Advertisement

Declining fertility and policy intervention in Europe: Some lessons for Australia?

  • Graeme HugoEmail author
Article

Abstract

The contemporary fertility situation in Europe is outlined with emphasis on trends in the late 1990s. It is shown that while most European countries have lower fertility levels than Australia there is wide variation between countries with respect to both their levels of fertility and their rate of fertility decline. While almost all countries are experiencing fertility decline the rate of decline is higher and the fertility is lower in countries where the male-breadwinner model is strongest. Attempts to influence fertility in European nations are discussed, particularly those involving the introduction of family-friendly policies. It is clear that despite popular beliefs to the contrary, societies where male-breadwinner models influence policy most are those with lowest fertility. The lesson for Australia is that family-friendly policies not only are desirable from the perspective of moving toward gender equality but are likely to stabilize or perhaps even marginally increase fertility.

Keywords

Total Fertility Rate Fertility Decline Fertility Level Gender Equity Family Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Various issues.Births Australia. Catalogue No. 3301.0. Canberra.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 1998.Australian Social Trends. Catalogue No. 4102.0. Canberra.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 2000.Australian Demographic Statistics September Quarter. Catalogue No. 3101.0. Canberra.Google Scholar
  4. Betts, K. 1984. Population policy in Australia. In R. Birrell, D. Hill and J. Nevill (eds),Population and Perish? The Stresses of Population Growth in Australia. Sydney: Fontana.Google Scholar
  5. Bongaarts, J. 1999. Fertility decline in the developed world: where will it end?AEA Papers and Proceedings 89(2):256–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borrie, WD. 1944. The social basis of a population policy.Australian Quarterly 16(4):50–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bovagnet, F. 1999. First results of the demographic data collection for 1998 in Europe.Statistics in Focus Theme 3–12/1999. Luxembourg: Eurostat.Google Scholar
  8. David, H.P. 1982. Eastern Europe: pronatalist policies and private behaviour.Population Bulletin 36(6):1–49.Google Scholar
  9. Economist, The. 2000. Europe’s immigrants: a continent on the move. 6 May:25–26, 31.Google Scholar
  10. Frejka, T. 1980. Fertility trends and policies: Czechoslovakia in the 1970s.Population and Development Review 6(1):65–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heeren, H.J. 1982. Pronatalist population policies in some Western European countries.Population Research and Policy Review 1: 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoem, J.M. 1990. Social policy and recent fertility change in Sweden.Population and Development Review 16(4):735–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoem, B. and J.M. Hoem. 1996. Sweden’s family policies and roller-coaster fertility.Journal of Population Problems 52(3–4):1–22.Google Scholar
  14. Kent, M.M. 1999. Shrinking societies favor procreation.Population Today 27(12):4–5.Google Scholar
  15. Lindahl, K. 1997. The growth of women’s empowerment in Sweden, experiences, actors and arenas. Paper presented at International Union for the Scientific Study of Population Conference, Female Empowerment and Demographic Processes: Moving Beyond Cairo, Lund, 21–24 April.Google Scholar
  16. McDonald, P. 2000a. The ‘toolbox’ of public policies to impact on fertility — a global view. Paper presented at Annual Seminar 2000 of the European Observatory on Family Matters, Low Fertility, Families and Public Policies, Seville, 15–16 September.Google Scholar
  17. McDonald, P. 2000b. Gender equity, social institutions and the future of fertility.Journal of Population Research 17(1):1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McDonald, P. and R. Kippen. 2000. Population futures for Australia: the policy alternatives.Research Paper No. 5. Canberra: Department of the Parliamentary Library.Google Scholar
  19. Mcintosh, A. 1998. European population policy in the twentieth century: is it relevant for Australia?People and Place 6(3):1–15.Google Scholar
  20. Monnier, A. 1999. The demographic situation of Europe and the developed countries overseas: an annual report.Population: An English Selection 2: 221–248.Google Scholar
  21. Myrdal, A. 1941.Nation and Family. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  22. Olah, L. 1998. Do public policies influence fertility? Evidence from Sweden and Hungary from a gender perspective.Stockholm Research Reports in Demography No. 130. Stockholm: Demography Unit, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  23. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1998.SOPEMI Trends in International Migration. Paris.Google Scholar
  24. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1999.Trends in International Migration: Continuous Reporting System on Migration, Annual Report, 1999 Edition. Paris.Google Scholar
  25. Population Reference Bureau (PRB).Population Today, various issues.Google Scholar
  26. Rindfuss, R.R., K. Benjamin and S.P. Morgan. 2000. The changing institutional context of low fertility. Paper presented at the 2000 Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Los Angeles, 23–25 March.Google Scholar
  27. Saw Swee-Hock. 1990.Changes in the Fertility Policy of Singapore. Institute of Policy Studies, Occasional Paper No. 2. Singapore: Times Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Stephen, E.H. and C.C. Sawyer. 2000. Fertility trends in Eastern Europe and implications for infertility. Paper prepared for presentation at the 2000 Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Los Angeles, 23–25 March.Google Scholar
  29. Tarmann, A. 2000. The flap over replacement migration.Population Today 28(4):1–2.Google Scholar
  30. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 1998.National Population Policies. New York.Google Scholar
  31. United Nations. 1999.Population in Europe and North America on the Eve of the Millennium: Dynamics and Policy Responses. New York.Google Scholar
  32. United Nations Population Division. 2000. Below replacement fertility.Population Bulletin of the United Nations Special Issue 40/41. New York.Google Scholar
  33. Van de Kaa, D.J. 1997. Options and sequences: Europe’s demographic patterns.Journal of the Australian Population Association 14(1):1–30.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geographical and Environmental StudiesUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations