By G. Groenewold
Introduction
In this chapter, we examine the influence of some socio-economic characteristics, including people's livelihoods, on fertility. More specifically, we consider the linkages between gender, education, household financial situation, perceived poverty and the ownership status of major means of production on the one hand, and the number of children ever born (CEB), the perceived ideal number of children, and the perception of what constitutes a small family, on the other hand. The perceived financial situation of the household is correlated with the perceived poverty status; nevertheless, we use both variables because the former relates to the perceived capacity to provide for the basic food and water supplies, while the latter is indicative of whether households feel financially deprived, compared to the other households in their environment.
The focus is on four of the six countries: Senegal, India, Malaysia and the Philippines. This decision is based on the following considerations: (a) the limitations of survey data from Tanzania and Bangladesh as discussed in chapter 4 pose conceptual problems to which the analyses of this chapter are sensitive; (b) previous analyses revealed that the households of these two countries do not differ much between types of community regarding the number of children ever born and children surviving (see tables 35 and 37).
We are primarily interested here in assessing the influence that the selected socioeconomic factors may have on fertility, within the two community types respectively. Therefore, results are not standardized for differences in age distribution between community types.
The analyses are based on information from married male and female respondents. However, in the Philippines, the values in tables 45, 46 and 47 are based on data from all the women aged 15–49, because of the low number of married women actually interviewed. The shaded areas in the tables indicate that the characteristic was not an important element of livelihood in the community (e.g. the use and ownership status of agricultural land by fisherfolk in fishing communities). Moreover, the stated values in these shaded areas are frequently based on a small number of respondents.
Observed fertility: children ever born
In all the countries and practically all the communities studied, women with higher levels of education had on average a lower number of births, particularly in Senegalese and Malaysian fishing communities. Moreover, in all the communities, except in Senegalese farming communities, there was a substantial difference in women educated above primary school level. Women with a secondary education or higher reported fewer births than women with no or only a primary school education. Overall, the education factor affected the number of childbirths in both types of communities to about the same degree.
With the exception of fisherfolk households in Senegal, women in households who perceived the financial situation of the household to be satisfactory had lower fertility levels. Conversely, women in the poorest households had more children. Focus group discussions in Senegal and Malaysia mentioned the pros and cons of having many children. In the absence of institutional old-age support, parents expected financial support from their children, especially from sons. Table 45 suggests that this is more prevalent among poor fisherfolk households than among poor farming households. The exception to this was the women in richer fisherfolk households in Senegal who had more children than women from poorer households. This finding may not be unexpected because, as we have seen in the previous chapters, fisheries in Senegalese communities were perceived to be very profitable. Having more children, especially sons, could further contribute to the family welfare, especially among boat owners and kin-based work groups. As shown in Table 45, fisherfolk households that owned or shared boats had more children than non-owners of this essential means of production. Senegalese fishing households also stated the highest ideal number of children, and reported the highest standard concerning the number of persons deemed to constitute a ‘small’ family.
| Characteristic | Senegal | India | Malaysia | Philippines 36 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fish. | Farm. | Fish. | Farm. | Fish. | Farm. | Fish. | Farm. | |
| Age group: | ||||||||
| 15–19 | 1.3 | 2.0 | (a) | (c) | (a) | (c) | 0.0 | 0.1 |
| 20–24 | 2.3 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 0.5 | (b) | 1.0 | 0.7 |
| 25–29 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 1.9 | 1.5 |
| 30–34 | 4.3 | 4.2 | 3.3 | 2.4 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 3.8 | 5.5 |
| 35–39 | 4.9 | 4.7 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 5.0 | 4.1 |
| 40–44 | 5.6 | 6.5 | 3.9 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 5.4 | 3.4 |
| 45–49 | 7.9 | 4.3 | 4.7 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 4.2 | 3.7 |
| Level of education of respondent | ||||||||
| Illiterate/Pre-school | 4.1 | 3.8 | 3.6 | 3.0 | 2.2 | 1.7 | (a) | (c) |
| Primary | 3.7 | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.3 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 3.6 | 4.0 |
| Secondary and higher | 2.7 | 5.3 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 2.7 | 2.1 |
| Financial situation of household | ||||||||
| Sufficient | 4.7 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 2.4 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 2.6 | 2.1 |
| Barely sufficient | 3.2 | 3.0 | 3.7 | 3.2 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 3.7 | 2.6 |
| Insufficient | 4.3 | 4.2 | 3.9 | 2.8 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 3.0 | 2.1 |
| Financial situation of household relative to other households: | ||||||||
| Better off | 4.8 | 3.9 | 3.0 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 4.9 | 4.5 |
| About the same | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.3 | 2.8 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 2.8 | 2.1 |
| Worse off | 5.1 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 2.8 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 3.2 | 3.0 |
| Household ownership of agricultural land: | ||||||||
| Operates own land | 3.4 | 3.9 | (c) | 2.8 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 2.2 | 2.6 |
| Operates rented land | (a) | 3.4 | (c) | 2.9 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 2.8(b) | 2.3 |
| Does not operate land | 3.9 | 3.7 | 3.3 | 1.8 | 1.2 | (c) | 3.0 | (a) |
| Household ownership of boats: | ||||||||
| Owns boats | ||||||||
| Shared ownership of boats | 4.4 | (c) | 3.1 | (c) | 1.1 | 1.3 | 2.8 | (a) |
| No ownership of boats | 4.6 | 3.3 | 3.2 | (c) | 1.0 | (a) | 1.4 | (c) |
| 3.3 | 2.9 | 3.4 | 2.2(b) | 1.3 | 1.4 | 3.8 | (c) | |
a) The average value is based on a very small number of respondents (less than five) and is not reported.
b) The average value is based on a small number of respondents (five to 10).
c) There are no respondents with this characteristic.
Fisheries in India and the Philippines were no longer perceived to be a profitable livelihood. The strong relationship between fertility and ownership of boats observed in Senegal was not present. Concomitantly, the ideal number of children was about the same, or even less than the ideal number stated by non boat-owners. A similar pattern was observed among farmers. Women in farming households who owned and farmed their land had more children than those who rented farmland or had no land (i.e. agricultural labourers).
Fertility norms: ideal number of children
The ideal number of children reported by respondents tells something about their fertility aspirations. As can be verified in Table 46, in all communities and irrespective of community type, younger people reported a lower ideal number of children than older people. These differences are greater among fisherfolk than among farmers.
The education level of a respondent seemed to affect his/her fertility aspirations: an education above primary school is associated with significantly lower fertility aspirations. This effect is correlated with that of age, to the extent that younger generations are better educated.
Overall, the fertility aspirations of men were much higher than those of women, particularly among fisherfolk. The consequence of this, given the generally low status of women in the households, is that fertility aspirations of husbands may eventually cause women to have more children that they desire, as shown in tables 35 and 37.
There is no consistent relationship between the two poverty indicators (“perceived financial situation of the household” and “perceived financial situation relative to other households”) and fertility aspirations across countries. However, this may be due to the influence that some underlying factors have on such relationships, such as the “perceived profitability of the livelihood”. For instance, in Senegal, where fisheries was perceived to be a profitable undertaking, households that thought themselves financially worse-off or better-off expressed a higher ideal number of children.
In an environment where having more children is thought to be economically advantageous, people worse-off or relatively better off thought they gained the most by having many children. In India, Malaysia and the Philippines, however, fisheries were no longer perceived to be a profitable undertaking. Households that considered themselves financially better off in absolute and relative terms, such as those who owned boats, focused more on the net cost of children and the threat this posed to their household income. These households expressed a lower ideal number of children.
Conversely, the poorest and most deprived households did not consider the net cost of children, but how children could contribute in the future alleviation of poverty and the aversion of further financial risks in their parents old age. Consequently, this type of household expressed a high ideal number of children.
The relationship between the ideal number of children and indicators of poverty and ownership status of the main production assets is supported by the data in table 46.
| Characteristic | Senegal | India | Malaysia | Philippines 37 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fish. | Farm. | Fish. | Farm. | Fish. | Farm. | Fish. | Farm. | |
| Age group: | ||||||||
| 15–24 | 6.9 | 9.6 | 2.1 | 2.3(a) | 4.6 | 4.3 | 3.1 | 2.7 |
| 25–34 | 9.3 | 8.6 | 2.4 | 2.3 | 5.1 | 5.1 | 3.8 | 4.1 |
| 35–44 | 10.8 | 8.6 | 2.8 | 2.3 | 5.9 | 5.2 | 4.2 | 5.2 |
| 45 and above | 15.6 | 16.1 | 3.2 | 2.6 | 7.0 | 5.8 | 5.1 | 4.3 |
| Sex of respondent: | ||||||||
| Male | 12.2 | 12.0 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 6.6 | 5.8 | 4.3 | 4.0 |
| Female | 8.1 | 8.4 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 5.5 | 5.1 | 3.6 | 3.0 |
| Level of education of respondent: | ||||||||
| Illiterate/Pre-school | 10.9 | 10.3 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 6.5 | 5.1 | 4.0 | 3.8 |
| Primary | 9.4 | 6.0 | 2.7 | 2.9 | 6.4 | 5.9 | 4.6 | 4.3 |
| Secondary and higher | 5.3 | 9.8(a) | 2.5 | 2.2 | 5.2 | 5.1 | 3.6 | 3.4 |
| Financial situation of household: | ||||||||
| Sufficient | 11.7 | 12.3 | 2.6 | 2.4 | 6.0 | 5.5 | 3.9 | 3.7 |
| Barely sufficient | 8.9 | 8.6 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 7.8 | 5.5 | 4.2 | 3.7 |
| Insufficient | 11.6 | 10.6 | 2.8 | 2.5 | 5.9 | 5.1 | 4.5 | 3.8 |
| Financial situation of household relative to other households: | ||||||||
| Better off | 9.2 | 14.6 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 5.6 | 5.9 | 4.1 | 4.6 |
| About the same | 11.1 | 9.5 | 2.7 | 2.4 | 6.1 | 5.5 | 3.9 | 3.7 |
| Worse off | 7.3 | 8.3 | 2.8 | 2.3 | 5.7 | 5.0 | 4.2 | 3.8 |
| Household ownership of agricultural land: | ||||||||
| Operates own land | 12.6 | 9.4 | (c) | 2.4 | 6.0 | 5.3 | 4.4 | 3.7 |
| Operates rented land | (b) | 11.2 | (c) | 2.4 | 5.8 | 5.6 | 4.4 | 3.7 |
| Does not operate land | 9.3 | 12.0 | 2.7 | 2.1 | 5.9 | (c) | 3.9 | 3.5 |
| Household ownership of boats: | ||||||||
| Owns boats | 12.8 | (c) | 2.5 | (c) | 6.1 | 5.6 | 4.1 | (b) |
| Shared ownership of boats | 10.9 | 13.0 | 2.6 | (c) | 7.0 | 5.5 | 3.1 | (c) |
| No ownership of boats | 7.6 | (c) | 2.8 | 2.3 | 6.0 | 6.5 | 4.2 | (c) |
(a) The average value is based on a small number of respondents (5 to 10).
(b) The average value is based on a very small number of respondents (less than 5) and is suppressed
(c) There are no respondents with this characteristic.
Perceptions of family size
The survey collected information on what number of persons the respondents felt representative of a ‘small family’ (see Table 47). Knowledge of people's attitudes in this area is potentially important for policy makers and programme implementers, because population and development programmes that seek to affect fertility levels directly (family planning) or that do so indirectly (poverty alleviation) will be more successful, other things being equal, in environments where family size standards are low, compared to attained average fertility levels.
| Characteristic | Senegal | India | Malaysia | Philippines38 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fish. | Farm. | Fish. | Farm. | Fish. | Farm. | Fish. | Farm. | |
| Age group: | ||||||||
| 15–24 | 5.5 | 5.4 | 1.9 | 1.3(a) | 2.6 | 2.0 | 2.6 | 2.8 |
| 25–34 | 6.3 | 4.8 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 2.8 | 2.9 |
| 35–44 | 8.5 | 4.9 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 5.6 |
| 45 and above | 7.8 | 5.6 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Sex of respondent: | ||||||||
| Male | 6.8 | 5.5 | 2.3 | 2.0 | 2.8 | 2.1 | 2.7 | 2.8 |
| Female | 6.2 | 4.8 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 2.8 | 2.4 | 2.7 | 2.8 |
| Level of education of respondent: | ||||||||
| Illiterate/Pre-school | 6.6 | 5.0 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 2.2 | (b) | (b) |
| Primary | 7.7 | 4.8 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Secondary and higher | 3.8 | 4.3 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 2.7 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 2.7 |
| Financial situation of household: | ||||||||
| Sufficient | 4.8 | 7.8 | 2.3 | 2.0 | 2.8 | 2.3 | 2.6 | 2.7 |
| Barely sufficient | 4.8 | 4.5 | 2.1 | 1.7 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 2.8 | 2.8 |
| Insufficient | 8.4 | 5.0 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 3.0 | 2.2 | 2.9 | 3.0 |
| Financial situation of household relative to other households: | ||||||||
| Better off | 5.8 | 7.6 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 3.6 | 2.1 | 2.8 | (b) |
| About the same | 7.0 | 5.0 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 2.8 | 2.3 | 2.7 | 2.8 |
| Worse off | 4.6 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 2.8 | 2.8 |
| Household ownership of agricultural land: | ||||||||
| Operates own land | 7.9 | 5.0 | (c) | 1.7 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.8 |
| Operates rented land | 8.3 | 5.4 | (c) | 2.0 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 2.7 | 2.9 |
| Does not operate land | 5.8 | 4.5 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 2.8 | (c) | 2.8 | (b) |
| Household ownership of boats: | ||||||||
| Owns boats | 8.0 | (c) | 2.2 | (c) | 2.9 | 2.1(a) | 2.7 | (b) |
| Shared ownership of boats | 3.5 | 6.9 | 2.6 | (c) | 2.6(a) | (b) | 2.5 | (c) |
| No ownership of boats | 3.8 | 6.5 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.8 | (c) |
(a) The average value is based on a small number of respondents (5 to 10).
(b) The average value is based on a very small number of respondents (less than 5) and is suppressed.
(c) There are no respondents with this characteristic.
The findings on ‘small family’ size norms are largely consistent with those on the ideal numbers of children. Except in Senegal, in all the communities the perception of what constitutes a small family hovers between two and three children. Consistent with previous findings, younger and more educated respondents placed the ‘small family’ level lower than older and less educated respondents. Moreover, men, particularly fishermen, had on average higher ‘small family’ norms than women.
In Senegal, the community fertility levels, ideal number of children and ‘small family’ norms are much higher than in the other countries: there, a ‘small family’ may consist of four to eight persons. The fact that polygamous marriage arrangements are quite common in Senegal influences the concept of how many persons make up a small family. The concept of family, therefore, is probably interpreted as a household consisting of more than one nuclear family, in which the nuclei may even reside in different geographical places (i.e. multi-residential households).
No consistent and easily interpretable pattern was observed in the values of the ‘small family’ norm of households that had a different level of poverty and a different ownership status of the principal means of production.
Conclusions
Across countries and communities, it was observed that the higher education level of women was associated with fewer births, particularly if women were educated above primary school. It would be useful to understand what views and attitudes regarding the costs and benefits of children, or their emotional value — or indeed any other factor — are modified under the influence of education.
Although women in households who perceived their financial situation to be “sufficient” generally had less children, the same pattern was not always observed among those who considered their household to be “better off” than others. In fact, the patterns were not always very consistent; this may be due to the variability associated with small numbers of respondents and the effect of other factors such as age.
Based on the above-mentioned findings, it is hypothesized that the relationship between the number of children, poverty indicators and ownership of the main production factor may be affected by the underlying factor “perceived profitability of the livelihood”. In countries where the livelihood is considered to be a profitable undertaking, the number of children born and the ideal number of children was higher and the son preference was stronger, especially in households that owned the crucial means of production: boats and/or land. The levels of such indicators of fertility were lower when perceived profitability of the livelihood was low, particularly among those who owned their principal means of production. This hypothesis needs further refinement and investigation, taking into account the poorest and most deprived households.
