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 R2
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 R3
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 R4
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 R5
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 R6
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 R7
NOTES
GLOSSARY
REFERENCES
117
121
123
vii
OCR for page R8
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 R9
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 R10
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 R11
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 R12
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 R13
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 R14
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
