Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

The Eleventh Japanese National Fertility Survey in 1997

Marriage and Fertility in Present-Day Japan
Shigesato Takahashi, Ryuichi Kaneko, Ryuzaburo Sato, Masako Ikenoue,
Fusami Mita, Tsukasa Sasai, Miho Iwasawa and Yuriko Shintani(National Institute of Population and Social Security Research)

I. Overview of the Survey
1. The purpose and history of the Survey
2. Survey procedures and collecting of questionnaires

II. Getting Married
1. Timing of first marriages
2. Type of meeting

III. The Fertility of Married Couples
1. The fertility of married couples
2. Birth timing
3. Fertility regulation

IV. Views on the Number of Children- Ideal number of children and intended
number of children V. Working Wife, Nurturing Environment and Couple’s Fertility
1. Working of wife and fertility
2. Nurturing environment and fertility

VI. The Wife’s Views on Marriage/Family

1Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Ⅰ. Overview of the Survey
1. The purpose and history of the Survey
The National Institute of Population and Social Security Research carried out the 11th Basic
Survey on Birth Trends (a national survey on marriage and birth trends) in June 1997 (the 9thyear of the Heisei era). This is intended to determine the actual situations and backgrounds,
which cannot be found from other public statistics, of marriage and/or fertility of married couples,
and to obtain the data necessary for any related measures and future population projections.
This first (prewar) Survey was carried out in 1940 (the 15th year of the Showa era), followed by
the second one (postwar) in 1952 (the 27th year of the Showa era). After that, it has been taken
every five years, and was originally called the Survey on Fertility. At the 10th Survey (in 1992)
the name was changed to the Basic Survey on Birth Trends, the name used today. Since the 8th
Survey (in 1982), a survey on unmarried persons has been taken simultaneously with the survey
on married couples. This report covers the 11th Survey on married couples.
2. Survey procedures and collecting of questionnaires
This is a sampling survey of wives under the age of 50 in Japan, as of June 1 of the 9th yearof Heisei (1997). The surveyed regions are 500 districts selected by systematic sampling fromamong the 1,048 surveyed districts (stratified random sampling from the districts of the National
Census in the 7th year of Heisei (1995)) of the Basic Survey on National Life in the 9th year of
Heisei (carried out by the Statistics and Information Department of Minister’s Secretariat in thee
Ministry of Health and Welfare). Therefore, all married women residing in those districts under
the age of 50 were the subjects of this survey.
This survey was carried out by distributing numbered forms, which were later sealed andcollected. Of the 9,417 distributed questionnaires (the number of subjects surveyed), 8,853
questionnaires were collected, so the collection rate was 94.0%. However, 705 of the collected
questionnaires that were not properly filled-out were considered invalid and excluded from thetotal. Therefore, the number of valid questionnaires was 8,148, for a valid collection rate of
86.5%. This report presents the results from 7,345 sets of first-marriage couples.

Table I-2-1 The number of distributed questionnaires and the number/rate ofvalid collected questionnaires
Number of questionnaires (collecting rate)
Number of subjects surveyed

9,417

Number of collected questionnaires

8,853 (collection rate 94.0%)

Number of valid questionnaires

8,148 (valid collection rate 86.5%)2

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Table I-2-2 The number of samples classified by basic attributes
Age of wife

Number of samples

Duration of marriage

Number of samples

Undre 20
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49

11 ( 0.1%)
215 ( 2.9 )
914 ( 12.4 )
1,327 ( 18.0 )1,428 ( 19.4 )1,581 ( 21.5 )
1,878 ( 25.5 )Under 5 year
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30 year or more
Not stated

1,304 ( 17.7%)
1,301 ( 17.7 )1,304 ( 17.7 )
1,350 ( 18.4 )1,436 ( 19.5 )
560 ( 7.6 )
10 ( 0.1 )
89 ( 1.2 )Total

7,354 (100.0%)

Total

7,354 (100.0%)

II. Getting Married
1. Timing of first marriages
1) As the trend towards later marriage proceeds, the duration of premarital relationships becomes longer.

In our country, the recent remarkable trend towards later marriage has lead to an increasing
unmarried rate, which in turn causes a tendency toward fewer births. In this survey, the average
age at first marriage is getting higher and this tendency is becoming conspicuous, especially inrecent years. However, the average age at which husband and wife met for the first time hasremained quite the same, or, for males, has become slightly earlier. Therefore, the average
duration of the relationship from the time they meet until they get married has become longer
year by year. Compared with ten years ago, the duration is no less than 32% longer. Thatmeans that our trend towards later marriage has been ongoing in the form of extended duration ofrelationships.
Table II-1-1 Average age at first meeting and first marriage, and the average duration of therelationship, classified by survey
HusbandYear of survey

9th Survey (1987)
10th Survey(1992)
11th Survey(1997)

Wife

Average age atfirst meeting

Average age atfirst marriage

Average age atfirst meeting

Average age atfirst marriage

Averageduration ofrelationship

25.7
25.4
25.1

28.2
28.3
28.4

22.7
22.8
22.7

25.3
25.7
26.1

2.5
2.9
3.4

Note: This date shows a comparison of couples who were married during the five years preceding each survey, excluding wives who did
not sate their processes of marriage, or who's data was inconsistent. The subjects specified their ages in years and months, and theage calculatjions are accurate to one month. Number of samples: the 9th Survey(1,289), the 10th Survey(1,342), the 11th Survey(1,145).

3

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Figure II-1-1 The average duration of the relationship from the time couples meet until they age
married, for first marriages, classified by survey【Wife】【Husband】

Age

Age
24

25

26

27

28

22

29

9th Survey(1987)

9th Survey(1987)

10th Survey(1992)

10th Survey(1992)

11th Survey(1997)

11th Survey(1997)First meeting

23

24

First meeting

Engagement Marriage

25

26

27

Engagement Marriage

Duration of premarital relationship

Duration of premarital relationship

Note: The subjects of this survey are the same as those in Table II-1-1. The average age at engagement for the 9th, 10th and 11th Surveys
are 27.6, 27.7, 27.7 for husbands and 24.7, 25.1, 25.3 for wives, respectively.

2) Timing of marriage varies greatly, depending on how they met.

When we compare the age at marriage and the duration of premarital relationships on thebasis of how they met, we see big differences. If they met at school, the first meeting occurs
much earlier than that for other types of meeting and the length of relationship before marriage is
at least twice as long, on average, as that of the general public (the total number). On the other
hand, if they met by arranged introduction, the timing of the first meeting is the latest among all,Table II-1-2 Average age at first meeting and first marriage, and average duration of premarital
relationship, classified by type of meeting

Average age atfirst meeting

Average age atfirst marriage

Average age atfirst meeting

Average age atfirst marriage

Averageduratjion ofpremarital
relationship

18.3
22.6
24.4
25.3
24.6
25.2

25.7
26.3
27.8
28.1
28.3
28.4

17.7
20.6
22.1
23.1
22.7
22.4

25.1
24.3
25.4
25.8
26.4
25.6

7.4
3.7
3.3
2.7
3.7
3.2

31.3

32.3

27.1

28.1

1.0

25.3

28.5

22.7

26.0

3.2

HusbandType of meeting

At school
Through a part-time job
While downtown or during a trip
Through friends or siblings
Through clubs or accomplishmnents

At the workplace or through my job
Through an arranged introduction(including matrimonial agencies)

Total

Wife

Note: This data shows a comparison of married couples who were married within the ten years priour to each survey, excluding wives who did
not state their processes of marriage, or whose data was inconsistent. The average difference in age is accurate to one month. Numbetof samples: At school (202), Through a part-time job (101), While downtown or during a trip (109), Through friends or siblings (550),
Through clubs or accomplishments (112), At the workplace or through work (725), Through an arranged introduction (339).
A childhood friend/neighbor (37), Other (28), and Not stated (8) have been omitted. However, all categories are included in teh total(2,211). Concerning the composition of types of first meeting, see Table II-2-1.

