IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dem/demres/v32y2015i14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two period measures for comparing the fertility of marriage and cohabitation

Author

Listed:
  • Benoît Laplante

    (Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique (INRS))

  • Ana Laura Fostik

    (McGill University)

Abstract

Background: The diffusion of cohabitation and, presumably, of childbearing within cohabitation, inspires interest in measuring the respective contribution of childbearing within marriage and within cohabitation to overall fertility. However, there is no consensus on a proper way to do so. Objective: Contribute to the development of tools for assessing the relative importance of marriage and cohabitation to overall fertility by developing period measures closely related to age-specific fertility rates and the total fertility rate. Methods: We introduce two measures: 1) the contribution of the conjugal state (living alone, living in a cohabiting union, being married) to age-specific fertility rates (CASFR) and 2) the contribution of the conjugal state to the TFR (CTFR). These measures are similar in construction to the marital (legitimate) fertility rates and marital (legitimate) TFR, but they are weighted by the proportion of women living alone, cohabiting, or being married at each age, so that their sum is the overall TFR. Taken together, they represent the fertility of the average woman of a synthetic cohort who moves across the various conjugal states (living alone, cohabiting, being married) over her life course. They provide "realistic" estimates of completed fertility within each conjugal state. Conclusions: CASFRs provide a description of the fertility, over her life course, of a synthetic woman who would have spent her reproductive years living alone, cohabiting, and being married as the average woman of the synthetic cohort. CTFR provides a decomposition of the cumulative fertility of this synthetic woman. Over her life course, she would have had exactly the number of children computed using the overall TFR, but CTFR details the proportion of these children she would have had while living alone, while cohabiting, and while being married. Comments: Despite being defined as a conditional ASR weighted by the age-specific proportion of women living alone, cohabiting, or being married, computing the CASFR does not require that one know the population distribution of women by conjugal status, as this quantity cancels out. As a consequence, CASFR and CTFR may be computed without this information, as the parity-specific ASFR may be computed without knowing the population distribution of women by parity.

Suggested Citation

  • Benoît Laplante & Ana Laura Fostik, 2015. "Two period measures for comparing the fertility of marriage and cohabitation," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 32(14), pages 421-442.
    • Handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:32:y:2015:i:14
    DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2015.32.14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol32/14/32-14.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4054/DemRes.2015.32.14?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wilson Grabill & Lee Cho, 1965. "Methodology for the Measurement of Current Fertility From Population Data on Young Children," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 2(1), pages 50-73, March.
    2. Sebastian Klüsener & Brienna Perelli-Harris & Nora Sánchez Gassen, 2013. "Spatial Aspects of the Rise of Nonmarital Fertility Across Europe Since 1960: The Role of States and Regions in Shaping Patterns of Change [Aspects spatiaux de l’augmentation de la fécondité hors m," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(2), pages 137-165, May.
    3. Ronald Rindfuss, 1976. "Annual fertility rates from census data on own children: Comparisons with vital statistics data for the United States," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 13(2), pages 235-249, May.
    4. Jan M. Hoem & Cornelia Muresan & Marika Jalovaara, 2013. "Recent fertility patterns of Finnish women by union status," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 28(14), pages 409-420.
    5. Jennifer Van Hook & Claire Altman, 2013. "Using Discrete-Time Event History Fertility Models to Simulate Total Fertility Rates and Other Fertility Measures," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 32(4), pages 585-610, August.
    6. R. Raley, 2001. "Increasing fertility in cohabiting unions: evidence for the second demographic transition in the united states?," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 38(1), pages 59-66, February.
    7. Cho, Lee-Jay & Grabill, Wilson H., 1965. "Methodology for the measurement of current fertility from population data on young children," Series Históricas 8314, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Benoît Laplante, 2016. "A matter of norms: Family background, religion, and generational change in the diffusion of first union breakdown among French-speaking Quebeckers," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 35(27), pages 783-812.
    2. Benoît Laplante & Clara Cortina & Teresa Castro Martín & Ana Laura Fostik, 2016. "The contributions of childbearing within marriage and within consensual union to fertility in Latin America, 1980-2010," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 34(29), pages 827-844.
    3. Ana Fostik & Mariana Fernández Soto & Fernando Ruiz-Vallejo & Daniel Ciganda, 2023. "Union Instability and Fertility: An International Perspective," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 39(1), pages 1-47, December.
    4. Benoît Laplante & Teresa Castro-Martín & Clara Cortina & Teresa Martín-García, 2015. "Childbearing within Marriage and Consensual Union in Latin America, 1980–2010," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 41(1), pages 85-108, March.
    5. Mariana Fernández Soto & Benoît Laplante, 2020. "The effect of union dissolution on the fertility of women in Montevideo, Uruguay," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 43(4), pages 97-128.
    6. Steffen Peters & Kieron J. Barclay, 2022. "Leadership skills and family formation among males. A study based on Swedish register data," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2022-009, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Benoît Laplante & Teresa Castro-Martín & Clara Cortina & Teresa Martín-García, 2015. "Childbearing within Marriage and Consensual Union in Latin America, 1980–2010," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 41(1), pages 85-108, March.
    2. Angela Greulich & Laurent Toulemon, 2023. "Measuring the educational gradient of period fertility in 28 European countries: A new approach based on parity-specific fertility estimates," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 49(34), pages 905-968.
    3. Lee-Jay Cho, 1968. "Income and differentials in current fertility," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 5(1), pages 198-211, March.
    4. Michael Haines, 1989. "American fertility in transition: New estimates of birth rates in the United States, 1900–1910," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 26(1), pages 137-148, February.
    5. Valeria Bordone & Francesco Billari & Gianpiero Dalla Zuanna, 2009. "The Italian Labour Force Survey to estimate fertility," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 18(3), pages 445-451, August.
    6. Ian Timæus, 2021. "The Own-Children Method of fertility estimation: The devil is in the detail," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 45(25), pages 825-840.
    7. Michael R. Haines, 1991. "The Use of Historical Census Data for Mortality and Fertility Research," NBER Historical Working Papers 0031, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Ronald Rindfuss, 1976. "Annual fertility rates from census data on own children: Comparisons with vital statistics data for the United States," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 13(2), pages 235-249, May.
    9. Angela Greulich & Aurélien Dasre, 2017. "The quality of periodic fertility measures in EU-SILC," Post-Print hal-01726581, HAL.
    10. Lee-Jay Cho & Man Hahm, 1968. "Recent change in fertility rates of the Korean population," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 5(2), pages 690-698, June.
    11. Barry Tuchfeld & Leverett Guess & Donald Hastings, 1974. "The bogue-palmore technique for estimating direct fertility measures from indirect indicators as applied to Tennessee counties, 1960 and 1970," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 11(2), pages 195-205, May.
    12. Juliana Jaramillo-Echeverri, 2023. "La transición de la fecundidad en Colombia: nueva evidencia regional," Cuadernos de Historia Económica 60, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    13. Francesco Scalone & Martin Dribe, 2017. "Testing child-woman ratios and the own-children method on the 1900 Sweden census: Examples of indirect fertility estimates by socioeconomic status in a historical population," Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(1), pages 16-29, January.
    14. Douglas Massey & Brendan Mullan, 1984. "A demonstration of the effect of seasonal migration on fertility," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 21(4), pages 501-517, November.
    15. Chackiel, Juan & Mérida Pedraza, Amelia, 1986. "Fecundidad: diferenciales geográficos y socioeconómicos de la fecundidad, 1960-1983. EDENH II y otras fuentes," Series Históricas 8963, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    16. Stewart Tolnay, 1981. "Trends in total and marital fertility for black Americans, 1886–1899," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 18(4), pages 443-463, November.
    17. Angela Greulich & Aurélien Dasré, 2017. "The quality of periodic fertility measures in EU-SILC," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 36(17), pages 525-556.
    18. Michael Haines, 1977. "Mortality in nineteenth century america: Estimates from New York and Pennsylvania census data, 1865 and 1900," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 14(3), pages 311-331, August.
    19. Angela Greulich & Aurélien Dasre, 2017. "The quality of periodic fertility measures in EU-SILC," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01726581, HAL.
    20. Juliana Jaramillo-Echeverri, 2024. "Understanding the relationship between women’s education and fertility decline: Evidence from Colombia," Cuadernos de Historia Económica 63, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    fertility; age-specific fertility rate (ASFR); total fertility rate (TFR); marriage; cohabitation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:32:y:2015:i:14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Editorial Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.demogr.mpg.de/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.