average years of schooling of the mothers of twins. The value is 0.16 and not significant at 5 percent before 1994 and 0.90 and significant at 5 percent in 1994
and thereafter. These findings suggest that some twin births that occurred after the IVF treatments
became accessible may not be random events. Although in our regressions we con- trol for parental education and other characteristics that are proxies for permanent
income and wealth, it is still possible that unobserved characteristics for exemple, tastes may be correlated with the occurrence of twins and child-quality outcomes.
To avoid this potential problem, we decided to use the 1991 Census, in which all the births occurred before the surge of IVF treatments in Brazil.
A. Impacts on the 10–15-Year-Old Age Group
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the 2Ⳮ, 3Ⳮ, and 3Ⳮ—first-born sam- ples for the 10–15-year-old age group for boys and girls separately. We notice that
labor-force participation for boys is almost twice as large as that of girls. For in- stance, in the 2Ⳮ sample, 14 percent of all boys participate in the labor market,
whereas 6 percent of all girls are participants in the labor market. Conversely, the incidence of household-chore activities is greater among girls compared to boys. Of
all first-born girls who are not participating in the labor market, 7 percent report doing some chores in the 2Ⳮ sample. This figure is 1.5 percent for boys. Regarding
educational outcomes, 85 percent of the boys and 87 percent of the girls are attending school in the 2Ⳮ sample. As is commonly observed in developing countries, chil-
dren experience some school delays. This phenomenon occurs for both boys and girls and is slightly more frequent among boys. The average school progression
indices are 0.71 and 0.76 for boys and girls in the 2Ⳮ sample, respectively. Finally, 91 percent of the boys and 94 percent of the girls in the 2Ⳮ sample are literate. Of
all families with two or more births, 1.3 percent have twins in the second birth. The same figure appears in the 3Ⳮ sample. The average family size is 3.1 for the 2Ⳮ
sample and 3.8 for the 3Ⳮ sample. Approximately 74 percent live in urban areas in the 2Ⳮ sample and 69 percent in the 3Ⳮ sample.
Table 3 presents the OLS regression results for all three samples of the 10–15- year-old age group. They are qualitatively the same for boys and girls. All show
positive and significant coefficients of family size on labor-force participation and household chores. Negative and significant coefficients are also observed for atten-
dance, school progression and literacy.
Overall, the OLS results indicate that individuals in larger families are more prone to engage in labor-market activities and chores especially girls and present lower
educational outcomes. These figures suggest a strong detrimental effect of family size on child-quality outcomes.
Are these results reliable? First, we check whether the IV has a strong correlation with the potential endogenous variable. Table 5 displays the first-stage results of the
IV regressions for the 10–15-year-old age group. All coefficients of the instrument are positive and statistically significant. We also notice that families whose child is
white, whose parents are more educated, and who live in urban and metropolitan areas have fewer children not shown in the tables. The same results are obtained in the
first-stage regressions of the 18–20-year-old age group and are shown in Table 6.
The Journal
of Human
Resources
Table 1 Summary statistics—10–15-years-old
2Ⳮ Sample 3Ⳮ Sample
3Ⳮ Sample First Born Variable
Mean Standard
deviation N
Mean Standard
deviation N
Mean Standard
deviation N
Boys Labor force participation
0.14 0.35
148,242 0.15
0.36 145,296
0.17 0.38
92,272 Household chore activities
0.02 0.12
129,844 0.02
0.13 126,484
0.02 0.13
78,190 School progression
0.71 0.31
148,155 0.64
0.32 145,231
0.64 0.32
92,214 Literacy
0.91 0.29
148,242 0.87
0.34 145,296
0.87 0.34
92,272 Attendance
0.86 0.35
148,292 0.83
0.38 145,296
0.82 0.39
92,272 Family size
3.12 1.28
148,242 3.83
1.22 145,296
3.79 1.19
92,272 Presence of twins
0.01 0.11
148,242 0.01
0.11 145,296
0.01 0.11
92,272 Head’s schooling
5.35 4.40
148,201 4.57
4.15 145,256
4.59 4.16
92,244 Head’s gender
0.83 0.37
148,242 0.86
0.34 145,296
0.86 0.33
92,272 Head’s age
38.68 6.16
148,242 38.60
6.06 145,296
38.37 6.09
92,272 Mother’s schooling
5.41 4.10
148,143 4.67
3.87 145,192
4.87 3.88
92,207 Mother’s age
34.65 4.90
148,242 34.82
4.63 145,296
34.10 4.66
92,272 Child’s age
12.35 1.70
148,242 12.11
1.63 145,296
12.50 1.70
92,272 White
0.60 0.49
148,242 0.53
0.50 145,296
0.53 0.50
92,272 Urban area
0.74 0.44
148,242 0.68
0.47 145,296
0.75 0.43
92,272 Metropolitan area
0.27 0.44
148,242 0.23
0.42 145,296
0.23 0.42
92,272 Second child
— —
— 0.33
0.40 145,296
— —
—
Ponczek and
Souza 77
Girls Labor force participation
0.06 0.23
139,360 0.06
0.23 138,815
0.07 0.25
87,635 Household chore activities
0.07 0.25
133,195 0.09
0.28 132,449
0.09 0.29
82,859 School progression
0.76 0.30
139,302 0.71
0.31 138,768
0.71 0.31
87,597 Literacy
0.94 0.24
139,360 0.91
0.29 138,815
0.92 0.28
87,635 Attendance
0.88 0.33
139,360 0.85
0.36 138,815
0.84 0.36
87,635 Family size
3.13 1.27
139,360 3.83
1.21 138,815
3.79 1.17
87,635 Presence of twins
0.01 0.11
139,360 0.01
0.12 138,815
0.01 0.11
87,635 Head’s schooling
5.37 4.38
139,311 4.59
4.14 138,772
4.63 4.14
87,606 Head’s gender
0.84 0.37
139,360 0.85
0.36 138,815
0.85 0.35
87,635 Head’s age
38.65 6.16
139,360 38.58
6.07 138,815
38.32 6.07
87,635 Mother’s schooling
5.43 4.09
139,260 4.69
3.86 138,728
4.74 3.86
87,583 Mother’s age
34.61 4.89
139,360 34.29
4.63 138,815
34.03 4.64
87,635 Child’s age
12.33 1.70
139,360 12.10
1.62 138,815
12.46 1.69
87,635 White
0.62 0.49
139,360 0.55
0.50 138,815
0.55 0.50
87,635 Urban area
0.74 0.44
139,360 0.69
0.46 138,815
0.69 0.46
87,635 Metropolitan area
0.27 0.45
139,360 0.23
0.42 138,815
0.23 0.42
87,635 Second child
— —
— 0.34
0.41 138,815
— —
—
The Journal
of Human
Resources
Table 2 Summary statistics—18–20-years-old
2Ⳮ Sample 3Ⳮ Sample
3Ⳮ Sample First Born Variable
Mean Standard
deviation N
Mean Standard
deviation N
Mean Standard
deviation N
Boys Labor force participation
0.70 0.46
38,948 0.72
0.45 34,847
0.72 0.45
28,430 Household chore activities
0.05 0.21
14,122 0.04
0.21 12,034
0.04 0.20
9,681 School progression
0.57 0.28
38,881 0.53
0.29 34,784
0.53 0.29
28,381 Literacy
0.93 0.26
38,948 0.91
0.28 34,847
0.91 0.28
28,430 Attendance
0.40 0.49
38,948 0.37
0.48 34,847
0.37 0.48
28,430 Completed years of schooling
6.02 3.56
23,265 5.49
3.47 21,740
5.59 3.51
17,850 High school
0.17 0.38
38,948 0.13
0.33 34,847
0.14 0.34
28,430 College attendance
0.08 0.27
38,948 0.06
0.23 34,847
0.06 0.24
28,430 Family size
3.68 1.76
38,948 4.32
1.70 34,847
4.29 1.68
28,430 Presence of twins
0.01 0.12
38,948 0.01
0.12 34,847
0.01 0.11
28,430 Head’s schooling
4.80 4.33
38,943 4.32
4.11 34,840
4.31 4.11
28,425 Head’s gender
0.81 0.35
38,948 0.85
0.34 34,847
0.84 0.31
28,430 Head’s age
45.60 6.12
38,948 45.29
5.96 34,847
45.21 5.96
28,430 Mother’s schooling
4.62 3.96
38,932 4.18
3.78 34,833
4.18 3.79
28,419 Mother’s age
41.36 3.96
38,932 40.88
4.50 34,847
40.79 4.52
28,430 Child’s age
18.88 0.81
38,948 18.78
0.79 34,847
18.89 0.81
28,430 White
0.63 0.48
38,948 0.57
0.50 34,847
0.58 0.49
28,430 Urban area
0.74 0.44
38,948 0.70
0.46 34,847
0.70 0.46
28,430 Metropolitan area
0.30 0.46
38,948 0.26
0.44 34,847
0.26 0.44
28,430 Second child
— —
— 0.14
0.30 34,847
— —
—
Ponczek and
Souza 79
Girls Labor force participation
0.46 0.50
28,633 0.45
0.50 25,709
0.46 0.50
20,603 Household chore activities
0.24 0.42
16,747 0.26
0.44 15,115
0.27 0.44
11,996 School progression
0.68 0.27
28,585 0.64
0.28 25,656
0.64 0.28
20,562 Literacy
0.96 0.19
28,633 0.96
0.20 25,709
0.96 0.21
20,603 Attendance
0.53 0.50
28,633 0.51
0.50 25,709
0.51 0.50
20,603 Completed years of schooling
7.26 3.75
13,370 6.71
3.72 12,477
6.82 3.76
10,809 High school
0.28 0.45
28,633 0.22
0.42 25,709
0.24 0.43
20,603 College attendance
0.15 0.35
28,633 0.11
0.31 25,709
0.12 0.32
20,603 Family size
3.56 1.65
28,633 4.22
1.61 25,709
4.16 1.57
20,603 Presence of twins
0.01 0.12
28,633 0.01
0.12 25,709
0.01 0.12
20,603 Head’s schooling
5.33 4.47
28,635 4.79
4.29 25,703
4.85 4.30
20,597 Head’s gender
0.84 0.32
28,633 0.86
0.33 25,709
0.84 0.33
20,603 Head’s age
45.60 6.06
28,633 45.25
5.85 25,709
45.12 5.87
20,603 Mother’s schooling
5.06 4.07
28,617 4.59
3.91 25,692
4.65 3.92
20,591 Mother’s age
41.50 4.73
28,617 40.99
4.42 25,709
40.89 4.43
20,603 Child’s age
18.85 0.81
28,633 18.74
0.78 25,709
18.85 0.81
20,603 White
0.67 0.47
28,633 0.61
0.49 25,709
0.62 0.49
20,603 Urban area
0.78 0.41
28,633 0.74
0.44 25,709
0.75 0.44
20,603 Metropolitan area
0.33 0.47
28,633 0.30
0.46 25,709
0.30 0.46
20,603 Second child
— —
— 0.17
0.34 25,709
— —
—
The Journal
of Human
Resources
Table 3 OLS Regressions 10–15-year-old age group
2Ⳮ Sample 3Ⳮ Sample
3Ⳮ Sample First-borns Boys
Girls Boys
Girls Boys
Girls Labor force participation
Family size 0.024
0.011 0.023
0.009 0.025
0.010 0.001
0.001 0.001
0.001 0.001
0.001 Second child
0.000 0.003
0.000 0.000
0.002 0.001
0.000 0.000
N 148,106
139,214 145,156
138,689 92,182
87,556 Household chore activities
Family size 0.001
0.018 0.002
0.020 0.002
0.022 0.000
0.001 0.000
0.001 0.001
0.001 Second child
ⳮ0.002 ⳮ0.002
0.000 0.000
0.002 0.002
0.000 0.000
N 129,716
133,054 126,351
132,328 78,106
82,784 Attendance
Family size ⳮ0.033
ⳮ0.026 ⳮ0.036
ⳮ0.029 ⳮ0.037
ⳮ0.031 0.001
0.001 0.001
0.001 0.001
0.001 Second child
0.016 0.005
0.000 0.000
0.002 0.002
0.000 0.000
N 148,106
139,214 145,156
138,689 92,182
87,556
Ponczek and
Souza 81
School progression Family size
ⳮ0.036 ⳮ0.036
ⳮ0.037 ⳮ0.040
ⳮ0.037 ⳮ0.039
0.001 0.001
0.001 0.001
0.001 0.001
Second child 0.000
0.004 0.000
0.000 0.001
0.001 0.000
0.000 N
148,019 139,158
145,091 138,643
92,124 87,519
Literacy Family size
ⳮ0.029 ⳮ0.020
ⳮ0.037 ⳮ0.029
ⳮ0.033 ⳮ0.025
0.001 0.001
0.001 0.001
0.001 0.001
Second child 0.018
0.014 0.000
0.000 0.002
0.002 0.000
0.000 N
148,106 139,214
145,156 138,689
92,182 87,556
Robust standard errors in parenthesis. School Progression ⬅ educationage-6. Sample: Children aged in 僆 [10,15] living with two adults the mother and her husband. Control variables: Year and state dummies; head’s schooling, gender and age;
mother’s schooling and age; child’s age, squared age and gender; dummy variable if the family lives in urban areas and if the family lives in metropolitan areas.
The Journal
of Human
Resources
Table 4 OLS Regressions 18–20-year-old age group
2Ⳮ Sample 3Ⳮ Sample
3Ⳮ Sample First-borns Boys
Girls Boys
Girls Boys
Girls Labor Force Participation
Family size 0.014
0.009 0.015
0.006 0.014
0.006 0.001
0.002 0.001
0.002 0.002
0.002 Second child
0.005 0.015
0.006 0.008
N 38,928
28,609 34,827
25,686 28,415
20,585 Household Chore Activities
Family size 0.000
0.021 0.000
0.024 0.000
0.025 ⳮ0.001
0.002 ⳮ0.001
0.003 0.002
0.003 Second child
0.007 ⳮ0.007
0.005 0.008
N 14,115
16,735 12,023
15,102 9,674
11,987 Attendance
Family size ⳮ0.019
ⳮ0.019 ⳮ0.020
ⳮ0.018 ⳮ0.019
ⳮ0.019 0.001
0.002 0.001
0.002 0.002
0.002 Second child
ⳮ0.004 0.004
0.007 0.008
N 38,928
28,609 34,827
25,686 28,415
20,585 School Progression
Family size ⳮ0.023
ⳮ0.025 ⳮ0.012
ⳮ0.049 ⳮ0.022
ⳮ0.025 0.001
0.001 0.010
0.012 0.001
0.001 Second child
ⳮ0.011 0.006
0.006 0.006
N 34,765
25,634 34,765
25,634 28,366
20,545
Ponczek and
Souza 83
Literacy Family size
ⳮ0.013 ⳮ0.008
ⳮ0.014 ⳮ0.009
ⳮ0.014 ⳮ0.009
0.001 0.001
0.001 0.001
0.001 0.002
Second child 0.012
0.012 0.004
0.003 N
38,928 28,609
34,827 25,686
28,415 20,585
Completed years of schooling Family size
ⳮ0.233 ⳮ0.277
ⳮ0.230 ⳮ0.283
ⳮ0.233 ⳮ0.296
0.010 0.015
0.010 0.015
0.011 0.018
Second child ⳮ0.112
ⳮ0.061 0.045
0.062 N
23,256 13,361
21,730 12,469
17,842 10,082
High school Family size
ⳮ0.008 ⳮ0.017
ⳮ0.005 ⳮ0.015
ⳮ0.006 ⳮ0.016
0.001 0.001
0.001 0.001
0.001 0.001
Second child ⳮ0.021
ⳮ0.037 0.004
0.006 N
38,928 28,609
34,827 25,686
28,415 20,585
College attendance Family size
0.001 ⳮ0.003
0.003 0.000
0.002 ⳮ0.001
0.001 0.001
0.000 0.001
0.001 0.001
Second child ⳮ0.011
ⳮ0.026 0.003
0.004 N
38,928 28,609
34,827 25,686
28,415 20,585
Robust standard errors in parenthesis. School Progression ⬅ educationage-6. Sample: Children aged in 僆 [18,20] living with two adults the mother and her husband.
Control variables: Year and state dummies; head’s schooling, gender and age; mother’s schooling and age; individual’s age, squared age and gender; dummy variable if the family lives in urban areas and if the family lives in metropolitan areas.
The Journal
of Human
Resources
Table 5 First-Stage Regressions 10–15-year-old age group
Dependent Variable: of children in the family 2Ⳮ Sample
3Ⳮ Sample 3ⳭSample First-Borns
Boys Girls
Boys Girls
Boys Girls
Presence of twins 0.852
0.862 0.924
0.986 0.950
0.989 0.028
0.028 0.026
0.027 0.032
0.033 Second child
0.351 0.355
0.007 0.006
F -test
1070.76 1137.98
1123.65 1188.20
648.57 691.94
N 139,214
148,106 138,689
145,156 87,556
92,182
Robust standard error in parenthesis. Control variables: Year and state dummies; head’s schooling, gender and age; mother’s schooling and age.
Sample: Children aged in 僆 [10,15] living with two adults the mother and her husband. 2Ⳮ Sample: 1st borns with at least 2 births in the families.
3Ⳮ Sample: 1st and 2nd borns with at least 3 births in the families.
Ponczek and
Souza 85
Table 6 First-Stage Regressions 18–20-year-old age group
Dependent Variable: of children in the family 2Ⳮ Sample
3Ⳮ Sample 3ⳭSample First-Borns
Boys Girls
Boys Girls
Boys Girls
Presence of twins 0.919
0.935 0.910
0.950 0.937
1.018 0.076
0.075 0.076
0.071 0.082
0.080 Second child
0.429 0.530
0.024 0.023
F -test
215.41 332.48
201.40 305.45
157.38 241.50
N 28,609
38,928 25,686
34,827 20,585
28,415
Robust standard error in parenthesis. Year and state dummies as control variables.
Sample: Individuals aged in 僆 [18,20] living with two adults the mother and her husband. 2Ⳮ Sample: first borns with at least two births in the families.
3Ⳮ Sample: first and second borns with at least three births in the families.
Some observations are worth noting. First, the measure of the number of siblings is accurate in our samples because we exclude all families that have some children
who are deceased or living outside the household. In other words, we include com- plete families only. Second, our measurement of the presence of twins may be over-
estimated because we identify twins by the age of the individuals. Therefore, it is possible that some nontwin siblings are misclassified as twins, which might generate
measurement errors in our instrumental variable. However, as long as they are not correlated with the error in the second-stage equation and the measure of presence
of twins is correlated to the actual variable, the second-stage coefficients are con- sistent even if they bias the first-stage coefficients.
The IV second-stage regressions for the 10–15-year-old age group displayed in Table 7 show the impacts of family size on child-quality outcomes for boys and
girls separately. The results for labor-force participation show a positive and signifi- cant impact of family size in the three different samples for girls. For boys, only
the coefficient in the 2Ⳮ sample is statistically significant. The IV point estimates imply that an extra sibling increases the likelihood of a girl boy joining the labor
market by 1.4 2.0 percentage points in the 2Ⳮ sample. This increase is sizeable. The child labor incidence among 10–15-year-old girls and boys is approximately 6
percent and 14 percent, respectively, in Brazil, which implies that an extra sibling increases the probability of a child working by 1.46⳱23 percent for girls and 2.0
14⳱14 percent for boys. The results for the 3Ⳮ samples are also positive and significant, with similar magnitudes for girls. However, they are not statistically
significant for boys.
15
The results for household chores are not statically significant, except for the values for girls in the 3Ⳮ firstborn sample. It is important to notice that the definition of
household chores is narrow and consists of a full-time activity for those are who not participating in the labor market.
16
It is possible that individuals engage in household chores combined with other activities and that this is more likely to occur
in larger families. However, we cannot capture this impact due to the definition of household chores used in the Census. Nevertheless, it is interesting to notice that
there is a positive and significant impact of family size for first-born girls in the 3Ⳮ sample, which may suggest a process in the intra-household allocation decisions in
which older females in larger families dedicate more time to taking care of younger siblings andor household duties. The fact that we did not find this effect in the 2Ⳮ
sample indicates that the impact may be nonlinear with respect to family size.
The results for school attendance suggest a detrimental effect of family size. The coefficient is statistically different from zero at a 5 percent level of significance for
girls in the 3Ⳮ firstborn sample only. However, all of the coefficients are negative, and point estimates range from ⳮ1.3 to ⳮ2.3 percentage points. For the first-born
girls in the 3Ⳮ sample, an extra sibling reduces the probability of attending school
15. We also investigate the impact of family size on work intensity. We observe the intensive margin by including weekly working hours as an additional outcome. We did not find any impact of family size on
this margin. The results are available upon request. 16. For those who are not participating in the labor market, the Census classifies their time allocation
among the following exclusive options: i doing chores, ii studying, iii job-searching or iv retired or not occupied.
by 2.3 percentage points, which corresponds to an increase of 2.314.81⳱15.5 per- cent for the probability of not attending school.
For school progression, the results indicate a detrimental effect of family size. The coefficients are negative and significant for boys and girls and for all samples,
and they imply a considerable effect on educational attainment. For instance, the point estimate for girls in the 2Ⳮ sample is approximately 0.03. The average school
progression is approximately 0.9. If a 15-year-old girl is in the correct grade, she must have nine years of schooling. The marginal impact of family size would de-
crease this figure to 9⳯0.03⳱0.27 years of schooling, that is, one-third of a year of schooling. Indeed, there is evidence that a school delay is associated with lower
final educational attainments see, for instance, Meisels and Liaw 1993 and Bedi and Marshall 2002.
Finally, for literacy, we find negative point estimates of family size. For girls, the results are significant in the 3Ⳮ samples only. For boys, family size is not significant
in the 3Ⳮ firstborn sample only. For instance, boys in the 2Ⳮ sample are impacted by a decrease of two percentage points in the probability of being literate. This
magnitude implies that an extra sibling increases the chances of being illiterate by 29⳱22 percent.
When comparing the IV with the OLS regressions, the OLS coefficients seem to overestimate in absolute terms the actual impact of family size on household
chores, school attendance, school progression, and literacy outcomes for both boys and girls. However, in the case of labor-force participation, the OLS biases are
different for boys and girls. For boys, the OLS bias is positive. The opposite occurs for girls, even though the point estimates of OLS and IV are similar. These com-
parisons suggest that families with a preference for child quantity care less about child quality or are more likely to be credit-constrained. The same bias direction for
both boys and girls for most of the outcomes suggests that unobservable tastes, wealth, and ability are similarly correlated with girls’ and boys’ outcomes. The twins
IV approach accounts for these biases.
B. Impacts on the 18–20-Year-Old Age Group
