Trends | Theory | Facts | Food | Environment | Aging | Elderly | Immigration | Urbanization | Family | Women

Does Family Size Reduce Investment in Children?
Not Much.

by Conor Darby

In his article on "The Consequences of Rapid Population Growth on Human Resource Development: The Case of Education", Allen Kelley takes a close look at education in developing countries as a function of human capital. His central inquiries address the relationships between human capital and physical capital, and what combination of the two is optimal for the constant adaptation to population growth. He explores further the implications of that population growth on the levels of education attained by children of large families in comparison to children of small family size.


In the beginning of the article, Kelley sums the inherent contrast between human capital and other forms of investment, and the problems this poses for developing countries regarding education specifically. Investing in human capital does not bring short-term reward. Therefore, the diversion of economic growth from technological assets to assets of human capital often receives adverse opposition because of the lower rates of return. He emphasizes the difficulty most developing countries have in just maintaining their standard levels of education. Increasing those levels, says Kelley, "is a daunting task for third world countries" (p. 68).


But as populations in these countries grow, finances need to be managed somehow to facilitate the increasing number of students. How, exactly, is not clear. Due to the aforementioned opposition to productive growth related expenditures being rechannelled into sectors of minimal short run returns, private and public funds will not be concentrated exclusively on education. The only ways education would receive government spending is through greater efficiency in the education sector itself, or from resource diversions from sectors with lesser impact on economic growth. Regarding financing within the household of an additional child's education, parents are faced with equal dilemmas of their own scale. There must either be a diversion of expenditures from low-priority consumption or an increase in household income through more labor investment; neither a desirable action for a relatively poor parent in a developing country. But perhaps the parent's decision-making process considers the birthing and educating of another child an investment in the development of the economies of the domestic household and the country itself. This leads to Kelley's analysis of the utility of education as human capital in light of the impending investment conditions of economic development and population growth.
Specifically, Kelley poses the following three questions. Have population pressures significantly constrained the pace of human capital growth in education? Have these expenditures "crowded out" other areas of investment? Have large families deterred schooling enrollments and attainment; and how have families underwritten the costs of schooling? He acknowledges the negative relationship between larger family size and child investment through education, but proposes that there exists positive elements of the relationship as well. Further, that there exists a tradeoff in the education sector's response to population growth- from quality to quantity- that has its potential benefits as well.


In developing countries, the common response to the increasing student population has been a considerable "widening" of educational opportunities. By this Kelley means more enrollments have been provided to a larger body of students. This has been done at the expense of "deepening" the education a pupil of that student body receives. Diverting funds from deepening in this case means less expenditures or teachers per pupil. One would assume the net impacts of such a tradeoff would be negative, but Kelley suggests that such an impact is much more uncertain. There are implications of population growth at play that can be driving forces in development.


Households, firms, and government bodies often find ways to respond to population growth that expand resources, including reallocations that improve efficiency of resource use. Therefore, reallocating the educational resources to accommodate the larger student body sizes may reduce the quality of education received by each pupil in the short run, but in the long run the amount of human capital in the country has exponentially increased. Though the capacity of each pupil's education may be slightly diluted after graduation, the increased number of educated, able entrants into the skilled work force will be greater than ever, and the long run benefits could well exceed any other expenditure diversion plan that may have been devised. According to Kelley, "If investments in human capital have higher returns than investments in physical capital, or if returns are lower but there are constraints on capital markets that deter the channeling of funds to physical capital, then it is theoretically possible that an expansion of the "investment vehicle" (children) associated with human capital investments can contribute to the level and productivity of overall growth-enhancing investment" (p. 71).


The analyses made by Kelley in his article are based on his findings from over thirty-six studies of household data in twenty developing countries. Another similar analysis- formed by John Knodel, Truong Si Anh, David Lam, and Jed Friedman- was published based on data from the 1994 Inter-Censal Demographic Survey in Vietnam. Obviously these studies have been focused on developing countries because of the assumed mean household incomes that relative to the higher fertility rates of their demographic region are proportionately low. Just as done by Kelley, the article begins by acknowledging the negative relationship between population growth and education, but continues in pointing out that arguments have been made as to why a positive relationship also exists. For Knodel et al., they show that though a recurring negative trend can be seen in this study of children of large families, the percent decline present is by no means linear with the percent increase of additional children. Therefore in a conclusion similar to that of Kelley's analysis, the debits of the observable negative trends between large family size and education are small enough in proportion to the percent increases of students per family that there are credits in the long run that will offset those negative trends.


Before turning to the data it is important to address the condition established at the beginning of the article that states that the effect of family size should be considered in light of the fact that costs of education are funded by not only the nuclear family, but by extended kinships and the state as well. This is often overlooked, and such a mistake increases human error within general assumptions on parental decision making in developing countries.


In the Vietnamese study, the authors found that controlling for such variables as the region the child was raised in, whether or not the parents were educated, and household wealth greatly reduced the strength of the correlation between family size and school attendance. However, even the more significant correlation of the unadjusted probabilities is not strong enough to suggest that current fertility rates are hazardous enough to both child investment and economic development that a curbing policy is necessary. One statistic that first caught my attention is the odds ratio of Vietnamese students that finished upper secondary school (ages 19-24). For a student in upper secondary school from a family of one child, their odds ratio of finishing is 1.00. For a student from a family of five children, their odds ratio of finishing is .808, only twenty percent less! Twenty percent is a significant number, but realize that the family size they came from is four hundred percent larger. From this consideration we may surmise that the incremental decrease of investment on that fifth child is only minimally significant.


The graph in Figure 1 plots the percent of children in school (ages 10-12) on the y-axis and the family size on the x-axis, and the light bars show the amount of children in school as adjusted to the aforementioned control variables. Clearly the negative relationship is visible, and


Figure 1



the percent decline of children attending school is significant according to unadjusted data (20 %). However, even here we see a percent decline that is much less than the percent increase in family size. The adjusted data, which can be referred to as a more thorough understanding of the situation in Vietnam, further highlights the minimal significance of the negative relationship between population growth and education investment. In this case, there appears to be only a 10% decrease in attendance by children of families five and six times as large as the families in the top percentile of attendance. The study provides numerous graphs referring to all different age levels and demographic variables, and each example demonstrates the same trend.

 

References


1. Kelley, Allen C. "The Consequences of Rapid Population Growth on Human Resource Development: The Case of Education", in The Impact of Population Growth on Well-Being in Developing Countries, Dennis A. Ahlburg, Allen C. Kelley and Karen Oppenheim Mason (editors), Springer Verlag, New York, 1996, pp. 67-138.
2. Truong, Si Anh; Knodel, John; Lam, David; Friedman, Jan. "Family Size and Children's Education in Vietnam", Demography, Vol. 35, No. 1, Feb. 1998, pp. 57-70.