Post on 11-Jan-2016
transcript
A demographic perspective to understand fertility barriers of
Hong Kong
Paul YipDepartment of Statistics and
Actuarial Science, The University of Hong Kong
Outlines
An overview of the population and marriage distribution
An analysis of Total fertility rate (the number babies born to a woman over the child bearing period)
Opportunities and challenges
Population size of Hong Kong SAR
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2004
Million Average annual growth rate
1971 - 76 2.34
1976 - 81 3.23
1981 - 86 1.53
1986 - 91 0.62
1991 - 96 1.80
1996 - 01 0.94
2001 - 04 0.84
Number of births and TFRs of HK, 1961 - 2004
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
19611962196319641965196619671968196919701971197219731974197519761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004
Liv
e b
irth
s
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
TF
R
Replacement level (2.1)
TFR
Number of Births
Total fertility rate, HKSAR and other low fertilityeconomies, 1971-2000
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996Year
per
wo
man
HK
Singapore
Finland
Net nuptiality (female), Hong Kong, 1981 and 2001 1981 2001
Age(x)
l(x) nL(x) l'(x) nL'(x) m l(x) nL(x) l'(x) nL'(x) m
0 1000 4992 1000 4991
5 998 4988 996 4981
10 997 4982 996 4979
15 996 4974 996 4786 3.8 995 4976 995 4924 1.0
20 994 4963 919 3327 33.0 995 4971 974 4343 12.6
25 992 4951 412 1151 76.8 994 4965 763 3072 38.1
30 989 4933 48 169 96.6 992 4957 466 1926 61.1
35 985 4906 20 78 98.4 991 4946 305 1390 71.9
40 978 4863 11 51 99.0 988 4928 251 1181 76.0
45 967 4799 9 983 221
Age-specific fertility rates of Hong Kong, 1971-2004
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49
Liv
e b
irh
ts p
er 1
,000
wo
men
19711976198119861991199620012004
Percentage distribution of live births by order of live birth,
1981-2003
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003P
erce
nta
ge
of
live
bir
ths
by
ord
er o
f li
ve b
irth
1st birth
2nd birth
3rd birth +
Total marital fertility rates
The TMFR depends on age of marriage Overall, the TMFR has also decreased
for the past 2 decades In 2001, the TMFR for resident women
was around 2 (close to the replacement level), given that they got married at 20
However, the figure would shrink to 1.6 if they got married at 25
Marriage age postponement
Median age at first marriage by sex, HKSAR, 1971-2000
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996
Year
Age
Bride
Groom
Marriage squeeze phenomenon in Hong Kong
(1)Number of never married
Agegroup
1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001
Man 25 - 34 108 141 219 274 290 313 296
35 - 44 40 37 39 44 61 90 112
45 - 54 13 17 24 21 17 21 34
25 - 54 161 195 282 339 368 424 442
Woman 20 - 29 128 184 275 325 311 326 337
30 - 39 9 9 26 49 84 122 141
40 - 49 8 6 6 7 17 29 56
20 - 49 145 199 307 381 412 477 534
Deficit(-)/surplus(+)of single woman
-16 4 25 42 44 53 92
Assuming the 2001 marriage pattern prevails, it is projected that about 29.7% of males and 24% of female would remain single when they reach 40
Marriage squeeze phenomenon in Hong Kong
(2)
4
25
42 4453
92
-16
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001Year
Single women inexcess (,000)
Total marital fertility rates by age of marriage in Hong Kong,
1981 - 2001
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49Age of marriage
Live births per1,000 women
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Total marital fertility rates
of Hong Kong by age of getting married, 2001
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44
Age of getting married
Live births of Hong Kong by residence of parents, 1991 -
2004
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Resident parents Mainland mother and resident father Non resident parents
Proportions of live births in Hong Kong by residence of
parents, 1991 – 2004
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Non resident parents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.336 1.755 3.343 7.064
Mainland mother, resident f ather 7.27 9.638 12.55 12.93 10.24 9.701 9.273 10.75 13.2 14.26 15 14.89 16.98 18.07
Resident parents 92.73 90.36 87.45 87.07 89.76 84.84 84.97 83.92 82.4 81.83 80.61 79.96 76.47 71.78
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03
Non-resident mothers
Resident mothers
Number of live births in Hong Kong byresidence of mothers, 1981 - 2003
Reasons for decline of TFR
Reduction on marital fertility rate Increase in the number of
spinsterhood Late marriage (median age on first
marriage: 30 males and 27 females) Imbalance of the supply and demand
(bachelors vs. spinsters) about 90,000 of women (age 20-44) outnumbers men (25-49)
WHY? A study on Barriers to Fertility for
married couples Knowledge Attitude and Practice (KAP)
study by the Family Planning Association A similar study entitled “Barriers on
Fertility” Yip, Lee and Lam, (2002)
The three major concerns:1. Unfavorable Economic condition2. Unsatisfactorily Education service 3. Individual preference.
Number of spinsterhood is
increasing Proportion of ever married men and women, HKSAR,
1971-2000
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
24 29 34 39 44 49Age group
Perc
enta
ge
1971(men)
2000(men)
1971(women)
2000(women)
Proportion of ever married persons
Figure 1: Proportion of ever married people by sex, HKSAR, 1981 and 1999
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
15 20 25 30 35 40 45Age
Pro
port
ion
Male (1981)
Female (1981)
Male (1999)
Female (1999)
Fertility Do we have a problem? Yes!
Is it a tempo problem? No!
Speed and Magnitude of the reduction of the
Fertility
It is the speed and the magnitude of the reduction of the fertility rate,
What can we learn from the overseas countries
Different measures have been implemented in many countries which have experienced low fertility (i.e. Australia, France, Italy, Japan, Singapore, Sweden and USA) that inhibit fertility decline.
Are they relevant in Hong Kong?
Total fertility rates of Hong Kong andselected low fertility economies, 1995 – 2002Year Asian economies Non-Asian economies
Hong Kong
Singapore Japan
Sweden
Norway
Netherlands
Australia
Denmark UK
Germany US
1995 1.3 1.67 1.42 1.74 1.87 1.53 1.83 1.81
1.71 1.25
1.98
1996 1.17 1.66 1.43 1.61 1.89 1.53 1.8 1.75
1.73 1.32
1.98
1997 1.1 1.61 1.39 1.52 1.86 1.56 1.78 1.75
1.72 1.37
1.97
1998 0.99 1.47 1.38 1.5 1.81 1.63 1.76 1.72
1.72 1.36 2
1999 0.97 1.47 1.34 1.5 1.85 1.65 1.76 1.74
1.69 1.36
2.01
2000 1.02 1.6 1.36 1.55 1.85 1.72 1.76 1.77
1.64 1.38
2.06
2001 0.93 1.41 1.33 1.57 1.78 1.71 1.73 1.75
1.63 1.35
2.03
2002 0.96 1.37 1.32 1.65 1.75 1.73 1.75 1.73
1.64 1.34
2.01
Window closes earlier when the age truncating
for total dependency ratio changed
Source: United Nations World Population Prospects: The 2002 Revision
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
YR<15
TDR(0-14+60+/15-59)
AR 60+
The challenges:Quantity
vs Quality
How to revert the low fertility:
Replacement Migration:
Healthy Population:
Low fertility About 60% reduction is due to change of
marital distribution rather than the reduction of marital fertility rate
Promoting fertility: CS suggested to have three. Due to the late marriage, they might not be able to catch up (1st order of birth 24.8 in 1981 to 29.8 in 2003)
Engage the newborns from Mainland born mothers in Hong Kong. (Of course, solve the critical staff problem first)
Replacement migration About more than 80% of the population
growth from migration. The new comers rejuvenate and inject new
blood into the community. They are not coming (38100 one-way
permit holders in 2004). Impact on the labour force: postponement
of the retirement age. Successful experience in Shanghai about
30% are newly migrants
Population pyramid of Hong Kong 1976, 2003 and 2033
Replacement Migration: slow down ageing
Healthy Population
Life-long health promotion and practice
Healthy life style. Prevention: to prevent unnecessary
health cost: for example, smoking and attempted or completed suicides
To remove the obstacles for getting married and
bearing babies Economic and Financial impact is a real concern.
A community consensus is needed. How much the community is willing
to pay for it? A higher tax?
Discussions
Social Responsibility and Individual choice?
Someone has to pay for it. No free lunch!
Time to Act Now
Analogy of a clock: Second arm (politics) Minute arm
(economic policy) Hour arm
(demography policy)
Thank you