Upload
oren-ochoa
View
19
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Miho Iwasawa Ryuichi Kaneko National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, Tokyo Contributors: Kenji Kamata, James Raymo , Kimiko Tanaka. EXPLANATIONS FOR REGIONAL FERTILITY REVERSAL AFTER 2005 IN JAPAN: DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL FACTORS. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
EXPLANATIONS FOR REGIONAL FERTILITY REVERSAL AFTER 2005 IN
JAPAN:DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL
FACTORS
Joint Eurostat/UNECE Work Session on Demographic ProjectionsApril 28 – 30, 2010, Lisbon, Portugal
Miho IwasawaRyuichi Kaneko
National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, Tokyo
Contributors: Kenji Kamata, James Raymo , Kimiko Tanaka
2
Motivations and questions
Recent fertility reversal in countries which experienced lowest-low fertility (TFR<1.3)(Goldstein et al. 2009)
Japanese total fertility rate also increased after 2005
1.36 in 2000 -> 1.26 in 2005 -> 1.37 in 2008
How can we interpret this change?
3
Lowest-low fertility (LLF) in Sothern and Eastern Europe, and East Asia Postponed childbearing (tempo effect)
Absence of high-fertility sub-population
Low-growth economy
Increasing opportunity cost and incompatibility of work and familial obligations
Cultural settings (Familistic welfare regime)
(Kohler, Billari, and Ortega 2002 ,Frejka and Westoff 2008, Perelli-Harris 2005, Zuanna and Micheli 2004, Reher 2007, McDonald 2006 )
4
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Tot
al fe
rtili
ty ra
te
Year
Italy
Spain
Japan
Explanations for recent upturn in European LLF countries
(1) Diminishing tempo effects (end of postponement)
(2) Increase in immigrants
(3) Economic improvement
(4) Policy improvement
(5) Familistic culture (negatively associated with fertility reversal (Italy) )
Castiglioni and Dalla Zuanna(2008), Billari (2008) , Goldstein, Sobotka and Jasilioniene (2009)
5
Methods
Ecological regression model explaining the prefectural (state) level variations of fertility change after 2005 (N=47)
All birth TFR
1.12 Tokyo
1.78Okinawa
1.37 Japan
0
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
TF
R
6
Methods
Weighted least squares model (WLS) Weight: female population in reproductive
ages (15-49)
Weighted spatial error model (WSE) (Anselin 1988 ) Spatial autocorrelation among neighboring
model residuals is explicitly specified in the model
OLS and Spatial error model
OLS model
Y = XB + e
Spatial error model
Y =XB + u
Y = XB + λWu + e e~i.i.d. N(0, s2I)
Univariate Spatial Autocorrelation
Structural Similarity →
Spatial Error Effects →
Spatial Process
Baller et al. (2001)W: weight matrix for the neighborhood structure
How to define neighbors for weight matrix?
First order queen convention Islands are connected with the nearest and
historically tied prefectures.
Aomori
Nagano
Okinawa
Kagoshima
Hokkaido
9
Models
ΔTFR (2005-2008) = Constant
+ (1)Δ Late fertility (2005-2008)
+ (2)ΔTFR inflated by foreign mothers (2005-2008)
+ (3)Δ Employment rate (2002-2007)
+ (4)Δ Labor force participation rate among mothers
having preschool children living in a nuclear
family (2002-2007)
+ (5) Proportion of extended families among households
including preschool children (fixed effect) (2005)
(+ spatial term λWu)
10
TFR increase in Japan
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Tot
al fe
rtili
ty ra
te b
y pa
rity
Year
TFR3
TFR1
TFR2
TFR4+
Δ All birth TFR (2005-2008)
0.00887 - 0.05465
0.05466 - 0.08132
0.08133 - 0.10677
0.10678 - 0.12145
0.12146 - 0.16284
11
Explanatory variables
Δ All birth late fertility (2005-2008)
0.01075 - 0.03425
0.03426 - 0.03975
0.03976 - 0.04539
0.04540 - 0.04829
0.04830 - 0.05754
Δ All birth TFR inflated by non-Japanese mothers
-0.00470 - -0.00106
-0.00105 - 0.00036
0.00037 - 0.00136
0.00137 - 0.00278
0.00279 - 0.00847
Δ Employment rate
-0.00100 - 0.00900
0.00901 - 0.01200
0.01201 - 0.01400
0.01401 - 0.01700
0.01701 - 0.02700
Δ Maternal labor force participation
-0.00659 - 0.02889
0.02890 - 0.05073
0.05074 - 0.06264
0.06265 - 0.09869
0.09870 - 0.16361
Extended family household
7.9% - 14.5%
14.6% - 19.3%
19.4% - 26.8%
26.9% - 36.6%
36.7% - 50.1%
Δ Late fertility Δ Foreign mothers
Δ Employment rate
Δ MLFP Extended family households
12
0.34 ***
Tempo Δ Late fertility [+] 0.46 *** 0.52 *** 0.54 ***
Immigration Δ Foreign mother [+] 0.20 # 0.29 ** 0.29 ***
Economy Δ Employment rate [+] 0.18 # 0.18 * 0.18 *
Policy(Work and family reconciliation)
Δ Maternal LFP [+] -0.16 -0.22 * -0.22 **
Contextual (fixed)Extended family
household[-] -0.25 # -0.07 -0.07
0.15
0.64 0.80
-248 -259 -258
0.13 * 0.10 # 0.05
*** p<.001 ** p<.01 * p<.05 # p<.1
Variables and expected directions WLS
AIC
Spatial autocorrelation of residuals (Moran's I )
WSE
Spatial autocorrelation of Y (Moran's I )Standardized coefficient
spatial autoregressive coefficient (Lambda)
R-squared
Univariate OLS
Change in 1st order TFR
13
0.34 ***
Tempo Δ Late fertility [+] 0.41 *** 0.31 * 0.35 ***
Immigration Δ Foreign mother [+] 0.44 *** 0.39 *** 0.46 ***
Economy Δ Employment rate [+] 0.07 0.07 0.05
Policy(Work and family reconciliation)
Δ Maternal LFP [+] -0.07 -0.02 -0.06
Contextual (fixed)Extended family
household[-] -0.16 -0.25 * -0.25 **
0.43 ***
0.62 0.68
-299 -305 -314
0.35 *** 0.36 *** -0.03
*** p<.001 ** p<.01 * p<.05 # p<.1
Variables and expected directions WLS
AIC
Spatial autocorrelation of residuals (Moran's I )
WSE
Spatial autocorrelation of Y (Moran's I )Standardized coefficient
spatial autoregressive coefficient (Lambda)
R-squared
Univariate OLS
Change in 2nd order TFR
14
Tempo Δ Late fertility [+] + *** + *** + *** + *** + ***
Immigration Δ Foreign mother [+] + ** + *** + + *** + ***
Economy Δ Employment rate [+] + * + - - +
Policy Δ Maternal LFP [+] - * - - - * - *
Contextual (fixed) Extended family [-] - - ** + # + ** - #
+ *** + *** + *
All birth
spatial autoregressive coefficient (Lambda )
Birth order 1st birth 2nd birth 3rd birth 4th birth
WSE WSE WSEWLS WLSSelected model
Selected models
15
-0.04
-0.02
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
TFR1 TFR2 TFR3 TFR4+ TFR*
(WLS) (WSE) (WLS) (WSE) Σ(TFRi)
Δ Employment rate (Economy)
Δ Foreign mother (Immigration)
Δ Late fertility (Tempo effect)
Common effect
Δ Maternal LFP (Policy on W/F reconciliation)
Actual change in TFR
Δ TF
R (2
005-
2008
)Predicted values of national TFR increase by selected models
16
Variances of TFR change explained by the selected model and contribution by each factor
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
TFR1 TFR2 TFR3 TFR4 TFR
Extended family household(Familistic culture)
Δ Maternal LFP (Policy on W/F reconciliation)
Δ Employment rate (Economy)
Δ Foreign mother (Immigration)
Δ Late fertility (Tempo effect)
Con
trib
utio
n to
tot
al v
aria
nce
in Δ
TFR
(200
5-20
08)
17
TFR increase explained by spatial term in the spatial error model
“Hot spot” clusters (area surrounded by neighbors with high TFR increase)
Advantageous conditions for fertility behaviors
Adoption/diffusion? Social competition or social emulation mechanism? Grouping responses?
18
Summary of results
Fertility upturn in Japan can be explained by
Elimination of tempo effect ? - Yes
Increase in foreign mothers ? - Yes
Economic improvement ? - Yes for 1st order TFR
Policy improvement on work/family reconciliation ? - No
Familistic culture is negatively associated with TFR change?
- Yes for low-parity birth
- No for high-parity birth
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Year
Num
ber
of in
tern
atio
nal m
arri
ages
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
TFR
Non-Japanese wife (N)Non-Japanese husband (N)TFR
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Year
Une
mpl
oym
ent r
ate(
%)
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
TFR
Unemployment rate
TFR
19
Discussions- Fertility increase will continue?
Downturn in international marriages and recession in the past several years may have negative impact?
20
Discussions- Fertility increase will continue?
Will “catching up” fertility behavior of women who deferred childbearing become commonplace?
1st birth
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
19
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
20
10
2nd birth
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6 1
99
0
19
95
20
00
20
05
20
10
3rd birth
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
19
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
20
10
15~19
20~24
25~29
30~34
35~39
40~44
45~49
Hazard rates of childbearing based on cohort fertility trajectory
Calendar year
21
Discussions- Fertility increase will continue?
Whether catch-up behavior is followed by subsequent generations depends on working conditions of older mothers
Over half of mothers whose children were on the waiting list for day-care eventually gave up re-entering employment in the metropolitan area(11.16. 2009).
Firing due to pregnancy or taking parental leave dramatically increased (12. 25. 2009)