Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:23:50.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ESTIMATING THE HEALTH AND SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS OF COUSIN MARRIAGE IN SOUTH ASIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2018

A. Mushfiq Mobarak ,
Theresa Chaudhry ,
Julia Brown ,
Tetyana Zelenska ,
M. Nizam Khan ,
Shamyla Chaudry ,
Rana Abdul Wajid ,
Alan H. Bittles  and
Steven Li
A. Mushfiq Mobarak*
Affiliation:
School of Management, Yale University, New Haven, USA Department of Economics, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia
Theresa Chaudhry
Affiliation:
Lahore School of Economics, Lahore, Pakistan
Julia Brown
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
Tetyana Zelenska
Affiliation:
Landesa (Rural Development Institute), Seattle, WA, USA
M. Nizam Khan
Affiliation:
ICF International, Rockville, MD, USA
Shamyla Chaudry
Affiliation:
Lahore School of Economics, Lahore, Pakistan
Rana Abdul Wajid
Affiliation:
Lahore School of Economics, Lahore, Pakistan
Alan H. Bittles
Affiliation:
Centre for Comparative Genomics, Murdoch University, Australia School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia
Steven Li
Affiliation:
Facebook, Seattle, WA, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: ahmed.mobarak@yale.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of marriage between biological relatives on the incidence of childhood genetic illness and mortality are of major policy significance, as rates of consanguinity exceed 50% in various countries. Empirical research on this question is complicated by the fact that consanguinity is often correlated with poverty and other unobserved characteristics of households, which may have independent effects on mortality. This study has developed an instrumental variables empirical strategy to re-examine this question, based on the concept that the availability of unmarried cousins of the opposite gender at the time of marriage creates quasi-random variation in the propensity to marry consanguineously. Using primary data collected in Bangladesh in 2006–07 and Pakistan in 2009–10, the study found that previous estimates of the impact of consanguinity on child health were biased and falsely precise. The study also empirically investigated the social and economic causes of consanguinity (including marital quality) and concludes that marrying a cousin can have positive economic effects for one’s natal family, by allowing deferral of dowry payments until after marriage.

Keywords

ConsanguinityMarriage and Mate SelectionMedical and Public Health Genetics
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , May 2019 , pp. 418 - 435
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Angrist, JD, Imbens, GW Rubin, DB (1996) Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91(434), 444–455.Google Scholar
Barakat, B Basten, S (2014) Modelling the constraints on consanguineous marriage when fertility declines. Demographic Research 30(9), 277–312.Google Scholar
Bener, A, Dafeeah, EE Samson, N (2012) Does consanguinity increase the risk of schizophrenia? Study based on primary health care centre visits. Mental Health in Family Medicine 9(4), 241–248.Google Scholar
Bhopal, RS, Petherwick, ES, Wright, J Small, N (2014) Potential social, economic and general health benefits of consanguineous marriage: results from the Born in Bradford cohort study. European Journal of Public Health, 24(5), 862–869.Google Scholar
Bishop, C, Small, N, Mason, D, Corry, P, Wright, J, Parslow, R et al. (2017) Improving case ascertainment of congenital anomalies: findings from a prospective birth cohort with detailed primary care record linkage. BMJ Paediatrics Open (1), doi:10.1136/bmjpo–2017–000171.Google Scholar
Bittles, AH (1994) The role and significance of consanguinity as a demographic variable. Population and Development Review 20(3), 561–584.Google Scholar
Bittles, AH (2012) Consanguinity in Context. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bittles, AH Black, ML (2010) Consanguinity, human evolution, and complex diseases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (Supplement 1), 1779–1786.Google Scholar
Bittles, AH, Mason, WM, Greene, J Rao, NA (1991) Reproductive behavior and health in consanguineous marriages. Science 252(5007), 789–794.Google Scholar
Bittles, AH Neel, JV (1994) The costs of human inbreeding and their implications for variations at the DNA level. Nature Genetics 8(2), 117.Google Scholar
Bound, J, Jaeger, DA Baker, RM (1995) Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90(430), 443–450.Google Scholar
Bowden, RJ Turkington, DA (1990) Instrumental Variables (Vol. 8). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Do, QT, Iyer, S Joshi, S (2013) The economics of consanguineous marriages. Review of Economics and Statistics 95(3), 904–918.Google Scholar
Durkin, MS, Khan, NZ, Davidson, LL, Huq, S, Munir, S, Rasul, E Zaman, SS (2000) Prenatal and postnatal risk factors for mental retardation among children in Bangladesh. American Journal of Epidemiology 152(11), 1024–1033.Google Scholar
Grant, JC Bittles, AH (1997) The comparative role of consanguinity in infant and childhood mortality in Pakistan. Annals of Human Genetics 61, 143–149.Google Scholar
Hamamy, H, Antonarakis, SE, Cavalli-Sforza, LL, Temtamy, S, Romeo, G, Kate, LP et al. (2011) Consanguineous marriages, pearls and perils: Geneva international consanguinity workshop report. Genetics in Medicine 13(9), 841–842.Google Scholar
Heckman, JJ, Urzua, S Vytlacil, E (2006) Understanding instrumental variables in models with essential heterogeneity. Review of Economics and Statistics 88(3), 389–432.Google Scholar
Hussain, R (1999) Community perceptions of reasons for preference for consanguineous marriages in Pakistan. Journal of Biosocial Science 31(4), 449–461.10.1017/S0021932099004496Google Scholar
Hussain, R Bittles, AH (1998) The prevalence and demographic characteristics of consanguineous marriages in Pakistan. Journal of Biosocial Science 30(2), 261–275.Google Scholar
Hussain, R Bittles, AH (2000) Sociodemographic correlates of consanguineous marriage in the Muslim population of India. Journal of Biosocial Science 32(4), 433–442.Google Scholar
Inhorn, MC, Kobeissi, L, Nassar, Z, Lakkis, DA Fakih, MH (2009) Consanguinity and family clustering of male factor infertility in Lebanon. Fertility and Sterility 91(4), 1104–1109.Google Scholar
Ismail, J, Jafar, TH, Jafary, FH, White, F, Faruqui, AM Chaturvedi, N (2004) Risk factors for non–fatal myocardial infarction in young South Asian adults. Heart 90(3), 259–263.10.1136/hrt.2003.013631Google Scholar
Jacoby, HG Mansuri, G (2010) Watta Satta: Bride exchange and women’s welfare in rural Pakistan. American Economic Review 100(4), 1804–1825.Google Scholar
Khan, N, Wojtyniak, B Shaha, SK (1997) Effects of Parental Consanguinity on Offspring Mortality in Bangladesh. International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh, Dhaka.Google Scholar
Mansour, H, Fathi, W, Klei, L, Wood, J, Chowdari, K, Watson, A et al. (2010) Consanguinity and increased risk for schizophrenia in Egypt. Schizophrenia Research 120(1–3), 108–112.Google Scholar
Mobarak, AM, Kuhn, R Peters, C (2013) Consanguinity and other marriage market effects of a wealth shock in Bangladesh. Demography 50(5), 1845–1871.Google Scholar
Murray, MP (2006) Avoiding invalid instruments and coping with weak instruments. Journal of Economic Perspectives 20(4), 111–132.Google Scholar
National Institute of Population Studies Islamabad and ICF International (2013) Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey 2012–13. NIPS and ICF International Inc., Calverton, MD, USA.Google Scholar
Rudan, I, Rudan, D, Campbell, H, Carothers, A, Wright, A, Smolej-Narancic, N et al. (2003a) Inbreeding and risk of late onset complex disease. Journal of Medical Genetics 40(12), 925–932.Google Scholar
Rudan, I, Smolej-Narancic, N, Campbell, H, Carothers, A, Wright, A, Janicijevic, B Rudan, P (2003b) Inbreeding and the genetic complexity of human hypertension. Genetics 163(3), 1011–1021.Google Scholar
Sanawar, S, Islam, M, Majumdar, S Misu, F (2018) Women’s empowerment and intimate partner violence in Bangladesh: investigating the complex relationship. Journal of Biosocial Science, doi:10.1017/S0021932018000068 Google Scholar
Sheridan, E, Wright, J, Small, N, Corry, PC, Oddie, S, Whibley, C et al. (2013) Risk factors for congenital anomaly in a multiethnic birth cohort: an analysis of the Born in Bradford study. The Lancet 382(9901), 1350–1359.Google Scholar
Shieh, JT, Bittles, AH Hudgins, L (2012) Consanguinity and the risk of congenital heart disease. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 158(5), 1236–1241.Google Scholar
Small, N, Bittles, AH, Petherwick, ES Wright, J (2017) Endogamy, consanguinity and the health implications of changing marital choices in the UK Pakistani community. Journal of Biosocial Science 49(4), 435–446.Google Scholar