Spatial continuity of first and second demographic transitions in France, Belgium and Switzerland. Demographic and social indicators for départements, arrondissements and kantons

1. Spatial Continuities in Demographic Transitions & the RWA-Model
Insights from the Belgian example, 1840-2000
Ron Lesthaeghe
Belgian Royal Academy of Sciences, Brussels.
(with cartography by Didier Willaert, Free Univ. Brussels VUB)

2. Structure of this presentation
• The RWA-model : the preconditions for
innovation.
• A short history of secularization, 1840-
1970
• The empirical dimensions in Belgian
spatial demographic patterns, 1880-2000.
• RWA interpretation of empirical results.

3. R and W and A
• Ready = new behavior must be
advantageous (conscious cost/benefit
calculus)
• Willing = new behavior must be ethically
acceptable (religious and moral legitimacy)
• Able = there must be technical means for its
realization ( material, legal, organizational,
often at macro level)

4. COALE’S PRECONDITIONS FOR DEMOGRAPHIC
INNOVATION
• READY = ECONOMICALLY ADVANTAGEOUS
• WILLING = CULTURALLY ACCEPTABLE
• ABLE = MEANS AVAILABLE
S = R and W and A
The slowest moving condition can become a bottleneck.

5. Not ready, not
willing, not able
Fully ready,willing
and able

6. Si = Min. (Ri, Wi, Ai)
Example 1: the upper tails of
the three distributions are
already in the zones with
values greater than 0.5, yet
nobody will adopt the new
form of behavior
Example 2 : For 85%,
”ability” is no longer the
problem, and 50% is
convinced of the advantages
of the new form. Yet, less
than a quarter will adopt it.
Reason : slow adaptation of
“willingness” is producing a
bottleneck.

7. From 3 conditions to a dynamic model
(Lesthaeghe-Vanderhoeft 2001 conceptualization)
• Shifting/overtaking distributions of resp.
R,W and A in a population over time
• The distribution of “minima” is what
matters.
• No longer an opposition between the
economics and the sociology of behavior.
• RWA can lead to Verhulst’s logistic growth
curve

8. A quick glance at Belgian administrative divisions:
provinces & arrondissements + linguistic border

9. Spatial pattern of Belgian secularization, 1840-1960 (quintiles)
Top: Index marriages in Lent and Advent MLA 1840s – 1880s;
Bottom: Vote for secular parties 1919 and 1958

10. Principal Component 1 : Long term spatial continuity in FDT and SDT innovations.
• Demographic Indicators r >.700
• 1880 Marital fertility Ig -.880
• 1890 Ig -.896
• 1900 Ig -.944
• 1910 Ig -.938
• 1880-1910 Speed Ig decline +.849
• 1920 Ig -.880
• 1930 Ig -.784
• 1947 Ig -.710
• 1960-62 %TFR after 30 -.842
• 1961 Index non-mar fert. Ih +.716
• 1961 Total 1st Cohab Rate +.850
• 1960s % ever divorced coh. 31-35 +.705
• 1960s % non-mar. 1st Births coh 31-35 +.732
• 1967-70 Total Divorce Rate +.764
• 1969-70 Total 1st Marr. Rate -.790
• 1971 Total 1st Cohab. Rate +.907
• 1981 Total 1st Cohab. Rate +.947
• 1989-91 Tot. 1st Marr. Rate -.738
• 1990 % women cohab. 20-24 +.764
• 1991 Total 1st Cohab. Rate +.898
• 1992 Index non-marr fert. Ih +.945
• 2000 IS index Cohab +.803
• 2000 IS index 1st Marriage -.902
• 2000 IS index Divorce +.750
• Best social correlates r > .600
• 1841-46 Marr Lent+Advent MLA +.645
• 1860-65 MLA index +.780
• 1881-84 MLA index +.821
• 1890 % LF in Agriculture -.768
• 1900 % LF in Agriculture -.625
• 1910 % LF in Agriculture -.606
• 1910 % LF in Agric + Cottage Industries -.652
• 1919 % Vote Secular parties +.897
• 1958 % Vote Secular parties +.772
• 1964 % absent Sunday Mass +.698
• 1980s % women ever in LF coh. 61-65 +.672

11. Vote1919
1.0.8.6.4.20.0
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0.0
Region
Brussels
Wallonia
Flanders
Total Population
Rsq = 0.7936
Waremme
Virton
VerviersTournai
Thuin
Soignies
Philippeville
Nivelles
Neufchâteau
Namur
Mons
Marche
Liège
Huy
Dinant
Charleroi
Bastogne
Ath
Arlon
Ypres
Veurne
Turnhout
Tongeren
Tielt
St.Niklaas
Roeselare
OudenaardeOstend
Mechelen
Maaseik
Leuven
Kortrijk
Hasselt
Ghent
Eeklo
Diksmuide
Dendermonde
Brussels
Bruges
Antwerp
Aalst

12. Long term spatial continuity in Belgium : Relationship between 2SDT features
( cohabitation 1981 and non-marital fertility 1992) and early 19th Century secularization.
r = +.832 r = +.900

13. Factor 1 : 4 demographic indicators:
1. Speed of marital fertility transition FDT; 2. Fertility at higher ages in pre-pill era FDT;
3. Rise of divorce 1960s SDT; 4. Rise cohabitation 1980s SDT
(Quintiles)

14. Factor 1: Long term demographic continuity : FDT fertility control + SDT cohabitation.
Demographic factor 1, 1880-2000
Secularization maps 1919 & 1958
( quintiles)

15. Principal Component 2 : the urban effect.
Demographic Indicators r > .700
1880 Index non-marital fert Ih +.837
1890 Ih +.891
1900 Ih +.923
1910 Ih +.901
1920 Ih +.931
1930 Ih +.838
1947 Index non-marriage Im +.713
1970 Im +.785
1970 Index marital fert. Ig -.796
1969-71 TFR -.773
1979-81 TFR -.734
Best Social Correlates r > .600
1880 % adult literate -.621
1890 % urban +.711
1900 % urban +.756
1910 % urban +.790
1910 % literate -.633
1920 % urban +.720
1930 % urban +.726
1947 % urban +.694
1950s % women complete
sec.educ + ,coh. 31-35 +.628
1970 % urban +.685

16. Factor 2 : Historical illegitimate fertility & the urban influence (FDT only)
Quintiles

17. Principal Component 3 : SDT postponement & recuperation.
Demographic Indicators r > .700
• 1950s % 1st births before age 25,
Coh. 1931-35 -.773
• 1969-71 Mean age 1st birth +.701
• 1979-81 Mean age 1st birth +.928
• 1979-81 % TFR after age 30 +.844
• 1989 % TFR after age 30 +.740
• 1989-91 Mean age 1st birth +.881
• 1998-2000 % TFR after 30 +.809
• 1998-2000 Mean age 1st birth +.824
Best Social Correlates r > .600
1980s % women higher educ coh.
1961-65 +.807
1980s % women ever in LF coh.
1961-65 +.601

18. Factor 3: SDT fertility postponement & Rise advanced female education – ca 1970 >
Quintiles

19. Conclusions
1. If innovations run counter to prevailing morality/religion, then
“Willingness” is limiting condition (slowest moving) : here spatial
pattern of intro contaception FDT & cohabitation SDT conditioned
by degree of secularization.
SDT fertility postponement : no moral issues, => “Readiness” is
determining the spatial pattern.
FDT “illegitimacy bulge” due to contraceptive ineffectiveness =>
“Ability” was bottleneck.
2. Different innovation waves, but same limiting condition => long term
continuity of spatial pattern.
3. Two subdimensions of same innovation wave but with different
limiting conditions => different spatial patterns (here SDT
cohabitation versus SDT fertility postponement)
All this detected thanks to RWA framework !