IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/prodev/v13y2013i2p117-133.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender inequality and the sex ratio in three emerging economies

Author

Listed:
  • Prabir C. Bhattacharya

    (Department of Economics, School of Management and Languages, Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK)

Abstract

The aim of this article is to study inequality and deprivations as reflected in the human sex ratio (commonly defined as the number of males per 100 females). The particular focus is on three emerging economies – Russia, India and China. The article compares and contrasts the experiences of these countries and discusses policy issues. It is noted that while the feminist perspective on the issues surrounding the sex ratio is important, it would be wrong to view these issues always or exclusively through the prism of that perspective. It is also suggested that India and China probably have better prospects of sustained economic growth in the foreseeable future than does Russia.

Suggested Citation

  • Prabir C. Bhattacharya, 2013. "Gender inequality and the sex ratio in three emerging economies," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 13(2), pages 117-133, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:prodev:v:13:y:2013:i:2:p:117-133
    DOI: 10.1177/1464993412466505
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1464993412466505
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1464993412466505?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ansley Coale & Judith Banister, 1994. "Five decades of missing females in China," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 31(3), pages 459-479, August.
    2. Van Gundy, Karen & Schieman, Scott & Kelley, Margaret S. & Rebellon, Cesar J., 2005. "Gender role orientations and alcohol use among Moscow and Toronto adults," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(11), pages 2317-2330, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Dreze, Jean & Sen, Amartya, 2002. "India: Development and Participation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199257492.
    5. Hinote, Brian Philip & Cockerham, William C. & Abbott, Pamela, 2009. "The specter of post-communism: Women and alcohol in eight post-Soviet states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 1254-1262, April.
    6. Christophe Z. Guilmoto, 2009. "The Sex Ratio Transition in Asia," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 519-549, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Björn Gustafsson & Shi Li, 2000. "Economic transformation and the gender earnings gap in urban China," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 13(2), pages 305-329.
    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. Goli, Srinivas & Arora, Somya & Jain, Neha & Shekher, T V, 2022. "Patrilocality and Child Sex Ratios in India," MPRA Paper 111905, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. 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.
    6. 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).
    7. John Bongaarts, 2013. "The Implementation of Preferences for Male Offspring," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 39(2), pages 185-208, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Zhongwei Zhao & Yuan Zhu & Anna Reimondos, 2013. "Could changes in reported sex ratios at birth during China's 1958-1961 famine support the adaptive sex ratio adjustment hypothesis?," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 29(33), pages 885-906.
    10. John Bongaarts & Christophe Z. Guilmoto, 2015. "How Many More Missing Women? Excess Female Mortality and Prenatal Sex Selection, 1970–2050," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 41(2), pages 241-269, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Ding, Weili & Zhang, Yuan, 2014. "When a son is born: The impact of fertility patterns on family finance in rural China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 192-208.
    13. Keera Allendorf, 2020. "Another Gendered Demographic Dividend: Adjusting to a Future without Sons," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 46(3), pages 471-499, September.
    14. Neha Jain, 2022. "Patrilocality and Child Sex Ratios in India," Working Papers 2265, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade.
    15. Goli, Srinivas & Arora, Somya & Jain, Neha & Sekher, TV, 2022. "Patrilocality and Child Sex Ratios in India," SocArXiv 7qxyp, Center for Open Science.
    16. Sehar Ezdi & Ahmet Melik Baş, 2020. "Gender preferences and fertility: Investigating the case of Turkish immigrants in Germany," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 43(3), pages 59-96.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Scott South & Katherine Trent & Sunita Bose, 2014. "Skewed Sex Ratios and Criminal Victimization in India," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 51(3), pages 1019-1040, June.
    20. Valentine Becquet & Nicolás Sacco & Ignacio Pardo, 2022. "Disparities in Gender Preference and Fertility: Southeast Asia and Latin America in a Comparative Perspective," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(3), pages 1295-1323, 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:sae:prodev:v:13:y:2013:i:2:p:117-133. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.