Skip to main content
Log in

Racing Against the Biological Clock? Childbearing and Sterility Among Men and Women in Second Unions in France

Une course contre la montre? Fécondité et stérilité des hommes et des femmes en seconde union en France

  • Published:
European Journal of Population / Revue européenne de Démographie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In developed countries, rising rates of union disruption have induced an increase in the share of people experiencing several fertile partnerships during their fertile life-span. However, from the large-scale 1999 French Family Survey, in the 1939–1954 birth cohorts it appears that completed fertility of repartnered men is slightly higher than that of never-separated men while repartnered women have fertility levels similar to those who remain in a first intact partnership. Following this observation, this article aims to study whether people, and especially women, have enough time to have children in the context of second union before they become limited by the “biological clock”. Using a cure model, we find that once age-related sterility is controlled for, the decrease in risk of having children with age is not visible anymore up to age 40. This offers some evidence that people in their second partnership, especially women, are constrained in their childbearing by the decline in fecundity with age. Additionally, childless women seem to respond proactively to the decline in fecundity with age by accelerating childbearing.

Résumé

Dans les pays développés, la proportion de personnes connaissant plusieurs histoires conjugales durant leur période de vie féconde a cru avec la hausse des taux de divorce et de séparation. Cependant, l’enquête française à grande échelle Histoire Familiale 1999 (EHF) montre que, pour les générations 1939–1954, la descendance finale des hommes qui se sont remis en couple est légèrement supérieure à celle des hommes dont la première union est intacte, tandis que la descendance des femmes qui reforment une union est similaire à celle des femmes qui restent dans leur premier couple. Cette observation nous a conduit à étudier si les personnes qui se remettent en couple, et en particulier les femmes, disposent de suffisamment de temps pendant leur deuxième union pour avoir des enfants dans le temps imparti par l’horloge biologique. Basés sur des modèles avec une fraction non à risque (Cure models), nos résultats montrent que la fécondité ne diminue plus avec l’âge dans les secondes unions une fois tenu compte de la baisse de la fertilité avec l’âge (estimée sur données historiques). Il semble donc que les personnes se remettant en couple, en particulier les femmes, soient limitées dans leur choix de fécondité par la baisse de la fertilité avec l’âge. En outre, les femmes sans enfant semblent lutter contre cette baisse en accélérant leur calendrier de procréation à l’approche de la fin de vie féconde.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For more details, see Mazuy and Toulemon (2001).

  2. Sheps and Menken (1973) already presented some equations of effective fecundability (pp. 224–225), and Leridon (1977) gave a general definition of effective fecundability (chapter 2).

  3. Goldman and Montgomery’s estimations are based on polygamous households in different countries of Africa. Their results differ by country, but male age is never a strong determinant with respect to female age.

  4. Whenever referring to “first birth” in a second or higher-order union, this has to be considered independently from the person’s parity at the start of the union, as they can already have children from a previous union: it is a union-specific first birth.

  5. The simultaneous introduction of variables that depend on age does not create interactions, since it comes to the same than introducing a linear combination of functions of age.

  6. The model is specified under the command spcurv in Stata software.

  7. In economics, cure models might be called “split population” models.

  8. Overall, our estimation by split population models does not differ much from the estimation by a complementary loglog discrete time model.

  9. The shape of the curve does not depend on the age of reference chosen.

  10. Models have also been performed without this variable and the results are very similar.

  11. We also base our study on second unions rather than stepfamilies, which might make a slight difference, together with the cure specification of the model that disentangles level and speed.

  12. Another specification of fecundity that takes only risk of conception into account instead of risk of birth (called fecundability) has been tested, and the results are robust using this definition of sterility.

  13. This duration is calculated from the end of the first union, and we assume in this interpretation that it is an acceptable proxy of duration since the last partnership, people having formed three or more unions at fertile ages being a minority.

References

  • Beaujouan, É. (2011). Second-union fertility in France: Partners’ age and other factors. Population—English edition, 66(2), 239–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beets, G. (1996) Does the increasing age at first birth lead to increases in involuntary childlessness? In AEEP, EAPS, IUSSP, & VIEPS (Eds.), European population conference 1995 (evolution or revolution in European population) (Vol. II, pp. 15–29). Milan: Franco Angeli.

  • Bessin, M., Levilain, H., & Régnier-Loilier, A. (2005). Avoir des enfants “sur le tard”. Une exploration statistique de la “parenté tardive” à partir d’EHF 99. In C. Lefèvre, & A. Filhon (Eds.), Histoires de familles, histoires familiales : les résultats de l’enquête Famille de 1999 (Vol. 156, pp. 283–309, Les Cahiers de l’Ined). Paris: Ined.

  • Billari, F., & Borgoni, R. (2005). Assessing the use of sample selection models in the estimation of fertility postponement effects. Statistical Methods and Applications, 14(3), 389–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billari, F. C., Kohler, H.-P., Andersson, G., & Lundstrom, H. (2007). Approaching the limit: Long-term trends in late and very late fertility. Population and Development Review, 33(1), 149–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billari, F. C., Liefbroer, A. C., & Philipov, D. (2006). The postponement of childbearing in Europe. Driving forces and implications. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 4, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billari, F. C., Manfredi, P., & Valentini, A. (2000). Macro-demographic effects of the transition to adulthood: Multistate stable population theory and an application to Italy. Mathematical Population Studies, 9(1), 33–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buber, I., & Fürnkranz-Prskawetz, A. (2000). Fertility in second unions in Austria: Findings from the Austrian FFS. Demographic Research, 3. http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol3/2/.

  • Cassan, F., Mazuy, M., & Clanché, F. (2001). Refaire sa vie de couple est plus fréquent pour les hommes. INSEE Première, 797. http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/document.asp?ref_id=ip797.

  • Castro Martin, T., & Bumpass, L. L. (1989). Recent trends in marital disruption. Demography, 26(1), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Rochebrochard, E. (2001). Sterility, fecundity, what about the men? Population and Societies, 371. http://www.ined.fr/en/publications/pop_soc/bdd/publication/44/

  • de la Rochebrochard, E., & Thonneau, P. (2003). Paternal age ≥40 years: An important risk factor for infertility. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 189, 901–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gnoth, C., Godehardt, E., Frank-Herrmann, P., Friol, K., Tigges, J., & Freundl, G. (2005). Definition and prevalence of subfertility and infertility. Human Reproduction, 20(5), 1144–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, N., & Montgomery, M. R. (1990). Fecundability and husband’s age. Social Biology, 36(3–4), 146–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J. R., Sobotka, T., & Jasilioniene, A. (2009). The end of “lowest-low” fertility? [Review]. Population and Development Review, 35(4), 663–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, E., Evans, A., Anderson, J., & Kippen, R. (2009). Using split-population models to examine predictors of the probability and timing of parity progression. European Journal of Population—Revue Européenne de Démographie, 26(3), 275–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, J. D., Koo, H. P., & Suchindran, C. M. (1985). Childbearing and family in remarriage. Demography, 22(1), 73–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, L. (1972). La fécondité des mariages dans le quart sud-ouest de la France, de 1720 à 1829 [Marriage fertility in the South-West quarter of France, between 1720 and 1829]. Annales. Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations, 27(4–5), 977–1023.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain, T., & Hornstein, M. D. (2005). Disparities in access to infertility services in a state with mandated insurance coverage. Fertility and Sterility, 84(1), 221–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, M., Wijckmans, B., & Van Bavel, J. (2009). Divorce and the cumulated fertility of men and women across Europe. Interface demography working paper (Vol. 2009-1): Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

  • Jenkins, S. P. (2001). SPSURV: Stata module to fit split population survival (“cure”) model. Available at: http://econpapers.repec.org/software/bocbocode/s418601.htm.

  • Kamel, R. M. (2010). Management of the infertile couple: An evidence-based protocol. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, 8. doi:10.1186/1477-7827-8-21.

  • Kohler, H.-P., Billari, F. C., & Ortega, J. A. (2002). The emergence of lowest-low fertility in Europe during the 1990s. Population and Development Review, 28(4), 641–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, H.-P., Skytthe, A., & Christensen, K. (2001). The age at first birth and completed fertility reconsidered: Findings from a sample of identical twins. MPIDR working paper. Rostock: Max-Planck-Institut für demografische Forschung.

  • Kravdal, O. (2001). The high fertility of college educated women in Norway: An artefact of the separate modelling of each parity transition. Demographic Research, 5, 187–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreyenfeld, M. (2002). Time-squeeze, partner effect or self-selection? An investigation into the positive effect of women’s education on second birth risks in West Germany. Demographic Research, 7, 15–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, P. C. (2007). Modeling of the cure fraction in survival studies. The Stata Journal, 7(3), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leridon, H. (1977). Human fertility: The basic components. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leridon, H. (2002). Causes et traitements de la stérilité [causes and treatment of sterility]. In Les déterminants de la fécondité [determinants of fertility] (Démographie : analyse et synthèse, Vol. 2, pp. 251–264). Paris: INED.

  • Leridon, H. (2008). A new estimate of permanent sterility by age: Sterility defined as the inability to conceive. Population Studies, 62(1), 15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leridon, H. (2010). Human fecundity: situation and outlook. Population and Societies, 471. http://www.ined.fr/en/publications/pop_soc/bdd/publication/1519/.

  • Mazuy, M., & Toulemon, L. (2001). Etude de l’histoire familiale : premiers résultats de l’enquête en ménages [Study of family history: First results of the Survey on household]. Documents de travail (Vol. 93). Paris: Ined.

