General Conclusion: Limited Evidence that Policies Normalize SRB

  • Laura Rahm
Part of the Demographic Transformation and Socio-Economic Development book series (DTSD, volume 11)


This chapter offers general conclusions. Public policies had limited efficacy in reducing SRB in the three countries of investigation. In the only case, where we could detect positive policy impact on SRB, the intervention was largely non-replicable due to irreproducible conditions and negative side effects (e.g. India). We also show that the same policy instruments are transferred transnationally with the help of international organizations and a research community that has been reproducing the same policy prescriptions for over two decades. The South Korean case stands out because it has been frequently promoted and used to inform diverse transnational policy agendas, while neglecting the limited efficacy and anti-abortion agenda of the Korean model. These findings have important implications for international organizations in terms of recognizing the different stages, policy intentions and constraints of the target countries, and learning from policy failure. For the research community, close monitoring of SRB trends, medical markets and policy changes seem necessary given the fact that sex selection is likely to continue. Future impact assessments should explore the impact of female education, education policies, social welfare and inheritance policies on sex imbalances and son preference. Lastly, we revisit 3-M-Model as a valuable contribution to better understand and address global public health issues in the twenty-first century.


Policy efficacy Sex selection Skewed sex ratio at birth Global agenda Asia 


  1. Bongaarts, J., & Guilmoto, C. Z. (2015). How many more missing women? Excess female mortality and prenatal sex selection, 1970–2050. Population and Development Review, 41(2), 241–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Kabeer, N., Huq, L., & Mahmud, S. (2014). Diverging stories of ‘missing women’ in South Asia: Is son preference weakening in Bangladesh? Feminist Economics, 20(4), 138–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. McConnell, A. (2010). Policy success, policy failure and grey areas in-between. Journal of Public Policy, 30(03), 345–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Patel, A. B., Badhoniya, N., Mamtani, M., & Kulkarni, H. (2013). Skewed sex ratios in India: “Physician, heal thyself”. Demography, 50(3), 1129–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Rahm, L. (2017). La convergence des politiques de lutte contre la sélection sexuelle prénatale: Corée du Sud, Inde et Vietnam. Critique Internationale, 77(4), 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Rahm, L., & Kostenzer, J. (forthcoming). Harmful practices on the global agenda: Comparing female genital mutilation and gender-biased sex selection. Autrepart. Revue de Sciences Sociales Au Sud, 1–15.Google Scholar
  7. Rochefort, D. A., & Donnelly, K. P. (2015). Agenda-setting and political discourse: major analytical frameworks and their application. In E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, & X. Wu (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy (pp. 189–203). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  9. Stone, D. (2004). Transfer agents and global networks in the ‘transnationalization’ of policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(3), 545–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Weyland, K. G. (2006). Bounded rationality and policy diffusion: social sector reform in Latin America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. WHO. (2011). Preventing gender-biased sex selection: An interagency statement OHCHR, UNFPA, UNICEF, UN women and WHO. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  12. Yoo, S. H., Hayford, S. R., & Agadjanian, V. (2017). Old habits die hard? Lingering son preference in an era of normalizing sex ratios at birth in South Korea. Population Research and Policy Review, 36(1), 25–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Rahm
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Population and DevelopmentParisFrance

Personalised recommendations