W O R K I N G P A P E R
THE DMSION OF LABOR FOR
S O C l E l T SREPRODUCTlON:
On The Concentration of Cudbearing
and R e a r i n g in Austria
WoLjgang Lutz
April
1986 WP-86-19a
m.
1 lASA
m....
NOT FOR QUOTATION WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE ALTEOR
THE D M S I O N OF LABOR FOR SOCETY'S REPRODIImlON:
On
T h e
C o n c e n t r a t i o n o f C h i l d b e a r i n g and Rearingin
A u s t r i aApril 1986 WP-86-19
Working P a p e r s are i n t e r i m reports o n work of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e for Applied S y s t e m s Analysis a n d h a v e r e c e i v e d only limited r e v i e w . Views or o p i n i o n s e x p r e s s e d h e r e i n d o n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e p r e s e n t t h o s e of t h e I n s t i t u t e or of i t s N a t i o n a l Member O r g a n i z a t i o n s .
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 2361 L a x e n b u r g , A u s t r i a
Using d a t a f r o m t h e b i r t h h i s t o r y of t h e G e r m a n - A u s t r i a n c e n s u s of 1939 a n d r e c e n t A u s t r i a n s a m p l e s u r v e y s , c h a n g e s in t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n and c o n c e n t r a t i o n of f e r t i l i t y a r e a n a l y z e d f r o m t h e beginning of t h e c e n t u r y u p to c o m p l e t e d p a r i t y dis- t r i b u t i o n s implied by c u r r e n t p e r i o d f e r t i l i t y . T h e e x t e n t of c o n c e n t r a t i o n i s d e s c r i b e d by L o r e n z c u r v e s a n d " h a v e h a l f " s t a t i s t i c s as well as by t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n m o t h e r s ' a n d c h i l d r e n ' s mean family s i z e s . G e n e r a l l y , declining f e r t i l i t y was a c c o m p a n i e d by i n c r e a s i n g c o n c e n t r a t i o n while t h e b a b y boom p e r i o d saw u n p r e c e d e n t e d low c o n c e n t r a t i o n . T h e l a b o r of r e a r i n g c h i l d r e n i s e v e n m o r e con- c e n t r a t e d t h a n f e r t i l i t y , e s p e c i a l l y when men's p a r t i c i p a t i o n in c h i l d c a r e i s t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t .
Acknowledgments
The a u t h o r would Like t o t h a n k Nathan Keyfitz a n d Douglas Wolf f o r helpful comments on t h e manuscript.
THE
D M S l O N OF LABOR FOR S O C E I Y ' S REPRODUCTION:O n T h e C o n c e n t r a t i o n o f C h i l d b e a r i n g and R e a r i n g in
Austria
W o l f g a n g L u t z
Modern s o c i e t i e s exhibit increasing specialization in almost e v e r y segment of production. The p r o p o r t i o n s of t h e population t h a t p r o d u c e o u r food supply, o u r clothing, o u r automobiles, e t c . , all diminish. This t r e n d p e r t a i n s t o most material goods. But what d o w e know a b o u t t h e p r o p o r t i o n of t h e population t h a t p r o d u c e s new members of o u r population-a t y p e of production t h a t i s usually called r e p r o - duction?
C o n t r a r y to o t h e r kinds of production t h a t a r e highly c o n c e n t r a t e d in t h e hands of a few s p e c i a l i s t s , t h e bearing and r e a r i n g of c h i l d r e n h a s always been a n activity in which t h e majority of t h e population t a k e s p a r t . Having children i s still p a r t of t h e "normal" l i f e cycle of e v e r y man and woman. And many of t h o s e who d o not h a v e children f e e l t h e y a r e missing something important.
In Central E u r o p e childlessness i s even l e s s f r e q u e n t today t h a n i t was a cen- t u r y ago. I t w a s l e a s t frequent-probably a t an all-time iow in history-during t h e time of t h e Baby Boom t h a t followed World War 11 in all industrialized countries. In Austria only 1 0 % of t h e women b o r n in 1936-1940 remained childless. Recently t h e p r o p o r t i o n of women without c h i l d r e n h a s been increasing again. T h e r e are two major f a c t o r s t h a t d e t e r m i n e t h e s e t r e n d s in t h e p r e v a l e n c e of childlessness:
F i r s t , t h e m a r r i a g e p a t t e r n h a s changed dramatically o v e r t h e l a s t c e n t u r y . In t h e 1880 c e n s u s of Austria 25% of all women aged 5 0 remained unmarried; t h e most re- c e n t census of 1981 showed a p r o p o r t i o n of only 8.7% unmarried. Between 1880 and 1971 t h e singulate mean a g e a t m a r r i a g e (i.e., t h e mean a g e calculated f r o m age- specific p r o p o r t i o n s m a r r i e d in censuses) had declined from 27.7
to
21.9 f o r women and from 30.9 t o 26.0 f o r men. Over t h e l a s t 15 y e a r s both t h e mean a g e a t mar- r i a g e and t h e p r o p o r t i o n of unmarried h a v e been increasing again. Secondly, w emight s u s p e c t t h a t t h e incidence of involuntary infertility i s i n c r e a s i n g . Although t h e g e n e r a l h e a l t h s t a t u s is improving delayed childbearing t o g e t h e r with t h e ideal of v e r y low weight-which possibly r e s u l t s in i r r e g u l a r menstrual functions (Rose 1974)-might r e d u c e t h e probability of having a b i r t h as wanted. Voluntary child- l e s s n e s s which was insignificant during t h e baby boom, h a s a l s o become more p r e - valent. But s t i l l in 1981/1982 only 2.2% of young Austrian couples said t h a t t h e y did not want c h i l d r e n (Gisser et a l . 1985).
Having o r not having c h i l d r e n i s only o n e a s p e c t of t h e division of l a b o r f o r r e p r o d u c t i o n . Fertility i s a l s o unequally d i s t r i b u t e d among mothers. In t h e b i r t h c o h o r t of 1936-1940 a b o u t 33% of t h e women had two c h i l d r e n , which is 37% of a l l mothers. Completed p a r i t i e s o n e a n d t h r e e show approximately equal p r e v a l e n c e of 20% in this c o h o r t . Still 1 0 % h a v e f o u r c h i l d r e n a n d 7% h a v e f i v e o r more. S e e n t o g e t h e r , only 28% of a l l women of t h i s b i r t h c o h o r t h a v e given b i r t h t o half o f t h e c h i l d r e n b o r n e by t h i s c o h o r t . The following analysis will show t h a t t h e c o n c e n t r a - tion of f e r t i l i t y in t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c o h o r t i s e v e n v e r y Low as compared t o o l d e r and younger b i r t h c o h o r t s .
P a r t of t h i s empirically o b s e r v e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n i s due t o involuntarily Low f e r t i l i t y f o r some women a n d unintended high f e r t i l i t y f o r o t h e r s . A r e c e n t f e r t i l i - t y s u r v e y in Austria (Gisser e t a l . 1985) showed t h a t d e s i r e d family size distribu- tions t e n d t o b e much l e s s c o n c e n t r a t e d than a c t u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n s . More t h a n half of young m a r r i e d women (50.9%) wanted two c h i l d r e n , a q u a r t e r (24.5%) wanted t h r e e c h i l d r e n ; t h e l a s t q u a r t e r includes women t h a t wanted o n e (13.6%), f o u r o r more (9%). or no c h i l d r e n (2.2%).
Only women c a n b e a r c h i l d r e n b u t men can well p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e r e a r i n g of them a n d s h a r e t h e inconveniences as well as t h e p l e a s u r e of having c h i l d r e n . Hence, w e should n o t only f o c u s on t h e division of l a b o r among women but within t h e t o t a l population. The male population i s a l s o h e t e r o g e n e o u s , not only in r e s p e c t t o t h e number of c h i l d r e n b u t a l s o in r e s p e c t to t h e e x t e n t of t h e i r p a r t i - cipation in c h i l d c a r e a n d housework. Empirical s t u d i e s show t h a t t h e p r o p o r t i o n of child-related work t h a t a man does e v e n declines f o r l a r g e r families. Men's modest p a r t i c i p a t i o n in c h i l d c a r e i s a n additional r e a s o n f o r t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n in t h e l a b o r f o r s o c i e t y ' s r e p r o d u c t i o n .
HOW DOES ONE MEASURE THE CONCENTRATION OF REPRODUCTION?
F o r a n economist c o n c e n t r a t i o n analysis i s a v e r y n a t u r a l thing and one of his b a s i c tools. D e m o g r a p h e r s t a k e much l e s s a d v a n t a g e of t h i s v e r y i n s t r u c t i v e ap- p r o a c h :o h e t e r o g e n e i t y analysis. Concentration analysls a s k s what f r a c t i o n of t h e popuiation a c c o u n t s f o r what f r a c t i o n of a c e r t a i n outcome: in economics t h i s may b e income o r t o t a l p r o d u c t i o n ; in demography it might b e b i r t h s , m a r r i a g e s , or mi- g r a t i o n s . F o r n o n - r e p e a t a b l e e v e n t s s u c h a s d e a t h s t h i s kind of analysis i s not v e r y informative. The number of b i r t h s p e r woman, however, h a s a high p o t e n t i a l f o r variation with significant consequences on family s t r u c t u r e s , living a r r a n g e - ments, female l a b o r f o r c e p a r t i c i p a t i o n , economic inequality, and social policy is- s u e s .
The usual way to d e p i c t inequality a n d c o n c e n t r a t i o n i s t h e Lorenz c u r v e . This c o n c e n t r a t i o n c u r v e r a n k s individuals on t h e horizontal a x i s from lowest t o highest f e r t i l i t y . On t h e v e r t i c a l a x i s t h e p r o p o r t i o n of a l l c h i l d r e n b o r n by t h e cumulated p r o p o r t i o n of women i s given. Hence, t h e c u r v e f a l l s below t h e 45de- gree diagonal or e q u a l s i t in t h e c a s e of complete evenness (i.e., a l l women h a v e t h e same number of c h i l d r e n ) . The f u r t h e r t h e d e p a r t u r e from t h e diagonal, t h e h i g h e r t h e d e g r e e of c o n c e n t r a t i o n .
Figure 1 p l o t s s u c h Lorenz c u r v e s f o r t h r e e f e r t i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n s t h a t will b e discussed in d e t a i l l a t e r : t h e completed p a r i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n s of wives of indepen- dent f a r m e r s in Germany and Austria t h a t had m a r r i e d b e f o r e 1905; t h e completed p a r i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n implied by t h e p e r i o d f e r t i l i t y of Austrian women in 1981; a n d t h e number of c o - r e s i d e n t c h i l d r e n u n d e r a g e 15 in r e l a t i o n t o a l l women a g e d 20- 55 in t h e Austrian c e n s u s of 1981. This l a s t c o n c e n t r a t i o n c u r v e f o c u s e s on t h e c u r r e n t division of l a b o r r a t h e r t h a n on t h e question if women e v e r had c h i l d r e n . F i g u r e 1 i n d i c a t e s a c l e a r i n c r e a s e in c o n c e n t r a t i o n from t h e f i r s t to t h e t h i r d c u r v e .
Economists and s t a t i s t i c i a n s h a v e used a v a r i e t y of coefficients t o summarize t h e information given by t h e Lorenz c u r v e . The Gini c o e f f i c i e n t t h a t d e s c r i b e s t h e a r e a between t h e c u r v e a n d t h e diagonal i s p r o b a b l y b e s t known. In t h i s study w e will u s e e v e n m o r e intuitive measures: t h e so-called have-statistics. The have-y s t a t i s t i c s give t h e p r o p o r t i o n s of women ( o r d e r e d from highest t o lowest f e r t i l i t y ) t h a t h a v e a c e r t a i n p r o p o r t i o n ( y ) of all children. They may a l s o b e r e f e r r e d to as f r a c t i l e s o r p e r c e n t i l e s . I n t h i s study w e will mainly u s e t h e havehalf which i s a consistent m e a s u r e s e n s i t i v e t o c h a n g e s in any of t h e values of t h e underlying f r e - quency distribution (Goodwin a n d Vaupel 1985).' If t h e distribution i s p e r f e c t l y
' ~ m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s by Coodwin e t al. (1986) showed t h a t c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i d e n l s between t h e havehalf, t h e Gin1 c o e f f l c l e n t , and t h e c a e f f l c l e n t of v a r i a t l a n a r e v e r y high (in a l l c a s e s a b o v e . 9 j .
cumulated 1:
of children
0.5
-- -
If"1 I I
cumulated proportlon of women
. . . . . . . .
-
Austria 1981, all women- - -
independent farmers married b e f o r e 1905 in Germany-Austria-.
-
.-
.-
1981 census of Austria; number of coresident chlldren under a g e 15 in r e s p e c t t o a l l women aged 20-55Figure 1. Lorenz c u r v e s t o illustrate the concentratlon of fertillty in t h r e e s e l e c t e d Austrian populations.
even t h e havehaif is equal t o 0.50 since half t h e women will h a v e half t h e children.
In all o t h e r c a s e s t h e h a v e h o l i will b e below 0.50: t h e h i g h e r t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n , t h e Lower t h e f r a c t i o n of women t h a t h a s half t h e c h i l d r e n .
Another consequence of t h e concentration o i r e p r o d u c t i o n i s t h a t t h e mean family size p e r woman i s not equal t o t h e mean size of t h e family c h i l d r e n come from. An intuitive explanation f o r t h i s d i s c r e p a n c y i s t h a t in t h e population of children a family of six c h i l d r e n will b e r e p r e s e n t e d six times w h e r e a s a one-child family onIy once; childless couples g e t no weight at all. P r e s t o n (1976) formalized t h i s relationship in t h e following way: Let f ( z ) b e t h e p r o p o r t i o n of women with completed p a r i t y z . Then t h e mean family size f o r women is
where n is t h e maximum p a r i t y considered. The a v e r a g e family size f o r c h i l d r e n t h e n is:
where t h e weight in t h e summation r e p r e s e n t s t h e p r o p o r t i o n of children from fam- ilies of size z
.
I t c a n b e shown t h a t t h e d l f f e r e n c e between mothers' mean family size
(z)
andc h i l d r e n ' s mean famiiy size
(c)
i s a function of t h e v a r i a n c e of t h e distribution.Hence, a h i g h e r c o n c e n t r a t i o n of r e p r o d u c t i o n will r e s u l t in a g r e a t e r d i f f e r e n c e between t h e two family size measures. In t h e following empirical study we will see t h a t t r e n d s in mothers' and c h i l d r e n ' s family sizes are not p a r a l l e l unless t h e ex- t e n t of c o n c e n t r a t i o n remains unchanged.
MARITAL
FERTILITY FROM THE LATE 1800's TO 1939The German c e n s u s of 1939 ("Reichsfamilienstatistik 1939"), which includes t h e Austrian t e r r i t o r i e s , p r o v i d e s a unique s o u r c e of information f o r t h e distribu- tion of r e p r o d u c t i o n during and s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e g r e a t f e r t i l i t y t r a n s i t i o n . In 1939 a l l m a r r i e d women living t o g e t h e r with t h e i r husbands were a s k e d f o r t h e number of c h i l d r e n e v e r b o r n . These women c a n b e grouped i n t o c o h o r t s a c c o r d - ing to t h e y e a r of m a r r i a g e . The s t a t i s t i c s also provide 6 4 occupational c a t e g o r i e s f o r husbands, t h u s allowing t h e analysis of socio-economic d i f f e r e n t i a l s (see S p r e e
Table 1 gives m e a s u r e s of f e r t i l i t y and r e p r o d u c t i v e c o n c e n t r a t i o n f o r t h r e e m a r r i a g e c o h o r t s ( m a r r i e d b e f o r e 1905, 1905-1909, and 1920-1924) and f o u r t e e n s e l e c t e d occupational g r o u p s . The mean number of c h i l d r e n e v e r b o r n declined significantly in a l l social g r o u p s . For t h o s e who m a r r i e d b e f o r e 1905 a g r i c u l t u r a l w o r k e r s and miners had, on t h e a v e r a g e , more than 5.5 c h i l d r e n . The lowest f e r t i l - ity was found in self-employed physicians and university p r o f e s s o r s
-
social e l i t e s t h a t had a n t i c i p a t e d t h e f e r t i l i t y decline-
and with army o f f i c e r s who showed t h e highest c o n c e n t r a t i o n of f e r t i l i t y : 28% of t h e o f f i c e r s remained childless (although m a r r i e d ) and 19% had five or more children. This e x t r e m e c o n c e n t r a t i o n implies t h a t 14% of a l l m a r r i e d a r m y o f f i c e r s had half of t h e c h l l d r e n b o r n t o t h i s occupa- tional group. In a l l o t h e r social g r o u p s c o n c e n t r a t i o n was much lower. F o r work- e r s in a g r i c u l t u r e or construction 3 0 o r more p e r c e n t of a l l families had half t h e children. Generally, t h e highest f e r t i l i t y g r o u p s r e v e a l t h e lowest c o n c e n t r a t i o n of r e p r o d u c t i o n .This p a t t e r n of lower c o n c e n t r a t i o n in high f e r t i l i t y g r o u p s r e s u l t s in a more even p i c t u r e of mean family sizes from t h e c h i l d r e n ' s p e r s p e c t i v e than from t h e mothers' p e r s p e c t i v e . Children of miners had, on t h e a v e r a g e , 6 . 6 b r o t h e r s and s i s t e r s , c h i l d r e n of c h u r c h o f f i c i a l s 4.8, c h i l d r e n of i n n k e e p e r s 5.3, and c h i l d r e n of army o f f i c e r s even 5.5. Only families of physicians and p r o f e s s o r s lie outside t h i s p a t t e r n with both f e r t i l i t y and concentration r a t h e r low. Consequently, t h e child of a physician who had m a r r i e d b e f o r e 1905 had only 2.6 b r o t h e r s and s i s t e r s on t h e a v e r a g e .
Couples who had m a r r i e d between 1 9 0 5 and 1909 had. on t h e a v e r a g e . more than o n e fewer c h i l d r e n than t h o s e who m a r r i e d b e f o r e 1905. The c o n c e n t r a t i o n of r e p r o d u c t i o n a l s o i n c r e a s e d in most occupational groups. This implies t h a t some members of t h e g r o u p s moved f a s t e r towards t h e new f e r t i l i t y regime than o t h e r s , t h u s increasing t h e r e l a t i v e v a r i a n c e . Only f o r army o f f i c e r s and c h u r c h officials and ministers did t h e completed p a r i t y distributions become more even.
The same t r e n d continued between 1905-1909 a n d 1920-1924. F o r s e v e r a l oc- cupational c a t e g o r i e s t h e mean number of c h i l d r e n p e r couple had fallen t o 2.0 o r below. With 1 . 4 children p e r couple, independent a r t i s t s a n d a c t o r s were even well below t h e f e r t i l i t y of physicians and p r o f e s s o r s , and showed extremely high con- c e n t r a t i o n , d u e t o childlessness among 35% of t h e couples. A t t h e u p p e r end of t h e s p e c t r u m a g r i c u l t u r a l l a b o r e r s still had 3.5 children o n t h e a v e r a g e . Concentra- tion a l s o continued t o i n c r e a s e in most occupational groups. I t is i n t e r e s t i n g to no-
T a b l e 1. C o n c e n t r a t i o n o f f e r t i l i t y a m o n g m a r r i a g e c o h o r t s by o c c u p a t i o n a l g r o u p s f o r G e r m a n y a n d A u s t r i a ( G e r m a n c e n s u s o f 1939).
Mean number Mean n u m b e r
of children; of children;
O c c u p a t l o n Y e a r of M o t h e r s ' p i n t C h l l d r e n ' s p l n t
of h u s b a n d m a r r l a g e of view of vlew HavehaU
L a b o r e r s In b e f o r e 1905 6.0 7.6 0.31
a g r l c u l t u r e 1905-1910 5.2 6.7 0.30
1920-1924 3.5 4.9 0.26
I n d e p e n d e n t b e f o r e 1905 5.6 7.5 0.m
f a r m e r s 1905-1910 4.7 6.7 0.73
1920-1924 3.1 4.6 0.25
M i n e r s b e f o r e 1905 5.7 7.7 0.29
1905-1910 4.9 6.8 0.28
1920-1924 2.9 4.4 0.25
C o n s t r u c t i o n b e f o r e 1905 5.2 6.7 0.30
w o r k e r s 1905-1910 4.4 5.8 0.28
1920-1924 2.9 4.5 0.24
SeU-employed b e f o r e 1905 4.4 5.7 0.28
c r a f t s m e n 1905-1910 3.5 5.3 0.24
1920-1924 2.2 4.0 0.22
SeU-employed In b e f o r e 1905 4.4 6.4 0.25
transportation 1905-1910 3.3 5.1 0.23
1920-1924 2.0 3.5 0.22
W o r k e r s In b e f o r e 1905 4.3 5.8 0.28
I r o n a n d m e t a l 1905-1910 3.4 5.3 0.24
I n d u s t r y 1920-1924 2.1 3.4 0.23
Self-employed b e f o r e 1905 4.0 6.3 0.24
I n n k e e p e r s 1905-1910 3.0 4.5 0.25
1920-1924 1.8 3.1 0.23
C h u r c h b e f o r e 1905 3.9 5.8 0.26
o f f l c l a l s , 1905-1910 3.4 4.5 0.29
m l n l s t e r s 1920-1924 2.7 3.8 0.27
Clvll s e r v a n t s b e f o r e 1905 3.5 5.2 0.25
wlth r a l l r o a d 1905-1910 2.9 4.4 0.25
a n d m s t a l s e r v l o e 1920-1924 1.9 3.5 0.22
I n d e p e n d e n t b e f o r e 1905 3.1 5.1 0.22
a r t l s t s , 1905-1910 2.3 4.3 0.20
a c t o r s , etc. 1820-1924 1.4 3.7 0.15
A m y b e f o r e 1905 2.7 7.5 0.14
o n l o e r s 1905-1910 2.4 3.8 0.24
1920-1924 1.9 3.1 0.24
University p r o f e s s o r s a n d d e a n s
b e f o r e 1905 1905-1910 1920-1924
SeU-employed b e f o r e 1905 2.6 3.6 0.P)
p h y s l c l a n s 1905-1910 2.5 3.9 0.26
1920-1924 2.0 2.3 0.30
A11 64 b e f o r e 1905 4.7 6.5 0.73
w c u p a t l o n a l 1905-1910 3.6 5.3 0.24
o a t e u o r l e s 1920-1924 2.3 4.0 0.21
S o u r c e of data: S p r e e (1984).
t i c e t h a t t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n within t h e a g g r e g a t e of a l l 64 o c c u p a t i o n a l g r o u p s in t h e pre-1905 m a r r i a g e c o h o r t was a b o u t t h e mean of t h e havehalf f i g u r e s of t h e in- dividual g r o u p s . F o r t h e m a r r i a g e c o h o r t of 1920-1924, however, t h e a g g r e g a t e i s c l e a r l y h i g h e r c o n c e n t r a t e d t h a n t h e majority of t h e o c c u p a t i o n a l g r o u p s t a k e n s e p a r a t e l y . This indicates t h a t v a r i a t i o n between t h e v a r i o u s occupational g r o u p s had i n c r e a s e d even s t r o n g e r t h a n t h e v a r i a t i o n within t h o s e g r o u p s .
Another i n t e r e s t i n g finding i s t h a t t h e f e r t i l i t y t r a n s i t i o n was much l e s s signi- f i c a n t from t h e c h i l d r e n ' s p e r s p e c t i v e t h a n from t h e couple's point of view: while t h e mean number of c h i l d r e n p e r couple declined by more t h a n half between t h e pre-1905 a n d t h e 1920-1924 m a r r i a g e c o h o r t s , t h e mean family s i z e for c h i l d r e n declined by only 38% o n t h e a v e r a g e .
THE POST-WAR BAEY BOOM
More r e c e n t d a t a c a n b e obtained from t w o micro-censuses (1% samples of t h e Austrian population) in 1 9 7 6 a n d 1 9 8 1 t h a t a s k e d f o r complete b i r t h h i s t o r i e s . In 1976 a l l e v e r - m a r r i e d women u n d e r a g e 60 were interviewed. Women c a n b e grouped into m a r r i a g e c o h o r t s which then may b e b r o k e n down by a g e at f i r s t mar- r i a g e . F o r t h e e a r l i e r m a r r i a g e c o h o r t s only women who m a r r i e d at y o u n g e r a g e s are included in t h e sample b e c a u s e t h e o t h e r s w e r e a l r e a d y a b o v e a g e 6 0 in 1976 ( t h e f i g u r e s r e f e r to t h e number of b i r t h s a f t e r 20 y e a r s of m a r r i a g e ) . The time s p a n of p e r i o d f e r t i l i t y c o v e r e d by t h o s e c o h o r t s r a n g e s from t h e l a t e 1930s to t h e e a r l y 1960s. I t includes World War 11, t h e post-war p e r i o d , and t h e o n s e t of t h e baby boom, which in Austria p e a k e d in 1962-1963.
F o r t h e m a r r i a g e c o h o r t s of 1936-1940 a n d 1941-1945 ( t h e w a r ~ e n e r a t i o n ) completed f e r t i l i t y i s lowest for t h o s e who m a r r i e d u n d e r a g e 20 ( s e e Table 2).
This p a t t e r n i s r e v e r s e d f o r t h e post-war m a r r i a g e c o h o r t s w h e r e a younger a g e at m a r r i a g e means a h i g h e r a v e r a g e number of c h i l d r e n after 20 y e a r s of mer- r i a g e . The r e a s o n f o r t h i s d i s c r e p a n c y l i e s in t h e f a c t t h a t in t h e war g e n e r a t i o n t h e p r o p o r t i o n of childless couples was especially l a r g e f o r t h o s e who had m a r r i e d at young a g e s . But a f t e r t h e war couples who m a r r i e d at young a g e s showed t h e s t r o n g e s t decline in p r o p o r t i o n s childless (from 13.4% in t h e 1941-1945 m a r r i a g e c o h o r t t o 6.7% in t h e 1946-1950 c o h o r t ) . Consequently t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n of f e r t i l i - t y f o r women who h a d m a r r i e d b e f o r e a g e 25 was highest f o r t h e w a r g e n e r a t i o n and declined s h a r p l y t h e r e a f t e r .
T a b l e 2. Mean n u m b e r s of c h i l d r e n a n d c o n c e n l r a l i o n o f f e r l i l i l y f o r s e l e c t e d Aus- t r i a n m a r r i a g e c o h o r l s 1936-1940 Lo 1956-1960 b y a g e at m a r r i a g e ( m i c r o - c e n s u s 1976) a f t e r 20 y e a r s of m a r r i a g e .
I
1
Female a g eI
Year of m a r r i a g e a t m a r r i a g e Mean/woman Mean/child Havehalf1
/
1936-1940 u n d e r 20 2.19 3.66 0.2220-24 2.29 4.01 0.23
i
1941-1945 u n d e r 20 2.06 3.20 0.2420-24 2.15 3.26 0.25
25-29 2.29 3.58 0.23
1
i
1946-1950 u n d e r 20 2.56 3.6420-24 2.35 3.85 0.23
I I 25-29 2.22 3.39
0.25
~
0.25
1
30-44. 2.00 3.16 0.24 I
1 1951-1955 u n d e r 20 2.55 3.90 0.24
1
1 1956-1960 u n d e r 20 2.37 3.28 0.28 ;
!
20-24 25-29 2.55 2.27 3.59 3.63 0.23!
30-44. 1.74 3.18 0,27i
0.21 I
*after 15 years of marriage
S o u r c e of d a t a : H a s l i n g e r a n d F e i c h t i n g e r (1978).
Women who m a r r i e d a f t e r a g e 25 c o n s i s t e n t l y r e v e a l h i g h e r c o n c e n t r a t i o n t h a n t h o s e who m a r r i e d a t y o u n g e r a g e s . Ir, a l l m a r r i a g e c o h o r t s l e s s Lhan 25% of all women t h a t h a d m a r r i e d at a g e s a b o v e 25 h a d half t h e c h i l d r e n of t h o s e c o h o r t s . Again, o n e of t h e r e a s o n s f o r h i g h e r d i v e r s i t y l i e s in h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n s of c h i l d l e s s women.
Comparing all c o h o r t s , t h e mean n u m b e r of c h i l d r e n p e r woman a f t e r 20 y e a r s of m a r r i a g e w a s h i g h e s l for Lhose m a r r i e d u n d e r a g e 20 in 1946-1950 (2.56 chil- d r e n ) a n d 1951-1955 as well as t h o s e m a r r i e d b e t w e e n a g e s 20 a n d 24 in 1956-1960 ( b o t h 2.55 c h i l d r e n ) . T h e t r e n d o v e r Lime was t h a t of a s l i g h t d e c l i n e f r o m t h e ear- ly w a r g e n e r a t i o n s ( m a r r i e d 1936-1940) to Lhe late w a r g e n e r a t i o n (1941-1945) a n d a c o n t i n u e d i n c r e a s e L h e r e a f t e r . T h e c o n c e n t r a l i o n of f e r t i l i t y as m e a s u r e d by t h e h a v e h a l f d e c r e a s e d o v e r t h e whole p e r i o d f r o m 1936 to 1960. Consequently, t h e
mean family s i z e f r o m t h e c h i l d r e n ' s p e r s p e c t i v e i n c r e a s e d less t h a n c o u l d b e ex- p e c t e d f r o m t h e i n c r e a s e o f c h i l d r e n p e r woman.
T h e 1981 s u r v e y ( s e e T a b l e 3) allows us to follow t h e b a b y boom f o r f i v e m o r e y e a r s . With 2.41 c h i l d r e n p e r woman t h e 1961-1965 m a r r i a g e c o h o r t h a d p r o b a b l y t h e h i g h e s t f e r t i l i t y of a l l women b o r n in t h i s c e n t u r y . However, f r o m t h e c h i i d r e n ' s p e r s p e c t i v e , t h e p e a k in family s i z e w a s e a r l i e r . Those c h i l d r e n whose m o t h e r s m a r r i e d b e t w e e n 1956 a n d 1960 h a v e t h e h i g h e s t n u m b e r of b r o t h e r s a n d s i s t e r s in r e c e n t A u s t r i a n h i s t o r y (2.36 on t h e a v e r a g e ) .
T a b l e 3. Mean n u m b e r s of c h i l d r e n a n d c o n c e n t r a t i o n of f e r t i l i t y f o r s e l e c t e d Aus- t r i a n b i r t h a n d m a r r i a g e c o h o r t s (micro-census 1981).
1
Y e a r of m a r r i a g e Mean/woman M e a d c h i l d Havehalf!
[ a f t e r 20 y e a r s of m a r r i a g e ] I
'
1951-1955 2.29 3.32I
I 1956-1960 2.37 3.36 0.27
O.n i
1961-1965 2.41 3.17 0.30
1
I Y e a r of b i r t h i n c l u d e s m a r r i e d a n d u n m a r r i e d women
i
[ b i r t h s u p to a g e 351
;
1921-1925 1.65 2.93 0.211 1926-1930 1931-1935 1.82 2.01 3.07 3.07 0.23 0.26
1
1936-1940 2.15 3.09 0.28
1
1941-1945 2.03 2.90 0.27
1
S o u r c e of d a h : H a s l i n g e r (1985).
D e c r e a s i n g c o n c e n t r a t i o n made t h e mean family s i z e f r o m t h e c h i l d r e n ' s p e r - s p e c t i v e i n c r e a s e less t h a n t h e n u m b e r of c h i l d r e n p e r m a r r i e d m o t h e r . This p a t - t e r n b e c o m e s e v e n m o r e p r o m i n e n t o n c e we look at b i r t h c o h o r t s of all women in- cluding u n m a r r i e d ( s e e T a b l e 3). 2 From t h e b i r t h c o h o r t of 1921-1925 to t h a t of 1936-1940 t h e mean n u m b e r of c h i l d r e n p e r woman i n c r e a s e d b y m o r e t h a n 30%
f r o m 1.65 t o 2.15. while t h e mean family s i z e f r o m t h e c h i l d r e n ' s p e r s p e c t i v e in- c r e a s e d by only 5X o v e r t h a t p e r i o d .
"l'he c u t o f f a t a g e 35 1s n e c e s s a r y i n order Lo geL informaLIon on Lhe 1941-1945 blrLh cohorL. In c a s e o f a s t r o n g d e l a y a f b l r t h s t h l s could b l a s Lhe comparisons. A sLrong b l a s 1 s noL v e r y l i k e l y , however.
We may c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e b a b y boom in A u s t r i a was a c c o m p a n i e d by a v e r y s t r o n g d e c r e a s e i n t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n of r e p r o d u c t i o n . T h e p e r c e n t a g e of all wom- e n of a b i r t h c o h o r t who h a d half t h e c h i l d r e n b o r n in t h a t c o h o r t i n c r e a s e d f r o m 21'2 to 20'2. This may b e a t t r i b u t e d to a n i n c r e a s e i n p r o p o r t i o n s m a r r i e d . a d e - crease of c h i l d l e s s c o u p l e s , a n d a g e n e r a l c o n v e r g e n c e t o w a r d s t h e two-child fami- l y . This r o u g h l y c o r r e s p o n d s to t h e American p a t t e r n - a l t h o u g h t h e A u s t r i a n l e v e l of f e r t i l i t y was s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o w e r - w h e r e P r e s t o n (1976) found t h a t t h e p o s t - w a r b a b y boom was n o t a c c o m p a n i e d b y l a r g e r family s i z e s f o r c h i l d r e n .
ESTMATES BASED ON 1981 PEPJOD FERTILITY
S o f a r t h e m e a s u r e m e n t of t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d c o n c e n t r a t i o n of r e p r o d u c t i o n f o c u s e d e x c l u s i v e l y o n t h e quantum a s p e c t of f e r t i l i t y . T h e timing a s p e c t , i . e . , a t what a g e women h a v e a g i v e n n u m b e r of c h i l d r e n s h o u l d n o t m a t t e r . F o r t h i s rea- s o n w e h a d to c o n s i d e r c o m p i e t e d p a r i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n s , a r e s t r i c t i o n t h a t d o e s n o t allow t h e a n a l y s i s of m o r e r e c e n t r e p r o d u c t i v e p e r f o r m a n c e u n l e s s w e m a k e cer- t a i n a s s u m p t i o n s o n f u t u r e f e r t i l i t y .
T h e r e are s e v e r a l m e t h o d s t o e s t i m a t e t h e c o m p l e t e d p a r i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n t h a t i s implied by c u r r e n t p e r i o d f e r t i l i t y . I n a l l cases p a r i t y - s p e c i f i c p e r i o d f e r t i l i t y rates must b e a v a i l a b l e t o e s t i m a t e p a r i t y p r o g r e s s i o n r a t i o s . T h e method t h a t will b e a p p l i e d h e r e i s a recen! a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e l i f e t a b l e c o n c e p t to p a r i t y p r o g r e s - s i o n (Chiang a n d v a n d e r B e r g 1 9 8 2 ; Lutz a n d F e i c h t i n g e r 1 9 8 5 ; Lutz 1 9 8 5 ) . T h i s f e r t i l i t y t a b l e b a s e d on p a r i t y h a s p a r i t y i n s t e a d of a g e as t h e i n d e x i n g v a r i a b l e . T h e e m p i r i c a l i n p u t d a t a are p a r i t y - s p e c i f i c f e r t i l i t y rates ( r i ) a n d mean a g e s a t b i r t h s o f c e r t a i n o r d e r s ( z i ) . A s in t h e n o r m a l l i f e t a b l e , a c o m b i n a t i o n of t h e rates (including timing a n d q u a n t u m a s p e c t s ) with t h e l e n g t h of b i r t h i n t e r v a l s (tim- ing o n l y ) y i e l d s s u r v i v a l p r o b a b i l i t i e s which in o u r case are t h e p a r i t y p r o g r e s s i o n ratios (quantum a s p e c t o n l y h 3 Applying t h o s e p a r i t y p r o g r e s s i o n r a t i o s (pi) to a r a d i x (Lo) o f 100,000 c h i l d l e s s women at a g e 1 5 y i e l d s t h e p r o p o r t i o n s of women s!.ill i r ~ t h e r e p r o d u c t i v e p r o c e s s at e a c h p a r i t y (Li column). Finally, dividing t h e
3 ~ h e t r a n s i t i o n formula suggested by Chiang end van den Berg (1982) 16
where Zw I s the end of the process, assumed t o be 45.00 in our c a s e . Z o was s e t t o 15.00. To r e - move the e f f e c t of age distributional d i s t o r t l o n s the data were weighted In e way that produces an e v e n age distribution ( s e e Lutz and Feichtinger. 1985).
n u m b e r o: women l e a v i n g t h e p r o c e s s o f r e p r o d u c t i o n a t e a c h p a r i t y ( d i ) , i . e . , h a v i n g c o m p l e t e d p a r i t y i , by t h e r a d i x r e s u i t s in t h e c o m p l e t e d p a r i t y d i s t r i b u - tion implied by o b s e r v e d p a r i t y - s p e c i f i c p e r i o d f e r t i l i t y u n d e r t h e assumption of s t a b i l i t y .
Table 4 g i v e s t h e p a r i t y t a b l e f o r A u s t r i a in 1 9 8 1 with t h e c o m p l e t e d p a r i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n implied by c u r r e n t o b s e r v e d p a r i t y - s p e c i f i c f e r t i l i t y rates a n d mean a g e s at b i r t h s . With t h e e x c e p t i o n of p a r i t i e s o n e a n d a n d f i v e t h e p a r i t y p r o g r e s - s i o n r a t i o s a r e d e c l i n i n g with p a r i t y . This m e a n s t h a t t h e c h a n c e of h a v i n g a b i r t h is h i e h e r f o r women with o n e c h i l d a l r e a d y t h a n f o r c h i l d l e s s women or t h o s e with two or m o r e c h i l d r e n . U n d e r t h e assumption of s t a b l e p a r i t y - s p e c i f i c f e r t i l i t y , a n d mean a g e s a t b i r t h almost o n e t h i r d of a l l A u s t r i a n women who w e r e 15-45 y e a r s of a g e in 1981 will e n d u p with two c h i l d r e n . The s e c o n d l a r g e s t g r o u p i s t h a t of c h i l d l e s s women (28%) followed b y m o t h e r s with only o n e child (17%); 15% will e n d u p with t h r e e c h i l d r e n , t h e r e s t with f o u r or m o r e c h i l d r e n . This d i s t r i b u t i o n implies t h a t 23% of all women will h a v e half t h e c h i l d r e n .
Table 4. P a r i t y t a b l e f o r A u s t r i a , 1981
Xean a g e P a r i t y - s p e c i f i c P a r i t y Completed
a t b i r t h f e r t i l i t y p r o g r e s s i o n p a r i t y ,:
,I
P a r i t y of o r d e r i rate r a t i o " S u r v i v o r s " d i s t r i b u t i o ni Zt p i Li
-
dlL o
1 0 I
15.00 0.05040 0.72115 100000 27.9%
1
; 1 23.24 0.10229 0.76846 72115 16.7% 1
2 26.46 0.03404 0.41219 55418 32.6%
1
1 3 29.40 0.03282 0.35154 22842 14.8% i
4 31.11 0.02945 0.30886 8030 5.5% '
j 5 33.97 0.03694 0.30896 2480 i
1.7% I
6
+
36.35 .8% ,A v e r a g e n u m b e r of c h i l d r e n 1.62
1
S o u r c e : Lutz (1985)
A b r e a k d o w n b y p r o v i n c e a n d women's e d u c a t i o n ( s e e T a b l e 5) r e v e a l s signifi- c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e e x p e c t e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n of f e r t i l i t y . T h e p r o v i n c e showing t h e h i g h e s t d e g r e e of c o n c e n t r a t i o n is V o r a r l b e r g (in t h e v e r y west of A u s t r i a ) with 32% of women r e m a i n i n g c h i l d r e n b u t also 14% of all women having f o u r or
more c h i l d r e n . Less t h a n 9% of t h e women will h a v e only one child under t h e given assumptions. A similar bipolarity c a n b e o b s e r v e d f o r s e v e r a l o t h e r p r o v i n c e s (Carinthia, U p p e r Austria. Tyrol), resulting in high c o n c e n t r a t i o n m e a s u r e s . S t y r i a r e v e a l s t h e most even distribution and a havehalf of 26%. With a t o t a l f e r t i l - ity rate of only 1 . 2 5 f e r t i l i t y i s by f a r t h e lowest in Vienna but t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n is relatively weak s i n c e 93% of a l l women will h a v e two o r fewer children (30% z e r o , 29% one, 34% two). In c o n t r a s t t o all o t h e r p r o v i n c e s , t h e one-child family seems to have become v e r y common in Vienna.
Table 5. Mean numbers of c h i l d r e n and c o n c e n t r a t i o n of r e p r o d u c t i o n in Austrian provinces and d i f f e r e n t educational g r o u p s a s implied by t h e f e r t i l i t y p a t t e r n of 1981.
; P r o v i n c e Mean/woman Mean/chiid Havehalf
i
t
I
Burgenland 1 . 9 1 3.12 0.231
i Carinthia 1.55 2.67 0.24
i
Lower Austria 1.57 2.68 0.24i
i
U p p e r Austria 1.76 3 . 2 3 0.231
i Salzburg 1.80 2.95 0.25
I
s t y r i a 1.81 2.76 0.26 I!
Tyrol 1.87 3.12 0.25 I1
I
V o r a r l b e r g 1.78 3.26 0.22j
/
Vienna - 1.25 - 2.20 0.25 si Total Austria 1.62 2 . 7 8
-
0 . 2 3 i!
i
Women's education1
,
P r i m a r y school 1.62 3.07 0.22I
, Vocational s c h o o l 1.62 2.55 0.27
1
1 Secondary school 1.56 2.92 0.22
i
I University 1.95 4.01 0.19
1
S o u r c e of d a t a : Lutz (1985).
Concerning educational d i f f e r e n t i a l s , women with vocational training e x h i b i t by far t h e lowest c o n c e n t r a t i o n (27%), and women with a university d e g r e e by f a r t h e highest c o r ~ c e n t r a t i o n (19%). University-trained women seem t o b e a c a s e of e x t r e m e bipolarity w h e r e women e i t h e r stay childless (34%) o r h a v e a family size well a b o v e a v e r a g e (38% will h a v e t h r e e o r more children). The comparison of 4 4 ~ e c s u s e of t h e smell number of women In t h i s c s t e g o r y , w e must be c s u t i o u s w l t h g e n e r a l l z s t i o n s .
women with vocational t r a i n i n g and t h o s e with only primary school is a good illus- t r a t i o n of t h e fact t h a t identical levels of f e r t i l i t y (1.62 children p e r woman) c a n be t h e r e s u l t of significantly d i f f e r e n t distributions resulting in d i v e r g e n t family sizes f r o m t h e c h i l d r e n ' s p e r s p e c t i v e (2.55 v e r s u s 3.07).
CURRENT INVOLVEMENT
M
CHILD CAREOnly a c e r t a i n p e r i o d in t h e l i f e cycle of any m o t h e r i s devoted t o childrais- ing. Even women with v e r y high f e r t i l i t y d o not spend more t h a n half of t h e i r life (assuming a v e r a g e life e x p e c t a n c y ) raising t h e i r c h i l d r e n . For t h i s r e a s o n , a n analysis of t h e division of l a b o r f o r r e p r o d u c t i o n should also look at t h e time con- c e n t r a t i o n of f e r t i l i t y : how many y e a r s of a woman's l i f e are s p e n t f o r c a r i n g a b o u t c h i l d r e n ? Obviously t h i s d o e s not only depend on t h e number of c h i l d r e n b o r n but a l s o on t h e spacing between b i r t h s .
Table 6. Concentration of c h i l d c a r e in t h e Austrian c e n s u s of 1 9 8 1 as measured by t h e number of co-resident c h i l d r e n u n d e r a g e 15.
Mean number of c h i l d r e n Total
-~ - Haveall Havehalf p e r unit of total
1. All women
2. All women a g e d 15-60 0 . 3 8 3 0.123 0.64
3. All women aged 20-55 0.510 0.165 0.86
4. All women with c h i l d r e n 1.000 0.321 1 . 6 7
5. All men and women* 0.220 0.073
-
*The n u m e r a t o r includes a l l men and women with c h i l d r e n (welght- e d by t h e i r number), t h e denominator all men and women.
S o u r c e of data: O s t e r r e i c h i s c h e s S t a t i s t i s c h e s Zentralamt (1985).
ln t h e Austrian c e n s u s of 1981. 22.4% of all women lived t o g e t h e r with at l e a s t o n e child under a g e 15 ( s e e Table 6). Only 7.2% of a l l women had half t h e co- r e s i d e n t c h i l d r e n u n d e r a g e 15. If w e r e s t r i c t o u r analysis t o women of working a g e (15-60). 38.3% of them have a l l c h i l d r e n b u t only 12.3% h a v e half t h e children.
This amounts t o a v e r y high c o n c e n t r a t i o n of child care. The n e x t t o t a l considered is t h a t of all women t h a t could potentially h a v e a child u n d e r a g e 15 given a n a v e r - a g e a g e at f i r s t b i r t h of 20 a n d at l a s t b i r t h of 40. The concentration of child care
among t h o s e women i s p l o t t e d as c u r v e 3 in Figure 1. More t h a n half of t h e s e wom- e n h a v e c h i l d r e n but s t i l l only 16.5% h a v e half t h e c h i l d r e n u n d e r a g e 1 5 .
A s mentioned e a r l i e r , t h e l a b o r of c h i l d r e a r i n g 1s by no means r e s t r i c t e d t o women. Assuming t h a t f a t h e r s a n d m o t h e r s should b e given equal weight in r e s p e c t t o t h e l a b o r of c h i l d r e a r i n g , w e c a n look a t both s e x e s t o g e t h e r a n d find t h a t 22.0%
of a l l men a n d women h a v e c h i l d r e n u n d e r a g e 1 5 a n d only 7.3% h a v e half t h e chil- d r e n . Because of single-parent families, child care f o r men a n d women t a k e n to- g e t h e r i s slightly h i g h e r c o n c e n t r a t e d t h a n f o r women only.
MEN'S
SHARE M
REARING CHILDRENTable 7 shows t h a t t h e assumption of equal weights f o r men a n d women with r e s p e c t t o child care i s e x t r e m e l y u n r e a l i s t i c . In t h e e a r l y 1980s in Austria t h e majority of f a t h e r s did l e s s t h a n a q u a r t e r of t h e work involved in r e a r i n g chil- d r e n . T h e r e i s e v e n r e a s o n t o assume t h a t t h i s information provided by t h e women i s biased towards h i g h e r male p a r t i c i p a t i o n t o make t h e c o u p l e look more
"modern". W e find significant d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e amount of male p a r t i c i p a t i o n by t h e t y p e o f activity. Only 16% of f a t h e r s d o half o r m o r e in feeding a n d cleaning t h e child, w h e r e a s 34% d o half o r m o r e in playing with t h e child o r conducting oth- er l e i s u r e activities: only 2% of co-resident f a t h e r s d o n o t d o t h i s a t a l l .
A r a t h e r d i s t u r b i n g finding i s r e v e a l e d by t h e breakdown of men's p a r t i c i p a - tion in inside housework by t h e number of children: t h e h i g h e r t h e number of chil- d r e n , t h e lower t h e p r o p o r t i o n of housework done by t h e f a t h e r . The p e r c e n t a g e of men n o t p a r t i c i p a t i n g in housework a t a l l i s "only" 26% f o r childless couples and i n c r e a s e s monotonically with t h e number of c h i l d r e n : 58% of f a t h e r s of f o u r o r more c h i l d r e n d o not work in t h e household at all. This i n c r e a s e in inequality between t h e s e x e s with g r e a t e r family s i z e seems to b e inevitable: t h e more chil- d r e n t h e r e a r e , t h e more t h e f a t h e r h a s t o work in o r d e r t o maintain t h e family's s t a n d a r d of living a n d t h e l e s s h e h a s time t o b e with his family a n d h e l p with t h e housework. But e v e n if t h e amount of housework done by t h e f a t h e r remained con- s t a n t ; a n i n c r e a s e in t h e t o t a l work load r e s u l t s in a diminishing p r o p o r t i o n of h i s work. We may, however, assume t h a t decisions a b o u t family s i z e and p a r t i c i p a t i o n in housework a r e n o t made independently but t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l a t t i t u d e s a n d mentali- ties are a common d e t e r m i n a n t of both high f e r t i l i t y a n d low p a r t i c i p a t i o n in house- work w h e r e a s "modern" f a t h e r s h a v e l e s s c h i l d r e n a n d help more. Hence, in t h i s r e s p e c t , t h e t r a n s i t i o n t o a m o r e "modern" p a t t e r n would mean a d e c r e a s e in t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n of l a b o r f o r s o c i e t y ' s r e p r o d u c t i o n .
Table 7. The participatkon of husbands in c h i l d c a r e ( p e r c e n t a g e distribution):
sample of young couples who m a r r i e d in 1974 or 1977.
I
Amount of p a r t i c i p a t i o n1
1
T y ~ e of work Half o r more Q u a r t e r t o half Less NoneI
Feeding, washing, e t c . 1 6
Accompany t o school o r k i n d e r g a r t e n Playing, r e a d i n g Cleaning up t o y s
H e l ~ i n e with school work 18
!
P a r t i c i p a t i o n in inside housework by number of c h i l d r e nI
I
I
No c h i l d r e n 4 34 35
1 child 1 2 1 47 26
1
31 !
2 c h i l d r e n 1 1 4 49 4 1
3 c h i l d r e n 1 18 35 47
1
4 o r more c h i l d r e n
-
1 0 3 0 581
S o u r c e : Findel et a l . (1985)
CHILD CARE IN THE DAILY TIME BUDGET
Austrian women (including a l s o g r a n d m o t h e r s a n d o t h e r s ) who t a k e nonprofes- sional c a r e a b o u t c h i l d r e n s p e n d on t h e a v e r a g e 2 h o u r s and 20 minutes p e r day with e x p l i c i t c h i l d c a r e (not including housework). Men who p a r t i c i p a t e in chlld- c a r e d o s o f o r 1 h o u r a n d 50 minutes on t h e a v e r a g e
.
These are findings from a n Austrian time budget s u r v e y of 1981. However, only 1 9 % of a l l women a n d 7% of a l l men a b o v e a g e 1 9 a r e involved in c h i l d c a r e . This b r i n g s t h e a v e r a g e time s p e n t on c h i l d c a r e in t h e t o t a l population a b o v e a g e 19 down to 2 7 minutes f o r women a n d 8 minutes f o r men. F o r women t h e time used t o watch television i s f o u r times g r e a t e r (97 minutes) t h a n t h a t s p e n t on child care. F o r men t h e time s p e n t in f r o n t of a television set i s ever, t t ~ i r t e e n times l o n g e r (102 minutes).Men a b o v e a g e 1 9 s p e n d only 1.8% of t h e i r available time (excluding s l e e p , b a s i c n e e d s , and economic a c t i v i t i e s ) f o r child care. F o r women t h i s f i g u r e i s 4.9%.
If we a l s o e x c l u d e housework f r o m t h e amount of a v a i l a b l e time, 6 h o u r s and 8
Table 8. C h i l d c a r e in t h e daily time budget of t h e t o t a l Austrian population a b o v e a g e 1 9 .
I
P r o p o r t i o n of available time ;p e r p e r s o n used f o r child c a r e (includes a l s o g r a n d p a r e n t s I Available time o n t h e a v e r a g e looking a f t e r c h i l d r e n )
!
I Basis Men Women Men Women
i All day and night 24 h o u r s 24 h o u r s 0.5% 1.92
I
!
Time excluding b a s i c n e e d s 1 2 h o u r s . 1 2 h o u r s , 1i
like s l e e p i n g , e a t i n g , etc. 40 min. 40 min. 1.1% 3.521
Time excluding b a s i c needs I/
and economic a c t i v i t y 7 h o u r s , 9 h o u r s .i
(
(incl. way to work) 3 2 min. 8 min. 1.8% 4.92I
1
Time excluding b a s i c needs. I1
economic a c t i v i t y a n d 6 h o u r s 4 h o u r s
1
1
household a n d g a r d e n work B min. 18 min. 2.2% 10.52 IS o u r c e of d a t a : O s t e r r e i c h i s c h e s S t a t i s t i s c h e s Zentralamt (1984).
minutes of daily tree time remain for men a n d 4 h o u r s a n d 18 minutes for women.
Women u s e more t h a n 1 0 % of t h i s time f o r child c a r e , men slightly o v e r 2%. Because women h a v e l e s s f r e e time t h e p r o p o r t i o n of t h i s time s p e n t t o watch television i s g r e a t e r f o r women (38%) th a n f o r men (28%).
Of c o u r s e t h e s e a v e r a g e f i g u r e s d o not s a y much a b o u t t h e r e a l i t y of t h e e v e r y d a y life of m o t h e r s but t h e y c a n p r o v i d e a r o u g h p i c t u r e of how much time o u r s o c i e t y a l l o c a t e s t o child c a r e . Breakdowns of t h e s e time budget f i g u r e s show t h a t 35% of a l l housewives, 17% of currently-working women, a n d 6% of r e t i r e d wom- e n a r e involved in child c a r e . The child c a r e d o n e by men i s e v e n m o r e concen- t r a t e d and r e s t r i c t e d t o 7% of a l l men. F o r t h o s e c a r i n g f o r c h i l d r e n , o t h e r l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s are significantly r e d u c e d .
OUTLOOK
Will t h e f u t u r e b r i n g a n i n c r e a s i n g division of l a b o r f o r s o c i e t y ' s r e p r o d u c - tion o r will t h e b e a r i n g a n d r e a r i n g of c h i l d r e n s p r e a d m o r e evenly o v e r b r o a d segments of t h e population?
Trends in both d i r e c t i o n s a r e visible. W e saw t h a t d e c r e a s i n g f e r t i l i t y was g e n e r a l l y accompanied by increasing c o n c e n t r a t i o n . S i n c e t h e beginning o f t h e c e n t u r y , some families joined t h e t r e n d toward Lower f e r t i l i t y f a s t e r t h a n o t h e r s , making t h e population m o r e heterogeneous. After World War I1 t h i s i n c r e a s e in c o n c e n t r a t i o n was followed by a n u n p r e c e d e n t e d decline. The c o n c e n t r a t i o n of r e p r o d u c t i o n within t h e b i r t h c o h o r t of 1936-1940 ( m a r r i e d a n d unmarried) was even lower t h a n t h a t of t h e m a r r i a g e c o h o r t of 1905 a n d b e f o r e , although t h e mean number of c h i l d r e n h a d b e e n twice as high f o r t h e m a r r i a g e c o h o r t of 1905 a n d e a r l i e r . Estimates of completed p a r i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n s implied by c u r r e n t p e r i o d f e r t i l i t y indicate a new i n c r e a s e in c o n c e n t r a t i o n at p r e s e n t a n d in t h e n e a r fu- t u r e . On t h e o t h e r hand, long-term t r e n d s indicate a decline in t h e number of high f e r t i l i t y families, a n d a l s o a n i n c r e a s i n g feeling among childless women c a n b e re- g i s t e r e d t h a t t h e y are missing something if t h e y d o not h a v e c h i l d r e n of t h e i r own.
If both e x p e c t a t i o n s materialize t h i s would b r i n g a b o u t a s u b s t a n t i a l d e c r e a s e in t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n of f e r t i l i t y .
If t h e b e a r i n g a n d r e a r i n g of c h i l d r e n w e r e c o n s i d e r e d only as a pain neces- s a r y for s o c i e t y ' s r e p l a c e m e n t , t h i s disutility which seems to d e c r e a s e f o r h i g h e r p a r i t y b i r t h s , could p r o b a b l y b e minimized by having a few m o t h e r s t h a t h a d all t h e c h i l d r e n a n d r e c e i v e d in r e t u r n f o r t h e i r work high s o c i a l a n d economic recogni- tion. Rut t h i s i s obviously n o t t h e case. Having c h i l d r e n i s a l s o c o n s i d e r e d t o b e o n e of t h e most rewarding t h i n g s in l i f e a n d a g r e a t s o u r c e of p e r s o n a l fulfillment.
If t h e r e w a r d s of c h i l d r e a r i n g w e r e p e r c e i v e d equally t h r o u g h t h e population, t h e n t h e maximum Level of s o c i e t a l r e w a r d s would b e obtained if e v e r y man a n d woman had t h e same number of c h i l d r e n . Reality shows a m i x t u r e of t h e s e two a s p e c t s - t h e f i r s t having b e e n s t r o n g e s t in pre-modern a l p i n e communities, t h e s e c o n d d u r - ing t h e post-war baby boom. Recently, however, both p a t t e r n s h a v e weakened.
The s o c i a l a n d economic a d v a n t a g e s of having many c h i l d r e n h a v e b e e n diminishing rapidly a n d , on t h e o t h e r hand, p e r s o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u c h as c a r e e r options, p a r t n e r s h i p problems, e t c . , h a v e o f t e n outweighed t h e d e s i r e f o r own c h i l d r e n . A s a consequence, t h e national f e r t i l i t y level h a s been continuously declining s i n c e t h e baby boom.
In t h e f u t u r e , t h e high f e r t i l i t y option will p r o b a b l y become l e s s a n d l e s s at- t r a c t i v e t o young c o u p l e s unless g r e a t c h a n g e s o c c u r in s o c i a l policy o r c u l t u r a l values. On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e d e s i r e to h a v e at l e a s t one o r two own c h i l d r e n seems as pronounced as e v e r b e f o r e , d e s p i t e i n c r e a s i n g childlessness. If c i r - cumstances become more f a v o r a b l e f o r young families (more flexible working ar-
rangements f o r men a n d women, h i g h e r subsidies, e t c . ) , t h i s might lead t o a n in- c r e a s i n g number of families with o n e , two, o r t h r e e c h i l d r e n . This would r e s u l t in a lower c o n c e n t r a t i o n of f e r t i l i t y a s i s a l s o implied by d e s i r e d family size distribu- tions s t a t e d iri s u r v e y s . liesitantly, but still visibly, men's p a r t i c i p a t i o n in child c a r e i s i n c r e a s i n g and bringing inLo Lhe d i s t r i b u t i o n o f l a b o r between men a n d women more equality, t h u s f u r t h e r r e d u c i n g t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n of child r e a r i n g in society.
REFERENCES
Chiang, C.L.. 8 . v a n d e n B e r g (1982) A F e r t i l i t y T a b l e f o r t h e Analysis of Human R e p r o d u c t i o n . Mathematical R i o s c i e n c e s 62:237-251.
Findl, I.. A. L a b u r d a , a n d R. Munz (1985) F r a u e n a l l t a g und f a m i l i a r e A r b e i t s t e i l u n g . P a g e s 129-158 in Leben m i t K i n d e r n , e d i t e d b y R. Munz. Vienna.
F r i s c h , R. (1974) D e m o g r a p h i c ImpLications of t h e BioLogicaL D e t e r m i n a n t s ofFe- maLe F e c u n d i t y . R e s e a r c h P a p e r No. 6. C e n t e r f o r P o p u l a t i o n S t u d i e s , H a r - v a r d U n i v e r s i t y .
G i s s e r , R., W . Lutz, a n d R. Miinz (1985) Kinderwunsch und K i n d e r z a h l . P a g e s 33-94 in Leben rnit K i n d e r n , e d i t e d by R. Munz. Vienna.
Goodwin. D . a n d J . Vaupel (1985) C o n c e n t r a t i o n C u r v e s a n d H a v e - S t a t i s t i c s f o r EcoLogicaL A n a L y s i s of D i v e r s i t y : P a r t III: C o m p a r i s o n of Measures of D i v e r s i t y . WP-05-91. L a x e n b u r g , A u s t r i a : I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e f o r Applied S y s t e m s Analysis.
Goodwin. D., W. Lutz, a n d J . Vaupel (1986) C o n c e n t r a t i o n of R e p r o d u c t i o n a n d N a - t i o n a l F e r t i l i t y L e v e l s . Forthcoming Working P a p e r . L a x e n b u r g . A u s t r i a : I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e f o r Applied S y s t e m s Analysis.
H a s l i n g e r , A. a n d G . F e i c h t i n g e r (1978) AnaLyse d e r F e r t i L i t a t s e n t w i c k L u n g i n O s t e r r e i c h n a c h H e i r a t s j a h r g a n g e n . Vienna: InstituL f i j r Demographie.
H a s l i n g e r . A. (1985) Fruchtbarkeltsentwicklung n a c h H e i r a t s j a h r g a n g e n : Ein V e r - g l e i c h d e s Mikrozensus Juni 1 9 8 1 mit d e r L o n g i t u d i n a l e r h e b u n g . P a g e s 227- 2 9 1 in Leben m i t K i n d e r n , e d i t e d by R . Munz. Vienna.
Lutz, W. (1985) H e i r a t e n , S c h e i d u n g e n und Kinderzahl: D e m o g r a p h i s c h e T a f e l n zum Familien-Lebenszyklus i n O s t e r r e i c h . D e m o g r a p h i s c h e I n f o r m a t i o n e n , p p . 3-20.
Lutz, W . a n d G. F e i c h t i n g e r (1985) A Life T a b l e A p p r o a c h to P a r i t y P r o g r e s s i o n a n d M a r i t a l S t a t u s T r a n s i t i o n s . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d at t h e IUSSP G e n e r a l C o n f e r e n c e in F l o r e n c e . 1985.
O s t e r r e i c h i s c h e s S t a t i s t i s c h e s Z e n t r a l a m t (1984) E r g e b n i s s e d e s M i k r o z e n s u s September 2.982. Vienna.
O s t e r r e i c h i s c h e s S t a t i s t i s c h e s Z e n t r a l a m t (1.985) VoLkszahLung 1981. H a u p t e r g e b - n i s s e O s t e r r e i c h . Vienna.
P r e s t o n , S . (1976) Family s i z e s of c h i l d r e n a n d family s i z e s of women. D e m o g r a p h y 13(1):105-114.
S p r e e , R . (1984) Geburtenriickgang in Deutschland f o r 1939. Verlauf und schi- c h t s p e z i f i s c h e Auspragung. Demographische I n f o r m a t i o n e n , pp. 49-68.
