Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How are Time-Dependent Childbearing Intentions Realized? Realization, Postponement, Abandonment, Bringing Forward

Les intentions de fécondité sont-elles réalisées dans le délai prévu ? Réalisation, report, abandon, avancement

  • Published:
European Journal of Population / Revue européenne de Démographie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Our study aims to identify factors that facilitate or inhibit the realization of fertility intentions. The analysis uses data collected in the first two waves of a Hungarian longitudinal survey. Fertility intentions recorded at the first wave pertain to the subsequent 3-year period, just similar to the behavior variable measuring the realization of intentions, i.e., a birth within the 3-year period in question. For this analysis, we used the respondents’ demographic, socio-structural, and orientational traits recorded at the first interview. Our findings show that age, parity, and partnership play a determining role in the realization of fertility intentions, but employment status, religious affiliation, and overall life satisfaction all exhibit significant effects. A marked gender difference was detected not only with regard to employment status but in the area of values and orientations as well.

Résumé

L’objectif de notre étude est d’identifier les facteurs qui facilitent ou inhibent la réalisation des intentions de fécondité. L’analyse s’appuie sur les deux premières vagues d’une enquête longitudinale menée en Hongrie. Les intentions de fécondité recueillies dans le cadre de la première vague concernent la période des trois années à venir, de la même façon que la variable de comportement mesurant la réalisation des intentions, à savoir, une naissance survenue au cours de cette même période. Les caractéristiques démographiques et socio-structurelles, de même que certaines dispositions personnelles recueillies lors du premier entretien ont été utilisées dans l’analyse. Nos résultats indiquent qu’à la fois l’âge, la parité, et la situation de couple jouent un rôle capital dans la réalisation des intentions et aussi que la situation d’emploi, l’appartenance religieuse et le niveau de satisfaction par rapport à la vie exercent une influence significative. Une différence prononcée entre hommes et femmes est mise en évidence en matière de situation d’emploi et également dans le domaine des valeurs et des dispositions personnelles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Since we will not explore empirically intentions of family size (number of children), we do not discuss overlaps and differences of such concepts as “ideal number of children,” “personally desired” number of children, or “how many more children are you planning to have,” and so on.

  2. This division will also offer an insight into the individual process of postponement, even if this is not the primary concern of this article.

  3. About family support schemes and their relationship to fertility in Hungary, see Spéder and Kamarás (2008, especially Sect. 7).

  4. Perhaps opportunity costs have a stronger effect on the formulation of intentions.

  5. For instance, employment motivations differ as well: among those with a higher level of education, career perspectives dominate, while those with a lower level of education are more concerned with making a living.

  6. Ideal number of children; expected number of children (childless women); intention to have a second child; intention to have a third child; actual number of children.

  7. The analysis used satisfaction with the present as well as future expectations. The following questions were used: “Do you think in the next 12 months you and your family will live better then today or worse?; and “To what extent are you satisfied with your life in general at the present time?”.

  8. For more details of the concept and design, see Spéder (2001).

  9. Originally, 5,569 people belonged to this group, but we excluded those who were pregnant at the time of the first wave, men whose partner was pregnant at the time or those who said they could not have any more children. We also excluded those who responded with an “I don’t know” when asked about the timing of the birth of a next child. All excluded cases, n = 818.

  10. We excluded those who in 2004–2005 said they (or their partners) were pregnant at the time of the data collection.

  11. Of course we were not able to measure any changes in intentions between the two waves.

  12. We must note that 8% of this group switched to wanting a child in 2004–2005 (5.4% switched to wanting a child within 3 years) but we are not concerned with this type of intention change in this study as it is irrelevant from the point of view of our research aim.

  13. “How far are you satisfied with the course of your life so far?”—“How far are you satisfied with your future prospects?”—“How would you rate your present living conditions?”—“What do you expect your living conditions will be in five years’ time?”.

  14. Our analysis is not well suited to determine whether this is so, because jobless people get a job, and therefore bring forward fertility plans or because jobless people have children against their intentions—or perhaps because both scenarios are at work.

  15. Elsewhere, we included not only employment status and education in the analysis but income status as well, and the effect still persisted (Spéder and Kapitány 2007).

References

  • Adsera, A. (2005). Where are the babies? Labor market conditions and fertility in Europe. IZA discussion papers, no. 1585 (40 pp).

  • Adsera, A. (2006). Marital fertility and religion in Spain, 1985 and 1999. Population Studies, 60(2), 205–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality and behavior. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andorka, R. (1971). La prévention des naissances en Hongrie dans la région „Ormansag” depuis la fin du XVIIIe siècle Population (French Edition), 26e Année, No. 1 (Jan–Feb), pp. 63–78.

  • Barber, J. S. (2001). Ideational influences on the transition to parenthood: Attitudes toward childbearing and competing alternatives. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(2), 101–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrington, A. (2004). Perpetual postponers? Women’s, men’s and couple’s fertility intentions and subsequent fertility behaviour. Population Trends, 117, 9–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhaumik, S. K., & Nugent, J. B. (2002). Does economic uncertainty have an impact on decisions to bear children? Evidence from eastern Germany (July 2002). William Davidson Institute working paper no. 491. http://ssrn.com/abstract=323592 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.323592.

  • Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness, and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin, E. A. (1987). Birth and fortune. The impact of numbers on personal welfare (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckhard, J., & Klein, T. (2006). Männer, Kinderwunsch und generatives Verhalten: Eine Auswertung des Familiensurvey zu Geschlechterunterschieden in der Motivation zur Elternschaft. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

  • Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2003). Global judgements of subjective well-being: Situational variability and long-term stability. Social Indicator Research, 65, 245–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ermish, J. F. (2002). Economic models of women’s employment and fertility. In J. J. Siegers, J. de Jong-Gierveld, & E. van Imhoff (Eds.), Female labour market behaviour and fertility. A rational choice approach (pp. 179–190). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J., Lutz, W., & Testa, M. R. (2003). The emergence of sub-replacement family size ideals in Europe. Population Research and Policy Review, 22, 479–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heaton, T. B., Jacobson, C. K., & Holland, K. (1999). Persistence and change in decisions to remain childless. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(2), 531–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heuveline, P., & Timberlake, J. M. (2004). The role of cohabitation in family formation: The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1214–1230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobcraft, J., & Kiernan, K. (1995). Becoming a parent in Europe. In EAPS-IUSSP: Evolution or revolution in European population (pp. 27–64).

  • Hoem, B., & Hoem, J. M. (1989). The impact of women’s employment on second and third births in modern Sweden. Population Studies, 43(1), 47–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamarás, F., & Szukics Serfőző, K. (2003). Ten years after the wedding: A longitudinal survey of marriages contracted in 1990 and 1991 (p. 84). Budapest: Central Statistical Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spéder, Zs., & Kapitány, B. (2007). Gyermekek: vágyak és tények. [Children: desires and facts] (209 pp). KSH-NKI Műhelytanulmányok No. 6.

  • Kreyenfeld, M. (2001). Employment and fertility—East Germany in the 1990s (259 pp) PhD Dissertation, MPDIR: Rostock.

  • Kreyenfeld, M. (2005). Economic uncertainty and fertility postponement evidence from German panel data. MPIDR working paper, 2005/034.

  • Lehrer, L. (2004). Religion as a determinant of economic and demographic behavior in the United States. Population and Development Review, 30(4), 707–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesthaeghe, R. (1995). The second demographic transition—An interpretation. In K. O. Mason & A.-M. Jensen (Eds.), Gender and family. Change in industrialised countries (pp. 17–62). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liefbroer, A. C. (2005). The impact of perceived costs and rewards of childbearing on entry into parenthood: Evidence from a panel study. European Journal of Population, 21, 367–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liefbroer, A. C. (2008). Changes in family size intentions across young adulthood: A life-course perspective. European Journal of Population (open access: doi:10.1007/s10680-008-9173-7).

  • McQuillan, K. (2004). When does religion influence fertility? Population and Development Review, 30, 25–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monier, A. (1989). Fertility intentions and actual behavior. A longitudinal study: 1974, 1976, 1979. Population: An English Selection, 44(1), 237–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moors, G. (2002). Reciprocal relations between gender role values and family formations. In R. Lestaheghe (Ed.), Meaning and choice: Value orientations and life course decisions (pp. 217–250). Den Haag/Brussel: NIDI/CBGS (NIDI CBGS publ., 37).

  • Müller, R. (2000). Single, nicht-eheliche Lebensgemeinschaft oder Ehe? In W. R. Heinz (Hrsg.), Übergänge. Individualisierung, Flexibilisierung und Institutionalisierung des Lebensverlaufs (pp. 188–204). Weinheim: Juventa Verlag.

  • Myers, S. (1997). Marital uncertainty and childbearing. Social Forces, 75, 1271–1289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mynarska, M. A. (2007). Fertility postponement and age norms in Poland: Is there a deadline for parenthood? MPIDR working paper (36 pp). WP-2007-029.

  • Perelli-Harris, B. (2006). The influence of informal work and subjective well-being on childbearing in Post-Soviet Russia. Population and Development Review, 32(4), 729–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philipov, D., & Berghammer, C. (2007). Religion and fertility ideals, intentions and behaviour: A comparative study of European countries. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 27, 1–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philipov, D., Spéder, Zs., & Billari, F. C. (2006). Soon, later or ever: The impact of anomie and social capital on fertility intentions in Bulgaria (2002) and Hungary (2001). Population Studies, 60(3), 289–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philipov, D., & Testa, M. R. (2007). Why fertility timing intentions remain unrealised? The role of competing intentions. Unpublished manuscript, prepared within the project ‘Fertility Intentions and Outcomes: The Role of Policies to Close the Gap’, funded by the European Commission, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (contract no. VS/2006/0685).

  • Quesnel-Vallée, A., & Morgan, S. P. (2003). Missing the target? Correspondence of fertility intentions and behavior in the US. Population Research and Policy Review, 22(5–6), 497–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindfuss, R. R., Morgan, S. P., & Swicegood, G. (1988). First births in America: Changes in the timing of parenthood. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoen, R., Astone, N. M., Kim, Y. J., Nathanson, C. A., & Fields, J. M. (1999). Do fertility intentions affect fertility behavior? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(3), 790–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Settersten, R. A., & Hagestad, G. O. (1996). What’s the latest? Cultural age deadlines for educational and work transition. The Gerontologist, 36(5), 602–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobotka, T. (2008). Overview chapter 6: The diverse faces of the second demographic transition in Europe. Demographic Research, 19, 171–224.

  • Spéder, Zs. (2006). Childbearing behavior in the New EU member states: Basic trends and selected attitudes. In W. Lutz, R. Richer, & C. Wilson (Eds.), The new generations of Europeans. Demography and families in the enlarged European Union (pp. 59–82). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spéder, Zs. (2001). Turning points of the life-course. Concept and design of the Hungarian social and demographic panel survey. www.dpa.demografia.hu. Demográfia, XLIV(2–3), 305–320 (In Hungarian).

  • Spéder, Zs., & Kamarás, F. (2008). Hungary: Secular fertility decline with distinct period fluctuations. Demographic Research, 19, 599–664.

  • Tárkányi, Á. (2006). A gyerekszám és a vallásosság kapcsolata [The relation of fertility and religiosity]. Demográfia, 49(1), 68–84.

  • Thomson, E. (1997). Couple childbearing desires, intentions, and births. Demography, 34, 343–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomka, M., & Zulehner, P. M. (1999). Religion in den Reformländern Ost(Mittel)Europas. Schwabenverlag: Ostfildern.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomka, M., & Zulehner, P. M. (2000). Religion im gesellschaftlichen Kontext Ost(Mittel)Europas. Schwabenverlag: Ostfildern.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulemon, L., & Testa, M. R. (2005). Fertility intentions and actual fertility: A complex relationship. Population & Societies, 415, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vikat, A., Spéder, Zs., Beets, G., Billari, F. C., Bühler, C, Désesquelles, A., Fokkema, T., Hoem, J. M., MacDonald, A., Neyer, G., Pailhé, A. Pinnelli, A., & Solaz, A. (2007). Generations and gender survey (GGS): Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course. Demographic Research, 17, 389–440. www.demographic-research.org.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waite, L. J., & Galagher, M. (2000). Case for marriage. Why married people are happier, healthier, and better off financially. New York: Broadway Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westoff, Ch., & Ryder, N. (1977). The predictive validity of reproductive intentions. Demography, 4, 431–453.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This research was carried out as part of the project, “Fertility intentions and outcomes: The role of policies to close the gap,” supported by EU DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (Contract Number: VS/2006/0685). The research was also supported by the grant under Hungarian Scientific Research Fund No. 49066. Many special thanks are also due to FERTINT participants, and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Demographic Research Institute Budapest, Buday László 1-3, Budapest, 1024, Hungary

    Zsolt Spéder & Balázs Kapitány

Authors
  1. Zsolt Spéder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Balázs Kapitány
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zsolt Spéder.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 5 Means and standard deviations of independent variables
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Spéder, Z., Kapitány, B. How are Time-Dependent Childbearing Intentions Realized? Realization, Postponement, Abandonment, Bringing Forward. Eur J Population 25, 503–523 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-009-9189-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-009-9189-7

Keywords

Mots-clés

Search

Navigation