Good for girls or bad for boys? Schooling, social inequality and intrahousehold allocation in early twentieth century Finland

Abstract

Apart from the commonly emphasized historical or cultural explanations, was there an economics behind the early, extensive schooling of girls in Europe's Nordic periphery? This article analyses factors behind the emerging female majority in secondary schooling in early twentieth century Finland through resource allocation within households. We argue that a significant part of the female educational advantage can be explained with a classic unitary Beckerian schooling investment model. We apply an Engel specification widely used in development economics to a household budget dataset from the 1920s to estimate the effect of the age and gender of children on schooling investment across social groups. We find a pro-girl bias among households of low socio-economic status, explained primarily by the sizable penalty to boys caused by opportunity costs and expected returns. Worker boys could generate significant income from an early age, making their education initially expensive for cash-constrained families. Contrary to previous claims, the dropout rates of boys were also higher than those of girls. Together with a propensity to leave home earlier, this lowered the expected net returns to schooling. Meanwhile, the expansion of modern services created attractive job opportunities for secondary educated girls. We find no evidence of intrahousehold bargaining. The findings resemble certain cases in development economics and the economic history of advanced countries including the USA. Rather than matching with patterns of anti-girl discrimination in many developing countries, our results highlight the prehistory of the currently emerging pattern of female educational advantage-and male disadvantage-in OECD countries.Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (

Forever gender equal and child friendly? Intrahousehold allocations to health in Finland before the Nordic welfare state

“…Firstly, if money for treatment followed morbidity also in the age group where female excess mortality was discernible, it would be hard to reconcile this with the notion that the health risk itself was caused by neglect within the same households that were allocating their scarce resources to medical care. Secondly, recent analysis has shown that girls from worker families in this age group were, on average, given more resources for education than boys (Saaritsa & Kaihovaara 2016), contradicting notions of parental exploitation or disinvestment.…”

“…Less wealthy socioeconomic groups were more likely to send girls than boys to secondary education when they could, because the immediate opportunity cost in lost earnings was lower and relative expected returns higher. However, enrolment was still generally low (Saaritsa & Kaihovaara 2016).…”

“…41-49). Different returns to education on gendered labor markets may explain seemingly unequal schooling decisions by families (Saaritsa & Kaihovaara 2016;Himaz 2010;Goldin 1998, pp. 362-363).…”

On Historical Household Budgets

“…9 Following in their footsteps, other scholars have used historical household budgets to study a range of themes. These include diet and nutrition (Vecchi and Coppola, 2006;Logan, 2006Logan, , 2009Gazeley and Horrell, 2013;Gazeley and Newell, 2015;Lundh, 2013), inequality and poverty (Rossi et al 2001, Amendola andVecchi, 2016), intra-household dynamics (Horrell and Oxley, 2013;Saaritsa and Kaihovaara, 2016;Scott, Walker and Miskell, 2015;Guyer, 1980), labor force participation (Baines and Johnson, 1999), child labor (Moehling, 2001(Moehling, , 2005, consumption behavior (Scott and Walker, 2012;Lilja and Bäcklund, 2013), agriculture and home-production (Federico, 1986(Federico, , 1991, economies of scale and child well-being (Hatton and Martin, 2010;Logan, 2011), and informal transfers of cash and goods between households (Saaritsa, 2008(Saaritsa, , 2011.…”

Dutch Divergence? : Women’s work, structural change, and household living standards in the Netherlands, 1830-1914

“…Most respondents considered 12 to be a proper age to start working and thought that children who were not taught a craft at a young age would suffer the consequences during their adult lives. 245 Factory work was in this way considered to be an investment in human capital. However, one producer said: "[i]n general, it is not the producer's desire to hire such young labourers, but it is a request from the 238 Dyhouse, 'Working-class'; Mokyr, 'Why "more work for mother"?'.…”