Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gender equity, social institutions and the future of fertility

  • Published:
Journal of the Australian Population Association Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sustained very low levels of fertility in advanced countries can be explained by incoherence between the levels of gender equity applying in different social institutions. In countries with very low levels of fertility, high levels of gender equity are postulated in institutions that deal with people as individuals, while low levels of gender equity apply in institutions that deal with people as members of families.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbasi-Shavazi, Mohammad Jalal and Peter McDonald. 1996. Immigrant fertility levels and patterns in Australia, 1977–1991: an own-children approach to the 1991 Census. Paper presented to the Eighth Biennial Conference of the Australian Population Association, Adelaide, 3–6 December.

  • Bowlby, John. 1953.Child Care and the Growth of Love. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesnais, Jean-Claude. 1996. Fertility, family and social policy in contemporary Western Europe.Population and Development Review 22(4):729–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenreich, Barbara. 1983.The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment. Garden City NY: Anchor Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 1996. Welfare states without work: the impasse of labour shedding and familialism in Continental European social policy. Pp.66–87 in G. Esping-Andersen (ed.),Welfare States in Transition: National Adaptations in Global Economies. London: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M.D.R. and Karen Oppenheim Mason. 1996. Currents and anchors: structure and change in Australian gender role attitudes, 1984–1989. Pp.275–302 in J.N. Baron, D.B. Grusky and DJ. Treiman (eds),Social Differentiation and Social Inequality: Essays in Honour of John Pock. Oxford: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folbre, Nancy. 1994.Who Pays for the Kids: Gender and the Structures of Constraint. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eraser, Nancy. 1994. After the family wage: gender equity and the welfare state.Political Theory 22: 591–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, Anthony. 1992.The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilding, M. 1997.Australian Families: A Comparative Perspective. Melbourne: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi, Piero. 1993. Una rilettura della fecondita del momento per ordine di nascita in Italia nel periodo 1950–1990 considerando la struttura per parka.Genus 49(3–4):177–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, E. 2000 ‘Labour force status and workplace provisions: examining the relationship between work and parental involvement in couple families. Paper presented to the 2000 Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Los Angeles, 23–25 March.

  • Glezer, Helen. 1982. Changes in marriage and sex role attitudes among young married women: 1971–82. InProceedings of the Australian Family Research Conference, Vol. 1. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, Susan. 1995. Anthropology theorizes reproduction: integrating practice, political economic, and feminist perspectives. In S. Greenhalgh (ed.),Situating Fertility: Anthropology and Demographic Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gustavsson, S. and F. Stafford. 1994. Three regimes of childcare: the United States, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Pp.333–362 in R. Blank (ed.),Social Protection versus Economic Flexibility. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobcraft, John. 1996. Fertility in England and Wales: a fifty year perspective.Population Studies 50(3):485–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobcraft, John and Kathleen Kiernan. 1995. Becoming a parent in Europe. Discussion Paper WSP/116, Welfare State Programme. London: The Toyota Centre, London School of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoem, B. 1995. The way to the gender segregated Swedish labour market In K.O. Mason and A.-M. Jensen (eds),Gender and Family Change in Industrialized Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Gavin W. 1995. The demise of universal marriage in East and South-East Asia. Paper presented to The Continuing Demographic Transition: The John C. Caldwell Seminar, The Australian National University, 14–17 August.

  • Khoo, Siew-Ean and Jing Shu. 1996.Immigrant Family Formation Patterns in Australia. Canberra: Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesthaeghe, Ron and Dominique Meekers. 1986. Value changes and the dimensions of familism in the European Community.European Journal of Population 2:225–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesthaeghe, R. and J. Surkyn. 1988. Cultural dynamics and economic theories of change.Population and Development Review 14(1):1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, Peter (ed.). 1986.Settling Up: Property and Income Distribution on Divorce in Australia. Sydney: Prentice-Hall of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, Peter. 1991. Migrant family structure. In K. Funder (ed.),Images of Australian Families. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, Peter. 1994. Families in developing countries: idealised morality and theories of family change. Pp. 19–28 in L-J. Cho and M. Yada (eds),Tradition and Change in the Asian Family. Honolulu: East-West Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, P. 1995.Families in Australia: A Socio-demographic Perspective. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, P. 1996. Young people in Australia today: a socio-demographic perspective. Pp. 1–7 in R. Thanki and C. Thomson (eds),Mortgaging Our Future? Families and Young People in Australia. SPRC Reports and Proceedings No. 129. Sydney: University of New South Wales.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNicoll, Geoffrey. 1994. Institutional analysis of fertility. In K. Lindahl-Kiessling and H. Landberg (eds),Population, Development and the Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNicoll, Geoffrey. 1995. Institutional impediments to population policy in Australia. Working Papers in Demography No. 53. Canberra: The Australian National University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Micheli, Giuseppe A. 1996. New patterns of family formation in Italy. Which tools for which interpretation.Genus 52(1–2):15–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monnier, Alain and Catherine de Guibert-Lantoine. 1996. La conjoncture demographique: l’Europe et les pays developpes d’outre-mer.Population 51(4–5): 1005–1030.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Commission of Audit. 1996.Report to the Commonwealth Government, June 1996. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 1994.Employment Outlook. July 1994. Paris.

  • Palomba, Rosella and Hein Moors. 1993. Life-styles, values, and fertility intentions in a cross-cultural perspective. Pp.27–41 inInternational Population Conference, Montreal 1993, Vol. 1. Liege: International Union for the Scientific Study of Population.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, Talcott and Robert F. Bales. 1955.The Family: Socialisation and Interaction Process. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peron, Y, H. Desrosiers, H. Juby, E. Lapierre-Adamcyk, C. Le Bourdais, N. Marcil-Gratton and J. Mongeau. 1999.Canadian Families at the Approach of the Year 2000. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Retherford, Robert D., Naohiro Ogawa and Satomi Sakamoto. 1996. Values and fertility change in Japan.Population Studies 50(1):5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindfuss, Ronald R, Karin L. Brewster and Andrew L. Kavee. 1996. Women, work, and children: behavioural and attitudinal change in the United States.Population and Development Review 22(3):457–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindfuss, Ronald R, S. Phillip Morgan and Kate Offutt. 1996. Education and the changing age pattern of American fertility: 1963–1989.Demography 33(3):277–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, Supriya and Jo Lindsay. 1996. Money in heterosexual relationships.Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 32(3):57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teitelbaum, Michael S. and Jay M. Winter. 1985.The Fear of Population Decline. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Therborn, Goran. 1993. The politics of childhood: the rights of children in modern times. Pp.241–291 in EG. Castles (ed.),Families of Nations; Patterns of Public Policy in Western Democracies. Aldershot: Dartmouth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsolidis, Georgina. 1995. Greek-Australian families. Pp.121–143 in R. Hartley (ed.),Families and Cultural Diversity in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Kaa, DJ. 1996. Anchored narratives: the story and findings of half a century of research into the determinants of fertility.Population Studies 50(3):389–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasta, Ellie. 1995. The Italian-Australian family; transformations and continuities. Pp.144–166 in R. Hartley (ed),Families and Cultural Diversity in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, K. 1993. Labor responses to taxes and benefits in Germany. Pp.192–240 in A.B. Atkinson and G.V. Mogensen (eds),Welfare and Work Incentives. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Australian National University, ACT 0200, Canberra, Australia

    Peter McDonald

Authors
  1. Peter McDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McDonald, P. Gender equity, social institutions and the future of fertility. Journal of Population Research 17, 1–16 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03029445

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03029445

Keywords

Search

Navigation