Advertisement

European Journal of Population

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 119–142 | Cite as

The Decline in Marriage in Israel, 1960–2007: Period or Cohort Effect?

Article
  • 125 Downloads

Abstract

Over the past four decades, the more developed countries have experienced a marked decline in the marriage rates of both men and women. The reasons for the decline remain a debated issue. Three explanations predict that the decline in marriage is a period effect, while two predict that it is a birth cohort effect. To determine whether the decline is a period or a cohort effect, this study performed an age–period–cohort analysis. Using data from Israel, our results show that both cohort replacement and period factors were important. Until 1990–1994 the decline in marriage was a period effect, whereas after 1990–1994 the decline was a cohort effect. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our results for the three major explanations of the decline in marriage.

Keywords

Marriage Second demographic transition Age–period–cohort model Israel 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research for this paper was supported by a grant from the National Insurance Institute of Israel. Earlier versions were presented at a colloquium at the Vienna Institute of Demography, August 2012, and at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, New Orleans, April 2013. We would like to thank three anonymous reviewers and the editors for their comments.

References

  1. Ahn, N., & Mirah, P. (2001). Job bust, baby bust? Evidence from Spain. Journal of Population Economics, 14(3), 505–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison, P. D. (2010). Survival analysis using the SAS ® system: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Andersen, R., & Fetner, T. (2008). Cohort differences in tolerance of homosexuality: Attitudinal change in Canada and the United States, 1981–2000. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bachrach, C., Hindin, M. J., & Thomson, E. (2000). The changing shape of ties that bind: An overview and synthesis. In L. J. Waite (Ed.), The ties that bind: Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation (pp. 3–16). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  5. Baloush-Kleinman, V., & Sharlin, S. A. (2004). Social, economic, and attitudinal characteristics of cohabitation in Israel. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 25(22), 255–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker, G. (1991). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ben-Moshe, E. (1989). Marriage squeeze and marriage patterns in Israel. In U. O. Schmelz & S. Dellapergola (Eds.), Papers in Jewish demography 1985 (pp. 87–95). Jerusalem: The Institute of Contemporary Jewry, Hebrew University.Google Scholar
  8. Billari, F., Liefbroer, A. C., & Philipov, D. (2006). The postponement of childbearing in Europe: Driving forces and implications. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 4, 1–17.Google Scholar
  9. Blossfeld, H.-P., & Jaenichen, U. (1992). Educational expansion and changes in women’s entry into marriage and motherhood in the Federal Republic of Germany. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(2), 302–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bracher, M., & Santow, G. (1998). Economic independence and union formation in Sweden. Population Studies, 52(3), 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brewster, K., & Padavic, I. (2000). Change in gender ideology, 1977–1996: The contributions of intracohort change and population turnover. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(2), 477–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brooks, C., & Bolzendahl, C. (2004). The transformation of US gender role attitudes: Cohort replacement, socio-structural change, and ideological learning. Social Science Research, 33, 106–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bukodi, E. (2012). The relationship between work history and partnership formation in cohorts of British men born in 1958 and 1970. Population Studies, 66(2), 123–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bumpass, L. L., & Lu, H.-H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54(1), 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bumpass, L. L., & Sweet, J. A. (1989). National estimates of cohabitation. Demography, 26(4), 615–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bumpass, L. L., Sweet, J. A., & Cherlin, A. (1991). The role of cohabitation in declining rates of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(4), 913–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bystrov, E. (2012). The second demographic transition in Israel: One for all? Demographic Research, 21, 261–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Choe, M. K., Bumpass, L. L., Tsuya, O., & Rindfuss, R. R. (2014). Nontraditional family-related attitudes in Japan: Macro and micro determinants. Population and Development Review, 40(2), 241–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clarkberg, M., Stolzenberg, R. M., & Waite, L. J. (1995). Attitudes, values, and entrance into cohabitational versus marital unions. Social Forces, 74(22), 609–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cooney, T. M., & Hogan, D. P. (1991). Marriage in an institutionalized life course: First marriage among American men in the Twentieth Century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 53, 178–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cotter, D., Hermsen, J. M., & Vanneman, R. (2011). The end of the gender revolution? Gender role attitudes from 1977 to 2008. American Journal of Sociology, 117(1), 259–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Easterlin, R. (1978). What will 1984 be like? Socioeconomic implications of recent twists in age structure. Demography, 15(4), 397–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ekert-Jaffe, O., & Solaz, A. (2001). Unemployment, marriage, and cohabitation in France. Journal of Socio-Economics, 30, 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ermisch, J. (1979). The relevance of the ‘Easterlin Hypothesis’ and the ‘New Home Economics’ to fertility movements in Great Britain. Population Studies, 33(1), 39–58.Google Scholar
  25. European Social Survey. (2010). Round 5. Data file edition 3.0. Norwegian Social Science Data Services, Norway.Google Scholar
  26. Friedlander, D., & Feldmann, C. (1993). The modern shift to below-replacement fertility: Has Israel’s population joined the process? Population Studies, 47(2), 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goldin, C. (2004). From the valley to the summit: The quiet revolution that transformed women’s work. NBER Working paper No. 10335.Google Scholar
  28. Goldman, N., Westoff, C. F., & Hammerslough, C. (1984). Demography of the marriage market in the United States. Population Index, 50, 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harding, D. J., & Jencks, C. (2003). Changing attitudes toward premarital sex: Cohort, period, and aging effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(2), 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haskey, J. (2001). Cohabitation in Great Britain: Past, present and future. Trends and attitudes. Population Trends, 103, 3–25.Google Scholar
  31. Heckman, J., & Robb, R. (1985). Using longitudinal data to estimate age, period, and cohort effects in earnings equations. In W. M. Mason & S. E. Fienberg (Eds.), Cohort analysis in social research (pp. 137–150). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hobcraft, J., Menken, J., & Preston, S. (1982). Age, period, and cohort effects in demography: A review. Population Index, 48(1), 4–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hoem, J. M., & Kreyenfeld, M. (2006). Anticipatory analysis and its alternatives in life-course research. Part 1: The role of education in the study of first childbearing. Demographic Research, 15, 461–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Inglehart, R. (1985). Aggregate stability and individual-level flux in mass belief systems: The level of analysis paradox. American Political Science Review, 79(1), 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kalmijn, M. (2007). Explaining cross-national differences in marriage, cohabitation, and divorce in Europe, 1990–2000. Population Studies, 61(3), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kalmijn, M. (2011). The influence of men’s income and employment on marriage and cohabitation: Testing Oppenheimer’s theory in Europe. European Journal of Population, 27, 269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kalmijn, M., & Luijkx, R. (2005). Has the reciprocal relationship between employment and marriage changed for men? An analysis of the life histories of men born in the Netherlands between 1930 and 1970. Population Studies, 59(2), 211–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kravdal, Ø. (1999). Does marriage require a stronger economic underpinning than informal cohabitation? Population Studies, 53(1), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leridon, H., & Villeneuve-Gokalp, C. (1988). Les nouveaux couples: Nombre, caractéristiques et attitudes. Population, 43(2), 331–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lesthaeghe, R., & Neidert, L. (2006). The second demographic transition in the United States: Exception or textbook example. Population and Development Review, 32(4), 669–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lesthaeghe, R., & Surkyn, J. (1988). Cultural dynamics and economic theories of fertility change. Population and Development Review, 14(1), 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lesthaeghe, R., & van de Kaa, D. J. (1986). Twee demografische transities? In R. Lesthaeghe & J. Van de Kaa (Eds.), Groei of Krimp, book volume of Mens en Maatschappij (pp. 9–24). Deventer: Van Loghum-Slaterus.Google Scholar
  43. Liefbroer, A. C. (2009). Changes in family size intentions across young adulthood: A life-course perspective. European Journal of Population, 25(4), 363–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Liefbroer, A. C., & Corijn, M. (1999). Who, what, where, and when? Specifying the impact of educational attainment and labour force participation on family formation. European Journal of Population, 15(1), 45–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lloyd, K. M., & South, S. J. (1996). Contextual influences on young men’s transition to first marriage. Social Forces, 74(3), 1097–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Macunovich, D. J. (2012). Relative cohort size, relative income, and married women’s labor force participation: United States, 1968–2010. Population and Development Review, 38(4), 631–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ní Bhrolcháin, M. (1992). Period paramount? A critique of the cohort approach to fertility. Population and Development Review, 18(4), 599–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Noordhuizen, S., de Graaf, P., & Sieben, I. (2010). The public acceptance of voluntary childlessness in the Netherlands: From 20 to 90 per cent in 30 years. Social Indicators Research, 99(1), 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. O’Brien, R. M. (2000). Age period cohort characteristic models. Social Science Research, 29(1), 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Okun, B. S. (2013). Fertility and marriage behavior in Israel: Diversity, change, and stability. Demographic Research, 28, 457–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988). A theory of marriage timing. American Journal of Sociology, 94(3), 563–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Oppenheimer, V. K. (1994). Women’s rising employment and the future of the family in industrial societies. Population and Development Review, 20(2), 293–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Oppenheimer, V. K. (2003). Cohabiting and marriage during young men’s career-development process. Demography, 40(1), 127–149.Google Scholar
  54. Oppenheimer, V. K., Kalmijn, M., & Lim, N. (1997). Men’s career development and marriage timing during a period of rising inequality. Demography, 34(3), 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Oppenheimer, V. K., & Lew, V. (1995). American marriage formation in the 1980s: How important was women’s economic independence? In K. O. Mason & A.-M. Jensen (Eds.), Gender and family change in industrialized countries (pp. 105–138). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  56. Perelli-Harris, B., Sigle-Rushton, W., Kreyenfeld, M., Lappegård, T., Keizer, R., & Berghammer, C. (2010). The educational gradient of childbearing within cohabitation. Population and Development Review, 36(4), 775–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Raftery, A. E., Lewis, S. M., & Aghajanian, A. (1995). Demand or ideation? Evidence from the Iranian marital fertility decline. Demography, 32(2), 159–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Raymo, J. M. (2003). Educational attainment and the transition to first marriage among Japanese women. Demography, 40(1), 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Raz-Yurovich, L. (2010). Men’s and women’s economic activity and first marriage: Jews in Israel, 1987–1995. Demographic Research, 22, 933–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Raz-Yurovich, L. (2012). Economic determinants of divorce among dual-earner couples: Jews in Israel. European Journal of Population, 28, 177–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rodgers, W. L., & Thornton, A. (1985). Changing patterns of first marriage in the United States. Demography, 22(2), 265–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ryder, N. B. (1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Sociological Review, 30(6), 843–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Santow, G., & Bracher, M. (1994). Change and continuity in the formation of first marital unions in Australia. Population Studies, 48(3), 475–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sassler, S., & Goldscheider, F. K. (2004). Revisiting Jane Austen’s theory of marriage timing: Changes in union formation among American men in the late 20th century. Journal of Family Issues, 25(2), 139–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sassler, S., & Schoen, R. (1999). The effect of attitudes and economic activity on marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(1), 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schellekens, J. (2017). The marriage boom and marriage bust in the United States: An age-period-cohort analysis. Population Studies, 71(1), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schellekens, J., & Gliksberg, D. (2013). Inflation and marriage in Israel. Journal of Family History, 38, 78–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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, 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Scott, J. (1998). Changing attitudes to sexual morality: A cross-national comparison. Sociology, 32(4), 815–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Smith, H. L., Mason, W. M., & Fienberg, S. E. (1982). Estimable functions of age, period, and cohort effects: More chimeras of the age-period-cohort accounting framework: Comment on Rodgers. American Sociological Review, 47(6), 787–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. State of Israel. (1960–2014). Statistical abstract of Israel (Vols. 11–65).Google Scholar
  73. State of Israel. (2012). Household and families: Demographic characteristics 20092010. Publication number 1490.Google Scholar
  74. Sweeney, M. M. (2002). Two decades of family change: The shifting economic foundations of marriage. American Sociological Review, 67(1), 132–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Thornton, A. (1985). Changing attitudes toward separation and divorce: Causes and consequences. American Journal of Sociology, 90(4), 856–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Thornton, A., Axinn, W. G., & Teachman, J. D. (1995). The influence of school enrollment and accumulation on cohabitation and marriage in early adulthood. American Sociological Review, 60(5), 762–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Treas, J. (2002). How cohorts, education, and ideology shaped a new sexual revolution on American attitudes toward nonmarital sex, 1972–1998. Sociological Perspectives, 45(3), 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Trovato, F. (1988). A macrosociological analysis of change in the marriage rate: Canadian women, 1921–25 to 1981–85. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50(2), 507–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Van de Kaa, D. J. (1987). Europe’s second demographic transition. Population Bulletin, 42, 1–59.Google Scholar
  80. Wilson, J. A., Zozula, C., & Gove, W. R. (2011). Age, period, cohort and educational attainment: The importance of considering gender. Social Science Research, 40, 136–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wood, R. G. (1995). Marriage rates and marriageable men: A test of the Wilson hypothesis. Journal of Human Resources, 30(1), 163–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Xie, Y., Raymo, J. M., Goyette, K., & Thornton, A. (2003). Economic potential and entry into marriage and cohabitation. Demography, 40(2), 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Yang, Y. (2008). Social inequalities in happiness in the United States, 1972 to 2004: An age-period-cohort analysis. American Sociological Review, 73(2), 204–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Yang, Y., & Land, K. C. (2006). A mixed models approach to the age-period-cohort analysis of repeated cross-section surveys, with an application to data on trends in verbal test scores. Sociological Methodology, 36, 75–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zabel, C. (2009). Do imputed education histories provide satisfactory results in fertility analysis in the Western German context? Demographic Research, 21(6), 135–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology and AnthropologyHebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Faculty of LawHebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations