IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/soinre/v134y2017i1d10.1007_s11205-016-1431-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Peers and Fertility Preferences: An Empirical Investigation of the Role of Neighbours, Religion and Education

Author

Listed:
  • Ankita Mishra

    (RMIT University)

  • Jaai Parasnis

    (Monash University)

Abstract

Individual fertility preference is influenced by observed social norms. The present paper investigates the effect of the observed fertility of peers on a woman’s fertility preference. We explore the role of two peer groups: neighbourhood peers and religious peers. Data from the National Family Health Surveys (1992–1993, 1998–1999 and 2005–2006) in India is employed for empirical estimations using a multinomial logit model. We find that both neighbourhood and religious peers have a significant impact on individual fertility preferences, but their relative importance changes with family size. An increase in peer fertility increases the probability of preferring more children. We further examine the roles of education and wealth as transmission channels between the fertility norms of peers to the fertility preferences of the women and find that education plays an important role in moderating peer influences. These findings can serve as vital inputs in formulating family planning and gender policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Ankita Mishra & Jaai Parasnis, 2017. "Peers and Fertility Preferences: An Empirical Investigation of the Role of Neighbours, Religion and Education," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 134(1), pages 339-357, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:134:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11205-016-1431-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11205-016-1431-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11205-016-1431-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11205-016-1431-1?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. Cochrane, Susan Hill & Khan, M Ali & Osheba, Ibrahim Khodair T, 1990. "Education, Income, and Desired Fertility in Egypt: A Revised Perspective," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 313-339, January.
    2. Bhattacharya, Joydeep & Chakraborty, Shankha, 2012. "Fertility choice under child mortality and social norms," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(3), pages 338-341.
    3. Yuyu Chen & Ginger Zhe Jin & Yang Yue, 2024. "Peer Migration in China," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 86(2), pages 257-313, April.
    4. George A. Akerlof, 1997. "Social Distance and Social Decisions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(5), pages 1005-1028, September.
    5. Munshi, Kaivan & Myaux, Jacques, 2006. "Social norms and the fertility transition," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 1-38, June.
    6. Torkild Lyngstad & Alexia Prskawetz, 2010. "Do siblings’ fertility decisions influence each other?," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 47(4), pages 923-934, November.
    7. Charles F. Manski, 2000. "Economic Analysis of Social Interactions," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 115-136, Summer.
    8. Zafar, Basit, 2011. "An experimental investigation of why individuals conform," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(6), pages 774-798, August.
    9. Alejandro Gaviria & Steven Raphael, 2001. "School-Based Peer Effects And Juvenile Behavior," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(2), pages 257-268, May.
    10. Enrico Moretti, 2011. "Social Learning and Peer Effects in Consumption: Evidence from Movie Sales," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 78(1), pages 356-393.
    11. William Axinn & Marin Clarkberg & Arland Thornton, 1994. "Family influences on family size preferences," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 31(1), pages 65-79, February.
    12. Catherine Hakim, 2003. "A New Approach to Explaining Fertility Patterns: Preference Theory," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 29(3), pages 349-374, September.
    13. Øystein Kravdal, 2002. "Education and fertility in sub-Saharan africa: Individual and community effects," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 39(2), pages 233-250, May.
    14. Hans-Peter Kohler & Jere Behrman & Susan Watkins, 2001. "The density of social networks and fertility decisions: evidence from south nyanza district, kenya," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 38(1), pages 43-58, February.
    15. Øystein Kravdal, 2003. "The problematic estimation of "imitation effects" in multilevel models," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 9(2), pages 25-40.
    16. Krishnan, Pramila, 2002. "Cultural Norms, social Interactions and the Fertility Transition in India," Royal Economic Society Annual Conference 2002 117, Royal Economic Society.
    17. Federico Ciliberto & Amalia R. Miller & Helena Skyt Nielsen & Marianne Simonsen, 2016. "Playing The Fertility Game At Work: An Equilibrium Model Of Peer Effects," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 57(3), pages 827-856, August.
    18. Charles F. Manski, 1993. "Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 60(3), pages 531-542.
    19. Sarah Smith & Frank Windmeijer & Edmund Wright, 2015. "Peer Effects in Charitable Giving: Evidence from the (Running) Field," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(585), pages 1053-1071, June.
    20. Stephan Klasen & Andrey Launov, 2006. "Analysis of the determinants of fertility decline in the Czech Republic," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 19(1), pages 25-54, February.
    21. Jean Drèze & Mamta Murthi, 2001. "Fertility, Education, and Development: Evidence from India," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 27(1), pages 33-63, March.
    22. Ivy Kodzi & David Johnson & John Casterline, 2010. "Examining the predictive value of fertility preferences among Ghanaian women," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 22(30), pages 965-984.
    23. Sylvestre Gaudin, 2011. "Son Preference in Indian Families: Absolute Versus Relative Wealth Effects," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 48(1), pages 343-370, February.
    24. Geoffrey McNicoll, 2009. "Legacy, Policy, and Circumstance in Fertility Transition," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 35(4), pages 777-795, December.
    25. Sathar, Zeba A & Lloyd, Cynthia B & Mete, Cem & ul Haque, Minhaj, 2003. "Schooling Opportunities for Girls as a Stimulus for Fertility Change in Rural Pakistan," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 51(3), pages 677-698, April.
    26. Julie DaVanzo & Christine E. Peterson & Nathan Jones, 2003. "How Well Do Desired Fertility Measures for Wives and Husbands Predict Subsequent Fertility? Evidence From Malaysia," Working Papers DRU-3013-NICHD, RAND Corporation.
    27. Julie DaVanzo & Christine E. Peterson & Nathan R. Jones, 2003. "How Well Do Desired Fertility Measures for Wives and Husbands Predict Subsequent Fertility?," Working Papers 03-16, RAND Corporation.
    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. Doepke, Matthias & Hannusch, Anne & Kindermann, Fabian & Tertilt, Michèle, 2022. "The Economics of Fertility: A New Era," IZA Discussion Papers 15224, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Dayuan Xie & Yonghong Zhou, 2022. "Religion effects on fertility preference: evidence from China," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 341-371, September.
    3. Ankita Mishra & Jaai Parasnis, 2022. "Intentions for a third child: The role of parental sex composition preferences," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(3), pages 472-487, August.
    4. Sohyla Reshadat & Alireza Zangeneh & Shahram Saeidi & Neda Izadi & S. Ramin Ghasemi & Nader Rajabi-Gilan, 2018. "A Feasibility Study of Implementing the Policies on Increasing Birth Rate with an Emphasis on Socio-economic Status: A Case Study of Kermanshah Metropolis, Western Iran," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 140(2), pages 619-636, November.
    5. Nie, Peng & Wang, Lu & Sousa-Poza, Alfonso, 2020. "Peer Effects and Fertility Preferences in China: Evidence from the China Labor-Force Dynamics Survey," IZA Discussion Papers 13448, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Sebastian Klüsener & Aiva Jasilioniene & Victoriya Yuodeshko, 2019. "Retraditionalization as a pathway to escape lowest-low fertility? Characteristics and prospects of the Eastern European “baby boom”," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2019-014, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.

