The Second Malaysian Family Life Survey is used to explore one of the most important components of interfamily inequality of school attainment: Sibship size. The survey data document the differences in the effects of sibship size on children's secondary school attainment among Malaysia's three ethnic communities. They also show the response of the sibship size effect to public policies targeting the ethnic Malay population. Three broad questions can be addressed using the available data: First, how important is sibship size as a determinant of educational attainment, ceteris paribus, within the Malay and nonMalay populations? Second, how have the effects of sibship size changed over time? Third, are there ethnic differences in any such changes, differences that could be interpreted in light of the government's regulation of school supply and employment opportunities for each group? Addressing these questions in the case of Malaysia illuminates the extent to which public policy more generally can alter the effect of sibship size on educational attainment. The findings indicate that restrictions on family size by each of Malaysia's ethnic groups were a rational attempt by parents to compensate for constraints on their ability to invest in their children's education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AldrichJohn H.NelsonForrest D., 1984. Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
2.
AndayaBarbara W.AndayaLeonard Y., 1982. A History of Malaysia. London, UK: Macmillan Press.
3.
ArlesJ.P.1971. “Ethnic and Socioeconomic Patterns in Malaysia.”International Labour Review104(December):527–554.
4.
BeckerGary S.LewisH. Gregg. 1974. “Interaction Between Quantity and Quality of Children.” Pp. 81–90 in Economics of the Family, edited by SchultzTheodore W., Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5.
BerhmanJere R.WolfeBarbara L., 1987. “Investments in Schooling in Two Generations in Pre-revolutionary Nicaragua: The Roles of Family Background and School Supply.”Journal of Development Economics27:395–419.
6.
BlakeJudith. 1989. Family Size and Achievement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
7.
DesaiSonalde. 1995. “When Are Children From Large Families Disadvantaged? Evidence From Cross-National Analyses.”Population Studies49(2):195–210.
8.
DowneyDouglas. 1995. “When Bigger is Not Better: Family Size, Parental Resources, and Children's Educational Performance.”American Sociological Review60(5):746–761.
9.
Fifth Malaysian Plan, 1986–1990. 1986. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: National Printing Department.
10.
GovindasamyPavalavalliDaVanzoJulie. 1992. “Ethnicity and Fertility Differentials in Peninsular Malaysia: Do Policies Matter?”Population and Development Review18(2):243–268.
11.
HaagaJohn G.DaVanzoJuliePetersonChristine E.PengTey NaiAnnTan Boon. 1992. The Second Malaysian Family Life Survey: Overview and Technical Report. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
12.
ArshatHamidAnnTan BoonPengTey NaiSubbiahM., 1988. Marriage and Family Formation in Peninsular Malaysia: Analytic Report on the 1984/85 Malaysian Population and Family Survey. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: National Population and Family Development Board.
13.
HauserRobert M.SewellWilliam H., 1985. “Birth Order and Educational Attainment in Full Sibships.”American Educational Research Journal22(1):1–23.
14.
HermalinAlbert I.SeltzerJudith A.LinChing-Hsiang. 1982. “Transitions in the Effect of Family Size on Female Educational Attainment: The Case of Taiwan.”Comparative Education Review26(2):254–270.
15.
HirschmanCharles. 1972. “Educational Patterns in Colonial Malaya.”Comparative Education Review16:486–502.
16.
HirschmanCharles. 1975. Ethnic and Social Stratification in Peninsular Malaysia. Monograph Series of the American Sociological Association. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
17.
HirschmanCharles. 1979. “Political Independence and Educational Opportunity in Peninsular Malaysia.”Sociology of Education52(2):67–83.
18.
HirschmanCharles. 1986. “The Recent Rise in Malay Fertility: A New Trend or a Temporary Lull in a Fertility Transition?”Demography23(2):161–184.
19.
JonesGavin W.1990. “Fertility Transitions Among Malay Populations of Southeast Asia: Puzzles of Interpretation.”Population and Development Review16(3):507–538.
20.
KingElizabeth M.1987. “The Effect of Family Size on Family Welfare: What Do We Know?” Pp. 373–411 in Population Growth and Economic Development: Issues and Evidence, edited by JohnsonD. GaleLeeRonald D., Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
21.
LiangYingming. 1987. “Malaysia's New Economic Policy and the Chinese Community.”Review of Indonesia and Malaysan Affairs21:131–42.
22.
LillardLee A.WillisRobert J., 1993. “Intergenerational Educational Mobility: Effects of Family and State in Malaysia.” Working Paper Series 93–38, Labor and Population Program, RAND. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
23.
LloydCynthia B.1994. “Investing in the Next Generation: The Implications of High Fertility at the Level of the Family.” Working Papers No. 63. New York: The Population Council.
24.
LohPhilip Fook Seng. 1975. Seeds of Separatism: Educational Policy in Malaysia, 1874–1940. Singapore: Oxford University Press.
25.
MaddalaG.S.1984. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Ministry of Education, Malaysia. 1990. Education in Malaysia, 1989. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Percetakan Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
27.
ParishWilliamWillisRobert J., 1993. “Daughters, Education and Family Budgets: Taiwan Experiences.”Journal of Human Resources28(4):863–898.
28.
PongSuet-Ling. 1993. “Preferential Policies and Secondary School Attainment in Peninsular Malaysia.”Sociology of Education66(October):245–261.
29.
PongSuet-Ling. 1995. “Access to Education in Peninsular Malaysia: Ethnicity, Social Class, and Gender.”Compare25(3):239–252.
30.
PowellBrianSteelmanLala Carr. 1989. “The Liability of Having Brothers: Paying for College and the Sex Composition of the Family.”Sociology of Education62(April):134–147.
31.
PowellBrianSteelmanLala Carr. 1990. “Beyond Sibship Size: Sibling Density, Sex Composition, and Educational Outcomes.”Social Forces69(1):181–206.
32.
RudnerMartin. 1977. “Education, Development and Change in Malaysia.”South East Asian Studies15:23–62.
ShavitYossiPierceJennifer L., 1991. “Sibship Size and Educational Attainment in Nuclear and Extended Families: Arabs and Jews in Israel.”American Sociological Review56:321–330.
35.
ShreeniwasSudha. 1993. “Family Size, Structure, and Children's Education: Ethnic Differences Over Time in Peninsular Malaysia.” Pp. 331–372 in Fertility, Family Size, and Structure: Consequences for Families and Children, edited by LloydC.B., New York: Population Council.
36.
Stata Corporation. 1993. STATA Reference Manual Release 3.1. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation.
37.
SundaramJomo KwameShariIshak. 1986. Development Policies and Income Inequality in Peninsular Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: University of Malaya Department of Publications.
38.
TakeiYoshimitsuBockJohn C.SandersBruce. 1973. “Educational Sponsorship by Ethnicity: A Preliminary Analysis of the West Malaysian Experience.” Southeast Asian Studies No. 28. Athens, OH: Center for International Studies, Ohio University.
39.
TangPoo ChangPengTey Nai. 1992. Consequences of Population Change in Malaysia: Household Analysis. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Malaya.
40.
WangBee-Lan Chan. 1978. “Educational Reforms for National Integration: The West Malaysian Experience.”Comparative Education Review22(3):464–479.
41.
WangBee-Lan Chan. 1980. “Sex and Ethnic Differences in Educational Investment in Malaysia: The Effect of Reward Structures.”Comparative Education Review24(2):S140–159.
42.
WillisRobert J.1974. “Economic Theory of Fertility Behavior.” Pp. 25–75 in Economics of the Family, edited by SchultzTheodore W., Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
43.
Yearbook of Statistics, 1989. 1990. Kuala Lumpur: Department of Statistics, Government of Malaysia.
