Population Studies-A Journal of Demography最新文献

Evidence from theories of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) suggests that experiencing adverse early life conditions subsequently leads to detrimental adult health outcomes. The bulk of empirical DOHaD literature does not consider the nature and magnitude of the impact of adverse early life conditions at the population level. In particular, it ignores the distortion of age and cohort patterns of adult health and mortality and the increased load of chronic illness and disability that ensues. In this paper, we use a microsimulation model combined with empirical estimates of incidence and prevalence of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and associated disability in low- and middle-income countries to assess the magnitude of delayed effects on adult healthy life expectancy and on compression (or expansion) of morbidity at older ages. The main goal is to determine if, in what ways, and to what extent delayed effects due to early conditions can influence cohorts' chronic illness and disability profiles.

Parents with two boys or two girls are more likely to have a third child than those with a 'sex mix'. However, little is known on whether these 'mixed-sex preferences' extend beyond the nuclear family. This study leverages the random variation in sex at birth to assess whether the sex of nieces and nephews, in combination with own children, matters for fertility choices. Using three-generational data from the US Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), I show that extended families (including grandparents, their children, and their grandchildren) are collectively more likely to have three or more grandchildren when lacking sex mix, whether the first two grandchildren are siblings or cousins. I explore the pathways for these offspring sex preferences, finding support for a preference for an uninterrupted line of male descendants. This multigenerational approach also contributes a new estimation strategy that causally estimates the effects of family sizes on outcomes beyond fertility.

In this paper, I examine progress in the field of mortality over the past 25 years. I argue that we have been most successful in taking advantage of an increasingly data-rich environment to improve aggregate mortality models and test pre-existing theories. Less progress has been made in relating our estimates of mortality risk at the individual level to broader mortality patterns at the population level while appropriately accounting for contextual differences and compositional change. Overall, I find that the field of mortality continues to be highly visible in demographic journals, including Population Studies. However much of what is published today in field journals could just as easily appear in neighbouring disciplinary journals, as disciplinary boundaries are shrinking.

This paper examines the position of migration in population studies, focusing on the period 1996-2021. It considers the reasons why migration remains problematic for demographers, but also how approaches to migration have changed over the last 25 years. While it has arguably become more important to both demography and population studies because of the transition to low fertility and mortality, migration has metamorphosed into a complex field in its own right, almost independently from changes in demography. Both internal and international migration form the subject of this examination and four main themes are pursued: data and measurement; theories and approaches; migration and development; and migration and political demography. The papers published in the journal Population Studies are used to provide a mirror through which to view these changes over the last 25 years. This paper concludes by looking at likely future directions in migration studies, demography, and population studies.

Demography was heavily involved in the eugenics movement of the early twentieth century but, along with most other social science disciplines, largely rejected eugenic thinking in the decades after the Second World War. Eugenic ideology never entirely deserted academia, however, and in the twenty-first century, it is re-emerging into mainstream academic discussion. This paper aims, first, to provide a reminder of demography's early links with eugenics and, second, to raise awareness of this academic resurgence of eugenic ideology. The final aim of the paper is to recommend ways to counter this resurgence: these include more active discussion of demography's eugenic past, especially when training students; greater emphasis on critical approaches in demography; and greater engagement of demographers (and other social scientists) with biologists and geneticists, in order to ensure that research which combines the biological and social sciences is rigorous.

In the 50th anniversary edition of Population Studies, John Hobcraft commented that demographers spend too little time trying to explain the phenomena they measure and describe. A quarter of a century on, this paper looks at the state of theory and explanation in contemporary demography. I ask how demographers have approached the task of explanation since Hobcraft's comment, grounding the discussion in the mainstream literature on low fertility in Europe. Using selected examples, I critically review macro- and micro-level approaches to explanation, highlighting some of the philosophical problems that each encounters. I argue that different conceptions of what demography is, and the explanatory language fertility researchers use, lead to differences in explanatory strategies that are rarely explicitly recognized. I also consider how critical theories challenge demographers to think in new ways. Despite the increasing attention paid to theory and explanation, I conclude that more engagement with the philosophy of social sciences is needed before fertility researchers can legitimately claim their studies do as much to explain and understand as to quantify and describe.

Despite common perceptions to the contrary, pandemic diseases do not affect populations indiscriminately. In this paper, we review literature produced by demographers, historians, epidemiologists, and other researchers on disparities during the 1918-20 influenza pandemic and the Covid-19 pandemic. Evidence from these studies demonstrates that lower socio-economic status and minority/stigmatized race or ethnicity are associated with higher morbidity and mortality. However, such research often lacks theoretical frameworks or appropriate data to explain the mechanisms underlying these disparities fully. We suggest using a framework that considers proximal and distal factors contributing to differential exposure, susceptibility, and consequences as one way to move this research forward. Further, current pandemic preparedness plans emphasize medically defined risk groups and epidemiological approaches. Therefore, we conclude by arguing in favour of a transdisciplinary paradigm that recognizes socially defined risk groups, includes input from the social sciences and humanities and other diverse perspectives, and contributes to the reduction of health disparities before a pandemic hits.

The human population is at the centre of research on global environmental change. On the one hand, population dynamics influence the environment and the global climate system through consumption-based carbon emissions. On the other hand, the health and well-being of the population are already being affected by climate change. A knowledge of population dynamics and population heterogeneity is thus fundamental to improving our understanding of how population size, composition, and distribution influence global environmental change and how these changes affect population subgroups differentially by demographic characteristics and spatial distribution. The increasing relevance of demographic research on the topic, coupled with availability of theoretical concepts and advancement in data and computing facilities, has contributed to growing engagement of demographers in this field. In the past 25 years, demographic research has enriched climate change research-with the key contribution being in moving beyond the narrow view that population matters only in terms of population size-by putting a greater emphasis on population composition and distribution, through presenting both empirical evidence and advanced population forecasting to account for demographic and spatial heterogeneity. What remains missing in the literature is research that investigates how global environmental change affects current and future demographic processes and, consequently, population trends. If global environmental change does influence fertility, mortality, and migration, then population estimates and forecasts need to adjust for climate feedback in population projections. Indisputably, this is the area of new research that directly requires expertise in population science and contribution from demographers.

Around the time that Population Studies celebrated its 50th anniversary in 1996, Susan Greenhalgh published 'An intellectual, institutional, and political history of twentieth-century demography'. Her contribution described a discipline that, when viewed from its margins, prompted scholars in other disciplines to ask the following questions: 'Why is the field still wedded to many of the assumptions of mid-century modernization theory and why are there no critical … perspectives in the discipline?' (Greenhalgh 1996, p. 27). Those questions still arise today. Similarly, Greenhalgh's observation that 'neither the global political economies of the 1970s, nor the postmodernisms and postcolonialities of the 1980s and 1990s, nor the feminisms of any decade have had much perceptible impact on the field' (pp. 27-8), remains a fairly accurate depiction of research published in Population Studies and other demography journals. In this contribution, focusing predominantly on feminist research and insights, I discuss how little has changed since 1996 and explain why the continued lack of engagement concerns me. Demographers still often fail to appreciate the impossibility of atheoretical 'just descriptive' research. Our methods carry assumptions and so rely on (often) implicit theoretical frameworks. Not making frameworks explicit does not mean they do not exert an important influence. I end by proposing that the training of research students should be part of a strategy to effect change.