| Literature DB >> 35612730 |
Pablo José Varas Enríquez1,2,3,4, Luseadra McKerracher5, Nicolás Montalva Rivera6,7,8.
Abstract
Globally, mortality and fertility rates generally fall as resource abundance increases. This pattern represents an evolutionary paradox insofar as resource-rich ecological contexts can support higher numbers of offspring, a component of biological fitness. This paradox has not been resolved, in part because the relationships between fertility, life history strategies, reproductive behavior, and socioeconomic conditions are complex and cultural-historically contingent. We aim to understand how we might make sense of this paradox in the specific context of late-twentieth-century, mid-demographic transition Chile. We use distribution-specific generalized linear models to analyze associations between fertility-related life-history traits-number of offspring, ages at first and last reproduction, average interbirth interval, and average number of live births per reproductive span year-and socioeconomic position (SEP) using data from a cohort of 6,802 Chilean women born between 1961 and 1970. We show that Chilean women of higher SEP have shorter average interbirth intervals, more births per reproductive span year, later age at first reproduction, earlier ages at last reproduction, and, ultimately, fewer children than women of lower SEP. Chilean women of higher SEP consolidate childbearing over a relatively short time span in the middle of their reproductive careers, whereas women of lower SEP tend to reproduce over the entirety of their reproductive lifespans. These patterns may indicate that different SEP groups follow different pathways toward declining fertility during the demographic transition, reflecting different life-history trade-offs in the process.Entities:
Keywords: Demographic transition; Evolutionary demography; Fertility; Human reproduction; Life history theory
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35612730 PMCID: PMC9250487 DOI: 10.1007/s12110-022-09425-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Hum Nat ISSN: 1045-6767
Variables included in the factor analysis of mixed data used to define socioeconomic position (SEP). Years of schooling refers to the number of years in the educational system (e.g., 12 years), while educational attainment level refers to the stage the individual has attained (e.g., completed high school). Autonomous income refers to all kinds of income obtained by all members of the household, while labor income refers only to income produced via paid labor. Variables related to health, pension, housing, property ownership, and living conditions are discrete variables involving more than two categories
| Variable | Description | Category |
|---|---|---|
| ESC | Years of schooling | Education |
| Educ | Educational attainment level | Education |
| ytrabajoCorh | Labor income of household | Income |
| yautcorh | Autonomous income of household | Income |
| ysubh | State subsidy income of household | Income |
| ytotcorh | Total income of the household | Income |
| ypchtot | Per capita income of the household | Income |
| s14 | Healthcare insurance system | Health |
| o29 | Pension system | Pension |
| r19 | Mobile phone ownership | Material ownership |
| v1 | Type of housing | Housing |
| v2 | Wall material | Housing |
| v4 | Floor material | Housing |
| v6 | Roof material | Housing |
| v9 | Ownership of the dwelling | Property ownership |
| v11 | House square meters | Housing |
| v12 | Ownership of the household | Property ownership |
| v23 | Water source system | Living conditions |
| v24 | Water distribution system | Living conditions |
| v25 | Sewerage system | Living conditions |
| v26 | Electricity system | Living conditions |
Summary statistics of number of offspring, age at first and last reproduction, average interbirth interval, and birthing density
| Life-history trait | Sample size | Mean | Median | Mode | SD | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of offspring | 6,802 | 2.665 | 3 | 2 | 1.361 | 0 | 13 |
| Age at first reproduction | 6,371 | 22.54 | 22 | 20 | 5.06 | 10 | 47 |
| Age at last reproduction | 6,371 | 32.97 | 33 | 32 | 5.309 | 15 | 49 |
| Average interbirth interval | 6,061 | 3.77 | 3.5 | 3 | 1.872 | 1 | 21 |
| Birthing density | 6,061 | 0.35 | 0.286 | 0.333 | 0.213 | 0.048 | 1 |
