MENUMENU
  • EDITORIAL COMMITTEE
    • Alaka BasuAlaka Basu
      Alaka M. Basu is Professor, Development Sociology, Cornell University, and a member of the Guttmacher-Lancet Commission on Sexual and Reproductive Rights and Health
      Alessandro RosinaAlessandro Rosina
      Professor of Demography and Director, Center for Applied Statistics in Business and Economics, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
      Andrea BrandoliniAndrea Brandolini
      Head of Statistical Analysis Directorate, Bank of Italy
      Bruno MasquelierBruno Masquelier
      Professor of Demography, University of Louvain, Belgium
      Cheikh MbackéCheikh Mbacké
      Associate Professor, Sociology department, Laval University
      Cinzia ContiCinzia Conti
      Researcher at Istat, Head of Unit on Foreign Presence and Social Dynamics
      Corrado BonifaziCorrado Bonifazi
      Director of the Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies, National Research Council, Rome Italy
      Ernestina CoastErnestina Coast
      Associate Professor of Population Studies, London School of Economics
      Wang FengFeng Wang
      Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Irvine, USA, and Professor at Fudan University, Shanghai, China fwang(at)uci.edu
      Francesco BillariFrancesco Billari
      Professor of Sociology and Demography, University of Oxford
      Gilles PisonGilles Pison
      Professor at Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle and Director of Research at the French National Institute for Demographic Studies (INED) (Paris)
      Gustavo De SantisGustavo De Santis
      Professor of Demography, University of Florence, Italy
      Jacques VallinJacques Vallin
      Emeritus Research Director at INED, Paris; Honorary President of IUSSP
      John KnodelJohn Knodel
      Research Professor Emeritus, Population Studies Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan (USA) and International staff, College of Populations Studies, Chulalongkorn University (Thailand)
      Letizia MencariniLetizia Mencarini
      Associate professor of Demography, Bocconi University - Dondena Centre for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policy & Collegio Carlo Alberto; P.I. ERC P.I. ERC project n. 313617 (2013-2018) SWELLFER http://swellfer.wordpress.com
      Letizia TanturriLetizia Tanturri
      Associate Professor of Demography, University of Padova, Italy
      Massimo livi BacciMassimo livi Bacci
      Emeritus Professor of Demography, University of Florence, Italy
      Monica Das GuptaMonica Das Gupta
      Research Professor of Sociology, University of Maryland, USA
      OUR AUTHORS
      Paula Miranda-RibeiroPaula Miranda-Ribeiro
      Professor, Demography Department and Cedeplar, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil.
      Peter McDonaldPeter McDonald
      Professor of Demography in the Australian National University. Honorary President of IUSSP and winner of the Irene B. Taeuber Award
      Roberto ImpicciatoreRoberto Impicciatore
      Assistant Professor of Demography, University of Milan, Italy
      Salvatore StrozzaSalvatore Strozza
      Professor of Demography, University Federico II, Naples (Italy)
      Stefano MolinaStefano Molina
      Senior Program Officer, Giovanni Agnelli Foundation, Italy
      our authors
  • N-IUSSP
    • N-IUSSP is a new IUSSP news magazine, which will disseminate scientific findings from demographic research carried out all over the world. The practical implications of current trends, the risks and potentialities of emerging situations, the pros and cons of specific laws are discussed in rigorous but plain language.

      Everybody is free to reproduce our articles, for free, provided the original source is cited.

      You are invited to contribute to this new publication: please check our guidelines and submit your 1000 word contribution to contact@niussp.org

The Icelandic Saga. Fertility in the midst of delayed family formation
Islande : une fécondité élevée malgré le recul de l’âge à la maternité

Ari Klængur Jónsson
Iceland city reikiavik

In European demography, Iceland has been an outlier until recently, with a fertility rate well above that of most countries on the continent. Between 1982 and 2014, the Icelandic total period fertility rate (TFR) ranged between 1.9 and 2.3 children per woman (Figure 1). Lately, however, in the aftermath of a major economic crisis, Iceland has experienced a marked fertility decline: in 2015, the TFR fell below 1.9 for the first time and in 2016 it declined even further to 1.75. This all-time low in the country’s history is still above the European average, however. Schermata 2017-10-21 alle 11.28.28The relatively high and previously stable fertility is interesting in light of the high female labor force participation rate in Iceland (80%), the many societal and family-related changes that have occurred in the last three decades, and the concurrent postponement of family formation that elsewhere caused a sizable decrease in the TFR.

Iceland: A short introduction

Iceland is a modern and rich country, with a population of about 340,000, and an annual per capita GDP of around USD 60,000. The country is a vanguard in terms of childbearing outside of marriage, with roughly two in three children born out of wedlock. Nevertheless, the majority of children are born in co-residential unions due to the large proportion of people living in non-marital cohabitation. This does not mean that marriage is extinct. Annually, the number of marriages per 1,000 inhabitants is around 4-5; about one-third of marriages end in divorce (Statistics Iceland 2017).

Iceland is remote: the island is located in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean, some 1,000 kilometers from the nearest coast of Scandinavia. This has not prevented immigration to the country, mainly driven by labor market needs. In the last 20 years, the proportion of immigrants has increased from around 2% of the population to 11% (Figure 2)  – with growth largely driven by Polish nationals entering the workforce. Schermata 2017-10-21 alle 11.29.06

Iceland is one of the most gender-egalitarian countries in the world. It is commonly grouped together with its Nordic neighbors: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland, as belonging to the same welfare state regime, which, in relative terms, promotes high standards of equality with regard to social rights, state services, and benefits to its citizens. Iceland’s family policies are constructed to allow parents to combine work and family, and are designed to increase gender equality. Iceland has thus implemented a universal parental leave scheme, including employment security after childbirth and earnings-based benefits, targeted at fathers as well as mothers by assigning one third of the leave to the father, one third to the mother, and one third as a joint entitlement. The municipalities provide highly subsidized childcare, and the state provides income-related benefits to families with children. Today, almost half of all one-year-olds and around 95% of children aged 2-5 are enrolled in childcare.

Many demographic studies have shown how increased educational attainment among women entails postponement effects on marriage and parenthood. This also appears to be the case in Iceland where the absolute number of female university students has roughly quadrupled in the last thirty years. However, contrary to expectations, this trend at the individual level did not result in a fertility decline at the aggregate level. Why?

Fertility ‘recuperation’ and shorter birth intervals

In a recent paper (Jónsson 2017) I show that two factors have played a crucial part in mitigating the expected depressing effect of this development on fertility: fertility “recuperation” at older ages and ‘positive’ developments in higher order birth intensities.

Over the last three decades, women have postponed motherhood by approximately four years, and the propensity to become a mother has declined, especially for women in their early and mid-20s, as one would expect in a period of increasing educational attainment and postponement of family formation. However, and unlike in many other countries, there is no evidence of increased childlessness: about nine out of ten women still become a mother, regardless of the decade (Figure 3). Schermata 2017-10-21 alle 11.29.47The decline in first-birth intensities at the early ages has thus been paralleled by increases for women in their 30s and 40s: an indication that fertility recuperation is taking place.

Between 1982 and 2013, the standardized second- and third-birth rates have fluctuated around remarkably stable averages of progression to parities two and three: estimates show that almost nine out of ten one-child mothers had a second child, and two out of three two-child mothers a third child. Besides, in the post-2000 era there was a change in tempo with regard to having a second and a third child, and the interval between births decreased.

If we look at the gender composition of a couple’s children, we find that mothers of a boy and a girl have the lowest ‘risk’ of giving birth for the third time. On average, over the period 1982-2013, mothers of two girls had a 10% higher risk of having a third child compared to mothers of a boy and a girl, while mothers of two boys had a 14% higher risk of third birth. If the gender composition of one’s children were not a decisive factor when deciding whether to have a third child, there should be no difference between mothers of two boys, two girls, or a boy and a girl. In short, the data reveal that Icelanders prefer to have children of both genders (and try particularly hard to have at least one daughter), as already observed in the “neighboring” Scandinavian countries (Andersson et al. 2006, 2007).

Final words

It is not unlikely that the timing of policy reforms has helped stabilize fertility trends and even helped increase fertility in Iceland (Jónsson 2016). There are indications of period effects in the late 1980s to the early 1990s, and also during most of the 2000s, which partially correspond to the timing of reforms made to childcare policies in Iceland. The predecessor of the current parental leave legislation was reformed in 1987, when leave was gradually extended from three to six months, and a long-term decline in the TFR, which reached a low point in 1985-1986, came to a halt. During the 1990s and 2000s, reforms were made to the publicly run day-care provisions for children, and a new parental leave legislation extended the leave to nine months and linked benefits to income (Eydal and Gíslason 2014). However, whether, and to what extent, certain family policies may have affected childbearing behavior are questions that await more detailed examination. The same applies to the potential effects of the economic crisis that hit Iceland in 2008. The crisis is likely to have affected behavior in the most recent years of observation – depicted by the declining birth intensities after 2010 (Figure 4) and the continued decline in the TFR in subsequent years (Figure 1). Schermata 2017-10-21 alle 11.30.39Why fertility did not decline sooner, and why it has not yet recovered during the recent economic upswing (Figure 2), remain unanswered questions, for now. Iceland may well have lost forever its leading role as a high-fertility country in the European context.

References

Andersson Gunnar, Hank Karsten, Rønsen Marit, Vikat Andres (2006). “Gendering family composition:

Sex preferences for children and childbearing behavior in the Nordic countries.” Demography, 43 (2): 255-267.

Andersson Gunnar, Hank Karsten, Vikat Andres (2007). “Understanding parental gender preferences in advanced societies: Lessons from Sweden and Finland” Demographic Research 17(6): 135-156.

Eydal Guðný Björk and Ingólfur V. Gíslason (2014). Family policies: The case of Iceland. In: Robila, Mihaels (Ed.). Handbook of family policies across the globe. New York: Springer: 109-124.

Jónsson Ari Klængur (2017) “Childbearing trends in Iceland, 1982-2013: Fertility timing, quantum, and gender preferences for children in a Nordic context” Demographic Research 37(7): 147-188.

Jónsson Ari Klængur (2016) “Fertility at the dawn of a new millennium: The interplay of family policy, economic crisis and childbearing in Iceland” Stockholm Research Reports in Demography 2016:22.

Nordic Statistical Bureaus (2016):

Denmark: http://www.statbank.dk

Finland: http://tilastokeskus.fi

Iceland: https://hagstofa.is

Norway: https://www.ssb.no

Sweden: http://www.scb.se

Nordic Statistics (2017). The Statistical database of the Nordic Council

Statistics Iceland (2017) Statistics Iceland database

 

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

image_pdfimage_print

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close