Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:49:57.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social change, migration and pregnancy intervals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

I. Pool ,
J. E. Sceats ,
A. Hooper ,
J. Huntsman ,
E. Plummer  and
I. Prior
I. Pool
Affiliation:
Population Studies Centre, University of Waikato, Hamilton
J. E. Sceats
Affiliation:
Waikato Hospital, Hamilton
A. Hooper
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, New Zealand
J. Huntsman
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, New Zealand
E. Plummer
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, New Zealand
I. Prior
Affiliation:
Epidemiology Unit, Wellington Hospital, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Maternity histories from residents of a Pacific Island society, Tokelau, and migrants to New Zealand, are analysed using life table techniques. Inter-cohort differentials in patterns of family formation were found in the total Tokelau-origin population. The process of accelerated timing and spacing of pregnancies was more pronounced among migrants who tended to marry later, be pregnant at marriage, have shorter inter-pregnancy intervals at lower parities and to show evidence of family limitation occurring at higher parities. These results point to the significance of changing patterns of social control on strategies of family building.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 1987 , pp. 1 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

Coulibaly, S. & Pool, I. (1975) Un essai d'explication des variations de la fécondite en Haute-Volta et au Ghana. Population et Famille, 34, 1.Google Scholar
Davidson, F. (1975) The Tokelau Island Migrant Study: atoll diet. In: Migration and Health in New Zealand and the Pacific, pp. 109–112. Edited by Stanhope, J. M.Wellington Postgraduate Medical Society, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Goldstein, S. (1978) Migration and fertility in Thailand 1960–70. Can. Stud. Popul. 5, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbison, S.F. & Weishaar, M.E. (1981) Samoan migrant fertility: adaptation and selection. Hum. Organ. 40, 268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, W. (1975) The diet of Tokelau Island migrants in New Zealand. In: Migration and Health in New Zealand and the Pacific, pp. 113–116. Edited by Stanhope, J. M.Wellington Postgraduate Medical Society, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Hobcraft, J.N. & Rodriguez, G. (1980) Methodological Issues in Life Table Analysis of Birth Histories. World Fertility Survey, London.Google Scholar
Hooper, A. & Huntsman, J. (1973) A demographic history of the Tokelau Islands. J. Polynesian Soc. 82, 366.Google Scholar
Nuhuis, J.M. (1983) The Family Building Process in Java: Birth Interval Analysis from the Indonesia Fertility Survey 1976. Demographic Reports 6, Groningen State University Geographical Institute, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Potter, R.G. & Kobrin, F.E. (1982) Effects of cyclic spouse separation on conception times. Math. Biosci. 59, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sceats, J.E. (1981) Family formation in New Zealand: an analysis of the timing and spacing of pregnancies. N.Z. Popul. Rev. 7, 29.Google Scholar
Sceats-Pool, J. (1978) Family building in a Canadian city: an analysis of the timing and spacing of pregnancies. Popul. Stud. 32, 583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanhope, J.M. & Prior, I.A.M. (1977) The Tokelau Island Migrant Study: fertility and associated factors before migration. J. biosoc. Sci. 9, 1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van de Walle, F. (1975) Migration and fertility in Ticino. Popul. Stud. 29, 447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zarate, A. & Zarate, A.U. (1975) On the reconciliation of research findings of migrant–nonmigrant fertility differentials. Int. migr. Rev. 9, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar