The claim that China's fertility restrictions contributed to the use of prenatal sex selection: A sceptical reappraisal

Abstract

Most observers assume that China's fertility restrictions contribute to the use of prenatal sex selection. I question the logic and evidence underlying that assumption. Experts often stress that China's low fertility is largely voluntary, and that fertility restrictions are an unneeded safety valve. Others claim that China's '1.5-child' loophole, common throughout rural areas, reinforces son preference or intensifies prenatal sex discrimination by hardening fertility constraints. These claims defy logic upon closer examination. Moreover, almost two-thirds of the exceptional distortion of the sex ratio in 1.5-child areas results from excess underreporting of daughters and enforced sex-specific stopping. Prenatal sex selection may explain the remaining third but probably reflects the stronger rural son preference that led to the 1.5-child loophole itself. The recent surge in sex selection of first births that has perpetuated the distortions also seems unrelated to policy. Some son-preferring parents who formerly wanted two children may now genuinely want only one.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 38 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.