Skip to main content

Gender equity, social institutions and the future of fertility

Abstract

Sustained very low levels of fertility in advanced countries can be explained by incoherence between the levels of gender equity applying in different social institutions. In countries with very low levels of fertility, high levels of gender equity are postulated in institutions that deal with people as individuals, while low levels of gender equity apply in institutions that deal with people as members of families.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Abbasi-Shavazi, Mohammad Jalal and Peter McDonald. 1996. Immigrant fertility levels and patterns in Australia, 1977–1991: an own-children approach to the 1991 Census. Paper presented to the Eighth Biennial Conference of the Australian Population Association, Adelaide, 3–6 December.

  2. Bowlby, John. 1953.Child Care and the Growth of Love. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chesnais, Jean-Claude. 1996. Fertility, family and social policy in contemporary Western Europe.Population and Development Review 22(4):729–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ehrenreich, Barbara. 1983.The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment. Garden City NY: Anchor Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 1996. Welfare states without work: the impasse of labour shedding and familialism in Continental European social policy. Pp.66–87 in G. Esping-Andersen (ed.),Welfare States in Transition: National Adaptations in Global Economies. London: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Evans, M.D.R. and Karen Oppenheim Mason. 1996. Currents and anchors: structure and change in Australian gender role attitudes, 1984–1989. Pp.275–302 in J.N. Baron, D.B. Grusky and DJ. Treiman (eds),Social Differentiation and Social Inequality: Essays in Honour of John Pock. Oxford: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Folbre, Nancy. 1994.Who Pays for the Kids: Gender and the Structures of Constraint. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Eraser, Nancy. 1994. After the family wage: gender equity and the welfare state.Political Theory 22: 591–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Giddens, Anthony. 1992.The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gilding, M. 1997.Australian Families: A Comparative Perspective. Melbourne: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Giorgi, Piero. 1993. Una rilettura della fecondita del momento per ordine di nascita in Italia nel periodo 1950–1990 considerando la struttura per parka.Genus 49(3–4):177–204.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gray, E. 2000 ‘Labour force status and workplace provisions: examining the relationship between work and parental involvement in couple families. Paper presented to the 2000 Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Los Angeles, 23–25 March.

  13. Glezer, Helen. 1982. Changes in marriage and sex role attitudes among young married women: 1971–82. InProceedings of the Australian Family Research Conference, Vol. 1. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Greenhalgh, Susan. 1995. Anthropology theorizes reproduction: integrating practice, political economic, and feminist perspectives. In S. Greenhalgh (ed.),Situating Fertility: Anthropology and Demographic Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Gustavsson, S. and F. Stafford. 1994. Three regimes of childcare: the United States, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Pp.333–362 in R. Blank (ed.),Social Protection versus Economic Flexibility. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hobcraft, John. 1996. Fertility in England and Wales: a fifty year perspective.Population Studies 50(3):485–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hobcraft, John and Kathleen Kiernan. 1995. Becoming a parent in Europe. Discussion Paper WSP/116, Welfare State Programme. London: The Toyota Centre, London School of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hoem, B. 1995. The way to the gender segregated Swedish labour market In K.O. Mason and A.-M. Jensen (eds),Gender and Family Change in Industrialized Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jones, Gavin W. 1995. The demise of universal marriage in East and South-East Asia. Paper presented to The Continuing Demographic Transition: The John C. Caldwell Seminar, The Australian National University, 14–17 August.

  20. Khoo, Siew-Ean and Jing Shu. 1996.Immigrant Family Formation Patterns in Australia. Canberra: Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lesthaeghe, Ron and Dominique Meekers. 1986. Value changes and the dimensions of familism in the European Community.European Journal of Population 2:225–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lesthaeghe, R. and J. Surkyn. 1988. Cultural dynamics and economic theories of change.Population and Development Review 14(1):1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. McDonald, Peter (ed.). 1986.Settling Up: Property and Income Distribution on Divorce in Australia. Sydney: Prentice-Hall of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  24. McDonald, Peter. 1991. Migrant family structure. In K. Funder (ed.),Images of Australian Families. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

    Google Scholar 

  25. McDonald, Peter. 1994. Families in developing countries: idealised morality and theories of family change. Pp. 19–28 in L-J. Cho and M. Yada (eds),Tradition and Change in the Asian Family. Honolulu: East-West Center.

