The decline of fertility: Innovation or adjustment process

Abstract

In Western society the process of fertility decline is often regarded as an innovation process. The assumptions behind this approach seem rather questionable, and the diffusion lags or gradients of limited importance. Both Swedish and other European data are used as illustrations. It is suggested that the decline be treated within the wider sociological perspective of a time-consuming adjustment or change process, not necessarily starting from a position of completely uncontrolled fertility within marriage. The situation in to-day's high fertility populations is briefly discussed against this background.

Socioeconomic status and fertility before, during, and after the demographic transition: An introduction

“…4 While some have stressed the importance of industrialization and urbanization (see, e.g., Brown and Guinnane 2002;Carlsson 1966;Davis 1945;Dribe 2009;Galloway, Hammel and Lee 1994;Notestein 1945), or the previous decline in infant and child mortality (Davis 1945;Dyson 2010;Easterlin 1996: 107-108;Notestein 1945;Reher 1999;Reher and Sanz-Gimeno 2007), others have emphasized ideational change affecting people's attitudes and readiness to limit family size (Cleland and Wilson 1987;Knodel and van de Walle 1979;Lesthaeghe 1977Lesthaeghe , 1980Lesthaeghe and Wilson 1986). In addition, combinations of these different approaches are also common in the literature.…”

“…Swedish sociologist Gösta Carlsson (1966) made the distinction between innovation and adjustment as the main processes or explanations of fertility decline. Although this framework has later been extended and refined in various ways, e.g., in the supply-demand framework developed by Easterlin (1975Easterlin ( , 1996, the basic distinction between innovation-based and adjustment-based explanations has survived (see, e.g., Van Bavel 2010).…”

Does socioeconomic status matter? The fertility transition in a northern Italian village (marriage cohorts 1900‒1940)

“…However, population analysts do not agree on the relative weight of these different factors. Some previous studies, mainly based on aggregate data, show the relevance of economic development and industrialization (among others : Davis 1945;Notestein 1945;Carlsson 1966;Galloway, Hammel, and Lee 1994), or stress the importance of the increase in child survival (Easterlin 1996;Reher 2004). Others highlight the role that changes in individual ideational values played with respect to family and household formation and fertility (Lesthaeghe 1977;Lesthaeghe and Wilson 1986;Cleland and Wilson 1987).…”

The long-term determinants of marital fertility in the developed world (19th and 20th centuries): The role of welfare policies

“…1911, 1921, 1933, 1947, 1954, 1966, 1971, 1981, 1991, 2006Austria 1951, 1991Belgium 1992, 2005 Canada From 1852 to 1911 the data is from Quebec, Pouyez and Lavoie (1983);1921, 1931, 1941, 1951, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, 1995, 2006Czechoslovakia 1947, 1990, 1995, 2005 Denmark 1840 and 1847, Matthiessen (1985);1950, 1981, 1940, 1990, 1995, 2005 England and Wales From 1543 to 1850 using inverse projection techniques, Anderson et al (2001);1939, 1951, 1991, 1995Finland 1991France From 1740to 1911, Weir (19941946, 1954, 1990, 2008Germany 1946…”

“…Even though they try to explain the timing of and reasons for the onset of the fall in fertility, (diffusionist, ideational) theories, which take the view that the decline came about as a result of new birth control methods and new ideas about the benefits of having fewer children (Carlsson 1966).…”