Journal of Population Research

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 19–37 | Cite as

Understanding stalling demographic transition in high-fertility countries: a case study of Guatemala

Article

Abstract

The debate surrounding the use of period, cohort, and tempo-adjusted measures has framed most of the recent studies evaluating the utility of macro-level fertility indicators. Period measures are susceptible to distortions, due to birth timing changes, but there is currently no universally accepted adjustment technique. Recent comparative analyses have offered some insights but only as applied to the low-fertility developed world setting. The utility of different types of measures in the high fertility context is unclear. Furthermore, regional variation in the pace of fertility transition is characteristic of many less developed countries and is rarely incorporated into macro-level analyses. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate macro-fertility indicators at the regional and national levels in a high-fertility country, Guatemala, using the four most recent survey data sets. The results support the use of macro-level period indicators and adjusted period indicators of fertility in developing country contexts.

Keywords

Period Cohort Fertility Area analysis Guatemala 

References

  1. Bertrand, J., Seiber, E. & Escudero, G. (2001).Contraceptive dynamics in Guatemala: 1978–1998. International family planning perspectives, 27(3), 112–118 & 136.Google Scholar
  2. Bongaarts, J. (1999). The fertility impact of changes in the timing of childbearing in the developing world. Population Studies, 53(3), 277–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bongaarts, J. (2008). Fertility transitions in developing countries: Progress or stagnation? Studies in Family Planning, 39(2), 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bongaarts, J., & Feeney, G. (1998). On the quantum and tempo of fertility. Population and Development Review, 24(2), 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Broe, S., & Hinde, A. (2006). Diversity in fertility patterns in Guatemala. Population, Space and Place, 12, 435–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Broe, S., Hinde, A., Matthews, A., & Padmadas, S. (2005). Diversity in family planning use among ethnic groups in Guatemala. Journal of Biosocial Science, 37, 301–317.Google Scholar
  7. Feeney, G. (1991). Fertility decline in Taiwan: A study using parity progression ratios. Demography, 28(3), 467–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frejka, T., & Calot, G. (2001). Cohort reproductive patterns in low-fertility countries. Population and Development Review, 27(1), 103–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hill, K. (2004). War, humanitarian crises, population displacement and fertility: A review of evidence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kim, Y. J., & Schoen, R. (2000). On the quantum and tempo of fertility: Limits to the Bongaarts-Feeney adjustment. Population and Development Review, 26(3), 554–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lutz, W., O’Neill, B., & Scherbov, S. (2003). Europe’s population at a turning point. Science, 299(28), 1991–1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McGinn, T. (2000). Reproductive health of war-affected populations: What do we know? International Family Planning Perspectives, 26, 174–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ministerio de Salud Publica y Asistencia Social (MSPAS). (1989).Guatemala: Encuesta nacional de salud materno infantile.Technical report, MSPAS, Instituto Nacional de Estadistica (INE), Institute for Resource Development/Westinghouse. Columbia, MD: Institute for Resource Development/Westinghouse.Google Scholar
  14. Ministerio de Salud Publica y Asistencia Social (MSPAS). (1995).Guatemala: Encuesta nacional de salud materno infantile.Technical report, MSPAS, Instituto Nacional de Estadistica (INE), Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS). Calverton, MD: Macro International.Google Scholar
  15. Ministerio de Salud Publica y Asistencia Social (MSPAS). (1999). Guatemala: Encuesta nacional de salud materno infantile. Technical report, MSPAS, Instituto Nacional de Estadistica (INE), Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS). Calverton, MD: Macro International.Google Scholar
  16. Ministerio de Salud Publica y Asistencia Social (MSPAS). (2002). Guatemala: Encuesta nacional de salud materno infantile 2002 Informe Final.Technical report, MSPAS, Instituto Nacional de Estadistica (INE), Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Guatemala City: MSPAS-INE-CDC.Google Scholar
  17. Ni Bhrolchain, M. (1992). Period paramount? A critique of the cohort approach to fertility. Population and Development Review, 18(4), 599–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ni Bhrolchain, M. (2007).Why we measure period fertility. Southampton Statistical Science Research Institute, S3RI Applications Policy Working Papers, A07/04.Google Scholar
  19. Rosero-Bixby, L., Martin, T. C., & Martin-Garcia, T. (2008). Is Latin America starting to retreat from early and universal childbearing? Paper presented at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America Conference.Google Scholar
  20. Santiso-Galvez, R., & Bertrand, J. T. (2004). The delayed contraceptive revolution in Guatemala. Human Organization, 63(1), 57–67.Google Scholar
  21. Seiber, E., & Bertrand, J. (2002). Access as a factor in differential contraceptive use between Mayans and Ladinos in Guatemala. Health Policy and Planning, 17(2), 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sheps, M., & Menken, J. (1973). Mathematical models of conception and birth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Sobotka, T. (2003). Tempo-quantum and period-cohort interplay in fertility changes in Europe. Evidence from the Czech Republic, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden. Demographic Research, 8(6), 151–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. United Nations. (2007). World population prospects: The 2006 revision population database. NY, USA: New York.Google Scholar
  25. Van Imhoff, E. (2001). On the impossibility of inferring cohort fertility measures from period fertility measures. Demographic Research, 5, 23–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van Imhoff, E., & Keilman, N. (2000). On the quantum and tempo of fertility: Comment. Population and Development Review, 26(3), 549–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yucesahin, M. M., & Ozgur, E. M. (2008). Regional fertility differences in Turkey: Persistent high fertility in the southeast. Population Space and Place, 14, 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science & Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations