Low Fertility based on Gender Equity Perspectives ...

First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission

Low Fertility based on Gender Equity Perspectives: Dynamics between Individual Gender

Role Attitudes and Social Norms in Low Fertility Countries*

Yusun Cho1, Ahyoung Song†2, Ahram Moon3

1 Sol Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, U.S.A.

2 Department of Social Welfare, Gachon University, Republic of Korea

3 International Academy of Business and Economics, Tianjin University of Finance and Economics, China

* This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017S1A5A8019723) † Corresponding author: Department of Social Welfare, Gachon University, 1342 Seongnam-daero, Sujeonggu, Seongnam-si Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea, Tel: +82-31-750-5960, E-Mail: [email protected]


1

Low Fertility based on Gender Equity Perspectives: Dynamics between Individual Gender

Role Attitudes and Social Norms in Low Fertility Countries

Abstract

Women’s preference is significant for explaining fertility behavior, but women’s fertility decision is determined within the contexts of social norms on gender roles in a society where she lives. This research aims to investigate how individual attitudes and social norms toward gender roles affect fertility behavior collectively by using International Social Survey Program 2012 in 26 OECD low fertility countries. We make gender role attitude indices for two different roles, instrumental roles measuring gender equity in economic activity participation and nurturant roles measuring gender equity in family. Empirical results indicate that women who possess contradictory gender role attitudes (e.g. egalitarian regarding instrumental roles but traditional regarding nurturant roles) are most likely to have fewer children. Similar results are found in terms of social norms on gender roles. The results suggest that the dynamics and variety of individual attitudes and social norms should be taken into account in fertility research. Keywords: low fertility, gender equity, gender role attitude, social norms

Low fertility rate below replacement rate in 21st century has been a major concern in most

OECD countries (Adsera, 2004; Morgan & Taylor, 2006). Despite various efforts for addressing

low fertility in developed countries, the efficacy of the policies has been questioned (Castles, 2003)

as the fertility rate of those countries remains low. In order to address low fertility issues, it is

significant to correctly understand factors influencing women’s fertility behavior. Previous studies

conducted research on this topic, and they suggested that increase of women’s education level and

economic participation, changes of women’s preference and cultural values on fertility, and

increase costs for childrearing as the significant factors explaining low fertility. However, they

focused on either individual (micro) or country (macro) level factors, and fails to realize that

women’s fertility decision is determined within the contexts of social norms where she lives.

Therefore, this research aims to investigate how individual attitudes and social norms toward


2

gender roles affect fertility behavior collectively.

By using International Social Survey Program (ISSP) 2012 Family and Changing Gender

Roles survey data and targeting a sample of 5,296 women in 26 OECD low fertility countries, this

research empirically analyzes the effects of gender role attitudes and social norms on fertility

behavior. Gender role attitude indices are excogitated by two different roles by following the

classification of Scott (2008); instrumental roles measuring gender equity in economic activity

participation and nurturant roles measuring gender equity in family. Social norms on gender role

attitudes are calculated by average scores of the indices of a country. Multivariate regression results

with predicting marginal effects of the gender role indices, find that both individual women’s

gender role attitudes and social norms significantly influence fertility behavior of women. Having

egalitarian instrumental gender role attitudes is likely to have smaller number of children while

having egalitarian nurturant gender role is likely to have more children. Living in a country having

gender equity on both women’s instrument and nurturant gender role turns out that women decide

to have more children. Accumulated empirical evidences emphasize that adopting gender equity

perspective of a society can be a prerequisite condition and a significant factor in resolving low

fertility issue.

Backgrounds

Effort for figuring out the determinants on fertility rates has been cumulated as the global

transition to low fertility became common social challenges to be resolved. To understand these

demographic issues, the determinant of fertility decision has been studied in structural or socio-

economic perspectives. For example, Becker (1991), Behrman & Rosenzweig (2002), Hilgeman

& Butt (2009), and Begall & Mills (2012) explain that education opportunities and labor force

participation of women are important factors on a decrease of fertility intention. However, unlikely


3

their arguments that gender equitable institutions lead to fertility decline, new evidences have been

found that recent birth rate in European countries establishing gender egalitarianism have been

rising (Arpino et al., 2015; Esping-Andersen & Billari, 2015). Additional empirical studies support

that improvements of equality in education and employment are not negatively associated with

fertility decline (Kim, 2014; Martin, 2000).

On the other hand, Catherine Hakim point out that those previous studies conducted based

on limited views on the declining fertility; those variable-centered (e.g. education years delayed

age of marriage) research overlooks women’s individual preference on their life style and personal

values on fertility. This theory argues that women’s preferences in lifestyle of women and increase

of autonomy on fertility decision lead to fertility decline in modern societies. Hakim suggests that

women can choose their own life-style in three ways; family-, career-oriented, and adaptive

preference. According to this theory, women who choose not to have a child if their life-style is

close to career-oriented. A body of studies applies Hakim’s preference theory to explain low

fertility phenomenon (Kan, 2007; McRae, 2003; Vitali, Billari, Prskawetz, & Testa, 2009).

However, Preference theory has been criticized in many ways. It is criticized mainly that

the theory too simplifies individual lifestyle preference between work and family into only three

types, family-, career-oriented and adaptive group of women. One of the important critics on

Preference Theory is that it ignores the phenomenon of ‘adaptive preference’, meaning that women

adjust their preference in response to unequal family and societal circumstances that frustrate the

realization of their preferred lifestyle (Leahy & Doughney, 2006). Furthermore, some previous

studies found that preference theory is not supported by empirical data (Cartwright, 2004;

Crompton & Lyonette, 2005;). Kangas and Rostaard (2007) find that women’s preference matters

but it is constrained by institutional (i.e. country-level) factors, such as day care accessibility. They


4

also noted that women’s decision on fertility also affected by the opinion of their partners. This

implies that women’s fertility behavior is not determined by not only their individual preference

but also institutional and cultural circumstance surrounding them. As a result, societal and cultural

aspects have been considered as the important factors affecting women’s fertility behavior, so

gender equity perspectives become noteworthy in the fertility literature.

Gender equity perspectives in explaining fertility behavior insist that institutionalization

and normalization of gender equity in a country are significant factors in recovering fertility rate.

McDoanld (2000) argues that low fertility occurs when individual-oriented social institutions and

family-oriented institutions are incoherent. Low fertility arises when gender equity of individual-

oriented institutions (e.g., education, employment) is promoted but gender equity of family-

oriented institutions remains male breadwinner model. According to gender equity approach, low

fertility is not a result of women’s freedom of choice but a result of the only option that women

have induced by social pressure and structures. Although this approach provides an important

implication that women’s fertility behaviors are made in response to cultural and social institutions

of a country, previous studies of gender equity remain macro-level comparative studies across

countries and lack of understanding individual choice as micro level.

The literature review on low fertility indicates that previous studies have two limitations

on two aspects. First, previous studies have only focused on either micro (individual) or macro

(country) levels factors. Although individual women’s preference for career and family is a critical

factor as Preference Theory explained, her fertility decision is determined within the contexts of

social norms for gender roles in a society where she lives because social norms represent related

environments around work and family life. In terms of low fertility rates, although it is not easy to

examine or measure social norms methodologically (Ehrlich and Levin, 2005), there has been


5

certain research trend focusing on the interaction between social norms and individual’s fertility

behaviors. Particularly, in terms of the Theories of Planned Behaviors, individual’s fertility

behaviors are determined by the dynamics of social norms, attitudes, perceptions of controls and

intention on fertility (Ajzen & Klobas, 2013; Billari, Phillipov, & Testa, 2009). In addition, people

are affected by others’ behaviors or decisions regarding fertility behaviors around them and the

effects decreased as times go by (Balbo & Barban, 2012). Thus, it is important to understand

individual preference on fertility with considering social norms or cultures where women live.

Second, previous studies explaining low fertility as individual women’s choice, such as

Preference Theory, overlook the fact that women’s preference on career and family can be

diversified. Women’s preference on work and family can be expressed independently. For example,

woman has egalitarian attitudes on occupation and they can have traditional view on childrearing

and childcaring at the same time. McDonald (2000) emphasizes that extreme low fertility occurs

in a country when the gap between individual-oriented and family-oriented institutions with regard

to gender equity is large. In the same vein as his approach (i.e. gender equity perspective), low

fertility intention could exist when individual related gender role attitudes (e.g. women’s labor

force participation) and family related gender role attitudes (e.g. women’s responsibilities in

family as caregiver) are incoherent and contradictory. However, previous studies did not take into

account the possibilities of the diversification of individual gender role attitudes for explaining

low fertility intention and behavior.

In sum, in order to overcome the limitations of previous studies, this research plans to

investigate 1) how micro level (i.e. individual gender role attitudes) and macro level (i.e. social

norms on gender roles) influence fertility behaviors collectively and 2) how inconsistent gender

role attitudes and social norms influence fertility behaviors.


6

Data and Method

Data and Variables

In order to investigate the effects of individual gender role attitudes and social norms on

fertility behavior of women, this research uses International Social Survey Program (ISSP) 2012

Family and Changing Gender Roles data１. This data is a cross-national survey data of 41 countries

about gender related issues such as attitudes toward women’s employment, marriage, children, and

traditional roles of men and women in family. Among 41 countries, we focus on 26 countries

including 25 OECD countries２ whose total fertility rate (TFR) is below 2.1 (i.e. replacement rate)

as well as Taiwan, which is representative to Asian countries having low TFR.

The dependent variable is the number of children of each woman. ISSP survey did not ask

“the number of children you ever have” directly; it asked, “the number of children (e.g. toddler

and school age children) in your household” instead. This type of question could exaggerate the

number of children because the number of siblings or other family members in teenager could be

counted as the children of respondents. Furthermore, ISSP survey asked the number of children in

household by using two different questions; 1) “how many toddlers in household: children up to

(school age-1) years”, 2) “how many children in household: children between school age and 17

years old”. Since the number of children is only measurable with those two questions, adult

children over 17 years old are not counted. Despite the issues described above, these are the only

available questions in ISSP survey for measuring the number of children of respondents. In order

to deal with this measurement issue, this research limits the sample of women aged 29 to 45. The

average age of first birth among OECD countries (including Taiwan) is 28.6. If women had a child

１https://www.gesis.org/issp/modules/issp-modules-by-topic/family-and-changing-gender-roles/2012/ ２ 25 countries include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, South Korea, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and United States


7

at the average age of first birth and the child became 17 years old, she would become age at 45.6.

Hence, the range of women’s age of the sample is restricted between 29 (i.e. average age of first

birth) and 45 (i.e. average age of first birth + 17 years).

As the main research interest, the conceptualization of gender role attitudes of women is

critical. Instead of simple classification of women’s gender role preference suggested by

preference theory, Scott (2008) assesses gender roles into two aspects: 1) nurturant roles meaning

women’s roles in family as a care-giver, 2) instrumental roles meaning women’s roles in

employment and domestic labor division. The index of nurturant roles attitudes evaluates the

respondents’ perspectives about gender equity at home and about woman’s role in family as a

caregiver, such as whether maternal employment is harmful to children or families. Instrumental

roles index assesses the respondents’ gender equity view on women’s labor force participation,

such as whether women really want is a home and children. Following Scott (2008)’s classification,

we measure individual attitudes and social norms towards nurturant and instrumental roles by

using six statements related to gender role attitudes that were answered as 5 points Likert scales of

agree/disagree format in ISSP. After converting this to -2 to 2 five-point scale, we calculate average

score of these questions. -2 score means traditional gender role attitudes and 2 points means

egalitarian gender role attitudes. The indicator of individual gender role attitudes toward nurturant

roles are measured by using three statement: 1) a working mother can establish just as warm and

secure a relationship with her children as a mother who does not work; 2) pre-school child likely

to suffer if mother works; 3) family life suffers if women works full time. In the same way,

instrumental role indicator is measured by using three ISSP survey questions: 1) A job is all right,

but what most women really want is a home and children; 2) Both the men and women should

contribute to the household income; 3) A man's job is to earn money; a women's job is to look after


8

the home and family.

