IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/poprpr/v38y2019i6d10.1007_s11113-019-09556-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing the Only-Child Advantage in Cognitive Development in the Context of China’s One-Child Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Shige Song

    (City University of New York)

  • Weidong Wang

    (Renmin University of China)

Abstract

Using data from a recent national survey of approximately 20,000 Chinese middle school students, we tested the difference in cognitive development between only-children and children with siblings using non-parametric matching method. We took advantage of the massive increase in involuntary only-child families in China under the one-child family planning policy (1979–2015) to reduce the bias introduced by the otherwise pervasive human tendency to avoid having only one child. Our average treatment effect for the treated estimates indicates no significant cognitive difference between only-children and children with siblings. Further subgroup analyses, however, suggest that such average effect estimates can conceal important population heterogeneities because the only-child effect on cognitive development changes drastically between subgroups of the same population. Among other potential moderating factors, birth order and gender play particularly important roles in this process.

Suggested Citation

  • Shige Song & Weidong Wang, 2019. "Testing the Only-Child Advantage in Cognitive Development in the Context of China’s One-Child Policy," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 38(6), pages 841-867, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:poprpr:v:38:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1007_s11113-019-09556-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11113-019-09556-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11113-019-09556-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11113-019-09556-9?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. Sandra E. Black & Paul J. Devereux & Kjell G. Salvanes, 2010. "Small Family, Smart Family? Family Size and the IQ Scores of Young Men," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 45(1).
    2. Becker, Gary S & Tomes, Nigel, 1976. "Child Endowments and the Quantity and Quality of Children," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 84(4), pages 143-162, August.
    3. Emla Fitzsimons & Bansi Malde, 2014. "Empirically probing the quantity–quality model," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 27(1), pages 33-68, January.
    4. Dunning,Thad, 2012. "Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107017665, November.
    5. Susan Greenhalgh, 2003. "Science, Modernity, and the Making of China's One‐Child Policy," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 29(2), pages 163-196, June.
    6. Dunning,Thad, 2012. "Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107698000, November.
    7. Åslund, Olof & Grönqvist, Hans, 2010. "Family size and child outcomes: Is there really no trade-off?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 130-139, January.
    8. Kellie J. Hagewen & S. Philip Morgan, 2005. "Intended and Ideal Family Size in the United States, 1970–2002," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 31(3), pages 507-527, September.
    9. Joshua Angrist & Victor Lavy & Analia Schlosser, 2010. "Multiple Experiments for the Causal Link between the Quantity and Quality of Children," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(4), pages 773-824, October.
    10. Judith Blake, 1981. "Family size and the quality of children," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 18(4), pages 421-442, November.
    11. Iacus, Stefano M. & King, Gary & Porro, Giuseppe, 2011. "Multivariate Matching Methods That Are Monotonic Imbalance Bounding," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(493), pages 345-361.
    12. Ho, Daniel E. & Imai, Kosuke & King, Gary & Stuart, Elizabeth A., 2007. "Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 199-236, July.
    13. Tomáš Sobotka & Éva Beaujouan, 2014. "Two Is Best? The Persistence of a Two-Child Family Ideal in Europe," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 40(3), pages 391-419, September.
    14. Hanushek, Eric A, 1992. "The Trade-Off between Child Quantity and Quality," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(1), pages 84-117, February.
    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. Christina J. Diaz & Jeremy E. Fiel, 2021. "When Size Matters: IV Estimates of Sibship Size on Educational Attainment in the U.S," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 40(6), pages 1195-1220, December.
    2. Dominique Meurs & Patrick A. Puhani & Friederike Von Haaren-Giebel, 2017. "Number of siblings and educational choices of immigrant children: evidence from first- and second-generation immigrants," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 1137-1158, December.
    3. Zhong, Hai, 2014. "The effect of sibling size on children's health: a regression discontinuity design approach based on China's one-child policy," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 156-165.
    4. Ea Hoppe Blaabæk & Mads Meier Jæger & Joseph Molitoris, 2020. "Family Size and Educational Attainment: Cousins, Contexts, and Compensation," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 36(3), pages 575-600, July.
    5. Dominique Meurs & Patrick A. Puhani & Friederike von Haaren, 2015. "Number of Siblings and Educational Choices of Immigrant Children: Evidence from First- and Second-Generation Siblings," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 778, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    6. 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.
    7. Meurs, Dominique & Puhani, Patrick A. & Von Haaren, Friederike, 2015. "Direct and indirect effects of training vouchers for the unemployed," Economics Working Paper Series 1515, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    8. Sonia Bhalotra & Damian Clarke, 2019. "Twin Birth and Maternal Condition," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 101(5), pages 853-864, December.
    9. Dasgupta, Kabir & Solomon, Keisha T., 2018. "Family size effects on childhood obesity: Evidence on the quantity-quality trade-off using the NLSY," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 42-55.
    10. Anna Baranowska-Rataj & Xavier de Luna & Anneli Ivarsson, 2016. "Does the number of siblings affect health in midlife? Evidence from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 35(43), pages 1259-1302.
    11. Åslund, Olof & Grönqvist, Hans, 2010. "Family size and child outcomes: Is there really no trade-off?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 130-139, January.
    12. Briole, Simon & Le Forner, Hélène & Lepinteur, Anthony, 2020. "Children’s socio-emotional skills: Is there a quantity–quality trade-off?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    13. Li, Honghui & Hiwatari, Masato, 2020. "Family Size and Educational Attainment : The Case of China," Discussion paper series. A 353, Graduate School of Economics and Business Administration, Hokkaido University.
    14. Chen Cheng & Chou Shin-Yi & Wang Cheng & Zhao Wangyang, 2020. "The Effect of the Second Child on the Anthropometric Outcomes and Nutrition Intake of the First Child: Evidence from the Relaxation of the One-Child Policy in Rural China," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 20(1), pages 1-28, January.
    15. Fletcher, Jason M. & Kim, Jinho, 2019. "The effect of sibship size on non-cognitive Skills: Evidence from natural experiments," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 36-43.
    16. Philipp M. Lersch, 2019. "Fewer Siblings, More Wealth? Sibship Size and Wealth Attainment," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 35(5), pages 959-986, December.
    17. Philip DeCicca & Harry Krashinsky, 2023. "The effect of education on overall fertility," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 36(1), pages 471-503, January.
    18. Boonaert, Eva & Hoyweghen, Kaat Van & Feyisa, Ashenafi Duguma & Goos, Peter & Maertens, Miet, 2021. "Twofold Gendered Preferences in the Quantity-Quality Trade-Off Impact the Demographic Transition in Ethiopia," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315224, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Jingdong Zhong & Jingjing Gao & Chengfang Liu & Jie Huang & Renfu Luo, 2019. "Quantity–Quality Trade-Off and Early Childhood Development in Rural Family: Evidence from China’s Guizhou Province," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-29, April.
    20. Chen, Qihui, 2021. "Population policy, family size and child malnutrition in Vietnam – Testing the trade-off between child quantity and quality from a child nutrition perspective," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).

    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:kap:poprpr:v:38:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1007_s11113-019-09556-9. 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.