4

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Figure II-1-3 Average duration of the relationship from the time couples meet until they get
married, for first marriages, classified by final school background【Wife】【Husband】

Age

Age
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

20

30

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Duration of premarital
relationship

Duration of premarital
relationshipFirst meeting

21

First meeting

Engagement Marriage

Junior high school

Junior high school

Senior high school(coeducatjional)

Senior high school(coeducatjional)

Senior high school(segregated by sex)

Senior high school(segregated by sex)

Vocational school/
junior college

Vocational school/
junior college

University
or higher

University
or higher

Engagement Marriage

Note: The subjects are the same as in Table II-1-3. The average age of engagement: Junior high school (usband at 25.5, wife at 22.3),
Senior high school (coeducational) (27.1, 24.6), Senior high school (segregated by sex) (27.2, 24.9), Vocational school/Juniorcollegae (27.6, 25.7), University or higher (28.9, 26.5).

and about 6.1 years for men and about 4.4 years for women later than that of the general public.
In this case, the duration of the premarital relationship is much shorter than that of the generalpublic, no more than one third. If they met through a part-time job, the timing of the firstmeeting and marriage tend to be earlier. If they met at the workplace, their timing tends to belater.
3) The more education they receive, the more delay in meeting and marrying.
Table II-1-3 Average age at first meeting or first marriage, and average duration ofpremarital relationship, classified by final school backgroud
Husband

Wife

Final school
background

Average age
at first
meetingJunior high school
Senior high school(coeducational)
Senior high school(segregated by sex)
Vocational school/
junior college
University or higher

23.5

26.1

2.6

24.5

27.8

24.6

Total

Average age
at first
marriage

Average durationof premarital
relationship

20.7

22.8

2.1

3.3

21.9

25.3

3.4

27.9

3.3

22.6

25.6

3.0

25.2

28.3

3.1

23.2

26.4

3.2

26.4

29.7

3.3

23.8

27.4

3.6

25.3

28.5

3.2

22.7

26.0

3.2

Average age Average duration Average age
at first
of premaritalat first
meeting
relationshipmarriage

Note: The subjects are couples who were married during the ten years prior to each survey, excluding wives who did not state theirprocesses of marriage, or who's data was inconsistent. The age calculations are accurate to one month. Number of samples:
Junior high school (129 husbands, 72 wives), Senior high school (coeducational) (673, 672), Senior high school (segregated bysex) (247, 321), Vocational school/Junior college (255, 820), University or higher (891, 315). Other/Not stated (16, 11) havebeen omitted. The total is the same as in Table II-1-2.

5

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

The age at meeting/marriage, and the duration of premarital relationship (which are classified
by various social/economic attributes of the individuals), vary widely depending on final school
background. In other words, the more highly educated subjects show higher ages at both
meeting and marriage, and the duration of the premarital relationship tends to be longer. It isclear from this study that a tendency toward higher education (increasing proportion of highly
educated persons) in the younger generation causes later marriages in that same generation.
Figure II-1-2 Average age duration of the relationship from the time couples meet until they
age married, for first marriages, classified by type of first meeting【Husband】【Wife】

AgeFirst meetingAge

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Duration of premarital
relationship
Engagement Marriage

Duration of premarital relationshipFirst meeting

At school

At school

Through apart-time job

Through apart-time job

While downtown
or during trip

While downtown
or during trip

Through friends
or siblings

Through friends
or siblings

Through clubs or
accomplishments

Through clubs or
accomplishments

At the workplaceor through work

At the workplaceor through work

Through an arranged
introductjion

Through an arranged
introductjion

Engagement

Marriage

Note: The subjects are the same as in Table II-1-2. The average age of engagement: At school (husband at 24.6, wife at 24.0, Through apart-time job (25.5, 23.6 ), While downtown or during a trip (27.1, 24.7), Through friends or siblings (27.4, 25.1), Through clubs or
accomplishments (27.4, 25.5), At the workplace or through work (27.7, 24.8), Through an arranged introduction (31.8, 27.6).

4) The difference in age has been shrinking

The difference in age between husbands and wives who were married after the mid 1980s has
significantly decreased. Particularly during the past five years, “older wife” couples have been
rapidly increasing. The proportion of same-aged couples has also risen gradually, and recently
this combination has the highest proportion among the combinations of age by age. “Olderhusband” couples account for 60 percent of married couples. This compares with a figure of 75
percent ten years ago. It is apparent from the average difference in age of couples that thedifference in ages of married couples tends to be decreasing.
* Here, the difference in age of a married couple is based on birthdays. Therefore, “same-age” means thedifference is less than one year. If the difference is one year or more, the case is included in the category ofolder husband or older wife. However, the average difference in age, which is shown in the bottom of thefollowing table, is accurate to one month, and is not affected by the differences among classified items.

6

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Table II-1-4 Proportion of difference in age, and average difference in age,classified by survey
Difference in age between
husband and wife

8th Survey(1982)

9th Survey(1987)

10th Survey(1992)

11th Survey(1997)

Wife 3 years older or more
Wife 2 years older
Wife 1 years older
The same age
Husband 1 year older
Husband 2 year older
Husband 3 year older
Husband 4 year older
Husband 5 year older
Husband 6 year older
Husband 7 year older
Husband 8 year older
Husband 9 year older
Husband 10 year older or more

3.9 %
2.7
5.9
11.5
13.3
11.8
12.8
12.1
8.1
6.5
4.7
2.4
1.8
2.6

3.3 %
2.2
6.2
13.8
13.3
11.6
11.1
8.6
9.2
7.0
5.1
3.1
2.1
3.5

4.5 %
3.4
6.6
15.2
13.8
10.8
10.1
9.5
7.8
6.1
3.9
2.8
1.8
3.8

6.9 %
4.4
11.9
16.5
12.8
10.7
9.2
7.5
6.3
4.1
3.0
1.9
1.0
3.8

Total

(number of samples)

100.0 %
(1,294)100.0 %
(1,408)100.0 %
(1,520)100.0 %
(1,292)Average difference in age

2.7

2.9

2.6

2.3

Note: This date is for couples married during the five years prior to each survey, excluding couples who didn't state
their birthdays or marriage date. The average difference in age is accuratge to one month.

100%

80%

2.9

2.7

3.0
2.6
2.3

Average difference in age

60%
76 %

40%

70 %
75 %
Older husband

60 %

17 %

20%

12 %

14 % Same age

12 %

12 %

8th Survey(1982)

9th Survey(1987)

0%

1.0

15 %
14 %

23 %

Older wife

10th Survey(1992)

Note: The subjects of this survey are the same as in Table II-1-4.

7

2.0

0.0
11th Survey(1997)

Average difference in age (line chart)

Proportion of married couples (bar chart)

Figure II-1-4 Proportion of difference in age, and average difference in age,classified by survey

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

2. Type of meeting
1) More couples met at the workplace or through friends, whereas marriages resulting from arranged
introductions have decreased.

The most common place to meet a future spouse is “At the workplace or through work,”
which accounts for about one-third, followed by “Through friends/siblings,” less than 30 percent,and “At school,” about 10 percent. In general, couples who met in everyday life make up the
majority. Couples who married through an arranged introduction have been declining at every
survey, and in this survey the proportion falls a little short of 10 percent (concerning “arranged
marriage/love marriage, see the next section). Love marriages have increased, though its
composition of type of meeting hasn’t changed much over recent surveys.
Table II-2-1

Composition of type of meeting, classified by survey
Love marriage

Survey year

Total

At theThrough friends
workplace oror siblings
through work

At school

Marriage by
While
Through clubs or Through a
A Childhood arrangement
downtown or
accomplishments part-time job friend/neighborduring a trip

Other/notstated

8th Survey
100.0 %
(1982)

25.3 %

20.5

6.1

8.2

5.8

-

2.2

29.4 %

2.5 %9th Survey
100.0(1987)

31.6

22.4

7.0

6.3

5.4

-

1.5

23.3

2.6

10th Survey
100.0(1992)

35.0

22.3

7.8

6.2

5.5

4.2

1.8

15.2

2.0

11th Survey
100.0(1997)

33.6

27.1

10.4

5.2

4.9

4.6

1.5

9.6

3.0

Note: The subjects are couples who were married during the five years prior to each survey, excluding wives who didn't state their birthdays or marriage date.
M arriage by arrangement means “Through an arranged introduction” or “Through matrimonial agency.” In the 8th and 9th surveys, “Through a part-time job”
was excluded from the choices. Number of samples: 8th Survey (1,298), 9th (1,418), 10th (1,522), 11th (1,296).

Figure II-2-1 Composition of type of meeting, classified by survey
0%
8th Survey(1982)

20%
25

40%
20

60%

80%

16

29

6

9th Survey(1987)

32

10th Survey(1992)

35

22

11th Survey(1997)

34

27

10

16

At The workplace or throughwork

Through friends
or siblings

At school

Other

22

7

13

8

100%
3

23

18

3

15

2

10

3

By
Not statedarrangement

Note: The subjects are the same as in Table II-2-1. Here, “Other” is the total of “While downtown or during a trip,”“Through clubs or accomplishments,” “Through part time jobs, and “A childhood friend/neighbor” inTable II-2-1.

8

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1
2) Love marriage has completely replaced arranged marriage during the postwar fifty years, and the form ofmarriage has dramatically changed.

