Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Variation in U.S. Fertility: Low and Not so Low, but Not Lowest-Low

  • Chapter
Low and Lower Fertility

Abstract

Unlike most other developed countries, the United States has not experienced sustained periods with fertility well below the replacement level. Thus, government policy is not directed toward increasing or decreasing overall levels of fertility. There is substantial fertility variation in the United States, however, by state/region, level of religiosity, level of education, and race/ethnicity. No group has “lowest-low” fertility (i.e., a total fertility rate (TFR) of less than 1.3 children per woman), but sub-groups do have rates as low as Europe as a whole (i.e., 1.6 for EU-27 in 2008). We describe the intermediate variables (the demographic regime) producing both the level and variation in U.S. fertility. Further, we locate the causes of these intermediate variables in the social structures that define them and determine their strength and variation. The cumulative U.S. evidence suggests that lowest-low fertility is not an inevitable feature of economically advanced societies and demonstrates that the general frameworks we propose are useful for understanding levels and variation in low fertility.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Bongaarts and Potter (1983) build on the classic Davis and Blake (1956) framework.

  2. 2.

    If one combines the estimated effects of the factors FU, FR, FSP and FT, FI, FC, then their cumulative effect is approximately 10 %—TFR/DFS = .90. This is what one observes in the NLSY-79 data. Young women intend an average of approximately 2.2 children but have only 2.0.

  3. 3.

    An exception is FT. Logically, the postponement of fertility cannot be maintained forever. Over the past few decades, however, ages at first and second birth have increased by only about 0.1 year, and this increase could easily be maintained for several more decades. Other parameters are often expected to change. FU, the level of unwanted births, is often assumed to be anachronistic in a context of wide availability of effective contraceptives. This parameter is largely unchanged over the past three decades, however, indicating that it is not driven by the availability of contraception but rather by effective contraception use and the acceptability of abortion should it fail. See discussion in Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods (2011).

  4. 4.

    Pollard and Morgan (2002) argue that this preference for a balanced gender composition has declined in recent decades. A recent paper by Tian and Morgan (2014) extends the time series of estimates and provides further support for the declining significance of gender-balance preference in the United States.

  5. 5.

    Frejka and Westoff (2008) do not explore the proximate causes of the European religious gradient.

  6. 6.

    Intended parity is the sum of children one has and the number of additional children intended.

  7. 7.

    Alternatively, the experience of the cohorts in the NLSY 1979 (the birth cohorts born in the 1955–1964 decade) may have become calcified, a stalled gender revolution (England 2010).

  8. 8.

    Mosher et al. (2012, Table 1) show the percentage of unwanted births among non-Hispanic whites and African Americans as 6.4 % and 11.7 %, respectively, a difference of 5.3 %. African American fertility is 8 % higher than that of whites. Thus, unwanted fertility can account for 66 % of the higher African American TFR.

  9. 9.

    To illustrate the diversity within the Hispanic population, Cuban Hispanics’ 2011 TFR was only 1.43, while that for “other Hispanics” was 2.87.

  10. 10.

    Personal correspondence, 13 Jan 2014.

  11. 11.

    The obvious exception is the relatively rare case of multiple births.

  12. 12.

    See http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/overview.aspx?topicid=13

  13. 13.

    The U.S. poverty line in 2014 is an annual income of $24,000 for a family of four. The working poor and near poor would consist of families that earn approximately $10,000 to $45,000 a year for a family of four.

  14. 14.

    For limits to the EITC in 2014, see: http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Preview-of-2012-EITC-Income-Limits,-Maximum-Credit--Amounts-and-Tax-Law-Updates

  15. 15.

    For limits to the child tax credit in 2014 see: http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Credit

References

  • Bachrach, C. A., & Morgan, S. P. (2013). A cognitive–social model of fertility intentions. Population and Development Review, 39, 459–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bongaarts, J. (1978). A framework for analyzing the proximate determinants of fertility. Population and Development Review, 4, 105–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bongaarts, J. (1992). Do reproductive intentions matter? International Family Planning Perspectives, 18(3), 102–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bongaarts, J. (2001). Fertility and reproductive preferences in post-transitional societies. Population and Development Review, 27(Supplement: Global Fertility Transition), 260–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bongaarts, J., & Feeney, G. (1998). On the quantum and tempo of fertility. Population and Development Review, 24(2), 271–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bongaarts, J., & Potter, R. G. (1983). Fertility, biology and behavior. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleland, K., Peipert, J. F., Westhoff, C., Spear, S., & Trussell, J. (2011). Family planning as a cost-saving preventive health service. New England Journal of Medicine, 364(18), e37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K., & Blake, J. (1956). Social structure and fertility: An analytical framework. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 4, 211–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dharamalingam, A., Rajan, S., & Morgan, S. P. (2014). The determinants of low fertility in India. Demography, 51(4), 1451–1475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2005). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender and Society, 24(2), 149–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frejka, T., & Westoff, C. F. (2008). Religion, religiousness, and fertility in the US and in Europe/Religion, religiosité et fécondité aux Etats-Unis et en Europe. European Journal of Population, 24(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, S. (1988). Fertility as mobility: Sinic transitions. Population and Development Review, 14(4), 629–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, S. (1990). Toward a political economy of fertility: Anthropological contributions. Population and Development Review, 16(1), 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagewen, K. J., & Morgan, S. P. (2005). Intended and ideal family size in the United States, 1970–2002. Population and Development Review, 31(3), 507–522.

