Alice in Wonderland: Unrealized fertility and satisfaction with number of children according to couples’ point of view in a city in Brazil
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20947/S102-3098a0049Keywords:
Fertility gap, Ideal number of children, Negative discrepant fertility, Measures of fertility preferences, Qualitative data, CouplesAbstract
The gap between ideal and observed fertility is a very common phenomenon in Brazil. However, given the severe criticism of indicators on desired and ideal family sizes, it is important to reflect on how well fertility preferences are grasped by traditional questions. This paper discusses whether having fewer children than desired is a matter of choice or if it represents an inability to implement reproductive preferences, generating dissatisfaction with one´s fertility behavior. Data come from 62 in-depth interviews conducted with 31 couples with high educational levels, living in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, with up to two children. Negative discrepant fertility was predominant among most couples interviewed. Many of them, however, are fully satisfied with their current fertility situation and do not seem to be willing to implement their desire for more children.Downloads
References
ADSERA, A. An economic analysis of the gap between desired and actual fertility: the case of Spain. Review of the Economics of the Household, v.4, p. 75-95, 2006.
ARPINO, B.; ESPING-ANDERSEN, G.; PESSIN, L. How do changes in gender role attitudes towards female employment influence fertility? A macro-level analysis. European Sociological Review, v. 31, n. 3, p. 370-382, 2015.
AXINN, W. G.; MARIN, E. C.; THORNTON, A. Family influences on family size preferences. Demography, v. 31, n. 1, p. 65-79, 1994.
BACHRACH, C. A.; MORGAN, S. P. A cognitive-social model of fertility intentions. Population and Development Review, v. 39, n.3, p. 459-485, 2013.
BALBO, N.; MILLS, M. The influence of the family network on the realization of fertility intentions. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, v. 9, p. 179-206, 2011.
BARBER, J. S. The theory of planned behavior: considering drives, proximity and dynamics. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, v.9, p. 31-35, 2011.
BELLANI, D.; ESPING-ANDERSEN, C. Education, employment, and fertility. In: ESPING-ANDERSEN, G. (Ed.). The fertility gap in Europe: singularities of the Spanish case. “la Caixa” Welfare Projects, 2013.
BERQUÓ, E.; LIMA, L. P. de. Intenções reprodutivas e planejamento da fecundidade. Relatório Final da Pesquisa Nacional de Demografia e Saúde da Criança e da Mulher 2006. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde, 2008.
BERRINGTON, A.; PATTARO, S. Educational differences in fertility desires, intentions and behaviour: a life course perspective. Advances in Life Course Research, v. 21, p. 10-27, 2014.
BONGAARTS, J. Do reproductive intentions matter? International Family Planning Perspectives, v. 18, n. 3, p. 102-108, Sep. 1992.
________. Fertility and reproductive preferences in post-transitional societies. Population and Development Review, v. 27, p. 260-281, 2001.
_________. The end of the fertility transition in the developed world. Population and Development Review, v. 28, p. 419-443, 2002.
_________. Can family planning programs reduce high desired family size in Sub-Saharan Africa? International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, v. 37, n. 4, p. 209-216, 2011.
CALDWELL, J. C.; REDDY, P.; CALDWELL, P. The social component of mortality decline: an investigation in South India employing alternative methodologies. Population Studies, v. 37, n. 2, p. 185-205, Jul. 1985.
CARVALHO, A. A.; WONG, L. L. R.; MIRANDA-RIBEIRO, P. Discrepant fertility in Brazil: an analysis of women who have fewer children than desired (1996 and 2006). Revista Latinoamericana de Población, n. 18, p. 83-106, 2016.
CASTERLINE, J. B.; EL-SEINI, L. The estimation of unwanted fertility. Demography, v. 44, n. 4, p. 729-745, Nov. 2007.
CASTERLINE, J. B.; HAN, S. Unrealized fertility: fertility desires at the end of the reproductive career. Demographic Research, v. 36, n. 14, p 427-454, 2017.
CHACKIEL, J.; SCHKOLNIK, S. América Latina: los sectores rezagados en la transición de la fecundidad. In: CELADE/CEPAL (Org.). La fecundidad en América Latina ¿Transición o revolución? Santiago de Chile: Celade/Cepal, 2003. p. 51-74.
CHESNAIS, J. C. Determinants of below replacement fertility. Population Bulletin of the United Nations, n. 40/41, p. 126-136, 1999.
CREIGHTON, M.; ESPING-ANDERSEN, G.; RUTIGLIANO, R.; VAN DAMME, M. Is fertility influenced by couple instability? In: ESPING-ANDERSEN, G. (Ed.). The fertility gap in Europe: Singularities of the Spanish case. “la Caixa” Welfare Projects, 2013.
DEMENY, P. Replacement-level fertility: the implausible ndpoint of the demographic transition. In: JONES, G. W.; DOUGLAS, R. M.; CALDWELL, J. C.; D’SOUZA, R. M. (Ed.). The continuing
demographic transition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
GAUTHIER, A. H. The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: a review of the literature. Population Research and Policy Review, v. 26, n. 3, p. 323-346, 2007.
GOLDSTEIN, J. R.; LUTZ, W.; TESTA, M. R. The emergence of sub-replacement family size ideals in Europe. Population Research an Policy Review, v. 2, n. 2, p. 479-496, 2003.
GONZÁLEZ, M. E. D. A discrepância entre a fecundidade desejada e a fecundidade concretizada enquanto uma questão de gênero. Dissertação (Mestrado) – Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp), Campinas, 2015.
HAGEWEN, K. J.; MORGAN, S. P. Intended and ideal family size in the United States, 1970-2002. Population and Development Review, v. 31, p. 507-527, 2005.
HAKIM, C. A new approach to explaining fertility patterns: preference theory. Population and Development Review, v. 29, p. 349-374, 2003.
HAKKERT, R. Fecundidad deseada y no deseada en América Latina, con particular referencia a algunos aspectos de género. In: CELADE/CEPAL (Org.). La fecundidad en América Latina:
¿Transición o revolución? Santiago de Chile: Celade/Cepal, 2003. p. 267-288.
HAYFORD, S. R. The evolution of fertility expectations over the life course. Demography, v. 46, n. 4, p. 765-783, 2009.
IACOVOU, M.; TAVARES, L. P. Yearning, learning, and conceding: reasons men and women change their childbearing intentions. Population and Development Review, v. 37, n. 1, p. 89-123, 2011.
IBGE – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Projeções populacionais. Revisão 2013. Disponível em: https://ww2.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/projecao_da_populacao/2013. Acesso em: 21 maio 2017.
JOHNSON-HANKS, J.; MORGAN; S. P.; BACHRACH, C.; KOHLER, H. P. The American family in a theory of conjunctural action. Berkeley, CA: Department of Demography, University of CaliforniaBerkeley, 2006 (Working paper).
KOTTE, M.; LUDWIG, V. Intergenerational transmission of fertility intentions and behaviour in Germany: the role of contagion. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, v. 9, p. 207-226, 2011.
KOHLER, H. P.; BILLARI, F. C.; ORTEGA, J. A. The emergence of lowest-low fertility in Europe during the 1990s. Population and Development Review, v. 28, p. 641-680, 2002.
KUHNT, A. K.; TRAPPE, H. Easier said than done: childbearing intentions and their realization in a short-term perspective. Rostock, Germany: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, 2013 (Working paper, n. 2013/018).
LIEFBROER, A. C. Changes in family size intentions across young adulthood: a life-course perspective. European Journal of Population, v. 25, n. 4, p. 363-386, 2009.
MCCLELLAND, K. G. H. Family-size desires as measures of demand. In: BULATAO, R. A.; LEE, R. D. (Ed.). Determinants of fertility in developing countries. Supply and demand for children. New York: New York Academic Press, 1983. v. 1, p. 288-343.
MCDONALD, P. Gender equity in theories of fertility transition. Population and Development Review, v. 6, n. 3, p. 427-439, 2000.
MILLER, W. B.; PASTA, D. J. Behavioral intentions: which ones predict fertility behavior in married couples? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, v. 25, p.530-555, 1995.
MILLER, W.B.; BARBER., J. A.; GATNY, H. H. The effects of ambivalent fertility desires on pregnancy risk in young women in the USA. Population Studies, v. 67, n. 1, p. 25-38, 2013.
MILLER, W. B.; JONES, J.; PASTA, D. J. An implicit ambivalence-indifference dimension of childbearing desires in the National Survey of Family Growth. Demographic Research, v. 34, p. 203, 2016.
