Is There a Central European Fertility Paradox?
Fertility, Women’s Labour Market Participation and Household Income and Living Conditions in the European Union
Copyright (c) 2024 Varga Zsoltné Szalai Piroska
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Abstract
Even today, some people believe that fewer children are being born because women have gone out to work, and that fertility would improve if women were allowed to stay at home. The experience of the last 60–70 years in Hungary and Central Europe is quite the opposite. Starting from this paradox, in the present research I sought to find out how fertility in the European Union and in the Member States is related to women’s participation in the labour market and to the financial situation of families.
The study shows that over the period 2009–2022, female employment rates are correlated with fertility in all Member States, with 19 countries showing a strong correlation, nine with a positive correlation and ten with a negative correlation. In the Eastern Bloc countries, Germany, Portugal, Greece and Austria, the fertility rate and female employment are positively correlated, while in the other countries the correlation is inverted.
Since the correlation only shows the strength and direction of the relationship, to find out which of the factors in the relationship cause the change in fertility, I performed a Granger causality analysis. The excess of the relative income poverty rate of those living in households with children over those without children was found to be causally related to fertility in most places, in 9 countries and in the European Union as a whole. In seven countries (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia), low levels of excess child poverty are associated with higher fertility, and the opposite is true in Ireland and Italy. This was the only causal connection when looking at the 27 EU countries as a unit.
Keywords:
References
ADSERA, Alicia (2011): Where are the Babies? Labor Market Conditions and Fertility in Europe. European Journal of Population, 27(1), 1–32. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-010-9222-x
AHIR, Hites – BLOOM, Nicholas – FURCERI, Davide (2020): 60 Years of Uncertainty. Finance and Development, 57(1), 58–60.
BETTIO, Francesca – VILLA, Paola (1998): A Mediterranean Perspective on the Breakdown of the Relationship between Participation and Fertility. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22(2), 137–171. Online: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a013708
BECKER, Gary (1960): An Economic Analysis of Fertility. In ROBERTS, George (ed.): Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries. Columbia University Press, 209–240.
BUCKLES, Kasey – HUNGERMAN, Daniel – LUGAUER, Steven (2021): Is Fertility a Leading Economic Indicator? The Economic Journal, 131(634), 541–565. Online: https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueaa068
BUH, Brian (2023): Measuring the Effect of Employment Uncertainty on Fertility in Low-Fertility Contexts: An Overview of Existing Measures. Genus, 79(4). Online: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41118-023-00185-x
CHABE-FERRET, Bastien – GOBBI, Paula Eugenia (2018): Economic Uncertainty and Fertility Cycles: The Case of the Post-WWII Baby Boom. Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) Discussion Papers, No. DP13374. London: CEPR.
CAIN, Glen – DOOLEY, Martin (1976): Estimation of a Model of Labor Supply, Fertility and Wages of Married Women. Journal of Political Economy, 84(4), S179–S201. Online: https://doi.org/10.1086/260538
CIGNO, Alessandro (1991): Economics of the Family. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
DE LA CROIX, David – POMMERET, Aude (2018): Childbearing Postponement, its Option Value, and the Biological Clock. Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) Discussion Paper, No. DP12884. London: CEPR. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2021.105231
ELLIS, Frank (1993): Peasant Economics: Farm Households in Agrarian Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eurostat (2023): Gender Employment Gap Larger for Parents in 2021. Online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-eurostat-news/w/edn-20230302-2
FLEISHER, Belton M. – RHODES, George F. Jr. (1976): Unemployment and the Labor Force Participation of Married Men and Women: A Simultaneous Model. Review of Economics and Statistics, 58(4), 398–406. Online: https://doi.org/10.2307/1935871
GOZGOR, Giray – BILGIN, Mehmet Huseyin – RANGAZAS, Peter (2021): Economic Uncertainty and Fertility. CESifo Working Paper, No. 9025. Online: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3832480
GROVE, Andrew S. (1998): Csak a paranoidok maradnak fenn. Budapest: Bagolyvár.
HANAPPI, Doris – RYSER, Valérie-Anne – BERNARDI, Laura – LE GOFF, Jean-Marie (2017): Changes in Employment Uncertainty and the Fertility Intention–Realization Link: An Analysis Based on the Swiss Household Panel. European Journal of Population, 33(3), 381–407. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-016-9408-y
HERBST, Chris M. – BARNOW, Burt S. (2008): Close to Home: A Simultaneous Equation Model of the Relationship between Child Care Accessibility and Female Labor Force Participation. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 29(1), 128–151. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-007-9092-5
HONDROYIANNIS, George (2010): Fertility Determinants and Economic Uncertainty: An Assessment Using European Panel Data. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31(1), 33–50. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-009-9178-3
HOTZ, V. Joseph – MILLER, Robert A. (1988): An Empirical Analysis of Life Cycle Fertility and Female Labor Supply. Econometrica, 56(1), 91–118. Online: https://doi.org/10.2307/1911843
HUTTUNEN, Kristiina – KELLOKUMPU, Jenni (2017): The Effect of Job Displacement on Couples’ Fertility Decisions. Journal of Labor Economics, 34(2), 403–442. Online: https://doi.org/10.1086/683645
KALWIJ, Adrian S. (2000): The Effects of Female Employment Status on the Presence and Number of Children. Journal of Population Economics, 13(2), 221–239. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s001480050135
KHATTAK, Sanam Wagma (2019): Fertility Determinants and Economic Uncertainty. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 13(3), 46–56.
MAHDAVI, Saeid (1990): A Simultaneous-Equations Model of Cross-National Differentials in Fertility Labor Force Participation Rates. Journal of Economic Studies, 17(2), 32–49. Online: https://doi.org/10.1108/01443589010002995
MOFFITT, Robert (1984): Profiles of Fertility, Labour Supply and Wages of Married Women: A Complete Life-Cycle Model. Review of Economic Studies, 51(2), 263–278. Online: https://doi.org/10.2307/2297691
PAPAPETROU, Evangelia (2004): Does Female Employment Affect Fertility? Evidence from the United Kingdom. The Social Science Journal, 41(2), 235–249. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2004.01.003
RANJAN, Priya (1999): Fertility Behavior under Income Uncertainty. European Journal of Population, 15(1), 25–43. Online: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006106527618
SOMMER, Kamila (2016): Fertility Choice in a Life-cycle Model with Idiosyncratic Uninsurable Earnings Risk. Journal of Monetary Economics, 83, 27–38. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2016.08.002
SZALAI, Piroska (2014): Nők a nemzetgazdaságban. 22 éves csúcson a 15–64 éves nők foglalkoztatási rátája 2013-ban Magyarországon. Polgári Szemle, 10(1–2), 158–183.
SZALAI, Piroska (2015): Család és munka: a női foglalkoztatás összehasonlító elemzése. Polgári Szemle, 11(4–6), 435–444.
SZALAI, Piroska (2023a): The Central European Paradox. The European Conservative, 1 May 2023. Online: https://europeanconservative.com/articles/analysis/the-central-european-paradox/
SZALAI, Piroska (2023b): Nők és a munka alapú társadalom, a családok életkörülményei, valamint a gyermekvállalás. Helyzetkép a GYED extra tizedik évfordulója kapcsán. Polgári Szemle, 19(1–3), 62–92. Online: https://doi.org/10.24307/psz.2023.0906
SZALAI, Piroska (2024): A családok életkörülményei munkaalapú megközelítésben. Budapest: Századvég Riport.
WILDE, Joshua – CHEN, Wei – LOHMANN, Sophie (2020): COVID-19 and the Future of U.S. Fertility: What Can We Learn from Google? Covid Economics, Vetted and Real-Time Papers, 54, 158–190. Online: https://doi.org/10.4054/MPIDR-WP-2020-034