Reports That the U.S. Birth Rate in 2011 Was the Lowest in History Are, Well, Wrong
November 28th, 2012 | Posted in Reproductive Health
by Carl Haub, senior demographer
Several newspapers, blogs, and websites have proclaimed that the U.S. “birth rate” in 2011 was the lowest since records have been kept. But it wasn’t. The number that various sources have been calling the “birth rate” is actually the general fertility rate—that one was the lowest ever. Not the total fertility rate, which is the correct measure to use. Let me explain!
The term “birth rate” is loosely used to mean one of three commonly used measures, which demography refers to as fertility. The crude birth rate is annual births per 1,000 total population; the general fertility rate is annual births per 1,000 women of childbearing age; and the total fertility rate is the average number of children women would bear in their lifetimes if the pace of childbearing remained constant for the long term.
What is right: The preliminary report by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics noted that the general fertility rate (GFR) of 63.2 for 2011 was the lowest ever reported. In fact, the crude birth rate (CBR) of 12.7 was also the lowest ever. But neither is the best way to capture the birth rate. Why? Because both of these measures are affected by age structure. The general fertility rate can also be affected by a population’s age structure within the female population of childbearing age, usually 15-49. The U.S. population is “older” now than it was in the past—we have more older people than younger people—and that includes a smaller proportion of younger women in the childbearing population than before.
| Crude Birth Rate | General Fertility Rate | Total Fertility Rate | |
| 1976 | 14.6 | 65.0 | 1.74 |
| 2011 | 12.7 | 63.2 | 1.89 |
So, when we think about birth rate trends, we should really be using the total fertility rate (TFR). The TFR is “blind”—unaffected by age structure—and in showing the implied number of children women would have at today’s rate, is directly comparable over the years: apples to apples. This may be a tad confusing, but consider this: If the pace of childbearing were the same today as it was in 1976, the U.S. would have had 3.7 million births instead of the 3.9 million it did have. Why choose 1976? Because that was the year the TFR was the lowest in U.S. history and it still is. Not 2011.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 3rd, 2012 at 8:26 am
[...] [...]
December 3rd, 2012 at 2:24 pm
[...] [...]
December 5th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Thanks, once again, to Carl Haub and to PRB. Even from so-called retirement, you’re still keeping the media straight.
Nonetheless, age structure remains one of the most ignored/least understood aspects of demography, and arguably its most important. Even “Bronars Economics” (the preceding comment), who read Carl’s blog, got it wrong. Demographers need to get a basic demography course into the curricula of undergraduate economists and political scientists — and maybe even high schoolers. Let’s face it, most out-of-college adults cannot play catch up.
December 5th, 2012 at 6:23 pm
[...] the general fertility rate, which calculates annual births per 1,000 women of childbearing age. The Population Reference Bureau explains that the total fertility rate, or “the average number of children women would bear in their [...]
December 6th, 2012 at 4:03 am
[...] produce more children.[1] Although the math here is muddled, if not “wrong”,[2] the larger point of Douthat’s piece is shaming a certain segment of America for not living up [...]
December 7th, 2012 at 3:06 am
Among popular writers I see rhetoric based on TFR e.g. “we’re not replacing ourselves” in a year when the USA continues to have substantial Natural Increase. The idea of TFR “replacement rate” (eagerly taken up by pronatalists) lends itself to their transference of alarm and guilt into the present. Natalists making claims about whether a nation is above or below replacement NOW should use stats that enable comparison between current births and deaths, and the only ones I (as a layman nondemographer) can think of are crude rates, but up-to-date graphs showing CBR and CDR in the USA seem hard to find (online) compared to the ubiquitous (and open-to-abuse) TFR.
December 7th, 2012 at 7:31 am
[...] the latest conservative pundit worried that the US women are no longer bearing enough babies. He is wrong on the stats. Stephen Bronars takes Douhat (and Tyler Cowen) to task, and digs more into the changes in [...]