from: to:

Journal Header

Bild

Couple disagreement about fertility preferences and family-friendly policy measures in the Czech Republic

    Beatrice Chromková Manuea, Petr Fučík

Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2011, pp. 335-344, 2012/02/02

doi: 10.1553/populationyearbook2011s335


PDF
X
BibTEX-Export:

X
EndNote/Zotero-Export:

X
RIS-Export:

X 
Researchgate-Export (COinS)

Permanent QR-Code

doi:10.1553/populationyearbook2011s335


Abstract

This article describes some findings of an ad-hoc survey “Marriage, Work and Family” conducted in the Czech Republic in 2005. The analysis is focused on couple disagreement about childbearing attitudes, ideals and intentions as well as on the partners’ negotiation process in reproductive decision-making. The results indicate that around one-fifth of Czech couples disagree about the intended number of children. The relatively high share of concordance between partners is the final outcome of a negotiation process within the couple in most cases. The more general the childbearing preferences measures, the higher the level of couple disagreement: one-third of the couples disagree about the family size ideals and two-thirds of them disagree about the reasons for having children. Moreover, one-fourth of Czech partners disagree about the impact of different policy measures on their own reproductive behaviour. This suggests that the potential for a couple’s conflict is quite high and that policy-makers willing to implement effective family-friendly policy measures should target their intervention not only to women but to men as well.

Published Online: 2012/02/02 15:45:19

Object Identifier: 0xc1aa5572 0x002a7102

Document viewed: Calculating...

Rights: All rights reserved. For questions regarding copyright and copies please contact us by email.

REFERENCES Becker, S. 1996. Couples and reproductive health: a review of couple studies. Studies in Family Planning 27(6): 291-306.Becker, S. 1999. Measuring unmet need: wives, husbands or couples? International Family Planning Perspectives 25(4): 172-180.Berrington, A. 2009. Perpetual postponers? Women’s, men’s and couples’ fertility intentions and subsequent fertility behaviour. S3RI Applications Working Paper A04/09.Chromková Manea, B.E. and P. Fucík 2007. Teorie konfliktních preferencí a plodnost v Ceské republice. Demografie-revue pro výzkum populacního vývoje 49(4): 244-252.Chromková Manea, B.E., M. Mrázová and L. Rabušic 2006. Teorie založené na lidských preferencích jako možný príspevek k vysvetlení soucasného reprodukcního chování. In Rodina, zamestnání a sociální politika, ed. Sirovátka et al., 57-79. 1. vyd. Brno : František Šalé – ALBERT, Fakulta sociálních studií Masarykovy university.DaVanzo, J. et al. 2003. How well do desired fertility measures for wives and husbands predict subsequent fertility? Evidence from Malaysia. DRU-3013-NICHD. Labour and Population Program Working Paper Series 03-16.Fucík, P. and B.E. Chromková Manea 2008. V rozporu, ci jednotní? Postoje páru k opatrením prorodinné politiky v CR. Sociální studia 5(2): 69-87.Hakim, C. 2000. Work-lifestyle choices in the 21st century: Preference theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hakim, C. 2003. A new approach to explaining fertility patterns: preference theory. Population and Development Review 29: 349-374.Rabušic, L. and B.E. Chromková Manea 2007. Preferencní teorie Hakimové v ceském kontextu. Demografie : Revue pro výzkum populacního vývoje 49(2): 77-86.Thomson, E. 1997. Couple childbearing desires, intentions, and births. Demography 34(3): 343-354.Thomson, E.and Jan M. Hoem 1998. Couple Childbearing Plans and Births in Sweden. Demography 35(3): 315-322.Voas, D. 2003. Conflicting preferences: a reason fertility tends to be too high or too low. Population and Development Review 29(4): 627-646.