IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aim/wpaimx/2125.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What Do Parents Want? Parental Spousal Preferences in China

Author

Abstract

In many societies, parents are involved in selecting a spouse for their child, and integrate this with decisions about migration and educational investment. What type of spouse do parents want for their children? We estimate parents' spousal preferences based on survey choices between random profiles. Preference data are elicited from parents or other relatives who actively search for a spouse on behalf of their adult child in Kunming, China. Economic variables (income and real estate ownership) are important for the choice of sons-in-law, but not daughters-in-law. Education is valued on both sides. We simulate marriage outcomes based on preferences for age and education and compare them with marriage patterns in the general population. Homogamy by education can be explained by parental preferences, but not by age: parents prefer younger wives, yet most couples are the same age. Additionally collected preference data from students can explain age distributions. Survey data from parents suggest that while they prefer younger wives, they also accept wives of the same age. Overall, marriage markets have a likely positive influence on education investments for both boys and girls.

Suggested Citation

  • Eva Raiber & Weiwei Ren & Jeanne Bovet & Paul Seabright, 2021. "What Do Parents Want? Parental Spousal Preferences in China," AMSE Working Papers 2125, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    • Handle: RePEc:aim:wpaimx:2125
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.amse-aixmarseille.fr/sites/default/files/working_papers/wp_2021_-_nr_25.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adachi, Hiroyuki, 2003. "A search model of two-sided matching under nontransferable utility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 182-198, December.
    2. Del Boca, Daniela & Flinn, Christopher J., 2014. "Household behavior and the marriage market," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 515-550.
    3. Eugene Choo & Aloysius Siow, 2006. "Who Marries Whom and Why," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(1), pages 175-201, February.
    4. Abhijit Banerjee & Esther Duflo & Maitreesh Ghatak & Jeanne Lafortune, 2013. "Marry for What? Caste and Mate Selection in Modern India," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 33-72, May.
    5. John Giles & Albert Park & Meiyan Wang, 2019. "The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, Disruptions to Education, and the Returns to Schooling in Urban China," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 68(1), pages 131-164.
    6. Adams-Prassl, Abigail & Andrew, Alison, 2019. "Preferences and Beliefs in the Marriage Market for Young Brides," CEPR Discussion Papers 13567, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Linda Y. Wong, 2003. "Structural Estimation of Marriage Models," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 21(3), pages 699-728, July.
    8. Eugene Choo & Shannon Seitz, 2013. "The Collective Marriage Matching Model: Identification, Estimation, and Testing," Advances in Econometrics, in: Structural Econometric Models, volume 31, pages 291-336, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    9. Pierre-André Chiappori & Murat Iyigun & Yoram Weiss, 2009. "Investment in Schooling and the Marriage Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1689-1713, December.
    10. Gunter J. Hitsch & Ali Hortaçsu & Dan Ariely, 2010. "Matching and Sorting in Online Dating," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 130-163, March.
    11. Belot, M & Francesconi, M, 2006. "Can Anyone be "The" One? Evidence on Mate Selection from Speed Dating," Economics Discussion Papers 2594, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
    12. Li, Hongbin & Liu, Pak Wai & Zhang, Junsen, 2012. "Estimating returns to education using twins in urban China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 494-504.
    13. Yang Hu, 2016. "Marriage of matching doors: Marital sorting on parental background in China," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 35(20), pages 557-580.
    14. Chiappori, Pierre-André & Salanié, Bernard & Weiss, Yoram, 2015. "Partner Choice and the Marital College Premium: Analyzing Marital Patterns Over Several Decades," CEPR Discussion Papers 10403, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Pierre-André Chiappori & Bernard Salanié, 2016. "The Econometrics of Matching Models," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(3), pages 832-861, September.
    16. Fali Huang & Ginger Zhe Jin & Lixin Colin Xu, 2012. "Love and Money by Parental Matchmaking: Evidence from Urban Couples in China," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(3), pages 555-560, May.
    17. Delprato, Marcos & Akyeampong, Kwame & Dunne, Máiréad, 2017. "Intergenerational Education Effects of Early Marriage in Sub-Saharan Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 173-192.
    18. Raymond Fisman & Sheena S. Iyengar & Emir Kamenica & Itamar Simonson, 2008. "Racial Preferences in Dating," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 75(1), pages 117-132.
    19. Becker, Gary S, 1973. "A Theory of Marriage: Part I," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(4), pages 813-846, July-Aug..
    20. Ong, David & Wang, Jue, 2015. "Income attraction: An online dating field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 13-22.
    21. Raymond Fisman & Sheena S. Iyengar & Emir Kamenica & Itamar Simonson, 2006. "Gender Differences in Mate Selection: Evidence From a Speed Dating Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 673-697.
    22. Li Han & Tao Li & Yaohui Zhao, 2015. "How Status Inheritance Rules Affect Marital Sorting: Theory and Evidence from Urban China," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(589), pages 1850-1887, December.
    23. Jeanne Bovet & Eva Raiber & Weiwei Ren & Charlotte Wang & Paul Seabright, 2018. "Parent-Offspring Conflict over Mate Choice: An Experimental Investigation Using a Chinese Marriage Market," Working Papers 2018-005, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
    24. Pierre-André Chiappori, 2020. "The Theory and Empirics of the Marriage Market," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 547-578, August.
    25. Logan, John Allen & Hoff, Peter D. & Newton, Michael A., 2008. "Two-Sided Estimation of Mate Preferences for Similarities in Age, Education, and Religion," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103, pages 559-569, June.
    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. Lucie Giorgi & Eva Raiber, 2024. "For better or for babies: The effect of the two-child policy in China on who gets married," French Stata Users' Group Meetings 2024 13, Stata Users Group.

