Changing Populations November 2018 | Issue 3
Issue 10
'The hope is finished’
Life in the Ukrainian separatist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk
July 2022
Open for single workers only?
News about ISIS – a boost for UKIP?
Contents Welcome
3
Connecting Generations
4
Open for single workers only? Points-based immigration policy increases poverty risks for migrant families
'The hope is finished’: Life in the Ukrainian separatist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk
5
News about ISIS – a boost for UKIP?
8
7
People born in the 80s less likely to marry their first cohabiting partner
Effect of lockdowns on birth rates in the UK 10
11
Demography Day
14
Sharing our work
15
CPC webinars
16
Researcher spotlight
17
PhD spotlight
18
Celebrating success
19
www.cpc.ac.uk
Welcome
W
elcome to the 10th edition of Changing Populations. We’ve had a busy six months, in which we launched the new Connecting Generations project. You can read more about our planned work and find a link to my talk which marked the start of the project on page 4. Also in this edition, we hear from Brienna Perelli-Harris and colleagues on their research on life in the Ukrainian separatist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk (page 5). We also find out more about how points-based immigration policy increases the poverty risk for migrant families (page 7). On page 8, we take a look at whether headlines about terrorism increase support for right-wing populism.
Facts and Figures January 2022 – June 2022 MENTIONED IN
PRESENTED
HOSTED
PAPERS
CPC SEMINARS & WEBINARS
53
9
TOOK PART IN
39
ONLINE EVENTS
47
PUBLICATIONS
173
NEWS AND MEDIA ARTICLES
3,146,064 WEBSITE HITS
194,000 TWITTER IMPRESSIONS
On page 10, we find out about the marriage and cohabiting behaviours of those born in the 1970s and 1980s, and on page 11 we report on the effect of Covid-19 lockdowns on birth rates in the UK. And finally, we meet some of the research team in our researcher spotlight. We congratulate Professor Athina Vlachantoni and Professor Jackie Wahba on being conferred to the Fellowship of the Academy of Social Sciences, and Andrew Hind discusses his PhD journey, see page 17.
Upcoming events: 6 July: Boomers, snowflakes and avocado on toast: Are generational stereotypes harming our futures? | Connecting Generations Thought Leader Talk with Professor Bobby Duffy, King’s College London 6-8 July: 3rd International Conference on Migration and Mobilities
As always, I hope you enjoy finding out more about our research activities. If you have any questions or comments, please email cpc@southampton.ac.uk
6-8 July: British Society of Gerontology Annual Conference
Professor Jane Falkingham OBE CPC Director
21 July: Unequal transitions to adulthood in low- and middle-income countries | CPC Webinar with Ewa Batyra from the Centre for Demographic Studies in Barcelona
19 July: The problem of the 'Covid Generation' | Connecting Generations Thought Leader Talk with Dr Jennie Bristow, Canterbury Christ Church University
5-7 September: British Society for Population Studies Annual Conference 25 October: Connecting Generations Thought Leader Talk with Professor Maria Grasso, Queen Mary University London November / December (TBC): Connecting Generations Thought Leader Talk with Professor James Sefton, Imperial College London
For further details and full events calendar, please visit www.cpc.ac.uk/activities/full_events_calendar To keep up-to-date with our latest news, events and publications, visit www.cpc.ac.uk, follow us on Twitter @CPCpopulation @ConnectingGens and Facebook. For all the latest news and comment, visit our ‘Centre for Population Change in the news’ page on Scoop.it! www.scoop.it/topic/centre-forpopulation-change
02
03
Connecting Generations On 1 April, we launched the new Connecting Generations research programme, funded through an ESRC Centres grant. The programme aims to understand intergenerational connectivity in a post-Brexit/post-Covid society, producing novel science that contributes to policy debate.
C
onnecting Generations brings together experts from the University of Southampton, University of St Andrews, University of Stirling, University of Oxford Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science, and the Resolution Foundation, as well as the Office for National Statistics and National Records of Scotland. Together, we are investigating how life events affect health, economic living standards, social networks and personal resilience. To better inform policy responses, we are exploring how experiences vary by gender, migrant status, ethnicity, education, social-economic status and geographical context. CPC Director, Professor Jane Falkingham OBE, gave the inaugural Connecting Generations Thought Leader Talk, entitled ‘Bridging the gap in a post-Brexit / post-Covid society’ on 25 April. She was joined in a panel discussion by Connecting Generations Co-Directors, Professors Hill Kulu and Mike Brewer, and many interested stakeholders and colleagues were in attendance. At the talk, attendees heard about Jane’s research on intergenerational exchange and learned about the new Connecting Generations remit. The speakers also discussed how some of the widespread changes in the economy, society and the family are
www.cpc.ac.uk
influencing and are influenced by intergenerational connections. They also gave an insight into research on how intergenerational connections are shaped and change over time, as well as the high-quality data that are used for investigation. The video of the event is now available on YouTube. You can also follow Connecting Generations on Twitter for the latest updates: @ConnectingGens. In the coming months, invited experts including Professor Bobby Duffy, Dr Jennie Bristow, Professor Maria Grasso and Professor James Sefton will join us to give Thought Leader Talks. Information and registration details will follow soon on Twitter and at: www.cpc.ac.uk/activities/full_events_calendar Reading and resources Bridging the gap in a post-Brexit / post-Covid society | Professor Jane Falkingham OBE (YouTube) £49m funding boost for urgent social and economic challenges (UKRI website) Connecting Generations research programme (CPC website)
‘The hope is finished’ Life in the Ukrainian separatist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk
I
n July 2021, CPC member Professor Brienna Perelli-Harris, along with Professor Theodore Gerber (University of Wisconsin-Madison), and Dr Yuliya Hilevych (University of Groningen), collaborated with a Ukraine-based research team to help them conduct focus groups with people living in the separatist territories of Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics about the everyday problems they faced. Here, they discuss their findings: Russia’s recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, and a military attack on Ukraine, have once again drawn the world’s attention to these two rebelheld separatist regions. They have been outside Ukrainian government control since Russian-backed separatists fought Ukrainian forces to a standstill in 2014, a conflict that killed some 14,000 people by early 2022. While an estimated two million have fled these territories – mainly to either Russia or Ukraine – about three million have remained. In May 2022,
women and children in these regions were ordered to evacuate to Russia, with armed conflict again upending their lives. In contrast to journalists, who tend to seek out people with especially interesting stories to interview, in July 2021 we sought to recruit a selection of ordinary people, including both urban and rural residents, men and women. Overall, 40 people participated, and despite the virtual format they seemed quite comfortable discussing aspects of their daily lives, usually from their own living rooms. We were struck above all by what they did not talk about: whether they wished to be part of Russia, part of Ukraine or independent of both. While the Russian and Ukrainian governments have jockeyed for eight years now over these territories, these residents were more concerned with daily problems. They struggled with Covid quarantines, feeding their families, obtaining education for their children, and
staying in touch with relatives across the “line of contact” – the border between the areas controlled by the Ukrainian government and the separatist territories. In 2015, the Minsk II agreement led to a ceasefire between the separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk and the Ukrainian government. Since then, these regions have been controlled by Russian-backed puppet governments. The isolation has taken its toll on the people living there. Some of our participants had lost jobs or businesses, and many complained of rising prices and falling wages. The banking system was cut off from the outside world, the transport system deteriorated, pensions were no longer paid, and a 10 pm curfew restricted their evening movements. Residents were separated from relatives in Ukraine, from siblings who had moved to Russia, and their children could no longer visit their grandparents.
04
05
Many lamented the sharp decline in the region’s population, noting that most of those who remained were older than 40. According to official estimates, 41% of the population in the separatist territories is over 65, higher than elsewhere in Ukraine. Many young people had left for Ukraine or Russia, “because what prospects do they have? None.” Most of the infrastructure has been broken or closed – mines, enterprises, and factories. Many of the best specialists, medical staff and doctors have left. One father angrily recounted how he took his child to get an injection and the medical technician didn’t even know how to get blood out of the child’s finger. Asked in July 2021 how the conflict affects their lives, they responded with expletives, not words. Although caught in the middle of the conflict, they felt abandoned by both sides: “We are not needed there, and we are not needed here.” Some noted that the sporadic shooting they still hear at night makes their children cry and triggers traumatic memories of the days of fully fledged fighting. While the predominant view of our participants was to see the separatist territories as empty, isolated and lethargic, there were some expressions of optimism. The centre of Donetsk – once a thriving city, Ukraine’s fifth largest – had recently improved, with new roads and amenities. Some had moved into empty houses in the centre and described activities for children and public events. Nonetheless, most of our participants were deeply pessimistic: “At the beginning of the conflict, there was money, savings and hope. Now the savings are finished, and the hope is finished.” Choosing to stay Why did these people stay in conditions that so many of their friends and neighbours had left? Not (as the Russian government claims) because they wished to be part of Russia or because of any political commitments, but because they had no job opportunities elsewhere, funds for relocating, or networks to help them start over. Responsibilities such as small children or elderly parents tied them to the region. And departing would mean abandoning their homes. Leaving into the unknown felt worse than staying put. As one person put it: “If there is no light in the tunnel, then there is nowhere to go.” With the heated rhetoric surrounding these regions on the geopolitical stage, we were surprised by the lack of either pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian comments in our focus groups. Pro-Russian ideologues may have declined to participate in groups organised by a Kyiv-based research organisation, and participants may have self-censored for fear of reprisal. International conversations about these regions and other “frozen” conflicts often treat the residents of such regions as political pawns. But their true concerns often have more to do with everyday life in unstable, chaotic and often threatening circumstances, where infrastructure has been destroyed by fighting and government has abandoned them. The separatist territories have become desolate, sad places, without hope or opportunity. As one respondent said, “We are slowly dying out.” A new Russian invasion will only hasten the process. This article was originally published on The Conversation. It is reproduced here under Creative Commons licence.
www.cpc.ac.uk
People in Ukraine forced to flee due to fear and violence continue to suffer years later Since 2018, Professor Perelli-Harris has been leading a research team to better understand the demographic situation of Ukraine.
O
ne study examined how the subjective well-being of internally displaced persons differs from locals who were not displaced. Using a unique survey conducted in 2018, they found a sizeable gap in subjective well-being between displaced persons and locals. Even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the country had the largest internally displaced person (IDP) population in Europe. The war in the Donbas region in 2014 resulted in around 1.7 million people being forced to resettle throughout Ukraine. After Russian’s invasion on 24 February 2022, the number of people displaced within Ukraine and across other European countries has grown, with nearly 12.8 million people estimated to have been displaced, about 18% of the entire population. The study team found that displaced people who were forced to flee in 2014, due to fear, threats of violence, or the destruction of their homes, continued to suffer years later. This finding indicates that the experience of forced displacement has a long-term impact on well-being, beyond loss of socio-economic resources. Recently, Professor Perelli-Harris has been working with Orsola Torrisi from the London School of Economics, and Dr Michael Head and Dr Ken Brackstone at the University of Southampton on a health needs survey for Ukrainian displaced persons and refugees. The initial report covers household composition, accommodation, and well-being. It has found that, although displaced persons generally reported average or good levels of overall health, 20% of IDPs reported poor or very poor health. Mental health, however, was much worse for all, with a large proportion feeling anxious and experiencing flashbacks. The findings from these surveys show that measures involving trauma counselling and support groups are necessary for displaced people who directly experienced trauma related to conflict, and will be more pressing in the months and years ahead for those experiencing the upheaval of renewed conflict.
Reading and resources ‘The hope is finished’: life in the Ukrainian separatist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk (The Conversation) Internal displacement and subjective well-being: The case of Ukraine (CPC Working Paper 99) Health needs survey for Ukrainian displaced persons and refugees (CPC Report)
Open for single workers only? Points-based immigration policy increases poverty risks for migrant families
S
killed overseas workers with families face a higher risk of poverty than UK workers. Their net incomes will also be lower than UK workers’ in the same professions under the UK’s points-based immigration system, a new study has found. CPC researchers at the University of Southampton compared migrants' and non-migrants' net average income for seven different skilled professions and three household types. As well as creating social and financial disadvantages for immigrants, the researchers warn the system could make the UK less attractive for overseas workers who could fill the country’s skills gap. The results, published in the Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, show that migrant families with one full-time and one part-time worker and a small child are at much higher risk of poverty than UK families, even if their joint income is far above the median national wage. In one example, a migrant family aged 25+ with joint earnings worth £40,319 receives £207 less per week in social benefits than a UK family on the same wages. As a result, the UK family lives above the poverty line while the migrant family lives below it.
While the UK was an EU member state, EU workers in the UK had the same rights to social benefits as UK workers, while the rights of other overseas workers were more restricted. After Brexit the social rights of all workers on visas have been restricted, affecting a much larger group than before. In contrast to UK workers, now no migrant workers on a visa are entitled to social benefits relating to housing, children and income support; they also have to pay visa fees and the majority pay extra healthcare charges. Traute Meyer, Professor of Social Policy, and Paul Bridgen, Associate Professor of Social Policy, who led the study, said, “The UK wants to be open for skilled workers after Brexit, and the government has set a wage threshold which workers and their families must cross to be allowed to come. However, our research shows that because new policies withhold child-related social rights for new migrants, the UK is only a poverty-proof
destination for single migrants or migrant families earning significantly above this government threshold.” The researchers discovered these findings by identifying the median weekly gross incomes of full-time workers in seven professions, using official wage statistics for 2021. They then assumed that these workers live in three types of households: as singles, one-and-a-half breadwinners and breadwinner households with one fulltime worker and one full-time homemaker. This led to 21 household types. They then calculated a net income for UK citizens by applying tax, national insurance, and Universal Credit entitlements; for the migrant families they applied tax, national insurance, a healthcare surcharge and visa fees. To gauge household’s poverty risks they compared the net income of both groups with a ‘decent standard of life threshold’ formulated by the University of York and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Professor Meyer continued: “Some will feel that the differences are fair, based on the argument that adult workers just coming to the country should not be entitled to extra public support. “However, others may be concerned the UK is losing out on talent because international workers might prefer to go to other EU countries where their families are entitled to support. “Recently, the fairness of health care charges on migrant health workers was
publicly questioned during the Covid-19 pandemic, given they were risking their lives for UK patients but had to pay a healthcare surcharge to be looked after by the NHS themselves. This new research showing that being excluded from measures supporting parents has far greater consequences for migrants’ incomes might be of concern to those members of the public who believed that the healthcare surcharge was unfair.” The team also warn that the impact on migrant families is contrary to the UK government’s commitments as a signatory to the 1989 UN Convention on the Human Rights of the Child. They are now planning follow up studies to find out how migrant workers with children who have come to the UK since 2021 cope without support for their families, especially those on earnings closer to the visa threshold of £25,000 and those working in “shortage occupations”.
Reading and resources Open for the childless skilled only: the poverty risks of migrant workers with children under the UK pointsbased immigration system (Journal of Poverty and Social Justice) The post-Brexit immigration system pushes skilled workers with children into poverty (Transforming Society)
06
07
News about ISIS – a boost for UKIP? Based on their recent CPC Working Paper on terror headlines and voting, CPC Researchers Dr Armine Ghazaryan, Professor Corrado Giulietti and Professor Jackie Wahba from the University of Southampton wrote a blog post for Understanding Society sharing their findings.
D
o headlines about terrorism increase support for right-wing populism? Wars create refugees, as anyone watching the news this year can testify. With a new conflict unfolding in Europe, the Syrian civil war which began in 2011 has been all but forgotten, but it’s still going on, and still creating refugees of its own. We know from research into this earlier conflict that an increase in refugee numbers contributes to a rise in support for right-wing populist parties and the far right. One of the fears people have about refugees is that they might not be genuine, and might be using the opportunity to get into a country and carry out terrorist attacks. With that idea in mind, we wanted to look at the Syrian civil war from a different angle, and find out
www.cpc.ac.uk
whether news coverage of ISIS and terrorism in the context of the Syrian crisis can influence support for England’s main right-wing populist party, UKIP. How we used the data We began by creating the Terror News Index, which measures the frequency of headlines about Islamic State (aka ISIS) and terrorism in the context of the Syrian crisis. We chose three outlets which span the British political spectrum (the BBC, the Guardian and the Daily Mail), and examined the number of news stories about terrorism each day compared to the total daily number of all news stories. The Terror News Index (TNI) has spikes in 2014, when the Islamic State group was at its height, and declines after 2016, with a peak in late 2019 on the death of its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Over the same period,
The Terror News Index (TNI)
UKIP grew in popularity, with success in local and European elections, and then took 12.6% of the vote at the 2015 general election. It began to decline after the UK voted to leave the European Union. We then merged this with information with people’s political support for UKIP in Waves 5-7 and 9-10 of Understanding Society, based on the questions “which political party [are you] closest to” and “If there were to be a general election tomorrow, which political party do you think you would be most likely to support?” We matched each date in the TNI with Understanding Society interviews which took place the following day, based on the assumption that people’s preferences are influenced by the latest news, which we defined as the stories which came out the previous day. We also combined our TNI with data from the Global Terrorism Database, because it’s possible that there is coverage of terror attacks on days when no attack has actually happened – and we wanted to be sure that it was the news coverage people were reacting to. We found that the effect we saw was indeed driven by media representation of the terror-related events, rather than the events themselves.
What we found There is a clear correlation between the TNI and the likelihood of people saying that they will vote for UKIP. If we look at particular subgroups, there is a very strong effect of the TNI. People over 60 and born in the UK, for example, are 6.6% more likely to vote UKIP than the sample as a whole. For unemployed men with lower levels of education, it’s even higher (although this group represents a small sample size). Incidentally, it’s interesting to look in more detail at how people say they will vote – because it’s not the same as how they actually vote. We examined people’s intentions in the last wave of Understanding Society before the 2015 election and their answers to the question “party voted for in the last general election” between the polls in May 2015 and June 2017. This showed that just 45% of people who said they would support UKIP actually voted for them in 2015. By comparison, just over 80% of those who said they would vote Conservative did so, and just under 70% of those who said Labour. The UKIP figure was similar to that for the Liberal Democrats (just under 49%). Of those who said they would vote UKIP, 25% actually voted Conservative,
with 10% voting Labour and under 3% going Lib-Dem. In the end, 14% of UKIP supporters didn't vote for anyone. Our conclusions Just as previous research has shown a link between voters’ anti-immigrant attitudes and the physical presence of refugees, we found evidence that news related to terror in the context of the Syrian crisis can increase support for right-wing populism. We hope there will be research in future which looks at whether the tone of news coverage is important as a mechanism by which stories influence people’s political views – and whether trust in the media is a factor, too. This article was originally published on the Understanding Society blog and is reproduced here with thanks.
Reading and resources News about ISIS – a boost for UKIP? (Understanding Society Blog) Terror headlines and voting (CPC Working Paper 98)
08
09
People born in the 80s less likely to marry their first cohabiting partner Compared to people born in the 70s, who are almost equally likely to marry or separate from their first cohabiting partners, 80s children are significantly more likely to separate from the first partner they live with.
1990, who were observed between 1991 and 2016 and were aged between 16 and 27. When looking at how long people stayed together, for the two oldest cohorts about a quarter of couples had separated within two years from the start of cohabitation. For the youngest cohort, this rose to 43%. This suggests that first cohabiting partnerships have become less stable and do not last as long among younger generations. Lead author, Dr Alina Pelikh (IOE, UCL’s Faculty of Education & Society) said: “Our findings suggest that compared to older cohorts, first cohabiting relationships among millennials do not tend to last long. This raises interesting questions on the meaning young people attach to cohabitation and the quality of these partnerships which tend to be short-lived.
N
ew research from a team at UCL and CPC suggests that UK adults born in the 1980s are more likely to move in with a first partner later than those born in the mid- and late 1970s. The authors find that living with someone (rather than marriage) has become an almost universal form of first partnership regardless of socioeconomic background or educational level. The research team found that the 70s cohort had a 50/50 chance of splitting or staying with / marrying their first partner. Whereas the 80s cohort was significantly more likely to separate from their partners than to marry them. Published in Advances in Life Course Research, the peer-reviewed study used data from the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) and the Understanding Society study (UKHLS). The study sample contained 3,233 individuals from three birth cohorts: 1974-1979, 1980-1984 and 1985-
www.cpc.ac.uk
“While among older cohorts first co-residential partnerships were likely to be treated as trial marriages, young adults born in the 1980s could be more likely to move in together for different reasons - the lack of normative constraints, convenience, and economic reasons are all likely and potentially intertwined underlying factors of this phenomenon. “Alternatively, it could be that young adults in the youngest cohorts (and especially at young ages) see living together as an alternative to being single and it is not until later ages when they consider marriage or marriage-like long-term cohabitation.” The findings also show that parental background and socio-economic status as well as individual education levels still play a role in shaping young people’s partnerships in Britain. The study found a positive link between education levels and the transition from cohabitation to marriage for cohorts born between 1974-1979, suggesting that education contributes to partnership
stability. In contrast, among those born in the 1980s, more highly educated people are more likely to move in with a partner. However, levels of education do not affect the stability of these partnerships as they almost universally end in separation. Co-author of the study, Dr Júlia Mikolai (CPC, University of St Andrews) explained: “This could be a sign of the emergence of a new behaviour such as short-lived relationships starting while in education or shortly after finishing a degree. Postponement of first partnership formation among those not pursuing further education could also be a marker of the increased economic hardship and uncertainties.” Co-author of the study, Professor Hill Kulu (CPC, University of St Andrews) added: “Our findings provide further evidence towards the increasing complexity of partnership transitions among millennials with many postponing cohabitation and being less likely to marry their first partner and more individuals experiencing multiple partnerships.” The authors highlight that because the paper only considered those who formed their first partnerships before age 27 there may be a non-negligible proportion who entered into partnerships after this age. While they do not expect this to affect the overall rates of first partnership formation, it might reveal some new findings, if the first partnerships of those beyond age 27 turn out to be more stable.
Reading and resources Make up or break up? Partnership transitions among young adults in England and Wales (Advances in Life Course Research)
Effect of lockdowns on birth rates in the UK CPC researchers Professor Ann Berrington and Dr Joanne Ellison from the University of Southampton recently published an article in The Conversation on the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on birth rates in the UK. Here they discuss their findings.
M
any wondered whether the Covid lockdowns would lead to a baby boom or a bust. We finally have some answers – for the UK, at least.
Broadly, provisional data from the Office for National Statistics suggests there was a temporary decline in babies conceived during the first three months of the first lockdown in 2020, but then the fertility rate
rebounded to levels above those seen in previous years. Let’s take a closer look. The earliest we would have expected Covid-19 to affect people’s decisions to become pregnant would have been February 2020, influencing births on average from November 2020.
10
11
In the graph below, the number of monthly births are plotted for the years 2018-21 in Scotland, England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. You can see that before the pandemic, the number of births had been falling in all countries of the UK. By 2019, the average fertility rate for Scotland was 1.37 births per woman. This was the lowest level ever recorded and was significantly lower than the level in 2008 (around 1.77) before the effects of the economic recession hit. In 2019, fertility rates were slightly higher in England and Wales (1.65) and Northern Ireland (1.82) than in Scotland, but again, these levels were some of the lowest ever recorded.
The onset of the pandemic was initially associated with a decline in the number of births, particularly from November 2020 to February 2021. Yet from March 2021 onward, the number of monthly births recovered and sometimes exceeded 2019 levels, particularly in the last quarter of 2021. This is despite there having been a second wave of the pandemic in the UK in late 2020 and early 2021. For England and Wales, the average fertility rate in 2021 was 1.61 children per woman compared with 1.58 in 2020 – the first time since 2012 this figure has increased from one year to the next. This recovery might be explained by births taking place where conception had been postponed during the first lockdown. Or perhaps birth rates had reached their lowest point and would have increased, anyway?
Total number of births by month, 2018-21 NRS (2022); ONS (2022); NISRA (2022), Author provided
We can find out more about what’s happened if we look at trends in birth rates by mother’s age. These age-specific fertility rates are, at the time of writing, only published up to 2021 for England and Wales, and are only available for women. This data shows that the effect of the pandemic on childbearing in England and Wales differed by age. Among women aged under 25, fertility rates fell and continued to fall through 2020 and 2021. Among women in their 30s, fertility rates recovered in 2021 after falling in 2020. Rates for those in their early 40s have remained stable at a low level.
www.cpc.ac.uk
Fertility rates by age of mother, England and Wales, 2018-21 The age-specific fertility rate is measured by the number of live births per 1,000 women in the age group. ONS (2022), Author provided
So, what might be happening? In a research article written in 2021, we speculated that the pandemic would not have a uniform effect on fertility rates, but would affect childbearing differently based on a woman’s age. We considered several ways the pandemic might decrease fertility rates. For example, national lockdowns sharply reduced socialising. Young adults may have been particularly affected by this, with fewer opportunities to meet people and form romantic and sexual relationships. Meanwhile, increased uncertainties associated with the economic fallout of the pandemic might have deterred people from planning a baby. We also put forward reasons why the pandemic may increase childbearing, including increased time spent together and a focus on home life among established couples. Furlough and working from home might have encouraged people in longerterm relationships to have children they may not otherwise have had, or that they might have had at a later time. Among parents already considering having another child at some point, births of subsequent children might have been brought forward. Among younger adults, we found more reasons for a decline in childbearing than an increase, while among slightly older people we found more reasons to expect an increase. The observed age-specific fertility trends are consistent with our predictions, though from this data we cannot know whether the reasons we proposed were exactly correct. Looking back and looking forward Historical evidence on fertility rates following the 2008 recession from other European countries suggests that it is younger people who are most likely to experience a decline in childbearing in response to shocks and crises. Younger women have more opportunities to postpone their childbearing in response to uncertainties because they have more time to catch up on any births that had previously been put off.
Young people have been uniquely affected by the pandemic, being more likely to lose their jobs, or to change their living arrangements, often returning to their parents’ home. Among slightly older women, the pandemic could have increased fertility, for example, through more time spent with their partner, and changes in work-life balance due to Covid. So what might the future hold in terms of fertility in the UK? Will the increasing birth rates among those in their 30s continue, with previously postponed births caught up at later ages? If this happens, we could see an increase in fertility rates. Or is the pandemic bounce-back in childbearing a blip in an otherwise downward trend in fertility? Increased economic uncertainty, difficulties in securing stable, affordable housing, a greater awareness of environmental concerns and worries about global security are all likely to diminish certain people’s desires to have children. Ultimately, it will be some years before we know whether the pandemic’s effects on childbearing are temporary or will be longer lasting. This article was originally published on The Conversation. It is reproduced here under Creative Commons licence.
Reading and resources Effect of lockdowns on birth rates in the UK (The Conversation) What is the likely impact of Covid-19 on fertility in the UK? (CPC Policy Briefing 66) Recent trends in UK fertility and potential impacts of Covid-19 (CPC Working Paper 95)
Linking longitudinal studies of ageing with administrative data The linking of routinely collected administrative data, such as health and financial information, to longitudinal survey data can benefit lifecourse analyses, giving us greater insight and a more accurate picture of individual outcomes.
N
ewly published work by CPC members Dr Anne Gasteen, Dr Elaine Douglas and Professor David Bell evaluates the administrative data linkage of surveys belonging to the Health and Retirement Studies (HRS) family.
Reading and resources Linking longitudinal studies of ageing with administrative data: First interim report Linking longitudinal studies of ageing with administrative data: Second interim report
The work provides a detailed understanding of the content of linked studies, how they can be used, the challenges and the value added. The study also examines the approval and access processes, linkage mechanisms and impact.
12
13
Demography Day Earlier in the year, CPC joined its partners Population Europe in highlighting 4 February as Demography Day, with the aim of drawing attention to the importance of demographic research. green and the digital transitions. Demographic change and the challenges that it poses, are a factor throughout the life-cycle. When demography is factored into all our work, our policies will be more successful, impactful and sustainable in the long-term, to the benefit of our citizens.” “John Graunt, widely regarded as the father of demography, developed methods to repurpose existing data to learn from the past and to imagine the future,” said Emilio Zagheni, Managing Director of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock.
D
emography helps us understand what the future might look like. For example, it shows us the composition of the population by age, gender, marital status, origin, education or health. Demographic scientists analyse why this composition is changing and what this means for our coexistence and individual life courses. This knowledge is relevant for every individual. Young people, in particular, are faced with decisions that shape their entire lives: Do I want to start a family and, if so, when? Do I want to move out and if so, where and how do I want to live? The answers to questions like these influence how each individual’s life turns out along with other factors such as opportunities in education and the labour market. CPC’s Director, Professor Jane Falkingham OBE, commented: “Since 2009 I have been working with colleagues in the ESRC Centre for Population Change to explore how and why our population is changing and what this means for people, communities and governments. We are delighted to team up with our partners in Population Europe to celebrate Demography Day. The past few years have been extremely turbulent and challenging for so many of us and our research helps us all to understand how people have really been affected so new policies can actually help.” She continues: “My hope is that our research will change how we think about different stages of the life course, and help to address some of the imbalances we have seen recently; things like unaffordable housing for young people, or a lack of social care for older people, for example.” Dubravka Šuica, European Commission Vice-President for Democracy and Demography, said: “I am convinced that demographic change should be viewed as the third key transition that Europe, and indeed the world, is experiencing, alongside the
www.cpc.ac.uk
Graunt completed his study ‘Natural and Political Observations ... made upon the Bills of Mortality’ on 4 February 1662 (according to today’s dating), in which he analysed the mortality figures of Londoners during an epidemic – just as researchers nowadays examine mortality rates to better understand the influence of Covid-19. Zagheni added: “Today, demographers all over the world triangulate established sources, as well as new data to identify the factors that promote sustainable and equitable well-being, to assess how choices affect current and future generations, and to understand what makes populations resilient in the face of crises. Demography creates a bridge that connects our individual life trajectories with population-level outcomes to guide us towards a more predictable future.” “Looking at the level of society as a whole, I have great hope that the Corona pandemic has made it clear how essential family life is for a society,” said C. Katharina Spieß, Director of the Federal Institute for Population Research. “Overall, it is crucial that in the future there is even more focus on the importance of families, all their members and their well-being.” To mark this first Demography Day, Population Europe also hosted the Berlin Demography Days (16-18 May) with a focus on young people’s perspectives about population and demographic issues, and their future life courses.
Reading and resources Celebrating Demography (YouTube) ‘Political participation of younger people is not a wish but a necessity’ (Population Europe News)
Sharing our work CPC members have been busy participating in a number of international conferences, both online and returning to in-person events.
A
ttending the Population Association of America Conference from 7-9 April, CPC members met with other demographers and social and health scientists from the United States and internationally to present their research in oral and poster sessions, hear others’ findings, and network with their peers. They presented on subjects including inequalities in multimorbidity, nonstandard work schedules and parental mental health, cognitive impairment, family formation and fertility levels for immigrants in Europe, parental time investments, women’s economic empowerment and children’s school outcomes, fertility decline in eastern Ukraine, and Covid-19 fertility responses.
From 9-11 June, members attended the 22nd Nordic Demographic Symposium which was held in Oslo. The fertility and family team presented on topics such as fertility forecasting, patterns of childlessness, family formation and fertility levels for immigrants in Europe, family complexity and young children’s mental health, fertility trends in Scotland and socioeconomic attainment of only children. The European Population Conference from 30 June to 2 July, hosted in Groningen in collaboration with the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI-KNAW) and the University of Groningen, was the first hybrid conference of the European Association of Population Studies (EAPS).
CPC members presented on subjects such as mortality under-registration, cumulative reproductive life histories and grip strength, the effect of air pollution on general and mental health, bilateral migration flows, and young Briton’s family expectations.
In September, our members are due to present at the British Society for Population Studies Conference in Winchester. For full details of our involvement in upcoming events and conferences, please visit: www.cpc.ac.uk/news/latest_ news
14
15
CPC webinars Many of our webinars are now available to watch again on our YouTube channel, so do take a look if you missed out or would like to see the presentations again.
Dr Giammarco Alderotti, University of Florence
Professor Valeria Bordone, University of Vienna
Professor Helga de Valk, NIDI and the University of Groningen
Employment (uncertainty) and fertility trends in Italy: a tale of the last decades
Close kin relationships in times of Covid-19: grandparental childcare, precautionary behaviours and vaccination acceptance of older individuals
Does childhood mobility matter?
Sir Ian Diamond, National Statistician How a national statistics institute responds to a pandemic
Professor Jane Falkingham OBE, University of Southampton
Dr Peter Boden, Edge Analytics
Bridging the gap in a post-Brexit/postCovid society
Demographic Change - the practical application of population forecasts to the planning process
Dr Sophie Cranston, Loughborough University
Professor Anna Matysiak, University of Warsaw Home-based work and fertility based on UK Understanding Society data Professor Allan Hill, University of Southampton Immigrants, citizens and nationals: how shifting definitions affect the demography of the Gulf States
www.cpc.ac.uk
Producing 'invisible' migrants: British international students Professor Cath Mercer, University College London The Covid-19 pandemic: Opportunities & challenges for Britain’s National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (‘Natsal’)
Peter Davis, University of Auckland Covid in Aotearoa New Zealand: Winning the war - but losing the peace?
Our forthcoming webinars are listed on our events calendar, and you can follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates. And if you are unable to attend the live sessions, subscribe to our YouTube channel to be alerted when our new webinar videos become available.
Researcher spotlight Athina Vlachantoni and Jackline Wahba conferred to the Fellowship of the Academy of Social Sciences
C
PC members, Professor Athina Vlachantoni and Professor Jackline Wahba OBE, have been conferred to the Fellowship of the Academy of Social Sciences. Athina is Professor of Gerontology and Social Policy and Jackie is Professor of Economics, both at the University of Southampton. They both co-ordinate the CPC ‘Migration and mobility’ research strand with Professor Hill Kulu.
J A
thina joined the University of Southampton in 2007, following a PhD in social policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Her research interests broadly combine the areas of ageing, gender and social policy. She is Director of the ESRC South Coast Doctoral Training Partnership, and Deputy Director of Ageing & Society. Athina comments: “I am delighted to be elected a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences. I want to pay tribute to all my colleagues, in research, teaching and administration, who have supported me in making a contribution to Social Sciences. Thank you!”
The Academy of Social Sciences is delighted to welcome the Spring 2022 group of new Fellows to join our ranks – representing an excellent range of highly distinguished social scientists. We look forward to engaging with them in our work.
Will Hutton FAcSS, President of the Academy of Social Sciences
ackie obtained her PhD in Economics from the University of Southampton before pursuing her academic career at the same institution. She was a member of the UK Migration Advisory Committee between 2012 -2021, and is a renowned expert on the economics of migration. She has published extensively on its global impact. She is an elected member of the Council of the Royal Economic Society, and was awarded an OBE for services to Economic Policy in the Queen’s Birthday Honours for 2020. Jackie said: “I am delighted and honoured for this recognition from the Academy of Social Sciences. I am particularly happy that my expertise as an economist in the field of migration and labour economics has been further recognised and has awarded me this prestigious fellowship.” Will Hutton FAcSS, President of the Academy of Social Sciences, said: “The Academy of Social Sciences is delighted to welcome the Spring 2022 group of new Fellows to join our ranks – representing an excellent range of highly distinguished social scientists. We look forward to engaging with them in our work.” Each year, the Academy of Social Sciences elects new Fellows who are selected through an independent peer review which recognises their excellence and impact, including their wider contributions to social sciences for public benefit. The Academy’s Fellowship comprises distinguished social scientists from academia and the public, private and third sectors. They are drawn from across the full spectrum of the social sciences. Through leadership, scholarship, applied research, policymaking, and practice, they have helped to deepen understanding of and address some of the toughest challenges facing our society and the world. Read the full story ‘Academy of Social Sciences welcomes 47 leading social scientists to its Fellowship this spring’ on the Academy of Social Sciences website.
16
17
PhD Spotlight Andrew Hind is a self-funded part-time student in Social Statistics and Demography at the University of Southampton. His research uses the ONS Internal migration detailed estimates to explore how internal migration shapes population change at local authority district level. on the course and had a very enjoyable two years studying demographic methods. On graduating I had no intention of doing a PhD, but after a couple of years I enrolled as a part-time student again. CPC members Jakub Bijak and Jason Hilton are my PhD supervisors, and they have been very supportive. My chosen topic is internal migration and how it contributes to population change at local authority districts. As an educationalist I am particularly interested in the way the school and university systems drive so much internal migration. It is a topic that seems to interest many people – nearly all of us have internal migration stories, and opinions on the way residential mobility shapes communities.
A
ndrew is particularly interested in the associations between education and migration, including family migration driven by school catchment areas, boarding at elite “public schools”, and the residential component of the university system. His supervisors are Jakub Bijak, Professor of Statistical Demography, and Jason Hilton, Lecturer in Social Statistics and Data Science, both at the University of Southampton.
“
My first degree was in English at Jesus College Cambridge. I then completed a post-graduate certificate in education at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. I taught in inner-city secondary schools in Leicester for almost 15 years and was a trade union officer. On several occasions I was involved with the opening and closing of schools as numbers rose and fell. I became education policy officer at Reading Borough Council preparing for it to become a local education authority in 1998 on the break-up of Berkshire County Council. I held a senior role at Southampton City Council between 2002 and 2010, overseeing major changes to the primary, secondary and special needs sectors. This got me interested in population change and how it affects the demand for school places. I had done an MBA at Southampton Business School and became interested in the University’s MSc in Demography. After being invited to sit in on a few modules by Professor Nikos Tzavidis, Head of Economic, Social and Political Sciences, I enrolled
www.cpc.ac.uk
The technical outputs of my thesis will be a smoothing system, based on that proposed by Professor Andrei Rogers and colleagues, that is tailored to features of 21st century English and Welsh internal migration. I will also demonstrate an approach which shows the association between k-means clustering of migration schedules and context, such as educational attainment and deprivation, as well as alternative ways of treating internal migration in small area population projections. I have enjoyed completing three summer courses at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock – led by Carl Schmertmann, Giancarlo Camardo, and Jonas Schöley. I have also attended British Society of Population Studies conferences in Leeds, Winchester and Cardiff. Alongside my studies I have done some part-time consultancy work involving school place planning for Essex and Kent county councils, Herefordshire and the London Borough of Redbridge. I find part-time research combining academic study at the University and applied work in local authorities very rewarding. I am very grateful for the opportunity to pursue advanced studies at my career stage in Social Statistics and Demography."
Celebrating success Mary Abed Al Ahad has received a 2021 Royal Society of Edinburgh Saltire Early Career Fellowship to support career development and European collaboration.
David McCollum has been awarded a British Academy Mid-Career Fellowship on ‘Post pandemic working practices and residential preferences: Implications for people and places’.
Melinda Mills has been appointed as one of three Special Advisors to Paolo Gentiloni, the European Commissioner of the Economy.
Lydia Palumbo passed her PhD viva with the thesis ‘The relationship between economic precariousness, parental socio-economic status & partnership dynamics in the UK’. Lydia’s main supervisor was Professor Ann Berrington, with Professor Agnese Vitali as co-supervisor (year one) and Professor Peter Eibich (MPIDR) as external co-supervisor. Lydia’s research has been accepted by Population Studies.
Seb Stannard passed his PhD for his work examining the life course determinants of poor health in mid life and the role of inter-generational transmission of demographic behaviour. Seb’s supervisors were Professor Ann Berrington, along with Dr Nisreen Alwan, Associate Professor in Public Health at the University of Southampton. Seb’s research has already been published in Scientific Reports and Advances in Life Course Research.
18
19
Keep in touch! To discover more about our work, visit the CPC website: www.cpc.ac.uk To subscribe to the CPC newsletter and keep up-to-date with research activity, news and events, please register at: www.cpc.ac.uk/news/newsletter For our latest research updates you can also follow us on Twitter @CPCpopulation @ConnectingGens and Facebook, Scoop.it! and YouTube T: +44 (0)23 8059 2579 E: cpc@soton.ac.uk Editors Becki Dey Teresa McGowan ESRC Centre for Population Change Connecting Generations University of Southampton Image credits iStock.com/EvgeniiMitroshin iStock.com/kasto80 iStock.com/double_p iStock.com/Raylipscombe iStock.com/AndrewGraham iStock.com/Akabei iStock.com/JoelCarillet iStock.com/phaustov
