Education, Fertility, and Development We have seen that education is, in most countries related to fertility decline At early stages of development, only the most educated may have lower fertility

As development proceeds: In addition, those with some education may have higher fertility than those with very little or none - resulting in the reversed-J or reversed-U relationship between fertility and education At later stages, the direct relationship may emerge Finally, differences diminish

Does lowered fertility increase education? In most countries, the answer appears to be that it does Children from smaller families have higher education

But does fertility decline cause an increase in education? There may be a tradeoff -- those who choose to have larger families may be also choosing to give their children less education Both fertility decline and increased education may be due to a common factor: increased development and investment in education

Decrease in unwanted childbearing Definitely appears related to increased education -- in that resources of the family can be distributed to fewer children However, if the decrease in childbearing occurred amongst the better off, who were already educating their children, there could be a decrease in average education as fertility fell

Increase in public expenditure In most countries, slower population growth has permitted increased expenditure in education This may both alter enrollment rates and the length of schooling Other public policies may especially target underserved groups -- e.g. girls

The role of siblings In many countries, parents are responsible fully only for the education of the oldest siblings Thereafter, older children may help finance the education of younger ones as pafrt of their responsibility to the family

Is increased education a uniform benefit for women? To begin to address this question, we can go back to --the rise of capitalism --notions of patriarchy and the position of women in the family, household, and society

Interrelation of family, education change and woman’s status -- rise of capitalism Ester Boserup’s thesis was that the rise of capitalism led to a decline in the status of women As production moved outside the home, women had no role in those activities They were much more limited to household and reproductive roles

Chinese society Susan Greenhalgh argues that partriarchy had long before created systems for controlling women that capitalism only comes lately and that both serve as formidable obstacles to reducing gender inequality she looks to the family system

Contracts between parents and children Need to look at childhood and young adulthood, when economic bases of gender inequality are laid down There are different types of generational “contracts” between parents and children These differences in obligations give rise to systematic gender differences in socioeconomic resources and personal autonomy

What are the mechanisms through which position of the sexes is determined? A male’s position in the family is ascribed - it is inherited and is set from birth A woman’s position changes when she marries -- she has to achieve a position in her new family, usually by producing a male heir

Rights within family of origin All children have rights to some of the resources of the family Parents gave them “their bodies,” support before marriage, help in finding a spouse, training for their future lives But the training given was quite different

Training Sons: training was for productive work Daughters: training for reproduction and work within the household The obligation to daughters (and theirs to their parents) generally ended with marriage and was satisfied by dowry - which was treated primarily as a gift

Obligations to sons What parents gave to sons was treated as a loan Sons could use this loan as they wished, but had to bow to parental wishes Obedience, contribution to the family economy, support in old age Parents gave to children in youth, but sons give to parents as adults

Duration of contracts Contracts with sons are seen as being for the lifetime Contracts with daughters are seen as being only until marriage Under this formulation, it only makes sense to invest differentially in children according to gender

What is the American contract between parents and children? And how has it changed over time?

What is the American contract? In general, the contract has shifted to a one- way system, whereby parents contribute to children -- and for a much longer time In the past, there was the obligation to support parents, and it was much less gendered Sandwich generation -- finds itself with obligations to both parents and children

Implications of this system during childhood Less education for girls More work-time for girls - boys had more time for play, whereas girls worked more within the household

Development in Taiwan After WWII, rapid expansion of education Pressure on families to educate children High school graduation rates became very high Little difference between boys and girls Did these changes translate into reduction in gender inequality?

What were the changes? Increased opportunities for women to work, particularly in manufacturing, but also in commerce and social and personal services Increased opportunities for men were much greater and more broadly distributed Women faced limited access to the best jobs - less likely to be an employer or self-employed - wage gap

Consequences for the family Little incentive to change bias against daughters Increasing development brought the opportunity to invest even more in sons so that parents reaped the payoff So, even though education increased for all, inequality remained

Taiwan Parents took from their daughters to invest in their sons Daughters were expected to earn and remit to the family -- which then invested in better education for sons Girls had increased opportunity and greater autonomy - but this masked overall inequality

What happened? Rise in female education Rise in gender inequality in education Boys received more years of education and different kinds of training that would lead to greater opportunity

The new family strategy Educate your daughters some, but then send them out to work so that you could educate your sons even more Older sons received less education, because family could not afford to educate them The more older sisters a boy had, the higher his education -- but there was not relationship with older brothers

Context matters Others who have looked at gender inequalities and family strategies have found somewhat different results Lillard and Willis: Malaysia There the investment seemed to go to the oldest sons - the more older brothers, the lower the education of a son For girls, it was the opposite, the more younger sisters, the lower her education

Malaysia The strategy seems to be that a daughter gets educated if there are few others coming after her A son gets educated as early as possible - and younger sons get educated if it’s possible So there is a strategy of concentration -- maximizing the education of the first

How else were inequalities perpetuated? Girls were more likely to be in blue-collar, unskilled jobs Boys were more likely to change jobs - to take risks, while girls stayed in secure jobs Girls were less likely to live outside the home Boys had higher income Girls remitted a higher proportion of income

Women’s education Even when constraints on women’s education are reduced, there is not guarantee that gender inequality will be reduced Even when women become cash contributors to the household, which would argue for reevaluation of their contributions, this does not guarantee reduction in gender inequality

Content of education Some argue that girls are admitted to an education system that is geared to perpetuate existing culture Sex stereotyping in fields of study occurs even when overall enrollment appears to be similar for boys and girls