Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:04:24.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The past of Europe's demographic future

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2009

Dirk J. Van De Kaa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The reproductive capacity of our species is far in excess of its needs. If all women used their reproductive potential to the full they would give birth to about 15 children on average. As averages of 6 or 7 were once sufficient to compensate for the high level of mortality, and higher numbers would have led to unacceptably high levels of population growth, that, presumably, is the level of fertility found in traditional European societies and in developing countries before the onset of fertility decline. In European societies, fertility decline began in the 19th century. It was a reaction to the disequilibrium that resulted from the long-term decline in mortality. However, a clear sequence cannot always be established. The assumption that prevailed in the 1950s and 1960s that this demographic transition, as it is customarily called, would lead to a new equilibrium appears not to have been well founded. Average family size has declined to such low levels that the age structure is seriously affected and the replacement of generations is no longer assured. A new disequilibrium has resulted. If this is a temporary phenomenon it is not an important issue. However, if it has to be assumed that future generations will also limit their reproduction to not more than 10% of their potential, the perspective is different. Even with continued high levels of immigration, population decline will then become inevitable. While some argue this will turn out to be beneficial, it is not without disadvantages.

Type
Research Article
Information
European Review , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , October 1999 , pp. 529 - 550
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References and Notes

1.Bertens, H. (1995) The Idea of the Postmodern: a History (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
2.Biraben, J.-N. (1979) Essai sur I'évolution du nombre des hommes. Population, 34(1), 13–27.Google Scholar
3.Blom, S., Noack, T. and Østby, L. (1993) Gifterrnål og Barn-Bedre Sent enn Aldri? (Oslo-Kongsvinger: Statistics Norway).Google Scholar
4.Bongaarts, J. (1987) A framework for analyzing the proximate determinants of fertility. Population and Development Review, 4, 105–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Borrie, W. D. (1992) The demographic consequences of international migration. In: Borrie, W.D. and van de Kaa, D. J., (1992) The Demographic Consequences of International Migration (Wassenaar: NIAS) 1–58.Google Scholar
6.Brands, M. (1997) The Obsolescence of Almost all Theories Concerning International Relations. Uhlenbeck Lecture 14, (Wassenaar: NIAS).Google Scholar
7.Cleland, J. and Scott, C. (eds) (1987) The World Fertility Survey. An Assessment (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
8.Coale, A. (1973) The demographic transition reconsidered.Proceedings of the International Population Conference Liége 1973, 1, 53–72.Google Scholar
9.Coale, A. (1986) The decline of fertility in Europe since the eighteenth century as a chapter in human demographic history. In: Coale, A. J. and Watkins, S. C. (eds) (1986) The Decline of Fertility in Europe (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press) 1–31.Google Scholar
10.Coale, A. J. and Treadway, R.. A summary of the changing distribution of overall fertility, marital fertility, and the proportion married in the provinces of Europe. In Coale, A. J. and Watkins, S. C. (eds) (1986) The Decline of Fertility in Europe (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press) 31–80.Google Scholar
11.Davis, K. and Blake, J. (1956) Social structure and fertility: an analytic framework. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 4, 211–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Dumont, A. (1890) Dépopulation at Civilisation. Étude Démographique (Paris: Lecrosnier et Babé Libraires-éditeurs).Google Scholar
13.de Beer, J. and van Wissen, L. (eds) (1999) Europe One Continent, Different Worlds. Population Scenarios for the 21st Century (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers).Google Scholar
14.Fahlbeck, P. (1905) La décadence et la chute des peuples. Bulletin da l'lnstitut International de Statistique, Vol. XV. nr. 2, Annexe 12, 367–389.Google Scholar
15.Gadourek, I. (1998) On the Variability of Social Life (Groningen: The Institute of Sociology).Google Scholar
16.Groenewegen, K. and van de Kaa, D. J. (1966–1967) Resultaten van het Demografisch Onderzoek Westelijk Nieuw-Guinea (The Hague: Government Printing and Publishing Office) 6 Volumes.Google Scholar
17.Huntington, S. (1997) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (London: Touchstone Books).Google Scholar
18.Inglehart, R. (1997) Modernization and Postmodernization. Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Joshi, H. (1996) Projections of European population decline: serious demography or false alarm? In: Coleman, D. (ed) (1996) Europe's Population in the 1990s (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 222–266.Google Scholar
