IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ehbiol/v36y2020ics1570677x19301121.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences in Cesarean section rates by fetal sex among Chinese women in the United States: Does Chinese culture play a role?

Author

Listed:
  • Shen, Menghan
  • Li, Linyan

Abstract

To investigate whether elements of Chinese culture, such as son preference, influence women’s mode of child delivery, this paper analyzes how fetal sex affects C-section rates among Chinese mothers compared with Japanese mothers in the United States. It uses birth certificate data from 1990 to 2000, a period when women were routinely able to learn the sex of the fetus during pregnancy. Compared with Japanese mothers, Chinese mothers were 1 percentage point more likely to undergo C-section when giving birth to boys than when giving birth to girls. This result is robust to the addition of a rich set of controls and the restriction of the sample to infants without congenital diseases or anomalies at birth. The effects are concentrated in subgroups that are more likely to prefer sons—specifically, where both parents are Asian or where mothers are first-generation immigrants. The findings offer valuable insights for health professionals into culturally driven pregnancy behaviors among Chinese women, potentially enabling them to offer more culturally appropriate healthcare as they support women in making a healthy transition to motherhood.

Suggested Citation

  • Shen, Menghan & Li, Linyan, 2020. "Differences in Cesarean section rates by fetal sex among Chinese women in the United States: Does Chinese culture play a role?," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ehbiol:v:36:y:2020:i:c:s1570677x19301121
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ehb.2019.100824
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X19301121
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ehb.2019.100824?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stafford, R.S., 1990. "Cesarean section use and source of payment: An analysis of California hospital discharge abstracts," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 80(3), pages 313-315.
    2. Silvia Helena Barcellos & Leandro S. Carvalho & Adriana Lleras-Muney, 2014. "Child Gender and Parental Investments in India: Are Boys and Girls Treated Differently?," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(1), pages 157-189, January.
    3. Almond, Douglas & Sun, Yixin, 2017. "Son-biased sex ratios in 2010 US Census and 2011–2013 US natality data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 21-24.
    4. Jason Abrevaya, 2009. "Are There Missing Girls in the United States? Evidence from Birth Data," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 1-34, April.
    5. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2009. "Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 8769.
    6. Almond, Douglas & Chee, Christine Pal & Sviatschi, Maria Micaela & Zhong, Nan, 2015. "Auspicious birth dates among Chinese in California," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 153-159.
    7. Luojia Hu & Analía Schlosser, 2015. "Prenatal Sex Selection and Girls’ Well‐Being: Evidence from India," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(587), pages 1227-1261, September.
    8. Jonathan Gruber & Maria Owings, 1996. "Physician Financial Incentives and Cesarean Section Delivery," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 99-123, Spring.
    9. Katz, Ethan, 2001. "Bias in Conditional and Unconditional Fixed Effects Logit Estimation," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 379-384, January.
    10. Erin M. Johnson & M. Marit Rehavi, 2016. "Physicians Treating Physicians: Information and Incentives in Childbirth," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 115-141, February.
    11. Douglas Almond & Lena Edlund & Kevin Milligan, 2013. "Son Preference and the Persistence of Culture: Evidence from South and East Asian Immigrants to Canada," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 39(1), pages 75-95, March.
    12. Lobel, Marci & DeLuca, Robyn Stein, 2007. "Psychosocial sequelae of cesarean delivery: Review and analysis of their causes and implications," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(11), pages 2272-2284, June.
    13. Shelly Lundberg & Elaina Rose, 2002. "The Effects Of Sons And Daughters On Men'S Labor Supply And Wages," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(2), pages 251-268, May.
    14. Prashant Bharadwaj & Leah K. Lakdawala, 2013. "Discrimination Begins in the Womb: Evidence of Sex-Selective Prenatal Investments," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 48(1), pages 71-113.
    15. Stavros Petrou & Kamran Khan, 2013. "An Overview of the Health Economic Implications of Elective Caesarean Section," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(6), pages 561-576, December.
