Social Policy and Recent Fertility Change in Sweden
Author(s): Jan M. Hoem
Source: Population and Development Review, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Dec., 1990), pp. 735-748
Published by: Population Council
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1972965 .
Accessed: 20/02/2014 01:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Population Council is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Population and
Development Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 182.16.159.137 on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:25:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DATA
AND
PERSPECTIVES
Social Policy and
Recent FertilityChange
in Sweden
JANM. HOEM
SWEDEN IS CURRENTLYEXPERIENCINGa rise in period fertility
that reflectsa
changein the timepatternof cohortfertility.
Ultimatecohortfertility
may
eventuallyalso riseas a resultofthischange.Thisnoteprovidesinformation
on recentchanges in childbearingbehaviorin Sweden and links certain
featuresofthesechangesto Swedishsocial policythat,intentionally
or otherwise,providesa financialincentiveto the close spacingof births.
Fertilitytrends
In Sweden,as in manyotherindustrialized
theperiodtotalfertility
countries,
rate(TFR) stoppeddecliningin thelate 1970s and startedrisingin themid1980s. However,Swedishperiodfertility
neverfellto the verylow levels
reachedand stilllargelymaintainedbya numberofotherEuropeancountries,
suchas WestGermany,Switzerland,
Italy,or Austria,and ithas risenswiftly
to a level thatby the standardsof the last quartercenturyis high fora
developedcountry(see Figure1). The SwedishTFR was neverlower than
1.6 (1978 and 1983), and it has risenconsistently
throughthe 1980s to
In
it will surpassthe replacementlevel
reach2.02 in 1989. all probability
in 1990.' Sweden was not a high-fertility
countryduringthe baby boom
in thefertility
dive experiencedby mostdeveloped
years,and itparticipated
countriesafterthemid-1960s. Nevertheless,
mostotherindustrialized
countriesnow have a lowerTFR,2and amongWesternEuropeancountriesonly
POPULATION
AND DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW
16, NO. 4 (DECEMBER
This content downloaded from 182.16.159.137 on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:25:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1990)
735
736
FERTILITY
1
FIGURE
Total fertility rate, selected
CHANGE
1977-89
countries,
European
IN SWEDEN
2.25
2.09
Sweden
2
|
1.75
. ~~~~~France
\
/.
...
--
\\---
.
/
---Norway
/ Denmark
\ Italy
1.5
-
/
N>
,
\/
West Germany/
1.25
1976
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
than
thetraditional
outliers,Icelandand Ireland,have higherperiodfertility
Sweden.3
trendsare consistentwith a generalmild
CurrentSwedish fertility
behaviorthanwas thecase
towardmoremoderatedemographic
adjustment
in therecentpast.4Demographicdevelopmentsin Sweden have oftenbeen
in that
ofmoregeneraltrends;thuswhathas happenedrecently
a precursor
countrymayindicatewhat lies ahead forotherpopulations.5
This content downloaded from 182.16.159.137 on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:25:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
737
JAN M. HOEM
In Sweden fertility
at ages 15-19 fellthroughthe 1970s and has remainedat a low level of about 11 birthsper thousandwomen throughthe
increase.By contrast,fertility
has risensince
subsequentperiodof fertility
thelate 1970s forwomenaged 25 and olderand recently
has riseneven for
womenaged 20-24 (see Figure2).6 As a consequence,Swedishwomen in
theirearly30s now have somewhathigherfertility
than women in their
early20s. This is a remarkablereversalof the patternin the mid-1970s,
when theyoungergrouphad twicethefertility
level of the olderone.7
FIGURE 2
Age-specific fertilityrates, Sweden, 1975-89
160
140
25-29
120
0
\- - - - - > s 2 0 24
800
80
~~~~~03
0~
60
403 5-39
20
_
1975
78
_______
81
84
SOURCE: StatisticsSweden.
This content downloaded from 182.16.159.137 on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:25:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
87
738
FERTILITY
CHANGE
IN SWEDEN
All in all, there has been a marked upward shiftin the distributionof
ages at childbearing.The median age of women at firstbirthhas increased
fromaround 24 years forthe cohorts that startedchildbearingin the 1950s
and 1960s to an all-timehigh of about 27 yearsforthe cohortsborn in 195962 that startedchildbearingaround 1980 (see Figure 3). This is quite a late
entryinto motherhood by currentinternationalstandards. For instance, the
birthof25.0 years,
Norwegian cohortborn in 1959 had a medianage at first
up fromabout 23 yearsexperiencedby cohortsborn some 10 to 20 years
rates
earlier(Brunborgand Kravdal,1986: 37).8 In fact,Swedishfirst-birth
the 1970s
at ages 30 and above have been stableor increasingthroughout
FIGURE 3 Median age at firstbirth by mothers' birth cohort: Sweden,
cohorts born 1935-62
28
27 -
26 -
25-
24
23
1935
I
40
l
45
50
55
Birthcohort
This content downloaded from 182.16.159.137 on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:25:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
60
739
JAN M. HOEM
and 1980s (see Figure4). In thelate 1980s,first-birth
rateshave riseneven
forwomen in their20s, as demonstrated
by the curvesforages 22 and 27
in Figure4. Corresponding
diagramsforratesof secondand thirdbirthsfor
single-yearage groups (not shown here) depictsimilartrends.Most age
groupsabove the teensnow contribute
to the generalincreasein Swedish
and
at
bothat firstchildbearing
fertility,
higherbirthorders.
theunderlying
trends.Figure5 plotssecondFigures5-7 demonstrate
orderbirthratesby age of firstchildforselectedbirthcohortsof mothers.
birthratesthat
The diagram,one ofseveralplotsofsecond-and third-order
I have drawnfora rangeofages at lastpreviousbirth,9
showshow therate
FIGURE 4 First-order birth rates for single-year age groups,
Sweden, 1961-88
200
150 -
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
80
100
-lOO
100~"
<-'^--
1
50
1960
65
70
75
80
SOURCE: StatisticsSweden, unpublisheddata.
This content downloaded from 182.16.159.137 on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:25:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
85
740
FERTILITY
CHANGE
IN SWEDEN
FIGURE 5 Second-order birth rates of mothers with a firstbirth at ages 2728, by duration since firstbirth: Sweden, cohorts born 1946, 1951,and 1956
500
Cohort born:
1956
400
0~~~~~
300
~~~~1946
/,5/
<
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Years afterfirstbirth
SOURCE: Statistics Sweden, unpublished data.
birth.'oFigures
has increasedoverthethreecohortsateach durationsincefirst
6 and 7 displaythe timepatternof the increasemore clearly.Theirfour
curvesshowtheratesforsecondand thirdbirthwhenthelastpreviouschild
was 1, 2, 3, or 4 yearsold, plottedagainstthe (approximate)calendaryears
"risk" of further
in which the motherwas exposed to the corresponding
" (Note thatFigures6 and 7 have been scaled differently
to
childbearing.
The diagramsexhibit
fertility.)
reflectthe much lower level of third-birth
ratesmove almostin lockthe duration-specific
quitestrongperiodeffects;
step,and theyall increasefroma low pointin about 1976 or 1977. Correspondingcurvesforotherages at lastpreviousbirthare quite similar.
The role of public policies
I believethatrecentdemographicdevelopmentsin Sweden can in partbe
attributed
to thelow-keyand largelyindirectpronatalismof Swedishsocial
policies.'2I know ofno othercountrywitha similarpoliticalsystemand at
tried
a comparablestageof industrialdevelopmentthathas so consistently
to facilitatewomen's entryinto the labor marketand theircontinuedatand childrearing.
Ideally,the
tachmentto it at minimalcostto childbearing
of Swedish
labor
force
participation
and continuously
growing
record-high
fertility,
highand generallyincreasing
women,combinedwithcomparatively
This content downloaded from 182.16.159.137 on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:25:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JAN M.
741
HOEM
FIGURE 6 Second-order birth rates of mothers with a firstbirth at ages 2728, by calendar year at risk: Sweden, 1960-87
500
400
/-_
/
Months since firstbirth:
6-47A/
~~~~~3
-N
300
200
-
:*.*
.
/
0
l
\
--
1960
65
70
75
80
85
Calendar year at risk
SOURCE: Statistics
Sweden, unpublisheddata.
shouldbe a rewardforsuch efforts.
It is tempting
to concludethatfertility
is responding
to thecumulativeeffects
ofthedetermined
expansionin public
daycare,childbenefits,
parentalleave provisions,
parents'rightsto part-time
work,and similarmeasures.Attitudinal
changeshave accompaniedsuch
measures.A combinationof publiccampaignsforresponsibleparenthood
and a new tastefor"self-realization"
and "the good life" among young
and
people (Rolen
Springfeldt,
1987) must have been among the forces
drivingthe postponementof entryinto parenthood.The markedfertility
This content downloaded from 182.16.159.137 on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:25:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
742
FERTILITY
CHANGE
IN SWEDEN
FIGURE 7 Third-order birth rates of mothers with a second birth at ages 2728, by calendar year at risk: Sweden, 1960-87
125
IN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Months since
second birth:
50-
25 -
0
1960
I
65
70
75
80
85
Calendar year at risk
SOURCE: StatisticsSweden, unpublisheddata.
reflects
regardedas highforchildbearing
increaseat agesthatwerepreviously
a recuperation
as coupleshave theirdesirednumberof childrenaftera late
startin a societythathelps reduceobstaclesto parenthoodat matureages.
Swedishpoliciesseem to have been successfulin softeningthe effectsof
on the dailypracticalities
of theirhome
women's labor forceparticipation
lifesufficiently
to reducetheinherentroleconflictto a manageablelevel.It
duringthe
maybe partofthispicturethatwomenlimitedtheirchildbearing
late 1960s and theearly1970s when theyfeltlikepioneersmovingintothe
This content downloaded from 182.16.159.137 on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:25:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
743
JAN M. HOEM
labormarketand reorganizing
theirhome lives,while currentcohortsfeel
lessconstrained,
now thattheirrights
havebeenfirmly
established
and greatly
In addition,havingseveralchildrenmay have acquiredan
strengthened.'3
increasedprestigevalue as people's economicsituationhas improved.
Ifindeedsocial policiesare influencing
reproductive
behavior,thedemographiceffects
seem to work primarily
via the impacton the timingof
childbearing.
Therehas been a striking
stabilityin Swedes' apparentpreferencesfortheirnumber
ofchildren.In fact,thetwo-childnormhas probably
has remainedat a leveljust below
been strengthened.
Cohorttotalfertility
2 (Calot,1990: Figure2),'" and thereis no evidencefora substantial
increase
in permanentchildlessness.'5
Thereis no signof the growingpopularityof
childlessor one-childfamiliesthatdemographers
have recordedin central
and southernEurope.'6
To a largeextent,the recentvariationsin the periodTFR reflectthe
normalaggregation
effects
thatensuewhenseveralcohortsina synchronized
and subsequently
mannerfirst
postponechildbearing
compensateforit-in
birthintervals.As was seen
thecase of Sweden so farmainlyby shortening
in Figure1, thesame generaltrendsare apparent,thoughto a muchsmaller
extent,in severalothercountries,some ofwhichhave much less generous
familypoliciesthan Sweden. Seeinga plausibleconnectionbetweenpublic
policiesand demographicconsequences,however,is one thing;providing
ofa directcausal connectionis another.Causality
acceptabledocumentation
is obscuredwhen rightsand benefits(and theextentto whichpeople make
use of them)expand graduallyand in step withotherdevelopments,and
when policiesin turnare revisedin responseto demographicbehavior.'
on fertility
ofsuchminorpolicy
Forinstance,itis noteasyto locatetheeffect
revisionsas the incrementalgrowthof the daycaresystemor the recent
leave fromnine to 12 months
extensionof the lengthof paid maternity
duringa periodof changinglabormarketconditionsand increasingfemale
laborforceparticipation
(Sundstr6m,1987, 1989).18
On occasion,however,featuresappearin demographicdata thatmay
as a responsetoa policychange.I believethatFigures
plausiblybe interpreted
6 and 7 and thecorresponding
diagramsforotherage groupsshowingsecond
and thirdbirthratesat lastpreviousbirthmaycontainsuchfeatures.In most
suchdiagrams,thecurveforan additionalbirthto mothersofone-year-olds
is particularly
steepduringthe 1980s. Usually,thecurveformothersoftwoyear-oldsis also steeperthanformothersof olderchildren.Thisrepresents
atquitebriefdurationssincethelastprevious
an extraincreaseinchildbearing
at all normaldurations.
birth,overand above thegeneralincreasein fertility
of
Thisextraquickeningappearedduringa periodwhen an understanding
the favorablefinancialconsequencesof a particularitemin the social insurancereformsspread among those who could benefitfromit. We turn
now to a discussionof thisphenomenon.
This content downloaded from 182.16.159.137 on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:25:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
744
FERTILITY
CHANGE
IN SWEDEN
The extension of income compensation beyond
the next birth
in Sweden
SincebeforeWorldWar II,womenworkingin paid employment
have had therightto a paid maternity
leave afterthe arrivalofany child.'9
In 1974, analogous rightswere extendedto men and includedthe option
forbothparentsto sharethepaidleavein themannertheysee fit.Theincome
compensationis determinedby the work-relatedincome receivedby the
leave-taker
ina specified
periodbeforethebirth.Initially,
itwas advantageous
to postponethe arrivalof a subsequentchild untilincome-compensation
had been re-established
eligibility
by furtheraccumulationof job-related
income.Duringthe 1970s,however,itbecameestablishedlegalpracticefor
a parentto retainthe rightto the level of incomecompensationpaid after
one birthduringparentalleave forthe next birth,providedthe interval
betweenthetwo birthsdid not exceed theperiodofstatutory
leave plus six
months.The parentdid not have to generateanyjob-relatedincomein the
interim.In 1974, the intervalbetweenbirthscould not exceed 12 months
accordingto thisrule,butin practiceitcouldbe extendedbyvariousdevices
such as sickleave or accumulatedpaid vacation,up to a totalof about 15
months.In subsequentyears,the eligibility
intervalgrewin step withthe
extensionofthestatutory
parentalleave,toa maximumin 1979 of15 months
(plus any vacationdue and sickleave admitted;see Figure8). Thisbenefit
and expandedto 24 monthsin 1980; it
extensionwas itselfmade statutory
was further
extendedto 30 monthsin 1986. Such incremental
extensionof
benefitshas been typicalof the developmentof social policiesin Sweden.
Withan eligibility
intervalas longas two yearsor more,manyparents
findit manageableto have two childrensufficiently
closelyspaced to take
benefit.If the next child is born afterthe
advantageof the corresponding
has been exceeded,the mother'sincomecompensation
periodof eligibility
will be erodedifshe workspart-time
to take care of heryoungestchild,as
manywomen do in Sweden,20or ifshe does not work.Thus,coupleshave
a short-term
economicmotiveto staywithinthe eligibility
interval.Given
the uncertainties
involvedin conceptionand pregnancy,some will failto
achievethisgoal and will give birthto the nextchildtoo late. We should
birthrateto get a specialboost when the
the next-order
expect,therefore,
last-bornchildis one or two yearsold. Thisis preciselywhatwe observein
Figures 6 and 7.21
When a woman takesa leave of absenceto look afterherfamily,she
sacrifices
further
job experienceand skilldevelopment(and otherformsof
in some cases foran extendedperiod. By bearingthree
job satisfaction),
childrentwo years apart,a woman can easily remainon leave froman
employerforfiveconsecutiveyearsor evenlongerundercurrent
regulations.
I have just describedindicate
The social policiesand thepatternsoffertility
This content downloaded from 182.16.159.137 on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:25:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
745
JAN M. HOEM
FIGURE 8 Birth interval that gives the same maternity-leave payment as for
the previous child: Sweden, 1974-90
30
24
18
15
16
16
16
12
ZJMaximum, legal practice
Minimum, legal practice
6
~
Codified law
0
1974
1977
1980
1983
1986
1989
SOURCE: SwedishSocial InsuranceBoard.
while theirchildrenare very
thatto gain a short-term
incomeadvantage22
small,manySwedishcouplesare willingto adjustthetimingoftheirchildcostto thewoman's
birth,even at a possiblelong-term
bearingafterthefirst
have
preferences
career.Thisbehavioralresponsesuggeststhatchildbearing
level
overthewife'sjob prospectsformanycouplesat theprevailing
priority
of financialincentivesand given currentexpectationsabout the family's
economicstandardof living.
Notes
have been mostuseful
BrittaHoem'sinsights
ofthisnote.Theauthor
duringthepreparation
fromdiscussionswithLars
has also benefited
and MarianneSundOstby,StenMartinelle,
strom.Figures4 to 7 are based on special
Sweden at the
tabulationsmade in Statistics
author'srequestby LarsNordinwiththeadvice ofJanQvist.
level
1 The currentSwedishreplacement
is a TFR of2.09. In JanuarythroughOctober
1990,theTFR was 2.13. As is seen in Figure
1, NorwaycloselytrailsSweden. According
to sourcesin the CentralBureauof Statistics
of Norway,itsTFR was 1.97 in the firsthalf
of 1990. The two TFRsforpartof 1990 have
been used in Figure1.
2 Forthelatestdata available,see van de
Kaa (1988), Kono (1990), Monnier(1990),
INED (1989 or issue 4-5 of a latervolume),
CouncilofEurope(1990 orthecorresponding
volumefora lateryear),or Eurostat(1990 or
on periodferlater).Fora longerperspective
see Brunborg
tilityand forcohortfertility,
(1989), Sardon(1990), and Prioux(1989).
3 Ireland'sTFRwas 2.11 in 1989 and had
over the preceding
been fallingconsistently
years;Iceland'swas 2.27 in 1988 and 2.21 in
1989,up froman all-timelow of1.93 in 1986.
4 Demographicchangesincludea stabilizationof divorceratessincethe late 1970s
(Hoem, 1990), some declinein teenagecohabitation
sincethemid-1970s,and,aftertwo
This content downloaded from 182.16.159.137 on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:25:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
746
FERTILITY
CHANGE
IN SWEDEN
10 Each curvein Figure5 is a plotoforof
decades of generaldecline,a stabilization
rates(per thou(and latelyeven a slightrisein) age-specific dinaryoccurrence/exposure
atvariousdurationssince
rates of firstmarriageand of remarriage sandwoman-years)
child,forwomenofparity
throughthe 1980s (StatisticsSweden, 1989: thebirthofthefirst
1 who werebornin selectedsingle-year
Diagram10).
cal0
endar
periods.
Duration
means
that
the
first
5 This analysis is based on data from
and itdoes childis lessthana yearold,duration1 means
statistics
system,
Sweden'sofficial
not includemaritalor cohabitationalstatus thatthechildis 12-23 monthsold,and so on.
fortwo reasons: (1) Even Sweden's official These ratescorrespondto the empiricalm,
lifetable.Since
statistics
do not containdetailedinformation values of a single-decrement
in
rates
like
those
Figure
5
easily
add up to
so inclusionof
fertility,
about cohabitational
elementin Swedishfamilydy- morethan 1, it maybe prudentto note that
thisimportant
m,valuesup to age 3, say,ofthe
namicsis precluded.(2) It would have been cumulating
first
child
will
not givetheprobability
thata
in
marital
possibleto includetrends
fertility,
in the mannerof Qvist (1987), but I have secondchildhas arrivedbythatage.To derive
the ratesmustbe converted
of thatprobability,
decided againstdoing so. Interpretation
to lxvalues in a life
is made difficult to values corresponding
differentials
maritalfertility
age at marriage.This makes table.
by the shifting
at age 23, say,increasingly
womenmarrying
11 Figures5 and 6 arebased on thesame
selectedtoward the highlyfamily-orientedtableofsecond-birth
ratestomothersofparity
(and thereforehighlyfertile).Conversely, 1 who were27-28 yearsold at first
birth.The
those marryingat age 32 are decreasingly tablehas one rowforeach yearofbirthofthe
individualsas child- mothersand one columnforeach singleyear
selectiveof low-fertility
becomes normal be- ofage ofthefirstchild.Selectedrowsofthis
bearingprogressively
haviorat thisage. Insteadof helpingto de- table were plottedin Figure5. Consecutive
trendsinto understandable columnsofthesametableareplottedinFigure
composefertility
elements,
theanalysisoftrendsin maritalfer- 6, shifted
overbyone yearpercolumninorder
tilityby age at marriagewould induceselec- thatcurvepointscorresponding
to the same
thatcould easilydisturbrather calendarperiodof riskhave the same value
tivityeffects
of child- on thex-axisinthediagram.Forinstance,the
than facilitatethe understanding
bearingtrends.
groupofuniparouswomenbornin 1941 who
6 For moredetailand manymorecoun- enteredmotherhoodat age 27-28 did so in
tries,see Qvist(1987), Calot (1990), and Sar- 1968-69 and areat riskin 1969-71 ofhaving
theirsecondchildwhilethefirstchildis one
don (1990).
rate
7 This patternis shared with the other yearold. In Figure6, theirsecond-birth
withWest at duration1 (12-23 monthssince child 1)
Scandinaviancountiesand,largely,
and has been plottedoverthepointmarked1970
the Netherlands,
Switzerland,
Germany,
Italy.See Sardon (1990), 0stby(1990), and on thex-axis.Theirrateat duration2 (24-47
monthssincethefirst
birth)has been plotted
Texmonand 0stby(1990).
to 1971,and so
overthepointcorresponding
8 Data on the cohortmedian (or mean)
on. Figure7 has beenplottedina similarmanbirtharenotavailableforanyother
age atfirst
ner.
countriesfor the youngest cohorts. (See
Prioux,1989: Table 2, forselectedcohorts
12 Fora recentupdateon Swedishpublic
bornup to 1955.) However,themorerecent policiesrelevant
todemographic
behavior,see
Swedish cohortshave a high mean age at Sundstrom(1990).
childbirth
(countingbirthsofall orders)fora
and subsequentero13 The introduction
WesternEuropean country(Sardon, 1990:
sion of such a "pioneeringeffect"would acTable 11).
cord neatlywith the trendsshown by the
9 Graphsforotherages are not shown
curvesin Figure7.
birthas an
here.I selectedages 27-28 at first
14 Onlythefuturecan tellwhetherthere
illustration
becausethisis a typicalage atentry
due
into motherhoodin Sweden. CompareFig- willbe an increasein cohorttotalfertility
to the prolongedperiodof "risk" of further
ure 3.
This content downloaded from 182.16.159.137 on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:25:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
747
JAN M. HOEM
childbearing
producedby the closerspacing
ofbirths.
15 Some 12 percentof women have remainedpermanently
childlessin each Swedish cohortbornin the late 1930s and in the
1940s (Qvist,1987: TableA5). In thehighest
availableestimate,
Martinelle(1990: 26) suggeststhatfinalchildlessnessmay rise above
16 percentforcohortsbornin thelate 1950s
and even slightlyhigherfor later cohorts.
Some othercountries,includingthe United
Kingdomand the Netherlands,
have already
gonewell beyondsuchlevels(Sardon,1990:
Figure24; Prioux,1989: Figure1).
16 Hohn and Luscher(1988: 324) write
abouta tradition
ofacceptanceofchildlessness
in Germany.Huinink(1989) notesa polarization betweenchildlessnessand two-child
families,withno increasein the portionof
single-child
families.
17 Publicpoliciesprobablyhave a much
strongerinfluenceon women's labor force
than on theirchildbearing,
at
participation
leastin Sweden.
18 A satisfactory
investigation
will need
to involveinternational
comparisons,say of
the typefoundin the studyof teenagepregnancyconductedbytheAlan Guttmacher
Institute(Jones et al., 1986), a venturefar
beyondthe scope ofthisnote.
19 Parentshave the same rightsin connectionwithan adoptionas witha birth,but
forsimplicity
we excludeadoptionin thefollowingdiscussion.
20 In 1988, about seven-eightsof all
mothersof childrenaged 1 through6 years
were in the labor force;two-thirds
of these
womenworkedpart-time
(AKU, 1988).
21 Martinelle(1989) was thefirst
todemonstratethatthepace ofchildbearing
has increasedin Sweden among those who have
enteredmotherhood
sincethelate 1970s,and
he was thefirst
to proposethe"eligibility
interval"explanation.
22 Parentsmay also see a practicaladthe workinvolved
vantagein concentrating
in caringforinfantsand youngchildrenover
a relatively
briefperiodintheirlivesbyspacing
birthscloselytogether.
References
AKU. 1988. Arsmedeltal
1988. Stockholm:StatisticsSweden, Arbetskraftsundersokningens
grundtabeller.
for
utviklingi Norge 1845-1988," Tidsskrift
Brunborg,Helge. 1989. "Kohortfruktbarhetens
samfunnsforskning
30, no. 5-6: 415-430.
byBirthOrderin Norway:A RegisterBased Analysis.
, and 0ysteinKravdal.1986. Fertility
of Norway,Rapporter86/27.
Oslo: CentralBureauof Statistics
des generations:
ComparaisonsfrancoCalot,Gerard.1990. "Feconditedu moment,fecondite
245 (April).
suedoises," Populationet socie'te's
in theMemberStatesofthe Councilof
Council of Europe. 1990. RecentDemographicDevelopments
Europe: 1989 edition.Strasbourg: CDPO (89) 4 rev.
Brussels:European Community,SeriesC: Accounts,
Statistics.
Eurostat.1990. Demographic
Theme3: Populationand social conditions.
surveysand statistics.
Hoem, Jan M. 1990. Is the DivorceRisk ReallyDecliningin Sweden? Stockholm UniversityDe-
mographyUnit,InternalMemorandum900915.
Hohn,Charlotte,
and KurtLuscher.1988. "The changingfamilyin the FederalRepublicof
Germany," Journalof FamilyIssues 9, no. 3: 317-335.
Huinink,Johannes.1989. "Das zweiteKind: Sind wiraufdem Weg zur Ein-Kind-Familie?"
Zeitschrift
far Soziologie18, no. 3: 192-207.
de la France,"Population
INED. 1989. "Dix-huitieme
Rapportsurla situationdemographique
44, no. 4-5: 711-776.
Countries.New Haven: Yale University
Jones,Elise, et al. 1986. TeenagePregnancyin Industrialized
Press.
Kono, Shigemi.1990. "Agingand thefamilyin thedevelopedcountriesofAsia: Continuities
This content downloaded from 182.16.159.137 on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:25:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
748
FERTILITY
CHANGE
IN SWEDEN
and transitions,"
papersubmitted
to the UN International
Conference
on AgingPopulationsin the Contextof the Family,Kitakyushu,
Japan,15-19 October.
Martinelle,Sten. 1989. "Fruktsamheten
nu och i framtiden,"
Statistics
Sweden, Vdlfdrdsbulletinen1989-2: 5-7.
_____.
1990. The TimingofFirstBirth:Analysisand PredictionofSwedishBirthRates. Stockholm:
Statistics
Sweden,Bakgrundsmaterial
frandemografiska
funktionen
1990: 1.
Monnier,Alain. 1990. "Actualitedemographique
europeenne,"Population
etsocie'te's
250 (October).
0stby,Lars. 1990. "Fruktbarheten
i Norden:Lav, men 0kende?" CentralBureauof Statistics
of Norway, Samfunnsspeilet
4, no. 1: 9-12.
Prioux,France.1989. "Fcondite et dimensiondes famillesen Europeoccidentale,"Espace,
Populations,Socie'te's
1989-2: 161-176.
Qvist, Jan. 1987. CohortFertilityin Sweden 1945-1985. Stockholm: StatisticsSweden, Demo-
grafiska
rapporter1987-3.
Rolkn,Mats, and PeterSpringfeldt.
1987. Make ochfar. Stockholm:StatisticsSweden, Demografiska
rapporter1987-2.
Sardon, Jean-Paul. 1990. CohortFertility
in MemberStatesof the Councilof Europe. Strasbourg:
Councilof Europe,PopulationStudies21.
StatisticsSweden. 1989. Befolkningsfd'rdndringar
1988, Del 3. Sveriges officiellastatistik.
Sundstrom, Marianne. 1987. A Studyin the Growthof Part-timeWorkin Sweden. Stockholm:
CenterforWorkingLife,and Almqvistand WiksellInternational.
1989. Part-timeWork:Trendsand EqualityEffects
in Swedenand EEC. Stockholm:Center
forWorkingLife,WorkingPaper.
_____.
1990. "Parentingpoliciesforyoungfamiliesin Sweden," in New Developmentsin
Parenting
ed. by A. Kahn and S. Kamerman(forthcoming).
Policies,
Texmon,Inger,and Lars 0stby. 1990. "Nasjonale oversikter
over befolkningsutviklingen:
Norge,"paperpresented
to a seminaroftheNordicCommittee
on Projections,
Drammen,
Norway,April.
van de Kaa, Dirk. 1988. "The seconddemographictransition
revisited:Theoriesand expectations,"paperpresentedto a symposium
on PopulationChangeand EuropeanSociety,
EuropeanUniversity
Institute,
Florence,Italy,7-10 December.
_____.
This content downloaded from 182.16.159.137 on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:25:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions