IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mos/moswps/2014-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Empirical Investigation of Peer effects on Fertility Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Ankita Mishra
  • Jaai Parasnis

Abstract

Individual fertility preference is influenced by observed social norms. The present paper estimates the effect of the observed fertility of peers on a woman’s fertility preference. We find that both neighbourhood peers and religious peers have a significant impact on individual fertility preferences, but their relative importance changes with family size. An increase in peer fertility increases the probability of preferring more children. While women’s fertility preferences conform to the changes in observed fertility of their peers, education plays an important role in moderating peer effects. Our results contribute to the understanding of peer effects in fertility as well as possible policy responses.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:mos:moswps:2014-34
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/eco/research/papers/2014/3414empiricalmishraparasnis.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Francine Blau & Lawrence Kahn & Albert Liu & Kerry Papps, 2013. "The transmission of women’s fertility, human capital, and work orientation across immigrant generations," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 26(2), pages 405-435, April.
    2. Bhattacharya, Joydeep & Chakraborty, Shankha, 2012. "Fertility choice under child mortality and social norms," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(3), pages 338-341.
    3. Charles F. Manski, 2000. "Economic Analysis of Social Interactions," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 115-136, Summer.
    4. Zafar, Basit, 2011. "An experimental investigation of why individuals conform," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(6), pages 774-798, August.
    5. Alison L. Booth & Hiau Joo Kee, 2009. "Intergenerational Transmission of Fertility Patterns," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 71(2), pages 183-208, April.
    6. 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.
    7. Øystein Kravdal, 2003. "The problematic estimation of "imitation effects" in multilevel models," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 9(2), pages 25-40.
    8. Krishnan, Pramila, 2002. "Cultural Norms, social Interactions and the Fertility Transition in India," Royal Economic Society Annual Conference 2002 117, Royal Economic Society.
    9. Bisin, Alberto & Verdier, Thierry, 2001. "The Economics of Cultural Transmission and the Dynamics of Preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 298-319, April.
    10. Charles F. Manski, 1993. "Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 60(3), pages 531-542.
    11. Munshi, Kaivan & Myaux, Jacques, 2006. "Social norms and the fertility transition," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 1-38, June.
    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. William Axinn & Marin Clarkberg & Arland Thornton, 1994. "Family influences on family size preferences," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 31(1), pages 65-79, February.
    14. Øystein Kravdal, 2002. "Education and fertility in sub-Saharan africa: Individual and community effects," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 39(2), pages 233-250, May.
    15. Federico Ciliberto & Amalia R. Miller & Helena Skyt Nielsen & Marianne Simonsen, 2016. "Playing The Fertility Game At Work: An Equilibrium Model Of Peer Effects," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 57(3), pages 827-856, August.
    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. 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.
    2. Markus Kotte & Volker Ludwig, 2011. "Intergenerational transmission of fertility intentions and behaviour in Germany: the role of contagion," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 9(1), pages 207-226.
    3. 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.
    4. Nicoletta Balbo & Francesco C. Billari & Melinda Mills, 2013. "Fertility in Advanced Societies: A Review of Research," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(1), pages 1-38, February.
    5. 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, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Pauline Rossi & Yun Xiao, 2020. "Spillovers in Childbearing Decisions and Fertility Transitions: Evidence from China," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 20-031/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Zafar, Basit, 2011. "An experimental investigation of why individuals conform," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(6), pages 774-798, August.
    8. Fishman, Arthur & Fishman, Ram & Gneezy, Uri, 2019. "A tale of two food stands: Observational learning in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 101-108.
    9. Di Miceli, Andrea, 2019. "Horizontal vs. vertical transmission of fertility preferences," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 562-578.
    10. 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).
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Georg D. Blind & Stefania Lottanti von Mandach, 2021. "Of pride and prejudice: agent learning under sticky and persistent stereotype," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 16(2), pages 381-410, April.
    14. Klaus Prettner & Holger Strulik, 2017. "It's a Sin—Contraceptive Use, Religious Beliefs, and Long-run Economic Development," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 543-566, August.
    15. Chabé-Ferret, Bastien, 2019. "Adherence to cultural norms and economic incentives: Evidence from fertility timing decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 24-48.
    16. Kamila Cygan-Rehm, 2014. "Immigrant Fertility in Germany: The Role of Culture," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 707, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    17. Kandpal, Eeshani & Baylis, Kathy, 2019. "The social lives of married women: Peer effects in female autonomy and investments in children," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 26-43.
    18. Ying Li & Quanbao Jiang, 2017. "The Intergenerational Effect and Second Childbirth: Survey Findings from the Shaanxi Province of China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 133(2), pages 669-691, September.
    19. Ryota Nakamura & Marc Suhrcke & Daniel John Zizzo, 2017. "A triple test for behavioral economics models and public health policy," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(4), pages 513-533, December.
    20. Cavapozzi, Danilo & Francesconi, Marco & Nicoletti, Cheti, 2021. "The impact of gender role norms on mothers’ labor supply," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 113-134.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    peer effects; multinomial logit; fertility; India; education; wealth status;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • 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:mos:moswps:2014-34. 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: Simon Angus (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dxmonau.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.