IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i19p3679-d272241.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Does Economic Inequality Affect Infanticide Rates? An Analysis of 15 Years of Death Records and Representative Economic Data

Author

Listed:
  • Seong-Uk Baek

    (College of Medicine, Yonsei University, Seoul 03722, Korea)

  • Sung-Shil Lim

    (The Institute for Occupational Health, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, Korea)

  • Jihyun Kim

    (The Institute for Occupational Health, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, Korea)

  • Jin-Ha Yoon

    (The Institute for Occupational Health, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, Korea
    Department of Preventive Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, Korea)

Abstract

Background: Is there a relationship between economic inequality and infanticide rates? Few studies have examined the socioeconomic factors that trigger infanticide. This study aims to statistically analyze the effect of these factors on infanticide rates. Methods: This study used infant death records in South Korea from 2003 to 2017 to assess the impact of unemployment rates and various statistical indicators (e.g., GDP and income inequality index) on the rate of infanticide. A generalized additive model and a quasi-Poisson regression were used for statistical analyses. Results: A time-trend analysis shows that the infanticide rate tended to grow despite a decreasing trend in the quarterly infant mortality rate. A 1% increase in the unemployment rate is associated with a significant rise in the relative risk of infanticide after a lag of two quarters. Relative risks increased significantly three and four quarters after a 0.1 rise in the p80/p20 ratio (income inequality index). Conclusions: Policymakers should pay attention to socioeconomic factors while formulating healthcare regulations to protect potential infanticide victims, including vulnerable infants and their parents.

Suggested Citation

  • Seong-Uk Baek & Sung-Shil Lim & Jihyun Kim & Jin-Ha Yoon, 2019. "How Does Economic Inequality Affect Infanticide Rates? An Analysis of 15 Years of Death Records and Representative Economic Data," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-12, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:19:p:3679-:d:272241
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/19/3679/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/19/3679/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Monica Das Gupta & Jiang Zhenghua & Li Bohua & Xie Zhenming & Woojin Chung & Bae Hwa-Ok, 2003. "Why is Son preference so persistent in East and South Asia? a cross-country study of China, India and the Republic of Korea," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 153-187.
    2. Georgios K Nikolopoulos & Anastasios Fotiou & Eleftheria Kanavou & Clive Richardson & Marios Detsis & Anastasia Pharris & Jonathan E Suk & Jan C Semenza & Claudia Costa-Storti & Dimitrios Paraskevis &, 2015. "National Income Inequality and Declining GDP Growth Rates Are Associated with Increases in HIV Diagnoses among People Who Inject Drugs in Europe: A Panel Data Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-13, April.
    3. Panizza, Ugo, 2002. "Income Inequality and Economic Growth: Evidence from American Data," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 25-41, March.
    4. Chiara Orsini & Mauricio Avendano, 2015. "Macro-Economic Conditions and Infant Health: A Changing Relationship for Black and White Infants in the United States," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-15, May.
    5. Juan Ignacio Ruiz & Kaamel Nuhu & Justin Tyler McDaniel & Federico Popoff & Ariel Izcovich & Juan Martin Criniti, 2015. "Inequality as a Powerful Predictor of Infant and Maternal Mortality around the World," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-11, October.
    6. Lindo, Jason M., 2011. "Parental job loss and infant health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 869-879.
    7. Orsini, Chiara & Avendano, Mauricio, 2015. "Macro-economic conditions and infanthealth: a changing relationship for blackand white infants in the United States," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 62307, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Yueh-Ping Liu & Ren-Jun Hsu & Mei-Hwan Wu & Chun-Chih Peng & Shu-Ting Chang & Wei-Te Lei & Tzu-Lin Yeh & Jui-Ming Liu & Chien-Yu Lin, 2018. "Economic Conditions May Contribute to Increased Violence toward Children: A Nationwide Population-Based Analysis of Pediatric Injuries in Taiwanese Emergency Departments," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-10, January.
    9. Qing Wang & Jay J. Shen & Chris Cochran, 2016. "Unemployment Rate, Smoking in China: Are They Related?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, January.
    10. Entorf, Horst, 1998. "Mismatch explanations of European unemployment : a critical evaluation ; with 36 tables," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 24091, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    11. Woojin Chung & Monica Das Gupta, 2007. "The Decline of Son Preference in South Korea: The Roles of Development and Public Policy," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 33(4), pages 757-783, December.
    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. Sara Tafuro, 2020. "An Economic Framework for Persisting Son Preference: Rethinking the Role of Intergenerational Support," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 39(6), pages 983-1007, December.
    2. Huang, Zibin & Jiang, Xu & Sun, Ang, 2024. "Fertility and delayed migration: How son preference protects young girls against mother–child separation," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    3. Yukawa Shiho, 2015. "Effects of Fatherhood on Male Wage and Labor Supply in Japan," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 15(2), pages 437-474, April.
    4. Giyeon Seo & Tanya Koropeckyj‐Cox & Sanghag Kim, 2022. "Correlates of Contemporary Gender Preference for Children in South Korea," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 48(1), pages 161-188, March.
    5. Paola A. Suarez, 2018. "Child-bride marriage and female welfare," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 1-28, February.
    6. Guo, Hao & Hu, Chenxu & Ding, Xiaozhou, 2022. "Son preference, intrahousehold discrimination, and the gender gap in education in China," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 324-339.
    7. Lena Edlund & Chulhee Lee, 2013. "Son Preference, Sex Selection and Economic Development: The Case of South Korea," NBER Working Papers 18679, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Bhattacharya, Prabir C, 2012. "Gender Inequality and the Sex Ratio in Three Emerging Economies," SIRE Discussion Papers 2012-31, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    9. Woojin Chung & Roeul Kim, 2020. "A Reversal of the Association between Education Level and Obesity Risk during Ageing: A Gender-Specific Longitudinal Study in South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-19, September.
    10. Ashwini Deshpande & Apoorva Gupta, 2019. "Nakusha? Son Preference, Resource Concentration and Gender Gaps in Education," Working Papers 1020, Ashoka University, Department of Economics.
    11. Srinivas Goli & Somya Arora & Neha Jain & Sekher T. V., 2024. "Patrilocality and Child Sex Ratios in India," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 43(4), pages 1-28, August.
    12. Prabir C. Bhattacharya, 2012. "Gender Inequality and the Sex Ratio in Three Emerging Economies," Heriot-Watt University Economics Discussion Papers 1201, Department of Economics, School of Management and Languages, Heriot Watt University.
    13. Tien Vu, 2014. "One male offspring preference: evidence from Vietnam using a split-population model," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 689-715, December.
    14. Dong, Yongqing & Bai, Yunli & Wang, Weidong & Luo, Renfu & Liu, Chengfang & Zhang, Linxiu, 2020. "Does gender matter for the intergenerational transmission of education? Evidence from rural China," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    15. Soohyung Lee & Chiara Orsini, 2018. "Girls and boys: Economic crisis, fertility, and birth outcomes," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(7), pages 1044-1063, November.
    16. Asadullah, M. Niaz & Mansoor, Nazia & Randazzo, Teresa & Wahhaj, Zaki, 2021. "Is son preference disappearing from Bangladesh?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    17. Monica Das Gupta & Woojin Chung & Li Shuzhuo, 2009. "Evidence for an Incipient Decline in Numbers of Missing Girls in China and India," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 35(2), pages 401-416, June.
    18. Chi Zhou & Xiao Wang & Xu Zhou & Therese Hesketh, 2012. "Son preference and sex-selective abortion in China: informing policy options," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 57(3), pages 459-465, June.
    19. Goli, Srinivas & Mavisakalyan, Astghik & Rammohan, Anu & Vu, Loan, 2022. "Conflicts and son preference: Micro-level evidence from 58 countries," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    20. Woojin Chung & Roeul Kim, 2020. "Which Occupation is Highly Associated with Cognitive Impairment? A Gender-Specific Longitudinal Study of Paid and Unpaid Occupations in South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-17, October.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:19:p:3679-:d:272241. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.