Was slowing postponement really the engine for TFR rises in

European countries?

Marion Burkimsher

Affiliate researcher

University of Lausanne, Switzerland

After at least a decade of falls, the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) started rising around 1996-2003 in many European countries. Why? (demographic reasons…)

TFRs can rise because of:

1. Rise in 1st birth rate-FR1 (decline in childlessness)

Either “real” or caused by change in timing

2. Rise in 2nd birth rate-FR2 (more women going on to have a 2nd child)

Either “real” or caused by change in timing

3. Rise in larger families-FR3+ (3+ children)

Which was the case for the recent rises?

Several countries reached ‘lowest-low’ levels, TFR<1.3

Data source: Human Fertility Database: www.humanfertility.org

Declines in TFR during 1990sfrom max 1990/1991 to minimum

1.10

1.30

1.50

1.70

1.90

2.10

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

TFR

Austria

Bulgaria

Czech Rep

Estonia

Finland

Hungary

Lithuania

N'lands

Russia

Slovakia

Slovenia

Sweden

Switz.

Recent rises in TFRfrom year of minimum to recent maximum

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

1.80

1.90

2.00

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

TFR

Austria

Bulgaria

Czech Rep

Estonia

Finland

Hungary

Lithuania

N'lands

Russia

Slovakia

Slovenia

Sweden

Switz.

Minima reached in period 1996-2003; maxima 2008>

But Portugal is the exception to prove the rule!

TFR Portugal

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

1.80

1.90

2.00

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

TFR

Portugal saw a maximum TFR in 2000 and a steady decline after

The TFR is the sum of the fertility rates for 1st, 2nd, 3rd… children(FR1, FR2, FR3….). So are larger families the explanation?

TFR increases in fertility rates decomposed by birth order Year of TFR minimum to year of recent TFR max

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

AustriaBulgaria

Czech Rep

Estonia FinlandHungaryLithuania

N'lands RussiaSlovakiaSloveniaSweden

Switz.

FR increase

FR3

FR2

FR1

The rise in FR3+ has been small for most countriesHowever, >=0.05 rise in Russia, Estonia, Slovenia and Sweden

Increases in FR1 and FR2 have been much more important

Trends in fertility rate of higher birth orders (FR3+)from year of TFR min to year of recent TFR max

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Fertility rate 3+

Austria

Bulgaria

Czech Rep

Estonia

Finland

Hungary

Lithuania

Netherlands

Russia

Slovakia

Slovenia

Sweden

Switzerland

Some demographers have explained the rise in TFR as being caused by declining postponement rates

Bongaarts, J. and Sobotka, T. 2012. A demographic explanation for the recent rise in European fertility. Population and Development Review, 38: 83–120.

How does timing of childbearing (tempo) affect the fertility rates (quantum)?

Example: Each year the mean age at first birth (MAB1) rises by 1 month (eg. Switzerland each year since 1970). This means that each year 1 month’s worth of babies are postponed into the following year. They are still born, but later in a woman’s life. So the period rate, FR1, needs to have those extra month’s worth of babies added in to approximate the cohort FR1. Bongaarts-Feeney correction: FR1* = Raw FR1Raw FR1

(1- (1- ΔMAB1MAB1) )

Apply by birth order FR1, FR2…Apply by birth order FR1, FR2…

(There are newer, more complex measures which may be better)(There are newer, more complex measures which may be better)

What do graphs of year-on-year change in MAB1 tell us?

1. If the line is above zero, postponement is occurring

period FR1 rates are being deflated w.r.t cohort FR1 rates

2. If the line is rising, the postponement rates are increasing

period FR1 rates are being increasingly deflated over time

3. If line is falling, then postponement rates are declining

period FR1 rates are being deflated less over time, ie. they are approaching the cohort FR1 rates

• As TFR and FR1 rates started to increase

it was assumed that this was caused by (3) - as predicted

• But what do we find when we look at the actual graphs of MAB1 trends?

We could expect increasing postponement during 1990s when TFRs were falling… partially true…

And we would expect declining postponement after the TFR reached its minimum…

Stage 0: Year-on-year increase in MAB13 year moving averages

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Years

Austria

Bulgaria

Czech Rep

Estonia

Finland

Hungary

Lithuania

Russia

Slovakia

Slovenia

Sweden

Switz.

Netherlands did not go through this stage

But the reality (for most European countries) was different…

…for a few years at least. But then what happened?…

Stage 1: Year-on-year increase in MAB13 year moving averages

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Years

Austria

Bulgaria

Czech Rep

Estonia

Finland

Hungary

Lithuania

N'lands

Slovakia

Sweden

Switz.

Russia and Slovenia did not go through this stage

Then postponement rates did indeed start to fall…

…for a while. But then, approaching the recession…

Stage 2: Year-on-year increase in MAB13 year moving averages

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Years

Austria

Bulgaria

Czech Rep

Estonia

Finland

Hungary

Lithuania

N'lands

Russia

Slovakia

Slovenia

Sweden

Switz.

We do not have long data series for this stage, so let’s concentrate on Stages 1 and 2…

Stage 3: Year-on-year increase in MAB13 year moving averages

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Years

Austria

Estonia

Finland

Russia

Slovakia

Sweden

Switz.

Bulgaria, Czech Rep, Hungary, Lithuania, Netherlands and Slovenia did not go through this stage

Stage 1 decomposition - see abstract for details

Increases stemmed mostly from ‘real’ rises in FR1

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

Austria 2001-

2006

Bulgaria1997-2001Czech Rep1999-2001

Estonia 1998-

2001

Finland 1998-

2002

Hungary2003-2004Lith. 2002-

2010

N'lands 1996-

2004

Slovakia2002-2003

Sweden 1999-

2002

Switz. 2001-

2005Change in fertility rates over period

Total rise in TFR "Real" rise/fall in 1st births

Rise/fall from change timing 1st births "Real" rise/fall in 2nd births

Rise/fall from change timing 2nd births Increase in larger families (3+)

Russia and Slovenia did not go through this stage

"Real" rise/fall = Change in FR1* (or FR2*) between start and end of period

Rise/fall from change in timing = Excess change in FR1 over FR1* (or FR2 over FR2*)

Stage 2

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

Austria 2006-

2008

Bulgaria 2001-

2008

Czech Rep2001-2008

Estonia 2001-

2006

Finland 2002-

2005

Hungary2004-2008

N'lands 2004-

2008

Russia 1999-

2007

Slovakia2003-2007

Slovenia2003-2008

Sweden 2002-

2007

Switz. 2005-

2007Change in fertility rates over period

Total rise in TFR "Real" rise in 1st birthsRise from change timing 1st births "Real" rise in 2nd birthsRise from change timing 2nd births Increase in larger families (3+)

Lithuania did not go through this stage

Rises in TFR came mostly from declining postponement of 1st births - plus rise in ‘real’ 2nd birth rates

Peak age-specific 1st birth fertility rate: Stages 1 & 2

0.0400

0.0450

0.0500

0.0550

0.0600

0.0650

0.0700

0.0750

0.0800

0.0850

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Peak ASFR1

Austria

Bulgaria

Czech Rep

Estonia

Finland

Hungary

Lithuania

Netherlands

Russia

Slovakia

Slovenia

Sweden

Switzerland

Only a few countries have seen a marked increase in intensity since ~2000: Sweden, Slovenia, Czech Rep, Lithuania…

So has there been increased ‘intensity’ of first births, ie. higher peak at modal age?

Peak age-specific 1st birth fertility rate: Stage 0

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.14

0.15

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Peak ASFR1

Austria

Bulgaria

Czech Rep

Estonia

Finland

Hungary

Lithuania

Netherlands

Russia

Slovakia

Slovenia

Sweden

Switzerland

NB: different vertical scale to previous graph!

…compared to marked declines in intensity during 1990s affecting all European countries, but especially E Europe:

(Similar pattern

with FR2)

Trends in Standard Deviation of MAB1: Stages 1 and 2

4.00

4.20

4.40

4.60

4.80

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Years

Austria

Bulgaria

Czech Rep

Estonia

Finland

Hungary

Lithuania

Netherlands

Russia

Slovakia

Slovenia

Sweden

Switzerland

These trends are a continuation of those seen in Stage 0

But the fertility curve has widened > area under curve increased > increase in FR1

Looking in more depth at the changing fertility curves… A rising

fertility rate stems from a greater area under the fertility curve

What does postponement look like in terms of the changing

shape of the age-specific fertility curve?

In making the B-F correction we are widening the curve, but not

raising the peak > period fertility curves are narrower than

cohort fertility curves when postponement is taking place

See example from Switzerland…

An example of the difference between period and cohort FR1

Switzerland: age specific 1st birth fertility rates

0.0000

0.0100

0.0200

0.0300

0.0400

0.0500

0.0600

0.0700

0.0800

0.0900

0.1000

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 42Age

ASFR1

1960 cohort

1986 period

FR1 1960 cohort = 0.83

FR1 1986 period = 0.70

Example of change in shape of fertility curve at different years

Bulgaria: age specific 1st birth fertility rates

0.0000

0.0100

0.0200

0.0300

0.0400

0.0500

0.0600

0.0700

0.0800

0.0900

0.1000

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

Age

ASFR1

1993 Yr 0

1997 Yr 1

2001 Yr 2

2008 Yr 3

Yr 0 = year of highest peakYr 1 = year of min TFRYr 2 = year postponement rates start declineYr 3 = year postponement rates stabilise

Sweden: age-specific 1st birth fertility rates

0.0000

0.0100

0.0200

0.0300

0.0400

0.0500

0.0600

0.0700

0.0800

0.0900

0.1000

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

Age

ASFR1

1993

1999

2002

2007

Sweden and Bulgaria had very similar increase in FR1 - but quite different changes in fertility curves - yet both stem from increases in post-modal age FR1

So what is the full story of the rise in TFRs?

NB: each country is slightly different; variations E and W Europe

1. The period 1990/1991 to roughly the end of the decade was marked by declining TFRs across the European countries

2. The FR1 reached a minimum and started rising. In some cases this pre-dated the rise in combined TFR

3. In most cases the rise was not caused initially by declining postponement nor increasing intensity but a rise in post-modal-age first births

4. Peak (modal age) fertility rates stopped falling and stabilised; the fertility curve continued widening>rise in area under curve

5. There was then a period when declining postponement rates caused the FR1 to rise (also reflected with widening curve)

6. The FR2 generally started rising after the FR1

7. Modest rises in FR3+ have contributed a little to the TFR rise

8. The situation post-2008 is being impacted by the recession

So what was the answer to the question posed in the title?

Was slowing postponement really the engine for TFR rises in European countries?

The answer is “It’s complicated!” or “No and yes!”

The main driver of the rise in TFR has been increasing variability in age of childbearing - this has broadened the fertility curve for 1st and 2nd births. Later (post-modal age) childbearing has increased more than early childbearing has declined

In some countries there has been an increase in intensity of childbearing

Thank you!

drmarionb@gmail.com

Thought of the conference:

If women feel more free to have children at whatever age (we see this from increasing standard deviation of MAB), this could cause period TFRs to fluctuate more wildly than in the past (say with business confidence) - even if cohort fertility remains quite stable….

Peak age-specific 2nd birth fertility rates: Stages 1 & 2

0.0200

0.0250

0.0300

0.0350

0.0400

0.0450

0.0500

0.0550

0.0600

0.0650

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Peak ASFR2

Austria

Bulgaria

Czech Rep

Estonia

Finland

Hungary

Lithuania

Netherlands

Russia

Slovakia

Slovenia

Sweden

Switzerland

Modest rise in later years in Sweden, Slovenia, Czech Rep, Lithuania…(same countries which had rise in FR1 peaks)

Similarly with FR2…

Peak age-specific 2nd birth fertility rate: Stage 0

0.0250

0.0300

0.0350

0.0400

0.0450

0.0500

0.0550

0.0600

0.0650

0.0700

0.0750

0.0800

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Peak ASFR2

Austria

Bulgaria

Czech Rep

Estonia

Finland

Hungary

Lithuania

Netherlands

Russia

Slovakia

Slovenia

Sweden

Switzerland

Following falls in FR2 peaks through 1990s, as with FR1 peaks

Trends in Standard Deviation of MAB2: Stages 1&2

4.00

4.20

4.40

4.60

4.80

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Years

Austria

Bulgaria

Czech Rep

Estonia

Finland

Hungary

Lithuania

Netherlands

Russia

Slovakia

Slovenia

Sweden

Switzerland

Similar widening of FR2 curve for many countries:

Not affecting Estonia, Sweden, Lithuania, Netherlands, Slovenia