IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dem/demres/v24y2011i8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Should governments in Europe be more aggressive in pushing for gender equality to raise fertility? The first "NO"

Author

Listed:
  • Dimiter Philipov

    (Wittgenstein Centre for Demography and Global Human Capital (IIASA, OeAW, University of Vienna))

Abstract

This paper takes the "no" side in the debate on the question posed in the title. The paper assumes that the dual-earner/dual-carer household model is the most likely aim of policies that push aggressively for gender equality in order to raise fertility. Five objections are discussed: the model does not necessarily lead to a fertility increase; aggressiveness will lead to an imbalance of labor supply and demand, and is likely to confront slowly changing cultural norms; similar policies will also confront the issue of innate gender differences; and country idiosyncrasies prevent the application of a unified policy approach. The paper briefly concludes that compatible gender-neutral family policies and fertility-neutral gender policies are likely to lead to an increase in fertility.

Suggested Citation

  • Dimiter Philipov, 2011. "Should governments in Europe be more aggressive in pushing for gender equality to raise fertility? The first "NO"," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 24(8), pages 201-216.
    • Handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:24:y:2011:i:8
    DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2011.24.8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol24/8/24-8.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4054/DemRes.2011.24.8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Caroline Foster, 2000. "The Limits to Low Fertility: A Biosocial Approach," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 26(2), pages 209-234, June.
    2. Ariane Pailhé & Clémentine Rossier & Laurent Toulemon, 2008. "French family policy: long tradition and diversified measures," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 6(1), pages 149-164.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tao, Hung-Lin, 2020. "Gender-role ideology and height preference in mate selection," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    2. Gerda Neyer & Trude Lappegård & Daniele Vignoli, 2013. "Gender Equality and Fertility: Which Equality Matters?," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(3), pages 245-272, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tomáš Sobotka & Éva Beaujouan, 2014. "Two Is Best? The Persistence of a Two-Child Family Ideal in Europe," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 40(3), pages 391-419, September.
    2. Samuel H. Preston & Caroline Sten Hartnett, 2010. "The Future of American Fertility," NBER Chapters, in: Demography and the Economy, pages 11-36, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Samuel H. Preston & Caroline Sten Hartnett, 2008. "The Future of American Fertility," NBER Working Papers 14498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Laura Stark & Hans-Peter Kohler, 2000. "The public perception and discussion of falling birth rates: the recent debate over low fertility in the popular press," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2000-009, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    5. Keuntae Kim, 2014. "Intergenerational Transmission of Age at First Birth in the United States: Evidence from Multiple Surveys," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 33(5), pages 649-671, October.
    6. Tomáš Sobotka, 2003. "Tempo-quantum and period-cohort interplay in fertility changes in Europe," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 8(6), pages 151-214.
    7. Peter Huber & Peter Mayerhofer & Stefan Schönfelder & Oliver Fritz & Andrea Kunnert & Dieter Pennerstorfer, 2010. "Teilbericht 5: Zusammenfassung und Handlungsempfehlungen," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 41130, April.
    8. Johannes Huinink & Martin Kohli & Jens Ehrhardt, 2015. "Explaining fertility: The potential for integrative approaches," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 33(4), pages 93-112.
    9. Hans-Peter Kohler, 2001. "Comments on Morgan and King (2001): Three Reasons Why Demographers Should Pay Attention to Evolutionary Theories and Behaviour Genetics in the Analysis of Contemporary Fertility," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 17(1), pages 31-35, March.
    10. Jie Wu & Steven Si & Haifeng Yan, 2022. "Reducing poverty through the shared economy: creating inclusive entrepreneurship around institutional voids in China," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 21(2), pages 155-183, April.
    11. Francesco C. Billari & Hans-Peter Kohler & Gunnar Andersson & Hans Lundström, 2007. "Pushing the limit: long-term trends in late fertility in Sweden," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2007-004, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    12. Anna Baranowska & Anna Matysiak, 2011. "Does parenthood increase happiness? Evidence for Poland," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 9(1), pages 307-325.
    13. Jason Collins & Oliver Richards, 2013. "Evolution, Fertility and the Ageing Population," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 13-02, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:24:y:2011:i:8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Editorial Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.demogr.mpg.de/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.