    Google Scholar 

  26. McDonald, P. 1995.Families in Australia: A Socio-demographic Perspective. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  27. McDonald, P. 1996. Young people in Australia today: a socio-demographic perspective. Pp. 1–7 in R. Thanki and C. Thomson (eds),Mortgaging Our Future? Families and Young People in Australia. SPRC Reports and Proceedings No. 129. Sydney: University of New South Wales.

    Google Scholar 

  28. McNicoll, Geoffrey. 1994. Institutional analysis of fertility. In K. Lindahl-Kiessling and H. Landberg (eds),Population, Development and the Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. McNicoll, Geoffrey. 1995. Institutional impediments to population policy in Australia. Working Papers in Demography No. 53. Canberra: The Australian National University.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Micheli, Giuseppe A. 1996. New patterns of family formation in Italy. Which tools for which interpretation.Genus 52(1–2):15–52.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Monnier, Alain and Catherine de Guibert-Lantoine. 1996. La conjoncture demographique: l’Europe et les pays developpes d’outre-mer.Population 51(4–5): 1005–1030.

    Google Scholar 

  32. National Commission of Audit. 1996.Report to the Commonwealth Government, June 1996. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 1994.Employment Outlook. July 1994. Paris.

  34. Palomba, Rosella and Hein Moors. 1993. Life-styles, values, and fertility intentions in a cross-cultural perspective. Pp.27–41 inInternational Population Conference, Montreal 1993, Vol. 1. Liege: International Union for the Scientific Study of Population.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Parsons, Talcott and Robert F. Bales. 1955.The Family: Socialisation and Interaction Process. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Peron, Y, H. Desrosiers, H. Juby, E. Lapierre-Adamcyk, C. Le Bourdais, N. Marcil-Gratton and J. Mongeau. 1999.Canadian Families at the Approach of the Year 2000. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Retherford, Robert D., Naohiro Ogawa and Satomi Sakamoto. 1996. Values and fertility change in Japan.Population Studies 50(1):5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rindfuss, Ronald R, Karin L. Brewster and Andrew L. Kavee. 1996. Women, work, and children: behavioural and attitudinal change in the United States.Population and Development Review 22(3):457–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rindfuss, Ronald R, S. Phillip Morgan and Kate Offutt. 1996. Education and the changing age pattern of American fertility: 1963–1989.Demography 33(3):277–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Singh, Supriya and Jo Lindsay. 1996. Money in heterosexual relationships.Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 32(3):57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Teitelbaum, Michael S. and Jay M. Winter. 1985.The Fear of Population Decline. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Therborn, Goran. 1993. The politics of childhood: the rights of children in modern times. Pp.241–291 in EG. Castles (ed.),Families of Nations; Patterns of Public Policy in Western Democracies. Aldershot: Dartmouth.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Tsolidis, Georgina. 1995. Greek-Australian families. Pp.121–143 in R. Hartley (ed.),Families and Cultural Diversity in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  44. van de Kaa, DJ. 1996. Anchored narratives: the story and findings of half a century of research into the determinants of fertility.Population Studies 50(3):389–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Vasta, Ellie. 1995. The Italian-Australian family; transformations and continuities. Pp.144–166 in R. Hartley (ed),Families and Cultural Diversity in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Zimmermann, K. 1993. Labor responses to taxes and benefits in Germany. Pp.192–240 in A.B. Atkinson and G.V. Mogensen (eds),Welfare and Work Incentives. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter McDonald.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McDonald, P. Gender equity, social institutions and the future of fertility. Journal of Population Research 17, 1–16 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03029445

Download citation

Keywords

  • Social Institution
  • Nordic Country
  • Total Fertility Rate
  • Industrial Relation
  • Gender Equity