80
3.4.1 Ideal family size: demographic correlates
Some couples are prone to run their lives according to pre-specified, internalized plans, while others are at the other extreme, leaving virtually everything to factors outside their control. Ryder (1973) argues that couples plan to have a certain number of children according to the reproductive norms they have internalized. Their capacity to achieve that target reflects the influence of regulatory norms and their own general capacity to deal with the wide variety of problems that may arise. However, Ware (1974) argues for rationalization behaviour, where desired family size may be influenced by the already existing number of children.
Assuming that fertility is a product of couples’ implementation of stable fertility preferences, the number of children desired would be constant and the number of living children would be less than or equal to the preferred number. In reality, however, some women report as their desired family size the number of living children or the number of births they have had. At lower parities, therefore, desired number of children would be expected to be larger than the number of living children, but as the number of living children increases, so too should the number of children desired (Pullum 1980). Taking into account Pullum’s two theoretical notions (‘implementation’ and ‘rationalization’), Figure 3.1 shows the expected relationship between the number of living children and desired family size: (a) assuming absolutely no rationalization and (b) assuming full rationalization.
Most survey findings suggest that the average number of children desired increases noticeably with almost every increase in the number of living children (Easterlin 1973; Kiesler 1977; Pullum 1980; United Nations 1981). Rationalization undoubtedly affects responses to ‘over again’ questions, but it is not necessarily the sole determinant of
those responses. It has to be allowed that there may be a genuine element of
respondents with higher family size preferences simply behaving in accordance with those preferences involved (Knodel and Prachuabmoh 1973; Lee and Bulatao 1983:270). However, the fact is that the correlation between desired family size and
number of living children is often taken as evidence that desired size is adjusted upward with fertility.
Figure 3.1 Hypothetical Graph of the Number of Children Desired by Number of Living Children Under Implementation (a) and Rationalization (b)
No. of Living Children Source: Adapted from Pullum (1980).
The following sections focus on the influence of age and marital duration on ideal family size estimates for women in both the 1982 and 1985 surveys. Table 3.6 shows that once actual family size is held constant, the difference between age groups in mean ideal number of children becomes negligible. The pattern is even more clearly found for personal ideal family sizes in the 1985 follow-up data (Table A3.3). It appears that, especially in the 1985 data, it is actual family size and not age that affects women’s reports of total number of children desired. Mean ideal family size declined marginally from 3.1 at ages 40-46 to 2.7 at ages 15-19 in 1982, while in 1985 the corresponding decline was from 4.1 to 2.7.
Fertility is greatly influenced by length of exposure to the risk of childbearing. Marital duration is therefore another demographic factor that is directly related to the number of living children women have if they do not fully implement fertility control. Women
who have been married longer can be expected to have given birth to more children than women who have been married for shorter periods. If women do rationalize their family size preferences, the ideal number of children will be directly related to marital duration.
82
Table 3.6 Mean Ideal Family Size by Number of Living Children by Age, 1982 SLCPS Re-interviewed Subsample
No. of Age of women
living _________________________________
children All ages 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+
0 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.9 1 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.6 2 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.8 3 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.8 4 3.0 - 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.1 2.9 5 3.3 - 2.6* 3.1 3.5 3.3 3.2 6 3.3 - 4.0* 4.2* 3.3 3.5 3.4 7+ 3.5 - - - 3.5 3.4 4.4 T o ta l 2 .9 2 .7 2 .6 2 .8 2 .9 3.0 3 .1 Std. Dev. 1.0 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 N 2183 83 321 479 489 424 387
Source: Longitudinal data tape 1982-85. Note : * - Fewer than 15 observations.
Table 3.7 using 1982 data shows that before ten years of marital duration, actual family size is lower than ideal family size. However, beyond ten years duration actual family
size exceeds ideal. For recently married women the average number of children
claimed to be ideal was about two and a half. On an average, SLCPS respondents at all marital durations had had exactly three living children while their mean ideal number of children remained slightly lower than that figure. The same women three years later reported a mean ideal family size of 3.4, which was identical to their mean number of
living children (Table A3.4). As with the 1982 data, women at shorter marriage
durations in 1985 had higher ideal than actual family sizes. Even though both 1982 and 1985 data show a positive relation between marriage duration and ideal family size, larger ideal family sizes among women at longer marital durations, particularly in 1985, could in theory be a cohort effect rather than a reflection of rationalization. However, it
has been shown that when actual family size is held constant, differences between age groups in mean ideal number of children diminish.
Table 3.7 Mean Ideal Family Size and Mean Number of Living Children by Marital Duration, 1982 SLCPS Re-interviewed Subsample
M arital duration L iv in g Ideal D iffe r e n c e (L iv in g - Id eal) 0 -4 1.1 2 .6 -1 .5 5 -9 2.3 2 .8 -0 .5 10 -1 4 3.3 2 .9 0 .4 1 5 -1 9 3.8 3 .0 0 .8 2 0 -2 4 4 .8 3.1 1.7 2 5 + 5 .4 3 .3 2.1 T otal 3.0 2.9 0.1 S td .D e v . 1.9 1.0 - N 2 1 8 3 2 1 8 3 -
Source: Longitudinal data tape 1982-85.
As already mentioned, the question on ideal family size in the 1982 SLCPS does not necessarily solicit personal family size desires. For older women in particular it is a hypothetical question, inviting them to consider the circumstances facing younger women today rather than the circumstances they themselves faced. Therefore it is essential to refine much of the analysis by concentrating on young women or women with shorter marriage durations,9 who were at the early stages of family formation and for whom 1982 ‘ideals’ might reasonably be seen as personal preferences. As young women are better educated and more modem in outlook than older women, and therefore have a high possibility of having become users of family planning, their reproductive preferences may be assumed to have the greatest salience for them.
9 When estimates of mean ideal family size for different categories of socio-economic variables are calculated there should be a