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

 

Appendix: Data on Factors. Related to Fertility
Подпись: Fertility Fertility Rate

Appendix: Data on Factors. Related to Fertility

Appendix: Data on Factors. Related to Fertility

Подпись: Employment Employment Rate Rates
Подпись: Fertility Rate Marriage Rates

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

Appendix: Data on Factors. Related to Fertility

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.

 

Appendix: Data on Factors. Related to Fertility

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:

Подпись: FAMILY SERVICES Family day care Personal services Household services Household and other in-kind benefits

Appendix: Data on Factors. Related to Fertility Подпись: Family Expenditure

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).

Подпись: Fertility Rate —Social Expenditure Year Figure 6. Average fertility rates and total social expenditure as percentage of GDP among seventeen OECD countries, 1980 -2002. Total fertility rates are from OECD, Society at a Glance: OECD Social Indicators, 2005, http://www.oecd.org/document/24/0,2340,en_2649_20ii85_267i576 _i_i_i_i,00.html; public expenditure data are from OECD, Social Expenditure Database (SOCX, 2004), 1980 -2001, http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,2340, en_2649_20ii85_3i6i2994_i_i_i_i,00.html. 30.00

Подпись: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.