International Journal of Forecasting 8 (1992) 393-411 393

North-Holland

Forecasting demographic components

Modeling and forecasting US sex differentials

in mortality
Lawrence R. Carter
Department of Sociology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA

Ronald D. Lee
Department of Demography, University of California, 2232 Piedmont Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94720,
USA

Abstract: This paper examines forecasted differentials in age-sex-specific mortality in the United
States, 1990-2065. A non-linear model, m,,, = exp(a, + b,k, + e, ,), is fitted for each sex to a matrix of
age-specific US death rates, 1933-1988, using SVD to derive a single time-varying index of mortality,
k,. Box-Jenkins techniques are used to estimate and forecast k,. These forecasts are used to generate
age-specific mortality rates and life expectancies to 2065. Independent forecasts of male and female e,‘s
are 82.0 and 90.4, respectively, for 2065, a difference of 8.4 years. These forecasts are substantially
higher with narrower confidence intervals than those prepared regularly by the Actuary of the Social
Security Administration [Wade (1989)]. These k, generated forecasts of e, appear more plausible than
direct forecasts of e, Life expectancies derived from jointly estimated and forecasted k, are competitive
with the independent sex forecasts, but have some problems. Joint forecasts of k, are juxtaposed to
co-integration speculatively as a direction for future research into linkages between male and female
mortality.

Keywords: Age-sex-specific mortality, Life-table functions, Non-linear Demographic Model, Forecast-

ing, Forecast accuracy, Co-integration

1. Introduction that have occurred. The mortality transition is a

heterogeneous process that shows much vari-
The mortality transition in the United States ation among the major divisions of this popula-
in the twentieth century has signaled remarkable tion: race, sex, and socioeconomic status. Carter
improvements in life expectancy at birth, from (1988) examines the variation by race. Variation
47.3 years in 1900 to 75.3 in 1990. As startling as by socioeconomic status is more problematic due
are the improvements in societal health evi- partly to data limitations and partly to its con-
denced by this index, it does not expose the founding with race. The purpose of this paper is
complexity of the underlying transformations to analyze and forecast variations in mortality
Correspondence tot L.R. Carter, Department of Sociology,
expectancies by sex.
University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA. Tel: 503- Whereas white and non-white life expectan-
344-5169. cies have been converging generally over time,

0169-2070/92/$05.00 0 1992 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved

394 L.R. Carter, R. D. Lee I Forecasting US sex differentials in mortality

sex differentials have shown a marked increase (1983)] to time series of age-specific US death
in the later twentieth century. The cause-specific rates, by sex and sometimes by cause of death.
dimensions of this divergence have been ad- This procedure yields time series of parameter
dressed extensively by Enterline (1960), values which can themselves then be forecast
Retherford (1975) and Waldron (1983). This using time series methods. Sometimes only a
paper is directed to the more narrow scope of subset of the parameters is allowed to vary over
describing the pattern and extrapolating it into time, with the remainder fixed. The advantage of
the future using a combination of demographic this method is that it offers a parsimonious rep-
and time series models, analysis and forecasts. resentation of the age distribution of mortality
Accordingly, this paper examines differentials compared with ‘relational’ methods such as ours,
in observed and forecasted sex-specific life ex- or the Brass logit model. However, we believe
pectancies and longevity in the United States that the method also may suffer from a number
from 1900 to 2065. Mortality models are de- of disadvantages. First, while the number of
veloped and used to generate long-run forecasts, parameters necessary to express a single age
with confidence intervals that extend recent work distribution is relatively small, the number that
by Lee and Carter (1992). These results are must be forecast is rather large, ranging from
compared for forecast accuracy with univariate three, in McNown and Rogers (1992) to eight in
naive forecasts of life expectancies and those McNown and Rogers (1989). Second, this range
prepared by the Actuary of the Social Security of parameters means that probability intervals
Administration. for the forecasts must take into account the
The naive forecasts are a benchmark for judg- covariances of the parameter forecast errors.
ing the quality of the other two methods. The This complication may be why neither article
techniques used by Lee and Carter (1992) gener- presents probability intervals. Third, there is
ate forecasts that differ significantly in both some evidence that the time series of parameter
method and outcome from the official US fore- values behave erratically, at least for the United
casts published by the Actuary of the Social States [see McNown and Rogers (1989, p. 650)
Security Administration. The Actuary’s forecasts and Keyfitz (1990, p. ll)], making them difficult
combine age-specific trend extrapolation with the to forecast. Fourth, perhaps for this reason, or
views of medical experts on ultimate cause- perhaps for some other, the forecasts in
specific (but not age-specific) rates of mortality McNown and Rogers (1989) are only for a 15-
decline, which are phased in gradually, with the year horizon, so it is not clear whether longer
phase-in complete by 2010. The experts’ views term forecasts would be well behaved. Fifth,
make the ultimate rate of decline substantially perhaps also related to the third point, many of
slower than the historic trends, and imply that all the coefficients in the time series models in the
age-specific rates ultimately decline at the same two paper are insignificant, with some standard
pace, which is sharply inconsistent with the past. errors exceeding the estimate.
Confidence intervals (high-low intervals) are The paper by McNown and Rogers (1992)
generated by ad hoc procedures. These methods presents some comparative results, using a hold-
have been examined in detail in the papers by back sample, for their method vs. simply ex-
Alho (1990) and Alho and Spencer (1990). They trapolating each age-sex-cause-specific rate at
find that the use of experts by the Actuary has its base period rate of decline. The models are fit
hindered rather than helped the forecasts in the for 1960-1975, and used to forecast from 1976 to
past. They also develop formal confidence inter- 1985. Mean absolute percent error (MAPE)
vals for the mortality forecasts, which generally statistics and Theil statistics are presented at
turn out to be not strikingly different from the horizons of one, five and 10 years. NcNown and
brackets provided by the actuary [Lee and Car- Rogers (1992) suggest that the constant rate
ter (1992)]. method mimics the Lee-Carter and Social Sec-
A different approach has been pioneered by urity methods; we argue that there are significant
NcNown and Rogers (1989, 1992), who fit eight- differences [see McNown (1992) and Lee (1992)
and nine-parameter exponential models [Helig- for an exchange on the subject]. Nonetheless,
man and Pollard (1980) and Rogers and Planck the comparison may be informative. Our reading
 L.R. Carter, R.D. Lee I Forecasting US sex differentials in mortality 395

of the results is that, on the whole, they favor and their differences over time. Base populations
the simple extrapolation of age-specific rates. At for the mortality rates from which these esti-
the lo-year horizon, the rate method has lower mates were ultimately derived are not adjusted
MAPEs for 12 of the 16 forecasts, and the for undercount which does not impact life expec-
average MAPE is lower as well (22 vs. 25). The tancy dramatically.’ Even so, the patterns are
Theil statistic is lower in seven out of 16 cases, instructive. Trends in the two life expectancy
and is slightly higher on average (0.74 vs. 0.71). series differ, and both are slightly non-linear
At the one-year horizon, it does far better on all over time. The trajectories show the historical
counts, but for reasons given by McNown and advantage in life expectancy for females. The
Rogers, this is not a good test. patterns are somewhat garbled prior to 1943,
after which divergences to the females’ advan-
tage is clear. The pattern is more obvious for the
2. Background line plotting of the differential between the
sexes. The period prior to 1943 is one of consid-
2.1. The mortality transition erable fluctuation with a shift in level in 1918
induced by the shock of the influenza epidemic
Although extending life in an aging popula- of that year. Nevertheless, the overall pattern is
tion is generally seen to be a desirable goal, it a near linear trend of divergence to the present.
has the consequence of increasing the proportion Even so, there appears to be some perceptible
of people in the post-retirement ages. The shift
in the age composition of the population may
lead to a change in health policy, to meet the
resource demand of the elderly for more care at
ages where it is, on average, considerably more
expensive.

2.2. Diverging sex differentials in life

expectancy

When US mortality schedules are paired by

-1 r 900 1920 1980
sex, irrespective of race, male death rates exceed Date
female across the age distribution. Temporal Exhibit 1. Sex-specific e,,‘s and their differences, United
variation in these period differentials portrays States, 1900-89.

non-uniformity in the transition for the indi- ’ Census undercount and age misreporting are potential
vidual sex-specific subpopulations. contributors to estimation errors in life-table parameters.
Different histories among human subpopula- While we can expect that vital statistics mortality data
tions make it hard to determine if differences in provide almost 100% coverage of deaths, the base popula-
tions used in calculating mortality rates suffer from these
mortality schedules by sex derive from biological
errors of coverage [Manton and Stallard (1984)]. These
selection, environmental exposures, or some errors can possibly distort life-table estimates and forecasts.
combination of the two [Enterline (1960)]. These Corrections for these particular errors of coverage exist for
dissimilarities are addressed typically by compar- only a few census years. and we question their usefulness
ing mortality trajectories of the subpopulations for constructing mortality rates for approximately loo-year
annual time series. We test the impact of estimation error
(usually by age-sex-cause-specific rates or life
in the 1970 and 1980 sex-specific life tables by correcting
expectancies) to determine the pattern of their the published population counts for these years using Pas-
pasts and to speculate about their futures. The sel’s (1983) adjustment factors. These are years for which
problem is that age-specific trajectories paired the most current correction factors exist. Details of the
across sex may be changing at different rates, so procedure are available on request. The results of these
adjustments indicate a disparity in life expectancy at birth
the conceptual importance of divergence is un-
of, at most, 0.14 years. Although race-sex-specific gaps
clear. There is some evidence that the sexes do may be more dramatic, this maximum difference is not a
differ in their rates of change. Exhibit 1 contains serious impediment to our using unadjusted population
sex-specific estimates of life expectancies at birth counts for sex-specific projections.
396 L. R. Carter, R.D. Lee I Forecasting US sex differentials in mortality

downshifting in the 1980s. The question is: What

are the implications of the long-term trend and
D, = c [N,,, exp(a,+ b,k + e,,Jl .
the recent shifts for the future? In this reverse procedure, with all e,,, set to zero,
The implications for the future could be there is no analytical solution for k, although k is
drawn by forecasting the time series of the dif- typically uniquely determined. Consequently, k
ferential to see if it grows or declines, and by is derived through an iterative numerical pro-
how much. This approach is problematic in that cedure.
there is variance non-stationarity in the differen-
tial that is not easily transformed to stationarity.
Furthermore, since the differential reflects net 4. Fitting the demographic model
gains and losses in life expectancy between
paired subpopulations, it cannot signal gains or There are three different ways of extending
losses for their respective populations. A more the Lee-Carter analysis to male and female sub-
fruitful approach is to model and forecast each populations, or to any subpopulations, for that
subpopulation’s life expectancy separately as a matter. The first is simply to model the subpopu-
univariate process. Then, a more informative lations separately. Then, if desired, one could
forecast of the differential emerges as a by- search for dependence between the separate k-
product of the analysis. series later. The second approach is to estimate a
single k which drives changes in all the age-
specific rates of both subpopulations. The third
3. The non-linear demographic model approach estimates the subpopulations jointly as
a co-integrated process [Engle and Granger
This paper uses time series modeling to fore- (1987) and Harvey (1990)]. We will emphasize
cast single sex-specific index of mortality, k, the first strategy in this paper, but will present
[sometimes designated as k, or k(t)], to which results based on the second for comparison pur-
the log of each age-specific rate is linearly related poses, and some discussion of the third, later.
[i.e. m,,, = exp(a, + k,b, + ex.,), or ln(m,,,) = Data used in the fittings are taken from Grove
a, + k,b, + e, ,). Here m,., (or m, k since k is and Hetzel (1968) and NCHS (various years).
dependent on’t) is the central death’ rate for age These data show that infant and child mortality
x at mortality level k, exp(a,) is the general decline relatively rapidly, while old-age mortality
shape across age of the mortality schedule, and declines slowly, as has been the case historically.
b, indicates the sensitivity of the log of mortality Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) [Good
at age x to variations in the parameter k. For any (1969)) Gruber (1990)] is used to estimate a, b,
value of k, the fitted model defines a set of and k, as just defined. The a,‘s and b,‘s are
central death rates which can be used to derive a estimated, and using them, the k,‘s are re-esti-
life table. It is a mathematical implication of the mated by the reverse method so that the result-
model that, if k changes linearly with time, then ing death rates, applied to the actual base popu-
every age-specific rate changes at a constant lation, produce the total number of deaths actu-
exponential rate, where the constants vary by ally observed in the data. Such estimates of k are
age. The shape of the 6, profile tells us which made all the way back to 1900, and up to 1989,
rates decline rapidly and which slowly over time. on the basis of a count of total deaths and the
The error term, e, ,, with mean zero and var- age distribution of the population for those inclu-
iance a:, reflects particular age-specific historical sive years. Details of this approach are found in
influences not captured in the model [Lee and Lee and Carter (1992). Estimates, by sex, of a,
Carter (1992)]. and b, are provided in Exhibit 2. These measures
But the procedure can also be used in reverse are used with forecasted k, (to be presented
to solve for the particular life table in this family later) to generate other life-table functions. Note
which would produce an observed number of that the b, values through age 15 are much larger
deaths, D,, for a given population age distribu- for males than for females, indicating that rates
tion, N, ,. For given data of this kind, k, and D, at these ages have declined more rapidly relative
are related multiplicatively such that: to those at older ages. We will see that this
 L.R. Carter, R.D. Lee I Forecasting US sex differentials in mortality 391

Exhibit 2 to age 85. We report drastic improvements in

Fitted values of a, and b, for 1933-88 (SVD).
these percentages in a later section. Unfortu-
Age group a, b, nately, for even older age groups, life tables are
Males generally terminated in the open interval, 85+,
0 -3.54342 0.11232 and we have no reliable historical documentation
l-4 -6.63209 0.13060 of the survival of the oldest-old in the United
5-9 -7.37790 0.10974
States. We achieve indirect estimates of the
10-14 -7.39295 0.10028
15-19 -6.47508 0.03942
death rates for these age groups by applying the
20-24 -6.11409 0.04303 method of Coale and Guo (1989, pp. 614-615)
25-29 -6.13615 0.04963 to extend the death rates up to the age interval
30-34 -6.00555 0.05528 105-109, by expressing them as functions of k,,
35-39 -5.70998 0.05696
a, and b,, and then searching for the appropriate
40-44 -5.31155 0.05458
45-49 -4.87169 0.04623
k as explained earlier. Their method is a refine-
50-54 -4.42275 0.03826 ment of the Gompertz method, and is calibrated
55-59 -4.00792 0.03124 on the data from populations with reliable old-
60-64 -3.60858 0.02450 age mortality data. A detailed discussion of this
65-69 -3.23295 0.02146
approach and its rather small impact on our life
70-74 -2.84645 0.01940
75-79 -2.44544 0.02366
expectancy estimates and forecasts is found in
80-84 -2.04938 0.02418 Lee and Carter (1992). Still the technique is
85+ - 1.58820 0.01919 quite useful for estimating the future prospects
for survival among the oldest-old.
Females
0 -3.79365 0.07205
l-4 -6.81516 0.09032
5-9 -7.70628 0.07784 5. The fitted demographic model
10-14 -7.85981 0.07428
15-19 -7.21142 0.06044 This model, fitted to total US mortality 1900-
20-24 -6.95298 0.07083
1989, explains about 97.5% of the change over
25-29 -6.79484 0.07321
30-34 -6.52806 0.06756
time in the matrix of untransformed age-specific
35-39 -6.18176 0.06028 rates, excluding the age group 85+ [Lee and
40-44 -5.78624 0.05120 Carter (1992)]. Th e sex-specific estimated values
45-49 -5.38883 0.04363 of k, are shown with their interval forecasts (to
50-54 -4.97793 0.03872
be addressed later) in Exhibit 3 and Exhibits 4(a)
55-59 -4.59246 0.03559
60-64 -4.17848 0.03354
and 4(b). These graphs are not exactly compar-
65-69 -3.76266 0.03369 able as the sex-specific k,‘s depend partly on
70-74 -3.29573 0.03387 their respective a,‘s and b,‘s. However, there is
75-79 -2.80832 0.03422 comparability in their respective m, ,‘s and e,‘s
80-84 -2.32941 0.02965
(to be shown later). The kt’s are‘ viewed as
8s+ -1.71826 0.01908
stochastic variables to be modeled and forecas-
ted using Box-Jenkins (1976) or other methods.
Still, as a matter of empirical fact, k estimated in
inconsistency affects our forecasts of relative this way fluctuates about a consistent linear trend
mortality at younger ages. from 1900 to 1989; its rate of decline in the first
We think assessments of life-table functions half of the period is no more rapid than in the
must increasingly take into account drastic im- second half. This is in marked contrast to life
provements in survival among age groups expectancy at birth, which declines about twice
beyond 85 in recent years. In fact, the open- as fast in the first half of the period as the
ended age group 85+ is now the fastest growing second. We suspect that this feature of k in
age group in the US population [Soldo and comparison to e,, will prove to hold more gener-
Agree (1988)], and we must give some account- ally, and will be an attractive feature of this
ing of this fact in our forecasts. We note that, in approach. The relation of the two trends is me-
1987, 20% of males and 39% of females survived diated by the measure H of the entropy of
398 L.R. Carter, R. D. Lee I Forecasting US sex differentials in mortality

Exhibit 3
Forecasts of mortality index k, with standard errors [from (0, I, 0) model, with ju dummy, estimated over 1900-891

Date k Std. dev. Date k Std. dev. Date k Std. dev.

Males
1990 - 10.68 0.90 2016 -20.40 4.65 2042 -30.14 8.52
1901 -11.04 1.27 2017 -20.77 4.74 2043 -30.51 6.58
1992 -11.41 1.55 2018 -21.15 4.82 2044 -30.89 6.64
1993 -11.79 1.79 2018 -21.52 4.90 2045 -31.28 6.70
1994 ~12.16 2.00 2020 -21.90 4.99 2046 -31.63 6.76
1995 - 12.54 2.19 2021 -22.27 5.07 2047 -32.01 6.82
1996 - 12.91 2.37 2022 -22..65 5.14 2048 -32.38 6.88
1997 -13.29 2.53 2023 -23.02 5.22 2049 ~32.76 6.94
1998 ~13.66 2.69 2024 -23.40 5.30 2050 -33.13 6.99
1999 - 14.03 2.83 2025 -23.77 5.37 2051 -33.51 7.05
2000 - 14.41 2.97 2026 -24.15 5.45 2052 -33.88 7.11
2001 ~ 14.78 3.10 2027 -24.52 5.52 2053 -34.26 7.16
2002 -15.16 3.23 2028 -24.89 5.59 2054 -34.63 7.22
2003 - 15.53 3.35 2029 -25.27 5.66 2055 -35.00 7.27
2004 -15.91 3.47 2030 -25.64 5.73 -35.38 7.33
2005 - 16.28 3.58 2031 -26.02 5.80 2057 -35.75 7.38
2006 - 16.66 3.69 2032 -26.39 5.87 2058 -36.13 7.44
2007 - 17.03 3.80 2033 -26.77 5.94 2059 -36.50 7.49
2008 -17.40 3.90 2034 -27.14 6.01 2060 -36.88 7.55
2009 - 17.78 4.00 2035 ~27.52 6.07 2061 -37.25 7.60
2010 -18.15 4.10 2036 -27.89 6.14 2062 -37.63 7.65
2011 -18.53 4.20 2037 -28.28 6.20 2063 -38.00 7.70
2012 -18.90 4.29 2038 -28.64 6.27 2064 -38.37 7.7s
2013 -19.28 4.39 2039 -29.01 6.33 2065 -38.75 7.81
2014 ~ 19.65 4.48 2040 -29.39 6.39
2015 -20.03 4.57 2041 -29.76 6.46

Females
1990 -12.18 0.89 2016 -24.94 4.64 2042 -37.71 6.49
1991 - 12.67 1.26 2017 -25.43 4.72 2043 -38.20 6.56
1992 -13.16 1.55 2018 ~25.93 4.80 2044 ~38.69 6.62
1993 - 13.65 1.78 2019 ~26.42 4.89 2045 -39.18 6.68
1994 -14.14 1.99 2020 -26.91 4.97 2046 -3Y.67 6.73
1995 - 14.63 2.19 2021 ~27.40 5.05 2047 -40.16 6.79
1996 -15.12 2.36 2022 -27.89 5.12 2048 ~40.65 6.85
1997 -15.62 2.52 2023 -28.38 5.20 2049 -41.14 6.91
1998 ~16.11 2.68 2024 -28.87 5.28 2050 ~41.64 6.97
1999 - 16.60 2.82 2025 -29.36 5.35 205 1 -42.13 7.02
2000 -17.09 2.96 2026 -29.85 5.43 2052 -42.62 7.08
2001 -17.58 3.09 2027 -30.34 5.50 2053 -43.11 7.14
2002 -18.07 3.22 2028 -30.83 5.57 2054 -43.60 7.19
2003 -18.58 3.34 2029 -31.33 5.84 2055 -44.09 7.25
2004 - 19.05 3.45 2030 -31.82 5.71 2056 -44.58 7.30
2005 -19.54 3.57 2031 -32.31 5.78 2057 -45.07 7.36
2006 -20.03 3.68 2032 -32.80 5.85 2058 -45.56 7.41
2007 -20.53 3.78 2033 -33.29 5.92 2059 -46.05 7.48
2008 -21.02 3.89 2034 -33.78 5.98 2060 -46.54 7.52
2009 -21.51 3.99 2035 -34.27 6.05 2061 -47.04 7.57
2010 -22.00 4.09 2036 -34.76 6.12 2062 -47.53 7.62
2011 -22.49 4.18 2037 -35.25 6.18 2063 -48.02 7.67
2012 -22.98 4.28 2038 -35.74 6.24 2064 -48.51 7.73
2013 -23.47 4.37 2039 -36.24 6.31 -49.00 7.78
2014 -23.98 4.46 2040 -36.73 6.37
2015 -24.45 4.55 2041 -37.22 6.43
 L. R. Curter, R. D. Lee I Forecasting US sex differentials in mortality 399

accounts for 98% of the standard error of the life

expectancy forecast. By 2065, the error in fore-
casting k accounts for virtually all the uncertainty
in the forecasts of both death rates and life
expectancy. Accordingly, we present confidence
intervals based on the forecast error of k alone,
while acknowledging that they understate the
forecast errors over shorter horizons.
This effort enormously simplifies the treat-
ment of forecast errors. Thus, time series varia-
tions in the logs of the death rates are assumed
Date to be perfectly correlated with one another, since
all are linear functions of k. Note that this is not
the same as saying that they all change at the
same rate, however. Of course, in reality some
age groups sometimes show different patterns of
change than others. For example, young adult
male mortality rates rose strongly in the 1960s
while corresponding female rates were level and
all other mortality rates were falling. Young
adult male and female rates then fell more rapid-
ly than others from the early 1970s to the early
1980s. Fortunately for this undertaking, those
death rates are very low, and so their aberrant
Date behavior will have little effect on our measures
Exhibit 4. Forecasts of the mortality index, k: fitted, 1900- of survival to older ages, or life expectancy.
89, and forecasted, 1990-2065. (a) Males; (b) females. Nonetheless, if one has particular interest in
these age groups, some other forecasting method
would probably be preferable.
Using the re-estimated k,‘s and the estimated
mortality [see Keyfitz (1977, pp. 62-68)], and as ax’s and b,‘s, we reconstitute the m,,,‘s for se-
mortality declines so does H, which halved be- lected ages. The reconstituted rates are shown
tween 1920 and 1960. This pattern is consistent for males and females, respectively, in Exhibit 5
with that found by Lee and Carter (1992). and Exhibit 6(a) and 6(b). These graphs are
So far, then, we have constructed and esti- replicates of some of the age groups shown in
mated the equations underlying a simple but Lee and Carter (1992), and show consistency in
powerful model life-table family, indexed on k,. fit with those results. Joint estimates are dis-
We use the fitted model to generate mortality cussed in Section 10. An overall estimate of
forecasts by first forecasting k,. Forecasts gener- goodness of fit between observed (light solid
ated in this way have various sources of error, as lines) and estimated (heavy solid lines) m,,,‘s is
discussed in detail in Appendix 2 of Lee and obtained for the sexes separately by averaging
Carter (1992). These sources of error include the the explained variances of their age-specific re-
following: the error in forecasting k, the error in gressions. For males an R* of 0.981 is obtained,
estimating the a, and b, parameters of the while for females, R2 is 0.984. Bear in mind that
model, and the error in the fit of the model to these series are non-stationary (the R2’s are
the actual data. Lee and Carter show that in the influenced by trend); even so, the estimates of fit
early years of the forecast, the error in forecast- are quite high in spite of somewhat lower R2’s
ing k may account for only about a half of the for males at age 85+ (0.812) and females at age
standard error of the forecast, but that, after 10 50-54 (0.824). Correlations of estimation error
years, the error in forecasting k comes to domi- across age groups are not calculated. Collinearity
nate the standard error in each death rate, and among error terms (often substantial) is found in
Exhibit 5
Forecasts of age-specific death rates per 100 000 at five-year intervals, 1990-2065 (by sex).