Social norms can be understood as “informal rules and shared social expectations that

shape individual attitudes and behavior” (Haider, 2017, p.1). In this research, social norms of one

country toward nurturant and instrumental role are calculated by the average scores of the indices

of nurturant and instrumental roles over women in that country. ISSP have random representative

samples of citizens of a country for the survey. The sampled respondents of the countries represent

the population distribution of the countries on age, sex, education etc３. so, calculating average

scores of the indices with this representative sample of citizens is expected to represent social

norms towards gender roles of a country.

Empirical Strategies

First, the associations of individual gender role attitudes (i.e. individual preference on

gender roles) with fertility behavior are examined. By following Scott (2008)’s approach on gender

roles attitudes, the gap between nurturant and instrumental roles were calculated then the

associations with fertility decision were examined. Women can have egalitarian views about their

economic activity, while they have traditional views about their roles as a caregiver in family. It

can be assumed that women possessing contradicting gender role attitudes would reduce their

fertility intention. Second, this research examines the effects of social norms of gender role

attitudes on an individual’s fertility behavior. Furthermore, it is examined that the argument of

McDonald (2000) about incoherent effects between individual-oriented institutions and family-

oriented institutions by analyzing the contradictory effects between social norms on nurturant and

instrumental roles. Finally, whether women tend to reduce their fertility intention in a society

３ The number of ISSP survey respondents ranges from 950 (Canada) to 2,595 (Spain) across countries, and the average number is 1,436.


9

which have contradicting gender role attitudes with theirs is examined.

For first and second research questions, we conduct multiple regression analysis with

interaction variables between nurturant and instrumental roles. Dependent variable is the number

of children and the main independent variable is the indicators of gender role attitudes. The

regression also includes women’s age, education level, working status, religion and marital status

as control variables. Using estimation results, margins is calculated to show interaction effects

between nurturant and instrumental roles clearly. For the last question, multiple regression models

with both individual gender role attitudes and social norms is performed to observe the dynamic

effects of them on fertility behavior.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics of variables of this research. The sample has 5,296

women aged from 29 to 45 in 26 low fertility countries. The average number of children in a

sample is 1.39. Average of instrumental gender role attitudes are 0.76, and women in a sample

have slightly more traditional attitudes toward nurturant roles (0.58) than instrumental roles. Social

norm toward instrumental roles is 0.57 and social norms toward nurturant roles is 0.44. Social

norms are more conservative than women’s individual gender role attitudes in a sample.


10

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics of Variables

Mean (Frequency)

SD (%)

Individual-level variables (N=5,296) Number of children 1.39 1.23 Gender role attitudes (-2~2 scale) Instrumental roles 0.76 0.82 Nurturant roles 0.58 0.98 Age (29~45) 37.32 4.83 Religion Yes 3703 69.92 No 1593 30.08 Education attainment Primary/No formal education 122 2.30 Secondary 2153 40.65 Post-secondary, non-tertiary 773 14.60 Tertiary 2248 42.45 Employment status Currently in paid work 4044 76.36 Currently not in paid work in the past 1112 21 Never had paid work 140 2.64 Marital status Married 3115 58.82 Civil partnership 263 4.97 Separated/Divorced/Widowed 623 11.76 Single 1295 24.45

Country-level variables (26 countries) Number of respondents 203.69 84.61 Social norm (-2~2 scale) Instrumental roles 0.57 0.33 Nurturant roles 0.44 0.35

Individual Gender Role Attitudes and Fertility Decision

Table 2 presents average number of children by gender role attitudes to check whether the


11

number of children varies by individual gender role attitudes. Women possessing traditional view

on both gender role attitudes (e.g. women’s job is caring children and home, family and children

suffer from mom’s working) tend to have more children. Although the ANOVA test results suggest

statistically significantly difference in average number of children among three gender role

attitudes groups, further analysis is required to control individual heterogeneity for clear evidence.

Table 2

The number of children by individual gender role attitudes

Instrumental roles Nurturant roles Mean N Mean N Traditional group 1.50* 1232 1.45* 1816 Neutral group 1.42* 2255 1.37* 1841 Egalitarian group 1.26* 1809 1.34* 1639

Note: p-value is calculated by ANOVA test, * p<.01

To examine the interaction effects between nurturant and instrumental role attitudes and

the consequences of the contradiction between attitudes, two different models are estimated. Model

1 includes both nurturant and instrument role attitudes variables and Model 2 adds the interaction

variable between two variables to Model 1 (Table 3).


12

Table 3

Effects of individual gender role attitudes on fertility decision

Model 1 Model 2 Coef. SE Coef. SE Individual gender role attitudes Instrumental roles -0.042 * 0.023 -0.061 ** 0.024 Nurturant roles 0.044 ** 0.018 0.012 0.023 Instrumental X Nurturant roles 0.044 ** 0.019 Work (base group: currently in paid work)

Currently not in paid work in the past 0.377 *** 0.040 0.374 *** 0.040 Never had paid work 0.403 *** 0.099 0.393 *** 0.099 Religion 0.202 *** 0.034 0.203 *** 0.034 Age 0.006 0.003 0.005 0.003 Degree -0.018 * 0.012 -0.019 * 0.012 Marital status (base group: married) Civil partnership -0.257 *** 0.073 -0.256 *** 0.073 Separated/Divorced/Widowed -0.364 *** 0.050 -0.363 *** 0.050 Single -0.982 *** 0.039 -0.985 *** 0.039 Constant 1.329 *** 0.142 1.329 *** 0.143 Number of observation 5296 5296 Adjusted R-squared 0.146 0.147

Note: *p < .10, **p <.05, ***p < .01

According to the results of Model 1 in Table 3, it turns out that women possessing

egalitarian attitudes toward instrumental roles tend to have fewer children, while women

possessing egalitarian attitudes toward nurturant roles tend to have more children. These findings

are similar to the arguments of Preference Theory, which insists women preferring work to family

tend to reduce fertility intention. In Model 2, interaction variable of nurturant and instrumental

roles is statistically significant and positive while the instrumental role variable is negative. In

order to interpret this result clearly, the estimation results calculate the margins to plot the predicted

number of children by different gender role attitudes in Figure 1.


13

Figure 1

Interaction effects of instrumental roles and nurturant roles

To simplify the margin plot, women is divided into three groups based on the index of

individual nurturant role attitudes: 1) traditional attitudes group (women in the bottom of 25% of

nurturant index score); 2) neutral attitudes group (women in the middle of 75% of nurturant index

score); and 3) egalitarian attitudes group (women in the top of 25% of nurturant index score).

Using STATA’s margin command, the predicted number of children is calculated by the changes

of individual gender role attitudes toward instrumental roles with holding other variables constant.

According to Figure 1, it is understood that women who believe that family members suffer from

her labor force participation tend to have significantly fewer children as their attitude toward

women’s labor force participation becomes more egalitarian. However, if woman believe that her

economic participation is not harmful to her family, she will not avoid having more children


14

according to the changes of her attitudes towards instrumental roles. The results presented in Table

3 and Figure 1 indicates that women’s fertility decision is affected by individual gender role

attitudes although the magnitudes of the effects are very small. More importantly, the results

suggest that women’s gender role attitudes towards nurturant and instrumental roles can be

contradictory, and it can be significantly hinder fertility decision of women when two gender role

attitudes are incoherent.

Social Norms on Gender Roles and Fertility

Figure 2 presents information about country-level comparison about social norms on

nurturant and instrumental gender roles and TFR.

Figure 2

Social norms on gender roles and fertility by country

Note: ●-countries where TFR is less than 1.3, ◆ – countries where TFR is between 1.3 and 1.6 ■-countries where TFR is greater than 1.6total fertility rate less than 2.1


15

It indicates that social norms on gender roles are different across the countries and they

are highly correlated to total fertility rate of a country. A group of countries possessing higher level

of egalitarian social norms on both gender roles have higher fertility rate, whereas countries

possessing lower level of equity perspectives on gender roles have relatively low fertility rate. This

pattern provides an evidence that social norms of a country are associated with fertility behavior

of women because it shapes cultures at work places and family. For investigating the effects of

social norms in detail, the additional estimation is performed.

Table 4

Effects of social norms on gender role on fertility decision

Model 3 Model 4 Coef. SE Coef. SE Social norm towards gender roles Instrumental roles 0.657 *** 0.060 0.176 ** 0.087 Nurturant roles 0.765 *** 0.057 0.168 * 0.097 Instrumental X Nurturant roles 0.990 *** 0.131 Work (base group: currently in paid work) Currently not in paid work in the past -0.314 *** 0.039 -0.314 *** 0.039 Never had paid work -0.235 ** 0.100 -0.260 ** 0.099 Religion -0.206 *** 0.034 -0.237 *** 0.035 Age 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.003 Degree 0.136 *** 0.012 0.136 *** 0.012 Marital status (base group: married) Civil partnership -0.051 0.074 -0.011 0.074 Separated/Divorced/Widowed 0.096 * 0.051 0.084 * 0.050 Single 0.177 *** 0.039 0.170 *** 0.039 Constant -0.338 ** 0.144 -0.095 0.146 Number of observation 5296 5296 Adjusted R-squared 0.2009 0.2092

Note: *p < .10, **p <.05, ***p < .01

Similar to the estimation model of individual gender role attitudes, Model 3 considers each


16

indicators of social norms on nurturant and instrumental roles. In addition, in order to investigate

the contradictory effects of social norms between nurturant and instrumental roles, which

McDonald (2000) similarly argue, Model 4 includes interaction variable of social norms on

nurturant and instrumental roles. Model 3 results in Table 4 reveals the fact that both indices of

social norms are significantly and positively associated with individual women’s fertility decision;

individual women tend to have more children if a country has more egalitarian social norms

towards gender roles. Interestingly, the Model 4 result indicates that the more egalitarian views on

instrumental and nurturant roles country have, the higher fertility decision women have. Figure 3,

which is a margins plot for the interaction effect clearly explains the interaction effects between

social norms.

Figure 3

Interaction effects of social norms on instrumental roles and nurturant roles


17

To clarify the interaction effects in one graph, countries are categorized into three groups

based on the level of social norms on nurturant roles: 1) traditional social norm countries (countries

in the bottom of 25% of nurturant index score); 2) neutral social norm countries (countries in the

middle of 75% of nurturant index score); 3) egalitarian social norm countries (countries in the top

of 25% of nurturant index score). After the predicted numbers of children for each group of social

norm on nurturant role is calculated by the changes of social norm on instrumental roles with

holding others constant, the results are shown graphically in Figure 3. It is understood that if social

norm of a country believing that women’s working is harmful to family, women tend to reduce the

number of children as social norms become more egalitarian on instrumental roles. However, if

social norms of a country on nurturant roles are neutral or egalitarian, predicted number of children

are increasing with the rise of egalitarian perspectives on instrumental roles. This is the same

finding as the arguments of McDonald (2000), which insists that low fertility occurs when

individual-oriented social institutions and family-oriented institutions are incoherent. If country

have contradictory social norms on gender roles, women tend to reduce fertility intention. However,

if a country has egalitarian social norms on both gender role, the fertility intention significantly

grows as shown in Figure 3.

Dynamics between Individual Gender Role Attitudes and Social Norms

Previous analysis looks into the effect of individual and social gender role attitudes on the

number of children separately. This subsection concentrates on understanding how women’s

fertility decision changes according to individual gender role attitudes and social norms. Model 5

takes into account the indicators of individual level and country level instrumental and nurturant

gender role attitudes. To detect the contradictory of effects of nurturant and instrumental gender

role attitudes, additional regression is performed after adding the interaction terms between


18

instrumental and nurturant gender role attitudes (Model 6). Table 5 presents the regression results

of Model 5 and 6.

Table 5

Effects of social norms towards gender role attitudes on fertility decision

Model 5 Model 6 Coef. SE Coef. SE Individual gender role attitudes Instrumental roles -0.079 *** 0.024 -0.073 *** 0.025 Nurturant roles 0.001 0.019 0.000 0.024 Instrumental X Nurturant roles -0.001 0.019 Social norm towards gender roles Instrumental roles 0.227 *** 0.064 -0.299 *** 0.090 Nurturant roles 0.350 *** 0.060 -0.294 *** 0.098 Instrumental X Nurturant roles 1.071 *** 0.131 Work (base group: currently in paid work) Currently not in paid work in the past 0.380 *** 0.040 0.381 *** 0.039 Never had paid work 0.429 *** 0.099 0.404 *** 0.098 Religion 0.186 *** 0.034 0.153 *** 0.034 Age 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.003 Degree -0.039 *** 0.012 -0.039 *** 0.012 Marital status (base group: married) Civil partnership -0.323 *** 0.073 -0.281 *** 0.073 Separated/Divorced/Widowed -0.358 *** 0.050 -0.371 *** 0.050 Single -0.991 *** 0.038 -1.000 *** 0.038 Constant 1.241 *** 0.141 1.505 *** 0.144 Number of observation 5296 5296 Adjusted R-squared 0.162 0.172