    Article  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 

  • Johnson-Hanks, J., Bachrach, C., Morgan, S. P., & Kohler, H.-P. (2011). Understanding family change and variation: Structure, conjuncture, and action. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lesthaeghe, R., & Neidert, L. (2006). The second demographic transition in the United States: Exception or textbook example? Population and Development Review, 32, 660–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesthaeghe, R., & Neidert, L. (2009). U.S. presidential elections and the spatial pattern of the American second demographic transition. Population and Development Review, 35(2), 391–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  •  Martin, J. A., Hamilton, B. E., Osterman, M. J. K., & Mathews, T. J. (2013a). Births: Final data for 2012. National Vital Statistics Reports, 62(9).

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. A., Hamilton, B. E., Ventura, S. J., Osterman, M. J. K., & Mathews, T. J. (2013b). Births: Final data for 2011. National Vital Statistics Reports, 62(1).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNicoll, G. (1980). Institutional determinants of fertility change. Population and Development Review, 6(3), 441–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moffitt, R. (2014, 1–3 May). The deserving poor, the family, and the U.S. welfare system. Presidential address at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, S. P. (2001). Should fertility intentions inform fertility forecasts? In Proceedings of U.S. Census Bureau Conference: The direction of fertility in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, S. P. (2003). Is low fertility a twenty-first-century demographic crisis? Demography, 40(4), 589–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, S. P. (2011). Thinking about demographic family differences. In M. J. Carlson & P. England (Eds.), Social class and changing families in an unequal America (pp. 50–67). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, S. P., & Hagewen, K. (2005). Is very low fertility inevitable in America? Insights and forecasts from an integrative model of fertility. In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter (Eds.), The new population problem: Why families in developed counties are shrinking and what it means (pp. 3–28). Malwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, S. P., & Rackin, H. (2010). The correspondence of fertility intentions and behavior in the U.S. Population and Development Review, 36(1), 91–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, S. P., & Taylor, M. G. (2006). Low fertility at the turn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 375–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, S. P., Guo, Z., & Hayford, S. (2009). China’s below replacement fertility: Recent trends and future prospects. Population and Development Review, 35(3), 605–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosher, W. D., Jones, J., & Abama, J. C. (2012). Intended and unintended births in the United States: 1982–2010. In: National health statistics reports (Vol. 55, pp. 1–27). Hyattsville: National Center for Health Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrado, E. A. (2011). How high is Hispanic/Mexican fertility in the United States? Immigration and tempo considerations. Demography, 48, 1059–1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrado, E., & Morgan, S. P. (2008). Intergenerational fertility among Hispanic women: New evidence of immigrant assimilation. Demography, 45(4), 651–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santelli, J. S., Lindberg, L. D., Finer, L. B., & Singh, S. (2007). Explaining recent declines in adolescent pregnancy in the United States: The contribution of abstinence and improved contraceptive use. American Journal of Public Health, 97(1), 150–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sewell, W. H. (2005). Logics of history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, P. L., Morgan, S. P., & Zagheni, E. (2014). A case for “reverse one-child” policies in East Asia? Examining the link between education costs and lowest-low fertility. Unpublished manuscript. Durham: Duke University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods. (2011). 2011 technical panel on assumptions and methods: Report to the social security advisory board. Washington, DC: Social Security Advisory Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, A. (2001). The developmental paradigm, reading history sideways, and family change. Demography, 38(4), 449–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, A. (2005). Reading history sideways: The fallacy and enduring impact of the developmental paradigm on family life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tian, F. F., & Morgan, S. P. (2014, May 1–3). Sex composition of children and third birth in the United States: Further evidence for emerging gender indifference. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2011). World fertility policies wallchart 2011. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/fertility/world-fertility-policies-2011.shtml. Accessed 14 Oct 2014.

  • van de Kaa, D. J. (2001). Postmodern fertility preferences: From changing value orientation to new behavior. Population and Development Review, 27(Supplement: Global Fertility Transition), 290–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, L. A. (1992). Taxes and the family: The impact of the tax exemption for dependents on marital fertility. Demography, 29(2), 215–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Carolina Population Center and Sociology Department, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    S. Philip Morgan

Authors
  1. S. Philip Morgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Philip Morgan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology and Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, CHAPEL HILL, North Carolina, USA

    Ronald R. Rindfuss

  2. East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

    Minja Kim Choe

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Morgan, S.P. (2015). Variation in U.S. Fertility: Low and Not so Low, but Not Lowest-Low. In: Rindfuss, R., Choe, M. (eds) Low and Lower Fertility. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21482-5_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation