Skip to main content

“Backslanted X” fertility dynamics and macroeconomics

Abstract

A large number of pairs of countries exhibit a dynamic pattern in which: (1) Fertility in both countries declines across time; (2) initially, one country has a higher fertility and a lower per-capita income than the other; and (3) in time, as per-capita incomes converge, fertility rates in the poorer country become lower than in the richer one. This article documents the prevalence of such dynamics and offers a theoretical model in which these dynamics emerge endogenously. Assuming differences in the degree of utility substitution between consumption and rearing children across countries generates all three components of these dynamics.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. Appendix A presents several additional figures showing such dynamics among different pairs of countries.

  2. For theoretical articles that study the dynamics of fertility treating it as an endogenous variable and analyzing its dynamics within a dynamic macroeconomic framework, see for example, Becker et al. (1990), Galor and Weil (1996, 2000), Galor and Moav (2002), and Moav (2005).

  3. Several studies have come near the “Backslanted X” fertility dynamics when dealing with the reversal of the relationship between fertility and female labor participation among OECD countries. This relation was negative until the beginning of the 1980s but has turned positive since. See for example, Del Boca (2002), Adserà (2004), and Apps and Rees (2004). Some of these studies merely document this reversal, and others also provide explanations for the recent positive link, but none of them tries to explain the transition from the previous negative link to the current positive one.

  4. Several articles, e.g., Galor and Weil (2000), do find that income effects may generate a positive link between per-capita output and fertility. This positive relation, however, is limited to the early stages of growth and therefore is not relevant to the current article.

  5. See for example, Barro and Becker (1989) who studied the large country case, unlike the simpler case analyzed here, and restricted themselves therefore to an analysis of the dynamics around the steady state.

  6. As was discussed in the introduction, an important part of the schooling costs spring from secondary schooling tuition, which is government financed in most countries during the past few decades, and the forgone earnings of uneducated young individuals. Thus, not assuming that the cost of a unit of education increases with the growth in incomes (an assumption taken, for example, by Dahan and Tsiddon 1998 and Maoz and Moav 1999) is merely a simplification. A version of the current article, where the price of education is an increasing concave function of the adults’ income that yields the same qualitative results, is available from the author.

  7. τ t represents the amount of schooling a child gets. The only reason why it is interpreted as time is to create, as simple as possible, a mechanism of diminishing returns to investment in education. Such a diminishing returns mechanism is important for generating output convergence as under the simplifying assumptions of this model human capital accumulation is the sole source of growth.

  8. The purpose of assuming that rearing children costs the parents’ time is to make the (alternative) cost of rearing children positively correlated with the per-capita income in the economy. Alternative assumptions leading to this property are possible too. One simple such alternative, that would not change the equations of the model at all, would be to assume that rearing children requires some services, such as medical services or schooling. As the economy grows, the human capital of the suppliers of these services increases, making these suppliers more efficient in doing each specific task. On the other hand, this progress also adds more and more new tasks to these services. Assuming that these two contradicting effects on the suppliers’ time required to raise a single child balance one another, making this time fixed at z, the cost of rearing each single child in a period would still be zI t .

  9. Note that τ t is independent of α. This is not an important result but merely a by-product of the simplifying assumptions of a log-linear utility function and a time cost that is linear in n t .

References

  • Adserà A (2004) Changing fertility rates in developed countries. The impact of labor market institutions. J Popul Econ 17(1):17–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apps P, Rees R (2004) Fertility, taxation and family policy. Scand J Econ 106(4):745–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barro RJ, Becker GS (1989) Fertility choice in a model of economic growth. Econometrica 57(2):481–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker GS, Murphy KM, Tamura R (1990) Human-capital, fertility and economic growth. J Polit Econ 98(5):S12–S37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahan M, Tsiddon D (1998) Demographic transition, income distribution, and economic growth. J Econ Growth 3(1):29–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Boca D (2002) The effect of child care and part time opportunities on participation and fertility decisions in Italy. J Popul Econ 15(3):549–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich I, Lui FT (1991) Intergenerational trade, longevity, and economic growth. J Polit Econ 99(5):1029–1059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández R, Fogli A (2005) Culture: an empirical investigation of beliefs, work and fertility. NBER working paper 11268, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA

  • Galor O, Moav O (2002) Natural selection and the origin of economic growth. Q J Econ 117(4):1133–1191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galor O, Weil DN (1996) The gender gap, fertility and growth. Am Econ Rev 86(3):74–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Galor O, Weil DN (2000) Population, technology, and growth: from Malthusian stagnation to the demographic transition and beyond. Am Econ Rev 90(4):806–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazan M, Berdugo B (2002) Child-labor, fertility and economic growth. Econ J 112(482):810–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maoz YD, Moav O (1999) Intergenerational mobility and the process of development. Econ J 109(458):677–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moav O (2005) Cheap children and the persistence of poverty. Econ J 115(500):88–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parente SL, Prescott EC (1994) Barriers to technology adoption and development. J Polit Econ 102(2):298–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weil DN (2004) Economic growth. Addison Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Zhang J (2005) The effect of life expectancy on fertility, saving, schooling and economic growth: theory and evidence. Scand J Econ 107:45–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Zhang J, Lee R (2001) Mortality decline and long-run economic growth. J Public Econ 80(3):485–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

I thank Oded Galor, Moshe Hazan, and two anonymous referees for their most valuable help. I also would like to thank seminar participants in the Universities of Haifa and Jerusalem and at the S.E.D. 2006 convention for their helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yishay D. Maoz.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Junsen Zhang

Appendix A

Appendix A

Fig. 3
figure 3

Total fertility rates (TFR) in several selected countries. Source: World Bank data

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Maoz, Y.D. “Backslanted X” fertility dynamics and macroeconomics. J Popul Econ 21, 159–172 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-007-0138-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-007-0138-7

Keywords

  • Fertility
  • Human capital
  • Economic growth

JEL Classification

  • J11
  • J13
  • O40