Relative cohort size and fertility: the socio-political context of the easterlin effect

The conclusion of this study is that "institutional structures of collective social protection and changes in rates of female labor force participation influence cohort relative economic status and thus specify the effect of relative cohort size" on swings in fertility. Both income potential (affected by entering cohort size) and expected standard of living (affected by previous cohort size) are determined by cohort size. A large youth cohort relative to the parental cohort results in low income and low fertility. The Easterlin thesis that relative cohort size (the ratio of persons aged 30-64 years to persons aged 15-29 years) corresponds to shifts in fertility is supported for the period 1950-80 in the US. Replications of this thesis in Europe were unsuccessful. This study indicates that relative cohort size affects fertility depending on the country and the time period. This study examines 18 high-income countries during 1951-86. Measures of stable institutional characteristics of welfare states which may affect the relationship between relative cohort size and fertility include female labor force participation social security spending consensus democracy (Lijpharts five component scale) corporatism (Pampel Williamson and Stryker) total years of leftist rule commitment to egalitarian social policies (Esping-Andersons index of decommodification) and governability (Schmitter). Principal components factor analysis ordinary least squares (fixed-effects and generalized) models and multivariate analysis are constructed or performed. All mediating influences on fertility are not accounted for. Heterogeneity autocorrelation heteroscedasticity and contemporaneous correlation of residuals are controlled for. Relative cohort size which is lagged two years to allow for the gap between fertility desires and births modestly affects average fertility among 18 countries and at 38 time points. Relative cohort size has weak effects in Europe and in countries with high collectivism scores. High female labor force participation depresses the effect of relative cohort size. Relative cohort size has the strongest effects in the US Canada Ireland and the Netherlands. Effects in Germany Switzerland and Sweden are negligible or negative. The generalized least squares pooled model provides more accurate estimates. Social and institutional characteristics of nations affect the influence of relative cohort size on fertility.

[1]  Ron Lesthaeghe,et al.  Value changes and the dimensions of familism in the European community , 1987 .

[2]  V. Oppenheimer.  The Easterlin Hypothesis: Another Aspect of the Echo to Consider , 1976 .

[3]  Smith Dp.  A reconsideration of Easterlin cycles. , 1981 .

[4]  Arend Lijphart,et al.  Corporatism and Consensus Democracy in Eighteen Countries: Conceptual and Empirical Linkages , 1991, British Journal of Political Science.

[5]  R. Summers,et al.  The Penn World Table (Mark 5): An Expanded Set of International Comparisons, 1950-1987 , 1991 .

[6]  P. Demeny.  Pronatalist Policies in Low-Fertility Countries: Patterns, Performance, and Prospects , 1986 .

[7]  W. Lutz,et al.  Measuring fertility responses to policy measures in the German Democratic Republic. , 1990 .

[8]  J. Alm,et al.  Fertility and the personal exemption: implicit pronatalist policy in the United States. , 1990, The American economic review.

[9]  R. Freeman,et al.  The labour-market consequences of generational crowding , 1988, European journal of population = Revue europeenne de demographie.

[10]  J. Chesnais.  La notion de cycle en démographie. La fécondité post-transitionnelle est-elle cyclique ? , 1983, Population.

[11]  Philippe C. Schmitter,et al.  Still the Century of Corporatism? , 1974, The Review of Politics.

[12]  R. Rindfuss,et al.  RELATIVE ECONOMIC STATUS AND.FERTILITY: EVIDENCE FROM A CROSS-SECTION , 1976 .

[13]  G. Esping‐Andersen,et al.  The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism , 1990 .

[14]  C. Granger.  Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods , 1969 .

[15]  Arend Lijphart,et al.  Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in , 1984 .

[16]  R. Wright.  The Easterlin hypothesis and European fertility rates. , 1989 .

[17]  R. Easterlin.  The American baby boom in historical perspective , 1962 .

[18]  R. Lesthaeghe,et al.  Cultural Dynamics and Economic Theories of Fertility Change , 1988 .

[19]  R. Rindfuss,et al.  Those ubiquitous fertility trends: United States, 1945-1979. , 1983, Social biology.

[20]  C. Granger,et al.  Spurious regressions in econometrics , 1974 .

[21]  C. R. Winegarden.  Women's Fertility, Market Work and Marital Status: A Test of the New Household Economics with International Data , 1984 .

[22]  Class Context and Pension Response to Demographic Structure in Advanced Industrial Democracies , 1990 .

[23]  J. debeer.  Births and cohort size. , 1991 .

[24]  M. Vinovskis,et al.  Population Policy in Western Europe: Responses to Low Fertility in France, Sweden, and West Germany. , 1984 .

[25]  A. Buse,et al.  Elements of econometrics , 1972 .

[26]  R. Lesthaeghe.  A Century of Demographic and Cultural Change in Western Europe , 1983 .

[27]  M. Teitelbaum,et al.  The Fear of Population Decline. , 1986 .

[28]  H. Gregg Lewis,et al.  On the Interaction between the Quantity and Quality of Children , 1973, Journal of Political Economy.

[29]  D A Ahlburg,et al.  Good times, bad times: a study of the future path of U.S. fertility. , 1983, Social biology.

[30]  D. Macunovich.  A Review of Recent Developments in the Economics of Fertility , 1993 .

[31]  B. Western.  A Comparative Study of Corporatist Development , 1991 .