Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why do English-speaking countries have relatively high fertility?

  • Published:
Journal of Population Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In broad terms, the division in Europe between countries with very low fertility and countries with sustainable fertility matches Esping-Anderson’s classification of the same countries into ‘conservative’ and ‘social democratic’ (Esping-Anderson 1990). A central difference between these two types relates to their preferred models of the family. The conservative countries hold more to the ‘breadwinner’ model of the family while the social democratic countries seek higher levels of gender equity within the family and in the workplace. State support in both conservative and social democratic countries is designed to be consistent with these differing views of the family. Would we then not expect fertility to be very low in Esping-Anderson’s third group of countries, the ‘liberal’ countries, essentially English-speaking countries? By the Esping-Anderson definition, liberal countries are notable for their lack of support for families from public sources. Instead, according to Esping-Anderson, families must rely upon market provision for the services that they may need to combine work and family and they must rely on market employment to generate the income required to support their children. Contrary to this theory, whether measured by contemporary cross-sectional fertility or completed cohort fertility, with the exception of Canada, English-speaking countries now have the highest fertility rates among the countries that were classified by Esping-Anderson. Given the strength of theoretical explanation that arises from comparative studies of fertility in Europe, the paper examines why fertility in English-speaking countries seems not to follow expectation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In family support terms, France is clearly classified with the Nordic countries.

  2. For example, four of the five English-speaking countries have qualified for the 2010 World Cup finals.

  3. Up to two years is available for a couple. They can share the leave or either one can take the full two years.

  4. These two countries along with France have the highest relative minimum wages in the OECD countries.

References

  • Adema, W., & Ladaique, M. (2009). How expensive is the welfare state?: Gross and net indicators in the OECD social expenditure database (SOCX). OECD social, employment and migration working papers, No. 92. OECD Publishing, OECD.

  • Andersson, G., Hank, H., Ronsen, M., & Vikat, A. (2004). Gendering the family composition: sex preferences for children and childbearing behaviour in the Nordic countries. Working paper 2004-19. Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.

  • Andersson, G., Ronsen, M., Knudsen, L., Lappegard, T., Neyer, G., Skrede, K., et al. (2009). Cohort fertility patterns in the Nordic countries. Demographic Research, 20(14), 313–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2009). Births Australia 2008, Catalogue No. 3301.0, Canberra.

  • Beaujot, R., & Wang, J. (2009). Low fertility lite in Canada: The Nordic model in Quebec and the U.S. model in Alberta. Discussion paper No. 09-03. Population Studies Centre, University of Western Ontario.

  • Bélanger, A., & Ouellet, G. (2006). A comparative study of recent trends in Canadian and American fertility, 1980–99. In A. Bélanger (Ed.), A report on the demographic situation in Canada 2001. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, J., & Schindlmayr, T. (2003). Explanation of the fertility crisis in modern societies: A search for commonalities. Population Studies, 57(3), 241–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannold, L. (2005). What, no baby? Why women have lost the freedom to mother, and how they can get it back. Perth: Fremantle Arts Centre Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caucutt, E., Guner, N., & Knowles, J. (2001). The timing of births: A marriage market analysis. Penn institute for economic research working papers 01–044. Penn Department of Economics.

  • Coleman, D. (2000). Reproduction and survival in an unknown world. People and Place, 8(2), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • CommSec. (2009). Australian homes are biggest in the world: Housing market trends. Economic Insights, 30 November, 2009. Available at: images.commsec.com.au/newsresearch/articles/Economic%20091130.pdf.

  • Crittenden, A. (2001). The price of motherhood: Why the most important job in the world is still the least valued. New York: Henry Holt & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Addio, A., & d’Ercole, M. (2005). Trends and determinants of fertility rates in OECD countries: The role of policies. OECD social, employment and migration working papers No. 27. Paris: OECD.

  • Esping-Anderson, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2005). Confronting demographic change: A new solidarity between the generations. Brussels.

  • Finer, L., & Henshaw, S. (2006). Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994–2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 38(2), 90–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frejka, T. (2004). The ‘curiously high’ fertility of the USA. Population Studies, 58(1), 88–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frejka, T., & Sardon, J.-P. (2006). First birth trends in developed countries: Persisting parenthood postponement. Demographic Research, 15(6), 147–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frejka, T., & Sardon, J.-P. (2007). Cohort birth order, parity progression ratio and parity distribution trends in developed countries. Demographic Research, 16(11), 315–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frejka, T., & Sardon, J-P. (2009). Contemporary childbearing trends in low-fertility countries: A long-term perspective. Paper presented to the international population conference, Marrakech, October.

  • Frejka, T., & Westoff, C. (2007). Religion, religiousness and fertility in the US and in Europe. MPIDR working paper, WP 2006-013. Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.

  • Gohmann, S., & Ohsfeldt, R. (1994). The dependent tax exemption, abortion availability and US fertility rates. Population Research and Policy Review, 13(4), 367–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J., Sobotka, T., & Jasilioniene, A. (2009). The end of lowest-low fertility. Population and Development Review, 35(4), 663–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gornick, J., & Meyers, M. (2009). Gender equality: Transforming family divisions of labor. Real Utopias project series VI. New York: Verso.

  • Gray, E., & McDonald, P. (2002). The relationship between personal, family, resource and work factors and maternal employment in Australia. OECD labour market and social policy occasional papers No 62. Paris: OECD.

  • Hakim, C. (2004). A new approach to explaining fertility patterns: Preference theory. Population and Development Review, 29, 349–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haussegger, V. (2005). Wonder woman: The myth of ‘having it all’. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayford, S., & Morgan, S. P. (2008). Religiosity and fertility in the United States: The role of fertility intentions. Social Forces, 86(3), 1163–1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henshaw, S., & Kost, K. (2008). Trends in characteristics of women obtaining abortions, 1974–2004. New York: Guttmacher Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewlett, S. (2002). Baby hunger: The new battle for motherhood. London: Atlantic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • House Ways and Means Committee. (2000). Green book ‘child care’. Washington DC: US House of Representatives.

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Fertility Database. Accessed 2010, www.humanfertility.org.

  • Kippen, R. (2006). The rise of the older mother. People and Place, 14(3), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kippen, R., Evans, A., & Gray, E. (2009). Parental preference for sons and daughters in a Western industrial setting: Evidence and implications. Journal of Biosocial Science, 39(4), 583–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Letablier, M.-T., Luci, A., Math, A., & Thevenon, O. (2009). The cost of raising children and the effectiveness of policies to support parenthood in European countries: A literature review. Brussels: Directorate-General Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lutz, W., Skirbekk, V., & Testa, M. (2006). The low fertility trap hypothesis: Forces that may lead to further postponement and fewer births in Europe. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research: 167–192.

  • Macken, D. (2005). Oh no, we forgot to have children!. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, S. (2000). Diverging fertility among US women who delay childbearing past age 30. Demography, 37, 523–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, P. (1974). Marriage in Australia: Age at first marriage and proportions marrying 1860–1971. Australian Family Formation Project, Monograph No. 2. Canberra: Department of Demography, Australian National University.

  • McDonald, P. (1990). The costs of children: Methods and results. Family Matters, 27. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

  • McDonald, P. (2000a). Gender equity, social institutions and the future of fertility. Journal of Population Research, 17(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, P. (2000b). Gender equity in theories of fertility transition. Population and Development Review, 26(3), 427–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, P. (2002). The family formation behaviour of second generation Australians. In Khoo, S-E., McDonald, P., Giorgias, D. & Birrell, R. (Eds.), Second generation Australians. Report for the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Canberra.

  • McDonald, P. (2006). Low fertility and the state: The efficacy of policy. Population and Development Review, 32(3), 485–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, P., & Kippen, R. (2009). Fertility in South Australia: An overview of trends and socio-economic differences. Report to the Department of Trade and Economic Development, Government of South Australia, Adelaide.

  • Myrskylä, M., Kohler, H.-P., & Billari, F. (2009). Advances in development: Reverse fertility declines. Nature, 460, 741–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neyer, G., & Andersson, G. (2006). Consequences of family policies on childbearing behavior, effects or artefacts? Population and Development Review, 34(4), 699–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2008). Taxing wages 2007/08, 2008 Ed. Paris.

  • Office of National Statistics. (2009). Population Trends, 138(Winter 2009): 88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olah, L., & Bernhardt, E. (2008). Sweden: Combining childbearing and gender equality. Demographic Research, 19(28), 1105–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrado, E. (forthcoming). How high is Hispanic/Mexican fertility in the US? Immigration and tempo considerations. Demography.

  • Parrado, E., & Morgan, S. P. (2008). Intergenerational fertility among Hispanic women: New evidence of immigrant assimilation. Demography, 45(3), 651–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, M., & Morgan, S. (2002). Emerging parental gender indifference? Sex composition of children and the third birth. American Sociological Review, 67, 600–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Productivity Commission. (2009). Paid parental leave: Support for Australian parents with newborn children. Canberra.

  • Quesnel-Vallée, A., & Morgan, S. P. (2003). Missing the target? Correspondence of fertility intentions and behavior in the U.S. Population Research and Policy Review. Special Issue on Very Low Fertility, 22(5–6): 497–525.

  • Sardon, J.-P. (2006). Fertility in the developed English-speaking countries outside Europe: Canada, United States, Australia and New Zealand. Population, 61(3), 267–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedgh, G., Henshaw, S., Singh, S., Ahman, E., & Shah, I. (2007). Induced abortion: Estimates rates and trends worldwide. The Lancet, 370, 1338–1345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smeeding, T., O’Higgins, M., & Rainwater, L. (Eds.). (1990). Poverty, inequality and income distribution in comparative perspective: The Luxembourg income study (LIS). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistics New Zealand. (2009). Births New Zealand 2008. www.stats.govt.nz/methods_and_services/access-tables/data/births.aspx.

  • United Nations. (2010). World population policies 2009. New York: Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westpac. (2005). War for talent is on and babies may help Westpac win it. Westpac Media Release, 8 March, 2005. Westpac web site. Accessed 7 January, 2010.

  • Whiteford, P. (2008). Assistance for families: An assessment of Australian family policies from an international perspective. Paper presented to the 2008 Conference of the Australian Institute of Families Studies, Melbourne.

  • Yang, Y., & Morgan, S. P. (2003). How big are educational and racial fertility differentials in the US? Social Biology, 50(3–4).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute, The Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia

    Peter McDonald & Helen Moyle

Authors
  1. Peter McDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helen Moyle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter McDonald.

Additional information

This is the English-language version of a paper originally published in Politiques sociales et familiales 100, June 2010, entitled ‘Pourquoi la fécondité est-elle élevée dans les plays Anglophones?’ [in French].

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McDonald, P., Moyle, H. Why do English-speaking countries have relatively high fertility?. J Pop Research 27, 247–273 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12546-010-9043-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12546-010-9043-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation