Effect of fertility preferences in the number of children. Comparison among Peruvian female workers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24265/horizmed.2018.v18n3.07Keywords:
Fertility, Employment, Reproductive behaviorAbstract
Objective: To evaluate fertility preferences on decreasing the number of children by comparing types of employment in Peruvian female workers. Materials and methods: A secondary analysis of the 2014 National Demographic and Family Health Survey (ENDES) was conducted. The study sample consisted of 13,074 female workers of childbearing age who had sexual intercourse in the last 30 days. The dependent variable was the total number of live births. The main independent variables were fertility preferences (ideal number of children and birth spacing preference), age at first marriage, and wealth index. The odds ratio calculation was used for ordinal logistic regression analysis. Results: The average of live births among female employees is lower (1.49) than that among female self-employed (2.44). This situation is associated with decreased fertility: the ideal number of children is from zero to two (Coeff. = -0.38, OR = 0.68, 95 % CI = 0.47-0.99), and birth spacing preference accounts for four years (Coeff. = -0.68, OR = 0.51, 95 % CI = 0.38-0.69). Conclusions: There are differences between fertility preferences in both groups. However, their impact on decreasing fertility is similar. Inequalities regarding the number of children among the groups relate to differences in the effect of direct and indirect determinants that are more emphasized in female employees. Women tend to adjust their reproductive behavior to work life, by giving it priority over the fulfillment of the reproductive ideal.
Downloads
References
Amarante, V, Cabella W. La brecha entre la fecundidad deseada y la observada en Montevideo y su Área Metropolitana. Notas de Población. 2015; 100: 11-34.
Casterline J, Mendoza J. Unwanted fertility in Latin America: historical trends, recent patterns. En Demographic transformations and inequalities in Latin America: historical trends and recent patterns. Cavenaghi S, editores. Rio de Janeiro: Alap. 2009; 193-218.
Rosero Bixby L, Castro Martín T, Martín García T. Is Latin America starting to retreat from early and universal childbearing? Demographic Res. 2009; 20(9): 169-194.
Matysiak A, Vignoli, D. Fertility and women’s employment: A meta-analysis. Eur J Popul, 2008; 24(4): 363-384.
Ohlsson-Wijk, S. Workplace Sex Composition and the Transition to Parenthood–Men and Women in Sweden [internet]. Frescati: Stockholm Research Reports in Demography; 2015. Disponible en: http://www.suda.su.se/SRRD/SRRD_2015_12.pdf
Balbo N, Billari FC, Mills M. Fertility in advanced societies: A review of research. Eur J Popul. 2013; 29(1): 1-38.
Hakim C. A new approach to explaining fertility patterns: Preference theory. Population Dev Rev. 2003; 29(3): 349-374.
Bongaarts J. Fertility and reproductive preferences in post- transitional societies. Population Dev Rev. 2001; 27: 260-281.
Ministerio de trabajo y Promoción del Empleo. Empleo en el Perú - 2005 [internet]. Lima, Perú: MINTRA; 2005. Disponible en: http://www.mintra.gob.pe/archivos/file/estadisticas/peel/enaho/ENAHO_2005 _I.pdf
Ministerio de trabajo y Promoción del Empleo. Informe Anual 2014: La mujer en el mercado laboral [internet]. Lima, Perú: MINTRA; 2015. Disponible en: http://www.mintra.gob.pe/archivos/file/estadisticas/peel/enaho/INFORME_ ANUAL_EMPLEO_ENAHO_2014.pdf
Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas e Informática Encuesta Demográfica y de Salud Familiar 2014 [internet]. Lima, Perú: INEI; 2014. Disponible en: http://www.inei.gob.pe/media/MenuRecursivo/publicaciones_digitales/Est/ Lib1211/pdf/Libro.pdf
Adsera A, Menéndez A. Fertility changes in Latin America in the context of economic uncertainty. Popul Stud. 2011; 65(1):37-56.
Majumder N, Ram F. Explaining the Role of Proximate Determinants on Fertility Decline among Poor and Non-Poor in Asian Countries. PloS one. 2015; 10(2): 1-27.
Mills M, Rindfuss RR, McDonald P, te Velde E. Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. Hum Reprod Update. 2011; 17(6): 848-860.
McDonald P. An assessment of policies that support having children from the perspectives of equity, efficiency and efficacy. Vienna Yearb Popul Res. 2006; 213-234.
Goldstein J, Lutz W, Testa MR. The emergence of sub- replacement family size ideals in Europe. Popul Res Policy 46 Horiz Med 2018; 18(3): 37-47 Yordanis Enríquez Canto, Katherine Jenny Ortiz Romaní, Yonathan Josué Ortiz Montalvo Rev 2003; 22:479-496.
Testa MR. Family sizes in Europe: evidence from the 2011 Eurobarometer Survey Contents [internet]. Vienna Institute of Demography of the Austrian Academy of Sciences: Testa MR; 2012. Disponible en: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maria_Testa/publication/263051049_ Family_Sizes_in_Europe_Evidence_from_the_2011_Eurobarometer_Survey_ Contents/links/0c960539aac38d1098000000.pdf
May JF. World population policies: their origin, evolution, and impact. Population (French Edition). 2012; 67(4): 811-813.
Hakim C. Women’s lifestyle preferences in the 21st century: implications for family policy. The future of motherhood in Western societies. Netherlands: Springer; 2011. P. 177-195.
Moultrie T, Dorrington R, Hill, A, Hill, K, Timæus I, Zaba B. Tools for demographic estimation. Paris: International Union for the Scientific Study of Population. 2013.
Bongaarts J. A framework for analyzing the proximate determinants of fertility. Popul Dev Rev. 1978; 4: 105-132.
Bongaarts J, Watkins SC. Social interactions and contemporary fertility transitions. Population Dev Rev. 1996; 22: 639-682.
Stover J. Revising the Proximate Determinants of Fertility Framework. Stud Fam Plan. 1998; 9(3):255-267.
Adhikari R. Demographic, socio-economic, and cultural factors affecting fertility differentials in Nepal. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2010; 10(1):19.
Mesa CA, Junca GA. Análisis de reducción de la fecundidad en Colombia: Modelo de determinantes próximos. Cuad. Econ. 2011; 30(54): 127-150.
Van C. Desired and achieved fertility. Dynamics of fertility and partnership in Europe: insights and lessons from comparative research. United Nations Publications. 2002; 2:117-141.
Van Bavel J. Subreplacement fertility in the West before the baby boom: Past and current perspectives. Population Studies. 2010; 64(1):1-18.
Di Cesare M. Patrones emergentes en la fecundidad y la salud reproductiva y sus vínculos con la pobreza en América Latina y el Caribe [internet]. Santiago de Chile: CELADE; 2007. Disponible en: http://200.9.3.98/bitstream/handle/11362/7211/S0700009_es.pdf?sequence=1
Pardo I, Varela C. La fecundidad bajo el reemplazo y las políticas familiares en América Latina y el Caribe: qué puede aprenderse de la experiencia europea. Rev bras estud popul.2013; 30(2): 503-518.
Ndahindwa V, Kamanzi C, Semakula M, Abalikumwe F, Hedt- Gauthier B, Thomson DR. Determinants of fertility in Rwanda in the context of a fertility transition: a secondary analysis of the 2010 Demographic and Health Survey. Reprod Health. 2014; 11(1): 1-9.
Davia MÁ, Legazpe N. Factores determinantes en la decisión de tener el primer hijo en las mujeres españolas. Pap Poblac. 2013; 19(75):183-212.
Fagbamigbe AF, Adebowale AS. Current and Predicted Fertility using Poisson Regression Model: Evidence from 2008 Nigerian Demographic Health Survey. Afr J Reprod Health. 2014; 18(1):71-83.
Pradhan A, Pandey S. Fertility Desire of Working Women in Kathmandu J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2010; 8(17): 95-8.
Larrañaga O. Participación Laboral de la Mujer en Chile: 1958-2003. [Internet] Departamento de Economía Universidad de Chile: Larrañaga O; 2006 [citado el 19 de mayo 2016]. Disponible en: http://economia.uahurtado.cl/pdf/seminarios/larranaga.pdf
Davia MÁ, Legazpe N. Factores determinantes en la decisión de tener el primer hijo en las mujeres españolas. Pap Poblac. 2013;19(75):183-212.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Horizonte Médico (Lima)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Horizonte Médico (Lima) (Horiz. Med.) journal’s research outputs are published free of charge and are freely available to download under the open access model, aimed at disseminating works and experiences developed in biomedical and public health areas, both nationally and internationally, and promoting research in the different fields of human medicine. All manuscripts accepted and published in the journal are distributed free of charge under the terms of a Creative Commons license – Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
