Appendix: Data on Factors. Related to Fertility

A ll of the data in this appendix refer to the discussion of /% relations between female employment, family policy, and fertility in Chapter 5. The data in Figure 1 show. A. a negative relationship of r = — .734. Because we cannot assume that the data in these analyses (average rates of the same group of countries at different time periods) involve independent observations, Pearson’s r cannot be used to test hypotheses or predict future relationships. It is reported here and elsewhere in this section only as a way to summarize the observed relationship between two variables.

Depending which countries and time frame are being analyzed, one can find different patterns. For example, based on the data available for the fifteen original member countries of the European Union, we see in Figures 2 and 3 that a nega­tive relationship between fertility and female employment rates (r = —.545) is clearly evident between 1994 and 1998, and that a positive relationship appears (r = .763) between 1999 and 2004. Still, in 2004 the average fertility rate is far below re­placement and below that in 1980. The data in Figure 4 have a negative relationship of r = —.809.

• Employment

• Fertility

Figure 3. Average female employment rates and fertility rates among fifteen EU countries, 1999 — 2004. Data are from the Eurostat database, http://epp. eurostat. ec. europa. eu.

чи— Employment —«— Marriage Figure 4. Average female employment rates and marriage rates among fifteen OECD countries, 1980 — 2002. Data are from OECD, Society at a Glance: OECD Social Indicators, 2005, http://www. oecd. org/document/24/0,2340, en_2825_497ii8_267i576_i_i_i_i,00.html.

The relationship in Figure 5 is r = —.386. The range of family-friendly benefits on which expenditures in Figure 5 are calculated include the following:

FAMILY CASH BENEFITS Family allowances for children Family support benefits Maternity and parental leave Lone-parent benefits Other cash benefits

The correlation between fertility and total expenditure in Figure 6 is r = — .655. Based on earlier calculations for fifteen European Union countries the relationship between social ex­penditures and marriage was r = —.788 (from Neil Gilbert, “Conservative Lifestyle Choices: Preference, Class, and Social Policy,” paper presented at the Institute on Culture, Religion, and World Affairs Conference on Women and Conservatism in America, Boston University, May 2004).

30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.0 0.00

Table і. Difference in Fertility Rates and Female Labor-
Force Participation, 1994-2004

	Fertility rates	Female labor-force participation
Sweden	-0.13	+2.0
Finland	— 0.05	+6.9
Denmark	— 0.03	+4.7
Source: OECD, Society at	— a Glance: OECD Social Indicator, 2005. http://www. oecd. org/
document/24/o,2340,en_	_2649_20ii85_267i576_i_i_i_i,00.html.
Table 2. Comparison of Religious Values in Europe and the
	United States, 1990-1991
	Percentage who rated	Percentage
	the importance of God	who attend
	in their lives as “i0”	religious services at
	on a i0-point scale	least once a month
Belgium	i3	35
Finland	i2	i3
France	i0	i7
East Germany	i3	20
West Germany	i4	33
Great Britain	i6	25
Iceland	i7	9
Ireland	40	88
Italy	29	47
Netherlands	ii	3i
Norway	i5	i3
Spain	i8	40
Sweden	8	i0
Switzerland	26	43
European Average	i7.3	30.3
United States	48	59

Source: Ronald Inglehart and Wayne Baker, "Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Cultural Values,” American Sociological Review 65 (February 2000), tables 6 and 7.