Fertility in Japan
From Demography
This page gives information of type fertility about the country Japan.
See all pages giving information on fertility for particular countries|See all pages giving information about Japan
Contents
Data sources
- Some data on this page comes from the Human Fertility Database (website www.humanfertility.org) (data downloaded December 2, 2013, last updated by HFD August 8, 2012). The data collected by the Human Fertility Database is based on government data collection by the government of Japan. You can download the data yourself here. Details about the modalities of data collection are available here. Where available, we use HFD data because of its higher reliability.
- Where better data is not available, we have relied on Gapminder's variables related to fertility: total fertility rate (variable number gd008, full documentation here, variable name Children per woman (total fertility)), crude birth rate (from the UN here), and surviving kids per woman.
Key quantitative metrics
Unless otherwise specified, data is from the Human Fertility Database, last updated August 2012.
The "Year" column below gives the period year for period measures, and the birth cohort year for cohort measures. With the exception of the tempo-adjusted total fertility rate, all latest period measures are for 2009. Latest cohort measures are 1959 or 1969, the former for the completed measures and the latter for the under-40 measures.
| Metric | Direct fertility measure, comparable with replacement fertility value of 2.1? | Period measure or cohort measure? | Most recent measurement | Year | Data year range, with link to data | Maximum in range | Minimum in range |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| crude birth rate (CBR) | No | Period | 8.5 | 2009 | 1947-2009 | 34.65 (1947) |
8.43 (2005) |
| total fertility rate (TFR) | Yes | Period | 1.361 | 2009 | 1947-2009 | 4.566 (1947) |
1.254 (2005) |
| TFR40 | Yes(ish) | Period | 1.324 | 2009 | 1947-2009 | 4.252 (1947) |
1.228 (2005) |
| CBR proportions by birth order | No | Period | birth orders 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (and more) (respectively): 0.479, 0.365, 0.126, 0.024, 0.007 | 2009 | 1968-2009 | ||
| TFR proportions by birth order | No | Period | birth orders 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (and more) (respectively): 0.495, 0.357, 0.118, 0.022, 0.007 | 2009 | 1968-2009 | ||
| Completed cohort fertility | Yes | Cohort | 1.87 | 1959 | 1932-1959 | 2.071 (1941 cohort) |
1.851 (1945 cohort) |
| CCF40 | Yes(ish) | Cohort | 1.444 | 1969 | 1932-1969 | 2.062 (1941 cohort) |
1.444 (1969 cohort) |
| Mean age at birth | No | Period | 30.44 | 2009 | 1947-2009 | 30.47 (1947) |
27.47 (1975) |
| Cohort mean age at birth | No | Cohort | 28.64 | 1959 | 1953-1959 | 28.64 (1959 cohort) |
27.92 (1953 cohort) |
| Cohort mean age at birth for birth cohorts till the age of 40 (CMAB40) | No | Cohort | 29.55 | 1969 | 1953-1969 | 29.55 (1969) |
27.82 (1953) |
| Tempo-adjusted total fertility rate (period measure) | Yes | Period | 1.512 | 2008 | 1969-2008 | 2.045 (1969) |
1.369 (2005) |
Qualitative history of fertility-relevant events and trends
Key events
See Wikipedia:Abortion in Japan for the abortion timeline, and this paper for the pro-natalist policy timeline.
| Year | Type of event | Direction (pronatalist versus antinatalist) based on intentions and naive reasoning about effects | Event | Postulated effects seen in fertility statistics | Total fertility rate values in that year and nearby years (relevant year in bold) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1869 | fertility policy | pronatalist | abortion was banned nationwide, but punishment was rare except in cases of adultery or death to the mother | ||
| 1880 | fertility policy | pronatalist | ban on abortion was included in the penal code | ||
| 1907 | fertility policy | pronatalist | women could be incarcerated for up to a year for having an abortion; practitioners could be jailed for up to seven. | ||
| 1923 | fertility policy | antinatalist | doctors were granted legal permission to perform emergency abortions to save the mother's life; abortions performed under different, less life-threatening circumstances were still prosecuted. | ||
| 1940 | fertility policy | pronatalist | National Eugenic Law outlined a set of procedures doctors needed to follow in order to get an abortion. | Some commentators claim this was causally responsible for a huge decline in the number of abortions 1941-1944. | |
| 1948 | fertility policy | antinatalist | passage of Eugenic Protection Law legalizing abortion and facilitating the provision of family planning services | This may have contributed to the rapid decline in birth rates and fertility in the 1949-1955 period. | 4.566, 4.444, 4.357, 3.672 |
| 1966 | superstition | antinatalist (but temporary) | inauspicious year for births. | sudden dip in fertility rates. | 2.045, 2.145, 1.579, 2.224, 2.127 |
| 1972 | family policy | pronatalist | The Japanese government, foreseeing that fertility would soon drop to below the replacement fertility level, introduced a per-child subsidy. | ||
| 1973 | measurement issue | -- | change in data collection modalities | Jumps or discontinuities at this year are likely attributable to the change in data collection modality. | 2.153, 2.138, 2.135, 2.04, 1.9 |
| 1991 | family policy | pronatalist | Childcare Leave Act passed by Japanese government aimed at helping working mothers | 1.576, 1.543, 1.537, 1.506, 1.464 | |
| 1994 | family policy | pronatalist | government passed a four-year Angel Plan 1995-99 (officially known as the "Basic Direction for Future Childbearing Support Measures") with the primary goal being to establish more day-care centers to make parenting easier (and thereby, more attractive) | 1.506, 1.464, 1.507, 1.426, 1.43 | |
| 1996 | fertility policy | pronatalist | replacement of the Eugenic Protection Law by the Maternal Health Protection Law, making abortion illegal except in case the fetus had significant defects or in case of danger to the mother's health | No discernible effect, but probably because the law itself didn't change reality on the ground. | 1.507, 1.426, 1.43, 1.392, 1.388 |
| 1999 | family policy | pronatalist | government passed a New Angel Plan building on the earlier Angel Plan, to build more day-care centers and after-school support. | 1.392, 1.388, 1.347, 1.318, 1.29 | |
| 1999 | fertility policy | antinatalist | birth control pills were legalized, see here | No discernible effect | 1.392, 1.388, 1.347, 1.318, 1.29 |
| 2001 | family policy | pronatalist | Employment Insurance Law was amended, specifying that 40% salary was to be paid to regular full-time employees on childcare leave | 1.347, 1.359, 1.336, 1.318, 1.29 | |
| 2002 | family policy | pronatalist | "Plus One" plan announced by the government, encouraging fathers to take five-day paternity leave following childbirth | 1.359, 1.336, 1.318, 1.29, 1.288 | |
| 2003 | diffuse, mix of family policy and fertility policy | pronatalist | Japanese government passed "Next Generation" law and "Law for Measures to Support the Development of the Next Generation." These required any business with more than 300 workers to create a "plan" for raising the fertility level of its workers | 1.336, 1.318, 1.29, 1.288, 1.254 | |
| 2004 | fertility policy | pronatalist | government subsidies for infertility treatments began | 1.318, 1.29, 1.288, 1.254, 1.313 | |
| 2006 | fertility policy | antinatalist | abortion was officially made legal conditional to the mother's consent | No discernible effect, but probably because the law itself didn't change reality on the ground. | 1.288, 1.254, 1.313, 1.331, 1.36 |
Trends in period fertility
The fertility history of Japan can be subdivided into the following rough periods. Fertility history prior to 1947 relies on Gapminder, which uses the less reliable UN data, whereas fertility history 1947 onward uses the higher reliability HFD data. However, for the part 1947 onward, the Gapminder and HFD data paint a similar picture, and the only qualitative difference is that the Gapminder data fail to capture the dip in 1966.
| Time period | Trend in fertility | Some numbers | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1873-1901 | huge increase | TFR increased from 3.41 to 5.01 | |
| 1901-1906 | rapid decrease | TFR decreased from 5.01 to 4.37 | |
| 1907-1919 | upward jump, followed by modest decrease | TFR jumped up to 5.02 (from 4.37 the previous year), then decreased gradually to 4.77 | The introduction of explicit penalties for women who have abortions in 1907 might explain the jump. |
| 1920-1939 | rapid decrease | TFR decreased from 5.35 to 3.8 | The sudden change between 1919 and 1920 may be attributable to the change in data source. |
| 1939-1947 | fluctuation | TFR increased from 3.8 to 4.5, but with fluctuations | The war years of 1944 and 1945 were particularly bad for TFR. |
| 1947-1957 | huge decrease | CBR decreased from 34.65 to 17.38 TFR decreased from 4.566 to 2.058 |
Possibly exacerbated by the legalization of abortion in 1948. Note that the starting point of 1947 is the earliest year for which reliable data can be found, and Japan was also involved in World War II till 1945. Therefore, the relevance of legal abortion in the decline of fertility is hard to test. |
| 1957-1973 | modest decrease followed by modest increase | CBR increased from 17.38 to 19.35 TFR increased from 2.058 to 2.135, dipping to about 1.9 in between 1959 was the first year with below-replacement fertility, and 1973 was the last year with above-replacement fertility |
The year 1966, an inauspicious year for births, was in the middle of this period. Adjusting for the huge decline in birth sin these year and the subsequently slightly-above-normal value next year, we see a steady and modest increase in fertility over the period. Tightening of abortion laws is probably part of the explanation. |
| 1973-present | gradual decrease | CBR decreased from 19.35 to 8.5 TFR decreased from 2.135 to 1.361 |
The decline was not steady, with small upticks in a few years, including what may be a more long-term rebound 2005-2009 (further data would be necessary to verify that). But the overall direction of decline is pretty strong. For a discussion of reasons, see explanations for fertility trends in Japan since 1973. |
Trends in completed fertility
| Range of birth cohorts | Trend in fertility | Some numbers | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1932-1944 | stayed roughly steady, declining and then bouncing back | CCF decreased from 2.06 to 2.035 CCF40 decreased from 2.047 to 2.027 |
The fertility seems to have gone up a bit for the cohorts born during World War II, but the overall variation is too little. Mean CCF for the period is 2.036 and standard deviation is 0.023. |
| 1945-1959 | stayed roughly steady, but lower than the 1932-1944 level | CCF increased from 1.851 to 1.87 CCF40 increased from 1.842 to 1.85 |
Mean CCF was 1.95 and standard deviation 0.049. Mean CCF40 was 1.94 and standard deviation 0.049. |
| 1959-1969 | rapid decline | CCF data unavailable CCF40 decreased from 1.85 to 1.444 |
Slope for rate of decline using linear regression estimate is -0.04. |
Period fertility
Further information: period fertility in Japan
| Year | CBR (births per 1000 people per year) | CBR minus previous year's CBR | TFR (sum of all age-specific fertility rates), ballpark for replacement fertility is 2.1 | TFR minus previous year's TFR | TFR40 (sum of age-specific fertility rates up to the age of 40), almost equal to TFR because births above the age of 40 are rare | TFR40 minus previous year's TFR40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1947 | 34.65 | 4.566 | 4.252 | |||
| 1948 (passage of Eugenic Protection Law permitting abortion and facilitating provision of fmaily planning services) | 33.95 | -0.7 | 4.444 | -0.122 | 4.132 | -0.12 |
| 1949 | 33.42 | -0.53 | 4.357 | -0.087 | 4.101 | -0.031 |
| 1950 | 28.42 | -5 | 3.672 | -0.685 | 3.486 | -0.615 |
| 1951 | 25.55 | -2.87 | 3.281 | -0.391 | 3.13 | -0.356 |
| 1952 | 23.6 | -1.95 | 2.995 | -0.286 | 2.874 | -0.256 |
| 1953 | 21.67 | -1.93 | 2.713 | -0.282 | 2.617 | -0.257 |
| 1954 | 20.27 | -1.4 | 2.502 | -0.211 | 2.423 | -0.194 |
| 1955 | 19.58 | -0.69 | 2.383 | -0.119 | 2.316 | -0.107 |
| 1956 | 18.63 | -0.95 | 2.236 | -0.147 | 2.18 | -0.136 |
| 1957 | 17.38 | -1.25 | 2.058 | -0.178 | 2.013 | -0.167 |
| 1958 | 18.18 | 0.8 | 2.129 | 0.071 | 2.089 | 0.076 |
| 1959 (first year with TFR below replacement fertility) | 17.71 | -0.47 | 2.061 | -0.068 | 2.027 | -0.062 |
| 1960 | 17.33 | -0.38 | 2.008 | -0.053 | 1.98 | -0.047 |
| 1961 | 16.99 | -0.34 | 1.963 | -0.045 | 1.94 | -0.04 |
| 1962 | 17.14 | 0.15 | 1.974 | 0.011 | 1.954 | 0.014 |
| 1963 | 17.4 | 0.26 | 2.001 | 0.027 | 1.983 | 0.029 |
| 1964 | 17.81 | 0.41 | 2.045 | 0.044 | 2.028 | 0.045 |
| 1965 | 18.72 | 0.91 | 2.145 | 0.1 | 2.129 | 0.101 |
| 1966 (inauspicious year for births) | 13.85 | -4.87 | 1.579 | -0.566 | 1.565 | -0.564 |
| 1967 | 19.49 | 5.64 | 2.224 | 0.645 | 2.21 | 0.645 |
| 1968 | 18.63 | -0.86 | 2.127 | -0.097 | 2.112 | -0.098 |
| 1969 | 18.58 | -0.05 | 2.119 | -0.008 | 2.105 | -0.007 |
| 1970 | 18.8 | 0.22 | 2.129 | 0.01 | 2.115 | 0.01 |
| 1971 | 19.21 | 0.41 | 2.153 | 0.024 | 2.139 | 0.024 |
| 1972 | 19.3 | 0.09 | 2.138 | -0.015 | 2.125 | -0.014 |
| 1973 (last year with TFR above the replacement fertility level; also, first year with new data collection modality) | 19.35 | 0.05 | 2.135 | -0.003 | 2.121 | -0.004 |
| 1974 | 18.52 | -0.83 | 2.04 | -0.095 | 2.028 | -0.093 |
| 1975 | 17.14 | -1.38 | 1.9 | -0.14 | 1.889 | -0.139 |
| 1976 | 16.34 | -0.8 | 1.84 | -0.06 | 1.83 | -0.059 |
| 1977 | 15.5 | -0.84 | 1.786 | -0.054 | 1.776 | -0.054 |
| 1978 | 14.95 | -0.55 | 1.774 | -0.012 | 1.765 | -0.011 |
| 1979 | 14.25 | -0.7 | 1.751 | -0.023 | 1.742 | -0.023 |
| 1980 | 13.57 | -0.68 | 1.731 | -0.02 | 1.722 | -0.02 |
| 1981 | 13.07 | -0.5 | 1.726 | -0.005 | 1.718 | -0.004 |
| 1982 | 12.86 | -0.21 | 1.755 | 0.029 | 1.746 | 0.028 |
| 1983 | 12.72 | -0.14 | 1.788 | 0.033 | 1.779 | 0.033 |
| 1984 | 12.48 | -0.24 | 1.8 | 0.012 | 1.79 | 0.011 |