    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. Ankita Mishra & Jaai Parasnis, 2014. "An Empirical Investigation of Peer effects on Fertility Preferences," Monash Economics Working Papers 34-14, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    2. Nicoletta Balbo & Francesco C. Billari & Melinda Mills, 2013. "Fertility in Advanced Societies: A Review of Research," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(1), pages 1-38, February.
    3. Nie, Peng & Wang, Lu & Sousa-Poza, Alfonso, 2020. "Peer Effects and Fertility Preferences in China: Evidence from the China Labor-Force Dynamics Survey," IZA Discussion Papers 13448, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Dimant, Eugen, 2015. "On Peer Effects: Behavioral Contagion of (Un)Ethical Behavior and the Role of Social Identity," MPRA Paper 68732, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Abhishek Kumar & Valeria Bordone & Raya Muttarak, 2016. "Like Mother(-in-Law) Like Daughter? Influence of the Older Generation’s Fertility Behaviours on Women’s Desired Family Size in Bihar, India," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 32(5), pages 629-660, December.
    6. Iyer, S. & Weeks, M., 2009. "Social Interactions, Ethnicity and Fertility in Kenya," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0903, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    7. Fishman, Arthur & Fishman, Ram & Gneezy, Uri, 2019. "A tale of two food stands: Observational learning in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 101-108.
    8. Steven N. Durlauf & Yannis M. Ioannides, 2010. "Social Interactions," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 451-478, September.
    9. Nikaj Silda, 2017. "Peer Effects and Youth Smoking in the European Global Youth Tobacco Survey," Review of Economic Perspectives, Sciendo, vol. 17(3), pages 219-238, September.
    10. Pauline Rossi & Yun Xiao, 2024. "Spillovers in Childbearing Decisions and Fertility Transitions: Evidence from China," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 22(1), pages 161-199.
    11. Markus Kotte & Volker Ludwig, 2011. "Intergenerational transmission of fertility intentions and behaviour in Germany: the role of contagion," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 9(1), pages 207-226.
    12. Ryota Nakamura & Marc Suhrcke & Daniel John Zizzo, 2017. "A triple test for behavioral economics models and public health policy," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(4), pages 513-533, December.
    13. Zafar, Basit, 2011. "An experimental investigation of why individuals conform," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(6), pages 774-798, August.
    14. Daiji Kawaguchi, 2004. "Peer effects on substance use among American teenagers," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 17(2), pages 351-367, June.
    15. David Aristei & Luca Pieroni, 2009. "Addiction, social interactions and gender differences in cigarette consumption," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 36(3), pages 245-272, August.
    16. Bennett, Daniel & Chiang, Chun-Fang & Malani, Anup, 2015. "Learning during a crisis: The SARS epidemic in Taiwan," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 1-18.
    17. ÖZGÜR, Onur & BISIN, Alberto, 2011. "Dynamic Linear Economies with Social Interactions," Cahiers de recherche 04-2011, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    18. Dimant, Eugen, 2019. "Contagion of pro- and anti-social behavior among peers and the role of social proximity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 66-88.
    19. Liu, Hong & Sun, Qi & Zhao, Zhong, 2014. "Social learning and health insurance enrollment: Evidence from China's New Cooperative Medical Scheme," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 84-102.
    20. Olugbenga Ajilore, 2015. "Identifying peer effects using spatial analysis: the role of peers on risky sexual behavior," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 635-652, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Peer effects; Multinomial logit; Fertility; India; Education; Wealth status;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:soinre:v:134:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11205-016-1431-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.