, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 43–58 | Cite as

The density of social networks and fertility decisions: evidence from south nyanza district, kenya

  • Hans-Peter Kohler
  • Jere R. Behrman
  • Susan C. Watkins
Fertility models and processes


Demographers have argued increasingly that social interaction is an important mechanism for understanding fertility behavior. Yet it is still quite uncertain whether social learning or social influence is the dominant mechanism through which social networks affect individuals’ contraceptive decisions. In this paper we argue that these mechanisms can be distinguished by analyzing the density of the social network and its interaction with the proportion of contraceptive users among network partners. Our analyses indicate that social learning is most relevant with high market activity; in regions with only modest market activity, however, social influence is the dominant means by which social networks affect women’s contraceptive use.


Family Planning Social Influence Market Activity Contraceptive User Sparse Network 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arends-Kuenning, M. 1997. “How Do Family Planning Worker Visits Affect Women’s Behavior in Bangladesh?” New York: Population Council. Photocopied document.Google Scholar
  2. Bates, R.H. 1981. Markets and States in Tropical Africa: The Political Basis of Agricultural Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ben-Porath, Y. 1980. “The F-Connection: Families, Friends and Firms in the Organization of Exchange.” Population and Development Review 6(1):1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bongaarts, J. and S.C. Watkins. 1996. “Social Interactions and Contemporary Fertility Transitions.” Population and Development Review 22:639–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burt, R.S. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Casterline, J., M. Montgomery, S. Green, P. Hewett, D. Agyeman, W. Adih, and P. Aglobitse. 2000. “Contraceptive Use in Southern Ghana: The Role of Social Networks.” Presented at the annual meetings of the Population Association of America, March 22–25, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  7. Easterlin, R.A., R.A. Pollak, and M.L. Wachter. 1980. “Towards a More General Model of Fertility Determination: Endogenous Preferences and Natural Fertility.” Pp. 81–135 in Population and Economic Change in Less Developed Countries, edited by R.A. Easterlin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Entwisle, B. and J. Godley. 1998. “Village Network and Patterns of Contraceptive Choice.” Presented at a meeting of the Population Committee of the National Academy of Sciences, January 29–30, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  9. Entwisle, B., R.D. Rindfuss, D.K. Guilkey, A. Chamratrithirong, S.R. Curran, and Y. Sawangdee. 1996. “Community and Contraceptive Choice in Rural Thailand: A Case Study of Nang Rong.” Demography 33:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freeman, L., K. Romney, and S. Freeman. 1987. “Cognitive Structure and Informant Accuracy.” American Anthropologist 89:310–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Granovetter, M.S. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 73:1361–80.Google Scholar
  12. Hammel, E.A. 1990. “A Theory of Culture for Demography.” Population and Development Review 16:455–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kohler, H.-P. 1997. “Learning in Social Networks and Contraceptive Choice.” Demography 34:369–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. —. 2000a. “Fertility Decline as a Coordination Problem.” Journal of Development Economics 63(2):231–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. —. 2000b. “Social Interaction and Fluctuations in Birth Rates.” Population Studies 54(2):223–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kohler, H.-P., J.R. Behrman, and S.C. Watkins. 2000. “Empirical Assessments of Social Networks, Fertility and Family Planning Programs: Nonlinearities and Their Implications.” Demographic Research [Online] 3(7). Available at http://www.demographicresearch. org.Google Scholar
  17. Manski, C.F. 1993. “Identification of Endogenous Effects: The Reflection Problem.” Review of Economic Studies 60:531–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marsden, P. and N. Friedkin. 1993. “Network Studies of Social Influence.” Sociological Methods and Research 22(1):127–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Montgomery, M.R. and J.B. Casterline. 1996. “Social Influence, Social Learning and New Models of Fertility.” Population and Development Review 22:151–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Montgomery, M.R. and W.S. Chung. 1998. “Social Networks and the Diffusion of Fertility Control in the Republic of Korea.” Pp. 179–209 in The Dynamics of Values in Fertility Change, edited by R. Leete. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Moscovici, S. 1985. “Social Influence and Conformity.” Pp. 347–412 in Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by G. Lindzey and E. Aronson. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  22. Pollak, R.A. 1985. “A Transaction Cost Approach to Families and Households.” Journal of Economic Literature 23:581–608.Google Scholar
  23. Pollak, R.A. and S.C. Watkins. 1993. “Cultural and Economic Approaches to Fertility: Proper Marriage or Mesalliance?” Population and Development Review 19:467–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reynar, A.R. 2000. “Fertility Decision Making by Couples Amongst the Luo of Kenya.” PhD dissertation, Graduate Group in Demography, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  25. Rutenberg, N. and S.C. Watkins. 1997. “The Buzz Outside the Clinics: Conversations and Contraception in Nyanza Province, Kenya.” Studies in Family Planning 28:290–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Valente, T.W. 1994. Network Models of the Diffusion of Innovations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  27. Valente, T.W., S.C. Watkins, M.N. Jato, A. Van der Straten, and L.-P.M. Tsitsol. 1997. “Social Network Associations With Contraceptive Use Among Cameroonian Women in Voluntary Associations.” Social Science Medicine 45:677–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wasserman, S. and K. Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Meth ods and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Watkins, S.C. 1991. “Market, States, Nations and Bedrooms in Western Europe, 1870–1960.” Pp. 262–79 in Macro-Micro Linkages in Sociology, edited by J. Huber. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Watkins, S.C. and I. Warriner. 1999. “Causal Inferences From Observational Data: Questioning Assumptions of Selectivity.” Working paper, Population Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  31. White, K. and S.C. Watkins. Forthcoming. “Accuracy, Stability and Reciprocity in Informal Conversational Networks in Rural Kenya.” Social Networks.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans-Peter Kohler
    • 1
  • Jere R. Behrman
    • 2
  • Susan C. Watkins
    • 2
  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Demographic ResearchRostockGermany
  2. 2.University of PennsylvaniaUSA

Personalised recommendations