Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Dragon Sons: Direct

and Cohort Effects of Superstition on Education

Attainment

Andy L. Chou∗

November 2018
Click for latest draft

Abstract

In many parts of East Asia, the fertility rate spikes every 12 years, starting in the

1970s. Researchers have linked this phenomenon to the belief that being born in years

associated with the dragon zodiac leads to better outcomes in life; yet the research

linking birth years and education outcomes has found mixed results. One potential

explanation for the mixed results is opposing mechanisms: being born in dragon zo-

diac years, the direct effect, may be positive while being in a larger cohort during

dragon years, the cohort effect, may be negative. I use the difference between cutoff

for determining school cohort and zodiac cohort to estimate the separate effects from

each mechanism. Using the Taiwan Social Change Survey, I find evidence of a positive

direct effect and a negative cohort effect for those born during dragon zodiac years.

Subsample analysis suggests selective investment after birth is a possible mechanism

for the direct effect while changes in cohort size contribute to the cohort effect.

∗
Department of Economics, Michigan State University, chouandy@msu.edu

1
1 Introduction

There is a common belief among people from East Asian countries that being born in
certain years, under specific zodiac signs in the lunar calendar, determines a person’s fortunes
in life. Previous researchers have noted increases in fertility rate during years associated with
the dragon zodiac, a symbol of good fortune, as evidence of zodiac superstition. (Goodkind,
1991; Yip et al., 2002). However, the research on effect of zodiac superstition on education
outcomes produced mixed findings. Previous researchers noted that those born in years
associated with the “fortunate” zodiac experience both positive effects of beliefs coming from
parental expectation, self-confidence, or expectation from others and the negative effects
of increased cohort size. On the other hand, people born in a zodiac considered to be
“unfortunate” are faced with a negative effect from beliefs and a positive effect from decreased
cohort size. The opposing nature of the two mechanisms results in an ambiguous overall effect
from the zodiac superstition (Agarwal et al., 2017; Do and Phung, 2010; Johnson and Nye,
2011; Mocan and Yu, 2017; Senbet and Huang, 2012; Wong and Yung, 2005).1

I focus on the region of Taiwan.2 Children in Taiwan are required to be age 6 on

September 1st to enter elementary school.3 Those born between the months of September
and December are required to enter school a year later with those born between the months of
January and August of the next calendar year. This means that the school cohorts containing
1
Nunn and Sanchez de la Sierra (2017) provides another example where the effect at the individual level
differs from the overall effect. Using the example of bulletproof spells in Africa, they argue that even though
in theory individual belief in bulletproof spells is harmful for individual safety, group beliefs in bulletproof
spells may be beneficial due to positive externality of individuals making effort to ensure safety of the group.
2
While the lunar calender and the zodiacs has origins from China, fertility spikes, particularly those during
dragon zodiac years, didn’t appear in China until the 2000s . Goodkind (1991) hypothesized the policies of
the Chinese government prohibiting traditional practices are at play. In Taiwan, fertility policies were fairly
relaxed. The Taiwanese government made efforts to reduce fertility during the 1960s and 1970s, through
promoting the use of contraceptives and implementing education programs on family planning rather than
through penal actions such as fines or jail sentences (Sun, 1989).
3
In Hong Kong, school year goes from September to August of next calendar year. However, Students as
young as 5 years and 8 months old can entry primary school. In Singapore and Malaysia, school year and
calendar year are the same. These children need to be at least 6 years old to enter primary school.

2
those born in dragon zodiac years also have those born in other zodiac years. I thus estimate
the effect of being born in the dragon zodiac year, the dragon direct effect, by comparing the
education attainment among those born in these years and those who are not, within the
same academic cohort. While the effect of being in a larger cohort due to increased fertility
during dragon zodiac years, the dragon cohort effect, is estimated by comparing those in the
same academic cohort as those born in the dragon zodiac years and those who are not.4

I document changes in cohort size during years associated with different zodiac signs
using birth data at the national level from the Taiwan Ministry of Interior. Similar to
previous research (Goodkind, 1993), I find that birth cohort size is 7 percent larger on
average during years associated with the dragon(fortunate) zodiac, while birth cohort size
is 8 percent smaller on average during years associated with the tiger(unfortunate) zodiac.
These fertility effects do not vary by gender but vary across different years. I find no evidence
of changes in birth cohort size during years associated with other zodiacs. There is some
evidence these results are related to the limited availability of spots in the academic track
in college.

I use the Taiwan Social Change Survey from 1996 to 2016 to analyze the effects of
different mechanisms. Overall I find evidence of a similar sized direct effect, about 2 per-
centage points, on probability of having a college education in the academic track for those
born in dragon and tiger years. The size of the cohort effect is stronger for those exposed
to people born in the dragon years, at around 4 percentage points, than in tiger years. The
effects are weaker on less selective measures of academic achievement, suggesting academic
competition may play a role.

The importance of separately identifying the two effects is highlighted by differing

effects across different years. Looking across time, the cohort effect for dragons and tigers
roughly follows the relative magnitude of the fertility spike at the national level. However,
4
See Figure 1 for a graphical representation.

3
there is little evidence of direct effect in the 1970s when the fertility effects are first observed.
In addition, the dragon direct effect is stronger when there is no fertility effect.

I examine several possible mechanisms driving the direct and cohort effects through
subsample analysis. While there is no fertility effect by gender or relative age within school
year, I find direct effects largely concentrated on males and those who are older within a
school cohort. The results are consistent with the direct effect driven by selective investment
and the cohort effect being driven by both changes in cohort size and composition. I do not
find support for the direct effect driven by minority immigrants.

This paper contributes to the literature on the effect of culture on economic outcomes.5
There are many theories trying to explain the persistence of cultural beliefs in cases with
a single mechanism (Bénabou and Tirole, 2016; Foster and Kokko, 2009; Fudenberg and
Levine, 2006; Guiso et al., 2016). The results from this paper show there may be spillover
effect as large as, or even larger than the effects operating through individual beliefs. The
indefinite sign of the overall effect suggests a possible reason for the persistence of supersti-
tions: multiple counteracting mechanisms may make evaluating the superstitions difficult or
misleading. In addition, even if the individuals are correctly evaluating the outcomes, the
superstition may be sustained by groups that benefit from group effects within the academic
cohort, namely, the dragons in academic cohorts with dragons or the non-tigers in academic
cohorts with tigers.

This paper also contributes to the literature on the effect of cohort size. Many articles
document a negative relationship of cohort size on education and labor market outcomes
(Bound and Turner, 2007; Connelly and Gottschalk, 1995; Welch, 1979). However, articles
finding a positive relationship between cohort size and education attainment suggest other
mechanisms such as increased public spending or scale economies are also at play (Do and
Phung, 2010; Reiling, 2016). This paper uses a source of variation that is exogenous from
5
See Guiso et al. (2006) for a review.

4
decisions of previous generations and overcomes the problem of distinguishing between cohort
and age effects. The evidence from people born in years associated with the dragon zodiac
supports the idea of “cohort crowding”. However, I did not find robust evidence of positive
effect on education attainment when cohort size is smaller for people born during years
associated with the zodiac tiger. The difference between dragon and tiger cohort effects may
imply the negative effects of cohort size scales up at a different pace than that of the positive
effects.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the literature. Section
3 discusses impact of zodiac years on cohort sizes. Section 4 describes the data. Section 5
discusses summary statistics on education attainment by different zodiac group. Section 6
presents the regression model. Section 7 presents estimation results. Section 8 discusses the
relevant issues and concludes.

2 Literature Review

In East Asia, the Chinese lunar calendar (or an adaptation of it) is commonly used
in conjunction with the Gregorian calendar.6 In the Chinese lunar calendar, each year is
represented by a creature.7 The collection of creatures, called zodiacs, follows through a
twelve-year cycle. There is a common belief that people born in certain years share the
characteristics of the zodiac they were born under. An often studied zodiac is the zodiac
dragon.8 Dragon, the only zodiac with no real life counterpart, is a symbol for mystical power
6
Several holidays in Taiwan, such as the Chinese New Year, Dragon Boat Festival, and Mid-Autumn
Festival, are based on dates in the lunar calendar rather than dates in the Gregorian calendar.
7
The twelve creatures, listed sequentially, in the Chinese zodiac are: Rat, Ox, Tiger, Rabbit, Dragon,
Snake, Horse, Sheep, Monkey, Chicken, Dog, Pig. Table 1 lists the corresponding years in the Gregorian
calendar for each zodiac. In Vietnam, rabbit is replaced by cat. The Western equivalent of zodiacs are the
horoscopes. However, the western horoscopes vary by month and not by year.
8
Other known zodiac superstitions include firehorse women in Japan (Yamada, 2013), horse zodiac in
South Korea (Lee and Paik, 2006), and sheep zodiac in China (Mocan and Yu, 2017). There is no evidence
of superstition on the dragon zodiac for Japan and Korea.

5
coming from the heavens. Several papers have found that during dragon zodiac years, fertility
rates have spiked consistently (Goodkind, 1991). These papers linked this phenomenon to
the belief that being born in years associated with the zodiac dragon can bring a person
good fortune and power in life.

Several previous studies have looked at the effect of being born in dragon zodiac years
on education and labor market outcomes, but the results have been mixed. Mocan and Yu
(2017) found positive evidence on education attainment and test scores using data in China.
Liu (2015) used Taiwanese data and found positive evidence on education attainment, but no
effect on wages. However, several studies found no evidence and sometimes even a negative
impact of being born in dragon years. Wong and Yung (2005) found no evidence on wages
using the Hong Kong Census. Sim (2015) used Singapore data and found a negative effect
of being born in dragon zodiac years on the probability of having a college degree. Agarwal
et al. (2017) used a difference in differences design to compare Chinese and non-Chinese and
found a negative effect on income in Singapore.

One reason for the mixed findings is due to the multiple mechanisms triggered by the
zodiac superstition. For those born in dragon years, the positive effects from beliefs may
be weakened by the negative effects from larger cohort sizes. Several studies tried to get
around the effect of larger cohort sizes by studying Asian immigrants in countries where
Asians are minorities. Johnson and Nye (2011) used US Census and Current Population
Survey data and found being born in dragon years is associated with increase in years of
education attained. Senbet and Huang (2012) used US Panel Study of Income Dynamics
and found no dragon year effect on wages. However, there are concerns about external
validity due to differences between native and immigrant population. Among the studies
that look at countries where Chinese immigrants represent a significant portion, only Do
and Phung (2010) tried to account for cohort size effect by controlling for cohort size in the
regression. Yet cohort size may just be an indicator for local economic development. In

6
addition, increases in overall cohort size may not capture the sudden increase in cohort size
during “fortunate” zodiac years.

Most of the studies treat individuals within a zodiac year as homogeneous and did not
explore differences within zodiac group. Notable exceptions include Do and Phung (2010)
and Agarwal et al. (2017). Do and Phung (2010) used gender specific zodiac superstition in
Vietnam to explore the timing of the mechanism. Since gender cannot be observed before
birth, they argued that the zodiac superstitions were a result of pre-birth planning due to
lack of differences between siblings within households. However, most individuals in their
sample, between ages 2 and 23, haven’t completed their education. It is unclear whether the
null result in their study is due to sample selection or zodiac superstition effects. Agarwal
et al. (2017) looked at overall effects by gender and time. They found the negative effect
on only the younger cohort but did not find differing effects by gender. Yet, the authors
were unable to distinguish whether these differences or lack of differences are determined by
mechanisms in effect before entering the labor market or mechanisms occurring during the
labor market process.

In my paper, I look at Taiwan where there is a belief that dragon zodiac brings fortune
while the tiger zodiac brings misfortune.9 My paper differs from the literature in the following
ways. I estimate the effect of being born in a certain zodiac, named direct effect, and the
effect of being in a cohort with different cohort size, named cohort effect, separately. The
separation is necessary as it is believed that the direct and cohort effects are driven by
different mechanisms. I further explore the possible mechanisms by looking at different
subsamples. In addition to variation by gender and time, I also explored variations in
relative age within school year and wave of immigration. In terms of outcomes of interest,
I look at education attainment with varying levels of selectivity. This allows me to explore
9
Liu (2015) and Goodkind (1991) suggest the belief to be that tiger zodiac is specifically brings misfortune
to females, as female born in tiger zodiac years are believed to make them stubborn and unsuitable for wifely
duties.

7
whether academic competition plays a role in realizing superstitions.

3 Zodiac Years and Cohort Sizes

Figure 2 presents the total number of live births in each year between 1947 and 2016.
There was a sharp rise in birth number in the end of the 1940s possibly due to the influx
of Chinese immigrants during the Chinese Civil War (Francis, 2011). The total number of
births hovered around four hundred thousand until the early 1980s. Since then, number of
births has been declining, reaching a plateau in the last couple of years. There was a spike
in cohort size during dragon years since the 1976 dragon year. Before the 1970s, the cohort
size stays flat (in 1952) or decreases (in 1964) during dragon years. For the tiger years,
birth numbers stay flat for 1962 and 1974 but decrease consistently during tigers years since
the 1980s. Goodkind (1991) hypothesize the lack of fertility effect is due to changes in
demographics, economic environment, or availability of modern birth controls.

Table 2 presents OLS results of log annual births on dummies for dragon and tiger years
at the national level. The regression results suggesting a 7.3 percent increase in number of
live births during dragon years and 7.9 percent decrease in number of live births during
tiger years relative to other years while accounting for a quadratic time trend overall. The
interaction terms between zodiac dummies and gender indicates that the changes during
dragon or tiger years does not vary by gender. Table 3 present OLS results of log annual
births on dummies for each individual dragon or tiger years. The results suggest some
variation in change in cohort size during dragon years. Most notable is the statistically
insignificant decrease during dragon year of 1988. This is possibly due to the response by
the Taiwanese government to discourage birth in dragon year(Goodkind, 1991). I do not
find evidence of fertility spikes or drops in other zodiacs years, as shown in Table 4.

8
4 Data

I look at the impact of zodiac superstition on education attainment using the Taiwan
Social Change Survey (TSCS). TSCS is a biannual survey conducted by researchers in the
Academia Sinica. TSCS is nationally representative sample of adults, with sample size of
around 2000 per survey.10 I merged surveys collected between 1990 and 2016 that recorded
the birth month of the respondent. The resulting dataset includes 41 surveys spanning over
24 years. To look at completed education, I only include those age 25 or above in the sample.
Because the fertility effects are only observed after 1970s, I focus my analysis to those born
after 1970. TSCS consists of basic characteristics such as gender and education attainment
and additional themed questions that rotates every five years. Table 5 presents summary
statistics of the variables I used in my regression analysis.

Education level is coded into five categories: elementary school degree or below, middle
school degree, high school degree, associates degree, and bachelor’s degree or above. Other
than the survey in 2003, all the other surveys distinguish between vocational and academic
track in high school and post-secondary education. Unless otherwise asked in the survey,
education level includes those who completed education and those dropped out before com-
pleting.

Zodiac dummies are constructed based on self-reported birth year and month. I ap-
proximate the lunar calendar based on birth month. I coded each lunar year to start in
February and end in January of the next calendar year.

The control variables are mostly selected to be characteristics determined before birth.
The exception is parental occupation, which is during age 15 or 18 of the respondent.
10
Surveys before 2000 sampled those age 20 to 65. Surveys in 2000 and 2001 removed the restrictions on
maximum age. Surveys starting in 2002 lowered the minimum age in the sample to 18 to conform with social
surveys in other countries.

9
Parental ethnicity is coded into three categories: Taiwanese (Fukien and Hakka Taiwanese),
Mainlander, and Aborigine. Birth place is defined as being born in the two municipal cities
and the five provincial cities: Taipei, Kaohsiung, Keelung, Hsinchu, Taichung, Chiayi, and
Tainan.11 Religion is coded into five categories: No religion, Folk religion, Buddhist, Daoist,
and other religions(Christianity and Islam). Occupations are coded into five levels according
to Hwang (2003): managers and professionals; technician and professional assistants; tech-
nical workers; machine operators and assemblers, sales and service personnel; non-technical,
labor, and agricultural workers.

5 Zodiac Years and Education Attainment

Overall Trend Figure 3 presents percentage of individuals with different levels of educa-
tion, including high school, college or college in academic track, by birth lunar year. Overall
the individuals in later generations are more likely to have a high school, college, or college
degree at academic track. Percentage of individuals with high school degree rose from about
60 percent for those born in 1960 to over 90 percent for those born after 1970s. Percentage
of individuals with college degrees saw the most dramatic rise, with only 30 percent for
those born in 1960 and 80 percent for those born in the 1980s. Percentage of individuals
with college degree at the academic track also saw some significant rise, with 10 percent
for those born in 1960 and about 40 percent for those born after late 1980s. There is some
evidence of spikes in dragon years and drops in tiger years but only during 1986 tiger year
and 1988 dragon year for those in the college academic track. There is a drop in percentage
of people having college degree for those born in 1988. There were no spikes or drops in
percentage with high school education, possibly due to the prevalence of people having high
school education.
11
This designation applies between 1982 and 2009. Hsinchu city and Chiayi city became a provincial city
in 1982. Redesignation in 2010 changed the status of several cities and counties.

10
By Treated Group Figure 4 presents differences in percentage of persons having different
education attainment for different zodiac groups: dragons, non-dragons in dragon cohort,
tigers, non-tigers in tiger cohort, and others. Dragons and tigers refer to those born in the
dragon and tiger zodiac years. Non-dragons in dragon cohort and non-tigers in tiger cohort
refers to those born between September and January of the year before a dragon or tiger
zodiac year and those born between January and September of the year after a dragon or
tiger zodiac year. Because of the school year cutoff in Taiwan, these groups enter school along
with those born in dragon or tiger zodiac years. The “others” group refers to those not in
the aforementioned groups. The three figures on the left focus on outcomes during dragon
years while the three figures on the right focus on outcomes during tiger years. According
to TCSC, 30.69 percent of people born in dragon years have a college education in the
academic track, slightly lower than 31.36 percent for people born in other years (excluding
tiger years). The higher education attainment of people born in dragon years, compared to
those who are supposed to be in the same school years, suggests the direct effect is positive.
In addition, the lower prevalence of people with college education in the academic track,
between non-dragons in dragon cohort and those who are not in the dragon cohort, suggests
the cohort effect is negative. Furthermore, people born in tiger years exhibit the opposite
pattern as people born in dragon years. However, those who are supposed to be in the same
academic cohort as people born in tiger years have a lower probability of having college
education compared to those not in the same school years as tigers. This suggests the cohort
effect is negative or statistically insignificant for people born in tiger years. Differences in
means for having college education in vocational track and high school education do not
show particular differences among zodiac groups.

11
6 Regression Model

To account for the heterogeneity across different school years that are time invariant,12 I
estimate direct and cohort effect using the following models:

Yi = β0 + β1z Zodiaciz + SYi + β3 Xi + i (1)

Yi = β0 + β2z ZodiacSYiz + ZYi + β3 Xi + i (2)

where Yi is education attainment for individual i. Zodiaciz is a vector of dummies for

individual i being born under zodiac z. ZodiacSYiz is a vector of dummies for being in the
same school year as people born in the zodiac years z. In my case, z = dragon, tiger. SYi ,
ZYi are birth academic year/zodiac year fixed effects. Xi is a vector of control variables.
These include parental education, parental ethnicity, parental religion, place of birth, birth
year, survey year, birth month fixed effects, and birth order.

I estimated both equations using probit and clustered my standard errors at the birth
lunar year level. The direct effects are estimated as β1z whereas the cohort effects are
estimated as β2z . When estimating the cohort effects, I dropped the individuals born in
tiger or dragon zodiac years to avoid confounding with the direct effects. To account for the
missing data in the TSCS, I added a category for missing variables and included a dummy
that equals one if the control variable is missing.
12
The papers in the dragon superstition effect literature address the issue by limiting the sample to years
close to the dragon zodiac years. Another reason to use fixed effects is to make my estimates comparable
to the estimates in the cohort size effect literature. While the articles in the cohort size literature use data
aggregated at the county or state level, they all include year fixed effects in their estimation.

12
7 Regression Results

Overall Results Table 6 presents probit marginal effects of dragon and tiger dummies
on a dummy for having college education in the academic track when all the controls are
added. Column 1 only includes dragon and tiger dummies. Column 2 adds school year fixed
effects and estimates equation 1. Column 3 estimates equation 2, on dragon and tiger school
cohort dummies and zodiac year fixed effects, while those born in dragon and tiger zodiac
years are dropped. For the dragon direct effect on having college education in the academic
track, the results go from 0.4 to 2.0 percentage points when adding school year fixed effects.
For the tiger direct effect on having college education in academic track, the results stayed
similar in size, going from -2.1 to -2.4 percentage points but with larger standard errors. The
dragon cohort effect is much larger, at -4.6 percentage points, than the tiger cohort effect,
at -1.8 percentage points. The relative size of cohort effects explains the difference between
the movement in coefficients of dragon and tiger direct effects after accounting for cohort
effects.

On Different Education Attainment Table 7 presents probit marginal effects of dragon

and tiger dummies on different levels of education attainment. Columns 1 and 2 are on college
education at the academic track. Columns 3 and 4 are on college education at any track.
Columns 5 and 6 are on high school education at any track. The direct effects weakens as
the education level becomes less competitive. The cohort effects are similar between college
education at academic track or college education in general but is much weaker for having
high school education. These results suggest academic competition plays a role in direct and
cohort effects.

13
By Gender Previous research found male bias exhibited in within household resource
distribution in Taiwan (Parish and Willis, 1993). While I find no male bias in terms of fertility
change during dragon and tigers years, the male bias can still exhibit in education attainment.
Table 8 presents probit marginal effects allowing for heterogeneous male and female effects
on various outcomes. While there is no difference in fertility spikes by gender, the results
suggest males and females are affected differently during dragon and tiger years. Dragon
and tiger direct effects apply mostly to males, with dragon direct effects estimated at 3.8
percentage points and tiger direct effect estimated at -3.9 percentage points on having college
education at academic track. There is no dragon or tiger direct effect on females despite
the groups having similar education attainment. A similar trend is observed for having high
school education. There is also some evidence of resources shifting to women during tigers
years with a tiger direct effect of 3.3 percentage points for university degree in vocational
track and tiger direct effect of 1.5 percentage points for high school degree on women. The
effects on having college education at vocational track are mostly small. The results are
consistent with the hypothesis that superstition effects are driven by selective investment.
If we assume the same gender bias is driving both fertility and education investment, then
the results suggest the timing of the investment to happen after birth. The dragon cohort
effects are similar in magnitude for males and females. However, the tiger cohort effect is
mostly on the females and in the opposite direction than previous literature would suggest.

Across Time Table 9 presents probit marginal effects from equations 1 and 2 when dum-
mies for each individual dragon or tiger years are included. The results suggest that the
effects on fertility is related to cohort effect but not the direct effect. Exploiting the differ-
ences in size of fertility effects, I find little evidence of direct effect for the 1976 dragons and
1974 tigers, even though there was an effect on fertility for both years. I also find strong
evidence of direct effect for the 1988 dragons and 1986 tigers, even though there was no effect
on fertility for the 1988 dragons. This suggests the effect of fertility has more to do with the

14
cohort effect. Overall the relative size of the cohort effect goes the same direction as the size
of the fertility effect. I find negative and significant cohort effect for the 1976 dragons but
no cohort effect for the 1988 dragons. I also find a negative cohort effect for the 1974 tigers
and a positive cohort effect for the 1986 tigers.

By Relative Age within Academic Cohort I investigate variations created by the

timing of the school year cutoff. Individuals born between February and August are placed
in an earlier school year while individuals born between September and January have to
wait and enroll in the next school year. Those born between September and January are
thus “older” within their respective academic cohort. Table 10 presents probit marginal
effects allowing estimates to vary by relative age within school year. I run the regressions
only on the dragon zodiac or the tiger zodiac due to the sample for estimating young tiger
cohort effect and old dragon cohort effect overlaps when using zodiac year fixed effects.
I find that the positive dragon direct effect applies only to the dragons relatively older
within school cohort. Combined with the findings from different gender, the results support
the timing of the dragon effect being after birth and on selective subpopulations. Among
those affected by the tiger superstition, the direct effect is similar in magnitude among them.
However, the estimates on the effects for the young tigers are noisier. I find a strong negative
cohort effect for the older dragons while the cohort effect for the young tigers is statistically
indistinguishable from zero. I cannot separately estimate the young dragon and old tiger
cohorts effects and thus cannot infer whether cohort composition plays a role in determining
cohort effects.

Minority Status as a possible mechanism I explore whether the dragon and tiger
effects are driven by minority immigrant status13 by using the difference between different
13
See Goodkind (1995) for discussion of the minority immigrant status hypothesis applied in explaining
the variation of dragon fertility effects in Malaysia.

15
waves of Chinese immigrants in Taiwan. If the dragon and tiger effects are driven by minority
immigrant status, then we should expect people with parents who are more recent Chinese
immigrants to have stronger effects. Table 11 presents probit marginal effects for equation 2
and 3 separately by the ethnic group of the father. The Taiwanese groups refers to parents
who were born in Taiwan at the time of the Chinese Civil War in early 1950s. The Chinese
group refers to people who immigrated to Taiwan during the Chinese Civil War. I find a
weaker dragon direct effect for those with Chinese parents. This suggests the effects are not
driven by minority immigrant status.

Dragon and Tiger effects before 1970s While there is no observed fertility effect before
the 1970s, it is possible the zodiac superstition exhibits itself in direct effects on individuals
born before the 1970s. Table 12 presents probit marginal effects on those born before 1970.
Columns 1 and 2 present results for having a college education. Columns 3 and 4 present
results for having a high school education. Columns 5 and 6 present results for having
a middle school education.14 I find no evidence of a positive dragon effect on any of the
education outcomes, but there is some evidence of tiger direct effect. One explanation for
existence of tiger effect but no dragon effect, is that it is more costly to increase education
than to decrease it.15

7.1 Robustness Checks

In this section, I consider four different types of selection issues, selection on observables,
selection on unobservables, short-term switching, and delayed school entry, that could bias
the estimates for direct and cohort effects. The results suggest selection is not a big concern.
14
There were no separate track for college before 1997 since those in vocational track are not expected to
get a higher degree beyond high school for their jobs.
15
Another known zodiac superstition with historical evidence is the firehorse superstition in Japan. It is
believed that women born in firehorse years brings misfortune.

16
Selection on Observables Table 13 and 14 present summary statistics for observable
characteristics by different treatment groups. Table 13 presents results for individuals af-
fected by the belief in dragon zodiac while Table 14 presents results for those affected by
the belief in tiger zodiac. Columns 2 to 4 are means for the different groups while columns
5 and 6 are differences in means and significance star from t-tests. Overall the differences
are mostly statistically insignificant across groups except a few significant differences across
the groups. For those affected by the belief in dragon zodiac, they have a larger family
size comparing within school years with dragons, more likely to be older and less likely to
have a Chinese Nationalist father comparing across school years without dragons. For those
affected by the belief in tiger zodiac, they are less likely to be male within school year and
more likely to be older across school years.

Short term Switching Modern birth technology such as Caesarean section allows for
parents to choose the hour or date of the their children in a limited window. I account
for the short-term switching by estimating the DD model without individuals born in the
beginning and end of the lunar year (January and February in the Gregorian calendar).
Table 15 presents these results. The results are similar in magnitude compared to the DD
estimates.

Delayed School Entry One possible way parents can avoid the dragon cohort effect
related to increases in cohort size is to delay the entry of their children. If a substantial
number of parents do this compared to other years, then we should see a spike in 7 year olds
in 1st grade one school year after they were supposed to enter. From Figure 5, I do not find
evidence of increased delayed entry related to people born in dragon years.

Selection on Unobservables While there is not a lot of evidence that the various zodiac
groups are different in terms of observable characteristics, it is possible these groups are

17
different based on unobservable characteristics. For example, parents might know about
the cohort size increases in dragon years and avoid having children around that time. The
parents who did are likely to be positively selected. The cohort effect might be a result of
the rest of the cohort being negative selected, rather than a result of competition. I follow
the set up in Altonji et al. (2005) test whether these selection issues affect my results. Using
the Stata commands from Oster (2017), the results suggest selection on unobservables is
not an issue. Selection on unobservables needs to go a different direction than selection on
observables to explain away the dragon direct effect, tiger direct effect, and dragon cohort
effect, while they need to be about 2.1 times as strong as selection on observables to explain
16
away the tiger cohort effect. The corresponding LPM regressions estimates and delta
estimates are presented in Table 16.

8 Discussion and Conclusion

Informal institutions, such as culture, play a role in determining economic outcomes.

These institutions affect economic outcomes directly through changes in beliefs or through
selection. However, individuals may react to the superstition and create spillover or cohort
effects. Evaluating the impact of culture becomes harder when different mechanisms go in
opposite directions. In this paper, I study the effects of zodiac superstition on education out-
comes in Taiwan. I develop a new method using institutional details to separately estimate
the effects coming from different mechanisms. I find evidence of both direct and cohort effects
even though estimates using methods from other papers suggest no statistically significant
effect overall.

I find some parallels between the dragon(fortunate) zodiac and the tiger(unfortunate)
zodiac but not on all effects. The direct effects for dragons and tigers are very similar in
16
The delta estimates have very large standard errors and need to be interpreted with caution.

18
magnitude overall and in many of the subsamples for those born after 1970s. However, the
dragon cohort effect is larger in magnitude compared to the tiger cohort effect even though
the fertility effects are similar in magnitude. Historically, there is some evidence of a tiger
direct effect but not a dragon direct effect. I argue that the direct effects are driven by
selective investment while the cohort effects are driven by changes in cohort size. I do not
find evidence of the direct effect related to fertility or driven by ethnic minority status.
These differences may reflect variations in beliefs or economic environment, through which
the beliefs operate. Further research is needed to distinguish between the two possibilities.

The findings from this paper present challenges to both theoretical and empirical work
on superstition. It is possible that superstitions persist because the individuals are making
wrong conclusions on the effect of superstition and fail to update their actions. Moreover, the
existence of spillover effects by superstition highlight the importance of having larger scale
field studies in addition to small scale randomized controlled trials in evaluating psychological
effects at scale. The evidence from subsample analysis questions the exogeneity assumption
other papers applied to use zodiac superstition as an instrumental variable.

The existence of zodiac effects also have implications for evaluating other policies. One
particular example is related to the interpretation of the effect of entrance exam change
during the year 2000 in Taiwan. The datasets used to evaluate the reform contain a groups
with people born in dragon years and a group who were not. A direct comparison between the
two groups is thus aggregating both the effect of the reform and the dragon effects. Further
studies should try to account for the dragon effect or use different comparison groups.

19
References

Agarwal, S., Qian, W., Sing, T. F., and Tan, P. L. (2017). Dragon babies. George-
town McDonough School of Business Research Paper No. 3032575. Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3032575.

Altonji, J. G., Elder, T. E., and Taber, C. R. (2005). Selection on observed and unobserved
variables: Assessing the effectiveness of catholic schools. Journal of Political Economy,
113(1):151–184.

Bound, J. and Turner, S. (2007). Cohort crowding: How resources affect collegiate attain-
ment. Journal of Public Economics, 91(5):877 – 899.

Bnabou, R. and Tirole, J. (2016). Mindful economics: The production, consumption, and
value of beliefs. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(3):141–64.

Connelly, R. and Gottschalk, P. (1995). The effect of cohort composition on human capital
accumulation across generations. Journal of Labor Economics, 13(1):155–176.

Do, Q.-T. and Phung, T. D. (2010). The importance of being wanted. American Economic
Journal: Applied Economics, 2(4):236–53.

Foster, K. R. and Kokko, H. (2009). The evolution of superstitious and superstition-like be-
haviour. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 276(1654):31–
37.

Francis, A. M. (2011). Sex ratios and the red dragon: using the chinese communist revolu-
tion to explore the effect of the sex ratio on women and children in taiwan. Journal of
Population Economics, 24(3):813–837.

Fudenberg, D. and Levine, D. K. (2006). Superstition and rational learning. The American
Economic Review, 96(3):630–651.

20
Goodkind, D. M. (1991). Creating new traditions in modern chinese populations: Aiming
for birth in the year of the dragon. Population and Development Review, 17(4):663–686.

Goodkind, D. M. (1993). New zodiacal influences on chinese family formation: Taiwan, 1976.
Demography, 30(2):127–142.

Goodkind, D. M. (1995). The significance of demographic triviality: Minority status and

zodiacal fertility timing among chinese malaysians. Population Studies, 49(1):45–55.

Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., and Zingales, L. (2006). Does culture affect economic outcomes?
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2):23–48.

Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., and Zingales, L. (2016). Long-term persistence. Journal of the
European Economic Association, 14(6):1401–1436.

Hwang, Y.-J. (2003). The construction and assessment of the ＂new occupational pres-
tige and socioeconomic scores for taiwan＂: The indigenization of the social science and
sociology of education research. Bulletin of Educational Research, (49:4):1–31.

Johnson, N. D. and Nye, J. V. (2011). Does fortune favor dragons? Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization, 78(1):85–97.

Lee, J. and Paik, M. (2006). Sex preferences and fertility in south korea during the year of
the horse. Demography, 43(2):269–292.

Liu, Y.-C. (2015). The years of dragon and tiger and human capital. Master’s thesis, National
Chi Nan University.

Mocan, N. H. and Yu, H. (2017). Can superstition create a self-fulfilling prophecy? school
outcomes of dragon children of china. Working Paper 23709, National Bureau of Economic
Research.

21
Nunn, N. and Sanchez de la Sierra, R. (2017). Why being wrong can be right: Magical
warfare technologies and the persistence of false beliefs. American Economic Review,
107(5):582–87.

Oster, E. (2017). Unobservable selection and coefficient stability: Theory and evidence.
Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, pages 1–18.

Parish, W. L. and Willis, R. J. (1993). Daughters, education, and family budgets taiwan
experiences. The Journal of Human Resources, 28(4):863–898.

Reiling, R. B. (2016). Does size matter? educational attainment and cohort size. Journal of
Urban Economics, 94:73 – 89.

Senbet, D. and Huang, W.-C. (2012). Do dragons have better fate? revisited using the us
data. International Journal of Economics and Research, 3(5):101–118.

Sim, N. (2015). Astronomics in action: The graduate earnings premium and the dragon
effect in singapore. Economic Inquiry, 53(2):922–939.

Sun, T.-h. (1989). A review of Fertility Control Policies in Taiwan Area, ROC, volume Social
Phenomena in Taiwan - An Analysis, pages p.275–310. Sun Yat-Sen Institute for Social
Sciences and Philosophy, Academia Sinica. In Chinese.

Welch, F. (1979). Effects of cohort size on earnings: The baby boom babies’ financial bust.
Journal of Political Economy, 87(5):S65–S97.

Wong, K.-F. and Yung, L. (2005). Do dragons have better fate? Economic Inquiry,
43(3):689–697.

Yamada, H. (2013). Superstition effects versus cohort effects: is it bad luck to be born in
the year of the fire horse in japan? Review of Economics of the Household, 11(2):259–283.

Yip, P. S., Lee, J., and Cheung, Y. (2002). The influence of the chinese zodiac on fertility
in hong kong {SAR}. Social Science & Medicine, 55(10):1803 – 1812.

22
9 Tables and Figures

Figure 1: Dragon Effect Timeline

Note: Solid lines are the calendar year cutoffs. Dashed lines are the school year cutoffs. This
is for children born in 2000 entering elementary school.

Figure 2: Live birth by birth year, 1947-2016

Note: Green lines are years associated with the zodiac dragon. Orange lines
are years associated with the zodiac tiger. Source: Taiwan Ministry of
Interior.

23
 Figure 3: Trends in Education Attainment

Note: Green lines are years associated with the zodiac dragon. Orange lines
are years associated with the zodiac tiger.

24
 Figure 4: Comparison of Methods
(a) College (Academic) - Dragon (b) College (Academic) - Tiger

Note: Tiger Zodiac is not included in the analysis. Note: Dragon Zodiac is not included in the analysis.

(c) College (Any) - Dragon (d) College (Any) - Tiger

Note: Tiger Zodiac is not included in the analysis. Note: Dragon Zodiac is not included in the analysis.

(e) High School - Dragon (f) High School - Tiger

Note: Tiger Zodiac is not included in the analysis. Note: Dragon Zodiac is not included in the analysis.

25
 Figure 5: 7 year old in first grade (per 1000 7 year olds)

Note: Years after 2000 are not included due to increased enforcement of school entry laws following the
amendment of the school entry laws in 1999.

Table 1: Chinese Zodiacs and the corresponding years

Zodiac Years in Gregorian Calendar

Rat 1936, 1948, 1960, 1972, 1984, 1996, 2008
Ox 1937, 1949, 1961, 1973, 1985, 1997, 2009
Tiger 1938, 1950, 1962, 1974, 1986, 1998, 2010
Rabbit 1939, 1951, 1963, 1975, 1987, 1999, 2011
Dragon 1940, 1952, 1964, 1976, 1988, 2000, 2012
Snake 1941, 1953, 1965, 1977, 1989, 2001, 2013
Horse 1942, 1954, 1966, 1978, 1990, 2002, 2014
Sheep 1943, 1955, 1967, 1979, 1991, 2003, 2015
Monkey 1944, 1956, 1968, 1980, 1992, 2004, 2016
Chicken 1945, 1957, 1969, 1981, 1993, 2005, 2017
Dog 1946, 1958, 1970, 1982, 1994, 2006, 2018
Pig 1947, 1959, 1971, 1983, 1995, 2007, 2019

26
 Table 2: Zodiac and Log Annual Live Births, 1947-2016 - Overall

(1) (2)
Overall Gender Specific
Male 0.071∗∗∗ 0.071∗∗∗
(0.017) (0.019)
Dragon 0.073∗∗∗ 0.073∗∗∗
(0.020) (0.028)
Tiger −0.080∗∗∗ −0.079∗
(0.029) (0.042)
Dragon X Male −0.001
(0.039)
Tiger X Male −0.001
(0.057)
Observations 140 140
Quadratic Trend Yes Yes
Note: Standard errors in parentheses.
* p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.

Table 3: Zodiac and Log Annual Livebirths, 1947-2016 - Individual Years

(1) (2)
Tiger Years Dragon Years
1974/1976 −0.079∗∗∗ 0.077∗∗∗
(0.010) (0.011)
1986/1988 −0.157∗∗∗ −0.014
(0.011) (0.012)
1998/2000 −0.072∗∗∗ 0.115∗∗∗
(0.013) (0.016)
2010/2012 −0.232∗∗∗ 0.186∗∗∗
(0.026) (0.032)
Observations 140 140
Quadratic Trend Yes Yes
Note: Standard errors in parentheses.
* p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.

27
 Table 4: Zodiac and Log Annual Livebirths, 1947-2016 - Other Zodiacs

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Horse Sheep Monkey Chicken Dog Pig Rat
Male 0.071∗∗∗ 0.071∗∗∗ 0.071∗∗∗ 0.071∗∗∗ 0.071∗∗∗ 0.072∗∗∗ 0.071∗∗∗
(0.019) (0.018) (0.018) (0.018) (0.018) (0.017) (0.018)
Zodiac Dummy 0.043 0.030 0.043 −0.004 0.007 −0.046 −0.044
(0.032) (0.049) (0.050) (0.042) (0.041) (0.057) (0.047)
Zodiac Dummy X Male 0.003 0.008 0.004 −0.001 0.002 −0.003 −0.001
(0.042) (0.067) (0.068) (0.058) (0.055) (0.082) (0.068)
Observations 140 140 140 140 140 140 140
Quadratic Trend Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Note: Standard errors in parentheses. * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.

28
 Table 5: Descriptive Statistics - TSCS

count mean sd min max

Dependent Variables
College and above(Academic) 15461 .3076127 .4615202 0 1
College and above 15778 .6141463 .4868117 0 1
High School and above 15778 .9210293 .2697016 0 1
Independent Variable
Dragon Direct Effect 15778 .095386 .2937566 0 1
Dragon Cohort Effect 15778 .1806313 .3847246 0 1
Tiger Direct Effect 15778 .0939283 .2917381 0 1
Tiger Cohort Effect 15778 .1895044 .3919212 0 1
Control Variables
Survey Year 15778 2009.751 4.73301 1996 2016
Birth School Cohort 15778 1977.369 4.962798 1970 1991
Birth Lunar Year 15778 1977.929 4.953068 1971 1991
Birth Month 15778 6.715807 3.442201 1 12
Male 15778 .5176195 .4997053 0 1
Born in City 7403 .3807916 .4856143 0 1
Father Bachelor’s Education 12156 .069513 .2543349 0 1
Father Associate’s Education 12156 .0826752 .275402 0 1
Mother Bachelor’s Education 12000 .0320833 .1762288 0 1
Mother Associate’s Education 12000 .0394167 .1945923 0 1
Father Chinese Nationalist 15384 .0937337 .2914674 0 1
Mother Chinese Nationalist 14870 .0412912 .1989696 0 1
Father Folk Religion 1585 .4378549 .4962795 0 1
Mother Folk Religion 942 .4023355 .4906294 0 1
Father Occupation Rank 4174 2.448011 1.263339 0 5
Mother Occupation Rank 1690 1.713018 1.237803 0 5
Sibling Rank(1=Oldest) 4191 2.201145 1.331591 1 11
Family Size 4191 3.301837 1.290055 1 11
Oldest Sibling 4191 .3724648 .4835189 0 1
Note: The 2003 survey did not distinguish the education track of the individuals.

29
 Table 6: Role of Controls

Dependent Variable: College Education(Academic)

(1) (2) (3)
Dragon Direct Effect 0.004 0.020
(0.007) (0.015)
Tiger Direct Effect −0.021∗∗∗ −0.024
(0.006) (0.015)
Dragon Cohort Effect −0.046∗
(0.025)
Tiger Cohort Effect −0.018
(0.018)
Observations 15461 15461 12547
Ymean .308 .308 .311
Year Fixed Effects No Academic Zodiac
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Standard errors clustered at birth
year level.
Note: All regressions include survey year, birth month fixed effects,
and birth year in controls.

Table 7: Different Education Attainment

College College High School

Academic Any Any
Dragon Direct Effect 0.020 0.015 0.007
(0.015) (0.010) (0.005)
Tiger Direct Effect −0.024 −0.012 −0.001
(0.015) (0.009) (0.006)
Dragon Cohort Effect −0.046∗ −0.041∗ −0.010
(0.025) (0.022) (0.018)
Tiger Cohort Effect −0.018 −0.024∗ −0.013
(0.018) (0.013) (0.012)
Observations 15461 12547 15778 12791 15749 12791
Ymean .308 .311 .614 .615 .921 .922
Year Fixed Effects Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Standard errors clustered at birth year level.
Note: All regressions include survey year, birth month fixed effects, and birth year in
controls.

30
 Table 8: Heterogeneity - Gender

College College High School

Academic Any Any
Male Female Male Female Male Female

Dragon Direct Effect 0.038 −0.000 0.023 0.008 0.018∗∗∗ −0.004

(0.027) (0.007) (0.019) (0.012) (0.007) (0.005)
Tiger Direct Effect −0.039∗∗∗ −0.006 −0.046∗∗∗ 0.025 −0.016∗∗ 0.015∗∗
(0.010) (0.024) (0.003) (0.020) (0.007) (0.006)
Observations 7991 7470 8167 7611 7974 7598
Ymean .306 .31 .601 .628 .914 .927
Year Fixed Effects Academic Academic Academic Academic Academic Academic

Dragon Cohort Effect −0.055 −0.040∗∗ −0.038 −0.047∗∗∗ −0.020 0.003

(0.045) (0.017) (0.044) (0.012) (0.023) (0.013)
Tiger Cohort Effect −0.001 −0.040 0.019 −0.071∗∗∗ −0.002 −0.019∗
(0.029) (0.032) (0.028) (0.014) (0.015) (0.011)
Observations 6519 6028 6660 6131 6622 6131
Ymean .308 .314 .605 .627 .916 .927
Year Fixed Effects Zodiac Zodiac Zodiac Zodiac Zodiac Zodiac
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Standard errors clustered at birth year level.
Note: All regressions include survey year, birth month fixed effects, and birth year in controls.

Table 9: Heterogeneity - Different dragon/tiger years

College College High School

Academic Any Any
1976 Dragon Direct Effect 0.011 0.022∗ 0.009
(0.017) (0.011) (0.006)
1988 Dragon Direct Effect 0.053∗∗∗ −0.020∗∗ −0.013
(0.013) (0.009) (0.013)
1974 Tiger Direct Effect −0.002 −0.002 −0.001
(0.006) (0.006) (0.007)
1986 Tiger Direct Effect −0.076∗∗∗ −0.049∗∗∗ −0.002
(0.013) (0.013) (0.011)
1976 Dragon Cohort Effect −0.062∗∗∗ −0.048∗∗ −0.016
(0.019) (0.019) (0.016)
1988 Dragon Cohort Effect 0.003 −0.015 0.025
(0.009) (0.055) (0.034)
1974 Tiger Cohort Effect −0.043∗∗ −0.038∗∗ −0.022
(0.019) (0.017) (0.014)
1986 Tiger Cohort Effect 0.042∗∗∗ 0.028 0.046∗∗
(0.006) (0.035) (0.019)
Observations 15461 12547 15778 12791 15749 12791
Ymean .308 .311 .614 .615 .921 .922
Year Fixed Effects Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Standard errors clustered at birth year level.
Note: All regressions include survey year, birth month fixed effects, and birth year in controls.

31
 Table 10: Heterogeneity - Relative Age within School Year

College College High School

Academic Any Any

Young Dragon Direct Effect −0.015 −0.012∗∗ −0.007

(0.022) (0.006) (0.005)
Old Dragon Direct Effect 0.054∗∗∗ 0.043∗∗∗ 0.020∗∗∗
(0.008) (0.011) (0.007)
Young Dragon Cohort Effect −0.008 0.002 0.019∗
(0.016) (0.022) (0.011)
Old Dragon Cohort Effect −0.066∗∗∗ −0.060∗∗ −0.028∗
(0.024) (0.025) (0.014)
Observations 15461 13998 15778 14273 15749 14273
Ymean .308 .308 .614 .613 .921 .921
Year Fixed Effects Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac

Young Tiger Direct Effect −0.023 0.012 −0.017∗∗∗

(0.031) (0.010) (0.006)
Old Tiger Direct Effect −0.024∗∗∗ −0.036∗∗∗ 0.016∗∗∗
(0.009) (0.013) (0.006)
Young Tiger Cohort Effect −0.008 −0.023∗∗ 0.002
(0.022) (0.009) (0.009)
Old Tiger Cohort Effect 0.014 0.012 −0.020∗
(0.019) (0.023) (0.011)
Observations 15461 14010 15778 14296 15749 14296
Ymean .308 .31 .614 .616 .921 .922
Year Fixed Effects Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Standard errors clustered at birth year level.
Note: All regressions include survey year, birth month fixed effects, and birth year in controls.

32
 Table 11: Heterogeneity - Father Ethnicity

College College High School

Academic Any Any
Taiwanese Chinese Taiwanese Chinese Taiwanese Chinese

Dragon Direct Effect 0.025∗∗ −0.009 0.018∗∗ 0.025 0.007∗∗ 0.007∗∗

(0.011) (0.055) (0.008) (0.052) (0.003) (0.003)
Tiger Direct Effect −0.028 0.001 −0.028∗∗∗ 0.086∗∗∗ −0.005 −0.005
(0.021) (0.031) (0.010) (0.018) (0.005) (0.005)
Observations 13355 1457 13625 1494 13601 13601
Ymean .311 .346 .627 .62 .934 .934
Year Fixed Effects Academic Academic Academic Academic Academic Academic

Dragon Cohort Effect −0.043∗∗ −0.117 −0.033 −0.163∗∗∗ −0.015 −0.015

(0.020) (0.085) (0.021) (0.063) (0.015) (0.015)
Tiger Cohort Effect −0.010 −0.144∗∗∗ −0.005 −0.183∗∗∗ −0.010 −0.010
(0.016) (0.045) (0.011) (0.031) (0.010) (0.010)
Observations 10846 1179 11052 1203 11052 11052
Ymean .313 .353 .628 .625 .934 .934
Year Fixed Effects Zodiac Zodiac Zodiac Zodiac Zodiac Zodiac
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Standard errors clustered at birth year level.
Note: All regressions include survey year, birth month fixed effects, and birth year in controls.

Table 12: Zodiacs before 1970

College High School Middle School

Any Any Any
Dragon Direct Effect 0.002 −0.006∗ 0.003
(0.004) (0.003) (0.004)
Tiger Direct Effect −0.012∗∗∗ −0.019∗∗∗ −0.007∗∗∗
(0.001) (0.003) (0.003)
Dragon Cohort Effect 0.009 0.001 0.008
(0.009) (0.010) (0.007)
Tiger Cohort Effect 0.007 0.001 −0.002
(0.010) (0.007) (0.006)
Observations 37914 30740 38747 31430 38747 31430
Ymean .128 .131 .281 .29 .619 .633
Year Fixed Effects Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Standard errors clustered at birth year level.
Note: All regressions include survey year, birth month fixed effects, and birth year in controls.

33
 Table 13: Means of Control Variables by Dragon Zodiac group

(1) (2) (3)

Observations Non-Dragons (1)-(2) (2)-(3)
Dragons Others
in Dragon Cohort
Male 15778 0.518 0.529 0.519 −0.010 0.010
(0.500) (0.499) (0.500) (0.019) (0.015)
Born between September and January 15778 0.453 0.467 0.427 −0.014 0.040∗∗∗
(0.498) (0.499) (0.495) (0.019) (0.014)
Born in City 7403 0.369 0.384 0.383 −0.015 0.000
(0.483) (0.487) (0.486) (0.027) (0.020)
Father Bachelor’s Education 12156 0.078 0.074 0.067 0.004 0.007
(0.268) (0.262) (0.251) (0.011) (0.008)
Father Associate’s Education 12156 0.061 0.079 0.087 −0.018 −0.008
(0.240) (0.270) (0.281) (0.011) (0.009)
Mother Bachelor’s Education 12000 0.028 0.040 0.032 −0.012 0.008
(0.166) (0.196) (0.175) (0.008) (0.006)
Mother Associate’s Education 12000 0.028 0.033 0.042 −0.005 −0.009
(0.166) (0.179) (0.200) (0.007) (0.007)
Father Chinese 15384 0.093 0.082 0.095 0.012 −0.014
(0.291) (0.274) (0.294) (0.011) (0.009)
Mother Chinese 14870 0.040 0.041 0.043 −0.001 −0.002
(0.196) (0.198) (0.202) (0.008) (0.006)
Father Folk Religion 1585 0.480 0.489 0.430 −0.009 0.059
(0.502) (0.502) (0.495) (0.062) (0.045)
Mother Folk Religion 942 0.458 0.438 0.397 0.020 0.041
(0.502) (0.500) (0.490) (0.090) (0.064)
Father Occupation Rank 4174 2.438 2.444 2.456 −0.006 −0.011
(1.209) (1.298) (1.259) (0.092) (0.073)
Mother Occupation Rank 1690 1.623 1.664 1.711 −0.042 −0.047
(1.204) (1.199) (1.243) (0.144) (0.116)
Sibling Rank(1=Oldest) 4191 2.210 2.100 2.212 0.110 −0.112
(1.339) (1.275) (1.323) (0.091) (0.071)
Family Size 4191 3.422 3.201 3.275 0.221∗∗∗ −0.074
(1.222) (1.174) (1.299) (0.083) (0.069)
Oldest Sibling 4191 0.387 0.415 0.362 −0.029 0.054∗∗
(0.488) (0.493) (0.481) (0.034) (0.026)
Standard errors in parentheses. * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 for t-tests in the last two columns.
The 2001 surveys ask parents’ occupations when the respondent is 18 while all other surveys asks when respondent is age 15.

34
 Table 14: Means of Control Variables by Tiger Zodiac group

(1) (2) (3)

Observations Non-Tigers (1)-(2) (2)-(3)
Tigers Others
in Tiger Cohort
Male 15778 0.491 0.527 0.519 −0.036∗∗ 0.008
(0.500) (0.499) (0.500) (0.018) (0.014)
Born between September and January 15778 0.464 0.467 0.427 −0.003 0.039∗∗∗
(0.499) (0.499) (0.495) (0.018) (0.014)
Born in City 7403 0.396 0.359 0.383 0.038 −0.025
(0.489) (0.480) (0.486) (0.025) (0.019)
Father Bachelor’s Education 12156 0.072 0.068 0.067 0.004 0.001
(0.259) (0.253) (0.251) (0.010) (0.008)
Father Associate’s Education 12156 0.089 0.075 0.087 0.014 −0.012
(0.285) (0.264) (0.281) (0.011) (0.009)
Mother Bachelor’s Education 12000 0.031 0.031 0.032 0.000 −0.000
(0.175) (0.175) (0.175) (0.007) (0.006)
Mother Associate’s Education 12000 0.043 0.038 0.042 0.004 −0.003
(0.202) (0.192) (0.200) (0.008) (0.006)
Father Chinese 15384 0.092 0.095 0.095 −0.002 −0.001
(0.290) (0.293) (0.294) (0.011) (0.008)
Mother Chinese 14870 0.041 0.034 0.043 0.006 −0.009
(0.197) (0.182) (0.202) (0.007) (0.006)
Father Folk Religion 1585 0.421 0.426 0.430 −0.004 −0.005
(0.495) (0.496) (0.495) (0.057) (0.045)
Mother Folk Religion 942 0.365 0.423 0.397 −0.058 0.026
(0.484) (0.497) (0.490) (0.075) (0.059)
Father Occupation Rank 4174 2.405 2.457 2.456 −0.052 0.001
(1.266) (1.314) (1.259) (0.089) (0.067)
Mother Occupation Rank 1690 1.857 1.712 1.711 0.145 0.001
(1.280) (1.228) (1.243) (0.143) (0.107)
Sibling Rank(1=Oldest) 4191 2.155 2.275 2.212 −0.120 0.063
(1.328) (1.439) (1.323) (0.100) (0.074)
Family Size 4191 3.359 3.400 3.275 −0.041 0.125∗
(1.338) (1.358) (1.299) (0.098) (0.072)
Oldest Sibling 4191 0.403 0.355 0.362 0.048 −0.007
(0.491) (0.479) (0.481) (0.035) (0.027)
Standard errors in parentheses. * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 for t-tests in the last two columns.
The 2001 surveys ask parents’ occupations when the respondent is 18 while all other surveys asks when respondent is age 15.

35
 Table 15: Robustness Check: Accounting for short-term switch in fertility

College College High School

Academic Vocational Any
Dragon Direct Effect 0.017 0.013 0.006
(0.012) (0.013) (0.005)
Tiger Direct Effect −0.022 −0.019∗ 0.000
(0.016) (0.011) (0.005)
Dragon Cohort Effect −0.043∗∗ −0.044∗∗ −0.008
(0.020) (0.017) (0.017)
Tiger Cohort Effect −0.017 −0.024∗∗ −0.012
(0.013) (0.009) (0.011)
Observations 13077 10578 13348 10790 13319 10790
Ymean .306 .31 .615 .617 .922 .923
Year Fixed Effects Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Standard errors clustered at birth year level.
Note: All regressions include survey year, birth month fixed effects, and birth year in controls.

Table 16: Selection on Unobservables: DD Model - LPM

Dependent Variable: College Education (Academic)

(1) (2) (3) (4) δ
Dragon Direct Effect 0.012 0.020 −0.260
(0.016) (0.015)
Tiger Direct Effect −0.017 −0.023 −0.432
(0.013) (0.016)
Dragon Cohort Effect −0.045∗ −0.046∗ −3.834
(0.025) (0.024)
Tiger Cohort Effect −0.019 −0.018 2.161
(0.019) (0.017)
Observations 15461 15461 12547 12547
Ymean .31 .31 .31 .31
Adjusted R-squared .0299 .118 .0289 .116
Controls No Yes No Yes
Year Fixed Effects Academic Academic Zodiac Zodiac
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Standard errors clustered at birth year level.
Note: All regressions include survey year, birth month fixed effects, and birth year
in controls. Columns 1 and 2 present regression coefficients while column 3 present
estimated delta from Oster (2017). Standard errors for estimates of delta parame-
ter are not presented due to their magnitude.

36
Appendix A Extra Tables

Figure B1: Comparison of Methods

(a) College (Academic) - Dragon (b) College (Academic) - Tiger

Note: Tiger Zodiac is not included in the analysis. Note: Dragon Zodiac is not included in the analysis.

(c) College (Vocational) - Dragon (d) College (Vocational) - Tiger

Note: Tiger Zodiac is not included in the analysis. Note: Dragon Zodiac is not included in the analysis.

(e) High School - Dragon (f) High School - Tiger

Note: Tiger Zodiac is not included in the analysis. Note: Dragon Zodiac is not included in the analysis.

37
 Table B1: Role of Controls

Dependent Variable: College Degree(Academic)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Dragon Direct Effect −0.005 0.015 0.015 0.022∗∗ 0.024∗∗ 0.024∗∗
(0.009) (0.013) (0.013) (0.011) (0.012) (0.012)
Tiger Direct Effect −0.010 −0.017 −0.017 −0.023 −0.024 −0.020
(0.008) (0.024) (0.023) (0.025) (0.025) (0.016)
Dragon Cohort Effect −0.021∗ −0.021∗ −0.025∗∗∗
−0.026∗∗∗ −0.051∗∗∗
(0.011) (0.011) (0.010) (0.010) (0.011)
Tiger Cohort Effect 0.005 0.006 0.003 0.003 −0.016
(0.021) (0.020) (0.022) (0.022) (0.014)
Observations 10400 10400 10400 10400 10400 10400 8489
Ymean .273 .273 .273 .273 .273 .273 .276
Year Fixed Effects No No No No No Academic Zodiac
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Standard errors clustered at birth year level.
Note: All regressions include survey year, birth month fixed effects, and birth year in controls.

Table B2: Role of Controls

Dependent Variable: College Degree(Any Track)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Dragon Direct Effect −0.002 0.001 0.001 0.006 0.008 0.007
(0.009) (0.011) (0.011) (0.012) (0.011) (0.010)
Tiger Direct Effect −0.000 −0.000 −0.001 −0.008 −0.007 −0.005
(0.008) (0.017) (0.016) (0.019) (0.019) (0.014)
Dragon Cohort Effect −0.004 −0.004 −0.006 −0.006 −0.048∗∗
(0.010) (0.010) (0.009) (0.009) (0.020)
Tiger Cohort Effect −0.001 −0.001 −0.003 −0.003 −0.031∗∗
(0.016) (0.015) (0.018) (0.018) (0.013)
Observations 10716 10716 10716 10716 10716 10716 8732
Ymean .559 .559 .559 .559 .559 .559 .561
Year Fixed Effects No No No No No Academic Zodiac
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Standard errors clustered at birth year level.
Note: All regressions include survey year, birth month fixed effects, and birth year in controls.

38
 Table B3: Role of Controls

Dependent Variable: High School Degree (Any Track)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Dragon Direct Effect −0.014∗∗∗
−0.009 −0.009 −0.004 −0.004 −0.007∗
(0.003) (0.010) (0.010) (0.011) (0.010) (0.004)
Tiger Direct Effect 0.001 0.001 0.000 −0.004 −0.004 −0.002
(0.007) (0.008) (0.008) (0.008) (0.008) (0.005)
Dragon Cohort Effect −0.006 −0.006 −0.008 −0.008 −0.028∗
(0.010) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.016)
Tiger Cohort Effect −0.002 −0.001 −0.001 −0.002 −0.022
(0.007) (0.007) (0.008) (0.008) (0.014)
Observations 10716 10716 10716 10716 10716 10698 8732
Ymean .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .896
Year Fixed Effects No No No No No Academic Zodiac
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Standard errors clustered at birth year level.
Note: All regressions include survey year, birth month fixed effects, and birth year in controls.

Table B4: Different Education Attainment

College High School Middle School

Any Any Any
Dragon Direct Effect 0.024∗∗ 0.007 −0.007∗
(0.012) (0.010) (0.004)
Tiger Direct Effect −0.020 −0.005 −0.002
(0.016) (0.014) (0.005)
Dragon Cohort Effect −0.051∗∗∗ −0.048∗∗ −0.028∗
(0.011) (0.020) (0.016)
Tiger Cohort Effect −0.016 −0.031∗∗ −0.022
(0.014) (0.013) (0.014)
Observations 10400 8489 10716 8732 10698 8732
Ymean .273 .276 .559 .561 .894 .896
Year Fixed Effects Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Standard errors clustered at birth year level.
Note: All regressions include survey year, birth month fixed effects, and birth year in controls.

39
 Table B5: Heterogeneity - Gender

College College High School

Academic Any Any
Male Female Male Female Male Female
Dragon Direct Effect 0.033∗ 0.015∗∗∗ 0.022∗ −0.003 0.010 −0.026∗
(0.018) (0.004) (0.012) (0.008) (0.007) (0.015)
Tiger Direct Effect −0.035∗∗ −0.003 −0.051∗∗∗ 0.043∗ −0.019 0.015∗∗∗
(0.017) (0.018) (0.006) (0.026) (0.012) (0.006)
Observations 5343 5057 5519 5197 5510 5160
Ymean .27 .275 .533 .586 .883 .905
Year Fixed Effects Academic Academic Academic Academic Academic Academic
Dragon Cohort Effect −0.056∗∗ −0.050∗∗∗ −0.032 −0.072∗∗∗ −0.034∗ −0.012
(0.023) (0.009) (0.032) (0.010) (0.020) (0.019)
Tiger Cohort Effect 0.000 −0.034∗∗∗ 0.044∗∗ −0.107∗∗∗ 0.026 −0.070∗∗∗
(0.022) (0.013) (0.020) (0.009) (0.017) (0.016)
Observations 4385 4104 4526 4206 4526 3934
Ymean .273 .279 .538 .586 .885 .902
Year Fixed Effects Zodiac Zodiac Zodiac Zodiac Zodiac Zodiac
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Standard errors clustered at birth year level.
Note: All regressions include survey year, birth month fixed effects, and birth year in controls.

40
 Table B6: Heterogeneity - different dragon/tiger years

College College High School

Academic Any Any
1976 Dragon Direct Effect 0.010 0.008 −0.009∗∗
(0.008) (0.011) (0.004)
1988 Dragon Direct Effect 0.082∗∗∗ 0.005 0.006
(0.006) (0.016) (0.007)
1974 Tiger Direct Effect 0.002 0.011 0.003
(0.009) (0.012) (0.004)
1986 Tiger Direct Effect −0.073∗∗∗ −0.062∗∗∗ −0.040∗∗∗
(0.017) (0.003) (0.004)
1976 Dragon cohort Effect −0.064∗∗∗ −0.060∗∗∗ −0.028∗
(0.002) (0.011) (0.015)
1988 Dragon cohort Effect −0.008 0.000 −0.031∗∗∗
(0.005) (0.048) (0.005)
1974 Tiger cohort Effect −0.034∗∗∗ −0.050∗∗∗ −0.037∗∗∗
(0.002) (0.010) (0.014)
1986 Tiger cohort Effect 0.025∗∗∗ 0.032 0.061∗∗∗
(0.004) (0.035) (0.004)
Observations 10400 8489 10716 8732 10698 8732
Ymean .273 .276 .559 .561 .894 .896
Year Fixed Effects Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Standard errors clustered at birth year level.
Note: All regressions include survey year, birth month fixed effects, and birth year in controls.

Table B7: Zodiacs before 1970

College High School Middle School

Any Any Any
Dragon Direct Effect 0.013∗∗ −0.025∗∗∗ −0.002
(0.006) (0.006) (0.010)
Tiger Direct Effect 0.006 0.011 0.005
(0.008) (0.015) (0.005)
Dragon Cohort Effect −0.007 −0.010 −0.008
(0.011) (0.011) (0.013)
Tiger Cohort Effect −0.028∗∗ −0.032∗∗ −0.025
(0.013) (0.015) (0.018)
Observations 21956 18439 23202 19527 23202 19527
Ymean .112 .113 .516 .522 .696 .7
Year Fixed Effects Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Standard errors clustered at birth year level.
Note: All regressions include survey year, birth month fixed effects, and birth year in controls.

41
 Table B8: Heterogeneity - relative age within school year

College College High School

Academic Any Any
Young Dragon Direct Effect 0.008 −0.014 −0.015∗∗
(0.020) (0.012) (0.006)
Old Dragon Direct Effect 0.039∗∗∗ 0.028∗∗∗ 0.000
(0.009) (0.010) (0.004)
Young Dragon Cohort Effect −0.035∗∗∗ −0.010 0.013
(0.009) (0.021) (0.021)
Old Dragon Cohort Effect −0.047∗∗∗ −0.053∗ −0.048∗∗∗
(0.016) (0.028) (0.008)
Observations 10400 9417 10716 9691 10698 9691
Ymean .273 .274 .559 .559 .894 .895
Year Fixed Effects Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac
Young Tiger Direct Effect −0.017 0.025 −0.014∗∗∗
(0.035) (0.022) (0.005)
Old Tiger Direct Effect −0.023∗∗∗ −0.035∗∗∗ 0.010∗
(0.007) (0.010) (0.006)
Young Tiger Cohort Effect −0.026 −0.039∗∗∗ −0.007
(0.021) (0.014) (0.017)
Old Tiger Cohort Effect 0.044∗∗∗ 0.023 −0.012
(0.011) (0.022) (0.022)
Observations 10400 9472 10716 9757 10698 9757
Ymean .273 .275 .559 .56 .894 .895
Year Fixed Effects Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Standard errors clustered at birth year level.
Note: All regressions include survey year, birth month fixed effects, and birth year in controls.

42
 Table B9: Heterogeneity - Father Ethnicity

College College High School

Academic Any Any
Taiwanese Chinese Taiwanese Chinese Taiwanese Chinese
Dragon Direct Effect 0.028∗∗∗ 0.011 0.012∗ 0.034 −0.008∗∗∗ −0.008∗∗∗
(0.007) (0.062) (0.007) (0.046) (0.003) (0.003)
Tiger Direct Effect −0.021 −0.037 −0.009 0.004 −0.014∗∗∗ −0.014∗∗∗
(0.019) (0.033) (0.015) (0.034) (0.004) (0.004)
Observations 9150 954 9419 993 9404 9404
Ymean .275 .305 .569 .561 .906 .906
Year Fixed Effects Academic Academic Academic Academic Academic Academic
Dragon Cohort Effect −0.044∗∗∗ −0.147∗∗ −0.038 −0.160∗∗∗ −0.034∗∗ −0.034∗∗
(0.009) (0.070) (0.025) (0.049) (0.015) (0.015)
Tiger Cohort Effect 0.003 −0.170∗∗∗ −0.015 −0.135∗∗∗ −0.022∗ −0.022∗
(0.013) (0.037) (0.015) (0.031) (0.012) (0.012)
Observations 7471 782 7676 813 7500 7500
Ymean .277 .315 .571 .572 .907 .907
Year Fixed Effects Zodiac Zodiac Zodiac Zodiac Zodiac Zodiac
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Standard errors clustered at birth year level.
Note: All regressions include survey year, birth month fixed effects, and birth year in controls.

Table B10: Robustness Check: Accounting for short-term switch in fertility

College College High School

Academic Any Any
Dragon Direct Effect 0.026∗∗∗ −0.001 −0.012∗∗
(0.008) (0.010) (0.005)
Tiger Direct Effect −0.014 −0.022 0.000
(0.016) (0.015) (0.004)
Dragon Cohort Effect −0.044∗∗∗ −0.047∗∗∗ −0.025∗
(0.010) (0.012) (0.014)
Tiger Cohort Effect −0.011 −0.028∗∗∗ −0.026∗∗
(0.017) (0.007) (0.011)
Observations 8783 7147 9054 7359 9036 7359
Ymean .271 .274 .558 .561 .893 .896
Year Fixed Effects Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac Academic Zodiac
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Standard errors clustered at birth year level.
Note: All regressions include survey year, birth month fixed effects, and birth year in controls.

43