1. Was slowing postponement really the engine for TFR rises in European countries? Marion Burkimsher Affiliate researcher University of Lausanne, Switzerland

2. 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?

3. Several countries reached ‘lowest-low’ levels, TFR<1.3 Data source: Human Fertility Database: www.humanfertility.orgwww.humanfertility.org

4. Minima reached in period 1996-2003; maxima 2008>

5. But Portugal is the exception to prove the rule! Portugal saw a maximum TFR in 2000 and a steady decline after

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

7. The rise in FR3+ has been small for most countries However, >=0.05 rise in Russia, Estonia, Slovenia and Sweden Increases in FR1 and FR2 have been much more important

8. 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)? Raw FR1 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 FR1 (1- MAB1) (1- ΔMAB1) Apply by birth order FR1, FR2… (There are newer, more complex measures which may be better)

9. 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?

10. 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…

11. But the reality (for most European countries) was different… …for a few years at least. But then what happened?…

12. Then postponement rates did indeed start to fall… …for a while. But then, approaching the recession…

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

14. Stage 1 decomposition - see abstract for details Increases stemmed mostly from ‘real’ rises in FR1

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

16. 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?

17. 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)

18. These trends are a continuation of those seen in Stage 0 But the fertility curve has widened > area under curve increased > increase in FR1

19. 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…

20. An example of the difference between period and cohort FR1

21. Example of change in shape of fertility curve at different years

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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….

26. Modest rise in later years in Sweden, Slovenia, Czech Rep, Lithuania…(same countries which had rise in FR1 peaks) Similarly with FR2…

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

28. Similar widening of FR2 curve for many countries: Not affecting Estonia, Sweden, Lithuania, Netherlands, Slovenia