A case study on divergence and convergence of fertility behaviour in Switzerland The value of...

A case study on divergence and convergence of fertility

behaviour in Switzerland

The value of detailed fertility dataThe value of detailed fertility data

Dr Marion BurkimsherDr Marion Burkimsher

Universities of Geneva and LausanneUniversities of Geneva and Lausanne

GlacierGlacier

SnowSnow

MeltwaterMeltwater

SubliminSublimin-ation-ation PopulationPopulation

BirthsBirths

DeathsDeaths

ImmigrImmigr-ation-ation

EmigrEmigr-ation-ation

GlaciologyGlaciology DemographyDemography

Questions to exploreQuestions to explore

• How are Switzerland's fertility data resources superior to those in How are Switzerland's fertility data resources superior to those in

many other countries?many other countries?

• But what are the weaknesses, and how can they be overcome?But what are the weaknesses, and how can they be overcome?

• Is age at childbearing still rising in Switzerland?Is age at childbearing still rising in Switzerland?

• Why has there been a recent rise in the total fertility rate?Why has there been a recent rise in the total fertility rate?

• Is there more variability in the age at which women have their Is there more variability in the age at which women have their

children now than in the past?children now than in the past?

• Is there more variability in how many children they have than in Is there more variability in how many children they have than in

the past?the past?

Structure of talkStructure of talk

• Introduction to Swiss demographic featuresIntroduction to Swiss demographic features

• Data overview and estimation of biological parityData overview and estimation of biological parity

• Trends in age at birth of each parityTrends in age at birth of each parity

• Period trends in fertility rates by parityPeriod trends in fertility rates by parity

• Cohort fertility ratesCohort fertility rates

• Predictions of fertility ratesPredictions of fertility rates

• Overview of answers to questions posed and conclusionsOverview of answers to questions posed and conclusions









Swiss demographic landscapeSwiss demographic landscape

• Possibly world’s highest mean age at first birth (almost 30)Possibly world’s highest mean age at first birth (almost 30)

• High proportion of women who remain childlessHigh proportion of women who remain childless

• TFR reached a minimum of 1.38 in 2001, rising since thenTFR reached a minimum of 1.38 in 2001, rising since then

• Relatively low proportion of births outside marriageRelatively low proportion of births outside marriage

• High proportion of foreign nationalsHigh proportion of foreign nationals

Total fertility rate Switzerland, 1950-2009

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Number of children per woman

1.51 in 1978

1.59 in 1990

Min 1.38 in 2001

1.50 in 2009

Peak of 2nd wave of Baby Boom, 2.67 in 1963-4

Births outside marriage as a proportion of total births

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009

%

Less than 10% until 1999

Proportion of marriages by nationality

Swiss/Swiss

Swiss man/foreign woman

Swiss woman/foreign man

Foreign/foreign









Data sourcesData sources

BEVNAT - registration of births by age of motherBEVNAT - registration of births by age of mother

ESPOP - population of Swiss women by age at mid-yearESPOP - population of Swiss women by age at mid-year

Census 2000 - answers to the question “Are you the father or Census 2000 - answers to the question “Are you the father or mother of one or several children? If so, how many and what mother of one or several children? If so, how many and what years were they born in?”years were they born in?”

Surveys including fertility question(s): Surveys including fertility question(s):

Fertility and Family Survey (FFS)Fertility and Family Survey (FFS)

Swiss Household Panel (SHP)Swiss Household Panel (SHP)

World Values Survey/European Values Study (WVS/EVS)World Values Survey/European Values Study (WVS/EVS)

European Social Survey (ESS)European Social Survey (ESS)

Generations and Gender Survey (2013)Generations and Gender Survey (2013)

Birth Registration dataBirth Registration data

1969-1997 Computerised database, but parity only registered 1969-1997 Computerised database, but parity only registered ““au sein du lit actuelau sein du lit actuel”, ie. birth order within the current marriage. ”, ie. birth order within the current marriage. Births outside marriage were all registered as parity 0.Births outside marriage were all registered as parity 0.

1998-2004 Biological parity started to be registered in addition to 1998-2004 Biological parity started to be registered in addition to parity within current marriage, but quite a lot of unknowns.parity within current marriage, but quite a lot of unknowns.

2005-2009.. Accurate recording of both biological parity and parity 2005-2009.. Accurate recording of both biological parity and parity within current marriage. Important as large growth in number of within current marriage. Important as large growth in number of births outside marriage and births in second/subsequent births outside marriage and births in second/subsequent marriages.marriages.

Re-processing of pre-2005 data to obtain estimates of true Re-processing of pre-2005 data to obtain estimates of true biological paritybiological parity

Sample of 2009 Sample of 2009

data tabledata table

Horsmariage

Âge de la mère

Rang biolo-gique 0 1 2 3 4 5+

<=15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0<=15 1 10 0 0 0 0 0<=15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0<=15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0<=15 4 0 0 0 0 0 0<=15 5+ 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 0 0 0 0 0 0 016 1 16 3 0 0 0 016 2 0 0 0 0 0 016 3 0 0 0 0 0 016 4 0 0 0 0 0 016 5+ 0 0 0 0 0 017 0 0 0 0 0 0 017 1 53 4 0 0 0 017 2 1 0 0 0 0 017 3 0 0 0 0 0 017 4 0 0 0 0 0 017 5+ 0 0 0 0 0 018 0 0 0 0 0 0 018 1 140 37 0 0 0 018 2 0 0 4 0 0 018 3 0 0 0 0 0 018 4 0 0 0 0 0 018 5+ 0 0 0 0 0 019 0 0 0 0 0 0 019 1 196 157 0 0 0 019 2 13 1 12 0 0 019 3 0 0 0 0 0 019 4 0 0 0 0 0 019 5+ 0 0 0 0 0 020 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 1 282 314 0 0 0 020 2 22 1 36 0 0 020 3 1 0 0 1 0 020 4 0 0 0 0 0 020 5+ 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rang dans le mariage en cours "du lit actuel")

No. of births to women in Switz in 2009 by age of mother and biological parity1 2 3 4 5+

<=15 10 0 0 0 016 19 0 0 0 017 57 1 0 0 018 177 4 0 0 019 353 26 0 0 020 596 59 2 0 021 834 139 5 0 022 1064 240 20 2 123 1316 416 54 2 024 1409 607 76 4 025 1655 884 118 12 026 1963 1014 208 27 327 2285 1342 249 40 528 2493 1551 384 53 929 2751 1774 479 81 1330 2869 1971 545 110 1631 2811 2221 585 130 3132 2744 2311 700 126 3833 2465 2280 749 167 4334 2310 2208 807 161 4735 1919 2101 769 195 4336 1642 1768 674 188 5837 1296 1538 622 191 4038 1008 1294 553 151 5639 767 954 413 149 5540 573 686 319 87 5741 348 445 214 98 4042 221 284 121 56 4743 148 151 65 26 2344 91 82 39 14 1845 50 42 24 3 1246 21 17 16 6 547 13 8 2 2 048 6 5 2 0 2

49+ 10 6 4 0 2

Totals 38294 28429 8818 2081 664 78286

Process of modelling biological parity from 1998-2008 data Process of modelling biological parity from 1998-2008 data to apply to pre-1998 datato apply to pre-1998 data

Assume that proportion of births outside marriage attributable to Assume that proportion of births outside marriage attributable to each biological parity is age-dependent, ie 100% of births to girls each biological parity is age-dependent, ie 100% of births to girls <=15 are 1st births and this % declines with increasing age of <=15 are 1st births and this % declines with increasing age of mothermother

Similarly, where parity in marriage is not equal to biological parity Similarly, where parity in marriage is not equal to biological parity this will be age-dependent. Women have had more possibility for this will be age-dependent. Women have had more possibility for multiple marriages / births outside marriage as they get older! multiple marriages / births outside marriage as they get older!

With 1998-2004 data used only data where biological parity was With 1998-2004 data used only data where biological parity was knownknown

Assumptions for data 1998-2004Assumptions for data 1998-2004

If biological parity was recorded it was considered correctIf biological parity was recorded it was considered correct

The distribution of parities which were recorded as unknown The distribution of parities which were recorded as unknown

follows the same distribution pattern as in the pre-1998 data follows the same distribution pattern as in the pre-1998 data

model (an extrapolation from the 1998-2008 data)model (an extrapolation from the 1998-2008 data)

ModelModel

Calculated the mean % for each age and each parity from the Calculated the mean % for each age and each parity from the

1998-2008 data, then for pre-1998 data re-assigned each parity 1998-2008 data, then for pre-1998 data re-assigned each parity

using these percentages.using these percentages.

Even though there may have been a trend over time, it would be Even though there may have been a trend over time, it would be

dangerous to extrapolate that trend backwards in time - would it dangerous to extrapolate that trend backwards in time - would it

continue linearly, for how long, etc…??continue linearly, for how long, etc…??

This may mean that forThis may mean that for

births outside marriage at older ages - too many assigned to births outside marriage at older ages - too many assigned to

parities greater than 1 (but not so many of them in past)parities greater than 1 (but not so many of them in past)

births within marriage - too many re-assigned to a higher parity births within marriage - too many re-assigned to a higher parity

than there actually werethan there actually were

Attribution of births outside marriage to biological parities

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

<=15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

>=49Age of mother

Bio par1 Bio par2 Bio par3 Bio par4 Bio pa5+

Attribution of births parity 1 in marriage to correct bio parities

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

<=15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

>=49Age of mother

Mar 1 bio 1 Bio par2 Bio par3 Bio par4 Bio pa5+

New database created for Swiss fertility data New database created for Swiss fertility data

by age by age

and by correct biological parity!and by correct biological parity!

Can compare with cohort fertility as recorded in Census 2000Can compare with cohort fertility as recorded in Census 2000

But census data is not perfect…But census data is not perfect…

Proportion of women who did not declare their number of children in the Swiss census 2000, by cohort

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

1920192119221923192419251926192719281929193019311932193319341935193619371938193919401941194219431944194519461947194819491950195119521953195419551956195719581959196019611962196319641965196619671968196919701971197219731974197519761977197819791980

Cohort - year of birth

Swiss Foreign









Evolution of age-specific birth rates parity 1 over time

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Age of mother at birth of 1st child

Birth rate parity 1

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2009

Changes in fertility rate curves in period 1969-2009Changes in fertility rate curves in period 1969-2009

Peak has become laterPeak has become later

Peak has become lowerPeak has become lower

Curve has become widerCurve has become wider

Curve has changed from being skewed left to nearly symmetricCurve has changed from being skewed left to nearly symmetric

Trends in age-specific fertility rates, parity 1

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

19691970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009

Fertility rate parity 1

20 25 30 35 39

Decline in birth rates under 30, increase in birth rates over age 30

Age at peak (modal) birth rate

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

19691970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009

Year

Age of mother

Parity 1 Parity 2 Parity 3 Parity 4 Parity 5+

In 1970 there was 11 years between modal age of In 1970 there was 11 years between modal age of 1st and 4th births1st and 4th births

In 2007 the difference was only 2 years!In 2007 the difference was only 2 years!

Change in age at first birth - deciles

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

1969 1989 2009

Year

Age at first birth

1st decile

2nd decile

3rd decile

4th decile

Median

6th decile

7th decile

8th decile

9th decile

Median has increased steadily from 23 to 29 over 40 year period (6 years)First decile has gone up from 19 to 22 (3 years)9th decile has gone up from 30 to 36 (6 years)

Change in mean age at birth of each parity 1969-2007

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

19691970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009Year

Age of mother

1st birth 2nd birth 3rd birth 4th birth 5th+ birth

Parity 1 increase started 1971Parity 2 increase started 1973Parity 3 increase started 1980Parity 4 increase started 1986

Parity 5+ increase started 1991

Gap between mean age at 1st birth and 4th birth declined from 8 years in 1972 to 4.9 in 1990 and since then has been steady

Differences in mean age at nth and (n+1)th birth

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

19691970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009

Years

1st-2nd birth 2nd-3rd birth 3rd-4th birth

But doesn’t necessarily mean that birth spacing is getting closer!!

Mean age at first birth and life expectancy at 65

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009

Mean age at first birth

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

Life expectancy at 65

Mean age at 1st birth Life expectancy at 65

Women can expect to die when their 1st child reaches 57?

Change in standard deviation of age at birth

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

5.2

5.4

19691970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009Year

Standard deviation, years


Parity 1 increase started 1994Parity 2 increase started 1995Parity 3 increase started 1998Parity 4 increase started 2001Parity 5+ increase started 2001

Reversal in order! Parity 1 had least variability,Reversal in order! Parity 1 had least variability,now most; high parities were most variable, now leastnow most; high parities were most variable, now least









In the 2000 Swiss census, each person was asked how many children they had had.

For women born in 1960 - who were, therefore, aged 40, and so approaching the end of their childbearing years - the mean

number of children they had had was 1.73

The Population Reference Bureau’s definition of TFR is “The average number of children that would be born alive to a woman during her lifetime if she were to pass through her childbearing years conforming to the age-specific fertility rates of a given year”

But the mean TFR for the period 1980-1999 was 1.53!

Why the big difference between 1.53 and 1.73?

Possible reasons for mismatch between Possible reasons for mismatch between

period fertility rates and cohort fertility ratesperiod fertility rates and cohort fertility rates

Data errors:Data errors:

Birth registrationsBirth registrations

Population totals by agePopulation totals by age

““Sampling” errors in the censusSampling” errors in the census

Change in population between years of birth and censusChange in population between years of birth and census

Differential mortalityDifferential mortality

Immigration and emigrationImmigration and emigration

Postponement of childbearingPostponement of childbearing

Bongaarts-Feeney correctionBongaarts-Feeney correction

Tempo-adjusted TFR is Tempo-adjusted TFR is the value expected if there had been no the value expected if there had been no change in age at childbearing: change in age at childbearing:

Raw FRRaw FR

(1-(1-rrpp) )

where where rrpp denotes the rate of change in the period mean age at denotes the rate of change in the period mean age at childbearing in year childbearing in year tt..

Needs to be applied to each parity separately because each parity Needs to be applied to each parity separately because each parity may be affected by postponement at different times and to may be affected by postponement at different times and to differing degrees!differing degrees!

Used 5 year moving average of delays for each parity, except for Used 5 year moving average of delays for each parity, except for 2008 (3 yr moving average) and 2009 (extrapolation)2008 (3 yr moving average) and 2009 (extrapolation)

Evolution of delays in births of each parity

-0.25

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

1971197219731974197519761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007

Year-on-year delay


Raw TFR, correctd TFR and children per mother

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

19691970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009

Number of children per woman/mother

Raw TFR Corrected TFR* Children per mother

2.03

1.78

1.50

1.38

Corrected TFR is significantly higher than raw TFR

Fertility rates by parity with B-F correction

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009

Fertility rate


0.890.87

Peaks for parity 1 in 1984-5 and 2006 Troughs in 1978-9 and 1997

Peak for parity 2 in 1986-7Marked rise in parity 2 since 2006

Peak for parity 3 in 1990

0.86

0.77 0.76

Fertility rates with Bongaarts-Feeney correction, decomposed by parity

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009

Fertility rate


Marked rise 1976-1984, followed by gentle fallSlight peak in 2000 followed by sharp dip in 2001Since 2001 has been steadily rising

Rise in TFR between 2001 and 2006 was due to rise in parity 1 fertility rates, ie. decline in incidence of childlessness

Rise in TFR between 2007 and 2009 was due to increase in parity 2 fertility rates

Changing fertility rate curves since 2001

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

15/16/18/1916/17/19/2017/18/20/2118/19/21/2219/20/22/2320/21/23/2421/22/24/2522/23/25/2623/24/26/2724/25/27/2825/26/28/2926/27/29/3027/28/30/3128/29/31/3229/30/32/3330/31/33/3431/32/34/3532/33/35/3633/34/36/3734/35/37/3835/36/38/3936/37/39/4037/38/40/4138/39/41/4239/40/42/4340/41/43/4441/42/44/4542/43/45/4643/44/46/4744/45/47/4845/46/48/4946/47/49/50

Age at 1st birth in 2001/2006: Age at 2nd birth 2003/2008

Fertility rate

2001 parity 1 2006 parity 1 2003 parity 2 2008 parity 2









Cohort fertilityCohort fertility

Used parity-by-parity birth rates calculated from period data Used parity-by-parity birth rates calculated from period data

to estimate cohort fertilityto estimate cohort fertility

With re-assignment of parities using modelWith re-assignment of parities using model

For comparison with census data use birth data up to (and For comparison with census data use birth data up to (and

including) year 2000including) year 2000

Remarkable match from different data sources!

Evolution of size of cohorts of women of reproductive age

35000

40000

45000

50000

55000

60000

65000

19691970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009

Number of women

Females born in 1980 Females born in 1975 Females born in 1970Females born in 1965 Females born in 1960 Females born in 1955Females born in 1950 Females born in 1945 Females born in 1940

Cohort sizes have changed considerably (>30% for cohorts 1965 and 1970 during the course of their reproductive life)!

There has been large net immigrationComparison suggests fertility rate of residentsand newcomers is identical

Model for estimating cohort fertility Model for estimating cohort fertility before full reproductive life is completebefore full reproductive life is complete

Can use it as soon as cohort has passed age of peak fertility for Can use it as soon as cohort has passed age of peak fertility for parity 1 (ideally also parity 2)parity 1 (ideally also parity 2)

Use cohort data to complete the curve with current year’s period Use cohort data to complete the curve with current year’s period data. This will ‘probably’ give an data. This will ‘probably’ give an under-estimateunder-estimate of total fertility of of total fertility of youngest cohorts, as ongoing postponement will cause ongoing youngest cohorts, as ongoing postponement will cause ongoing depression of fertility rates (for a while).depression of fertility rates (for a while).

Can be improved by making Bongaarts-Feeney correction to this Can be improved by making Bongaarts-Feeney correction to this added period data. However, this might give an added period data. However, this might give an over-estimateover-estimate of of the total cohort fertility, as there is ‘likely’ to be a slowing down on the total cohort fertility, as there is ‘likely’ to be a slowing down on postponement in the future.postponement in the future.

Changes in family sizes by cohort

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

19201921192219231924192519261927192819291930193119321933193419351936193719381939194019411942194319441945194619471948194919501951195219531954195519561957195819591960196119621963196419651966196719681969197019711972197319741975Cohort (year of birth)

Proportion with each parity

Childless C+ 1 child C+ 2 children C+ 3 children C+ 4 children C+ 5+ children C+

Childless* 1 child* 2 children* 3 children* 4 children* 5+ children*

Childless BF 1 child BF 2 children BF 3 children BF 4 children BF 5+ children BF

Census data plus Census data plus births after 2000births after 2000

Birth registration data, biological parity modelBirth registration data, biological parity model

Dashed lines - extrapolated with period dataDashed lines - extrapolated with period data

Continuous lines - extrapolated with period data with Continuous lines - extrapolated with period data with B-F correction assuming ongoing postponementB-F correction assuming ongoing postponement

MismatchesMismatches

Could be errors in the biological parity model - need to checkCould be errors in the biological parity model - need to check

Could be due to population movementsCould be due to population movements

Could be due to different measures of the resident population inCould be due to different measures of the resident population in

the census and that used to calculate fertility ratesthe census and that used to calculate fertility rates

Or…?Or…?

Decline in proportion of childless women in women >40 after 2000

15%

16%

17%

18%

19%

20%

21%

22%

23%

1951 - 49 1952 - 48 1953 - 47 1954 - 46 1955 - 45 1956 - 44 1957 - 43 1958 - 42 1959 - 41 1960 - 40

Cohort - age in 2000

Childless in 2000 Childless in 2009

The proportion childless in 2000 was derived from the the census 2000 ignoring the women who did not declare the number of childlren they had had.The proportion childless in 2009 was the proportion childless in the census 2000 with the addition of births deduced from the parity 1 fertility rates for the years 2001-2009.

Gini coefficient of children per woman and children per mother, census 2000 data and BEVNAT+ extrapolation

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

1930193119321933193419351936193719381939194019411942194319441945194619471948194919501951195219531954195519561957195819591960196119621963196419651966196719681969197019711972197319741975Cohort (year of birth)

Gini coefficient

Children/woman census Children/woman BEVNATChildren/mother census Children/mother BEVNAT









Doubtful, because delay will stop “soon” and then TFR will Doubtful, because delay will stop “soon” and then TFR will

automatically rise, starting with parity 1 fertility rateautomatically rise, starting with parity 1 fertility rate

Likely to rise to 1.7, perhaps even higher??Likely to rise to 1.7, perhaps even higher??

This will happen automatically when postponement halts - This will happen automatically when postponement halts -

no influence from government policies!no influence from government policies!

Year OFS estimated TFR

2010 1.52

2020 1.53

2030 1.52

2040 1.52

2050 1.52









Questions exploredQuestions explored

• How are Switzerland's fertility data resources superior to those in How are Switzerland's fertility data resources superior to those in

many other countries? many other countries? Biological parity, fertility question in censusBiological parity, fertility question in census

• But what are the weaknesses, and how can they be overcome? But what are the weaknesses, and how can they be overcome?

Modelling of biological parity pre-1998Modelling of biological parity pre-1998

• Is age at childbearing still rising in Switzerland? Is age at childbearing still rising in Switzerland? Yes, sustainedYes, sustained

• Why has there been a recent rise in the total fertility rate? Why has there been a recent rise in the total fertility rate?

Rise in parity 1 fertility rate followed by rise in parity 2 fertility rateRise in parity 1 fertility rate followed by rise in parity 2 fertility rate

• Is there more variability in the age at which women have their Is there more variability in the age at which women have their

children now than in the past? children now than in the past? Yes, especially first birthsYes, especially first births

• Is there more variability in how many children they have than in Is there more variability in how many children they have than in

the past? the past? NoNo

Other snippetsOther snippets

• Change in cohort size can be used to track net immigration, if Change in cohort size can be used to track net immigration, if population registers are good (as in Switzerland)population registers are good (as in Switzerland)• Population decline has not started to happen, despite a TFR well Population decline has not started to happen, despite a TFR well below replacement level for nearly 4 decades, because death below replacement level for nearly 4 decades, because death rates have been similarly deflated because of the rise in life rates have been similarly deflated because of the rise in life expectancy – this may also slow / cease at some time in the futureexpectancy – this may also slow / cease at some time in the future• The final distribution of parities of the cohort of women born in The final distribution of parities of the cohort of women born in the early 1970s is predicted to be: childless 18 - 20%;the early 1970s is predicted to be: childless 18 - 20%;1 child 21- 23%; 2 children around 40% or a little higher; 1 child 21- 23%; 2 children around 40% or a little higher; 3 children 14%; 4 children 2 - 3%; higher parities 1 - 2%3 children 14%; 4 children 2 - 3%; higher parities 1 - 2%• Compared to neighbouring countries, the childlessness rate in Compared to neighbouring countries, the childlessness rate in Switzerland is high (though not quite as high as in W Germany); Switzerland is high (though not quite as high as in W Germany); however 1-child families are rather rare in Switzerland, though however 1-child families are rather rare in Switzerland, though showing a tendency to increase. The proportions with three and showing a tendency to increase. The proportions with three and more children are similar to Italy, Austria and West Germany, more children are similar to Italy, Austria and West Germany, while France has significantly more larger familieswhile France has significantly more larger families

Final conclusions (1)Final conclusions (1)

It would appear that women born post-war in Switzerland are It would appear that women born post-war in Switzerland are

maintaining a very steady distribution of family sizesmaintaining a very steady distribution of family sizes

They are achieving this by giving birth over an increasingly wide They are achieving this by giving birth over an increasingly wide

age range - especially with more births at higher agesage range - especially with more births at higher ages

The parity 1 fertility rate, which can be considered a measure of The parity 1 fertility rate, which can be considered a measure of

propensity for childlessness, is the most variable over time, propensity for childlessness, is the most variable over time,

probably reacting to economic influences: however, postponed probably reacting to economic influences: however, postponed

births are generally recouped at higher ages - increasingly even to births are generally recouped at higher ages - increasingly even to

women over 40. Once the parity 1 rate starts to rise, the parity 2 women over 40. Once the parity 1 rate starts to rise, the parity 2

rate follows a couple of years later..rate follows a couple of years later..

Final conclusions (2)Final conclusions (2)

There was There was convergenceconvergence in family sizes in family sizes up to the cohort born in up to the cohort born in 1946 and since then there has been stability1946 and since then there has been stability

This stability in parity distributions has been achieved by a marked This stability in parity distributions has been achieved by a marked divergencedivergence in timing in timing of births of births

There has been a marked There has been a marked convergenceconvergence in the mean age at in the mean age at births of all paritiesbirths of all parities: women who are going to have larger : women who are going to have larger families start childbearing at a younger age; those who will have families start childbearing at a younger age; those who will have smaller families start latersmaller families start later

Date post:	04-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	berenice-robinson
View:	213 times
Download:	1 times

A case study on divergence and convergence of fertility behaviour in Switzerland The value of...

Documents