Abstract
The articles in this special issue report about research carried out in a project with the same title as this introductory article (acronym FERTINT). This introduction starts with a brief description of the “fertility gap”. It outlines its deficiencies when used for policy implications and the advantages of using fertility intentions. It also summarises the broad scope of issues related to intentions as presented in the articles: life-time and short-time fertility intentions and their realisation or frustration, the effect of uncertainty on intentions, the relevance of the theories of planned behaviour and fertility preferences and of social networks for studying couples’ and competing intentions.
Résumé
Les articles de ce numéro spécial rendent compte de recherches menées dans le cadre d’un projet ayant le même intitulé que cet article introductif (avec pour acronyme FERTINT). L’introduction débute par une brève description du “décalage de fécondité”. L’inadaptation de cet indicateur pour la mise en place des politiques publiques est souligné, de même que le sont les avantages liés à l’utilisation des intentions de fécondité. L’introduction résume l’étendue des problématiques présentées dans les articles: les intentions au cours de la vie ou à court terme, réalisées ou pas, l’effet de l’incertitude sur les intentions, la pertinence des théories de planification du comportement par rapport aux préférences pour la fécondité, et celle des réseaux sociaux pour l’étude des couples et des intentions concurrentes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Chesnais, J.-C. (1999). Determinants of below replacement fertility. Population Bulletin of the United Nations, 1999 (40/41), 126–136 (special issue).
Coleman, D. (1996). New patterns and trends in European fertility: International and sub-national comparisons. In D. Coleman (Ed.), Europe’s population in the 1990s. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
EC (2005). Green Paper “Confronting demographic change: a new solidarity between the generations”. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
Goldstein, J., Lutz, W., & Testa, M. R. (2003). The emergence of sub-replacement family size ideals in Europe. Population Research and Policy Review, 22, 479–496.
Hakim, C. (2000). Work-lifestyle choices in the 21st century: Preference theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heiland, F., Prskawetz, A., & Sanderson, W. (2008). Are individuals’ desired family sizes stable? Evidence from West German panel data. European Journal of Population, 24(2), 129–156.
Philipov D., Thévenon O., Klobas J., Bernardi L., & Liefbroer, A. (2009). Reproductive decision-making in a macro-micro perspective (REPRO): State-of-the-art. Vienna Institute of Demography, European Demographic Research papers No. 1.
Lutz, W. (2007). Adaptation versus mitigation policies on demographic change in Europe. Vienna Yearbook for Population Research, 2007, 19–26.
Quesnel-Vallée, A., & Morgan, S. P. (2003). Missing the target? Correspondence of fertility intentions and behavior in the U.S. Population Research and Policy Review, 22(5–6), 497–525.
Acknowledgement
The articles in this issue report research carried out under the project “Fertility intentions and outcomes: the role of policies to close the gap”, supported by the Directorate General “Employment and Social Affairs” of the European Commission.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Philipov, D. Fertility Intentions and Outcomes: The Role of Policies to Close the Gap. Eur J Population 25, 355–361 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-009-9202-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-009-9202-1