IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/poprpr/v34y2015i4p615-639.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Whose Fertility Preferences Matter? Women, Husbands, In-laws, and Abortion in Madhya Pradesh, India

Author

Listed:
  • Kerry MacQuarrie
  • Jeffrey Edmeades

Abstract

Few studies investigate the influence of husbands’ or others’ fertility preferences on women’s abortion behavior, in spite of longstanding recognition that women are seldom the sole decision-makers governing reproductive behavior. This study uses survey data detailing women’s reproductive histories in Madhya Pradesh, India to analyze the role of women’s fertility preferences, their perceptions of their husbands’ and in-laws’ preferences, and empowerment in two aspects of abortion behavior: the decision to attempt an abortion (n = 8852 pregnancies) and to seek a surgical abortion with a medical provider (n = 752 abortion attempts). The latter is estimated using a Heckman’s selection model. Women are most likely to attempt an abortion and to do so via surgical abortion when they and their husbands agree that they do not want another child. Husbands’ fertility preferences exercise a strong, independent effect on both outcomes, while the effect of in-laws’ preferences is weaker. However, the strongest influence on abortion behavior is women’s own fertility preferences: the odds of attempting abortion decrease by a factor of 0.06 (p value >0.001) among women who wanted a pregnancy compared to those who did not. The magnitude of this effect does not diminish when controlling for others’ fertility preferences. Restrictions on women’s mobility increase the odds of attempting an abortion, but significantly reduce the odds of a surgical abortion. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Kerry MacQuarrie & Jeffrey Edmeades, 2015. "Whose Fertility Preferences Matter? Women, Husbands, In-laws, and Abortion in Madhya Pradesh, India," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 34(4), pages 615-639, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:poprpr:v:34:y:2015:i:4:p:615-639
    DOI: 10.1007/s11113-015-9364-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11113-015-9364-y
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11113-015-9364-y?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. James J. Heckman, 1976. "The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 475-492, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Gary S. Becker, 1981. "A Treatise on the Family," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number beck81-1, May.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    4. Elizabeth Thomson, 1997. "Couple childbearing desires, intentions, and births," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 34(3), pages 343-354, August.
    5. Tina Glasner & Wander Vaart, 2009. "Applications of calendar instruments in social surveys: a review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 333-349, May.
    6. Tolhurst, Rachel & Amekudzi, Yaa Peprah & Nyonator, Frank K. & Bertel Squire, S. & Theobald, Sally, 2008. ""He will ask why the child gets sick so often": The gendered dynamics of intra-household bargaining over healthcare for children with fever in the Volta Region of Ghana," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(5), pages 1106-1117, March.
    7. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    8. Karen Mason & Herbert Smith, 2000. "Husbands’ versus wives’ fertility goals and use of contraception: The influence of gender context in five Asian countries," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 37(3), pages 299-311, August.
    9. Florian Heiss, 2002. "Structural choice analysis with nested logit models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 2(3), pages 227-252, August.
    10. T. Lakshmanasamy, 2003. "Testing the Unitary and Nash Bargaining Household Models in India," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, vol. 5(2), pages 197-217, July-Dece.
    11. Shelah Bloom & David Wypij & Monica Gupta, 2001. "Dimensions of women’s autonomy and the influence on maternal health care utilization in a north indian city," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 38(1), pages 67-78, February.
    12. John B. Casterline & Steven W. Sinding, 2000. "Unmet Need for Family Planning in Developing Countries and Implications for Population Policy," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 26(4), pages 691-723, December.
    13. Rasul, Imran, 2008. "Household bargaining over fertility: Theory and evidence from Malaysia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 215-241, June.
    14. William Greene, 2009. "Discrete Choice Modeling," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Terence C. Mills & Kerry Patterson (ed.), Palgrave Handbook of Econometrics, chapter 11, pages 473-556, Palgrave Macmillan.
    15. Julie DaVanzo & Mizanur Rahman & Shahabuddin Ahmed & Abdur Razzaque, 2013. "Influences on Pregnancy-Termination Decisions in Matlab, Bangladesh," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 50(5), pages 1739-1764, October.
    16. Sartori, Anne E., 2003. "An Estimator for Some Binary-Outcome Selection Models Without Exclusion Restrictions," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 111-138, April.
    17. Julie DaVanzo & Christine E. Peterson & Nathan Jones, 2003. "How Well Do Desired Fertility Measures for Wives and Husbands Predict Subsequent Fertility? Evidence From Malaysia," Working Papers DRU-3013-NICHD, RAND Corporation.
    18. Julie DaVanzo & Christine E. Peterson & Nathan R. Jones, 2003. "How Well Do Desired Fertility Measures for Wives and Husbands Predict Subsequent Fertility?," Working Papers 03-16, RAND Corporation.
    19. Schuler, Sidney Ruth & Hashemi, Syed Mesbahuddin & Riley, Ann P., 1997. "The influence of women's changing roles and status in Bangladesh's fertility transition: Evidence from a study of credit programs and contraceptive use," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 563-575, January.
    20. F. Dodoo, 1998. "Men matter: Additive and interactive gendered preferences and reproductive behavior in kenya," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 35(2), pages 229-242, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Coast, Ernestina & Norris, Alison H. & Moore, Ann M. & Freeman, Emily, 2018. "Trajectories of women's abortion-related care: A conceptual framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 199-210.

    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. Ivy Kodzi & David Johnson & John Casterline, 2010. "Examining the predictive value of fertility preferences among Ghanaian women," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 22(30), pages 965-984.
    2. Michael Ziegelmeyer & Julius Nick, 2013. "Backing out of private pension provision: lessons from Germany," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 40(3), pages 505-539, August.
    3. Thierry Laurent & Ferhat Mihoubi, 2012. "Sexual Orientation and Wage Discrimination in France: The Hidden Side of the Rainbow," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 487-527, December.
    4. Damette, Olivier & Delacote, Philippe & Lo, Gaye Del, 2018. "Households energy consumption and transition toward cleaner energy sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 751-764.
    5. Martin Huber & Giovanni Mellace, 2014. "Testing exclusion restrictions and additive separability in sample selection models," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 75-92, August.
    6. Bernauer, Thomas & Spilker, Gabriele, 2010. "Escalation dynamics in WTO disputes over environment, health and safety issues," Papers 89, World Trade Institute.
    7. Emmanuel O. Ogundimu, 2022. "Regularization and variable selection in Heckman selection model," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 421-439, April.
    8. repec:pav:demwpp:demwp0108 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Beusch, Elisabeth & Van Soest, Arthur, 2020. "A dynamic multinomial model of self-employment in the Netherlands," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 59, pages 5-32.
    10. Hottenrott, Hanna & Lopes-Bento, Cindy, 2014. "R&D partnerships and innovation performance: Can there be too much of a good thing?," ZEW Discussion Papers 14-108, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Francesca Fiori & Francesca Rinesi & Antonella Pinnelli & Sabrina Prati, 2013. "Economic Insecurity and the Fertility Intentions of Italian Women with One Child," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 32(3), pages 373-413, June.
    12. Peter Huber & Harald Oberhofer & Michael Pfaffermayr, 2014. "Job creation and the intra-distribution dynamics of the firm size distribution," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 23(1), pages 171-197, February.
    13. Sarah R. Hayford & Victor Agadjanian, 2012. "From desires to behavior," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 26(20), pages 511-542.
    14. Robin A. Richardson, 2018. "Measuring Women’s Empowerment: A Critical Review of Current Practices and Recommendations for Researchers," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 137(2), pages 539-557, June.
    15. Keera Allendorf, 2013. "Going Nuclear? Family Structure and Young Women’s Health in India, 1992–2006," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 50(3), pages 853-880, June.
    16. Abhishek Kumar & Valeria Bordone & Raya Muttarak, 2016. "Like Mother(-in-Law) Like Daughter? Influence of the Older Generation’s Fertility Behaviours on Women’s Desired Family Size in Bihar, India," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 32(5), pages 629-660, December.
    17. Christian Hackober & Carolin Bock, 2021. "Which investors’ characteristics are beneficial for initial coin offerings? Evidence from blockchain technology-based firms," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(8), pages 1085-1124, October.
    18. Régis Blazy & Marie Blum, 2022. "Horizontal and vertical differentiation in comic art auctions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(3), pages 1382-1415, July.
    19. Huber, Martin & Mellace, Giovanni, 2011. "Testing instrument validity in sample selection models," Economics Working Paper Series 1145, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    20. Essama-Nssah, B., 2012. "Identification of sources of variation in poverty outcomes," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5954, The World Bank.
    21. Maitra, Pushkar, 2004. "Parental bargaining, health inputs and child mortality in India," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 259-291, March.

    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:kap:poprpr:v:34:y:2015:i:4:p:615-639. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.