Note: *p < .10, **p <.05, ***p < .01

Women may give more weight on social atmosphere on gender equity when deciding on

childbearing from the first two columns of Table 5. The magnitudes of the coefficients of social

norms on fertility decision is much higher than the magnitudes of coefficients of individual gender

role attitudes. Also, statistical significance is disappeared in most estimates related to individual


19

gender role attitudes, while social norm estimates have strong significance. It implies that social

circumstance regarding gender role around women play an important role in women’s decision on

giving a birth. Even though several policies are existed to create family-friendly work environment

and relieve women’s burden on childbearing and childrearing, the actual accessibility and

applicability toward these policies may rely on social consciousness on women’s role in family

and work.

The estimation results of Model 6 emphasize that the coherency between two types of

social norms on gender role attitudes is significantly associated with the number of children. Lager

indicator of country’s instrumental gender role, that is egalitarian social view on instrumental role,

is positively related the number of children only if the country has higher indicator of nurturant

role, that is egalitarian social view on nurturant role. Hence, if women belong to the context where

two types of social norm on gender role keep consistency, for example, egalitarian view on both

instrument and nurturant gender role, they can be more likely to have more children.

Conclusion

Low fertility has become a serious issue in many developed countries, but the newly

emerged population change regarding low fertility does not seem to be improved despite

substantial public spend to increase fertility rate. In order to maximize the effectiveness of public

policies, understanding social norms around the issues targeted by the policies and people’s

perception or susceptibility on them is crucial (Kinsig et al., 2013). Thus, this research aimed to

understand social norm on gender roles and individual women’s gender role attitudes for

understanding low fertility issue.

From the analyses, we find that both individual women’s gender role attitudes and social

norms significantly influence fertility behavior of women. The results suggest that the dynamics


20

and variety of individual and social norms gender role attitudes should be taken into account in

fertility research. This research is expected to contribute to enhancing our knowledge on low

fertility by combining macro and micro level factors from gender equity perspectives, so that we

could effectively address various issues related to low fertility.


1

References

Adsera, A. (2004). Changing fertility rates in developed countries. The impact of labor market

institutions. Journal of Population Economics, 17(1), 17-43.

Agrillo, C., & Nelini, C., (2008). Childfree by choice: A review. Journal of Cultural Geography,

25, 347–363.

Ajzen, I. & Klobas, J. (2013). Fertility intentions: an approach based on the theory of planned

behaviors. Demographic Research, 29(8). 204-232.

Balbo, N. & Barban, N. (2012). Does fertility behavior spread among friends? Working paper.

Carlo F. Dondena Center for Research on Social Dynamics.

Begall, K. & Mills, M. C. (2012), ‘The influence of educational field, occupation, and

occupational sex segregation on fertility in the netherlands’, European Sociological Review

29(4), 720–742.

Behrman, J. R. & Rosenzweig, M. R. (2002), ‘Does increasing women’s schooling raise the

schooling of the next generation?’, American Economic Review 92(1), 323–334.

Billari, F. C., Phillipov, D., & Testa, M. R. (2009). Attitudes, norms and perceived behavioral

control: explaining fertility intention in Bulgaria. European Journal of Population, 25, 439.

465.

Cartwright, S. (2004). Women's decisions about paid work and family life after childbirth: a

critique of the Hakim model. Women and work: Current RMIT University research, 24.

Castles, F. G. (2003). The world turned upside down: below replacement fertility, changing

preferences and family-friendly public policy in 21 OECD countries. Journal of European

social policy, 13(3), 209-227.

Crompton, R., & Lyonette, C. (2005). The new gender essentialism–domestic and family


2

‘choices’ and their relation to attitudes. The British journal of sociology, 56(4), 601-620.

Ehrlich, P. R., & Levin, S. A. (2005). The evolution of norms. PLOS Biology, 3, 943-948.

Esping‐Andersen, G., & Billari, F. C. (2015). Re‐theorizing Family Demographics. Population

and Development Review, 41(1), 1-31.

Goldscheider, F., Bernhardt, E., & Lappegård, T. (2015). The gender revolution: A framework for

understanding changing family and demographic behavior. Population and Development

Review, 41(2), 207-239.

Goldstein, J. R., Sobotka, T., & Jasilioniene, A. (2009). The End of “Lowest‐Low” Fertility?.

Population and development review, 35(4), 663-699.

Hagewen, K. J., & Morgan, S. P. (2005). Intended and ideal family size in the United States,

1970–2002. Population and Development Review, 31(3), 507-527.

Haider, H. (2017). Changing gender & social norms, attitudes and behaviours. K4D Helpdesk

Research Report series. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies. Retrieved from

http://www.gsdrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/K4D_HDQ89.pdf

Hakim, C. (2000). Work-lifestyle choices in the 21st century: Preference theory. OUP Oxford.

Hakim, C. (2003). A new approach to explaining fertility patterns: Preference theory. Population

and development review, 29(3), 349-374.

Hilgeman, C., & Butts, C. T. (2009). Women’s employment and fertility: A welfare regime

paradox. Social Science Research, 38(1), 103-117.

Hirschman, C. (1994). Why fertility changes. Annual review of sociology, 20(1), 203-233.

Kan, M. Y. (2007). Work orientation and wives' employment careers: an evaluation of Hakim's

preference theory. Work and Occupations, 34(4), 430-462.

Kangas, O., & Rostgaard, T. (2007). Preferences or institutions? Work—family life opportunities


3

in seven European countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 17(3), 240-256.

Kim, H. S. (2014). Female labour force participation and fertility in South Korea. Asian

Population Studies, 10(3), 252-273.

Kinzig et al., (2013). Social norms and global environmental challenges: the complex interaction

of behaviors, values, and policy. Bioscience, 63(3), 164-175.

Leahy, M., & Doughney, J. (2006). Women, work and preference formation: a critique of

Catherine Hakim's preference theory. Journal of Business Systems, Governance and

Ethics, 1(1), 37-48.

Martin, S. P. (2000). Diverging fertility among US women who delay childbearing past age 30.

Demography, 37(4), 523-533.

McDonald, P. (2000). Gender equity in theories of fertility transition. Population and

development review, 26(3), 427-439.

McRae, S. (2003). Constraints and choices in mothers' employment careers: a consideration of

Hakim's preference theory. The British journal of sociology, 54(3), 317-338.

Mencarini, L. & Tanturri, M. L., (2006). High fertility or childlessness: Micro-level determinants

of reproductive behaviour in Italy. Population, 61(4), 389–416.

Morgan, S. P., & Taylor, M. G. (2006). Low fertility at the turn of the twenty-first century.

Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 375-399.

Myrskylä, M., Kohler, H. P., & Billari, F. (2011). High development and fertility: fertility at older

reproductive ages and gender equality explain the positive link.

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, 790-799.

Scott, J. (2008). 6. Changing gender role attitudes. In Women and employment: Changing lives


4

and new challenges, p.156. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781848442931.00014

Shreffler, K. M., & Johnson, D. R. (2013). Fertility intentions, career considerations and

subsequent births: The moderating effects of women’s work hours. Journal of family and

economic issues, 34(3), 285-295.

Sleebos, J. (2003). Low fertility rates in OECD countries. OECD social employment and

migration working papers NO. 15.

Sweeting, H., Bhaskar, A., Benzeval,M., Popham, F., & Hunt, K. (2014). Changing gender roles

and attitudes and their implications for well-being around the new millennium. Social

Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 49, 791–809.

Vitali, A., Billari, F. C., Prskawetz, A., & Testa, M. R., (2009). Preference theory and low

fertility: A comparative perspective. European Journal of Population, 25(4), 413–438.

Low Fertility based on Gender Equity Perspectives ...

Documents

Transcript of Low Fertility based on Gender Equity Perspectives ...