Towards Gender Equality: A Nudge for Family-friendly Society

Hyuncheol Bryant KIM (Department of Economics, HKUST)

Gender Inequality at Birth

In 2020 alone, millions of girls went missing. They were probably murdered. Shockingly, the culprits are
likely to be their parents. Have you ever wondered why the world and media are silent about these massive
deaths?

Nobel Prize laureate in Economics, Amartya Sen, first mentioned these “missing women” in his book in
1990. He argued that more than 100 million women are “missing” – this number indicates the difference
between the number of women that should have been alive from the actual number of living women. Figure
1 shows the estimates for the “missing women” over the past few decades. As you can see, most of these
missing women are from India and China, where son preference is still prevalent.

Figure 1: Number of Missing Women by Year

Source: United Nations Population Fund, State of World Population 2020: Against My Will)

There are two major ways girls go missing: sex-selective abortion and post-natal sex selection. I will refer
to the latter as infanticide. It’s not an easy process to measure the accurate number of girls missing as we

1
cannot observe every death. However, there are some clever ways to measure them. In the case of sex-
selective abortion, we can estimate the number of missing women by comparing sex ratio at birth to the
natural sex ratio (1.05-1.07, i.e., 105-107 boys for every 100 girls). For the post-natal sex selection, we can
use statistics to calculate the number of girls should have been alive. It is estimated that in 2020, 1.7 million
girls went missing due to post-natal sex selection and 1.5 million girls due to sex-selective abortion.

Infanticide has a long history. Most of the times, infanticide was done in a secretive and cold-hearted way.
Girls were often denied of any food and medical treatment. Parents who prefer son often neglected their
daughters without realizing what they are doing.

Table 1 shows the estimates of the number of missing women based on the under-5 mortality rates. In India,
for example, 13.5 out of 1,000 girls were killed before they reach age 5 and that constitutes for 11% of total
deaths among infants. In China, 1 out of 1,000 girls were killed, which accounts for 3.3% of total deaths.
Sex-based infanticide is also prevalent in countries with poverty and high infant mortality rates such as
Nepal, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. On the other hand, it is quite uncommon in countries with
similar levels of son preference yet with lower infant mortality rates – as you can imagine, it’s relatively
more difficult to kill a baby in a place where few babies die out.

Table 1: Sex Ration and Infanticide Rates

Country Under-5 Excessive Total N of % accountable to Sex Ratio (N of
Mortality deaths among excessive infanticide out of boys/N of girls
rates (out of under-5 girls deaths total deaths born)
1,000 births) (out of 1,000 among girls based on 2020
based on births) based based on data
2019 data on 2012 data 2012 data

Nepal 20.8 2.9 852 3.5 1.06

Bangladesh 30.8 2.1 3,330 2.6 1.04
Afghanistan 60.3 5.2 2,810 2.7 1.05
India 34.2 13.5 166,000 11.7 1.11
China 7.9 1.0 8,690 3.3 1.11
Pakistan 67.2 4.7 11,100 2.7 1.05
Source: Constructed by Author based on Alkema, Leontine et al. 2014 and data from UN

2
Sex-selective abortion began in 1980s with the introduction of pre-natal ultrasound. Parents could easily
detect the gender of their babies with ultrasound. For parents who want son, availability of pre-natal
ultrasound made their jobs easier as it is less of a burden to abort the babies before they are born. Even
though we still hotly debate whether abortion is women’s rights, sex-selective abortion and infanticide are
both criminal acts that cannot be justified in any way. The last column in table 1 shows the sex ratio at birth.
Without sex-selective abortion nor infanticide, we expect the ratio would be something between 1.05-1.07.
We don’t know for sure why boys are more likely to be born than girls yet. Some say it is because girls face
higher risk of stillbirth as fetus whereas others argue that humans evolved to produce more males as men
generally face higher mortality.

There aren’t that many countries left with skewed sex ratios -- China, India, and Vietnam are the only
countries where sex-selective abortions are relatively common due to widespread availability of ultrasound
procedures. In case of China, almost all pregnant women get pre-natal ultrasound, enabling them to abort
the child based on gender if they choose to. India, on the other hand, infanticide is more common as
ultrasound is not as widely available.

South Korea is special in that sex-selective abortion has been completely disappeared. As of 2020, South
Korean sex ratio is 1.05. Yet, son preference left a serious consequence in the 1980s and 1990s. Figure 2
below shows the sex ratio in South Korea by birth order. With the introduction of ultrasound in 1980s, we
see evidence of sex-selective abortions until quite recent years. Sex ratio among the first births was close
to natural. Yet, sex-selective abortion was pronounced among higher birth orders. Among the third-borns,
sex ratio reached 1.2 in the mid-1990s. Sex ratio among the second-borns also exceeded 1.08.

Then how many girls were “killed” due to sex-selective abortion? Let’s assume that the natural sex ratio is
1.06. In 1993, sex ratios for the first, second, and third births were 1.06, 1.15, and 2.06, respectively. Sex
ratio among the first-borns is similar to the natural ratio, so we can reasonably argue that there weren’t that
many sex-selective abortions. Among the second births, however, roughly 152,766 boys were born.
Without sex-selective abortions, 144,119 (=152.766/1.06) girls should have been born. However, only
133,024 girls were born in that year. Roughly, 11,095 girls “went missing.” Following this logic, roughly
300,000 girls have gone missing since 1981 to 2019.

3
Figure 2: Sex Ratio by Year in South Korea

Source: Constructed by Author based on data from the Korean Bureau of Statistics

While sex-selective abortions were hotly debated, infanticide was rarely raised as an issue. According to
the 2011 UN report, under-5 mortality among boys in countries without son preference – such as Europe,
North America, and Japan – was about 1.2-1.3 times higher than that of girls. In case of South Korea, under-
5 mortality for girls was 1.10-1.13 higher than that of boys during 1970s and 1980s, indicating infanticide
targeted towards girls. In India and China where infanticide is more common, girls’ under-5 mortality rate
is actually 1.2-1.3 times higher than that of boys (UN, 2011).

4
Is Son Preference Over?

Many people think we have moved away from son preference in the 21st century. In fact, according to a
survey conducted in 2013, 66.2% of Koreans indicated that they want a daughter if they were to have only
one child. Only 33.8% said they would want a son. I wanted a daughter myself. Of course, I was beyond
happy when my first son was born. But I really wanted a daughter as well. My wife got pregnant with our
second child when we were in the Philippines. When we heard that our second child was, indeed, a girl, I
couldn’t help but shout in pure joy even though I tried to contain myself in front of the doctor.

Still, I sometimes realize that I often have different sets of expectations for my son and daughter. I want my
son to excel academically, go to a good college, and get a respectable job. I want him to be a well-rounded
leader. Of course, I want my daughter to be the same, yet I also wish her to be beautiful. In fact, many
parents tend to believe sons ought to be the breadwinner for the family whereas girls could always quit their
jobs and get married. Figure 3 shows the sets of jobs Korean parents wish their first-born children to have.
Parents want high-paying jobs for their boys – CEOs, lawyers, and professors. On the other hand, parents
want their girls to become fashion stylists, nurses, and teachers – mostly lower-paying occupations with
more flexible working hours to take care of the household.

Figure 3: Parents’ Occupational Aspirations for Their First-Borns

Source: Choi and Hwang, Demography, 2020

5
In that sense, we are still witnessing gender discrimination. Prof Choi and Hwang’s study shows that parents
still invest more on boys than girls even after the sex ratio at birth has returned to the natural level (Choi
and Hwang, Demography, 2020). Specifically, parents spend 10% more on boys’ education. Mothers with
boys tend to reduce their working hours more than mothers with girls. Moreover, girls tend to spend more
hours doing household chores than boys. At a glance, it seems like these parents are making a rational
choice as returns to their investments differ by sex.

Gender inequality in income is a well-known fact. Figure 4 shows the income disparity between men and
women in OECD countries. There are many factors behind these figures – men and women are not
necessarily competing with each other in the same sector. Far less women pursue career in STEM fields,
for example. Luckily, we are observing a closing gender gap within the STEM fields as well as other
professional occupations in the past 20 years.

Figure 4: Gender Inequality in Income among OECD Countries, 2020

Source: https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/gender-wage-gap.htm

However, this is not to say we have achieved gender equality. Many women still face difficulties returning
to their jobs after giving birth. Renowned economists from Yale, Princeton, and Singapore National
University coined the term, “The Mommy Effect” to explain this phenomenon. According to their study,

6
women’s labor market participation in UK fell from 88% before birth to 50% after birth. In the United
States, women’s labor market participation fell from 70% before birth to 35% after birth. In Korea, only
45% of women returned to work after giving birth, and their income fell to 68% of what they used to receive
before.

