Advertisement

The Impact of Intergenerationally-Transmitted Fertility and Nuptiality on Population Dynamics in Contemporary Populations

  • Mike Murphy
  • Duolao Wang

Abstract

There are intergenerational continuities in contemporary fertility, mortality and partnership behaviors due to genetic and environmental factors. If persistent, these would be expected over time to lead to a proportionate increase in those with a higher than average propensity to reproduce, and consequently to lead to higher population growth (or lower decline) than would otherwise be the case. We use three scenarios of fertility transmission to investigate the differences in long run population dynamics under models of intergenerationally correlated fertility and partnership behaviors:
  1. (1)

    fertility is not heritable;

     
  2. (2)

    daughters’ fertility is partly correlated with mother’s fertility;

     
  3. (3)

    daughters have the same fertility propensity (fecundability) as their mothers.

     

Keywords

contemporary population dynamics Fisher’s fundamental theorem intergenerational fertility transmission microsimulation long term population trends 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barrett, J.C. (1971). A Monte Carlo simulation of reproduction. In W. Brass (Ed.), Biological aspects of demography. Symposia of the Society for the Study of Human Biology Vol. 10 (pp. 11–30). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  2. Bongaarts, J., & Potter, R.G. (1983). Fertility, biology, and behavior: An analysis ofthe proximate determinants. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boyce M. S. (1990) The Red Queen visits sage grouse leks. American Zoologist, 30, 263–70.Google Scholar
  4. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., & Bodmer, W. F. (1971). The genet ics ofhuman populations. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  5. Charlesworth, B. (1980). Evolution in Age-Structured Populations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Council of Europe. (2001). Recent demographic development in Europe (2001). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  7. Dunne, M.P., Martin, N.G., Staham, D.J., Sltske, S. W., Dinwiddie, S.H., Bucholz, K.K., Madden, P.A., & Heath, A.C. (1997). Genetic and environmental contributions to variance in age at first sexual intercourse. Psychological Science, 8, 211–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards, A.W.F. (1994). The fundamental theorem of natural selection. Biological Reviews, 69, 443–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fisher, R. A. (1930). The genetical theory ofnatural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Foster, C. (2000). The limits to low fertility: a biosocial approach. Population and Development Review, 26, 209–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frank, S. A. (1998). Foundations ofsocial evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gam, S. M. (1980). Continuities and change in maturational timing. In O. G. J. Brim, & J. Kagan (Eds.) Constancy and Change in Human Development (pp 113–162). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press..Google Scholar
  13. Gini, C. (1924). Premieres recherces sur la fecondabilite de la femme. Proceedings of Mathematical Congress, Toronto, 889–92.Google Scholar
  14. Hammel, E.A., Mason, C., & Wachter, K.W. (1990). SOCSIM II, a sociodemographic microsimulation program, rev. 1.0, operating manual: Graduate Group in Demography Working Paper No. 29. Berkeley, Calif: University of California, Institute of International Studies, Program in Population Research.Google Scholar
  15. Henry, L. (1961). Some data on natural fertility. Eugenics Quarterly, 8, 81–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Keyfitz, N. (1985). Applied Mathematical Demography. (2nd ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Kirk K.M., Blomberg, S.P., Duffy, D.L., Heath, A.C., Owens, I.P.F, & Martin, N.G. (2001). Natural selection and quantitative genetics of life-history traits in Western women: a twin study. Evolution, 55, 423–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kohler, H-P., Rodgers, J. L., & Christensen, K. (1999). Is fertility behavior in our genes? Findings from a Danish twin study. Population and Development Review, 25, 253–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Langford, C. M., & Wilson, C. (1985). Is there a connection between a woman’s fecundity and that of her mother? Journal of Biosocial Science, 17, 437–443.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leridon, H. (1977). Human Fertility: The Basic Components (translated by J. F. Helzner). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Levine, D. (1982). ‘For their own reasons’: Individual marriage decisions and family life. Journal of Family History, 17, 255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lummaa, V., Haukioja, E., Lemmetyinen, R., & Pikkola, M. (1998). Natural selection on human twinning. Nature, 394, 533–534.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McGue, M., & Lykken, D. T. (1992). Genetic influence on risk of divorce. Psychological Science, 3, 368–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McLanahan, S.A., & Bumpass, L. (1988). Intergenerational consequences of family disruption. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 130–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Murphy, M. (1999). Is the relationship between fertility of parents and children really weak? Social Biology, 46, 122–145.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Murphy, M. (2001) Family and kinship networks in the context of aging societies. Paper prepared for the Conference on Population Ageing in the Industrialized Countries: Challenges and Responses organised by the Committee on Population Age Structures and Public Policy of the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population (IUSSP) and the Nihon University Population Research Institute (NUPRI), Tokyo, Japan, 19–21 March 2001.Google Scholar
  27. Murphy, M., & Wang, D. (2001). Family-level continuities in childbearing in low-fertility societies. European Journal of Population, 17, 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Murphy, M., & Knudsen, L. B. (2002) The Relationship ofFull and Half Sibs, Birth Order and Gender with Fertility in Contemporary Denmark. Mimeo London: The London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  29. Murphy, M., & Knudsen, L. B. (2002). The intergenerational transmission of fertility in contemporary Denmark: the effects of number of siblings (full and half), birth order, and whether male or female. Population Studies, in press.Google Scholar
  30. Pearson, K., Lee, A., & Bramley-Moore, L. (1899). Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. VI — genetic (reproductive) selection: inheritance of fertility in man, and of fecundity in thoroughbred racehorses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A192, 257–330.Google Scholar
  31. Pomiankowski A., & Moller, A. (1995) A resolution of the lek paradox. Proceedings of the Royal Society (London) B, 260, 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pope, H., & Mueller, C.W. (1976). The intergenerational transmission of marital instability: comparisons by race and sex. Journal of Family issues, 32, 49–66.Google Scholar
  33. Price, G.R. (1972). Fisher’s ‘fundamental theorem’ made clear. Annals of Human Genetics, 365, 485–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rodgers, J.L., & Doughty, D. (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on fertility expectations and outcomes using NLSY kinship data. In J. L. Rodgers, D. C. Rowe, & W. B. Miller (Eds.) Genetic influences on Human Fertility and Sexuality (pp. 85–105). Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rodgers, J. L., Hughes, K., Kohler, H.-P., Christensen, K., Doughty, D., Rowe, D.C., & Miller, W.B. (2001). Genetic influence helps explain variation in human fertility outcomes: evidence from recent behavioural and molecular genetic studies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 184–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rodgers, J L., Kohler, H-P., Kyvik, K., & Christensen, K. (2001). Genes affect human fertility via fertility motivations: Findings from a contemporary Danish twin study. Demography, 38, 29–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thornton, A. (1980). The influence of first generation fertility and economic status on second generation fertility. Population and Environment, 3, 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ulizzi L., Astolfi, P., & Zonta, L.A. (1998). Natural selection in industrialized countries: a study of three generations of Italian newborns. Annals of Human Genetics, 62, 47–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Wachter K.W. (n.d.). Socsim Technical Documentation, available at http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/Google Scholar
  40. Williams, L. A., & Williams, B. J. (1974). A re-examination of the heritability of fertility in the British peerage. Social Biology, 21, 225–231.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Wood J.W., & Weinstein, M. (1988). A model of age-specific fecundability. Population Studies, 42, 85–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mike Murphy
  • Duolao Wang

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations