IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp13448.html

Peer Effects and Fertility Preferences in China: Evidence from the China Labor-Force Dynamics Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Nie, Peng

    (Xi’an Jiaotong University)

  • Wang, Lu

    (Xi’an Jiaotong University)

  • Sousa-Poza, Alfonso

    (University of Hohenheim)

Abstract

Despite empirical evidence that individuals form their fertility preferences by observing social norms and interactions in their environments, the exact impact of these peer effects remains unclear. We thus use data from the 2014 and 2016 China Labor-force Dynamics Survey to investigate the association between community-level peer effects and fertility preferences among Chinese women aged 18-49. Whereas our baseline results indicate that 11.96% of these women would prefer 1 or no children, 74.1% would like 2 children, and 13.93% would prefer 3 or more children. A one unit increase in community-level peer fertility reduces the preference of wanting only one child by 14.3%, whereas it increases the probability of preferring three children by 9.3% and four or more children by 4.8%. Hence, overall, we find a relatively strong peer effect on individual fertility preferences in communities characterized by generally low fertility rates, which provides support for the role of social norms in the fertility choices of reproductive-aged Chinese women.

Suggested Citation

  • Nie, Peng & Wang, Lu & Sousa-Poza, Alfonso, 2020. "Peer Effects and Fertility Preferences in China: Evidence from the China Labor-Force Dynamics Survey," IZA Discussion Papers 13448, IZA Network @ LISER.
    • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp13448
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp13448.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Handa, Sudhanshu, 2000. "The Impact of Education, Income, and Mortality on Fertility in Jamaica," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 173-186, January.
    2. Collewet, Marion & de Grip, Andries & de Koning, Jaap, 2015. "Conspicuous Work: Peer Working Time, Labour Supply and Happiness for Male Workers," IZA Discussion Papers 9011, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Fortin, Bernard & Yazbeck, Myra, 2015. "Peer effects, fast food consumption and adolescent weight gain," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 125-138.
    4. George A. Akerlof, 1997. "Social Distance and Social Decisions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(5), pages 1005-1028, September.
    5. Jason M. Fletcher & Olga Yakusheva, 2016. "Peer Effects on Teenage Fertility: Social Transmission Mechanisms and Policy Recommendations," American Journal of Health Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(3), pages 300-317, Summer.
    6. Munshi, Kaivan & Myaux, Jacques, 2006. "Social norms and the fertility transition," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 1-38, June.
    7. Christoph Bühler & Ewa Fratczak, 2005. "Learning from others and receiving support: the impact of personal networks on fertility intentions in Poland," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2005-017, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    8. Laura Bernardi & Andreas Klärner, 2014. "Social networks and fertility," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 30(22), pages 641-670.
    9. Leonardo Bursztyn & Florian Ederer & Bruno Ferman & Noam Yuchtman, 2014. "Understanding Mechanisms Underlying Peer Effects: Evidence From a Field Experiment on Financial Decisions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(4), pages 1273-1301, July.
    10. 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.
    11. Olga Yakusheva & Jason Fletcher, 2015. "Learning from Teen Childbearing Experiences of Close Friends: Evidence using Miscarriages as a Natural Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(1), pages 29-43, March.
    12. Torkild Lyngstad & Alexia Prskawetz, 2010. "Do siblings’ fertility decisions influence each other?," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 47(4), pages 923-934, November.
    13. Charles F. Manski, 2000. "Economic Analysis of Social Interactions," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 115-136, Summer.
    14. Zafer Buyukkececi & Thomas Leopold & Ruben Gaalen & Henriette Engelhardt, 2020. "Family, Firms, and Fertility: A Study of Social Interaction Effects," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 57(1), pages 243-266, February.
    15. Omer Moav, 2005. "Cheap Children and the Persistence of Poverty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(500), pages 88-110, January.
    16. 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.
    17. Collewet, M.M.F. & de Grip, A. & Koning, J.d., 2015. "Peer working time, labour supply, and happiness for male workers," ROA Research Memorandum 006, Maastricht University, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA).
    18. Ankita Mishra & Jaai Parasnis, 2017. "Peers and Fertility Preferences: An Empirical Investigation of the Role of Neighbours, Religion and Education," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 134(1), pages 339-357, October.
    19. Jacob M. Markman & Eric A. Hanushek & John F. Kain & Steven G. Rivkin, 2003. "Does peer ability affect student achievement?," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(5), pages 527-544.
    20. Wencke Gwozdz & Peng Nie & Alfonso Sousa‐Poza & Stefaan DeHenauw & Regina Felső & Antje Hebestreit & Isabel Iguacel & Lauren Lissner & Fabio Lauria & Angie Page & Lucia A. Reisch & Michael Tornaritis , 2019. "Peer Effects on Weight Status, Dietary Behaviour and Physical Activity among Adolescents in Europe: Findings from the I.Family Study," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 270-296, May.
