AccScience Publishing / IJPS / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/ijps.3600
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Using discrete choice modeling to understand the drivers of reproductive delay in the United Kingdom

Paula Sheppard*
Show Less
1 School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
Submitted: 7 May 2024 | Accepted: 12 October 2024 | Published: 6 November 2024
© 2024 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
Abstract

The ideal family size in the UK is, on average, two children. However, there is a fertility gap, the difference between wanted and achieved family size, of around one in three children, which is largely caused by extended delays to reproduction. Standard quantitative methods used to identify what causes these delays have limitations, often relying on macro-level data which conveys little about individual needs, or applying longitudinal methods that produce outdated results because only once people have completed their reproductive years is it possible to infer which life-course factors led to later-age childbearing. This study is the first to overcome these challenges by applying a discrete choice experiment to reveal the barriers that people are facing right now. This innovative methodology allows the estimation of the relative importance of the barriers and the distance between them measured in months of reproductive delay. Among other things, the results show that for men and women, partner support was more important than finances or housing, although support means different things depending on the level of education with more educated women prioritizing hands-on fathers and household gender equality, whereas less-educated women strongly desired stable partnerships. Men favored partner readiness and neighborhood quality. These, and the other findings shown here, provide detailed insight into the contemporary causes of delayed fertility in the UK.

Keywords
Fertility gap
Reproductive delay
Reproductive decision-making
Discrete choice
Gender equality
Family size
Funding
This study was financially supported by the University of Oxford’s John Fell Research Fund (grant number 0010698). The John Fell Research Fund is funded by Oxford University Press.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that she has no competing interests.
References
  1. Bachrach, C.A., & Morgan, S.P. (2013). A cognitive-social model of fertility intentions. Population and Development Review, 39(3):459-485. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2013.00612.x

 

  1. Beaujouan, E., & Berghammer, C. (2019). The gap between lifetime fertility intentions and completed fertility in Europe and the United States: A cohort approach. Population Research and Policy Review, 38(4):507-535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-019-09516-3

 

  1. Bernardi, L., & Keim, S. (2017). Childless at Age 30: A Qualitative Study of the Life Course Plans of Working Women in East and West Germany. In: Kreyenfeld, M., & Konietza, D., (eds.), Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, Causes, and Consequences. England: Springer Open, p.253-267.

 

  1. Bernardi, L., Keim, S., & Von der Lippe, H. (2007). Social Influences on Fertility: A Comparative Mixed Methods Study in Eastern and Western Germany. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1):23-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292238

 

  1. Bernardi, L., Mynarska, M., & Rossier, C. (2015). Uncertain, changing and situated fertility intentions. In: Philipov, D., Liefbroer, A.C., & Klobas, J.E., (eds.). Reproductive Decision-Making in a Macro-Micro Perspective. Netherlands: Springer, p.113-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9401-5_5

 

  1. Berrington, A. (2004). Perpetual postponers? Women’s, men’s and couple’s fertility intentions and subsequent fertility behaviour. Population Trends, 117:9-19.

 

  1. Berrington, A. (2017). Childlessness in the UK. In: Kreyenfeld, M., & Konietzka, D., (eds.). Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, Causes, and Consequences. Berlin: Springer International Publishing, p.57-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44667-7_3

 

  1. Berrington, A., & Pattaro, S. (2014). Educational differences in fertility desires, intentions and behaviour: A life course perspective. Advances in Life Course Research, 21:10-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2013.12.003

 

  1. Billari, F.C., Liefbroer, A.C., & Philipov, D. (2006). The postponement of childbearing in Europe: Driving forces and implications. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 4:1-17.

 

  1. Brough, M., & Sheppard, P. (2022). Fertility decision-making in the UK: Insights from a qualitative study among British men and women. Social Sciences, 11(9):9. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11090409

 

  1. Clark, D. (2022). Average Age of Mothers in England and Wales by Child Number 2020. Statista. Available from: https:// www.statista.com/statistics/294594/mother-average-age-at-childbirth-england-and-wales-by-child-number [Last accessed on 2023 Oct 01].

 

  1. Cleland, J., Porteous, T., & Skåtun, D. (2018). What can discrete choice experiments do for you? Medical Education, 52(11):1113-1124 https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13657

 

  1. Erát, D. (2021). Educational assortative mating and the decline of hypergamy in 27 European countries: An examination of trends through cohorts. Demographic Research, 44:157-188.

 

  1. Goldscheider, F., Bernhardt, E., & Lappegård, T. (2015). The gender revolution: A framework for understanding changing family and demographic behavior. Population and Development Review, 41(2):207-239.

