Trajectoires de formation de la famille en Roumanie, en Fédération de Russie et en France: en direction de la Seconde Transition Démographique?

Article

Résumé

Cet article étudie les trajectoires de formation de la famille en tant qu’expression de la seconde transition démographique (STD) dans trois pays, comparant et contrastant deux pays postsocialistes (la Roumanie et la Fédération de Russie) avec la France, pays considéré comme référence pour son stade d’avancement dans la STD. En examinant conjointement les séquences d’union et de fécondité et en dépassant la nature essentiellement descriptive des études sur les trajectoires, cette étude inclut des facteurs explicatifs clés, tels que la cohorte, le pays, le niveau d’instruction, afin d’élargir les connaissances dans ce domaine. Des données intégrées des enquêtes Genre et Génération (N = 30.197) sont utilisées pour effectuer des analyses de séquences, d’appariement optimal, de regroupement, et de régression logistique multinomiale. Les individus appartenant aux cohortes dénommées « post-communistes » sont significativement plus susceptibles de s’engager dans des cohabitations de longue durée, d’avoir des enfants dans le cadre d’une cohabitation ou de constituer une famille monoparentale. L’impact du niveau d’instruction varie selon les pays. En Roumanie et dans la Fédération de Russie, les individus ayant les niveaux d’instruction les plus élevés sont moins susceptibles d’adopter des trajectoires plus marginales. La cohabitation sans mariage mais avec des enfants est associée à de plus faibles niveaux d’instruction dans les trois pays. D’importantes différences apparaissent tant au niveau des formes que des étapes de la STD entre la Roumanie et la Fédération de Russie, les russes présentant une probabilité plus élevée d’avoir des enfants dans le cadre d’une cohabitation, au contraire des roumains qui privilégient les mariages sans enfant ou postposent les naissances ou optent pour le célibat. Les trois pays différent dans leur stade d’avancement dans la STD et dans les facteurs qui façonnent leurs choix de mises en union et de procréation. En conclusion, bien que la STD demeure un cadre théorique utile, elle doit être enrichie et nuancée par la prise en compte des contextes socio-économiques.

Mots clés

Trajectoires d’unions et de fécondité Jeunes adultes Analyse de séquence Comparaisons transnationales 

Family Formation Trajectories in Romania, the Russian Federation and France: Towards the Second Demographic Transition?

Abstract

This study examines family formation trajectories as a manifestation of the second demographic transition (SDT) in three countries, comparing and contrasting two post-socialist countries (Romania and the Russian Federation) with France as benchmark country advanced in the SDT. By examining combined partnership and fertility sequences and transcending the mainly descriptive nature of trajectory-based studies, the current study expands our knowledge by including key explanatory factors, such as cohort, country, and educational level. Pooled data from the Gender and Generations Survey (N = 30,197) is used to engage in sequence, optimal matching (OM), cluster and multinomial logistic regression analysis. Post-Communist cohorts are significantly more likely to engage in long-term cohabitation, childbearing within cohabitation or lone parenthood. Educational level operates differently across countries, with the highly educated in Romania and the Russian Federation less likely to follow certain de-standardized paths. Non-marital cohabitation with children is associated with lower education in all countries. Strong differences emerge between the shape and stages of the SDT in Romania and Russia, with Russians having a higher probability to experience childbearing within cohabitation, opposed to Romanians who follow childless marriage patterns or adopt postponement and singlehood. The three countries differ in their advancement in the SDT and factors shaping partnering and childbearing choices. We conclude that although the SDT remains a useful construct, it needs to be supplemented with more nuanced contextual accounts of socio-economic conditions.

Keywords

Partnerships and fertility trajectories Young adulthood Sequence analysis Cross-national comparison 

References

  1. Aassve, A., Billari, F. C., & Piccarreta, R. (2007). Strings of adulthood: A sequence analysis of young British women’s work-family trajectories. European Journal Population, 23(3/4), 369–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbott, A. (1990). Conceptions of time and events in social science methods. Historical methods, 23(4), 140–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abbott, A. (2000). Reply to Levine and Wu. Sociological Methods and Research, 29(1), 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abbott, A., & Forrest, J. (1986). Optimal matching methods for historical sequences. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 16(3), 471–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Abbott, A., & Tsay, A. (2000). Sequence analysis and optimal matching methods in sociology. Sociological Methods & Research, 29(1), 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aisenbrey, S., & Fasang, A. E. (2010). New life for old ideas: The “second wave” of sequence analysis bringing the “course” back into the life course. Sociological Methods & Research, 38(3), 420–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barban, N., & Billari, F. C. (2010). What does explain the heterogeneity in early family trajectories? A non-parametric approach for sequence analysis. In Population Association of America (PAA) 2010 annual meeting, Dallas Texas, April 15–17 (extended abstract).Google Scholar
  8. Begall, K. H., & Mills, M. (2011). The impact of perceived work control, job strain and work-family conflict on fertility intentions: A European comparison. European Journal of Population, 27(4), 433–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernhardt, E. M. (2004). Is the second demographic transition a useful concept for demography? Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 2004, 25–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Billari, F. C. (2001). The analysis of early life courses: Complex descriptions of the transition to adulthood. Journal of Population Research, 18(2), 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Billari, F. C. (2004). Choices, opportunities and constraints of partnership, childbearing and partnering: The patterns in the 1990s. United Nations, European Population Forum 2004 (background paper).Google Scholar
  12. Billari, F. C., & Liefbroer, A. C. (2010). Towards a new pattern of transition to adulthood? Advances in Life Course Research, 15(2–3), 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Billari, F. C., & Piccarreta, R. (2005). Analyzing demographic life courses through sequence analysis. Mathematical Population Studies, 12(2), 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Billari, F. C., & Wilson, C. (2001). Convergence towards diversity? Cohort dynamics in the transition to adulthood in contemporary Western Europe. MPIDR Working Paper 2001-039. Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.Google Scholar
  15. Brown, A. (2009). The rise and fall of communism. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  16. Brüderl, J. (2003). Family change and family patterns in Europe. www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/projects/changequal/papers.asp?selbut=2.
  17. Chaloupková, J. (2010). De-standardization of early family trajectories in the Czech Republic: A cross-cohort comparison. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 46(3), 427–452.Google Scholar
  18. Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 848–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coleman, D. (2004). Why we don’t have to believe without doubting in the ‘second demographic transition’—some agnostic comments. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 2004, 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Corijn, M., & Klijzing, E. (Eds.). (2001). Transitions to adulthood in Europe. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Durbin, R., Eddy, S. R., Krogh, A., & Mitchison, G. (1998). Biological sequence analysis: Probabilistic models of proteins and nucleic acids. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2005). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. Elzinga, G., & Liefbroer, A. (2007). Destandardization of life trajectories of young adults: A cross-national comparison using sequence analysis. European Journal of Population, 23(3/4), 225–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fodor, E., Glass, C., Kawachi, J., & Popescu, L. (2002). Family policies and gender in Hungary, Poland, and Romania. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 35, 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frejka, T. (2008). Overview chapter 5: Determinants of family formation and childbearing during the societal transition in Central and Eastern Europe. Demographic Research, 19(7), 139–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Furstenberg, F. F., Kennedy, S., McLoyd, V., Rumbaut, R., & Settersten, R. A. (2004). Growing up is harder to do. Contexts, 3(3), 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gabadinho, A., Ritschard, G., Studer, M., & Müller, N. S. (2008). Mining sequence data in R with the TraMineR package: A user’s guide. Geneva: University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  28. Gerber, T., & Berman, D. (2010). Entry to marriage and cohabitation in Russia, 1985–2000: Trends, correlates, and implications for the second demographic transition. European Journal of Population, 26(1), 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Halpin, B., & Chan, T. W. (1998). Class careers as sequences: An optimal matching analysis of work-life histories. European Sociological Review, 14(2), 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hamming, R. W. (1950). Error-detecting and error-correcting codes. Bell System Technical Journal, 29(2), 147–160.Google Scholar
  31. Henshaw, S. K., Singh, S., & Haas, T. (1999). Recent trends in abortion rates worldwide. International Family Planning Perspectives, 25(1), 44–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heuveline, P., & Timberlake, J. M. (2004). The role of cohabitation in family formation: The United States in a comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1214–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hoem, J. M., Kostova, D., Jasilioniene, A., & Mureşan, C. (2009). Traces of the second demographic transition in four selected countries in Central and Eastern Europe: Union formation as a demographic manifestation. European Journal of Population, 25(3), 239–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ivanova, K., Mills, M., & Veenstra, R. (2011). The initiation of dating in adolescence: The effect of parental divorce. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(4), 769–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jensen, A.-M. (1998). Partnership and parenthood in contemporary Europe: A Review of recent findings. European Journal of Population, 14(1), 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kiernan, K. (1999). Cohabitation in Western Europe. Population Trends, 96, 25–32.Google Scholar
  37. Kohli, M. (2007). The institutionalization of the life course: Looking back to look ahead. Research in Human Development, 4(3–4), 253–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kreyenfeld, M., Konietzka, D., & Hornung, A. (2009). Family diversity in France, the Russian Federation, and East and West Germany: Overview on living arrangements and living conditions. In United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE): How generations and gender shape demographic change: Towards policies based on better knowledge. New York/Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  39. Kuijsten, A. (1996). Changing family patterns in Europe, a case of divergence? European Journal of Population, 12(2), 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lesnard, L. (2008). Off-Scheduling within dual-earner couples: An unequal and negative externality for family time. American Journal of Sociology, 114(2), 447–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lesnard, L. (2010). Cost setting in optimal matching to uncover contemporaneous socio-temporal patterns. Sociological Methods Research, 38(3), 389–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lesnard, L., Cousteaux, A.-S., Chanvril, F., & Le Hay, V. (2010). Do transitions to adulthood converge in Europe? An optimal matching analysis of work-family trajectories of young adults from 20 European countries, notes & documents, 2010–04. Paris: OSC, Sciences Po/CNRS.Google Scholar
  43. Lesthaeghe, R. (1983). A century of demographic and cultural change in Western Europe: An exploration of underlying dimensions. Population and Development Review, 9(3), 411–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lesthaeghe, R., & Moors, G. (2000). Recent trends in fertility and household formation in the industrialized world. Review of Population and Social Policy, 9, 121–170.Google Scholar
  45. Lesthaeghe, R., & Neels, K. (2002). From the first to the second demographic transition: An interpretation of the spatial continuity of demographic innovation in France, Belgium and Switzerland. European Journal of Population, 18(4), 325–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lesthaeghe, R., & van de Kaa, D. J. (1986). Twee demografische transities? In D. J. van de Kaa & R. Lesthaeghe (Eds.), Bevolking: Groei en Krimp (pp. 9–24). Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.Google Scholar
  47. Lesthaehge, R. (1995). The second demographic transition in Western countries: An interpretation. In K. O. Mason & A.-M. Jensen (Eds.), Gender and family change in industrialized countries (pp. 17–62). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  48. Levenshtein, V. I. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10(8), 707–710.Google Scholar
  49. Levine, J. H. (2000). But what have you done for us lately?: Commentary on Abbot and Tsay. Sociological Methods and Research, 29(1), 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lokshin, M., Popkin, B. M., & Harris, K.M. (2000). Single mothers in Russia: Household strategies for coping with poverty. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2300. http://ssrn.com/abstract=629150.
  51. Long, S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. College Station: StataCorp LP.Google Scholar
  52. Martin, P., Schoon, I., & Ross, A. (2008). Beyond transitions: Applying optimal matching analysis to life course research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(3), 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mayer, K. U. (2001). The paradox of global social change and national path dependencies: Life course patterns in advanced societies. In A. E. Woodward & M. Kohli (Eds.), Inclusions and exclusions in European societies (pp. 89–110). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Micheli, G. A. (2004). Claiming for a demologic approach to demographic change. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 2004, 29–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Milligan, G. W. (1980). An examination of the effect of six types of error perturbation on fifteen clustering algorithms. Psychometrika, 45(3), 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Milligan, G. W. (1981). A review of Monte Carlo tests of cluster analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 379–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mills, M. (2004). Stability and change: The structuration of partnership histories in Canada, the Netherlands and the Russian Federation. European Journal of Population, 20(1), 141–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mills, M. (2011). Introducing survival and event history analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. Mills, M., Blossfeld, H.-P., Buchholz, S., Hofäcker, D., Bernardi, F., & Hofmeister, H. (2008). Converging divergences? An international comparison of the impact of globalization on industrial relations and employment careers. International Sociology, 23(4), 561–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mills, M., Blossfeld, H.-P., & Klijzing, E. (2005). Becoming an adult in uncertain times: A 14-country comparison of the losers of globalization. In H.-P. Blossfeld, E. Klijzing, M. Mills, & K. Kurz (Eds.), Globalization, uncertainty and youth in society (pp. 393–411). London/New York: Routledge Advances in Sociology Series.Google Scholar
  61. Mills, M., Rindfuss, R. R., McDonald, P., & Te Velde, E. (2011). Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. Human Reproduction Update, 17(6), 848–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Motiejunaite, A. (2008). Women’s employment in Eastern Europe—towards more equality? Inblick Östeuropa, 1. http://www.inblick.org/?p=/2articles/16/motiejunaite.html.
  63. Mouw, T. (2005). Sequences of early adult transitions. In R. A. Settersten, F. F. Furstenberg, & R. G. Rumbaut (Eds.), On the frontier of adulthood: Theory, research, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  64. Mureşan, C. (2007). How advanced Romania is in the second demographic transition? Romanian Journal of Population Studies, 12, 46–60.Google Scholar
  65. Mureşan, C., Hărăguş, P. T., Hărăguş, M., & Schroder, C. (2008). Romania: Childbearing metamorphosis within a changing context. In Frejka et al. (Eds.), Childbearing trends and policies in Europe. Demographic Research (Vol. 19, Articles 1–29, pp. 1–1178). Special Collection 7Google Scholar
  66. Oaneş, C., & Hărăguş, M. (2009). The Growth in non-marital fertility and other related behaviours in Romania after 1989. Romanian Journal of Population Studies, 1, 45–71.Google Scholar
  67. Pascall, G., & Kwak, A. (2005). Gender regimes in transition in Central and Eastern Europe. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  68. Perelli-Harris, B., & Gerber, T. P. (2011). Nonmarital childbearing in Russia: Second demographic transition or pattern of disadvantage? Demography, 48(1), 317–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Perelli-Harris, B., Sigle-Rushton, W., Kreyenfeld, M., Lappegård, T., Keizer, R., & Berghammer, C. (2010). The educational gradient of childbearing within cohabitation in Europe. Population and development review, 36(4), 775–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Philipov, D., & Jasilioniene, A. (2008). Union formation and fertility in Bulgaria and Russia: A life table description of recent trends. Demographic Research, 19(62), 2057–2114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Philipov, D., & Kohler, H.-P. (2001). Tempo effects in the fertility decline in Eastern Europe: Evidence from Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Russia. European Journal of Population, 28(1), 37–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Piccarreta, R., & Lior, O. (2010). Exploring Sequences: A graphical tool based on multi-dimensional scaling. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 173(1), 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Reher, D. S. (1998). Family ties in Western Europe: Persistent contrasts. Population and Development Review, 24(2), 203–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rindfuss, R. (1991). The young adult years: Diversity, structural change, and fertility. Demography, 29, 493–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Robette, N. (2010). The diversity of pathways to adulthood in France: Evidence from a holistic approach. Advances in Life Course Research, 15(2–3), 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rydell, I. (2003). Demographic patterns from the 1960s in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal. Institute for Futures Studies 2003: 2.Google Scholar
  77. Scherbov, S., & van Vianen, H. (2001). Marriage and Fertility in Russia of Women Born between 1900 and 1960: A cohort analysis. European Journal of Population, 17(3), 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schoon, I., Ross, A., & Martin, P. (2009). Sequences, patterns and variations in the assumption of work and family related roles: Evidence from two British Birth Cohorts. In I. Schoon & R. K. Silbereisen (Eds.), Transitions from school to work. Globalisation, individualisation and patterns of diversity (pp. 219–242). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Settersten, R. A., & Mayer, K. U. (1997). The measurement of age, age structuring, and the life course. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), 233–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Shanahan, M. J. (2000). Pathways to adulthood in changing societies: Variability and mechanisms in life course perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 667–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sobotka, T. (2004). Is lowest-low fertility in Europe explained by the postponement of childbearing? Population & Development Review, 30(2), 195–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sobotka, T. (2008). The diverse faces of the second demographic transition in Europe. In T. Frejka, T. Sobotka, J. M. Hoem, & L. Toulemon (Eds.), Childbearing trends and policies in Europe. Demographic Research (Vol. 19(8), pp. 171–224). Special Collection 7.Google Scholar
  83. Sobotka, T., Šťastná, A., Zeman, K., Hamplová, D., & Kantorová, V. (2008). Czech Republic: A rapid transformation of fertility and family behaviour after the collapse of state socialism. Demographic Research, 19(4), 403–454Google Scholar
  84. Sobotka, T., & Toulemon, L. (2008). Changing family and partnership behaviour: Common trends and persistent diversity across Europe. In T. Frejka, T. Sobotka, J. M. Hoem, & L. Toulemon (Eds.), Childbearing trends and policies in Europe. Demographic Research (Vol. 19, Article 6, pp. 85–138). Special Collection 7Google Scholar
  85. Sobotka, T., Zeman, K., & Kantorova, V. (2003). Demographic shifts in the Czech Republic after 1989: A second demographic transition view. European Journal of Population, 19(3), 249–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Spéder, Z. (2005). The rise of cohabitation as first union and some neglected factors of recent demographic developments in Hungary. Demográfia, 28, 77–103.Google Scholar
  87. Toulemon, L., Pailhé, A., & Rossier, C. (2008). France: High and stable fertility. Demographic Research, 19(16), 503–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Van Bavel, J. (2010). Choice of study discipline and the postponement of motherhood in Europe: The impact of expected earnings, gender composition and family attitudes. Demography, 47, 439–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Van de Kaa, D. J. (1987). Europe’s second demographic transition. Population Bulletin, 42(1), 1–57.Google Scholar
  90. Vikat, A., Spéder, Z., Beets, G., Billari, F. C., Bühler, C., Désesquelles, A., et al. (2007). Generations and Gender Survey (GGS): Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course. Demographic Research, 17(14), 389–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Volkov, A. (Ed). (1993). Demographicheskie perspektivy Rossii [Demographic prospects of Russia]. Goskomstat od Russia,Moscow [-in Russian-].Google Scholar
  92. Vos, A. E. (2009). Falling fertility rates: New challenges to the European welfare state. Socio-Economic Review, 7(3), 485–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Winter, J. M. (1992). War, family and fertility in twentieth-century Europe. In J. R. Gillis, L. A. Tilly, & D. Levine (Eds.), The European experience of declining fertility, 1850–1970: The quiet revolution (pp. 291–309). Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  94. Wu, L. L. (2000). Some comments on sequences analysis and optimal matching methods in sociology: Review and prospects. Sociological Research and Methods, 29(1), 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Zakharov, S. V. (2008). Russian Federation: From first to second demographic transition. In T. Frejka, T. Sobotka, J. M. Hoem, & L. Toulemon (Eds.), Childbearing trends and policies in Europe. Demographic Research (Vol. 19, pp. 907–927). Special Collection 7.Google Scholar
  96. Zhurzhenko, T. (2001). Free market ideology and new women’s identities in post-socialist Ukraine. The European Journal of Women’s Studies, 8, 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Zhurzhenko, T. (2004). Recent demographic developments in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gina Potârcă
    • 1
  • Melinda Mills
    • 1
  • Laurent Lesnard
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Sociology/ICSUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Centre de Données Socio-Politiques, Sciences PoParisFrance

Personalised recommendations