Trust and fertility in uncertain times

Figures & data

Figure 1 Time trends in generalized trust for Italian regions according to the European Values Survey

Notes: The graph shows the time trends (dashed lines) in the proportion of people trusting others in each Italian region. Note that the years with available data are not evenly spaced. The proportion is calculated using all the waves available for Italy within the EVS. Solid straight lines represent the linear fit for each region. Source: EVS 1990, 1999, 2005, and 2009.

Figure 2 Time trends in generalized trust for Italian regions according to the European Social Survey

Notes: The graph shows the time trends (dashed lines) in the proportion of people trusting others in each Italian region. Note that the years with available data are not evenly spaced. The proportion is calculated using all the waves available for Italy within the ESS. Solid straight lines represent the linear fit for each region. Data for Molise are missing, as are as those for Trentino-Alto Adige for 2002 and Valle d’Aosta for 2004 and 2012. Source: ESS 2002, 2004, 2012, and 2016.

Figure 3 Density distributions of the TFR and generalized social trust across Italian provinces

Notes: The graph shows in panel (a) the density distribution of the average TFR in the period 2008–13 and in panel (b) the density distribution of generalized social trust in 1990. The continuous curve represents the hypothetical normal density distribution, while the dashed curve shows the actual k-density distribution. Source: EVS 1990, Nannicini (2013), and Istat.

Figure 4 Geographical distribution of TFR and generalized social trust across Italian provinces

Notes: The map shows in panel (a) the quartile of the distribution of the average TFR at the provincial level during the period 2008–13 while in panel (b) the quartile of the distribution of trust at the provincial level in 1990. The more intense the shading colour of a province, the higher the quartile it belongs to. Provinces where data about generalized social trust are unavailable are coloured black in the maps. Source: As for Figure 3.

Table 1 Summary statistics of dependent and explanatory variables for Italian provinces 2004–13

	Mean	Standard deviation	Minimum	Maximum
Total Fertility Rate (TFR)	1.36	0.13	0.93	1.74
Trust	0.31	0.16	0.00	0.85
Risk aversion	3.38	0.33	1.95	4.00
Strength of family ties	0.41	0.49	0.00	1.00
Distribution of childcare services (proportion)	0.52	0.29	0.02	1.00
Unemployment: males aged 15–34 (proportion)	0.17	0.10	0.01	0.47
Unemployment: females aged 15–34 (proportion)	0.22	0.12	0.02	0.56
Employment: secondary sector (proportion)	0.30	0.09	0.13	0.53
Employment: tertiary sector (proportion)	0.66	0.08	0.46	0.85
Percentage of female councillors	0.19	0.06	0.05	0.36
Political alignment	0.41	0.49	0.00	1.00
Newspaper circulation (per 1,000 inhabitants)	101	46	27	446

Note: Summary statistics are calculated for a sample of 800 observations, that is, for 80 Italian provinces observed yearly during the period 2004–13. Further information on variables can be found in the ‘Data’ section and in the supplementary material (Appendix A1). We lack information about trust for 21 other provinces (Agrigento, Benevento, Biella, Brindisi, Chieti, Crotone, Forlì-Cesena, Grosseto, Imperia, Isernia, Nuoro, Parma, Pesaro and Urbino, Pistoia, Pordenone, Prato, Ragusa, Rimini, Siracusa, Teramo, and Venice) and the presence of missing values among the control variables for two other provinces (Enna and Bolzano).

Source: See Appendix A1 in the supplementary material.

Figure 5 The impact of the 2008 financial crisis on the Italian economy and labour market, 2004–13

Notes: Panel (a) shows the yearly trend in GDP per capita in purchasing power parity with 2010 as the base year, while panel (b) shows the trend in the unemployment rate. The vertical line indicates the beginning of the financial turmoil in 2007. Source: Istat.

Figure 6 Trends in TFR 2004–13 for two groups of Italian provinces by level of trust

Notes: The comparison is between provinces within the lowest three quartiles of the trust distribution (Low trust, solid line) and those belonging to the highest quartile (High trust, dashed line). Source: As for Figure 5.

Table 2 Difference-in-Differences estimates for the TFR in Italian provinces 2004–13: baseline results

	(1)	(2)	(3)
Trust × Crisis	0.0344*** (0.0118)	0.0306** (0.0122)	0.0312** (0.0120)
Controls	NO	YES	YES
Year fixed effects	NO	NO	YES
Province fixed effects	YES	YES	YES
No. observations	800	800	800
No. provinces	80	80	80
R^2	0.387	0.426	0.565

*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01 (two-tailed tests).

Notes: The dependent variable is the Total Fertility Rate. The variable T rust × Crisis is the interaction of the treatment (a dummy taking the value of ‘1’ for a province in the highest quartile of distribution of generalized social trust) with Crisis (a dummy taking the value ‘1’ for the years 2008–13). The set of controls includes the percentage of municipalities with childcare services, average percentage of municipal councillors who are female, percentage employed in the secondary sector, percentage employed in the tertiary sector, unemployment rate for males aged 15–34, unemployment rate for females aged 15–34, newspaper circulation (per 1,000 inhabitants), and a dummy for political alignment between central and local administrations. Standard errors are clustered at the provincial level.

Source: Authors’ analysis based on the data described in Appendix A1 (in the supplementary material).

Figure 7 Difference-in-Differences estimates with leads and lags

Notes: The figure shows the point estimates of the model in Table 3 and the confidence intervals at 90 per cent (least wide spikes), 95 per cent (medium width spikes), and 99 per cent (widest spikes). The omitted category is the interaction between Trust and the dummy for the year 2007. Source: Authors’ analysis based on the data described in Appendix A1 (in the supplementary material).

Table 3 Difference-in-Differences estimates for the TFR in Italian provinces 2004–13, with the inclusion of leads and lags

	(1)	(2)
Trust × 2004	−0.0083	−0.0045
	(0.0144)	(0.0142)
Trust × 2005	−0.0092	−0.0063
	(0.0108)	(0.0101)
Trust × 2006	0.0102	0.0138
	(0.0084)	(0.0091)
Trust × 2008	0.0173*	0.0183*
	(0.0099)	(0.0108)
Trust × 2009	0.0340**	0.0313**
	(0.0136)	(0.0143)
Trust × 2010	0.0367***	0.0336***
	(0.0113)	(0.0124)
Trust × 2011	0.0437***	0.0408***
	(0.0121)	(0.0131)
Trust × 2012	0.0323**	0.0325**
	(0.0142)	(0.0154)
Trust × 2013	0.0315**	0.0357*
	(0.0152)	(0.0175)
Controls	NO	YES
Year fixed effects	YES	YES
Province fixed effects	YES	YES
No. observations	800	800
No. provinces	80	80
R^2	0.547	0.568

*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01 (two-tailed tests).

Notes: The dependent variable is the Total Fertility Rate. The variable Trust × Crisis is the interaction of the treatment (a dummy taking the value of ‘1’ for a province in the highest quartile of distribution of generalized social trust) with indicator variables for each year 2004 to 2013. The omitted category is the interaction between Trust and the dummy for the year 2007 (the year before the outbreak of the crisis). Column (2) includes controls for the percentage of municipalities with childcare services, average percentage of municipal councillors who are female, percentage employed in the secondary sector, percentage employed in the tertiary sector, unemployment rate for both males and females aged 15–34, newspaper circulation (per 1,000 inhabitants), and a dummy for political alignment between central and local administrations. Standard errors are clustered at the provincial level.

Source: As for Table 2.

Table 4 Difference-in-Differences estimates for ASFRs in Italian provinces 2004–13

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
Age group	17–24	25–29	30–34	35–39	40–50
Trust × Crisis	0.0042	0.0134**	0.0085***	0.0038	0.0015
	(0.0036)	(0.0055)	(0.0030)	(0.0026)	(0.0012)
Controls	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES
Year fixed effects	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES
Province fixed effects	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES
No. observations	800	800	800	800	800
No. provinces	80	80	80	80	80
R^2	0.282	0.174	0.348	0.794	0.789

*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01 (two-tailed tests).

Notes: The dependent variables are age-specific fertility rates for ages 17–24 in column (1), 25–29 in column (2), 30–34 in column (3), 35–39 in column (4), and 40–50 in column (5). The variable Trust × Crisis is the interaction of the treatment (a dummy taking the value of ‘1’ for a province in the highest quartile of distribution of generalized social trust) with Crisis (a dummy taking the value ‘1’ for the years 2008­–13). The set of controls includes the percentage of municipalities with childcare services, average percentage of municipal councillors who are female, percentage employed in the secondary sector, percentage employed in the tertiary sector, unemployment rate for both males and females aged 15–34, newspaper circulation (per 1,000 inhabitants), and a dummy for political alignment between central and local administrations. Standard errors are clustered at the provincial level.

Source: As for Table 2.

Table 5 Triple Difference-in-Differences estimates for the TFR in Italian provinces 2004–13: the effect of trust for different levels of childcare services

	(1)	(2)	(3)
Trust × Crisis	0.102***	0.700***	0.0689***
	(0.0244)	(0.0181)	(0.0190)
Crisis × DCS2003	0.245*** (0.0364)	0.130*** (0.0248)	0.132*** (0.02350)
Trust × Crisis × DCS2003	−0.156*** (0.0463)	−0.113*** (0.0355)	−0.111*** (0.0351)
Controls	NO	YES	YES
Year fixed effects	NO	NO	YES
Province fixed effects	YES	YES	YES
No. observations	800	800	800
No. provinces	80	80	80
R^2	0.475	0.460	0.600

*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01 (two-tailed tests).

Notes: The dependent variable is the Total Fertility Rate. The variable T rust × Crisis is the interaction of the treatment, (a dummy taking the value of ‘1’ for a province in the highest quartile of distribution of generalized social trust) with Crisis (a dummy taking the value ‘1’ for the years 2008–13). The variable DCS₂₀₀₃ × Crisis is the interaction of DCS₂₀₀₃ (a variable that measures the percentage of municipalities with active childcare services within a province in 2003) with Crisis. The variable T rust × Crisis × DCS₂₀₀₃ is the interaction of the three variables listed above. The set of controls includes the percentage of municipalities with childcare services, average percentage of municipal councillors who are female, percentage employed in the secondary sector, percentage employed in the tertiary sector, unemployment rate for both males and females aged 15–34, newspaper circulation (per 1,000 inhabitants), and a dummy for political alignment between central and local administrations. Standard errors are clustered at the provincial level.

Source: As for Table 2.

Figure 8 Average marginal effects of trust in post-crisis times

Notes: The figure shows the average linear and quadratic marginal effects on the TFR of being a high trust province by different levels of public childcare provision, together with the 95 per cent confidence intervals. Public childcare provision is measured as the proportion of municipalities providing childcare services within each province. Source: As for Figure 7.

Nannicini, Tommaso. 2013. Measures of social capital for Italian provinces and municipalities. Available: www.tommasonannicini.eu/it/works/measures-social-capital-italian-provinces-and-muni/ (accessed: 12 July 2017).

 Google Scholar