Religion, University of Otago - Religion and Fertility Bibliography Religion and Fertility Bibliography The aim of the Religion and Fertility Bibliography is to provide a comprehensive annotated bibliography of all published studies that discuss empirical or historical data on religious differentials with respect to human fertility. Published studies include academic journal and magazine articles, books, book chapters, and official reports. The Religion and Fertility Bibliography does not include unpublished papers or dissertations, except in very limited cases where these have been frequently cited in the published literature. One of the aims of the Religion and Fertility Bibliography has been to encourage interdisciplinary communication and collaboration, through the compilation of studies across all relevant academic disciplines. To this end, the Religion and Fertility Bibliography includes studies from, inter alia, the disciplines of Demography, Sociology, Anthropology, Social Studies, Economics, Psychology, Biology, Geography, Medicine, Religious Studies, and History. The bibliography is a work in progress, compiled according to the following procedure: • Beginning with a selection of recent pertinent studies, we have reviewed each bibliographic entry to identify earlier studies that contain sizable material on religion and fertility. We then repeated the process in respect of each earlier source so identified; • We have reviewed studies which cite the studies so identified, including later studies that contain sizable material on religion and fertility; • We have conducted word-searches for ‘religion’ and ‘fertility’ (and related terms, English and other) in academic databases; • We have reviewed the curricula vitae and bibliographies of scholars found in the above searches for studies that contain sizable material on religion and fertility; • We have reviewed the major journals and annuals for sizable material on religion and fertility. In respect of each entry included in the Religion and Fertility Bibliography, the abstract/summary section reproduces available abstracts, where available. Additional material has been added to the abstract if it does not mention, or does not sufficiently describe, the religious differentials examined in the associated study. Where there was no abstract available, we have prepared our own summary. Where the study presents new data, we have also listed, where relevant: the data source used, the countries involved, a description of the population sample and religious variables, and the primary academic discipline. This work was made possible by a generous grant from the John Templeton Foundation (ID: 60927) Deane Galbraith John H. Shaver Edition: 09 April 2018 Page 1 | 27-Feb-18 Religion, University of Otago - Religion and Fertility Bibliography Please cite: Galbraith & Shaver, 2018. Religion and Fertility Bibliography. https://www.otago.ac.nz/religion/staff/shaver_jtf/religion_fertility_bibliography_9.4.18.pdf Discussion and overview Much of the early analysis of the relationship between religious affiliation and fertility levels was focused on Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic differentials, predominantly among whites in the United States (Billings 1890; Holmes 1924; Stouffer 1935; Robinson 1936; Jaffe 1939; Van Den Brink 1954; Freedman, Baumert and Bolte 1959; Whelpton and Clyde 1959; Robinson 1961; Whelpton 1964; Long 1970). What drove this focus in early demographic studies were the twin phenomena of relatively low Jewish fertility (Goldscheider 1967) and, relatively high Catholic fertility (Freedman, Goldberg & Bumpass 1965; Burch 1966; Chou & Brown 1968; Bouvier & Rao 1975; Mosher & Hendershot 1984b), with high Catholic fertility viewed in the Protestant-majority US as the more provocative issue. Yet by approximately the mid-1970s, the US Catholic and Protestant fertility rates converged (Westoff & Jones 1979; Mosher, Johnson & Horn 1986). The high Catholic fertility which had driven much research into differentials only prevailed in Catholic-majority geographical areas (Williams & Zimmer 1990). Jewish fertility, while remaining low, was unremarkable in that it followed the trends of the US population as a whole (Della Pergola 1980; Ritterband 1981). As a result, later studies expanded and nuanced the range of demographic subjects, including a wider range of: • religious groups (e.g. Mormons: Pitcher, Peterson & Kunz 1974; Smith & Phillip 1976; Bean, May & Skolnick 1978; Skolnick, Bean, May, Arbon, De Nevers, & Cartwright 1978; Mineau, Bean & Skolnick 1979; Thornton 1979; Heaton & Calkins 1983; Heaton & Goodman 1985; Toney, Golesorkhi & Stinner 1985; Buddhists: Goldstein 1970; Hindus: Chaudhury 1971; Muslims: Chaudhury 1971; Omran 1973; Youssef 1978; Khan 1979; Chamie 1981; Skirbekk, et al 2015; animists: Adongo, Phillips & Binka 1998); • countries (e.g. Canada, including French-speaking Quebec: Gauvreau, Gervais & Gossage 2007; Puerto Rico: Herold, et al 1989; Mexico: Pick & Butler 1989; India: El-Badry 1967; Visaria 1974; Bangladesh: Chaudhury 1971; Das & Pandey 1985; Pakistan: Zafar, Ford & Ankomah 1995; Nepal: Suwal 2001; Thailand: Goldstein 1970; Taiwan: Coombs & Freedman 1979; Singapore: Saw 1989; Japan: Atoh 2001; Israel: Neuman & Ziderman 1986; Lebanon: Chamie 1977; Zurayk 1979; Jordan: Rizk 1978; Iran: Aghadjanian 1995; USSR: Mazur 1967; Heer & Youssef 1977; UK: Chou & Brown 1968; France: Muller 1986; Spain: Adserà 2004; Germany: Knodel 1974; Belgium: Lesthaeghe 1977; Netherlands: Boonstra & van der Woude 1984; van Poppel 1985; Eire and Northern Ireland: Walsh 1970: Kennedy 1973; Wright & Davies 1974; Compton 1976; O’Grada & Walsh 1995; Nigeria: Sembajwe 1980; Lagos: Adegbola, Page & Lesthaeghe 1981; Sierra Leone: Bailey 1986; Ethiopia: Berhanu 1994; Liberia: Kollehlon 1994; Ghana: Adongo, et al 1997; sub-Saharan Africa: Caldwell & Caldwell 1987); and • ethnicities (e.g. Mexican Americans: Alvírez 1973; Sabagh & Lopez 1980; black Americans: Mosher & Goldscheider 1984). Page 2 | 27-Feb-18 Religion, University of Otago - Religion and Fertility Bibliography More recent studies have also made further differentiations within the broad “world religions” paradigm, including for example Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals (De Jong 1965; Marcum 1981; Hout, Greeley & Wild 2001; Immerman & Mackey 2003; Kinnon, Potter & Garrard- Burnett 2008), Amish (Cross & McKusick 1970; Ericksen, Ericksen, Hostetler & Huntington 1979), Orthodox Jews (Friedlander & Feldmann 1993), Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews (Čvorović 2015). Now that the Protestant suspicion of Catholic fertility which drove early demographic research has dissipated, suspicion of Muslim fertility has inspired research in Europe following rising anti- immigration views, and in the United States following the aggressive military response to 9/11 (Westoff & Frejka 2007; Kaufmann 2008, 2010, 2013; Stonawski, et al 2015). Similarly, fertility research in India since at least the mid-twentieth century has been dominated by Hindu-Muslim tensions (Basu 2004; Borooah 2004; Jeffrey and Jeffrey 2005). Yet Muslim fertility decline, although slower than the Catholic decline, is now evident across the Islamic-majority nations (Eberstadt & Shah 2012). Explanations of the relationship between religion and fertility are primarily divided between ideological and socio-economic theories (Thompson 1925), often referred to in studies as the Particularised Theology Hypothesis and Characteristics Hypothesis (Goldscheider 1971; Schermerhorn 1978). The difference reflects the broader sociological-anthropological debate between, on the one hand, ideological or Weberian and, on the other hand, materialist or Marxist explanations of religious behaviour. From approximately the 1960s, and in particular associated with the Princeton European Fertility Project initiated by Ansley J. Coale, demographic research increasingly incorporated sociological or anthropological methodologies (Kertzer 1995). With this development came a greater consideration of so-called “cultural” variables, which complemented the earlier focus on proximate and socio- economic determinants of fertility. “Culture” tends to be conceived within these studies at a highly generalised level (Hammel 1990), and frequently as a mere proxy for religious belief, with few studies examining the precise dynamics of specific religious groups, which are more complex than the high-level hypotheses allow (Knodel, et al 1999; Pearce 2002). A large number of studies view the primary underlying cause of fertility differentials as religious beliefs and doctrines (DeHart 1941; Notestein 1945; van Heek 1956; Freedman, Whelpton and Smit 1961; De Jong 1965; Blake 1966; Stokes 1972; Lesthaeghe 1977; Thornton 1979; Marcum 1981; Leasure 1982; Boonstra & van der Woude 1984; Das & Pandey 1985; Lutz 1987; Pick & Butler 1989; Sander 1992; Kim & Song 2007; Meisenberg 2012; Akintunde, Lawal & Simeon 2013; Bessey 2017; de la Croix & Delavallade 2017). Most of the religious beliefs surveyed have a direct relationship with fertility, in particular: • objections to contraception (Ling 1969; Bonmariage & Gérard 1970; Caldwell & Caldwell 1990; Finnäs 1991; Schenker & Rabenou 1993; Adongo, et al 1997; Schellekens & van Poppel 2006; Salehi-Isfahani, Abbasi-Shavazi & Hosseini-Chavoshi 2010) • opposition to sterilization (Mishra 2004); • acceptance or promotion of contraception (Alvírez 1973; Coale 1973; Westoff & Bumpass 1973; Westoff & Jones 1977; Westoff & Ryder 1977; Coombs & Freedman 1979; Aghadjanian 1995; Okun 2000);