The Impact of Well-Being on Fertility Intentions – An Analysis Based on the European Social Survey (2010)

• Authors: Hideko Matsuo , Koen Matthijs
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This article examines the relation between well-being and fertility intentions in Europe and addresses three main research questions: Does overall well-being infl uence fertility intentions? What kind of well-being factors are more important in the determination of fertility intentions (individual-level subjective ones vs. individual-level objective ones vs. country-level ones)? Does the role of specifi c well-being variables change over the course of the life course, i.e. as age and parity increase? In accordance with the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), fertility intentions are studied as important predictors of actual fertility behaviour. And in line with established studies, a broad approach is taken towards the concept of well-being. The analysis is theoretically grounded in the framework of methodological individualism (i.e. micro-macro linkages). Use is made of data on women aged 20-39 in 27 countries, which were taken from the ‘Family, work and well-being’ module in the 5th round (2010) of the European Social Survey. The analysis of a comparable European population sample is made possible by taking account of both unit and item non-responses, and correcting for them. Our analysis shows overall positive but small correlations between well-being and fertility intentions in all countries: the higher the level of well-being, the higher the intended fertility, although the strength of the correlation differs between countries. Also, overall, individual-level objective well-being factors, such as level of education and employment status, have a larger impact on fertility intentions than individual-level subjective well-being factors and country-level well-being factors regarding human development, gender inequality and region. Changes in the effects of these well-being factors are found depending on the stage of the life course: as parity and age increase, the importance of country-level well-being effects increases. This shows that family-friendly country policies targeted to these groups can have positive effects on fertility.

Keywords

EN

fertility intentions; well-being; life course; linked lives; cross-national comparable sample; European Social Survey

• Publisher: Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Journal: ASK. Research and Methods
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 25
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 17-46

Contributors

author

Hideko Matsuo

• University of Leuven

author

Koen Matthijs

• University of Leuven

References

• Aassve, A., L. Mencarini and M. Sironi (2015). Institutional change, happiness, and fertility. European Sociological Review. 31, 6, 749–65.
• Abdullah, S., S. Mahony, N. Marks, J. Michaelson, C. Seaford, L. Stoll and S. Thompson (2011). Measuing our progress: the power of well-being. Centre for Well-being. Het New Economics Foundation.
• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 50, 2, 179–211.
• Balbo, N. and M. Mills (2011). The infl uence of the family network on the realization of fertility intentions. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research. vol 9, Reproductive decision-making, 179–205.
• Basten, S. and G. Verropoulou (2015). A re-interpretation of the ‘two-child norm’ in post-transitional demographic systems: fertility intentions in Taiwan. PLoS ONE. 10, 8, e0135105 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135105.
• Bennington, A. (2004). Perpetual postponers? Women’s, men’s and couple’s fertility intentions and subsequent fertility behaviour. Population Trends. 117, 9–19.
• Bennington, A. and S. Pattaro (2014). Educational differences in fertility desires, intentions and behaviour: a life course perspective. Advances in life course research. 21, 10–27.
• Bernardi, L. and A. Klärner (2014). Social networks and fertility. Demographic Research. 30, 22, 641–70.
• Biemer, P. (2010). Total survey error: Design, implementation, and evaluation. Public Opinion Quarterly. 74, 5, 817–48.
• Billari, F. C. and H. P. Kohler (2002). Patterns of low and lowest-low fertility in Europe. Population Studies. 58, 2, 161–76.
• Billiet, J. (2013). Quantitative methods with survey data in comparative research. In: P. Kennett, (ed.), A handbook of comparative social policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, second edition, 264–300.
• Billingsley, S. and T. Ferrarini (2014). Family policy and fertility intentions in 21 European countries. Journal of Marriage and Family. 76, 428–45.
• Coleman, J. C. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Easterlin, R. A. (1980). Birth and fortune: the impact of numbers on personal welfare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Elder, G. H. Jr. (1974). Children of the great depression: social change in life experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• European Social Survey (2009). ESS Round 5 question module design template for national coordinators (November 2009) Round 5: Work, Family and Well-being template for National Coordinators.
• European Social Survey (2010a). ESS5 2010 data protocol. Bergen: Edition 2.4. European Social Survey Data Archive, Norwegian Social Science Data Services.
• European Social Survey (2010b). ESS5-2010 Documentation Report. The ESS Data Archive, Edition 3.0.
• Giele, J. Z. and G. H. Elder (1998). (eds.) Methods of life course research: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi.
• Goldstein, J. R., T. Sobotka and A. Jasillioniene (2009). The end of “lowest-low” fertility? Population and Development Review. 35, 4, 663–99.
• Harrison, E., R. Jowell and E. Sibley (2011). Developing attitudinal indicators of societal progress. ASK Research and Methods. 20, 1, 59–80.
• Huppert, F. (2009). Psychological well-being: evidence regarding its causes and consequences. Applied psychology: health and well-being. 1, 2, 137–64.
• Iacovou, M. and L. P. Tavares (2011). Yearning, learning, and conceding: reasons men and women change their childbearing intentions. Population and Development Review. 37, 1, 89–123.
• Jeffrey, K., S. Abdallah and A. Quick (2015). Europeans’ personal and social wellbeing: topline results from Round 6 of the European Social Survey. London: Centre for Comparative Social Surveys.
• Kohler, H. P., F. C. Billari and J. A. Ortega (2006). Low fertility in Europe: causes, implications and policy options. In: F. R. Harris (ed.), The Baby bust: Who will do the work? Who will pay the taxes? Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefi eld Publisher, 48–109.
• König, S. (2011). Higher order births in Germany and Hungary: Comparing fertility intentions in a national context. Working paper. 146, Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung.
• Kuhnt, A. K. and H. Trappe (2013). Easier said than done: childbearing intentions and their realizations in a short-term perspective. MPIDR Working paper WP 2013-018.
• Lesthaeghe, R. and G. Moors (2000). Life course transitions and value orientations: selection and adaptation. VUB Working Paper, WP-IPD-2000-7.
• Lesthaeghe, R. (2010). The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Population and Development Review. 36, 2, 211–51.
• Lutz, W., V. Skirbekk and M. R. Testa (2006). The low fertility trap hypothesis: forces that may lead to further postponement and fewer births in Europe. Vienna Institute of Demography. 167–92.
• Matsuo, H. and G. Loosveldt (2013). Report on quality assessment of contact data file in Round 5: Final report 27 countries. ESS-DACE project deliverable. CeSO Working Paper, CeSO/SM, 2013-3, Leuven: University of Leuven.
• Mills, M. (2008). Gender equality, the labour market and fertility, a European comparison. Proceedings of the 35th CEIES (The European Advisory Committee on Statistical information in the Economic and Social Sphere). CEIES Committee (ed.). Luxembourg: European Commission Eurostat, 1–19.
• Montgomery, M. and J. B. Casterline (1996). Social learning, social infl uence, and new models of fertility. Population and Development Review. 22, suppl. Fertility in the United States: New Patterns, New Theories, 151–75.
• Myrskylä, M. and R. Margolis (2014). Happiness: before and after the kids. Demography. 51, 1843–66.
• OECD (2007). Babies and bosses: reconciling work and family life: A synthesis of findings for OECD countries. Paris: OECD publication.
• OECD (2013). OECD Guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. Paris: OECD publishing.
• Philipov, D. (2009). Fertility intentions and outcomes: the role of policies to close the gap. European Journal of Population, 25, 355–61.
• Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63, 3, 581–92.
• Snijders, T. A. B. and R. J. Bosker (1999). Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage.
• Sobotka, T. (2009). Sub-replacement fertility intentions in Austria. European Journal of Population. 25, 4, 387–412.
• Sobotka, T. and E. Beaujouan (2014). Two is best? The persistence of a two-child family ideal in Europe. Population and Development Review. 40, 3, 391–419.
• Stiglitz, J. E., A. Sen and J. P. Fitoussi (2009). Report by the Commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. (http://www.stiglitzsen-fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf)
• Tanskanen, A. O. and A. Rotkirch (2014). The impact of grandparental investment on mothers’ fertility intentions in four European countries. Demographic Research. 31, 1, 1–26.
• Testa, M. R. (2014). On the positive correlation between education and fertility intentions in Europe: Individual- and country-level evidence. Advances in life course research. 21, 28–42.
• Thompson, S. and N. Marks (2008). Measuring well-being in policy: issues and applications. London: New Economics Foundation.
• Willekens, F. (1991). Understanding the interdependence between parallel careers. In: J.J. Siegers, J. de Jong-Gierveld and E. van Imoff, (eds.), Female labour market behaviour and fertility: a rational choice approach. Spring-Verlag Berlin, 11–31.