IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/quante/v14y2023i1p309-347.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The demographic consequences of sex‐selection technology

Author

Listed:
  • Qi Li
  • Juan Pantano

Abstract

Over the last several years, highly accurate methods of sex selection before conception have been developed. Given that strong preferences for sex variety in offspring have been documented for the U.S., we ask what the demographic consequences of sex‐selection technology could be. Lacking variation across space and time in access to this technology, we estimate a dynamic programming model of fertility decisions with microdata on fertility histories. We leverage the quasi‐experimental variation inherent in the random determination of sex to identify the key structural parameter characterizing preferences for sex variety in offspring. We then simulate the introduction of this technology. While this technology can reduce fertility by allowing parents to efficiently reach their preferred sex mix, it could also increase it. This is because without this technology, many parents may opt not to have another baby given the uncertainty about its sex. Results suggest that these two effects operate simultaneously, but on net, sex‐selection technology ends up reducing the average family size among married women by less than 2% in the steady state, a much smaller decline than the one that would be predicted by alternative methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Qi Li & Juan Pantano, 2023. "The demographic consequences of sex‐selection technology," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), pages 309-347, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:quante:v:14:y:2023:i:1:p:309-347
    DOI: 10.3982/QE2088
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3982/QE2088
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3982/QE2088?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rust, John, 1987. "Optimal Replacement of GMC Bus Engines: An Empirical Model of Harold Zurcher," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(5), pages 999-1033, September.
    2. Jérôme Adda & Christian Dustmann & Katrien Stevens, 2017. "The Career Costs of Children," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(2), pages 293-337.
    3. Jesús M. Carro & Pedro Mira, 2006. "A dynamic model of contraceptive choice of Spanish couples," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(7), pages 955-980, November.
    4. Yoram Ben-Porath & Finis Welch, 1976. "Do Sex Preferences Really Matter?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 90(2), pages 285-307.
    5. Michael P. Keane & Kenneth I. Wolpin, 2010. "The Role Of Labor And Marriage Markets, Preference Heterogeneity, And The Welfare System In The Life Cycle Decisions Of Black, Hispanic, And White Women," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 51(3), pages 851-892, August.
    6. Sandra E. Black & Paul J. Devereux & Kjell G. Salvanes, 2005. "The More the Merrier? The Effect of Family Size and Birth Order on Children's Education," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(2), pages 669-700.
    7. Peter Arcidiacono & John Bailey Jones, 2003. "Finite Mixture Distributions, Sequential Likelihood and the EM Algorithm," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(3), pages 933-946, May.
    8. Gary S. Becker & H. Gregg Lewis, 1974. "Interaction between Quantity and Quality of Children," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of the Family: Marriage, Children, and Human Capital, pages 81-90, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Hotz, V Joseph & Miller, Robert A, 1988. "An Empirical Analysis of Life Cycle Fertility and Female Labor Supply," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(1), pages 91-118, January.
    10. V. Joseph Hotz & Robert A. Miller, 1993. "Conditional Choice Probabilities and the Estimation of Dynamic Models," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 60(3), pages 497-529.
    11. James B. Davies & Junsen Zhang, 1997. "The effects of gender control on fertility and children`s consumption," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 10(1), pages 67-85.
    12. Marco Francesconi, 2002. "A Joint Dynamic Model of Fertility and Work of Married Women," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(2), pages 336-380, Part.
    13. Namkee Ahn, 1995. "Measuring the Value of Children by Sex and Age Using a Dynamic Programming Model," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 62(3), pages 361-379.
    14. V. Hotz & Juan Pantano, 2015. "Strategic parenting, birth order, and school performance," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 28(4), pages 911-936, October.
    15. Willis, Robert J, 1973. "A New Approach to the Economic Theory of Fertility Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(2), pages 14-64, Part II, .
    16. Wanchuan Lin & Juan Pantano, 2015. "The unintended: negative outcomes over the life cycle," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 28(2), pages 479-508, April.
    17. Peter Arcidiacono & Robert A. Miller, 2011. "Conditional Choice Probability Estimation of Dynamic Discrete Choice Models With Unobserved Heterogeneity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(6), pages 1823-1867, November.
    18. Rosenzweig, Mark R & Schultz, T Paul, 1985. "The Demand for and Supply of Births: Fertility and Its Life Cycle Consequences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(5), pages 992-1015, December.
    19. Yuyu Chen & Hongbin Li & Lingsheng Meng, 2013. "Prenatal Sex Selection and Missing Girls in China: Evidence from the Diffusion of Diagnostic Ultrasound," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 48(1), pages 36-70.
    20. Wolpin, Kenneth I, 1984. "An Estimable Dynamic Stochastic Model of Fertility and Child Mortality," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 92(5), pages 852-874, October.
    21. Angrist, Joshua D & Evans, William N, 1998. "Children and Their Parents' Labor Supply: Evidence from Exogenous Variation in Family Size," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(3), pages 450-477, June.
    22. Cristino R. Arroyo & Junsen Zhang, 1997. "Dynamic microeconomic models of fertility choice: A survey," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 10(1), pages 23-65.
    23. Leung, Siu Fai, 1994. "Will Sex Selection Reduce Fertility?," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 7(4), pages 379-392, November.
    24. Barton H. Hamilton & Emily Jungheim & Brian McManus & Juan Pantano, 2018. "Health Care Access, Costs, and Treatment Dynamics: Evidence from In Vitro Fertilization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(12), pages 3725-3777, December.
    25. Pablo Lavado, 2014. "The Effect of a Child on Female Work when Family Planning May Fail," Working Papers wp2014_1405, CEMFI.
    26. Robert Moffitt, 1984. "Profiles of Fertility, Labour Supply and Wages of Married Women: A Complete Life-Cycle Model," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 51(2), pages 263-278.
    27. S Anukriti, 2018. "Financial Incentives and the Fertility-Sex Ratio Trade-Off," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(2), pages 27-57, April.
    28. Mark R. Rosenzweig & Kenneth I. Wolpin, 1993. "Maternal Expectations and Ex Post Rationalizations: The Usefulness of Survey Information on the Wantedness of Children," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 28(2), pages 205-229.
    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. Juan Pantano & Qi Li, 2013. "The Demographic Consequences of Gender Selection Technology," 2013 Meeting Papers 1161, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    2. Jérôme Adda & Christian Dustmann & Katrien Stevens, 2017. "The Career Costs of Children," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(2), pages 293-337.
    3. David Canning & Declan French & Michael Moore, 2016. "The Economics of Fertility Timing: An Euler Equation Approach," CHaRMS Working Papers 16-03, Centre for HeAlth Research at the Management School (CHaRMS).
    4. Damian Clarke, 2018. "Children And Their Parents: A Review Of Fertility And Causality," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 518-540, April.
    5. Larry E. Jones & Alice Schoonbroodt & Michèle Tertilt, 2010. "Fertility Theories: Can They Explain the Negative Fertility-Income Relationship?," NBER Chapters, in: Demography and the Economy, pages 43-100, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Raute, Anna, 2019. "Can financial incentives reduce the baby gap? Evidence from a reform in maternity leave benefits," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 203-222.
    7. Anna Raute, 2018. "Can financial incentives reduce the baby gap? Evidence from a reform in maternity leave benefits," Working Papers 871, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    8. Nicola Barban & Elisabetta De Cao & Marco Francesconi, 2021. "Gene-Environment Effects on Female Fertility," CESifo Working Paper Series 9337, CESifo.
    9. Aguirregabiria, Victor & Mira, Pedro, 2010. "Dynamic discrete choice structural models: A survey," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 156(1), pages 38-67, May.
    10. Zvi Eckstein & Osnat Lifshitz, 2011. "Dynamic Female Labor Supply," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(6), pages 1675-1726, November.
    11. Diego Amador, 2017. "The Consequences of Abortion and Contraception Policies on Young Women’s Reproductive Choices, Schooling and Labor Supply," Documentos CEDE 15635, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    12. Uma Radhakrishnan, 2010. "A Dynamic Structural Model of Contraceptive Use and Employment Sector Choice for Women in Indonesia," Working Papers 10-28, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    13. Keane, Michael P. & Todd, Petra E. & Wolpin, Kenneth I., 2011. "The Structural Estimation of Behavioral Models: Discrete Choice Dynamic Programming Methods and Applications," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 4, pages 331-461, Elsevier.
    14. Marco Francesconi, 2002. "A Joint Dynamic Model of Fertility and Work of Married Women," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(2), pages 336-380, Part.
    15. Del Boca, Daniela & Sauer, Robert M., 2009. "Life cycle employment and fertility across institutional environments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 274-292, April.
    16. Bhalotra, Sonia & Clarke, Damian & Walther, Selma, 2022. "Women's Careers and Family Formation," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1120, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    17. Ueda, Atsuko, 2008. "Dynamic model of childbearing and labor force participation of married women: Empirical evidence from Korea and Japan," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 170-180, April.
    18. Sebastian Galiani & Juan Pantano, 2021. "Structural Models: Inception and Frontier," NBER Working Papers 28698, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Ahn, Mankee, 1991. "Measuring the Value of Children by Sex and Age Using a Life Cycle Model of Fertility," Center Discussion Papers 321326, Yale University, Economic Growth Center.
    20. Vera, Celia Patricia, 2018. "A structural approach to assessing retention policies in public schools," MPRA Paper 90657, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    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:wly:quante:v:14:y:2023:i:1:p:309-347. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/essssea.html .

    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.