20.Kirk, D. (1944) Population changes and the post-war world. American Sociological Review, 9, 28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Klijzing, E. and Macura, M. (1997) Cohabitation and extra-marital childbearing: early FFS evidence. Proceedings International Population Conference, Beijing, 1997, Vol.2, pp. 885–903.Google Scholar
22.Knol, H. R. (1980) Dominante Houdingspatronen in een Pluriforme Samenleving. Ph.D. Thesis, Groningen University.Google Scholar
23.Kossmann, E. (1998) Some reflections on the practice of commemoration. European Review, 6, 269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Lightbourne, R. E. (1987) Reproductive preferences and behaviour. In Cleland, J. and Scott, C. (eds) (1987) The World Fertility Survey. An Assessment (Oxford: Clarendon Press) 838–862.Google Scholar
25.McKeown, T. (1976) The Modern Rise of Population (London: Edward Arnold).Google Scholar
26.Miller, R. (ed.) (1969) Mungo Park's Travels in Africa (London: Everyman's Library, Dent).Google Scholar
27.Lesthaeghe, R. and van de Kaa, D. J. (1986) Twee demografische transities? In van de Kaa, D.J. and Lesthaeghe, R. (eds) (1986) Bevolking: Krimp en Groei (Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus) 9–25.Google Scholar
28.Middendorp, C. P. (1978) Progressiveness and Conservatism (The Hague: Mouton).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Multatuli, (1862–1874) Woutertje Pieterse, Pandora Pocket (1995) (Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Contact).Google Scholar
30.Perrenoud, A. and Bourdelais, P. (1998) Le recul de la mortalité. In: Bardet, J.-P. and Dupâquier, J. (eds) (1998) Histoire des Populations de l'Europe. Vol II (Paris: Fayard) 57–101.Google Scholar
31.Quigley, C. (1961) The Evolution of Civilizations (New York: The Macmillan Company).Google Scholar
32.Santow, G. (1995) Coitus interruptus and the control of natural fertility. Population Studies, 49(1), 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.Stangeland, C. E. (1904) Pre-Malthusian Doctrines of Population. Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, Vol. XXI, No. 3, (New York: Columbia University).Google Scholar
34.Stern, F. (1998) Five Cermanies I Have Known. Uhlenbeck Lecture 16, (Wassenaar NIAS).Google Scholar
35.United Nations (1998) World Population Projections to 2150 (New York: United Nations).Google Scholar
36.van de Walle, F. (1986) Infant mortality and demographic transition. In: Coale, A. and Watkins, S. C. (eds) (1986) The Decline of Fertility in Europe (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press) 201–234.Google Scholar
37.Wrigley, E. A. (1978) Fertility strategies for the individual and the group. In: Tilly, C. (ed) (1978) Historical Studies of Changing Fertility (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press) 135–154.Google Scholar
38. The concept of TFR (total fertility rate) makes it somewhat difficult to interpret. If calculated for a specific year or period, it indicates the number of births a woman would give birth to if she were to spend her whole reproductive period under the fertility conditions observed during that specific period or year.Google Scholar
39.The bulletin was published in 1987. Especially outside Europe there still is some reluctance to accept the concept.I have understood that when the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population (IUSSP) holds its 24th General Conference in Brazil in 2001, a special session will be devoted to the topic ‘Second Demographic Transition: Fact or Fiction?’Google Scholar
40. Materialist and postmaterialist orientations are measured with a survey instrument which may have 12 items. However, basically it asks respondents to make a choice of their first and second priority from amongst four items, formulated as follows18: (1) Maintaining order in society. (2) Giving people more say in important government decisions. (3) Fighting rising prices. (4) Protecting freedom of speech. Respondents selecting (1) and (3) as their priorities are classified as materialists; those giving priority to (2) and (4) as postmaterialist.Google Scholar
41. Given the elusive nature of the concept of postmodernism and the controversies surrounding its use, I tend to add the adjective ‘bourgeois’ to it when using it in a demographic context. No well-tested measurement instrument appears to exist. If asked to give a concise description I would state the following. ‘Bourgeois’ postmodernists have a strong postmaterialist leaning or orientation, aim at self-realization, value their personal freedom greatly, place well-being and the quality of life above material assets, question meta-narratives in the sense of not adhering to the tenets of religion and of wanting to determine their own lifestyle and pattern of personal relations. They similarly do not accept authority without question, are tolerant of the behaviour of others, want to be able to express themselves freely, support emancipatory (human rights, ecology. gender) movements, are in favour of diversity, and look without prejudice at developments leading to multiculturalism.Google Scholar