| Literature DB >> 35462824 |
Abstract
Based on the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) 2010, this article investigates the relationship between household dependency ratio and the mental health of household workforce. The empirical results verify the negative impacts of both household old-age dependency ratio and child dependency ratio on the mental health of the workforce and find that the negative effect of old-age dependency ratio is greater than that of child dependency ratio. Moreover, the depression source of the young workforce mainly comes from the child dependency ratio, while the depression source of the older workforce comes from the old-age dependency ratio. The mental health of the workforce in poor regions is impaired by the household dependency burden, but we found no same evidence in rich regions. The old-age dependency ratio negatively affects the mental health of the workforce due to the household healthcare burden, while the child dependency ratio negatively affects the mental health of the workforce due to the education expenditure pressure. Our findings provide evidence on how household structure affects the welfare of the family, and give implications to the improvement of residents' health.Entities:
Keywords: CGSS; fertility rate; household dependency ratio; labor force; mental health
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35462824 PMCID: PMC9024124 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.848114
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1Child dependency ratio and old-age dependency ratio of each province.
Figure 2Conceptual framework of the research.
Summary statistics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Depressed | Frequency of depression in the past 4 weeks | |||
| Always | The group who answered “Always” | 0.016 | 0.125 | 9,949 |
| Frequently | The group who answered “Frequently” | 0.086 | 0.281 | 9,949 |
| Sometimes | The group who answered “Sometimes” | 0.224 | 0.417 | 9,949 |
| Rarely | The group who answered “Rarely” | 0.342 | 0.474 | 9,949 |
| Never | The group who answered “Never” | 0.332 | 0.471 | 9,949 |
| Dep_ratio | The ratio of non-workforce to the workforce | 0.285 | 0.445 | 9,990 |
| Child_ratio | The ratio of children to the workforce | 0.063 | 0.214 | 9,990 |
| Old_ratio | The ratio of elders to the workforce | 0.222 | 0.385 | 9,990 |
| Gender | Male = 1, female = 0 | 0.476 | 0.499 | 9,990 |
| Ethnic | Han ethnic group = 1, other ethnic group = 0 | 0.903 | 0.296 | 9,990 |
| Party | The member of Communist Party of China = 1, others = 0 | 0.110 | 0.313 | 9,990 |
| Marital status | Marital status of interviewee | |||
| Single | The group whose marital status is “single” | 0.112 | 0.315 | 9,983 |
| Cohabitation | The group whose marital status is “cohabitation” | 0.002 | 0.040 | 9,983 |
| Married | The group whose marital status is “married” | 0.825 | 0.380 | 9,983 |
| Separation without divorce | The group whose marital status is “separation without divorce” | 0.004 | 0.067 | 9,983 |
| Divorce | The group whose marital status is “divorce” | 0.024 | 0.154 | 9,983 |
| Widowed | The group whose marital status is “widowed” | 0.033 | 0.178 | 9,983 |
| Age | The age of interviewee in 2010 | 42.777 | 12.207 | 9,990 |
| lnincome | The logarithm of annual income of interviewee | 8.315 | 3.086 | 8,579 |
| Home_size | The number of household members | 3.031 | 1.372 | 9,990 |
| lndebt | The logarithm of a household's debt | 2.304 | 4.176 | 9,990 |
Baseline regression results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| dep_ratio | −0.080*** | −0.084*** | ||||
| (0.024) | (0.029) | |||||
| old_ratio | −0.158*** | −0.156*** | −0.138** | |||
| (0.051) | (0.051) | (0.057) | ||||
| child_ratio | −0.058** | −0.056** | −0.064* | |||
| (0.028) | (0.028) | (0.035) | ||||
| gender | 0.108*** | 0.108*** | ||||
| (0.025) | (0.025) | |||||
| Ethnic | −0.070 | −0.069 | ||||
| (0.047) | (0.047) | |||||
| Party | 0.154*** | 0.154*** | ||||
| (0.037) | (0.037) | |||||
| Marital status (reference group: single) | ||||||
| Cohabitation | 0.344 | 0.337 | ||||
| (0.237) | (0.236) | |||||
| Married | 0.113** | 0.102** | ||||
| (0.049) | (0.050) | |||||
| Separation | −0.302 | −0.306* | ||||
| (0.184) | (0.184) | |||||
| Divorce | −0.204** | −0.211** | ||||
| (0.084) | (0.085) | |||||
| Widowed | −0.201** | −0.214** | ||||
| (0.083) | (0.084) | |||||
| Age | −0.011*** | −0.010*** | ||||
| (0.001) | (0.001) | |||||
| lnincome | 0.020*** | 0.020*** | ||||
| (0.004) | (0.004) | |||||
| home_size | 0.031*** | 0.031*** | ||||
| (0.010) | (0.010) | |||||
| lndebt | −0.035*** | −0.035*** | ||||
| (0.003) | (0.003) | |||||
| Province FE | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes |
| Obs. | 9,949 | 8,546 | 9,949 | 9,949 | 9,949 | 8,546 |
Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. ***, **, and * denote significance at 1, 5, and 10%, respectively.
Regression results for robustness checks.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| dep_ratio | −0.080*** | −0.090*** | ||
| (0.028) | (0.031) | |||
| old_ratio | −0.133** | −0.142** | ||
| (0.054) | (0.059) | |||
| child_ratio | −0.061* | −0.071* | ||
| (0.032) | (0.037) | |||
| Control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Province FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Obs. | 8,546 | 8,546 | 8,572 | 8,572 |
Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. ***, **, and * denote significance at 1, 5, and 10%, respectively.
Regression results for age heterogeneous effect.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| dep_ratio | −0.153** | −0.068* | ||
| (0.062) | (0.035) | |||
| old_ratio | −0.136 | −0.135** | ||
| (0.131) | (0.064) | |||
| child_ratio | −0.157** | −0.038 | ||
| (0.070) | (0.042) | |||
| Control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Province FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Obs. | 2,098 | 6,448 | 2,098 | 6,448 |
Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. **, and * denote significance at 5, and 10%, respectively.
Regression results for regional heterogeneous effect.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| dep_ratio | −0.032 | −0.122*** | ||
| (0.045) | (0.039) | |||
| old_ratio | −0.031 | −0.291*** | ||
| (0.075) | (0.085) | |||
| child_ratio | −0.033 | −0.079* | ||
| (0.057) | (0.044) | |||
| Control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Province FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Obs. | 4,732 | 3,424 | 4,732 | 3,424 |
Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. ***, and * denote significance at 1 and 10%, respectively.
Mechanism analysis.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| old_ratio | 0.867*** | −0.099 | −0.121** | −0.143** |
| (0.126) | (0.094) | (0.060) | (0.057) | |
| child_ratio | 0.028 | −0.018 | 0.104*** | −0.061* |
| (0.076) | (0.062) | (0.032) | (0.035) | |
| Med | −0.221*** | −0.051*** | ||
| (0.045) | (0.008) | |||
| Control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Province FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Obs. | 2,843 | 2,832 | 8,474 | 8,446 |
Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. ***, **, and * denote significance at 1, 5, and 10%, respectively.