**Table 9:** Sex of the first-born child, marital outcomes and living arrangements

|Dep. var.:|=1 polygy|n husband|=1 living w|ith husband|=1 ever div|orced or sep.|=1 is the|female head|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Sample:||currently m|arried wome|n||ever-marrie|d women||
|AGE|all|30-49|all|30-49|all|30-49|all|30-49|
||(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|(6)|(7)|(8)|
|frst-born girl|0.012**|0.028***|-0.009**|-0.014**|0.003|0.012*|0.003|0.011***|
||(0.006)|(0.010)|(0.004)|(0.006)|(0.005)|(0.007)|(0.002)|(0.004)|
|age|0.004|-0.012|0.014*|0.016|0.029***|0.036*|0.013***|-0.001|
||(0.013)|(0.025)|(0.007)|(0.014)|(0.010)|(0.019)|(0.005)|(0.009)|
|age sq.|0.000|0.000|-0.000**|-0.000|-0.000**|-0.000*|-0.000***|0.000|
||(0.000)|(0.000)|(0.000)|(0.000)|(0.000)|(0.000)|(0.000)|(0.000)|
|age at frst birth|-0.004***|-0.005***|0.001|0.000|-0.002***|-0.002*|-0.000|-0.000|
||(0.001)|(0.001)|(0.001)|(0.001)|(0.001)|(0.001)|(0.000)|(0.001)|
|eduyrs|-0.007***|-0.008***|-0.002***|-0.002**|-0.002***|-0.003**|0.001***|0.001***|
||(0.001)|(0.002)|(0.001)|(0.001)|(0.001)|(0.001)|(0.000)|(0.000)|
|husband age|0.007***<br>(0.002)|0.002<br>(0.004)|-0.005***<br>(0.001)|-0.006***<br>(0.002)|||||
|husband age sq.|-0.000***<br>(0.000)|-0.000<br>(0.000)|0.000***<br>(0.000)|0.000***<br>(0.000)|||||
|husband eduyrs|0.002***<br>(0.001)|0.003**<br>(0.001)|-0.005***<br>(0.001)|-0.005***<br>(0.001)|||||
|age at frst marriage|-0.004***|-0.004***|0.001|0.001|-0.006***|-0.006***|-0.000|-0.000|
||(0.001)|(0.001)|(0.001)|(0.001)|(0.001)|(0.001)|(0.000)|(0.000)|
|frst-born dead|0.055***|0.070***|-0.002|0.001|0.042***|0.060***|-0.007**|-0.006|
||(0.011)|(0.016)|(0.008)|(0.009)|(0.008)|(0.012)|(0.003)|(0.006)|
|frst-born girl x|-0.023**|-0.043**|0.002|0.001|0.006|-0.009|-0.007|-0.015**|
|frst-born dead|(0.011)|(0.017)|(0.011)|(0.013)|(0.010)|(0.014)|(0.005)|(0.006)|
|Observations|16343|9395|20310|11802|22112|12745|22072|12745|
|Pseudo R2|0.287|0.295|0.088|0.121|0.184|0.167|0.234|0.247|

_Notes._ Probit estimates, marginal effects reported. Robust standard errors adjusted for clustering at the household level in parentheses. Using survey weights.<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup> ,<sup>_∗∗_</sup> , and<sup>_∗_</sup> indicate significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively. In Columns (1) and (2) the sample is restricted to currently married women who are monogamous or rank 1 (excluding women of rank 2 or higher); columns (3) and (4) include all currently married women; columns (5)-(8) include all ever-married women and exclude widows. Other controls include region fixed effects, urban dummy, birth year fixed effects, ethnicity and region-specific time trends, religion and ethnicity, a wealth index, # of children ever born, household size. Columns 5-8 include dummies for whether women are currently married.

biological daughters (sons), I should find symmetric responses for the imbalance with more girls or boys.<sup>39</sup> If instead there is preference for _own_ biological sons but not for _own_ daughters, responses should not be symmetric. It is important to note that this analysis is not meant to be a comprehensive analysis of the motivations for child fostering, but is instead a preliminary test of asymmetric patterns of fostering in/out that may be driven by gender preferences.

# **6.2.1 Household fostering decisions, data and empirical strategy**

The analysis of fostering decisions is done at the household level. The number of biological children is based on fertility histories of the spouse/s of the head or of the female head, and includes all daughters and sons alive _before_ fostering (summing up resident children and children living else-

> 39Specifically, if household fostering decisions are influenced by this motivation with no gender bias, the following patterns should be observed. For households with an excess of daughters: (+) foster-in boys; (+) foster-out daughters, and for households with an excess of sons: (+) foster-in girls; (+) foster-out sons.

28