Previous Studies

The literature on the impact of family size/number of children on the education of a child has a long history. It has produce results ranging from a negative effect, no impact, to a positive relationship. The methodology of quantification of the relationship has evolved from simple cross-tabulations to elaborate controls not only for other individual, household and community characteristics but more importantly for the likely endogeneity of the family size that has been spawned by the quantity-quality literature originally dealt with in Becker and Lewis (1973). The dependent variable used has also ranged from attendance, attainment, and even investment. This section provides a short review that will highlight some of the main results grouping the studies according the methodologies used.

Controlling for the endogeneity of the family size or number of children in the education equation of children has been hampered by the lack of appropriate instruments. Almost all of the candidates, such as the education of parents or household income, have direct effects on the education of children rendering them inappropriate as instruments. The controls for the endogeneity of the number of children or family size in the education of children equations was pioneered by Rosenzweig and Wolpin (1980) with twins as the instrument using data from India. Since couples do not have control over their birth outcomes, the birth of a twin is considered a good instrument to control for the endogeneity of family size. The much more recent applications are for the US (Vere, 2005), for Romania (Glick, Marini and Sahn, 2005) and for Norway (Black, Devereux and Salvanes, 2004). Black, et al. (2004). Black et al. (2004) also used sex-mix as an instrument that was introduced in Angrist and Evans (1998) to control for the number of children in a labor supply equation and an equation for earnings of their parents. A more different tack was adopted in Lee (2004). He used son’s preference known to be prevalent in the Republic of Korea as an instrument using Korean data. Turning to the results, Rosenzweig and Wolpin (1980) found that an exogenous increase in fertility significantly decreased the level of schooling of all children measured as the agestandardized sum of the educational attainment of all children in the household. The outcomes for Romania (Glick et al., 2005) using the probability of primary school enrollment as the dependent variable also confirm the earlier Rosenzweig and Wolpin (1980) results. Black et al. (2004), however, found a more negligible result for Norway after controlling for birth order and attribute most of the effect on educational attainment of children to birth order rather than family size. The found that there is substantial differential impact between the first child and subsequent children, i.e., the first child has significantly higher educational attainment than the subsequent children. Black et. al (2004) results using sex-mix as an instrument found a positive relationship between family size and education, but they dismissed it with the argument that sex-mix may be an inappropriate instrument because it may have a direct impact on the child outcomes. Turning to the son preference instrument, Lee (2004) finds that that each additional child has a significant negative impact on the monthly household expenditure for education in the Republic of Korea.

The next set of estimates we discuss are multivariate estimates that do not control for the endogeneity of the number of children. The studies in the preceding paragraph usually find that not controlling for the endogeneity of the number of children in the education equation would understate the impact (see for instance, Glick et. al. (2005), and Lee (2004)). The result in Lu and Treiman (2005) using data from the people’s Republic of China and OLS regressions shows a negative impact of family size on the educational attainment of children, as well as on the family resources measured by the owning of a study desk at age 14. Patrinos and Psacharopoulos (1997) show that the greater number of children increases the probability of being delayed in schooling in Peru. In addition, they found that this effect increases as the number of siblings increase. In the case of Viet Nam, a negative relationship between school attendance and family size is found even after controlling for individual and household characteristics (Ahn, et al., 1998). But this is not true for educational attainment where there is no significant relationship except in large households (family size greater than 5), where a negative relationship is found.

The literature using multivariate analysis and Philippine data shows the preponderance of a negative impact of a higher number of children on the education of children although some studies show no significant relationship. Herrin (1993) using data from Misamis Oriental province show that while school participation and attainment of the 7-12 years old are not affected, school participation of children 13-17 years old group are negatively affected by the number of siblings. A similar negative impact of the number of siblings on the school participation of children 7-17 years old were found by DeGraff, Bilsborrow and Herrin (1996) using the 1983 Bicol Multipurpose Survey data. Paqueo (1985) also found that the number of siblings negatively affect the highest grade completed of children using the 1982 Household School and Matching Survey. Bauer and Racelis (1992) using the 1985 Labor Force Survey (LFS) found that preschool children negatively affect the school attendance of older children (17-24) and primary school children (7-12 years old) and reduce the enrollment of older children (13-24 years old). Excess fertility or unwanted births were also found to negatively affect educational attainment (Montgomery et al. 1997). Finally, using the matched data from the 1994 Family Income and Expenditure Survey, LFS and Functional Literacy Education and Mass Media Survey, Orbeta (2000) found in a joint decision model for school attendance and labor force participation that household size did not significantly affect the school attendance decision but positively affects labor force participation of children 10-24 years old.

Turning to cross-tabulation evidence, Knodel, Havanon and Sittitrai (1990) found that the probability of attending lower secondary and upper secondary is negatively associated with family size among Thai children, using a small sample from two rural areas. This effect, though somewhat reduced, prevails even after controlling for the individual and household characteristics. These results are duplicated in a subsequent study using a nationally representative sample survey (Knodel, J. and M. Wongsith, 1991). In Kenya, however, Gomes (1984) found a positive relationship between completed family size and the educational attainment of children. This impact remains after controlling for household and individual characteristics.

The preceding paragraphs have shown that the results are not consistent across societies and sometimes even in studies using similar methodologies. The studies that control for the endogeneity of family size in the education equation seem to find negative relationships in developing and transition countries (India and Romania) but seem to find conflicting results in more developed countries (Norway and the Republic of Korea). Multivariate analyses that did not control for endogeneity appear to have consistently found negative relationships. Cross tabulation analysis also give conflicting results. In terms of outcomes, school attendance/enrollment were always found to be negatively correlated with family size (Glick, et al., 2005, Ahn et al. 1998); on educational attainment there appears to be conflicting results (Rosenzweig and Wolpin 1980, Black 2004, Ahn et al. 1998, Gomes, 1984); on investments the impact is consistently negative (Lee, 2004; Lu and Treiman, 2005). The single study using delay in schooling, shows the negative impact of family size (Patrinos and Psacharopoulos, 1997).

Download this Discussion Paper [ PDF 152.9KB| 19 pages ].

Comment(s)

There are [1] comment(s) for this entry. Post a comment.

1. grace quimpan
   (posted 26 August 2005 / 02:10:47 PM)
   
   Yes your right! but how will they will go to school if their parents has no job to afford their school finances. Some parents are working but the salary they get is not enough even for their food.