    21. Patrick Bayer & Randi Hjalmarsson & David Pozen, 2009. "Building Criminal Capital behind Bars: Peer Effects in Juvenile Corrections," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(1), pages 105-147.
    22. Smith, James P. & Strauss, John & Zhao, Yaohui, 2014. "Healthy aging in China," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 37-43.
    23. Fei Wang & Liqiu Zhao & Zhong Zhao, 2017. "China’s family planning policies and their labor market consequences," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 30(1), pages 31-68, January.
    24. Hao, Lingxin & Liang, Yucheng, 2016. "The Spatial and Career Mobility of China's Urban and Rural Labor Force," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 135-158, March.
    25. Nie, Peng & Sousa-Poza, Alfonso & He, Xiaobo, 2015. "Peer effects on childhood and adolescent obesity in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 47-69.
    26. Songsermsawas, Tisorn & Baylis, Kathy & Chhatre, Ashwini & Michelson, Hope, 2016. "Can Peers Improve Agricultural Revenue?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 163-178.
    27. Hans-Peter Kohler & Jere Behrman & Susan Watkins, 2001. "The density of social networks and fertility decisions: evidence from south nyanza district, kenya," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 38(1), pages 43-58, 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. Ana Balsa & Carlos D az, 2018. "Social interactions in health behaviors and conditions," Documentos de Trabajo/Working Papers 1802, Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales y Economia. Universidad de Montevideo..
    2. Maria De Paola & Roberto Nisticò & Vincenzo Scoppa, 2024. "Workplace Peer Effects in Fertility Decisions," CSEF Working Papers 714, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy, revised 01 Sep 2025.
    3. Ankita Mishra & Jaai Parasnis, 2017. "Peers and Fertility Preferences: An Empirical Investigation of the Role of Neighbours, Religion and Education," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 134(1), pages 339-357, October.
    4. Ankita Mishra & Jaai Parasnis, 2014. "An Empirical Investigation of Peer effects on Fertility Preferences," Monash Economics Working Papers 34-14, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    5. Steven N. Durlauf & Yannis M. Ioannides, 2010. "Social Interactions," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 451-478, September.
    6. Rannveig Kaldager Hart & Sara Cools, 2017. "Identifying fertility contagion using random fertility shocks," Discussion Papers 861, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    7. Bet Caeyers, 2014. "Peer effects in development programme awareness of vulnerable groups in rural Tanzania," CSAE Working Paper Series 2014-11, Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford.
    8. Nicole Schneeweis & Rudolf Winter-Ebmer, 2008. "Peer effects in Austrian schools," Studies in Empirical Economics, in: Christian Dustmann & Bernd Fitzenberger & Stephen Machin (ed.), The Economics of Education and Training, pages 133-155, Springer.
    9. Bet Caeyers & Marcel Fafchamps, 2016. "Exclusion Bias in the Estimation of Peer Effects," NBER Working Papers 22565, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Rafael Lalive & M. Alejandra Cattaneo, 2009. "Social Interactions and Schooling Decisions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(3), pages 457-477, August.
    11. Müller, Nathalie & Fallucchi, Francesco & Suhrcke, Marc, 2024. "Peer effects in weight-related behaviours of young people: A systematic literature review," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    12. Zafar, Basit, 2011. "An experimental investigation of why individuals conform," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(6), pages 774-798, August.
    13. Bonan, Jacopo & Battiston, Pietro & Bleck, Jaimie & LeMay-Boucher, Philippe & Pareglio, Stefano & Sarr, Bassirou & Tavoni, Massimo, 2021. "Social interaction and technology adoption: Experimental evidence from improved cookstoves in Mali," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    14. Huang, Qian & Fan, Ziang, 2025. "Relaxation of fertility policy and firm’s short-term hiring of female employees: Evidence from China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    15. Barsha Saha & Miguel Martínez-García & Sharad Nath Bhattacharya & Rohit Joshi, 2022. "Overcoming Choice Inertia through Social Interaction—An Agent-Based Study of Mobile Subscription Decision," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, June.
    16. Dimant, Eugen, 2015. "On Peer Effects: Behavioral Contagion of (Un)Ethical Behavior and the Role of Social Identity," MPRA Paper 68732, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Enrico Spolaore & Romain Wacziarg, 2022. "Fertility and Modernity," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(642), pages 796-833.
    18. Giacomo DeGiorgi, "undated". "Be As Careful Of The Company You Keep As Of The Books You Read. Peer Effects In Education And On The Labor Market," Discussion Papers 07-054, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    19. repec:oxf:wpaper:wps/2014-11 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Dimant, Eugen, 2019. "Contagion of pro- and anti-social behavior among peers and the role of social proximity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 66-88.
    21. Tiloka de Silva & Silvana Tenreyro, 2017. "The Large Fall in Global Fertility: A Quantitative Model," Discussion Papers 1718, Centre for Macroeconomics (CFM).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D10 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - General
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iza:izadps:dp13448. 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: Mark Fallak (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaalu.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.