Figure 5: Changes in Women’s Labor Market Participation, UK, USA, and South Korea

Source: Kuziemko, Ilyana et al. 2018 and Youjin Hahn & Anna Kim 2020

7
There are many reasons why women opt out of the labor force other than the structural barriers. Many
women experience changes in gender role after giving birth, thinking rearing children and taking care of
the household are more valuable than pursuing their own careers. Even if they succeed in re-entering the
labor force, many experience the glass ceiling effect. Male managers tend to underestimate their female
colleagues’ abilities. Women, faced with high burdens of domestic responsibilities, find it difficult to work
to their fullest.

How We Should Approach Gender Inequality

Based on these overt and subtle discrimination against women, it seems just to push for affirmative actions
for them. In fact, we are already implementing many different policies to promote gender equality. However,
some of these policies are based on coercive measures often fail to fulfill intended goals. Rather, they
instigate further conflicts between men and women.

We need to improve the ways we achieve gender equality. Few years ago, Economics department of Seoul
National University advertised a job opening where only female scholars could apply. However, it did not
attract applications from top female scholars as they feared others would discredit them based on their
gender. In contrast, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology uses subtle nudges to encourage
departments to hire more female faculty members – if departments hire a female associate or full professor,
the university, instead of each department, pays for the new hire for the next five years. Cornell University
also follows similar approach to hire more faculty members from racial minority groups like African
American or Hispanic.

South Korean government recently passed a law that each company should include at least one woman in
their board of directors. This regulation was ineffective for companies which already had at least one female
director, yet forced rest of the companies to abruptly squeeze women in. This approach is less effective
than encouraging the companies to hire more women by granting them tax benefits.

Female-only parking lots (or subway) are other bad example of gender-based affirmative actions. Many
able-bodied women do not necessarily need these services. Better alternative is to operate children and
elderly-accompanied parking lots. Since both men and women can use the service, there wouldn’t be any
gender conflicts while more women would benefit from it as they are the primary caregivers.

8
Towards Family-Friendly Social System

Another approach to gender equality is to change social system to be more family friendly. Claudia Goldin,
an economist from Harvard, argued that if more regular jobs were offered as part-time, more women would
be able to reconcile family with work. We should strive to create a society where birth and other health
problems should not hamper anyone from pursing their goals. For one thing, implementing 52-hour rule
and flexible working hours drives for more family-friendly working environments. Moreover, we should
move away from “gender-oriented” approach to “family-oriented” approach. This means expanding the
scope of the existing policies that only target women to include those who are disadvantaged within the
society.

Affordable foreign domestic helper system is also helpful. Residing in Hong Kong, my wife and I could
hire two domestic helpers. As academics, both my wife and I don’t have a set of working hours, yet we
sometimes have to work more than 12 hours a day to keep up with our workloads. We wouldn’t be able to
pursue our own careers in academia if we were to take care of our children on our own. In fact, women’s
labor market participation increased by 10-14 percentage-point by hiring foreign domestic workers in Hong
Kong (Cortes and Pan, 2013).

Women have been long discriminated in our societies and their struggles are not over yet. If we implement
more thoughtful policies to end gender inequality, more people would agree and support them. And we
would soon live in a society where those measures are no longer necessary.

References

Choi, Eleanor Jawon, and Jisoo Hwang. "Transition of son preference: evidence from South Korea."
Demography 57.2 (2020): 627-652.

Cortes, Patricia, and Jessica Pan. "Outsourcing household production: Foreign domestic workers and native
labor supply in Hong Kong." Journal of Labor Economics 31.2 (2013): 327-371.

Goldin, Claudia. "A grand gender convergence: Its last chapter." American Economic Review 104.4 (2014):
1091-1119.

9
Kuziemko, Ilyana, et al. The mommy effect: Do women anticipate the employment effects of motherhood?.
No. w24740. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2018.

Sen, Amartya. "More than 100 million women are missing." Gender and Justice. Routledge, 2017. 219-222.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2011). Sex Differentials
in Childhood Mortality (United Nations publication, ST/ESA/SER.A/314).

Kim Anna, and Youjin Hahn. “The Motherhood Effect on Labr Market Outcomes: Evidence from South
Korea.” KLIPS Working Paper (2020).

10