This is a preview. Log in through your library.
Abstract
Two aspects of the family in relation to fertility in developing countries are discussed: sex stratification within the family and extended family networks. As both these are central to J. C. Caldwell's theory of fertility transition, the paper is structured as a critique of his position. Drawing on examples and data from Asia, it is argued that the causal significance of sex stratification for fertility lies in the economic risks it imposes on women, deriving from their dependence on men, rather than, as Caldwell suggests, in the disproportionate gain that men derive from their dominant position within families. While Caldwell and others associate strong extended family networks of mutual obligation and support with persistent high fertility, it is argued here that such systems should, instead, facilitate fertility decline. Close-knit and strong kin networks can be viewed as alternatives to children as sources of insurance, and may facilitate fertility decline by preventing children from becoming the focal point of parental concerns for security.
Journal Information
For over half a century, Population Studies has reported significant advances in methods of demographic analysis, conceptual and mathematical theories of demographic dynamics and behaviour, and the use of these theories and methods to extend scientific knowledge and to inform policy and practice. The Journal’s coverage of this field is comprehensive: applications in developed and developing countries; historical and contemporary studies; quantitative and qualitative studies; analytical essays and reviews. The subjects of papers range from classical concerns, such as the determinants and consequences of population change, to such topics as family demography and evolutionary and genetic influences on demographic behaviour. Often the Journal’s papers have had the effect of extending the boundaries of its field.
Publisher Information
Building on two centuries' experience, Taylor & Francis has grown rapidlyover the last two decades to become a leading international academic publisher.The Group publishes over 800 journals and over 1,800 new books each year, coveringa wide variety of subject areas and incorporating the journal imprints of Routledge,Carfax, Spon Press, Psychology Press, Martin Dunitz, and Taylor & Francis.Taylor & Francis is fully committed to the publication and dissemination of scholarly information of the highest quality, and today this remains the primary goal.
Rights & Usage
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
Population Studies © 1982 Population Investigation Committee
Request Permissions
This is a preview. Log in through your library.
Abstract
David Popenoe (1988; 1993a) argues that family "decline" is associated with serious social consequences for child well-being, but, to date, neither he nor others have carried out a systematic empirical assessment of this linkage. The primary objective of this comparative study is to examine the relationship between family decline and child well-being in four industrialized countries: Sweden, the United States, the former West Germany, and Italy. Family decline is a composite of eight variables, and there are six indicators of child well-being. The results, taken as a whole, indicate that family decline is not necessarily associated with the kind of across-the-board deleterious outcomes for child well-being that Popenoe asserted. Although children are better off when they live in a society in which traditional family patterns are strong, when they do not, there are some things that societies can do to mitigate the negative consequences that nontraditionalism has for them.
Journal Information
The Journal of Marriage and Family (JMF), published by the National Council on Family Relations, is the leading research journal in the family field and has been so for over sixty years. JMF features original research and theory, research interpretation and reviews, and critical discussion concerning all aspects of marriage, other forms of close relationships, and families. The Journal also publishes book reviews. Contributors to JMF come from a diversity of fields including anthropology, demography, economics, history, psychology, and sociology, as well as interdisciplinary fields such as human development and family sciences. JMF publishes original theory and research using the variety of methods reflective of the full range of social sciences, including quantitative, qualitative, and multimethod designs. Integrative reviews as well as reports on methodological and statistical advances are also welcome. JMF is issued quarterly, in February, May, August, and November of each year. Each issue averages 284 pages in length. World wide, its circulation is more than 6,200 copies.
Publisher Information
For over sixty-four years National Council on Family Relations (NCFR) has linked multi-disciplinary family professionals through its journals, conferences, state affiliate councils, and special interest sections. NCFR is non-profit, nonpartisan and fully member-funded. Researchers, educators, practitioners, and policymakers from all family fields and disiplines share knowledge and information about families. NCFR was founded in 1938. NCFR's Mission: The National Council on Family Relations (NCFR) provides a forum for family researchers, educators, and practitioners to share in the development and dissemination of knowledge about families and family relationships, establishes professional standards, and works to promote family well-being.
Rights & Usage
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
Journal of Marriage and Family © 1996
National Council on Family Relations
Request Permissions