Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHY Report No. 17 Socioeconomic Determinants of Fertility Behavior in Developing Nations: Theory and initial Results . Barbara Entwisle Albert I. Hermalin William M. Mason Panel on Fertility Determinants Committee on Population and Demography Commission on Behavioral arid Social Sciences and Education National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1982

OCR for page R1
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the Rational Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering' and the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. m e Council operates in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy under the authority of its congressional charter of 1863, which establishes the Academy as a private, nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation. The Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in the conduct of their services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. It is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine were established in 1964 and 1970, respectively, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences. Available from NATIONS ACADEMY P=SS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
PANEL ON FERTILITY DETERMINANTS W. PARKER ~IJLDIN (Chair), The Rockefeller Foundation, New York ELBA BEP~QUO, Centro Brasileiro de Analise e Planejamento, Sao Paulo, Brazil WILLIAM BRASS, Centre for Population Studies, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine DAVID R. BRILLINGER, Department of Statistics, University of California, Berkeley V.C. CHIDAMBARAM, World Fertility Survey, London JULIE DAVANZO, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica RICHARD A. EASTERLIN, Department of Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles JAMES T . FAWCETT, East-West Population Institute, East-West Center, Honolulu RONALD FREEDMAN, Population Studies Center, University of Michigan DAVID GOLDBERG, Population Studies Center, University of Michigan RONALD GRAY, School of Hygiene and Pub, ic Health, The Johns Hopkins Univers ity, Baltimore PAULA E . HOLLERBACH, Center for Policy Studies, The Population Council, New York RONALD LEE, Graduate Group in Demography, University of California, Berkeley ROBERT A. LEVINE, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University SUSAN C.M. SCRIMSHAW, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles ROBERT WILLIS, Department of Economics, State University of New York, Stony Brook ROBERT J. LAPHAM, Study Director iii

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHY ANSLEY J. COALE (Chair), Office of Population Research, Princeton University WILLIAM BRASS, Centre for Population Studies, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine LEE-JAY CHO, East-West Population Institute, East-West Center, Honolulu RONALD FREEDMAN. Population Studies Center, University of Michigan NATHAN KEYFITZ, Department of Sociology, Harvard University LESLIE DISH, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan W. PARKER MAULDIN, Population Division, The Rockefeller Foundation, New York JANE MENKEN, Office of Population Research, Princeton University SAMUEL PRESTON, Population Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania WILLIAM SELTZER, Statistical Office, United Nations CONRAD TABUBER, Kennedy Institute, Center for Population Research, Georgetown University ETIENNE VAN DE WALLE, Population Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania ROBERT J. LAPHAM, Study Director NOTE: Members of the Committee and its panels and working groups participated in this project in their individual capacities; the listing of their organizational affiliation is for identification purposes only, and the views and designations used in this report are not necessarily those of the organizations mentioned. 1U

OCR for page R1
CONTENT S LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1 1. 1 INTRODUCTION, 1 The Context of Fertility Behavior, 2 Fertility as a Process, 4 Causality, 5 1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE MODEL, 7 Intermediate Fertility Variables, 9 Child Mortality, 11 Sex Composition, 12 Socioeconomic Variables, 13 Interactions, 13 Variables Omitted From the Model, 14 1.3 THE STRUCTURAL EQUATIONS, 16 Onset, 16 Early Outcomes, 20 Endogenous Socioeconomic Variables, 21 The Adjustment Variables, 23 Later Child Mortality, 24 Contraceptive Use Patterns, 25 Later Fertility, 29 Transitional Contexts, 29 Traditional Contexts, 30 v ~ V111 1X xi 1

OCR for page R1
1.4 REDUCED AND SEMIREDUCED FORM IMPLICATIONS OF THE MODEL, 31 The Need for Reduction, 31 Connections With and Between Familiar Variables, Implied and Actual Semireduced Form Equations, 33 Inferences About Coefficient Signs, 36 Child Mortality (CM), 40 Contraceptive Use (LCU), 42 Children Ever Born (CEB), 43 Discussion, 44 1.5 CONCLUSION, 44 The Micro Equations, 45 Hypotheses About Coefficients, 47 CHAPTER 2 2.1 INTRODUCTION, 50 2.2 THE PROBLEM, 51 2.3 MACRO HYPOTHESES, 51 Macro Determinants of Micro Slopes, 54 Macro Determinants of Micro Intercepts, 56 2.4 DATA AND VARIABLES EMPLOYED, 61 2.5 ILLUSTRATION OF OPERATIONALIZATION, 64 Macro Comparison, 64 Micro Results for Peru and Korea, 67 Age at First Birth (AFB), 67 Early Fertility (EF), 70 Later Fertility (LF), 72 2.6 MACRO ANALYSIS, 80 Within-Country Differences, 80 Between-Country Variability, 83 AFB and EF Slopes, 84 LF Slopes, 90 Intercepts, 108 2.7 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION, 114 vi 32 50

OCR for page R1
NOTES GLOSSARY REFERENCES 117 121 123 vii

OCR for page R1
LIST OF TABLES 1.2 1.3 1.1 Expected Directions of Socioeconomic Effects on Fertility Components, by Social Setting Predicted Signs of Structural Coefficients in Traditional and Transitional Settings Derived Signs of Implied and Actual Semi-Reduced Form Socioeconomic Effects on Child Mortality, Contraceptive Use Pattern and Children Ever Born, by Setting 2.1 Expected Signs of Micro Relationships Between Socioeconomic Variables and Fertility Components in Particular Macro Settings Expected Relationships Between Macro Variables and the InterceDts and Slone Goeff icients of the Micro Equations Micro Variables and Their Operational Definitions Macro Indicators Reported by Mauldin et al. (1978) Socioeconomic Characteristics of Korea and Peru, circa 1965 Age at First Birth (AFB) Structural Equation, Currently Married Women Aged 40-44 in 1975, Peru and Korea World Fertility Surveys Early Fertility (EF) Structural Equation, Currently Married Women Aged 40-44 in 1974, Peru and Korea World Fertility Surveys Late Fertility (LF) Structural Equation, Currently Married Women Aged 40-44 in 1974, Peru and Korea World Fertility Surveys The Number of Instances in Which Each Socioeconomic Explanatory Variable is Statistically Significant in the AFB, EF, AND LF Structural Equations, Summed over 15 WFS Countries 2.10 Weighted Regression of Socioeconomic Coefficients From the LF Micro Equation on Alternative Macro Indicators of S and FP 2.11 Model Corresponding to Predicted Sign Pattern of Macro Effects, Separately for Each Socioeconomic Coefficient of the LF Micro Equation 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 viii 6 17 39 S3 55 63 65 66 68 71 73 81 107 108

OCR for page R1
LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 Fertility Rates by Setting Causal Diagram of Proposed Model The Nature of the Interaction Hypothesized Between Early Fertility and Socioeconomic Status, in the Determination of Later Fertility, for Transitional Settings Plot of Childhood Residence (RESC) Coefficients from AFB Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR), with Bivariate (weighted) Regression Line: Y = .11 - .019{SSR) Plot of Wife's Education (WED) Coefficients from AFB Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR) with Bivariate (weighted) Regression Line: Y = 3.77 - .0085(SSR) 2.3 Plot of Childhood Residence (RESC) Coefficients from EF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR). with Bivar late (we ighted ) Regress ion Line: 2.4 2.7 5 8 15 85 86 Y = .23 - .034 (SSR) Plot of Wafers Education (WED) Coefficients from EF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks 1SSR), with Bivariate {weighted) Regression Line: Y = .046 - .026(SSR) 88 Plot of Work Before Marriage (WBM) Coefficients from EF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR), with Bivariate (weighted) Regression Line: Y = .16 - .0098(SSR) 89 2.6 Plot of Childhood Residence (RESC) Coefficients from LF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR), with Bivariate (weighted) Regression Line: Y = -.062 - .012 (SSR) 92 Plot of Childhood Residence (RESC) Coefficients from LF Micro Equations Against Family Planning Program Scores NAPS) , with Bivariate (weighted} Regression Line: Y = -.23 + .0045 (FPS) 2.8 Plot of Wife's Education (WED) Derived Effects from LF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR), with Bivariate (weighted) Regression Line: Y = -1.048 + .033 (SSR) 94 2.9 Plot of Wife's Education (WED) Derived Effects from LF Micro Equations Against Family Planning Program Scores (FPS) , with Bivariate (weighted) Regression Line: Y = - .53 - .018 (FPS) 87 93 1X 95

OCR for page R1
2.17 2.18 2.20 2.22 2.10 Plot of Work Before Marriage {WBM) Coefficients from OF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks {SSR), with Bivariate (weighted) Regression Line: Y = -.036 - .00065(SSR) 2.11 Plot of Work Before Marriage (WBM) Coefficients from LF Micro Equations Against Family Planning Program Scores |EPS), with Bivariate (weighted) Regression Line: Y = 0.062 + .0013(FPS) 2.12 Plot of Husband's Education (HED) Coefficients from LF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks, with Bivariate (weighted) Regression Line: Y = -.0046 - .050(SSR) 2.13 Plot of Husband's Education (HED) Coefficients from LF Micro Equations Against Family Planning Program Scores (FPS), with Bivariate (weighted) Regression Line: Y = -.19 - .017(FPS) 99 2.14 Plot of Work Since Marriage (WSM) Coefficients from LF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR), with Bivariate (weighted) Regression Line: Y = .13 - .049(SSR) 100 Plot of Work Since Marriage (WSM) Coefficients from LF Micro Equations Against Family Planning Program Scores (FPS), with Bivariate (weighted) Regression Line: Y = .14 - .024(FPS) 2.16 Plot of Current Residence (RES) Coefficients from LF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks ~SSR), with Bivariate (weighted) Regression Line: Y = -.23 - .037(SSR) 102 Plot of Current Residence (RES) Coefficients from LF Micro Equations Against Family Planning Program Scores (FPS), with Bivariate (weighted) Regression Line: Y = -.27 - .016(FPS) 103 Plot of Husband's Occupation (HOCC) Derived Effects from LF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR), with Bivariate (weighted) Regression Line: ~ = .19 - .036(SSR) 104 2.19 Plot of Husband's Occupation (HOCC) Derived Effects from LF Micro Equations Against Family Planning Program Scores (FPS), with Bivariate (weighted) Regression Line: ~ = .21 - .019(FPS) _.20 Plot of Intercepts from AFB Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR), with Bivariate (weighted) Regression Line: Y = 20.63 - .027(SSR) 2.21 Plot of Intercepts from EF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR), with Bivariate (weighted) Regression Line: Y = 10.55 + .024tSSR) Plot of Intercepts from LF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR), with Bivariate (weighted) Regression Line: Y = -4.65 + .085 (SSR) 2.23 Plot of Intercepts from LF Micro Equations Against Family Planning Program Scores (FPS), with Bivariate (weighted) Regression Line: Y = -5.90 + .12(FPS) x 96 97 98 101 105 110 111 112 113

OCR for page R1
PREFACE The two chapters of this report present the initial theoretical and empirical results of the Michigan Comparative Fertility Project, which is devoted to comparative research on reproductive behavior using data such as those provided by the World Fertility Survey. me theoretical and empirical research of the project employs a multilevel approach to the explanation of varying fertility and contraceptive use patterns across social groups, within and between societies. Chapter ~ develops a microlevel specification that distinguishes three components of the fertility process--onset, early fertility, and later fertility. These components lead to a block-recursive structural equations model. Using the equations, it is possible to trace the fertility effects of respon- dents' education and childhood residences through their intermediate consequences for work experience before and after marriage, husbands' education and occupation, current residence, child mortality, sex composition of offspring, marital duration, self-reported fecundability, and contraceptive use. The model is designed to be cohort specific. The comparative aspect of this research models variability in the micro relationships across societies. The ultimate outcome of the Michigan Comparative Fertility Project will be a joint model, consisting of micro and macrolevel equations that simultaneously take into account individual differences as well as country-level differences. Toward this end, Chapter 2 extends and tests the ideas underlying the theory of varying parameters articulated in Chapter 1. In addition, Chapter 2 presents highly tentative and preliminary empirical results for a subset of the micro equation-system developed in Chapter 1. Though mixed, these tentative results are consistent with the hypothesis at a critical j tincture, which is encouraging for the ongoing empir ical studies. Thus, this report represents initial findings from an ongoing proj eat. This report is one of the comparative analysis studies of the Panel on Fertility Determinants of the Committee on Population and Demography. The Committee on Population and Demography was established in April 1977 by the National Research Council in response to a request by the Agency for International Development (AID) of the U.S. Department of State. It was widely felt by those concerned that the time was ripe for a detailed review of levels and trends of fertility and mortality in the developing world. Although most people in the demographic x~

OCR for page R1
community agree that mortality has declined in almost all developing countries during the last 30 years, there is uncertainty about more recent changes in mortality in some countries, about current levels of fertility, about the existence and extent of recent changes in fertility, and about the factors determining reductions in fertility. In 1963, a Panel on Population Problems of the Committee on Science and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences published a report entitled The Growth of World Population. The appointment of that panel and the publication of its report were expressions of the concern then felt by scientists, as well as by other informed persons in many countries, about the implications of population trends. At that time, the most consequential trend was the pronounced and long- continued acceleration in the rate of increase of the population of the world, and especially of the population of the poorer countries. It was estimated in 1963 that the annual rate of increase of the global population had reached 2 percent, a rate that, if continued, would cause the total to double every 35 years. m e disproportionate contribution of low-income areas to that acceleration was caused by rapid declines in mortality combined with high fertility that remained almost unchanged: the birth rate was nearly fixed or declined more modestly than the death rate. Since the earlier report, however, the peak rate of growth in the world's population has apparently been passed. A dramatic decline in the birth rate in almost all the more developed countries has lowered their aggregate annual rate of increase to well below 1 percent, and the peak rate of increase has also apparently been passed in the less-developed parts of the world as a whole. A sharp decline in fertility in many low-income areas has more than offset the generally continued reduction in the death rate, although the rate of population increase remains high in almost all less-developed countries. The causes of the reductions in fertility--whether they are the effect primarily of such general changes as lowered infant mortality, increasing education, urban rather than rural residence, and improving status of women, or of such particular changes as spreading knowledge of and access to efficient methods of contraception or abortion--are strongly debated. There are also divergent views of the appropriate national and international policies on population in the face of these changing trends. The differences in opinion extend to different beliefs and assertions about what the population trends really are in many of the less-developed countries. Because births and deaths are recorded very incompletely in much of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, levels and trends of fertility and mortality must be estimated, and disagreement has arisen in some instances about the most reliable estimates of those levels and trends. It was to examine these questions that the Committee on Population and Demography was established within the Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education of the Hational Research Council. It was funded for a period of five and one-half years by AID under Contract No. AID/pha-C-llG1 and Grant No. AID/DSPE-G-0061. Chaired by Ansley J. Coale, the committee has undertaken three major tasks: xii

OCR for page R1
1. To evaluate available evidence and prepare estimates of levels and trends of fertility and mortality in selected developing nations; 2. To improve the technologies for estimating fertility and mortality when only incomplete or inadequate data exist (including techniques of data collection); 3. To evaluate the factors determining the changes In birth rates in less-developed nations. Given the magnitude of these tasks, the committee decided to concentrate its initial efforts on the first two tasks; it initiated work on the third task in October 1979 when the Panel on Fertility Determinants was established. As of early 1982, 168 population specialists, including 94 from developing countries, have been involved in the work of the committee as members of panels or working groups. The committee, the commission, and the National Research Council are grateful for the unpaid time and effort these experts have been willing to give. The committee approaches the first task through careful assessment, by internal and external comparison, and through analysis, by application of the most reliable methods known, of all the data sources available. Each of the country studies therefore consists of the application of a range of methods to a number of data sets. Estimates of levels and recent trends judged to be the best that are feasible with available resources are then developed on the grounds of their consistency and plausibility and the robustness of the individual methods from which they were derived. The committee's second task, ref. inement of methodology, is seen as a by-product of achieving the first. The application of particular methods to many different data sets from different countries and referring to different time periods will inevitably provide valuable information about the practical functioning of the methods themselves. Particular data sets might also require the development of new methodology or the refinement of existing techniques. The third task of the committee, evaluation of factors determining birth rates, is the most difficult. Research on the determinants of fertility change has been carried out by scholars from several disciplines, and there is no comprehensive accepted theory of fertility change to guide the evaluation. Because of this state of knowledge of the causes of reductions in fertility and the difficulty of the task, the committee and the Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education established the separately funded Panel on Fertility Determinants, which includes scholars from anthropology, demography, economics, epidemiology, psychology, sociology, and statistics. Three committee members serve on the panel. The authors' names on this report are listed in alphabetical order. This is intended to signify that the work is truly joint and collegial and that all three authors have made major, complementary contributions in theory development, empirical analysis, and writing. Barbara Entwisle is assistant professor of sociology at Dartmouth College and research associate at the Population Studies Center of the University of Michigan. At the time this research was carried out, she ~ x~'~

OCR for page R1
was a Mellon Fellow and research associate at the Population Studies Center and Mellon Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology, -by on Flanagan. Aloert I. Hermalzo is professor of sociology at the University of Michigan and director of the Population Studies Center. William M. Mason is professor of sociology at the University of Michigan and research scientist at the Population Studies Center. The panel and the committee are grateful to these authors for their intellectual creativity and work on this study and to the Population Studies Center for logistical support provided to the authors. In addition to support from the panel, the research was supported by NICHD Grant 1~01-HD15730 and by a grant for post-doctoral studies from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to the Population Studies Center of the University of Michigan. In addition, through its excellent research facilities and cost-sharing agreements, me University of Michigan has provided a valued environment in which to conduct this research. The research repotted hare Ha Nat hand h^^n earring Ah pi she'll the cooperation of the staff of the World Fertility Survey central office in London and the 15 countries that generated the data by carrying out World Fertility Survey projects. mese countries include Colombia, Costa Rica, Fiji, Guyana, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Korea, Lesotho, Malaysia, Panama, Peru, Sri Lanka, and mailand. We greatly appreciate their help, which has included permission to use the data and supplying data tapes, codebooks, and error updates and corrections. This work has also benefitted greatly from the generously bestowed efforts of a number of people. Albert Anderson was chiefly responsible for the initial programming that enabled us to work with the source data tapes. Lisa Neidert and Joan Kahn took charge of the subsequent computer work and transcription and contributed in other respects as well. Nilufer Ahmed, Alon Axelrod, Muhammad Faour, and Lora Meyers helped with transcriptions, computations, and literature searches. Carol Crawford, Mary Scott, and Mary Clair Toomey typed and prepared work sheets and manuscripts. The final typing was done by Irene Martinez. mese contributions are acknowledged with deep appreciation. The authors, panel, and committee would also like to thank the panel and committee members who reviewed the final draft. Earlier drafts were discussed during panel meetings, at which helpful comments were offered. Rona Briere edited the report and Elaine McGarraugh steered it through the production process with careful eye and calm attention to every detail. W. Parker Mauldin, Chair Panel on Fertility Determinants T~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ _ ~ . . _ ~ ~ ~~ ~ _ ~ _ _ ~ a _ ~ _ _ _ ~ _ ~ ~ _ ev _~ ~ _ XIV