Previous models of parental educational investments focus on the composition of the sibship (number, gender, ordering, and spacing) and on the social and institutional context in which investment decisions are made. Social— institutional models predict that parents in Japan are likely to underinvest in girls because of their transient status in the family of origin and their limited earnings potential. This article contributes an understanding of the family contexts under which this model of investment does and does not apply. Through an analysis of 45 in-depth interviews conducted by the author, a family culture of investment model is developed that identifies parental gender beliefs and valuation of education as key factors shaping parental investments in prewar cohort groups. The findings from this research have implications for our understanding of international variation in the gender equity of educational attainment.
Aldous, J. ( 2006). Family, ethnicity, and immigrant youths’ educational achievements. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1633-1667.
2.
Becker, G.S. ( 1991). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
Blake, J. ( 1989). Family size and achievement. Berkeley : University of California Press.
4.
Brinton, M.C. ( 1993). Women and the economic miracle: Gender and work in postwar Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press.
5.
Brinton, M.C. ( 1988). The social-institutional bases of gender stratification: Japan as an illustrative case. American Journal of Sociology , 94, 300-334.
6.
Butcher, K.F., & Case, A. ( 1994). The effect of sibling sex composition on women’s education and earnings. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109, 531-563.
7.
Conley, D. ( 2000). Sibship sex composition: Effects on educational attainment . Social Science Research, 29, 441-457.
8.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A. ( 1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
9.
Greenhalgh, S. ( 1985). Sexual stratification: The other side of "growth with equity" in East Asia. Population and Development Review, 11, 265-314.
10.
Hauser, R.M., & Kuo, H. -H. D. (1998). Does the gender composition of sibships affect women’s educational attainment? Journal of Human Resources, 33, 644-657.
11.
Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. ( 2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Johnson, A.G. ( 1997). The gender knot: Unraveling our patriarchal legacy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
13.
Lee, K.S. ( 2009). Competition for resources: A reexamination of sibship composition models of parental investment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 263-277.
14.
Lofland, J., & Lofland, L.H. ( 1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth .
15.
Ochiai, E. ( 1997). The Japanese family system in transition: A sociological analysis of family change in postwar Japan. Tokyo, Japan: LTCB International Library Foundation.
16.
Ono, H. ( 2004). Are sons and daughters substitutable? Allocation of family resources in contemporary Japan. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 18, 143-160.
17.
Parish, W.L., & Willis, R.J. ( 1993). Daughters, education, and family budgets: Taiwan experiences . Journal of Human Resources, 28, 863-898.
18.
Pong, S.L. ( 1997). Sibship size and educational attainment in peninsular Malaysia: Do policies matter? Sociological Perspectives, 40, 227-242.
19.
Post, D., & Pong, P.L. ( 1998). The waning effect of sibship composition on school attainment in Hong Kong. Comparative Education Review, 42, 99-117.
20.
Powell, B., & Steelman, L.C. (1989). The liability of having brothers: Paying for college and the sex composition of the family. Sociology of Education, 62, 134-147.
21.
Powell, B., & Steelman, L.C. (1995). Feeling the pinch: Child spacing and constraints on parental economic investments in children. Social Forces, 73, 1465-1486.
22.
Rindfuss, R.R., Liao, T.F. & Tsuya, N.O. ( 1992). Contact with parents in Japan: Effects on opinions toward gender and intergenerational roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 812-822.
23.
Shreeniwas, S. ( 1993). Family size, structure, and children’s education: Ethnic differentials over time in peninsular Malaysia. In C. B. Lloyd (Ed.), Fertility, family size and structure: Consequences for families and children (pp. 332-372). New York, NY: Population Council.
24.
Steelman, L.C., Powell, B., Werum, R., & Carter, S. ( 2002). Reconsidering the effects of sibling configuration: Recent advances and challenges. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 243-269.
25.
Steelman, L.C., & Powell, B. ( 1991). Sponsoring the next generation: Parental willingness to pay for higher education. American Journal of Sociology , 96, 1505-1529.
26.
Strauss, A.L. ( 1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Tamamori, T., & James, J.C. ( 1995). A minute guide to Okinawa: Society and economy. Naha, Okinawa, Japan: Bank of the Ryukyus International Foundation.
28.
White, M. ( 1987). The Japanese educational challenge: A commitment to children . New York, NY: Free Press.
