View
221
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Estimating inter-censuses fertility rates by ethnic and
religious groups using the LFS and the Own-Child Method
Sylvie Dubucsylvie.dubuc@socres.ox.ac.uk
Understanding Population Trends and Processes
Introduction Fertility differs due to a number of social and cultural
factors including ethnic and religious characteristics (among others)
Previous studies have shown differences by ethnic groups
Religious affiliation may support childbearing (norms supporting childbearing, rejecting contraception/abortion)
For the UK, need to create / update existing rates, inter-censuses rates fertility rates by ethnic groups up to 2001 No estimates available by religious groups for the UK Few reports on fertility estimates by religion (e.g. for Austria (Goujon et
al.2005,), for Europe (Kaufman, 2007)
Aim of study: OCM fertility rates estimates based on family unit,
reversal survival calculations
Produce recent trends to test the hypothesis of fertility convergence between ethnic groups ?
Explore other factors possibly linked with ethnicity to explain fertility differential, including country of birth and religious affiliation
Introduction
Introduction Conventional measure of fertility rate
No birth statistics by ethnic & religious groups Apart from ONS-LS: sample size problem
Indirect data used using census data (e.g. Large, Gosh and Fry, 2006; Rees, 2005, 2008), GHS, LFS (Coleman and Smith, 2005)
This study uses LFS data together with the Own Child Method to produce fertility estimates by ethnic and religious groups from 1987 to 2006. Ethnic, religious, CoB group of the mother only Ethnic and religious groups 2001 census definition
Number of births by women aged x (birth registration)
Total women of age x (MYE)
Method Use of LFS (cross-sectional), 3rd quarter, yearly
Inconveniences: may under-represent some groups (increase margin of error) Sample size: small numbers for some groups
However, amalgamated LFS (2001 to 2006) provide a much larger sample size,
(reducing uncertainty in the data)
Advantages: Ethnic and religious variables available Offer a relatively reliable source for inter-censuses estimates Less risk of increasing (systematic) bias linked to under/over-
estimated denominators in between censuses.
Own Child method
Own Child method (Cho, Retherford and Choe, 1986), Reverse survival technique (15 years) for estimating ASFR from
cross-sectional survey considerably increasing the sample size. EasWesPop Program (East-West Center, USA) Berthoud, 2001; Coleman and Smith, 2005
Matching children to mothers By family unit serial number/ household serial number Relation to the Head of Family Unit/Head of Household
Serial H Serial FU RelHFU RelHoH Sex Age1114401001 11144010011 1 1 1 311114401001 11144010011 2 2 2 321114401001 11144010011 3 3 1 21114401001 11144010012 1 12 2 351114401001 11144010012 3 12 2 7
Own Child method
Household/Family unit TFR White British 2001-2006:
Using HoH: 1.708 Using HFU: 1.724
=0.93%
Own Child method
Retro-estimations of births to mothers by age up to 15 years backward
e.g. in 2005, a women aged 35 with a child 14 years old the child was born in 1991 when the women was 21.
14child
time1991 2005
born
21 35mother
Retro-correction for mortality figures
TFR White British 2001-2006: No correction: 1.724 with correction: 1.73
=0.35%
Reversal survival table using England & Wales death rates
from the ONS, by age and sex between 1986 and 2006.
All women 15-49 years old, TFR 1986-2006
TFR
CI 95%
Total Period Fertility Rate (TFR) General decreasing trend over the last 15 years A relative increase in the recent years
TFR Using LFS 2000-2006
1.60
1.65
1.70
1.75
1.80
1.85
1.90
1990 1995 2000 2005
LFS*ONS
* 2 years average
Total Period Fertility Rate is the average number of children that women would have if they experienced the ASFRs for a particular year throughout their childbearing lives
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1986 1991 1996 2001 2006
1986-2006
Bir
ths
pe
r 1
,00
0 w
om
en
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
5 years Age Specific Fertility rates for all women in the UK, 1986-2006
TFR
Total Period Fertility rate by ethnic group, 1987-2006
2000-20061987-1994 1995-19991.01.21.41.61.82.02.22.42.62.83.03.23.43.63.84.04.24.4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
TF
R
Wbritish
Wother
Caribbean
Bafrican
Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Chinese
TFR of women of mixed origin
1987-2006 ALL UK TFR: 1.78
Group Period Total
Children Total
Women TFR CI95%
UL CI95%
LL Mix-Africa 1987-1995 46 940 1.335 1.721 0.949 Mix-Africa 1996-2006 91 1584 1.840 2.218 1.462 Mix-Asia 1987-1995 82 1596 1.452 1.767 1.138 Mix-Asia 1996-2006 155 2609 1.760 2.037 1.483 Mix-Carib 1987-1995 166 2189 2.172 2.502 1.841 Mix-Carib 1996-2006 179 3861 1.781 2.042 1.520 Mix-Other 1987-1995 60 1499 1.306 1.637 0.976 Mix-Other 1996-2006 128 2655 1.566 1.837 1.294 Mix-Total 1987-1995 354 6224 1.670 1.844 1.496 Mix-Total 1996-2006 553 10709 1.738 1.882 1.593 Mix-Africa 1987-2006 137 2524 1.640 1.915 1.366 Mix-Asia 1987-2006 237 4205 1.659 1.870 1.448 Mix-Carib 1987-2006 345 6050 1.949 2.155 1.743 Mix-Other 1987-2006 188 4154 1.460 1.668 1.251 Mix-Total 1987-2006 907 16933 1.724 1.837 1.612
Group Period Total
Children Total
Women TFR CI95%
UL CI95%
LL Mix-Africa 1987-1995 46 940 1.335 1.721 0.949 Mix-Africa 1996-2006 91 1584 1.840 2.218 1.462 Mix-Asia 1987-1995 82 1596 1.452 1.767 1.138 Mix-Asia 1996-2006 155 2609 1.760 2.037 1.483 Mix-Carib 1987-1995 166 2189 2.172 2.502 1.841 Mix-Carib 1996-2006 179 3861 1.781 2.042 1.520 Mix-Other 1987-1995 60 1499 1.306 1.637 0.976 Mix-Other 1996-2006 128 2655 1.566 1.837 1.294 Mix-Total 1987-1995 354 6224 1.670 1.844 1.496 Mix-Total 1996-2006 553 10709 1.738 1.882 1.593 Mix-Africa 1987-2006 137 2524 1.640 1.915 1.366 Mix-Asia 1987-2006 237 4205 1.659 1.870 1.448 Mix-Carib 1987-2006 345 6050 1.949 2.155 1.743 Mix-Other 1987-2006 188 4154 1.460 1.668 1.251 Mix-Total 1987-2006 907 16933 1.724 1.837 1.612
Group Period Total
Children Total
Women TFR CI95%
UL CI95%
LL Mix-Africa 1987-1995 46 940 1.335 1.721 0.949 Mix-Africa 1996-2006 91 1584 1.840 2.218 1.462 Mix-Asia 1987-1995 82 1596 1.452 1.767 1.138 Mix-Asia 1996-2006 155 2609 1.760 2.037 1.483 Mix-Carib 1987-1995 166 2189 2.172 2.502 1.841 Mix-Carib 1996-2006 179 3861 1.781 2.042 1.520 Mix-Other 1987-1995 60 1499 1.306 1.637 0.976 Mix-Other 1996-2006 128 2655 1.566 1.837 1.294 Mix-Total 1987-1995 354 6224 1.670 1.844 1.496 Mix-Total 1996-2006 553 10709 1.738 1.882 1.593 Mix-Africa 1987-2006 137 2524 1.640 1.915 1.366 Mix-Asia 1987-2006 237 4205 1.659 1.870 1.448 Mix-Carib 1987-2006 345 6050 1.949 2.155 1.743 Mix-Other 1987-2006 188 4154 1.460 1.668 1.251 Mix-Total 1987-2006 907 16933 1.724 1.837 1.612
Group Period Total
Children Total
Women TFR CI95%
UL CI95%
LL Mix-Africa 1987-1995 46 940 1.335 1.721 0.949 Mix-Africa 1996-2006 91 1584 1.840 2.218 1.462 Mix-Asia 1987-1995 82 1596 1.452 1.767 1.138 Mix-Asia 1996-2006 155 2609 1.760 2.037 1.483 Mix-Carib 1987-1995 166 2189 2.172 2.502 1.841 Mix-Carib 1996-2006 179 3861 1.781 2.042 1.520 Mix-Other 1987-1995 60 1499 1.306 1.637 0.976 Mix-Other 1996-2006 128 2655 1.566 1.837 1.294 Mix-Total 1987-1995 354 6224 1.670 1.844 1.496 Mix-Total 1996-2006 553 10709 1.738 1.882 1.593 Mix-Africa 1987-2006 137 2524 1.640 1.915 1.366 Mix-Asia 1987-2006 237 4205 1.659 1.870 1.448 Mix-Carib 1987-2006 345 6050 1.949 2.155 1.743 Mix-Other 1987-2006 188 4154 1.460 1.668 1.251 Mix-Total 1987-2006 907 16933 1.724 1.837 1.612
