IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i8p4759-d793967.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of Fertility, Social Status, and Social Trust of Farmers

Author

Listed:
  • Liqing Li

    (School of Public Administration and Law, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha 410128, China)

  • He Jiang

    (School of Public Administration and Law, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha 410128, China)

Abstract

Fertility, social status, and social trust are main social choice behaviors of Chinese farmers. This paper adopts the childbearing–value logic to establish a theoretical model of farmers’ childbearing–social status–social trust choices to examine the influence of farmers’ childbearing and social status on farmers’ social trust. The theoretical model showed that farmers will rationally choose the number of children to bear, emotional value, social value, economic value, social status, and social trust. The fertility of farmers’ children is actually a trade-off between quantity and value, and the fertility behavior affects social status through the direct mechanism of the number of children and the value of the adjustment mechanism, and together with the social status, through the direct mechanism, the adjustment mechanism of the number of children, the intermediate mechanism of social status, and the mixed adjustment mechanism. Asymmetry affects social trust equilibrium. Empirical research based on the CFPS (China Family Panel Studies) data in 2018 showed that farmers’ children quantity primarily inhibits, through the adjustment mechanism of children’s value–social status, social status and social trust; it exerts no direct impact or mediating effect on the social status. The economic value of children does not affect the social status, but it affects social trust through a positive child quantity adjustment mechanism, a negative social status mediation mechanism, and a negative mixed mediation mechanism. The social value of children affects social trust by the positive direct mechanism and the negative children quantity adjustment mechanism, as well as social trust by the negative direct mechanism, children quantity adjustment mechanism, children quantity–social status mixed adjustment mediating mechanism, and the positive social status–mediated mechanism. The emotional value of children affects the social status through the positive direct mechanism, as well as social trust through the positive direct mechanism, social status–mediated mechanism, and negative child quantity adjustment mechanism, and negative mixed mediation mechanism. Furthermore, social status positively impacts social trust rather than a symmetric transmission of the mediating effect of children’s value and the quantity adjustment effect of children’s value. However, no mediating effect of social trust was observed on children quantity. Social development leads to structural changes in the fertility value of farmers’ children, which makes farmers prefer their children’s social and economic value, exerting a complex impact on their own social status and social trust.

Suggested Citation

  • Liqing Li & He Jiang, 2022. "Development of Fertility, Social Status, and Social Trust of Farmers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-31, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:8:p:4759-:d:793967
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4759/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4759/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/gaufue4me9tvqtg0t3u18e3la is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Xiaorong Gu, 2021. "Introduction: the Value of Children and Social Transformations in Asia," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 14(2), pages 477-486, April.
    3. Carol H. Shiue, 2017. "Human capital and fertility in Chinese clans before modern growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 351-396, December.
    4. Gary S. Becker & H. Gregg Lewis, 1974. "Interaction between Quantity and Quality of Children," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of the Family: Marriage, Children, and Human Capital, pages 81-90, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Nicolas Coeurdacier & Stéphane Guibaud & Keyu Jin, 2014. "Fertility Policies and Social Security Reforms in China," IMF Economic Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Monetary Fund, vol. 62(3), pages 371-408, August.
    6. Alberto Alesina & Paola Giuliano & Nathan Nunn, 2013. "On the Origins of Gender Roles: Women and the Plough," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 128(2), pages 469-530.
    7. Wei, Shang-Jin & Zhang, Xiaobo & Liu, Yin, 2017. "Home ownership as status competition: Some theory and evidence," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 169-186.
    8. Douglas Almond & Hongbin Li & Shuang Zhang, 2019. "Land Reform and Sex Selection in China," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(2), pages 560-585.
    9. Hongbin Li & Junjian Yi & Junsen Zhang, 2011. "Estimating the Effect of the One-Child Policy on the Sex Ratio Imbalance in China: Identification Based on the Difference-in-Differences," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 48(4), pages 1535-1557, November.
    10. Richard Easterlin, 1966. "On the relation of economic factors to recent and projected fertility changes," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 3(1), pages 131-153, March.
    11. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2012. "The Intergenerational Transmission of Risk and Trust Attitudes," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 79(2), pages 645-677.
    12. Li-Chung Hu & Yi-Lin Chiang, 2021. "Having Children in a Time of Lowest-Low Fertility: Value of Children, Sex Preference and Fertility Desire among Taiwanese Young Adults," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 14(2), pages 537-554, April.
    13. Avraham Ebenstein & Steven Leung, 2010. "Son Preference and Access to Social Insurance: Evidence from China's Rural Pension Program," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 36(1), pages 47-70, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wang Ge & Shiyun Zhang & Yan Lu & Jiyu Jiang & Hui Jiang & Xiaona Cheng, 2022. "Can Higher Land Rentals Promote Soil Conservation of Large-Scale Farmers in China?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-14, November.
    2. Xiuling Ding & Qian Lu & Lipeng Li & Apurbo Sarkar & Hua Li, 2022. "Evaluating the Impact of Institutional Performance and Government Trust on Farmers’ Subjective Well-Being: A Case of Urban–Rural Welfare Gap Perception and Family Economic Status in Shaanxi, Sichuan a," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-20, December.