    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. Günter Hitsch & Ali Hortaçsu & Dan Ariely, 2010. "What makes you click?—Mate preferences in online dating," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 393-427, December.
    2. Augsburg, Britta & Baquero, Juan P. & Gautam, Sanghmitra & Rodriguez-Lesmes, Paul, 2023. "Sanitation and marriage markets in India: Evidence from the Total Sanitation Campaign," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    3. Ran Abramitzky & Adeline Delavande & Luis Vasconcelos, 2011. "Marrying Up: The Role of Sex Ratio in Assortative Matching," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(3), pages 124-157, July.
    4. Qinyou Hu, 2024. "Social status and marriage markets: Evaluating a Hukou policy in China," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 477-509, June.
    5. Adda, Jérôme & Pinotti, Paolo & Tura, Giulia, 2020. "There's More to Marriage than Love: The Effect of Legal Status and Cultural Distance on Intermarriages and Separations," CEPR Discussion Papers 14432, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Cheremukhin, Anton & Restrepo-Echavarria, Paulina & Tutino, Antonella, 2020. "Targeted search in matching markets," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    7. Soohyung Lee, 2008. "Preferences and Choice Constraints in Marital Sorting: Evidence From Korea," Discussion Papers 07-042, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    8. Marion Goussé & Nicolas Jacquemet & Jean‐Marc Robin, 2017. "Marriage, Labor Supply, and Home Production," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85(6), pages 1873-1919, November.
    9. Soohyung Lee & Muriel Niederle, 2015. "Propose with a rose? Signaling in internet dating markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 731-755, December.
    10. Marion Goussé & Nicolas Jacquemet & Jean-Marc Robin, 2016. "Marriage, Labor Supply, and Home Production: A Longitudinal Microeconomic Analysis of Marriage, Intra-Household Bargaining and Time Use Using the BHPS, 1991-2008," Cahiers de recherche 1601, CIRPEE.
    11. Michèle Belot & Marco Francesconi, 2013. "Dating Preferences and Meeting Opportunities in Mate Choice Decisions," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 48(2), pages 474-508.
    12. Egebark, Johan & Ekström, Mathias & Plug, Erik & van Praag, Mirjam, 2021. "Brains or beauty? Causal evidence on the returns to education and attractiveness in the online dating market," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    13. Itai Ashlagi & Mark Braverman & Yash Kanoria & Peng Shi, 2020. "Clearing Matching Markets Efficiently: Informative Signals and Match Recommendations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(5), pages 2163-2193, May.
    14. Jafarey, Saqib & Maiti, Dibyendu, 2015. "Glass slippers and glass ceilings: An analysis of marital anticipation and female education," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 45-61.
    15. Nicola Barban & Elisabetta De Cao & Sonia Oreffice & Climent Quintana-Domeque, 2016. "Assortative Mating on Education: A Genetic Assessment," Working Papers 2016-034, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    16. Ong, David & Yang, Yu (Alan) & Zhang, Junsen, 2020. "Hard to get: The scarcity of women and the competition for high-income men in urban China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    17. Bruze, Gustaf, 2010. "New Evidence on the Causes of Educational Homogamy," Working Papers 10-18, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
    18. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/5kmb4ke32h9ur9159sab6hvkck is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Alberto Bisin & Giulia Tura, 2019. "Marriage, Fertility, and Cultural Integration of Immigrants in Italy," Working Papers 2019-063, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    20. Gavrilova, Evelina, 2019. "A partner in crime: Assortative matching and bias in the crime market," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 598-612.
    21. Quentin Lippmann & Khushboo Surana, 2022. "The Hierarchy of Partner Preferences," Discussion Papers 22/08, Department of Economics, University of York.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    marriage; preference estimation; China; parental matchmaking; matching;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J12 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Marriage; Marital Dissolution; Family Structure
    • I26 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Returns to Education
    • D10 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aim:wpaimx:2125. 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: Gregory Cornu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/amseafr.html .

    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.