An Extension of the Conventional TFR

  • Jan M. Hoem
  • Cornelia Mureşan


The period-based total fertility rate is probably the most commonly used single measure of a population’s fertility level, but it has the disadvantage that it only controls for the population’s age distribution and not for any other subdividing feature, such as the parity distribution, ethnic composition, or educational attainment. This may lead the TFR to change because the population composition changes, even when the underlying fertility remains constant in each population sub-group. In the present contribution, we use elementary event-history methods to show how one can easily control the TFR against a change in the population’s distribution across any selected subdivision. We use the data of the Romanian Gender and Generations Survey of 2005 to illustrate how this can be done.


Total fertility rate First, second, third births Event history analysis Romania 

Une extension de l'indicateur conjoncturel de fécondité


L’indicateur conjoncturel de fécondité (ICF) est probablement l’indicateur unique le plus utilisé pour mesurer le niveau de fécondité d’une population, mais il présente l’inconvénient de ne contrôler que la distribution par âge de la population sans contrôler d’autres éléments, telles que la distribution par parité, par composition ethnique ou par niveau d’instruction. L’ICF peut alors changer si la composition de la population évolue, même si la fécondité demeure constante dans chaque sous-groupe de population. Dans cet article, nous utilisons des méthodes élémentaires d’analyse biographique pour montrer qu’il est possible de calculer l’indicateur conjoncturel de fécondité en contrôlant pour un changement dans la distribution de la population, quel que soit le sous-groupe envisagé. Les données du volet roumain de l’enquête Générations et genre réalisé en 2005 sont utilisées pour illustrer cette méthode.


Indicateur conjoncturel de fécondité Première-seconde-troisième naissance Analyse biographique Roumanie 



We have benefited from discussions with colleagues in the Stockholm University Demography Unit. Extensive comments from this journal’s editors and referees have been particularly useful.


  1. Andersson, G. (2004). Demographic trends in Sweden: An update of childbearing, nuptiality up to 2002. Demographic Research, 11(4), 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson, G. (2007–2008). Selectivity of higher-order childbearing in Sweden. Finnish Yearbook of Population Research 43, 33–40.Google Scholar
  3. Bongaarts, J., & Feeney, G. (1998). On the quantum and tempo of fertility. Population and Development Review, 24(2), 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calot, G. (2001). Demographic techniques: Rates of the first and second kind. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 3480–3483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Feeney, G. (1991). Fertility decline in Taiwan: A study using parity progression ratios. Demography, 28(3), 467–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gerster, M., Keiding, N., Knudsen, L. B., & Strandberg-Larsen, K. (2007). Education and second birth rates in Denmark 1981–1994. Demographic Research, 17(8), 181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldstein, J. R., Sobotka, T., & Jasilioniene, A.. (2009). The end of ‘lowest-low’ fertility? Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany. Working Paper 2009-029. Also more briefly in Population and Development Review 35 (4), 663–699.Google Scholar
  8. Hajnal, J. (1947). The analysis of birth statistics in the light of the recent international recovery of the birth-rate. Population Studies, 1(2), 137–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Henry, L. (1951). Étude statistique de l’éspacement des naissances. Population, 6(3), 425–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoem, J. M. (1987). Statistical analysis of a multiplicative model and its application to the standardization of vital rates: A review. International Statistical Review, 55(2), 119–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoem, J. M. (1991). La standardisation indirecte améliorée et son application à la divortialité en Suède (1971–1989). Population, 6, 1551–1568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoem, J. M. (2010). Statistical significance. In M. Lovric (Ed.), Contribution to the International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science (pp. 1468–1470). New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. Hoem, J. M. & Mureşan, C. (2011). The total marital fertility rate and its extensions. European Journal of Population, 27, 295–312.Google Scholar
  14. Hosseini-Chavoshi, M., Peter, McD., & Abbasi-Shavazi, M. J. (2006). The Iranian fertility decline 1981–1999: An application of the synthetic parity progression method. Population E, 61(5–6), 701–710.Google Scholar
  15. Karmel, P. (1950). A note on Whelpton’s calculation of parity adjusted reproduction rates. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 249, 119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kligman, G. (1988). The politics of duplicity: Controlling reproduction in Ceauşescu’s Romania. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. Mureşan, C., & Hoem, J. M. (2010). The negative educational gradients in Romanian fertility. Demographic Research, 22(4), 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mureşan, C., Hărăguş, P. -Y., Hărăguş, M., & Schröder, C. (2008). Romania: Childbearing metamorphosis within a changing context. Demographic Research, 19(23), 855–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Murphy, M., & Berrington A. (1993). Constructing Parity Progression Ratios from household survey data. Chapter 2 in Ní Bhrolcháin (1993).Google Scholar
  20. Ní Bhrolcháin, M. (1987). Period parity progression ratios and birth intervals in England and Wales, 1941–1971: A synthetic life table analysis. Population Studies, 41(1), 103–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ní Bhrolcháin, M. (1992). Period paramount? A critique of the cohort approach to fertility. Population and Development Review, 18, 599–629. Also reprinted as Chapter 1 in Ní Bhrolcháin (1993).Google Scholar
  22. Ní Bhrolcháin, M. (Ed.). (1993). New perspectives on fertility in Britain. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  23. Ní Bhrolcháin, M. (2011). Tempo and the TFR. Demography, 48, 841–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rallu, J.-L., & Toulemon, L. (1994). Period fertility measures. The construction of different indices and their application to France, 1946–89. Population, An English Selection 6, 59–94, with discussion, pp. 95-130.Google Scholar
  25. Retherford, R., Ogawa, N., Matsukura, R., & Eini-Zinab, H. (2010). Multivariate analysis of parity progression-based measures of the Total Fertility Rate and its components. Demography, 47(1), 97–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schoumaker, B. (2004). A person-period approach to analyzing birth histories. Population E, 59(5), 689–701.Google Scholar
  27. Sobotka, T. (2004). Postponement of childbearing and low fertility in Europe. Amsterdam: Dutch University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Whelpton, P. (1946). Reproduction rates adjusted for age, parity, fecundity and marriage. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 41, 501–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Demographic ResearchRostockGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of Sociology and Social Work, Centre for Population StudiesBabes-Bolyai UniversityCluj-NapocaRomania

Personalised recommendations