Preconditions for behavioural change, "Ready, Willing and Able" paradigm and model, application to the second demographic transition, two examples: Belgium and USA

1. Ready, Willing and Able :
The preconditions of demographic
innovation
Ron Lesthaeghe
and
Camille Vanderhoeft, Karel Neels, Lisa Neidert, Didier Willaert.
VU Brussels & University of Michigan.

2. RWA origins: Princeton European
Fertility Transition
Findings : Fertility control emerged in wide
variety of circumstances, and leads and
lags were not adequately predicted by
classic factors of structural modernization
( Urbanization, industrialization, mortality
decline …)
A. J. Coale (1973) fell back on three
conditions ….

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. 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

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

7. 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.

9. From a first to a
second demographic
transition in Europe :
remarkable spatial
continuities in
Belgium and France .
WHY ???
René Magritte (1895-1967) : “La Condition Humaine”, 1935,
Simon Spierer Collection, Geneva.

10. 5025
km
0
= German territory
= Brussels bilingual Capital Region
= language border (Dutch-French)
5025
km
0
= German territory
= Brussels bilingual Capital Region
= language border (Dutch-French)
= language border (Dutch-French)
= Brussels bilingual Capital Region
0
km
25 50
= language border (Dutch-French)
= Brussels bilingual Capital Region
0
km
25 50
 70 %
55 - 69 %
40 - 54 %
< 40 %
Nation. level: 55 %
(a) Speed of the marital fertility transition (b) Secularization (1919)
 70 %
55 - 69 %
40 - 54 %
< 40 %
Nation. level: 51 %
0.52 - 0.63
0.40 - 0.51
0.26 - 0.39
0.15 - 0.25
8.5 - 12.0 %
7.1 - 8.4 %
4.5 - 7.0 %
2.9 - 4.4 %
Nation. level: 0.39 Nation. level: 7.0 %
(c) Births out of wedlock (1992) (d) Unmarried cohabitation (1991

11. 
CANONICAL CORRELATION ANALYSIS BELGIAN ARRONDISSEMENTS
DEMOGRAPHIC
INDICATORS OF
‘MODERNITY’
DURING FDT AND
SDT
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
AND CULTURAL
INDICATORS
R = .98
 SPEED MARITAL FERTILITY
DECLINE 1880-1910 : r=+.95
 LEVEL MARITAL FERTILITY
1900 : -.93
 NON-MARITAL FERTILITY
1992 : +.92
 DIVORCE RATE 1967-70 : +.91
 COHABITING WOMEN 25-29,
1991 : +.86
 COHABITING WOMEN 20-24 :
+.78
 EARLIER MARRIAGE 1880 :
+.70
 VOTE FOR SECULAR PARTIES,
1919 : +.95
 VOTE FOR SECULAR PARTIES,
1958 : +.90
 SUNDAY MASS ABSENTEISM,
1964 : +.83
 PCT MALES IN AGRICULTURE
AND COTTAGE INDUSTRIES,
1910 : -.82
 MARRIAGES DURING LENT &
ADVENT, 1881-85 : +.79
 IDEM, 1860-65 : +.69
 IDEM, 1841-47 : +.47
NOTE : ILLEGITIMATE FERTILITY 1900 LOADED ON SECOND CANONICAL
VARIATE, WITH URBANITY 1900 AND 1970, AND WITH ADULT ILLITERACY
1900.

12. DEMOGRAPHIC
INDICATORS OF
‘MODERNITY’
IN FDT AND SDT
SOCIO-
ECONOMIC AND
CULTURAL
INDICATORS
R=.92
 EARLIER MARRIAGE 1851 :
r=+.80
 EARLIER MARRIAGE 1831 :
+.79
 NON-MARITAL BIRTHS 1989-
91 : +.75
 DIVORCE RATE 1990 : +.69
 LEVEL MARITAL
FERTILITY 1876 : -.68
 LEVEL MARITAL
FERTILITY 1831: -.66
 ILLEGITIMATE FERTILITY
1831 : +.61
 COUSIN MARRIAGE /
ENDOGAMY 1911 : -.45
 DIVORCE RATE 1975 : +.43
 SUNDAY MASS ATTENDANCE
1960 : -.93
 ORDINATIONS PRIESTS 1876 :
-.72
 PRIESTS ARMY RECRUITS
1825 : -.65
 NOT WRITING FRENCH 1872 :
-.62
 LANDLESS AGRIC. LABOUR
1851 : +.62
 ‘PRETRES REFRACTAIRES’
1791 : -.59
 VACANT VICARAGES 1885 :
+.58
 INEGALITARIAN
INHERITANCE 1900 : -.45
CANONICAL CORRELATION ANALYSIS FRENCH DEPARTEMENTS

13. How can such strong geographical continuity from FDT
to SDT be accounted for ?
1. Same bottleneck condition produces similar maps.
In both transitions the “willingness”-factor ( = cultural
acceptability, legitimation) seems to have been the slowest
moving distribution. As a result, the demographic maps
continue to be shaped by the “cultural” evolution.
2. Regional subcultures surviving on the basis of stable
networks. Despite the passage of time and years of
migration, regional subcultures must have survived, and
must have maintained their relative position with respect to
the “willingness” factor.

14. RWA and regression techniques …
 Covariates with strong predictive power in
regression analyses with cross-sectional
data mainly point out which condition is
the slowest moving one. The conclusion
that the process is driven by economic
resp. cultural factors because the best
performing covariates are of an economic
resp. cultural nature is erroneous.

15. Anything like that in the USA ?
A geography of willingness ?

16. Very Late Fertility in US and Western EU 2002
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49
age groups
ASFRs
MAw02
CTw02
NJw02
NL02
F01
ARw02
USw02
NL
NJ
CT
MA
F
U
S
US
AR

17. 2 basic demographic dimensions
 Dimension 1 = high abortion rates, higher frequencies
cohabitation hhlds and same sex cohabitants,
postponement in fertility schedule Non-hisp. White
population, sustained sub-replacement fertility, low
teenage fertility (white and non-white) = typical “Second
demographic transition” features.
 Dimension 2 = high teenage fertility ( black + white),
high non-marital fertility, high divorce (already since the
60s), grandparents hhlds resp for grandchildren = older
pattern typical for US ( not W. EU )

18. USA 50 states : Demographic dimension 1:
indicators and best correlates
 Demogr. Dimension 1 indicators
(factor loadings)
 Abortions p 1000 L Births 80 +.92
 Abortions p 1000 L Births 92 +.91
 Abort. rate p 1000 w 15-44 96 +.86
 % hhlds same sex adults 00 +.80
 NHWhites** :TFR 02 -.72
 % hhlds ‘families’ * -.64
 NHWhites: Fertility postponm.02 +.64
 % hhlds Cohabitation 00 +.56
 NHWhites: Fert rate 15-19 02 -.54
= “second demographic transition”
dimension
*families = married couples, married couples +
children, parent + children
** NHW = Non-hispanic whites
 Best correlates of demographic
dimension 1 (corr. coeff.)
 % vote Bush -.84
 % pop Metropolitan 00 +.64
 % pop Metropolitan 62 +.62
 Disp. Pers. Income level 01 +.60
 % pop. Catholic 02 +.50
 % pop 25+ with BA 90 +.50
 % pop Evangelical * 02 -.56
 % workers unionized +.47
 Disp. Pers. Income 80 +.45
* Plus estimate of Mormons in Utah

19. Relationship between the “Second demographic Transition” Dimension in the
US 50 states and the % Vote for Bush 2004 (r = -.88)

20. USA 50 states : demographic dimension 2
Indicators and best correlates
 Demographic dimension 2:
best indicators (factor
loadings)
 % Births to teenagers 00 +.87
 Median age at first birth 02 -.80
 % Births to unmarried w. 00 +.77
 NHWhites: teenage fert. rate 02 +.74
 Divorce per 1000 pop. 90 +.71
 % Births to unmarried w 90 +.69
 Divorce per 1000 pop 62 +.61
 NHWhites: fert. Postpnmt* 02 -.57
* Ratio of : Sum ASFRs 30+ / Sum ASFRs 20-29
 Demographic dimension 2 : best
correlates (corr. coeff.)
 % pop 30+ liv+respons.grandch. +.84
 % pop. in Poverty 98-00 +.68
 % pop 25+ Hi School grads 90 -.63
 % vote Nixon (McGovern) 72 +.57
 % vote Goldwater (Johnson) 64 +.57
 % Evangelical 2000 * +.56
 Disp. Pers. Income 01 -.55
 % pop 25+ with BA 90 -.55
 % pop Black 00 +.52
 % pop NHWhite 90 -.49
* Plus estimate Mormon pop Utah

29. Conclusions
 RWA model potent framework for the study of
innovations.
 Flexible (any condition can lead or lag) => open to
historical, contextual influences.
 Stops narrow disciplinary interpretations, invites broad
social sciences perspectives.
 Ties in with diffusion literature (eg contagion), with
systems analysis (eg growth curves)
 Not limited to demographic or behavioral innovations.
 Antidote to mechanistic, purely numerical extrapolations

30. And that’s why I like this Magritte .....