Son preference, gender asymmetries and parity progressions: the case of Kyrgyzstan

Figures & data

Figure 1: Period TFR in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan, 1960–2018. Source: Based on data available at: http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng__tfr.php

Table 1. Descriptive parameters of women in their first union, DHS2012 (weighted sample)

		%
Urban		28.9
Higher education		44.0
Native language	Kyrgyz	77.1
	Russian	3.8
	Uzbek	5.7
	Other	13.5
Wealth quintile	Poorest	22.6
	Poorer	21.6
	Middle	21.7
	Richer	18.7
	Richest	16.0
Total children ever born	0	8.0
	1	16.1
	2	22.7
	3	21.9
	4	17.3
	5+	13.9
Family lives together with the parents of the husband		32.0
Woman finds domestic violence acceptable		45.3
Woman has a say in decisions on spending money her husband earns		86.9
Woman has a say in decisions on large household purchases		89.4
Woman has a say in decisions on visits to relatives and family		90.4
Age gap between spouses is more than 4 years		35.1
Woman has autonomous work		21.5
N		5000

Table 2. Cox regressions for transitions to parity transitions (risk ratios), for women with different sex composition of children already born, DHS2012 (here and below ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1, and SE in parentheses)

Transition to parity	Second	Third	Fourth	Fifth
Year of birth	0.995**	0.990**	0.991**	0.991
	(0.002)	(0.003)	(0.005)	(0.007)
Age at the previous birth	0.969***	0.943***	0.906***	0.886***
	(0.007)	(0.003)	(0.008)	(0.012)
Higher education	0.897***	0.864***	0.794***	0.850*
	(0.035)	(0.043)	(0.058)	(0.090)
The poorest wealth quantile	1	1	1	1
Poorer	0.954	0.915	0.933	1.026
	(0.049)	(0.056)	(0.069)	(0.098)
Middle	0.873***	0.854***	0.815**	1.064
	(0.050)	(0.057)	(0.075)	(0.114)
Richer	0.732***	0.709***	0.710***	0.803
	(0.052)	(0.063)	(0.084)	(0.135)
Richest	0.6260***	0.610***	0.620***	0.855
	(0.058)	(0.073)	(0.106)	(0.187)
Native languages: Kyrgyz	1	1	1	1
Russian	0.494***	0.356**	0.778	0.654
	(0.098)	(0.157)	(0.235)	(0.452)
Uzbek	1.042	0.911	0.612***	0.805
	(0.073)	(0.091)	(0.140)	(0.226)
Other	1.068	0.964	0.670***	0.545***
	(0.051)	(0.062)	(0.086)	(0.144)
Number of boys already born
0	1	1	1	1
1	0.878***	0.616***	0.595***	0.446***
	(0.033)	(0.047)	(0.075)	(0.125)
2		0.656***	0.475***	0.300***
		(0.056)	(0.077)	(0.127)
3			0.463***	0.429***
			(0.104)	(0.137)
4				0.400***
				(0.217)
N	4,416	3,628	2,493	1,470

Table 3. Cox regressions for transitions to parity transitions (risk ratios), for women with different sex composition of children already born, DHS1997

Transition to parity	Second	Third	Fourth
Controls	+	+	+
Number of boys already born
0	1	1	1
1	1.024	0.732***	0.679***
2		0.853**	0.617***
3			0.750**
N	2,104	1,744	1,226

Table 4. Logistic regressions for odds of contraception use, DHS2012, women in first marriage

No boys	1	1	1	1	1	1
Girls = boys	1.855***	1.853***	1.903***	1.859***	1.836***	2.151***
	(0.111)	(0.111)	(0.117)	(0.114)	(0.114)	(0.151)
Girls < boys	1.437***	1.432***	1.548***	1.462***	1.432**	1.599***
	(0.102)	(0.101)	(0.108)	(0.106)	(0.105)	(0.103)
Girls > boys	1.561***	1.566***	1.622***	1.560**	1.548**	1.851***
	(0.127)	(0.127)	(0.133)	(0.130)	(0.129)	(0.127)
Patrilocal residence		0.802**
		(0.087)
Taking part in financial decisions			1.223**
			(0.101)
Taking part in decisions on large household purchases				1.257*
				(0.121)
Taking part in decisions on visits to family or relatives					1.291**
					(0.129)
Woman’s autonomous work						1.594***
						(0.085)
Controls	+	+	+	+	+	+
R^2 Nigelkerke	0.061	0.063	0.057	0.056	0.056	0.055
N	4,165	4,165	4,165	4,165	4,165	4,165

Table 5. Cox regressions for parity transitions for subsamples of women differing on one of the parameters of family patriarchy, DHS2012

Transition to the second child
	Patrilocal residence		Husband’s education higher		Age gap higher than average		Accepting domestic violence
Number of boys	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
1	0.793**	0.912**	0.915	0.873**	0.921	0.875***	0.875**	0.879**
Controls	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
N	1,212	3,186	512	3,903	1,529	2,859	2,029	2,371
Transition to the third child
	Patrilocal residence		Husband’s education higher		Age gap higher than average		Accepting domestic violence
Number of boys	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
1	0.588***	0.617***	0.529***	0.632***	0.631***	0.609***	0.611***	0.601***
2	0.697**	0.644***	0.529***	0.679***	0.653***	0.657***	0.638***	0.675***
Controls	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
N	804	2,788	437	3,183	1,248	2,361	1,697	1,920
Transition to the fourth child
	Patrilocal residence		Husband’s education higher		Age gap higher than average		Accepting domestic violence
Number of boys	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
1	0.825	0.571***	0.483***	0.613***	0.655**	0.552***	0.586***	0.606***
2	0.556**	0.470***	0.433***	0.482***	0.467***	0.475***	0.498***	0.455***
3	0.614*	0.452***	0.246***	0.505***	0.369***	0.508***	0.485***	0.442***
Controls	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
N	421	2,055	324	2,165	831	1,655	1,228	1,264

Table 6. Cox regressions for parity transitions for subsamples of women differing on one of the parameters of family patriarchy, DHS1997

Transition to the third child
	Patrilocal residence		Husband’s education higher		Age gap higher than average
Number of boys	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
0	1	1	1	1	1	1
1	0.699*	0.741***	0.776	0.727***	0.767**	0.720**
2	0.877	0.855*	0.939	0.846**	0.844	0.868
Controls	+	+	+	+	+	+
N	261	1,479	142	1,600	683	1,059
Transition to the fourth child
	Patrilocal residence		Husband’s education higher		Age gap higher than average
Number of boys	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
0	1	1	1	1	1	1
1	0.718	0.673***	0.395**	0.702**	0.668**	0.692**
2	0.556	0.616***	0.353**	0.641***	0.569**	0.658**
3	0.513	0.776**	0.573	0.767*	0.840	0.673**
Controls	+	+	+	+	+	+
N	136	1,078	103	1,120	500	720