In this paper, I examine the relationship between three distinct attitudes of mothers (pro-boy, egalitarian, and pro-girl) and stunting among boys and girls of age 0–14 years in India using the Indian Human Development Survey (IHDS) 2004–2005. Probit model estimates suggest that mothers’ pro-girl attitudes are associated with less likelihood of observing stunting among girls and boys. Additional analysis by wealth categories shows that stunting among girls reduces when they have mothers with pro-girl attitudes and live in wealthy households. Robustness tests conducted with “severely stunted” as the dependent variable confirm the findings.
AsadullahMNCaoEDKhatoonFZ, et al. (2021) Measuring gender attitudes using list experiments. Journal of Population Economics34(2): 367–400.
2.
BhaskarVGuptaB (2007) India’s missing girls: biology, customs, and economic development. Oxford Review of Economic Policy23(2): 221–238.
3.
BlackREVictoraCGWalkerSP, et al. (2013) Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet382(9890): 427–451.
4.
CarlsonGJKordasKMurray Kolb-LE (2015) Associations between women’s autonomy and child nutritional status: a review of the literature. Maternal & Child Nutrition11(4): 452–482.
5.
Das GuptaMZhenghuaJBohuaL, et al. (2003) Why is son preference so persistent in east and south Asia? A cross-country study of China, India and the Republic of Korea. The Journal of Development Studies40(2): 153–187.
6.
DasguptaS (2016) Son preference and gender gaps in child nutrition: does the level of female autonomy matter?Review of Development Economics20(2): 375–386.
7.
DesaiSTemsahG (2014) Muslim and Hindu women’s public and private behaviors: gender, family, and communalized politics in India. Demography51(6): 2307–2332.
8.
DesaiSVannemanRand National Council of Applied Economic Research New Delhi (2018) India Human Development Survey (IHDS), 2005. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. Available at: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/DSDR/studies/22626/versions/V12
9.
Development Initiatives (2018) 2018 Global Nutrition Report: Shining a Light to Spur Action on Nutrition. Bristol: Development Initiatives.
10.
FledderjohannJAgrawalSVellakkalS, et al. (2014) Do girls have a nutritional disadvantage compared with boys? Statistical models of breastfeeding and food consumption inequalities among Indian siblings. PLoS ONE9(9): e107172.
11.
GearyDC (2005) Evolution of paternal investment. In: BussDM (ed.) The Evolutionary Psychology Handbook. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp.483–505.
12.
GeorgiadisABennyLGalabS, et al. (2017) Growth recovery and faltering through early adolescence in low-and middle-income countries: determinants and implications for cognitive development. Social Science & Medicine179: 81–90.
13.
HugLSharrowDZhongK, et al. (2018) Levels & Trends in Child Mortality. New York: United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation.
JayachandranSPandeR (2017) Why are Indian children so short? The role of birth order and son preference. American Economic Review107(9): 2600–2629.
16.
KashyapRBehrmanJ (2020) Gender discrimination and excess female under-5 mortality in India: a new perspective using mixed-sex twins. Demography57(6): 2143–2167.
17.
KlausDTipandjanA (2014) Son preference in India: shedding light on the north-south gradient. Comparative Population Studies40(1): 77–102.
MishraVRoyTKRetherfordRD (2004) Sex differentials in childhood feeding, health care, and nutritional status in India. Population and Development Review30(2): 269–295.
20.
MitraA (2008) The status of women among the scheduled tribes in India. The Journal of Socio-Economics37(3): 1202–1217.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
