Cited by 98Family Dynamics and RelationshipsInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences

Timing effects and the interpretation of period fertility

Open access
Schoen, Robert·2004·Demography

Abstract

Low fertility levels and later childbearing in many developed countries have reinvigorated the debate between period and cohort perspectives on fertility and on the meaningfulness of the period total fertility rate (TFR). Here, fertility-timing effects are defined as level changes in period fertility that do not reflect level changes in the completed fertility of cohorts. That definition leads to the average cohort fertility (ACF) as a measure of period fertility adjusted for timing effects. In an influential paper, Bongaarts and Feeney (1998) presented an alternative approach and a different measure, TFR*, to adjust for timing effects. Here, the two measures are compared. In the context of model populations, the ACF performs well, reflecting an average of the fertility of the active cohorts. The Bongaarts-Feeney TFR*, however, is frequently unreliable and can be erratic when there are cycles in period timing. When applied to twentieth-century U.S. experience, the TFR* behaves like a period measure and yields adjustments that are often wide of the mark. The ACF shows the stability associated with cohort measures and quantifies the substantial impact that timing effects had during the “birth dearth” of the 1970s. The period TFR reached a low of 1.74 in 1976, but the ACF never went below 2.06 during the 1970s.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1353/dem.2004.0036

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Fertility aspirations do not appear to be a meaningful construct for many people.

    “In sum, fertility aspirations do not appear to be a meaningful construct for many people (Ní Bhrolch á in, 1992; Schoen, 2004).”

    From Delayed Fertility as a Driver of Fertility Decline? (2023) · cites this paper as Schoen, 2004

    In the passage labeled ROBERT SCHOEN, Schoen says there is good evidence against a fixed reproductive target and that childbearing goals change. But he also says early goals can remain important and meaningful, so the paper does not support the broader claim that fertility aspirations are not a meaningful construct for many people. The indexed copy does not provide a page number for this passage. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Butz, W.P. and M.P. Ward. 1979. "Will U.S. Fertility Remain Low? A New Economic Interpreta- tion." Population and Development Review 5:663-88.
  2. Keyfitz, N. and W. Flieger. 1990. World Population Growth and Aging. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  3. United Nations, Population Division. 2000. "Below Replacement Fertility." Population Bulletin of the United Nations, Special Issue Nos. 40/41 1999. New York: United Nations.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schoen, R.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Schoen, Robert
Venue
Demography
Published
2004-11-01
Volume
41
Issue
4
Pages
801-819
ISSN
  • 0070-3370 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-7790
OpenAlex
W2041768195
Cited by
98
References
39
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 6
FWCI
12.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Demography (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Insurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Demographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Keywords
cohort fertility, fertility cycles, low fertility, model populations
MeSH terms
Adult, Birth Rate, Female, Fertility, Humans, Maternal Age, Middle Aged, Population Dynamics, Time Factors, United States, Models, Statistical, Cohort Studies, Cohort Effect, Developed Countries

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review