White British
5 years ASFR for White British women
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5
1987-1994
1995-1999
2000-2006
Delayed fertility
15-1925-29
20-2430-34
35-3940-44
45-49Age group of mothers15-19
25-2920-24
30-3435-39
40-4445-49
Age group of mothers
Birt
hs p
er 1
,000
wom
en
White Other
5 years ASFR for White Other women
Delayed fertility
15-1925-29
20-2430-34
35-3940-44
45-49Age group of mothers15-19
25-2920-24
30-3435-39
40-4445-49
Age group of mothers
Birt
hs p
er 1
,000
wom
en
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5
total1987-94
total1995-99
total2000-06
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5
Nu
mb
er o
f b
irth
s p
er 1
000
wo
men
1987-1994
1995-1999
2000-2006
Indian
Delayed fertility
15-1925-29
20-2430-34
35-3940-44
45-49 Age group of mothers
5 years ASFR for Indian women
Birt
hs p
er 1
,000
wom
en
TFR reduction due to less children at all ages
0
50
100
150
200
250
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5
Nu
mb
er
of
bir
ths
pe
r 1
00
0 w
om
en
1987-1994
1995-1999
2000-2006
Pakistani
15-1925-29
20-2430-34
35-3940-44
45-49Age group of mothers
Birt
hs p
er 1
,000
wom
en
0
50
100
150
200
250
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5
Nu
mb
er
of
bir
ths
pe
r 1
00
0 w
om
en
1987-1994
1995-1999
2000-2006
Bangladeshi
15-1925-29
20-2430-34
35-3940-44
45-49Age group of mothers
TFR reduction due to less children at all agesB
irths
per
1,0
00 w
omen
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5
Nu
mb
er o
f b
irth
s p
er 1
000
wo
men
1987-1994
1995-1999
2000-2006
Indian
Delayed fertility
15-1925-29
20-2430-34
35-3940-44
45-49 Age group of mothers
5 years ASFR for Indian women
Birt
hs p
er 1
,000
wom
en
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5
1987-1997
1998-2006
5 years ASFR for UK-born Indian women
15-1925-29
20-2430-34
35-3940-44
45-49Age group of mothers
Birt
hs p
er 1
,000
wom
en
Delayed fertility of the UK-born…
UK-born women 15-49 years old by ethnic group in 2006
% age group in the total women
aged 15-49
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
British
Other
Whit
e
Indi
an
Pakist
ani
Bangl
ades
hi
Black
Carib
bean
Black
Africa
n
Chines
e
%15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
Whi
te
Average period TFR for Indian ethnic group by religious denomination*
*Only the main religious groups are represented
Period All Muslim Indian Muslim
1988-1997 3.01 2.93
1998-2006 2.94 2.17
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Muslim Hindu Sikh
TF
R 1988-1997
1998-2006
Conclusion Improvement on the OCM based on family unit and reversal
survival model including retro-correction for mortality, supporting the robustness of the method.
Converging TFR between ethnic groups
However TFR of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi are still at a relatively high level
Delaying childbearing in the major groups have contributed to a relative increase of the UK TFR in recent years.
Delaying childbearing is especially pronounced for the UK-born Indian compared to all Indian mothers.
Ethnicity more than religion appears to influence TFR among the Indian group.
Acknowledgments:
I am thankful to the ESRC for funding this work (UPTAP fellowship) I am grateful to D. Coleman for his collaboration on the project
Thank you
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Wbrit
ish
Woth
er
Caribb
ean
Bafric
anIn
dian
Pakist
ani
Bangla
desh
i
Chine
se
TF
Rtotal1987-94
total1995-99
total2000-06
Recommended