Estimating inter-censuses fertility rates by ethnic and religious groups using the LFS and the...

Estimating inter-censuses fertility rates by ethnic and

religious groups using the LFS and the Own-Child Method

Sylvie [email protected]

Understanding Population Trends and Processes

Introduction Fertility differs due to a number of social and cultural

factors including ethnic and religious characteristics (among others)

Previous studies have shown differences by ethnic groups

Religious affiliation may support childbearing (norms supporting childbearing, rejecting contraception/abortion)

For the UK, need to create / update existing rates, inter-censuses rates fertility rates by ethnic groups up to 2001 No estimates available by religious groups for the UK Few reports on fertility estimates by religion (e.g. for Austria (Goujon et

al.2005,), for Europe (Kaufman, 2007)

Aim of study: OCM fertility rates estimates based on family unit,

reversal survival calculations

Produce recent trends to test the hypothesis of fertility convergence between ethnic groups ?

Explore other factors possibly linked with ethnicity to explain fertility differential, including country of birth and religious affiliation

Introduction

Introduction Conventional measure of fertility rate

No birth statistics by ethnic & religious groups Apart from ONS-LS: sample size problem

Indirect data used using census data (e.g. Large, Gosh and Fry, 2006; Rees, 2005, 2008), GHS, LFS (Coleman and Smith, 2005)

This study uses LFS data together with the Own Child Method to produce fertility estimates by ethnic and religious groups from 1987 to 2006. Ethnic, religious, CoB group of the mother only Ethnic and religious groups 2001 census definition

Number of births by women aged x (birth registration)

Total women of age x (MYE)

Method Use of LFS (cross-sectional), 3rd quarter, yearly

Inconveniences: may under-represent some groups (increase margin of error) Sample size: small numbers for some groups

However, amalgamated LFS (2001 to 2006) provide a much larger sample size,

(reducing uncertainty in the data)

Advantages: Ethnic and religious variables available Offer a relatively reliable source for inter-censuses estimates Less risk of increasing (systematic) bias linked to under/over-

estimated denominators in between censuses.

Own Child method

Own Child method (Cho, Retherford and Choe, 1986), Reverse survival technique (15 years) for estimating ASFR from

cross-sectional survey considerably increasing the sample size. EasWesPop Program (East-West Center, USA) Berthoud, 2001; Coleman and Smith, 2005

Matching children to mothers By family unit serial number/ household serial number Relation to the Head of Family Unit/Head of Household

Serial H Serial FU RelHFU RelHoH Sex Age1114401001 11144010011 1 1 1 311114401001 11144010011 2 2 2 321114401001 11144010011 3 3 1 21114401001 11144010012 1 12 2 351114401001 11144010012 3 12 2 7

Own Child method

Household/Family unit TFR White British 2001-2006:

Using HoH: 1.708 Using HFU: 1.724

=0.93%

Own Child method

Retro-estimations of births to mothers by age up to 15 years backward

e.g. in 2005, a women aged 35 with a child 14 years old the child was born in 1991 when the women was 21.

14child

time1991 2005

born

21 35mother

Retro-correction for mortality figures

TFR White British 2001-2006: No correction: 1.724 with correction: 1.73

=0.35%

Reversal survival table using England & Wales death rates

from the ONS, by age and sex between 1986 and 2006.

All women 15-49 years old, TFR 1986-2006

TFR

CI 95%

Total Period Fertility Rate (TFR) General decreasing trend over the last 15 years A relative increase in the recent years

TFR Using LFS 2000-2006

1.60

1.65

1.70

1.75

1.80

1.85

1.90

1990 1995 2000 2005

LFS*ONS

* 2 years average

Total Period Fertility Rate is the average number of children that women would have if they experienced the ASFRs for a particular year throughout their childbearing lives

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

1986-2006

Bir

ths

pe

r 1

,00

0 w

om

en

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

5 years Age Specific Fertility rates for all women in the UK, 1986-2006

TFR

Total Period Fertility rate by ethnic group, 1987-2006

2000-20061987-1994 1995-19991.01.21.41.61.82.02.22.42.62.83.03.23.43.63.84.04.24.4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

TF

R

Wbritish

Wother

Caribbean

Bafrican

Indian

Pakistani

Bangladeshi

Chinese

TFR of women of mixed origin

1987-2006 ALL UK TFR: 1.78

Group Period Total

Children Total

Women TFR CI95%

UL CI95%

LL Mix-Africa 1987-1995 46 940 1.335 1.721 0.949 Mix-Africa 1996-2006 91 1584 1.840 2.218 1.462 Mix-Asia 1987-1995 82 1596 1.452 1.767 1.138 Mix-Asia 1996-2006 155 2609 1.760 2.037 1.483 Mix-Carib 1987-1995 166 2189 2.172 2.502 1.841 Mix-Carib 1996-2006 179 3861 1.781 2.042 1.520 Mix-Other 1987-1995 60 1499 1.306 1.637 0.976 Mix-Other 1996-2006 128 2655 1.566 1.837 1.294 Mix-Total 1987-1995 354 6224 1.670 1.844 1.496 Mix-Total 1996-2006 553 10709 1.738 1.882 1.593 Mix-Africa 1987-2006 137 2524 1.640 1.915 1.366 Mix-Asia 1987-2006 237 4205 1.659 1.870 1.448 Mix-Carib 1987-2006 345 6050 1.949 2.155 1.743 Mix-Other 1987-2006 188 4154 1.460 1.668 1.251 Mix-Total 1987-2006 907 16933 1.724 1.837 1.612

Group Period Total

Children Total

Women TFR CI95%

UL CI95%


Group Period Total

Children Total

Women TFR CI95%

UL CI95%


Group Period Total

Children Total

Women TFR CI95%

UL CI95%


White British

5 years ASFR for White British women

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5

1987-1994

1995-1999

2000-2006

Delayed fertility

15-1925-29

20-2430-34

35-3940-44

45-49Age group of mothers15-19

25-2920-24

30-3435-39

40-4445-49

Age group of mothers

Birt

hs p

er 1

,000

wom

en

White Other

5 years ASFR for White Other women

Delayed fertility

15-1925-29

20-2430-34

35-3940-44

45-49Age group of mothers15-19

25-2920-24

30-3435-39

40-4445-49

Age group of mothers

Birt

hs p

er 1

,000

wom

en

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5

total1987-94

total1995-99

total2000-06

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5

Nu

mb

er o

f b

irth

s p

er 1

000

wo

men

1987-1994

1995-1999

2000-2006

Indian

Delayed fertility

15-1925-29

20-2430-34

35-3940-44

45-49 Age group of mothers

5 years ASFR for Indian women

Birt

hs p

er 1

,000

wom

en

TFR reduction due to less children at all ages

0

50

100

150

200

250

0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5

Nu

mb

er

of

bir

ths

pe

r 1

00

0 w

om

en

1987-1994

1995-1999

2000-2006

Pakistani

15-1925-29

20-2430-34

35-3940-44

45-49Age group of mothers

Birt

hs p

er 1

,000

wom

en

0

50

100

150

200

250

0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5

Nu

mb

er

of

bir

ths

pe

r 1

00

0 w

om

en

1987-1994

1995-1999

2000-2006

Bangladeshi

15-1925-29

20-2430-34

35-3940-44


TFR reduction due to less children at all agesB

irths

per

1,0

00 w

omen

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5

Nu

mb

er o

f b

irth

s p

er 1

000

wo

men

1987-1994

1995-1999

2000-2006

Indian

Delayed fertility

15-1925-29

20-2430-34

35-3940-44

45-49 Age group of mothers

5 years ASFR for Indian women

Birt

hs p

er 1

,000

wom

en

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5

1987-1997

1998-2006

5 years ASFR for UK-born Indian women

15-1925-29

20-2430-34

35-3940-44


Birt

hs p

er 1

,000

wom

en

Delayed fertility of the UK-born…

UK-born women 15-49 years old by ethnic group in 2006

% age group in the total women

aged 15-49

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

British

Other

Whit

e

Indi

an

Pakist

ani

Bangl

ades

hi

Black

Carib

bean

Black

Africa

n

Chines

e

%15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

Whi

te

Average period TFR for Indian ethnic group by religious denomination*

*Only the main religious groups are represented

Period All Muslim Indian Muslim

1988-1997 3.01 2.93

1998-2006 2.94 2.17

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Muslim Hindu Sikh

TF

R 1988-1997

1998-2006

Conclusion Improvement on the OCM based on family unit and reversal

survival model including retro-correction for mortality, supporting the robustness of the method.

Converging TFR between ethnic groups

However TFR of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi are still at a relatively high level

Delaying childbearing in the major groups have contributed to a relative increase of the UK TFR in recent years.

Delaying childbearing is especially pronounced for the UK-born Indian compared to all Indian mothers.

Ethnicity more than religion appears to influence TFR among the Indian group.

Acknowledgments:

I am thankful to the ESRC for funding this work (UPTAP fellowship) I am grateful to D. Coleman for his collaboration on the project

Thank you

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Wbrit

ish

Woth

er

Caribb

ean

Bafric

anIn

dian

Pakist

ani

Bangla

desh

i

Chine

se

TF

Rtotal1987-94

total1995-99

total2000-06

Estimating inter-censuses fertility rates by ethnic and religious groups using the LFS and the...

Documents

Transcript of Estimating inter-censuses fertility rates by ethnic and religious groups using the LFS and the...