Employment uncertainty and fertility intentions: Stability or resilience?

Figures & data

Figure 1 Distributions of main variables of interest: (a) Fertility intentions; (b) Stability perception; (c) Resilience perception; and (d) Risk attitude

Note: The sample includes employed individuals aged 18–50 who are married or cohabiting and living in Italy. The sample size is N = 521 for panels (a), (b), and (c) and N = 519 for panel (d).

Source: Authors’ calculations from Trustlab 2017 survey data.

Figure 2 Geographical distribution of area-level variables in Italy in 2017: (a) Unemployment rate; (b) Percentage of fixed-term contracts; (c) Area-level stability perception; and (d) Area-level resilience perception

Notes: The variable in panel (c) is calculated as the average percentage of employed individuals across the four trimesters of the 2017 LFS that answered No to the question Do you think it is likely that you will lose/stop your current job in the next six months? The variable in panel (d) is calculated as the average percentage of employed individuals across the four trimesters of the 2017 LFS that answered Yes to the question Would you find it easy finding/starting a job similar to the one you are currently employed in?

Source: Authors’ calculations from ISTAT LFS data, 2017.

Table 1 Odds ratios for determinants of intending to have a(nother) child in the next three years, ordered logistic regression models: employed individuals aged 18–50 who are married/cohabiting and living in Italy, 2017

Variables	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
	(a)	(b)	(a)	(b)	(a)	(b)
Stability perception	1.044	1.041	–	–	1.027	1.026
	(0.034)	(0.035)			(0.034)	(0.035)
Resilience perception	–	–	1.102***	1.093***	1.097***	1.088**
			(0.036)	(0.036)	(0.036)	(0.036)
Risk attitudes	–	1.096**	–	1.082*	–	1.083*
		(0.048)		(0.048)		(0.048)
Age	1.847***	1.882***	1.846***	1.878***	1.843***	1.876***
	(0.253)	(0.257)	(0.251)	(0.256)	(0.250)	(0.255)
Age squared	0.990***	0.989***	0.990***	0.990***	0.990***	0.990***
	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)
Household income (log)	1.087	1.088	1.079	1.081	1.072	1.074
	(0.084)	(0.083)	(0.082)	(0.081)	(0.081)	(0.081)
Female	0.743	0.737	0.747	0.739	0.764	0.755
	(0.145)	(0.143)	(0.142)	(0.140)	(0.149)	(0.146)
Tertiary educated	0.979	0.983	0.940	0.949	0.927	0.935
	(0.189)	(0.192)	(0.183)	(0.186)	(0.181)	(0.185)
Self-employed	1.213	1.201	1.139	1.135	1.175	1.169
	(0.255)	(0.257)	(0.231)	(0.234)	(0.245)	(0.248)
Childless	2.649***	2.648***	2.613***	2.605***	2.638***	2.632***
	(0.533)	(0.536)	(0.528)	(0.528)	(0.535)	(0.537)
Observations	521	519	521	519	521	519
Region fixed effects	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.10.

Notes: Odds ratios originate from ordered logistic regression. Robust standard errors shown in parentheses. Unlike the (a) models, the (b) models control for risk attitudes (which are missing for two respondents). See ‘Method’ section for full details of variables and model specifications.

Source: Authors’ calculations from Trustlab 2017 survey data.

Table 2 Average marginal effects of stability and resilience perception on each of the four levels of the dependent variable (fertility intention), through ordered logistic regression: employed individuals aged 18–50 who are married/cohabiting and living in Italy, 2017 (N = 519)

Variables	Definitely not = 1	Probably not = 2	Probably yes = 3	Definitely yes = 4
Stability perception	−0.004	−0.000	0.001	0.003
	(0.005)	(0.001)	(0.002)	(0.004)
Resilience perception	−0.013***	−0.002**	0.005**	0.010**
	(0.005)	(0.000)	(0.002)	(0.004)

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.10.

Notes: The coefficients represent the average marginal effects of the stability perception, and resilience perception variables when they are both included in the ordered logistic regression model, following model 3(b) in Table 1. The specification includes: controls for risk attitude; sex; a quadratic term for age; whether the respondent has a university qualification; (log) household income in the last twelve months; a dummy for childless respondents; and one for self-employed respondents. Regional fixed effects are included in the specification. Robust standard errors shown in parentheses.

Source: As for Table 1.

Table 3 Average marginal effects of stability and resilience perception on each of the four levels of the dependent variable (fertility intention), by sex, through ordered logistic regression: employed individuals aged 18–50 who are married/cohabiting and living in Italy, 2017

Variables	Definitely not = 1	Probably not = 2	Probably yes = 3	Definitely yes = 4
Female subsample (N = 345)
Stability perception	−0.007	−0.001	0.002	0.006
	(0.006)	(0.001)	(0.002)	(0.005)
Resilience perception	−0.005	−0.000	0.002	0.005
	(0.006)	(0.001)	(0.002)	(0.005)
Male subsample (N = 174)
Stability perception	0.001	0.000	−0.000	−0.001
	(0.012)	(0.001)	(0.005)	(0.008)
Resilience perception	−0.022**	−0.002	0.009**	0.015**
	(0.010)	(0.001)	(0.004)	(0.007)

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.10.

Notes: The coefficients represent the average marginal effects of the stability perception and resilience perception variables when they are both included in the ordered logistic regression model following model 3(b) in Table 1, after splitting the sample by sex. The specification includes: controls for risk attitude; a quadratic term for age; whether the respondent has a university qualification; (log) household income in the last twelve months; a dummy for childless respondents; and one for self-employed respondents. Regional fixed effects are included in the specification. Robust standard errors shown in parentheses.

Source: As for Table 1.

Table 4 Regressing fertility intentions on resilience perception and stability perception using micro-level variables from Trustlab (model 1) and micro-level variables net of area-level ones (model 2): employed individuals aged 18–50 who are married/cohabiting and living in Italy, 2017

Variables	Model 1	Model 2
Stability perception	1.026	–
	(0.035)
Resilience perception	1.088**	–
	(0.036)
Micro–macro stability perception	–	1.266
		(0.447)
Micro–macro resilience perception	–	2.344**
		(0.825)
Risk attitudes	1.083*	1.083*
	(0.048)	(0.052)
Age	1.876***	1.879***
	(0.255)	(0.250)
Age squared	0.990***	0.990***
	(0.002)	(0.002)
Household income (log)	1.074	1.074
	(0.081)	(0.073)
Female	0.755	0.754
	(0.146)	(0.140)
Tertiary educated	0.935	0.939
	(0.185)	(0.195)
Self-employed	1.169	1.166
	(0.248)	(0.256)
Childless	2.632***	2.631***
	(0.537)	(0.491)
Observations	519	519
Region fixed effects	Yes	Yes

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.10.

Notes: Odds ratios originate from ordered logistic regression. The micro–macro stability perception variable is calculated as the difference between the individual-level stability perception variable available in Trustlab and the macro-provincial-level stability perception variable calculated from the Italian LFS, 2017. The micro–macro resilience perception variable is calculated as the difference between the individual-level resilience perception variable available in Trustlab and the macro-provincial-level resilience perception variable calculated from the Italian LFS, 2017. Estimates of model 1 correspond to estimates of model 3(b) in Table 1. Robust standard errors, clustered at the macro-provincial-level in model 2, are shown in parentheses.

Source: Authors’ calculations from Trustlab 2017 survey data and the Italian Labour Force Survey 2017.

Table 5 Moderation effects of unemployment rate and percentage of fixed-term contracts at the macro-provincial level on the relationship between employment uncertainty and fertility intentions: employed individuals aged 18–50 who are married/cohabiting and living in Italy, 2017

Variables	Model 1	Model 2
Stability perception (demeaned)	1.093*	1.074
	(0.053)	(0.050)
Resilience perception (demeaned)	1.056	1.098***
	(0.058)	(0.037)
Unemployment rate (reference category = First tertile)
Second tertile unemployment rate	0.763	–
	(0.230)
Third tertile unemployment rate	0.781	–
	(0.270)
Stability perception × second tertile unemployment	0.994	–
	(0.067)
Stability perception × third tertile unemployment	0.840**	–
	(0.059)
Resilience perception × second tertile unemployment	0.987	–
	(0.068)
Resilience perception × third tertile unemployment	1.099	–
	(0.114)
Fixed-term contract percentage (reference category = First tertile)
Second tertile fixed-term contract percentage	–	0.355**
		(0.175)
Third tertile fixed-term contract percentage	–	0.237***
		(0.117)
Stability perception × second tertile fixed-term contracts	–	1.005
		(0.084)
Stability perception × third tertile fixed-term contracts	–	0.870**
		(0.061)
Resilience perception × second tertile fixed-term contracts	–	0.924
		(0.064)
Resilience perception × third tertile fixed-term contracts	–	1.047
		(0.087)
Observations	519	519
Regional fixed effects	Yes	Yes
Socio-demographic controls	Yes	Yes

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.10.

Notes: Odds ratios originate from ordered logistic regression. The specification includes: controls for risk attitude; sex; a quadratic term for age; whether the respondent has a university qualification; (log) household income in the last twelve months; a dummy for childless respondents; and one for self-employed respondents. The macro-provincial unemployment rate and the fixed-term contracts percentage are calculated by aggregating data from the Italian LFS, 2017. Robust standard errors, clustered at the macro-provincial level, are shown in parentheses.

Source: As for Table 4.

Figure 3 Average marginal effects of (a) stability perception and (b) resilience perception on fertility intentions, by unemployment rate tertile

Notes: The estimation refers to the specification in Table 5, model 1, including 519 observations. Charts show point estimates and 90 per cent confidence intervals. The AMEs are calculated on the four levels of the dependent variable (fertility intentions), measured through the question Do you intend to have a child or another child in the next three years?, and answers range from ‘1’ (definitely not) to ‘4’ (definitely yes).

Source: As for Figure 1.

Figure 4 Average marginal effects of (a) stability perception and (b) resilience perception on fertility intentions, by percentage of fixed-term contracts tertile

Notes: The estimation refers to the specification in Table 5, model 2, including 519 observations. Charts show point estimates and 90 per cent confidence intervals. The AMEs are calculated on the four levels of the dependent variable (fertility intentions), measured through the question Do you intend to have a child or another child in the next three years?, and answers range from ‘1’ (definitely not) to ‘4’ (definitely yes).

Source: As for Figure 1.