1. Far and few between? The child- bearing decisions of Portuguese women Author: Márton Varga Conference on the Impact of Day-Care Services in Visegrad Countries. Budapest, 2012.

2. Amélia -Born in 1961 -Lives in Braga -Has 10 siblings Madalena -Born in 1958 -Lives in Lisbon -Has 2 siblings Sofia -Born in 1965 -Lives in Faro -No sisters or brothers Can we predict their childbearing decisions?

3. QUESTIONS Main source: Fertility and Family Survey DATA and METHODOLOGY How many children will women have? When do they give birth? Technique: Split-population survival estimation Sample: 5484 Portuguese women (1947-79)

4. MAIN RESULTS Education leads to delayed childbearing and a longer interval between the second and third birth. University graduates are more likely to have the third child. More siblings are associated with a higher probability of having the second child. Younger cohorts are more likely to postpone childbearing, to remain childless, and to have fewer children. Changes in the unemployment rate and childcare availability do not influence fertility timing. Mothers, who were older at their last delivery, have a lower probability of the consequent birth, but they wait less if they decide to have another child. 10% remain childless, 30 % stop at one child, while 70% stop at two children. EducationSiblingsCohortEconomyAge at birthOther

5. Birthplace, education and age at first birth explains who stops at one child. Nick Parr (2007) Women who delay are more educated and skilled. Kasey Buckles (2008) Childcare availability increases fertility. Ronald R. Rindfuss et al. (2007) Regional female unemployment leads to delayed childbearing. Maria D. Gutiérrez (2008) Split-population models for 3 rd and 4 th birth. Focus on sex composition, age at first birth, and father’s occupation. Edith Gray et al. (2010) MOTIVATION

6. FIGURE 1. KAPLAN MEIER SURVIVAL ESTIMATES Note: Duration is measured from the age of 14 and from the 3 rd quarter after the last birth.

7. Important THE SPLIT-POPULATION MODEL

8. TABLE 3 - TRANSITION TO THE THIRD BIRTH αβ Secondary 0.0540.592** (0.241)(0.265) University 1.286***0.808** (0.379)(0.361) One -0.147-0.381 (0.262)(0.284) Two 0.082-0.109 (0.263)(0.284) Three or more 0.396*-0.221 (0.234)(0.249) Born 1960-79 -0.310***-0.062 (0.111)(0.152) Unemployment change -0.016 (0.062) Childcare change -0.012 (0.018) Age at second birth -0.181***-0.040** (0.013)(0.016) Constant 4.076***2.738*** (0.403)(0.517) District dummies YES Period effectsNOYES ln σ -0.121 (0.086) κ 0.401** (0.188) Log-likelihood -2310.73 Number of subjects2101 Observations18,169 Note: Standard errors in parentheses. ***Significant at 1%. **Significant at 5%. *Significant at 10%. EducationSiblingsCohortEconomyAge at birth

9. Amélia -Born in 1961 -Lives in Braga -Has 10 siblings -Received primary education -Second child at 20 Madalena -Born in 1958 -Lives in Lisbon -Has 2 siblings -Attended university -Second child at 28 Sofia -Born in 1965 -Lives in Faro -No sisters or brothers -Finished secondary school -Second child at 27 Probability of stop at two children 33.9% Probability of stop at two children 81.7% Probability of stop at two children 86.3% 70.4% stop at two children

10. Results are robust Deserves more investigation Results are plausible FINAL REMARKS

11. Thank you for the attention!

12. TABLE 1 - TRANSITION TO THE FIRST BIRTH αβ Secondary-0.1830.373*** (0.113)(0.042) University0.0720.571*** (0.214)(0.075) One-0.087-0.004 (0.121)(0.046) Two0.010-0.008 (0.123)(0.047) Three or more-0.114-0.096** (0.107)(0.041) Born 1960-79-0.149**0.000 (0.060)(0.036) Unemployment change-0.024** (0.011) Childcare change-0.006 (0.004) Constant0.876***2.774*** (0.119)(0.053) District dummiesYES Period effectsNOYES ln σ-0.956*** (0.039) κ0.516*** (0.053) Log-likelihood-11042.97 Number of subjects5484 Observations63,593 Note: Standard errors in parentheses. ***Significant at 1%. **Significant at 5%. *Significant at 10%. EducationSiblingsCohortEconomy

13. TABLE 2 - TRANSITION TO THE SECOND BIRTH αβ Secondary -0.0300.010 (0.093)(0.067) University 0.078-0.119 (0.140)(0.095) One 0.229**0.070 (0.113)(0.079) Two 0.348***0.085 (0.116)(0.082) Three or more 0.427***0.051 (0.102)(0.069) Born 1960-79 -0.209***-0.097 (0.070)(0.071) Unemployment change 0.015 (0.027) Childcare change -0.007 (0.008) Age at first birth -0.074***-0.046*** (0.008)(0.006) Constant 1.904***2.916*** (0.221)(0.197) District dummies YES Period effectsNOYES ln σ -0.700*** (0.062) κ 1.489*** (0.123) Log-likelihood -6108.71 Number of subjects3353 Observations21,139 Note: Standard errors in parentheses. ***Significant at 1%. **Significant at 5%. *Significant at 10%. EducationSiblingsCohortEconomyAge at birth

14. FIGURE 1. FIRST BIRTH TIMING, KAPLAN MEIER SURVIVAL AND SMOOTHED HAZARD ESTIMATES Note: Duration is measured from the age of 14.

15. FIGURE 2. SECOND BIRTH TIMING, KAPLAN MEIER SURVIVAL AND SMOOTHED HAZARD ESTIMATES Note: Duration is measured from the 3 rd quarter after the first delivery.

16. FIGURE 3. FIRST BIRTH TIMING, KAPLAN MEIER SURVIVAL AND SMOOTHED HAZARD ESTIMATES Note: Duration is measured from the 3 rd quarter after the second delivery.