Interpreting India's below-replacement fertility: evidence from Sample Registration System and National Family Health Survey on tempo effects and age-structural change

Alajangi Bhargavi

doi:10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20263273

Authors

Alajangi Bhargavi Department of Community Medicine, Gayatri Vidya Parishad Institute of Health Care and Medical Technology, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20263273

Keywords:

India, Total fertility rate, Age-specific fertility rate, Fertility postponement, Bongaarts–Feeney framework, Fertility transition

Abstract

Background: Whether India's below-replacement period total fertility rate (TFR) reflects genuine quantum decline or partly reflects tempo distortion from delayed childbearing has not been systematically assessed using nationally representative data. Sample Registration System (SRS) 2023 reports a national TFR of 1.9 and National Family Health Survey-6 (NFHS-6) (2023-24) reports 2.0.

Methods: This study integrates three complementary approaches using SRS 2023, NFHS-5 (2019–21), and NFHS-6 (2023–24) data: age-specific fertility rate (ASFR) redistribution across age groups (2011–13 to 2021–23); retrospective period-specific fertility trends from NFHS-5 birth histories; and an illustrative application of the Bongaarts–Feeney tempo-adjustment framework.

Results: ASFR fell 63.1% among women aged 15–19 and 42.5% among those aged 20–24 between 2011–13 and 2021–23, while it rose 22.7–91.3% across the 30–49 age range; the modal fertility age shifted from 20–24 to 25–29 years. An illustrative Bongaarts–Feeney adjustment (annual r ≈0.0076) yields TFR≈1.91 for 2023, only modestly above the observed period TFR of 1.9. TFR has been stable between NFHS-5 (1.99) and NFHS-6 (2.0).

Conclusions: India's recent fertility decline is accompanied by substantial postponement of childbearing, with fertility shifting from younger to older age groups. Although the illustrative Bongaarts–Feeney adjustment suggests only a modest national tempo correction, period TFR should be interpreted alongside age-specific and cumulative fertility measures before being treated as definitive evidence of declining completed family size.

References

Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India. SRS statistical report 2023. New Delhi (India): Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India; 2025. Available at: https://censusindia.gov.in/nada/index.php/catalog/46172/download/50420/SRS_STAT_2023.pdf. Accessed on 10 January 2026.

Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India. SRS statistical report 2013. New Delhi (India): Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India; 2014. Available at: https://censusindia.gov.in/nada/index.php/catalog/42688. Accessed on 10 January 2026.

International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS). National Family Health Survey (NFHS-6), India, 2023–24: fact sheets. Mumbai (India): IIPS; 2026. Available at: https://www.nfhsiips.in/nfhsuser/publication.php. Accessed on 10 January 2026.

Preston SH, Heuveline P, Guillot M. Demography: measuring and modeling population processes. Oxford (UK): Blackwell; 2001.

International Union for the Scientific Study of Population (IUSSP). Cohort-period fertility rates. Paris (France): IUSSP. Available at: https://demogra phicestimation.iussp.org/content/cohort-period-fertility-rates. Accessed on 16 July 2026.

Ryder NB. The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. Am Sociol Rev. 1965;30(6):843-61.

Bongaarts J, Feeney G. On the quantum and tempo of fertility. Popul Dev Rev. 1998;24(2):271-91.

International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), ICF. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5), India, 2019–21. Mumbai (India): IIPS; 2022. Available at: https://www.nfhsiips.in/nfhsuser/ nfhs5.php. Accessed on 10 January 2026.

International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), ICF. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4), India, 2015–16. Mumbai (India): IIPS; 2017. Available at: https://www.nfhsiips.in/nfhsuser /aboutus.php. Accessed on 10 January 2026.

International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), ICF. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), India, 2005–06. Mumbai (India): IIPS; 2007. Available at: https://www.nfhsiips.in/nfhsuser/ nfhs3.php. Accessed on 10 January 2026.Kohler HP, Philipov D. Variance effects in the Bongaarts-Feeney formula. Demography. 2001;38(1):1-16.

Sobotka T, Lutz W. Misleading policy messages derived from the period TFR: should we stop using it? Comp Popul Stud. 2011;35(3):637-64.

Van Imhoff E, Keilman N. On the quantum and tempo of fertility: comment. Popul Dev Rev. 2000;26(3):549-58.

Kim CY, Chung SH. Demographic transition in South Korea: implications of falling birth rates. Clin Exp Pediatr. 2024;67(10):498-509.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World population prospects 2024: summary of results. New York (NY): United Nations; 2024. Available at: https://desapublications.un.org/file/20622/download. Accessed on 10 January 2026.

Frejka T, Sobotka T. Overview Chapter 1: fertility in Europe: diverse, delayed and below replacement. Demogr Res. 2008;19(3):15-46.

Government of Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh population policy and pro-natalist incentive scheme. Amaravati (India): Government of Andhra Pradesh; 2024. Available at: https://health.economictimes. indiatimes.com/news/policy/andhra-pradesh-to-finalise-population-management-policy-in-3-4-months/131402555. Accessed on 10 January 2026.

Kohler HP, Ortega JA. Tempo-adjusted period parity progression measures, fertility postponement and completed cohort fertility. Demographic Res. 2002;6(6):91-144.

James KS. India's demographic change: opportunities and challenges. Science. 2011;333(6042):576-80.

Dharmalingam A, Rajan S, Morgan SP. The determinants of low fertility in India. Demography. 2014;51(4):1451-75.

Singh S, Shekhar C, Bankole A, Acharya R, Audam S, Akinade T, et al. Key drivers of fertility levels and differentials in India, at the national, state and population subgroup levels, 2015–2016: an application of Bongaarts' proximate determinants model. PLoS One. 2022;17(2):e0263532.

Bongaarts J. The fertility impact of changes in the timing of childbearing in the developing world. Popul Stud (Camb). 1999;53(3):277-89.

Bongaarts J. The end of the fertility transition in the developed world. Popul Dev Rev. 2002;28(3):419-43.

Rabbi AMF, Kabir M. Explaining fertility transition of a developing country: an analysis of quantum and tempo effect. Fertil Res Pract. 2015;1:4.

Singh M, Shekhar C, Gupta J, Kumar R. Geographical clustering of delayed motherhood in India: an application of multilevel and geospatial analyses. Front Glob Womens Health. 2026;7:1762981.

Singh M, Shekhar C, Gupta J, Barik S. Exploring the shifting landscape of delayed motherhood in India: a comprehensive analysis using joinpoint and age-period-cohort analysis. BMC Womens Health. 2025;25:563.

Guilmoto CZ, Rajan SI. Fertility at the district level in India: lessons from the 2011 census. Econ Polit Wkly. 2013;48(23):59-70.