ICONS, STRAW MEN AND PRECISION: Reflections on Demographic Theories of Fertility Decline

Abstract

Despite the passage of half a century since 'demographic transition theory' first appeared in English-language demographic literature, many would agree that relatively little progress has been made toward refinement and testing of leading theoretical ideas, or towards theoretical consensus. There has rather been a proliferation of untested theories, partially overlapping and often associated with one individual, discipline, or school of thought. It is argued here that lack of clarity, precision and rigor in the statement, criticism, and use of theories of fertility decline is a major cause of the lack of theoretical progress. The greater use of tools for the computer modeling of complex dynamic systems is seen as a partial remedy. Emphasis is on the use of computer modeling (simulation) as a theoretical tool.The current status of demographic theories of fertility decline leaves something to be desired. "Classic" transition theory has been "reconsidered," "restated" (more than once), and recently rejected as an intellectual enterprise allegedly driven by political rather than scientific concerns and informed by outdated views of social science methodology (Szreter, 1993). Micro-economic ("demand") theories of fertility have fallen victim to "iconoclasm" at the hands of Cleland and Wilson (1987), who find ideational "rather than" economic/structural factors to be "the fundamental force behind fertility decline" (p.1). Indeed, theoretical writing has tended toward polarization between those who attribute fertility decline largely to economic factors and those who attribute it largely to cultural factors (Johansson 1993), a polarization epitomized by the title (if not the substance) of Hammel's recent paper (1993) -

Transition to Parenthood: The Role of Social Interaction and Endogenous Networks

“…All other parameters get assigned the following values: We set the group size of the hierarchy equal to individuals ( ), the branching ratio b equal to (see Figure 1) and postulate an average size of the network of peers ( , Fliegenschnee, personal communication, 2006). 5 5 g 2 10 10 s Figure 4, where we ignore social influence, Figure 5 demonstrates the potential role of social influence to replicate the change in first-birth probabilities over time. A comparison of the simulation results with the actual first-birth probabilities in 1994 reveals that the choice of 6 and 0 75 is appropriate.…”

“…We run our simulations for 20 A comparison between the observed and simulated time series of the mean age at first birth validates the promising performance of our proposed model (Figure 6a). Agespecific probabilities of first birth in 10 -year intervals are presented in Figures 6b and 6c. The three series depict respectively the empirical birth probability of the base year, 1984 and the year 1994 in Figure 6b and in Figure 6c together with the simulated birth probability of the latter years.…”

“…This lack of precision seems to constitute a general problem in the development of demographic behavior theory. Specifically, there is a certain agreement that demography suffers from a poor level of precision in theoretical construction, a statistical modeling that is either not, or not sufficiently, theory-driven, and the non-or hard-observability of important concepts and indicators involved in the theory (Burch 1996, de Brujin 1999). This weakness is partially due to the inadequateness of demographers' methodological toolbox in answering relevant demographic questions.…”

Demography in a New Key: A Theory of Population Theory

“…To qualify as theoretical models of the kind I am advocating, many of our 'behavioral' models must be defined more clearly and rigorously (Burch 1996). This is necessary for discovering logical implications of the models.…”

Teaching the Fundamentals of Demography: A Model-Based Approach to Fertility

“…Of course, more complex models will have to be developed in demography as well (Burch 1996). The assumption of no mortality in the model underlying the total fertility rate clearly is unrealistic, more so for some populations than others.…”