Advertisement

Amplified Changes: An Analysis of Four Dynamic Fertility Models

  • Joshua R. Goldstein
  • Thomas CassidyEmail author
Chapter
Part of the The Springer Series on Demographic Methods and Population Analysis book series (PSDE, volume 39)

Abstract

Fertility change over time can be modeled in a variety of ways. Implicit in each model is a story of the behavior driving fertility, and the assumptions behind each model provide insights into the forces that influence fertility. We present Ryder’s classic formulation of the translation between period and cohort measures of fertility, Lee’s moving-target model connecting fertility goals with period rates, the period-shift model of Bongaarts and Feeney, and the Goldstein and Cassidy cohort-shift model. All of these models have in common a simplified view of how fertility change occurs. An important lesson of all these formulations is that small variations in timing or targets can produce large fluctuations in period fertility, telling us that period fertility is particularly sensitive to changes in underlying aspects of the fertility process.

Keywords

Total fertility rate Cohort fertility Fertility timing Fertility intentions Model comparison 

References

  1. Alkema, L. (2011). Probabilistic projections of the total fertility rate for all countries. Demography, 48(3), 815–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bongaarts, J., & Feeney, G. (1998). On the quantum and tempo of fertility. Population and Development Review, 24, 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bongaarts, J., & Feeney, G. (2006). The quantum and tempo of life-cycle events. In Vienna yearbook of population research, vol. 4 (pp. 115–151). Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bongaarts, J., & Sobotka, T. (2012). A demographic explanation for the recent rise in European fertility. Population Development Review, 38, 83–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butz, W., & Ward, M. (1979). The emergence of countercyclical U.S. fertility. American Economic Review, 69, 318–328.Google Scholar
  6. Goldstein, J., & Cassidy, T. (2014). A cohort model of fertility postponement. Demography, 51(5), 1797–1819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldstein, J., Sobotka, T., & Jasilioniene, A. (2009). The end of “Lowest-low” fertility? Population and Development Review, 35(4), 663–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kim, Y., & Schoen, R. (2000). On the quantum and tempo of fertility: Limits to the Bongaarts-Feeney adjustment. Population and Development Review, 26, 554–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kohler, H., & Philipov, D. (2001). Variance effects in the Bongaarts-Feeney formula. Demography, 38(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kohler, H., Billari, F., & Ortega, J. (2002). The emergence of lowest-low fertility in Europe during the 1990s. Population and Development Review, 28(4), 641–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lee, R. (1977). Target fertility, contraception, and aggregate rates: Toward a formal synthesis. Demography, 14(4), 455–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee, R. (1980). Aiming at a moving target: Period fertility and changing reproductive goals. Population Studies, 34, 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Morgan, P., Sobatka, T., & Testa, M. (Eds.). (2011). Vienna yearbook of population research (Special issue on reproductive decision-making). Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  14. Myrskylä, M., Goldstein, J., & Cheng, Y. (2013). New cohort fertility forecasts for the developed world: Rises, falls, and reversals. Population and Development Review, 39(1), 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ní Bhrolcháin, M. (1992). Period paramount? A critique of the cohort approach to fertility. Population and Development Review, 18(4), 599–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rodriguez, G. (2006). Demographic translation and tempo effects. Demographic Research, 14(article 6), 85–110.Google Scholar
  17. Ryder, N. (1964). The process of demographic translation. Demography, 1(1), 74–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ryder, N. (1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Sociological Review, 30(6), 843–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ryder, N. (1980). Components of temporal variations in American fertility. In R. Hiorns (Ed.), Demographic patterns in developed societies (pp. 15–54). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  20. Schmertmann, C., Zagheni, E., Goldstein, J., & Myrskylä, M. (2014). Bayesian forecasting of cohort fertility. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 109(506), 500–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schoen, R. (2004). Timing effects and the interpretation of period fertility. Demography, 41(4), 801–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sobotka, T., & Lutz, W. (2010). Misleading policy messages from the period TFR: Should we stop using it? Comparative Population Studies, 35(3), 637–664.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Bucknell UniversityLewisburgUSA

Personalised recommendations