Advertisement

Journal of Population Economics

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 219–246 | Cite as

The dragon cohort of Hong Kong: traditional beliefs, demographics, and education

Original Paper

Abstract

In Hong Kong, parental preference for babies born in the Chinese Zodiac dragon year causes spikes in fertility. The larger number of “dragon babies” born in 1988 resulted in a schooling cohort which was 5% larger on average every school-year. Using an innovative identification strategy that avoids selection bias, I find that dragon cohort students increase their time spent studying math by an average of 0.26 hours per week (a 9% increase relative to the mean). These effort responses are strongest for girls and for students whose parents do not have post-secondary education. Being in the dragon cohort also results in higher math scores. These empirical findings are consistent with competitive behavior changes of dragon cohort members responding to the presence of additional students. I cannot, however, rule out other possible mechanisms, such as cooperation, peer quality, and educational investments, acting in conjunction to improve academic outcomes. This paper is the first to document the test score and effort impacts of such zodiac cohorts; its findings highlight the importance of cultural forces in determining population changes, and their potential to influence education and other societal outcomes.

Keywords

Education Chinese zodiac Dragon year Schooling cohort Fertility Birth rate 

JEL Classification

J13 I20 Z10 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Alex Mas, Cecilia Rouse, Harvey Rosen, Henry Farber, Nicholas Lawson, Quynh Nguyen, and the seminar and workshop participants at the Industrial Relations Section and the Public Finance Working Group at Princeton University for invaluable insights and comments. I am grateful to anonymous referees for their helpful feedback and guidance.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Almond D, Chee CP, Sviatschi MM, Zhong N (2015) Auspicious birth dates among Chinese in California. Econ Hum Biol 18:153–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angrist JD, Lavy V (1999) Using maimonides’ rule to estimate the effect of class size on scholastic achievement. Q J Econ 114(2):533–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angrist JD, Lang K (2004) Does school integration generate peer effects? Evidence from boston’s metco program. Am Econ Rev 94(5):1613–1634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Athey S, Imbens GW (2006) Identification and inference in nonlinear difference-in-differences models. Econometrica 74(2):431–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basten S, Verropoulou G (2013) Maternity migration and the increased sex ratio at birth in Hong Kong SAR. Popul Stud 67(3):323–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berelson B (1979) Romania’s 1966 Anti-Abortion decree: the demographic experience of the first decade. Popul Stud 33(2):209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger MC (1985) The effect of cohort size on earnings growth: a reexamination of the evidence. J Polit Econ 93(3):561–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bloom David E, Freeman RB, Korenman SD (1988) The Labour-market consequences of generational crowding. European Journal of Population / Revue Européenne de Démographie 3(2):131–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boudreau KJ, Helfat CE, Lakhani KR, Menietti M (2012) Field evidence on individual behavior and performance in rank-order tournaments,” Working Paper 13-016, Harvard Business SchoolGoogle Scholar
  10. Bound J (2007) Cohort crowding: how resources affect collegiate attainment. J Public Econ 91(5-6):877–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bound J, Turner S (2002) Going to war and going to college: did world war II and the G.I. Bill increase educational attainment for returning veterans? J Labor Econ 20(4):784–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bray M, Lykins C (2012) Shadow education: private supplementary tutoring and its implications for policy makers in asia, CERC Monograph Series in Comparative and International Education and Developmentonal 9Google Scholar
  13. Casas-Arce P, Asis Martinez-Jerez F (2009) Relative performance compensation, contests, and dynamic incentives. Manag Sci 55(8):1306–1320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chetty R, Friedman JN, Hilger N, Saez E, Schanzenbach DW, Yagan D (2011) How does your kindergarten classroom affect your earnings? Evidence from project star. Q J Econ 126(4):1593–1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Do Q-T, Phung TD (2010) The importance of being wanted. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2(4):236–253Google Scholar
  16. Duflo E, Dupas P, Kremer M (2011) Peer effects, teacher incentives, and the impact of tracking: evidence from a randomized evaluation in kenya. Am Econ Rev 101(5):1739–1774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Epple D, Romano RE (2011) Peer effects in education: a survey of the theory and evidence. In: Handbook of Social Economics, Vol. 1B: Carnegie Mellon University, pp 1053–1163Google Scholar
  18. Eriksson T (1999) Executive compensation and tournament theory: empirical tests on danish data. J Labor Econ 17(2):262–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garcia SM, Tor A (2009) The N-Effect. Psychol Sci 20(7):871–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gneezy U, Niederle M, Rustichini A (2003) Performance in competitive environments: gender differences. Q J Econ 118(3):1049–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodkind DM (1991) Creating new traditions in modern chinese populations: aiming for birth in the year of the dragon. Popul Dev Rev 17(4):663–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodkind DM (1993) New zodiacal influences on chinese family formation: Taiwan, 1976. Demography 30(2):127–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goodkind DM (1995) The significance of demographic triviality: minority status and zodiacal fertility timing among chinese malaysians. Popul Stud 49(1):45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goodkind DM (1996) Chinese lunar birth timing in Singapore: new concerns for child quality amidst multicultural modernity. J Marriage Fam 58(3):784–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Green JR, Stokey NL (1983) A comparison of tournaments and contracts. J Polit Econ 91(3):349–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hanushek EA, Kain JF, Markman JM, Rivkin SG (2003) Does peer ability affect student achievement? J Appl Econ 18(5):527–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harbring C, Irlenbusch B (2003) An experimental study on tournament design. Labour Economics 10(4):443–464. Special Issue on Labour Market ExperimentsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson ND, Nye JVC (2011) Does fortune favor dragons? J Econ Behav Organ 78(1-2):85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jurajda S, Munich D (2011) Gender gap in performance under competitive pressure: admissions to czech universities. Am Econ Rev 101(3):514–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Konrad KA (2009) Strategy and dynamics in contests. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Korenman S, Neumark D (2000) Cohort crowding and youth labor markets: a cross-national analysis. In: Blanchflower DG, Freeman RB (eds) Youth employment and joblessness in advanced countries. University of Chicago Press, pp 57–106Google Scholar
  32. Krueger AB (1999) Experimental estimates of education production functions. Q J Econ 114(2):497–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krueger AB, Whitmore DM (2001) The effect of attending a small class in the early grades on college-test taking and middle school test results: evidence from project star. Econ J 111(468):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lazear EP (2001) Educational production. Q J Econ 116(3):777–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lazear EP, Rosen S (1981) Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. J Polit Econ 89(5):841–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee J, Paik M (2006) Sex preferences and fertility in South Korea during the year of the horse. Demography 43(2):269–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lefgren L (2004) Educational peer effects and the Chicago public schools. J Urban Econ 56(2):169–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Macunovich DJ (1999) The fortunes of one’s birth: relative cohort size and the youth labor market in the United States. J Popul Econ 12(2):215–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Main BGM, O’Reilly CA III, Wade J (1993) Top executive pay: tournament or teamwork? J Labor Econ 11(4):606–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Morin L-P (2015a) Cohort size and youth earnings: evidence from a quasi-experiment. Labour Econ 32:99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Morin L-P (2015b) Do men and women respond differently to competition? Evidence from a major education reform. J Labor Econ 33(2):443–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nalebuff BJ, Stiglitz JE (1983) Prizes and incentives: towards a general theory of compensation and competition. Bell J Econ 14(1):21–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Niederle M, Vesterlund L (2010) Explaining the gender gap in Math test scores: the role of competition. J Econ Perspect 24(2):129–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nye JV, Xue MM (2014) Raising dragons, Working Paper 15-18, George Mason UniversityGoogle Scholar
  45. Orrison A, Schotter A, Weigelt K (1997) On the design of optimal organizations using tournaments: an experimental examination, working paper 97-26, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York UniversityGoogle Scholar
  46. Ors E, Palomino F, Peyrache E (2013) Performance gender gap: does competition matter?. J Labor Econ 31(3):443–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pong WY, Chow JCS (2002) On the pedagogy of examinations in Hong Kong. Teach Teach Educ 18(2):139–149. The Pedagogical Task of TeachingCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rohlfs C, Reed A, Yamada H (2010) Causal effects of sex preference on sex-blind and sex-selective child avoidance and substitution across birth years: evidence from the Japanese Year of the Fire Horse. J Dev Econ 92(1):82–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sim N (2015) Astronomics in action: the graduate earnings premium and the dragon effect in Singapore. Econ Inq 53(2):922–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. South China Morning Post (1994) Primary schools hit by demand, South China Morning Post, p 5Google Scholar
  51. South China Morning Post (1999) System pressured to find 2,000 Form One places, South China Morning Post, p 7Google Scholar
  52. South China Morning Post (2000) Enter the Dragon Babies, South China Morning Post, p 1Google Scholar
  53. South China Morning Post (2012) The 12-year hitch, South China Morning Post, p 4Google Scholar
  54. Stapleton DC (1988) Educational attainment and cohort size. J Labor Econ 6 (3):330–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stapleton DC, Young DJ (1984) The effects of demographic change on the distribution of wages, 1967–1990. J Human Res 19(2):175–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vere JP (2008) Dragon children: identifying the causal effect of the first child on female labour supply with the chinese lunar calendar. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 70 (3):303–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Welch F (1979) Effects of cohort size on earnings: the baby boom babies’ financial bust. J Polit Econ 87(5):S65–S97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Witkow MR, Fuligni AJ (2010) In-school versus out-of-school friendships and academic achievement among an ethnically diverse sample of adolescents. J Res Adolesc 20(3):631–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Woessmann L (2005) Educational production in east asia: the impact of family background and schooling policies on student performance. Ger Econ Rev 6(3):331–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wong K-F, Yung L (2005) Do dragons have better fate?. Econ Inq 43 (3):689–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yip PS, Lee J, Cheung YB (2002) The influence of the chinese zodiac on fertility in Hong Kong SAR. Soc Sci Med 55(10):1803–1812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zimmerman DJ (2003) Peer effects in academic outcomes: evidence from a natural experiment. Rev Econ Stat 85(1):9–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply  2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bureau of EconomicsFederal Trade CommissionWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations