Ethnicity and Fertility in the Philippines 9789814376358

These six titles resulted from the Ethniciy and Fertility in Southeast Asia Project that commenced in 1980. Building upo

172 38 4MB

English Pages 150 [169] Year 2018

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Ethnicity and Fertility in the Philippines
 9789814376358

Table of contents :
CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
PREFACE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. OVERVIEW
II. METHODOLOGY
III. THE NATURE OF ETHNIC DIFFERENCES
IV. ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN FERTILITY
V. EXPLAINING ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN FERTILITY
VI. CONCLUSION
APPENDICES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
THE AUTHORS

Citation preview

Ethnicity and Fertility in Southeast Asia Series General Editors: Aline K. Wong and Ng Shui Meng

ETHNICITY AND FERTILITY IN THE PHILIPPINES

by

Ma. Cecilia Gastardo-Conaco and Pilar Ramos-Jimenez with the assistance of Ruth N. Barni ego

Research Notes and Discussions Paper No. 54 INSTITUTE OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN STUDIES 1986

Published by Institute of Southeast Asian Studies Hang Mui Keng Terrace Pasir Panjang Singapore 0511 AI I rights reserved. No part of this publ lcation may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Institute ot Southeast Asian Studies. ~

1986 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies

ISSN 0129-8828 ISBN 9971-988-07-0

CONTENTS

Page LIST OF TABLES

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

X

PREFACE

xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xvii

OVERVIEW

1

Objectives of the Study

1

The Schematic Framework of the Study

3

Review of Literature on Ethnic Fertility Differences in the Philippines

8

Philippine Ethnic Groups Covered in the Survey

9

Hypotheses

13

Outline of the Study

15

iii

Page II

III

IV

v

METHODOLOGY

16

Selectio n of the Sample Areas and Sampling Procedures

16

Sample Size

17

Selectio n of Respondents

17

The Research Instruments

20

Field Procedures

21

Data Reduction

23

THE NATURE OF ETHNIC DIFFERENCES

25

Ethnic Charact eristics

25

Demographic and Socio-economic Charact eristics

41

Summary

59

ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN FERTILITY

65

Fertilit y Differen tials

65

Fertilit y Preferen ces, Sex Preferen ces, and the Value of Children

66

Family Planning

75

Other Proximate Variables Affecting Fertilit y

87

Nuptiali ty: Interact ion

87

Marriage, Divorce, Spouse

Summary

108

EXPLAINING ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN FERTILITY

110

Description of Multiple Classifi cation Analysis Procedures

110

iv

Page

VI

Analysis of Children Ever Born

111

Analysis of Recent Fertility

120

Analysis of Use of Effective Methods

121

Summary

130

CONCLUSION

131

APPENDICES

134

BIBLIOGRAPHY

146

v

LIST OF TABLES

Page 1.1

Population by Mother Tongue (Ethnic Origin) 1975

10

1.2

Character istics of Ethnic Groups Studied

12

2.1

Survey Sites per Ethnic Group

18

2.2

Distributi on of Rural and Urban Dependents for Each Ethnic Group

19

Ethnic Identific ation, Parentage , and Citizensh ip of Respondents Self-Iden tified as Belonging to Each Ethnic Group (Percentag e Distributi on)

28

3.2

Language Usage among Respondents from Each Ethnic Group

30

3.3

Religion and Religiosi ty of Respondents from Each Ethnic Group

34

Ethnic Affiliatio ns among Respondents from Each Ethnic Group

36

Ethnic Attitudes of Respondents from Each Ethnic Group

42

Demographic Character istics of Respondents from Each Ethnic Group

46

Education , Media Exposure, and Efficacy among Respondents from Each Ethnic Group

50

3.1

3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

vi

Page 3.8

Income, Assets and Transfers of Economic Resources among Respondents from Each Ethnic Group

52

Employment Characteristics of Each Ethnic Group

60

Fertility and Fertility Preferences among Respondents from Each Ethnic Group (Means)

