Archives

  • 2026-04
  • 2026-03
  • 2026-02
  • 2026-01
  • 2025-12
  • 2025-11
  • 2025-10
  • 2025-09
  • 2025-03
  • 2025-02
  • 2025-01
  • 2024-12
  • 2024-11
  • 2024-10
  • 2024-09
  • 2024-08
  • 2024-07
  • 2024-06
  • 2024-05
  • 2024-04
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-01
  • 2023-12
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-01
  • 2022-12
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-01
  • 2021-12
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-01
  • 2020-12
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-01
  • 2019-12
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-04
  • 2018-11
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-07

    • Kearney and Levine present a detailed survey of teenage

    2018-10-23

    Kearney and Levine (2012) present a detailed survey of teenage childbearing in the US. The main conclusion is that both actual and perceived lack of economic opportunities influence early motherhood. After these factors have been taken into account, teenage motherhood does not appear to cause additional difficulties later in their lives. The authors discuss their main these that the combination of being poor and living in an unequal and less mobile society contributes to a low expectation of success, thus leading to choices that favour short-term satisfaction such as the decision to have a baby when young. They conclude that teenagers in very unequal states are 5 percentage points more likely to give birth than teenagers in the least unequal states. The authors included other variables, such as poverty concentration and absolute levels of deprivation; none of these additional factors altered the estimated relationship between inequality and teen fertility among women with low socioeconomic status. In another study, Kearney and Levine (2014) analyzed both theoretically and empirically the role of income inequality in teenage nonmarital childbearing among poor women. They also found a positive relationship. Berquó et al. (2012) reached similar conclusions using Brazilian data, although the authors also claim that lack of knowledge about contraception and contraceptive failure are important factors associated with teenage pregnancy, independently of educational and economic status. They argue that pregnancy is often the result of an absence of a life plan: access to better education, better living conditions, and greater enhance options during youth. In absence of good options for the future, pregnancy is a contingent decision made by the teenager today. The arguments presented by Kearney and Levine (2012, 2014) and Berquó et al. (2012) strengthen the role of low future expectations of teenagers as a trigger mechanism for actions that result in teenage pregnancy. Another factor that may influence early fertility is birth control. The increased availability of contraception after the 60s, with the introduction of innovative methods such as pills, IUDs, and improvement in sterilization, may have reduced the costs as well as improved the efficiency of contraceptive methods (Schultz, 1997). Hotz and Miller (1988) found a significant variation in the impact of the cost of children on female labor supply when considering different contraceptive behaviors. According to Caetano (2004), the starting point of official family planning policies in Brazil was 1985, when the government implemented the Programa de Assistencia Integral a Saude da Mulher (PAISM). This program stimulated the public debate on women\'s health, including fertility. It was also at this point that the Demographic Health Survey (DHS) in Brazil began; it has been carried out in 1986, 1996, and 2006. Table 1 shows data on the contraception trends both among all teenagers (15–19) and among all women of reproductive age (15–44 in 1986, and 15–49 in 1996 and 2006), by region. For the country as a whole we observe an increase in the prevalence rate from 43.7 to 81.5% among all women and from 7.7 to 75.8% for teenagers. This rate varied across regions, with the Northeast having the lowest rate in 1986 (34.8%), but the highest increase (48.2 percentage points) over the 1986–2006 period. By contrast, the South presented the highest prevalence in 1986 (50.3%) but a small variation over the same period (31.9 percentage points). Among all women using any method of contraception, sterilization was the most practiced method in 1986, followed by the pill and condoms, with little relevance. The trends show increased use of condoms (from 2.4% in 1986 to 21.5% in 2006) as well as increased use of female sterilization from 1986 (39.4%) to 1996 (49.4%) followed by a strong decrease in 2006 (32.2%). The use of pills decreased from 38.9% in 1986 to 29% in 2006. The trend in contraceptive methods used by teenagers was completely different: sterilization was virtually nonexistent in this group during the whole period, while the pill was the most used method in 1986 (80% of prevalence), but has since declined (to 39,5% in 2006). On the other hand, the prevalence of condoms increased dramatically, from 2.5% in 1986 to 48.6% in 2006. It is interesting to note the contrast: while the prevalence of contraception rates grew enormously in the period, the percentage of teenagers (15–19 years) who were or have ever been pregnant increased from 13.1% in 1986 to 17.9% in 1996, and then to 23.1% in 2006.