• Vienna Institute of Demography (Ed.)

Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2011

Bild

Introduction
Maria Rita Testa, Tomás Sobotka and Philip S. Morgan: Reproductive decision-making: towards improved theoretical, methodological and empirical approaches.
Demographic Debate
S. Philip Morgan and Christine A. Bachrach: Is the Theory of Planned Behaviour an appropriate model for human fertility?
Warren B. Miller: Comparing the TPB and the T-D-I-B framework
Jennifer Barber: The Theory of Planned Behaviour: considering drives, proximity and dynamics
Dimiter Philipov: Theories on fertility intentions: a demographer's perspective
Jane Klobas: The Theory of Planned Behaviour as a model of reasoning about fertility decisions
Aart C. Liefbroer: On the usefulness of the Theory of Planned Behaviour for fertility research
Icek Ajzen: Reflections on Morgan and Bachrach's critique
Christine A. Bachrach and S. Philip Morgan: Further reflections on the Theory of Planned Behaviour and fertility research
Refereed Articles
Warren B. Miller: Differences between fertility desires and intentions: implications for theory, research and policy
Máire Ní Bhrolcháin and Éva Beaujouan: Uncertainty in fertility intentions in Britain, 1979–2007
Saskia Hin, Anne Gauthier, Joshua Goldstein and Christoph Bühler: Fertility preferences: what measuring second choices teaches us
Maria Rita Testa, Laura Cavalli and Alessandro Rosina: Couple´s childbearing behaviour in Italy: which of the partners is leading it?
Nicoletta Balbo and Melinda Mills: The influence of the family network on the realisation of fertility intentions
Markus Kotte and Volker Ludwig: Intergenerational transmission of fertility intentions and behaviour in Germany: the role of contagion
David De Wachter and Karel Neels: Educational differentials in fertility intentions and outcomes: family formation in Flanders in the early 1990s
Clémentine Rossier, Sara Brachet and Anne Salles: Family policies, norms about gender roles and fertility decisions in France and Germany
Anna Rotkirch, Stuart Basten, Heini Väisänen and Markus Jokela: Baby longing and men's reproductive motivation
Anna Baranowska and Anna Matysiak: Does parenthood increase happiness? Evidence for Poland
Data and Trends (non-refereed contributions)
Jennifer S. Barber, Yasamin Kusunoki and Heather Gatny : Design and implementation of an online weekly survey to study unintended pregnancies
Beatrice Chromková Manea and Petr Fucík: Couples disagreement about fertility preferences and family-friendly policy measures in the Czech Republic

Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
Austrian Academy of Sciences Press
A-1011 Wien, Dr. Ignaz Seipel-Platz 2
Tel. +43-1-515 81/DW 3420, Fax +43-1-515 81/DW 3400
https://verlag.oeaw.ac.at, e-mail: verlag@oeaw.ac.at

Bestellung/Order


Bild
Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2011
ISSN 1728-4414
Print Edition
ISSN 1728-5305
Online Edition
ISBN 978-3-7001-7235-2
Print Edition
ISBN 978-3-7001-7252-9
Online Edition



Send or fax to your local bookseller or to:

Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
Austrian Academy of Sciences Press
A-1011 Wien, Dr. Ignaz Seipel-Platz 2,
Tel. +43-1-515 81/DW 3420, Fax +43-1-515 81/DW 3400
https://verlag.oeaw.ac.at, e-mail: bestellung.verlag@oeaw.ac.at
UID-Nr.: ATU 16251605, FN 71839x Handelsgericht Wien, DVR: 0096385

Bitte senden Sie mir
Please send me
 
Exemplar(e) der genannten Publikation
copy(ies) of the publication overleaf


NAME


ADRESSE / ADDRESS


ORT / CITY


LAND / COUNTRY


ZAHLUNGSMETHODE / METHOD OF PAYMENT
    Visa     Euro / Master     American Express


NUMMER

Ablaufdatum / Expiry date:  

    I will send a cheque           Vorausrechnung / Send me a proforma invoice
 
DATUM, UNTERSCHRIFT / DATE, SIGNATURE

BANK AUSTRIA CREDITANSTALT, WIEN (IBAN AT04 1100 0006 2280 0100, BIC BKAUATWW), DEUTSCHE BANK MÜNCHEN (IBAN DE16 7007 0024 0238 8270 00, BIC DEUTDEDBMUC)
Bild

Couple disagreement about fertility preferences and family-friendly policy measures in the Czech Republic

    Beatrice Chromková Manuea, Petr Fučík

Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2011, pp. 335-344, 2012/02/02

doi: 10.1553/populationyearbook2011s335

€  50,– 

incl. VAT

Logo Open Access
PDF
X
BibTEX-Export:

X
EndNote/Zotero-Export:

X
RIS-Export:

X 
Researchgate-Export (COinS)

Permanent QR-Code

doi:10.1553/populationyearbook2011s335


Abstract

This article describes some findings of an ad-hoc survey “Marriage, Work and Family” conducted in the Czech Republic in 2005. The analysis is focused on couple disagreement about childbearing attitudes, ideals and intentions as well as on the partners’ negotiation process in reproductive decision-making. The results indicate that around one-fifth of Czech couples disagree about the intended number of children. The relatively high share of concordance between partners is the final outcome of a negotiation process within the couple in most cases. The more general the childbearing preferences measures, the higher the level of couple disagreement: one-third of the couples disagree about the family size ideals and two-thirds of them disagree about the reasons for having children. Moreover, one-fourth of Czech partners disagree about the impact of different policy measures on their own reproductive behaviour. This suggests that the potential for a couple’s conflict is quite high and that policy-makers willing to implement effective family-friendly policy measures should target their intervention not only to women but to men as well.

Published Online: 2012/02/02 15:45:19

Object Identifier: 0xc1aa5572 0x002a7102

Document viewed: Calculating...

Rights: All rights reserved. For questions regarding copyright and copies please contact us by email.

REFERENCES Becker, S. 1996. Couples and reproductive health: a review of couple studies. Studies in Family Planning 27(6): 291-306.Becker, S. 1999. Measuring unmet need: wives, husbands or couples? International Family Planning Perspectives 25(4): 172-180.Berrington, A. 2009. Perpetual postponers? Women’s, men’s and couples’ fertility intentions and subsequent fertility behaviour. S3RI Applications Working Paper A04/09.Chromková Manea, B.E. and P. Fucík 2007. Teorie konfliktních preferencí a plodnost v Ceské republice. Demografie-revue pro výzkum populacního vývoje 49(4): 244-252.Chromková Manea, B.E., M. Mrázová and L. Rabušic 2006. Teorie založené na lidských preferencích jako možný príspevek k vysvetlení soucasného reprodukcního chování. In Rodina, zamestnání a sociální politika, ed. Sirovátka et al., 57-79. 1. vyd. Brno : František Šalé – ALBERT, Fakulta sociálních studií Masarykovy university.DaVanzo, J. et al. 2003. How well do desired fertility measures for wives and husbands predict subsequent fertility? Evidence from Malaysia. DRU-3013-NICHD. Labour and Population Program Working Paper Series 03-16.Fucík, P. and B.E. Chromková Manea 2008. V rozporu, ci jednotní? Postoje páru k opatrením prorodinné politiky v CR. Sociální studia 5(2): 69-87.Hakim, C. 2000. Work-lifestyle choices in the 21st century: Preference theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hakim, C. 2003. A new approach to explaining fertility patterns: preference theory. Population and Development Review 29: 349-374.Rabušic, L. and B.E. Chromková Manea 2007. Preferencní teorie Hakimové v ceském kontextu. Demografie : Revue pro výzkum populacního vývoje 49(2): 77-86.Thomson, E. 1997. Couple childbearing desires, intentions, and births. Demography 34(3): 343-354.Thomson, E.and Jan M. Hoem 1998. Couple Childbearing Plans and Births in Sweden. Demography 35(3): 315-322.Voas, D. 2003. Conflicting preferences: a reason fertility tends to be too high or too low. Population and Development Review 29(4): 627-646.