Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

LEC4-06 by gegeshandong


									     Education, Fertility, and

• We have seen that education is, in most
  countries related to fertility decline

• At early stages of development, only the
  most educated may have lower fertility
     As development proceeds:
• In addition, those with some education may
  have higher fertility than those with very
  little or none - resulting in the reversed-J or
  reversed-U relationship between fertility
  and education
• At later stages, the direct relationship may
• Finally, differences diminish
 Does lowered fertility increase
• In most countries, the answer appears to be
  that it does

• Children from smaller families have higher
 But does fertility decline cause
   an increase in education?
• There may be a tradeoff -- those who
  choose to have larger families may be also
  choosing to give their children less
• Both fertility decline and increased
  education may be due to a common factor:
  increased development and investment in
        Decrease in unwanted
• Definitely appears related to increased
  education -- in that resources of the family
  can be distributed to fewer children
• However, if the decrease in childbearing
  occurred amongst the better off, who were
  already educating their children, there could
  be a decrease in average education as
  fertility fell
  Increase in public expenditure
• In most countries, slower population growth
  has permitted increased expenditure in
• This may both alter enrollment rates and the
  length of schooling
• Other public policies may especially target
  underserved groups -- e.g. girls
         The role of siblings
• In many countries, parents are responsible
  fully only for the education of the oldest
• Thereafter, older children may help finance
  the education of younger ones as pafrt of
  their responsibility to the family
Is increased education a uniform
       benefit for women?
• To begin to address this question, we can go
  back to
• -- the rise of capitalism
• -- notions of patriarchy and the position of
  women in the family, household, and
Interrelation of family, education
   change and woman’s status
       -- rise of capitalism
• Ester Boserup’s thesis was that the rise of
  capitalism led to a decline in the status of
• As production moved outside the home,
  women had no role in those activities
• They were much more limited to household
  and reproductive roles
            Chinese society
• Susan Greenhalgh argues that partriarchy
  had long before created systems for
  controlling women
• that capitalism only comes lately
• and that both serve as formidable obstacles
  to reducing gender inequality
• she looks to the family system
  Contracts between parents and
• Need to look at childhood and young
  adulthood, when economic bases of gender
  inequality are laid down
• There are different types of generational
  “contracts” between parents and children
• These differences in obligations give rise to
  systematic gender differences in
  socioeconomic resources and personal
     What are the mechanisms
   through which position of the
       sexes is determined?
• A male’s position in the family is ascribed -
  it is inherited and is set from birth
• A woman’s position changes when she
  marries -- she has to achieve a position in
  her new family, usually by producing a
  male heir
  Rights within family of origin
• All children have rights to some of the
  resources of the family
• Parents gave them “their bodies,” support
  before marriage, help in finding a spouse,
  training for their future lives
• But the training given was quite different
• Sons: training was for productive work
• Daughters: training for reproduction and
  work within the household
• The obligation to daughters (and theirs to
  their parents) generally ended with marriage
  and was satisfied by dowry - which was
  treated primarily as a gift
          Obligations to sons
• What parents gave to sons was treated as a
• Sons could use this loan as they wished, but
  had to bow to parental wishes
• Obedience, contribution to the family
  economy, support in old age
• Parents gave to children in youth, but sons
  give to parents as adults
         Duration of contracts
• Contracts with sons are seen as being for
  the lifetime
• Contracts with daughters are seen as being
  only until marriage
• Under this formulation, it only makes sense
  to invest differentially in children according
  to gender
What is the American contract
between parents and children?
  And how has it changed over time?
 What is the American contract?
• In general, the contract has shifted to a one-
  way system, whereby parents contribute to
  children -- and for a much longer time
• In the past, there was the obligation to
  support parents, and it was much less
• Sandwich generation -- finds itself with
  obligations to both parents and children
    Implications of this system
        during childhood

• Less education for girls
• More work-time for girls - boys had more
  time for play, whereas girls worked more
  within the household
      Development in Taiwan
• After WWII, rapid expansion of education
• Pressure on families to educate children
• High school graduation rates became very
• Little difference between boys and girls
• Did these changes translate into reduction in
  gender inequality?
        What were the changes?
• Increased opportunities for women to work,
  particularly in manufacturing, but also in
  commerce and social and personal services
• Increased opportunities for men were much
  greater and more broadly distributed
• Women faced limited access to the best jobs
• - less likely to be an employer or self-employed
• - wage gap
   Consequences for the family
• Little incentive to change bias against
• Increasing development brought the
  opportunity to invest even more in sons so
  that parents reaped the payoff
• So, even though education increased for all,
  inequality remained
• Parents took from their daughters to invest
  in their sons
• Daughters were expected to earn and remit
  to the family -- which then invested in
  better education for sons
• Girls had increased opportunity and greater
  autonomy - but this masked overall
             What happened?

• Rise in female education
• Rise in gender inequality in education
• Boys received more years of education and
  different kinds of training that would lead to
  greater opportunity
      The new family strategy
• Educate your daughters some, but then send
  them out to work so that you could educate
  your sons even more
• Older sons received less education, because
  family could not afford to educate them
• The more older sisters a boy had, the higher
  his education -- but there was not
  relationship with older brothers
             Context matters
• Others who have looked at gender
  inequalities and family strategies have
  found somewhat different results
• Lillard and Willis: Malaysia
• There the investment seemed to go to the
  oldest sons - the more older brothers, the
  lower the education of a son
• For girls, it was the opposite, the more
  younger sisters, the lower her education
• The strategy seems to be that a daughter
  gets educated if there are few others coming
  after her
• A son gets educated as early as possible -
  and younger sons get educated if it’s
• So there is a strategy of concentration --
  maximizing the education of the first
    How else were inequalities
• Girls were more likely to be in blue-collar,
  unskilled jobs
• Boys were more likely to change jobs - to
  take risks, while girls stayed in secure jobs
• Girls were less likely to live outside the
• Boys had higher income
• Girls remitted a higher proportion of income
         Women’s education
• Even when constraints on women’s
  education are reduced, there is not
  guarantee that gender inequality will be
• Even when women become cash
  contributors to the household, which would
  argue for reevaluation of their contributions,
  this does not guarantee reduction in gender
        Content of education
• Some argue that girls are admitted to an
  education system that is geared to
  perpetuate existing culture
• Sex stereotyping in fields of study occurs
  even when overall enrollment appears to be
  similar for boys and girls

To top