The study of fertility is one of the few subject matters common to all disciplines in the social sciences. Yet, little agreement exists as to why families have the number of children they do. This article synthesizes existing theories, critically analyses supporting research, and suggests new directions for study. Although fertility is regarded more as a subject for doctors, biologists, and midwives, it is, in fact, intimately related to consumption and opens a new area for consumer research. In the first place, fertility be-havior indirectly affects the consumption of all goods and services. The decision to have children and their number and timing involve trade-offs which constrain the purchase and consumption of durable goods and other items vying for the consumer's scarce dollar. Further, fertility has direct implications for the con-sumption of products and services used in the pre-vention of childbirth and in the activity of child rearing. The purchase of contraceptives, family planning services, baby food, children's clothing, toys, and other " child services " can be thought to interact funda-mentally with the decision t6 have children. Some researchers suggest that fertility itself is a consump-tion decision. Thus, fertility is seen to result directly from family choices, wherein overall household satis-faction is maximized subject to the constraints of in-come and prices (e.g., Becker 1960). Finally, from still another perspective, fertility behavior can be viewed as the "consumption " of psychic, social, and other benefits and costs brought about through social exchange (Bagozzi and Van Loo 1977a, 1977b). This article examines fertility as a topic for con-sumer research. It begins with a review of economic models of fertility with particular emphasis given to logic and supporting evidence. Throughout the analy-sis, the reasonableness of assumptions is considered,
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bagozzi et al. (1978) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: