Are the total fertility rates of men and women different at below-replacement levels? An answer obtained from the G7 countries

Nan Li
{"title":"Are the total fertility rates of men and women different at below-replacement levels? An answer obtained from the G7 countries","authors":"Nan Li","doi":"10.1007/s42379-023-00141-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A child is born to a father and a mother. This fact, however, is yet to be recognized by demography, in which fertility refers to women’s natural ability to give birth. The main reason for the absence of men is that data on births are more often available for women than for men. But in the last few decades, data availability has greatly improved. Recent studies show that total fertility rates (TFRs) of men can be calculated for most countries in the world and that the difference between the TFRs of men and women can be quite large. For low-fertility countries, nonetheless, these studies show little difference between the TFRs of men and women, giving rise to the question: Is men’s fertility worth further investigation? To avoid ambiguity in describing a particular difference as small or big, this paper provides a formula for probabilistic TFRs. Using hypothesis test on probabilistic TFRs, we can say that the difference between the TFRs of men and women is statistically significant for all the G7 countries, except for France. To explain the differences between the TFRs of men and women, this study uses models of stable populations and concludes that the one-sex stable population models cannot explain the results whereas a two-sex joint stable population model can do so. By using the two-sex population model, we can explain why the TFR of men in France is almost the same as that of women, and why it is lower than that of women in the other six G7 countries. More specifically, by using the model, we can help explain 76% of the variance in the difference between the TFRs of men and women. Future studies may be able to show that men’s TFR is significantly lower than women’s in other countries too and explain why it is so. The above findings, however, require closer attention and further investigation, because low fertility could lead to socioeconomic problems. Beyond TFRs, extending fertility studies from women to men as well, that is, conducting fertility studies on both women and men, will fundamentally improve our knowledge about fertility age patterns, trends, determinants, policies and other related issues.","PeriodicalId":72578,"journal":{"name":"China population and development studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"China population and development studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42379-023-00141-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract A child is born to a father and a mother. This fact, however, is yet to be recognized by demography, in which fertility refers to women’s natural ability to give birth. The main reason for the absence of men is that data on births are more often available for women than for men. But in the last few decades, data availability has greatly improved. Recent studies show that total fertility rates (TFRs) of men can be calculated for most countries in the world and that the difference between the TFRs of men and women can be quite large. For low-fertility countries, nonetheless, these studies show little difference between the TFRs of men and women, giving rise to the question: Is men’s fertility worth further investigation? To avoid ambiguity in describing a particular difference as small or big, this paper provides a formula for probabilistic TFRs. Using hypothesis test on probabilistic TFRs, we can say that the difference between the TFRs of men and women is statistically significant for all the G7 countries, except for France. To explain the differences between the TFRs of men and women, this study uses models of stable populations and concludes that the one-sex stable population models cannot explain the results whereas a two-sex joint stable population model can do so. By using the two-sex population model, we can explain why the TFR of men in France is almost the same as that of women, and why it is lower than that of women in the other six G7 countries. More specifically, by using the model, we can help explain 76% of the variance in the difference between the TFRs of men and women. Future studies may be able to show that men’s TFR is significantly lower than women’s in other countries too and explain why it is so. The above findings, however, require closer attention and further investigation, because low fertility could lead to socioeconomic problems. Beyond TFRs, extending fertility studies from women to men as well, that is, conducting fertility studies on both women and men, will fundamentally improve our knowledge about fertility age patterns, trends, determinants, policies and other related issues.
在低于更替水平的情况下,男性和女性的总生育率是否不同?这是G7国家给出的答案
孩子是父亲和母亲所生。然而,人口统计学尚未认识到这一事实,其中生育率指的是妇女的自然生育能力。男性缺席的主要原因是女性的出生数据比男性更容易获得。但在过去的几十年里,数据的可用性有了很大的提高。最近的研究表明,可以计算出世界上大多数国家的男子总生育率,男女总生育率之间的差别可能相当大。然而,对于低生育率国家来说,这些研究显示男性和女性的总生育率之间几乎没有差异,这就引发了一个问题:男性的生育能力值得进一步调查吗?为了避免在描述一个特定的差异是小还是大时产生歧义,本文提供了一个概率tfr的公式。通过对概率TFRs的假设检验,我们可以说,除了法国之外,七国集团中所有国家的男女TFRs的差异都具有统计学意义。为了解释男女tfr之间的差异,本研究使用了稳定种群模型,并得出结论:单性别稳定种群模型不能解释结果,而两性联合稳定种群模型可以解释结果。通过使用两性人口模型,我们可以解释为什么法国男性的TFR与女性几乎相同,为什么它低于其他六个G7国家的女性。更具体地说,通过使用该模型,我们可以帮助解释男性和女性tfr之间差异的76%的方差。未来的研究可能会表明,在其他国家,男性的总生育率也明显低于女性,并解释为什么会这样。然而,上述发现需要更密切的关注和进一步的调查,因为低生育率可能导致社会经济问题。除了tfr,将生育研究从女性扩展到男性,即对女性和男性进行生育研究,将从根本上提高我们对生育年龄模式、趋势、决定因素、政策和其他相关问题的认识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信