IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vid/yearbk/v9y2011i1p335-344.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Couple disagreement about fertility preferences and family-friendly policy measures in the Czech Republic

Author

Listed:
  • Beatrice Chromková Manuea
  • Petr Fučík

Abstract

This article describes some findings of an ad-hoc survey "Marriage, Work and Family" conducted in the Czech Republic in 2005. The analysis is focused on couple disagreement about childbearing attitudes, ideals and intentions as well as on the partners' negotiation process in reproductive decision-making. The results indicate that around one-fifth of Czech couples disagree about the intended number of children. The relatively high share of concordance between partners is the final outcome of a negotiation process within the couple in most cases. The more general the childbearing preferences measures, the higher the level of couple disagreement: one-third of the couples disagree about the family size ideals and two-thirds of them disagree about the reasons for having children. Moreover, one-fourth of Czech partners disagree about the impact of different policy measures on their own reproductive behaviour. This suggests that the potential for a couple's conflict is quite high and that policy-makers willing to implement effective family-friendly policy measures should target their intervention not only to women but to men as well.

Suggested Citation

  • Beatrice Chromková Manuea & Petr Fučík, 2011. "Couple disagreement about fertility preferences and family-friendly policy measures in the Czech Republic," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 9(1), pages 335-344.
    • Handle: RePEc:vid:yearbk:v:9:y:2011:i:1:p:335-344
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://epub.oeaw.ac.at/0xc1aa500d_0x002a7102
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Catherine Hakim, 2003. "A New Approach to Explaining Fertility Patterns: Preference Theory," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 29(3), pages 349-374, September.
    2. Elizabeth Thomson, 1997. "Couple childbearing desires, intentions, and births," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 34(3), pages 343-354, August.
    3. David Voas, 2003. "Conflicting Preferences: A Reason Fertility Tends to Be Too High or Too Low," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 29(4), pages 627-646, December.
    4. Elizabeth Thomson & Jan Hoem, 1998. "Couple childbearing plans and births in Sweden," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 35(3), pages 315-322, August.
    5. Julie DaVanzo & Christine E. Peterson & Nathan R. Jones, 2003. "How Well Do Desired Fertility Measures for Wives and Husbands Predict Subsequent Fertility?," Working Papers 03-16, RAND Corporation.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Alessandro Rosina & Laura Cavalli & Maria Rita Testa, 2011. "Couples’ childbearing behaviour in Italy: which of the partners is leading it?," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 9(1), pages 157-178.
    2. Nicoletta Balbo & Francesco C. Billari & Melinda Mills, 2013. "Fertility in Advanced Societies: A Review of Research," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(1), pages 1-38, February.
    3. Allan Puur & Livia Sz. Oláh & Mariam Irene Tazi-Preve & Jürgen Dorbritz, 2008. "Men's childbearing desires and views of the male role in Europe at the dawn of the 21st century," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 19(56), pages 1883-1912.
    4. Stulp, Gert, 2020. "Certainty of fertility preferences among Dutch women," OSF Preprints gacz5, Center for Open Science.
    5. Maria Rita Testa, 2012. "Couple disagreement about short-term fertility desires in Austria: Effects on intentions and contraceptive behaviour," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 26(3), pages 63-98.
    6. Maria Rita Testa & Danilo Bolano, 2021. "When partners’ disagreement prevents childbearing: A couple-level analysis in Australia," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 44(33), pages 811-838.
    7. Maria Rita Testa & Laura Cavalli & Alessandro Rosina, 2014. "The Effect of Couple Disagreement about Child-Timing Intentions: A Parity-Specific Approach," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 40(1), pages 31-53, March.
    8. Barbara S. Okun & Liat Raz‐Yurovich, 2019. "Housework, Gender Role Attitudes, and Couples' Fertility Intentions: Reconsidering Men's Roles in Gender Theories of Family Change," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 45(1), pages 169-196, March.
    9. Adsera, Alicia, 2005. "Differences in Desired and Actual Fertility: An Economic Analysis of the Spanish Case," IZA Discussion Papers 1584, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Anna Rotkirch & Heini Väisänen & Markus Jokela & Stuart Basten, 2011. "Baby longing and men’s reproductive motivation," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 9(1), pages 283-306.
    11. Ea Hoppe Blaabæk & Mads Meier Jæger & Joseph Molitoris, 2020. "Family Size and Educational Attainment: Cousins, Contexts, and Compensation," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 36(3), pages 575-600, July.
    12. Doepke, Matthias & Hannusch, Anne & Kindermann, Fabian & Tertilt, Michèle, 2022. "The Economics of Fertility: A New Era," IZA Discussion Papers 15224, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Alicia Adsera, 2006. "An Economic Analysis of the Gap Between Desired and Actual Fertility: The Case of Spain," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 75-95, March.
    14. Dana Sarnak & Stan Becker, 2022. "Accuracy of wives' proxy reports of husbands' fertility preferences in sub-Saharan Africa," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 46(17), pages 503-546.
    15. Alessandro Rosina & Maria Rita Testa, 2009. "Couples’ First Child Intentions and Disagreement: An Analysis of the Italian Case [La concordance des intentions d’avoir un premier enfant dans le couple: Une analyse du cas italien]," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 25(4), pages 487-502, November.
    16. Frank Heiland & Alexia Prskawetz & Warren C. Sanderson, 2008. "Are Individuals’ Desired Family Sizes Stable? Evidence from West German Panel Data," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 24(2), pages 129-156, June.
    17. Isabella Buber, 2002. "The influence of the distribution of household and childrearing tasks between men and women on childbearing intentions in Austria," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2002-004, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    18. Henriette Engelhardt, 2004. "Fertility Intentions and Preferences: Effects of Structural and Financial Incentives and Constraints in Austria," VID Working Papers 0402, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.
    19. Arieke Rijken & Trudie Knijn, 2009. "Couples’ decisions on having a first child," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 21(26), pages 765-802.
    20. Ankita Mishra & Jaai Parasnis, 2017. "Peers and Fertility Preferences: An Empirical Investigation of the Role of Neighbours, Religion and Education," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 134(1), pages 339-357, October.

    More about this item

    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:vid:yearbk:v:9:y:2011:i:1:p:335-344. 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: Bernhard Rengs (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.oeaw.ac.at/vid/ .

    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.