IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dpr/wpaper/0714.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cohabitation and Family Formation in Japan

Author

Listed:
  • James M. Raymo
  • Miho Iwasawa
  • Larry Bumpass

Abstract

This paper documents the prevalence, duration, and marital outcomes of cohabiting unions in Japan. It then examines the correlates of cohabitation experiences and describes differences in the family formation trajectories of women who have and have not cohabited. Cohabitation has increased rapidly among recent cohorts of women and cohabiting unions in Japan tend to be relatively short and almost as likely to dissolve as to result in marriage. Life table analyses demonstrate that the cumulative probabilities of marriage and parenthood are roughly similar for women who did and did not cohabit. The most notable difference is in the pathways to family formation, with women who cohabited more likely to both marry subsequent to pregnancy and delay childbearing within marriage. Taken as a whole, these results suggest that cohabiting unions in Japan are best viewed as an emerging stage in the marriage process rather than as an alternative to marriage or singlehood. We conclude with speculation about the likelihood of further increases in cohabitation in Japan and the potential implications for marriage and fertility.

Suggested Citation

  • James M. Raymo & Miho Iwasawa & Larry Bumpass, 2008. "Cohabitation and Family Formation in Japan," ISER Discussion Paper 0714, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
  • Handle: RePEc:dpr:wpaper:0714
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iser.osaka-u.ac.jp/library/dp/2008/DP0714.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marcia Carlson & Sara Mclanahan & Paula England, 2004. "Union formation in fragile families," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 41(2), pages 237-261, May.
    2. James Raymo & Miho Iwasawa & Larry L. Bumpass, 2004. "Marital Dissolution in Japan," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 11(14), pages 395-420.
    3. Kelly Musick, 2007. "Cohabitation, nonmarital childbearing, and the marriage process," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 16(9), pages 249-286.
    4. James Raymo, 2003. "Educational attainment and the transition to first marriage among Japanese women," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 40(1), pages 83-103, February.
    5. Wendy Manning & Pamela Smock, 1995. "Why marry? Race and the transition to marriage among cohabitors," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 32(4), pages 509-520, November.
    6. Pau Baizán Munoz & Arnstein Aassve & Francesco C. Billari, 2001. "Cohabitation, marriage, first birth: the interrelationship of family formation events in Spain," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2001-036, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    7. Michael Brien & Lee Lillard & Linda Waite, 1999. "Interrelated family-building behaviors: Cohabitation, marriage, and nonmarital conception," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 36(4), pages 535-551, November.
    8. Marin Clarkberg & Ross M. Stolzenberg & Linda J. Waite, "undated". "Attitudes, Values, and the Entrance into Cohabitational Unions," University of Chicago - Population Research Center 93-4, Chicago - Population Research Center.
    9. Sara Mclanahan, 2004. "Diverging destinies: How children are faring under the second demographic transition," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 41(4), pages 607-627, November.
    10. Sarah Avellar & Pamela J. Smock, "undated". "The Economic Consequences of the Dissolution of Cohabiting Unions," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 1a25307c3333469ea6b866e1b, Mathematica Policy Research.
    11. Robert D. Retherford & Naohiro Ogawa & Rikiya Matsukura, 2001. "Late Marriage and Less Marriage in Japan," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 27(1), pages 65-102, March.
    12. Michael J. Brien & Lee A. Hillard & Linda Waite, "undated". "Cohabitation, Marriage, and Non-Fertility," University of Chicago - Population Research Center 97-5, Chicago - Population Research Center.
    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. Wei-hsin Yu & Yuko Hara, 2020. "Job characteristics, marital intentions, and partner-seeking actions: Longitudinal evidence from Japan," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 43(52), pages 1509-1544.
    2. Tomas Frejka & Gavin W. Jones & Jean‐Paul Sardon, 2010. "East Asian Childbearing Patterns and Policy Developments," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 36(3), pages 579-606, September.
    3. Ron Lesthaeghe, 2010. "The Unfolding Story of the Second Demographic Transition," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 36(2), pages 211-251, June.
    4. Fumiya Uchikoshi & Ryohei Mogi, 2018. "Order matters: The effect of premarital pregnancy on second childbearing in Japan," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 39(48), pages 1305-1330.

    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. James Raymo & Miho Iwasawa & Larry Bumpass, 2009. "Cohabitation and family formation in Japan," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 46(4), pages 785-803, November.
    2. Júlia Mikolai & Ann Berrington & Brienna Perelli-Harris, 2018. "The role of education in the intersection of partnership transitions and motherhood in Europe and the United States," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 39(27), pages 753-794.
    3. Pau Baizán & Arnstein Aassve & Francesco C. Billari, 2002. "Institutional arrangements and life course outcomes: the interrelations between cohabitation, marriage and first birth in Germany and Sweden," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2002-026, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    4. Marianne Bitler & Jonah Gelbach & Hilary Hoynes & Madeline Zavodny, 2004. "The impact of welfare reform on marriage and divorce," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 41(2), pages 213-236, May.
    5. Patrick Ishizuka, 2018. "The Economic Foundations of Cohabiting Couples’ Union Transitions," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 55(2), pages 535-557, April.
    6. Sharon Sassler & Soma Roy & Elizabeth Stasny, 2014. "Men’s economic status and marital transitions of fragile families," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 30(3), pages 71-110.
    7. Brienna Perelli-Harris & Theodore Gerber, 2011. "Nonmarital Childbearing in Russia: Second Demographic Transition or Pattern of Disadvantage?," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 48(1), pages 317-342, February.
    8. Jean-Marie Le Goff, 2002. "Cohabiting unions in France and West Germany," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 7(18), pages 593-624.
    9. Audrey N. Beck & Carey E. Cooper & Sara S. McLanahan & Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, 2009. "Relationship Transitions and Maternal Parenting," Working Papers 1131, Princeton University, School of Public and International Affairs, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing..
    10. repec:pri:crcwel:wp09-14-ff is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Laura Tach & Kathryn Edin, 2013. "The Compositional and Institutional Sources of Union Dissolution for Married and Unmarried Parents in the United States," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 50(5), pages 1789-1818, October.
    12. Todd D. Kendall & Robert Tamura, 2010. "Unmarried Fertility, Crime, and Social Stigma," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(1), pages 185-221, February.
    13. Sharon Sassler & Katherine Michelmore & Zhenchao Qian, 2018. "Transitions From Sexual Relationships Into Cohabitation and Beyond," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 55(2), pages 511-534, April.
    14. Jean-Marie Le Goff, 2002. "Cohabiting unions in France and West Germany: transitions to first birth and first marriage," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2002-025, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    15. Laura Tach & Kathryn Edin, 2011. "The Relationship Contexts of Young Disadvantaged Men," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 635(1), pages 76-94, May.
    16. Nicoletta Balbo & Nicola Barban & Melinda Mills, 2013. "Friend and peer effects on entry into marriage and parenthood: A multiprocess approach," Working Papers 056, "Carlo F. Dondena" Centre for Research on Social Dynamics (DONDENA), Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi.
    17. Audrey Light & Yoshiaki Omori, 2013. "Determinants of Long-Term Unions: Who Survives the “Seven Year Itch”?," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 32(6), pages 851-891, December.
    18. Brienna Perelli-Harris & Theodore P. Gerber, 2009. "Non-marital childbearing in Russia: second demographic transition or pattern of disadvantage?," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2009-007, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    19. Marcia J. Carlson & Sara S. McLanahan, 2009. "Fathers in Fragile Families," Working Papers 1189, Princeton University, School of Public and International Affairs, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing..
    20. David Blau & Wilbert Klaauw, 2008. "A demographic analysis of the family structure experiences of children in the United States," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 193-221, September.
    21. Jan Bavel, 2010. "Choice of study discipline and the postponement of motherhood in Europe: The impact of expected earnings, gender composition, and family attitudes," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 47(2), pages 439-458, May.

    More about this item

    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:dpr:wpaper:0714. 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: Librarian (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isosujp.html .

    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.