for the rate in the second and third quinquennia, one with and one without the rate of fertility change in the previous quinquennium as a predictor.

Differences in the rate of ferti!ity change during the transition are indeed partly explained by socioeconomic variables, but the addition o0 the previous rate of fertility change as a predictor improves the model significantly. In fact, models with just the rate of previous change fit almost as well as those also including the socioeconomic indicators.

Socioeconomic variables are often good predictors of fertility levels across countries (Richards 1983). However, these regressions indicate that initial socioeconomic levels are at best weak predictors of future fertility trends. Conceivably, trends in socioeconomic variables might predict simultaneous or lagged trends in fertility. We have not used lagged socioecouomic trend data in these regressions (except for the infant mortality trend) because the data are weak, and have avoided simultaneous trend data because projections of future fertility using such variables would require prior socioeconomic projections.

Post-transitional countries. There is no objective criterion by which to judge when a fertility transition has run its course. Fertility in some countries declines well below replacement level; in others, it bottoms out just above replacement. The experience of countries that have reached this stage shows the lowest level reached ranging between 1.3 and 2.4. Figure Ic shows representative posttransitional countries. Minimum TFRs differ by up to one point, and current fertility may be rising or falling. The speed of fertility decline does not determine the minimum TFR that is reached (Table 5): the correlation between these variables is weak and not significant.

Fertility in post-transitional countries fluctuates like fertility in pre-transitional countries. With the exception of a brief period in the 1950s, fertility in post-transitional countries has stayed in a narrow range. During the 1980s, many of these countries have experienced below-replacement fertility, though most of them still have positive rates of natural increase because of a proportionally large number Table 3. Sample characteristics and correlations between rate of fertility decline and other indicators: 42 countries

|VibL||||Correlation<br>TFR durin<br>after<br>|withrate o<br>g specified<br>q<br>start of tra<br>|f change in<br> <br>uinquennium<br>nsition<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|arae|Mean|Minimu|Maximum|First|Second|Third|
|Year of start<br>of transition<br>|1964.6<br>|<br>1956<br>|1978<br>|-0.10<br>|-0.33<br>|-0.27|
|INR at start<br>|77<br>|37<br>|141|-0.31|-0.48|-0.38|
|etO) at start<br> <br>|59.3<br>|51<br>|67<br>|-0.00|0.24|0.17|
|Accrued<br>rate of change<br>in IMR<br>|-0.04<br>|-0.01|-O.C7|0.30|0.46|0.38|
|TFR at start<br> <br> <br>|6.1<br>|4.4<br>|7.7|-0.61|-0.36|-0.29|
|Latin<br>America<br>region<br>|0.19<br>|0<br>|1|0.18|0.15|0.16|
|Asia region<br>|0.50<br>|0<br>|1|0.03|0.16|0.07|
|Female secondary<br>school enroltment(X)<br> <br>|23.1<br>|3<br>|54<br>|-0.00|0.24|0.17|
|Percent<br>urban<br>|44.6<br>|13<br>|100<br>|-0.11|-0.19|-0.21|
|Rate of change in TFR, first<br>quinquenniun<br>after start<br>|-0.11<br>|-0.06<br>|-0.16<br>|1.00<br>|0.45<br>|0.39|
|Rate of change in TFR,<br>second<br>quinquennfum<br>|-0.14<br>|-0.06<br>|-0.29<br>|0.45|1.00|0.57|
|Rate of change in TFR.<br>third qufnquerwnium|-0.08|-0.02|-0.21|0.39|0.57|1.00|

13