MORGAN, S. P. Intention and uncertainty at later stages of childbearing: The United States 1965 and 1970. Demography, v. 18, n. 3, p. 267-285, 1981.
MORGAN, S. P. Individual and couple intentions for more children. Demography, v. 22, p. 125-132, 1985.
MORGAN, S. P.; TAYLOR, M. G. Low fertility at the turn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Sociology, v. 32, p. 375-99, 2006.
MORGAN, S. P.; RACKIN, H. The correspondence between fertility intentions and behavior in the United States. Population and Development Review, v. 36, n. 1, p. 91-118, Mar. 2010.
NÍ BHROLCHÁIN, M.; BEAUJOUAN, E. How real are reproductive goals? Uncertainty and the construction of fertility preferences. ESRC Centre for Population Change, Dec. 2015 (Working paper, 73).
OECD. Babies and bosses. Reconciling work and family life. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2007.
PERI, A.; PARDO, I. Nueva evidencia sobre la hipótesis de la doble insatisfacción en Uruguay: ¿cuán lejos estamos de que toda la fecundidad sea deseada? In: WONG, L. R. (Org.). Población y salud sexual y reproductiva en América Latina. Rio de Janeiro: Alap, 2008. p. 55-88 (Serie Investigaciones, n. 4).
PHILIPOV, D.; THÉVENON, O.; KLOBAS, J.; BERNARDI, L.; LIEFBROER, A. C. Reproductive decisionmaking in a macro-micro perspective (REPRO): a state of the art review. European Commission within the Seventh Framework Programme under the Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities Theme, 2009 (Working paper).
PHILIPOV, D. Fertility intentions and outcomes: the role of policies to close the gap. European Journal of Population, v. 25, n. 4, p. 355, 2009.
PHILIPOV, D.; BERNARDI, L. Reproductive decisions: concepts and measurement in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Comparative Population Studies, v. 36, n. 2-3, p. 495-530, 2011.
RÉGNIER-LOILIER, A. Influence of own sib ship size on the number of children desired at various times of life: The case of France. Population (english edition), v. 61, n. 3, p. 165-194, 2006.
RIJKEN, A.; LIEFBROER, A. The effects of relationship quality on fertility. European Journal of Population, v. 25, p. 27-44, 2009.
SANTELLI, J. S.; LINDBERG, L. D.; ORR, M. G.; FINER, L. B.; SPEIZER, I. Toward a multidimensional measure of pregnancy intentions: evidence from the United States. Studies in Family Planning, v. 40 n. 2, p. 87-100, 2009.
SOBOTKA, T.; BEAUJOUAN, E. Two is best? The persistence of a two-child family ideal in Europe. Vienna Institute of Demography, 2014 (Working papers, 3).
THÉVENON, O.; LUCI-GREULICH, A. The impact of family policy packages on fertility trends in developed countries. European Journal of Population, v. 29, n. 4, p. 387-416, 2013.
THOMSON, E. Two into one: modeling couple behaviour. In: DIEGO, A. C. (Ed.). Family variables. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990. p. 129-142.
_________. Couple childbearing desires, intentions, and births. Demography, v. 34, p. 343-354, 1997.
WESTOFF, C. F.; RYDER, N. B. The predictive validity of reproductive intentions. Demography, v. 14, n. 4, p. 431-53, 1977.
_________. Reproductive intentions and fertility rates. International Family Planning Perspectives, v. 16, n. 3, p. 84-96, 1990.
WONG. L. L. R. Evidences of further decline of fertility in Latina America: reproductive behavior and some thoughts on the consequences on the age structure. In: CAVENAGHI, S. M. (Org.). Demographic transformations and inequalities in Latin America: historical trends and recent patterns. Rio de Janeiro: Alap, 2009 (Serie Investigaciones, n. 8).
YEATMAN, S.; SENNOTT, C.; CULPEPPER, S. Young women’s dynamic family size preferences in the context of transitioning fertility. Demography, v. 50, n. 5, p. 1715-1737, 2013.
YIN, R. K. Case study research: design and methods. Sage Publications, cap. 4, 1994.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Papers published in Rebep are original and protected under the Creative Commons attribution-type license (CC-BY). This license allows you to reuse publications in whole or in part for any purpose, free of charge, even for commercial purposes. Any person or institution can copy, distribute or reuse the content, as long as the author and the original source are properly mentioned.