  • McDonald, J. W., & Rosina, A. (2001). Mixture modelling of recurrent event times with long-term survivors: Analysis of Hutterite birth intervals. Statistical Methods and Applications, 10(1–3), 257–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J. W., Rosina, A., Rizzi, E., & Colombo, B. (2011). Age and fertility: Can women wait until their early thirties to try for a first birth? Journal of Biosocial Science, 43(06), 685–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menken, J. A. (1985). Age and fertility: How late can you wait? Demography, 22(4), 469–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menken, J. A., & Larsen, U. (1986). Fertility rates and aging. In L. Mastroianni Jr & C. Alvin Paulsen (Eds.), Aging, reproduction, and the climacteric (pp. 147–166). New York: Plenum Pub Corp.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Menken, J. A., Trussell, J., & Larsen, U. (1986). Age and infertility. Science, 233, 1389–1394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ní Bhrolcháin, M., & Sigle-Rushton, W. (2005). Partner supply in Britain and the US: Estimates and gender contrasts. Population, 60(1–2), 39–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinnelli, A., De Rose, A., Di Giulio, P., & Rosina, A. (2002). Interrelationships between partnership and fertility behaviour. In E. Klijzing, & M. Corijn (Eds.), Dynamics of fertility and partnership in Europe: Insights and lessons from comparative research (Vol. I, pp. 77–98, Vol. Volume 1). Geneva: New York.

  • Prioux, F. (2005). Late fertility in Europe: Some comparative and historical data. Revue d’épidémiologie et de santé publique, 53, 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Régnier-Loilier, A., & Solaz, A. (2010). La décision d’avoir un enfant: une liberté sous contraintes. Politiques sociales et familiales, 100.

  • Robert-Bobée, I. (2006). Ne pas avoir eu d’enfant: plus fréquent pour les femmes les plus diplômées et les hommes les moins diplômés [Remaining childless: more frequent for most educated women and less educated men]. In France, Portrait social (pp. 181–196). Paris: Insee.

  • Rosina, A. (2006). A model with long-term survivors for the analysis of current-status nuptiality data. Population Studies, 60(1), 73–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Settersten, R. A., & Hägestag, G. O. (1996). What’s the latest? Cultural age deadlines for family transitions. The Gerontologist, 36(2), 178–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheps, M. C., & Menken, J. A. (1973). Mathematical models of conception and birth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobotka, T., & Toulemon, L. (2008). Changing family and partnership behaviour: Common trends and persistent diversity across Europe. Demographic Research, 19, 85–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • te Velde, E., Habbema, D., Leridon, H., & Eijkemans, M. (2012). The effect of postponement of first motherhood on permanent involuntary childlessness and total fertility rate in six European countries since the 1970s. Human Reproduction, 27(4), 1179–1183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, E., Hoem, B., Vikat, A., Fürnkranz-Prskawetz, A., Buber, I., Toulemon, L., et al. (2002). Childbearing in stepfamilies: How parity matters. In E. Klijzing & M. Corijn (Eds.), Fertility and partnership in Europe: Findings and lessons from comparative research (Vol. II, pp. 87–99). Geneva: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, E., Winkler-Dworak, M., Spielauer, M., & Prskawetz, A. (2012). Union instability as an engine of fertility? A microsimulation model for France. Demography, 49(1), 175–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulemon, L. (2006). La fécondité est-elle encore naturelle? application au retard des naissances et à son influence sur la descendance finale [Does fertility remain natural? Application to delay in childbearing and to its influence on completed fertility]. In Entre nature et culture: quelle(s) démographie(s)? Actes de la 28e Chaire Quetelet 2002, Louvain-la-Neuve, 2225 octobre (pp. 15–42): Academia-Bruylant.

  • Toulemon, L., & Knudsen, L. B. (2006). Stepfamilies in Denmark and France: Does the number of previous children from both partners and whether the previous children live with the couple influence fertility? In Population challenges in ageing societies, Liverpool, UK, 2124 June 2006 (Session 31: Gendering family dynamics network 1): European Population Conference.

  • Trussell, J., & Wilson, C. (1985). Sterility in a population with natural fertility. Population Studies, 39(2), 269–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vikat, A., Thomson, E., & Hoem, J. M. (1999). Stepfamily fertility in contemporary Sweden: The impact of childbearing before the current union. Population Studies, 53(2), 211–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villeneuve-Gokalp, C. (1994). Après la séparation : conséquences de la rupture et avenir conjugal. In H. Leridon, & C. Villeneuve-Gokalp (Eds.), Constance et inconstances de la famille: biographies familiales des couples et des enfants (Travaux et Documents, Vol. 134, pp. 137–164). Paris: PUF—INED.

  • Weinstein, M., Wood, J. W., Stoto, M. A., & Greenfield, D. D. (1990). Components of age-specific fecundability. Population Studies, 447(3), 447–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Laurent Toulemon, Máire Ní Bhrolcháin and several Ined researchers for their helpful comments and discussions of previous versions of the manuscript. We are also grateful to Dieter Demey and Catriona Dutreuilh for their careful English-editing reading of the text, and to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Solaz.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 4 Estimates of the cure model, risk of first birth during the second or subsequent union for childless women and men and for mothers and fathers; France

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Beaujouan, E., Solaz, A. Racing Against the Biological Clock? Childbearing and Sterility Among Men and Women in Second Unions in France. Eur J Population 29, 39–67 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-012-9271-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-012-9271-4

Keywords

Mots-clés

Navigation