Education and Fertility: A Review of Recent Research in Europe Education and Fertility: A Review of Recent Research in Europe Sindhu Vasireddy, Ann Berrington, Bernice Kuang, Hill Kulu Abstract: This paper reviews research on education and childbearing in Europe over the last decade. Early demographic research attributed declining fertility in advanced economies in the second half of the twentieth century to increasing female educational levels. The twenty- rst century has witnessed further increases in educational attainment coupled with trend reversals in fertility. The relationship between education and fertility has become more complex, sparking renewed interest in the interplay between the two life domains. We examine how educational enrolment and attainment in uence individuals’ fertility behaviour – both fertility timing and level – and how the relationship between education and fertility is shaped by contextual factors such as family policies, macroeconomic shocks, and normative changes in gender attitudes. We also summarise the recent literature on educational gradients in male fertility and review methodological developments to address issues of self-selection and unmeasured heterogeneity in the study of education and fertility. Finally, this paper identi es and discusses challenges and important areas for future research. Keywords: Fertility timing · Education · Fertility quantum · Europe 1 Introduction The decline in fertility to historically low-levels across Europe in the 20th century is often attributed to increased female educational enrolment and attainment (Basu 2002; Liefbroer/Corijn 1999). More recently, researchers explain the association through policy developments which encouraged the expansion of tertiary education (particularly for women); changes in laws relating to compulsory school leaving age (Cygan-Rehm/Maeder 2013; Brunello et al. 2009); and increased demand for higher education driven by macroeconomic trends such as increased economic uncertainty and reduced demand for unskilled workers as a result of globalisation (Meghir/Palme 2005). Increased enrolment and attainment were viewed as key Comparative Population Studies Vol. 48 (2023): 553-588 (Date of release: 20.09.2023) Federal Institute for Population Research 2023 URL: www.comparativepopulationstudies.de DOI: https://doi.org/10.12765/CPoS-2023-21 URN: urn:nbn:de:bib-cpos-2023-21en8 • Sindhu Vasireddy, Ann Berrington, Bernice Kuang, Hill Kulu554 factors encouraging the delay of parenting to older ages and smaller family sizes (Mills et al. 2011). However, the initial decades of the 21st century witnessed a reversal of fertility trends in some countries, where increases in fertility were seen despite another wave of educational expansion. Currently, the relationship between fertility and education in Europe is heterogeneous and sensitive to individual and contextual factors: while some studies report a positive relationship between educational attainment and fertility; some report negative, mixed, or u-shaped associations varying over countries and cohorts (Goldstein et al. 2009; Klesment et al. 2014; Nisén et al. 2021; Sobotka et al. 2017). Examination of educational differences in the decline of fertility in Nordic countries suggests that it is those with the least education who have experienced the greatest fertility declines (Hellstrand et al. 2020). In Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, the educational gradient in childlessness has now reversed such that those with the least education are more likely to be childless (Jalovaara et al. 2019). These patterns indicate a need to look afresh at how education shapes fertility dynamics in high-income countries. This paper  lls the described gap in the literature by reviewing research  ndings from the last decade which have examined the relationship between educational enrolment and attainment on fertility. We examine the association between education and fertility timing, separately from its association with quantum. We also identify differences in the relationship according to parity, since the mechanisms governing the decision and timing of entry into parenthood are different to those in uencing second or higher-order births. Notably, we also present how external factors such as family policies in the context of welfare regimes, gender equality and equity, and economic cycles work as moderators in shaping the association between education and childbearing. Our study is inspired by the review by Balbo and colleagues (Balbo et al. 2013) published almost a decade ago, who presented a comprehensive review of the literature on fertility determinants. However, they did not focus on the association between education and fertility and the mechanisms that connect them at length. Also, following this work, although many studies investigated the link between education and fertility, each of them focused on a speci c aspect, such as economic inequality (Adserà 2017) or the gender revolution (Goldscheider et al. 2015), paying little (or no) attention to linkages between the different factors. Our review makes several contributions to this literature: Firstly, we discuss recent theoretical developments. Secondly, we review recent empirical evidence emphasising  ndings from the past decade, including emerging literature on male fertility and the educational attainment of both partners. Lastly, we examine the mechanisms linking education and fertility along with the methodologies used to uncover them. We discuss the extent to which relationships between education and fertility have been shown to be causal. Finally, we identify the strengths and limitations of the current state of research and discuss future opportunities in this study. Education and Fertility: A Review of Recent Research in Europe • 555 2 Development of theoretical frameworks In structural explanations of the demographic transition, education has been used as an indicator of socio-economic development. More recently, it has been identi ed as a catalyst of “modernisation” in innovation-diffusion theories, in which educated women are portrayed as “forerunners” of the fertility transition, that is, as pioneers of smaller families. Given the dif culty of collecting data on income, occupation, or social status in demographic surveys, education is typically used as an index of socio-economic status and as a surrogate for hard-to-measure concepts, such as opportunity costs. Moreover, it is frequently the only available indicator for the concept of women’s status, which positions women vis-a-vis men in both the family and society. The wide range of concepts for which education serves as a proxy re ects the multifaceted nature of the educational experience. Microeconomic theories of fertility argue that people derive satisfaction from having children and from their children’s well-being and must choose whether to invest in the number of children or increase their expenditure on fewer children to improve child outcomes – the “quality-quantity trade-off” (Becker 1960). If higher education is a proxy for higher income and social status, highly educated couples with more resources are expected to have more children. However, the observed trend during the 1970s and 1980s was the opposite: the educational expansion and longer enrolment was generally accompanied by fertility decline in most European countries. This was explained by a “substitution effect” – educated women were more likely to participate in wage-earning labour, earn more, and thus faced increased opportunity costs of childbearing (Becker 1974; Joshi 1990). Childrearing is not only associated with the direct costs of having a child, but also with the indirect costs for educated women who must also consider scaling back their commitment to the labour market. These theories highlight key gender differences in traditional family settings: women with higher educational attainment face a high opportunity cost of childbearing due to the substitution effect, while among men, higher education is associated with better resources for having children. We discuss these dynamics later, as the opportunity costs of childbearing will depend on how individuals, particularly mothers with different educational backgrounds, combine paid and unpaid work, which is strongly in uenced by social context, particularly gender roles, and family policies. In the 21st century, theoretical perspectives have focused on the fertility response to increased economic uncertainty, including uncertainty related to globalisation (Alderotti et al. 2021; Comolli/Vignoli 2021; Mills/Blossfeld 2013; Vignoli et al. 2020). Theorists have highlighted how the impact of the recession, including increased unemployment, differentially affects direct and indirect costs of childbearing by the level of education. For example, while unemployment during the recession may be an opportunity for low-educated women to enter parenthood increasing their odds of pursuing the “motherhood track”, similar conditions may not encourage childbearing among highly educated women as well as men, as seen in Denmark and Germany (Kreyenfeld/Andersson 2014). Further, the gendered component • Sindhu Vasireddy, Ann Berrington, Bernice Kuang, Hill Kulu556 explaining these educational differentials has been bifurcated into measures for equity and equality (Guzzo/Hayford 2020). Second Demographic Transition theory (SDT) posits the rise of higher-order needs within post-materialist settings (Inglehart 2009). Highly educated individuals are seen to pursue self-actualisation, individual autonomy, and hold views that question traditional values focused on childbearing and family roles (Lesthaeghe 2014; Merz/Liefbroer 2012). Thus, women with high educational attainment have fewer children due to competing goals and interests (Lesthaeghe 2010). Moreover, according to SDT, increased educational attainment is associated with higher status- seeking. Status-seeking highly educated individuals wait until they have a stable career and key material prerequisites before family formation, leading to fertility postponement or a reduction in completed fertility (Oppenheimer 1988; Rindfuss et al. 1980). Status can also be sought through assortative partnering where highly educated women might choose to wait for a highly educated partner to start a family (Kreyenfeld 2002). These preferences create a “marriage squeeze” for women due to the lack of suitable partners which might have important implications for fertility and are understudied in the empirical literature (Huber/Fieder 2011; Van Bavel 2012). Status seeking through high-quality children leads highly educated parents toward the “quality trade-off”, investing more in fewer children to maintain their social status (Mortimer et al. 2017). Among men, a positive educational gradient tends to be seen (Trimarchi/ Van Bavel 2017); low educational attainment and job instability are linked to childlessness, often operating through the lack of a stable partner (Berrington/ Pattaro 2014). Over the past 40 years or so, there is a shift from Becker’s model of “specialization” to the “pooling resource” model (Oppenheimer 1994), revealing an increased need for domestic and labour market contributions from both sexes. To a certain extent, the educational differences in these changes have been explained by the “power rule” proposed by Thomson (1990). Women with as many or larger resources as their husbands have higher intra-household bargaining power in decision-making, meaning that highly educated women more often expect their partners to participate in household labour and childcare (Goldscheider et al. 2015; Jalovaara et al. 2019). Consequently, in societies where there is greater equal gender division of household labour, the costs of childbearing are reduced, especially for well-educated women. Thus, in the later stages of the gender revolution, fertility rates might increase, and educational differentials in childbearing narrow. However, such transitions may increase opportunity costs for men, especially those with higher educational attainments (who are more likely to partner with highly educated women), leading them to postpone family formation (Esping-Andersen/Billari 2015; Huinink/Kohli 2014; Jalovaara/Fasang 2017). Several authors have put forward theories as to how macro-level factors including institutional frameworks (such as family and welfare policies) and social norms (such as gender attitudes) moderate the association between education and fertility (Esping-Andersen 2018; McDonald 2000; Neyer et al. 2017a; Thévenon 2011). Recent theoretical growth has differentiated between gender equality and equity, where family policy changes, such as subsidised childcare services, Education and Fertility: A Review of Recent Research in Europe • 557 maternity-leave policies, and provision to return to work following maternity leave, may mitigate the challenges of role incompatibility faced by women (Rendall et al. 2010). Supportive family welfare policies are theorised to be particularly bene cial for highly educated women in stable jobs and less helpful to less educated women who may have a more precarious relationship with the labour market, leading to a reversal in the educational gradient of fertility (Jalovaara et al. 2019). However, the effectiveness of family policies for educated women is observed to be dependent on other factors, such as gender equality. While family welfare policies with high gender equality both in the public and private spheres seem effective in Nordic countries; in countries such as Germany and Austria, the male-breadwinner model was prevalent until recently, leading to wide educational differentials in fertility as women are expected to take long leaves for childcare, and childcare services are limited (Neyer/Andersson 2008). Thus, the ideas of gender norms and men’s share of domestic work are gaining signi cance in understanding fertility differentials based on female educational attainment. Yet, studies on the interplay of education and contextual factors among men are rare. 3 Measuring education and fertility It is useful to distinguish between educational enrolment and educational attainment as different mechanisms through which education affects childbearing. Educational enrolment characterises individuals according to whether they are currently studying (Blossfeld/Huinink 1991), their method of study, and has expanded to examine those who have a dual status, working and studying part-time (Spéder/ Bartus 2017). Recently, the effect of technological advancements in education on fertility such as online learning has also been examined (Andersson 2019; Cowen/ Tabarrok 2014). The age at leaving full-time education has become the main factor used to explain fertility timing in the last decade, sometimes explaining as much as 80 percent of the increase in the mean age at  rst birth (Beaujouan/Berghammer 2019; Neels et al. 2014; Ní Bhrolcháin/Beaujouan 2012). Educational attainment, or the highest level of education completed by a respondent, is commonly used in individual studies due to its ease of self-report and/ or recording in administrative systems. While country-speci c studies differ in the categorisation used, educational attainment is often divided into “low”, “medium”, and “high”, using the International Standard Classi cation of Education (ISCED), enabling cross-national comparability. “Low” refers to primary and lower secondary attainment (ISCED 0-2). “Medium” refers to upper-secondary and post-secondary education (ISCED 3-4). “High” refers to the attainment of tertiary education (ISCED 5-6) (UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2012). Some researchers have extended attainment to include the  eld of study (Hoem et al. 2006a/b; Van Bavel 2010) and highlight it to be a consequential determinant of the fertility behaviour of women, although there are no works that consider it in the context of men. Studies that examine the effect of education on childbearing face several challenges. Firstly, while educational enrolment and attainment can in uence • Sindhu Vasireddy, Ann Berrington, Bernice Kuang, Hill Kulu558 individuals’ childbearing decisions, childbearing can also impact their opportunities and choices for further education due to the perception of role incompatibility. For example, Cohen and colleagues studying completed fertility show how Norwegian women who enter motherhood early are less likely to pursue long educational tracks (Cohen et al. 2011). Similarly, Gerster and colleagues (2014) found that dropping out of education among Danish women was partly attributable to women giving birth while enrolled in education. Secondly, information on educational attainment is often collected with retrospective fertility histories in cross-sectional surveys. In many countries, surveys do not always collect information on educational histories including the age or time of leaving education making it dif cult to identify the direction of causality. Some authors attempt to resolve this problem by using educational attainment up to the age of exposure (Kravdal 2007). Prospective data on the educational level are dif cult to procure when compared to retrospective histories and are less commonly used. Thirdly, educational attainment is confounded with numerous unobservable characteristics such as orientation to work and family attitudes (Tavares 2016), or genetic factors (Branigan et al. 2013; Mills/Tropf 2015; Tropf/Mandemakers 2017) which are correlated to both education and fertility. Twin studies, for example using Finnish register data, suggest that observed family characteristics can only partly explain the relationship between education and fertility (about 3-28 percent) (Nisén et al. 2014). Further, there are complexities regarding the measurement of fertility. Some studies analyse educational gradients by quantum whereas others focus on fertility timing or tempo, for example, analysing  rst childbearing ages or birth intervals (Beaujouan/Berghammer 2019). Researchers often face several dif culties in separately measuring educational gradients by tempo and quantum (Ní Bhrolcháin/ Beaujouan 2012). Comparisons of period measures of fertility, like Age Speci c Fertility Rates (ASFR), and the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) are affected by both tempo and quantum. Period fertility indicators of highly educated Spanish mothers on average showed 0.8 fewer children than those with low education levels in a study of births during 2007-2017 (Requena 2022). However, period measures of fertility will yield misleading  ndings regarding educational gradients in childbearing if births are being postponed deferentially by education. Including timing-quantum interactions can help examine whether the postponement of fertility may also lead to a reduction in completed fertility (Berrington et al. 2015; Kohler et al. 2002). Studies often use completed family size and parity distributions to measure the fertility quantum, usually calculated for cohorts that reach the end of their reproductive years. Interpretation of cohort differences in completed family size and parity distributions is made complex by the fact that over historical time the distribution of individuals across the educational categories changes: earlier cohorts have a larger share of women with little or low educational quali cations, whereas a higher proportion of more recent cohorts have tertiary level quali cations. Finally, male fertility has tended to be overlooked in the literature despite men’s higher levels of education, autonomy, and their important role in childbearing decisions. This is largely due to data limitations, as fertility surveys and census datasets tend to focus solely on mothers (Kravdal/Rinduss 2008). While recent Education and Fertility: A Review of Recent Research in Europe • 559 survey data, such as those collected within the Gender and Generations Programme (Fadel et al. 2020), have provided data for men, the linkage of births recorded within vital registration systems to fathers tends to be restricted to those countries which have population registers – which is why vital research on the relationship between education and male fertility is limited to the Nordic countries. 4 Educational enrolment and fertility 4.1 Fertility timing European countries have witnessed a surge in educational enrolment both in terms of the number of people who opt for higher education as well as the years of educational enrolment in recent times (OECD 2011). A consistent  nding in the literature is that higher enrolment directly impacts fertility through role incompatibility (Blossfeld/Huinink 1991) and is estimated to account for a third of the postponement of entry to motherhood in the UK, Belgium, and France (Neels et al. 2017). Indirectly, enrolment also plays a “sequencing effect” on fertility by delaying other life-course transitions such as  nding a job, attaining  nancial independence, and partnership formation, which accounts for about a fourth of the increase in the mean age at entry into motherhood (Neels et al. 2017). In addition, prolonged enrolment often involves living in the parental or a house share, further contributing to delays in entry to parenthood (Berrington/Diamond 2000). Recently, authors have started to examine the effect of enrolment in online distance education (ODE) on childbearing. It is hypothesised that ODE is associated with lower parenting costs compared to face-to-face learning (Andersson 2019; Cowen/Tabarrok 2014). Andersson (2019), studying Swedish women from 2004-2014, found lower  rst birth rates for those enrolled on campus compared to those in ODE. This research has been further extended to account for those who are both working and enrolled in higher education. Evidence from Hungary suggests that the latter have higher  rst birth rates compared to those solely enrolled in education, either due to increased wages, or the lack of normative expectations mitigating the sequencing effects of enrolment (Spéder/Bartus 2017). It is entirely possible that individuals, particularly women, expecting a child might lose the opportunities or the interest in pursuing higher education and hence the observed relationship results from a reverse causation (Kravdal 2007). The enrolment effect may also be due to a selection effect, whereby young adults who are more family orientated may leave education at an early age (Neyer et al. 2017b). The last decade has seen debates in the literature as to whether or not the observed association between educational enrolment and fertility represents a causal relationship, due to issues of endogeneity and self-selection. Some studies use exogenous changes in schooling policies and employ regression discontinuities or instrumental variables to address these constraints, such as changes in age-at- school-entry in Germany (McCrary/Royer 2011), minimum school-leaving age in the UK (Fort et al. 2014, Geruso/Royer 2018), the extension of compulsory schooling • Sindhu Vasireddy, Ann Berrington, Bernice Kuang, Hill Kulu560 by a year in Germany (Cygan-Rehm/Maeder 2013), extended duration of vocational education in Sweden (Grönqvist/Hall 2013), and compulsory schooling reform across Europe (Braakmann 2011; Fort et al. 2014). Other studies attempt to control for family background and environmental factors by utilising twin studies. For example, Tropf and Mandemakers (2017) use within-identical twin modelling on the TwinsUK registry to show that family environment can lead to an overestimation of effect size, highlighting the role of unobserved characteristics in jointly determining fertility and educational choices. Given the rarity of twin studies, the true extent to which educational enrolment has a causal effect on fertility remains unclear. 4.2 Fertility quantum Studies noting a positive association between educational enrolment and childlessness for women include those of Northern Europe (Rønsen/Skrede 2010) Western Europe (De Wachter/Neels 2011), and Southern Europe (Bagavos 2010). Their work discusses how education either operates through economic processes such as the opportunity costs of a career, or through cultural changes such as the SDT and changes in attitudes. However, the  nancial burden of educational enrolment such as debts incurred to fund education or lost wages, and the age at leaving full- time education remain important but understudied channels that can potentially impact fertility and family formation (Blossfeld/Huinink 1991; Oppenheimer 1994). Research focusing on the association between educational participation and fertility quantum is limited in extent partly as it is dif cult to disentangle the timing and quantum effects of educational enrolment. Longer enrolment periods have generally been associated with the postponement of entry into motherhood for women, which also shortens the reproductive window for higher-order births (Neels/ De Wachter 2010; Ni Bhrolchain/Beaujouan 2012). Many studies do not concretely address whether postponement adversely affects the family size, or if shorter subsequent birth intervals compensate for those having births at later ages. As a  nal note of caution in the interpretation of enrolment effects, it is worth considering that many of the individual-level studies of the association between enrolment and fertility are based on countries with state-subsidised educational systems. Their results may not apply to countries where enrolment in tertiary education is costly and where accumulated student debt could also delay family formation. 5 Educational attainment and fertility 5.1 Fertility timing The negative relationship between educational attainment and the timing of entry into childbearing is well documented across Europe (Berrington et al. 2015; Billingsley 2010; Kohler et al. 2002). Women with low educational attainment are more likely to experience early motherhood, whereas highly educated women tend to delay their births until their thirties. Despite the abundance of evidence that this Education and Fertility: A Review of Recent Research in Europe • 561 association exists, surprisingly few studies quantify the underlying mechanisms. The positive educational gradient of age at motherhood is commonly attributed to greater substitution effects among those with higher levels of education (Ní Bhrolcháin/Beaujouan 2012; Nitsche et al. 2018; Tanturri et al. 2015). Highly educated women (once the graduation age is controlled for) are likely to have steeper earnings trajectories than less educated women and thus the indirect costs of childbearing early in a career are greater (Mills et al. 2011). As a result, highly educated women tend to delay childbearing until they are well-established in their occupations. While at times, postponement need not be due to conscious decision-making (Rijken/Knijn 2009), highly educated parents in the Netherlands did not consider having children seriously until they had completed their education and worked for a few years. In some countries like the UK, the timing of entry into parenthood varies considerably according to educational attainment (Berrington et al. 2015), with teenage childbearing signi cant among those with the lowest levels of quali cations. In the US, early motherhood among generally poorer Black women is explained by the lack of opportunities for career advancement (fewer advantages to postponement) which still needs to be examined in the context of the UK. Some researchers note children to be a “meaning making” aspect of an individual’s life (Edin/Kafalas 2005), with some going as far as claiming motherhood to arguably be a positive life course event for teenagers (Duncan 2007). Despite this, the dominant discourse observes early childbearing as a result of poor education stemming from low aspirations or attributes it to the paucity of contraceptive knowledge among least educated women (Arai 2003; van de Kaa 1987; Lesthaeghe 2010; Silles 2011). The past decade has seen an increased availability of European longitudinal data used to understand life course trajectories in male childlessness (Kreyenfeld/ Konietzka 2017). Generally, there is a strong and positive association between male educational attainment and family size, most commonly through a positive income effect (Burkimsher/Zeman 2017; Nisén et al. 2013; Trimarchi 2016; Trimarchi/ Van Bavel 2017), although there is a delay in their entry to fatherhood in Nordic settings (Kravdal/Rindfuss 2008; Nisén et al. 2018). Demographic studies have also established a pro-cyclical relationship between male fertility postponement and male employment across educational categories (Neels et al. 2013; Pailhé/Solaz 2012; Schmitt 2012), wherein highly educated men increasingly delay  rst births due to a sense of economic insecurity during the educational pursuit. This association is pronounced for young men with low education who are particularly vulnerable to economic shocks, and typically more pronounced in countries that adhere to male breadwinning gender norms (Kreyenfeld/Andersson 2014). Other studies have focused on the role played by delayed union formation in deferring entry into parenthood. Higher educational attainment may delay partnerships through increased search time (Van Bavel 2012) or attempts to pool resources from both sexes at the household level (Oppenheimer 1994; Esping-Andersen/Billari 2015). Recent literature has shown the need to take a couple approach re ecting the transition studies from traditional ideas of educational heterogamy to homogamy and hypogamy (Bagavos 2017; Nitsche et al. 2018). Generally, homogamous couples who are highly educated delay their  rst births relative to those with a • Sindhu Vasireddy, Ann Berrington, Bernice Kuang, Hill Kulu562 low level of education. However, when we just look at highly educated women, both homogamy and hypogamy are associated with lower fertility. If educational attainment is assumed to increase the bargaining power of women, then the results are surprising, and emphasise the need to alleviate domestic burdens on highly educated women through better public services and gender-equality that goes beyond household bargaining power. However, this strand of research is yet to establish the relationship between bargaining power and fertility preferences in couples (not just the measurement of fertility outcomes). Another area of research that still requires more understanding is why educational differences in the timing of childbearing are very large in some countries such as the UK, but less in others such as France and Norway (Rendall et al. 2005). 5.2 Fertility quantum First births and childlessness There is a widely observed positive relationship between educational attainment and ultimate childlessness (Cygan-Rehm/Maeder 2013; Guzzo/Hayford 2020; Kalwij 2010; Requena/Salazar 2014; Wood et al. 2014). Postponement for higher educational attainment not only in uences fertility timing but is also associated with childlessness and is negatively linked to the realisation of fertility intentions (Berrington/Pattaro 2014; Morgan/Rackin 2010). Prolonged postponement is associated with increased chances of sterility and subfecundity (Te Velde et al. 2012). The decline in fertility rates during the last decades of the 20th century in Europe was associated with persistent educational differences in childlessness (Wood et al. 2014). In some countries, such as Norway and Belgium, the educational gradient remained fairly constant across cohorts born 1940-1961, whereas, in others such as Spain, the Netherlands, and the UK, the educational gradient strengthened over time (Wood et al. 2014). Among the 1958 British cohort, one-quarter of women with a university degree remained childless compared to 12 percent of those without any quali cations (Berrington/Pattaro 2014). Over 20 percent of highly educated women forgo having children in Switzerland (Sobotka et al. 2011), whilst every additional year of education increases the odds of childlessness by at least two percentage points and decreases births by more than 0.1 children for women in Germany (Cygan- Rehm/Maeder 2013), usually explained by dif culties for highly educated women in combining motherhood with a career. The divergence in educational gradients is largely prevalent in countries characterised by the persistence of traditional gender roles, lack of affordable childcare services, or conservative welfare regimes that place higher motherhood penalties on highly educated women (Hanappi et al. 2017; Gangl/Zie e 2009). In contrast, there is a narrowing of educational differentials in the Nordic fertility regime characterised by a  exible educational system, pro-natalist policies, and social democratic welfare governance (Andersson et al. 2009; Beaujouan et al. 2016; Jalovaara et al. 2019; Kravdal/Rinduss 2008). Although, this convergence is not so much due to reductions in the proportion of the childless among the highly Education and Fertility: A Review of Recent Research in Europe • 563 educated, due to a higher decline in cohort total fertility for low-educated women in Denmark, and stabilisation in Sweden and Norway (Jalovaara et al. 2019). The youngest cohorts in the Nordic countries saw a large reduction in fertility gaps between the medium and highly educated women. Union formation explains some of these differentials. While in some countries, more educated men face dif culty in  nding a matching partner (Berrington 2017; Miettinen 2010; Miettinen et al. 2015; Trimarchi/Van Bavel 2017); in France, less-educated men  nd it dif cult to partner and are more likely to be childless (Kreyenfeld/Konietzka 2017). Although postponement is expected to have less impact on the completed fertility of men compared with women due to men’s longer reproductive windows, childlessness ranges from 20-25 percent among educated men in Austria, Germany, Bulgaria, Netherlands, the UK, and Nordic countries (Chudnovskaya 2019; Jalovaara et al. 2017; Miettinen et al. 2015) calling for further investigation into the underlying reasons, especially as educational levels continue to rise (Berrington/Pattaro 2014; Jalovaara et al. 2017). Beyond the marriage squeeze effects for low-educated men, there are relevant unobserved effects. Further, socio-economic factors may play a greater in uence on fatherhood (income, social class, etc.) even more than educational prestige (de ned as higher degree attainment from reputed universities) (Chudnovskaya 2019), which is overlooked by the literature on male fertility due to the limited availability of information on fathers. In the last two decades, fertility studies have been extended to encompass the  eld of education. At times, the  eld itself is shown to be a more important determinant of fertility outcomes such as permanent childlessness (Hoem et al. 2006a) and ultimate fertility (Hoem et al. 2006b) than educational attainment. Individuals with scienti c and technological degrees tend to have higher starting wages re ective of the indirect costs of having a child early in their careers. In contrast, graduates from female-dominated  elds (e.g., teaching, health care) are linked to lower starting salaries and tend to have a shorter waiting time to  rst birth (Hoem et al. 2006a/b; Van Bavel 2010). These  ndings are consistent with Begall and Mills (2013) who observe higher  rst births in family-friendly  elds, although their causal identi cation is limited due to unobservable characteristics such as ideas on family formation, personality characteristics, and attitudes that are correlated to the choice of the  eld as well as fertility outcomes (Begall/Mills 2013; Trimarchi/ Van Bavel 2020). Recent investigations extend the evidence that educational differences impact fertility outcomes through the nature of partnership choices going beyond the timing or dif culties towards the type of union formation (Perelli-Harris et al. 2010; Perelli- Harris/Gerber 2011; Van Winkle 2018; Vitali et al. 2015; Wright 2019). For example, cohabitation is pronounced among highly educated couples and is also linked to lower chances of  rst births in Europe and the US (Mikolai et al. 2018; Perelli- Harris et al. 2010). However, these observations are not uniform across Europe, and although there is a negative association between education and  rst births in the UK and in the Netherlands, they  nd a positive gradient in Norway, Romania, Russia, Sweden, and the Czech Republic, and a curvilinear relationship in Italy. Further delving into variations in marital status, divorced highly educated women have a • Sindhu Vasireddy, Ann Berrington, Bernice Kuang, Hill Kulu564 higher likelihood of birth in Belgium compared to low-educated women, while there are hardly any educational differences for men in Flanders (Vanassche et al. 2015). Second births There are signi cant regional differences in the relationship between education and second births as well. For instance, Klesment et al. (2014)  nd that Southern European countries evidence a negative educational gradient for transitions to second births, even though highly educated women who delayed motherhood in Nordic countries during 2005 and 2011 caught up with second births. They also observe a positive effect of female education on transitions to second births, using discrete-time event history models. But these  ndings are to be interpreted with caution since the educational differences noted here are complicated by the usage of hazard models con ating both timing and quantum. For instance, higher birth rates for highly educated women in a period might be a result of a time squeeze effect and need not be indicative of higher completed fertility. That is, it may arise due to postponement in entry to motherhood, thereby reducing birth intervals to meet fertility goals, or to minimise the loss of wages, and job market opportunities, and reduce the time spent away from work in childcare (Cigno/Ermish 1989). In addition, recent research shows that educational differences in parity progression may be narrowing with a convergence of fertility across educational levels towards the two-child family ideal (Beaujouan 2020; Le Moglie et al. 2019; Sobotka/Beaujouan 2014). The cross-country cohort study by Van Bavel et al. (2018) noted a reduction in childlessness as well as higher-order births among women with post-primary levels of education, leading towards homogeneity in family sizes. Most notably, the usage of cohorts ranging from 1901-1945 enabled them to observe the convergence towards a two-family ideal even before the advent of modern contraception and attribute it to the quality-quantity trade-off and female educational attainment. Such studies using census data, however, are limited by the lack of information on partnerships (Reher/Requena 2019), the timing of the census (not immediately following the baby boom period), and mainly, the comparability of the analysis to studies using register or survey data. Although not comparable, even after the advent of modern contraception and greater educational expansion, Jalovaara et al. (2022) following the Swedish and Finnish cohorts born in 1940- 1973/78,  nd that highly educated individuals are more likely to have two children, while for the low and medium educated, she notes a rise in both childlessness and higher-order births. However, we note that parity studies handle timing biases better than period studies used to study fertility aggregates. Higher-order births With the onset of extremely late  rst births among the highly educated during the 1950-2016 period, second and subsequent births are likely to be foregone (Beaujouan 2020). Apart from timing, the likelihood of third births is dependent in part on the selection of individuals by their level of education into higher order Education and Fertility: A Review of Recent Research in Europe • 565 births, their characteristics, and contextual factors – although they might not be as sensitive to contextual factors as  rst births (Wood et al. 2014). For instance, CEE (Central and Eastern European) countries display negative educational gradients for the likelihood of third births despite strong pro-natalist policies, and Norway, France, and Belgium display a U-shaped relationship between educational attainment and the likelihood of third births among women. Such observations necessitate the study of births by parity, separately from completed fertility as they are impacted by birth spacing and timing decisions differently. This is especially relevant for higher-order births as they are conditional on the previous births or upbringing experiences and children’s characteristics (such as gender in the following case). One possible driver of educational gradients in higher-order births gaining interest is the growing desire for a certain sex composition of children in Europe, such that highly educated couples with a child of either sex are shown to be least likely to proceed to higher parities in certain demographic groups (Sandström/Vikström 2015; Hank/Kohler 2000). Despite the presence of empirical evidence, these  ndings remain to be substantiated by concrete evidence on the mechanisms governing the educational differentials in the sex preferences of children. Selection bias is omnipresent in studies examining the relationship between education and higher-order births. For instance, Kravdal (1992) shows a positive relationship between education and progression to third births, possibly because higher education is associated with better  nancial circumstances, enabling individuals to have a larger family. However, the odds of having a third birth may be higher due to selection and unobservable characteristics (Kravdal 2001) such as wealth or simply better health that can be linked to gaining a good education, further associated with  nancial stability and the decision to have more children, to just state some of the dif culties in unmasking the mechanisms that govern higher- order fertility decision-making. Although we do not delve into discussions on fertility intentions deeply, when thinking of higher-order births, it must be kept in mind that highly educated women have an unmet “fertility gap” between the intended and actual number of births (Beaujouan/Berghammer 2019). This gap persists not only due to the lack of lower- order births and childlessness but also due to the lack of third births. This is wider for well-educated women in high-income countries who do not desire fewer children than those with low education, but who generally end up having fewer children on average (Berrington/Pattaro 2014; Testa 2014). 6 Contextual moderators of educational differences in fertility We categorise the major macro-level contextual moderators of educational differences in fertility within and across the groups into three sections: family policies and welfare regimes, changing gender norms, and macroeconomic moderators such as economic recessions. • Sindhu Vasireddy, Ann Berrington, Bernice Kuang, Hill Kulu566 6.1 Family policies and welfare regimes Only a few studies have explored how family-friendly policies moderate the relationship between education and fertility. Family policies are categorised by Neyer (2003) into three groups: (a) childcare services and education for children that is available and affordable; (b) tax bene ts and  nancial transfers that incentivise having and raising children; (c) better workplace policies, such as paid family leaves, accommodating workspaces, and  exible working hours. Latest research has focused on the in uence of (a) and (c) in understanding the relationship between education and fertility, such as policies targeted towards education, housing, and labour markets with the potential to in uence fertility timing (Rindfuss/Brauner-Otto 2008). For instance, places with policies promoting work-family balance among mothers, such as the Nordic countries and France, note higher fertility and smaller educational differences (McDonald 2013). Though family policies in uence fertility choices across educational levels, they are especially relevant for women with tertiary education who are likely to have stronger connections to the labour markets and make up the largest share of women in recent cohorts. However, comparative studies investigating the relationship between female educational expansion and completed fertility indicate that there are no universal effects, even in similar regimes, and that the in uence of policies is neither uniform across countries nor birth parities. The policy implementation varies by welfare state – liberal economies largely targeted fertility through market-based systems via  scal policies and  nancial bene ts while social democratic economies used taxes to  nance the provision of formal services (McDonald/Moyle 2010). Findings for the Mediterranean countries (Spain, Cyprus, Portugal), characterised by poor availability of public childcare facilities and strong adherence to traditional gender roles, align with theories on the substitution effect to show a negative educational gradient associated with the number of children (Berrington et al. 2015). This relationship weakens in social democratic welfare states, including the Nordic and Post-Soviet economies (Russia, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia) (Merz/Liefbroer 2017). Unlike the post-Soviet countries, post-communist economies (Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia) are exceptional, and show a negative association between education and fertility (Muresan/Hoem 2010; Brzozowska 2015b; Merz/ Liefbroer 2017). Further, Brzozowska (2015a) measures completed fertility including childlessness in Eastern European countries, to show convergence by educational levels in Slovenia, Czech Republic, and Slovakia (state socialist economies), and; stable trends in Poland and Hungary (countries with 3-year maternity leave schemes); and persistent disparities in Romania; although, regardless of regimes, fertility of highly educated women remained lower than those with low education. While the methods of Brzozowska (2015a/b) are comparable to an extent, the results are incomparable as the cross-national study focuses on much earlier cohorts (1916-60). Apart from quantum, the age distribution of fertility is strongly impacted by policies. That is, though the US has higher fertility than Europe, it is driven by teenage fertility and unintended pregnancies among low-educated groups, while family Education and Fertility: A Review of Recent Research in Europe • 567 policies and gender equality drive the higher fertility seen in France (Berrington/ Pattaro 2014; Hoem 2008), re ecting varied implications based on regional and individual characteristics. In a cross-national study, Rendall et al. (2010) found that age at  rst motherhood was more heterogeneous in the UK than in other European countries. Over time, they show that the likelihood of teenage motherhood was unchanged among low-educated women in the UK and Spain, and Italy, whereas it decreased in Norway and France. Moreover, a higher proportion of highly educated women in Norway and France enter motherhood before the age of 35 as compared to the UK and Southern European countries. One possible explanation relates to the role of welfare contexts in supporting young mothers. Some countries like Norway encourage work experience before welfare support for mothers becomes available, promoting a delay in childbearing among the least educated, whereas in other countries such as the UK, this is not the case (Rendall et al. 2010). Macroeconomic policies such as the changes in institutional facilities and the improved availability of formal childcare are associated with reduced costs of childbearing and the recent fertility increase noted among the highly educated in Germany and Belgium (Fahlén 2013; Neels/de Wachter 2010; Riphahn/Wiynck 2017; Cornelissen et al. 2018). While informal care is a  exible form of childcare from a trustworthy source, there are inequalities in its access, making it an ef cient safety net rather than a replacement for formal childcare for families (Aassve et al. 2012; Kaptijn et al. 2010; Thomese/Liefbroer 2013). Generous childcare leaves of up to 1 year and monetary bene ts for parents (Dearing 2016) coupled with increased workplace and of ce hours  exibility (Beaujouan/Berghammer 2019; Matysiak/ Vignoli 2013) have been shown to reduce the opportunity costs of employment and economic uncertainties on childbearing, especially for highly educated women with stronger labour market ties. In concurrence, a comparative study of Polish and Italian women showed that the former enjoy more generous paid childcare leaves and can afford to stay away from the labour market longer, thus experiencing lower indirect costs of fertility. Among Italian women, those who postponed or deferred employment on the completion of their education entered motherhood faster and were more likely to pursue a second birth than those who pursued employment (Matysiak/Vignoli 2013). Although family policies are seen to moderate the postponement and timing of births, this research remains inconclusive on the direction of their results over different educational groups as well as the way in which they moderate the fertility quantum across them. Klesment and Puur (2010)  nd a positive relationship between female education and second births in Northern and Western Europe with small differences, and a negative relationship in CEE countries, except for Estonia, where it is positive possibly due to a well-developed institutional framework that reduces the costs of childbearing on women. But they also add that this relationship is not positive among German-speaking countries due to differences in gender equality and employment policies. Though there are arguments against leveraging public policies to increase fertility outcomes in the long run (Demeny 2003; Gauthier 2007), research increasingly suggests that accommodating family and welfare policies coupled with a commitment to gender-egalitarian policymaking helps meet fertility • Sindhu Vasireddy, Ann Berrington, Bernice Kuang, Hill Kulu568 targets of policy makers and individuals (Adserà 2011; Beaujouan/Berghammer 2019; Esping-Andersen 2018; Luci-Greulich/Thévenon 2013; Ní Bhrolcháin/Beaujouan 2012; OECD 2011). There are also arguments that well-structured childcare facilities along with short-term leaves and workspace  exibility can boost fertility outcomes (Beaujouan/Berghammer 2019). However, policy effectiveness essentially depends on their compatibility with the social and cultural norms of a region. For instance, women in Turkey stay out of the labour force to focus on home care, and this is identi ed as one of the reasons for the strong negative educational gradient in fertility for career-oriented women (Abbasoğlu Özgören et al. 2018). Moreover, educational groups may react differently to policies that aim to promote gender equality. Highly educated individuals respond more to such policies, and their gender-equal belief systems are then adopted by those with lower educational attainment, partly explaining the fertility convergence recently observed across educational levels (Baizan et al. 2016; Esping-Andersen 2018). Finally, we advise caution while interpreting the  ndings in this section due to the interplay between education, family policies, gender contexts, and fertility. Also, multiple policies may have been passed around the same time, especially while looking at pro-natalist and welfare-oriented countries, which makes identifying the impact of any one policy challenging. Models may also capture lagged effects of earlier policies and over-report the in uence or underestimate the policy effects if there are long lags in the time taken for a policy to impact people. Researchers further face the problem of reverse causality, that is, policies themselves may be a reaction to fertility levels instead of shifts in the fertility timing or quantum. That is, while one may argue that the availability of easily accessible childcare support in a region can in uence fertility behaviour for an educational group, childcare may be more available in regions with high fertility levels (Hoem 2008). 6.2 Gender equality and equity Progressing from traditional explanations of the educational gradients in fertility outcomes using the differences in the opportunity costs for women (Becker 1960; Cigno/Ermisch 1989; Happel et al. 1984; Joshi 1990; Kravdal 1992), demographic research now distinguishes between the moderating roles of gender equity and equality and notes the contextual in uence of gender revolution and the Second Demographic Transition on female fertility. Educational enrolment and attainment are direct measures of gender equality and additionally in uence fertility outcomes through work-family con icts, and intra-household bargaining power. Equity, on the other hand, is used to indicate fairness and access to opportunities for each of the genders (Esping-Andersen/Billari 2015; Neyer et al. 2013). Gender equality and equity are interconnected concepts in the sense that the three key dimensions to gender equality noted recently – household labour,  nancial resources, and employment lead towards strengthening gender equity, which is a long-term process necessitating many social and structural adjustments in European countries (Bagavos 2017). Nevertheless, while the moderating role of the measures of gender Education and Fertility: A Review of Recent Research in Europe • 569 equality in education is reasonably explored, equity is often understudied due to its complexities in measurement, with some papers using proxies of equality to understand equity. Beginning with gender equality, some European countries have mixed educational differentials due to established gender roles in their family settings. Bagavos/Tragaki (2017) studying the TFR decline in Greece as a response to the recession for the 2000-2014 period note signi cant gender as well as educational differentials in outcomes. While male fertility is noted to be more related to educational attainment and employability; female fertility is more closely tied to a “pure fertility effect” attributable to behavioural changes. Although they only use a summary of the rates that mix-up fertility timing and quantum, this study explains the divergence in  ndings using the gendered expectations framework where a job is seen as an option for well-educated women who can choose not to work, while men remain the primary breadwinners in Greece. The situation is similar in Turkey, where educated women entered the labour market when their husbands lost employment (Abbasoğlu Özgören et al. 2018). For women, the combination of being able to work while pursuing a family life led to a gender revolution (Goldscheider et al. 2015), and the past few decades have seen more complexity in how gender affects the education and fertility relationship. Models of SDT posit female enrolment in tertiary education, as well as high educational attainment, to be related to an expansion in their choices with less traditional attitudes towards families, contributing to higher delays in family formation and increased childlessness (Billingsley 2010; Merz/Liefbroer 2012). Earlier literature assumed women to be the primary caregivers who must choose between their wages or caring for their children. For instance, Hakim (2003) divides women into three categories based on their preference to focus on either work, family life, or the balance between them both. But recent  ndings show that although highly educated women have a higher preference for working, they do not desire fewer children. Consequentially, it can be surmised that women with strong ties to the labour market respond to structural gender inequalities with low fertility or childlessness (McDonald 2013). In concordance, using German panel data, Billari et al. (2019) observe that for highly educated women between the ages of 25-35, broadband connectivity is positively related to fertility, as it helps highly educated women balance family and career better due to improved access to working from home. Contemporary research further supports the idea using empirical evidence to show that more egalitarian gender relations could raise fertility levels, especially for highly educated women (who were noted to be the forerunners of fertility decline) in Europe (Esping-Anderson/Billari 2015; Goldscheider et al. 2015; Jalovaara et al. 2019; Neyer et al. 2013; Nitsche et al. 2018). An upcoming strand of literature on male fertility displays a positive relationship with education, where the least educated have the lowest fertility mainly due to their dif culties in union formation (Jalovaara/Fasang 2015; Trimarchi/Van Bavel 2017). More recently, with the onset of the second half of the gender revolution, couples seem to be moving away from specialized roles towards resource pooling, spearheading a fertility increase within somelow fertility settings (Sullivan et al. • Sindhu Vasireddy, Ann Berrington, Bernice Kuang, Hill Kulu570 2014), and reducing the direct costs of childbearing on their partners who are more likely to be highly educated women. However, this also means increased pressure on men (Huinink/Kohli 2014; McDonald 2000) and may be a contributing factor to high childlessness among highly educated men (Jalovaara/Fasang 2017). To conclude, it must be noted that although there are speculations on the role of gender equity and equality in understanding enrolment and attainment effects on male fertility, they are seldom explored in depth. 6.3 Economic recessions and unemployment Several reasons are identi ed for childlessness and fertility postponement in the wake of recessions for those with relatively low levels of educational attainment: youth unemployment (Goldstein et al. 2013), economic insecurity (Berrington/ Pattaro 2014), the dif culty in  nding a partner (Sabater et al. 2019), diminished ability to purchase a house (Xu et al. 2015), uncertainties stemming from temporary or short-term employment contracts (Adserà 2011), and debts from student loans (Min/Taylor 2018). Also, unemployment is more common and prevalent for longer spells among poorly educated women relative to the highly educated (Hoynes et al. 2012; Sobotka et al. 2011). For instance, even in countries such as Denmark, Hungary, and Sweden, which are characterised by strong family policies, both low- educated and unemployed women postpone childbirth in response to recessions until they have a job (Fahlen 2013). But, there are possibilities for different fertility outcomes by context, as some researchers note unemployed women with a low level of education move to join the motherhood track earlier than those with higher education (Kreyenfeld 2010; Neels et al. 2013; Schmitt 2012). A possible pathway is through lower contraceptive use (observed in the US in response to the great recession by Schneider 2017), although this linking mechanism between education and fertility has been seldom studied in the European context in recent years. Also, job loss or the possibility of it may create  nancial uncertainties for highly educated women, causing them to have fewer children (Adserà 2011; Comolli 2017; Schneider/Hastings 2015) or postpone childbearing to later ages (Lundström/Andersson 2012; Matysiak/Vignoli 2010; Pailhé/Solaz 2012; Seltzer 2019). Well-educated women also tend to be more mindful of the opportunity costs of withdrawing from jobs (for at least a short period to have children), which increase during times of economic uncertainty (Adserà 2011). However, the costs of economic shocks that decreased the likelihood of second and higher-order births for older and highly educated mothers have reduced to an extent after the introduction of family-friendly policy reforms in Germany (Kreyenfeld 2010). Studying fertility by age and parity in 31 European countries between 2000-2013, Comolli (2017) observes that women with a medium-level education had a strong negative fertility response to the Great Recession , not only due to the direct labour market shocks from the recession but also transmitted through prevailing economic and  nancial insecurities in the market (although their measurement methods remain problematic) (Comolli 2017). There is a reduction in both planned and unplanned Education and Fertility: A Review of Recent Research in Europe • 571 pregnancies among young women with low education, particularly unmarried women during economic downturns in some countries (Su 2019; Schneider/ Hastings 2015). But partners’ characteristics and their labour market attachments further in uence this relationship. That is, although unemployment is negatively linked to union formation among low-educated women, fertility outcomes are strongly and positively correlated to unemployment for those with well-educated and employed partners as noted in Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, and the UK (Fahlen 2013; Sabater et al. 2019). A couple of advantages of this research line over other contextual moderators are that the studies are set in comparable periods (employing period measures of fertility) and that they may use the recession as an exogenous shock in studying the association between education and fertility (particularly timing) to establish causality. However, a key limitation of this research is that it is quite dif cult to measure economic insecurity that ties fertility behaviour with labour market opportunities, and this strand is mostly unidirectional, that is, it focuses on the in uence of educational enrolment or attainment on fertility, rarely examining reverse causality. And, in line with the extant literature on this topic, educational enrolment status, or the levels of attainment of both partners are seldom considered, even in the wake of recessions. 7 Discussion This paper is motivated by the dramatic expansion of educational enrolment and attainment, the fertility  uctuations observed in Europe over the last few decades, along with the onset of key societal changes. With the plethora of literature investigating the connection between education and fertility in different European countries, there is a need to consolidate their major  ndings to indicate the direction of these associations and examine patterns that have evolved recently. We categorise education into measures of enrolment and attainment to examine them by parity to note that apart from the direct association between an individual’s education and fertility, contextual changes are shown to in uence the association between education and childbearing in recent times. The key contextual moderators included in this review are family-friendly policies and welfare regimes, progress in understanding gender, and changes in labour market opportunities due to economic shocks. 7.1 Advances in the literature Existing theoretical frameworks have been reinforced with empirical evidence from the last decade. Higher educational enrolment is associated with a delay in the entry to motherhood, possibly due to role incompatibility or as parents cannot afford the direct or indirect costs of childbearing. Noteworthy progress has been made in attempting to causally link maternal educational enrolment and the postponement of births utilising the age at leaving education, changes in schooling policies and twin • Sindhu Vasireddy, Ann Berrington, Bernice Kuang, Hill Kulu572 births. Recent work on enrolment and attainment has expanded into considering the  elds of study, types of educational enrolment,  exible enrolment methods (like ODEs), dual-status positions, childlessness, and completed fertility. Childlessness is more prevalent among highly educated women relative to those with low education (except for Swedish and Finnish cohorts born during 1940-73/78, who move towards the two-child ideal), although they do not desire fewer children. This is often attributed to the work-family con ict for women, while delays in union formation explain the increasing numbers of highly educated males who opt for childlessness (Berrington 2017; Kreyenfeld/Konietzka 2017; Miettinen 2010; Trimarchi/Van Bavel 2017). Further, large delays in  rst births for highly educated women have reduced the likelihood of higher-order births due to biological constraints, although studies that examine fertility timing and quantum simultaneously are few and constrained by measurement issues. The improved availability of data on fathers prompted novel research on male fertility, noting a positive educational gradient for entry to fatherhood (with a weakening educational gradient for second and third births), and a procyclical attachment of male fertility and education to labour markets, particularly in Nordic countries and Southern Europe (Neels et al. 2013; Nisén et al. 2018; Pailhé/Solaz 2012; Schmitt 2012). Apart from studies at the individual level, there is an increased interest in examining the educational attainments of both partners simultaneously, who have moved from educational heterogamy to hypogamy and homogamy in recent years. Although the quantum effects are mixed, highly educated, homogamous couples are seen to delay their childbearing. However, there is no substantive evidence to conclude whether such a delay contributes to a smaller size. At the country level, there is evidence to show that family policies such as childcare provisions (Beaujouan/Berghammer 2019), paid family leaves, and monetary transfers have a positive in uence on the fertility of and lead towards narrowing the educational differentials (Luci-Greulich/Thévenon 2013). But there is a clear need for institutional and family support in most European countries to promote gender equity and reduce women’s costs of career progression in the realisation of their fertility goals, especially for highly educated women who face the largest work-family con icts. Countries classi ed by their traditional gender roles such as Southern European countries, and Turkey, have failed to support educated women in realising their fertility goals (Merz/Liefbroer 2017), while Nordic countries with welfare regimes, and France with gender-egalitarian norms and family-supportive policies reduced the opportunity costs of having children, enabling highly educated women to have high fertility (McDonald 2013). Further, higher education and liberal attitudes are shown to enable women to question traditional roles and empower them to make decisions associated with household labour and fertility (McDonald 2000, 2006). SDT and the movement towards self-actualising value systems in rejection of traditional ones are all linked to higher educational attainment and the postponement of births (Neels/De Wachter 2010; Ní Bhrolcháin/Beaujouan 2012). At the household level, men are gradually moving from specialised household frameworks towards pooling resources, and are contributing more to childcare, Education and Fertility: A Review of Recent Research in Europe • 573 and subsequently, changing attitudes toward gender roles are linked to the better formation of family support mechanisms that can help highly educated men and women in reaching their fertility targets. Considering the Great Recession of 2008, a large body of literature studies the resulting income shocks and heterogeneity in each country’s response to economic shocks and observes that generous childcare, leave, and family policies are directly needed by low-educated people who are the most affected, to enable them to afford to have children. The association between childbearing and education is strongly linked with labour market opportunities, family-friendly work policies, and welfare regimes. 7.2 Limitations and the road ahead Moving beyond literary advancements, we list the common hurdles and identify opportunities for growth in understanding the many linkages between educational attainment and enrolment, and fertility. Some of the major areas to improve remain: Fertility timing or quantum? It is dif cult to distinguish between the timing and quantum effects of education on fertility, especially since most of the models used in this literature (Ex.: Hazard models, Age-Speci c Fertility Rates, Total Fertility Rates) con ate them. Bridging between the macro-micro investigations: Recent studies had to choose between focusing at the macro-level or micro-level with few options to “zoom in” while conducting cross-country comparisons due to data considerations to work on categorical educational differences (Merz/Liefbroer 2017). There is a clear need for detailed micro-data with cross-national comparability. Interaction effects: A recurrent limitation of the studies covered in this section remains the interplay between education, family policies, gender contexts, and fertility, making it dif cult to isolate the impact of speci c policy changes. Policy studies may also capture lagged effects, or spillovers from other policies or environmental changes in the same period. Data issues: The effectiveness of comparisons between empirical studies is sensitive to the nature of the data employed. For instance, while it is easier to establish causation using longitudinal data (administrative/panel/retrospective), cross-sectional data might have a stronger representativeness of the population leading to disparate  ndings that are dif cult to compare. Reverse causality: Although we present unidirectional research on the association between education and fertility; their relationship is clearly bi-directional, and  ndings from studies need to be interpreted with caution. For instance, being enrolled in education may lead to delayed fertility due to role incompatibility; but this may also cause students to drop out of education because of conception. Self-selection: As individuals tend to self-select themselves into certain  elds or types of education, it is dif cult to establish the direction of the relationship between education and fertility. This is perhaps a driving factor for the dearth of research on quantum effects, particularly for higher-order births. • Sindhu Vasireddy, Ann Berrington, Bernice Kuang, Hill Kulu574 Unobserved characteristics: Methodological biases stemming from unobserved characteristics such as the family background and environment remain to be addressed. Age of educational attainment: It is dif cult to determine an ideal age to measure educational attainment (such as 30 years, as used by Andersson et al. 2009), especially in cross-national studies, since some European areas such as the Nordic commonly see people opting for education even after childbirth and in later ages, while studies in countries such as Spain assume education to have completed before measuring fertility. Role of partnerships: Despite the emergence of literature accounting for the educational attainment of both partners, there is a dearth of literature that distinguishes between individual in uences on fertility. Also, while the few papers on couples discuss some possible pathways for the association, there is little on how educational attainment or enrolment impacts fertility through intra-household bargaining power. Costs of education: The in uence of the cost of education on fertility behaviour remains to be studied. We wonder if young adults who receive  nancial aid or have access to free education behave differently relative to those who pay to study, as this may explain the within-country educational differences in fertility behaviour to an extent. Measuring educational attainment: Studies on recent European cohorts note the decline of low-educated women, leading us to question the validity of the conventional “high-medium-low” categorisation of educational attainment. There is a dire need to update measures of educational categories based on cohorts as well as the countries under consideration. Higher-order births: There is a gap in the literature studying the association between education and the fertility timing of higher-order births, especially as a large section only investigates the entry to parenthood in discussions on fertility timing. Including Childlessness: Studies that discuss the educational gradient in fertility must include childlessness along with higher-order births to prevent skewed estimates and explain movements in completed fertility. Male fertility: Despite the progress made in understanding male fertility, this work is largely centred around the Nordic countries characterised by their low cost of education, family-friendly policies, welfare regimes, and liberal norms, demonstrating limited external validity for other countries and remains to consider higher-order births, not limited to childlessness or permanent fertility. Additionally, there are between-the-country differences (e.g., the UK vs the continent) and within-the-country norms (state-funded students vs fee-paying students) that remain to be answered. In addition, the role played by gender equity, equality, and SDT in moderating the association between male education and fertility remains unexplored. Household-level investigation: Further, while there is work on educational enrolment and attainment at the individual level and country levels, the research is Education and Fertility: A Review of Recent Research in Europe • 575 very limited in studying the educational measures of both partners simultaneously at the household level. Pandemic: Considering the recent pandemic, future research has a multitude of novel questions to explore about fertility and education that interplay with contextual moderators, such as the effect of the wide-spread usage of new forms of ODE enrolment,  exibility in the workspace and work hours, and limited availability of childcare. While the last decade of research on the association between unemployment and fertility largely focused on responses to the great recession and the role of labour markets in explaining fertility differences across educational groups, a possible direction for future research is to understand the relationship between pandemic-related job loss and fertility, the duration of the impact, and if there are short-term or long-term in uences of recessions on fertility timing and quantum (see Berrington et al. 2021). This is particularly crucial in understanding the childbearing behaviour of low-educated young individuals who are highly vulnerable to economic shocks across Europe, including the Nordic countries despite their strong family policies. Theory: Notwithstanding the long list of limitations, the largest caveat in understanding the association between education and fertility in the recent decade remains the need for revised (or even new) theoretical frameworks to interpret the emerging empirical works in changing socio-economic contexts. Future reviews: The expanse of this review leaves opportunities for future essays to focus on speci c associations in greater detail. Further, we understudy highly educated individuals who are likely to choose parenting at later ages, as demographic literature on education and fertility overlooks the association between education and the usage of assisted reproductive technology (ART), and adoption. Also, due to the length constraints, we do not cover research on migration, regional effects, and housing policies and refrain from delving deeply into fertility intentions. Acknowledgements This research was supported by Economic and Social Research Council grant ES/S009477/1 (Understanding Recent Fertility Trends in the UK and Improving Methodologies for Fertility Forecasting). References Aassve, Arnstein; Meroni, Elena; Pronzato, Chiara D. 2012: Grandparenting and Childbearing in the Extended Family: Le rôle des grands-parents et la constitution de la descendance dans les familles élargies. In: European Journal of Population / Revue Européenne de Démographie 28,4: 499-518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-012-9273-2 Abbasoğlu Özgören, Ayse; Ergöçmen, A. Banu; Tansel, Aysıt 2018: Birth and employment transitions of women in Turkey: The emergence of role incompatibility. In: Demographic Research 39: 1241-1290. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2018.39.46 • Sindhu Vasireddy, Ann Berrington, Bernice Kuang, Hill Kulu576 Adserà, Alicia 2011: The interplay of employment uncertainty and education in explaining second births in Europe. In: Demographic Research 25,16: 513-544. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2011.25.16 Adserà, Alícia 2017: Education and fertility in the context of rising inequality. In: Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 1: 63-94. https://doi.org/10.1553/populationyearbook2017s063 Alderotti, Giammarco et al. 2021: Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta- Analysis. In: Demography 58,3: 871-900. https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-9164737 Andersson, Gunnar 1999: Childbearing Trends in Sweden 1961-1997. In: European Journal of Population15: 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006145610780 Andersson, Gunnar et al. 2009: Cohort fertility patterns in the Nordic countries. In: Demographic Research 20: 313-352. https://dx.doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2009.20.14 Andersson, Linus 2019: Online Distance Education and Transition to Parenthood Among Female University Students in Sweden. In: European Journal of Population 35,4: 795- 823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-018-9503-3 Arai, Lisa 2003: Low expectations, sexual attitudes and knowledge: explaining teenage pregnancy and fertility in English communities. Insights from qualitative research. In: The Sociological Review 51,2: 199-217. https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-954X.00415 Bagavos, Christos 2010: Education and childlessness: the relationship between educational  eld, educational level, employment and childlessness among Greek women born in 1955-1959. In: Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 8: 51-75. https://doi.org/10.1553/populationyearbook2010s51 Bagavos, Christos 2017: Do Different Educational Pairings Lead to Different Fertility Outcomes? A Cohort Perspective for the Greek Case. In: Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 15: 215-37. https://doi.org/10.1553/populationyearbook2017s215 Bagavos, Christos; Tragaki, Alexandra 2017: The compositional effects of education and employment on Greek male and female fertility rates during 2000-2014. In: Demographic Research 36: 1435-1452. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2017.36.47 Baizan, Pau; Arpino, Bruno; Delclòs, Carlos E. 2016: The Effect of Gender Policies on Fertility: The Moderating Role of Education and Normative Context. In: European Journal of Population 32,1: 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-015-9356-y Balbo, Nicoletta; Billari, Francesco C.; Mills, Melinda 2013: Fertility in Advanced Societies: A Review of Research: La fécondité dans les sociétés avancées: un examen des recherches. In: European Journal of Population / Revue Européenne de Démographie 29,1: 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-012-9277-y Basu, Alaka M. 2002: Why does Education Lead to Lower Fertility? A Critical Review of Some of the Possibilities. In: World Development 30,10: 1779-1790. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00072-4 Beaujouan, Éva 2020: Latest-Late Fertility? Decline and Resurgence of Late Parenthood Across the Low-Fertility Countries. In: Population and Development Review 46,2: 219- 247. https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12334 Beaujouan, Éva; Berghammer, Caroline 2019: The Gap Between Lifetime Fertility Intentions and Completed Fertility in Europe and the United States: A Cohort Approach. In: Population Research and Policy Review 38,4: 507-535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-019-09516-3 Education and Fertility: A Review of Recent Research in Europe • 577 Beaujouan, Éva; Brzozowska, Zuzanna; Zeman, Kryštof 2016: The limited effect of increasing educational attainment on childlessness trends in twentieth-century Europe, women born 1916-65. In: Population Studies 70,3: 275-291. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F00324728.2016.1206210 Becker, Gary S. 1960: An Economic Analysis of Fertility. In: Roberts, George B. (Ed.): Demographic and economic change in developed countries. Conference of the Universities-National Bureau of Economic Research, a Report of the National Bureau for Economic Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press: 209-240 [http://www. nber.org/chapters/c2387, 31.08.2020]. Becker, Gary S. 1974: A Theory of Social Interactions. In: Journal of Political Economy 82,6: 1063-1093. Begall, Katia; Mills, Melinda C. 2013: The In uence of Educational Field, Occupation, and Occupational Sex Segregation on Fertility in the Netherlands. In: European Sociological Review 29,4: 720-742. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcs051 Berrington, Ann 2017: Childlessness in the UK. In: Kreyenfeld, Michaela; Konietzka, Dirk (Eds.): Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, Causes, and Consequences. Demographic Research Monographs. Cham: Springer: 57-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44667-7_3 Berrington, Ann; Diamond, Ian 2000: Marriage or Cohabitation: A Competing Risks Analysis of First-Partnership Formation among the 1958 British Birth Cohort. In: Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society) 163,2: 127-151. Berrington, Ann; Pattaro, Serena 2014: Educational differences in fertility desires, intentions and behaviour: A life course perspective. In: Advances in Life Course Research 21: 10-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2013.12.003 Berrington, Ann; Stone, Juliet; Beaujouan, Éva 2015: Educational differences in timing and quantum of childbearing in Britain: A study of cohorts born 1940-1969. In: Demographic Research 33,26: 733-764. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2015.33.26 Berrington, Ann et al. 2021: Scenario-based fertility projections incorporating impacts of COVID-19. In: Population, Space and Place 28,2, e2546. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2546 Billari, Fracesco C.; Giuntella, Osea; Stella, Luca 2019: Does broadband Internet affect fertility? In: Population Studies 73,3: 297-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2019.1584327 Billingsley, Sunnee 2010: The Post-Communist Fertility Puzzle. In: Population Research and Policy Review 29,2: 193-231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-009-9136-7 Blossfeld, Hans-Peter; Huinink, Johannes 1991: Human capital investment or norms of role transition? How women’s schooling and career affect the process of family formation. In: American Journal of Sociology 97,1: 143-168. Braakmann, Nils 2011: The causal relationship between education, health and health related behaviour: Evidence from a natural experiment in England. In: Journal of Health Economics 30,4: 753-763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.05.015 Branigan, Amelia R., McCallum, Kenneth J.; Freese, Jeremy 2013: Variation in the heritability of educational attainment: An international meta-analysis. In: Social Forces 92,1: 109-140. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sot076 Brunello, Giorgio; Fort, Margherita; Weber, Guglielmo 2009: Changes in Compulsory Schooling, Education and the Distribution of Wages in Europe. In: The Economic Journal 119,536: 516-539. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02244.x • Sindhu Vasireddy, Ann Berrington, Bernice Kuang, Hill Kulu578 Burkimsher, Marion; Zeman, Kryštof 2017: Childlessness in Switzerland and Austria. In: Kreyenfeld, Michaela; Konietzka, Dirk (Eds.): Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, Causes, and Consequences. Demographic Research Monographs. Cham: Springer: 115-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44667-7_6 Brzozowska, Zuzanna 2015a: Female Education and Fertility under State Socialism in Central and Eastern Europe. In: Population 70,4: 689-725. https://doi.org/10.3917/popu.1504.0731 Brzozowska, Zuzanna 2015b: Intergenerational educational mobility and completed fertility. IBS Working Papers. [https://ibs.org.pl/en/publications/intergenerational- educational-mobility-and-completed-fertility-publen/, 09.09.2020] Chudnovskaya, Margarita 2019: Trends in Childlessness Among Highly Educated Men in Sweden. In: European Journal of Population 35,5: 939-958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-018-9511-3 Cigno, Alessandro; Ermisch, John 1989: A microeconomic analysis of the timing of births. In: European Economic Review 33,4: 737-760. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(89)90023-8 Cohen, Joel E.; Kravdal, Øystein; Keilman, Nico 2011: Childbearing impeded education more than education impeded childbearing among Norwegian women. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108,29: 11830-11835. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1107993108 Comolli, Chiara L. 2017: The fertility response to the Great Recession in Europe and the United States: Structural economic conditions and perceived economic uncertainty. In: Demographic Research 36: 1549-1600. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2017.36.51 Comolli, Chiara L.; Vignoli, Daniele 2021: Spreading uncertainty, shrinking birth rates: A natural experiment for Italy. In: European Sociological Review 37,4: 555-570 https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcab001 Cornelissen, Thomas et al. 2018: Who bene ts from universal childcare? Estimating marginal returns to early childcare attendance. In: Journal of Political Economy 126,6: 2356-409. https://doi.org/10.1086/699979 Cowen, Tyler; Tabarrok, Alex 2014: The Industrial Organization of Online Education. In: American Economic Review 104,5: 519-522. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.5.519 Cygan-Rehm, Kamila; Maeder, Miriam 2013: The effect of education on fertility: Evidence from a compulsory schooling reform. In: Labour Economics 25: 35-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2013.04.015 De Wachter, David; Neels, Karel 2011: Educational differentials in fertility intentions and outcomes: family formation in Flanders in the early 1990s. In: Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 9: 227-258. https://doi.org/10.1553/populationyearbook2011s227 Dearing, Helene 2016: Gender equality in the division of work: How to assess European leave policies regarding their compliance with an ideal leave model. In: Journal of European Social Policy 26,3: 234-247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928716642951 Duncan, Simon 2007: What’s the problem with teenage parents? And what’s the problem with policy? In: Critical Social Policy 27,3: 307-334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018307078845 Edin, Kathryn; Kefalas, Maria J. 2005: Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage. Berkeley: University of California Press. Esping-Andersen, Gøsta 2018: Education, gender revolution, and fertility recovery. In: Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 1: 55-59. https://doi.org/10.1553/populationyearbook2017s055 Education and Fertility: A Review of Recent Research in Europe • 579 Esping-Andersen, Gøsta; Billari, Francesco C. 2015: Re-theorizing family demographics. In: Population and Development Review 41,1: 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00024.x Fadel, Luisa; Emery, Tom; Gauthier, Anne H. 2020: Current and future contributions of the Generations and Gender Programme to lifecourse research. In: Falkingham, Jane; Evandrou, Maria; Vlachanto, Athina (Eds.): Handbook on Demographic Change and the Lifecourse. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788974875.00012 Fahlén, Susanne 2013: Capabilities and Childbearing Intentions in Europe: The association between work-family reconciliation policies, economic uncertainties and women’s fertility plans. In: European Societies 15,5: 639-662. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2013.798018 Fort, Margharita; Schneeweis, Nicole; Winter-Ebmer, Rudolf 2014: More schooling, more children? Compulsory schooling and Fertility in Europe. In: CESifo Working Paper 5068. Gangl, Markus; Zie e, Andrea 2009: Motherhood, labor force behavior, and women’s careers: An empirical assessment of the wage penalty for motherhood in britain, germany, and the united states. In: Demography 46,2: 341-369. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0056 Gauthier, Anne H. 2007: The Impact of Family Policies on Fertility in Industrialized Countries: A Review of the Literature. In: Population Research and Policy Review 26,3: 323-346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-007-9033-x Gerster, Mette; Ejrnæs, Mette; Keiding, Niels 2014: The causal effect of educational attainment on completed fertility for a cohort of Danish women – does feedback play a role? In: Statistics in Biosciences 6,2: 204-222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12561-013-9102-0 Geruso, Michael; Royer, Heather 2018: The Impact of Education on Family Formation: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from the UK. In: NBER Working Papers 24332: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc [https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/24332.html, 23.08.20239]. Goldscheider, Fraces; Bernhardt, Eva; Lappegård, Trude 2015: The Gender Revolution: A Framework for Understanding Changing Family and Demographic Behaviour. In: Population and Development Review 41,2: 207-239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00045.x Goldstein, Joshua R.: Sobotka, Tomáš; Jasilioniene, Aiva 2009: The End of “Lowest- Low” Fertility? In: Population and Development Review 35,4: 663-699 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2009.00304.x Goldstein, Joshua et al. 2013: Fertility Reactions to the “Great Recession” in Europe: Recent Evidence from Order-Speci c Data. In: Demographic Research 29: 85-104. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2013.29.4 Grönqvist, Hans; Hall, Caroline 2013: Education policy and early fertility: Lessons from an expansion of upper secondary schooling. In: Economics of Education Review 37: 13-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.07.010 Guzzo, Karen B.; Hayford, Sarah R. 2020: Pathways to Parenthood in Social and Family Contexts: Decade in Review, 2020. In: Journal of Marriage and Family 82,1: 117-144. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12618 Hank, Karsten; Kohler, Hans-Peter 2000: Gender Preferences for Children in Europe: Empirical Results from 17 FFS Countries. In: Demographic Research 2. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2000.2.1 Hakim, Catherine 2003: Competing Family Models, Competing Social Policies. In: Family Matters 64: 51-61. • Sindhu Vasireddy, Ann Berrington, Bernice Kuang, Hill Kulu580 Hanappi, Doris et al. 2017: Changes in Employment Uncertainty and the Fertility Intention-Realization Link: An Analysis Based on the Swiss Household Panel. In: European Journal of Population 33,3: 381-407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-016-9408-y Happel, S. K.; Hill, J. K.; Low, S. A. 1984: An economic analysis of the timing of childbirth. In: Population Studies 38,2: 299-311. https://doi.org/10.2307/2174078 Hellstrand, Julia; Nisén, Jessica; Myrskylä, Mikko 2020: All-time low period fertility in Finland: Demographic drivers, tempo effects, and cohort implications. In: Population Studies 74,3, 315-329. https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2020.1750677 Hoem, Jan M. 2008: The impact of public policies on European fertility. In: Demographic Research 19: 249-260. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.10 Hoem, Jan M.; Neyer, Gerda; Andersson, Gunnar 2006a: Education and childlessness: The relationship between educational  eld, educational level, and childlessness among Swedish women born in 1955-59. In: Demographic Research 14,15: 331-380. https://dx.doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2006.14.15 Hoem, Jan M.; Neyer, Gerda; Andersson, Gunnar 2006b: Educational attainment and ultimate fertility among Swedish women born in 1955-59. In: Demographic Research 14,16: 381-404. https://dx.doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2006.14.16 Hoynes, Hilary; Miller, Douglas L.; Schaller, Jessamyn 2012: Who Suffers during Recessions? In: Journal of Economic Perspectives 26,3: 27-48. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.3.27 Huber, Susanne; Fieder, Martin 2011: Educational homogamy lowers the odds of reproductive failure. In: PloS one 6,7: e22330. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022330 Huinink, Johannes; Kohli, Martin 2014: A life-course approach to fertility. In: Demographic Research 30: 1293-1326. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2014.30.45 Inglehart, Ronald 2009: Postmaterialist Values and the Shift from Survival to Self- Expression Values. In: Dalton, Russell J.; Klingemann, Hans-Dieter (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press. 223-239. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199270125.003.0012 Jalovaara, Marika; Fasang, Anette E. 2015: Are there gender differences in family trajectories by education in Finland? In: Demographic Research 33,44: 1241-1256. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2015.33.44 Jalovaara, Marika; Fasang, Anette E. 2017: From never partnered to serial cohabitors: Union trajectories to childlessness. In: Demographic Research 36: 1703-1720. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2017.36.55 Jalovaara, Marika et al. 2019: Education, Gender, and Cohort Fertility in the Nordic Countries. In: European Journal of Population 35,3: 563-586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-018-9492-2 Jalovaara, Marika; Andersson, Linus; Miettinen Anneli 2022: Parity disparity: Educational differences in Nordic fertility across parities and number of reproductive partners. In: Population Studies 76,1: 119-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2021.1887506 Joshi, Heather 1990: The Cash Opportunity Costs of Childbearing: An Approach To Estimation Using British Data. In: Population Studies 44,1: 41-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/0032472031000144376 Kalwij, Adriaan 2010: The impact of family policy expenditure on fertility in western Europe. In: Demography 47,2: 503-519. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0104 Education and Fertility: A Review of Recent Research in Europe • 581 Kaptijn, Ralf et al. 2010: How Grandparents Matter. In: Human Nature 21: 393-405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-010-9098-9 Klesment, Martin; Puur, Allan 2010: Effects of education on second births before and after societal transition: Evidence from the Estonian GGS. In: Demographic Research 22: 891-932. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2010.22.28 Klesment, Martin et al. 2014: Varying association between education and second births in Europe: Comparative analysis based on the EU-SILC data. In: Demographic Research 31: 813-860. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2014.31.27 Kohler, Hans-Peter; Billari, Francesco C.; Ortega, José A. 2002: The Emergence of Lowest-Low Fertility in Europe During the 1990s. In: Population and Development Review 28,4: 641-680. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2002.00641.x Kravdal, Øystein 1992: The Emergence of a Positive Relation Between Education and Third Birth Rates in Norway with Supportive Evidence from the United States. In: Population Studies 46,3: 459-475. https://doi.org/10.1080/0032472031000146456 Kravdal, Øystein 2001: The High Fertility of College Educated Women in Norway: An Artefact of the Separate Modelling of Each Parity Transition. In: Demographic Research 5: 187-216. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2001.5.6 Kravdal, Øystein 2007: Effects of current education on second- and third-birth rates among Norwegian women and men born in 1964: Substantive interpretations and methodological issues. In: Demographic Research 17: 211-246. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2007.17.9 Kravdal, Øystein; Rindfuss, Ronald R. 2008: Changing Relationships between Education and Fertility: A Study of Women and Men Born 1940 to 1964. In: American Sociological Review 73,5: 854-873. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240807300508 Kreyenfeld, Michaela 2002: Time-squeeze, partner effect or self-selection? An investigation into the positive effect of women’s education on second birth risks in West Germany. In: Demographic research 7: 15-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2002.7.2 Kreyenfeld, Michaela 2010: Uncertainties in Female Employment Careers and the Postponement of Parenthood in Germany. In: European Sociological Review 26,3: 351-366. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp026 Kreyenfeld, Michaela; Andersson, Gunnar 2014: Socioeconomic differences in the unemployment and fertility nexus: Evidence from Denmark and Germany. In: Advances in Life Course Research 21: 59-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2014.01.007 Kreyenfeld, Michaela; Konietzka, Dirk (Eds.) 2017: Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, Causes, and Consequences. Demographic Research Monographs. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44667-7 Le Moglie, Marco; Mencarini, Letizia; Rapallini, Chiara 2019: Does income moderate the satisfaction of becoming a parent? In Germany it does and depends on education. In: Journal of Population Economics 32,3: 915-952. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-018-0689-9 Lesthaeghe, Ron 2010: The Unfolding Story of the Second Demographic Transition. In: Population and Development Review 36,2: 211-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2010.00328.x Lesthaeghe, Ron 2014: The second demographic transition: a concise overview of its development. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111,51: 18112- 18115. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1420441111 • Sindhu Vasireddy, Ann Berrington, Bernice Kuang, Hill Kulu582 Liefbroer, Aart C.; Corijn, Martine 1999: Who, What, Where, and When? Specifying the Impact of Educational Attainment and Labour Force Participation on Family Formation. In: European Journal of Population 15: 45-75. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006137104191 Luci-Greulich, Angela; Thévenon, Olivier 2013: The Impact of Family Policies on Fertility Trends in Developed Countries: L’in uence des politiques familiales sur les tendances de la fécondité des pays développés. In: European Journal of Population / Revue Européenne de Démographie 29,4: 387-416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-013-9295-4 Lundström, Karin E.; Andersson, Gunnar 2012: Labor-market status, migrant status, and  rst childbearing in Sweden. In: Demographic Research 27,25: 719-742. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2012.27.25 Matysiak, Anna; Vignoli, Daniele 2010: Employment around  rst birth in two adverse institutional settings: Evidence from Italy and Poland. In: Journal of Family Research 22,3: 331-346. https://doi.org/10.20377/jfr-261 Matysiak, Anna; Vignoli, Daniele 2013: Diverse Effects of Women’s Employment on Fertility: Insights from Italy and Poland: Diverses conséquences de l’emploi des femmes sur la fécondité: quelques informations à partir des cas de l’Italie et de la Pologne. In: European Journal of Population / Revue Européenne de Démographie 29,3: 273-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-013-9287-4 McCrary, Justin; Royer, Heather 2011: The Effect of Female Education on Fertility and Infant Health: Evidence from School Entry Policies Using Exact Date of Birth. In: American Economic Review 101,1: 158-195. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.1.158 McDonald, Peter 2000: Gender equity in theories of fertility transition. In: Population and Development Review 26,3: 427-439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2000.00427.x McDonald, Peter 2006: Low Fertility and the State: The Ef cacy of Policy. In: Population and Development Review 32,3: 485-510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2006.00134.x McDonald, Peter 2013: Societal foundations for explaining fertility: Gender equity. In: Demographic Research 28,34: 981-994. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2013.28.34 McDonald, Peter; Moyle, Helen 2010: Why do English-speaking countries have relatively high fertility? In: Journal of Population Research 27,4: 247-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12546-010-9043-0 Meghir, Costas; Palme, Mårten 2005: Educational Reform, Ability, and Family Background. In: American Economic Review 95,1: 414-424. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828053828671 Merz, Eva-Maria; Liefbroer, Aart C. 2012: The Attitude Toward Voluntary Childlessness in Europe: Cultural and Institutional Explanations. In: Journal of Marriage and Family 74,3: 587-600. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00972.x Merz, Eva-Maria; Liefbroer, Aart C. 2017: Cross-national differences in the association between educational attainment and completed fertility. Do welfare regimes matter? In: Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 1: 95-120. https://doi.org/10.1553/populationyearbook2017s095 Miettinen, Anneli 2010: Voluntary or involuntary childlessness? Socio-demographic factors and childlessness intentions among childless Finnish men and women aged 25-44. In: Finnish Yearbook of Population Research 45: 5-24. https://doi.org/10.23979/fypr.45051 Miettinen, Anneli et al. 2015: Increasing childlessness in Europe: Time trends and country differences. Families and Societies Working Paper 33. Stockholm: Stockholm University [http://www.familiesandsocieties.eu/?page_id=131]. Education and Fertility: A Review of Recent Research in Europe • 583 Mikolai, Julia; Berrington, Ann; Perelli-Harris, Brienna 2018: The role of education in the intersection of partnership transitions and motherhood in Europe and the United States. In: Demographic Research 39: 753-794. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2018.39.27 Mills, Melinda et al. 2011: Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. In: Human reproduction update 17,6: 848-860. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr026 Mills, Melinda; Blossfeld, Hans-Peter 2013: The Second Demographic Transition Meets Globalization: A Comprehensive Theory to Understand Changes in Family Formation in an Era of Rising Uncertainty. In: Evans, Ann; Baxter, Janeen: Negotiating the Life Course. Dordrecht: Springer: 9-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8912-0_2 Mills, Melinda C.; Tropf, Felix C. 2015: The biodemography of fertility: A review and future research frontiers. In: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 67: 397-424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-015-0319-4 Min, Stella; Taylor, Miles G. 2018: Racial and ethnic variation in the relationship between student loan debt and the transition to  rst birth. In: Demography 55,1: 165-188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-017-0643-6 Morgan, S. Philip; Rackin, Heather 2010: The Correspondence Between Fertility Intentions and Behaviour in the United States. In: Population and development review 36,1: 91-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2010.00319.x Mortimer, Jeylan T. et al. 2017: Familial Transmission of Educational Plans and the Academic Self-Concept: A Three-Generation Longitudinal Study. In: Social Psychology Quarterly 80,1: 85-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272516670582 Muresan, Cornelia; Hoem, Jan M. 2010: The negative educational gradients in Romanian fertility. In: Demographic Research 22,4: 95-114. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2010.22.4 Neels, Karel; David, De Wachter 2010: Postponement and recuperation of Belgian fertility: How are they related to rising female educational attainment? In: Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 8: 77-106. https://doi.org/10.1553/populationyearbook2010s77 Neels, Karel; Theunynck, Zita; Wood, Jonas 2013: Economic recession and  rst births in Europe: Recession-induced postponement and recuperation of fertility in 14 European countries between 1970 and 2005. In: International Journal of Public Health 58,1: 43- 55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0390-9 Neels, Karel et al. 2014: Further Estimates of the Contribution of Rising Educational Participation to Fertility Postponement: A Model-Based Decomposition for the UK, France and Belgium. In: Population Association of America, Annual Meeting. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4193.8246 Neels, Karel et al. 2017: Rising Educational Participation and the Trend to Later Childbearing. In: Population and Development Review 43,4: 667-693. https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12112 Neyer, Gerda 2003: Family Policies and Low Fertility in Western Europe. In: MPIDR Working Paper 2003-021 [https://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2003- 021.pdf, 24.08.2023]. Neyer, Gerda; Andersson, Gunnar 2008: Consequences of family policies on childbearing behaviour: effects or artifacts? In: Population and Development Review 34,4: 699-724. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2008.00246.x Neyer, Gerda; Lappegård, Trude; Vignoli, Daniele 2013: Gender Equality and Fertility: Which Equality Matters? In: European Journal of Population 29, 245-272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-013-9292-7 • Sindhu Vasireddy, Ann Berrington, Bernice Kuang, Hill Kulu584 Neyer, Gerda; Caporali, Arianna; Gassen, Nora Sánchez 2017a: EU-Policies and Fertility: The Emergence of Fertility-Related Family Policies at the Supra-National Level. In: Stockholm Research Reports in Demography 10. Stockholm: Stockholm University, Demography Unit [https://www.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.611619.1652110852!/menu/ standard/ le/EU%20policies%20and%20Fertility%20SRRD_2017_10.pdf, 24.08.2023]. Neyer, Gerda; Hoem, Jan M.; Andersson, Gunnar 2017b: Education and Childlessness: The In uence of Educational Field and Educational Level on Childlessness among Swedish and Austrian Women. In: Kreyenfeld, Michaela; Konietzka, Dirk (Eds.): Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, Causes, and Consequences. Demographic Research Monographs. Cham: Springer: 183-207. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44667-7_9 Ní Bhrolcháin, Máire; Beaujouan, Éva 2012: Fertility postponement is largely due to rising educational enrolment. In: Population Studies 66,3: 311-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2012.697569 Nisén, Jessica et al. 2013: Educational Differences in Completed Fertility: A Behavioural Genetic Study of Finnish Male and Female Twins. In: Demography 50,4: 1399-1420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-012-0186-9 Nisén, Jessica et al. 2014: Effect of family background on the educational gradient in lifetime fertility of Finnish women born 1940-50. In: Population Studies 68,3: 321-337. https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2014.913807 Nisén, Jessica et al. 2018: Education, Other Socioeconomic Characteristics Across the Life Course, and Fertility Among Finnish Men. In: European Journal of Population 34: 337-366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-017-9430-8 Nisén, Jessica et al. 2021: Educational Differences in Cohort Fertility Across Sub- National Regions in Europe. In: European Journal of Population 37: 263-295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-020-09562-0 Nitsche, Natalie et al. 2018: Partners’ Educational Pairings and Fertility Across Europe. In: Demography 55,4: 1195-1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0681-8 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development) 2011: Doing better for families. Paris: OECD Publishing [http://www.oecd.org/social/soc/ doingbetterforfamilies.htm, 24.08.2023]. Oppenheimer, Valerie K. 1988: A Theory of Marriage Timing. In: American Journal of Sociology 94,3: 563-591. https://doi.org/10.1086/229030 Oppenheimer, Valerie K. 1994: Women’s Rising Employment and the Future of the Family in Industrial Societies. In: Population and Development Review 20,2: 293-342. https://doi.org/10.2307/2137521 Pailhé, Ariane; Solaz, Anne 2012: The in uence of employment uncertainty on childbearing in France: A tempo or quantum effect? In: Demographic Research 26,1: 1-40. https://dx.doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2012.26.1 Demeny, Paul 2003: Population Policy Dilemmas in Europe at the Dawn of the Twenty- First Century. In: Population and Development Review 29,1: 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2003.00001.x Perelli-Harris, Brienna et al. 2010: The Educational Gradient of Childbearing within Cohabitation in Europe. In: Population and Development Review 36,4: 775-801. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2010.00357.x Perelli-Harris, Brienna; Gerber, Theodore P. 2011: Nonmarital Childbearing in Russia: Second Demographic Transition or Pattern of Disadvantage? In: Demography 48,1: 317-342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-010-0001-4 Education and Fertility: A Review of Recent Research in Europe • 585 Reher, David; Requena, Miguel 2019: Childlessness in Twentieth-Century Spain: A Cohort Analysis for Women Born 1920-1969. In: European Journal of Population 35,1: 133-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-018-9471-7 Rendall, Michael et al. 2005: First births by age and education in Britain, France and Norway. In: Population Trends 121: 27-34. Rendall, Michael et al. 2010: Increasingly heterogeneous ages at  rst birth by education in Southern European and Anglo-American family-policy regimes: A seven-country comparison by birth cohort. In: Population Studies 64,3: 209-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2010.512392 Requena, Miguel; Salazar, Leire 2014: Education, marriage and fertility: The Spanish case. In: Journal of Family History 39,3: 283-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0363199014527592 Requena, Miguel 2022: Spain’s Persistent Negative Educational Gradient in Fertility. In: European Journal of Population 38: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-021-09599-9 Rijken, Arieke J.; Knijn, Trudie 2009: Couples’ decisions on having a  rst child: Comparing pathways to early and late parenthood. In: Demographic Research 21: 765-802. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2009.21.26 Rindfuss, Ronald R.; Bumpass, Larry; St. John, Craig 1980: Education and Fertility: Implications for the Roles Women Occupy. In: American Sociological Review 45,3: 431-447. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095176 Rindfuss, Ronald R.; Brauner-Otto, Sarah R. 2008: Institutions and the transition to adulthood: Implications for fertility tempo in low-fertility settings. In: Vienna yearbook of population research 2008: 57-87. https://doi.org/10.1553/populationyearbook2008s57 Riphahn, Regina T.; Wiynck, Frederik 2017: Fertility effects of child bene ts. In: Journal of Popululation Economics 30: 1135-1184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-017-0647-y Rønsen, Marit; Skrede, Kari 2010: Can public policies sustain fertility in the Nordic countries?: Lessons from the past and questions for the future. In: Demographic Research 22,13: 321-346. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2010.22.13 Sabater, Albert; Graham, Elspeth; Marshall, Alan 2019: Does having highly educated adult children reduce mortality risks for parents with low educational attainment in Europe? In: Ageing and Society40,12: 2635-2670. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X19000795 Sandström, Glenn; Vikström, Lotta 2015: Sex preference for children in German villages during the fertility transition. In: Population Studies 69,1: 57-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2014.994667 Schmitt, Christian 2012: A Cross-National Perspective on Unemployment and First Births. In: European Journal of Population / Revue Européenne de Démographie 28,3: 303-335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-012-9262-5 Schneider, Daniel 2017: The Great Recession reduced fertility among unmarried and teen women. Berkeley, CA: Institute for Research on Labor and Employment [http:// irle.berkeley.edu/the-great-recession-reduced-fertility-among-unmarried-and-teen- women/, 03.09.2020]. Schneider, Daniel; Hastings, Orestes P. 2015: Socioeconomic variation in the effect of economic conditions on marriage and nonmarital fertility in the United States: Evidence from the great recession. In: Demography 52,6: 1893-1915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-015-0437-7 • Sindhu Vasireddy, Ann Berrington, Bernice Kuang, Hill Kulu586 Seltzer, Nathan 2019: Beyond the Great Recession: labour market polarization and ongoing fertility decline in the United States. In: Demography 56,4. 1463-1493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-019-00790-6 Silles, Mary A. 2011: The effect of schooling on teenage childbearing: evidence using changes in compulsory education laws. In: Journal of Population Economics 24: 761- 777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-010-0334-8 Sobotka, Tomáš; Skirbekk, Vegard; Philipov, Dimiter 2011: Economic Recession and Fertility in the Developed World. In: Population and Development Review 37,2: 267- 306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00411.x Sobotka, Tomáš; Beaujouan, Éva 2014: Two Is Best? The Persistence of a Two-Child Family Ideal in Europe. In: Population and Development Review 40,3: 391-419. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2014.00691.x Sobotka, Tomáš; Beaujouan, Éva; Van Bavel, Jan 2017: Introduction: Education and fertility in low-fertility settings. In: Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 15: 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1553/populationyearbook2017s001 Spéder, Zsolt; Bartus, Tamás 2017: Educational Enrolment, Double-Status Positions and the Transition to Motherhood in Hungary. In: European Journal of Population 33,1: 55- 85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-016-9394-0 Su, Jessica H. 2019: Local employment conditions and unintended pregnancy. In: Journal of Marriage and Family 81,2: 380-396. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12546 Sullivan, Oriel; Billari, Francesco C.; Altintas, Evrim 2014: Fathers’ changing contributions to child care and domestic work in very low fertility countries: The effect of education. In: Journal of Family Issues 35,8: 1048-1065. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14522241 Tanturri, Maria L. et al. 2015: Childlessness in Europe. Families and Societies, Working Paper Series, 32. Stockholm University. Tavares, Lara P. 2016: Who Delays Childbearing? The Associations Between Time to First Birth, Personality Traits and Education. In: European Journal of Population 32,4: 575-597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-016-9393-1 te Velde, Egbert et al. 2012: The effect of postponement of  rst motherhood on permanent involuntary childlessness and total fertility rate in six European countries since the 1970s. In: Human Reproduction 27,4: 1179-1183. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der455 Testa, Maria Rita 2014: On the positive correlation between education and fertility intentions in Europe: Individual- and country-level evidence. In: Advances in Life Course Research 21: 28-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2014.01.005 Thévenon, Olivier 2011: Family Policies in OECD Countries: A Comparative Analysis. In: Population and Development Review 37,1: 57-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00390.x Thomese, Fleur; Liefbroer, Aart C. 2013: Child Care and Child Births: The Role of Grandparents in the Netherlands. In: Journal of Marriage and Family 75,2: 403-421. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12005 Thomson, Elizabeth 1990: Two in one: structural models of couple behaviour. In: Marcos, Anastasios; Draper, Thomas W. (Eds.): Family variables: Conceptualization, measurement and use. Newbury Park, CA: Sage: 129-142. Trimarchi, Alessandra 2016: Individual and couple level perspectives on male education and fertility in Europe at the start of the 21st century. Leuven: Faculteit Sociale Wetenschappen [https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/395904, 10.09.2020]. Education and Fertility: A Review of Recent Research in Europe • 587 Trimarchi, Alessandra; Van Bavel, Jan 2017: Education and the Transition to Fatherhood: The Role of Selection Into Union. In: Demography 54,1: 119-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-016-0533-3 Trimarchi, Alessandra; Van Bavel, Jan 2020: Partners’ Educational Characteristics and Fertility: Disentangling the Effects of Earning Potential and Unemployment Risk on Second Births. In: European Journal of Population 36,3: 439-464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-019-09537-w Tropf, Felix C.; Mandemakers, Jornt J. 2017: Is the Association Between Education and Fertility Postponement Causal? The Role of Family Background Factors. In: Demography 54,1: 71-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-016-0531-5 UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2012: International standard classi cation of education: ISCED 2011. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Van Bavel, Jan 2010: Choice of Study Discipline and the Postponement of Motherhood in Europe: The Impact of Expected Earnings, Gender Composition, and Family Attitudes. In: Demography 47,2: 439-458. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0108 Van Bavel, Jan 2012: The reversal of gender inequality in education, union formation and fertility in Europe. In: Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 10: 127-154. https://doi.org/10.1553/populationyearbook2012s127 Van Bavel, Jan et al. 2018: Seeding the gender revolution: Women’s education and cohort fertility among the baby boom generations. In: Population Studies 72,3: 283- 304. https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2018.1498223 Van De Kaa, Dirk J. 1987: Europe’s second demographic transition. In: Population Bulletin 42,1:1-59. Van Winkle, Zachary 2018: Family Trajectories Across Time and Space: Increasing Complexity in Family Life Courses in Europe? In: Demography 55,1: 135-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-017-0628-5 Vanassche, So e et al. 2015: Repartnering and Childbearing After Divorce: Differences According to Parental Status and Custodial Arrangements. In: Population Research and Policy Review 34,5: 761-784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-015-9366-9 Vignoli, Daniele et al. 2020: A re ection on economic uncertainty and fertility in Europe: The Narrative Framework. In: Genus 76,28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41118-020-00094-3 Vitali, Agnese; Aassve, Arnstein; Lappegård, Trude 2015: Diffusion of Childbearing Within Cohabitation. In: Demography 52,2: 355-377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-015-0380-7 Wood, Jonas; Neels, Karel; Kil, Tine 2014: The educational gradient of childlessness and cohort parity progression in 14 low fertility countries. In: Demographic Research 31,46: 1365-1416. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2014.31.46 Wright, Laura 2019: Union Transitions and Fertility Within First Premarital Cohabitations in Canada: Diverging Patterns by Education? In: Demography 56,1: 151-167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0741-0 Xu, Yilan et al. 2015: Homeownership among millennials: The deferred American dream? In: Family and Consumer Sciences 44,2: 201-212. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12136 • Sindhu Vasireddy, Ann Berrington, Bernice Kuang, Hill Kulu588 Date of submission: 26.07.2022 Date of acceptance: 19.06.2023 Dr. Sindhu Vasireddy (). Mahindra University. Hyderabad, India. E-mail: svasireddy7@gmail.com; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6533-9473 URL: https://sindhuvasireddy.com/ Prof. Dr. Ann Berrington. University of Southampton. Southampton, United Kingdom. E-mail: a.berrington@soton.ac.uk URL: https://www.southampton.ac.uk/people/5wyht9/professor-ann-berrington Dr. Bernice Kuang. University of Southampton. Southampton, United Kingdom. E-mail: b.kuang@soton.ac.uk URL: https://www.southampton.ac.uk/people/5y68mm/doctor-bernice-kuang Prof. Dr. Hill Kulu. University of St Andrews. St Andrews, United Kingdom. E-mail: hill.kulu@st-andrews.ac.uk; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8808-0719 URL: https://risweb.st-andrews.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/hill-kulu(f57bb78d-4572-49b2- a6ff-33b53e9e6a14).html Published by Federal Institute for Population Research (BiB) 65180 Wiesbaden / Germany Managing Publisher Dr. Nikola Sander 2023 Editor Prof. Frans Willekens Managing Editor Dr. Katrin Schiefer Editorial Assistant Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs Wiebke Hamann Layout Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs E-mail: cpos@bib.bund.de Scientifi c Advisory Board Kieron Barclay (Stockholm) Karsten Hank (Cologne) Ridhi Kashyap (Oxford) Natalie Nitsche (Rostock) Alyson van Raalte (Rostock) Pia S. Schober (Tübingen) Rainer Wehrhahn (Kiel) Comparative Population Studies www.comparativepopulationstudies.de ISSN: 1869-8980 (Print) – 1869-8999 (Internet) Board of Reviewers Bruno Arpino (Barcelona) Laura Bernardi (Lausanne) Gabriele Doblhammer (Rostock) Anette Eva Fasang (Berlin) Michael Feldhaus (Oldenburg) Alexia Fürnkranz-Prskawetz (Vienna) Birgit Glorius (Chemnitz) Fanny Janssen (Groningen) Frank Kalter (Mannheim) Stefanie Kley (Hamburg) Bernhard Köppen (Koblenz) Anne-Kristin Kuhnt (Rostock) Hill Kulu (St Andrews) Nadja Milewski (Wiesbaden) Roland Rau (Rostock) Thorsten Schneider (Leipzig) Tomas Sobotka (Vienna) Jeroen J. A. Spijker (Barcelona) Heike Trappe (Rostock) Helga de Valk (The Hague) Sergi Vidal (Barcelona) Michael Wagner (Cologne)