68

Values Attached to Children among Respondents from Each Ethnic Group

70

Disvalues Attached to Children among Respondents from Each Ethnic Group

76

Birth Control among Respondents from Each Ethnic Group

78

4.5 Accessibility of Birth Control among Respondents from Each Ethnic Group

84

4.6 Attitude towards Birth Control among Respondents from Each Ethnic Group

88

3.9 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

4.7

Natural Fertility Factors among Respondents from Each Ethnic Group

4.8 Marriage and Marriage Attitudes among Respondents from Each Ethnic Group 4.9

Attitudes towards Divorce and Remarriage among Respondents from Each Ethnic Group

92

94 100

4.10 Interaction with Spouse and Sex Role Attitudes among Respondents from Each Ethnic Group

106

5.1

Regressions for Children Ever Born

114

5.2

Regressions for Recent Fertility

116

5.3

Regressions for Use of Effective Methods

118

5.4 Mean Children Ever Born by Ethnic Group, Adjusting for Different Set of Predictors vii

120

Page 5.5

Mean Recent Ferti lity by Ethnic Group, Adjusting for Diffe rent Set of Predi ctors

5.6 Mean Use of Effec tive Method by Ethnic Group, Adjusting for Diffe rent Set of Predi ctors 5.7

F-Rat ios in MCA Ferti lity-R elate d Measures

viii

124

125 126

LIST OF FIGURES

Page 1

2 3 4

A Schematic Framework for Studying Different ials in Fertility between Ethnic Groups

4

A Schematic Framework for Studying Different ials in Fertility

5

A Schematic Framework for Studying Different ials in Use of Contracep tion

6

Home Regions of the Five Ethnic Groups

ix

14

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project would not have been possibl e without the co-oper ation and valuabl e support extende d to us by many individ uals and institu tions. We would like to express our gratitud e to them and in particu lar to the followi ng: the Philipp ine Social Science Council , particu larly its Secreta riat, for providin g the admini strative support for the duratio n of the study; the Institu te of Southea st Asian Studies , special ly its Directo r, Profess or Kern i a l Sandhu, and the regiona l co-ordi nators of the project -- Dr Aline Wong and Dr Ng Shu i Meng, for their cant i nued co-oper ation and encoura gement; the Interna tional Develop ment Researc h financi al support to the project ;

Centre

for

its

the Institu te of Philipp ine Culture , particu larly Dr Perla Q. Makil, Directo r, Dr Virgini a Miralao , Chief of Operati ons, and Ms Thelma Padero, Office Manager , for making availab le to us their compete nt personn el in the coding phase of the survey; and Ms Cynthia Feranil , Program mer, for patient ly serving as the project 's program mer; the five institu tions affiliat ed with the PSSC Researc h Network and their research supervi sors and intervie wers (whose names are listed in the project staff of this report) for collect ing the survey data. The institu tions and the individ uals who helped us facilita te the fieldwo rk are:

X

Mr Aniceto B. Oliva, Director, Centre, Ateneo de Naga, Naga City; Dr Peter Gowing, Director, Dansalan College, Marawi City;

Research

Dansalan

and

Service

Research

Centre,

Dr Ricardo Galang and Dr Antonietta Bondoc-Tiotuico, Directors, Research and Planning Centre, Angeles University Foundation, Angeles City; Ms Li gay a Bautista, Director, Research and Pub 1i cations Centre, Philippine Christian University, Manila; and Ms Teresita Rementeria, Director of the Aquinas Research Bureau, Aquinas University, Legazpi City. Dr Rodolfo A. Bulatao, Research Associate, East-West Centre and the bra i nchi 1d of the region a 1 project, for endorsing our participation in this survey and for providing continued support and interest; Dr Gabriel Alvarez, faculty member of the National University of Singapore, Dr Led a Layo-Danao of the College of Nursing, University of the Philippines, and Dr Michael Costello, Research Associate of the Research Institute for Mindanao Culture, Xavier University for their encouragement and faith in our capabilities to undertake this project; members of the Technical Committee of the Philippine Commission on Population for endorsing and encouraging us to undertake this study; Ms Gloria Caldito, faculty member of the Statistical Centre, University of the Philippines, for her invaluable advice in the sampling design; Ms Lorna P. Makil, Senior Research Associate of the Institute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University for sharing her expertise with us as the projects research associate for one year (May 1980 to May 1981);

Ms Ruth N. Barniego, our Senior Researcher, for her unwavering support and involvement in the project to its end; Ms Josefa Francisco, Senior Research of the Integrated Research Centre, De La Salle University, for editing the manuscripts of this report; xi