Table II-2-2 Composition of love marriage and arranged marriage classified by yearof marriage
Year of marriage

Total (number of samples)

Love marriage

Arrangedmarriage

Other/notstated1930-39
1940-44
1945-49
1950-54
1955-59
1960-64
1965-69
1970-74
1975-79
1980-84
1985-89
1990-94
After 1995

100.0 % ( 583)
100.0 ( 556)
100.0 ( 960)
100.0 ( 992)
100.0 (1,275)
100.0 (1,578)
100.0 (1,819)
100.0 (2,078)
100.0 (1,485)
100.0 (1,519)
100.0 (1,547)
100.0 (1,312)
100.0 ( 628)

13.4 %
14.6
21.4
33.1
36.2
41.1
48.7
61.5
66.7
72.6
80.2
84.8
87.1

69.0
69.1
59.8
53.9
54.0
49.8
44.9
33.1
30.4
24.9
17.7
12.7
9.9

17.7
16.4
18.9
13.0
9.9
9.1
6.4
5.5
2.9
2.5
2.1
2.6
3.0

Note: These results are based on the data of the 7th survey (for 1930-1939 to 1970-1974), the 8th Survey(for 1975-1979), the 9th Survey (for 1980-1984), the 10th Survey (for 1985-1989), and the 11th survey(for 1990-1994 and after 1995). The figures in “After 1995” are for marriages during the period from 1995
to the time of the 11th Survey conducted on June 1, 1997.
These figures are totaled again in order to compare strictly, and differ from the past reported values slightly.
For terms like “arranged marriage/love marriage,” see the Glossary.

Figure II-2-2 Changes in composition of love marriage and arranged
marriage classified by year of marriage（％）

Proportion of the form of marriage

100
80

Arranged marriage
60Love marriage

40
20
0
1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

Year of marriage
Note: The subjects are the same as in Table II-2-2. “After 1995” is for the marriages up to the time of the
11tu Survey (June 1, 1997).

9

2000

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

When we study the proportions of love marriage and arranged marriage based on the resultsof the past five surveys, we see that after the war, the process of marriage in Japan has greatlychanged. The proportion of arranged marriages, which exceeded 70 percent at the end of thewar, has consistently fallen since then. During 1965-1969, the percentage of arranged marriages
was superseded by that of love marriages. This trend still exists, and among recent marriages,
the ratio of love marriage to arranged marriage is approximately 9:1.

III. The Fertility of Married Couples
1. The fertility of married couples
1)The completed fertility of couples remains unchanged: 2.2 persons.

The average number of births in the group of married couples who have almost no possibilityof bearing more children is called the completed fertility value. Table III-1-1 compares changes inthis value for couples whose
Table III-1-1 The average number of births
duration of marriage is 15-19
to married couples,based on each survey
years, and is based on the past
(duration of marriage: 15-19 years)
Basic Surveys on Birth Trend.
It is apparent from this table that
Survey year
Average number of birth
the completed fertility value,
1th Survey(1940)
4.27 persons
2thSurvey(1952)
3.50
which had greatly decreased after
3th Survey(1957)
3.60
the war, increased to 2.2 persons
4th Survey(1962)
2.83
in 1972, among the couples
5th Survey(1967)
2.65
married for 15-19 years (couples
6th Survey(1972)
2.20
who were married in about 1955,
7th Survey(1977)
2.19
8th Survey(1982)
2.23
after the end of the baby boom).
9th
Survey(1987)
2.19
After that, it has remained fairly
10th Survey (1992)
2.21
stable at 2.2 persons. Since the11th Survey (1997)
2.21
current survey also shows 2.2
Note: The subjects of each survey are first-marriage couples.
persons, this same value hascontinued since the 1970’s.
2) Eighty percent of married couples bear 2-3 children

When we compare the fertility distribution of couples married for 15-19 years, from the 7th
Survey to the 11th Survey, we see the basic framework in which half of all couples have 2
children and one-forth bear 3 children hasn’t changed. However, compared with the results ofsurveys 7-10, the current survey reveals new features in which the proportion of childless couples
has risen a little, and the proportion of couples who bear 2 children has fallen.

10Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Table III-1-2 Changes in average fertility distribution classified by survey(duration of marriage: 15-19 years)
Survey year

None

1 Child 2 children 3children

Average
4 children
or more (number of samples)

7th Survey(1977)

3.0%

10.8

56.9

24.1

5.1

2.19

(1,426)8th Survey(1982)

3.2

9.2

55.6

27.3

4.9

2.23

(1,421)

9th Survey(1987)

2.8

9.7

57.8

25.9

3.8

2.19

(1,760)10th Survey (1992)

3.1

9.3

56.3

26.5

4.8

2.21

(1,850)11th Survey (1997)

3.7

9.8

53.6

27.9

5.0

2.21

(1,334)

Note: Since the past surveys were totaled again in order to make a strict comparison, the values differ slightly from thosereported in the past. This is true for the following tables as well.

3) Couples who marry later have fewer children

It has remained unchanged since the 8th Survey that wives whose age at first marriage arehigher tend to have fewer births.

Table III-1-3 Average number of births by wife's age at first marriage, classified
by survey (duration of marriage: 15-19 years)
Wife's age at firstmarriage
Under 19
19-20
21-22
23-24
25-26
27-28
29-30
Total
Mean age atfirst marriage

8th Survey(1982)

9th Survey(1987)

10th Survey(1992)

11th Survey(1997)

2.50
2.34
2.27
2.25
2.22
2.09
1.89
2.23
23.4

2.46
2.38
2.28
2.15
2.15
2.03
1.85
2.19
23.4

＊
2.51
2.25
2.27
2.15
2.20
1.81
2.21
23.7

＊
2.35
2.34
2.21
2.24
2.15
1.78
2.21
24.3

Note: Those whose age at first marriage was 31 or over were omitted because of few samples,but are included in the total. An * means that the numbet of samples was under 20.

4) Socioeconomic difference still affect number of children.

The number of births classified by region reveals that urban regions tend to have fewer births,
and this tendency hasn’t changed much recently.
Among husbands classified by occupation, the white collar husbands have the fewest births,
followed by blue collar workers, then non-farm self-employed persons. Those engaged inagriculture/forestry/fishery have the most. This pattern hasn’t changed since the 8th Survey.

11

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Table III-1-4 Average number of births by socioeconomic attributes, classified bysurvey (duration of marriage: 15-19 years)

Socioeconomic attributes

8th Survey(1982)Classified by current residence
Non-densely inhabited districts
2.31
Densely inhabited districts (under 2 million) 2.17
Densely inhabited districts (over 2 million) 2.17
Classified by occupation of husband
Agriculture/forestry/fishery
2.60
Non-farm self-employed
2.31
Blue collar worker
2.18
White collar worker
2.17

9th Survey(1987)

10th Survey(1992)

11th Survey(1997)(39.8%)(49.1 )
(11.1 )

2.28 (40.4 )2.14 (46.0 )1.98 (13.6 )2.30 (40.6 )2.19 (48.3 )2.00 (11.1 )2.32 (38.7 )2.16 (51.2 )2.09 (10.1 )( 4.2%)(19.8 )
(26.8 )
(45.8 )

2.41
2.46
2.18
2.08

2.73
2.27
2.25
2.18

2.64
2.27
2.26
2.17

( 4.3 )
(19.1 )
(21.8 )
(49.7 )

( 2.2 )
(15.8 )
(16.2 )
(63.9 )

( 1.6 )
(16.3 )
(14.2 )
(63.2 )

Note: The figures in brackets show the proportion of married couples. For more information about densely inhabited districts and blue-collar
worker/white collar workers, see the Glossary.

2. Birth timing
1) Tendency to finish bearing children after 4 and a half years

The couples married for 15-19 years bore the first child 1.60 years after marriage, and thesecond child at 2.85 years after, on average. Therefore, they finish bearing a little more than 2children, on average, about 4 and a half years after marriage. The same tendency has been seen in
the results from past surveys.

Table III-2-1 Ordre-specific average birth intervals, classified by survey(duration of marriage: 15-19 years)
8th Survey(1982)

9th Survey(1987)

10th Survey(1992)

11th Survey(1997)（Average number of births）(2.23)(2.19)(2.21)(2.21)

Marriage - First childFirst child - Second child

1.73
2.96

1.54
2.84

1.52
2.86

1.60
2.85

Years between marriage and second birth(average)

4.69

4.38

4.38

4.45

Birth order2) If birth intervals become longer, the number of births is reduced.

