The Political Significance of the Second Demographic Transition in the US A Spatial Analysis

1
The Political Significance of the Second
Demographic Transition in the US A Spatial
Analysis

• Ron Lesthaeghe and Lisa Neidert
• Population Studies Center, University of Michigan
• Presented at annual meetings of the Population
  Association of America, March 30, 2007, New York

2
Earlier Links between Voting and Spatial Patterns
of Demographic Transitions

• Julius Wolf, 1928 statistical links between
  birth rates in German Kreise voting for
  Socialists 1919.
• Massimo Livi-Bacci, 1971 connection between
  Portuguese marital fertility transition and
  voting for Leftist parties or marriages without
  Catholic rites.
• Ron Lesthaeghe, 1974 idem Belgium, controls for
  competing hypotheses.
• Ron Lesthaeghe, Chris Wilson, 1986 idem
  connection with secular parties voting in
  Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Switzerland,
  Denmark controls for economic modes of
  production.
• Massimo Livi-Bacci, 1974 also reverse
  fertility transition (1900-1930) in Italy
  excellent predictor of divorce referendum 1974 !
• Ron Lesthaeghe Karel Neels, 2004 similar
  findings for the SDT in France, Belgium,
  Switzerland.
• So .... HOW ABOUT THE US ???

3
Two way influence

• Ideational change (secularization, individual
  autonomy, expressive values, etc.)
• gtarticulations of culture war issues, voting
  patterns
• gt demographic change, leads lags in SDT
• Also
• Demographic regional patterns gt voting outcomes
  when culture wars items on agenda.

4
Our questions

• How strong is the link in the US between
  demographics and voting?
• Is that relationship resistant to controls for
  other structural and cultural variables?
• Are the results for the presidential election
  replicated in recent referenda on other culture
  war issues, like same-sex marriage or stem-cell
  research?
• Is the US Culture War a myth?
• only a debate among polarizing elites no or
  little change among centrist public (Morris
  Fiorina)

5
(No Transcript)
6
Two basic demographic dimensions in the
US(orthogonal principal components)

• Dimension 1
• high abortion rates, higher frequencies
  cohabitation and same sex cohabitants,
  postponement in fertility schedule among
  non-hispanic white population, sustained
  sub-replacement fertility, low teenage fertility
  (white and non-white)
• typical Second demographic transition
  features
• Dimension 2
• high teenage fertility ( black white),
  high extra-marital fertility, high divorce
  (already since the 60s), grandparent households
  responsible for grandchildren
• older pattern typical for US (and partially
  for the UK, not rest of western Europe)

7
USA 50 states Demographic dimension
1indicators and best correlates

• Demographic Dimension 1
• (indicators and factor loadings)
• Abortions p 1000 live births 80 .92
• Abortions p 1000 live births 92 .91
• Abortion rate p 1000 w 15-44 96 .86
• hhlds same sex adults 00 .80
• NHWhites Total Fertility Rate 02 -.72
• hhlds families
  -.64
• NHWhites Fertility postpone 02 .64
• hhlds Cohabitation 00 .56
• NHWhites ASFR 15-19 02 -.54
• second demographic transition
• dimension
• NHWhites Non-hispanic whites
• families married couples, married couples
  children, parent children

• Best Correlates
• (Indicators and correlations)
• vote Bush 04 - .84
• pop Metropolitan 00 .64
• pop Metropolitan 62 .62
• Disposable Personal Income 00 .60
• pop. Catholic 02 .50
• pop 25 with BA 90 .50
• pop Evangelical 02 -.56
• workers unionized .47
• Disposable Personal Income 80 .45
• Plus estimate of Mormon in Utah

8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
Same-sex marriage amendments small extra
effects

• Large differences in wording of the amendments !
• Minimum
• non-recognition of same-sex marriage/partnership
• Maximum
• non-recognition of any partnership other than
  marriage
• Vote in favor of amendments is slightly reduced
• if amendment is maximal
• if voter initiated rather than initiated by
  legislature
• if referendum later in time

17
Conclusions

• SDT-dimension is very good and robust predictor
  of recent voting outcomes at state and county
  levels.
• But it explains regional/local differentials, not
  levels per se.
• Other culture war issues even better predicted
  by SDT than presidential elections.
• Regional variance in SDT is very large in US,
  reflecting a high degree of life style diversity.
  Evangelical backlash increased variance in value
  orientations.
• Result culture war is not solely an elite
  affair but reflects an important degree of public
  heterogeneity as well.

18
BOTTOM LINE

• The US is a textbook example of how spatial
  ideational differentials shaped the map of the
  SDT, and how in its turn, the SDT-map
  co-determines the political outcomes at levels of
  states and counties.