Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fertility and commuting: evidence based on first-birth rates of young working women

  • Published:
Journal of Population Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper studies how commuting, as a demographic, social and economic process, is linked to fertility. It is hypothesised that daily mobility may have changed marriage and cohabitation propensities and, consequently, birth rates. Fertility is affected by cross-space income flows and by their impact on well-being at municipal level caused by commuting. The empirical evidence reveals common and distinct effects of commuting on fertility of those women who involved in daily mobility and not. Increase in the proportion of commuters is associated with a decrease in first-birth rates for both commuters and non-commuters, as they probably tend to stay childless while interacting with single co-workers, friends, and acquaintances. However, first-birth rates of commuting women increase with growth of individual earnings and the average levels of taxable earnings in places of residence. First-birth rates of non-commuting women increase with individual earnings, but drop with growth of average levels of taxable earnings in the place of residence.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The data were obtained through the Demographic Data Base, Umeå University.

  2. Source: http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/en/ssd/START__AM__AM0207__AM0207L/PendlingK9303. Statistics Sweden provides numbers of commuters coming into the municipality, commuters leaving the municipality and working and living in the municipality. The numbers of in-commuters and out-commuters are almost the same. Those who work in neighbouring countries on a daily basis explain slightly greater numbers of out-commuters. To avoid double counting, the sum of commuters coming into the municipality and people working and living in the municipality is presented here.

  3. Source: http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/en/ssd/START__AM__AM0207__AM0207L/PendlingK.

  4. The average age at first birth in Sweden grew from 26.74 years in 1992 to 29.02 years in 2006 (SCB).

References

  • Andersson, G. (1999). Childbearing trends in Sweden 1961–1997. European Journal of Population, 15, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, G. (2004). Childbearing developments in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden from the 1970s to the 1990s: A comparison. Demographic Research (Special Collection), 3(7), 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, G. (2005). Family relations, adjustment and well-being in a longitudinal study of children in care. Child & Family Social Work, 10(1), 43–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, G., Kreyenfeld, M., & Mika, T. (2014). Welfare state context, female labour-market attachment and childbearing in Germany and Denmark. Journal of Population Research, 31, 287–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balbo, N., & Barban, N. (2012). Does fertility behaviour spread among friends? Dondena Working Papers. WP 50. www.dondena.unibocconi.it/wp50. Accessed May 20 2012.

  • Becker, G. S., & Barro, R. J. (1988). A reformulation of the economic theory of fertility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, D. E., & Pebley, A. R. (1982). Voluntary childlessness: A review of the evidence and implications. Population Research and Policy Review, 1, 203–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bongaarts, J., & Watkins, S. C. (1996). Social interactions and contemporary fertility transitions. Population and Development Review, 22(4), 639–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botticini, M., & Siow, A. (2008). Are there increased returns in marriage markets? Working Paper, 333 (pp. 1–36).

  • Browning, M., Chiappori, P. A., & Weiss, Y. (2003). A simple matching model of the marriage market. Mimeo: Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burdett, K., & Coles, M. G. (1998). Separation cycles. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 22, 1069–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burdett, K., & Coles, M. G. (1999). Long-term partnership formation: Marriage and employment. The Economic Journal, 109(456), F307–F334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, J. C. (1982a). Theory of fertility decline (p. 386). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, J. C. (1982b). The wealth flows theory of fertility decline. In C. Hohn & R. Mackensen (Eds.), Determinants of fertility trends: Theories re-examined, Ordina Editions (pp. 169–188). Belgium: Liege.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camstra, R. (1996). Commuting and gender in a lifestyle perspective. Urban Studies, 33(2), 283–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coale, A. J., & Watkins, S. C. (1986). The decline of fertility in Europe. In The revised proceedings of a conference on the Princeton European Fertility Project. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • Coles, M. G., & Petrongolo, B. (2008). A test between stock-flow matching and the random matching function approach. International Economic Review, 49(4), 1113–1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coles, M. G., & Smith, E. (1998). Marketplaces and matching. International Economic Review, 39(1), 239–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cong, R. (2001) Stata7: Marginal effects by example. http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/statistics/mfx-after-ologit/.

  • Daly, M. (2000). A fine balance: Women’s labour market participation in international comparison. In F. W. Scharpf, & V. A. Schmidt (Eds.), Welfare and work in the open economy, Vol. II: Diverse responses to common challenges, (pp. 467–511). Oxford: University Press.

  • de Castro, M. C. (2007). Spatial demography: An opportunity to improve policy making at diverse decision levels. Population Resource Policy Review, 26, 477–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, P. A. (1981). Mobility costs, frictional unemployment, and efficiency. Journal of Political Economy, 89, 798–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Seidlitz, L., & Diener, M. (1993). The relationship between income and subjective well-being: Relative or absolute? Social Indicators Research, XXVIII, 195–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duvander, A.-Z. (2008). Family policy in Sweden: An overview. Social Insurance Report 2008: 15. Stockholm: Swedish Social Insurance Agency.

  • Duvander, A.-Z., & Andersson, G. (2006). Gender equality and fertility in Sweden. Marriage and Family Review, 39(1–2), 121–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duvander, A.-Z., Lappegård, T., & Andersson, G. (2010). Family policy and fertility: Fathers’ and mothers’ use of parental leave and continued childbearing in Norway and Sweden. Journal of European Social Policy, 20(1), 45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. Nations and Households in Economic Growth, 89, 89–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edlund, L. (2005). Sex and the city. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 107(1), 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eliasson, K., Westerlund, O., & Åström, J. (2007). Flyttning och Pendling i Sverige. Stockholm: Fritzes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, R. (1979). Theories of fertility decline: A reappraisal. Social Forces, 58(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, M., & Strandell, G. (2006). Stochastic population projections for Sweden. Projections for Sweden to 2030. Research and development—Methodology reports from statistics Sweden (vol. 2).

  • Heckman, J. J., & Walker, J. R. (1990). The relationship between wages and income and the timing and spacing of births: Evidence from Swedish longitudinal data. Econometrica, 58(6), 1411–1441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoem, B. (2000). Entry into motherhood in Sweden: The influence of economic factors on the rise and fall in fertility: 1986–1997. Demographic Research, 2(4), 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoem, J. M. (2005). Why does Sweden have such high fertility? MPIDR Working Paper WP 2005-009.

  • Keim, S., Klärner, A., & Bernardi, L. (2009). Qualifying social influence on fertility intentions composition, structure and meaning of fertility-relevant social networks in Western Germany. Current Sociology, 57(6), 888–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotyrlo, E. (2013). Stationarity conditions for the spatial first-order and serial second-order model. Letters of Spatial and Resource Sciences, 6(1), 19–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotyrlo, E. (2015). Childbearing and labour market: Time and space dynamics. In N. Hoque (Ed.), The emerging techniques in applied demography series (Vol. 4, pp. 169–188). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longitudinell Integrationsdatabas för Sjukförsäkrings-och Arbetsmarknads-studier (LISA). (1990–2006). SCB 2008:2.

  • Luttmer, E. F. P. (2005). Neighbors as negatives: Relative earnings and well-being. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(3), 963–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNicoll, G. (1980). Institutional determinants of fertility change. Population and Development Review, 6(3), 441–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, M. R., & Casterline, J. B. (1996). Social influence, social learning, and new models of fertility. In J. Casterline, R. Lee, & K. Foote (Eds.), Fertility in the United States: New patterns, new theories, (Suppl. 22, pp. 87–99).  JSTOR.

  • Mortensen, D. T. (1980). The matching process and a non-cooperative game. In J. J. McCall (Ed.), The economics of information and uncertainty. Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013). OECD guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264191655-en.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pissarides, C. A. (1979). Job matchings with state employment agencies and random search. The Economic Journal, 89(356), 818–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindfuss, R. R., & Bumpas, L. L. (1976). How old is too old? Age and the sociology of fertility. Family Planning Perspectives, 8(5), 226–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rønsen, M. (2004). Fertility and public policies—Evidence from Norway and Finland. Demographic Research, 10, 143–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santow, G., & Bracher, M. (2001). Deferment of the first birth and fluctuating fertility in Sweden. European Journal of Population, 17, 343–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Sweden. (2015). Marriage now more common in Sweden. Unit for Population Statistics. 9/15/2015 8 N2015:146. http://www.scb.se/en_/Finding-statistics/Articles/Marriage-now-more-common-in-Sweden/.

  • Stier, H., Lewin-Epstein, N., & Braun, M. (2001). Welfare regimes, family-supportive policies and women’s employment along the life-course. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1731–1760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sööt, S., Berman, J. G., & DiJohn, J. (2006). Emerging commuting trends: Evidence from the Chicago area. Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, 45(3), 109–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Ommeren, J., Rietveld, P., & Nijkamp, P. (2000). Job mobility, residential mobility and commuting: A theoretical analysis using search theory. The Annals of Regional Science, 34, 213–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldorf, B., & Franklin, R. (2002). Spatial dimension of the Easterlin hypothesis: Fertility variations in Italy. Journal of Regional Science, 42(3), 549–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winfield, F. E. (1985). Commuter marriage: Living together, apart (p. 186). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

My sincere gratitude to two anonymous referees for their valuable comments, which helped me to improve the paper. I would like to thank Prof. Olle Westerlund and Gunnar Malmberg, as well as the staff of Demographic Data Base at Umeå University, for their assistance in providing the data used in this paper. I thank my supervisor, Prof. Magnus Wikström, my co-supervisor Niklas Hanes, Prof. Thomas Aronsson and Gauthier Lanot for the discussion of the earlier draft of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, Umeå School of Business and Economics, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden

    Elena Kotyrlo

  2. Department of Applied Economics, National Research University Higher School of Economics, 28 Shabolovka Ulitsa, Building 2, Moscow, Russia, 119049

    Elena Kotyrlo

Authors
  1. Elena Kotyrlo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena Kotyrlo.

Appendix: List of municipalities’ names considered in the sample

Appendix: List of municipalities’ names considered in the sample

Älvkarleby, Aneby, Åtvidaberg, Botkyrka, Boxholm, Danderyd, Ekerö, Eksjö, Enköping, Eskilstuna, Finspång, Flen, Gislaved, Gnosjö, Habo, Håbo, Haninge, Huddinge, Järfälla, Jönköping, Katrineholm, Kinda, Lidingö, Linköping, Mjölby, Motala, Mullsjö, Nacka, Nässjö, Norrköping, Norrtälje, Nyköping, Nynäshamn, Ödeshög, Östhammar, Oxelösund, Sävsjö, Sigtuna, Söderköping, Södertälje, Sollentuna, Solna, Stockholm, Strängnäs, Sundbyberg, Täby, Tierp, Tranås, Tyresö, Upplands Väsby, Upplands-Bro, Uppsala, Vadstena, Vaggeryd, Valdemarsvik, Vallentuna, Värmdö, Värnamo, Vaxholm, Vetlanda, Vingåker, Ydre (Tables 8, 9).

Table 8 List of variables
Full size table
Table 9 Estimates of the bivariate probability model (first-birth event at time t: 1—Yes, 0—No; and commuting decision at time t − 1: 1—Yes, 0—No)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kotyrlo, E. Fertility and commuting: evidence based on first-birth rates of young working women. J Pop Research 34, 135–163 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12546-016-9180-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12546-016-9180-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation