Statistical Review. 6 (1-2) 89-107.

ASSESSING THE ROLE OF STERILITY AS A PROXIMATE

DETERMINANT OF NATURAL FERTILITY: AN ADDITION TO
BONGAARTS MODEL OF FERTILITY FRAMEWORK.
Vasilis S. Gavalas1

Abstract
The level of fertility in natural fertility populations can be though of as a
function of five components: age-pattern of marriage, permanent sterility,
fecundability, postpartum non-susceptible period and intrauterine mortality. A wellknown model for analyzing the proximate determinants of fertility is Bongaarts
model, which, however, refers to controlled fertility and does not account for sterility.
This paper modifies Bongaarts model so as to take into account permanent sterility.
The modified model is applied to four historical European populations so as to
establish the contribution of each of the proximate determinants to the total fertility
rate of these populations.

Lecturer in Population Geography, University of the Aegean, Department of

Geography, 81100 Mytilene, Greece. E-mail: bgav@geo.aegean.gr
89

Statistical Review. 6 (1-2) 89-107.

1.Introduction
The level of fertility in natural fertility populations can be though of as a
function of five components: age pattern of marriage, permanent sterility,
fecundability, postpartum non-susceptible period and intrauterine mortality. These
components are known as proximate determinants of natural fertility and can be
measured quantitatively. Their importance lies in the fact that the different fertility
levels among natural fertility populations could be accounted for by the difference in
the level of these determinants. In populations acting under controlled fertility two
more factors must be added to the above determinants: the prevalence and
effectiveness of contraceptive use, and the rate of induced abortion.
John Bongaarts in his renowned article A framework for analyzing the
proximate determinants of fertility (Bongaarts [2]) has developed a model for
measuring the effect of four determinants to the total fertility rate:
1. proportions married among females
2. contraceptive use and effectiveness
3. prevalence of induced abortion
4. lactational infecundability
The remaining three proximate determinants of fertility namely fecundability,
intrauterine mortality and sterility are assumed to be more or less stable among
populations.
Bongaarts article was written in an era where a big part of the world, namely
Latin America, Africa and most of South East Asia, was characterised by extreme
poverty and at the same time rapid population growth. Economic development was
regarded as unfeasible as long as the rate of population growth exceeded that of
economic growth. The issue of why fertility was not declining in these world regions,
in spite of the huge amounts of effort and resources that had been put down by the
developed western countries, was a major concern of governments and international
organisations. Therefore, Bongaarts model of fertility framework was used as a tool
for decomposing the total fertility rate (TFR) into the proximate determinants of
fertility and measure the contribution of each determinant. Thus, policy makers could

90

Statistical Review. 6 (1-2) 89-107.

project the levels of contraceptive use that would be required to achieve fertility goals,
given expected changes in the rest of the proximate determinants of fertility2 .
In this paper we regard Bongaarts model under a different view. Namely we
would like to know how this model can be used for the study of historical populations,
that is for populations where no or little birth control was practiced.
Bongaarts considered sterility and intrauterine mortality as more or less stable
from one population to another. Yet, in natural fertility populations where
contraception is lacking, even small variations in other intermediate fertility variables
could explain differences in TFR from one population to another. Therefore, we
develop an index of sterility, which can be measured in historical populations using
data available from family reconstitution studies.
This paper is not the first to try to modify Bongaarts' original model to take
account of sterility. Frank [7] developed an equation to estimate primary sterility,
which Bongaarts himself incorporated to the original model (Bongaarts [5]).
However, Franks index of sterility is estimated from the percent childless among
women in the age group 45-49 and therefore it does not take into account the age
distribution of sterility. Yet, the impact of sterility on fertility also depends on the age
distribution of currently sterile women. The same index of sterility was revised by
Stover and was applied in five-year age groups (Stover [19]). The index ranged from
0 to 1 and was giving the proportion of sexually active women who were fecund in a
given age group. Nevertheless, Stover did not use an overall index of sterility for all
age groups, a kind of weighted average which would take into account the agedistribution of sterility.
2. Concepts and Definitions
2.1 Fecundity
Fecundity is the biological capacity for reproduction. Studies on both
historical and contemporary populations have shown that the biologically maximum
births per woman for a population, not an individual (called Total Fecundity Rate)
ranges from slightly below 13 to little over 17 for the majority of populations, with
the average being 15.3 (Bongaarts [2]). This would be the Total Fertility Rate in a
population where all women were married at 15 years of age, remained married and
2

See for example J.Bongaarts and R. Potter, Fertility, Biology and Behaviour, London, 1983; J.
Bongaarts, F. Odile and L. Ron, The proximate determinants of fertility in sub-Saharan Africa,
Population and Development Review 10 (1984) 511-517.

91

Statistical Review. 6 (1-2) 89-107.

sexually active until 45 years of age, practiced no kind of birth control (contraception
or induced abortion) and were not breastfeeding their babies at all. However, this
maximum is never reached because even in natural fertility populations the above
conditions are not met. In a theoretical situation, where the above conditions were
met, there would still be variations in the Total Fertility Rate (which in that special
case coincides with the Total Fecundity Rate) among populations owing to three
factors: frequency of intercourse, intrauterine mortality (i.e. spontaneous miscarriage)
and permanent sterility. Of these three intermediate determinants of fertility only
frequency of intercourse is under the direct control of individuals. Nevertheless, coital
frequency does not exert an important influence on total fecundity rate, except in
populations with a high prevalence of prolonged spousal separations, which cause
a reduction in the total fecundity rate (Bongaarts [2]:118-119). Consequently the
largest part of the variation around the mean total fecundity rate of 15.3 births per
women is owing to sterility and intrauterine mortality.
2.2 Fecundability
Fecundability is defined as the probability of conception during a menstrual
cycle in the absence of contraception (Kondel [14]: 272). However, not all
conceptions result in a live birth. A fraction of all fertilised ova either fail to implant
or abort spontaneously during gestation (Bongaarts [1]:646). Therefore, for
measurement reasons, fecundability is distinguished in three types. According to
Bongaarts ([1]:646):
(1) Total fecundability (TF) is the probability that any conception occurs during a cycle; this includes
non-implanted fertilized ova and conceptions aborted spontaneously before the end of the cycle.
(2) Recognizable fecundability (RF) is the probability of a conception which is recognizable at the end
of the conception cycle by the non-occurrence of the menstruation
(3) Effective fecundability (EF) is the probability of a conception which will end in a live birth. A
fraction of the recognizable conceptions aborts spontaneously after the first cycle of gestation.

The level of fecundability is determined by both biological and behavioural

factors with the main behavioural factor being coital frequency (Bongaarts [6]).
Measures of fecundability may be gross or net. The difference between the two is that
the former is used for the probability of conception in females actually engaging in
regular intercourse while the latter measures the conception probability in a
92

Statistical Review. 6 (1-2) 89-107.

population living in a normal social and biological environment in which temporary
separation and illnesses occur. In the following discussion the term fecundability will
refer to net recognisable fecundability only.

2.3 Sterility
Referring to female sterility demographic studies usually distinguish two kinds
of permanent sterility: primary and secondary. Primary sterility for a woman means
that she is not capable to conceive and carry a foetus to terms at any point of her life.
Secondary sterility on the other hand, means that a woman was fecund for a time
period but ceased to be so because of various reasons, the most common being the
process of ageing which renders every woman sterile by the age of 50 or soon
thereafter. Other reasons for secondary sterility may be a trauma of childbirth or the
effect of a disease (Wrigley et al. [21]:358)
Primary sterility can only be measured (demographically) if everyone marries
at her teens. This is hardly the case, however, in European populations where many
marriages occur later in life and thus many women who marry, say, in their 30s and
remain childless cannot be characterised as primary sterile since they may not have
been so if they had married earlier. Consequently, in a population where teenage
marriage is not universal primary sterility cannot be measured based on marriages that
proved childless.
Secondary sterility on the other hand, could be readily approximated from
longitudinal analysis, such as the results of family reconstitution. One could look at
the birth history of a group of women who married at any age and observe the
proportions that become gradually sterile as these women progress from one age
group to the other up to the age 50. Nevertheless, this would only make sense if the
examined population was acting under natural fertility. If any kind of birth control is
applied reliable measures of secondary sterility cannot be derived, since couples can
stop childbearing at their own will.
Nevertheless, there is a sterility measure that can be calculated for any
population, based on the very plausible, even for a modern population, assumption
that no married couple remains voluntarily childless. This is the entry sterility, that is
the proportion of women in a given age at marriage group who were not fecund
(Wrigley et al. [21]:360). Entry sterility reflects both primary and secondary sterility
and its complement is entry fecundity. Its importance, though, lies in the fact that
93

Statistical Review. 6 (1-2) 89-107.

entry sterility has a direct effect on the underlying level of natural fertility. All other
things being equal, that is the rest of the proximate determinants of natural fertility,
the different fertility levels among natural fertility populations can be accounted for
by the differences in the level of entry sterility.
To measure entry sterility one needs to apply strict selection criteria to the
used dataset. More specifically the results presented in this paper concerning entry
sterility in the Greek island of Paros are based on real marriages for which the end of
marriage is known, the age of wife at marriage is also known and which lasted at least
five completed years (four completed years for the age group 45-49). Hence, we
eliminate cases where the couple did not bear a child not because the marriage was
sterile but because they did not have the time to do it. Here the assumption is that is
not very likely for a couple to bear a child if it has not done so in the first five years of
its marriage. Results for other historical populations, that are presented further on in
this paper, are based on similar selection criteria.

2.4 Postpartum infecundability (or non-susceptible period)

Data from birth histories permit us to examine postpartum non-susceptibility,
i.e. the period after birth during which a woman is not susceptible to conception due
to amenorrhea. This period can be as short as 50 days if a woman is not nursing her
baby at all, but prolonged lactation can extend it up to two years (McNeilley [14]).
Although other factors also contribute to the non-susceptible period, such as
decreasing fecundity with age, the length of breast-feeding is the main determinant of
this period. During lactation a woman is usually amenorrheic, but supplemental
feeding of the infant with other foods tends to decrease the effect of breast-feeding on
amenorrhea. It is understandable of course that non-susceptibility cannot be measured
from birth histories unless the examined population does not apply any spacing
reproductive behaviour. That is why in the data presented further on, any measures of
the non-susceptible period, and hence of the length of breast-feeding, will refer to
populations acting under a regime of natural fertility.
In studies of historical demography two methods are employed to measure the
mean duration of non-susceptibility. The first method, termed here birth interval
method, compares the interval between marriage and first birth with the interval
between first and second birth. The difference between the two intervals should give a
rough estimate of the non-susceptible period, since the main reason that the first
94

Statistical Review. 6 (1-2) 89-107.

interval is shorter than the second is the lack of postpartum non-susceptibility in the
case of the former3. For this method to be reliable four data selection criteria have to
be applied. First of all, any premarital conceptions are excluded, since otherwise the
mean interval from wedding to first birth would be artificially short. Secondly, in
estimating the mean interval from first to second birth, intervals following an infant
death are also excluded. The reason for this is that after an infants death lactation is
forcibly interrupted, menstruation resumes and thus the full effect of breast-feeding on
the non-susceptible period cannot be seen. The third criterion is that only women with
more than two confinements are included in the calculations. This is because the
interval before a womans last birth tends to be unusually long, even in natural
fertility cohorts. Consequently, if women with only two confinements were included
in the calculations, estimates of the non-susceptible period would be biased upwards.
The fourth criterion is that only those first births that took place within ten completed
years from marriage should be included in the calculations. This restriction is
necessary in order to limit the possibility that higher order births have been recorded
as first.
The second method for the estimation of the non-susceptible period, known as
the child survival method, compares the mean interval from first to second birth in
cases where the first child survived infancy and in cases where the first child died
within a month from its birth. The difference between the two should reveal the
duration of breast-feeding. In deriving estimates of the non-susceptible period with
this method the restrictions of the birth interval method have to be applied, where
applicable.
In many cases both methods are used and the non-susceptible period is
calculated as the average of the results obtained by these two methods.
3. The model
Bongaarts model for explaining variations in fertility among populations
incorporates four principal variables, which are considered inhibitors of fertility and
cause fertility to deviate from its biological maximum.

TFR=Cm*Cc*Ca*Ci*TF

(1)

Other factors such as intra-uterine mortality and coital frequency may be responsible for the
difference between the first and second birth interval but these factors are of minor significance.

95

Statistical Review. 6 (1-2) 89-107.

where
Cm : index of marriage.
It is calculated as Cm

m( a ) g ( a )
g (a)

where m(a) =age-specific proportions of

married females and g(a) =age-specific marital fertility rates.

The index of marriage Cm equals 0 if no woman is married and 1 if all women of
reproductive age are married.
Cc :index of contraception.
It equals 0 if all fecund women use 100% effective contraception and 1 in the absence
of contraception. It is calculated as Cc=1-1.18*u*e where u= the proportion of
married women currently using contraception and e=average use-effectiveness of
contraception.
Ca : index of induced abortion. It also ranges from 0 to 1 (0 if all pregnancies are
aborted and 1 in the absence of induced abortion)
Ci : index of post-partum infecundability.
It equals 0 if the duration of infecundability is infinite and 1 in the absence of
lactation. It is calculated as Ci

20
where i=average duration of post-partum
18,5 i

infecundability in months.
TF: Total Fecundity Rate.
To Bongaards model we add one more variable: entry sterility.
Cs= index of sterility (equals 1 if no woman of reproductive age is sterile and 0 if all
women are sterile).

Cs

(1 s(a)) g (a)
g (a)

Where
s(a) = age-specific proportions of entry sterility among couples (by wifes age at
marriage)
g(a) = age-specific marital fertility rates.

96

Statistical Review. 6 (1-2) 89-107.

The index of sterility is determined by the age-specific proportions of currently sterile
among married women. Cs is not simply the proportion of all married women of
reproductive age who are fecund because the impact of sterility on fertility also
depends on the age distribution of sterile women.

It now follows that

TFR=Cm*Cc*Ca*Cs*Ci*TF

(2)

In natural fertility populations, where neither contraception nor induced abortion is

applied (Cc=Ca=1), formula (2) can take the form
TFR=Cm*Cs*Ci*TF

(3)

If TFR is known TF can be calculated as

TF

TFR
C m Ci C s

(4)

3.1 Drawbacks of the model

Bongaarts original model assumes that the level of fertility of any population
can be decomposed into four multiplicative factors, which are inhibitors of fertility
and take values from 0 to1. If all these factors equaled to 1 then TFR would be the
same as the total fecundity (TF) which is the biological maximum of a population.
The logic of the proposed model is to remove two inhibitors from the original model
(contraception and induced abortion), which are not applicable to natural fertility
populations, and add another inhibitor (sterility).
However, between these inhibitors there are interactions both in the original
and in the modified model. In the modified model sterility, for example, depends on
age at marriage (which is taken into account in the index of sterility) but also depends
on the number of children already born, which is not accounted for in the model. The
consequence is that the residual term, TF, includes a number of unknown parameters
and captures all the biases of the model. Therefore, one should be aware of this
97

Statistical Review. 6 (1-2) 89-107.

drawback when tries to estimate the contribution of one specific factor to the total
fertility rate of a population4.

4. An application of the model

From equation (3) is deduced that any differences in the fertility of natural
fertility populations stem from four factors: the age-pattern of marriage, the agepattern of permanent sterility, the duration of non-susceptible period and the Total
Fecundity rate (which in effect reflects the frequency of intercourse and the
prevalence of intra-uterine mortality). The validity of this model, which is actually
Bongaarts model with the addition of one more variable (Cs), will be tested in four
historical populations. The four populations are pre-transitional or transitional
European populations studied with the method of family reconstitution and all dates
refer to marriage cohorts: 14 German villages in the last quarter of the 19th century,
Paros in the turn of the 20th century, Mykonos at the same period and 26 English
parishes scattered all over England in the first half of the 19th century (Knodel [14];
Hionidou [12]; Gavalas [8]; Wrigley et al. [21]).
First of all we shall estimate TF (total fecundity rate). TF in Bongaarts model
is fixed at 15.3 births per woman, which is the average of the biological maximum
minus the combined effect of spontaneous intra-uterine mortality, permanent sterility
and fecundabilty (Bongaarts and Potter [4]; Bongaarts [2]). In our model permanent
sterility is measured separately and therefore TF as calculated with equation (4)
reflects only fecundability (the level of which is determined to a large extent by coital
frequency) and the prevalence of intra-uterine mortality. Consequently, absolved from
sterility, the average TF of populations should be higher than 15.3 (2) births per
woman.

However when the TFR of a population is known and someone tries to estimate Total Fecundity from

the model (that is when one uses equation (4)) the interaction between the three indexes (Cm, Ci and
Cs) should be less than when one considers TF fixed at 15.3 and uses equation (3) to estimate TFR.

98

Statistical Review. 6 (1-2) 89-107.

Table 1: Estimates of Total Fertility Rate and Total Marital Fertility Rate based on
observed data and calculation of Total Fecundity Rate based on equation (4).
Population
TFR
TMFR
Total Fecundity rate
(TM)
(TF)
14 German
5.2
10.6
14.9
Villages 1875-99
Paros 1894-03
6.7
10.6
17.1
Paros 1904-13
6.1
9.1
14.8
Mykonos 18996.5
9.6
18.1
1908
English parishes
4.5
9.3
12.9
th
(1st half of the 19
cent.).
Source: For German villages: Knodel [14]; for Paros results are based on family reconstitution from
civil registers; for Mykonos: Hionidou [12]; for English parishes: Wrigley et al. [21].

Natural fertility populations customarily have a TFR over 6 children per

woman (Bongaarts [3]). In our examined populations, German villages and English
parishes in the 19th century show a TFR well bellow 6.0 (table 1). This could have
been an indication that these populations were not acting under natural fertility.
However, fertility within marriage (TMFR) in English parishes and German villages
was relatively high (9.3 and 10.6 respectively) and certainly inside the limits of
natural fertility. By comparison, the 13 populations that Louis Henry used to establish
a standard age-specific schedule of natural fertility, exhibited marital fertility that
ranged from 6.3 to 10.9 children per woman (Henry 1961). What differentiates natural
from controlled fertility is not so much the level of marital fertility as it is the shape
(or age pattern) of age-specific fertility rates (ASMFRs), that is the way they change
from one age group to another. A convex curve of ASMFRs indicates no (paritydependent) family limitation, while a concave curve implies practice of family
limitation.
To examine whether the populations under consideration were acting under
natural fertility, their ASMFRs have been plotted (figure 1) against the standard agespecific schedule of natural fertility proposed by Louis Henry ([11]:84).

99

Statistical Review. 6 (1-2) 89-107.

Figure 1: ASMFRs as percentage of the rate of the 20-24 age group. Data from
English parishes 1800-24, Paros 1904-13, Mykonos 1899-1908, German villages
1875-99 and natural fertility standard.
100
90
80
70
England
60

Paros

50

Mykonos
Germany

40

Standard
30
20
10
0
20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

Source: for the four historical populations as of table 1; for the natural standard: Henry [11].

The only population that deviates visibly from the natural fertility standard
curve is that of rural Germany in the last quarter of the 19th century. Its curve is not
convex but it is not concave either. This is an indication that part of the population of
the 14 German villages who married in the studied period had started applying some
kind of family limitation but this practice was not widespread in the whole population
of these villages. We most probably have to do with a population in the onset of
fertility transition.

100

Statistical Review. 6 (1-2) 89-107.

Table 2: Estimates of proximate determinants of natural fertility in four historical
populations.
Population
Index of
Index of post
Index of
marriage (Cm)
partum
sterility (Cs)
infecundability
(Ci)
14 German
0.49
0.80
0.90
Villages
1875-99
Paros 18940.64
0.73
0.84
03
Paros 19040.67
0.73
0.84
13
Mykonos
0.67
0.68
0.78
1899-1908
English
0.48
0.83
0.85*
parishes (1st
half of the
19th cent.).
St.
0.093
0.060
0.043
Deviation
* data on entry sterility from 1538-1837.
Source: The index of marriage is based on age-specific marital fertility rates (ASMFRs) and on
proportions of married females by age. ASMFRs have been taken by Knodel [14]; (for the 14 German
villages); Gavalas [8] (for Paros); Hionidou [12] (for Mykonos); Wrigley et al. [21] (for English
parishes). Age patterns of marriage have been taken from national censuses: For Paros and Mykonos
the Greek census of 1907 (the female age-pattern of marriage of the Cyclades) has been used. For
English parishes the 1851 UK census (the female age-pattern of marriage of England and Wales) has
been used. For German villages the German census of 1900 (Kaiserliches Statistiches Amt 1903) has
been used (the female marriage pattern of Prussia, which back then constituted the largest part of
Germany). Raw data for the calculation of the indexes of post-partum infecundability and sterility have
been taken from Knodel [14]; Gavalas [8]; Hionidou [12]; Wrigley et al. [21].

All four populations examined here are considered to be in the regime of

natural or near-natural (in the case of German villages) fertility, that is fertility in the
absence of any deliberate efforts to limit births. However, their fertility level, as
measured by the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) varies substantially from 4.5 (in the case
of English parishes in the first half of the 19th century) to 6.7 children per woman (in
the case of Paros in the turn of the 20th century). The main source of this variation (as
measured by the standard deviation of the proximate determinants of fertility) seems
to be the different marriage pattern of these populations (table 2). The index of
marriage (Cm) presents the greatest dispersion of proximate determinants of fertility.
The second source of variation in the fertility level of the examined
populations is post-partum infecundability, the main determinant of which is the
length of breast-feeding. The index of post-partum infecundability for the Greek
101

Statistical Review. 6 (1-2) 89-107.

islands implies a breastfeeding period of 12 months or longer, while that period for
the populations of West Europe was substantially shorter. Especially in the English
parishes the index Ci was derived from a non-susceptible period of 5.5 months, which
is considered low even for European populations of the 19th century (Gavalas [8]).
Sterility, which in the examined populations is represented by entry sterility
and has been calculated by strict selection criteria (see section 2.3) is responsible for
the smallest part of variation in the TFR of the examined populations. Nevertheless,
there are differences in the sterility level of the examined populations, and that means
that sterility should be taken into account when trying to answer the question why
the fertility level of natural fertility populations differs from one population to
another? Both Mediterranean populations exhibit higher levels of sterility (i.e. lower
indexes of Cs) than their west-European counterparts studied here. However, the
differences in Cs are small (especially between Paros and English parishes the
difference is insignificant). This is because higher levels of entry sterility in the Greek
islands are observed from the age group 25-29 onwards. This can be seen in figure 2,
where the shape of entry sterility of the four examined populations is compared. Yet,
higher sterility at these ages did not have a significant effect on marital fertility
because both in Paros and in Mykonos more than three quarters of female marriages
had already taken place by the age of 25 (Gavalas [8]). The index of sterility (Cs)
takes into account the age distribution of both the sterile women and of marital
fertility and thus reflects the real effect of sterility on the fertility level of a
population.

102

Statistical Review. 6 (1-2) 89-107.

Figure 2: Entry sterility by wifes age at marriage.
100
90
80

% childless

70

Paros

60

Mykonos

50

rural Germany

40

English parishes

30
20
10
0
15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

wife's age at marriage

Source: Data on Paros refer to the marriage cohort 1894-1950 and have been taken from Gavalas [8].
Data on Mykonos are based on marriages that took place from 1859 to 1919 or soon thereafter and
have been taken from Hionidou [12]: 226. Data on rural Germany have been taken from Knodel
1988:270 and refer to complete marriages that took place from 1750 to 1899. Data on English parishes
refer to marriages that took place between 1538 and 1837 and have been taken from Wrigley et al. [21]:
384.

5. Conclusions
It is well-known today that the variation in the fertility level of natural fertility
populations is due to five factors: age-pattern of marriage, permanent sterility,
fecundability, postpartum non-susceptible period and intrauterine mortality. These are
known as proximate determinants of natural fertility and have been modelled
mathematically by Bongaarts for analyzing the fertility-inhibiting effects of each of
the proximate determinants and their contribution to the total fertility rate of a
population (Bongaarts [2]).
Sterility as well as miscarriage (i.e. intrauterine mortality) are considered
relatively unimportant determinants of fertility because they do not vary much among
populations (Bongaarts [3]). However, in natural fertility populations, where no or
little birth control is practised, even small fluctuations in one of the proximate
determinants of fertility can produce changes in the overall fertility level of the
population. We examined four historical populations that by all indications can be
103

Statistical Review. 6 (1-2) 89-107.

considered as natural or near-natural fertility populations, and we measured the
fertility inhibiting effects of three proximate determinants of natural fertility: agepattern of marriage, sterility and post-partum infecundability.
Bongaarts model of fertility framework was modified to take into account
sterility and was used as a tool to decompose the total fertility rate (TFR) into the
proximate determinants in the four studied populations. Given that all four studied
populations were acting under natural or near-natural fertility, it was their different
marriage pattern that was responsible for a great part of their different overall fertility.
The index of marriage (Cm) presents greater variation than the indexes of post-partum
infecundability and sterility and suggests that in the Greek islands nuptiality was more
intense than in West European rural populations. Generally, people in Western
Europe were getting married at a high average age (over 23 for women), and there
was a high proportion of the population (usually over ten percent) who never married
at all. This is the ide-fixe of the West European marriage pattern established by J.
Hajnal, P. Laslett and other scholars. This marriage pattern prevailed in West Europe
from at least the 17th until the beginning of the 20th century (Hajnal [10]; Laslett [15]).
On the other hand, the Mediterranean marriage pattern was characterised by low
age at marriage for females, and by a low percentage of women never married at all
(Laslett [15]; Gavalas [9]). This theoretical framework is verified by the data we used
here. The index of marriage, which is shaped both by the proportion of married
women and by the age-pattern of marriage, is high for the Greek islands (above 0.65),
while is very low for the West-European populations (0.48-0.49) in the periods where
data are referred.
The second source of variation in the fertility level of the examined
populations is post-partum infecundability, the main determinant of which is the
length of breast-feeding. The index of post-partum infecundability for the Greek
islands implies a breastfeeding period of 12 months or longer, while that period for
the populations of West Europe was substantially shorter. Sterility presents the
smallest variation among the four populations and consequently contributes less than
the other two determinants (marriage pattern and non-susceptible period) to the
overall fertility level. However, in natural fertility populations even small fluctuations
in one of the proximate determinants of fertility can produce changes in the overall
fertility level of a population; this is why sterility was incorporated in the model. The
remaining two proximate determinants of natural fertility, i.e. fecundability and
104

Statistical Review. 6 (1-2) 89-107.

intrauterine mortality, generally much less important, were represented in the model
by the total fecundity rate.
APPENDIX I: A computational example.
In tables A.1 and A.2 an example of how the index of marriage (Cm) and the
index of sterility (Cs) have been calculated is given. Data on marital fertility rates g(a)
and proportions sterile s(a) (where a=age group) have been taken from Paros family
reconstitution (Gavalas 2001), while data on the proportion of currently married
females (m(a)) have been taken from the Greek census of 1907 (Ministre de
lIntrieur [17]). The value for g(15-19) has been estimated as 75% of the rate in the
20-24 age group because its direct estimate tends to be unreliable (Bongaarts [3]:187).
From these data Total Fertility Rate is also estimated as TFR

g (a) m(a) * 5
1000

(5).

f (a)
m( a )
and consequently f (a) g (a) m(a)
This formula derives from g (a)

(6)
(7)

where f(a) is a schedule of age-specific fertility rates and which Bongaarts [3] used to
estimate age-specific marital fertility g(a) in populations where data on marital
fertility were lacking.
The same procedures for the calculations of TFR, TMFR, Cm and Cs have
been followed for the rest of the populations presented in this paper.

Table A.1: Computation of Total Marital Fertility, Total Fertility and index of
marriage (Cm) from g(a) and m(a).
Age-group
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
Total

Paros
1904-1913
g(a)
313
417
366
330
278
106
8
1818
TMFR= 9.1

Cyclades
1907
M(a)
0.14
0.61
0.82
0.87
0.84
0.81
0.74

105

g(a)*m(a)
44.3
254.2
300.9
285.4
233.7
85.9
5.9
1210.4
TFR = 6.1

Statistical Review. 6 (1-2) 89-107.

Source: see text.
Note: marital fertility in the age group 15-19 is estimated as g(15-19)=0.75*g(20-24) to adjust for the
fact that most women in this age group are getting married at 18 and 19.

And therefore C m

1210.4
0.67
1817.5

Table A.2: Computation of index of sterility (Cs) from s(a) and g(a).
Age
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
Total
Source: see text.

Paros 18941950
1-s(a)
1.00
0.97
0.90
0.80
0.67
0.25
0.00

And therefore C s

Paros 19041913
g(a)
313
417
366
330
278
106
8
1818

(1-s(a))*g(a)
312.9
402.7
328.0
263.6
185.3
26.4
0.0
1518.9

1518.0
0.84
1817.5

References
[1] Bongaarts, J. A., method for the estimation of fecundability, Demography 12 (4),
645-660 (1975).
[2] Bongaarts, J. A., framework for analyzing the proximate determinants of fertility,
Population and Development Review 14 (1), 105-132 (1978).
[3] Bongaarts, J. A., The fertility-inhibiting effects of the intermediate fertility
variables, Studies in Family Planning 13 (6/7), 179-189 (1982).
[4] Bongaarts, J., & Potter R., Fertility, Biology and Behaviour, London: Academic
Press (1983).
[5] Bongaarts J., Odile, F., and & Ron, L., The proximate determinants of fertility in
sub-Saharan Africa, Population and Development Review 10 (3), 511-517 (1984).
[6] Bongaarts, J., The relative contribution of biological and behavioral factors in
determining natural fertility: A demographers perspective, In: Gray, R., Leridon, H.
& Spira, A. (eds.), Biomedical and demographic determinants of reproduction.
Oxford: Clarendon Press (1993).
[7] Frank, O., Infertility in sub-Saharan Africa: Estimates and implications,
Population and Development Review 9 (1) 137-144 (1983)
[8] Gavalas, V.S., Demographic reconstruction of a Greek island community:
Naoussa and Kostos, on Paros, 1894-1998, Ph.D. thesis. London School of
Economics and Political Science, London (2001).
106

Statistical Review. 6 (1-2) 89-107.

[9] Gavalas, V.S., Marriage patterns in Greece during the twentieth century,
Continuity and Change 23 (3) 509-529 (2008).
[10] Hajnal, J., European marriage patterns in perspective, in D. V. Glass and
D.E.C. Eversley eds., Population in History. Essays in Historical Demography,
London, ,101-143 (1965).
[11] Henry, L., Some data on natural fertility, Eugenics Quarterly 8, 81-91 . (1961)
[12] Hionidou, V., (1993) The demography of a Greek island, Mykonos 1859-1959.
A family reconstitution study, Ph.D. Thesis: University of Liverpool.
[13] Kaiserliches Statistiches Amt (1903) Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Berlin:
Puttkammer & Muhlbrecht.
[14] Knodel, J.E., Demographic behaviour in the past: a study of fourteen German
village populations in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press (1988).
[15] Laslett, P., Family and household as work group and kin group: areas of
traditional Europe compared, in R. Wall ed., Family forms in historic Europe.
Cambridge, 513-563 (1983)
[16] McNeilley, S. A., Breast feeding and fertility, In Gray, R., Leridon, H. & Spira,
A. (eds.), Biomedical and demographic determinants of reproduction, Oxford:
Clarendon Press (1993).
[17] Ministre de lIntrieur. Service du Recensement. Rsultats statistiques du
recensement gnral de la population effectue le 27 Octobre 1907. Athnes :
Imprimerie Nationale, 2 vols (1909)
[18] Reay, B., Microhistories: demography, society and culture in rural England,
1800-1930. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1996).
[19] Statistique Gnrale de la Grce, Rsultats statistique du recensement de la
population de la Grce du 15-16 Mai 1928, Athnes : Imprimerie nationale, 6 vols.
(1933)
[20] Statistique Gnrale de la Grce, Rsultats statistique du recensement de la
population de la Grce du 15-16 Mai 1928, Athnes : Imprimerie nationale, 6 vols
(1933).
[21] Stover J., Revising the proximate determinants of fertility framework: What
have we learned in the past 20 years, Studies in Family Planning (20) 3, 255-267
(1998).
[22] UK 1851 census URL: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/censusrecords.htm
[23] Wrigley, E.A., Davies, S.R., Oeppen, E.J., & Schofield, R.S. English
population history from family reconstitution 1580-1837. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press (1997).

107