Low Fertility based on Gender Equity Perspectives ...
Transcript of 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First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission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]
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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.
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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.
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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.
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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).
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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.
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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.
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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
First Draft: Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
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.