1. The high gender imbalance in China affects individual post-marriage decision-making behavior.
2. Women have greater bargaining power in marriage when they are relatively scarce in the marriage market.
3. The gender ratio at marriage is a relevant distribution factor that changes the family sharing rules and affects the allocation of family resources.
The article explores how China's high gender imbalance affects individual decision-making after marriage and internal resource allocation within families. While the article provides some explanations for this imbalance, it fails to explore its potential negative consequences fully. The author relies heavily on Becker's marriage market model and related theories to explain how women gain more transfer payments from their husbands as they become scarce in the marriage market. However, the article does not consider the negative impact of such a situation on men who may face difficulties finding partners.
The article also suggests that a high gender ratio can improve the health of sons, but it fails to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. Moreover, the author does not explore how such an imbalance can lead to discrimination against girls and women in various aspects of life, including education and employment opportunities.
Furthermore, while the article acknowledges that family resource allocation is determined by collective bargaining within families, it does not consider how power dynamics within families can affect this process. For instance, women may have limited bargaining power due to patriarchal norms and values prevalent in Chinese society.
The article also fails to explore counterarguments or alternative perspectives on the issue. For example, it does not consider how government policies aimed at addressing gender imbalances could affect family resource allocation or whether such policies are effective.
Overall, while the article provides some insights into how China's gender imbalance affects family resource allocation, it presents a one-sided view of the issue and overlooks several critical points of consideration. The author should have explored both sides of the argument and provided more evidence to support their claims.