-

Ms Elvira Angeles and Araceli Fampo, staff, for typing the manuscripts;

PSSC

Secretariat

-

our colleagues at the Department of Psychology, University of the Philippines and Integrated Research Centre, and De La Salle University -- for their untiring moral support;

Last but not least, this research project would never have been completed without the co-operation of the respondent wives and husbands from the five ethnic groups. To them, our deepest gratitude. MA. CECILIA GASTARDO-CONACO and PILAR RAMOS-JIMENEZ Senior Investigators

Xi i

PREFACE

The Ethnicity and Fertility in Southeast Asia Project that commenced in 1980, was an outgrowth of an earlier project, Culture and Fertility in Southeast Asia, which was completed in 1979. Building upon the results of the earlier study, which established that ethnicity was a significant factor underlying the fertility differentials among the various ethnic groups in Southeast Asia, the present project aimed to explore in greater detail the extent to which ethnicity and ethnic factors like ethnic attitudes, ethnic identification and cultural practices influenced reproductive behaviour. Instead of utilizing secondary sources, the project relied on primary data collected through the survey technique. In all, twenty ethnic groups from the five ASEAN countries were surveyed in this study which spanned a total of three years. A study involving five different countries and so many ethnic groups of diverse cultural and religious backgrounds would invariably pose problems of comparability. To max1m1ze comparability across countries, the study relied on the use of a common core questionnaire as well as a common analytical framework and data analysis procedures. While comparability was important, the incorporation of country-specific factors salient and relevant to the explanation of fertility behaviour was also encouraged. The final research design therefore attempted to be as comprehensive as possible in the exploration of the ethnic dimension in fertility differentials among the various ethnic groups studied. Three workshops were held during the period of the project to enable the researchers to come together to discuss and resolve problems related to the project. The first workshop was held in May 1980. At this workshop the conceptual framework and the core questionnaire were finalized. In the second workshop held in June 1981, the methods of data analysis were decided. At the xiii

final workshop in September 1982, the country teams presented their preliminary findings. The final reports were completed by December 1983. A study of this scale obviously also involved many researchers. The researchers were all Southeast Asian social scientists drawn from various disciplines and backgrounds. Some were attached to universities of the region while others were from research institutes or government agencies. Dr Rodolfo A. Bulatao from the East-West Population Institute provided the initial intellectual impetus to the project by formulating the conceptual framework and research design for the study as well as the drafting of the preliminary questionnaire. In addition Dr Bulatao together with Dr Aline K. Wong from the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Dr Ng Shui Meng from !SEAS served as co-ordinators of the project. The country teams consisted of: Indonesia:

Dr Mely Tan (National Institute of Economic and Social Research of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences, LEKNAS-LIPI) Dr Budi Soeradji (Central Bureau of Statistics) Mr Amri Marzal i (Faculty of Letters, University of Indonesia)

Malaysia:

Datin Dr Noor Laily Abu Bakar Family Planning Board, NFPB)

(Malaysia National

Dr Tan Boon Ann (NFPB) Mr Tey Nai Peng (NFPB) Mr Hew Wai Sin (NFPB) Ms Aminah Abdul Rahman (NFPB) Ms Ramlah Haji Muda (NFPB) Ms Nazil eh Raml i {NFPB) Mr Khalipah Mohd Tora (NFPB) Mr Ng Tuck Seng (NFPB) Philippines:

Ms Pilar Ramos-Jimenez Council, PSSC) xiv

(Philippine Social

Science

Ms Ma. Cecilia Gastardo-Conaco Philippines)

(University of the

Ms Lorna Mak i 1 ( PSSC) Ms Ruth N. Barniego {PSSC) Singapore:

Dr Eddie C.Y. Singapore, NUS)

Kuo

(National

University

of

Dr Chiew Seen-Kong (NUS) Thailand:

Dr Suchart Prasithrathsint (National Development Administration, NIDA)

Institute of

Dr Suwanlee Piampiti (NIDA) Mr Thawatchai Arthorn-thurasook (Mahidol University) Dr Laddawan Rodmanee (Mahidol University) Dr Luechai Chulasai (Chiangmai University) Ms Suranya Bunnag {Prince of Songkla University) Ms Amporn Chareoncha i (Khan Kaen University) Funding for the project was provided by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Rockefeller Foundation and the Human Reproduction Programme, Task Force on Psychosocial Research in Family Planning of the World Health Organization (WHO). The results of the monographs in this series:

study

Ethnicity Analysis

in

and

Fertility

are

being

Southeast

Ethnicity and Fertility in Indonesia Ethnicity and Fertility in Ma 1ays i a Ethnicity and Fertility in the Philippines

XV

published

Asia:

in

six

A Comparative

Ethnicity and Fertility in Singapore Ethnicity and Fertility in Thailand ALINE WONG and NG SHUI MENG Project Co-ordinators and General Editors of the Series

xvi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The main objective of this project is to investigate through a field survey, the nature and causes of fertility differentials among five ethnic groups in the Philippines. This study is part of a cross-national research on ethnic differentials in fertility involving the five member countries of ASEAN. The specific objectives of this research are: (1) to provide a systematic description of ethnic differentials in fertility and associated cultural practices in the Philippines for the comparative analysis among the five ASEAN countries; (2) to attempt to explain the differentials within a multivariate framework; (3) to assess the role of fertility differentials in perceptions of ethnic relations; and (4) to suggest policies for dealing with ethnic differentials. The ethnic groups covered in this survey are the Bicolanos, Ilocanos, Tagalogs, Maranaos and Chinese. There were 2,301 respondents from both the urban and rural areas, distributed as follows: 494 Bicolanos, 500 Ilocanos, 499 Tagalogs, 499 Maranaos, and 309 Chinese. A comparative interview schedule with 195 questions served as the main research instrument covering three areas: ethnic identification, ethnic attitudes, and cultural practices affecting fertility. A comparative codebook was also utilized for the processing of data. The programmes found in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) were employed in most of the analysis. The statistical tool used for the multivariate analysis is the multiple classification analysis (MCA). Three dependent variables, namely, children ever born, recent fertility, and the use of effective contraceptive usage were studied using 21 predictors of which 13 were factors and 8 were covariates. xvi i

A major finding from the multivariate analysis is the impact of ethnicity on the three dependent variables. The MCA showed ethnicity to be a significant and consistently important predictor. Its impact, however, diminished when other factors in the various explanatory models were considered. The effects of gender balance and child mortality experience on the dependent fertility variables (children ever born and recent fertility), months breast-feeding on children ever born, and access to contraception on the use of effective contraceptive methods were found to lessen the net importance of ethnicity. This would seem to indicate that the impact of ethnicity is influenced by the differential opportunities and experience of the ethnic groups. Thus it might be worthwhile exploring the notion of ethnicity further and how it exactly affects fertility. Another major finding shows the Christian lowland groups (the Bicolanos, Tagalogs, and Ilocanos) as having similarities in their fertility behaviour patterns while the Maranaos and the Chinese appear as distinct groups. The Chinese seems to have the most advantaged position not only in socio-economic terms but also in their access to contraceptives and other services. The Maranaos' poor access to health care and other social services is largely due to its peripheral position -- both physically and institutionally -- in Philippine society. This current state of affairs among the Maranaos necessitates a more vigorous and concerned intervention by health and population personnel. The provision of health and family planning services, however, should take into consideration the cultural and institutional factors peculiar to this group. While more assistance is desired for the Maranaos, the provision of health and family planning services to the other groups should also be sustained and enhanced. Although most of the non-Muslim groups know of and do practise family planning, a considerable proportion from the rural areas (particularly the Ilocanos and Bicolanos) have not availed of any form of family planning methods.

xviii

I

OVERVIEW

Objectives of the Study The main concern of the study is to investigate the nature and causes of fertility differentials among five ethnic groups in the Philippines. This Philippine study is part of a cross-national research on ethnic differentials in fertility involving the five member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN. The other participating countries are Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. Research on ethnic differentials in fertility vary among these ASEAN countries. While it is relatively extensive in Malaysia and Singapore, it is more limited in Thailand. In Indonesia and the Philippines it is almost non-existent. In the Philippines, concern for the absence of research on ethnic differentials in fertility has been raised by recent studies. Alfonso, Layo and Bulatao {1980), after analysing the literature on both fertility and ethnicity in the country, observed indirect links between these factors. However, they noted the absence of published reports on the subject. Herrin (1980), in his review of population and development research in the Philippines, stated that while there is sufficient knowledge about fertility levels and trends at the national level, there is a need to do more studies at the sub-national level and among social groups. This study is the first attempt at primary research on ethnic differentials in fertility in the Philippines. The specific objectives of this project are: (1) to provide a systematic description of ethnic differentials in fertility and associated cultural practices in the Philippines for the comparative analysis among the five ASEAN countries; (2) to attempt to explain the differentials within a multivariate framework; (3) to assess the role of fertility differentials in 1

perceptions of ethnic relations; and {4) to suggest policies for dealing with ethnic differentials. 1.

Systematic description. There are no previous attempts to provide a systematic, comparative description of ethnic differentials in fertility across the ASEAN countries. Such a description necessitates knowledge about country parallels and contrasts, about how ethnicity functions in different contexts, and about the types of barriers between ethnic groups that may impede fertility decline. The aim of this project is to provide such cross-sectional description covering not only fertility measures but also related cultural practices within each participating country and across cultures. Description also involves looking at differentials across lines of social class, age, residence, and similar characteristics as these relate to ethnic differentials.

2.

Ex~lanations for differentials. The second specific obJectlve is to attempt to explain the differentials that have been described within an essentially multivariate framework. This schematic framework is described in the next section of this chapter.

3.

Fertility and ethnic relations. Ethnic differentials in fertility exist in a political context and are a factor in ethnic relations. The existence of ethnic differentials raises not only scientific questions about actual causes but also political questions about how people react to differentials. As part of the attempt to understand these differentials, the project will provide some descriptive data about their political significance. An attempt will be made to determine perceptions of, beliefs about, and attitudes towards ethnic differentials at the individual level. Such subjective reactions are coloured by inter-ethnic attitudes, which wi 11 , therefore, a1so be studied. We wi 11 seek to determine how peop 1e fee 1 about the differentials they perceive and how these feelings relate to other inter-ethnic attitudes.

4.

Policy implications. After the foregoing objectives are satisfied, an attempt wi 11 be made to draw implications for population policy from the results. Ethnicity itself is not a policy variable: it is generally not subject to manipulation. However, this project will attempt to go beyond ethnic labels and identify those aspects of ethnic subcultures and group social position related to fertility. These factors 2

may be more amenable to control or, at least, deserve more sympathetic treatment. Beyond questions of population engineering, the project will attempt to deal with the political questions that ethnic fertility differentials raise and that sometimes threaten the acceptability of population control programmes.

The Schematic Framework of the Study Prior to the implementation of the survey, a schematic framework was developed to serve as guide for all the participating country teams (Figure 1). This initial framework attempted to pull together all pass i b1e factors drawn from the extensive review of literature inside and outside the ASEAN region to allow for more flexibility in explaining ethnic differentials in fertility across countries. As the project progressed and the research teams began to grapple with hard data, however, this schematic framework evolved from a broader model to more specific ones (see Figures 2 and 3). These two schematic framework -- one for studying differentia 1 s in fertility and the other for studying differentials in the use of contraceptives -- were adopted in the analysis of the findings. Ethnicity is an extremely complex, multi-dimensional variable which includes the identification of individuals by race, religion, language, nationality, cultural traditions and any other "primordial" characteristics which together distinguish one ethnic group from another. Thus it is reasonable to expect that attempts to explain the relationship between ethnicity and fertility may be approached in a variety of ways. This was acknowledged in the extensive 1iteratu re survey in the May 1979 proposal. Four such perspectives were identified: (1) the assimilationist perspective, explaining ethnic differentials in fertility in terms of individual background characteristics and predicting their gradual disappearance as ethnic groups become assimilated into a majority culture; (2) the structural perspective, explaining ethnic differentials as a function of the groups' relative positions in a societal stratification system (whether majority or minority); ( 3) the cu ltu ra 1 perspective, attributing ethnic fertility differentials to differences in cultural values and group practices affecting fertility; and (4) the psychosocial perspective, considering individual attitudes and preferences with regard to childbearing in addition to the cultural variables. The original theoretical model, depicted in Figure 1, attempted to integrate the different perspectives into a unified

3

FIGURE 1 A Schematic Framework for Studying Differentia ls In Fertility between Ethnic Groups

1\ge-sex structure

never marryIng

"CharacterIstIcs" Education Income

and dIvorce Postwldowhood eel lbacy

Fema I e emp I oyment

Urbanism MedIa exposure Economic development

Ml grant status Exposure to tami ly planning

Natural Fertility Factors Lactational infecundabl\lty

1ntra-uter I ne mort a I I ty the terti I e per I od

Social Structure Minority group status OccupatIon a I nIche

Induced abortion Infanticide

EthnIc Identity 11 Culture"

Ret igious Ideology

Fertility preferences

Gender preferences Status of women

Couple decision processes

Menstrua I taboos Ru I es of I nher 1tance

ContraceptIve acceptab Ill ty

Group poI icy etc.

FIGURE 2 A Schem atic Framework for Study ing Diffe rentia ls inFe rtilit y

11 Charact er I st I cs 11 Age/Sex Educatio n

Income

Nupt Ia lity

Age at marr l age Number of marrIage s

Occupat ion Fema I e emp I oyment

Urban res i dance MedIa exposure

Natura I Fert ill ty Factors Lactatio nal Jnfecund abi llty Ster II I ty (perceiv ed fecundI ty) Spontaneous abort ion

Ethn lc Identity Ethnic affll iatlon Ethnic fertilit y

approva I Ch II d

of

mortali ty

11 Cu lture" Religio sity Gender preferen ces

Status of women Remarria ge of wi dews Menstrua I taboos

Fert 1/lty preferen ces Coup I e decIsIon processe s Contrac eptIve access I bIll ty PsychIc costs of contrace ptIon

FIGURE 3 A Schematic Framework tor Studying Differentials In Use of Contraception

"Characteristics"

Nuptia I ity

Age/Sex

Age at marriage

Education

Number of marriages

Income

Occupation Fema I e emp I oyment Urban res 1dence Media exposure

Natura I fert i I I ty factors Lactational

infecundabillty

Ster I I I ty (perceived

Spontaneous abortion

Ethnic Identity Ethnic affiliation Ethnic fert i I i ty approva I

Chi I d morta I ity

11 Cu

I ture 11

Rei igioslty Gender preferences Status of women

Psychosoc i a I Factors

Remarriage of wIdows

Fert Ill ty preferences

Menstrua I taboos

Values of children Coup I e decisIon processes

Contraceptive access i b I I i ty

Psychic costs of contraception

framework. Two categories of factors are di st i ngui shed: ( 1) the proximate factors including age-sex structure, nuptiality, natural fertility and deliberate family limitation, and (2) the distal factors including variables which derive from the concept of ethnicity as a predictor of ethnic fertility differentials. The proximate factors have been frequently noted as significant variables in the fertility literature for which standard measures The distal have been evolved to investigate their impact. factors, on the other hand, are assumed to affect fertility only through modifying the proximal variable effects. Contributions from the four theoretical perspectives are evidenced in the four blocks of distal factors. In the initial theoretical formulation, the dependent variable fertility was conceived to include fertility outcomes as wel.l as fertility preferences. Fertility outcome was to be measured by three variables: (1) children ever born (for cumulative fertility), (2) recent fertility (for children born within the last five years), and (3) the duration ratio (a ratio between children ever born and a natural fertility schedule which considered the woman's current age and her age at marriage). Fertility preference was to be tapped by the factors like ide a l family size and desired family size. Modifications had to be introduced as the research progressed with three major changes being made. The first was to exclude the gathering of community data pertaining to the structural hypothesis from the main survey. Instead, supplementary community studies were to be made on each sampled community and the data was to be used as background for the individual country analysis. The second change was to drop the extremely sensitive, personal variables and those factors which individual respondents could not provide. It was suggested that other sources be tapped for such information. The third decision was to reconsider the variables on contraceptive practice and attitudes towards birth control from that of causal factor to that of dependent va ri able. This was argued as potentially more useful analysis in the light of the current contraceptive experience and the national family planning programmes of the different countries involved. The revised theoretical models which guided the entire project are essentially similar except for the dependent variables. The models served as the base for developing the hypotheses that could explain ethnic fertility differentials within each participating country and across countries. 7

Review of Literature on Ethnic Fertility Differences in the Philippines As stated earlier the literature on fertility among ethnic groups in the Philippines is found wanting. While there are indications of links between ethnicity and fertility on previous studies on fertility in the country, only two published studies directly attempted to establish this relationship. The first study was undertaken by Amelia B. Alfonso, Leda L. Layo, and Rodolfo A. Bul atao (1980). This was followed by a study recently done by Michael A. Costello (1981) on Chinese-Filipino fertility differences in Cagayan de Oro City, an urban community of the Southern Philippines. Both studies utilized secondary analysis of existing survey data. Alfonso, Layo, and Bulatao availed of data from the 1973 National Demographic Survey covering 7,195 married women under 50 whose ethnicity classification was based either on language or religion. Seven ethnic groups were distinguished: Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilocano, Ilongo, Bicolano, Muslim, and "Others". The largest ethnic group in the sample was the Tagalogs and the smallest was the Muslims. Applying the multiple classification analysis, five fertility-related variables were identified as dependent variables: children ever born, current effective contraceptive use (a dummy variable), desired family size, ideal family size, and wife's age at first marriage. Apart from the ethnicity variable, the following variables were used as predictors: urban-rural residence, wife's education, husband's education, household income, wife's outside employment, wife's age, and marriage duration. Children ever born also served as predictor for current contraceptive use. The last three variables were entered as covariates and with interactions ignored. This analysis was conducted on the entire sample, then repeated for each ethnic group to identify any differences in fertility determinants across groups. The results indicated that ethnicity was an important determinant of children ever born and of family size preference, though not of contraceptive use or wife's age at first marriage. The effects of ethnicity remained after demographic variables and socio-economic status were controlled. Other analyses indicated that the effects of ethnicity were at least of comparable magnitude to the effects of education, urban residence, and income. The Tagal ogs and Il ocanos scored 1owest on chi 1dren ever born while the highest numbers of children ever born were recorded among Bicolanos and Muslims. Controlling demographic 8

and status differences. preferences.

variables reduced but did not eliminate the Muslims also showed the largest family size

The socio-economic status variables generally operated in a similar fashion in affecting fertility in each ethnic group. The major exception was the Muslim group where children ever born could not be predicted as well and where the variations by socio-economic status were not expected. The pattern of determinants for Bicolanos also differed somewhat from the pattern for the remaining groups. The authors surmised that other variables such as the level of regional development and migration may affect ethnic differentials. These were not covered in the analysis yet the differentials obtained corresponded roughly with regional differences. However, it could not be determined whether it was regional -eco logical factors or ethnic factors, or both, that are at work. After reviewing the literature on ethnic Chinese fertility differentials in some Southeast Asian countries, Costello hypothesi zed that the fertility of persons of Chinese descent in Cagayan de Oro would be lower than that of the majority Filipino population. Higher levels of educational and occupational attainment among the Philippine-Chinese, their commercial orientation accompanied by a rational and calculating mentality, and their minority group status were the factors supporting this hypothesis. Utilizing data from the "dual records" project of the Research Institute for Mindanao Culture of Xavier University, the hypothesis was tested, and rejected, for a sample of respondents living in the poblacion (town) of Cagayan de Oro. Two explanations were posited for this unexpected result: the first stressed certain pro-natal i st influences in Chinese culture, such as preference for sons; the second argued that persons engaged in labour-intensive family business may be economically motivated to bear large numbers of children. Moderately strong empirical support was found for these two intervening factors.

Philippine Ethnic Groups Covered in the Survey Like the other cultures of the ASEAN region, the Philippines is a multi-ethnic nation with language and religion as the major determinants of ethnicity. The country has ten major linguistic groups, accounting for 89.2 per cent of the population; the remaining 10.8 per cent speak the other eighty languages and 9

dialects (Bautista, 1982). The following table shows the distribution of the ten largest linguistic groups in the Philippines. The figures are drawn from a summary of the 1975 Census of the Philippines data on the mother tongue of the population made by Bautista (1982). Mother tongue, in this context, is equated with the ethnic origin of the population. The first eight groups in Table 1.1 belong to the great majority of the Christian-Filipino population while the last two groups -- the Maranao and Magui ndanao -- are the 1a rgest of the Muslim groups (Bautista, 1982). TABLE 1.1 Population by Mother Tongue