1086-1109, August.
    5. Ashwini Deshpande & Apoorva Gupta, 2019. "Nakusha? Son Preference, Resource Concentration and Gender Gaps in Education," Working Papers 13, Ashoka University, Department of Economics.
    6. Ashwini Deshpande & Apoorva Gupta, 2019. "Nakusha? Son Preference, Resource Concentration and Gender Gaps in Education," Working Papers 1020, Ashoka University, Department of Economics.
    7. Goli, Srinivas & Arora, Somya & Jain, Neha & Shekher, T V, 2022. "Patrilocality and Child Sex Ratios in India," MPRA Paper 111905, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Neha Jain, 2022. "Patrilocality and Child Sex Ratios in India," Working Papers 2265, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade.
    9. Heath, Rachel & Tan, Xu, 2018. "Worth fighting for: Daughters improve their mothers' autonomy in South Asia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 255-271.
    10. Yigit Aydede & Marie-Claire Robitaille, 2022. "Speeding Up for a Son Among Immigrants in Canada," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(5), pages 2233-2265, October.
    11. Rossi, Pauline & Rouanet, Léa, 2015. "Gender Preferences in Africa: A Comparative Analysis of Fertility Choices," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 326-345.
    12. Giyeon Seo & Tanya Koropeckyj‐Cox & Sanghag Kim, 2022. "Correlates of Contemporary Gender Preference for Children in South Korea," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 48(1), pages 161-188, March.
    13. Valentine Becquet & Nicolás Sacco & Ignacio Pardo, 2022. "Disparities in Gender Preference and Fertility: Southeast Asia and Latin America in a Comparative Perspective," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(3), pages 1295-1323, June.
    14. Keera Allendorf, 2020. "Another Gendered Demographic Dividend: Adjusting to a Future without Sons," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 46(3), pages 471-499, September.
    15. Ana Ferrer & Alicia Adsera, 2016. "Speeding up for a son? Fertility transitions among Migrants to Canada," Working Papers 1602, University of Waterloo, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2016.
    16. Adserà, Alícia & Ferrer, Ana M., 2016. "Speeding up for a son? Fertility transitions among Asian migrants to Canada," CLEF Working Paper Series 1, Canadian Labour Economics Forum (CLEF), University of Waterloo.
    17. Goli, Srinivas & Mavisakalyan, Astghik & Rammohan, Anu & Vu, Loan, 2022. "Conflicts and son preference: Micro-level evidence from 58 countries," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    18. Elena Ambrosetti & Livia Elisa Ortensi & Cinzia Castagnaro & Marina Attili, 2022. "Skewed Sex Ratios at Birth in Italian Migrant Populations: Evidence from a Longitudinal Register 1999–2017," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 38(2), pages 301-315, May.
    19. Zimmermann, Laura, 2018. "It’s a boy! Women and decision-making benefits from a son in India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 326-335.
    20. Zheng Shen & Derek S. Brown & Xiaodong Zheng & Hualei Yang, 2022. "Women’s Off-Farm Work Participation and Son Preference in Rural China," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(3), pages 899-928, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    son preference; selective abortion; gender inequality; missing women; Bangladesh; C41; J16; O10;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C41 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Duration Analysis; Optimal Timing Strategies
    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
    • O10 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:bejeap:v:20:y:2020:i:3:p:39:n:4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.