| ashu |
Posted
on 02-Oct-03 06:20 PM
Again, your friendly 'economic science', trying to explain why humans do what they do.
Enjoy,
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
*******
everyday economics
Oh, No: It's a Girl!
Do daughters cause divorce?
By Steven E. Landsburg
From Slate.com
If you want to stay married, three of the most ominous words you'll
ever hear are "It's a girl." All over the world, boys hold marriages
together, and girls break them up.
In the United States, the parents of a girl are nearly 5 percent more
likely to divorce than the parents of a boy. The more daughters, the
bigger the effect: The parents of three girls are almost 10 percent
more likely to divorce than the parents of three boys. In Mexico and
Colombia the gap is wider; in Kenya it's wider still. In Vietnam, it's
huge: Parents of a girl are 25 percent more likely to divorce than
parents of a boy.
Ever since the economists Gordon Dahl (at the University of
Rochester) and Enrico Moretti (at UCLA) established these facts a few months
ago, they and their colleagues (and not a few of their colleagues'
friends and families) have been spinning hypotheses about what's behind
the numbers.
Children of divorce usually stay with the mother, so the question
comes down to this: Why do fathers stick around for sons when they won't
stick around for daughters? (Or alternatively, why do mothers stay
married so their sons can have a father when they won't do the same for
their daughters?) Do fathers prefer the company of sons? Do parents
think a boy needs a male role model? Do they worry that boys cope less
successfully with the emotional consequences of divorce? Or do they
believe that an emotionally devastated daughter is somehow less of a
tragedy than an emotionally devastated son?
Dahl and Moretti make the extremely helpful observation that all
theories fall into one of two categories: Either sons improve the quality
of married life (say by being more available for an evening game of
catch) or sons exacerbate the pain of divorce (say by falling apart
emotionally when the father leaves). Theories of the first sort suggest
that a boy child is a blessing; theories of the second sort suggest
that the same boy child is a curse⬠or at least has the potential to
become a curse if the marriage starts to crumble.
So, before we decide which theory to believe, we should look for
external evidence on the demand for sons versus the demand for daughters.
Do most parents prefer boys or girls?
Of course we all know the answer in China, with its ongoing history
of female infanticide. But what about the United States? Dahl and
Moretti offer several reasons to believe that American parents also have
a strong preference⬠though not as strong as the Chinese
preference⬠for boys over girls.
Here's some of their evidence: First, divorced women with girls are
substantially less likely to remarry than divorced women with boys,
suggesting that daughters are a liability in the market for a husband.
Not only do daughters lower the probability of remarriage; they also
lower the probability that a second marriage, if it does occur, will
succeed.
Next, parents of girls are quite a bit more likely to try for another
child than parents of boys, which suggests that there are more
parents hoping for sons than for daughters.
Once again, the effect is strong in the United States but even
stronger elsewhere. In the United States, Colombia, or Kenya, a couple with
three girls is about 4 percent more likely to try for another child
than a couple with three boys; in Mexico it's closer to 9 percent, and
in Vietnam it's 18 percent. In China, before the one-child policy was
imposed in 1982, the number was an astounding 90 percent!
One of Dahl and Moretti's most striking bits of evidence comes from
shotgun marriages. Take a typical unmarried couple who are expecting a
child and have an ultrasound, which more often than not reveals the
child's sex. It turns out that such couples are more likely to get
married if the child is a boy. Apparently, for unmarried fathers, the
prospect of living with a wife and a son is more alluring than the
prospect of living with a wife and a daughter.
So, what's the bottom line? Dahl and Moretti are quick to acknowledge
that they've found no smoking guns; if you're sufficiently clever you
can probably concoct alternative explanations for everything they've
observed. But the most natural way to interpret their data is that
parents, on average, prefer boys to girls. The preference is stronger
elsewhere in the world, but it's plenty strong in the United States
too.
That seems to answer one question: Boys preserve marriages by making
marriages better, not by making divorces worse. But it also raises a
new question: What's so great about a boy? Why do parents prefer boys
to girls?
Maybe boys grow up to be better economic providers for their parents'
old age. (This would explain why the preference for boys is stronger
in countries where men hold more economic power.) Maybe boys are just
more fun to have around. Maybe parents want a child who can carry on
the family name. Or maybe there's something deep in our psyches that
tells us a family just isn't a family without a son. Which is it?
Dahl and Moretti wisely decline to speculate, and I will follow their
example. I don't know any evidence that could settle this question.
All we know is that for some reason, parents prefer boys⬠by enough
that boys hold a lot of shaky marriages together.
Years ago on the schoolyard, we used to chant that girls are good but
boys are better. It looks like our parents agreed with us.
|
| KaleKrishna |
Posted
on 02-Oct-03 10:23 PM
Ashuji, nice information. Yes, this social malice is deep rooted in every cultures and civilization.
Science is unsuccesfuly exploring answer to the factors that decide the sex of the child. It is becomming more clear now then before that individual nature of couples (dame and shire) has a significant role. Pre-mating and mating female domination (not necessarily externally exhibited) have higher posibility of having a male child then the otherway round. In man domination, the chances of female child is higher.
This may have some link to the divorces resulting out of a child birth as the issue of domination and misunderstanding are closely related.
So, wannabe fathers, it is upto you to decide what you want, and the price involved.
Be dominated and get a dominating son, or dominate and get a dominating daughter, either way you'll be a loser.
|
| Disco |
Posted
on 03-Oct-03 07:18 AM
Asu ji, thanks, that was some refreshing piece. Actually, as I was reading I was thinking along, sex of a child not being a primary factor but may be sex of your child makes it easier for the already "shaky union", esp. for the wife. I am thinking in terms of male domination within the family, where the wife would go along with the husband without any kids or with a boy in the family, in which case, more male domination, whereas with a girl, there is maternal instinct to protect the daughter from the shakiness so the "altruism" from the part of the mother to part ways. So the root is already there due to already male dominated union. I'm thinking more along the nature line but Im not anywhere close to being a social scientist.
Disco.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 03-Oct-03 07:32 AM
KK and Disco,
Thanks for your messages.
Glad to know that the article gave you something to think about.
Though I do NOT do hard-core economics in Nepal, I enjoy --to the extent possible from and in Nepal -- keeping up with the developments in that field, and occasionally sharing pieces like the one posted above with you Sajha friends. I may very well start teaching economics on a part-time/early-morning basis at a college here, and would certainly want to make young Nepali students excited thinking through concepts of economics to better understand the world around them. Let's see how it goes.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
