IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgph00/0003957.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How investment in children shape fertility choices of families: Evidence from Pakistan

Author

Listed:
  • Olan Naz
  • Nayab
  • Muhammad Ibrahim
  • Ayesha Khan
  • Adnan Ahmad Khan

Abstract

Fertility patterns are transitioning globally in that couples are choosing to have fewer children as they become more affluent, and parents are investing more time and resources in the lives of their children than they can receive back. This change is more established in developed countries and is now being recognized in developing countries. We explored this phenomenon and its implications for family planning in Pakistan, hypothesizing a quantity-quality transition underway. We examine the correlation between increased investment in children’s education and the use of family planning services among Pakistani families. We conducted a secondary analysis of publicly available data from the Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement (PSLM) survey and its complementary Household Integrated Economic surveys (HIES) for 2018–19 accessed through the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (PBS) website. The study included married women of reproductive age (MWRA) aged between 15 to 49 years of age. The current use of different contraceptive methods by MWRA was the outcome variable, whereas the education expenditure per child, and mother-level, child-level, and household-level factors, as control variables. The study employed multinomial logistic regression to assess the correlation between contraceptive use and education expenditure per child while controlling for other variables using STATA (version 17.0, STATA Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA). Data from 24,024 MWRA and 56,128 children were analyzed. 7,584 (30%) households have no children while 1,658 (10%) don’t send any child to school. All households that send children to school incur at least some education related expense. The rise in education spending outpaces rates of rise in household incomes, suggesting that education is procured as a luxury good. However, the rate of spending on education falls off from the third child onwards. After controlling for confounders, the odds of using contraceptives increases as education expenditure rise, from 1.172 [CI, 1.029,1.336] when they spend under PKR 2000 (USD 13) to 1.495 [CI, 1.327,1.683] if they spend more than PKR 13,000 (USD 84) annually on the education of a child, compared to no education expenditure at all. There is one exception in the case of households in the wealthiest quintiles located in rural areas, where FP use reduces. Our findings support the hypothesis of a quantity-quality transition in Pakistan, where increased wealth and educational investment in children are linked to reduced fertility and higher contraceptive use households. The use of FP increases from the poor to the richest wealth quintiles nationally and correlates with spending on the education of an older child. However, an important exception was observed among the wealthiest rural households, where family planning use decreases despite higher income levels. This suggests that affluent women, particularly in rural areas, may opt for larger families due to limited labor market opportunities or cultural preferences. We describe a major social change that reflects evolving values in families.

Suggested Citation

  • Olan Naz & Nayab & Muhammad Ibrahim & Ayesha Khan & Adnan Ahmad Khan, 2024. "How investment in children shape fertility choices of families: Evidence from Pakistan," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(12), pages 1-14, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0003957
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003957
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0003957
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0003957&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgph.0003957?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. Gianna Claudia Giannelli & Francesca Francavilla, 2007. "Do Family Planning Programmes Help Women’s Employment? The Case of Indian Mothers," CHILD Working Papers wp05_07, CHILD - Centre for Household, Income, Labour and Demographic economics - ITALY.
    2. Gary S. Becker & Nigel Tomes, 1994. "Human Capital and the Rise and Fall of Families," NBER Chapters, in: Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education, Third Edition, pages 257-298, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. 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.
    4. De Tray, Dennis N, 1973. "Child Quality and the Demand for Children," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(2), pages 70-95, Part II, .
    5. Deon Filmer & Lant Pritchett, 2001. "Estimating Wealth Effects Without Expenditure Data—Or Tears: An Application To Educational Enrollments In States Of India," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 38(1), pages 115-132, February.
    6. Matthias Doepke & Moshe Hazan & Yishay D. Maoz, 2015. "The Baby Boom and World War II: A Macroeconomic Analysis," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 82(3), pages 1031-1073.
    7. Gary S. Becker & Robert J. Barro, 1988. "A Reformulation of the Economic Theory of Fertility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 103(1), pages 1-25.
    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. George‐Levi Gayle & Limor Golan & Mehmet A. Soytas, 2018. "Estimation of dynastic life‐cycle discrete choice models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(3), pages 1195-1241, November.
    2. Jeremy Greenwood & Nezih Guner & Guillaume Vandenbroucke, 2017. "Family Economics Writ Large," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1346-1434, December.
    3. Vandenbroucke, Guillaume, 2011. "Optimal fertility during World War I," MPRA Paper 35709, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Georg-Levi Gayle & Limor Golan & Mehmet A. Soytas, "undated". "Estimating the Returns to Parental Time Investment in Children Using a Life Cycle Dynastic Model," GSIA Working Papers 2011-E18, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
    5. 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.
    6. Coskun, Sena & Dalgic, Husnu C., 2024. "The emergence of procyclical fertility: The role of breadwinner women," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    7. Roozbeh Hosseini & Larry E. Jones & Ali Shourideh, 2009. "Risk Sharing, Inequality and Fertility," NBER Working Papers 15111, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Kota Ogasawara & Mizuki Komura, 2022. "Consequences of war: Japan’s demographic transition and the marriage market," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 35(3), pages 1037-1069, July.
    9. John C. Bluedorn & Elizabeth U. Cascio, 2005. "Education and Intergenerational Mobility: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Purerto Rico," Economics Papers 2005-W21, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    10. Stefania Albanesi & Claudia Olivetti, 2014. "Maternal health and the baby boom," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 5, pages 225-269, July.
    11. Thomas Baudin & David de la Croix & Paula E. Gobbi, 2015. "Fertility and Childlessness in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(6), pages 1852-1882, June.
    12. Shoumitro Chatterjee & Tom S. Vogl, 2016. "Growth and Childbearing in the Short- and Long-Run," Working Papers sc_tv_growth_fertility.pd, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Research Program in Development Studies..
    13. Do, Quy-Toan & Levchenko, Andrei A. & Raddatz, Claudio, 2016. "Comparative advantage, international trade, and fertility," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 48-66.
    14. Schultz, T. Paul, 2010. "Population and Health Policies," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Dani Rodrik & Mark Rosenzweig (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 4785-4881, Elsevier.
    15. Matthias Doepke & Anne Hannusch & Fabian Kindermann & Michèle Tertilt, 2022. "The Economics of Fertility: A New Era," NBER Working Papers 29948, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. James J. Heckman & Stefano Mosso, 2014. "The Economics of Human Development and Social Mobility," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 689-733, August.
    17. Gayle, George-Levi & Golan, Limor & Soytas, Mehmet A., 2022. "What is the source of the intergenerational correlation in earnings?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 24-45.
    18. Michèle Tertilt, 2012. "The Research Agenda: Michèle Tertilt on Gender in Macroeconomics," EconomicDynamics Newsletter, Review of Economic Dynamics, vol. 14(1), November.
    19. Filoso, Valerio & Papagni, Erasmo, 2015. "Fertility choice and financial development," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 160-177.
    20. Córdoba, Juan Carlos & Ripoll, Marla, 2013. "What explains schooling differences across countries?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 184-202.

    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:plo:pgph00:0003957. 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: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .

    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.