EXPLANATIONS FOR REGIONAL FERTILITY REVERSAL AFTER 2005 IN

JAPAN:DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL

FACTORS

Joint Eurostat/UNECE Work Session on Demographic ProjectionsApril 28 – 30, 2010, Lisbon, Portugal

Miho IwasawaRyuichi Kaneko

National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, Tokyo

Contributors: Kenji Kamata, James Raymo , Kimiko Tanaka

2

Motivations and questions

Recent fertility reversal in countries which experienced lowest-low fertility (TFR<1.3)(Goldstein et al. 2009)

Japanese total fertility rate also increased after 2005

1.36 in 2000 -> 1.26 in 2005 -> 1.37 in 2008

How can we interpret this change?

3

Lowest-low fertility (LLF) in Sothern and Eastern Europe, and East Asia Postponed childbearing (tempo effect)

Absence of high-fertility sub-population

Low-growth economy

Increasing opportunity cost and incompatibility of work and familial obligations

Cultural settings (Familistic welfare regime)

(Kohler, Billari, and Ortega 2002 ,Frejka and Westoff 2008, Perelli-Harris 2005, Zuanna and Micheli 2004, Reher 2007, McDonald 2006 )

4

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Tot

al fe

rtili

ty ra

te

Year

Italy

Spain

Japan

Explanations for recent upturn in European LLF countries

(1) Diminishing tempo effects (end of postponement)

(2) Increase in immigrants

(3) Economic improvement

(4) Policy improvement

(5) Familistic culture (negatively associated with fertility reversal (Italy) )

Castiglioni and Dalla Zuanna(2008), Billari (2008) , Goldstein, Sobotka and Jasilioniene (2009)

5

Methods

Ecological regression model explaining the prefectural (state) level variations of fertility change after 2005 (N=47)

All birth TFR

1.12 Tokyo

1.78Okinawa

1.37 Japan

0

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Year

TF

R

6

Methods

Weighted least squares model (WLS) Weight: female population in reproductive

ages (15-49)

Weighted spatial error model (WSE) (Anselin 1988 ) Spatial autocorrelation among neighboring

model residuals is explicitly specified in the model

OLS and Spatial error model

OLS model

Y = XB + e

Spatial error model

Y =XB + u

Y = XB + λWu + e e~i.i.d. N(0, s2I)

Univariate Spatial Autocorrelation

Structural Similarity →

Spatial Error Effects →

Spatial Process

Baller et al. (2001)W: weight matrix for the neighborhood structure

How to define neighbors for weight matrix?

First order queen convention Islands are connected with the nearest and

historically tied prefectures.

Aomori

Nagano

Okinawa

Kagoshima

Hokkaido

9

Models

ΔTFR (2005-2008) = Constant

+ (1)Δ Late fertility (2005-2008)

+ (2)ΔTFR inflated by foreign mothers (2005-2008)

+ (3)Δ Employment rate (2002-2007)

+ (4)Δ Labor force participation rate among mothers

having preschool children living in a nuclear

family (2002-2007)

+ (5) Proportion of extended families among households

including preschool children (fixed effect) (2005)

(+ spatial term λWu)

10

TFR increase in Japan

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Tot

al fe

rtili

ty ra

te b

y pa

rity

Year

TFR3

TFR1

TFR2

TFR4+

Δ All birth TFR (2005-2008)

0.00887 - 0.05465

0.05466 - 0.08132

0.08133 - 0.10677

0.10678 - 0.12145

0.12146 - 0.16284

11

Explanatory variables

Δ All birth late fertility (2005-2008)

0.01075 - 0.03425

0.03426 - 0.03975

0.03976 - 0.04539

0.04540 - 0.04829

0.04830 - 0.05754

Δ All birth TFR inflated by non-Japanese mothers

-0.00470 - -0.00106

-0.00105 - 0.00036

0.00037 - 0.00136

0.00137 - 0.00278

0.00279 - 0.00847

Δ Employment rate

-0.00100 - 0.00900

0.00901 - 0.01200

0.01201 - 0.01400

0.01401 - 0.01700

0.01701 - 0.02700

Δ Maternal labor force participation

-0.00659 - 0.02889

0.02890 - 0.05073

0.05074 - 0.06264

0.06265 - 0.09869

0.09870 - 0.16361

Extended family household

7.9% - 14.5%

14.6% - 19.3%

19.4% - 26.8%

26.9% - 36.6%

36.7% - 50.1%

Δ Late fertility Δ Foreign mothers

Δ Employment rate

Δ MLFP Extended family households

12

0.34 ***

Tempo Δ Late fertility [+] 0.46 *** 0.52 *** 0.54 ***

Immigration Δ Foreign mother [+] 0.20 # 0.29 ** 0.29 ***

Economy Δ Employment rate [+] 0.18 # 0.18 * 0.18 *

Policy(Work and family reconciliation)

