Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:21:42.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trends in Class Fertility in Western Nations*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

Dennis H. Wrong
Dennis H. Wrong*
Affiliation:
Brown University
Get access

Extract

Although the birth-rate has declined in all Western nations since the middle of the nineteenth century, the decline has not been equal among the various groups that compose their population. Measures of fertility for national units conceal differences in the fertility of the many distinct groups in urban-industrial societies. Changes in the pattern of these differences are of particular significance in the later stages of the demographic transition from high to low birth-rates and death-rates which the Western world has undergone in the past century. Changes in the birth-rate rather than in the death-rate are the main determinants of growth in societies where mortality has been brought under control by modern medicine and public health practices.

Demographers have often treated differential fertility as a special, virtually autonomous subject instead of viewing it in the broad historical context of the Western demographic transition. In fact, as J. W. Innes has pointed out, few studies have been made of trends in differential fertility by comparison with the numerous studies which simply establish the existence of group differences in fertility at a single point in time. The present paper is concerned with class differences—probably the most pervasive of all group differences in advanced societies. The attempt is made to gather together by historical period the available data on trends in class differences in fertility for several Western countries in order to present a systematic picture of the way in which these differences have evolved in modern times.

The problem of dividing a population into socio-economic classes that are genuinely distinct from one another in a sociologically meaningful sense has been widely discussed by sociologists. Demographers, however, usually work with official data which provide only limited information on the characteristics of populations. They are, therefore, unable to employ the more refined indices of class developed by sociologists and are forced to use as indices such relatively simple objective attributes as income, occupation, or education.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne de economiques et science politique , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , May 1958 , pp. 216 - 229
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This paper is the concluding chapter, somewhat revised, of a larger study in which statistics on socio-economic fertility-differences in Western nations are intensively analysed. I am indebted to Kingsley Davis for valuable advice and to the Canadian Social Science Research Council for financial assistance.

References

1 Innes, J. W., Class Fertility Trends in England and Wales, 1876–1934 (Princeton, 1938), v.Google Scholar

2 Cumulative birth-rates are the total numbers of births before a specified age or date per 1,000 women surviving to that age or date.

3 The conclusions for this period are based on the following sources. Innes, Class Fertility Trends in England ana Wales. Great Britain, Census of England and Wales, 1911, XIII, Fertility of Marriage (London, 1917).Google Scholar United States Bureau of the Census, Sixteenth Census of the United States (1940), Population: Differential Fertility, 1940 and 1910 (5 vols., Washington, D.C., 1943–1947).Google Scholar Sydenstricker, Edgar and Notestein, Frank W., “Differential Fertility According to Social Class,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, XXV, no. 30, 03, 1930.Google Scholar France, Bureau de la Statistique Générale, Statistique des families en 1906 (Paris, 1912)Google Scholar; Statistique des families en 1911 (Paris, 1918).Google Scholar Spengler, Joseph J., France Faces Depopulation (Durham, N.C., 1938).Google Scholar Census of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1911, II, Part x (Melbourne, 1921).Google Scholar Bertillon, Jacques, “La Natality selon le degre d’aisance,” Bulletin de l’Institut Internationale de Statistique, XI, 1899.Google Scholar

4 France, Bureau de la Statistique Générale, Statistique des families en 1906, 46.Google Scholar

5 Davis, Kingsley, The Population of India and Pakistan (Princeton, 1950), 76–9Google Scholar; Lamson, Herbert D., “Differential Reproduction in China,” Quarterly Review of Biology, X, no. 3, 09, 1935 Google Scholar; Notestein, Frank W., “A Demographic Study of 38,256 Families in China,” Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, XVI, no. 1, 01, 1938, 68–70 Google Scholar; Chen, Ta, Population in Modern China (Chicago, 1946), pp. 30–1 and. Table 19, p. 93.Google Scholar

6 Notestein, Frank W., “Differential Age at Marriage According to Social Class,” American Journal of Sociology, XXXVII, no. 1, 07, 1931.Google Scholar

7 Carr-Saimders, A. M., World Population (Oxford, 1936), chaps, viii, ixGoogle Scholar; Glass, D. V., Population Policies and Movements (Oxford, 1940), chap, iGoogle Scholar; Field, James A., Essays on Population and Other Papers (Chicago, 1931), chaps, vi, xii.Google Scholar

8 Davis, Kingsley, “Statistical Perspective on Marriage and Divorce,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, CCLXXII, 11, 1950, 9–17.Google Scholar

9 The conclusions for this period are based on the following sources. Innes, Class Fertility Trends in England and Wales. Glass, D. V. and Grebenik, E., The Trend and Pattern of Fertility in Great Britain, Part I, Papers of the Royal Commission on Population, VI (London, 1954).Google Scholar Great Britain, Census, 1951, One Per Cent Sample Tables, Part 2 (London, 1953).Google Scholar U.S. Bureau of the Census, Sixteenth Census, Population: Differential Fertility, 1940 and 1910. Notestein, Frank W., “Differential Fertility in the East North Central States,” Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, XVI, no. 2, 04, 1938.Google Scholar Kisei, Clyde V., Group Differences in Urban Fertility (Baltimore, 1942).Google Scholar Jacobson, Paul H., “The Trend of the Birth Rate among Persons on Different Economic Levels, City of New York, 1929–1942,” Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, XXIII, no. 2, 04, 1944.Google Scholar Karpinos, Bernard D. and Kiser, Clyde V., “The Differential Fertility and Potential Rates of Growth of Various Income and Education Classes of Urban Populations in the United States,” Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, XVII, no. 4, 10, 1939.Google Scholar Kitagawa, Evelyn M., “Differential Fertility in Chicago, 1920–1940,” American Journal of Sociology, LIII, no. 5, 03, 1953.Google Scholar France, Bureau de la Statistique Générale, Statistique des families en 1926 (Paris, 1932)Google Scholar; Statistique des families en 1936 (Paris, 1946)Google Scholar; Resultats statistiques du recensement general de la population, effectue le 10 mars 1946, IV, Families (Paris, 1954).Google Scholar Spengler, France Faces Depopulation. Folketellingen i Norge, 1. 12 1930, Niende hefte, Barnetallet i norske ekteskap (Oslo, 1935).Google Scholar Statistika Centralbyran, Sarskilda Folkrakningen 1935/1936, VI, Mars, Partiella Folkrakningen 1936, Barnantal och Doda Barn i Aktenskapen (Stockholm, 1939).Google Scholar Edin, Karl A. and Hutchinson, Edward P., Studies of Differential Fertility in Sweden (London, 1935).Google Scholar Census of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1921, Part xxviii (Melbourne, 1927)Google Scholar; Census of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1947, Part xi (Canberra, 1952).Google Scholar Statistik, Danmarks, Statistik Arbog 1952 (Copenhagen, 1952).Google Scholar Charles, Enid, The Changing Size of the Family in Canada, Eighth Census of Canada (1942), Census Monograph no. 1 (Ottawa, 1948).Google Scholar

10 For New York, see Jacobson, “The Trend of the Birth Rate, City of New York, 1929–1942.” For London, see Innes, Class Fertility Trends in England arid Wales, chaps, iv, v; Glass, , Population Policies and Movements, 76–82 Google Scholar; Lorimer, Frank and Osborn, Frederick, Dynamics of Population (New York, 1934), 79–82 Google Scholar; Mitra, K., “Fertility and Its Relation to Social Conditions,” Journal of Hygiene, XXXVII, no. 1, 01, 1937.Google Scholar For Paris, see Spengler, , France Faces Depopulation, 98–100 Google Scholar; Landry, Adolphe, Traité de démographie (Paris, 1945), 307.Google Scholar For Edinburgh, Glasgow, Hamburg, Dresden, Königsberg, and Berlin, see von Ungern-Sternberg, Roderich, The Causes of the Decline of the Birth Rate within the European Sphere of Civilization (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., 1931), 115–16.Google Scholar For Vienna, see Stevenson, Alexander, “Some Aspects of Fertility and Population Growth in Vienna,” American Sociological Review, VII, no. 4, 08, 1942.Google Scholar For Stockholm, see Edin and Hutchinson, Studies of Differential Fertility in Sweden. For Oslo, see Folketellingen i Norge, Barnetallet i norske ekteskap. For Bremen, see Grotjahn, A., “Differential Birth Rate in Germany” in Sanger, Margaret, ed., Proceedings of the World Population Conference (London, 1927), 153–4.Google Scholar For Zürich, see Mayer, Kurt B., The Population of Switzerland (New York, 1952), 109–10.Google Scholar

11 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Sixteenth Census, Population: Differential Fertility 1940 and 1910: Women by Number of Children Ever Born (1945), Tables 57–62, pp. 173–206.Google Scholar

12 For Melbourne, see Borrie, W. D., Population Trends and Policies (Sydney, 1948), 120.Google Scholar For urban Sweden, see Statistika Centralbyran, Barnantal och Doda Barn i Aktenskapen. For Canada, see Charles, , The Changing Size of the Family in Canada, 112.Google Scholar

13 Folketellingen i Norge, Barnetallet i norske ekteskap, Tabel 9.

14 Moberg, Sven, “Marital Status and Family Size among Matriculated Persons in Sweden,” Population Studies, IV, no. 1, 06, 1950.Google Scholar

15 Phillips, John C., “Success and the Birth Rate,” Harvard Graduates Magazine, XXXV, no. 160, 06, 1927 Google Scholar; Osborn, John J., “Fertility Differentials among Princeton Alumni,” Journal of Heredity, XXX, no. 12, 12, 1939 Google Scholar; Havemann, Ernest and West, Patricia Salter, They Went to College (New York, 1952), 46 Google Scholar; Osborn, Frederick, Preface to Eugenics (New York, 1952), 175–6.Google Scholar

16 Whelpton, P. K. and Kiser, Clyde V., Social and Psychological Factors Affecting Fertility (3 vols., New York, 1946, 1950, 1953)Google Scholar; Lewis-Faning, E., Family Limitation and Its Influence on Human Fertility During the Past Fifty Years, Papers of the Royal Commission on Population, I (London, 1949).Google Scholar

17 Whelpton and Kiser, Social and Psychological Factors Affecting Fertility, II, Part ix.

18 See, e.g., Heberle, Rudolph, “Social Factors in Birth Control,” American Sociological Review, VI, no. 5, 10, 1941, 800 Google Scholar; Hagood, Margaret Jarman, “Changing Fertility Differentials among Farm-Operator Families in Relation to Economic Size of Farm,” Rural Sociology, XIII, no. 4, 12, 1948, 373 Google Scholar; Westoff, Charles F., “Differential Fertility in the United States: 1900 to 1952,” American Sociological Review, XIX, no. 5, 10, 1954, 561.Google Scholar

19 Glass, and Grebenik, , The Trend and Pattern of Fertility in Great Britain, 113–28.Google Scholar

20 The conclusions for this period are based on the following sources: Glass and Grebenik, The Trend and Pattern of Fertility in Great Britain; Great Britain, Census, 1951, One Per Cent Sample Tables; Kiser, “Fertility Trends and Differentials in the United States”; Westoff, “Differential Fertility in the United States, 1900 to 1952”; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports: Population Characteristics, Series P-20, no. 46 (Washington, D.C., 12 31, 1953)Google Scholar; Hajnal, John, “Differential Changes in Marriage Patterns,” American Sociological Review, XIX, no. 2, 04, 1954 Google Scholar, and “Analysis of Changes in the Marriage Pattern by Economic Groups,” ibid., no. 3, July, 1954.

21 Hajnal, John, “The Analysis of Birth Statistics in the Light of the Recent International Recovery of the Birth Rate,” Population Studies, I, no. 2, 09, 1947 Google Scholar; Clyde V. Kiser “Fertility Trends and Differentials in the United States”; Whelpton, P. K., “Future Fertility of American Women,” Eugenics Quarterly, I, no. 1, 03, 1954.Google Scholar

22 Kitagawa, , “Differential Fertility in Chicago, 1920–1940,” 493.Google Scholar

23 Westoff, Charles F., “The Changing Focus of Differential Fertility Research: The Social Mobility Hypothesis,” Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, XXXI, no. 1, 01, 1953, 31.Google Scholar

24 Petersen, William, “Is America Still the Land of Opportunity?” Commentary, XVI, no. 5, 11, 1953 Google Scholar; Lipset, S. M. and Rogoff, Natalie, “Class and Opportunity in Europe and the U.S.,” Commentary, XVIII, no. 6, 12, 1954 Google Scholar; Chinoy, Ely, Social Mobility Trends in the United States,” American Journal of Sociology, XX, no. 2, 04, 1955 Google Scholar; Luethy, Herbert, “Social Mobility Again—And Elites,” Commentary, XX, no. 3, 09, 1955.Google Scholar

25 Foote, Nelson and Hatt, Paul K., “Social Mobility and Economic Advancement,” American Economic Review, XLIII, 05, 1953.Google Scholar

26 Sibley, Elbridge, “Some Demographic Clues to Stratification,” American Sociological Review, VII, no. 3, 06, 1942.Google Scholar

27 A similar hypothesis has been advanced by Mayer, Albert and Klapprodt, Carol, “Fertility Differentials in Detroit: 1920–1950,” Population Studies, IX, no. 2, 11, 1955, 15.Google Scholar

28 Heberle, (“Social Factors in Birth Control,” 805)Google Scholar makes a similar general point, although, writing in 1941, he forecast a continuing decline in fertility to levels below replacement requirements—a trend he regarded as an inevitable result of structural changes in the economic system in the era of “late capitalism.”