Advertisement

Population Research and Policy Review

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 287–304 | Cite as

The Emergence of Two Distinct Fertility Regimes in Economically Advanced Countries

  • Ronald R. Rindfuss
  • Minja Kim Choe
  • Sarah R. Brauner-OttoEmail author
Article

Abstract

Beginning in 2000, in economically advanced countries, a remarkable bifurcation in fertility levels has emerged, with one group in the moderate range of period total fertility rates, about 1.9, and the other at 1.3. The upper branch consists of countries in Northern and Western Europe, Oceania and the United States; the lower branch includes Central, Southern, and Eastern Europe, and East and Southeast Asia. A review of the major theories for low-fertility countries reveals that none of them would have predicted this specific bifurcation. We argue that those countries with fertility levels close to replacement level have institutional arrangements, and related policies, that make it easier, not easy, for women to combine the worker and mother roles. The institutional details are quite different across countries, suggesting that multiple combinations of institutional arrangements and policies can lead to the same country-level fertility outcome. Canada, the only exception to this bifurcation, illustrates the importance of the different institutional structures in Québec compared to the rest of Canada.

Keywords

Fertility Developed countries Institutions Policies 

References

  1. Ahn, N., & Mira, P. (2002). A note on the changing relationship between fertility and female employment rates in developed countries. Journal of Population Economics, 15, 667–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bachrach, C. A., & Morgan, S. P. (2013). A cognitive-social model of fertility intentions. Population and Development Review, 39(3), 459–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balbo, N., Billari, F. C., & Mills, M. (2013). Fertility in advanced societies: A review of research. European Journal of Population., 29, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaujot, R., CJ, Du, & Ravanera, Z. (2013). Family policies in québec and the rest of Canada: Implications for fertility, child-care, women’s paid work, and child development indicators. Canadian Public Policy, 39(2), 221–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, S. G. (1960). An economic analysis of fertility. In G. S. Becker (Ed.), Demographic and economic change in developed countries (pp. 209–231). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, G. S. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Billari, F. C., & Kohler, H. P. (2004). Patterns of low and lowest-low fertility in Europe. Population Studies, 58(2), 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Björklund, A. (2006). Does family policy affect fertility? Lessons from Sweden. Journal of Population Economics, 19, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blake, J. (1968). Are babies consumer durables? A critique of the economic theory of reproductive motivation. Population Studies, 22(1), 5–25.Google Scholar
  10. Bongaarts, J., & Feeney, G. (1998). On the quantum and tempo of fertility. Population and Development Review, 24(2), 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bongaarts, J., Feeney, G., & Sobotka, T. (2012). A demographic explanation for the recent rise in european fertility. Population and Development Review, 38(1), 83–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brauner-Otto, S. R., (Forthcoming). Canadian fertility 1980–2013: A story of regional variation. In R. Rindfuss & M. Choe (Eds.), Low fertility, institutions, and their policies: Variations across industrialized countries.Google Scholar
  13. Brewster, K. L., & Rindfuss, R. R. (2000). Fertility and women’s employment in industrialized nations. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 271–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brinton, M. C. (2011). Lost in transition: Youth, work and instability in postindustrial Japan. NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Buchmann, M. C., & Kriesi, I. (2011). Transition to adulthood in Europe. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 481–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiuri, M. C., & Del Boca, D. (2010). Home-leaving decisions of daughters and sons. Review of Economics of the Household, 8, 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Choe, M. K., Bumpass, L. L., Tsuya, N. O., & Rindfuss, R. R. (2014). Non-traditional family-related attitude trends in Japan: Macro and micro determinants. Population and Development Review, 40(2), 241–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coale, A. J., & Watkins, S. C. (eds.). 1986. The Decline of Fertility in Europe: The Revised Proceedings of a Conference on the Princeton European Fertility Project. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Del Boca, D. (2002). The effect of child care and part-time opportunities on participation and fertility decisions in Italy. Journal of Population Economics, 15, 549–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. DiPrete, T. A., Morgan, S. P., Engelhardt, H., & Pacalova, H. (2003). Do cross-national differences in the costs of children generate cross-national differences in fertility rates? Population Research and Policy Review, 22, 439–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Esping-Anderson, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frejka, T., & Sobotka, T. (2008). Fertility in Europe: Diverse, delayed and below replacement. Demographic Research, 19(3), 15–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gauthier, A. H. (1996). The state and the family: A comparative analysis of family policies in industrialized countries. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gauthier, A. H. (2007). The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: A review of the literature. Population Research and Policy Review, 26, 323–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goldscheider, F., Olah, L. S., & Puur, A. (2010). Reconciling studies of men’s gender attitudes and fertility. Demographic Research, 22, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goldstein, J. R., Sobotka, T., & Jasilioniene, A. (2009). The end of lowest-low fertility? Population and Development Review, 35(4), 663–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hakim, Catherine. (2003a). A new approach to explaining fertility patterns: Preference theory. Population and Development Review, 29(3), 349–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hakim, Catherine. (2003b). Models of the family in modern societies. Hants: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  29. Hakim, C. (2004). Key issues in women’s work. London: Glass House Press.Google Scholar
  30. Happel, S. K., Hill, J. K., & Low, S. A. (1984). An economic analysis of the timing of childbirth. Population Studies, 38, 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hilgeman, Christin, & Butts, Carter T. (2009). Women’s employment and fertility: A welfare regime paradox. Social Science Research, 38, 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hoem, J. M. (2008). The impact of public policies on European fertility. Demographic Research, 2008(19), 249–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson-Hanks, J. A., Bachrach, C. A., Morgan, S. P., & Kohler, H. (2011). Understanding family change and variation: Toward a theory of conjunctural action. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jones, G., & Hamid, W. (2015). Singapore’s pro-natalist policies: To what extent have they worked?. In R. R. Rindfuss & M. K. Choe (Eds.), Low and lower fertility: Variations across developed countries. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Klüsener, S., Neels, K., & Kreyenfeld, M. (2013). Family policies and the western european fertility divide: Insights from a natural experiment in Belgium. Population and Development Review, 39(4), 587–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kögel , T. (2004). Did the association between fertility and female employment within OECD countries really change its sign? Journal of Population Economics, 17, 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lefebvre, P., & Merrigan, P. (2008). Child-care policy and the labor supply of mothers with young children: A natural experiment from Canada. Journal of Labor Economics, 26(3), 519–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lefebvre, P & Merrigan, P. & Roy-Desrosiers F. (2011). Québec’s childcare Universal low fees policy 10 years after: Effects, costs and benefits. Centre Interuniversitaire sur le Risque, les Politiques Économiques et l’Emploi (CIRPÉE) Working Paper 11-01.Google Scholar
  40. Lesthaeghe, R. (1995). The second demographic transition in western countries: An interpretation. In Karen O. Mason & An-Magritt Jensen (Eds.), Gender and family change in industrialized countries (pp. 17–62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lesthaeghe, R. (2010). The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Population and Development Review, 36(2), 211–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lesthaeghe, R., & Neidert, L. (2006). The second demographic transition in the United States : Exception or textbook example? Population and Development Review, 32(4), 669–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lesthaeghe, R., & Willems, P. (1999). Is low fertility a temporary phenomenon in the European union? Population and Development Review, 25(2), 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Letablier M.-T, Luci A, Math A, Thevenon O. (2009). The Cost of Raising Children and the Effectiveness of Policies to Support Parenthood in European countries: A Literature Review, Directorate-General Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Brussels, European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  45. Matysiak, A., & Vignoli, D. (2008). Fertility and women’s employment: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Population, 24, 363–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McDonald, P. (2000). Gender equity in theories of fertility transition. Population and Development Review, 26(3), 427–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McDonald, P. (2006). Low fertility and the state: The efficacy of policy. Population and Development Review, 32(3), 485–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McDonald, P. (2008). Explanations of Low fertility in comparative perspective. In G. Jones, A. Chan, & P. Straughan (Eds.), Ultra-low fertility in east Asia: trends, causes and policy issues (pp. 23–39). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. McDonald, P. (2015). The evolution of population and family policy in Australia. In Ronald R. Rindfuss & Minja Kim Choe (Eds.), Low and lower fertility: Variations across developed countries. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Mills, M. C. (2015). The Dutch fertility paradox: How the Netherlands has managed to sustain near-replacement fertility. In R. R. Rindfuss & M. K. Choe (Eds.), Low and lower fertility: Variations across developed countries. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Mills, M., Rindfuss, R. R., McDonald, P., & Te Velde, E. (2011). Why people postpone parenthood: Reasons and social policy incentives. Human Reproduction Update, 17(6), 848–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Myrskyla, M., Goldstein, J. R., & Cheng, H. Y. A. (2013). New cohort fertility forecasts for the developed world: rises, falls, and reversals. Population and Development Review, 39(1), 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. National Statistics Republic of China (Taiwan). (2015). http://eng.stat.gov.tw/public/data/dgbas03/bs2/yearbook_eng/y014.pdf. Accessed 12 March 2015.
  54. Neyer, G., & Andersson, G. (2008). Consequences of family policies on childbearing behavior: Effects or artifacts? Population and Development Review, 34, 699–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Prince-Cooke, L., & Baxter, J. (2010). “Families” in international context: comparing institutional effects across western societies. Journal of Marriage and the Family., 72, 516–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pritchett, L., & Viarengo, M. (2013). Why demographic suicide? The puzzles of European fertility. Population and Development Review, 38(s1), 55–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2013.00551.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rindfuss, R. R., & Brauner-Otto, S. (2008). Institutions and the transition to adulthood: Implications for fertility tempo in low-fertility settings. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 2008, 57–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rindfuss, R. R., Guzzo, K. B., & Philip Morgan, S. (2003). The changing institutional context of low fertility. Population Research and Policy Review, 22, 411–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rindfuss, RR., David, G., Philip, M. S., & Øystein, Kravdal. (2010). Child-care availability and fertility: Norway. Population and Development Review, 36(4), 725–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rovny, A. E. (2011). Welfare state policy determinants of fertility level: A comparative analysis. Journal of European Social Policy, 21(4), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ryder, N. B. (1980). Components of temporal variations in American fertility. In R. W. Hirorns (Ed.), Demographic patterns in developed societies (pp. 15–54). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  62. Stalker, G., & Michael, O. (2013). Québec, daycare, and the Household strategies of couples with young children. Canadian Public Policy, 392, 241–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Statistics Canada. Canadian Vital Statistics, Births Database, 1980 to 2011, Survey 3231 and Demography Division, demographic estimates.Google Scholar
  64. Surkyn, J., & Lesthaeghe, R. (2004). Value orientations and the second demographic transition (SDT) in Northern, western and southern Europe: An update. Demographic Research Special Collection, 3, 45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Thevenon, O. (2011). Family policies in OECD countries: A comparative analysis. Population and Development Review, 37(1), 57–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Toulemon, Laurent. (2011). Should governments in Europe be more aggressive in pushing for gender equality to raise fertility? The first ‘Yes’. Demographic Research, 24, 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Trovato, Frank. (2010). Fertility in Alberta in a context of rapid economic growth, 1997–2007. Canadian Studies in Population, 35(3–4), 497–524.Google Scholar
  69. Tsuya, N. O., Bumpass, L. L., Choe, M. K., & Rindfuss, R. R. (2012). Employment and household tasks of Japanese couples, 1994–2009. Demographic Research, 27, 705–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. van de Kaa, Dirk J. (1987). Europe’s second demographic transition. Population Bulleton, 42(1), 1–57.Google Scholar
  71. van de Kaa, Dirk J. (2001). Postmodern fertility preferences: From changing value orientation to new behavior. Population and Development Review, 27(Supplement), 290–331.Google Scholar
  72. Willis, R. J. (1973). A new approach to the economic theory of fertility behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 81(2), 14–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Statistics Canada, CANSIM, table o51-0001.Google Scholar
  74. World Bank. (2015). http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN. Accessed 21 March 2015.
  75. Ziefle, A., & Gangl, M. (2014). Do women respond to changes in family policy? A quasi-experimental study of the duration of mothers’ employment interruptions in Germany. European Sociological Review, 30(5), 562–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Carolina Population CenterUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.East-West CenterHonoluluUSA
  3. 3.Department of SociologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations