Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Family Systems and Fertility Intentions: Exploring the Pathways of Influence

  • Published:
European Journal of Population Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Family systems, as normative frameworks in which family processes unfold, are believed to exert a major influence on fertility. While a number of studies have addressed family system effects on family size and the timing of births, the question of how family systems influence fertility intentions has remained largely unexplored. Because fertility intentions are often not realized, studying the pathways through which these intentions are framed warrants further attention. Addressing this research gap, this paper explores the pathways of influence between family systems and people’s intentions to start or to extend their family in the framework of the theory of planned Behaviour. We use a path analysis to analyse data from the Generations and Gender Survey (GGS) on fertility intentions of 28,988 individuals from nine European countries that considerably vary in family systems. Regional indicators of family systems were constructed on the basis the Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) and incorporated in the analytical sample. The results demonstrate an important link between family systems and fertility intentions. Family systems frame people’s intentions by influencing their attitudes towards children and their ideas about existing norms regarding fertility. This influence works partly through affecting household size and partly through influencing people’s ideas about the requirements for having children. Family system effects vary between intentions to start and to extend a family. While nearness to kin decreased positive attitudes towards having children of childless respondents, having kin nearby had the opposite effect for those that were already parents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In weak family countries, such as France or Finland, it is more and more common to leave home before or at the time of having a first job (Corijn 2001, p. 137). In Finland, this is supported by a system of housing allowance (Forsberg 2005, pp. 264–265).

  2. Compare also Steelman et al. (2002, p. 248ff), Dalla-Zuanna (2007), Becker and Lewis (1974), and Simon (1955) for a more detailed discussion.

  3. Apart from positive experiences, these can be reduced uncertainty over the future life course and increased marital solidarity (Friedman et al. 1994, p. 394).

  4. Estonia and the Netherlands were excluded, because the country samples did not include all the variables needed for the analysis.

  5. As is evident from Table 2 for France and Hungary, the items charting perceived behavioural control were not included in the questionnaire.

  6. For the full list of items, see the GGS questionnaire: http://www.ggp-i.org/sites/default/files/questionnaires/GGP_QuestW1Full.pdf (access date: 18.08.16).

  7. The exact wording of the question was: “Although you may feel that the decision to have a/another child is yours (and your partner’s/spouse’s) alone, it is likely that others have opinions about what you should do. I’m going to read out some statements about what other people might think about you having a/another child during the next three years. Please tell me to what extent you agree or disagree with these statements, choosing your answer from the card.” (Source: http://www.ggp-i.org/sites/default/files/questionnaires/GGP_QuestW1Full.pdf, access date: 18.08.16).

  8. In Italy, respondents were asked about their opinions about the expectations of their parents concerning respondent’s fertility using separate items, while their opinions about expectations of other relatives were not charted (Alpha for Italy: 0.876).

  9. The exact phrasing introducing the items was: “How much control do you feel you will have over the following areas of your life in the next three years?” (Source: http://www.ggp-i.org/sites/default/files/questionnaires/GGP_QuestW1Full.pdf, access date: 18.08.16).

  10. The exact phrasing of the question introducing the response items was: “How much would the decision on whether to have or not to have a/another child during the next three years depend on the following?” (Source: http://www.ggp-i.org/sites/default/files/questionnaires/GGP_QuestW1Full.pdf, access date: 18.08.16).

  11. The first wave of SHARE was conducted in 2004/2005 in eleven European countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland) and Israel. The second, conducted in 2006/2007, and the fourth wave, conducted in 2010/2012, added the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, Portugal and Slovenia to the survey. The third wave was not included due to a different set-up.

  12. We only included the anchor persons in SHARE, not their spouses.

  13. In this context, the paper utilized the information on respondents’ co-residential relationships, relationships with their parents (if alive), relationships with their children (if existent) and relationships with up to three persons to whom respondents provided or from whom respondents received any kind of support within the last twelve months.

  14. NUTS levels divide the European Union into areas of relativ comparable population size. Source http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nuts/principles-and-characteristics (access date: 18.01.17).

  15. GDP is measured in Purchasing Power Standard (PPS), per capita. Source: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nama_r_e2gdp&lang=en (19.03.15).

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Klobas, J. (2013). Fertility intentions: An approach based on the theory of planned behavior. Demographic Research, 29, 203–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baizan, P. (2001). Transition to adulthood in Spain. In M. Corijn & E. Klijzing (Eds.), Transition to adulthood in Europe (pp. 279–312). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Balbo, N. (2012). Family, friends and fertility. Ph.D. Dissertation. Ridderkerk: Ridderprint.

  • Balbo, N., Billari, F. C., & Mills, M. (2013). Fertility in advanced societies: A review of research. European Journal of Population, 29, 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaujouan, E. (2013). Counting how many children people want: The influence of questions filters and pre-codes. Demográfia, 56(5), 35–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S., & Lewis, H. G. (1974). Interaction between quantity and quality of children. In T. W. Schultz (Ed.), Economics of the family: Marriage, children, and human (pp. 81–90). UMI.

  • Belsky, J., & Rovine, M. (1984). Social-network contact, family support, and the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 46(2), 455–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billari, F. C., Castiglioni, M., Castro Martin, T., Michielin, F., & Ongaro, F. (2002). Household and union formation in Mediterranean fashion: Italy and Spain. In E. Klijzing & M. Corijn (Eds.), Dynamics of fertility and partnership in Europe: insights and lessons from comparative research (Vol. 2, pp. 17–41). New York, Geneva: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birg, H. (1992). Differentielle Reproduktion aus der Sicht der biographischen Theorie der Fertilität. In E. Voland (Ed.), Fortpflanzung: Natur und Kultur im Wechselspiel (pp. 189–215). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blossfeld, H. P., & Huinink, J. (1991). Human capital investments or norms of role transition? How women’s schooling and career affect the process of family formation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(1), 143–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börsch-Supan, A., Brandt, M., Hunkler, C., Kneip, T., Korbmacher, J., Malter, F., et al. (2013). Data resource profile: The survey of health, ageing and retirement in Europe (SHARE). International Journal of Epidemiology. doi:10.1093/ije/dyt088.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burch, T. K. (1979). Household and family demography: A bibliographic essay. Population Index, 45(2), 173–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burch, T. K., & Gendell, M. (1970). Extended family structure and fertility: Some conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of Marriage and Family, 32(2), 227–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, E. W. (1931). Family tradition and personality. In K. Young (Ed.), Social attitudes (pp. 188–207). New York, NY: Henry Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, A. C., & Miller, D. L. (2011). Robust inference with clustered data. In A. Ullah & D. E. A. Giles (Eds.), Handbook of empirical economics and finance (pp. 1–28). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, A. C., & Miller, D. L. (2015). A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 317–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castiglioni, M., Hărăguş, M., Faludi, C., & Hărăguş, P. T. (2016). Is the family system in Romania similar to those of southern European countries? Comparative Population Studies, 40(5), 57–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, F. (2006). The impact of family structure on fertility. In D. L. Poston, C. F. Lee, C. F. Chang, S. L. McKibben, & C. S. Walther (Eds.), Fertility, family planning, and population policy in China (pp. 53–64). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Corijn, M. (2001). Transition to adulthood in France. In M. Corijn & E. Klijzing (Eds.), Transition to adulthood in Europe (pp. 131–151). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dalla-Zuanna, G. (2004). The banquet of Aeolus. A familistic interpretation of Italy’s lowest low fertility. In G. Dalla-Zuanna & G. A. Micheli (Eds.), Strong family and low fertility: A paradox? (pp. 105–125). Alphen: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dalla-Zuanna, G. (2007). Social mobility and fertility. Demographic Research, 17(15), 441–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalla-Zuanna, G., & Micheli, G. A. (2004). Introduction: New perspectives in interpreting contemporary family and reproductive behaviour of Mediterranean Europe. In G. Dalla-Zuanna & G. A. Micheli (Eds.), Strong family and low fertility: A paradox? (pp. 7–21). Alphen: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das Gupta, M. (1997). Kinship systems and demographic processes. In D.I. Kertzer & T. Fricke (Eds.), Anthropological demography: Toward a new synthesis (pp. 36–52–184). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Das Gupta, M. (1999). Lifeboat versus corporate ethic: Social and demographic implications of stem and joint families. Social Science and Medicine, 49, 173–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. (1955). Institutional patterns favoring high fertility in underdeveloped areas. Eugenics Quarterly, 2, 33–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vos, S., & Palloni, A. (1989). Formal models and methods for the analysis of kinship and household organization. Population Index, 55(2), 174–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dribe, M., & Scalone, F. (2014). Social class and net fertility before, during, and after the demographic transition: A micro-level analysis of Sweden 1880–1970. Demographic Research, 30, 429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duranton, G. A., Rodriguez-Pose, A., & Sandall, R. (2009). Family types and the persistence of regional disparities in Europe. Journal of Economic Geography, 85(1), 23–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dykstra, P. A., & Fokkema, T. (2011). Relationships between parents and their adult children: a West European typology of late-life families. Ageing and Society, 31, 545–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyson, T., & Moore, M. (1983). On kinship structure, female autonomy, and demographic behavior in India. Population and Development Review, 9(1), 35–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Forsberg, H. (2005). Finland’s families. In B. N. Adams & J. Trost (Eds.), Handbook of world families (pp. 262–282). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, D., Hechter, M., & Kanazawa, S. (1994). A Theory of the value of children. Demography, 31(3), 375–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garson, G. D. (2008). Path analysis from statnotes: Topics in multivariate analysis. Retrieved 9(05), 2009.

  • Gauthier, H., & Hatzius, J. (1997). Family benefits and fertility: An econometric analysis. Population Studies, 51(3), 295–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghodsee, K., & Bernardi, L. (2012). Starting a family at your parents’ house: Multigenerational households and below replacement fertility in urban Bulgaria. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 43(3), 439–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwell, L., & Bengtson, V. L. (1997). Geographic distance and contact between middle-aged children and their parents: The effects of social class over 20 years. Journal of Gerontology, 52B(1), S13–S26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grundy, E., & Henretta, J. C. (2006). Between elderly parents and adult children: A new look at the intergenerational care provided by the sandwich generation. Ageing and Society, 26(5), 707–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, T. J., & Naldini, M. (1996). Is the south so different? Italian and Spanish families in comparative perspective. South European Society and Politics, 1(3), 42–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajnal, J. (1982). Two kinds of preindustrial household formation system. Population and Development Review, 8(3), 449–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hank, K. (2007). Proximity and contacts between older parents and their children: A European comparison. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 157–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hareven, T. K. (1994). Aging and generational relations: A historical and life course perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 20, 437–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harknett, K., Billari, F. C., & Medalia, C. (2014). Do family support environments influence fertility? Evidence from 20 European countries. European Journal of Population. doi:10.1007/s10680-013-9308-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heady, P., Gruber, S., & Ou, Z. (2010). Family, kindred and marriage. In P. Heady & M. Kohli (Eds.), Family, kinship and state in contemporary Europe (Vol. 3, pp. 31–70)., Perspectives on theory and policy Frankfurt: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heuveline, P., & Timberlake, J. M. (2004). The role of cohabitation in family formation: The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1214–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilgeman, C., & Butts, C. T. (2009). Women’s employment and fertility: A welfare regime paradox. Social Science Research, 38, 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Höllinger, F., & Haller, M. (1990). Kinship and social networks in modern societies: A cross-cultural comparison among seven nations. European Sociological Review, 6(2), 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huinink, J. (1995). Warum noch Familie? Zur Attraktivität von Partnerschaft und Elternschaft in unserer Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalmijn, M. (2007). Explaining cross-national differences in marriage, cohabitation, and divorce in Europe, 1990–2000. Population Studies, 61(3), 243–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keim, S. (2011). Social networks and family formation processes. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, T. (2003). Die Geburt von Kindern in paarbezogener Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 32(6), 506–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, H. P., Billari, F. C., & Ortega, J. A. (2002). The emergence of lowest-low fertility in Europe during the 1990s. Population and Development Review, 28(4), 641–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kok, J. (2009). Family systems as frameworks for understanding variation in extra marital births, Europe 1900–2000. Romanian Journal of Population, Studies Supplement/2009, 13–38.

  • Kuhnt, A.-K., & Trappe, H. (2015). Channels of social influence on the realization of short-term fertility intentions in Germany. Advances in Life Course Research. doi:10.1016/j.alcr.2015.10.002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laslett, P. (1983). Family and household as work group and kin group: Areas of traditional Europe compared. In R. Wall, P. Laslett, & J. Robin (Eds.), Family forms in historic Europe (pp. 513–564). Cambridge: University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Liefbroer, A. C. (2009). Changes in family size intentions across young adulthood: A life-course perspective. European Journal of Population, 25, 363–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liefbroer, A. C., Klobas, J. E., Philipov, D., & Ajzen, I. (2015). Reproductive decision-making in a macro- micro perspective: A conceptual framework. In D. Philipov, A. C. Liefbroer, & J. E. Klobas (Eds.), Reproductive decision-making in a macro-micro perspective (pp. 1–16). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livi-Bacci, M. (2001). Too few children and too much family. Daedalus, 130(3), 139–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lois, D., & Becker, O. A. (2014). Is fertility contagious? using panel data to disentangle mechanisms of social network influences on fertility decisions. Advances in Life Course Research, 21, 123–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorimer, F. (1954). Culture and human fertility. Zürich: Unesco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Micheli, G. A. (2004). Kinship, family and social network: The anthropological embedment of fertility change in Southern Europe. In G. Dalla-Zuanna & G. A. Micheli (Eds.), Strong family and low fertility: A paradox? (pp. 77–104). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mönkediek, B. (2011). Unsicherheit Familiengründung: Eine empirische Analyse zur Bedeutung von finanziellen Ressourcen für den Kinderwunsch und die Timingintention der ersten Elternschaft (2nd ed.). Osnabrück: Verlag Dirk Koentopp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mönkediek, B., & Bras, H. (2014). Strong and weak family ties revisited: Reconsidering European family structures from a network perspective. The History of the Family, 19(2), 235–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mönkediek, B., & Bras, H. (2016). Family systems, social networks and family size of European cohorts born between 1920 and 1960. Economic History of Developing Regions, 31(1), 136–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Možný, I., & Katrňák, T. (2005). The Czech family. In B. Adams & J. Trost (Eds.), Handbook of world families (pp. 235–261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nag, M. (1975). Socio-cultural patterns, family cycle and fertility. In United Nations (Ed.), The population debate: Dimensions and perspectives. Papers of the World Population Conference, Bucharest, 1974 (pp. 289–312). Vol. 2. New York, NY: United Nations.

  • Naldini, M. (2003). The family in the Mediterranian welfare states. London: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newson, L. (2009). Cultural versus reproductive success: Why does economic development bring new tradeoffs? American Journal of Human Biology, 21, 464–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olobatuyi, M. E. (2006). A user’s guide to path analysis. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ongaro, F. (2001). Transition to adulthood in Italy. In M. Corijn & E. Klijzing (Eds.), Transition to adulthood in Europe (pp. 173–207). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim Mason, K. (2001). Gender and family systems in the fertility transition. Population and Development Review, 27, 160–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Régnier-Loilier, A., & Vignoli, D. (2011). Fertility intentions and obstacles to their realization in France and Italy. Population (English Edition), 66(2), 361–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reher, D. S. (1998). Family ties in western Europe: persistent contrasts. Population and Development Review, 24(2), 203–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero, A. J., & Ruiz, M. (2007). Does familism lead to increased parental monitoring? protective factors for coping with risky behaviors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16(2), 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, A. S., & Rossi, P. H. (1990). Of human bonding: Parent–child relations across the life course. New York, NY: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotering, P., & Bras, H. (2015). With the help of kin? household composition and reproduction in The Netherlands, 1842–1920. Human Nature, 26(1), 102–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoen, R., Astone, N. M., Kim, Y. J., Nathanson, C. A., & Fields, J. M. (1999). Do fertility intentions affect fertility behavior? Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(3), 790–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, G. W. (1997). Family systems and demographic processes. In D. I. Kertzer & T. E. Fricke (Eds.), Anthropological demography. Toward a new synthesis (pp. 53–95). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skirbekk, V. (2008). Fertility trends by social status. Demographic Research, 18(5), 145–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spéder, Z., & Kapitány, B. (2009). How are time-dependent childbearing intentions realized? realization, postponement, abandonment, bringing forward. European Journal of Population, 25, 503–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spéder, Z., & Kapitány, B. (2015). Influences on the link between fertility intentions and behavioural outcomes. In D. Philipov, A. C. Liefbroer, & J. E. Klobas (Eds.), Reproductive decision-making in a macro-micro perspective (pp. 79–112). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steelman, L. C., Powell, B., Werum, R., & Carter, S. (2002). Reconsidering the effects of sibling configuration: Recent advances and challenges. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 243–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Therborn, G. (2004). Between sex and power. Family in the world, 1900–2000. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd, E. (1990). L’invention de l’Europe [the invention of Europe]. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turke, P. W. (1989). Evolution and the demand for children. Population and Development Review, 15(1), 61–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. (2005). Generations & gender programme: Survey instruments. New York and Geneva: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veleti, K. (2001). Family structure and its effective influence on fertility. Journal of Human Ecology, 12(5), 387–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viazzo, P. P., & Zanotelli, F. (2010). Welfare as moral obligation: Changing patterns of family support in Italy and the Mediterranean. In H. Grandits (Ed.), Family, kinship and state in contemporary Europe (Vol. 1, pp. 47–92)., The Century of Welfare: Eight Countries Frankfurt: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vignoli, D., Rinesi, F., & Mussino, E. (2013). A home to plan the first child? fertility intentions and housing conditions in Italy. Population, Space and Place, 19, 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vikat, A., Spéder, Z., Beets, G., Billari, F. C., Bühler, C., Désesquelles, A., et al. (2007). Generations and Gender Survey (GGS): Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course. Demographic Research, 17(14), 389–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voland, E. (1998). Evolutionary ecology of human reproduction. Annual Review of Anthropology, 27, 347–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by a VIDI Innovational Research Grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) to Prof. Dr. H. Bras, for the research project, entitled ‘The Power of the Family: Family Influences on Long-Term Fertility Decline in Europe, 1850–2010’ (contract Grant Number 452-10-013). This paper uses data from SHARE Wave 5 release 1.0.0, as of 31 March 2015 (doi: 10.6103/SHARE.w5.100) or SHARE Wave 4 release 1.1.1, as of 28 March 2013 (doi: 10.6103/SHARE.w4.111) or SHARE Waves 1 and 2 release 2.6.0, as of 29 November 2013 (doi: 10.6103/SHARE.w1.260 and 10.6103/SHARE.w2.260) or SHARELIFE release 1.0.0, as of 24 November 2010 (doi: 10.6103/SHARE.w3.100). The SHARE data collection has been primarily funded by the European Commission through the 5th Framework Programme (Project QLK6-CT-2001-00360 in the thematic programme Quality of Life), through the 6th Framework Programme (Projects SHARE-I3, RII-CT-2006-062193, COMPARE, CIT5- CT-2005-028857, and SHARELIFE, CIT4-CT-2006-028812) and through the 7th Framework Programme (SHARE-PREP, No. 211909, SHARE-LEAP, No. 227822 and SHARE M4, No. 261982). Additional funding from the U.S. National Institute on Aging (U01 AG09740-13S2, P01 AG005842, P01 AG08291, P30 AG12815, R21 AG025169, Y1-AG-4553-01, IAG BSR06-11 and OGHA 04-064) and the German Ministry of Education and Research as well as from various national sources is gratefully acknowledged (see www.share-project.org for a full list of funding institutions). We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. These helped us a lot in improving our paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld University, Universitätsstr 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany

    Bastian Mönkediek

  2. Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, De Leeuwenborch (Building 201), 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Hilde Bras

Authors
  1. Bastian Mönkediek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hilde Bras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bastian Mönkediek.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

This paper uses data from the Generations and Gender Program (GGP). For more information on the Generations and Gender Survey (GGS), see http://www.ggp-i.org/.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mönkediek, B., Bras, H. Family Systems and Fertility Intentions: Exploring the Pathways of Influence. Eur J Population 34, 33–57 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-017-9418-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-017-9418-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation