Adjusting period tempo changes with an extension of Ryder's basic translation equation

Tempo and the TFR

Tempo effects in period fertility indicators are widely regarded as a source of bias or distortion. But is this always the case? Whether tempo change results in bias depends, in the view advanced here, on the measure used, the meaning of bias/distortion, and the objective of analysis. Two ways of construing bias in period measures are suggested, and their relevance is discussed in the context of five broad purposes for measuring period fertility: describing and explaining fertility time trends, anticipating future prospects, providing input parameters for formal models, and communicating with nonspecialist audiences. Genuine timing effects are not biasing when period fertility is the explanandum but are distorting when the aim is to estimate cohort fertility. Alternatives to tempo adjustment are available that are a more defensible solution to the issue of timing change. Tempo adjustment could be more fruitfully considered a form of modeling rather than empirical measurement. The measurement of period fertility could be improved by relying more on a statistical approach and less on indicators based on stable assumptions. Future progress will depend on integrating research on measurement with substantive investigation.

How big are educational and racial fertility differentials in the U.S.?

Using pooled data from the 1980, 1985, 1990 and 1995 CPS and 1988 and 1995 NSFG surveys, we show that shifts in fertility timing have occurred disproportionately for the more educated and for whites (compared to the less educated and to African Americans). Such timing shifts imply that the underlying period quantum of fertility is considerably higher for college-educated women and for whites than suggested by the standard total fertility rate. Applying the Bongaarts-Feeney model (1998), we decompose observed racial and educational differences in age-order-specific fertility rates and TFR into tempo and quantum components. We find that a modest part of educational differences and a substantial part of racial difference in period fertility can be attributed to differential changes in tempo. Analysis by race and education shows a clear interaction: higher fertility among African Americans is confined to the less educated.

Timing effects and the interpretation of period fertility

Low fertility levels and later childbearing in many developed countries have reinvigorated the debate between period and cohort perspectives on fertility and on the meaningfulness of the period total fertility rate (TFR). Here, fertility-timing effects are defined as level changes in period fertility that do not reflect level changes in the completed fertility of cohorts. That definition leads to the average cohort fertility (ACF) as a measure of period fertility adjusted for timing effects. In an influential paper, Bongaarts and Feeney (1998) presented an alternative approach and a different measure, TFR*, to adjust for timing effects. Here, the two measures are compared. In the context of model populations, the ACF performs well, reflecting an average of the fertility of the active cohorts. The Bongaarts-Feeney TFR*, however, is frequently unreliable and can be erratic when there are cycles in period timing. When applied to twentieth-century U.S. experience, the TFR* behaves like a period measure and yields adjustments that are often wide of the mark. The ACF shows the stability associated with cohort measures and quantifies the substantial impact that timing effects had during the “birth dearth” of the 1970s. The period TFR reached a low of 1.74 in 1976, but the ACF never went below 2.06 during the 1970s.