How are Time-Dependent Childbearing Intentions Realized? Realization, Postponement, Abandonment, Bringing Forward

Les intentions de fécondité sont-elles réalisées dans le délai prévu ? Réalisation, report, abandon, avancement
  • Zsolt SpéderEmail author
  • Balázs Kapitány


Our study aims to identify factors that facilitate or inhibit the realization of fertility intentions. The analysis uses data collected in the first two waves of a Hungarian longitudinal survey. Fertility intentions recorded at the first wave pertain to the subsequent 3-year period, just similar to the behavior variable measuring the realization of intentions, i.e., a birth within the 3-year period in question. For this analysis, we used the respondents’ demographic, socio-structural, and orientational traits recorded at the first interview. Our findings show that age, parity, and partnership play a determining role in the realization of fertility intentions, but employment status, religious affiliation, and overall life satisfaction all exhibit significant effects. A marked gender difference was detected not only with regard to employment status but in the area of values and orientations as well.


Fertility intentions Fertility behavior Fertility dynamics Postponement Panel survey Generation and gender survey Hungary 


L’objectif de notre étude est d’identifier les facteurs qui facilitent ou inhibent la réalisation des intentions de fécondité. L’analyse s’appuie sur les deux premières vagues d’une enquête longitudinale menée en Hongrie. Les intentions de fécondité recueillies dans le cadre de la première vague concernent la période des trois années à venir, de la même façon que la variable de comportement mesurant la réalisation des intentions, à savoir, une naissance survenue au cours de cette même période. Les caractéristiques démographiques et socio-structurelles, de même que certaines dispositions personnelles recueillies lors du premier entretien ont été utilisées dans l’analyse. Nos résultats indiquent qu’à la fois l’âge, la parité, et la situation de couple jouent un rôle capital dans la réalisation des intentions et aussi que la situation d’emploi, l’appartenance religieuse et le niveau de satisfaction par rapport à la vie exercent une influence significative. Une différence prononcée entre hommes et femmes est mise en évidence en matière de situation d’emploi et également dans le domaine des valeurs et des dispositions personnelles.


Intentions de fécondité Comportement procréatif Dynamique de fécondité Report Enquête par panel Enquête Générations et Genre Hongrie 



This research was carried out as part of the project, “Fertility intentions and outcomes: The role of policies to close the gap,” supported by EU DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (Contract Number: VS/2006/0685). The research was also supported by the grant under Hungarian Scientific Research Fund No. 49066. Many special thanks are also due to FERTINT participants, and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.