 

  1. Hadley, R.A. (2021). ‘No longer invincible’: The impact of involuntary childlessness on older men. Physical Therapy Reviews, 26(5):328-343. https://doi.org/10.1080/10833196.2021.1884172

 

  1. Heazell, A.E.P., Newman, L., Lean, S.C., & Jones, R.L. (2018). Pregnancy outcome in mothers over the age of 35. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 30(6):337-343. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000494

 

  1. Hensher, D., Rose, J.M., & Beck, M.J. (2012). Are there specific design elements of choice experiments and types of people that influence choice response certainty? Journal of Choice Modelling, 5(1):77-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70049-6

 

  1. Hess, S., & Train, K. (2017). Correlation and scale in mixed logit models. Journal of Choice Modelling, 23:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2017.03.001

 

  1. Igarashi, H., Takahashi, T., & Nagase, S. (2015). Oocyte aging underlies female reproductive aging: Biological mechanisms and therapeutic strategies. Reproductive Medicine and Biology, 14(4):159-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12522-015-0209-5

 

  1. Kjaer, T., Bech, M., Gyrd-Hansen, D., & Hart-Hansen, K. (2006). Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: Need we worry? Health Economics, 15(11):1217-1228. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1117

 

  1. Klesment, M., & Van Bavel, J. (2015). The Reversal of the Gender Gap in Education and Female Breadwinners in Europe. Families and Societies Working Paper Series. Vol. 26, p.37.

 

  1. Kneale, D., & Joshi, H. (2008). Postponement and childlessness-evidence from two British cohorts. Demographic Research, 19(58):1935-1968. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.58

 

  1. Lesthaeghe, R. (2014). The second demographic transition: A concise overview of its development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(51):18112-18115. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1420441111

 

  1. Louviere, J., Flynn, T., & Carson, R. (2010). Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. Journal of Choice Modelling, 3(3):57-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70014-9

 

  1. McDonald, P. (2000). Gender equity in theories of fertility transition. Population and Development Review, 26(3):427-439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2000.00427.x

 

  1. Mills, M., Rindfuss, R.R., McDonald, P., Te Velde, E., & On Behalf of the ESHRE Reproduction and Society Task Force. (2011). Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. Human Reproduction Update, 17(6):848-860. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr026

 

  1. Morgan, S.P., & Rackin, H. (2010).The correspondence between fertility intentions and behavior in the United States. Population and Development Review, 36(1):91-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2010.00319.x

 

  1. Ní Bhrolcháin, M., & Beaujouan, É. (2012). Fertility postponement is largely due to rising educational enrolment. Population Studies, 66(3):311-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2012.697569

 

  1. Oliver, D., Deal, K., Howard, M., Qian, H., Agarwal, G., & Guenter, D. (2019). Patient trade-offs between continuity and access in primary care interprofessional teaching clinics in Canada: A cross-sectional survey using discrete choice experiment. BMJ Open, 9(3):e023578. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023578

 

  1. Perez Troncoso, D. (2022). Efficient and Accessible Discrete Choice Experiments: Dcetool. Available from: https://www. SSRN 4016305.

 

  1. Raybould, A., & Sear, R. (2020). Children of the (gender) revolution: A theoretical and empirical synthesis of how gendered division of labour influences fertility. Population Studies, 75(2), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2020.1851748

 

  1. Rose, J.M., & Bliemer, M.C.J. (2009). Constructing efficient stated choice experimental designs. Transport Reviews, 29(5):587-617. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640902827623

 

  1. Smallwood, S., & Jeffries, J. (2003). Family Building Intentions in England and Wales: Trends, Outcomes and Interpretations. Population Trends. Available from: https://www.academia. edu/49439350/family_building_intentions_in_england_and_wales_trends_outcomes_and_interpretations

 

  1. (2021). Stata Statistical Software: Release 17 (Version 17) [Computer Software]. Texas: StataCorp LLC.

 

  1. Surkyn, J., & Lesthaeghe, R. (2004). Value orientations and the second demographic transition (SDT) in Northern, Western and Southern Europe: An update. Demographic Research, S3:45-86. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2004.S3.3

 

  1. Testa, M.R., Bordone, V., Osiewalska, B., & Skirbekk, V. (2016). Are daughters’ childbearing intentions related to their mothers’ socio-economic status? Demographic Research, 35(21):581-616. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2016.35.21

 

  1. The World Bank. (2022). Fertility Rate, Total (Births per Woman)-United Kingdom. Available from: https:// data.worldbank.org/indicator/sp.dyn.tfrt.in?name_ desc=true&locations=GB [Last accessed on 2023 Oct 01].

 

  1. Van Bavel, J. (2012). The reversal of gender inequality in education, union formation and fertility in Europe. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 10:127-154.

 

  1. Van den Broek-Altenburg, E., & Atherly, A. (2020). Using discrete choice experiments to measure preferences for hard to observe choice attributes to inform health policy decisions. Health Economics Review, 10(1):18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-020-00276-x
Share
Back to top
International Journal of Population Studies, Electronic ISSN: 2424-8606 Print ISSN: 2424-8150, Published by AccScience Publishing