| 1985 | 11.92 | -0.56 | 1.757 | -0.043 | 1.747 | -0.043 |
| 1986 | 11.45 | -0.47 | 1.719 | -0.038 | 1.709 | -0.038 |
| 1987 | 11.1 | -0.35 | 1.689 | -0.03 | 1.68 | -0.029 |
| 1988 | 10.79 | -0.31 | 1.657 | -0.032 | 1.647 | -0.033 |
| 1989 | 10.2 | -0.59 | 1.576 | -0.081 | 1.565 | -0.082 |
| 1990 | 9.96 | -0.24 | 1.543 | -0.033 | 1.531 | -0.034 |
| 1991 | 9.95 | -0.01 | 1.537 | -0.006 | 1.525 | -0.006 |
| 1992 | 9.8 | -0.15 | 1.506 | -0.031 | 1.493 | -0.032 |
| 1993 | 9.61 | -0.19 | 1.464 | -0.042 | 1.451 | -0.042 |
| 1994 | 9.98 | 0.37 | 1.507 | 0.043 | 1.493 | 0.042 |
| 1995 | 9.55 | -0.43 | 1.426 | -0.081 | 1.411 | -0.082 |
| 1996 | 9.68 | 0.13 | 1.43 | 0.004 | 1.414 | 0.003 |
| 1997 | 9.54 | -0.14 | 1.392 | -0.038 | 1.376 | -0.038 |
| 1998 | 9.61 | 0.07 | 1.388 | -0.004 | 1.371 | -0.005 |
| 1999 | 9.39 | -0.22 | 1.347 | -0.041 | 1.329 | -0.042 |
| 2000 | 9.49 | 0.1 | 1.359 | 0.012 | 1.339 | 0.01 |
| 2001 | 9.31 | -0.18 | 1.336 | -0.023 | 1.316 | -0.023 |
| 2002 | 9.16 | -0.15 | 1.318 | -0.018 | 1.297 | -0.019 |
| 2003 | 8.91 | -0.25 | 1.29 | -0.028 | 1.266 | -0.031 |
| 2004 | 8.81 | -0.1 | 1.288 | -0.002 | 1.263 | -0.003 |
| 2005 | 8.43 | -0.38 | 1.254 | -0.034 | 1.228 | -0.035 |
| 2006 | 8.67 | 0.24 | 1.313 | 0.059 | 1.285 | 0.057 |
| 2007 | 8.64 | -0.03 | 1.331 | 0.018 | 1.299 | 0.014 |
| 2008 | 8.66 | 0.02 | 1.36 | 0.029 | 1.326 | 0.027 |
| 2009 | 8.5 | -0.16 | 1.361 | 0.001 | 1.324 | -0.002 |
| Maximum | 34.65 (1947) |
5.64 (1967) |
4.566 (1947) |
0.645 (1967) |
4.252 (1947) |
0.645 (1967) |
| Minimum | 8.43 (2005) |
-5 (1950) |
1.254 (2005) |
-0.685 (1950) |
1.228 (2005) |
-0.615 (1950) |
| Average (arithmetic mean) | 15.366984127 | -0.4217741935 | 1.971047619 | -0.0516935484 | 1.9304126984 | -0.0472258065 |
| Geometric mean | 14.2564922903 | 1.8716644672 | 1.8411780514 | |||
| Median | 14.25 | -0.245 | 1.786 | -0.029 | 1.776 | -0.03 |
| Standard deviation | 6.3600331291 | 1.2910175478 | 0.7350500406 | 0.1619209065 | 0.6754908761 | 0.1543309643 |
| Slope for best linear fit (using linear regression) | -0.3094743664 | 0.0196975649 | -0.0323055876 | 0.0031489764 | -0.0303344854 | 0.0027210597 |
| Multiplier for best log-linear fit (using linear regression on the logarithm) | 0.9803430789 | 0.985175264 | 0.985546664 | |||
 for linear regression |
0.7955544081 | 0.075772529 | 0.6490239958 | 0.1231073376 | 0.6776002642 | 0.1011861286 |
Completed fertility
Further information: completed fertility in Japan
| Cohort | CCF | CCF minus previous year's CCF | CCF40 | CCF40 minus previous year's CCF40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1932 | 2.06 | 2.047 | ||
| 1933 | 2.035 | -0.025 | 2.024 | -0.023 |
| 1934 | 2.008 | -0.027 | 1.998 | -0.026 |
| 1935 | 2.045 | 0.037 | 2.035 | 0.037 |
| 1936 | 2.035 | -0.01 | 2.026 | -0.009 |
| 1937 | 2.051 | 0.016 | 2.042 | 0.016 |
| 1938 | 2.009 | -0.042 | 2.001 | -0.041 |
| 1939 | 1.985 | -0.024 | 1.976 | -0.025 |
| 1940 | 2.052 | 0.067 | 2.043 | 0.067 |
| 1941 | 2.071 | 0.019 | 2.062 | 0.019 |
| 1942 | 2.031 | -0.04 | 2.022 | -0.04 |
| 1943 | 2.053 | 0.022 | 2.044 | 0.022 |
| 1944 | 2.036 | -0.017 | 2.027 | -0.017 |
| 1945 | 1.851 | -0.185 | 1.842 | -0.185 |
| 1946 | 1.905 | 0.054 | 1.896 | 0.054 |
| 1947 | 2.021 | 0.116 | 2.01 | 0.114 |
| 1948 | 1.987 | -0.034 | 1.976 | -0.034 |
| 1949 | 1.992 | 0.005 | 1.98 | 0.004 |
| 1950 | 1.969 | -0.023 | 1.956 | -0.024 |
| 1951 | 1.962 | -0.007 | 1.949 | -0.007 |
| 1952 | 1.982 | 0.02 | 1.968 | 0.019 |
| 1953 | 1.987 | 0.005 | 1.973 | 0.005 |
| 1954 | 1.983 | -0.004 | 1.968 | -0.005 |
| 1955 | 1.977 | -0.006 | 1.961 | -0.007 |
| 1956 | 1.946 | -0.031 | 1.929 | -0.032 |
| 1957 | 1.918 | -0.028 | 1.9 | -0.029 |
| 1958 | 1.909 | -0.009 | 1.89 | -0.01 |
| 1959 | 1.87 | -0.039 | 1.85 | -0.04 |
| 1960 | unavailable | 1.805 | -0.045 | |
| 1961 | unavailable | 1.762 | -0.043 | |
| 1962 | unavailable | 1.719 | -0.043 | |
| 1963 | unavailable | 1.672 | -0.047 | |
| 1964 | unavailable | 1.66 | -0.012 | |
| 1965 | unavailable | 1.595 | -0.065 | |
| 1966 | unavailable | 1.493 | -0.102 | |
| 1967 | unavailable | 1.506 | 0.013 | |
| 1968 | unavailable | 1.497 | -0.009 | |
| 1969 | unavailable | 1.444 | -0.053 | |
| Mean (1932-1959) | 1.9903571429 | -0.007037037 | 1.9783928571 | -0.0072962963 |
| Median (1932-1959) | 1.9895 | -0.009 | 1.978 | -0.009 |
| Standard deviation (1932-1959) | 0.0582747098 | 0.0509467909 | 0.0602871765 | 0.0507488649 |
| Slope for best linear fit (using linear regression) (1932-1959) | -0.004805145 | -0.0004334554 | -0.0051409414 | -0.000510989 |
| -- goodness of linear fit (square of the correlation) as a function of time |
0.4600738487 | 0.0045603249 | 0.4920510998 | 0.0063872072 |
| Multiplier for best logarithmic fit (using log-linear regression) (1932-1959) | 0.997579501 | 0.9973921665 | ||
| Mean (1960-1969) | 1.6153 | -0.0406 | ||
| Median (1960-1969) | 1.6275 | -0.044 | ||
| Standard deviation (1960-1969) | 0.1265473561 | 0.0321116109 | ||
| Slope for best linear fit (using linear regression) (1960-1969) | -0.0410363636 | 0.0013818182 | ||
| -- goodness of linear fit (square of the correlation) as a function of time |
0.9639245164 | 0.01697419 | ||
| Multiplier for best logarithmic fit (using log-linear regression) (1960-1969) | 0.9749241926 |
Other data on fertility
- Age distribution of mothers at birth in Japan includes data on the mean age at birth, standard deviation in age at birth, and cohort mean age at birth.
- Tempo-adjusted total fertility rate in Japan includes data on the tempo-adjusted total fertility rate.
Fertility broken down further
Social structures and policies
- Demographics of Japan
- Population trends in Japan
- Migration in Japan
- Marriage in Japan
- Abortion in Japan
References
- Japan's Baby Bust: Causes, Implications, and Policy Responses by Robert D. Retherford and Naohiri Ogawa, East-West Center Working Papers: Population and Health Series, (April 2005): Free download (PDF)More info
- Trends in fertility by education in Japan, 1966-2000 by Robert D. Retherford, Naohiri Ogawa and Rokiya Matsukura, (February 2004): Ungated PDFMore info
