Family size desires and intentions in the lowest fertility region in Vietnam

Vinh Duc Nguyen; Thuy Thi Nghiem

doi:10.12688/f1000research.122977.1

Home Browse Family size desires and intentions in the lowest fertility region...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Family size desires and intentions in the lowest fertility region in Vietnam

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Vinh Duc Nguyen ¹, Thuy Thi Nghiem¹

PUBLISHED 11 Oct 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Institute of Sociology, Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences, Hanoi, Vietnam

Vinh Duc Nguyen
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Thuy Thi Nghiem
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background: Vietnam's total fertility rate has been relatively stable around the replacement level since 2005. Meanwhile, fertility in the Southeast of Vietnam has always been far below the replacement level. As reproductive desires and intentions are important determinants of fertility, the article estimates family size desires and intentions in the Southeast and analyse related sociodemographic factors, contributing insights to the low fertility in this region.
Methods: Based on data from a survey of people aged 18-45 in the Southeast in 2020, bivariate analysis and multinomial logistic regressions were applied to examine family size desires and intentions in this region.
Results: Most respondents want two (57.3%) or more (33.1%) children, and only 8.4% of them want to have fewer than two children. There are wide gaps within reproductive desires and intentions and the actual fertility. The mean intended family size is nearly 2.1, lower than the mean desired family size but much higher than the total fertility rate in 2020. Young people and unmarried females are more likely to have desires and intentions of fewer than two children. The most frequent reason for no intention of attaining desired family sizes is the fear of not having enough financial resources to raise their children as their expectations.
Discussion and Conclusion: The low fertility in the Southeast of Vietnam is not due to a substantial decline in the value of children, but mainly because socioeconomic conditions are not favourable for having two or more children. In the current context in the Southeast, when most people of reproductive age still want and intend to have at least two children, support policies to reduce difficulties and obstacles to having would be much more effective in increasing the fertility rate than later when the desire of fewer than two children become more popular.

Keywords

Family size desire, family size intention, low fertility, determinants of fertility, Southeast Vietnam

Corresponding author: Vinh Duc Nguyen

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This research is funded by Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology (Nafosted) with the grant No.504.05-2018.01.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2022 Nguyen VD and Nghiem TT. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Nguyen VD and Nghiem TT. Family size desires and intentions in the lowest fertility region in Vietnam [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 11:1165 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.122977.1) First published: 11 Oct 2022, 11:1165 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.122977.1) Latest published: 11 Oct 2022, 11:1165 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.122977.1)

Introduction

Southeast is the region with the most developed economy in Vietnam. According to Vietnam Population Census in 2019,¹ the Southeast has nearly 17.83 million people, accounting for 18.5 percent of the country's population. In the past nearly two decades, while Vietnam’s fertility has been relatively stable around the replacement level (2.1), fertility in the Southeast has been always remarkably lower. In particular, the total fertility rate (TFR) in this region decreased from 1.85 in 1999 to only 1.46 in 2016 and then increased slightly to 1.62 in 2020. Meanwhile, the TFR in the Red River Delta, the second highest income region in Vietnam with Hanoi capital centred, was 2.34 in 2020 and has never been below 2.0 (GSO, 2022). Low fertility rates have been observed in many countries during the process of modernization and economic development (Jones et al., 2008; Timæus and Moultrie, 2020). However, low fertility in the Southeast is certainly a distinct phenomenon among regions in Vietnam that needs to be examined to identify and evaluate the key socioeconomic determinants. This became even more important as the government of Vietnam recently launched a new population strategy, with a sustainable development orientation and the goal of firmly maintaining the replacement fertility rate, through an ambitious plan to reduce fertility in provinces with a TFR higher than 2.1 and to increase fertility in provinces with a TFR lower than 1.8 (Government, 2019, 2020). But the new population strategy has not been fully legislated into laws, as the Ordinance on Population issued by the National Assembly in 2003, revised in 2008 with a provision stipulating that each couple has only one or two children, is still in effect.² Perhaps due to the lack of scientific evidence, there are both concerns that Vietnam's fertility will fall far below the replacement level as in the Southeast region and that fertility will increase sharply if the one-or-two-child policy is officially removed.

Nevertheless, there is very little research on fertility desires and intentions in Vietnam, particularly after its total fertility rate declined to the replacement level in 2005. The most recent national survey in Vietnam collecting information on desired and intended family sizes was the Demographic and Health Survey in 2002 that interviewed only married women (CPFC and ORC Macro, 2003). An analysis using data from Vietnam Inter-Censal Demographic Survey in 2014 and the analytical framework of Bongaarts (2001) found two main direct factors determining the low total fertility rate in the Southeast, including the high rate of unmarried women and the postponement of childbearing among married women (Nguyen, 2017). However, this analysis had to rely on the assumption that the mean desired family size in the Southeast was approximately two children. So far, understandings on the reasons of low fertility in the Southeast are still limited. This article investigates family size desires and intentions in the Southeast and their determinants, aiming to answer the question whether low fertility in this region is mainly caused by changes in social norm on values of children or other factors.

Theoretical background

Desired family size is conceptualized as the need for children, or the number of children parents would have if there were no subjective or economic obstructs involved in childbearing. Intended family size is the number of children parents planned to have after considering their desires and actual involved conditions (McClelland, 1983; Thomson, 2015). There have been many studies worldwide indicating that desired and intended family sizes are important determinants of actual number of children as well as fertility (Bongaarts, 2001; Duvander et al., 2020; Schoen et al., 1999; Tan and Tey, 1994; Thomson, 1997; Westoff, 1990, 2010), although there are always certain gaps between these factors (Toulemon and Testa, 2005; Philipov, 2009; Vitali et al., 2009; Miller, 2011; Dommermuth et al., 2015; Mencarini et al., 2015; Casterline and Han, 2017; Trinitapoli and Yeatman, 2018). Desired family size is often reported inconsistently at the individual level but very reliably at the aggregate level. In comparison to intentions, family size desires often reflect less closely future fertility but may be a useful indicator of social norms in examining fertility (Bankole and Westoff, 1998; Trinitapoli and Yeatman, 2018; Westoff, 2010). Studies often show good overall consistencies between ideal and actual family sizes over an entire lifetime, but the relationship between fertility intentions and actual fertility behaviour is relatively weak, as it depends on many other factors (Toulemon and Testa, 2005). Related research has led to a conclusion that “fertility intentions remain the central concept for understanding contemporary fertility trends and differences” (Hagewen and Morgan, 2005: 524).

Bongaarts (2001) proposed a widely applied framework on the relationship between fertility and desired family size, in which fertility is the result of the “desired number of children” after the combined effects of three factors that increase fertility (unwanted fertility, replacement of deceased offspring, and sex preference) and three other factors that decrease fertility (high reproductive age, involuntary infertility, and competitive preferences). Intended family size is an intermediate variable in this process. Low fertility is often caused by strong effects of competitive preferences or unfavoured socio-economic and demographic conditions that hamper couples from achieving their desired family size, but can also be attributable to changes in social norms on the value of children, or all of them. In many societies, if people want to have less than two children on average, it is likely that the total fertility rate will fall below the replacement level and cannot easily recover. On the other hand, if most people want to have two children, then mitigating the reducing fertility factors can help to obtain and maintain replacement fertility. Therefore, desired and intended family sizes are useful indicators for predicting fertility as well as proposing policy implications.

Existing research has paid much attention to examining socioeconomic and cultural factors that influence desired and intended family sizes as well as childbearing intentions. According to the theory of planned behaviours (TPB) proposed by Icek Ajzen (1985, 1991), attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control are three key components forming behavioural intentions. This psychological theory has been widely employed in developing analytical frameworks of fertility desires and intentions. For example, Miller and Jones (2009) proposed a model of the relationship between fertility desires and intentions, in which preconception childbearing desires (of woman and partners) predict both childbearing intentions and pregnancy desires. Research on childless men and women in Australia found that, unlike fertility intentions, childbearing desires were hardly affected by changing life circumstances, but were often adjusted if people recognized that their desires were not likely to be achieved (Gray et al., 2013). Besides, previous theoretical and empirical findings indicate the link between gender inequality and fertility intention as well as fertility behaviour (Yoon, 2016). Very low fertility may be attributable to the situation of high levels of gender equity in society but low levels of gender equity in families (McDonald, 2000).

In summary, the main factors affecting both family size desires and intentions include personal and family demographic characteristics (age, gender, marital status, ethnicity, religion), education, employment, economic conditions, children's value, etc. In addition, family size intentions are determined by family size desires and many other factors, such as child-rearing costs, gender equality, gender role attitude, division of domestic work, and fertility and family support policies (Hashemzadeh et al., 2021; Preis et al., 2020). Recent research suggests that the patterns of childbearing intentions and behaviours observed in high-fertility societies may not be necessarily applicable in low-fertility settings (Chen et al., 2022). As results from existing research indicate very complex and varying determinants of family size desires and intentions across societies, more research is promising to provide more insights into this topic.

Methods

Ethical statement

The Scientific Ethics Committee of the Institute of Sociology, Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences, granted formal approval to the research protocol (No: 16/2019/XHH-HĐKH) on 14th May 2021. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Sampling design

The research conducted a survey in Ho Chi Minh City and Dong Nai, the two largest provinces in the Southeast. The populations of these two provinces in 2020 were 9.23 and 3.18 million respectively, accounting for more than two-thirds of the Southeast population. A multistage sampling method was applied with a designed sample size of 800 individuals of the main reproductive age, corresponding to the 95% confidence level, the 4.9% margin of error, and the estimated design effect of 2.0. In the first stage, seven communes, including one urban commune and one rural commune in Dong Nai and four urban communes and one rural commune in Ho Chi Minh City, were selected by using the PPS (probability proportional to size) method. The numbers of selected communes relatively reflect the levels of urbanization in each province. In the second stage, with an estimated non-response rate of 25%, about 533 households from two communes in Dong Nai and 533 households from five communes in Ho Chi Minh City were randomly selected for the target of 400 completed interviews in each province. Finally, an unmarried person or married woman aged from 18 to 45 years was randomly selected from each household to obtain her/his consent before interviewing. Married men were not selected as information on their family size desires and sociodemographic characteristics were collected via interviewing their spouses.

Survey and data analysis

The CAPI (computer-assisted personal interviewing) was applied with a structured questionnaire installed on smartphones via CSPro software version 7.3 to collect data about fertility desires and intentions, socio-demographic characteristics, attitudes on marriage and value of children, and perception of factors affecting childbearing and childrearing. The main questions to identify family size preferences of the respondents include “How many children would you like to have if there are no economic or health constraints?”, “How many children do you currently have?”, and “How many more children do you plan to have?” for unmarried people or “How many more children do you and your spouse plan to have?” for married women. Family size intentions are measured as the sum of the number of existing children and the number of additional planned children. A copy of the full questionnaire can be found in the Extended data (Nguyen, 2022a).

After a pre-test in March 2020, the main survey was carried out in May 2020, completing interviews with 808 individuals, including 382 cases from Dong Nai and 426 cases from Ho Chi Minh City, or 273 unmarried persons and 535 married women. In addition, family size desires and socio-demographic characteristics of 535 married men were asked when interviewing their spouses. As such, the survey collected information on the family size desires of 1,343 individuals. The analyses were performed using SPSS version 26, in which the dataset was weighted as individuals were not selected with equal probability. Bivariate analysis with chi-square test, independent samples t tests and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed to describe family size desires and intentions in and their differentials across groups. Then multinomial logistic regressions were applied to identify the determinants of desired and intended family sizes. For a dependent variable with three choices, the multiple logistic regression estimates the parameters for the following two equations (Long, 1997:154)

ln (p_{1} / p_{0}) = β_{11} X_{1} + β_{12} X_{2} + β_{13} X_{3} + \dots + c_{1} + ε_{1}

ln (p_{2} / p_{0}) = β_{21} X_{1} + β_{22} X_{2} + β_{23} X_{3} + \dots + c_{2} + ε_{2}

where p₀, is the probability of the reference choice (2 children); p₁, p₂ are the probabilities for choices of “fewer than 2 children” and “more than 2 children” respectively; p₁/p₀ and p₂/p₀ are odds ratios; β_1i and β_2i are the regression coefficients for the independent variables X_i; c₁ and c₂ are constants; ε₁ and ε₁ are random errors. A small number of individuals who answered “Do not know” or have no answer about their desired and intended family sizes are excluded from those bivariate and multivariable analyses.

Results

Family size desires

The results show that more than half (57.3%) of the respondents want to have two children and about one-third (33.1%) want more than two children, while only 8,4% of them want fewer than two children (Table 1). That means the desire for medium or large family size (two or more children) remains very popular in society. Indeed, the mean desired family size is nearly 2.4 (Table 2), approximately the mean ideal number of children from the national survey of married women in Vietnam in 2002 (Westoff, 2010: 4), but remarkably higher than the current TFR in the Southeast region of Vietnam.

Table 1. Distribution of desired family size.

Desired family size	Unweighted N	Weighted N	Percent (%)	95% confidence interval (%)	Standard error (%)
No children	5	2	0.1	0.0 – 0.5	0.1
1 child	85	112	8.3	7.0 – 9.9	0.8
2 children	735	770	57.3	54.7 – 60.0	1.3
3 children	335	288	21.4	19.3 – 23.7	1.1
More than 3	165	157	11.7	10.1 – 13.5	0.9
No answer	18	15	1.1	0.7 – 1.8	0.3

Table 2. Differences in desired family size by socio-demographic characteristics.

		Distribution (%)			Mean	SD	Weighted N
		One or no child	2 children	3 or more children	Mean	SD	Weighted N
Province ***	Dong Nai	3.8	62.5	33.7	2.40	0.79	355
Province ***	Ho Chi Minh City	10.3	56.3	33.4	2.38	1.05	973
Area **	Urban	10.1	56.9	33.0	2.38	1.05	939
Area **	Rural	5.0	60.6	34.5	2.39	0.82	389
Age *** ⁺⁺⁺	18-24	11.1	68.6	20.3	2.12	0.67	308
	25-29	5.2	63.0	31.7	2.42	1.06	260
	30-34	8.8	62.1	29.2	2.28	0.86	239
	35-39	6.0	50.6	43.4	2.58	1.01	242
	40-45	10.9	44.4	44.7	2.57	1.21	279
Ethnicity ** ⁺	Kinh	7.7	58.4	33.9	2.40	1.00	1207
Ethnicity ** ⁺	Other ethnic groups	17.1	53.4	29.5	2.20	0.91	121
Religion *	No religion	8.6	57.6	33.8	2.38	0.95	976
	Buddhism	10.2	52.2	37.6	2.43	1.05	211
	Catholic, other religions	6.0	68.9	25.1	2.35	1.17	141
Gender and marital status *** ⁺⁺⁺	Unmarried male	2.8	71.8	25.3	2.32	0.89	312
	Unmarried female	16.2	67.1	16.6	2.02	0.84	269
	Married male	6.7	44.5	48.8	2.74	1.13	371
	Unmarried female	9.6	53.2	37.1	2.35	0.90	377
Existing children *** ⁺⁺⁺	None	10.0	69.1	20.9	2.16	0.87	624
	1 child	14.1	55.4	30.5	2.22	0.76	235
	2 children	3.6	53.3	43.1	2.60	0.99	374
	3 or more children	4.7	10.3	85.0	3.39	1.35	96
Sex of existing children *** ⁺⁺⁺	Daughter	11.4	49.5	39.1	2.41	0.92	243
	Son	5.6	48.2	46.1	2.61	0.96	215
	Both son & daughter	4.5	46.7	48.8	2.73	1.20	246
Education *** ⁺⁺⁺	Under secondary	10.7	47.3	42.1	2.51	1.12	477
	Secondary	8.0	66.4	25.5	2.26	0.83	485
	College, university	6.6	61.3	32.1	2.37	0.99	363
Duration of living in this commune *** ⁺⁺⁺	Since I was born	8.7	63.6	27.7	2.29	0.89	615
	Seven years or more	7.7	50.1	42.2	2.57	1.19	365
	Under 7 years	9.3	56.2	34.5	2.36	0.91	348
Employment *** ⁺⁺⁺	Work for self or family	10.1	46.3	43.6	2.56	1.20	247
	Public sector	3.6	67.5	28.9	2.31	0.69	229
	Private sector	8.2	56.4	35.4	2.45	1.04	599
	Not working, student	12.4	64.5	23.1	2.13	0.80	253
Self-assessment of living standard	Below average	8.7	55.3	36.0	2.54	1.19	138
	Average	8.0	59.6	32.4	2.36	0.95	1027
	Above average	12.1	50.3	37.7	2.43	1.05	164
Total		8.6	58.0	33.5	2.38	0.99	1328

* p < 0.05,

** p < 0.01,

*** p < 0.001;

T-test or ANOVA:

+ p < 0.05,

++ p < 0.01,

+++ p < 0.001

Data: Survey in the Southeast Vietnam in 2000.

The differences in desired family size by socio-demographic characteristics are presented in Table 2. In general, the mean desired family sizes are not significantly different between the two provinces, between rural and urban areas, and within levels of economic status, but vary slightly across categories of other socio-demographic factors. The groups with mean desired family sizes over 2.5 children include people aged 35 or older, married men, people with under secondary education, at least seven years of staying in the commune, working for self or family, and below average economic status. The figures suggest that some characteristics of a traditional society seem to be still significant factors affecting the desire for large family sizes. Meanwhile, the mean desired family sizes are higher than 2.0 in all groups presented in Table 2, and particularly lowest in unmarried women (2.02 children), in the group aged 18-24 years (2.12 children), and students or not-working people (2.13 children).

In the context of the government's new policy to encourage the universal two-child family model, the proportion of people with the desire for two children is an important indicator. Results from the survey in the Southeast reveal that the proportion of two-child family desire is 58% in the whole sample (excluding a few individuals with no answer) but only less than 45% in the group aged 40 years or older (44.4%) and married men (44.5%), and on the other hand, quite high in the youngest age group (68.6%), unmarried men (71.8%), and those who still have no children (69.1%). The proportion of desire for three or more children is often highest in the groups with low percentages of wanting two children. The proportion of people who want to have fewer than two children is only 8.6%, but significantly higher in Ho Chi Minh City (10.3%) and urban areas (10.1%) than in Dong Nai province (3.8%) and rural areas (5%). The figures are highest in the group aged under 25 years (11.1%), unmarried women (16.2%), people having one child (14.1%), non-Kinh ethnic groups (17.1%), students or not working people (12.4%), above-average standard of living (12.1%).

The finding that more than 90% of people want to have two or more children is surprising if compared to the low fertility rate in the Southeast. The fertility of this region is lower than the replacement level despite of high value of children in people's perception, indicating that actual socio-economic and health conditions are unsuitable, not only for large family sizes but also for the two-child family model. The proportion of desire for fewer than two children is not high, but more concentrated among young women and in urban areas, indicating that this rate will increase with the process of urbanization and generational transition in the Southeast.

Results from the multi-logistic regression indicate that some of the socio-economic characteristics are significantly predictive of changes in family size desires (Table 3). In comparison to living in Ho Chi Minh City, living in Dong Nai province is associated with a lower likelihood to desire one or no child but not statistically significant for desire for three or more children. Unmarried men are related to a higher possibility of desire to have two children than married men. Higher education is associated with a lower likelihood to desire a two-child family. Religion does not significantly affect the desire for a one-or-no-child family but increases the probability of desire to have more than two children. People who work for themself or for their families are associated with a higher likelihood for desire of three or more children than students or people who do not work or work in the public sector. On the other hand, age, urban-rural area, ethnicity, and respondents' self-perception of their living standard are not found to be related to changes in the desired family size.

Table 3. Multi-logistics regression model of desired family size.

Independent variables		One or no child		3 or more children
		Coef.	Std. Error	Coef.	Std. Error
Province	Dong Nai	-0.860*	0.361	-0.244	0.175
Province	Ho Chi Minh City (ref.)	0		0
Urban or rural	Urban	0.252	0.308	-0.121	0.164
Urban or rural	Rural	0		0
Age	18-24	0.590	0.421	-0.016	0.271
	25-29	-0.642	0.394	-0.028	0.216
	30-34	-0.185	0.333	-0.347	0.208
	35-39	-0.486	0.359	0.048	0.194
	40-45 (ref.)	0		0	0.
Gender & Marital status	Unmarried male	-1.594***	0.480	-0.875***	0.223
	Unmarried female	0.164	0.340	-1.343***	0.226
	Married female	0.166	0.304	-0.401*	0.167
	Married male (ref.)	0		0
Ethnicity	Kinh	-0.556	0.305	0.066	0.239
Ethnicity	Other ethnic groups (ref.)	0		0
Religion	Buddhism	0.303	0.396	0.468*	0.223
	Catholic, other religions	0.195	0.459	0.623*	0.268
	No religion (ref.)	0		0
Education	Secondary	-0.734*	0.296	-0.587***	0.164
	College, university	-0.204	0.312	-0.216	0.178
	Lower than secondary (ref.)	0		0
Employment	Public sector	-0.897	0.470	-0.506*	0.229
	Private sector	-0.432	0.290	-0.310*	0.174
	Not working, student	-0.255	0.342	-0.565	0.232
	Work for self or family (ref.)	0		0
Self-assessment of living standard	Below average	0.203	0.437	0.136	0.278
	Average	-0.099	0.303	-0.046	0.205
	Above average (ref.)	0		0
Intercept		-0.754	0.684	0.310	0.421

* p < 0.05,

** p < 0.01,

*** p < 0.001

Family size intentions

The figures in Table 4 show that 70% of the respondents intend to have two children, but only about 17.4% of them intend to have more than two children and 11.9% intend to have fewer than two children. The mean intended family size is 2.07, very close to the replacement level of fertility and remarkably lower than the mean desired family size, but still higher than the TFR in 2020 in the Southeast of Vietnam. This pattern of fertility preference has been observed in a number of studies in developing and developed countries (Bongaarts, 2001; Westoff, 2010).

Table 4. Distribution of intended family size.

Intended family size	Unweighted N	Weighted N	Percent (%)	95% confidence interval (%)	Standard error (%)
No children	13	29	2.2	1.5 – 3.0	0.4
1 child	100	130	9.7	8.2 – 11.3	0.8
2 children	930	941	70.0	67.6 – 72.5	1.3
More than 2	294	234	17.4	15.5 – 19.5	1.0
No answer	6	9	0.7	0.3 – 1.2	0.2

The differences in family size intentions by sociodemographic characteristics are presented in Table 5. It is not surprising that people in more developed areas (Ho Chi Minh City, urban areas) intend to have smaller family sizes. Similar to the desired family sizes, the mean intended family sizes are low in unmarried women (1.84 children), the group aged 18-24 years (1.91), the non-Kinh ethnic groups (1.93), Catholic and other religions (1.93), and people with one child (1.84). Correspondingly, the percentages of intention to have fewer than two children in those groups are significantly higher than 12% (from 17.4% to 23.3%).

Table 5. Differences in family size intentions by socio-demographic characteristics.

		Distribution (%)			Mean	SD	Weighted N
		One or no child	Two children	3 or more children	Mean	SD	Weighted N
Province *** ⁺	Dong Nai	10.4	64.3	25.3	2.14	0.80	361
Province *** ⁺	HCM City	12.5	72.7	14.8	2.04	0.62	973
Area ** ⁺⁺	Urban	13.3	71.4	15.3	2.03	0.63	941
Area ** ⁺⁺	Rural	8.7	68.2	23.1	2.15	0.77	393
Age *** ⁺⁺⁺	18-24	17.4	70.7	11.9	1.91	0.71	310
	25-29	9.2	75.0	15.8	2.10	0.58	259
	30-34	10.7	75.3	14.0	2.03	0.62	240
	35-39	4.8	68.7	26.5	2.27	0.65	245
	40-45	15.8	63.2	21.0	2.06	0.73	281
Ethnicity *** ⁺	Kinh	10.8	71.4	17.8	2.08	0.66	1213
Ethnicity *** ⁺	Other ethnic groups	23.3	60.6	16.1	1.93	0.78	121
Religion *** ⁺	No religion	9.7	73.7	16.6	2.09	0.60	987
	Buddhism	18.8	58.7	22.5	2.05	0.80	206
	Catholic, other religions	17.4	64.9	17.6	1.93	0.89	142
Gender and marital status *** ⁺⁺⁺	Unmarried male	11.1	72.4	16.6	2.04	0.74	312
	Unmarried female	21.9	69.9	8.3	1.84	0.68	270
	Married	8.8	69.8	21.4	2.16	0.62	753
Existing children *** ⁺⁺⁺	None	16.7	71.1	12.2	1.94	0.71	625
	1 child	23.2	71.4	5.5	1.84	0.55	239
	2 children	0.0	87.0	13.0	2.14	0.37	373
	3 or more children	0.0	0.0	100.0	3.19	0.44	97
Sex of existing children *** ⁺⁺⁺	Daughter	16.1	72.8	11.1	1.98	0.60	244
	Son	7.4	75.2	17.4	2.14	0.60	218
	Both son & daughter	0.0	62.1	37.9	2.41	0.56	247
Education *** ⁺⁺⁺	Under secondary	10.7	68.0	21.3	2.15	0.71	477
	Secondary	14.1	72.4	13.4	1.97	0.63	490
	College, university	10.8	70.6	18.6	2.08	0.67	365
Duration of stay in this commune ⁺⁺	Since I was born	13.9	68.8	17.3	2.02	0.71	618
	7 years or more	8.7	71.6	19.7	2.16	0.69	367
	Under 7 years	12.0	72.1	15.9	2.06	0.57	349
Employment * ⁺⁺	Work for self or family	13.1	62.6	24.3	2.16	0.72	247
	Public sector	13.9	69.8	16.2	1.96	0.76	232
	Private sector	10.7	72.3	17.0	2.08	0.65	599
	Not working, student	12.1	74.1	13.8	2.04	0.58	256
Self-assessment of living standard **	Below average	9.6	66.7	23.8	2.18	0.66	138
	Average	11.4	72.4	16.2	2.05	0.66	1032
	Above average	17.4	61.1	21.6	2.08	0.74	165
Desired family size *** ⁺⁺⁺	One or no child	64.6	29.8	5.6	1.34	0.71	111
	2 children	8.5	87.9	3.6	1.93	0.43	768
	3 or more children	4.2	51.1	44.8	2.49	0.74	443
	No answer	29.6	45.6	24.8	1.99	1.14	13
Total		12.0	70.4	17.6	2.07	0.67	1334

* p < 0.05,

** p < 0.01,

*** p < 0.001; T-test or ANOVA:

+ p < 0.05,

++ p < 0.01,

+++ p < 0.001

The intended family size is found to be significantly lower than the desired family size, but there is undoubtedly a strong association between the two variables, especially between the two-child desire and the two-child intention. Indeed, nearly 88% of people who want a two-child family intend to realize this desire. The corresponding figures are 64.6% for the intention of one-or-no child and only 44.5% for the intention of three-or-more children. On the other hand, nearly 30% of people who want fewer than two children and more than half (51.1%) of people who want more than two children plan to have two children. The results suggest the existence of factors that hinder people from realizing their desired number of children. In the present social, cultural and policy context of the Southeast, the desire for a two-child family seems to be the easiest to accept and receive more encouragement. Therefore, many people want to have fewer or more than two children but intend to have two children like most other couples in society. Most of the gap between family size desires and intentions is generated by the shift from the desires of three-or-more children and one-or-no child to the intention to have two children. Among those people who want a two-child family, only 12.1% of them intend to have more or fewer than two children.

Results from the multi-logistic regression reveal several socioeconomic characteristics, that are significantly predictive of the variation in family size intentions (Table 6). In comparison to the two-child intention, living in Ho Chi Minh City, in the age from 30 to 34 years, being an unmarried woman, working in the public sector, and having an average living standard are the factors associated with a lower likelihood of the intention to have three or more children. On the other hand, being unmarried females, younger than 25 years of age, non-Kinh ethnic groups, and being Catholic or other non-Buddhism religions are related to a higher possibility of intention to have fewer than two children.

Table 6. Multi-logistics regression model of intended family size.

Independent variables		One or no child		3 or more children
		Coef.	Std. Error	Coef.	Std. Error
Province	Dong Nai	0.271	0.273	0.606**	0.201
Province	HCM City (ref.)	0		0
Urban or rural area	Urban	0.356	0.264	-0.365	0.192
Urban or rural area	Rural (ref.)	0		0
Age	18-24 (ref.)	0		0
	25-29	-0.636*	0.319	-0.009	0.295
	30-34	-0.350	0.290	-0.308	0.318
	35-39	-0.962**	0.357	0.945	0.319
	40-45	0.263	0.341	0.248	0.328
Gender & Marital status	Unmarried male	0.136	0.293	0.170	0.243
	Unmarried female	0.880***	0.248	-0.681*	0.267
	Married (ref.)	0		0
Ethnicity	Kinh	-0.733**	0.268	-0.302	0.287
Ethnicity	Other ethnic groups (ref.)	0		0
Religion	No religion	-0.607*	0.269	0.004	0.258
	Buddhism	0.015	0.324	0.546	0.309
	Catholic, other religions (ref.)	0		0
Education	Secondary	0.212	0.247	-0.236	0.199
	College, university	0.171	0.272	0.155	0.214
	Lower than secondary (ref.)	0		0	0.
Employment	Public sector	0.102	0.328	-0.714**	0.275
	Private sector	-0.384	0.255	-0.339	0.200
	Not working, student	-0.507	0.320	-0.467	0.273
	Work for self or family (ref.)	0		0
Self-assessment of living standard	Below average	-0.684	0.397	-0.196	0.311
	Average	-0.377	0.263	-0.478*	0.234
	Above average (ref.)	0		0
Intercept		-0.617	0.624	-0.428	0.566

* p < 0.05,

** p < 0.01,

*** p <0.001

In the context of low fertility in the Southeast, the survey also interviewed the respondents about their awareness of challenges they would face if having one more child (Table 7). It is reasonable that the challenges perceived by the respondents will be a significant barrier to their determination to realize their family size intentions. The results show that all three most commonly perceived challenges are related to the financial aspect. High proportions of respondents informed that they were worried about how to have enough money to raise children (65%), for children's education (56%), and for children’s medical care (51.3%). These proportions are highest among married females, as more than 90% of them already have at least one child and have experienced these financial challenges, but lowest among married females, who might feel less responsible than unmarried men in being the breadwinners in their future family. The next challenges are less frequently reported and may be considered as indicators of competitive preferences in the framework proposed by Bongaarts (2001). About 38% of the respondents were concerned that “It takes much time and effort to take care of children”, and unmarried males are more likely to think about this challenge (40.5%) than unmarried females (35.6%). The proportion of concern that one more birth would badly affect women's health and appearance is nearly 29% among unmarried women and 24.1% among married women, but only 17.1% among unmarried men. More than 21% of female respondents but only 11.4% of unmarried men were afraid of many hardships and risks during pregnancy and childbirth, possibly including infertility and miscarriage. Similarly, nearly 24% of unmarried women but only 11.6% of unmarried men worried about losing their job opportunities and promotions. Only 6.4% of respondents were concerned of housing problems if they have one more child.

Table 7. Awareness of challenges of having another child.

	Unmarried males	Unmarried females	Married females	Unit: %
	Unmarried males	Unmarried females	Married females	Total
Worry about lack of money to raise children (food, clothing)	61.9	56.8	73.6	65.0
Worry about how to have enough money for children's education	57.4	48.2	61.0	56.2
Worry about how to have enough money for children’s medical care	50.2	43.7	57.7	51.3
It takes much time and effort to take care of children	40.5	35.6	37.6	38.0
Bad impact on women's health and appearance	17.1	28.7	24.1	23.1
Many hardships and risks during pregnancy and childbirth	11.4	21.1	21.9	18.2
It takes much effort to educate children	19.2	24.1	12.3	17.9
Loss of job opportunities, promotions	11.6	23.9	18.1	17.6
Housing would be more cramped	6.2	5.1	7.4	6.4
Don't know, no answer	2.3	9.8	0.3	3.7
Weighted N	313	275	377	966

Discussion and conclusion

The analysis of survey data in the Southeast reveals that most people want two or more children, and only a small proportion of them want to have a childless or one-child family. As a result, the mean desired family size is nearly 2.4, indicating the persistence of a relatively high value of children in the Southeast social norms, though the primary value of children might have transited from economic assistance to psychological and social merits to their parents during an impressive process of economic development and modernization of this region over the past several decades. In other words, the low fertility in the Southeast of Vietnam is not due to a substantial decline in the value of children, but mainly because current socioeconomic conditions are not favourable for having and raising two or more children with current standards. Indeed, the analysis found wide gaps within reproductive desires and intentions and the actual fertility. The mean intended family size is approximately 2.0 children, significantly lower than the mean desired family size but much higher than the total fertility rate in 2020. The results indicate the existence of socioeconomic factors that hinder people from attaining their desired family size.

There is a strong association between family size desires and intentions, especially between the two-child desire and the two-child intention. Most people who want a two-child family intend to realize this desire. Moreover, nearly 30% of people wanting fewer than two children and more than half of people wanting three or more children plan to have a two-child family. The intention for a two-child family seems to be more easily accepted and encouraged in the current socio-political and cultural context in the Southeast as well as in Vietnam. Therefore, many people want to have fewer or more than two children but intend to have two children like most other couples in society. In contrast, among those people who want two children, only about one-eights of them intend to have a larger or smaller family. Nevertheless, the difference between family size desires and intentions in the Southeast seems to be positive for the government’s policy of firmly maintaining the replacement fertility rate and promoting a universal two-child family model in Vietnam. Most of this difference is generated by the shift from the desires of three-or-more children or one-or-no child to the intention to have a two-child family. The findings indicate that not family size intentions but the factors affecting the realisation of those intentions have been the key determinants of the below-replacement fertility in the Southeast.

The analysis reveals the existence of some socioeconomic factors affecting family size desires and intentions. Young people and unmarried females are more likely to have desires and intentions of fewer than two children, suggesting possibly even smaller family size and lower fertility in the next generation. Being non-Kinh ethnic groups, non-Buddhism religions and some indicators involved in modernization, such as living in urban areas or in big cities, are the factors associated with a lower likelihood of the intention to have one or no child. The process of economic development and modernization has significantly improved the income and living conditions in the Southeast, but also brought about new social contexts, with many factors discouraging childbearing, even just one or two children. Young people, especially women, need to devote much time and effort for education and employment, and have many other preferences that compete with having children. Indeed, the survey in the Southeast found considerable proportions of people of reproductive age were afraid that having an additional child would require too much time and effort to take care, badly effect women’s health and appearance, or diminish their job opportunities, promotions. However, the most common challenge perceived by both married and unmarried people in the survey the Southeast is the costs of raising children according to current standards and expectations, supposing they have one more child. That is certainly one of the main factors of the gaps between the relatively high desired family size and the medium intended family size and the low fertility rate in the Southeast. Moreover, the concern about unaffordable costs of raising children may help to explain for the delay of childbearing, one of two major determinants of low fertility in the Southeast as found in previous research (Nguyen 2017). From the theoretical aspect, the factor of competing preferences in the framework of Bongaarts (2001) should be understood as including both competing preferences and obstacles in the current context of Vietnam.

In regard to Vietnam’s new population strategy aiming to firmly maintain the replacement fertility rate, the two-child family model can be promoted but unlikely to be universal as childbearing depends on various objective and subjective factors. In the current context in the Southeast, when most people of reproductive age still want and intend to have at least two children, support policies to reduce difficulties and obstacles to childbearing and childrearing would be much more effective in increasing the fertility rate than later when the desire of fewer than two children become more popular.

There are two major limitations in this study that could be addressed in future research. The first limitation is that information on family size desires and intentions of married men was derived through interviewing their wives, and this may lead to a certain bias. The second limitation is related to the gender equality factor, an important determinant of fertility intentions in existing literature, but was not included in the analysis.

Data availability

Underlying data

Harvard Dataverse: Survey on fertility preference in the Southeast of Vietnam in 2020. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/XXOEWV (Nguyen 2022a)

This project contains the following underlying data:

• SEVNFS2020.SAV (SPSS format; all datasets have been de-identified in accordance with the Safe Harbor method.)

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Extended data

Harvard Dataverse: Questionnaire for Survey on fertility preference in the Southeast of Vietnam in 2020.

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/3G7FW9 (Nguyen, 2022b)

This project contains the following extended data:

• Questionnaire for Survey on fertility preference in the Southeast of Vietnam in 2020

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Acknowledgements

This research was performed at the Institute of Sociology, Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences. The authors would like to thank all staff at the Institute of Sociology for supporting this research.

References

Ajzen I: From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Kuhl J, Beckmann J, editors. Berlin Heidelberg:Springer;1985; pp. 11–39. Publisher Full Text
Ajzen I: The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991; 50(2): 179–211. Publisher Full Text
Bankole A, Westoff CF: The Consistency and Validity of Reproductive Attitudes: Evidence from Morocco. J. Biosoc. Sci. 1998; 30(4): 439–455. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Bongaarts J: Fertility and Reproductive Preferences in Post-Transitional Societies. Popul. Dev. Rev. 2001; 27(Supplement: Global Fertility Transition): 260–281.
Casterline JB, Han S: Unrealized Fertility: Fertility Desires at the End of the Reproductive Career. Demogr. Res. 2017; 36(1): 427–454. Publisher Full Text
Chen R, Baochang G, Chen R, et al.: Childbearing Intention and Childbearing Behavior in Low Fertility Society: Evidence from Shanghai. China Popul. Dev. Stud. 2022; 6: 115–126. Publisher Full Text
CPFC and ORC Macro: Vietnam Demographic and Health Survey 2002. Calverton, Maryland, USA:National Committee for Population, Family and Children [Vietnam] & ORC Macro;2003.
Dommermuth L, Klobas J, Lappegård T: Realization of Fertility Intentions by Different Time Frames. Adv. Life Course Res. 2015; 24: 34–46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Duvander AZ, Fahlén S, Brandén M, et al.: Who Makes the Decision to Have Children? Couples’ Childbearing Intentions and Actual Childbearing. Adv. Life Course Res. 2020; 43: 100286. Publisher Full Text
Government: Vietnam Population Strategy to 2030. Decision No 1679/QD-TTg, November 22, 2019.2019.
Government: Program to Adjust Fertility Levels to Suit Regions and Subjects by 2030. Decision No 588/QĐ-TTg, April 28, 2020.2020.
Gray E, Evans A, Reimondos A: Childbearing Desires of Childless Men and Women: When Are Goals Adjusted?. Adv. Life Course Res. 2013; 18(2): 141–149. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
GSO (General Statistics Office of Vietnam):2022. Statistical Data: Total Fertility Rate by Province.Reference Source
Hagewen K, Morgan P: Intended and Ideal Family Size in the United States, 1970-2002. Popul. Dev. Rev. 2005; 31(3): 507–527. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Hashemzadeh M, Shariati M, Nazari AM, et al.: Childbearing Intention and Its Associated Factors: A Systematic Review. Nurs. Open. 2021; 8(5): 2354–2368. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Jones GW, Straughan PT, Chan A (eds): Ultra-Low Fertility in Pacific Asia: Trends, Causes and Policy Issues. Routledge;2012.
Long JS: Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Sage Publications;1997.
McClelland GHFamily-Size Desires as Measures of Demand. Determinants of Fertility in Developing Countries. Volume 1: Supply and Demand for Children. Bulata RA, Lee RD, editors.New York:Academic Press;1983.
McDonald P: Gender Equity in Theories of Fertility Transition. Popul. Dev. Rev. 2000; 26(3): 427–439. Publisher Full Text
Mencarini L, Vignoli D, Gottard A: Fertility Intentions and Outcomes: Implementing the Theory of Planned Behavior with Graphical Models. Adv. Life Course Res. 2015; 23: 14–28. Publisher Full Text
Miller BW: Differences between Fertility Desires and Intentions: Implications for Theory, Research and Policy. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research. 2011; 9: 75–98. Publisher Full Text
Miller WB, Jones J: The Effects of Preconception Desires and Intentions on Pregnancy Wantedness. J. Popul. Res. 2009; 26(4): 327–357. Publisher Full Text
Nguyen V: Survey on fertility preference in the Southeast of Vietnam in 2020.2022a. Harvard Dataverse, V1. [dataset]. SEVNFS2020.tab [fileName], UNF:6:NbwsrhTuEp5FDXAFPEwJXA== [fileUNF]. Publisher Full Text ,
Nguyen V: Questionnaire for Survey on fertility preference in the Southeast of Vietnam in 2020.2022b. Harvard Dataverse,V1 [Dataset]. Publisher Full Text
Nguyen DV: Determinants of Low Fertility in the Southeast Region and Implications for Population Policy in Vietnam. Tạp Chí Xã Hội Học (Sociology). 2017; 1: 42–54. (in Vietnamese).
Philipov D: Fertility Intentions and Outcomes: The Role of Policies to Close the Gap. Eur. J. Popul. 2009; 25(4): 355–361. Publisher Full Text
Preis H, Tovim S, Mor P, et al.: Fertility Intentions and the Way They Change Following Birth: A Prospective Longitudinal Study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020; 20(1): 1–11. Publisher Full Text
Schoen R, Astone NM, Kim YJ, et al.: Do Fertility Intentions Affect Fertility Behavior? J. Marriage Fam. 1999; 61(3): 790. Publisher Full Text
Tan PC, Tey NP: Do Fertility Intentions Predict Subsequent Behavior? Evidence from Peninsular Malaysia. Stud. Fam. Plan. 1994; 25(4): 222–231. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Thomson E: Couple Childbearing Desires, Intentions, and Births. Demography. 1997; 34(3): 343–354. Publisher Full Text
Thomson E: Family Size Preferences. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Wright DJ, editor.Elsevier;2015; pp. 805–808.
Timæus IM, Moultrie TA: Pathways to Low Fertility: 50 Years of Limitation, Curtailment, and Postponement of Childbearing. Demography. 2020; 57: 267–296. Publisher Full Text
Toulemon L, Testa M-R: Fertility Intentions and Actual Fertility: A Complex Relationship. Popul. Soc. 2005; 415(4): 1–4.
Trinitapoli J, Yeatman S: The Flexibility of Fertility Preferences in a Context of Uncertainty. Popul. Dev. Rev. 2018; 44(1): 87–116. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Vitali A, Billari FC, Prskawetz A, et al.: Preference Theory and Low Fertility: A Comparative Perspective. Eur. J. Population. 2009; 25(4): 413–438. Publisher Full Text
Westoff CF: Reproductive Intentions and Fertility Rates. Int. Fam. Plan. Perspect. 1990; 16(3): 84–89. Publisher Full Text
Westoff C: Desired Number of Children: 2000-2008. Maryland:ICF Macro;2010.
Yoon SY: Is Gender Inequality a Barrier to Realizing Fertility Intentions? Fertility Aspirations and Realizations in South Korea. Asian Popul. Stud. 2016; 12(2): 203–219. Publisher Full Text

Footnotes

1 https://www.gso.gov.vn/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Ket-qua-toan-bo-Tong-dieu-tra-dan-so-va-nha-o-2019.pdf

2 https://vbpl.vn/boyte/Pages/vbpq-toanvan.aspx?ItemID=12661

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 11 Oct 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Institute of Sociology, Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences, Hanoi, Vietnam

Vinh Duc Nguyen
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Thuy Thi Nghiem
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This research is funded by Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology (Nafosted) with the grant No.504.05-2018.01.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 11 Oct 2022, 11:1165

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.122977.1

Copyright

© 2022 Nguyen VD and Nghiem TT. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Nguyen VD and Nghiem TT. Family size desires and intentions in the lowest fertility region in Vietnam [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] F1000Research 2022, 11:1165 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.122977.1)

NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 11 Oct 2022

Views

4

Reviewer Report 08 Feb 2023

Heather Booth, School of Demography, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.135036.r161617

This paper makes a useful contribution to the understanding of fertility in Vietnam in the context of social and economic change. The analysis is both important and timely as Vietnam is considering revising its population policy to maintain replacement level in all ... Continue reading

This paper makes a useful contribution to the understanding of fertility in Vietnam in the context of social and economic change. The analysis is both important and timely as Vietnam is considering revising its population policy to maintain replacement level in all regions.

This paper seeks to understand why fertility in the Southeast region of Vietnam is lower than the policy (replacement) level of 2.1 children per woman. It uses 2000 survey data for two provinces in Southeast, including urban and rural settings, to examine ‘whether low fertility in this region is mainly caused by changes in social norm on values of children or other factors’. This aim (as stated) is problematic and should be revised: the data do not permit a causal analysis, nor analysis of changes in social norms.

Multinomial regression models identify the factors predicting desired and intended number of children. The analysis appears technically competent, but it should be explained why ordinal logistic regression was not used. The two measures are not independent, as is acknowledged; it would be helpful to cross-tabulate them. The analysis (Table 6) takes no account of the dependency. Given methodological inconsistencies (below) it is impossible to compare Tables 3 and 6.

A weakness is the inclusion of married men via proxy reporting by their wives (of desired number of children and socio-economic variables), introducing a lack of independence between their responses (most couples would share many characteristics). Further, married males’ intended number of children would appear to be taken as the same as their wives’ (given that the sample size is the same). This is inadequately explained. How has this dependence been taken into account in the analysis (if at all), and how does it affect the results (you briefly mention bias)?

Individual points by page/para/line:

3/1/last 3
This sentence is misleading. Removing the current policy of 1 or 2 children would not logically lead to lower fertility; it could only lead to higher fertility, though this seems unlikely to occur based on existing scientific evidence.

Policy is ‘…each couple has only one or two children’: clarify whether childlessness is a matter for current policy… or perhaps rephrase to ‘…each couple has no more than two children’.

5/3/3
‘Economic status’ is not a listed variable; religion is not mentioned. Others are said to ‘vary slightly’ - but they are very highly significant. Chi2 is ignored: why is it there? Why are the very highly significant number and sex of existing children ignored?
Sex of children data seem to be contrary to son preference! Is this something the authors could explore (perhaps in another paper)?

7/2/4-
The statement for education is problematic (also, is the table labelled correctly?). Religion is presented as causal.

Terminology
The multinomial logistic regressions are mislabelled ‘multi-logistics’ regression in tables etc. The model is of log odds, but the interpretation is in terms of ‘possibility’ and ‘likelihood’.

Tables
Inconsistent labelling of variables; inconsistent listing of variables; inconsistent or non-ordinal listing of categories within variables. Inconsistent choice of reference category in the two multinomial regressions. Numbers should be right-aligned

Table 2: Gender and marital status … lists unmarried female twice

Table 3: Why is ‘married male’ (based on proxy reporting) used as the reference? Please justify this choice (is it an error?)

Tables 2 and 5 headings
Tables do not show ‘differences’, but simply ‘family size’. Check text also.

Tables 3 and 6
Why are number and sex of existing children not included in the regression? Also ‘area’ is non-significant but it remains in both models. Explain the rationale for inclusion and exclusion.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Demography; quantitative analysis

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

3

Reviewer Report 26 Jan 2023

Youngtae Cho, Institute of Environment and Health, Population Policy Research Center, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.135036.r153179

The purpose of this study is to examine the ideal number of children for women in southern Vietnam with very low total fertility rates, and to determine whether the ideal number of children is due to changes in social norms ... Continue reading

The purpose of this study is to examine the ideal number of children for women in southern Vietnam with very low total fertility rates, and to determine whether the ideal number of children is due to changes in social norms about their children's values or to other factors.
Currently, Vietnam's fertility rate is very stable nationwide, but as the authors pointed out, the fertility rate in the southern region is very low at 1.5.

This study was conducted to investigate the cause of the low birth rate in the southern part of Vietnam using social survey data conducted only in the southern part of Vietnam.

It is clear that this study makes an important academic contribution to the recent status of Vietnam's fertility. Nevertheless, if the following matters can be considered, the academic and policy value of the paper will be further enhanced.

1. This study was analyzed by combining men and women. But since women and men have different social roles, it is necessary to divide the analysis between men and women. Although the sample size may become smaller and statistically sound results may not be obtained in multiple regression analysis, it is still worthwhile to analyze men and women separately.

2. The TFR is around 1.5 in the South, but most of the samples included in this study showed their desired and intended number of children at 2 or higher. As the authors reviewed that the numbers of desired and intended children have positive relationship with the actual number of children, the major research question should be “why does the desire or intention not be translated into actual level of fertility” rather than “has the social norm for two children been deteriorated in the Southern part of Vietnam.” Therefore, I do not doubt that the results of this study have ample academic contribution, but it is not easy to say that policy utilization of this study is equivalent.

The authors suggested that socioeconomic conditions, not changes in values, created a lower number of intended children than the desired. The proposal is not wrong, but it is hard to say that it is a new discovery in policy. It's too general a suggestion.

If socioeconomic conditions in the course of economic development have weakened people's willingness to give birth, economic development has not only been in HCMC and Dong Nai, but also in northern Vietnam, where fertility rates have not been lowered.

3. The question might be useful is why many people actually have about 1.5 children even though the desire for two children is so high in the South. Unfortunately, the results of this study do not explain this. If you asked the actual number of children in the survey, you could put the difference between the actual number of children and the number of intended children as a dependent variable, and see what factors make the difference. Then, the cause of the low birth rate can be identified more directly, and policy implications can be stronger.

4. Since this study used data collected only in HCMC and Dong Nai, it is fundamentally impossible to compare with northern Vietnam, where the total fertility rate is relatively high. Therefore, it is impossible for this study to explain why the fertility rate in southern Vietnam is low. Nevertheless, in order to increase the academic and policy contributions of this study, it is necessary for the authors to discover similar studies conducted in the northern region and compare them with the results of this study. If literature is not enough to achieve the purpose of the study, it may be good to exercise some educated and trained guess as demographers.

5. Typo at the bottom of page 9: one-eights à one-eighth

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Population Studies

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 11 Oct 2022

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 1 11 Oct 22	read	read

Youngtae Cho, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea
Heather Booth, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

4 Views

08 Feb 2023 | for Version 1

Heather Booth, School of Demography, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

4 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

This paper makes a useful contribution to the understanding of fertility in Vietnam in the context of social and economic change. The analysis is both important and timely as Vietnam is considering revising its population policy to maintain replacement level in all regions.

This paper seeks to understand why fertility in the Southeast region of Vietnam is lower than the policy (replacement) level of 2.1 children per woman. It uses 2000 survey data for two provinces in Southeast, including urban and rural settings, to examine ‘whether low fertility in this region is mainly caused by changes in social norm on values of children or other factors’. This aim (as stated) is problematic and should be revised: the data do not permit a causal analysis, nor analysis of changes in social norms.

Multinomial regression models identify the factors predicting desired and intended number of children. The analysis appears technically competent, but it should be explained why ordinal logistic regression was not used. The two measures are not independent, as is acknowledged; it would be helpful to cross-tabulate them. The analysis (Table 6) takes no account of the dependency. Given methodological inconsistencies (below) it is impossible to compare Tables 3 and 6.

A weakness is the inclusion of married men via proxy reporting by their wives (of desired number of children and socio-economic variables), introducing a lack of independence between their responses (most couples would share many characteristics). Further, married males’ intended number of children would appear to be taken as the same as their wives’ (given that the sample size is the same). This is inadequately explained. How has this dependence been taken into account in the analysis (if at all), and how does it affect the results (you briefly mention bias)?

Individual points by page/para/line:

3/1/last 3
This sentence is misleading. Removing the current policy of 1 or 2 children would not logically lead to lower fertility; it could only lead to higher fertility, though this seems unlikely to occur based on existing scientific evidence.

Policy is ‘…each couple has only one or two children’: clarify whether childlessness is a matter for current policy… or perhaps rephrase to ‘…each couple has no more than two children’.

5/3/3
‘Economic status’ is not a listed variable; religion is not mentioned. Others are said to ‘vary slightly’ - but they are very highly significant. Chi2 is ignored: why is it there? Why are the very highly significant number and sex of existing children ignored?
Sex of children data seem to be contrary to son preference! Is this something the authors could explore (perhaps in another paper)?

7/2/4-
The statement for education is problematic (also, is the table labelled correctly?). Religion is presented as causal.

Terminology
The multinomial logistic regressions are mislabelled ‘multi-logistics’ regression in tables etc. The model is of log odds, but the interpretation is in terms of ‘possibility’ and ‘likelihood’.

Tables
Inconsistent labelling of variables; inconsistent listing of variables; inconsistent or non-ordinal listing of categories within variables. Inconsistent choice of reference category in the two multinomial regressions. Numbers should be right-aligned

Table 2: Gender and marital status … lists unmarried female twice

Table 3: Why is ‘married male’ (based on proxy reporting) used as the reference? Please justify this choice (is it an error?)

Tables 2 and 5 headings
Tables do not show ‘differences’, but simply ‘family size’. Check text also.

Tables 3 and 6
Why are number and sex of existing children not included in the regression? Also ‘area’ is non-significant but it remains in both models. Explain the rationale for inclusion and exclusion.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Demography; quantitative analysis

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

3 Views

26 Jan 2023 | for Version 1

Youngtae Cho, Institute of Environment and Health, Population Policy Research Center, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea

3 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The purpose of this study is to examine the ideal number of children for women in southern Vietnam with very low total fertility rates, and to determine whether the ideal number of children is due to changes in social norms about their children's values or to other factors.
Currently, Vietnam's fertility rate is very stable nationwide, but as the authors pointed out, the fertility rate in the southern region is very low at 1.5.

This study was conducted to investigate the cause of the low birth rate in the southern part of Vietnam using social survey data conducted only in the southern part of Vietnam.

It is clear that this study makes an important academic contribution to the recent status of Vietnam's fertility. Nevertheless, if the following matters can be considered, the academic and policy value of the paper will be further enhanced.

1. This study was analyzed by combining men and women. But since women and men have different social roles, it is necessary to divide the analysis between men and women. Although the sample size may become smaller and statistically sound results may not be obtained in multiple regression analysis, it is still worthwhile to analyze men and women separately.

2. The TFR is around 1.5 in the South, but most of the samples included in this study showed their desired and intended number of children at 2 or higher. As the authors reviewed that the numbers of desired and intended children have positive relationship with the actual number of children, the major research question should be “why does the desire or intention not be translated into actual level of fertility” rather than “has the social norm for two children been deteriorated in the Southern part of Vietnam.” Therefore, I do not doubt that the results of this study have ample academic contribution, but it is not easy to say that policy utilization of this study is equivalent.

The authors suggested that socioeconomic conditions, not changes in values, created a lower number of intended children than the desired. The proposal is not wrong, but it is hard to say that it is a new discovery in policy. It's too general a suggestion.

If socioeconomic conditions in the course of economic development have weakened people's willingness to give birth, economic development has not only been in HCMC and Dong Nai, but also in northern Vietnam, where fertility rates have not been lowered.

3. The question might be useful is why many people actually have about 1.5 children even though the desire for two children is so high in the South. Unfortunately, the results of this study do not explain this. If you asked the actual number of children in the survey, you could put the difference between the actual number of children and the number of intended children as a dependent variable, and see what factors make the difference. Then, the cause of the low birth rate can be identified more directly, and policy implications can be stronger.