Concerning the couples married for 15-19 years, if the number of births they finish bearing
becomes larger, each birth interval become shorter. Conversely, the couples whose birthintervals are longer have less children. Compared with the results of the previous survey, thetotal of the birth intervals classified by the completed fertility value (average period frommarriage to the time they finish bearing children) has become longer, though the change in eachnumber is slight.
12

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Table III-2-2 Order-specific average birth intervals classified by number ofbirths(duration of marriage: 15-19 years)
Number of birth

Birth order

1 Child

2 children

3children

4 children

Marriage - First child

2.83

1.59

1.24

1.15

First child - Second child

−

3.14

2.36

2.26

Second child - Third child

−

−

3.76

2.80

Third child - Fourth child

−

−

−

3.97

2.83

4.73

7.36

10.18

2.83

4.50

7.23

9.68

Total
10th Survey(1992) Total

3) Delay in fertility process of married couples

Compared with the results of these several surveys, every marriage duration of 0-4 years, 5-9
years, and 10-14 years has an decreasing average number of births. This has consistently
declined since the 9th Survey,
Table III-2-3 Marriage duration-specific average number ofespecially among couples
births, classified by survey
whose duration of marriage
8th Survey
9th Survey 10th Survey 11th Survey
Duration ofis 0-4 years or 5-9 years. It
marriage(1982)(1987)(1992)(1997)
0-4
0.80
0.91
0.80
0.71
is clear from this that the
5-9
1.95
1.96
1.84
1.75
fertility process of young
10-14
2.16
2.16
2.19
2.10
couples married in the late
15-19
2.23
2.19
2.21
2.21
1980’s or later has been
20-24
2.24
2.31
2.21
2.24
delayed.
25 years or more
2.32
2.36
2.31
2.19
4) Couples with no children have increased

The proportion of childless couples has increased for all durations of marriage. Evenamong the couples with 15-19 years who have almost finished bearing children, the proportionwas 3.7%, up 0.6 points compared with the previous survey. The 9th and later Surveys revealthat the proportion of childless couples has risen gradually.
Table III-2-4 Marriage duration-specific proportion of married couples, classified byaverage number of births
Duration of
marriage
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25 years or more

Total (number ofsamples)
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

(1,273)(1,276)(1,287)(1,334)(1,419)( 559)None

1 Child

42.6%
10.3
5.5
3.7
2.3
1.3

44.7
21.0
11.6
9.8
8.1
12.2

13

2 children 3children 4 children
12.1
53.6
54.2
53.6
57.0
58.3

0.6
13.9
25.2
27.9
28.9
24.0

1.2
3.3
4.6
3.4
3.9

5 children
or more
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Table III-2-5 Marriage duratjion-specific proportion of married
couples whose number of births is none, classified by survey
Duration of marriage
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25 years or more

8th Survey(1982)
38.9%
4.3
2.5
3.2
2.2
3.8

9th Survey(1987)
32.5
4.8
3.3
2.8
2.1
2.2

10th Survey 11th Survey(1992)(1997)
38.9
42.6
8.6
10.3
4.8
5.5
3.1
3.7
2.8
2.3
1.9
1.3

5) The total marital fertility rate has fallen below 2.0.

This survey provides yearly “total marital fertility rates.” The index of this rate is the
expected number of births per couple, which is based on the assumption that the marriage
year-specific pattern of fertility rate for a certain year will continue. This index, however, isaffected by not only changes in the completed fertility value, but also by changes in birth timing.
The solid line in Figure III-2-1 shows the total marital fertility rates since 1985, which are
based on the data of the 11th Survey. The declining tendency since 1985 was already seen at the10th Survey, and the current survey shows the same tendency from 1990 onward: the rates havefallen below 2.0 since 1990. This indicates a recent trend toward delayed birth timing by married
couples.
Figure III-2-1 Changes in total marital fertility rates(TMFR)
and total fertility rates (TFR)
2.4

2.2

2.23
2.15

2.24
2.17

2.16

2.14
2.13

2.15

2.14

2.16

2.16
2.13

2.08

2.0

2.06 2.05
2.02

1.95
1.91

1.8

1.91

1.93
1.89

1.6
1.43

TMFR(11)
TMFR（11th Survey,1997）

1.4

TMFR(10)
TMFR（10th Survey,1992）

1.2

1.0

〜
〜

TFR
TFR

75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Year

Note: For further finformation on total marital fertility rates, see the glossary.
Total Marital Fertility Rates is a three-year moving average for both the 10th and 11th
Surveys.
Total Fertility Rates (TFR) is from the yearly data on Vital Statistics and Information
Department of the Ministry of Health and Welfare.

14

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

3. Fertility regulation
1) Wives aged 35-39 have the highest rate of practicing contraception.

Looking at the situation regarding contraceptive practice as of this survey (Table III-3-1), we
found that 60.4% of married couples are practicing contraception, and if we add the 21.2% ofcouples who were formerly practicing it, 80% of wives have had experience with contraception.
Among the age-specific wives, those in their late 30’s have the highest rate of practicing
contraception (68.7%) as usual. Compared with the past surveys, among the wives in their 40’s,
the rate of practicing contraception has tended to rise in general. On the other hand, among thewives in their 20’s and 30’s, the rate has fallen for each age group this time.
Table III-3-1 Contraceptive practices, classified by age of wifeContraceptive practice
Reference:currently practicing
Age of
Total
Currently not practicing
7th Survey
9th Survey
wife (number of samples) Currently
Not statedHave
Nopracticing(1977)(1987)
experience experience
20-24

100.0%( 215)

45.6%

30.2

18.1

6.0

50.0%

51.1

25-29

100.0

( 914)

53.6

29.6

11.5

5.3

60.2

60.3

30-34

100.0

(1,327)

59.5

21.6

11.5

7.4

72.0

71.6

35-39

100.0

(1,428)

68.7

14.4

9.6

7.3

69.4

74.1

40-44

100.0

(1,581)

66.8

16.1

9.7

7.5

53.1

68.1

45-49

100.0

(1,878)

54.3

25.1

8.8

11.8

22.9

45.2

Total

100.0% (7,354)

60.4%

21.2

10.3

8.2

57.3%

64.6

Note: Those under the age of 20 were omitted because of few samples, though they (11 cases) are included in the total.

2) Condoms overwhelm the other contraception methods

The proportion of contraception methods which couples currently use, classified by method(Table III-3-2), reveals that condoms, 75.5%, overwhelm other methods, followed by coitus
interruptus (withdrawal) (20.1%), and rhythm methods (8.6%). In Western countries, use of theso-called modern contraception methods, including sterilization, IUD (intra-uterine devices), andoral contraceptives (the pill), are increasing. In Japan, the total proportion of these three methods
remains at 8.6%. Since the proportions of those practicing sterilization and IUD are higher
among the older age groups, we see that modern contraception methods are more frequently usedby the elderly.

15

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Table III-3-3 Proportion of contraception method currently used, by age of wife
(accept multiple choice)

Contraception method

Total

Wife's current age
20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

Condom

75.5%

79.6%

79.8

79.7

74.4

73.7

72.5

Contraceptive film/jelly

1.2

-

1.6

2.5

0.5

1.0

0.8

Rhythm methods

8.6

6.1

10.6

7.6

11.1

7.5

7.4

ＩＵＤ

2.6

-

0.8

2.3

2.7

3.6

2.9

Pill(Oral contraceptive)

0.9

1.0

0.6

1.4

0.6

0.9

1.1

Coitus interruptus(Withdrawal)

20.1

28.6

22.9

22.6

22.5

17.9

15.9

Sterilization of men

1.2

-

0.2

0.3

1.2

1.1

2.6

Sterilization of women

3.8

-

0.6

1.9

3.2

5.6

6.1

Othet

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.4

1.4

0.9

1.3

Not stated(Reference)
Modern contraception methods

2.3

1.0

1.4

1.1

2.5

2.0

3.7

8.6%

1.0

2.2

5.8

7.6

11.2

12.8

4,439

98

490

789

981

1,056

1,019

Nnumbet of samples

Note: - indicates no appropriate samples. Rhythm methods include Ogino method, basal body temperature method, and cervicalmucus method. Modern contraception methods are a combinatjion of IUD, pills and sterilization of men/women.
Since the questions concerning contraceptjion methods allowed multiple choices, some totals exceed 100%. Those under
the age of 20 are omitted because of few samples, though they (6 cases) are included in the total.

3) About 20% of wives have experienced induced abortions.

The number of wives who have experienced an induced abortion (except those that did notindicate anything) after marriage, classified by age of wife (Table III-3-3) discloses that those in
their 20’s have the smallest proportion of “have experienced” and the smallest average number ofabortions, compared with older wives. Classified by pregnancy order, the abortion rate is higher
among the third or later pregnancies.
Table III-3-3 Induced abortions, classified by age of wife
Have experienced
Age ofwife

Noexperience Subtotal

Total

20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49

142
605
858
847
944
1,050

92.3%
91.6
88.9
79.7
73.7
58.3

Total

4,451

77.2%

Average Average among those
Four Five times among all who experienced one ortimes or more (times) more abortion (times)

Once

Twice

Three
times

7.7%
8.4
11.1
20.3
26.3
41.7

6.3%
7.3
8.0
16.6
19.5
27.0

0.7
1.0
2.2
2.5
5.1
10.6

0.7
0.2
0.5
1.1
1.3
3.2

0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.9

0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.1

0.10
0.10
0.15
0.25
0.36
0.62

1.27
1.16
1.39
1.24
1.36
1.48

22.8%

16.4%

4.6

1.4

0.3

0.1

0.32

1.38

21.1%

13.0%

6.0

1.7

0.3

0.1

0.32

1.51

Reference:9th Survey(1987)
Total

8,533

78.9%

Note: Those aged under 20 are omitted because of few samples, though they (5 cases) are included in the total.

16

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Since quite a few responses regarding pregnancy/abortion were not stated (no response), wecannot say for sure, but it is likely that abortions occupy a certain position among the fertility
regulation of married couples even today, since those who have experienced abortions account for
30-40% of the wives aged 40 and over. It is also found that those who have experienced one
abortion tend to “repeat abortions.”

IV. Views on the Number of Children - Ideal number of children and intended
number of children 1) The gap between ideal number of children and intended number of children still exists, while the ideal
number of children has somewhat decreased.

This survey covers research on how many children married couples want to have under ideal
conditions (ideal number of children), and how many children they actually intend to have(intended number of children) (*). Table IV-1 shows average ideal number of children andaverage intended number of children, classified by years of marriage (duration of marriage) for
each survey. Both numbers haven’t changed much with duration of marriage, though younger
couples tend to choose smaller numbers. The average intended number of children always falls
short of the average ideal number of children. This survey reveals that the average ideal numberof children has slightly declined.
*Here, the ideal number of children is the answer to the question “How many children would be ideal foryou?,” and the intended number of children is the sum of the answer to the question “How many children do
you intend to bear from now on?” (the additional intended number of children) and the number of currently
existing children.

Table IV-1 Marriage duration-specific average ideal/intended number ofchildren, classified by survey
Duration of
marriage

Average ideal number of children

Average intended number of children

9th Survey 10th Survey 11th Survey 7th Survey(1987)(1992)(1977)(1997)

8th Survey(1982)

9th Survey 10th Survey 11th Survey(1987)(1992)(1997)

7th Survey(1977)

8th Survey(1982)

0-4 years

2.42

2.49

2.51

2.40

2.33

2.08

2.22

2.28

2.14

2.12

5-9 years

2.56

2.63

2.65

2.61

2.47

2.17

2.21

2.26

2.19

2.12

10-14 years

2.68

2.67

2.73

2.76

2.58

2.18

2.18

2.20

2.25

2.18

15-19 years

2.67

2.66

2.70

2.71

2.60

2.13

2.21

2.18

2.18

2.23

20-24 years

2.75

2.60

2.71

2.69

2.67

2.22

2.17

2.23

2.17

2.21

25 years and longer

2.86

2.70

2.77

2.70

2.58

2.46

2.26

2.25

2.19

2.14

Total

2.61

2.62

2.67

2.64

2.53

2.17

2.20

2.23

2.19

2.17

(number of samples)(8,314)(7,803)(8,348)(8,627)(7,069)(8,129)(7,783)(7,995)(8,295)(6,427)

Note: The first-marriage couples with wives under the age of 50 are the subjects of each survey. In order to make accurate comparisons, the results from the past
surveys were re-calculated, so the values differ slightly from the past reported ones (this is also true for all the following tables). The numbers of samples inbrackets exclude the subjects who did not specify ideal/intended numbers of children.

17

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Figure IV-1 Marriage duration-specific average ideal/intended number of children
11th Survey
3.0

3.0
Ideal number ofchildren

2.33
2.12

2.60

2.58

2.47

2.0

2.23

2.18

2.12

0.01

0.06

2.0

Additional intended
number of children

Intended number of children

0.34

1.35

1.0
Existing numberof children

0.77

2.21

2.12
1.78

1.0

0.0

0.0

０〜４

５〜９

10〜14

15〜19

Duratin of marriage2) Both ideal and intended number of children have declined slightly among the younger couples.

This survey resulted in the discovery that both the ideal and intended number of children
have recently declined a little (Figure IV-2). The decrease is minor, though a certain tendency canbe seen in this and the previous survey. This fact suggests that the number of children desiredby younger couples (who plan on having children) has somewhat decreased.
Figure IV-2 Changes in average ideal/intended number of children forcouples married less than 10 years
Couples whose duration of marriage is 0-4 years
3.0

3.0
Ideal number ofchildren

Existing
number ofchildren

1.16

0.93

0.0
7th Survey(1977)

2.33
2.14

2.12

2.0
Intended number of children

1.0

Additional
intended
number ofchildren

2.40
2.28

2.22

2.08

2.0

2.51

2.49

2.42

1.35

1.43

1.34

1.35

1.0
0.94

0.79

0.80

0.77

0.0
8th Survey(1982)

9th Survey 10th Survey 11th Survey(1987)(1992)(1997)
18

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Couples whose duration of marriage is 5-9 years
3.0
Ideal number ofchildren

1.0

Additional
intended
number ofchildren

Intended number of children

0.27

2.0

1.90

Existing
number ofchildren

0.0
7th Survey(1977)

2.61
2.26

2.21

2.17

3.0

2.65

2.63

2.56

0.28

0.30

1.93

1.95

2.47
2.19

2.12

0.34

0.34

2.0

1.84

1.78

1.0

0.0
8th Survey(1982)

9th Survey 10th Survey 11th Survey(1987)(1992)(1997)

3) The ideal number of children for 90 percent of couples remains unchanged at 2 or 3, while those wanting 3
children have decreased and those wanting 2 have increased.

When we look at the distribution of ideal number of children for younger couples marriedless than 10 years, those regarding 2 or 3 children as ideal make up the majority, 87-90%, which
hasn’t changed in every survey, and those regarding no children, 1 child, or 4 children and more
as ideal are relatively few (Table IV-2). However, in this survey, the number of couples regarding
3 children as ideal has fallen remarkably, and the number regarding 2 children as ideal has risen.
As a result, the average ideal number of children among younger couples has decreased to 2.4
persons from the usual 2.5-2.6.

Table IV-2 Distribution of ideal number of children for couples married less than 10 years,
classified by survey
Ideal number of children
Survey year

Average ideal
number of
5 children
childrenor moreTotal (number ofsamples)None

1 child

2 child

3 child

4 child

7th Survey (1977)

100.0% (3,728)

0.3%

3.9

49.2

40.4

5.2

1.0

2.49

8th Survey (1982)

100.0 (3,046)

1.5

2.3

44.4

43.0

7.9

1.0

2.57

9th Survey (1987)

100.0 (2,984)

1.3

2.4

41.3

46.6

7.9

0.5

2.59

10th Survey (1992)

100.0 (3,042)

1.8

3.7

43.3

44.8

5.8

0.6

2.51

11th Survey (1997)

100.0 (2,517)

2.1

4.5

51.5

37.0

3.9

1.0

2.40

Note: The subjects of each survey are the first-marriage couples with wives under the age of 50, married less than 10 years.
Proportions and averages exclude those who did not specify an ideal number of children.

19

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1
4) The number of couples who intend to have 3 children or more has declined.

Among younger couples, those intending to have 2 children are the majority, 64% in thissurvey (Table IV-3). Those intending to have less than 2 children, which means no children or 1
child, are no more than 12% in total, though those intending to have 1 child have increased a little.
The couples who intend to have 3 children or more have slightly decreased to 22% in this survey.
This proportion falls fairly short of that of couples who regard 3 children as ideal (37%).

Table IV-3 Distribution of intended number of children for couples married less than 10 years,
classified by survey
Intended number of children
Survey year

Averageintended
number ofchildren

Total (number ofsamples)None

1 child

2 child

3 child

4 child

5 children
or more7th Survey (1977)

100.0% (3,418)

1.7%

12.4

59.4

24.4

1.8

0.3

2.13

8th Survey (1982)

100.0 (3,029)

1.9

6.7

61.4

28.2

1.7

0.1

2.21

9th Survey (1987)

100.0 (2,907)

1.2

6.9

57.9

31.6

2.1

0.2

2.27

10th Survey (1992)

100.0 (2,980)

2.4

9.1

60.1

26.5

1.7

0.1

2.16

11th Survey (1997)

100.0 (2,258)

2.3

9.7

64.3

21.8

1.8

0.2

2.12

Note: The subjects of each survey are the first-marriage couples, with wives under the age of 50, who have been married less than 10
years. Proportions and averages exclude those who did not specify an intended number of children.

5) Why the intended number falls short of the ideal number: the cost of raising children and the avoidance ofelderly labor

We asked the couples whose intended number of children falls short of their ideal number
why they do not plan to have the ideal number of children. This was a multiple-choice question(Table IV-4). As a whole, the three reasons: “Cost to raise children” (37%), “Cost to educate
children” (34%) and “Hate to produce children at older age” (34%) were the most frequently
chosen, followed by “Mental and physical burden of child care” (21%), “Small house” (13%),“Can’t produce a child” (13%), and “Interference with one’s work.” (13%) If we look at thereasons classified by age, younger couples tend to mainly give economic reasons such as “Cost”
and “Small house.” The proportion of “Incompatible with one’s hobbies or entertainment” is
not high, but younger couples did select it more frequently. Compared with the past surveys,
those giving economic reasons have increased in total.

20

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Table IV-1 Reasons why couples do not plan to have the ideal number of children(multiple-choice)Hate to produce children at older age

Cost to educate chidren

Cost to raise children in general

Can't bear mentally/physically theburden of child rearing any more

Too small of a house

Interference with one's job orbusiness

Incompatible with one's hobbies orentertainment

Want the last child to grow up before
the hosband retires

Other

Not stated

Under 25

( 26)

3.8%

7.7

53.8

73.1

19.2

30.8

−

7.7

7.7

7.7

15.4

7.7

25-29

( 188)

3.2

8.0

50.5

70.2

17.6

23.4

1.6

13.3

12.8

6.4

12.8

5.3

30-34

( 333)

7.5

20.1

46.5

53.8

32.1

21.3

1.2

14.1

9.6

12.6

17.1

3.3

35-39

( 440)

12.3

40.9

34.1

40.7

25.5

14.5

0.9

18.0

8.4

13.6

12.3

6.6

40-44

( 495)

15.2

47.5

31.3

28.1

19.4

9.9

1.4

13.1

3.0

11.7

10.3

7.1

45-49

( 620)

18.5

33.2

22.7

20.8

13.7

7.3

1.3

8.2

1.6

6.3

6.9

18.5

Total

(2,102)

13.1%

33.5

33.8

37.0

20.8

13.4

1.2

12.8

5.7

10.1

11.1

9.6

29.6

28.3

30.1

20.6

12.4

1.1

9.2

3.4

7.7

6.3

11.9

27.4

22.0

24.3

17.0

10.9

1.2

10.8

2.0

8.0

4.0

8.8

Age of wife
(number of samples)

Results of past surveys (Total)
10th Survey(3,341) 14.1%(1992)
8th Survey(2,845) 17.7%(1982)

Want to match the public average

Cant't produce a childReasons why the intended number of children lalls short of the ideal number

Note: Couples whose intended number of children falls short of their ideal number were surveyed. Bacause of multiple choices, the sum
exceeds 100%. Since the number of items available as reasons has increased at evevery survey, the total sums have been rising(8th 145%, 10th 163%, 11th 193%,, excluding “Not stated”).

6) The tendency to prefer female children has gradually accelerated.

In addition to the ideal number of children, the ideal combination of boys and girls was asked.
The proportion of those wanting girls has consistently increased since the 8th Survey (1982),
when this question was first added. When we study the combinations of children classified byideal number of children (Table IV-5), it is absolutely clear that girls tend to be preferred,especially if the ideal number of children is an odd number. For instance, the proportion of
couples who regard 2 girls in 3 children as ideal has jumped to 59% in the 11th Survey, 23 points
higher than the 36% figure in the 8th Survey. If we look at the proportion of boys to girls (sexratio) based on the ideal combinations of children, boys were superior in the 8th Survey, but the
proportion was reversed in the 9th Survey, and since then the tendency to want girls has
consistently accelerated (Figure IV-3).

21

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Table IV-5 Changes in the proportion of couples who have an ideal combination of boys
and girls, classified by ideal number of children
Ideal number of
Ideal combination ofchildren (number
childrenof samples)
1 boy/no girls
1 child( 47)
no boys/1 girl2 children (1,384)

3 children (1,372)

8th Survey(1982)

9th Survey(1987)

10th Survey(1992)

11th Survey(1997)

51.5 %

37.1

24.3

25.0

48.5

62.9

75.7

75.0

2 boys/no girls

8.8 %

4.1

2.7

2.1

1 boy/1 girl

82.4

85.5

84.0

84.9

no boys/2 girls

8.9

10.4

13.3

13.0

3 boys/no girls

0.7 %

0.5

0.3

0.4

2 boys/1 girl

62.4

52.3

45.1

38.4

1 boy/2 girls

36.2

46.2

52.9

58.9

no boys/3 girls

0.7

0.7

1.6

2.3

Note: Subjects are those who specified an ideal combination of boys and girls, among the couples whose ideal number of children is
1 or more. The combinations in which the ideal number of children was 4 or more (332 cases) were omitted.

Table IV-3 Sex ratios, based on the ideal combination of children

（％）

100

(105)

Sex ratio = 100×number of boys/number of girls
( 99)
( 91)

51.3%

49.8%

48.7%

50.2%

( 85)

47.6%

46.0%

52.4%

54.0%

10th Survey(1992)

11th Survey(1997)

Boys

50

Girls

0
8th Survey(1982)

9th Survey(1987)

Note: Shows sex ratjios, based on the ideal combination of children, specified by couples whose
ideal numbet of children is 1 or more. The figures in brackets in the above graph show thesex ratio for each survey (the number of boys in contrast to 100 girls).

22

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

V. Working Wife, Nurturing Environment and Couple’s Fertility
1. Working wife and fertility
This survey identifies 3 main life courses (consistent working course, housewife course, andreturn to work course) (*) depending on if the wife was working or not at the three points (before
marriage, at first childbearing, and now (at the time of the survey)) and studies the relationships
with fertility.
*The definitions of each life course are as follows:
Consistent working course: worked before marriage, working now if she has no children,
working at childbearing/now if she has children.
Housewife course: worked before marriage, not working now if she has no children, notworking at childbearing/now if she has children.
Return to work course: worked before marriage, not working at childbearing, working now(all the subjects of this course have children)
Table Ⅴ-1-1 Marriage duration-specific distribution of wife's life course
11th Survey (1997)
Area

Life course or wife

Consistent woring course
Non-consistent working course
The whole of Japan
Housewife course
Return to work course
Consistent woring course
Densely inhabited Non-consistent working course
districts
Housewife course
Return to work course
Consistent woring course
Sparsely inhabited Non-consistent working course
districts
Housewife course
Return to work course

0-4 years
36.5 %
57.4
54.5
2.9
37.1
58.2
55.7
2.5
35.2
55.2
51.3
3.9

Duration of marriage
5-9 years
10-14 years
25.9
24.0
67.3
68.6
51.4
36.7
15.9
32.0
24.6
19.2
69.4
73.2
55.8
42.5
13.6
30.7
28.6
33.5
62.9
59.5
42.0
24.9
20.9
34.5

15-19 years
24.3
66.5
27.7
38.8
18.4
72.0
34.1
37.9
33.5
57.8
17.5
40.3

(Reference) 10th Survey (1992)
Area
Densely inhabited
districts

Sparsely inhabited
districts

Life course or wife
Consistent woring course
Non-consistent working course
Housewife course
Return to work course
Consistent woring course
Non-consistent working course
Housewife course
Return to work course

0-4 years
31.2 %
62.4
59.6
2.8
43.4
50.1
46.8
3.4

Duration of marriage
5-9 years
10-14 years
21.1
16.8
68.3
68.6
55.6
44.6
12.7
24.0
32.5
39.5
57.0
48.8
39.6
21.7
17.3
27.1

15-19 years
23.1
62.5
25.6
36.9
39.5
49.5
13.6
35.9

Note: The non-consistent working course is a combination of the housewife course and the return to work course. The samlesfrom the 11 th Survey are: the wohole of Japan (4,645), densely inhabited districts (3,124), sparsely inhabited districts(1,521). The samples from the 10th Survey are: the whole of Japan (6,213), densely inhabited districts (4,052), sparsely
inhabited districts (2,161). Since the past surveys were totaled again in order to make accurate comparisons, the values
differ slightly from those reported in the past. This is true for all the following tables. Other life courses (343 cases forthe 11th Survey, and 685 cases for the 10th Survey) have been omitted.

23

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1
1) Wife’s consistent working course has risen in densely inhabited districts.

The breakdown of wife life courses related to working and childbearing reveals that morethan one out of three wives whose duration of marriage is 0-4 years (36.5% for all of Japan)
continue working, while among those married 5 years or longer, about one out of four wives
continue to work. The proportion continuing along the housewife course gradually decreases as
the duration of marriage gets longer, with the return to work course increasing. Among thewives whose duration of marriage is 15-19 years and who have finished the childbearing process,the proportion following the return to work course is 38.8%, with 27.7% for housewife, and24.3% for consistent working. If we compare these with the results of the 10th Survey (taken
five years ago), the proportion for the consistent working course has increased in urban areas(densely inhabited districts), and somewhat decreased in rural areas (sparsely inhabited districts).
2) The consistent working group in densely inhabited districts has a low average number of births.

A study to determine whether the average number of births varies with the wife’s life course(related to working) discovered that the number of births for the consistent working group wasalways lower than that for the non-consistent working group. Also, this difference in thenumber of births gets bigger as the duration of marriage gets shorter, so the birth timing for theconsistent working group is remarkably delayed. When we study the number of births classified
into urban areas (densely inhabited districts) and rural areas (sparsely inhabited districts), it isclearer in urban areas that the number of births for the consistent working group tends to belower.
If we compare the proportions of couples who have no children, classified by the life courseof the wife (Table V-1-3), the consistent working group (in urban areas) has a noticeably higher
proportion.
Table Ⅴ-1-2 Marriage duration-specific average number of births, classified by thelife course of the wife
Area

The whole of Japan

Densely inhabited
districts

Life course of wife

10th Survey (1992)

Duration of marriage

0-4 years 5-9 years 10-14 years 15-19 years 10-14 years 15-19 years

Consistent woring course

0.34

1.40

1.85

2.18

2.10

2.18

Non-consistent working course

0.88

1.86

2.18

2.23

2.23

2.22

Housewife course

0.85

1.84

2.14

2.18

2.21

2.12

Return to work course

1.34

1.90

2.23

2.26

2.26

2.27

Consistent woring course

0.25

1.20

1.64

2.07

1.73

2.00

Non-consistent working course

0.84

1.82

2.13

2.14

2.18

2.18

Housewife course

0.82

1.80

2.11

2.12

2.18

2.10

Return to work course

1.30

1.91

2.16

2.17

2.18

2.24

Consistent woring course

0.60

1.75

2.09

2.28

2.34

2.34

0.99

1.93

2.30

2.39

2.33

2.27

0.96

1.95

2.22

2.35

2.28

2.19

1.42

1.89

2.36

2.41

2.37

2.31

Sparsely inhabited Non-consistent working course
districts
Housewife course
Return to work course

Note: The definition of each life course is the same as in Table V-1-1. The reason the number of births for the reture to work
course is larger among the shorter duration of marriage groups (0-4 years, 5-9 years) is because wives in the return to work
course are supposed to have at least l child.

24

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Table Ⅴ-1-3 Proportion of couples who have no children, classified by the life
course of the wife
Duration of marriage

Life course of wifeArea

0-4 years 5-9 years 10-14 years 15-19 years

Consistent woring course
The whole of Japan Non-consistent working course

Densely inhabited
districts

Sparsely inhabited
districts

72.2%

29.7

14.4

9.7

28.3

3.9

3.2

1.8

Housewife course

29.8

5.1

5.9

4.2

Consistent woring course

78.8

37.0

20.3

12.6

Non-consistent working course

29.6

3.7

3.4

1.7

Housewife course

30.9

4.6

5.8

3.6

Consistent woring course

53.2

16.3

7.8

7.1

Non-consistent working course

24.6

4.4

2.6

1.9

26.4

6.5

6.3

6.2

Housewife course

Note: The definition of each life course is the same as in Table V-1-1.

3) The consistent working course in densely inhabited districts has a lower intended number of children

If we classify the number of intended births by the life course of the wife, those married forless than 5 years have the same 2.11 children for both the consistent working course and thenon-consistent working course, so the fertility-plan can be seen to be at the same level.
However, among those married for 5 years or more in the consistent working group, the intended
number of children has fallen, and their fertility-plan is lower than that of the non-consistent
Table Ⅴ-1-4 Marriage duration-specific average number of intended children, classified by
the life course of the wife
Area

Life course of wife

11th Survey (1997)

10th Survey (1992)

Duration of marrigae

Duration of marrigae

0-4 years 5-9 years 10-14 years 0-4 years 5-9 years 10-14 years
Consisstent working course

2.11

1.95

2.04

2.09

2.11

2.20

Non-consistent working course

2.11

2.18

2.24

2.16

2.23

2.27

Housewife course

2.11

2.19

2.24

2.16

2.22

2.28

Return to work course

2.09

2.15

2.25

2.16

2.26

2.26

Consisstent working course

2.08

1.79

1.86

1.99

1.95

1.93

Non-consistent working course

2.10

2.15

2.19

2.12

2.18

2.23

Housewife course

2.10

2.16

2.22

2.12

2.17

2.25

Return to work course

2.05

2.12

2.16

2.13

2.21

2.21

Consisstent working course

2.20

2.22

2.24

2.30

2.31

2.38

Non-consistent working course

2.14

2.25

2.36

2.32

2.34

2.35

Housewife course

2.13

2.28

2.31

2.33

2.34

2.40

Return to work course

2.17

2.19

2.40

2.25

2.33

2.32

The whole of Japan

Densely inhabited
districts

Sparsely inhabited
districts

Note: The definition of each life course is the same as in Table V-1-1.

25

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

working group. This tendency is more remarkable in urban areas (densely inhabited districts),
where the fertility-plan for consistent working wives is fairly low. Though the same tendency
was noticed in the previous survey, the decreasing fertility-plan level for consistent working
wives whose duration of marriage is 5 years or more is remarkable, since the number of intended
children has slightly decreased overall in this survey.
2. Nurturing environment and fertility
1) Child care assistance given by couples’ parents supports working mothers.

When we asked wives who participated in child-care when the first child was in infancy(within a year after birth), the nurturing person mentioned by wives was the wife herself (100%),
followed by “husband” (33.9%), “parents living with us” (19.2%), and “parents living in theneighborhood” (16.7%). It is apparent from this that children are generally nurtured by the wifeand husband, or their relatives (Table V-2-1 [total]). When we relate this to the wife’s working,the proportion for “husband” is low in the case of a working wife, and instead “parents livingwith us” or in the neighborhood play important roles. Especially if the wife works full-time,“parents living with us” and “parents living in the neighborhood” are 44.0% and 26.0%
respectively, which is notably higher when compared to non-working wives, at 12.1% and 14.4%.
These figures show the importance of child-care assistance given by parents to working mothers.
Working wives also have higher proportions of using other nurturing resources (such as public
institutions and facilities) and using “child care leave” (14.5%).
Table Ⅴ-2-1 Working state of wife and nurturing, when the first child was in infancy(multiple-choice)

Persons in charge of
nurturing/institutions
Wife
HusbandParents living with us
Parents of husband
Parents of wife
Parents living in the neighborhood
Parents of husband
Parents of wife
Other relatives
Authorized day nursery
In-company day nursery
Other nursery facilities
Private home nursery/Baby sitter
Child care leave
Number of samples

Total

Non-working
wives
Employee

Working wives
Part-time/
Temporary
100.0
22.0
28.6
25.0
3.6
28.5
7.7
20.8
4.2
8.3
1.2
3.0
7.7
1.8

100.0%
33.9
19.2
14.8
4.4
16.7
4.1
12.6
2.5
2.8
0.6
0.9
1.1
2.8

100.0%
36.7
12.1
9.2
2.9
14.4
3.0
11.4
1.7
0.5
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.7

100.0
20.8
44.0
33.3
10.7
26.0
8.4
17.6
4.6
12.7
3.0
4.1
4.2
14.5

Self-employed/
Agriculture
100.0
37.6
38.1
30.0
8.1
17.7
5.7
12.0
5.7
3.4
0.2
0.7
1.7
0.2

5,811

4,348

888

407

168

(100.0% )(74.8% )(15.3)

(7.0)

(2.9)

Note: The subjects are couples with 1 child or more who specified a person in charge of nurturing when the first child was in infancy,
and the working state of the wife. Since the answer for person in charge of nurturing allowed multiple choices, each item isshown as the proportion against the number of samples.

26

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1
2) For wives working full-time, the number of births is higher if their parents assist them.

We compared average number of births based on the working states of the wife when the firstchild was in infancy, with or without the child-care assistance of parents (Table V-2-2 [total]). If
child-care assistance was given, those whose duration of marriage is 5 years or more tend to havea few more children, though, the difference is small. This tendency is clearer in the case of
wives working as a “Company employee” (*full-time), and the number of births becomes higher
if child-care assistance by parents is given.
Table Ⅴ-2-2 Average number of births, with/without parent's assistance, classified byworking state of wife when the first child was in infancy
Working states

Duration of marriage
0-4 years

5-9 years 10-14 years 15-19 years

Had assistance

1,069

1.25

1.98

2.29

2.29

No assistance

3,279

1.24

1.93

2.23

2.26

Had assistance

592

1.23

2.03

2.24

2.35

No assistance

296

1.29

1.92

2.09

2.31

Self-employed/ Had assistance
Agriculture
No assistance

212

1.29*

2.20

2.33

2.50

195

1.13*

2.25

2.24

2.60

Had assistance

89

1.22*

1.82*

2.05

2.00*

No assistance

79

1.25*

1.95

2.46*

2.50*

Had assistance

1,962

1.24

2.00

2.27

2.32

No assistance

3,849

1.24

1.94

2.22

2.29

Non-working wife

Woring wife

Child-care assistance Number ofsamplesof parents

Company
employeePart-time/
Temporary
Total

Note: Subjects are the same as in the previous table. * means the number of samples is under 20.
Had assistance and no assistance are defined as follows:
Had assistance: Chose “Parents living with us” or “Parents living in the neighborhood” as person in charge of nurturing
the first child within a year after birth.
No assistance: Choose neither “Parents living with us” nor “Parents living in the neighborhood” as person in charge of
nurturing the first child within a year after birth.

VI. The Wife’s Views on Marriage/Family
1)Diversifying views on marriage/family

In order to find women’s views concerning marriage, family, and relationships with the
opposite sex, we asked the wives surveyed if they agree or disagree with each item a - i shown in
Table V-1. The results revealed that more than three fourths of the wives agreed with suchtraditional views on marriage systems and children as “b. Men and Women should marry if they
live together” and “g. One ought to have children if one gets married.” However, their opinions(about the couple’s responsibilities, allocated by sex - f; the choice of individual or family - d,e;pre-martial sexual intercourse - c; divorce for incompatible temperaments - h) were widely
divided. (For a comparison of each question with the previous survey, see the following sections).

27

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Table ⅤI-1 The wife's views on marriage/family
Views on marriage/family

Totally If anything, If anything, Totally
agree
agree
disagree disagree Not sateda

It is not desirable to remain single for one's
entire life

12.7 %

38.2

36.7

8.1

4.2

b

Men an Women should marry if they live
together

26.0

49.4

16.2

5.3

3.1

c

Unmarried men and women may have sexualintercourse if they love each other

23.2

46.6

20.0

6.3

3.9

One ought to have personal goals other than justd getting married and raising a family, even if one
gets married

33.7

45.6

14.4

2.7

3.7

e

It is natural that one should sacrifice half of
one's own personality or lifestyle for the family

4.6

30.1

43.4

18.5

3.5

f

Husbands should work and wives should takecare of the home after marriage

4.5

28.3

39.3

24.5

3.4

g One ouhgt to have children if one gets married

30.4

47.6

11.6

6.4

4.1

No one should get divorced for a small reason
such as incompatible temperaments

14.4

36.7

32.1

12.9

3.9

21.6

35.3

29.9

9.3

3.8

h

i Love and marriage are not the same
Note: The number of samples was 7,354 for each questing.

2) Tendency toward traditional views on marriage has weakened, and views on marriage have been
diversifying.

Items g, b, f, and c present pros and cons concerning traditional views on marriage. We
compare the current answers with the results from the 10th Survey (1992) in Figure VI-1.
Those who accept pre-martial sexual intercourse (item c), and those who object toresponsibilities allocated by sex (item f) were in the majority in the 10th Survey, and this survey
shows these tendencies have accelerated (accept pre-martial sexual intercourse, 69.9%, and object
to the responsibilities allocated by sex, 63.8%). However, those who agree that one “ought tohave children if one gets married” (item g) made up 77.9%, which is 9.8 points lower than the
87.7% of the previous survey. Those who oppose cohabitation (item b) are 75.4%, which has
also decreased by 9.0 points when compared with the previous survey (84.4%). These results
show the diversified views on marriage of wives who are freed from traditional standards.

28

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Table ⅤI-1 Tendency toward diversified views on marriage

Diversified views on
marriage

Traditional views on
marriageTop bar graphs:10th Survey（1992）
Botteiom bar graphs:11th Survey（1997）

2.6（Disagree）

6.4

2.8

（Disagree）

5.3

17.1

（Disagree）

24.5
c. Unmarried men andwomen may have sexualintercourse if they loveeach other

14.8（Agree）

（％）

100

75

23.2

50

7.0

40.9

11.6

47.6

10.7

42.8

16.2

49.4

46.9
30.4

39.3

28.3

4.5

41.1

28.1

13.8

46.6

20

6.3

f. Husbands should work andwives should take care of
the home after marriage

7.8

25

b. Men and women should
marry if they live together

26.0 （Agree）

32

0（Agree）

41.6

40.7

25

g. one ought to havechildren if one getsmarried（Agree）（Disagree）

50

75

100

Note: “Not stated” are excluded form the figures (%). Number of samples: 10th Survey (8,844), the 11th Survey (7,354).
The subjects are wives of first-marriage couples.

In each of the bar graphs, the distributions (%) of “Totally agree,” “If anything, agree,” “If anything, disagree,”and“Totally disagree” are indicated in order from right to left.

3) More and more support is seen for the independent/self-directed life of women

Items a, h, e, and d are used to determine to what degree the individual is emphasized in
marriage and family relationships. We compare the current answers with the 10th Survey(1992) in Figure VI-1.
More and more support is seen for life styles centered on individuality, and independence
from marriage, such as acceptance of divorce for incompatible temperaments (item h), andapproval of remaining single for a lifetime (item a). The views that emphasize individual goals
and deny self-sacrifice for marriage or family (items e and d) are also supported, and tend to besupported more strongly now.

29

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Table ⅤI-2 Tendency to put emphasis on the individeual

Put emphasis on theindivideual

Put emphasis on themarried couple/familya. It is not desirable to remain
single for one's entire life

Top bar graphs: 10th Survey (1992)
Bottom bar graphs: 11th Survey(1997)

30.0

39.7

21.9

36.7

38.2

12.7

5.5

（Agree）（Disagree）

8.1

24.1

7.1

（Disagree）

32.1

12.9

（Disagree）

10.9

39.2

18.5

43.4

d. One ought to have personal goals
other than just getting married
and raising a family, even if one
gets married

29.6（Agree）

33.7

43.7
36.7

22.3

43.9

19.6

45.6

14.4

（Agree）

14.4

e. It is natural that one should
sacrifice half of one's own
personality or lifestyle for thefamily

7.2

40.4
30.1

h. No one should get divorced
for a small reason such as
incompatible temperaments

4.6（Agree）

4.3（Disagree）
2.7

（％）

100

75

50

25

0

25

50

75

100

Note: “Not stated” are excluded form the figures (%). Number of samples: 10th Survey (8,844), the 11th Survey (7,354).
The subjects are wives of first-marriage couples.

In each of the bar graphs, the distributions (%) of “Totally agree,” “If anything, agree,” “If anything, disagree,”and“Totally disagree” are indicated in order from right to left.

30

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Basic Survey on Birth Trends Glossary
Densely inhabited districts:
In the National Census, surveyed districts classified as cities, wards, towns and villages are
divided into urban (densely inhabited districts) and rural (sparsely inhabited districts) bypopulation density. Specifically, “densely inhabited district” means: (1) Surveyed districts,
where the population density per one square kilometer is more than 4,000 persons in principle,
and which are adjacent to each other within the border of the city, ward, town or village, and (2)the adjacent areas have a population of more than 5,000.
In the National Census of the 7th year of the Heisei era (1995), 64.7% of the total population
is from the densely inhabited districts, while in this survey the respondents from the densely
inhabited districts make up 65.3%.
Arranged marriage/Love marriage:
In the questions about types of meeting for a future husband/wife, those who answered“Through an arranged introduction” or “Through a matrimonial agency” are regarded as arranged
marriages, and those who answered “At school,” “At the workplace or through work,” “Achildhood friend or neighbor,” “Through club activities or accomplishments,” “Through friends
or siblings,” “While downtown or during a trip,” or “Through a part-time job” are grouped into
the “love marriage” category for this survey.
Completed fertility value:
The number of children that a couple has, when they have almost no possibility of bearing
more children, is called the completed fertility value. Since, in Japan, additional births are rarely
found among couples married for 15 years or more, the average number of births for the couples
whose duration of marriage is 15-19 years is referred to as the completed fertility value in thissurvey.
Total marital fertility rate:
The total marital fertility rate is the total of all couple’s marriage duration-specific fertility
rates. This is calculated using the marriage duration-specific fertility rate (number of births ofcouples) observed in a certain period (usually one year) as a numerator, and the number of those
couples as the denominator. This rate equals the average number of children born to a couple,
assuming that the couple’s fertility rate in that period is known. Total fertility rate is the total of
the female’s age-specific fertility rates based on the population of females as the denominator,and equals the average number of children born to a female.
The total marital fertility rate is the average number of children for couples, while the total
fertility rate is the average number of children for the total population of females, including
unmarried and divorced females. Therefore, the latter is affected by such matrimonial trends as31

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

a tendency toward later marriage and a growing number of lifetime singles. On the other hand,
the total marital fertility rate does not depend on matrimonial trends, though it does tend to beaffected by changes in the childbearing pace of couples.
“Blue collar worker” and “white collar worker” occupational classifications:
In this survey, those who work in factories are called blue collar workers, and those usuallyconsidered to be “experts,” “executive staff,” “office clerks,” and “sales/service staff” are called
white collar workers.

32