Geographic variation in parity progression in Australia

Abstract

Australia has moderately high fertility compared to many Western-industrialized countries. The current total fertility rate is around 1.88, but fertility levels are not uniform across the country.There is a distinct geographic pattern with the total fertility rate about 0.5 higher in remote and very remote Australia (2.33) compared to major cities (1.82). In this paper, we examine 2 explanations for this pattern: the compositional hypothesis and the contextual hypothesis. Using event-history methods with joint modelling to investigate parity progression, we find that after taking into account differences in age, country of birth, indigenous status, relationship status, education levels, and economic activity, women living in smaller towns in regional Australia are more likely to have a first, second, and third birth. Further, there is lower propensity to have a first child in inner or middle city areas that are characterized by smaller and more expensive housing than suburban or regional areas. Fertility rates also differ considerably across the country and are significantly higher in smaller towns and remote localities compared to cities. The national total fertility rate (TFR) is 1.88, but in remote parts of Australia, it is 2.33, and in major cities, it is just 1.82 (ABS, 2014a).1 The highly urbanized nature of the Australian population means that the national TFR is strongly affected by the fertility levels in cities where the majority of people live. However, the higher fertility levels of rural areas have an important elevating effect on national TFR, as seen in Figure 1.To date, few studies have examined the geographic distribution of fertility in Australia in any depth. In this paper, individual-level longitudinal (2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012) (Fiori, Graham, & Feng, 2014), and other European countries (Basten, Huinink, & Klüsener, 2011). Although these studies have used different approaches and different levels of geographic disaggregation, they all observe considerable spatial variation in fertility and higher rates of childbearing in rural areas.Two explanations have been suggested for this pattern. One is the compositional hypothesis that posits that people living in urban and rural areas have different socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, such as education levels or age profiles, and if these characteristics are also related to fertility that could explain why fertility levels may differ across geographic areas (Fulda, 2015). The contextual hypothesis, on the other hand, suggests that there is something more, over, and above a compositional effect, which has a positive or negative effect on fertility. Contextual factors could include structural reasons such as differences in local labour markets, environmental factors, or differences in cultures and attitudes regarding childbearing (Basten et al., 2011). | Compositional effectsMuch of the urban-rural differences in fertility are thought to be due to a compositional effect or "residential...

Identifying interaction effects using random fertility shocks

“…Research from related fields supports the notion that the propensity to have three children is correlated within networks. Three-child families are found to be clustered in space (see Fiori, Graham, and Feng (2014) for Britain, Gray and Evans (2014) for Australia, Bergsvik, Lappegård, and Skardhamar (2016) for Norway), indicating geographic self-selection based on preferences for family size, and/or neighborhood interaction effects for the propensity to have a third child. Similarly, parity-specific analyses reveal that third births also correlate across generations (Cools and Hart 2017), and there is also some evidence that this positive relationship is causal for men (ibid.…”

How will COVID-19 impact Australia's future population? A scenario approach

“…In 2019 the Total Fertility Rate reached a new low of 1.66. However, this is still higher than many other Western industrialised countries ( Gray & Evans, 2018 ). This trend is assumed to continue, with no recovery of fertility rates assumed in the near future ( ABS, 2018 ).…”

The Dynamics of Family Formation and Dissolution

“…This is mainly because more educated women have their children at older ages. Gray and Evans (2018) also found that socioeconomic conditions had an influence on regional variation in parity progression in Australia. Women living in smaller towns were more likely to have first, second and third births than those in large urban centres, with results indicating that fertility differences were due in part to socioeconomic factors such as urban and regional differences in housing size and affordability.…”