  1. Adsera, A. (2005). Where are the babies? Labor market conditions and fertility in Europe. IZA discussion papers, no. 1585 (40 pp).Google Scholar
  2. Adsera, A. (2006). Marital fertility and religion in Spain, 1985 and 1999. Population Studies, 60(2), 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality and behavior. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Andorka, R. (1971). La prévention des naissances en Hongrie dans la région „Ormansag” depuis la fin du XVIIIe siècle Population (French Edition), 26e Année, No. 1 (Jan–Feb), pp. 63–78.Google Scholar
  5. Barber, J. S. (2001). Ideational influences on the transition to parenthood: Attitudes toward childbearing and competing alternatives. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(2), 101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berrington, A. (2004). Perpetual postponers? Women’s, men’s and couple’s fertility intentions and subsequent fertility behaviour. Population Trends, 117, 9–19.Google Scholar
  7. Bhaumik, S. K., & Nugent, J. B. (2002). Does economic uncertainty have an impact on decisions to bear children? Evidence from eastern Germany (July 2002). William Davidson Institute working paper no. 491. or doi: 10.2139/ssrn.323592.
  8. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness, and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Easterlin, E. A. (1987). Birth and fortune. The impact of numbers on personal welfare (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Eckhard, J., & Klein, T. (2006). Männer, Kinderwunsch und generatives Verhalten: Eine Auswertung des Familiensurvey zu Geschlechterunterschieden in der Motivation zur Elternschaft. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2003). Global judgements of subjective well-being: Situational variability and long-term stability. Social Indicator Research, 65, 245–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ermish, J. F. (2002). Economic models of women’s employment and fertility. In J. J. Siegers, J. de Jong-Gierveld, & E. van Imhoff (Eds.), Female labour market behaviour and fertility. A rational choice approach (pp. 179–190). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Goldstein, J., Lutz, W., & Testa, M. R. (2003). The emergence of sub-replacement family size ideals in Europe. Population Research and Policy Review, 22, 479–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heaton, T. B., Jacobson, C. K., & Holland, K. (1999). Persistence and change in decisions to remain childless. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(2), 531–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heuveline, P., & Timberlake, J. M. (2004). The role of cohabitation in family formation: The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1214–1230.Google Scholar
  16. Hobcraft, J., & Kiernan, K. (1995). Becoming a parent in Europe. In EAPS-IUSSP: Evolution or revolution in European population (pp. 27–64).Google Scholar
  17. Hoem, B., & Hoem, J. M. (1989). The impact of women’s employment on second and third births in modern Sweden. Population Studies, 43(1), 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kamarás, F., & Szukics Serfőző, K. (2003). Ten years after the wedding: A longitudinal survey of marriages contracted in 1990 and 1991 (p. 84). Budapest: Central Statistical Office.Google Scholar
  19. Spéder, Zs., & Kapitány, B. (2007). Gyermekek: vágyak és tények. [Children: desires and facts] (209 pp). KSH-NKI Műhelytanulmányok No. 6.Google Scholar
  20. Kreyenfeld, M. (2001). Employment and fertility—East Germany in the 1990s (259 pp) PhD Dissertation, MPDIR: Rostock.Google Scholar
  21. Kreyenfeld, M. (2005). Economic uncertainty and fertility postponement evidence from German panel data. MPIDR working paper, 2005/034.Google Scholar
  22. Lehrer, L. (2004). Religion as a determinant of economic and demographic behavior in the United States. Population and Development Review, 30(4), 707–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lesthaeghe, R. (1995). The second demographic transition—An interpretation. In K. O. Mason & A.-M. Jensen (Eds.), Gender and family. Change in industrialised countries (pp. 17–62). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  24. Liefbroer, A. C. (2005). The impact of perceived costs and rewards of childbearing on entry into parenthood: Evidence from a panel study. European Journal of Population, 21, 367–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liefbroer, A. C. (2008). Changes in family size intentions across young adulthood: A life-course perspective. European Journal of Population (open access: doi: 10.1007/s10680-008-9173-7).
  26. McQuillan, K. (2004). When does religion influence fertility? Population and Development Review, 30, 25–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Monier, A. (1989). Fertility intentions and actual behavior. A longitudinal study: 1974, 1976, 1979. Population: An English Selection, 44(1), 237–259.Google Scholar
  28. Moors, G. (2002). Reciprocal relations between gender role values and family formations. In R. Lestaheghe (Ed.), Meaning and choice: Value orientations and life course decisions (pp. 217–250). Den Haag/Brussel: NIDI/CBGS (NIDI CBGS publ., 37).Google Scholar
  29. Müller, R. (2000). Single, nicht-eheliche Lebensgemeinschaft oder Ehe? In W. R. Heinz (Hrsg.), Übergänge. Individualisierung, Flexibilisierung und Institutionalisierung des Lebensverlaufs (pp. 188–204). Weinheim: Juventa Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. Myers, S. (1997). Marital uncertainty and childbearing. Social Forces, 75, 1271–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mynarska, M. A. (2007). Fertility postponement and age norms in Poland: Is there a deadline for parenthood? MPIDR working paper (36 pp). WP-2007-029.Google Scholar
  32. Perelli-Harris, B. (2006). The influence of informal work and subjective well-being on childbearing in Post-Soviet Russia. Population and Development Review, 32(4), 729–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Philipov, D., & Berghammer, C. (2007). Religion and fertility ideals, intentions and behaviour: A comparative study of European countries. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 27, 1–305.Google Scholar
  34. Philipov, D., Spéder, Zs., & Billari, F. C. (2006). Soon, later or ever: The impact of anomie and social capital on fertility intentions in Bulgaria (2002) and Hungary (2001). Population Studies, 60(3), 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Philipov, D., & Testa, M. R. (2007). Why fertility timing intentions remain unrealised? The role of competing intentions. Unpublished manuscript, prepared within the project ‘Fertility Intentions and Outcomes: The Role of Policies to Close the Gap’, funded by the European Commission, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (contract no. VS/2006/0685).Google Scholar
  36. Quesnel-Vallée, A., & Morgan, S. P. (2003). Missing the target? Correspondence of fertility intentions and behavior in the US. Population Research and Policy Review, 22(5–6), 497–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rindfuss, R. R., Morgan, S. P., & Swicegood, G. (1988). First births in America: Changes in the timing of parenthood. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  38. Schoen, R., Astone, N. M., Kim, Y. J., Nathanson, C. A., & Fields, J. M. (1999). Do fertility intentions affect fertility behavior? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(3), 790–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Settersten, R. A., & Hagestad, G. O. (1996). What’s the latest? Cultural age deadlines for educational and work transition. The Gerontologist, 36(5), 602–613.Google Scholar
  40. Sobotka, T. (2008). Overview chapter 6: The diverse faces of the second demographic transition in Europe. Demographic Research, 19, 171–224.Google Scholar
  41. Spéder, Zs. (2006). Childbearing behavior in the New EU member states: Basic trends and selected attitudes. In W. Lutz, R. Richer, & C. Wilson (Eds.), The new generations of Europeans. Demography and families in the enlarged European Union (pp. 59–82). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  42. Spéder, Zs. (2001). Turning points of the life-course. Concept and design of the Hungarian social and demographic panel survey. Demográfia, XLIV(2–3), 305–320 (In Hungarian).
  43. Spéder, Zs., & Kamarás, F. (2008). Hungary: Secular fertility decline with distinct period fluctuations. Demographic Research, 19, 599–664.Google Scholar
  44. Tárkányi, Á. (2006). A gyerekszám és a vallásosság kapcsolata [The relation of fertility and religiosity]. Demográfia, 49(1), 68–84.Google Scholar
  45. Thomson, E. (1997). Couple childbearing desires, intentions, and births. Demography, 34, 343–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tomka, M., & Zulehner, P. M. (1999). Religion in den Reformländern Ost(Mittel)Europas. Schwabenverlag: Ostfildern.Google Scholar
  47. Tomka, M., & Zulehner, P. M. (2000). Religion im gesellschaftlichen Kontext Ost(Mittel)Europas. Schwabenverlag: Ostfildern.Google Scholar
  48. Toulemon, L., & Testa, M. R. (2005). Fertility intentions and actual fertility: A complex relationship. Population & Societies, 415, 4.Google Scholar
  49. Vikat, A., Spéder, Zs., Beets, G., Billari, F. C., Bühler, C, Désesquelles, A., Fokkema, T., Hoem, J. M., MacDonald, A., Neyer, G., Pailhé, A. Pinnelli, A., & Solaz, A. (2007). Generations and gender survey (GGS): Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course. Demographic Research, 17, 389–440. Scholar
  50. Waite, L. J., & Galagher, M. (2000). Case for marriage. Why married people are happier, healthier, and better off financially. New York: Broadway Books.Google Scholar
  51. Westoff, Ch., & Ryder, N. (1977). The predictive validity of reproductive intentions. Demography, 4, 431–453.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Demographic Research Institute BudapestBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations