The recent national debate on low fertility in Malta seems to be based on only one, imperfect indicator. It is called period total fertility rate (TFR), with a value of 1.13.
It is imperfect because it is not based on the real cohort of women born in a particular year but on a “synthetic cohort”, a proxy of the real one (term coined by Ni Bhrolcháin in 2007).
The fertility rate expressed using this indicator is biased as it is sensitive to the postponement of births, among other factors. It depresses the real value of fertility rate in a “grossly exaggerated” manner (Sobotka and Lutz, 2011).
Malta’s TFR became somewhat of a more appealing topic of discussion in the local media only after reaching its level of 1.13 children per woman, being the lowest in the EU.
When compared to other types of rates available in demographic research, the period TFR shows much lower childbearing efforts of the Maltese couples than they really are.
To prove this, I have calculated the first-order TFR (therefore, only first-born children were considered, rather than children of all parities) and found out that Malta’s first-order period TFR was hovering around 0.75 for most of the period of observation (2007-2021, Eurostat data). This again proves lowest-low fertility based on the so-called period approach indicator, which equally renders a depressed value of the real fertility in Malta.
To look deeper into the nature of the real cohort, and the level of real fertility, it is therefore necessary to apply a different approach, a longitudinal (cohort) approach. Using the NSO data, I have been able to prove that although cohort data were still incomplete (the NSO micro records in electronic format were available only for the births from 1996), the real fertility rate of the Maltese population is higher, much higher than 1.13.
Although incomplete, birth data for women born in 1976 show cohort TFR of 1.57 children per woman and, similarly for the cohort of women born in 1975, 1.56 children per woman.
The real fertility rate of the Maltese population is higher, much higher than 1.13
Cohort TFR is not biased and shows a real childbearing effort of the Maltese women. Its only difficulty is that, differently from the period TFR, which can be obtained yearly, cohort data are available only after the first 49 completed years of woman’s life. Still, in terms of academic rigour, it is worth a wait.
A contemporary Dutch demographer, Nico van Nimwegen, said that the states get fertility rates that they deserve. He said states, not governments, which means that we are all responsible for the current lowest-low fertility rate of 1.13.
When it comes to fertility and, ultimately, family size, we are all population actors: at the individual level, when we make decisions regarding timing and number of children to have; at the meso level in organisations and companies as employers and business owners when deciding on entitlements for flexible working time or remote working of the employees; and, finally, at the macro level, as policymakers, government and government institutions when deciding on the types of social benefits or the duration and remuneration during maternity, parental and paternity leave.
Malta’s sub-replacement fertility has been with us since the early 1990s when it started its decline from the comfortable levels close to the replacement level: in 1992, it was at 2.07; in 2001, it fell below 1.5; and, in 2017, it was below 1.3.
When the fertility level falls below 1.3, usually it takes a much longer time for it to recover above that level.
Today’s low childbearing intentions are the result of a complex set of factors including the time-competing activities that the younger generations, Y and Z, current carriers of the reproductive function, want to pursue (Testa and Rampazzo, 2018, Testa and Bolano, 2019).
In the spirit of Malta’s familialistic welfare system, for far too long we have been treating women employees as members of families who will somehow manage to find informal help for their childcare. We did not transition to looking at women employees as individuals who deserve better institutional support (like decent leave entitlements for both parents).
With our ever-increasing share of highly educated women, the high level of opportunity costs of maternity will eventually lead to an understandably even lower intended number of children than previously reported (Eurobarometer, 2011 shows that women 25-39 reported an intended number of children at 0.66 and men at 1.04, Testa, 2012).
In this celebratory Women’s Day week, I do not intend to sound alarmist; nevertheless, it is important to remember the words of the Australian demographer Peter McDonald (2008) who said that “every nation facing the situation of the lowest-low fertility is very likely to take action to stop the trend at some time. However, delay of action has important consequences.”
Maja Miljanic BrinkworthMaja Miljanic Brinkworth is a senior visiting lecturer at the Department of Sociology at the University of Malta.