Δ Maternal LFP [+] -0.16 -0.22 * -0.22 **

Contextual (fixed)Extended family

household[-] -0.25 # -0.07 -0.07

0.15

0.64 0.80

-248 -259 -258

0.13 * 0.10 # 0.05

*** p<.001 ** p<.01 * p<.05 # p<.1

Variables and expected directions WLS

AIC

Spatial autocorrelation of residuals (Moran's I )

WSE

Spatial autocorrelation of Y (Moran's I )Standardized coefficient

spatial autoregressive coefficient (Lambda)

R-squared

Univariate OLS

Change in 1st order TFR

13

0.34 ***

Tempo Δ Late fertility [+] 0.41 *** 0.31 * 0.35 ***

Immigration Δ Foreign mother [+] 0.44 *** 0.39 *** 0.46 ***

Economy Δ Employment rate [+] 0.07 0.07 0.05

Policy(Work and family reconciliation)

Δ Maternal LFP [+] -0.07 -0.02 -0.06

Contextual (fixed)Extended family

household[-] -0.16 -0.25 * -0.25 **

0.43 ***

0.62 0.68

-299 -305 -314

0.35 *** 0.36 *** -0.03

*** p<.001 ** p<.01 * p<.05 # p<.1

Variables and expected directions WLS

AIC

Spatial autocorrelation of residuals (Moran's I )

WSE

Spatial autocorrelation of Y (Moran's I )Standardized coefficient

spatial autoregressive coefficient (Lambda)

R-squared

Univariate OLS

Change in 2nd order TFR

14

Tempo Δ Late fertility [+] + *** + *** + *** + *** + ***

Immigration Δ Foreign mother [+] + ** + *** + + *** + ***

Economy Δ Employment rate [+] + * + - - +

Policy Δ Maternal LFP [+] - * - - - * - *

Contextual (fixed) Extended family [-] - - ** + # + ** - #

+ *** + *** + *

All birth

spatial autoregressive coefficient (Lambda )

Birth order 1st birth 2nd birth 3rd birth 4th birth

WSE WSE WSEWLS WLSSelected model

Selected models

15

-0.04

-0.02

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

TFR1 TFR2 TFR3 TFR4+ TFR*

(WLS) (WSE) (WLS) (WSE) Σ(TFRi)

Δ Employment rate (Economy)

Δ Foreign mother (Immigration)

Δ Late fertility (Tempo effect)

Common effect

Δ Maternal LFP (Policy on W/F reconciliation)

Actual change in TFR

Δ TF

R (2

005-

2008

)Predicted values of national TFR increase by selected models

16

Variances of TFR change explained by the selected model and contribution by each factor

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

TFR1 TFR2 TFR3 TFR4 TFR

Extended family household(Familistic culture)

Δ Maternal LFP (Policy on W/F reconciliation)

Δ Employment rate (Economy)

Δ Foreign mother (Immigration)

Δ Late fertility (Tempo effect)

Con

trib

utio

n to

tot

al v

aria

nce

in Δ

TFR

(200

5-20

08)

17

TFR increase explained by spatial term in the spatial error model

“Hot spot” clusters (area surrounded by neighbors with high TFR increase)

Advantageous conditions for fertility behaviors

Adoption/diffusion? Social competition or social emulation mechanism? Grouping responses?

18

Summary of results

Fertility upturn in Japan can be explained by

Elimination of tempo effect ? - Yes

Increase in foreign mothers ? - Yes

Economic improvement ? - Yes for 1st order TFR

Policy improvement on work/family reconciliation ? - No

Familistic culture is negatively associated with TFR change?

- Yes for low-parity birth

- No for high-parity birth

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Year

Num

ber

of in

tern

atio

nal m

arri

ages

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

TFR

Non-Japanese wife (N)Non-Japanese husband (N)TFR

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Year

Une

mpl

oym

ent r

ate(

%)

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

TFR

Unemployment rate

TFR

19

Discussions- Fertility increase will continue?

Downturn in international marriages and recession in the past several years may have negative impact?

20

Discussions- Fertility increase will continue?

Will “catching up” fertility behavior of women who deferred childbearing become commonplace?

1st birth

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

19

90

19

95

20

00

20

05

20

10

2nd birth

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6 1

99

0

19

95

20

00

20

05

20

10

3rd birth

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

19

90

19

95

20

00

20

05

20

10

15～19

20～24

25～29

30～34

35～39

40～44

45～49

Hazard rates of childbearing based on cohort fertility trajectory

Calendar year

21

Discussions- Fertility increase will continue?

Whether catch-up behavior is followed by subsequent generations depends on working conditions of older mothers

Over half of mothers whose children were on the waiting list for day-care eventually gave up re-entering employment in the metropolitan area(11.16. 2009).

Firing due to pregnancy or taking parental leave dramatically increased (12. 25. 2009)

Thank you

23

Late fertility

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Fer

tility

rat

e

Age

TFR 2002

TFR 2005

TFR 2008

All birth

Late fertility

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Fer

tility

rat

e

Age

1st birth

2nd birth

3rd birth

4th+ birth

Late fertility