Parental preferences and allocations of investments in children's learning and health within families

Parental preferences and allocations of investments in children's learning and health within... Empirical evidence suggests that parental preferences may be important in determining investment allocations among their children. However, there is mixed or no evidence on a number of important related questions. Do parents invest more in better-endowed children, thus reinforcing differentials among their children? Or do they invest more in less-endowed children to compensate for their smaller endowments and reduce inequalities among their children? Does higher maternal education affect the preferences underlying parental decisions in investing among their children? What difference might such intrafamilial investments among children make? And what is the nature of these considerations in the very different context of developing countries?This paper gives new empirical evidence related to these questions. We examine how parental investments affecting child education and health respond to initial endowment differences between twins within families, as represented by birth weight differences, and how parental preference tradeoffs and therefore parental investment strategies vary between families with different maternal education. Using the separable earnings-transfers model (Behrman et al., 1982), we first illustrate that preference differences may make a considerable difference in the ratios of health and learning differentials between siblings – up to 30% in the simulations that we provide. Using a sample of 2000 twins, collected in the 2012 wave of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey for Chile, we find that preferences are not at the extreme of pure compensatory investments to offset endowment inequalities among siblings nor at the extreme of pure reinforcement to favor the better-endowed child with no concern about inequality. Instead, they are neutral, so that parental investments do not change the inequality among children due to endowment differentials. We also find that there are not significant preference differences between families with low- and high-educated mothers. Our estimates are consistent with previous empirical evidence that finds that parents do not invest differentially within twins. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Social Science & Medicine Elsevier

Parental preferences and allocations of investments in children's learning and health within families

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/parental-preferences-and-allocations-of-investments-in-children-s-fANI87eYct
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd
ISSN
0277-9536
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.09.051
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Empirical evidence suggests that parental preferences may be important in determining investment allocations among their children. However, there is mixed or no evidence on a number of important related questions. Do parents invest more in better-endowed children, thus reinforcing differentials among their children? Or do they invest more in less-endowed children to compensate for their smaller endowments and reduce inequalities among their children? Does higher maternal education affect the preferences underlying parental decisions in investing among their children? What difference might such intrafamilial investments among children make? And what is the nature of these considerations in the very different context of developing countries?This paper gives new empirical evidence related to these questions. We examine how parental investments affecting child education and health respond to initial endowment differences between twins within families, as represented by birth weight differences, and how parental preference tradeoffs and therefore parental investment strategies vary between families with different maternal education. Using the separable earnings-transfers model (Behrman et al., 1982), we first illustrate that preference differences may make a considerable difference in the ratios of health and learning differentials between siblings – up to 30% in the simulations that we provide. Using a sample of 2000 twins, collected in the 2012 wave of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey for Chile, we find that preferences are not at the extreme of pure compensatory investments to offset endowment inequalities among siblings nor at the extreme of pure reinforcement to favor the better-endowed child with no concern about inequality. Instead, they are neutral, so that parental investments do not change the inequality among children due to endowment differentials. We also find that there are not significant preference differences between families with low- and high-educated mothers. Our estimates are consistent with previous empirical evidence that finds that parents do not invest differentially within twins.

Journal

Social Science & MedicineElsevier

Published: Dec 1, 2017

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

Monthly Plan

  • Read unlimited articles
  • Personalized recommendations
  • No expiration
  • Print 20 pages per month
  • 20% off on PDF purchases
  • Organize your research
  • Get updates on your journals and topic searches

$49/month

Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial

Best Deal — 39% off

Annual Plan

  • All the features of the Professional Plan, but for 39% off!
  • Billed annually
  • No expiration
  • For the normal price of 10 articles elsewhere, you get one full year of unlimited access to articles.

$588

$360/year

billed annually
Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial