Skip to main content

The International Multidimensional Fertility Index: The European Case

Abstract

We propose an index to measure the degree of ability or desire of the population in a given country to have children, via an analysis of certain factors that may have a positive or negative influence on the fertility rate of that country. Using data for the twenty-eight countries of the European Union, and Principal Components Analysis, we construct the International Multidimensional Fertility Index as a combination of four dimensions: (1) Economy and family, (2) Attitudes and habits, (3) Work–Life Balance, and (4) Policy, along with nineteen distinct variables. We find that Denmark, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg are among the countries with the highest value of the index, and they also have high fertility rates within the EU. At the other end of the spectrum, Latvia, Cyprus, and Greece, are ranked in the last positions according to our index, countries that also present low values in their fertility rates. We also find a positive correlation between the value of our index and country fertility rates, an indication that our index may be capturing country differences in the conditions for bearing children, with higher values of the index indicating better conditions for childbirth and childrearing. To the extent that international data becomes available, our methodology will allow for the construction of international rankings, helpful in identifying cross-country differences in the conditions for fertility.

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

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    If we understand fertility as the production of a live birth (natality), several measures can be used to measure fertility in a country: the “child-woman ratio”, defined as the number of children under age 5 per 1000 women of childbearing age in a given year, the “crude birth rate”, defined as the number of live births per 1000 population in a given year, the “general fertility rate”, defined as the number of live births per 1000 women aged 15–49 in a given year, and the “total fertility rate”, defined as the number of children that would be born to a woman if she were to live to the end of her childbearing years and bear children in accordance with current age-specific fertility rates. Any fertility measure has its advantages and disadvantages. For instance, crude fertility rates are not good for cross-population comparisons, as variations in the age distribution of the populations compared will affect the birth rate. For a complete view of the fertility behavior of women in a country, we refer to “total fertility rate” throughout the paper.

  2. 2.

    When we refer to EUROSTAT for the year 2012, we have considered the average values of the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 when the information is available for the indicator.

  3. 3.

    The use of fertility intentions data has been criticized, as respondents tend to give socially desirable answers, many individuals revise their fertility goals over the course of their lives, and there is a high level of uncertainty attached to reproductive plans (Ní Bhrolcháin and Beaujouan 2012). Despite these shortcomings, childbearing preferences play a central role in fertility decision-making and are typically considered to be influential predictors of future childbearing behavior (Philipov 2009).

  4. 4.

    PCA analysis is usually used in a framework of reflective models, where causality is determined from the concept to the variables chosen to measure the concept [see Diamantopoulos et al. (2008) for a review]. However, in the current context, a "formative" model should be used, as we aim to measure the concept (e.g., fertility rates) with several variables. Thus, we cannot talk about causality, but only about correlations or associations between the fertility rates of the countries, and the index and components created using the PCA technique.

  5. 5.

    Originally, the IMFI was composed of 27 variables, distributed in 4 dimensions. After the application of the criteria for the selection of variables, and confirmatory factor analysis, we have dropped 8 variables from the index: “Crude divorce rates”, “Ideal number of children for males”, “Importance for job to be family-friendly”, “Women need children to be fulfilled”, “Average holidays”, “% of people working at home”, “Commuting time per working day”, and “Average payment on maternity leave”. More information about data sources for these variables can be obtained on request.

  6. 6.

    We have also run an OLS regression of fertility rates on the four dimensions of the index. We observe that dimensions 1 and 2 have coefficients that are not statistically significant, while coefficients of dimension 3 and 4 are statistically significant at the 95 % level. Thus, it seems that the Work-life balance and Policy dimensions have a higher explanatory power for fertility rates, in comparison with the Economy and family and Attitudes/habits dimensions. However, the current analysis does not allow us to establish a causal link between fertility rates and the dimensions, as the definition of the dimensions will change over time, as will the relationship across the variables.

References

  1. Angelini, V., & Laferrère, A. (2013). Parental altruism and nest leaving in Europe: Evidence from a retrospective survey. Review of Economics of the Household, 11, 393–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Angelini, V., Laferrère, A., & Pasini, G. (2011). Nest leaving in Europe. In A. Börsch-Supan, M. Brandt, K. Hank, & M. Schröder (Eds.), The individual and the welfare state (pp. 67–80). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Baizán, P., Arpino, B., & Delclòs, C. (2014). La fecundidad y la difusión de los valores de igualdad de género. Obra Social “la Caixa”, Colección Estudios Sociales, 36.

  4. 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 

  5. Becker, S., Bentolila, S., Fernandez, A., & Ichino, A. (2010). Youth emancipation and perceived job insecurity of parents and children. Journal of Population Economics, 23, 1047–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Begall, K., & Mills, M. (2011). The impact of subjective work control, job strain and work–family conflict on fertility intentions: A European comparison. European Journal of Population, 27, 433–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bellido, H., Gimenez-Nadal, J. I., & Ortega, R. (2011). Measuring satisfaction of the unemployed: A composite indicator and policy implications. Applied Economics Letters, 18, 1687–1690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bernhardt, E. (1993). Fertility and employment. European Sociological Review, 9(1), 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Billari, F. C. (2005). Partnership, childbearing and parenting: Trends of the 1990s. In M. Macura, A. L. MacDonald, & W. Haug (Eds.), The new demographic regime: Population challenges and policy responses (pp. 63–94). Geneva: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Billari, F. C., & Kohler, H. P. (2004). Patterns of low and very low fertility in Europe. Population Studies, 58, 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bongaarts, J., & Sobotka, T. (2012). A demographic explanation for the recent rise in European fertility. Population and Development Review, 38(1), 83–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bonoli, G. (2008). The impact of social policy on fertility: Evidence from Switzerland. Journal of European Social Policy, 18, 64–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bradshaw, J., & Finch, N. (2003). Overlaps in dimensions of poverty. Journal of Social Policy, 32, 513–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brewster, K. L., & Rindfuss, R. R. (2000). Fertility and women’s employment in industrialized nations. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 271–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bumpass, L. L. (1990). What is happening to the family? Interactions between demographic and institutional change. Demography, 27, 483–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Castro-Martín, T., & Martín-García, T. (2014). Fecundidad bajo mínimos en España: Pocos hijos, a edades tardías y por debajo de las aspiraciones reproductivas. Obra Social “la Caixa”, Colección Estudios Sociales, 36.

  17. Castro-Martín, T., & Rosero-Bixby, L. (2011). Maternidades y fronteras. La fecundidad de las mujeres inmigrantes en Espana. Revista Internacional de Sociología, 69(1), 105–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. De la Rica, S., & Iza, A. (2005). Career planning in Spain: Do fixed-term contracts delay marriage and parenthood? Review of Economics of the Household, 3, 49–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, R., & Roth, K. P. (2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1203–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Drobnic, S., & Guillén-Rodríguez, A. M. (2011). Tensions between work and home: Job quality and working conditions in the institutional contexts of Germany and Spain. Social Politics, 18, 232–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Esping-Andersen, G. (Ed.) (2013). El déficit de natalidad en Europa. La singularidad del caso español. Obra Social “la Caixa”, Colección Estudios Sociales, 36.

  23. Esping-Andersen, G., & Billari, F. C. (2012). Re-theorizing family demographics. Universitat Pompeu Fabra working paper.

  24. Eurobarometer. (2011). Eurobarometer on fertility and social climate—Evidence on family sizes in Europe. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  25. EUROSTAT. (2012). Population and social conditions. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat.

  26. Fernandez-Crehuet, J. M., Gimenez-Nadal, J. I., & Reyes, L. E. (2016). The National Work–Life Balance Index©: The European Case. Social Indicators Research, 1–19. doi:10.1007/s11205-015-1034-2.

  27. Filmer, D., & Pritchett, L. (2001). Estimating wealth effect without expenditure data—Or tears: An application to educational enrollments in states of India. Demography, 38, 115–132.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Galor, O., & Weil, D. N. (1996). The gender gap, fertility, and growth. American Economic Review, 86, 374–387.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gauthier, A. H. (2007). The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: A review of the literature. Population Research and Policy Review, 26, 323–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gauthier, A. H., & Hatzius, J. (1997). Family benefits and fertility: An econometric analysis. Population Studies: A Journal of Demography, 51, 295–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Goldstein, J. R., Sobotka, T., & Jasilioniene, A. (2009). The end of lowestlow fertility? Population and Development Review, 35, 663–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. González, M. J., & Jurado-Guerrero, T. (2006). Remaining childless in affluent economies: A comparison of France, West Germany, Italy and Spain, 1994–2001. European Journal of Population, 22, 317–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hotelling, H. (1933). Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 24, 417–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kiernan, K. E. (2001). The rise of cohabitation and childbearing outside of marriage in Western Europe. InterInternational Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 15, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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, 641–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kolenikov, S. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis using confa. The Stata Journal, 9, 329–373.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Krishnakumar, J., & Nagar, A. L. (2008). On exact statistical properties of multidimensional indices based on principal components, factor analysis, MIMIC and structural equation models. Social Indicators Research, 86, 481–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lai, R. (2003). Principal component analysis on human development indicators of China. Social Indicators Research, 61, 319–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lutz, W., & Scherbov, S. (2002). “Can immigration compensate for Europe’s low fertility?” Interim report, IR-02-052. Vienna Institute of Demography of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, European Demographic Research Papers, 1.

  40. McDonald, P. (2002). Low fertility: Unifying the theory and the demography. paper presented at Population Association of America Meetings, Atlanta, 9–11 May.

  41. Miller-Torr, B., & Short, S. (2004). Second births and the second shift: A research note on gender equity and fertility. Population and Development Review, 30, 109–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mishra, S. K. (2007). A comparative study of various inclusive indices and the index constructed by the principal components analysis. MPRA Paper, No. 3377.

  43. Momota, M. (2000). The gender gap, gertility, subsidies and growth. Economics Letters, 69, 401–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Myrskylä, M., Billari, F. C., & Kohler, H. P. (2011). High development and fertility: Fertility at older reproductive ages and gender equality explain the positive link. MPIDR Working Papers WP-2011-017, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.

  45. Myrskylä, M., Kohler, H. P., & Billari, F. C. (2009). Advances in development reverse fertility declines. Nature, 460, 741–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Nardo, M., Tarantola, S., Saltelli, A., Andropoulos, C., Buescher, R., Karageorgos, G., Latvala, A., & Noel, F. (2004). The e-business readiness composite indicator for 2003: A pilot study. EUR, 21294.

  47. Ní Bhrolcháin, M., & Beaujouan, E. (2012). How real are reproductive goals? Uncertainty and the construction of fertility preferences. Centre for population change. Working Paper 73. December 2015.

  48. Nicoletti, G., Scarpetta, S., & Boylaud, O. (2000). Summary indicators of product market regulation with an extension to employment protection legislation. OECD, Economics department working papers No. 226, ECO/WKP(99)18.

  49. OECD. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators. Methodology and user guide. Paris: OECD Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  50. OECD. (2011). Doing better for families. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Olson, J. M., Vernon, P. A., Harris, J. A., & Jang, K. L. (2001). The heritability of attitudes: A study of twins. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 845–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Örsal, D. D. K., & Goldstein, J. R. (2010). The increasing importance of economic conditions on fertility. MPIDR working papers WP-2010-014, Max planck institute for demographic research, Rostock, Germany.

  53. Pascall, G., & Lewis, J. (2004). Emerging gender regimes and policies for gender equality in a wider Europe. Journal of Social Policy, 33, 373–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Philipov, D. (2009). Fertility intentions and outcomes: The role of policies to close the gap. European Journal of Population, 25, 355–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ram, R. (1982). Composite indices of physical quality of life, basic needs fulfilment, and income. A ‘principal component’ representation. Journal of Development Economics, 11, 227–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Rindfuss, R., Guzzo, K. B., & Morgan, S. P. (2003). The changing institutional context of low fertility. Population Research and Policy Review, 22, 411–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Roig Vila, M., & Castro-Martín, T. (2007). Childbearing patterns of foreign women in a new immigration country: The case of Spain. Population-E, 62(3), 351–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analysis (pp. 399–419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Seltzer, J. A. (2000). Families formed outside of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1247–1268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  61. Tarabusi, E. C., & Guarini, G. (2013). An unbalance adjustment method for development indicators. Social Indicators Research, 112, 19–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Tesser, A. (1993). The importance of heritability in psychological research: The case of attitudes. Psychological Review, 100, 129–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Testa, M. R. (2012). Family sizes in Europe: Evidence from the 2011 Eurobarometer Survey. European Demographic Research Papers, 2, Vienna Institute of Demography.

  64. Thévenon, O. (2011). Family policies in OECD countries: A comparative analysis. Population and Development Review, 37, 57–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Thévenon, O., & Luci, A. (2012). Reconciling work, family and child outcomes: What implications for family support policies? Population Research and Policy Review, 31, 855–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Vignoli, D., Dresfahl, S., & De Santis, G. (2012). Whose job instability affects the likelihood of becoming a parent in Italy? A tale of two partners. Demographic Research, 26, 41–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Weil, D. (1999). Population growth, dependency, and consumption: Why has fertility fallen below replacement in industrial nations, and will it last? American Economic Review, 89, 251–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Data Sources

  1. EUROPEAN VALUES STUDY (2008). European Values Study 2008.

  2. EUROFOUND (2010). European Working Conditions Survey 2010.

  3. EUROFOUND (2012). European Quality of Life Survey 2012.

  4. EUROSTAT (2010, 2012). EUROSTAT Statistics web page.

  5. OECD. OECD Family Database.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper has benefited from funding from the Spanish Ministry of Economics (Project ECO-Project ECO2012-34828).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jose Maria Fernandez-Crehuet.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

This research does not involve Human Participants, nor Animals.

Additional information

This paper was partially written while Jose Maria Fernandez-Crehuet was Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science (UK), to which he would like to express his thanks for the hospitality and facilities provided.

Appendix: Results for the Principal Components Analysis (PCA)

Appendix: Results for the Principal Components Analysis (PCA)

See Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.

Table 5 Eigenvalues for variables included in dimension “Economy and Family”.
Table 6 Rotated factor loadings for variables included in dimension “Economy and Family”.
Table 7 Eigenvalues for variables included in Dimension “Attitudes and Habits”.
Table 8 Rotated factor loadings for variables included in dimension “Attitudes and Habits”.
Table 9 Eigenvalues for variables included in dimension “Work–Life Balance”.
Table 10 Rotated factor loadings for variables included in dimension “Work–Life Balance”.
Table 11 Eigenvalues for variables included in dimension “Policy”.
Table 12 Rotated factor loadings for variables included in dimension “Policy”.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fernandez-Crehuet, J.M., Gimenez-Nadal, J.I. & Danvila del Valle, I. The International Multidimensional Fertility Index: The European Case. Soc Indic Res 132, 1331–1358 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1341-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Europe
  • International Multidimensional Fertility Index
  • Fertility rates
  • Principal components analysis

JEL Classification

  • I31
  • J12
  • J13