Publié par
###
insee

Voir plus
Voir moins

participation linked to fertility

rate trends?*

Didier Changes in female participation rates are sometimes related to changes in

Blanchet and fertility rates. This association raises a number of questions. Is it pure

Sophie Pennec** coincidence or does it reflect a causal relation and, if so, in which direction?

Has the shift away from large families prompted the increase in the

participation rate or rather has the increasing desire or need to work

prompted families to limit the number of children they have? Furthermore,

have these changes interfered with the modification of the extent of

incompatibility between work and family size?

These interdependencies can be studied using a simple model that does not a

priori favour any one of them. The application of this model reveals the driving

role of preference for participation over an intrinsic disinclination for large

families. This theory is compatible with an important characteristic in the

growth in female participation: the fact that it has risen sharply for a given

family size. The same finding results from an analysis of demographic and

participation patterns by the mother’s level of qualifications.

** At the time of writing

this article, Didier

Blanchet was Head of

1INSEE’s Social Policy emale participation and fertility rates detailed measurements of these tren , but tods

and Redistribution Fhave changed a great deal since the interpret them at their aggregate level.Division and a

researcher at INED. mid 1960s. These trends are summarised in

Sophie Pennec is a chart I. The average number of children per

woman, as measured by the cyclical fertilityDebated CausalityThis article is an update

of Blanchet and Pennec indicator, dropped from a high of 2.9 in 1964

(1993). The authors to around 1.8 to 1.9 in 1975. More recently, itWhat conclusions can be drawn about the

would like to thank the

has fallen to a new level of approximatelysimultaneous increase in female participationtwo anonymous editors

for their constructive 1.65 to 1.7. Female participation, as measuredand decrease in fertility? A number of

comments on a previous by the percentage of the female populationcontrasting interpretations can be put forward.

version of this article.

aged 25 to 49 in the labour force, increased

1from 42% to 80% over the same period. The See, for example, Lelièvre (1987), Des Nétumières (1994), and

Djider and Lefranc (1995).purpose of this article is not to propose more

Names and dates in pa-

rentheses refer to the

bibliography at the end *Originally published as "Projections de population active et participation au marché du travail," Économie et Statistique , no. 300,

of the article. 1996 – 10.

INSEE STUDIES N° 9, November1997 1Chart I There could be a causal link running from

Growth in female participation (percentage fertility to participation: exogenous causes may

of the female population aged 25 to 49 in the have reduced family size and therefore made

labour force) and fertility (cyclical rate) more women available to endeavour to enter

the labour market. Alternatively, motivations

for employment could be growing and bringing

about a drop in fertility. This viewpoint is

typical of many economic approaches to

demographic behaviour and labour supply: the

general increase in wage earning labour

productivity has raised the opportunity cost of

not working. This in turn has led to a general

shift from the domestic sphere to the market

sphere. The drop in fertility can be seen as a

result of this shift. A third approach is to deny

any link between the two and to view the

phenomenon as a pure coincidence devoid of

any causal relation.

At first glance, the data do not come out in

favour of any one of these different

Chart II interpretations. There is admittedly an

Growth in female participation for a given argument in support of the theory of

number of dependent children independence, which is that participation rates

have greatly increased, even for a given fertility

level. This can be seen in chart II, which shows

the increase in the participation rate by the

number of dependent children. This increase

actually does suggest that the increase in

participation is independent to some extent

(Véron, 1988). However, this finding does not

uphold the theory that the two phenomena are

totally independent. Although it implies that

the drop in fertility cannot totally explain the

increase in general participation, it does not

exclude the possibility of a partial explanation.

In addition, this finding tells us nothing about

the possible converse effects of the increase in

participation on fertility. We will thus examine

Coverage: women aged over 15 with 0, 1, 2 or 3 dependent children all the possible relationships using an approach

aged under 16 up to 1982 and aged under 18 in 1990. that does not a priori favour any of them and

Source: Population censuses (INSEE)

which, following quantification, ranks them.

Table 1

Breakdown* of the female population by A simple model for analysis ...

participation and the number of dependent

children Our analysis starts by stylising the problem. We

analyse the interdependencies between female

Three or more Two or fewer participation and family size using

children children

cross tabulations derived by describing these

two phenomena dichotomously. We divide the

In the labour force (1) a b

population into women with a high level of

involvement in the labour market, using aOut of the labour force (2) c d

criterion defined later in this article, and

(1) In the labour force: high level of involvement on the labour women with a low level of involvement. These

market.

we call “in the labour force” and “out of the(2) Out of the labour force: low level of involvement on the

labour market. labour force” respectively in order to simplify

*a + b + c + d = 1 the presentation. For fertility, we divide women

2 INSEE STUDIES N°9, November 1997 into two groups: those with more than two cross tabulations between successive censuses.

children and those with two or fewer children. These changes can be seen as the result of three

possible developments, which are not mutually

The population studied is thus divided into 2 exclusive, but are rather liable to overlap.2

categories: women in the labour force with

more than two children and those with two or - Take first of all the example of a change in the

fewer children, and women out of the labour parameter denoting incompatibility between

force using the same family size criterion (sepearticipation and family size. Let us

table 1). The observed frequencies a, b, c, and d suppose that it increases. The potential

in the table’s four cells are obviously assumedeffects are twofold, with one part of the

to satisfy the restriction tha + t b + c + d = 1.population mo ving towards the

Over time, the values of parameters a, b, c, and high participation/small family model and

d will change, but they must always sum to one: another part of the population moving towards

a decrease in the number of individuals in one the opposite low participation/large family

cell necessarily entails an increase in at leasmtodel. The ultimate effects on total

one of the other three cells. The idea is thus to participation and total fertility are therefore

analyse these shifts and understand what theyambiguous, since they depend on the levels of

represent in terms of links between the two the other two parameters and . This is in

types of behaviour. line with the intuition: if two behavioural

patterns become less compatible, we do not

The log linear model described in the normally know which one will increase at the

following box is particularly well suited to expense of the other.

analysing these shifts. This model circumvents

the problems posed by the restriction that the The main and unambiguous effect of a change in

four rates in table 1 must sum to one, since tithe parameter denoting preference for

entails reparameterising them using three participation is an increase in both general

mutually independent values. More participation and participation for a given family

importantly, it involves a more flexible causalsize. A closer look at chart II enables us to

framework than the simple search for anticipate that this type of phenomenon has

uni directional dependencies between actually been observed in France. We can thus

participation and fertility, provided that the expect a spillover effect on family size, provided

three parameters in this model are interpreted in that the parameter is not equal to zero. Although a

terms of exogenous factors of change: growing preference for participation might prompt

a large number of mothers to work without

the first parameter ( in the box) measures thechanging their choice of family size (compared

degree of preference for the first row of thewith previous generations of women), part of this

table: it can therefore be interpreted as a decision to participate will also translate into a shift

parameter of preference for participation as into the category of small families. Less

opposed to being out of the labour force; compatibility between work and family size will

strengthen this trend. Only i g f were equal to zero

the second parameter ( in the box) measures would a growing preference for participation have

the relative degree of preference for the firstno impact whatsoever on fertility.

column: it is thus interpreted as a parameter of

preference for large families; A drop in the parameter denoting a

decreased intrinsic preference for large

- the third parameter ( in the box) measures the families, on the other hand, results first and

degree of incompatibility between participation foremost in a drop in fertility. This could, at the

and family size. A zero value for this paramete same time, contribute to a rise in participation.r

would indicate total independence between

participation and family size at a given time. We

... which highlights the preference forknow that this is not the case, since, at a given

moment in time, participation decreases for participation

larger numbers of children: this parameter will

thus have a positive value. The reality is assumed to consist of a

combination of these three mechanisms.

An analysis of the growth in these three The question is whether one of them is

parameters is therefore a simple way of dominant. To answer this, the proposed

interpreting the changes in the model has to be quantified, which we have

INSEE STUDIES N° 9, November1997 3

gbbagbgaBox

USING A LOG LINEAR MODEL TO ANALYSE INTERDEPENDENCE BETWEEN CHANGES

IN PARTICIPATION AND FERTILITY

The aim of this model is to explain the distribution (no one situation is preferred on average). It is

of the population among the four cells of table 1. A simply a marginal product if equals zero (no

premise shared by many qualitative models (see interaction or incompatibility between participation

Gourieroux, 1989) is that ind ividuals place and fertility). We can also check whether the

themselves in one of the four cells according to the content of each cell changes according to , and

“values” they associate with the different situations. with the expected sign. Therefore, the content of

These values may include certain economic factors the first cell, i.e. the probability of participating and

(positive economic value associated with having a large number of children, can also be

participation, negative value associated with large written as:

families when their cost is high) and non economic

factors (some parents attribute greater intrinsic

1

value to having a large family than others). We a = (1)

assume that the values and costs associated with e + e + e + 1

each type of behaviour can be quantified. The

reference behavioural pattern chosen is women out

of the labour force with small families (reference which is an increasing function of the preference for

participation , which also increases the greater thevalue of 0). We assume that, in terms of this

pattern, working represents an additional value of , preference for a large number of children .

having a large family represents a value , and However, it is a decreasing function of the

incompatibility between participation and a largecombining participation with a large family

represents a negative value (or cost) equal to . family . The probability of being in this first cell is

close to one when and are both close to + ,

while remains finite. Yet the probability of being inWith this as our starting point, we can calculate the

preference rates for the different options (see table this cell is close to zero when the degree of

A) and make the assumption that the behavioural incompatibility between participation and large

pattern with the highest preference rate will be the

one adopted.

Table A

Parameters , and are obviously not the same Relative preferences for the different

for all individuals in the population under

options

consideration. If this were the case, all the

individuals would adopt the same behaviour.

Instead, these values are average values and the Three or more Two or fewer

children childrenfluctuations relating to the individual parameters are

denoted by as many random factors as there are

different situations, i.e. X , X , X and X in thisa b c d In the labour +

case, with the indicators bearing the cell force

designations chosen for table 1. Given these

Out of the labour 0

circumstances, the percentage shown in a given

force

cell of the contingency table is equal to the

probability that the value attributed to the cell is

greater than the values attributed to the three other

cells. For example, frequency a is equal to the Table B

percentage of individuals for whom + - + X isa Contingency table of average preferences

greater than the values for +X , +X and X .b c d +( D = e + e + e + 1)

Calculating this percentage presupposes

hypotheses regarding the distributions of variables

X , X , X and X . These distributions generallya b c d Proportion of

Two or

Three or more families withrequire a complex expression, but a convenient fewer

children three or moreassumption is available regarding the shape of such children

children

1a distribution, which furnishes simple expressions.

These expressions and the expressions for the

+ participation rate by family size and family size by In the e ⁄ D e ⁄ (e +1) e ⁄ D

labourparticipation are shown in table B.

force

The formulae in table B have the simple qualitative

Out of the e ⁄ D 1 ⁄ D e ⁄ (e +1)

properties expected of a model that aims to explain labour

the structure of table 1. All the expressions are force

positive due to the use of exponentials and they

Participation e ⁄ (e + 1) e ⁄ (e + 1)sum to 1, since they are divided by D. The table is

rateevenly distributed if , and are all equal to zero

1 See Blanchet (1992) for a more detailed presentation.

4 INSEE STUDIES N°9, November 1997

aaag-b-b-bbga-gbaa¥-gb-b-agbbgabg--gbbagbaa-aagg-bbgabagabbagaabbagggBox (continued)...

families is very high, while and remain at stable The above model is part truly explanatory model

levels. Finally, the participation rate expressions for (where , and are expressed according to

a given family size also give standard objective measured variables), and part descriptive

logisticalexpressions, which can be applied in many model. We can therefore put forward just one

ways to the separate analysis of these participation possible reparameterisation of the initial contingency

patterns (see for example Lollivier, 1988). tables. However, this reparameterisation is

particularly well suited to the analysis of changes in

It is easy to estimate , and from the frequencies these tables. It is actually easier and more accurate

of a, b, c, and d, since the model used is completely to compare , , and g , which have behavioural

saturated (i.e. none of the parameters , or is a significance and are not, as are a, b, c, and d,

priori constrained to zero). We simply have to solve subject to the restriction that they sum to 1. This

the identity between tables 1 and B, which gives: restriction complicates the analysis of the initial

contingency tables, because there is no knowing

whether a change in one of the frequencies results

= log(b) log( d) (2) from a change in “pure” preference for the

= log(c) log( d) ( corresponding cell or the of3) fsetting of changes in

= log(b) + log(c) log( a) log( d) (4) preference for one of the other three cells.

Table 2done with table 2 and reoducing thpr e table 1

Breakdown of women aged 35 to 39structure for the last five census periods. We

by participation and family sizehave chosen a specific age group for this: 35 to

from 1962 to 1990 (census years)39 year olds. We have assumed that the average

participation rate for this age group is fairly

% ofrepresentative of participation choices for the

3 or 2 or women

entire life span, excluding temporary breaks to more fewer with 3 or

children children moretake care of very young children. This age

children

group is also the age at which the family has

2 1962 In the labour forcevirtually attained its ultimate size . 6.7 25.9 20.5

Out of the labour force 30.6 36.8 45.4

Table 2 sets out the overall female participation % in the labour force 17.9 41.3

and fertility trends mentioned in the

1968 In the labour force 6.9 28.2 19.6

introduction. From 1962 to 1990, the

Out of the labour force 30.0 34.9 46.2

proportion of women aged 35 to 39 with more

% in the labour force 18.6 44.7

than two dependent children decreased from

1975 In the labour force37.3% (6.7 + 30.6) to 27.8% (13.7 + 14.1). The 9.3 36.4 20.3

Out of the labour forceproportion of women in the labour force 26.0 28.3 47.9

increased from 32.6% to 72.4% (6.7 + 25.9 and % in the labour force 26.3 56.3

13.7 + 58.7 respectively). Finally, although few

In the labour force1982 9.3 52.3 15.1

changes are observed in family size for a given

Out of the labour force 15.6 22.8 40.7

participation rate, a phenomenon previously

% in the labour force 37.3 69.7

noted by Léry (1984), participation increases

In the labour forceregardless of the number of children (see chart 1990 13.7 58.7 18.9

Out of the labour forceII). In 1962, only 17.9% of mothers with three 14.1 13.5 51.2

or more children were in the labour force as % in the labour force 49.2 81.3

opposed to 49.2% by 1990. Similarly, the

Interpretation: In 1990, out of every 1,000 womaged 35 to 39,en

participation rate for women with two or fewer 137 were women in the labour force with three or more children.

The participation rate for mothers with three or more children waschildren rose from 41.3% to 81.3%.

49.2%. 18.9% of all women in the labour fo had three or morerce

children.

Table 2 can be used to reconstruct the values for Source: population censuses from 1962 to 1990 (INSEE).

the three parameters in the log linear model for

each census and show how they change over

2 Due to a change in the “dependent child” definition, thetime, as shown in chart III. These parameters

figures for 1990 cover children aged 0 to 18 rather than aged

are dimensionless, and we must therefore 0 to 16 as before. This change in definition appears to have a

confine our discussion to the signs and growth. minimal effect on the classifications used here.

INSEE STUDIES N° 9, November1997 5

babagagbabaabbg

g Growth remains relatively level for the two increase that serves to explain the upturn in the

parameters reflecting preference for families general participation rate and participation for

with more than two children and a given family size.

incompatibility between participation and

family size. The consistently negative value ofThese findings are consistent with an economic

the first parameter reflects the fact that a family explanation of demographic and labour supply

with more than two children is a minority patterns. The wages offered on the labour

choice for all these periods. This value presents market increase with the level of education and,

some fluctuations with a trough around 1982,for a given level of education, with the growth

but no clear trend. The positive value of thein overall productivity. In both cases, this

incompatibility parameter obviously confirms phenomenon results in a greater loss of incomepatibility, but we also observe that the in the event of an exit from the labour force. It

visible degree of incompatibility varies only therefore leads to a higher participation rate,

slightly over time. Conversely, there is a sharp which may remain compatible with sustained

rise in the implicit preference for the family size for some, but leads others to limit

participation parameter. It is clearly this family size. This analysis does not imply that

all changes in demographic patterns can be

reduced to this type of explanation. TheChart III

analysis does, however, appear to be relativelyEstimated and extrapolated (post-1990)

likely and play an important role in explainingvalues for parameters , andg.

3the situation in France .

To further demonstrate the explanatory value of

this method, an evaluation can be made of the

spillover effect of this factor on the drop in the

number of large families. This simply involves

reconstructing what the combined growth in

(a) participation and fertility would have been if

this factor alone influenced it. In other words, it

entails calculating the cross tabulations of

(g) participation and family size that would have(b)

been observed since 1962, by keeping

parameters and at their 1962 levels and

leaving to change at its actual rate. This is

shown on the left hand side of chart IV for both

the general participation rate and the general

frequency of large families. As expected, the

Chart IV growth in parameter alone perfectly explains

Reconstructed and predicted growth in the the increase in the general participation rate. It

general participation rate and the prevalence also significantly explains part of the drop in

of large families when influenced solely by the frequency of large families, via the

the increase in preference for participation above described selection effect.

( andg remain constant)

Might the continuation of this trend bring about

the demise of families with three or more

children? Probably not. Given that a certain

number of households are able to cope with a

family of more than two children with both

parents in the labour force, there is no reason

for this to change when preference for the

labour force reaches the stage where couples

3 Note that this analysis does not necessarily forecast the

chronological order of the birth of children and exits from the

labour force. It could very well be in line with the observation that

leaving the labour force precedes starting a family (Lollivier,

1988): for example, a low level of preference for participation can

lead to an exit from the labour market before children are born.

6 INSEE STUDIES N°9, November 1997

bbaaagbwith just one member in the labour force no1962 levels and the value tending towards an

longer exist. arbitrarily high level. Although participation

tends towards 100%, the percentage of families

The right hand side of chart IV represents thiwsith more than two children remains above

theory with an imputed extension of the curveszero at 22%. This exercise is not a real

for participation and frequency of large prediction. The highly aggregate nature of the

families, with the and values frozen at their model precludes its use in this form for an

Table 3

Participation and family size by level of education* of the man and the woman,

with estimated values for parameters , and

In the labour In the labour Out of the Out of the

Woman’s force with force with labour force labour force

Man’s level

level of 3 or more 2 or fewer with 3 or morewith 2 or fewerab

of education

education children children children children

(a, in %) (b, in %) (c, in %) (d, in %)

0 0 20.3 37.5 27.2 14.9 0.921 0.601 1.216

1 17.2 49.0 15.2 18.5 1.765 0.191 1.559

2 19.0 45.7 18.7 16.6 1.657 0.072 1.221

3 15.9 46.5 14.7 22.8 2.021 0.386 0.729

4 12.4 37.8 19.3 30.5 2.308 0.057 1.229

5 10.6 33.0 23.5 33.0 2.211 0.693 0.824

1 0 15.6 61.2 12.7 10.5 0.973 0.194 0.850

1 14.3 61.3 9.5 15.0 1.415 0.451 1.002

2 16.8 60.9 7.5 14.7 1.406 0.820 0.728

3 14.1 54.6 12.1 19.2 2.510 0.117 1.817

4 14.5 50.8 14.0 20.7 2.553 0.251 1.615

5 12.3 40.4 18.2 29.1 2.890 0.405 1.791

2 0 18.5 58.4 12.0 11.1 1.014 0.119 0.997

1 13.6 63.9 6.9 15.7 1.420 0.673 0.611

2 16.9 60.9 10.2 12.0 1.622 0.165 1.116

3 12.4 59.3 9.8 18.5 2.293 0.377 1.121

4 12.4 59.6 11.3 16.8 2.138 0.659 0.626

5 9.5 47.4 18.1 25.0 2.538 0.693 0.865

3 0 21.1 64.5 5.8 8.6 0.714 0.434 0.636

1 13.5 73.8 6.7 6.0 1.044 0.465 0.886

2 16.0 71.8 5.0 7.2 1.165 0.629 0.937

3 14.5 68.0 7.8 9.7 1.951 0.213 1.330

4 17.2 57.4 7.0 18.4 1.887 0.340 0.921

5 14.4 48.6 17.0 20.0 2.625 0.451 0.934

4 0 18.8 68.0 6.4 6.8 0.214 0.456 0.654

1 17.8 69.8 7.0 5.4 0.896 0.393 0.859

2 19.0 68.7 4.2 8.1 1.269 0.397 1.175

3 18.3 64.8 7.0 9.8 1.136 0.969 0.238

4 21.1 60.6 9.5 8.8 1.930 0.080 1.137

5 17.8 45.4 18.6 18.2 2.036 0.271 0.959

5 0 15.8 72.3 4.0 7.9 0 0.339 0.793

1 18.0 72.0 6.0 4.0 0.329 0.470 0.722

2 15.8 75.2 3.0 5.9 0.639 0.323 1.279

3 18.3 73.1 3.4 5.3 0.887 0.160 1.057

4 19.2 65.7 6.5 8.6 0.916 0.021 0.959

5 23.6 59.5 9.0 7.9 2.018 0.125 1.052

*The level of education of each member of the couple is measured on a scale of 0 to 5, where 0 is no qualifications or primary education; 1 is

the BEPC (first degree certificate) taken at the age of 14; 2 is the vocational education certificate or the technical school certificate (CAP, BEP);

3 is the baccalauréat; 4 is the baccalauréat plus two years of higher education; and 5 is the baccalauréat plus four years of higher education.

Source: Family Survey, 1990 (INSEE).

INSEE STUDIES N° 9, November1997 7

gbaaabggbgChart V operational prediction of family structures and

Values of the , and parameters by the participation. It does, however, proffer a way of

level of education of both spouses* making integrated predictions that would make

general use of the logistical extrapolation

procedures normally applied solely to

participation rate predictions.

Another application: participation

and family size by level of education

This analytic framework can be used to

address other aspects of the relationship

between female participation and fertility. To

illustrate this, we take the example of the

cross tabulation of fertility and participation

by the level of education of both spouses. The

figures used are taken from the 1990 Family

survey. This survey differs from the census in

that the “number of children” variable

reflects the actual number of children born

rather than just dependent children.

Therefore, we can study the case of slightly

older women who have finished, or nearly

finished, forming their family. Here again,

fertility is divided into women who have

given birth to more than two children and

those with two or fewer children.

Participation is derived from the respondent’s

working status when the survey was carried

out. This status is assumed to accurately

reflect the distinction between a high and low

or zero level of female involvement in the

labour market. The population studied

consists of married women aged 40 to 44 at

the time of the survey. The level of education

of each spouse is measured on a scale of 0 to

5, where 0 is no qualifications or primary

education; 1 is the BEPC (first degree

certificate) taken at the age of 14; 2 is the

vocational education certificate or the

technical school certificate (CAP, BEP); 3 is

the baccalauréat; 4 is the baccalauréat plus

two years of higher education; and 5 is the

baccalauréat plus four years of higher

education.

A table similar to table 1 is drawn up for each

intersection between a couple’s levels of

education. The , and parameters

associated with each intersection between a

man’s level of education and a woman’s level

of education are deduced by equations (2), (3)

and (4) in the model (see box).

The data and conclusions are shown in table 3

and chart V respectively. They demonstrate

that, once again, it is the preference for

8 INSEE STUDIES N°9, November 1997

bbaaggbagparticipation that appears to determine the This explains the increase in participation for a

differences in behaviour between couples withgiven family size and the widespread

different levels of education. The preference foroccurrence of the participation/number of

participation increases the higher the woman’schildren combination. Another part of the

level of education, and decreases the higher the female population changes its participation

man’s level of education (this latter phenomenonbehaviour by restricting family size, hence the

is clearly demonstrated only between levels 4 and spillover effect on the distribution of families

