The relationship of family size and composition to fertility desires, contraceptive adoption and method choice in South Asia

International Family Planning Perspectives

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 29-38

  Jayaraman, Anuja ^a   Mishra, Vinod ^a   Arnold, Fred ^a  

^a MACRO INTERNATIONAL INC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTRACEPTIVE USE; CULTURAL INFLUENCE; FERTILITY; HEALTH RISK; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR; REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH; WOMENS HEALTH; WOMENS STATUS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; BANGLADESH; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; FAMILY PLANNING; FAMILY SIZE; FEMALE; FERTILITY; HUMAN; INDIA; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEPAL; RISK; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BANGLADESH; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; CONTRACEPTION BEHAVIOR; CULTURE; FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS; FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES; FEMALE; FERTILITY; HUMANS; INDIA; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEPAL; ODDS RATIO; RISK; YOUNG ADULT;

ASIA; BANGLADESH; EURASIA; INDIA; NEPAL; SOUTH ASIA;

EID: 67749085931     PISSN: None     EISSN: 01903187     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1363/3502909     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Arnold F, Choe MK and Roy TK, Son preference, the family-building process and child mortality in India, Population Studies, 1998, 52(3):301-315.
2. Clark S, Son preference and sex composition of children: evidence from India, Demography, 2000, 37(1):95-108.
3. Arnold F, Son preference in South Asia, in: Sathar ZA and Phillips JF, eds., Fertility Transition in South Asia, London: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 281-299.
4. Das Gupta M et al., Why is son preference so persistent in East and South Asia? A cross-country study of China, India, and the Republic of Korea, Policy Research Working Paper, Washington, DC: World Bank, 2003, No. 2,942.
5. Das Gupta M, Selective discrimination against female children in rural Punjab, India, Population and Development Review, 1987, 13(1): 77-100.
6. Stash S, Ideal-family-size and sex-composition preferences among wives and husbands in Nepal, Studies in Family Planning, 1996, 27(2): 107-118.
7. Burgess R and Zhuang J, Modernization and son preference in People's Republic of China, ERD Working Paper, Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2002, No. 20.
8. Kingdon GG, The gender gap in educational attainment in India: How much can be explained? Journal of Development Studies, 2002, 39(2):25-53.
9. Pande RP, Selective gender differences in childhood nutrition and immunization in rural India: the role of siblings, Demography, 2003, 40(3):395-418.
10. Timæus I, Harris K and Fairbairn F, Can use of health care explain sex differentials in child mortality in the developing world? in: Too Young to Die: Genes or Gender? New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 1998, pp. 154-178.
11. Behrman JR, Intra-household allocation of resources: Is there a gender bias? in: Too Young to Die: Genes or Gender? New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 1998, pp. 223-242.
12. Pelletier D, Malnutrition, morbidity and child mortality in developing countries, in: Too Young to Die: Genes or Gender? New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 1998, pp. 109-132.
13. Choe MK, Diamond I and Steele FA, Son preference, family building process and child mortality, in: Too Young to Die: Genes or Gender? New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 1998, pp. 208-222.
14. Kishor S, Gender differentials in child mortality: a review of evidence, in: Das Gupta M, Chen LC and Krishnan TN, eds., Women's Health in India: Risk and Vulnerability, Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1995, pp. 19-54.
15. Marcoux A, Sex differentials in undernutrition: a look at survey evidence, Population and Development Review, 2002, 28(2):275-284.
16. Sommerfelt AE and Arnold F, Sex differentials in the nutritional status of young children, in: Too Young to Die: Genes or Gender? New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 1998, pp. 133-153.
17. Bhat PN and Zavier AJ, Fertility decline and gender bias in northern India, Demography, 2003, 40(4):637-657.
18. Bose S and Trent K, Socio-demographic determinants of abortion in India: a north-south comparison, Journal of Biosocial Science, 2006, 38(2):261-282.
19. Arnold F, Kishor S and Roy TK, Sex-selective abortions in India, Population and Development Review, 2002, 28(4):759-785.
20. Sudha S and Rajan SI, Female demographic disadvantage in India 1981-1991: sex selective abortions and female infanticide, Development and Change, 1999, 30(3):585-618.
21. Yount KM, Langsten R and Hill K, The effect of gender preference on contraceptive use and fertility in rural Egypt, Studies in Family Planning, 2000, 31(4):290-300.
22. Bairagi R, Effects of sex preference on contraceptive use, abortion and fertility in Matlab, Bangladesh, International Family Planning Perspectives, 2001, 27(3):137-143.
23. Leone T, Matthews Z and Dalla Zuanna G, Impact and determinants of sex preference in Nepal, International Family Planning Perspectives, 2003, 29(2):69-75.
24. Das Gupta M and Bhat PN, Fertility decline and increased manifestation of sex bias in India, Population Studies, 1997, 51(3):307-315.
25. Visaria L and Visaria P, India's population in transition, Population Bulletin, 1995, 50(3):1-51.
26. Poston DL, Jr., Son preference and fertility in China, Journal of Biosocial Science, 2002, 34(3):333-347.
27. Chowdhury MK and Bairagi R, Son preference and fertility in Bangladesh, Population and Development Review, 1990, 16(4):749-757.
28. Larsen U, Chung W and Das Gupta M, Fertility and son preference in Korea, Population Studies, 1998, 52(3):317-325.
29. Chung W and Das Gupta M, The decline of son preference in South Korea: the roles of development and public policy, Population and Development Review, 2007, 33(4):757-783.
30. Belanger D, Son preference in a rural village in North Vietnam, Studies in Family Planning, 2002, 33(4):321-334.
31. Case A and Deaton A, Consumption, health, gender, and poverty, Research Program in Development Studies Working Paper, Princeton, NJ, USA: Research Program in Development Studies, Princeton University,2002, No. 212.
32. Stash S, Son preference and the dynamics of fertility decision-making among wives and their husbands in rural Nepal, in: Sathar ZA and Phillips JF, eds., Fertility Transition in South Asia, London: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 300-327.
33. Khan MA and Khanum PA, Influence of son preference on contraceptive use in Bangladesh, Asia-Pacific Population Journal, 2000, 15(3): 43-56.
34. Haughton J and Haughton D, Son preference in Vietnam, Studies in Family Planning, 1995, 26(6):325-337.
35. Nepal Ministry of Health and Population (MOHP), New ERA and Macro International, Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2006, Kathmandu, Nepal: MOHP, New ERA and Macro International, 2007.
36. International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and Macro International, National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005-2006: India, Mumbai, India: IIPS, 2007.
37. National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT), Mitra and Associates, and ORC Macro, Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 2004, Dhaka, Bangladesh and Calverton, MD, USA: NIPORT, Mitra and Associates, and ORC Macro, 2005.
38. Mishra V, Roy TK and Retherford RD, Sex differentials in childhood feeding, health care, and nutritional status in India, Population and Development Review, 2004, 30(2):269-296.
39. Pande RP and Astone NM, Explaining son preference in rural India: the independent role of structural versus individual factors, Population Research and Policy Review, 2007, 26(1):1-29.