Summary table of the regression models used to analyze the relationship of socioeconomic position (SEP) with average interbirth intervals (BI), birthing density (BD), age at first reproduction (AFR), age at last reproduction (ALR), and number of offspring (N° Off.). A Poisson regression model is reported for number of offspring
| IBI | BD | AFR | ALR | Nº Off. | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coeff | SD |
| Coeff | SD |
| Coeff | SD |
| Coeff | SD |
| Coeff | SD |
| |
| SEP | 0.307 | 0.025 | < 0.000 | 1.174 | 0.087 | < 0.000 | 0.698 | 0.031 | < 0.000 | −0.82 | 0.754 | 0.277 | −1.338 | 0.11 | < 0.000 |
| I. Tarapacá | 0.137 | 0.012 | < 0.000 | −1.69 | 0.048 | < 0.000 | 2.811 | 0.018 | < 0.000 | – | – | – | 1.907 | 0.076 | < 0.000 |
| II. Antofagasta | 0.003 | 0.013 | 0.814 | −0.003 | 0.051 | 0.946 | -0.001 | 0.02 | 0.959 | – | – | – | −0.074 | 0.056 | 0.181 |
| III. Atacama | 0.019 | 0.012 | 0.105 | 0.056 | 0.048 | 0.243 | 0.001 | 0.019 | 0.96 | – | – | – | −0.033 | 0.051 | 0.525 |
| IV. Coquimbo | 0.018 | 0.011 | 0.107 | 0.067 | 0.047 | 0.147 | 0.035 | 0.018 | 0.053 | – | – | – | −0.144 | 0.051 | < 0.01 |
| V. Valparaíso | 0.025 | 0.01 | < 0.05 | 0.089 | 0.041 | 0.032 | 0.043 | 0.016 | < 0.01 | – | – | – | −0.196 | 0.045 | < 0.000 |
| VI. O’Higgins | 0.017 | 0.01 | 0.096 | 0.066 | 0.042 | 0.119 | 0.049 | 0.016 | < 0.01 | – | – | – | −0.215 | 0.046 | < 0.000 |
| VII. Maule | 0.023 | 0.01 | < 0.05 | 0.076 | 0.043 | 0.074 | 0.059 | 0.017 | < 0.001 | – | – | – | −0.198 | 0.046 | < 0.000 |
| VIII. Bío-Bío | 0.043 | 0.009 | < 0.000 | 0.169 | 0.039 | < 0.000 | 0.077 | 0.015 | < 0.000 | – | – | – | −0.212 | 0.042 | < 0.000 |
| IX. Araucanía | 0.028 | 0.01 | < 0.01 | 0.098 | 0.042 | 0.019 | 0.069 | 0.016 | < 0.000 | – | – | – | −0.133 | 0.045 | < 0.01 |
| X. Los Lagos | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.077 | 0.044 | 0.077 | 0.045 | 0.017 | < 0.01 | – | – | – | −0.182 | 0.047 | < 0.001 |
| XI. Aysén | 0.005 | 0.012 | 0.672 | −0.017 | 0.041 | 0.739 | 0.012 | 0.02 | 0.549 | – | – | – | −0.11 | 0.056 | 0.049 |
| XII. Magallanes | 0.008 | 0.013 | 0.48 | 0.049 | 0.042 | 0.347 | 0.051 | 0.02 | 0.01 | – | – | – | −0.245 | 0.058 | < 0.000 |
| XIII. Metropolitana | 0.02 | 0.009 | 0.022 | 0.72 | 0.038 | 0.057 | 0.048 | 0.015 | < 0.01 | – | – | – | −0.157 | 0.04 | < 0.001 |
| XIV.Los Ríos | 0.034 | 0.011 | < 0.01 | 0.12 | 0.045 | < 0.01 | 0.055 | 0.017 | < 0.01 | – | – | – | −0.175 | 0.049 | < 0.001 |
| XV. Arica y Parinacota | 0.021 | 0.012 | 0.091 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.159 | 0.025 | 0.019 | 0.197 | – | – | – | −0.105 | 0.054 | 0.051 |
| Urban | 0.137 | 0.012 | < 0.000 | −1.69 | 0.0486 | < 0.000 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Rural | 0.015 | 0.004 | 0.001 | 0.053 | 0.019 | < 0.01 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Not Indigenous | 0.137 | 0.012 | < 0.000 | −1.69 | 0.0486 | < 0.000 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Indigenous | 0.012 | 0.006 | 0.031 | 0.038 | 0.022 | 0.093 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| R2 | – | 0.032 | 0.078 | < 0.000 | – | ||||||||||
| AIC | 23595.47 | 9276.576 | −1993.4595 | 39356.22 | 23510.24 | ||||||||||
Fig. 1Relationship between socioeconomic position (SEP) and average interbirth interval (IBI), grouped by ethnic self-identification, geographical region, and urban-rural living. There is a line and a point shape for each geographical region. The columns show the relationship in urban (left) and rural (right) settlements. The rows show the relationship among individuals that self-identify (or not) as Indigenous
Fig. 2Relationship between socioeconomic position (SEP) and birthing density, grouped by ethnic self-identification, geographical region and urban-rural living. There is a line and a point shape for each geographical region. The columns show the relationship in urban (left) and rural (right) settlements. The rows show the relationship among individuals that self-identify (or not) as Indigenous
Fig. 3Relationship between socioeconomic position (SEP) and age at first reproduction (AFR), grouped by geographical region. Each geographical region is indicated by a distinctive point and line color
Fig. 4Relationship between socioeconomic position (SEP) and age at last reproduction (ALR)
Fig. 5Relationship between socioeconomic position (SEP) and number of offspring, grouped by geographical region. There is a line and a point shape for each geographical region. The socioeconomic position (SEP) is square-root transformed