Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T04:07:38.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Birth, Fortune, and Discrepant Fertility in Twentieth-Century America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2016

Amon Emeka
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Twentieth-century American men and women were often unable to live up to or down to their own fertility ideals. In a national random sample of 11,126 ever-married men and women over the age of 44, “discrepant fertility”—the difference between ideal fertility and completed fertility—was common. This article seeks to identify the causes of such discrepancies, and findings suggest that the most important exogenous factor is “birth cohort.” Those born prior to or after the Great Depression were prone to exhibit negative discrepant fertility, having had fewer children than they thought ideal, while those born during the Depression—the parents of the baby boom—were characterized by significant positive discrepant fertility, having had more children than they thought ideal. It is argued that these cohort effects are closely related to social and economic conditions that prevailed as twentieth-century Americans came of age and assessed their professional and familial prospects.

Type
Articles
Information
Social Science History , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , Fall 2006 , pp. 327 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association 2006 

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

Bongaarts, John (2001) “Fertility and reproductive preferences in post-transitional societies.” Population and Development Review 27, Suppl. Global Fertility Transition: 260–81.Google Scholar
Bongaarts, John, and Feeney, Griffith (1998) “On the quantum and tempo of fertility.” Population and Development Review 24: 271–91.Google Scholar
Bongaarts, John, and Watkins, Susan Cotts (1996) “Social interactions and contemporary fertility transitions.” Population and Development Review 22: 639–82.Google Scholar
Bumpass, Larry (1973) “Is low fertility here to stay?” Family Planning Perspectives 5: 67–69.Google Scholar
Bumpass, Larry (1995) “The declining significance of marriage: Changing family life in the United States.” National Survey of Families and Households Working Paper no. 66, University of Wisconsin Center for Demography and Ecology, Madison.Google Scholar
Bumpass, Larry, Sweet, James A., and Cherlin, Andrew (1991) “The role of cohabitation in declining rates of marriage.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53: 913–27.Google Scholar
Caldwell, John C. (1999) “The delayed Western fertility decline: An examination of English-speaking countries.” Population and Development Review 25: 479–513.Google Scholar
Chaves, Mark (1994) “Secularization as declining religious authority.” Social Forces 72: 749–74.Google Scholar
Chesnais, Jean-Claude (1992) The Demographic Transition: Stages, Patterns, and Economic Implications: A Longitudinal Study of Sixty-Seven Countries Covering the Period 1720–1984. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Coombs, Lolagene C. (1974) “The measurement of family size preferences and subsequent fertility.” Demography 11: 587–611.Google Scholar
Coombs, Lolagene C. (1979a) “Reproductive goals and achieved fertility: A fifteen-year perspective.” Demography 16: 523–34.Google Scholar
Coombs, Lolagene C. (1979b) “Underlying family-size preferences and reproductive behavior.” Studies in Family Planning 10: 25–36.Google Scholar
Davis, James A., Smith, Tom W., and Marsden, Peter V. (2005) General Social Surveys, 1972-2004 [cumulative file]. ICPSR04295-v2. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center [producer]. Storrs: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut; Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributors], 2006-04-05.Google Scholar
Davis, Kingsley (1945) “The world demographic transition.” Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science 273: 1–11.Google Scholar
Davis, Kingsley (1963) “The theory of change and response in modern demographic history.” Population Index 29: 345–66.Google Scholar
Easterlin, Richard (1975) “An economic framework for fertility analysis.” Studies in Family Planning 5: 54–63.Google Scholar
Easterlin, Richard (1987) Birth and Fortune: The Impact of Numbers on Personal Welfare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Easterlin, Richard (2000) “Growth and composition of the American population in the twentieth century,” in Haines, Michael R. and Steckel, Richard H. (eds.) A Population History of North America. New York: Cambridge University Press: 631–75.Google Scholar
Frejka, Tomas, and Ross, John (2001) “Paths to subreplacement fertility: The empirical evidence.” Population and Development Review 27, Suppl. Global Fertility Transition: 213–54.Google Scholar
Hacker, J. David (2003) “Rethinking the ‘early’ decline of marital fertility in the United States.” Demography 40: 605–20.Google Scholar
Hirschman, Charles (1994) “Why fertility changes?” Annual Review of Sociology 20: 203–33.Google Scholar
Joshi, Heather (1990) “The cash opportunity costs of childbearing: An approach to estimation using British data.” Population Studies 44: 41–60.Google Scholar
Lesthaeghe, Ronald, and Surkyn, Johan (1988) “Cultural dynamics and economic theories of fertility change.” Population and Development Review 14: 1–46.Google Scholar
Livi Bacci, Massimo (2001) “Comment: Desired family size and the future course of fertility.” Population and Development Review 27, Suppl. Global Fertility Transition: 282–89.Google Scholar
Morgan, S. Philip (2003) “Low fertility in the twenty-first century.” Demography 40: 589–603.Google Scholar
Myers, Dowell (1985) “Wives’ earnings and rising costs of homeownership.” Social Science Quarterly 66: 319–29.Google Scholar
Notestein, Frank (1953) “Economic problems of population change,” in Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference of Agricultural Economists, Held at Kellogg Center, Michigan State College, U.S.A., 15–22 August 1952. London: Oxford University Press: 13–31.Google Scholar
Preston, Samuel (1976) “Family sizes of children and family sizes of women.” Demography 13: 105–14.Google Scholar
Preston, Samuel, Heuveline, Patrick, and Guillot, Michael (2001) Demography: Measuring and Modeling Population Processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pritchett, Lant (1994) “Desired fertility and the impact of population policies.” Population and Development Review 20: 1–55.Google Scholar
Quesnel-Vallée, Amélie, and Philip Morgan, S. (2003) “Missing the target? Correspondence of fertility intentions and behavior in the U.S.” Population Research and Policy Review 22: 497–525.Google Scholar
Ryder, Norman (1990) “What is going to happen to American fertility?” Population and Development Review 16: 433–54.Google Scholar
Thompson, Elizabeth, McDonald, Elaine, and Bumpass, Larry L. (1990) “Fertility desires and fertility: Hers, his, and theirs.” Demography 27: 579–88.Google Scholar
van de Kaa, Dirk J. (2001) “Postmodern fertility preferences: From changing value orientation to new behavior.” Population and Development Review 27, Suppl. Global Fertility Transition: 290–331.Google Scholar
Voas, David (2003) “Conflicting preferences: A reason fertility tends to be too high or too low.” Population and Development Review 29: 627–46.Google Scholar
Whelpton, P. K. (1928) “Population of the United States, 1925 to 1975.” American Journal of Sociology 34: 253–70.Google Scholar
Yamane, David (1997) “Secularization on trial: In defense of a neosecularization paradigm.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36: 109–22.Google Scholar