    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. Chae, Minhee & Meng, Xin & Xue, Sen, 2023. "Fertility, Son-Preference, and the Reversal of the Gender Gap in Literacy/Numeracy Tests," IZA Discussion Papers 16208, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Rufei Guo & Qian Wang & Junjian Yi & Junsen Zhang, 2022. "Housing prices and son preference: Evidence from China’s housing reform," Economics of Transition and Institutional Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 421-446, July.
    3. Doepke, M. & Tertilt, M., 2016. "Families in Macroeconomics," Handbook of Macroeconomics, in: J. B. Taylor & Harald Uhlig (ed.), Handbook of Macroeconomics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1789-1891, Elsevier.
    4. Samuel Marden, 2016. "Family Size and the Demand for Sex Selection: Evidence From China," Working Paper Series 9016, Department of Economics, University of Sussex.
    5. Li, Wenchao, 2021. "The “miseries” of sex imbalance: Evidence using subjective well-being data," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    6. Soo Hong Chew & Junjian Yi & Junsen Zhang & Songfa Zhong, 2018. "Risk Aversion and Son Preference: Experimental Evidence from Chinese Twin Parents," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(8), pages 3896-3910, August.
    7. Yu Bai & Yanjun Li & Pak Hung Lam, 2023. "Quantity-quality trade-off in Northeast China during the Qing dynasty," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 36(3), pages 1657-1694, July.
    8. Alberto Bisin & Thierry Verdier, 2010. "The Economics of Cultural Transmission and Socialization," Post-Print halshs-00754788, HAL.
    9. Yang, Xiaolan & Hong, Xiaoyue & Li, Wenchao, 2023. "“Only children” and entrepreneurship in China: Spillover effects and mechanisms," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    10. Samuel Marden, 2016. "Family Size and the Demand for Sex Selection: Evidence From China," Working Paper Series 09016, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    11. Kota Ogasawara & Mizuki Komura, 2022. "Consequences of war: Japan’s demographic transition and the marriage market," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 35(3), pages 1037-1069, July.
    12. Bao, Xiaojia & Galiani, Sebastian & Li, Kai & Long, Cheryl Xiaoning, 2023. "Where have all the children gone? An empirical study of child abandonment and abduction in China," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 208(C), pages 95-119.
    13. Larry E. Jones & Michele Tertilt, 2006. "An Economic History of Fertility in the U.S.: 1826-1960," NBER Working Papers 12796, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Xu, Yuanwei, 2021. "Paying for the Selected Son: Sex Imbalance and Marriage Payments in China," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242436, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Claude Diebolt & Cédric Doliger, 2005. "Becker vs. Easterlin. Education, Fertility and Growth in France after World War II," Working Papers 05-03, Association Française de Cliométrie (AFC).
    18. Jun Han & Zhong Zhao, 2022. "One‐child policy and marriage market in China," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(1), pages 57-84, February.
    19. Ella Sargsyan, 2022. "Violent Conflicts and Child Gender Preferences of Parents: Evidence from Nigeria," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp723, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    20. Nicola Barban & Elisabetta De Cao & Marco Francesconi, 2021. "Gene-Environment Effects on Female Fertility," CESifo Working Paper Series 9337, CESifo.

    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:19:y:2022:i:8:p:4759-:d:793967. 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.