Resumen
Existen tres modelos para el análisis comparativo del comportamiento en 10 que se refiere a la fecundidad. Primero, el modelo de Davis y Blake enfoca los mecanismos institucionales en la sociedad y las “variables intermedias” que vinculan dichos mecanismos con la fecundidad. Segundo, Hill, Stycos, y Back utilizan la familia nuclear como la asociación de planeamiento y de toma de decisiones, para desarrollar el marco de referencia de interacción en el estudio del planeamiento familiar en Puerto Rico. Y, tercero, Freedman propone un modelo “normativo” empleando elementos de ambos modelos institucional e interaccional.
En el análisis comparativo de la fecundidad, la elección entre los modelos institucional, interaccional, y normativo, debe tomar en cuenta una apreciación de los méritos y posibles limitaciones de cada uno. Este trabajo constituye un inicio del enjuiciamiento crítico de los modelos existentes.
Mediante una apreciación del enfoque seguido en el modelo institucional de Davis y Blake, este trabajo suqiere, que las formas en que pueden iniciarse o acelerarse los cambios en la fecundidad, radican en otras áreas que no son el cambio institucional por sí mismo, y que las variables demográficas, tecnológicas, institucionales y de información, son las que tienen una importancia básica en la sociología comparativa de la fecundidad.
Summary
There are three models for the comparative analysis of fertility behavior. First, the Davis and Blake model focuses upon institutional mechanisms in society and the “intermediate variables” that link these mechanisms to fertility. Second, Hill, Stycos, and Back use the nuclear family as a planning and decision-making association to develop the interactional frame of reference in studying family planning in Puerto Rico. And, third, Freedman proposes a “normative” model using elements from both institutional and interactional models.
In the comparative analysis of fertility, the choice among the institutional, interactional, and normative models must involve an assessment of the merits and possible limitations of each. This paper is a start in the critical assessment of the existing models.
Through an appraisal of the approach taken in the Davis and Blake Institional model, this paper suggests that ways in which fertility change may be initiated or quickened lie in areas other than institutional change as such, and that it is the demographic, technological, institutional, and information variables that are of substantive consequence in the comparative sociology of fertility.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
R. von Ungern-Sternberg,The Causes of the Decline in Birthrate within the European Sphere of Civilization (Eugenics Research Association. Monograph Series No. IV), 193. See United Nations,The Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends (United Nations, 1953), p, 77.
Rudolf Heberle, “Social Factors in Birth Control,”American Sociological Review, VI, 6 (December, 1941), 794–805.
P. K. Chang et al., “A Socialist Theory of Population and China's Population Problem,”Economic Research (in Chinese), IV (August, 1957), 36–63, as translated in H. Y. Tien, “Birth Control in Mainland China: Ideology and Politics,”Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, XLI, 3 (July, 1963), 287–88, (italics added).
Kingsley Davis and Judith Blake, “Social Structure and Fertility: An Analytic Framework,”Economic Development and Cultural Change, IV (April, 1956), 211–35.
Ronald Freedman, “The Sociology of Human Fertility: A Trend Report and Bibliography,”Current Sociology, X/XI, 2 (1961–62), 1–121. Reuben Hill, J. Mayone Stycos, and Kurt W. Back,The Family and Population Control: A Puerto Rican Experiment in Social Change (Chapel Hill, N.C., University of North Carolina Press, 1959).
Davisand Blake,op. cit., 213.
Ibid.Davisand Blake,op. cit., 211.
Melford E. Spiro, “Is the Family Universal?”American Anthropologist, LVI, (October, 1954), 839–46. (Norman W. Bell and Ezra F. Vogel [eds.],An Introduction to the Family [The Free Press: 1960], pp, 72–75),
Kingsley Davis, “The Sociology of Demographic Behavior,” in Robert Merton, Leonard Broom, and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr. (eds.),Sociology Today (New York: Basic Books, 1959), pp. 309–33, and his theory of the multiphasic response, “The Theory of Change and Response in Modern Demographic History,”Population Index, XXIX, 4 (October, 1963), 345–66; and Judith Blake, “Demographic Science and the Redirection of Population Policy,” in Mindel C. Shep and Jeane Clare Ridley (eds.),Public Health and Population Change (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1965), pp. 41–59.
William J. Goode (ed.),Readings on the Family and Society (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1964), pp. 90–95. It has also been selected for inclusion in Charles B. Nam (ed.),Population and Society (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1968), pp. 196–215.
Davis and Blake,op. cit., 211.
Ibid.Davis and Blake,op. cit., p. 214.
Davis and Blake,op. cit., 214.
Freedman,op. cit., 54.
J. Hajnal, “European Marriage Patterns in Perspective,” in D. V. Glass and D. E. C. Eversley (eds.),Population in History (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1965), pp. 101–43.
Davis and Blake,op. cit., 214.
Freedman,op. cit., 39.
Kingsley David, “The Sociology of Demographic Behavior,”op. cit.in
Ronald Freedman, “Norms for Family Size in Underdeveloped Areas,”Proceedings of the Royal Society, B, 159 (1963), 225–26
Ansley J. Coale, “Factors Associated with the Development of Low Fertility: An Historical Summary” (Paper contributed for the 1965 World Population Conference, United Nations, WPC/WP/194 [September, 1965], p.6.
Freedman,The Sociology of Human Fertility, p, 41.
Ibid. Freedman,The Sociology of Human Fertility, p, 41.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tien, H.Y. The intermediate variables, social structure, and fertility change: A critique. Demography 5, 138–157 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03208568
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03208568