Age Date
W”P
1990 1995 2ooo 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065

M&S
O-l 873 707 573 464 376 305 247 200 162 131 107 86 70 57 46 37
1-4 33 26 20 16 12 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 2 1 1 1
5-9 19 16 13 10 9 I 6 5 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1
10-14 21 18 15 12 10 8 7 6 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 1
15-19 101 94 87 81 7.5 70 65 60 56 52 48 45 42 39 36 33
20-24 140 129 119 110 101 93 86 80 73 68 62 58 53 49 45 42
25-29 127 116 106 96 88 80 13 66 61 55 50 46 42 38 35 32
30-34 137 123 111 100 90 81 73 66 60 54 49 44 39 36 32 29
35-39 180 162 146 I31 118 106 95 86 77 69 62 56 50 45 41 36
40-44 276 249 225 203 183 165 149 135 122 110 99 90 81 73 66 60
45-49 468 429 393 361 331 303 278 255 234 215 197 181 166 152 139 128
50-54 798 743 691 644 599 558 519 483 450 419 390 363 338 314 293 272
55-59 1302 1228 1 158 1093 1031 972 917 865 816 769 725 684 645 609 574 542
60-64 2 086 1992 1903 1818 1736 1 658 1584 1513 1445 1380 1319 1259 1203 1 149 1097 1048
65-69 3 137 3 014 2 895 2781 2671 2 566 2 465 2 368 2 215 2 185 2 099 2 016 1937 1 861 1787 1717
70-74 4 720 4551 4 389 4 232 4081 3 936 3 795 3 660 3 529 3 403 3 282 3 165 3 052 2 943 2 838 2 737
75-19 6 735 6 443 6 164 5 897 5 641 5 397 5 163 4 939 4 725 4 520 4 324 4 137 3 958 3 786 3 622 3 465
80-84 9 953 9512 9091 8 689 8 304 7 937 7 585 7 250 6 929 6 622 6 329 6 049 5 781 5 525 5 281 5 047
85-89 14 662 14 029 13 424 12 844 12 290 11 760 11253 10 768 10 304 9 859 9 435 9 028 8 639 8 267 7911 7 570
90-94 21112 20 940 20 141 19 373 18 634 17 925 17 242 16 586 15 956 15 350 14767 14 207 13 668 13 150 12651 12 172
95-99 32 409 31429 30 480 29 563 28 674 27 814 26 980 26 174 25 392 24 636 23 903 23 192 22 504 21837 21191 20 565
100-10 48 359 47 431 46 526 45 642 44 780 43 938 43 115 42 312 41528 40 761 40 012 39 279 38 563 37 862 37 176 36 506
105-10 72 336 71976 71629 71295 70 973 70 663 70 363 70 074 69 795 69 526 69 266 69 014 68 771 68 536 68 309 68 089

FfWdG
o-1 936 784 651 551 461 387 324 271 227 191 160 134 112 94 79 66
l-4 37 29 23 19 15 12 10 8 6 5 4 3 3 2 2 1
5-9 17 14 12 10 8 7 6 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
IO-14 16 13 11 9 8 6 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
15-19 35 30 26 23 20 17 15 13 11 9 8 7 6 5 4 4
20-24 40 34 28 24 20 17 14 12 10 8 7 6 5 4 4 3
25-29 46 38 32 27 22 19 16 13 11 9 8 6 5 4 4 3
30-34 64 54 46 39 33 28 24 20 17 14 12 10 9 7 6 5
35-39 99 86 74 64 55 47 41 35 30 26 23 19 17 14 12 11
40-44 165 145 128 113 100 88 77 68 60 53 47 41 36 32 28 25
45-49 268 241 217 195 175 157 141 127 114 102 92 83 74 67 60 54
50-54 430 391 355 323 294 267 243 221 201 183 166 151 137 125 114 103
55-59 657 602 551 505 463 424 389 356 326 299 274 251 230 211 193 177
60-64 1018 938 864 796 733 675 621 512 527 485 447 412 379 349 322 296
65-69 1541 1418 1306 1202 1 107 1019 938 864 795 732 674 620 571 526 484 446
70-74 2 452 2 256 2 076 1911 1758 1618 1489 1370 1261 1 160 1 OX8 982 904 832 766 704
75-79 3 975 3 655 3 380 3 090 2841 2612 2401 2 208 2 030 1866 1716 1578 1451 1334 1226 1127
SO-84 6 784 6 308 5 865 5 453 5 071 4715 4 384 4 076 3 790 3 524 3 276 3 046 2 832 2 634 2 449 2 277
85-89 11968 11389 10 839 10316 9 818 9 344 R 893 8 464 8 056 7 668 7 298 6 947 6612 6 294 5 991 5 702
90-94 19 522 18 818 18 141 17 490 16863 16 259 15 678 15 118 14 579 14 059 13 559 13077 12 612 12 165 11733 11317
95-99 31 132 30 422 29 733 29 062 28 411 27 777 27 160 26 559 25 974 25 403 24 848 24 306 23 777 23 261 22 758 22 266
100~10 48 537 48 121 47 719 47 330 46 954 46 590 46 231 45 893 45 559 45 234 44916 44 606 44 303 44 006 43 715 43 430
105-10 73 980 74 473 74 994 75 544 76 121 76 724 77 352 78 003 78 677 79 374 80 09 1 80 829 81588 82 365 83 161 83 976
-
 L.R. Carter. R.D. Lee i Forecasting US sex different~uis in ~ortaiit~ 401

Dale Date

Exhibit 6. Actual and fitted logs of death rates, males and females, 193348, selected ages. (a) Males; (b) females.

Age Group Age Group

Exhibit 7. Comparisons of actual, fitted and forecasted mortality by age, selected years. (a) Males; (b) females.

the study by Lee and Carter (1992), and can 6. Time series modeling and forecasting the
contribute to estimation and forecast error in mortality index, k
time series modeling of k, and, consequently, to
estimates and forecasts of e,. Having no easy The next stage in the project models and
solution to this problem, we defer it and proceed forecasts changes in k, and the error variances
with the time series modeling of k,. and covariances of our forecasts. The procedure
A visual appreciation of the goodness of fit uses the Box-Jenkins (1976) sequence of identi-
across ages can be derived from Exhibits 7(a) fication, estimation and diagnosis to generate
and 7(b), where mortality schedules are graphed appropriate ARIMA time series models for the
for the extremes of the observed years, and the mortality indexes, k,. After experimenting with a
near midpoint and terminal years of the forecast variety of models, the best preliminary estimates
interval. Here, too, the fits are quite good, with are as follows:
some deviation for both males and females in
1988 in the ages in which the rates are low. This Male: (1 - B)k, = -0.3748 + 4.26f fu + e, ,
error is thought to be primariIy due to the re- (0.09) (0.98)
estimation of k [Lee and Carter (1992)], which
places less weight on fitting ages with lower see = 0.882,
death rates. R2 = 0.988 ; (1)
402 L.R. Carter, R.D. Lee I Forecasting US sex differentials in mortality

Female: (1 - B)k, = -0.4909 + 4.93flu + e, , approximately 35% in the seventy-fifth year.

(0.09) (0.09) These results are consistent with those for the
see = 0.892, total population reported by Lee and Carter
R2 = 0.995 . (1992).
(2)

The fits of both models are extremely good, and 7. Retrieving demographic measures from the
each describes a random walk with drift. These mortality index, k
models are consistent with that for the total
population in Lee and Carter (1992). The con- The sex-specific a,‘~, b,‘s and forecasted k,‘s
stant term indicates the average annual change in are used to reconstitute sex-specific m, *‘s, which
k,, and it is this change that drives the forecasts are then used to generate sex-specific life expec-
of the long-run change in mortality. The flu tancies at birth (e,,‘s). Forecasts of life expectan-
variable (representing the influenza pandemic of
1918) is treated in this instance, too, as a special
random shock since there is nothing in recent
historical experience to suggest that it is a struc-
turally recurring event, at least of that mag-
nitude.
The respective forecasts of k, and their 95%
confidence intervals are found in Exhibits 4(a)
and 4(b). Each forecast shows a linear decline.
The significance of these declines for their future
age-specific death rates and e,,‘s are mediated
through their respective a,‘~ and b,‘s. The stan-
Date
dard errors of the estimates (SEES) indicate the
uncertainty associated with a one-year forecast:
as the forecast horizon increases, the standard
error grows with the horizon’s square root.
Still, these standard errors make no allow-
ances for the uncertainty inherent in the drift
term [see Lee and Carter (1992, Appendix 2)].
Exhibit 8 shows the increase in forecast standard
error when parameter uncertainty (SEE,,) is
taken into account. For both males and females,
adjusting for parameter uncertainty increases the
standard error of the forecast by less than 1% in 4sm
1966 1920 1940 1960 1960 2666 2620 2040 2666 2080 21
the first year of the forecast period to about 5% Date

in the tenth year, about 13% in the twenty-fifth Exhibit 9. Estimates and forecasts of e,, with 95% confidence
year, about 25% in the fiftieth year, and by bands for the period 1900-2065. (a) Males; (b) females.

Exhibit 8
Gains in forecast standard error due to parameter uncertainty

Year Male Female

k SEE SEE,, Gain (%) k, SEE SEE,, Gain (%)

1991 - 10.66 0.90 0.09 0.55 -12.18 0.89 0.90 0.54
2000 -14.03 2.83 2.98 5.37 -16.60 2.82 3.13 5.81
2015 -19.65 4.48 5.06 12.94 -23.96 4.46 5.15 13.25
2040 -29.01 6.33 7.89 24.54 -36.24 6.31 7.94 24.67
2065 -38.37 7.75 10.48 35.15 -48.51 7.73 10.51 35.13
 L. R. Carter, R.D. Lee
ties derived this way [see Exhibits 9(a) and 9(b)]
show male and female e,‘s of 82.0 and 90.4,
respectively, by 2065, a sex difference of 8.4
years. By comparison, the Actuary forecasts life
expectancies for males and females in 2065 of
77.0 and 83.9 years respectively, a difference of
6.9 years. Their estimates are low relative to our
estimates: for males, by 5 years; for females, by
6.5 years; and for sex differences, by 1.5 years.
8. Comparison with naive forecasts
Comparison of our forecasts derived from k
and those resulting from naive forecasts is in-
structive. Naive forecasts provide a means for
testing alternatives to a time series model by
simply projecting the trajectory of its history
subject only to the variation of stochastic inputs
to the series [Carter and Lee (1986)]. This is, in
a sense. the process that occurs in our forecasts
of k, although the reconstruction from k to e, is
more complex. Here, though, the naive forecasts
of sex-specific e,‘s used for comparison are gen-
erated from estimation equations of their respec-
tive time series of life expectancies at birth from
1900 to 1989. If the alternative model forecasts
derived from k are an improvement over the
naive forecasts in terms of accuracy, then the
alternative model forecasts are preferred. The
estimation equations for the naive forecast mod-
els are:
Males:
(1 + 0.155B + 0.113B5)(1 - B)e,,
(0.06) (0.04)
= 0.373 - 14.28(1 - B)flu
(0.57) (1.01)
+ (1 - 0.589B)a, , SEE = 1.312 ,
(0.09) R2 = 0.973 ;
Females:
(1 + O.l91B)(l- B)e,,
(0.06)
= 0.403 - 12.96( 1 - B)flu
(0.05) (1.09)
+ (1 - 0.393B2 - 0.329B5)a, , strate that the e,‘s derived from k, have the
(0.09) (0.10)
SEE = 1.323 ,
R* = 0.981 ,
I Forecasting US sex differentials in mortality 403
where e,, and e,, are life expectancies at birth
for males and females, respectively, and flu is a
dummy for the influenza pandemic of 1918. Both
of these equations reflect rather complicated pro-
cesses in contrast to the parsimony expressed in
our estimation equations for the kl’s.
In contrast to forecasts of e, derived from k,
and from the Actuary, univariate forecasts of e,
stemming from these ARIMA models [eqns. (3)
and (4)] produce life expectancies of 94.7 and
105.3 for males and females, respectively, a sex
difference of 10.6 years by 2065. Although this
difference is statistically plausible, given the
low-high range of 14.9 years (i.e. 92.2 - 77.3)
for forecasts derived from k (see Exhibit 9), it is
almost double the 8.4 year difference from corre-
sponding forecasts from k. This 14.9 year differ-
ence is dramatically wide of historical experience
and appears unlikely in that regard.
These approaches can be compared in terms
of forecast accuracy. We test model forecast
accuracy for 12 point forecasts by measuring
their mean absolute percent error (MAPE) and
root mean square error (RMSE). The extent of
their autocorrelated error is measured by the
Ljung-Box portmanteau Q statistic for 24 lags.
For the sex-specific forecasts of e, derived from
observed univariate e, (Naive Model A), separ-
ately estimated k, (E,, Model B), and jointly
estimated k, (JE,) Model C, to be addressed in
Section lo), the MAPEs and RMSEs are shown
in Exhibit 10, parts (a) and (b). Clearly, for both
sexes the forecasts derived from E,, Model B are
superior, by both standards, to those derived
from Naive Model A. We expect the greatest
improvement for the k-based forecasts relative to
the naive forecasts to emerge over the longer
run, however, where the curvature of the fore-
cast trajectory becomes more important.
Another indicator of forecast efficiency
(3) among these measures is the range of forecast
uncertainty which may be measured by differ-
ences in the confidence intervals for the extremes
of the within-sample forecast period. For these
point forecasts the sex-specific ranges of uncer-
tainty for 1978 and 1989 in years are as shown in
Exhibit 11. Clearly these differences demon-
closest and more realistic confidence intervals.
Again, JE, Model C will be addressed in Section
(4) 10.
404 L.R. Carter, R. 19. Lee I Forecasting US sex differentials in mortality

Exhibit 10
(a) Twelve point forecasts of life expectancies for US males, models A, B, and C, estimated over the time period 1990-77.

Year Estimated NAIVE t-ratio E,,(k) t-ratio J&(k) t-ratio

index Model A Model A Model B Model B Model C Model C

1978 69.6 69.8 -0.24 69.7 -0.39 73.3 -0.01

1979 70.0 70.0 0.08 69.9 0.18 73.9 -0.06
1980 70.0 70.3 -0.17 70.1 -0.25 73.5 -0.16
1981 70.4 70.6 -0.20 70.3 0.00 73.9 -0.05
1982 70.9 70.8 -0.42 70.5 0.01 74.3 -0.04
1983 71.0 71.1 -0.58 70.7 0.00 74.3 -0.04
1984 71.2 71.5 -0.00 70.9 0.00 74.4 -0.04
1985 71.2 71.8 -0.01 71.1 0.00 74.4 -0.04
1986 71.3 72.0 -0.01 71.3 0.00 74.5 -0.04
1987 71.5 72.3 -0.01 71.4 0.00 74.6 -0.04
1988 71.4 72.6 -0.02 71.6 -0.00 74.5 -0.04
1989 71.8 72.9 -0.01 71.8 0.00 74.7 -0.04

RMSE MAPE 1.33 (1.50) 0.20 (0.23) 0.16 (0.18)

Q(24) 26.2 26.2 14.8

(b) Twelve point forecasts of life expectancies for US females, models A, B, and C, estimated over the time period 1900-77.

Year Estimated NAIVE f-ratio E,(k) t-ratio J%(k) t-ratio

index Model A Model A Model B Model B Model C Model C

1978 77.3 77.9 -0.45 77.5 -0.52 77.7 -0.48

1979 77.8 78.3 -0.27 77.7 0.27 77.4 0.29
1980 77.4 78.6 -0.66 77.9 -1.03 77.8 -0.27
1981 77.8 79.0 -0.62 78.1 -0.60 78.1 -0.17
1982 78.1 79.3 -0.61 78.3 -0.40 78.0 0.05
1983 78.1 79.7 -0.77 78.6 -0.74 78.1 0.01
1984 78.2 80.0 -0.87 78.8 -0.85 78.0 0.08
1985 78.2 80.4 -1.03 78.8 -0.81 78.1 0.03
1986 78.3 80.7 -1.13 79.0 -0.93 78.2 0.04
1987 78.4 81.0 -1.23 79.2 -1.04 78.2 0.09
1988 78.3 81.4 -1.42 79.4 -1.39 78.5 -0.05
1989 78.5 81.7 -1.46 79.6 -1.34 78.7 -0.07

RMSE MAPE 2.00 (2.23) 0.55 (0.55) 0.59 (0.63)

~(24) 26.2 26.2 26.2

Note: The figures in parentheses are the mean absolute percentage errors of the forecasts. Q(24) is the Ljung-Box portmanteau
Q statistic for 24 lags.

Exhibit 11 and other life-table functions. We use this advan-

Ranges of uncertainty for point forecasts of E,. tage of the technique to forecast mx,,, and to
Year Males Females produce survival distributions by sex to see what
1978 1989 1978 1989
they imply about the differentials.
Typically, if one wants to determine if parity
Naive Model A 4.8 9.1 6.7 8.6
or reversal in the death rates between males and
E, Model B 1.2 3.1 1.7 3.1
JE,, Model C 1.9 5.8 1.6 5.0 females are probable in the future, one resorts to
comparisons of age profiles of forecasted m,,,‘s.
Reversals in their patterns are referred to as
mortality crossovers. Mortality crossovers by sex
9. Life-table survival from forecasts of k have not been observed in human populations in
developed countries, although they do exist by
We mentioned earlier that a,, b, and the race and in some less developed countries (they
forecasted k, together can be used to generate e, have also been observed in other animal species)
 L. R. Carter, R.D. Lee I Forecasting US sex differentials in mortality 405

[Economos (1982)) Carter (1988)]. Explanations years, evidenced by increased sex differences in
for this phenomenon vary, but are generally seen the ages of accidental deaths (15-24), followed
to result from some combination of socioeco- by convergence towards later middle age. This
nomic and biological factors [Weeks (198.5)], or convergence is followed by divergence to the
from selection effects. Still, with increased middle old-age years (70-74) where convergence
longevity in the future as our analysis suggests, resumes. What is most noticeable is the greater
the potential for a crossover by sex has to be disparity of the ratios in the accidental death
pondered. The more advanced the age at cross- period compared with the ages of degenerative
over, the more gradual the progress towards deaths. The accidental death period is a reflec-
convergence in mortality. tion of social behavior, signalling the need to
As a parsimonious way of presenting the pat- explore why male self-destructive mortality
terns, we use ratios of male to female age- might increase over time with respect to female
specific death rates for the years 2015, 2040 and mortality. The ratios of degenerative deaths in-
2065 since they represent quarters of the forecast crease over time also, but not as much as ac-
period. These ratios are displayed in Exhibits cidental deaths. Deaths in old age reflect both
12(a) and 12(b) (to be addressed in Section socioeconomic [Preston, (1970), Retherford
10.2). Surprisingly, in Exhibit 12(a), for all three (1975)] and, perhaps more so, genetic factors
years, in the infant and early childhood ages, [Omran (1977)]. S’mce we are employing strictly
female death rates exceed male rates. This is an extrapolative techniques, we have no way of
unfortunate artifact of our procedure, resulting discerning what matrix of exogenous factors
from the higher male b,‘s at these ages, and we would lead to such outcomes. Even so, these
do not believe it to be plausible. There is no results suggest that degenerative causes will con-
distinct pattern in the early crossover. There is tinue to increase the disparity in male and female
greater volatility in the teen and young adult mortality until some time in the future.
Another way of presenting the differentials by
sex is to view survival distributions. These dis-
tributions are presented in Exhibit 13 with the
extreme years of the forecasts shown in Exhibit
14(a) and their differences by sex in Exhibit
14(b). These single-year distributions of surviv-
ors are derived from our five-year age group
mortality rates using the Heligman-Pollard
(1980) eight-parameter formula for the age curve
of mortality.* The graduated distributions are

’ 10 io ’ do do 5h 6 io 60 $0 lb0 ii
Age ’ The Heligman and Pollard (1980) eight-parameter formula
for graduating the mortality probabilities in age groups
zo- O-l, l-5, 5-10, 10-15,. , is
fi?
3 18. x
D:
g 16. 14x = A’“‘B’c + D exp[-E(ln x - In F’)] + & ,
x
% 14.
B 12. where ,q, is the probability of a person exact age x dying
H _ before exact age x + 1, and A, B, , H are parameters to
p '0
be estimated. The parameters, which define the age curve
1 8-
or mortality, are estimated by non-linear least squares
procedures which minimize the sum of squares of the
proportional differences of the fitted from the observed
_ mortality probabilities, after regrouping into abridged age
O’>,, -’ groups O-l, 1-5, 5-10, 10-15,. . The least squares
0
1, 1/1111 ,,,I, I,,,,

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Age fitting procedure generates a smoothed set of .q, and
single-year 1qXvalues which aggregate to the smoothed “q,
Exhibit 12. Male to female ratios of forecasted age-specific values. The resulting fit for q, is usually very good as are
death rates, selected years. (a) Independent k’s; (b) joint k’s, the fits for the additional life-table functions.
 Exhibit 13
Forecasts of numbers surviving to exact ages out of 100000 birth at five year intervals, 1990-2085 (from period life tables by sex).

Age Date
RrouP
1990 1995 2Ooa 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065

M&S
o-1 99 175 99 330 99 457 99 559 99 842 99710 99 785 99 809 99 845 99 875 99 898 99 918 99 933 99 948 99 958 99 985
1-4 99 048 99231 99 378 99 498 99 594 99 672 99 735 99 786 99 827 99 861 99 887 99 909 99 926 99 941 99 952 99 961
5-9 98 952 99 152 99315 99 446 99 552 99 638 99 707 99 763 99 809 99 845 99 875 99 899 99 818 99 834 99 847 99 957
10-14 98 848 99 068 99 243 99 386 99 502 99 597 YY673 99 735 99 785 99 826 99 859 99 886 99 907 99 925 99 939 99 950
15-19 98 348 98 601 98 810 98 984 99 128 99 249 99 350 99 434 99 506 99 566 99 617 99 661 99 699 99731 99 759 99 783
20-24 97 663 97 967 98 224 98 442 98 627 98 786 98 922 98 040 99 141 99 230 99 307 99 375 99 434 99 487 YY534 99 575
25-29 97 043 97 400 97 705 97 968 98 195 98 391 98 562 98711 98 841 98 956 99 057 99 147 99 227 99 298 99 361 99418
30-34 96 382 96801 97 164 97 478 97 752 97 991 98 200 98 384 98 547 98 690 98817 98 930 99 031 99 121 99 202 99 274
35-39 95516 96 019 96 458 96 842 97 178 97 474 97 734 97 964 98 168 Y8 349 98511 98 654 98 783 98 898 99 on1 99 093
40-44 94 207 94831 95 380 95 864 96 292 96 871 97 007 97 306 97 573 97 810 98 023 98 213 98 384 98 537 98 675 98 799
45-49 92 027 92 816 93 520 94 148 94 710 95 214 95 666 96 072 96 437 96 766 97 082 97 330 97 573 97 792 97 990 98 170
50-54 88 422 89 427 90 338 91 163 91 812 92 592 93 212 93 776 Y4 290 94 759 95 187 95 579 95 837 96 265 96 566 96841
s5-59 82 834 84 088 85 242 86 306 87 287 88 192 89 028 89801 90516 91 178 Y1791 92 360 92 887 93 376 93 830 94251 a
60-64 74 597 76 084 77 477 78 781 80 004 81 151 82 228 83 239 84 189 85 081 85 920 86710 87 452 88 151 88 809 89 429 b
65-69 63 705 65 383 66 980 68 502 69951 71333 72 649 73 903 75 099 76 239 77 326 78 362 79 350 80 293 81 191 82 048
70-74 50 201 51967 53 679 55 337 56 944 58 499 60 005 61462 62 872 64 235 65 552 66 826 68 057 69 245 70 393 71501 s
75-79 35 686 37 498 39 292 41064 42 812 44 534 46 229 47 895 49531 51 138 52 707 54 246 55 750 57 220 58 855 80 054
X0-84 21482 23 095 24 734 26 394 28 070 29 759 31456 33 158 34 861 36 561 38 256 39 942 41616 43 276 44Y19 46 542
85-89 10 101 11229 12 416 13 658 14 856 16 302 17685 19 131 20 606 22 116 23 657 25 226 26 818 28 429 30 056 31 694
90-94 3 243 3 772 4 355 4 994 5 690 6 443 7253 8 121 9 046 10 027 11 062 12 151 13 290 14478 15 713 16991
95-99 578 710 885 1044 1249 I 484 1 750 2 049 2 383 2 753 3 162 3611 4 101 4 632 5 207 5 825
lOOmlO4 41 53 68 86 109 136 168 207 251 304 364 434 514 604 707 822
105-109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ft!lTUdtT
O-1 99116 99 258 99 377 99 478 99 562 99 633 YY692 99 742 99 784 99 819 99 848 99 873 99 893 99 910 99 925 99 937
l-4 98 974 99 144 99 286 99 405 99 503 99 586 99 654 99 712 9Y 759 99 799 99 832 99 860 99 883 99 902 99919 99 932
5-9 98 888 99 073 99 227 99 356 99 463 99 552 99 627 99 689 99 740 99 784 99 819 99 849 99 874 99 895 99 813 99 927
10-14 Y8811 99 008 99 173 99311 99 425 YY521 99 601 99 687 99 722 99 768 99 807 99 839 99 866 99 888 99 906 99 922
15-19 98 636 98 858 99 043 99 198 99 328 99 437 99 528 99 605 99 669 99 722 YY767 99 804 99 836 99 862 99 884 99 903
20-24 Y8 437 98 690 98 902 99 080 99 228 99 353 99 458 99 545 98 619 99 680 99 732 99 775 Y9811 99 841 99 867 99 888
25-29 98212 98 501 98 744 98 947 99118 99 260 99 380 99 480 99 564 99 635 99 694 99 743 99 784 99 819 99 848 99 873
30-34 97 897 98 233 98 516 98 754 98 954 YY 121 99 262 99 380 99 479 99 583 99 833 9’) 891 99 791 99 782 99817 99 846
35-39 97 412 97 814 98 154 98 440 98 683 98 887 99 060 99 206 99 329 99 432 99 520 99 594 99 657 99 710 99 754 99 792
40-44 96 614 97 107 97 527 97 886 98 193 98 454 98 677 98 867 99 030 99 169 99 287 99 389 99 476 99 550 99 613 99 668
45-49 95 325 95 942 96 476 96 938 97 337 97 683 97 983 98 242 98 467 98 662 98 832 98 979 99 107 99218 99 315 99 400
50-54 93 297 94 084 94 776 95 383 95 917 96 386 96 799 97 162 97 482 97 765 98 014 98 234 98 428 98 600 98 752 98 887
55-59 90 280 91293 92 196 93001 93 720 94 361 94 934 95 446 95 903 96313 96 679 97 007 97 301 97 585 97 802 98 015
60-64 85 789 87 102 88 292 88 369 90 344 91227 92 026 92 750 93 408 94 001 94 540 Y5 029 95 472 95 875 96 241 98 573
65-69 78 409 81 123 82 697 84 143 85 470 86 686 87 802 88 824 89 760 90 618 91403 92 123 92 782 93 385 93 937 94 443
70-74 70 205 72 431 74511 76 449 78 253 79 829 81485 82 927 84 283 85 499 86 642 87 698 88 674 89 574 90 404 91170
75-79 57 460 60 254 62916 65 444 67 837 70 096 72 224 74 224 76 099 77 854 79 495 81028 82 453 83 781 85 015 86 162
X0-84 40 742 43 780 46 763 49 677 52 510 55 253 57 897 60 439 62 873 65 197 67411 69514 71507 73 383 75 173 76851
85-89 22 077 24 453 26 880 29 345 31833 34 329 36 823 39 301 41755 44 174 46 552 48 880 51153 53 366 55 516 57 599
90-94 8 007 9211 10500 11870 13315 14 829 16 406 18 039 19 720 21443 23 202 24 989 26 797 28 622 30 455 32 293
95-99 1532 1834 2 174 2551 2 967 3 423 3919 4455 5 030 5 845 6 297 6 987 7713 8 474 9 288 10 094
loo- 104 107 131 159 191 228 268 314 364 419 479 545 616 692 773 860 953
105s 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
_

.” ,,- ,> - ,> ._ ? i - - -__ ---. __ ----. _:_-___ - -.-“l--_^.,,___-

_
 L. R. Carter, R.D. Lee I Forecasting US sex differentials in mortality 407

So far, from the survival distributions, we

have discerned the female advantage in survival
over the forecast period. Since we are examining
age-structured populations, it is instructive to
know how much compositional change to antici-
pate within the male and female populations.
Since we can expect very high survival rates at
birth through the inception of agedness (age 65)
and increasing survival for age group 85-89
a (which recently is experiencing the fastest
growth), we concentrate on changes for ages 65
and 85. For males, the percentages surviving to
age 65 are 64% in 1990 and 82% in 2065, while
for females the figures are 79% and 94%, respec-
b tively. These are strikingly high figures in 2065,
4000

3500
especially for females. At age 85, the figures for
males are 10% in 1990 and 32% by 2065, while
corresponding figures for females are 22% and
57%) respectively. These large increases indicate
rapidly aging populations which may provoke
severe policy changes for the social welfare of
the elderly in the future.

10. Life-table functions from joint estimates and

Age
forecasts of k
Exhibit 14. Survival distributions by sex and their differences
for stationary populations for the years 1990 and 2065. (a) 10.1. Estimating and forecasting joint k
Survival distributions. (b) Differentials in survival distribu-
tions.
The second strategy outlined earlier is to esti-
mate a single k to drive both male and female
generated using Mortpak-Lite [United Nations age-specific mortality. Work by Gomez (1990)
(1988)]. They represent the cumulative mortality on Norwegian mortality suggests this might be a
experience of males and females in the relevant successful approach. There are attractive de-
years in a period sense. mographic and statistical reasons for pursuing
In Exhibit 14(a) notice the gap for each sex this strategy. Demographically, a single k may
between 1990 and 2065. The area of the gap enforce greater consistency of the sex differen-
between the two survival curves equals the dif- tials, avoiding such anomalies as the early cross-
ference between their associated life expectan- over. Statistically, a common k is a parsimonious
cies. For the curves in this exhibit, these areas way of linking the mortality trajectories of the
are 9.7 years per person for males and 10.8 years sexes while avoiding the more complicated time
per person for females, a gain for females of 1.1 series transfer function models. Then, too. there
years over the forecast period. These figures is a certain efficiency in working with a single k
compare favorably with their corresponding val- common to both sexes. The questions this ap-
ues of 9.6 and 10.7 for differences in e,‘s from proach provokes are: (1) Does it increase fore-
the abridged tables. Exhibit 14(b) shows the cast accuracy? (2) Are the derived forecasts of
same information in a different way. Inspection life expectancy plausible, given historical ex-
shows that the greatest gains in survival for perience? (3) Are joint estimates of the k’s as
males occur at age 79, and at age 87 for females. co-integrated processes a superior approach?
Clearly, in terms of mean and modal differences, Here we address (1) and (2) in detail, and offer
the gains over the forecast period favor females. some discussion of (3) while deferring its empiri-
408 L. R. Carter, R. D. Lee I Forecasting US sex differentials in mortality

cal analysis to subsequent research. These ques- dependent sex forecasts of k give male and
tions are all addressed in Section 10.2 below. females life expectancies in 2065 of 82.0 and
We jointly estimate k by concatenating male 90.4, respectively, a sex difference of 8.4 years.
and age-specific death rates and subjecting them Clearly the joint k forecasts produce greater sex
to SVD. This process yields a common k, and divergence in life expectancies than independent
two separate sets of a,‘s and bx’s for males and sex k’s over the forecast period. The implied
females. Re-estimation of k yields a time-varying forecasts of average life expectancy are very
parameter consistent with observed total deaths similar, however: 86.1 and 86.2 in 2065.
from 1900 to 1989 (see Section 5 above). We One benefit of jointly forecasting k is that the
then subject k to the time series estimation and derived age-specific death rates for the early
forecasting processes detailed in Section 6. The childhood ages comport with recent experience.
time series model for combined k is: The crossover that we found in the sex-specific
distributions [see above and compare Exhibit
(1 - B)k, = -0.8713 + 9.486f lu + e, , 12(b) for joint k with Exhibit 12(a)] disappears,
(0.19) (1.82) and excess male mortality across the age spec-
SEE = 1.328 , trum is reaffirmed. This benefit is counterbal-
R2 = 0.992. anced by what we believe to be life expectancies
that are slightly lowered for males, slightly ele-
Although it differs somewhat in scale, this model vated for females, and a slightly raised average
is similar to those in eqns. (1) and (2) above. All for both sexes. There is increasing divergence
parameters are highly significant (although the between the sexes over the course of the forecast
standard errors are slightly higher than for the period for the same joint k’s.
single-sex models). Of course, a central issue in joint forecasts of
k (or transfer function analysis or vector ARMA
10.2. Generating sex-specific life-table functions models for that matter) is to establish if there is
from joint k some connection between male and female life
expectancies - not that they are directly causally
Twelve within-sample point forecasts of joint related but that they respond similarly to some
k are used to generate sex-specific life expectan- unknown exogenous forces. In this sense they
cies for 1978-1989. Test statistics for these fore- may be treated as a cross-section of time series
casts are displayed in Exhibit 10, parts (a) and rather than as multivariate structural time series
(b) above. The MAPEs for these e,‘s are 0.18 [Harvey (1990)]. This is the third approach to
and 0.63 for males and females, respectively, forecasting k mentioned earlier (see Section 4),
which compare favorably with MAPEs of 0.23 and in the following paragraphs of this section.
and 0.55 for single-sex eO’s for males and Multivariate structural time series models pre-
females. The pattern of the MAPEs is consistent suppose that there are components, such as
with that for the RMSEs. The Q’s indicate no trend, that are common to more than one series.
significant autocorrelated residuals for any of the A common trend suggests that the series are
forecast series. With these extremely small fore- co-integrated, implying that they must move to-
cast errors, it is hard to rank the joint and gether in the long-term [Harvey (1990)]. Engle
sex-specific time series models for accuracy. As and Granger (1987) propose a number of tests
is shown in Exhibit 11, the range of uncertainty for co-integration of time series for non-station-
in years for males is 1.9 and 5.8, and for females ary time series (the initial form of the k’s prior to
is 1.6 and 5.0 for the extremes of the point differencing for stationarity). For a vector of
forecast period, falling somewhere between these kt’s (i.e. K,, with elements k,, for males
those of Naive Model A and E,(k) Model B. and k,, for females), if there exists a linear
Otherwise, these forecasts are very competitive combination a’K, that is already stationary, then
with those generated by E, Model B. the time series in K, are said to be co-integrated
Forecasts of k to the year 2065 yield life with co-integrating factor u. Among the various
expectancies of 80.8 for males and 91.4 for multivariate models that we can employ for the
females, a sex difference of 10.6 years. In- sexes, we want to determine the a that most
 L.R. Carter, R.D. Lee I Forecasting US sex differentials in mortality 409

closely approximates a’K, = 0, the long-term Even with elimination of all but the biological
equilibrium. For a’ K, - 0, co-integration implies propensities for death, the prognosis remains
that deviations from equilibrium are stationary, clouded. For example, the notion of additive
with finite variance. The a that provides the best competing risks that can be isolated in projecting
linear combination is the one that pinpoints the changes in life expectancy is not a true reflection
best approach to estimating the sex-specific kt’s, of reality. The findings of Roger and McNown
separately or jointly, and establishing their con- (1992) and Alho (1991) dispel the notion that
nectedness. aggregated forecasts offer significant improve-
Of course, it may be that our technique for ment over total forecasts of mortality. The
jointly estimating k, using SVD, obviates the etiologies of certain diseases are complex, as are
need for a structural time series approach. Joint- the etiologies of deaths. What is needed is a
ly estimated k imposes a common trend for both comprehensive understanding of the linkages
sexes, avoiding the need for a co-integrating among these factors and the processes behind
factor to link them. Thus, the sources of vari- them. This avenue is implicit in Manton and
ation in deriving sex-specific life-table functions Stallard’s (1984) examination of multiple cause
rests in distinctions in their respective a,‘~ and mortality data to establish, empirically, depen-
b,‘s, and not in k. For structural time series, the dencies among diseases.
co-integrating factor, a, is an additional source of Thus, forecast models such as the one we
variation between the sexes. Seeking the best present can only serve as benchmarks. They are
method for discerning the link between sex- rooted in a rudimentary stationarity assumption
specific mortalities requires exploring these new in which the b,‘s remain constant and the pro-
avenues of research. This is the avenue we are cess governing k, remains unchanged. If the
pursuing as an extension to this work. model is to entertain fundamental changes in the
dynamics of mortality, it must explicate the pro-
cess underlying k,, i.e. the process of health and
disability discussed above.
11. Policy implications of old-age survival For now, then, the female advantage in sur-
vival is empirically conclusive and, it appears,
An obvious concern is- the efficacy of using will persist well into the future. Exactly why that
extrapolative techniques for mortality forecasts advantage will be sustained is not fully under-
for policy under conditions where improved stood. The disparities that result from measure-
health care intervention may reduce the inci- ment error are the easiest to resolve. The re-
dence of death in a population in ways not maining differences due to the confluence of
prognosticated by models such as ours. The sex genetic and environmental factors are more re-
differential in mortality is a case in point. sistant to dissection. As life expectancies for
As was mentioned earlier, the causes of the both sexes continue to increase, and as more of
sex differential in life expectancy may include each population succeeds to the oldest-old ages,
only biological selection, environmental expo- it is quite possible that old-age morbidity is more
sure, or some combination of the two. Under- disconnected from old-age mortality. Until we
enumeration and/or age misreporting error may know more about the biology of aging and the
be involved. The measurement error argument epidemiology of diseases (especially degenerative
has been mostly removed as a significant factor, diseases), we will not fully comprehend the sex
although the matter is not closed. What remains, difference in survival. When we reach a better
then, are the two particularly socially trenchant understanding of the causes of the gap, we will
and politically sensitive categories: biological have a better grasp of how to forecast it. With
selection and environmental exposure. The cen- forecasts of markedly increasing longevity, espe-
tral problems in addressing these categories are: cially if they point toward increasing sex differ-
(1) establishing their validity and (2) determin- ences, the debate over the value of extremely
ing how to separate distinct biological pro- long life may intensify. So, even then, the impli-
pensities from the contamination of environmen- cations of the forecasts for health care policy
tal influence in isolating mortality probabilities. may remain far from clear.
410 L. R. Carter, R. D. Lee I Forecasting US sex differentials in mortality

Acknowledgments Gruber, M.H.J, 1990, Regression Estimators: A Comparative

Study (Academic Press, New York).
Harvey, A.C., 1990, Forecasting, Structural Time Series Mod-
This research report is part of a project on
els and the Kalman Filter (Cambridge University Press,
‘Modeling and Forecasting Demographic Time New York).
Series’, supported by a grant from NICHD ROl- Heligman, L. and J.H. Pollard, 1980, “The age pattern of
HD24982. We thank Alice Wade of the Social mortality”, The Journal of the Institute of Actuaries, 107,
Security Administration for supplying actuarial No. 434, 49-80.
Keyfitz, N., 1990, “Future mortality and its uncertainty”,
data. We are grateful to two referees and the
paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Popula-
editors for helpful comments. An earlier version tion Association of America.
of this paper was presented as ‘Modeling and Lee, R.D., 1992, “Rejoinder”, Journal of the American
Forecasting US Mortality: Differentials in Life Statistical Association, 47, No. 14, 674-675.
Expectancy by Sex’ at the Eleventh International Lee, R.D. and L.R. Carter, 1992, “Modeling and forecasting
U.S. mortality”, Journal of the American Statistical As-
Symposium on Forecasting, New York, 9-12
sociation, 47, No. 14, 659-671.
June 1991. Manton, K.G. and E. Stallard, 1984, Recent Trends in Mor-
tahty Analysis (Academic Press, New York).
McNown, R., 1992, ‘Comment”, Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 47, No. 14, 671-672.
References
McNown, R. and A. Rogers, 1989, “Forecasting mortality: A
parameterized time series approach”, Demography, 26,
Alho, J.M., 1990, “Stochastic methods in population fore- No. 4, 645-660.
casting”, International Journal of Forecasting, 6, 521-530. McNown, R. and A. Rogers, 1992, “Forecasting cause-
Alho, J.M., 1991, “Effects of aggregation on the estimation specific mortality using time series methods”, Jnternation-
of trend in mortality”, Mathematical Population Studies, al Journal of Forecasting, 8, 413-432 (this issue).
3, 53-67. National Center for Health Statistics, various years, Vital
Alho, J.M. and B.D. Spencer, 1990, “Error models for Statistics of the United States, Mortality, Part A. Public
official mortality forecasts”, Journal of the American Health Service, Hyattsville, MD.
Statistical Association, 85, 609-616. Omran, A.R., 1977, “Epidemiological transition in the
BOX, G.E.P. and G.M. Jenkins, 1976, Time Series Analysis: U.S.,” Population Bulletin, 32, No. 2 (Population Refer-
Forecasting and Control (Holden-Day, San Francisco). ence Bureau, Washington, DC).
Carter, L.R., 1988, “Joint forecasts of black and white life Passel, J.S., 1983, “Estimated undercount of the legally
expectancies: Tests for convergence”, presented at the resident population by age, sex, and race in the 1980
Eighth Annual Symposium on Forecasting, Amsterdam, Census,” Memorandum to Roger A. Herriot, U.S.
The Netherlands, 12-15 June. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.
Carter, L.R. and R.D. Lee, 1986, “Joint forecasts of U.S. Preston, S.H., 1970, “An international comparison of exces-
marital fertility, nuptiality, births, and marriages using sive adult mortality”, Population Studies, 24, No. 1, 5-20.
time series models”, Journal of the American Statistical Retherford, R.E., 1975, The Changing Sex Differentials in
Association, 81, 901-911. Mortality, Studies in Population and Urban Demography,
Coale, A. and G. Guo, 1989, “Revised regional model life No. 1 (Greenwood Press, Westport).
table at very low levels of mortality”, Population Index, Rogers A. and F. Planck, 1983, “Model: A general program
44, No. 4, 613-643. for estimating parameterized model schedules of fertility,
Economos, A.C., 1982, “Rate of aging, rate of dying and the mortality, migration, and marital and labor force status
mechanism of mortality”, Archives of Gerontology and transitions”, Working Paper 83-102, International Insti-
Geriatrics, 1, 3-27. tute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
Engle, R.F. and C.W.J. Granger, 1987, “Co-integration and Soldo, B.J. and E.M. Agree, 1988, “America’s elderly”,
error correction: Representation, estimation, and Population Bulletin, 43, No. 3, Population Reference
testing”, Econometrics, 55, No. 2, 252-276. Bureau, Washington, DC.
Enterline, P.E., 1960, “Causes of death responsible for re- United Nations, 1988, MortPak-Lite: The United Nations
cent increases in sex mortality differentials in the United Software Package for Mortality Measurement (United Na-
States,” Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 38, 312-325. tions, New York).
Good, I.J., 1969, “Some applications of the singular decom- Wade, A., 1989, Social Security Area Population Projections:
position of a matrix”, Technometrics, 11, No. 4, 823-831. 1989, Actuarial Study No. 105, Washington, DC: Office
Gomez de Leon, J., 1990, “Empirical DEA models to fit and of the Actuary, Social Security Administration.
project time series of age-specific mortality rates”, un- Waldron, I., 1983, “The role of genetic and biological factors
published manuscript. in sex differences in mortality”, in: A.D. Lopez and L.T.
Grove, R.D. and A.M. Hetzel, 1968, Vital Rates in the Ruzicka, eds., Sex Differentials in Mortality: Trends, De-
United States 1940-1960 (U.S. Department of Health, terminants, and Consequences (Australian National Uni-
Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, National versity, Canberra), 141-164.
Center for Health Statistics, USGPO). Weeks, J.R., 1985, Population: An Introduction to Concepts
 L. R. Carter, R. D. Lee I Forecasting US sex differentials in mortality 411

and Issues (Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, Ronald LEE is Professor of Demography and Economics at
CA). the University of California at Berkeley, where he has taught
since 1979. Before that he was on the Economics faculty at
Biographies: Lawrence CARTER is Associate Professor and the University of Michigan, and a Research Associate at the
Graduate Program Coordinator in the Department of Sociol- Michigan Population Studies Center. He is a past president
ogy at the University of Oregon. He was previously at the of the Population Association of America and is currently a
University of the Pacific and the Social Science Research member of the US National Academy of Sciences.
Council. He is currently a commissioner in the Oregon
Health Council and has previously served as its vice chair.