Fertility and "Life Chances"-A Comparison among 19 Countries of Controlled Fertility*

Abstract

Macroeconomic factors affecting fertility in 19 industrialized countries with populations of European origin which as of 1965 had male expectancy at birth of at least 60 years and average total fertility rates not in excess of 2800 for at least 10 years were examined to test the hypothesis that fertility would be lowest in countries where individuals were either most or least able to satisfy their personal needs and interests. Grades on 96 presumed indicators of life chances were assigned to the 19 countries and then related singly and in various combinations to 8 measures of fertility both cohort and cross-sectional for the period of the mid-1960s. The independent variables were designed to appraise the existence and accessibility of opportunities offering alternatives to marriage or childbearing for satisfaction of personal needs and interests and the existence of extra-familial sources of emotional and economic support as well as the extent to which the individual can find physical and emotional security within the general social setting. The 19 countries examined were Canada the US Austria Belgium Czechoslovakia Denmark Finland France East Germany West Germany Hungary Luxembourg the Netherlands Norway Sweden Switzerland the UK Australia and New Zealand. When the national grades on the indicators were simultaneously charted with their respective fertility measures only about half showed the expected bell-shaped distribution. In a single bivariate association with the various measures of fertility only about 1 5 of the 96 indicators appeared to follow a pattern in general conformity with the bell shape hypothesized. There were several possible explanations for the failure to find a significant association: the hypothesis might be invalid the indicators might not have measured what they were intended to measure or the values assigned to individual countries might have been in error the indicators might need to be weighted differently the range of fertility might have been too narrow to permit the degree of variability necessary to establish the hypothesized association the sample size may have been too small the period that the indicator grades referred to might not have been of prime causal significance to the fertility levels under study changes in independent or dependent variables may have affected the results or the study may have tried to place numerical values on attributes that are inherently unquantifiable. The most reasonable conclusion of the study is that the hypothesis has not been proven or disproven only not proven.