The article "The war on baby girls: Gendercide" in The Economist catch my interest because I used to do the research on the work of Amatrya Sen, a Noble laureate in Economics, in L/S 5 and he has addressed this fact since 1980s. Until now this activity, getting rid of daughters in order to wait for sons, is still as prevalent as it has been.
The article says that in village areas of developing countries such as China or India, people still dislike daughters and prefer sons because they think that daughters would get married and stay away from the parents' family while sons would stay with their parents and can help them work. The article shows the figure that in 1980s the ratio between men and women in China is 108:100 whereas in the 2000s the ratio becomes 124:100. Usually boys would have slightly rate of birth than that of girls but it is not such high. The article also points out that such imbalance in the ratio of population leads to a lot of social problems such as women trafficking, violence and unmarried men.
When I read this article it reminds me of some witty comment that I have heard about the policy of single child in China which is one of major causes of this problem. If men outnumbers women highly like this, according to economics law of demand and supply, the value of women would increase due to scarcity, and, then, people would choose to give birth to daughters rather than sons. However, it turns out that this is not the case. I wonder if the influence of demand and supply in this case still does not show its consequence. If we wait for two or three generations, the situation would come to equilibrium naturally without the need of any intervention. Otherwise, this would be another example which confirms Arirely's essay that humans are not very rational. Considering present situation, son usually have their own family and stay away from their parents as well as daughter. The traditional belief about son and daughter might not be applicable nowadays. Most people might fail to consider cost-benefit analysis in giving birth and choose the traditional notion that they should have sons rather than daughters.
__________
The article says that in village areas of developing countries such as China or India, people still dislike daughters and prefer sons because they think that daughters would get married and stay away from the parents' family while sons would stay with their parents and can help them work. The article shows the figure that in 1980s the ratio between men and women in China is 108:100 whereas in the 2000s the ratio becomes 124:100. Usually boys would have slightly rate of birth than that of girls but it is not such high. The article also points out that such imbalance in the ratio of population leads to a lot of social problems such as women trafficking, violence and unmarried men.
When I read this article it reminds me of some witty comment that I have heard about the policy of single child in China which is one of major causes of this problem. If men outnumbers women highly like this, according to economics law of demand and supply, the value of women would increase due to scarcity, and, then, people would choose to give birth to daughters rather than sons. However, it turns out that this is not the case. I wonder if the influence of demand and supply in this case still does not show its consequence. If we wait for two or three generations, the situation would come to equilibrium naturally without the need of any intervention. Otherwise, this would be another example which confirms Arirely's essay that humans are not very rational. Considering present situation, son usually have their own family and stay away from their parents as well as daughter. The traditional belief about son and daughter might not be applicable nowadays. Most people might fail to consider cost-benefit analysis in giving birth and choose the traditional notion that they should have sons rather than daughters.
__________
References
The war on baby girls: Gendercide. (2010, March 4). The Economist. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from https://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15606229&source=hptextfeature
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I am concerned, girls are the waste of the money, right? Parents spend money raising them but they never let the girls raise or even support them when they're old. So, girls are about to extinct, and so what? They are not beneficial.
ReplyDeleteI think Thai culture is better, when a couple gets married, the bride's parents get money and also a new son. (I'm not 100% sure, since most of married couples I know use Chinese culture, not Thai) But Thai people still need boys to inherit the family name, so they are happy no matter what gender their kids are. Win-win situation!
Oh, how I love Thailand!
Accually, I argue againstan idea that getting rid of daughters in order to wait for sons. As for humanity, we should treat our children equality regurdless of the sexual discrimination.
ReplyDeleteNowadays, the law allow women to choose the lastname that they wnat to use. Therefore, If you have a daughter, yopu can still inherit the family name.
Actually in my opinion, humans are rational. They always think about the cost-benefit analysis before they make a decision. Most people always choose the best things for themselves if they can. However, in this case, giving birth, humans cannot determine to have sons or daughters. It's a destiny. Therefore, it doesn't mean people fail to consider a cost-benefit analysis in giving birth, but they cannot. In my opinion, if they can choose a sex of their children, they will choose it for sure.
ReplyDelete