Empirical evidence suggests that parental preferences may be important in determining investment allocations among their children. However, there is mixed or no evidence on a number of important related questions. Do parents invest more in better-endowed children, thus reinforcing differentials among their children? Or do they invest more in less-endowed children to compensate for their smaller endowments and reduce inequalities among their children? Does higher maternal education affect the preferences underlying parental decisions in investing among their children? What difference might such intrafamilial investments among children make? And what is the nature of these considerations in the very different context of developing countries? This paper gives new empirical evidence related to these questions. We examine how parental investments affecting child education and health respond to initial endowment differences between twins within families, as represented by birth weight differences, and how parental preference tradeoffs and therefore parental investment strategies vary between families with different maternal education. Using the separable earnings-transfers model (Behrman, Pollak, & Taubman, 1982), we first illustrate that preference differences may make a considerable difference in the ratios of health and learning differentials between siblings – up to 30% in the simulations that we provide. Using a sample of 2,000 twins, collected in the 2012 wave of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey for Chile, we find that preferences are not at the extreme of pure compensatory investments to offset endowment inequalities among siblings nor at the extreme of pure reinforcement to favor the better-endowed child with no concern about inequality. Instead, they are neutral, so that parental investments do not change the inequality among children due to endowment differentials. We also find that there are not significant preference differences between families with low- and high-educated mothers. Our estimates are consistent with previous empirical evidence that finds that parents do not invest differentially within twins.

This article investigates the household determinants of teen marriage in Ethiopia, India, Peru, and Vietnam using data from the international Young Lives study tracking a cohort of children from the ages of 8-19 over a 15-year period. First, we offer a descriptive and comparative overview of the prevalence of teen marriage among girls in geographically selected areas of the four countries, together with their sociodemographic determinants. Second, we place a specific focus on the role of gender and sibling sex-composition in shaping the probability of getting married by age 19. Drawing on the significant crosscountry heterogeneity in household context, direction of marriage payments, and prevalence of arranged marriage, we test hypotheses relating to the availability of economic resources within the household and cultural norms surrounding the order and timing of marriage. We show that in Ethiopia, India, and Vietnam, presence and number of older sisters in the household are associated with a 30-50 percent lower likelihood of teen marriage, while the association is null in Peru. Also, we show that having a girl as next-youngest sibling does not significantly affect girls' likelihood of experiencing teen marriage, except in Ethiopia. Our results combined support theories of family-level resource constraints over sibling rivalry hypotheses. Our findings enrich and complement existing evidence on the role of sibling sex-composition on adolescent outcomes in low-and middle-income countries.

Stress generates difficulties in parenting, which affects child development. We aimed to understand the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on maternal mental health and parenting practices. We also explored to what extent green space is a protective factor in the aforementioned relationship. We explored heterogeneous lockdown effects using longitudinal georeferenced data for 985 families (mothers and 24- to 30-month-olds) and exploiting localized lockdowns in Chile. Controlling for observed and unobserved fixed characteristics, on average, we did not find an association between lockdown duration and maternal mental health or parenting practices. However, the previous nonsignificant association is heterogeneous across access to green space. Although lockdown duration increased dysfunctional interactions with children for mothers with little access to green space, we did not see the previous effect on mothers who live close to green space. Mothers who do not comply with the lockdown mandate are the ones who drive this heterogeneous effect.

The learning and developmental losses from pre-primary program closures due to COVID-19 may be unprecedented. These disruptions early in life, when the brain is more sensitive to environmental changes, can be long-lasting. Although there is evidence about the effects of school closures on older children, there is currently no evidence on such losses for children in their early years. This paper is among the first to quantify the actual impact of pandemic-related closures on child development, in this case for a sample of young children in Chile, where school and childcare closures lasted for about a year. We use a unique dataset collected face-to-face in December 2020, which includes child development indicators for general development, language development, social-emotional development, and executive function. We are able to use a first difference strategy because Chile has a history of collecting longitudinal data on children as part of their national social policies monitoring strategy. This allows us to construct a valid comparison group from the 2017 longitudinal data. We find adverse impacts on children in 2020 compared to children interviewed in 2017 in most development areas. In particular, nine months after the start of the pandemic, we find a loss in language development of 0.25 SDs. This is equivalent to the impact on a childs language development of having a mother with approximately five years less education. Timely policies are needed to mitigate these enormous losses.

Children born to married parents have better health, behavioral, educational, and economic outcomes than children of unmarried mothers. This association, known as the "marriage premium," has been interpreted as emerging from the selectivity of parents who marry and from a positive effect of marriage. The authors suggest that the positive effect of marriage could be contextual, emerging from the normativity of marriage in society. They test this hypothesis using the case of Chile, where marital fertility dropped sharply from 66% of all births in 1990 to 27% in 2016.The authors find that the benefit of marriage for infant health was large in the early 1990s but declined as marital fertility became less normative in society, to fully disappear in 2016. Multivariate analysis of temporal variation, multilevel models of variation across place, sibling fixed effects models, and a falsification test consistently indicate that marriage has a beneficial effect when marital fertility is normative and a weak effect when is not. Generalizing from this case, the authors discuss contextual effects of diverse practices and statuses.