5). By comparison, the preference for large by size.

families and the degree of incompatibility

between participation and fertility bear no clearIt is important not to misinterpret the

trends, but simply fluctuations, mainly due to the significance or implications of this conclusion.

sampling fluctuations. In particular, the large Firstly, it applies to a summary and synthetic

variations observed in the p arameter concern description of the behaviour studied. A more

sub-samples too small to be of any significance.detailed study would probably find more

These results are comparable with results complex interrelations. Secondly, it cannot

previously obtained using the 1982 Family necessarily be applied elsewhere. International

survey, suggesting that this explanatory comparisons for example, as opposed to

framework has a certain permanence (Blanchetcomparisons over time or across

and Pennec, 1993). socio economic groups, find variations in

fertility that have no apparent link with the

Statistics can therefore help shed light on the level of participation (Blanchet and Pennec,

4 4 See the comparison apparently indecidable causal link between 1993) . Finally, an emphasis on the driving role

of France and Germany female participation and fertility. The of the preference for participation in no way

by Fagnani (1992) for the

findings posited here place the emphasis onmeans that an increase in fertility, assumingdiversityof factors explai-

ning differences in partici the preference for participation, whether a that this is desired, can only be brought about

pation and fer tility spontaneous preference or a more by a decrease in participation. An increase in

between countries

compulsory preference in terms of the needfertility, when a high level of preference for

for a second wage. The scenario then plays participation is present, can just as easily result

out in a straightforward manner more or lessfrom reduced incompatibility between

consistent with the intuition. One part of the participation and family size. This could be the

female population is able to shift its aim of a family policy. Once again, the findings

participation behaviour away from previous based on this model are consistent with

generations without changing its family size.expectations.

INSEE STUDIES N° 9, November1997 9

gREFERENCES

Blanchet, D. (1992), “ Interpréter les évolutions tiques familiale en France et en Allemagne de

temporelles de l’activité féminine et de la fécondi-l’Ouest ,”Recher ches et Prévisions , no. 28, Cnaf,

té ,” Population, no. 2, pp. 389 408. pp. 23 38.

Blanchet, D. and Pennec, S. (1993 , “ A) Simple Gourieroux, C. (1989) , Econométrie des variables

Model for Interpreting Cross Talations of Fabu - qualitatives, Economica.

mily Size and Women’s Labour Force Participa-

tion ,” European Journal of Population , no. 9, Lelièvre, E. (1987) , “ Activité professionnelle et

pp. 121 143. fécondité : les choix et les déterminations des fem

mes françaises entre 1930 et 1960 Cahiers Qué ,”

Bordes, M. M. and Guillemot, D. (1994) , Marché becois de Démographie , vol. 16, no. 2,

du travail. Séries longues , “ Insee Résultats ” collec pp. 207 236.

tion, “ Emplois Revenus ” series, no. 62 63.

Léry, A. (1984) , “ Les actives de 1982 n’ont pas

Des Nétumières, F (1994) , “ L’arrêt de travail des moins d’enfants que celles de 1968 ,” Économie et

femmes. Mariage et maternité DEA,” paper , Univer Statistique, no. 171 172, pp. 25 34.

sité René Descartes, Paris Sorbonne.

Lollivier, S. (1988) , “ Activité et arrêt d’activité fé

Desplanques, G. (1993) , “ Activité féminine et vieminine, le diplôme et la famille ,” Économie et Sta-

familiale ,” Économie et Statistique, no. 261, tistique, no. 212, pp. 25 30.

pp. 23 32.

Sardon, J. P. (1994) , La population européenne en

Djider, Z and Lefranc, C. (1995), “ Femme au foyer chiffres Fécondité générale , INED.

: un modèle qui disparaît Insee Pr,” emière, no. 403.

Véron, J. (1988) , “ Activité féminine et structure fa

Fagnani, J. (1992) , “ Les Françaises font elles des miliale, quelle dépendance ? ,”Population , no. 1,

prouesses ? Fécondité, travail professionnel et poli pp. 103 120.

10 INSEE STUDIES N°9, November 1997

Partagez cette publication