4. Since this study used data collected only in HCMC and Dong Nai, it is fundamentally impossible to compare with northern Vietnam, where the total fertility rate is relatively high. Therefore, it is impossible for this study to explain why the fertility rate in southern Vietnam is low. Nevertheless, in order to increase the academic and policy contributions of this study, it is necessary for the authors to discover similar studies conducted in the northern region and compare them with the results of this study. If literature is not enough to achieve the purpose of the study, it may be good to exercise some educated and trained guess as demographers.

5. Typo at the bottom of page 9: one-eights à one-eighth

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Population Studies

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] Ajzen I: From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Kuhl J, Beckmann J, editors. Berlin Heidelberg:Springer;1985; pp. 11–39. Publisher Full Text

[2] Ajzen I: The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991; 50(2): 179–211. Publisher Full Text

[3] Bankole A, Westoff CF: The Consistency and Validity of Reproductive Attitudes: Evidence from Morocco. J. Biosoc. Sci. 1998; 30(4): 439–455. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] Bongaarts J: Fertility and Reproductive Preferences in Post-Transitional Societies. Popul. Dev. Rev. 2001; 27(Supplement: Global Fertility Transition): 260–281.

[5] Casterline JB, Han S: Unrealized Fertility: Fertility Desires at the End of the Reproductive Career. Demogr. Res. 2017; 36(1): 427–454. Publisher Full Text

[6] Chen R, Baochang G, Chen R, et al.: Childbearing Intention and Childbearing Behavior in Low Fertility Society: Evidence from Shanghai. China Popul. Dev. Stud. 2022; 6: 115–126. Publisher Full Text

[7] CPFC and ORC Macro: Vietnam Demographic and Health Survey 2002. Calverton, Maryland, USA:National Committee for Population, Family and Children [Vietnam] & ORC Macro;2003.

[8] Dommermuth L, Klobas J, Lappegård T: Realization of Fertility Intentions by Different Time Frames. Adv. Life Course Res. 2015; 24: 34–46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] Duvander AZ, Fahlén S, Brandén M, et al.: Who Makes the Decision to Have Children? Couples’ Childbearing Intentions and Actual Childbearing. Adv. Life Course Res. 2020; 43: 100286. Publisher Full Text

[10] Government: Vietnam Population Strategy to 2030. Decision No 1679/QD-TTg, November 22, 2019.2019.

[11] Government: Program to Adjust Fertility Levels to Suit Regions and Subjects by 2030. Decision No 588/QĐ-TTg, April 28, 2020.2020.

[12] Gray E, Evans A, Reimondos A: Childbearing Desires of Childless Men and Women: When Are Goals Adjusted?. Adv. Life Course Res. 2013; 18(2): 141–149. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] GSO (General Statistics Office of Vietnam):2022. Statistical Data: Total Fertility Rate by Province.Reference Source

[14] Hagewen K, Morgan P: Intended and Ideal Family Size in the United States, 1970-2002. Popul. Dev. Rev. 2005; 31(3): 507–527. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] Hashemzadeh M, Shariati M, Nazari AM, et al.: Childbearing Intention and Its Associated Factors: A Systematic Review. Nurs. Open. 2021; 8(5): 2354–2368. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] Jones GW, Straughan PT, Chan A (eds): Ultra-Low Fertility in Pacific Asia: Trends, Causes and Policy Issues. Routledge;2012.

[17] Long JS: Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Sage Publications;1997.

[18] McClelland GHFamily-Size Desires as Measures of Demand. Determinants of Fertility in Developing Countries. Volume 1: Supply and Demand for Children. Bulata RA, Lee RD, editors.New York:Academic Press;1983.

[19] McDonald P: Gender Equity in Theories of Fertility Transition. Popul. Dev. Rev. 2000; 26(3): 427–439. Publisher Full Text

[20] Mencarini L, Vignoli D, Gottard A: Fertility Intentions and Outcomes: Implementing the Theory of Planned Behavior with Graphical Models. Adv. Life Course Res. 2015; 23: 14–28. Publisher Full Text

[21] Miller BW: Differences between Fertility Desires and Intentions: Implications for Theory, Research and Policy. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research. 2011; 9: 75–98. Publisher Full Text

[22] Miller WB, Jones J: The Effects of Preconception Desires and Intentions on Pregnancy Wantedness. J. Popul. Res. 2009; 26(4): 327–357. Publisher Full Text

[23] Nguyen V: Survey on fertility preference in the Southeast of Vietnam in 2020.2022a. Harvard Dataverse, V1. [dataset]. SEVNFS2020.tab [fileName], UNF:6:NbwsrhTuEp5FDXAFPEwJXA== [fileUNF]. Publisher Full Text ,

[24] Nguyen V: Questionnaire for Survey on fertility preference in the Southeast of Vietnam in 2020.2022b. Harvard Dataverse,V1 [Dataset]. Publisher Full Text

[25] Nguyen DV: Determinants of Low Fertility in the Southeast Region and Implications for Population Policy in Vietnam. Tạp Chí Xã Hội Học (Sociology). 2017; 1: 42–54. (in Vietnamese).

[26] Philipov D: Fertility Intentions and Outcomes: The Role of Policies to Close the Gap. Eur. J. Popul. 2009; 25(4): 355–361. Publisher Full Text

[27] Preis H, Tovim S, Mor P, et al.: Fertility Intentions and the Way They Change Following Birth: A Prospective Longitudinal Study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020; 20(1): 1–11. Publisher Full Text

[28] Schoen R, Astone NM, Kim YJ, et al.: Do Fertility Intentions Affect Fertility Behavior? J. Marriage Fam. 1999; 61(3): 790. Publisher Full Text

[29] Tan PC, Tey NP: Do Fertility Intentions Predict Subsequent Behavior? Evidence from Peninsular Malaysia. Stud. Fam. Plan. 1994; 25(4): 222–231. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[30] Thomson E: Couple Childbearing Desires, Intentions, and Births. Demography. 1997; 34(3): 343–354. Publisher Full Text

[31] Thomson E: Family Size Preferences. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Wright DJ, editor.Elsevier;2015; pp. 805–808.

[32] Timæus IM, Moultrie TA: Pathways to Low Fertility: 50 Years of Limitation, Curtailment, and Postponement of Childbearing. Demography. 2020; 57: 267–296. Publisher Full Text

[33] Toulemon L, Testa M-R: Fertility Intentions and Actual Fertility: A Complex Relationship. Popul. Soc. 2005; 415(4): 1–4.

[34] Trinitapoli J, Yeatman S: The Flexibility of Fertility Preferences in a Context of Uncertainty. Popul. Dev. Rev. 2018; 44(1): 87–116. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[35] Vitali A, Billari FC, Prskawetz A, et al.: Preference Theory and Low Fertility: A Comparative Perspective. Eur. J. Population. 2009; 25(4): 413–438. Publisher Full Text

[36] Westoff CF: Reproductive Intentions and Fertility Rates. Int. Fam. Plan. Perspect. 1990; 16(3): 84–89. Publisher Full Text

[37] Westoff C: Desired Number of Children: 2000-2008. Maryland:ICF Macro;2010.

[38] Yoon SY: Is Gender Inequality a Barrier to Realizing Fertility Intentions? Fertility Aspirations and Realizations in South Korea. Asian Popul. Stud. 2016; 12(2): 203–219. Publisher Full Text

Family size desires and intentions in the lowest fertility region in Vietnam

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical background

Methods

Ethical statement

Sampling design

Survey and data analysis

Results

Family size desires

Table 1. Distribution of desired family size.

Table 2. Differences in desired family size by socio-demographic characteristics.

Table 3. Multi-logistics regression model of desired family size.

Family size intentions

Table 4. Distribution of intended family size.

Table 5. Differences in family size intentions by socio-demographic characteristics.

Table 6. Multi-logistics regression model of intended family size.

Table 7. Awareness of challenges of having another child.

Discussion and conclusion

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

Acknowledgements

References

Footnotes

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated