1992/07/01 by Kia I. Reinis · 29 citations
Mathematics · Psychology · Social Sciences · #Demographic Trends and Gender Preferences #Demographic analysis #Demography #Econometrics #Economics #Estimation #Family Dynamics and Relationships #Family planning #Fertility #Insurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management #Mathematics #Population #Psychology #Research methodology #Sociology #Statistics #Total fertility rate
paper · doi:10.1080/0032472031000146256
published in Population Studies 46(2), 309-326 (Taylor & Francis)
openalex publication_date 1992/07/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29
How well do Bongaarts's and Hobcraft and Little's methods estimate the fertility-reducing impact of the proximate determinants of fertility? Since we cannot observe what the methods estimate (i.e. fertility in the absence of the inhibiting factors), reproductive histories of a population of women are simulated to learn what the quantities are that the methods can only estimate, the ‘true’ values of Cm, Cc, Ca and Ci. When fertility behaviour is random, both methods work well; however, under more realistic conditions the methods go awry. Neither method works well when women employ stopping behaviour once they have achieved their desired family size. While the simulations do not attempt to incorporate the innumerable complexities of fertility behaviours, the incorporation of the simplest family-building strategy leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the methods yield poor estimates of the fertility-reducing impacts of marriage delay, contraceptive use, and induced abortions.