    16. Hsu, Kuang-Hung & Liao, Pei-Ju & Hwang, Chorng-Jer, 2008. "Factors affecting Taiwanese women's choice of cesarean section," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 201-209, January.
    17. Gruber, Jon & Kim, John & Mayzlin, Dina, 1999. "Physician fees and procedure intensity: the case of cesarean delivery," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 473-490, August.
    18. Aparna Lhila & Kosali Simon, 2008. "Prenatal health investment decisions: Does the child’s sex matter?," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 45(4), pages 885-905, November.
    19. Wataru Kureishi & Midori Wakabayashi, 2011. "Son preference in Japan," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 24(3), pages 873-893, July.
    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. Almond, Douglas & Cheng, Yi, 2021. "Perinatal health among 1 million Chinese-Americans," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    2. Douglas Almond & Yi Cheng, 2020. "Perinatal Health among 1 Million Chinese-Americans," NBER Working Papers 27775, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Alexander Stimpfle & David Stadelmann, 2016. "Does Central Europe Import the Missing Women Phenomenon?," CREMA Working Paper Series 2016-04, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    4. Neeraj Kaushal & Felix M. Muchomba, 2018. "Missing time with parents: son preference among Asians in the USA," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 31(2), pages 397-427, April.
    5. González, Libertad, 2018. "Sex selection and health at birth among Indian immigrants," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 64-75.
    6. Michael Baker & Kevin Milligan, 2016. "Boy-Girl Differences in Parental Time Investments: Evidence from Three Countries," Journal of Human Capital, University of Chicago Press, vol. 10(4), pages 399-441.
    7. Milazzo, Annamaria, 2018. "Why are adult women missing? Son preference and maternal survival in India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 467-484.
    8. Eleanor Jawon Choi & Jisoo Hwang, 2020. "Transition of Son Preference: Evidence From South Korea," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 57(2), pages 627-652, April.
    9. Manuel Adelino & Katharina Lewellen & W. Ben McCartney, 2022. "Hospital Financial Health and Clinical Choices: Evidence from the Financial Crisis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(3), pages 2098-2119, March.
    10. Barili, Emilia & Bertoli, Paola & Grembi, Veronica, 2021. "Fee equalization and appropriate health care," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    11. Sonia Bhalotra & Abhishek Chakravarty & Dilip Mookherjee & Francisco J. Pino, 2019. "Property Rights and Gender Bias: Evidence from Land Reform in West Bengal," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(2), pages 205-237, April.
    12. Jeffrey Clemens & Joshua D. Gottlieb & Jeffrey Hicks, 2021. "How Would Medicare for All Affect Health System Capacity? Evidence from Medicare for Some," Tax Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(1), pages 225-262.
    13. Adriana D. Kugler & Santosh Kumar, 2017. "Preference for Boys, Family Size, and Educational Attainment in India," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 54(3), pages 835-859, June.
    14. Hitoshi Shigeoka, 2015. "School Entry Cutoff Date and the Timing of Births," NBER Working Papers 21402, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Bhalotra, Sonia & Chakravarty, Abhishek & Gulesci, Selim, 2020. "The price of gold: Dowry and death in India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    16. Lo, Joan C., 2008. "Financial incentives do not always work--An example of cesarean sections in Taiwan," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 121-129, October.
    17. Prashant Bharadwaj & Leah K. Lakdawala, 2013. "Discrimination Begins in the Womb: Evidence of Sex-Selective Prenatal Investments," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 48(1), pages 71-113.
    18. de Elejalde, Ramiro & Giolito, Eugenio, 2021. "A demand-smoothing incentive for cesarean deliveries," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    19. Luojia Hu & Analía Schlosser, 2015. "Prenatal Sex Selection and Girls’ Well‐Being: Evidence from India," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(587), pages 1227-1261, September.
    20. Luojia Hu & Analía Schlosser, 2012. "Trends in Prenatal Sex Selection and Girls' Nutritional Status in India," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 58(2), pages 348-372, June.

    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:eee:ehbiol:v:36:y:2020:i:c:s1570677x19301121. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622964 .

    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.