Lesthaeghe PDR 2010

The Unfolding Story of
the Second Demographic

Transition
RON LESTHAEGHE
THE DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION refers to the declines in fertility and mortality

that occurred in Western countries from the eighteenth and nineteenth cen-
turies onward and during the second half of the twentieth century in much
of the rest of the world. At present, there are barely a dozen countries that
have not begun a fertility decline. In the West, the control of fertility within
wedlock occurred in tandem with a reduction in celibacy and a lowering of
ages at marriage, signaling a major departure from its Malthusian marriage
system. In the rest of the world, early marriage for women—often the re-
sult of arrangements between families or lineages—gave way to much later
marriage, partly because of more individual partner choice and partly as a
response to economic factors. On the whole, William Goode’s prediction of
1963 forecasting a rise in non-Western ages at marriage has largely been
borne out by the record of the last 40 years. This increase in ages at marriage
has furthermore been a major component in the overall fertility decline in
many non-Western countries.
But even before the demographic transition started spreading from the
West and Japan to the less developed countries, Western populations were
initiating a process that would take them far beyond what postwar demo-
graphic transition theory had forecasted.1 The fertility decline did not stop at
around two children on average, and Western marriage would not stay early
or attract the vast majority of men and women. The end product does not
seem to be a balanced stationary population with zero population growth and
little or no need for immigrants. This “second demographic transition” (SDT)
brings sustained sub-replacement fertility, a multitude of living arrangements
other than marriage, the disconnection between marriage and procreation,
and no stationary population. Instead, Western populations face declining
sizes, and if it were not for immigration, that decline would already have
started in many European countries. In addition, continued gains in longev-
ity at older ages in tandem with sustained sub-replacement fertility will lead
POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 36(2): 211–251 (JUNE 2010) 211
PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 211 5/20/10 1:18:19 PM

212 THE UNFOLDING STORY OF THE SECOND DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION
to additional population aging. This aging cannot be fully compensated by

“replacement migration.”
The early signs of the second demographic transition emerged in the
1950s: divorce rates were rising, especially in the United States and Scandi-
navia, and the departure from a life-long commitment was justified by the
logic that “a good divorce is better than a bad marriage.” From the second
half of the 1960s onward, fertility started falling from its “baby boom” high.
Moreover, the trend in ages at first marriage was reversed again, and propor-
tions single started rising. Soon thereafter, it became evident that premarital
cohabitation was on the rise and that divorce and widowhood were followed
less frequently by remarriage and more often by postmarital cohabitation.
By the 1980s even procreation within cohabiting unions had spread from
Scandinavia to the rest of Western Europe. In both France and the United
Kingdom, more than 40 percent of all births now occur out of wedlock. In
1960 the figure for both countries was 6 percent.
The notion of a second demographic transition, which Dirk van de Kaa
and I introduced in 1986 in a short article in the Dutch sociology journal
Mens en Maatschappij, has been criticized from different perspectives.2 First, it
was maintained that the SDT would merely be the continuation of the one
and only transition (e.g., Cliquet 1992). Second, according to David Coleman
(2004, p. 11), it would not be a “second transition,” but merely a “secondary
feature” of the demographic transition. The second demographic transition
would, according to Coleman, not even be demographic in nature, but only
a “partial analysis of life style preferences.” Third, a more common argument,
particularly in the 1990s, has been that the SDT is an archetypical Western
European (plus Canadian and Australian) feature that would not spread to
the United States or to Southern, Central, and Eastern Europe, let alone Asia.
Instead, the demographic changes in the latter parts of Europe could be ac-
counted for by the economic turmoil associated with the transition from Com-
munist to market economies, without involving the operation of a cultural
shift. In the United States, widely held Christian values would stem the tide
and strengthen American “exceptionalism,” as for instance exhibited by the
absence of sub-replacement fertility. Fourth, it was suggested that the theory
of the SDT overemphasized the link between the transformation in family
relationships (especially cohabitation) and the prevalence of sub-replacement
fertility. In other words, the family formation variables associated with the
SDT would not be as cohesive as envisaged in 1986. Fifth, the SDT theory
could not account for the great variety of fertility levels from barely below
replacement to “lowest low.” Finally, questions inevitably arose about the
universality of the SDT: could its features spread to Asia and other continents
as societies grew richer, or is the SDT a Western idiosyncrasy and bound to
remain so?
These questions set the agenda for the following analysis.

RON LESTHAEGHE 213
Is the second demographic transition merely

the continuation of the first?
The idea of the distinctness of the SDT stems from Philippe Ariès’s analysis
of the history of childhood (1962) and, as van de Kaa and I have repeatedly
pointed out, from his 1980 article on the two successive and distinct motiva-
tions for parenthood. During the first demographic transition, the decline in
fertility was “unleashed by an enormous sentimental and financial investment
in the child” (i.e., the “king child era,” to use Ariès’s term)(Ariès 1980, p. 649),
whereas the motivation during the second transition is adult self-realization
within the role or life style as a parent or more complete and fulfilled adult.
This major shift is also propped up by the innovation of hormonal and other
forms of highly efficient contraception. During the first transition couples
chose to adopt contraception in order to avoid pregnancies; during the second,
the basic decision is to stop contraception in order to start a pregnancy.
The other “root” of the SDT theory was connected to a reaction of van de
Kaa and myself toward the cyclical fertility theory, as formulated by Richard
Easterlin (1973). In this theory, small cohorts would have better employ-
ment opportunities and hence earlier marriage and higher fertility, whereas
large cohorts would have the opposite life chances and inverse demographic
responses. Easterlin’s theory accounts well for the marriage boom and baby
boom of the 1960s, and also for the subsequent baby bust of the 1970s. But
the theory equally predicts further cycles produced by the earlier ones, and
hence expects a return of fertility to higher levels when smaller cohorts reach
the reproductive years. By the middle of the 1980s van de Kaa and I had
become convinced that sub-replacement fertility was not only going to last
much longer, but could even become an “intrinsic” feature of a new demo-
graphic regime. Thus, we saw the discrediting of the model of an ultimate
stationary population with a long-term population equilibrium, and of the
revised version of the model that postulated cyclical fertility swings around
replacement fertility.
But there was more behind the idea of the second demographic tran-
sition than these two considerations. Further in the background was the
concept of a Maslowian preference drift. Stated succinctly, Abraham Maslow
(and others before him) noticed that greater economic development produced
a shift in concerns about material needs (subsistence, shelter, physical and
economic security) to a focus on non-material needs (freedom of expression,
participation and emancipation, self-realization and autonomy, recognition).
With such a shift in needs, a shift in the values structure would also occur,
with tolerance for diversity and respect for individual choices gradually taking
over as prime values from solidarity and social group adherence and cohesion.
With this background in mind, the first demographic transition is considered
as anchored mainly in the stage of the realization of basic material needs,

whereas the second demographic transition is the expression of the develop-

ment of higher-order, non-material needs and of expressive values.
Also note that the explicit inclusion of the Maslowian drift sets the SDT
theory apart from both the neoclassic economic interpretation and any neo-
Marxist or purely structural sociology and history. The latter see demographic
change merely as a response to changes in material circumstance and either
fail to incorporate cultural shifts altogether or fail to specify universal mecha-
nisms that link material to non-material driving forces. At this point one will
notice the close resemblance of the SDT theory to the theory developed by
Ron Inglehart in the field of political science (e.g., Inglehart 1970, 1997).
Having pointed out the intellectual origins of the SDT, I now offer a
more systematic treatment of the contrasts between the first and second
demographic transitions. Appendix Table 1 summarizes the points discussed
below.
Contrasting nuptiality regimes
As I indicated earlier, a first major contrast between the first and second
transitions is their trends in nuptiality. In Western Europe the Malthusian
pattern of late marriage weakened, mainly because of the growth of wage-
earning labor, and this basic trend toward earlier and more universal marriage
continued until the mid-1960s. Hence, the lowest mean ages at first marriage
since the Renaissance were reached in the middle of the twentieth century.
Furthermore, the pockets of Western Europe where cohabitation and out-
of-wedlock fertility had remained high during the nineteenth century were
under siege during the first half of the twentieth. Such behavior was not in
line with the religious and secular views on what constituted a proper family.
Extramarital fertility rates declined throughout Europe after 1900.
By contrast, after 1965, ages at marriage rose again and cohort propor-
tions ever-married started declining (Council of Europe 2004). This resulted
not only from an interim period of premarital cohabitation, but also from later
home leaving and more and longer single living. The very rapid prolongation
of education for both sexes since the 1950s and the ensuing change in the
educational composition of Western populations contributed to this process.
But the unfolding of the nuptiality features of the SDT did not stop at a rise
in ages at marriage and at a mere insertion of an interim “student” period.
Postmarital cohabitation too was on the rise, as was childbearing outside
wedlock. And in many instances the latter trend is to some extent a “revenge
of history”: cohabitation and procreation by non-married couples are now
often highest where the custom prevailed longest during the nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries.3
Another contrast between the first and second transitions pertains to
divorce and remarriage. The first transition was preoccupied with strengthen-

RON LESTHAEGHE 215
ing marriage and the family, and divorce legislation remained strict. The state
offered little opposition to religious doctrine in this respect. Divorce on the
basis of mutual consent was rare and mostly based on proven adultery. The
second transition witnessed the end of a long period of low divorce rates, and
the principle of a unique, life-long legal partnership was questioned. This took
the form of a rational “utility” evaluation of marriage in terms of the welfare
of both adult partners first and children second. This questioning was accom-
panied by attacks on the hypocrisy of the earlier restrictive divorce legisla-
tion that fostered concubinage instead. The outcome in Western Europe, the
United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand was a succession of legal
liberalizations in the wake of a singularly rising demographic trend. And, as
pointed out in the introduction, the onset of the rise in divorce was probably
the very first manifestation of the accentuation of individual autonomy in
opposing the moral order prescribed by Church and State. It should be noted,
however, that resistance to divorce was stronger in countries or regions with
a Catholic background than in those with a Protestant heritage. This is not so
surprising since divorce versus the indissolubility of marriage was one of the
key issues that led to the Reformation in the first place.
And last but not least, the first and second transitions have opposite
patterns of remarriage. During the first, remarriages essentially involved
widows and widowers, whereas remarriage for divorced persons meant a
new beginning and the start of a new family: new children for a new life-
long commitment. In other words, even if divorce occurred, the institution
of marriage was not under serious threat, and remarriage propped up fertility
as well. Nothing of this is left in the second transition: remarriages among
the widowed or divorced decline in favor of cohabitation or other looser ar-
rangements such as LAT (“living apart together”) relationships or intimate
friendships.
Fertility contrasts
The theory of the second demographic transition does not merely focus on
changing nuptiality and family patterns, as Coleman contends, but is equally
concerned with fertility. Recall that Ariès’s essay on two successive fertility
motivations and Easterlin’s work on a cyclical fertility model were two in-
tellectual foundations of the theory. Even if that were not the case, fertility
cannot be studied without regard to the fundamental changes in patterns
of household formation and without the framework of changing life style
preferences.
During the first transition, fertility was increasingly confined to mar-
riage, contraception affected mostly fertility at older ages, mean ages at first
parenthood declined, and childlessness among married couples was low.
There are examples of below-replacement fertility during the first transition,

but these correspond to exceptional periods of economic crisis or war. Sub-

replacement fertility is not an intrinsic characteristic of the first transition.
Under more favorable conditions, as for instance after World War II, fertility
levels are well above replacement level, and this holds not only for period
fertility indicators but also for cohort fertility. The baby boom and the mar-
riage boom of the late 1950s and early 1960s are the last typical features of
the first demographic transition in the industrialized world. Another salient
characteristic of the fertility regime during the first transition was its reliance
on imperfect contraception. Until the 1960s, withdrawal was largely the
method used by the working classes, and rhythm by better-educated or more
religious couples. Both methods led to contraceptive failures and unintended
pregnancies, and these kept fertility above replacement level. Particularly
such contraceptive failures at higher ages became increasingly undesirable
and prompted the demand for more effective contraception.
The second demographic transition started with a multifaceted revolu-
tion, and all aspects of it affect fertility. First, a contraceptive revolution was
heralded by the invention of the pill and the re-invention of IUDs. All of these
were perfected very rapidly, and hormonal contraception was particularly
suited for postponing and spacing births. Ansley Coale’s “learning curve” of
contraception, which increased monotonically with age and parity and fitted
the first transition experience so well, was no longer applicable in the West.
After an interim period with increased incidence of “shotgun marriages” (gen-
erally around 1965–75), the use of highly efficient and reliable contraception
started at young ages and permitted postponement of childbearing as a goal
in its own right. Second, the sexual revolution marked a forceful reaction to
the notions that sex is confined to marriage and mainly for procreation only.
Younger generations sought the value of sex for its own sake and accused
their parents’ generation of hypocrisy. Ages at first sexual intercourse declined
during the second transition. Third, a gender revolution occurred whereby
women were no longer subservient to men and husbands, but asserted the
right to regulate their fertility. Women’s desire for “biological autonomy”
was articulated by subsequent quests for the liberalization of induced abor-
tion. Finally, these three revolutions fit within the framework of a rejection
of authority and an overhaul of the normative structure. Parents, educators,
churches, army, and much of the entire state apparatus ended up in the dock.
This entire ideational reorientation, if not revolution, occurred during the
peak years of economic growth and shaped all aspects of the SDT.
The pattern of fertility associated with the second demographic transi-
tion is its marked degree of postponement. Mean ages at first parenthood for
women in sexual unions rose rapidly and to unprecedented levels in several
Western European populations. The net outcome was sub-replacement fer-
tility: without the ethnic component (such as Hispanics in the US or Maoris
in New Zealand), all OECD countries have sub-replacement fertility. Admit-
tedly, period measures such as the total fertility rate are depressed as a result

RON LESTHAEGHE 217
of continued postponement, but even the end of such postponement would

not be likely to bring period fertility back to a TFR of 2.1. Most cohorts of the
world’s white (and Japanese) national populations born after 1960 will not
rebound to that level (cf. Frejka and Calot 2001; Lesthaeghe 2001; Council
of Europe 2004). However, the degree of heterogeneity in cohort fertility is
substantial and by no means solely the outcome of ethnic composition fac-
tors. In the West, Scandinavian, British, and French cohorts born in 1960 still
come close to replacement fertility, whereas corresponding cohort levels fall
below 1.7 in Austria, Germany, and Italy. In Central and Eastern Europe, the
cohort of 1960 will still reach two children on average, but not in the Rus-
sian Federation, Slovenia, and the three Baltic countries (Council of Europe
2004). Moreover, in Western and Southern Europe, with current total period
fertility rates below 1.5, the catching up of fertility after age 30 has remained
too weak to offset the effect of postponement. The result of sustained sub-
replacement fertility is that another, but originally unanticipated trait of the
second demographic transition may be in the making: continued reliance on
international migration to partially offset the population decline that would
otherwise emerge within a few years.
We are evidently far from the ideal first transition outcome of a new
stationary population corresponding to high life expectancy, replacement fer-
tility, and little need for immigration. And we are getting further and further
removed from the fertility-enhancing prop of that demographic model— the
dominance of a single form of living arrangement for couples and children,
namely marriage. Finally, the linchpin of the first transition system has totally
eroded: collective behavior is no longer kept in check by a strong normative
structure based on a familistic ideology supported by both Church and State.
Instead, the new regime is governed by the primacy of individual choice. Or as
van de Kaa (2004, p. 77) has put it, fertility is now merely a “derivative,” the
outcome of a prolonged “process of self-questioning and self-confrontation
by prospective parents…[in which] the pair will weigh a great many issues,
including direct costs and opportunity costs, but their guiding light will be
the outcome of self-confrontation. Would a conception and having a child
be self-fulfilling?”
Underlying societal contrasts
To this point we have discussed the differences between the first and sec-
ond transitions mainly in terms of their demographic contrasts. But both
transitions of course have their roots in distinct historical periods of societal
development.
With the exception of the very early eighteenth-century fertility decline
in France and a few other smaller areas in Europe, much of the first transition
was an integral part of development in which economic growth fostered ma-
terial aspirations and improvements in living conditions. The preoccupations

of the period 1860–1960 were mainly concerned with increasing household

real income, improving working and housing conditions, raising standards of
health and life expectancy, improving human capital by investing in educa-
tion, and providing a safety net through the gradual construction of a social
security system. In Europe, these social goals were shared and promoted by all
ideological, religious, or political factions (also known as “pillars” since each
of them integrates a political party, a cluster of labor unions, news media,
and social services into a closely tied organizational network). And in this
endeavor, solidarity was a central concept. All pillars also had their views on
the desirable evolution of the family.
For the religious pillars (Catholic, Protestant, and later Christian-Demo-
crat) these views were based on the holiness of matrimony, but their defense
of a closely knit conjugal family also stemmed from fears that industrial so-
ciety would lead to immorality, various social pathologies, and atheism. The
secular pillars (Liberal and Socialist) equally saw the family as a first line of
defense against the social ills of the nineteenth century, and as the foundation
for a new social order based on humanistic principles. Hence, although for
partially different reasons, all pillars considered the family as the cornerstone
of society. Both material and moral uplifting would furthermore be served
best by a sharp gender-based division of labor within the family: husbands
assumed their responsibilities as devoted breadwinners, and wives became the
caretakers of all matters related to quality of life. For this to be realized, male
incomes needed to be high enough so that women could assume the role of
housewives. In other words, all pillars, including the Socialist and even the
Western European Communist ones during the interbellum, contributed to
the embourgeoisement of the working class through this propagation of the
breadwinner–housewife model.
In short, all social classes were expected to adhere to a single fam-
ily model that was buttressed by highly ordered life-course transitions: no
marriage without solid financial basis or prospects, and procreation strictly
within wedlock. The Malthusian preconditions of a “prudent” marriage were
readapted to the social aspirations of the new industrial society.
The second demographic transition, on the other hand, is founded on
the rise of the higher-order needs as defined by Maslow (1954). Once the
basic material preoccupations, particularly long-term financial security, are
satisfied through welfare state provisions, more existential and expressive
needs become articulated. These are centered on self-actualization in for-
mulating goals, individual autonomy in choosing means, and recognition by
others for their realization. These features emerge in a variety of domains,
and this is why the SDT can be linked to a wide variety of empirical indicators
of ideational change.
In the political sphere such higher-order or “post-materialist” (Inglehart
1970) needs deal, inter alia, with the quest for more direct, grassroots democ-

RON LESTHAEGHE 219
racy, openness of government, rejection of political patronage, decline of

life-long loyalty to political or religious pillars, and the rise of ecological and
other quality-oriented issues on the political agenda. The negative manifesta-
tion is rising distrust in politics and institutions and growing political anomy
that can fuel right wing extremism. The state is no longer viewed as a benign
provider, but rather more as an Orwellian “big brother.” A corollary here is
the disengagement from civic, professional, and community networks (e.g.,
Putnam 2000). It is likely, however, that such networks were partially sub-
stituted by more expressive (fitness clubs, meditation gatherings) or more
affective (friendships) types of social capital. Values of work and socialization
equally display a profound shift in favor of the expressive traits, and above all
away from respect for authority. In the work sphere, one is no longer satisfied
with good material conditions (pay, job security, vacations), but expressive
traits are more often being valued (e.g., contact with others, challenging and
innovative work, variation in tasks, flexible time). Obviously this “anti-Ford-
ist” orientation was initially the result of rising education and the growth
of white-collar employment (e.g., Kohn 1977), but it has now spread to all
social classes and types of employment. A close parallel can be found in the
domain of socialization (e.g., Alwin 1989): all elements typical of conformity
(obedience, order and neatness, thrift and hard work, traditional gender roles,
religious faith) and those linked to social orientations (loyalty, solidarity,
consideration for others) have gradually given way to expressive traits that
stress personality (being interested in how and why, capability of thinking
for oneself, self-presentation, independence, and autonomy). Needless to say,
the quest for more symmetrical gender relations fits within this articulation
of higher-order needs and expressive social roles.
One transition or two?
Evidently the higher-order needs can only be articulated once the lower-order
ones have been sufficiently met. Similarly the SDT squarely stands on the
shoulders of its predecessor, the first transition. But to consider the features of
the second demographic transition as “secondary,” as suggested by Coleman,
or as part and parcel of a single transition, is another matter. My problem with
these views is that they fail to realize both the magnitude of the contrast and
the importance of the societal implications for the future.
More specifically, the “one transition only” view fails to recognize
that the first and second transitions are sufficiently differentiated and even
antagonistic in terms of most family-formation variables (including fertility
motivations). The “unitarian” view furthermore misses the point that the
first and second transitions correspond to two distinct historical phases, have
a distinct “logique sociale,” and are buttressed by distinct patterns of political
organization. In short, the “one transition” view simply blurs history.

Last but not least, the demographic implications of the SDT for the future
are fundamentally different from the equilibrium implied by the first transi-
tion. SDT theorists expect much rougher seas ahead: (1) more pronounced
population aging as a result of sub-replacement fertility, hence more pressure
on the welfare state, (2) greater reliance on immigration and consequently a
further expansion of multi-ethnicity and multi-cultural traits in societies, (3)
less stress on social cohesion (e.g., Surkyn and Lesthaeghe 2004), and (4) a
greater incidence of family instability and concomitant social problems (e.g.,
poverty among singles or in one-parent households). As Kathleen Kiernan
(2001) warned, “the SDT is not kind to all.”
So far, I have explained why it makes sense to distinguish the successive
historical steps from one transition to the next. In the following section I ad-
dress the geographic diffusion of the SDT to other parts of Europe.
Is the second demographic transition only a

Northern and Western European idiosyncrasy?
Toward the end of the 1980s, several features of the SDT seemed to stop at the
northern slopes of the Alps and the Pyrenees: the incidence of cohabitation
in Southern European countries remained low, and the rise in extramarital
fertility was either absent or modest. Instead, younger adults predominantly
remained in or stayed attached to their parental homes. Also until around
1990, patterns of early marriage and fertility had been maintained in Central
and Eastern Europe. Twenty years ago, one could still argue that the SDT
would remain a “parochial” idiosyncrasy, limited to Western and Northern
Europe. Admittedly, features of the SDT had emerged in European popula-
tions across the oceans (in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the US),4 but
they failed to cross two geopolitical divides on the old continent.
Central and Eastern Europe
In Central and Eastern Europe, this picture changed completely after the
collapse of the Communist regimes in 1989. All SDT features emerged simul-
taneously: ages at first marriage, which had remained quite young during
the preceding era, started increasing, premarital cohabitation rose, and so
did proportions of extramarital births. In tandem with later union formation
came a prolonged postponement of fertility at all ages and parities, leading to a
precipitous drop of period fertility indicators. TFRs fell below 1.5 children and
even below 1.3. A new term was coined: lowest-low fertility (Kohler, Billari,
and Ortega 2002). Period fertility measures evidently can be deeply depressed
when such systematic postponement occurs. However, the degree to which
recovery can occur in cohort fertility is still uncertain, as is the amount of
recovery in prospective period TFR levels. But the outcome seems to be that
fertility will stay well below replacement in any event. In 2002, all former

RON LESTHAEGHE 221
Communist countries still had TFRs below 1.35, and as low as 1.10 (Ukraine).
The sole exceptions were Albania, with a TFR probably around 2.0, and the
Republic of Macedonia and Serbia-Montenegro, with levels around 1.75.
Few observers in the former Communist countries initially thought
that this could be the start of a second demographic transition. The older
generation of demographers was highly skeptical about the SDT concept to
start with, and remained convinced that these pronounced marriage and
fertility postponements were exclusively the consequence of the economic
crisis. The UN Economic Commission for Europe initially held this view as
well (UNECE 1999, 2000). And the transition to capitalism was indeed a
painful one: the end of guaranteed life-long employment, a reduction in
labor force activity rates for women, a steep drop in the standard of living,
a decline in state support for families, a privatization of the housing sector,
and in several countries also a highly visible rise in poverty. But there was
also a countercurrent of younger demographers, mainly in Russia (Zakha-
rov and Ivanova 1996; Zakharov 1997) and especially the Czech Republic
(Zeman, Sobotka, and Kantorova 2001; Rabusic 2001; Sobotka 2002), who
thought that, the economic crisis notwithstanding, a second demographic
transition could be in the making. In fact, by the late 1990s the economies
of several of former Communist countries were recovering along with per
capita incomes. But there was no return to earlier patterns of marriage, nor
an end to fertility postponement. Also the steady rise in extramarital fertil-
ity, which had often started before 1989, continued and even accelerated
(see Figure 1). Of 18 such countries, only five still had proportions of extra-
FIGURE 1 Proportion of extramarital births (percent), selected

European countries, 1950–2008
70
SDT theory Iceland
60 formulated in 1986
Estonia
Sweden
Bulgaria
50
France
Denmark
Former GDR
40 Netherlands
Percent
UK Austria
Portugal
30 Spain
20 Poland
Italy
10
Greece
0
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
SOURCE: Compiled by T. Sobotka on the basis of Council of Europe and Eurostat data.

marital births below 20 percent in 2002. At the upper tail of the distribution,
four had already reached Northern European levels with proportions above
40 percent (Council of Europe 2004). Fifteen years earlier, these countries
had percentages between 3 and 15, and only the former East Germany
stood out with 34 percent extramarital births in 1985. These rapid increases
are admittedly also the result of the rise in proportions of first births in the
declining total, but they undeniably indicate that childbearing within co-
habiting unions is spreading in Central and Eastern Europe.
The verdict seems to be that the economic crisis had indeed destabilized
the earlier demographic regime, but also that the SDT had been nascent before
1990 and that is it developing further. In other words, the SDT is emerging
in Central and Eastern Europe as a feature that is there to stay, just as in the
West. Once more it is emerging as a salient characteristic of capitalist econo-
mies and of cultures that recognize the primacy of individual autonomy and
that develop the higher-order needs.
Southern Europe
As I indicated earlier, the demographic patterns of Southern Europe, from

Portugal to Greece, have been considered an exception to the theory of two
successive demographic transitions. In fact, in one crucial respect these coun-
tries were not an exception at all, since their marriage and fertility postpone-
ments were even more pronounced than in Western and Northern Europe.
The postponement started later than in the West, but its intensity was striking.
Moreover, as was also true for a few Western European countries like Austria
and to some degree Germany, cohort fertility patterns in Southern Europe
scarcely exhibited signs of fertility recuperation after age 30 (Lesthaeghe 2001;
Frejka and Calot 2001). This means not only that progression to the second
or third child is rarer than in Northern and Western Europe, but also that in
the younger female cohorts larger proportions—typically in excess of 20 per-
cent—will not experience parenthood at all. This combination of factors is a
recipe for prolonged lowest-low fertility, rather than for a temporary dip and
swift return to replacement level. Hence, seen from the fertility perspective,
Southern Europe followed the postponement trends in nuptiality and fertility,
and these countries are by no means exceptions to these core SDT features.
What made the Southern European starting pattern of the SDT so ex-
ceptional when compared to their Northern neighbors was the absence of
home leaving in favor of single living or premarital cohabitation. Young adults
simply continued living with their parents for longer periods. Furthermore,
marriage remained the predominant precondition for childbearing. In other
words, one of the SDT features was missing. Persuasive explanations for this
difference have been offered by Palomba (1995), Micheli (1996, 2000), and
Dalla Zuanna (2002). The last author also directly refers to Reher’s (1998)

RON LESTHAEGHE 223
distinction between the historically “strong family system” of Southern Eu-

rope and the traditionally “weak family system” of Western and Northern
Europe.
In the weak family system, children can leave the parental household
before marriage, and then they fend for themselves in an interim period
prior to marriage. Historically, they became servants, apprentices, landless
and/or seasonal agricultural laborers, industrial workers, soldiers, seamen, or
clergymen. In contemporary Northern and Western Europe, welfare provi-
sions still favor this earlier independence through sufficient student housing,
scholarships, student transportation subsidies, youth unemployment ben-
efits and employment programs, and even guaranteed minimum incomes
for single persons older than 18 no longer living at home. The result is still
earlier home leaving for independent living, sharing, or cohabiting. Greater
gender equity fosters higher female employment rates, and vice versa. House-
hold standards of living are based on dual incomes, but women can take off
periods of time for family reasons (e.g., maternity leave, optional leave for
childrearing or caring for a sick partner or parent). Either or both partners
can also opt for part-time employment, an option enhanced by labor market
flexibility. Furthermore, this system is compatible with the shift toward ex-
pressive values and roles, and it creates less tension between self-fulfillment
and parenthood.
In the strong family system, familial ties and solidarity—even allegiance
to family alliances, as in Southern Italy—are more persistent throughout
life. Men and women only leave the parental family to marry, and sons can
even bring their wives into the parental home. Men are looked after by their
mothers and then immediately thereafter by their wives. Traditional gender
roles persist and men shun housework. Family bonds continue to func-
tion throughout life, both between siblings (e.g., in business) and between
generations. Older parents and relatives are still taken in by their children.
Mediterranean societies furthermore developed their welfare provisions on
the assumption that strong familial solidarity would persist, and very few
provisions allow young adults to become economically more independent.
In addition, housing falls largely within the private sector, and most couples
want to become home-owners. The resulting high housing costs tend to retard
the departure from home. Home leaving occurs much later than in Western
and Northern Europe, and there is little cohabitation or childbearing among
unmarried couples. Instead, young adults continue to live in their “gilded
nests” provided by caring parents. And for women, motherhood also means
dropping out of the labor force, not only because this is to be expected from a
“good mother,” but also because child care facilities are scarce and returning
to an earlier job is more difficult. Opportunity costs are increased as a con-
sequence of the persistence of traditional role patterns and inflexible labor
markets. The ultimate outcome is what Dalla Zuanna calls “a Pyrrhic victory

of the strong family system,” because, paradoxically, it will eventually disap-

pear for lack of adaptive capacity and absence of children.
But does history stop here? Will the Mediterranean demographic sys-
tem maintain this hitherto characteristic lack of alternative household types
among younger adults? The presence of such households is not routinely
flagged by European registration systems, hence we have to wait for special
surveys (or an occasional census) to monitor changes in household forms. The
European Fertility and Family Surveys (FFS) of the early 1990s are outdated
by now, because they reflect living arrangements of the 1970s and 1980s.
The major exception is that most European countries still distinguish between
births occurring within marriage and out of wedlock. From this informa-
tion we cannot infer the respective shares of extramarital births contributed
by single mothers and by cohabiting couples. But, as the record has shown
for most continental Western and Northern European countries, the larger
share has gone to the latter. Hence, extramarital fertility provides a useful
early indicator of progression to one of the later phases of the SDT, namely
procreation within cohabitation.
After a long period at low levels, nonmarital fertility started a steady
upward trend in Southern Europe. Portugal, which historically had a tradi-
tion of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock fertility (cf. Livi-Bacci 1971) in its
southern provinces, is the exception. Portugal had steadily increasing propor-
tions of extramarital births since the 1970s. And when compared to figures
for Western European countries, the rise in extramarital births in Portugal
predates the corresponding increase in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany
(FRG), and Switzerland. Spain is a more classic example of a late start and
from a lower level, but the Spanish trend now runs parallel to Portugal’s, and
in 2002 Spain’s share of extramarital births was larger than Switzerland’s.
Apparently, the Pyrenees and the strong family system were not as formidable
an obstacle to the diffusion of the SDT as had been thought.
A few more surprises may be found in Southern Europe. The first is
a steep and continuing increase in out-of-wedlock fertility in Malta, rising
from 2 percent in 1990 to 15 percent in 2002. The second has been a steady
increase in extramarital fertility in Italy. Starting from very low levels in the
1960s, the figure has now reached 15 percent. Judging from this record, the
family system in Italy may be stronger than in Portugal, Spain, or Malta, but
it is clearly not unaffected by the SDT. In fact, Italy is now catching up with
the most “conservative” country in Western Europe, Switzerland, which has
widespread cohabitation but a low level of extramarital fertility, at 10 percent
of all births. Results from the latest Italian census indicate that in 2000 cohabi-
tation was widespread in many northern areas, both rural (e.g., Aosta, Emilia-
Romagna) and urban (e.g., Milan). Third, the percentage of nonmarital births
has also reached the 10 percent level in 2000 in the Republic of Macedonia.
Finally, the last part of the Mediterranean “strong family belt,” that is, Greece

RON LESTHAEGHE 225
and Cyprus, also shows a rise in nonmarital births, although the levels are
still too low to justify any firmer conclusion. The Eastern Mediterranean thus
constitutes the last area to be affected by the second demographic transition.
Compared to a decade ago, history has moved in the predicted direction in
Southern Europe as well.
Western and Northern Europe
To end this section on the European diffusion of the SDT, I would like to point
out that the process is not yet complete in Western and Northern Europe
either. As the extramarital fertility indicator shows, proportions of births out
of wedlock are still increasing in most countries considered in Figure 1, in-
cluding those with the highest incidence, namely Iceland, Sweden, Germany,
Norway, and France. Apparently the prospect of 60 percent of all births be-
ing born outside marriage is a possibility for these vanguard countries. Yet, it
should also be pointed out that there is a distinctly more conservative version
of the Western European SDT in which single living, sharing, and cohabita-
tion have all become common, but where marriage is still connected to the
transition to parenthood. The parenthood decision often comes first, and the
marriage decision follows. In such situations extramarital fertility is also ris-
ing but more slowly and at lower levels. Good examples of this conservative
variant are Switzerland, Germany, Belgium (mainly Flanders), and to some
extent the Netherlands. Ireland, by contrast, seems to have made the jump
from the more conservative category to the more advanced SDT category of
countries. In fact, Ireland has already crossed the 30 percent level, whereas
in 1980 it barely had 5 percent of births out of wedlock.
Historical path dependency and growing

heterogeneity in the pattern of the SDT
So far we have documented that the features of the SDT did not stop at the
borders of Northern and Western Europe and that the new pattern began to
thrive after the crisis of the early 1990s in former Communist Central and
Eastern Europe. But in the meantime it has become increasingly evident that
the mixture of SDT ingredients may vary widely depending on context. Sub-
stantial within-country and between-country contrasts can be found (e.g.,
Billari and Kohler 2004; Neels 2006; Lesthaeghe and Neidert 2006; Sobotka
2008; Lesthaeghe 2009), and the same holds between educational categories
(e.g., Neels 2006, 2009). Obviously such variations reflect historical path
dependency, and these play just as large a role in the unfolding of the SDT
as they did in producing leads and lags during the first transition. Hence, the
SDT theory should not be taken as a teleological grand script with a standard
scenario. On the contrary, it is a more general narrative that leaves room for

many different sub-narratives, each of which is anchored to specific empiri-

cal evidence.
Dissociations between the rise of cohabitation and the

postponement of parenthood
From the beginning of the SDT, countries have exhibited striking differences
between the timing of the onset of the rise in premarital cohabitation and the
onset of fertility postponement. In Western Europe, for instance, the two were
timed rather closely together, but in Southern Europe there was a major lag
of about 20 years, with rising cohabitation starting much later.
Spatial dissociations within a given country are equally common. In the
United States both state- and county-level characteristics of household forma-
tion first split along two dimensions: characteristics of young households (in-
dicators pertaining to teenage fertility, young single mothers, grandchildren in
household) and an SDT dimension (Lesthaeghe and Neidert 2006). Problems
along the first dimension are a typical American feature associated with low
education and poverty (with milder versions found in the UK and Australia
as well). But when the American SDT dimension was examined more closely,
two spatial sub-dimensions appeared: the North Atlantic states were most
advanced with respect to postponement of fertility in the age group 20–29,
with clear sub-replacement fertility among non-Hispanic whites, whereas in
the vanguard with respect to cohabitation were the liberal Mountain states
(Colorado, Arizona) and the Pacific states. Furthermore, postponement of
marriage and fertility was strongly associated with high education levels for
both sexes, whereas cohabitation was connected to higher proportions born
abroad or out of state. At the other end of the distribution, middle and low
levels of cohabitation remained closely correlated with earlier fertility in the
prime childbearing ages and with higher non-teenage fertility in the South-
ern, Appalachian, and the conservative Mountain states (especially Utah and
Idaho), and in the Great Plains. The overall image is that of a first set of states
where the SDT has not yet taken off, a second set where both cohabitation
and fertility postponement hold the middle ground, and a leading SDT set that
splits into two groups depending on whether they are in the vanguard either
of the postponement of parenthood or of the spread of cohabitation.
A spatial analysis of Belgium (Neels 2006; Lesthaeghe 2009) at the level
of arrondissements produced an even clearer picture. The rise of cohabita-
tion and out-of-wedlock fertility after 1970 mirrors the spatial continuity of
the maps of the marital fertility decline and the rise of contraceptive practice
during the first demographic transition (1880–1940), and they are an almost
perfect correlate of secularization levels from 1860 through 1960. The map of
fertility postponement after 1970, by contrast, bears no resemblance to this
long historical secularization, but typically reflects levels of higher education

RON LESTHAEGHE 227
and employment among women. The latter feature is also strongly echoed in
the micro-level data analyzed by Neels (2006, 2009), which show that bet-
ter-educated women have been the dominant postponers ever since World
War II.
The partial dissociation between the new household forms and fertility
postponement in the United States and the complete dissociation of these fea-
tures in the Belgian spatial pattern of the SDT point toward different causes.
In both countries cohabitation spreads faster in more secularized areas and
bears only a weak relationship to education levels and female labor force
participation. Postponement of parenthood is more strongly associated with
the latter structural factors. Within the framework of Coale’s “ready, willing,
and able” paradigm, the limiting factor for the rise in cohabitation seems to
be of the “willingness” type, meaning that it depends more strongly on moral
acceptability and legitimacy rather than on the calculus of advantage. This
is understandable since cohabitation initially ran counter to the prevailing
moral and legal codes in many countries. The postponement of parenthood,
by contrast, is less conditioned by moral objections and more responsive to
material conditions, hence linked to structural factors associated with the
“readiness” condition.
The strong connection between cohabitation and liberal values derives
support not only from spatial analyses such as the ones just cited, but equally
from individual-level data. That evidence, to be discussed briefly in the next
section, draws on numerous empirical studies (see Lesthaeghe 2002 for an
overview and citations).
Value orientations and household choices:

Micro-level evidence
The initial article on the second demographic transition (Lesthaeghe and van
de Kaa 1986) posited that the new living arrangements, and cohabitation in
particular, were the expressions of secular and anti-authoritarian sentiments
of younger cohorts who held a more egalitarian world view and placed greater
emphasis on expressive values. Also during the 1980s political scientists ana-
lyzed the correlates of Inglehart’s “post-materialist” orientation (Inglehart
1990; van Rijsselt 1989). Both the Eurobarometer surveys in the EU and the
three rounds of the European Values Studies (EVS) provided data for detailed
empirical research on attitudes and values for various social groups, including
those based on living arrangements (e.g., Lesthaeghe and Moors 1995). Par-
ticularly the EVS data of the 1999–2000 round proved useful for study of the
SDT, since for the first time questions about ever experiencing cohabitation or
divorce were incorporated along with current household status. This meant
that the large group of currently married respondents could be divided into
those who did and did not experience cohabitation or divorce. These refine-

ments allowed clear distinctions in values orientations (see Lesthaeghe and

Surkyn 2002; Surkyn and Lesthaeghe 2004).
Also in the United States, statistical associations between living arrange-
ments and specific value orientations drew attention. It was realized not only
that cohorts were steadily progressing to higher levels of “post-materialism”
and secularism, but also that a recursive relationship existed between demo-
graphic choices and values orientation. As Thornton and colleagues showed
(1985, 1992), greater secularism fostered choices in favor of premarital sex
and non-traditional household formation patterns, but the latter also rein-
forced further secularization. In other words, a selection into various types
of behavior occurred based on existing values, followed by an affirmation or
strengthening of these values based on the behavioral choice. Clearly, the
statistical associations between value orientations and the various types of
households are merely the “footprints” of this ongoing process of selection
followed by affirmation or negation of values. Panel data with values mea-
surements and transitions in household living arrangements are needed to
disentangle the two directions of causation. American social scientists took
the lead in organizing panel surveys, and it is mainly on the basis of these that
the recursive model of selection/adaptation could be checked (e.g., Waite,
Goldscheider, and Witsberger 1986; Axinn and Thornton 1993; Barber 2001;
Clarkberg 2002). More recently, a few European panel surveys measure vari-
ous value orientations at successive waves, and they too lend themselves to
disentangling the causal components of the recursive relationship (e.g., Moors
1997; Jansen and Kalmijn 2002).
The outcomes of analyses of these cross-sectional and panel data can be
summarized as follows:
1) Secular, egalitarian, and anti-authoritarian orientations, expressive
values, and values stressing individual autonomy are strong predictors of life
courses that include “unconventional” states such as premarital cohabita-
tion and parenthood among cohabitors. These effects are net of structural
effects linked to education, socioeconomic status, employment, or degree of
urbanness.
2) Cohabitants without children tend to exhibit the extreme non-con-
formist values profile, including greater gender symmetry, less intolerance to
all types of minorities, greater protest-proneness, but also greater tolerance
for breaches of civil morality.
3) Marriage and parenthood are associated with major readjustments of
value orientations in the conventional and conformist direction.
4) Married parents who never cohabited display by far the most con-
servative attitudes.
5) Any earlier cohabitation experience leaves a more permanent imprint
in the non-conformist direction, even after marriage and parenthood have
been achieved.

RON LESTHAEGHE 229
6) Divorce produces a departure from the stability of conventional opin-

ions held by married parents.5
I note, finally, that these associations at the micro level are found
throughout Europe. They hold just as well in countries that have progressed
far along the SDT as in those that are recent starters.
Fertility and the SDT: Postponement and recuperation
The typical explanation for the fertility decline associated with the SDT is the
postponement of parenthood and the shifting of fertility to older ages. This
explanation is reflected in the Bongaarts–Feeney (1998) formula used to
upwardly correct the current period total fertility rate (PTFR) for this tempo
shift. In this expression, however, the authors have no room for differential
subsequent recuperation of postponed births. They use the standard assump-
tion of adjusting current period parity-specific TFRs (PTFRi) and inflating
these by the complement of the annual rate of parity-specific postponement
observed in the last few years. Reality is a bit more complicated. Not only is
the rate of postponement variable over time, but the European experience
clearly shows a great deal of heterogeneity in the amount of recovery of
fertility at later ages. This is most clearly shown in the comparison of cohort
fertility profiles, either parity-specific or for all parities combined.
On the one hand, there are countries where each cohort postpones
childbearing longer than its predecessor, but where the ultimate fertility
(i.e., the cohort total fertility rate, or CTFR) is fairly constant, because of the
recuperation at older ages of almost all postponed births. The Netherlands
is a typical example of this outcome, but it also holds for the Scandinavian
countries, France, and Belgium. Also, period TFRs in these countries will
bounce back when the tempo shift stops. On the other hand are cases where
such recuperation is absent or modest, and where cohort TFRs continue fall-
ing as long as the postponement continues. Moreover, these cohort TFRs will
remain well below replacement level. Typical examples of this pattern are the
Mediterranean countries and the German-speaking populations of Western
Europe (cf. Lesthaeghe 2001; Frejka and Sardon 2004; Sobotka 2004, 2008).
For the former Communist countries, differential recovery may now be ob-
servable too. These countries experienced their major postponement trend
during the 1990s, and couples who were then in their early 20s are now old
enough to exhibit the presence or absence of such a correction at later ages.
The bottom line here is that initial differences in period TFRs among European
populations were indeed largely due to differential rates of postponement,
but that differential recuperation will now increasingly determine the period
TFRs during the first two decades of the twenty-first century (Sowers and
Lesthaeghe 2008). The degree to which this recuperation will occur depends
on varying historical and current circumstances and policy measures.

At the time of the original formulation of the SDT theory, the systematic
postponement of marriages and first births was already underway in West-
ern Europe. Van de Kaa and I predicted that the new cultural shifts toward
the expressive needs in tandem with increased individual autonomy would
sustain this demographic tempo shift. The outcome would be “structural”
sub-replacement fertility instead of cyclically oscillating fertility around re-
placement level. At that time, we did not predict the coming of lowest-low
fertility or period TFRs below 1.3 children, nor were we able to differenti-
ate between strong and weak recuperation. The latter feature would only
gain our attention more than a decade later (Lesthaeghe and Willems 1999;
Lesthaeghe 2001) and independently from the SDT theory.
Nevertheless, van de Kaa (2002) and Sobotka (2008) showed that the
SDT was indeed a good predictor of postponement, capable of neatly align-
ing countries along a positive slope: the higher the level of Inglehart post-
materialism (van de Kaa) or the higher the composite index of SDT values
(Sobotka), the higher the mean age of women at first birth or the earlier the
onset of fertility postponement. To elucidate this point, I reproduce the origi-
nal graphs of these authors in Figures 2 and 3.
FIGURE 2 Relationship between the mean age at first birth around 1998
and the Inglehart index of postmaterialism in 1990
32
31 Spain
Ireland
X X Netherlands
X
30 Sweden Italy Switzerland
Denmark X X X
Norway X X
Finland
XFrance
Mean age at childbearing
X
29 Iceland W. Germany
Portugal X X Belgium
X X
X
Britain
Slovenia X
28 X Austria
Poland
Hungary X East Germany
X Czech Rep. X
27 X
X
X
Estonia XLithuania
26 Russia
X XRomania
Belarus
25 X
X
Bulgaria
24
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Postmaterialist score
SOURCE: van de Kaa (2002).

RON LESTHAEGHE 231
FIGURE 3 Relationship between a composite index of SDT values

in 1999–2000 and the date of onset of the postponement of first births
9
Sweden Denmark
J J
8 Netherlands J
United Kingdom
J
7 J Finland
Austria
Germany J J
J
Slovenia
6 France J Czech Rep.
J
Spain JIreland
SDT index
5 J Croatia
Greece J Slovakia
Italy J J BulgariaJLithuania
J J Hungary
JRussia
J
4 J Estonia
JPortugal
Romania Belarus
J J
3 LatviaJ
J Poland
2
Postponement
1 leaders Late starters
0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year when mean age at first birth increased for
the first time by 2 years during the postwar period
SOURCE: Sobotka (2008). The SDT index is from Sobotka (2008, pp. 86–87).
When the same exercise is repeated for period TFRs, the original SDT/
postponement relationship vanishes, and a positive correlation emerges
when total fertility is connected to the SDT values index,6 as shown by
Sobotka in Figure 4. By 2000 the countries with high SDT values had by
far the highest period fertility levels in Europe, and some had come very
close to replacement level.7 None of them ever fell below a period TFR of
1.5, and by 2007 Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, the UK,
France, and Ireland all had period TFRs above 1.8 (Prioux 2008). The posi-
tive relationship with the SDT values index in Figure 4 is in fact the result of
“split correlation” and is produced by two distinct scatters. The collection of
cases on the right side corresponds to countries with an early start in fertility
postponement and a strong recuperation of fertility forgone at earlier ages.
The cases on the left side with much lower period TFRs are mainly cases
where postponement started later and recuperation of fertility was weak
(German-speaking populations, Southern European countries, and most
formerly Communist countries).
For the SDT theory to be relevant for the twenty-first-century fertility
differentials in Europe, it needs to incorporate explanations for differential
recuperation as well. With the benefit of hindsight it seems that certain
aspects of the causes that generate the SDT have fostered postponement of

FIGURE 4 Relationship between a composite index of SDT values

in 1999–2000 and 2004 period total fertility rates
10
9 Sweden
J
Denmark
8 J
J Netherlands
Luxembourg J Finland Iceland
7 Slovenia Austria J
J United J J
J
J J France
Germany Kingdom
6 Czech Republic
SDT index
J
Spain Estonia Ireland
J J
J
5 Hungary
J
Lithuania GreeceJ Italy
Slovakia J J JJBulgariaJ Portugal
4 J J J Croatia
Latvia Russia
Belarus J J
3 J Ukraine
Poland J Romania
2
Weak recuperation Early start to postponement +
1 and/or late start strong recuperation
0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
TFR
SOURCE: Sobotka (2008, p. 52).
parenthood and hence tended to lower period fertility levels, whereas other
aspects have facilitated a more complete recuperation, thereby returning
period TFRs to higher levels. I will now seek to clarify these opposite effects
with reference to the factors sketched in Figure 5.
On the postponement side I place social and economic factors associated
with prolonged education and longer preparation for careers in deregulated
and globalizing labor markets. However, to these “mechanical” (e.g., pro-
longed formal education) or structural factors can be added cultural features
such as greater aspirations for self-realization, a greater tendency to keeping
an open future, or higher consumption and leisure aspirations. The former
are typical structural features of post-industrial societies, whereas the latter
are more closely connected to the expressive values orientations. Together
these two sets of factors have a negative effect on fertility operating via their
postponement effect.
Subsequent recuperation of fertility, on the other hand, may be consid-
erably enhanced by factors that facilitate the combining of work and parent-
hood for women and men or that alleviate the opportunity costs of parent-
hood and family building. A further distinction can be made by referring
to (i) historical household patterns and gender relations (e.g., the contrast
between the strong and weak family types, existence of neolocal marriage or
of three-generation co-residence, etc.) and (ii) the type of organization and

RON LESTHAEGHE 233
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
magnitude of welfare provisions (e.g., child allowances, parenthood leave,

work interruptions for family reasons) and other organizational features
(e.g., school opening hours and day care provision). These structural features
equally have to be seen in interaction with value orientations connected to
self-reliance of young adults (and of men in particular) and to gender sym-
metry in daily life. The separate impact of each of these factors is not easy to
assess, but when taken together substantial differences in patterns of fertil-
ity recuperation can result. In fact, the “split correlation” noticed in Figure
4 may in part be due to national contrasts in this respect. Just focusing on
Western and Southern European countries, for instance, Thévenon (2009)
notes striking differences in factors that alleviate time pressure on parents
of young children. Not surprisingly, all countries with higher fertility levels
resulting from strong recuperation have better-adapted services and much
longer opening hours of facilities (services de garde) for infants and toddlers, for
preschool children in kindergarten, and for children in primary school.
To conclude, the original formulation of the SDT theory predicted— ap-
parently correctly—a long period of below-replacement fertility, but it did
not predict the current discrepancy between levels close to replacement and
levels far below it. The current heterogeneity in Europe is indeed due to dif-
ferences in the timing of the onset of fertility postponement, but increasingly
also it is the result of differences in the degree of fertility rebounding at older
ages. The cultural components of the SDT theory appear to be operating in

opposite directions: some foster postponement and hence lower fertility, while
others support greater recuperation of fertility. The weight of context-specific
features, both of a historical and an organizational nature, is again consider-
able, and consequently SDT sub-narratives are necessary to encompass that
diversity.
Can the SDT spread to non-Western

populations?
It is widely accepted that the first demographic transition is a worldwide
phenomenon. Everyone also realizes that the first transition can begin at
just about any level of economic development, and in strictly rural as well
as urban societies. But will the second demographic transition be equally
universal? Or, as Coleman expects, will it remain a regional idiosyncrasy?
Obviously, at this stage we can only speculate about the probabilities of such
a universal diffusion, in the same way that one could only speculate in the
1950s and 1960s about the eventuality of pervasive fertility control emerging
in the then-developing countries. However, if we are looking for evidence of
the second demographic transition beyond the European cultural sphere but
in countries wealthy enough to have undergone some Maslowian drift, we
may indeed find suitable testing grounds. Several industrialized and urban-
ized Asian countries are therefore of direct relevance.
Before considering the detailed evidence, one should be reminded that
identification of the SDT requires the presence of several features:
1) Sub-replacement fertility must be linked to postponement of mar-
riage and childbearing.
2) Ages at marriage must reflect a growing prominence of free partner
choice and female autonomy.
3) Premarital cohabitation must become more common and more widely
acceptable.
4) At both the macro level and the individual level, connections must
exist between demographic features and value orientations.
Note, however, that the demographic characteristics of the SDT do not
necessarily occur simultaneously, but that lags are likely to emerge. Premarital
cohabitation and parenthood among cohabitors, for instance, typically consti-
tute lagging features, since they often run counter to existing moral codes.
Sub-replacement fertility and postponement

in Asian industrialized countries
The criterion of a shift toward later parenthood and sub-replacement fertil-

ity is the easiest to assess since national demographic statistics provide clear
evidence on the course of period and cohort fertility. Japan, South Korea,

RON LESTHAEGHE 235
Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore all have very low period TFRs at present.
Hong Kong’s period TFR is around 1.0, Singapore’s is a marginally higher
1.1, and Taiwan, Korea, and Japan are in the 1.15–1.25 range (CIA data base
2008). In all cases these lowest-low fertility levels are the result of widespread
postponement with little or no recuperation of fertility at later ages. Obvi-
ously, there is some recuperation of first births, but this is offset by further
declines at higher parities (see inter alia Zhang 2005; Jones, Straughan, and
Chan 2009; Tsuya 2009; Frejka and Sardon 2009).
The extent of fertility postponement and the weak impact of recupera-
tion in the lowest-low East Asian countries are seen in the trend in cohort
cumulated fertility up to age 27, which is illustrative of postponement, and
in cohort cumulated fertility between ages 27 and 40, which is illustrative of
recuperation. The evolution of cumulated fertility up to age 27 is presented in
Figure 6, and that for ages 27 to 40 in Figure 7. In these figures, I have selected
three countries with early postponement but strong recuperation (France,
Netherlands, Sweden), three European countries with weak recuperation
(Austria, Italy, and Spain), and four East Asian countries (Japan, Hong Kong,
South Korea, and Taiwan).
Figure 6 illustrates that the four Asian countries exhibit the same fertility
postponement trend as found in the European countries. In fact, Hong Kong
had massive postponement for the cohorts born between 1945 and 1965,
whereas Taiwan and South Korea have a fast postponement tempo for the
FIGURE 6 Cumulated cohort fertility up to age 27, selected countries,

1940–1980 birth cohorts
200
180 Hong Kong
160
Children per 100 women
140 France
120 Austria
South Korea
100
80 Japan Taiwan
Spain Netherlands Sweden
60
40 Italy
20
0
1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980
Birth cohort
SOURCE: Frejka and Sardon (2009: Appendix 3).

FIGURE 7 Cumulated cohort fertility at ages 27–40, selected countries,

1940–1965 birth cohorts
200
180
Hong Kong
Netherlands
160
Children per 100 women
140 Spain
Sweden
Japan
120
100
80 Italy
France
60
Austria
40
20
0
1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965
Birth cohort
SOURCE: Frejka and Sardon (2009: Appendix 4).
cohorts born after 1965. Also note that the Hong Kong, Japanese, and Korean
cohorts born in 1980 have fewer than 40 children per 100 women born before
age 27. With these figures they match the levels of Spain and Italy.
Figure 7 shows the trends in fertility in the age range 27–40, a period
during which recovery could be expected to occur. Not surprisingly, the clear-
est fertility increase and the highest fertility levels are found in the Northern
and Western European examples used here, whereas Hong Kong has a con-
tinued fall in its older-age fertility, and Japan exhibits a reversal from a slight
recovery to further postponement. This lends support to the speculation that
the East Asian populations are following a “Mediterranean pattern,” with
rapid postponement and little recuperation at older ages, thereby sustaining
a period fertility level that falls within the lowest-low category (for Taiwan
and Hong Kong see Tu and Zhang 2004).
The Asian marriage revolution
Many populations in East Asia, not only those of industrialized countries,

have witnessed a sharp increase in the mean ages at marriage for both sexes.
The “marriage revolution” that Goode was forecasting in the 1960s emerged
in full force between 1970 and 2000, as illustrated in Table 1 by the percent-
ages of women single at ages 30–34 and 40–44. In 2000 more than a quarter
of all women aged 30–34 were still single in Japan and Myanmar, and about

RON LESTHAEGHE 237
TABLE 1 Increases in percentages of never-married women between

1970 and 2000, ages 30–34 and 40–44, selected Asian populations
30–34 40–44
Population 1970 2000 1970 2000
Japan 7.2 26.6 5.3 8.6
Myanmar 9.3 25.9 6.2 14.8
Thailand 8.1 16.1 3.9 9.3
Singapore—Chinese 11.1 21.6 3.6 15.0
Singapore—Malays 3.9 12.2 1.7 8.2
Malaysia—Chinese 9.5 18.2 3.4 8.4
Malaysia—Malays 3.3 9.7 1.1 4.4
Philippines 8.9 14.8 6.0 7.1
South Korea 1.4 10.7 0.2 2.6
Indonesia 2.2 6.9 1.2 2.4
SOURCE: Jones (2004: Appendix Table 1).
a fifth were not yet married among the Chinese in Singapore and Malaysia.
Probably more recent figures for women in Thailand will come close to a fifth
as well. Moreover, percentages single for men are typically higher than for
women. For instance, in Japan in 2004, a third of men aged 30–34 were still
unmarried. The classic correlates are again increasing proportions of men and
women with more schooling, with employment outside agriculture and other
domestic industries, less employment security, and much smaller proportions
accepting arranged marriages. If, according to Jones (2004), current Western
European figures of proportions single were corrected to exclude proportions
cohabiting, then several Asian populations would exceed Europeans in pro-
portions “effectively single.”
Equally classic is that the postponement of parenthood follows in the
wake of rising ages at marriage, particularly when out-of-wedlock fertility
is low. However, shotgun marriages and births in the first eight months of
marriage may become more frequent, as is already true for Japan (Tsuya
2006; Raymo, Iwasawa, and Bumpass 2008). For instance, the 2004 Gender
and Generation Survey revealed that 28 percent of Japanese married women
aged 25–29 had a premarital conception, and that the figure was 26 percent
in the age group 30–34. By contrast, older generations, those above age 55
in 2004, had figures in the range of 4 to 7 percent (Tsuya 2006). Evidently,
premarital births are still rare in East Asian societies, but premarital concep-
tions and shotgun marriages are not.
The Japanese shift during the late 1970s and 1980s in partnership for-
mation patterns can be gleaned from the data collected in the early 1990s.
Table 2 reproduces 1992 figures pertaining to the union formation status
at various ages for successive cohorts of women. At any given age percent-
ages married drop. By contrast, the percentages with “no event” increase for

TABLE 2 Union formation status (percent) in 1992 at specific ages

for birth cohorts of Japanese women
No Met Number
Age and birth cohort event partner Engaged Married of cases
By age 20
1950–54 64 21 5 10 2,137
1955–59 66 22 5 7 1,923
1960–64 66 24 3 6 1,915
1965–69 72 20 3 5 1,962
1970–74 62 34 0 4 1,046
By age 25
1950–54 21 6 5 68 2,137
1955–59 24 10 4 62 1,923
1960–64 30 11 6 53 1,915
1965–69 33 18 3 46 947
By age 30
1950–54 8 1 1 90 2,137
1955–59 10 2 2 86 1,923
1960–64 12 6 1 82 961
By age 35
1950–54 6 1 1 93 2,137
1955–59 6 2 1 91 987
SOURCE: Japanese National Fertility survey 1992; H. Matsuo (2001: Appendix Table 11).
younger cohorts, showing that more of them experienced a longer period of

being “really single.” Equally striking is that the percentages who had met a
partner by ages 20 and 25, but were not married or engaged, are also increas-
ing. The table does not reveal the precise form of behavior of these younger
unmarried women who had met a partner, and at that time my Japanese col-
leagues all assumed that these couples would occasionally meet in hotels or
other such places, but would not be cohabiting. In fact, in Tokyo seminars as
late as 2002 it was believed that premarital cohabitation simply did not occur
in Japan. That assumption proved to be false as two independently organized
surveys in the early twenty-first century indicated.
Just as in the Mediterranean countries, premarital cohabitation in Japan
only emerged with a substantial time lag compared to the other hallmarks of
the SDT. But initially it went unnoticed because no survey bothered to probe
into the matter. In 2004, however, the first round of Japan’s “Gender and
Generations Survey” revealed that a fifth of all women and men aged 25–29,
irrespective of their current status, had ever experienced cohabitation. Older
women aged 40–44 in 2004 also reported figures above 10 percent. Table 3
gives the results in greater detail.
The other Japanese survey, organized by the Mainichi Shimbun News-
paper in 2004, confirms the appreciable prevalence of premarital cohabita-

RON LESTHAEGHE 239
TABLE 3 Percent of Japanese women and men of all marital statuses

reporting ever having cohabited, Gender and Generations Survey, 2004
Women Men Both sexes
Age % N % N % N
20–24 11.7 322 11.0 243 11.4 565
25–29 20.2 352 20.6 289 20.4 641
30–34 16.5 345 20.6 296 18.6 641
35–39 15.7 602 15.9 472 15.8 1,074
40–44 11.5 456 15.5 400 13.5 856
45–49 7.5 504 10.7 418 9.1 922
50–54 7.0 558 12.1 523 9.5 1,081
55–59 5.4 527 8.3 492 6.9 1,019
60–64 4.4 535 9.5 498 6.9 1,033
65–69 2.1 425 5.0 489 3.7 914
Total 10.0 4,626 12.6 4,120 14.6 8,746
NOTE: Percentages are computed, using sample and response rate weights.
SOURCE: Tsuya (2006: Table 1).
tion, but, more crucially, reveals that this is not simply a short-term event.
As Table 4 shows, the mean duration of premarital cohabitation reported by
women is close to two years.
The conclusion from the data presented so far is that Japan is no longer
an exception to major characteristics of the SDT. Add to that the rise in pre-
marital conceptions and the divorce rate, and it becomes clear that Japan is
by now definitely experiencing a second demographic transition in which the
concepts of partnership and marriage are being redefined. The only missing
ingredient so far is parenthood among cohabiting couples.
Moreover, Japan is not just a single outlier in East Asia. Based on two
KAP (“knowledge, attitude, and practice”) surveys held in Taiwan, Li-Shou
TABLE 4 Percent of Japanese women who have ever cohabited

by birth cohort, mean duration, and percent followed by marriage,
Mainichi Shimbun Group 2004
Mean duration Percent of completed
Prevalence of of cohabiting cohabiting unions
Birth cohort cohabitation (%) unions (months) resulting in marriage
1954–59 10 22 64
1960–64 10 21 70
1965–69 17 26 62
1970–74 21 20 61
1975–79 21 21 40
1980–84 10 16 44
Total 15 21 58
SOURCE: Raymo, Iwasawa, and Bumpass (2008).

TABLE 5 Percent of women aged 20–49 who have ever cohabited,

Taiwan KAP surveys of 1998 and 2004, by current marital status
KAP 1998 KAP 2004
Current marital status % N % N
Unmarried 7.8 731 15.3 1,200
Married 12.6 2,262 21.6 2,752
Total 11.4 2,993 19.6 3,952
SOURCE: Li-Shou Yang, personal communication.
Yang found that premarital cohabitation is on the rise in that country (see
Table 5). If the figures for the 2004 KAP survey for married women could
have been broken down into smaller age categories, then the incidence of
premarital cohabitation for married women aged 25–29 would almost cer-
tainly have exceeded 25 percent, even higher than the corresponding Japa-
nese figure.
Finally, there is also evidence for the existence of cohabitation in the
Philippines (Guerrero 1995; Jones 2005), but it is not yet clear whether this
is a much older form of consensual union or actual premarital cohabitation.
The empirical evidence on cohabitation for other industrialized or urban
Asian societies is missing, again because it is simply taken for granted that
its incidence is close to zero. As was the case for Mediterranean and former
Communist Europe in the 1990s, this belief lasts until someone inserts the
“ever cohabited” question in a survey. It appears that insertion of such a
question is overdue in China, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore, at
the very least.8
Value orientations and the timing of parenthood:

Micro-level evidence for three Asian populations
Several Asian countries participated in one or two rounds of the World Val-
ues Survey, which were shortened versions of their older European counter-
parts. These surveys are again a major source of information on seculariza-
tion, civil and sexual morality, expressive values at work and in educating
children, political features such as post-materialism, protest-proneness, and
trust in institutions, and values regarding gender relations. Information on
demographic characteristics for Asia is limited to the number of children in
the household and current marital status. No questions on current or previ-
ous cohabitation or on divorce were inserted. This means that these Asian
surveys can only be used to check whether later ages at parenthood are cor-
related with the same SDT values indicators as in the West: more egalitarian
gender relations, accentuation of non-material benefits in work, stress on
autonomy and imagination in educating children, higher post-materialism
scores on the Inglehart scales, greater protest-proneness, greater distrust of

RON LESTHAEGHE 241
institutions, less weight given to religion, and greater tolerance for breaches
in civil and sexual morality.
The data files of the World Values Surveys also had to be pooled for
Japan 1995 and 2000, and for South Korea 1994 and 2001 to obtain more
than 600 female respondents aged 18–45. For Singapore there was only one
survey round. In all countries childlessness was predicted on the basis of age
(5 categories), education (3 categories: lower secondary, higher secondary,
tertiary), occupational status (5 categories: professional, other white collar,
blue collar, student, housewife), and one value item per regression. Analysis
is conducted using binary logistic regression, and the results for all value items
(available on request from the author) are given in the form of exponentiated
regression coefficients after controlling for the other covariates. Table 6 in-
dicates the number of such coefficients with net effects on childlessness in
the expected direction. For instance, in Japan, 15 of the 16 items related to
gender issues had the expected net effect (conformist for earlier parenthood,
non-conformist for later parenthood).
Table 6 shows that not all items were present in the surveys of the three
countries: Japan contributed 70 items, Korea only 56. The tallies of coeffi-
cients for all three countries show that more than 80 percent of them are in
the expected direction, indicating an overwhelming concordance with what
is found in the West (cf. Surkyn and Lesthaeghe 2004): non-conformist or
more libertarian attitudes correctly predict postponement of parenthood.
The only exception encountered in these analyses pertains to the religion
and secularization items in Japan. Here only four of the ten items are in the
expected direction.
I conclude that individual-level data from three advanced Asian econo-
mies demonstrate that the demographic dimension of postponement of par-
TABLE 6 Link between later parenthood and sets of value

orientations: Number of items with net effects in the expected
direction, women aged 18–45 (after controls for age, education, and
occupational status)
Japan South Korea Singapore
1995, 2000 1994, 2001 2002
Family and gender items 15 of 16 15 of 16 13 of 16
Socialization traits 7 of 9 9 of 9 7 of 9
Work characteristics 5 of 5 na 9 of 10
Political orientation 19 of 20 17 of 19 7 of 9
Ethics and morality issues 8 of 10 7 of 9 9 of 9
Religion and secularization 4 of 10 2 of 3 9 of 10
Total 58 of 70 50 of 56 54 of 63
Total percent 83 89 86
SOURCE: Computed by the author from World Values Surveys Data Files, ISR Michigan.

enthood can be linked to the same value orientations as those associated with
the SDT in Europe. Further checks and stronger evidence would be welcome,
and for a start this requires the insertion of simple questions concerning prior
cohabitation and divorce along with the question on current marital status. This
minor alteration of the World Values Surveys questionnaire and other surveys
would make a considerable contribution to further empirical work pertaining
to the Asian patterns indicative of the second demographic transition.
Discussion
Before answering the questions posed at the onset, I make a preliminary
point in order to avoid subsequent misunderstanding about the role of cul-
ture in the second demographic transition. The SDT theory fully recognizes
the effects of macro-level structural changes and of micro-level economic
calculus. But it does not consider these explanations as sufficient, but merely
as necessary or non-redundant. By the same token, cultural explanations are
necessary but not sufficient. Also, the SDT theory does not consider cultural
change as endogenous to any economic model, but as a necessary additional
force with its own exogenous effects on demographic outcomes. Culture is
treated as a dynamic set of value orientations. These orientations can change
at the individual level, and they can be linked recursively to the unfolding of
the life course. They can also change at the collective level during particular
periods of time, or shift to new configurations with the succession of cohorts.
The Maslowian drift to higher-order needs is positively related to economic
growth, but other factors reflecting historical path dependency (often in re-
ligious and political spheres) modulate this connection.
With these remarks in mind, I now turn to the questions posed in the
introduction.
Is the SDT merely a continuation of the first transition?
The second demographic transition differs significantly from the first transition
both in terms of demographic predictions and in terms of underlying motiva-
tions. Because the SDT predicts generalized sub-replacement fertility in tandem
with a greater plurality of living arrangements and household structures, it also
points to the growing importance of international migration. Furthermore,
the SDT predictions depart from the benign equilibrium outcomes of the first
transition, such as a stationary population, not much need for migration, and
the predominance of the stable conjugal family. By contrast, sustained sub-
replacement fertility will accelerate population aging and put a strain on wel-
fare systems. Such low fertility will also stimulate replacement migration as a
means of countering labor force shortages. In addition, some of the new living
arrangements may be more unstable than traditional arrangements, or may be

RON LESTHAEGHE 243
less adequate as a setting for procreation and socialization. Union dissolution

will remain a major cause of low fertility as well.
Did the SDT spread beyond Northern and

Western Europe?
Here, the answer is definitely affirmative. The SDT did not stop at the Pyr-
enees or Alps, but crossed into Central and Eastern Europe as well. All of
these areas witnessed a rise in the share of extramarital births, which clearly
points in the direction of new contexts of procreation, such as cohabitation
and single parenthood. Equally striking is the finding that the individual
value profiles according to living arrangement were similar across all parts
of Europe.
Were the demographic changes since 1990 in Central

and Eastern Europe mainly the outcome of transition
to a market economy?
The economic crisis of the early 1990s in Eastern and Central Europe was pro-
pitious for the postponement of marriages and births, and hence for the dip to
very low levels of fertility. But a purely crisis-based explanation is untenable.
First, much of the crisis has long since ended in countries such as Slovenia, the
Czech Republic, and Hungary, where GDP per capita has risen to levels higher
than in the 1980s, yet we have seen no return to earlier age at marriage or
higher fertility. Instead, cohabitation and procreation outside marriage are
spreading. Second, the SDT seems to advance faster in countries with more
successful economic and political performance, which is again indicative of
the importance of factors other than those associated with the economic
crisis. Major structural and cultural factors promoted the sustained diffusion
of the SDT. On the structural side, for instance, the post-Communist era has
been characterized by expanding female education in several of these coun-
tries, and this has definitely contributed to the postponement of marriages
and births (e.g., Kantorova 2004). Similarly, the rise of individual autonomy
and freedom of choice has legitimized the adoption of nontraditional living
arrangements in a very short time. These features will not be reversed easily,
hence the SDT in Central and Eastern Europe will continue on its course as
in Western and Northern Europe.
Are the various demographic ingredients of the SDT

performing as a cohesive whole?
Multiple variants of the SDT have emerged. At one end of the scale, North-
ern and Western European populations experienced early development of

nonconventional household formation patterns and early emergence of

parenthood postponement, but they have maintained higher levels of sub-
replacement fertility as recuperation at later ages of first and second births
was substantial. At the other end are later “postponers” but with much
weaker recuperation in overall fertility, and hence a pattern of lowest-low
fertility in its third decade. Similarly, both the timing and the spatial pat-
terns of cohabitation and fertility postponement can be disjunct. Time lags
between these two aspects of the SDT vary widely, and spatial correspon-
dence between them can be weak or absent. Finally, the values associated
with the SDT represent a cohesive package when it comes to their effects
on parenthood postponement, but not where recuperation is concerned.
In fact, at a later stage in the life cycle, greater gender symmetry and more
developed services aimed at reducing opportunity costs of childbearing to
working women seem to be linked to greater recuperation of fertility and
consequently to higher levels of period fertility.
Can the SDT spread to other continents

and non-European societies?
It has clearly been shown that the SDT can spread beyond Western societies.
At this point it appears that several advanced Asian populations have joined
the set of SDT countries, since all characteristics except one (procreation
among cohabitants) have emerged. Moreover, the micro-level data for Japan,
South Korea, and Singapore are consistent with value orientations commonly
found in European countries.
Admittedly it will remain difficult to separate the effects of structural
factors and ideational factors on marriage postponement and low fertility.
Nevertheless, it is widely acknowledged that mass media are producing a
“world culture” in which individual autonomy and self-actualization have a
prominent, if not dominant place, and that these provide both motivations
and justifications for the onset of the SDT. Political, religious, and ideological
backlashes are of course always possible (e.g., Christian and Muslim funda-
mentalist reactions), but to this point such reactions have not been sufficient
to cause a decisive retreat from SDT values in countries with democratic
governance.
Several decades of experience in countries as distinct from each other as
Sweden and Japan have revealed the diversity of SDT development paths and
the existence of historical and cultural reasons for such heterogeneity. But
despite such distinctions, an important set of SDT predictions still holds:
1) The normative and institutional bases of traditional union forma-
tion and household structure will systematically weaken in all societies that
adopt egalitarian and democratic systems governed by respect for individual
choice. This prediction implies that other forms of union formation will ex-

RON LESTHAEGHE 245
pand in the wake of such ideational developments. The political evolution of

countries is thus at least as crucial for the onset of the SDT as their economic
circumstances.
2) Alongside individual autonomy, self-realization will become a major
goal in its own right. This will produce a rising demand for higher education,
especially among women, stimulate other tastes and life styles, and result in
sub-replacement fertility.
3) Communication technology and mass media are spreading knowledge
about new forms of behavior to all corners of the world. Moreover, new forms
of behavior are associated by the public itself with being “more advanced” and
“more developed” (Thornton 2005). Just as the first demographic transition in
many developing countries benefited from this communication revolution, so
will the diffusion of the second transition be enhanced by global communica-
tion and by the power of what Thornton calls “developmental idealism.”
4) Fundamentalist reactions are likely to occur in response to these
global ideational shifts, but so far their success has been too limited to stem
the overall shift toward post-materialist and expressive value orientations. In
short, such reactions might slow the diffusion of the SDT or produce marked
spatial differences, but they cannot stem the tide altogether.

APPENDIX TABLE 1 Overview of demographic and societal characteristics

related to the first and second demographic transitions in Western Europe
First transition Second transition
Marriage
Rise in proportions marrying, declining Fall in proportions married,
age at first marriage rise in age at first marriage
Low or reduced cohabitation Rise in cohabitation (pre- and postmarital)
Low divorce Rise in divorce, earlier divorce
High remarriage Decline in remarriage following both divorce
and widowhood
Fertility
Decline in marital fertility via Further decline in fertility via postponement,
reductions at older ages, lowering increasing mean age at first parenthood,
mean ages at childbearing structural sub-replacement fertility
Deficient contraception, parity Efficient contraception (exceptions in
failures specific social groups)
Declining illegitimate fertility, but not Rising extramarital fertility due to
necessarily among teenage women parenthood within cohabitation
Low definitive childlessness among Rising definitive childlessness in unions
married couples
Societal background
Preoccupations with basic material needs: Rise of higher-order needs: individual
income, work conditions, housing, health, autonomy, self-actualization, expressive
schooling, social security; solidarity is work and socialization values, grassroots
prime value democracy, recognition by others; tolerance
Rising memberships in political, civic, is prime value
and community-oriented networks; Disengagement from civic and community-
strengthening of social cohesion oriented networks, social capital shifts to
Strong normative regulation by Church expressive and affective types; weakening
and State; first secularization wave, of social cohesion
dominance of political and social Retreat of the state, second secularization
factions (“pillars”) wave, sexual revolution, refusal of authority,
Segregated gender roles, familistic policies, waning influence of political factions
embourgeoisement, promotion of (“pillars”)
breadwinner family model Rising symmetry in gender roles, female
Ordered life-course transitions, prudent economic autonomy
marriage, and dominance of a single Flexible life-course organization, multiple
model of the family lifestyles, open future

RON LESTHAEGHE 247
Notes
Figures 1, 6, and 7 in this article are avail- Van Bavel 2010, p. 12), but as a period reac-
able in color in the electronic edition of the tion, limited in time, to the shock of severe
journal. economic, social, and political crises.
This essay was first presented at the con- 2 The early study by Cliquet (1992) and
ference on “Fertility in the History of the 20th the much later presentation by Coleman
Century—Trends, Theories, Public Discourses, (2004) are to my knowledge the only pub-
and Policies,” Academia Leopoldina & Berlin- lished cogent critiques of the SDT, and they
Brandenburgische Akademie, Berlin, 21–23 serve as the guidelines for the present analysis.
January 2010. The author thanks Tomas Various unpublished critiques and comments
Frejka and Arland Thornton for comments. were voiced during conferences or seminars.
1 It should be noted that most demog- 3 A crucial distinction needs to be made
raphers writing during the interbellum fore- between unplanned nonmarital fertility
casted a sustained period of sub-replacement among single young women, often leading
fertility and did not take a stationary popu- to single-mother households, and the often
lation as a transition endpoint (cf. Demeny
planned nonmarital fertility of older cohabit-
1997; Van Bavel 2010). In reality, only a few
ing couples. The first type is an indicator of an
countries (mainly Germany, Sweden, and
incomplete first demographic transition and
England) had a period TFR declining below 2
is caused by lack of contraceptive knowledge
children for any length of time, and by the end
and/or practice. Only the second type is in-
of the 1930s all had rising TFR values. Other
dicative of the SDT.
countries such as the Netherlands, Canada,
and Italy never had TFRs below 2.5 children 4 The most recent TFR levels in the
during the entire interbellum period. In addi- United States, Australia, and New Zealand
tion, the reason for “sub-replacement fertility” are all very close to replacement level or even
during the 1930s was as much a result of sig- above it. This has been taken as evidence by a
nificantly lower probabilities of survival to the reviewer that these are not SDT countries or
mean age of motherhood as it was a matter of that the SDT theory simply does not hold. This
lower TFRs. In other words, “sub-replacement critique overlooks the heterogeneous popula-
fertility” then (first demographic transition) tion composition and the presence of subpop-
and “sub-replacement fertility” now (second ulations that have not yet completed their
demographic transition) reflect different mor- demographic transition. In the US, the His-
tality conditions. panic TFR was still 3.0 in 2007, whereas that
Returning to fertility as such, this clearly of non-Hispanic whites was 1.9 (including in
crisis-induced first transition fertility drop this average the high fertility of Mormons and
in the 1930s was not only geographically Evangelicals), setting the national level at 2.1
contained, but also of a much shorter dura- (National Vital Statistics Report, March 2009).
tion than its postwar SDT counterpart, which The high US teenage fertility level (which is
spans several decades and has not yet come rising among Hispanics) is also indicative of an
to an end. Also cohort measures of fertility incomplete transition. Similarly, in New Zea-
were virtually never used at that time, hence land the national TFR was above replacement
a crisis-induced tempo effect (postponement in 2006 only because of the Maori TFR of 2.8,
of first marriages and first births) was misread and despite the low fertility of the New Zea-
as a “structural” feature that would lead to land Asians (TFR=1.5). In Australia, the TFR
shrinking populations. Finally, marriage post- rose rapidly from 1.8 in 2005 to 2.0 in 2008.
ponement during the 1930s was unrelated to Here the Aborigines’ contribution was negli-
a rise in cohabitation, hence has nothing in gible, but a large birth premium of $A 5,000
common with the SDT restructuring of living (about US $ 4,500) has probably spurred the
arrangements of couples. In my opinion, the recuperation of births after 2004. But since
experience of the 1930s can hardly be inter- one can have a second child only once, the
preted as a “dress rehearsal” for the SDT (cf. effect of this bonus is expected to wear off (cf.

the temporary effect of the prolongation of contribution to national TFRs is commonly on

Sweden’s maternity leave). the order of 0.10 births (Sobotka 2008: 56).
5 All these effects are net effects, estab- For example, if a subpopulation of 10 percent
lished after controls for the typical structural of the total contributes a TFR of 2.8, and the
background variables such as age, education, remaining 90 percent has a sub-replacement
place of residence, income or socioeconomic TFR of 1.8, then the overall TFR is 1.9.
status, and employment status. 8 At this point one may speculate about
whether China is experiencing the second
6 Sobotka used attitudinal items from the
demographic transition. Because of China’s
1999–2000 EVS to identify SDT values. His
large size, certain subpopulations may move
SDT values index contains eight items pertain-
into the SDT well ahead of others. Hence the
ing to gender equity, secularization, sense of
question cannot be answered for the Chinese
freedom of choice, importance of children and
population as a whole. Second, the country’s
leisure, marriage as an institution, and ethics
currently very low TFR is in part a product of
(see Sobotka 2008: 85–86). Lesthaeghe and
the one-child policy. Detecting the SDT ef-
Surkyn (2002) and Surkyn and Lesthaeghe
fect would require that the one-child policy
(2004) used a much larger set of 80 items
be lifted. Only then could it be seen where
from the same source to map the unfolding fertility rebounds to or above replacement
differentiations in life-course patterns in Eu- level and where it does not. Finally, rises both
ropean countries. in mean ages at marriage and in premarital
7 Most Western and Northern European cohabitation would be needed to make the
countries benefit from the higher fertility of case that Chinese subpopulations have joined
their mainly Muslim subpopulations. Their the SDT group.
References
Alwin, D. 1989. “Changes in qualities valued in children, 1964–1984,” Social Science Research
44(2): 1–42.
Ariès, P. 1962. Centuries of Childhood—A Social History of Family Life. New York: Random
House.
———. 1980. “Two successive motivations for the declining birth rates in the West,” in C.
Höhn and R. Mackensen (eds.), Determinants of Fertility Trends—Theories Re-examined.
Liège: IUSSP Bad Homburg Conference Proceedings, pp. 125–130. Also in Population and
Development Review 6(4): 645–650.
Axinn, W. G. and A. Thornton. 1993. “Mothers, children, and cohabitation: The intergener-
ational effects of attitudes and behavior,” American Sociological Review 58(2): 233–246.
Barber, J. 2001. “Ideational influences on the transition to parenthood: Attitudes toward child-
bearing and competing alternatives,” Social Psychology Quarterly 4: 101–127.
Billari, F. C. and H-P. Kohler. 2004. “Patterns of low and very low fertility in Europe,” Popula-
tion Studies 58(2): 389–402.
Bongaarts, J. and G. Feeney. 1998. “On the quantum and tempo of fertility,” Population and
Development Review 24(2): 271–291.
Clarkberg, M. 2002. “Family formation experiences and changing values: The effects of cohabi-
tation and marriage on the important things in life,” in R. Lesthaeghe (ed.), Meaning and
Choice: Value Orientations and Life Course Decisions. The Hague: Netherlands Interdisciplinary
Demographic Institute, pp.183–250.
Cliquet, R. 1992. “The second demographic transition: Fact or fiction?,” Council of Europe Popu-
lation Studies 23. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Coleman, D. 2004. “Why we don’t have to believe without doubting in the ‘Second Demo-
graphic Transition’—Some agnostic comments,” Vienna Yearbook of Population Research,
2004, pp. 11–24.

RON LESTHAEGHE 249
Council of Europe. 2004. Recent Demographic Developments in Europe, 2003. Strasbourg: Council
of Europe Publishing, pp. 66–68.
Dalla Zuanna, G. 2002. “The banquet of Aeolus: A familistic interpretation of Italy’s lowest-low
fertility,” Demographic Research 4(5): 133–161. See also online at «www.demographic-
research.org».
Demeny, P. 1997. “Replacement-level fertility: The implausible endpoint of the demographic
transition,” in G. W. Jones et al. (eds.), The Continuing Demographic Transition. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, pp. 94–110.
Easterlin, R. A. 1973. “Relative economic status and the American fertility swing.” in E. Shel-
don (ed.), Family Economic Behavior. Philadelphia: Lippincott, pp. 170–223.
Frejka, T. and G. Calot. 2001. ”Cohort reproductive patterns in low-fertility countries,” Popula-
tion and Development Review 27(1): 103–132.
Frejka, T. and J-P. Sardon. 2004. Childbearing Trends and Prospects in Low-Fertility Countries. Dor-
drecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
———. 2009. “Contemporary childbearing trends in low-fertility countries,” paper presented
at the 26th IUSSP International Population Conference, Marrakesh, 27 September–2
October.
Goode, W. J. 1963. World Revolution and Family Patterns. New York: The Free Press; London:
Collier-Macmillan.
Guerrero, L. 1995. “The Filipino family, gender roles and other women’s issues: The 1994 ISSP
Survey,” Social Weather Stations Occasional Paper, Diliman, Quezon City.
Inglehart, R. 1970. The Silent Revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
———. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
———. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization—Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43
Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jansen, M. and M. Kalmijn. 2002. “Investment in family life: The impact of value orientations
on patterns of consumption, production and reproduction in married and cohabiting
couples,” in R. Lesthaeghe (ed.), Meaning and Choice: Value Orientations and Life Course Deci-
sions. The Hague: Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute, pp. 129–159.
Jones, G. W. 2004. “Not when to marry but whether to marry: The changing context of mar-
riage decisions in East and South-East Asia,” in G. W. Jones and K. Ramdas (eds.), Untying
the Knot: Ideal and Reality in Asian Marriage. Singapore: Asian Research Institute, National
University of Singapore.
———. 2005. “The flight from marriage in South-East and East Asia,” Journal of Comparative
Family Studies 36(1): 93–119.
Jones, G. W., P. T. Straughan, and A. Chan (eds.). 2009. Ultra-low Fertility in Pacific Asia: Trends,
Causes and Policy Issues. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Kantorova, V. 2004. “Education and entry into motherhood—The Czech Republic during state
socialism and the transition period, 1970–1997,” Demographic Review S3, paper 10 (see
also online special collection S3-10).
Kiernan, K. 2001. Discussant’s comment at European Science Foundation Seminar on the
Second Demographic Transition, Bad Herrenalb, 23–28 June.
Kohler, H-P., F. C. Billari, and J. A. Ortega. 2002. “The emergence of lowest-low fertility in
Europe during the 1990s,” Population and Development Review 28(4): 641–680.
Kohn, M. L. 1977. Class and Conformity. A Study in Values. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lesthaeghe, R. 2001. “Postponement and recuperation—Recent fertility trends and forecasts
in six Western European countries,” paper presented at the IUSSP seminar on below
replacement fertility, Tokyo, 21–23 March.
——— (ed.). 2002. Meaning and Choice: Value Orientations and Life Course Decisions. The Hague:
Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute.
———. 2009. “Long term spatial continuities in demographic innovations—Insights from the
Belgian example, 1846–2000,” paper presented at the Seminar on Historical Continuities

in Demographic Patterns, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock,

25–27 May, unpublished.
Lesthaeghe, R. and G. Moors. 1995. “Living arrangements, socio-economic positions and val-
ues among young adults: A pattern description for France, Germany, Belgium and the
Netherlands, 1981–1990,” in D. Coleman (ed.), Europe’s Population in the 1990s. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, Chapter 6.
Lesthaeghe, R. and L. Neidert. 2006. “The second demographic transition in the United States:
Exception or textbook example?,” Population and Development Review 32(4): 669–698.
Lesthaeghe, R. and J. R. Surkyn. 2002. “New forms of household formation in Central and
Eastern Europe: Are they related to newly emerging value orientations?,” UNECE Eco-
nomic Survey of Europe, 2002-1, Chapter 6. Geneva: United Nations Commission for
Europe, pp. 197–216.
Lesthaeghe, R. and D. J. van de Kaa. 1986. “Twee Demografische Transities?,” in R. Lesthaeghe
and D. J. van de Kaa (eds.), Bevolking: Groei en Krimp. Mens en Maatschappij book supple-
ment. Deventer: Van Loghum-Slaterus, pp. 9–24.
Lesthaeghe, R. and P. Willems. 1999. “Is low fertility a temporary phenomenon in the Euro-
pean Union?,” Population and Development Review 25(2): 211–228.
Livi-Bacci, M. 1971. A Century of Portuguese Fertility. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Maslow, A. 1954. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Matsuo, H. 2001. “Is Japan a second demographic transition country?,” European Science
Foundation Seminar on the Second Demographic Transition, Bad Herrenalb, 23–28
June.
Micheli, G. A. 1996. “New patterns of family formation in Italy: Which tools for which inter-
pretation?,” Genus 52(1-2): 15–52.
———. 2000. “Kinship, family and social network: The anthropological embedment of fertility
change in Southern Europe,” Demographic Research 3(13).
Moors, G. 1997. “The dynamics of values-based selection and values adaptation.” Brussels:
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Ph.D. dissertation in sociology.
Neels, K. 2006. Reproductive Strategies in Belgian Fertility. The Hague: Netherlands Interdisciplin-
ary Demographic Institute.
———. 2009. “Postponement and recuperation of cohort fertility,” paper presented at the 26th
IUSSP International Population Conference, Marrakesh, 27 September – 2 October.
Palomba, R. 1995. ”Italy: The invisible change,” in R. Palomba and H. Moors (eds.), Population,
Family and Welfare. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 158–176.
Prioux, F. 2008. “L’évolution démographique en France: L’éspérance de vie progresse toujours,”
Population 63(3): 464.
Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Rabusic, L. 2001. “Value change and demographic behaviour in the Czech Republic,” Czech
Sociological Review 9(1): 99–122.
Raymo, J., M. Iwasawa, and L. Bumpass. 2008. “Cohabitation and family formation in Japan,”
Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics, GCOE Discussion Paper no. 3.
Reher, D. S. 1998. “Family ties in Western Europe: Persistent contrasts,” Population and Develop-
ment Review 24(2): 203–234.
Sobotka, T. 2002. “Ten years of rapid fertility changes in European post-Communist coun-
tries—Evidence and interpretation,” Groningen Population Research Center Working
Papers, no. 2002-1. Groningen NL: University of Groningen.
———. 2004. “Is lowest-low fertility explained by the postponement of childbearing?,” Popula-
tion and Development Review 30(2): 195–220.
———. 2008. “Does persistent low fertility threaten the future of European populations?,”
in J. Surkyn et al. (eds.), Demographic Challenges for the 21st Century. Brussels: VUBPress,
pp. 27–90.
Sowers, E. and R. Lesthaeghe. 2008. “Sub-replacement fertility models: Why pure postpone-
ment models are inadequate,” poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population
Association of America, New Orleans «http: //webfiles.uci.edu/esowers/www/».

RON LESTHAEGHE 251
Surkyn, J. and R. Lesthaeghe 2004. “Values orientations and the second demographic transi-
tion (SDT) in Northern, Western and Southern Europe: An update,” Demographic Research
S3(3). Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. See online at «www.
demographic-research.org ». See also J. R. Surkyn and R. Lesthaeghe (2004), “Werto-
rientierungen und die ‘Second Demographic Transition’ in Nord-, West- und Südeuropa:
Ein aktuelle Bestandsaufnahme,“ Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft 1: 63–98.
Thévenon, O. 2009. “L’augmentation de l’activité des femmes en Europe: Progrès de la conci-
liation ou polarization des comportements?,” Population 64(2): 263–304.
Thornton, A. 1985. “Reciprocal influences of family and religion in a changing world,” Journal
of Marriage and the Family 47: 381–394.
———. 2005. Reading History Sideways: The Fallacy and Enduring Impact of the Developmental Para-
digm on Family Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Thornton, A., W. G. Axinn, and D. Hill. 1992. “Reciprocal effects of religiosity, cohabitation
and marriage,” American Journal of Sociology 98: 628–651.
Tsuya, N. 2006. “Patterns and covariates of partnership formation in Japan,” Journal of Popula-
tion Problems (Jinko Mondai Kenkyu) 62(1-2): 1–19.
———. 2009. ” Will the second demographic transition be global? The case of Japan,” pre-
sentation at Forum Discussion 215, 26th IUSSP International Population Conference,
Marrakesh, 27 September–2 October.
Tu, E. J. C. and X. Zhang. 2004. “Patterns of low fertility in Hong Kong and Taiwan,” Hong
Kong University of Science and Technology, Social Science Division, Knowloon, unpub-
lished paper.
UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). 1999. “Fertility decline in transition econo-
mies, 1982–1997: Political, economic and social factors,” Economic Survey of Europe 1999
1: 181–194.
———. 2000. “Fertility decline in transition economies, 1989–1998: Economic and social fac-
tors revisited,” Economic Survey of Europe 2000 1: 189–207.
Van Bavel, J. 2010. “Subreplacement fertility in the West before the baby boom: Past and cur-
rent perspectives,” Population Studies 64(1): 1–18.
van de Kaa, D. J. 2002. “The idea of a second demographic transition in industrialized coun-
tries,” Paper 6th Welfare Policy Seminar, National Institute of Population and Social
Security, Tokyo, 29 January.
———. 2004. “The true commonality: In reflexive modern societies fertility is a derivative,”
Population Studies 58(1): 77–81.
van Rijsselt, R. 1989. “Developments in attitudes and values orientations: A comparison
between birth cohorts in the Netherlands over the period 1970–1985,” Symposium on
Life Histories and Generations, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies (NIAS), Was-
senaar, 22–23 June.
Waite, L. J. , F. K. Goldscheider, and C. Witsberger. 1986. “Nonfamily living and the erosion
of traditional family orientations among young adults,” American Sociological Review 51:
541–554.
Zakharov, S. 1997. “Fertility trends in Russia and the European new independent states:
Crisis or turning point?,” Expert Group Meeting on Below-replacement Fertility, ESA/
P/WP.140, 4–6 November. New York: United Nations Population Division.
Zakharov, S. and E. Ivanova. 1996. “Fertility decline and recent changes in Russia—On the
threshold of the second demographic transition,” in J. DaVanzo (ed.), Russia’s Demographic
Crisis. Santa Monica: RAND, pp. 36–82.
Zeman, K., T. Sobotka, and V. Kantorova. 2001. “Halfway between socialist greenhouse and
postmodern plurality: Life course transitions of young Czech women,” paper presented
at the European Science Foundation Seminar on the Second Demographic Transition,
Bad Herrenalb, 23–28 June.
Zhang, X. 2005. “Postponement of childbearing and lowest-low fertility, Hong Kong 1976–
2001,” Powerpoint slides, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Social Sci-
ence Division.


Lesthaeghe PDR 2010

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lesthaeghe PDR 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lesthaeghe PDR 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Unfolding Story of

the Second Demographic

THE DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION refers to the declines in fertility and mortality

POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 36(2): 211–251 (JUNE 2010) 211

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 211 5/20/10 1:18:19 PM

to additional population aging. This aging cannot be fully compensated by

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 212 5/20/10 1:18:20 PM

Is the second demographic transition merely

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 213 5/20/10 1:18:20 PM

whereas the second demographic transition is the expression of the develop-

Contrasting nuptiality regimes

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 214 5/20/10 1:18:20 PM

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 215 5/20/10 1:18:20 PM

but these correspond to exceptional periods of economic crisis or war. Sub-

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 216 5/20/10 1:18:20 PM

of continued postponement, but even the end of such postponement would

Underlying societal contrasts

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 217 5/20/10 1:18:21 PM

of the period 1860–1960 were mainly concerned with increasing household

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 218 5/20/10 1:18:21 PM

racy, openness of government, rejection of political patronage, decline of

One transition or two?

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 219 5/20/10 1:18:21 PM

Is the second demographic transition only a

Central and Eastern Europe

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 220 5/20/10 1:18:22 PM

FIGURE 1 Proportion of extramarital births (percent), selected

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 221 5/20/10 1:18:25 PM

As I indicated earlier, the demographic patterns of Southern Europe, from

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 222 5/20/10 1:18:26 PM

distinction between the historically “strong family system” of Southern Eu-

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 223 5/20/10 1:18:26 PM

of the strong family system,” because, paradoxically, it will eventually disap-

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 224 5/20/10 1:18:26 PM

Western and Northern Europe

Historical path dependency and growing

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 225 5/20/10 1:18:26 PM

many different sub-narratives, each of which is anchored to speciﬁc empiri-

Dissociations between the rise of cohabitation and the

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 226 5/20/10 1:18:27 PM

Value orientations and household choices:

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 227 5/20/10 1:18:27 PM

ments allowed clear distinctions in values orientations (see Lesthaeghe and

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 228 5/20/10 1:18:27 PM

6) Divorce produces a departure from the stability of conventional opin-

Fertility and the SDT: Postponement and recuperation

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 229 5/20/10 1:18:27 PM

SOURCE: van de Kaa (2002).

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 230 5/20/10 1:18:28 PM

FIGURE 3 Relationship between a composite index of SDT values

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 231 5/20/10 1:18:29 PM

FIGURE 4 Relationship between a composite index of SDT values

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 232 5/20/10 1:18:30 PM

magnitude of welfare provisions (e.g., child allowances, parenthood leave,

PDR 36.2 Lesthaeghe-FINAL.indd 233 5/20/10 1:18:31 PM

Can the SDT spread to non-Western

Sub-replacement fertility and postponement

The criterion of a shift toward later parenthood and sub-replacement fertil-