Page 14 - IJPS-7-2

International Journal of
Population Studies A theoretical review of childlessness

childlessness a complex task (Miettinen et al., 2015; 1980; Poston & Trent, 1982; Rowland, 1998). In Spain,
Rowland, 1998). The scenarios discussed below exemplify England, Wales, and France, for instance, around 18–20%
and delve into this complexity. The first scenario deals with of the women born around the 1920s were childless. These
women who postpone pregnancy to the point where it is percentages dropped to something between 10 and 15%
no longer possible due to fecundity constraints (permanent among the birth cohorts from 1940 to 1950 and increased
postponers). In this case, an originally voluntary behavior again to somewhat around 20% in the 1960s and onward
(of not wanting or having children) may end up becoming (Reher & Requena, 2018). This pattern would result from
involuntary (Berrington, 2017; Rowland, 1998). Marika the process of socioeconomic development. The high
and Eva (2017) emphasize that childlessness is rarely levels of childlessness observed initially (the first peak of
defined at the beginning of the reproductive period, but it the “U”) would have occurred, mostly, due to involuntary
stems from successive postponement decisions, which, in childlessness caused by malnutrition, infectious diseases,
the end, can result in permanent childlessness. Not having and the absence of structural and economic conditions in
children is, therefore, not necessarily a consequence of societies and families. With the socioeconomic progress
the preferences of a woman, man, or couple (the focus of observed throughout the century, those high levels entered
the discussion is generally on women, due to the higher a downward trend. From the cohorts born in the 1960s
complexity involving the reproductive period). onward, a rising trend in childlessness began to be observed.
Moreover, in opposition to the other (first) period of high
Another scenario occurs when the boundary between levels observed, childlessness would be largely an outcome
choice and constraint is unclear. For example, the inability of “voluntary” reasons. Urbanization, increasing levels of
to enter into a union may be choice-dependent, that is, education, greater opportunities for employment, higher
individuals have little propensity for family life; or it wages for women, and a greater presence of individualistic
may depend on the circumstances, meaning the inability and secular values compose a set of explanations for why
(regardless of the reason) to find a suitable partner the new and current levels of childlessness could be mainly
(Tanturri & Mencarini 2008). A third scenario in which defined as voluntary childlessness (Festy, 1980; Poston &
becomes difficult to define childlessness has women who Trent, 1982; Rowland, 1998).
are not fertile and, at the same time, do not have the desire
to have a child. If, on the one hand, sterility can define Now, specifically about the current rising trend in
the absence of a child as involuntary, its own preference voluntary childlessness, this section discusses some
indicates a voluntary character (Mcallister & Clarke, 2000). significant points that will eventually lead to the
proposition of general pathways to childlessness. The first
Carmichael & Whittaker (2007) further discuss what one is about the relationship between the temporary versus
could be the fourth scenario presented here. This is permanent distinction of childlessness. At the beginning of
described by a couple, in which the woman or the man is the reproductive period, it is possible that a certain woman
infertile or has chosen not to have a child. In some way, this chooses not to have a child temporarily, which usually
impossibility or unwillingness to have a child will impact occurs for reasons of work or studies, characterizing
the respective partner, given that this situation was not this situation as temporary and voluntary. It so happens
chosen by him or her, making it difficult to characterize that this scenario admits changes, while gradually and
the absence of children of this second individual in consciously this same woman may end up deciding
the relationship. In the context of a union, therefore, not to have a child at any time, a context characterized
an individual’s choices and preferences can directly or as permanent and voluntary. As already discussed, the
indirectly impact those of their partner. Consequently, it is continuous postponement of childbearing can cause the
possible that changes occur along the couple’s life course, transformation of a desire once temporary into something
such as one of the parties convincing the other not to have permanent (Miettinen & Szalma, 2014; Nicoletti &
a child, which, ultimately, produces voluntary childlessness Tanturri, 2008; Tanturri et al., 2015).
for both of them.
The second significant point to stress about the recent
The discussion about these definitions (voluntary vs. levels of voluntary childlessness deals with the terms and
involuntary) and difficulties in characterizing childlessness concepts usually used to refer to childlessness. Due to the
is also linked to the historical contextualization of increase in the number of women who voluntarily do not
childlessness discussed in Section 2. The trend of want to have children, some studies have started to use
childlessness would follow something similar to a the term “childfree” to refer to voluntary childlessness,
U-shaped curve, that is, a decrease between the beginning since it would better characterize a person who has no
and middle of the 20 century and a subsequent increase intention, plan, or desire for a child, even if she or he
th
among the cohorts born mainly after the 1960s (Festy, has biological and economic conditions to do so. It was

Volume 7 Issue 2 (2021) 8 https://doi.org/10.36922/ijps.v7i2.352