Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 108, Issue 1, pp 111–130 | Cite as

Monitoring Socio-demographic Risk: A Cohort Analysis of Families Using Census Micro-Data

  • Peter Davis
  • Mervyl McPherson
  • Mark Wheldon
  • Martin von Randow
Article
  • 185 Downloads

Abstract

We apply cohort techniques to monitor four indicators of socio-demographic risk crucial to family wellbeing; namely, income, employment, education, and housing. The data were derived from New Zealand’s five-yearly Census for the period 1981–2006. This allowed us to track birth cohorts of mothers (and their families) over six successive New Zealand censuses focusing on the main childrearing ages of 20–59. This produced ten cohorts—termed “open familial cohorts”—ranging from mothers born in the period 1932–1937 through to 1977–1981. We present age, period and cohort analyses. Families in which the mother is in her early 20s were the most vulnerable, with the lowest incomes, the greatest risk of worklessnes, and the lowest levels of home ownership. Of particular interest is that those in the most recent cohorts—born since 1967—were worse off compared to earlier cohorts. The period from the mid-1980s to the mid-to-late 1990s was one of greatest “socio-demographic risk”, with the lowest work, income and education prospects over the 25 years. The picture on generational profiles was mixed. Contrary to popular mythology the “baby-boomer” cohorts did not enjoy an unqualified advantage over others; indeed the most recent cohorts were doing well, with relatively high incomes, education and work levels. The analysis is successful in identifying age and period effects over a period of major social change, and in documenting cohort experiences for each indicator, thus demonstrating the potential of constructing cohorts from routinely-collected census micro-data for monitoring and policy purposes.

Keywords

Socio-demographic risk Family wellbeing Cohort analysis Age, period and cohort effects Social monitor Census micro-data 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The data for this paper were generated under the Family Whānau and Wellbeing Project (FWWP) which was funded by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology. Access to the data used in this study was provided by Statistics New Zealand in a secure environment designed to give effect to the confidentiality provisions of the Statistics Act 1975. This study would not have been possible without the generous assistance of Statistics New Zealand. The views expressed in this occasional paper are the personal views of the authors and should not be taken to represent the views or policy of Statistics New Zealand or the Government. We are grateful to Professor Natalie Jackson, Roy Lay-Yee and Dr. Gerry Cotterell for comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

  1. Bonoli, G. (2005). The politics of the new social policies: Providing coverage against new social risks in mature welfare states. Policy and Politics, 33(3), 431–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Callister, P. (2007). Are New Zealanders heading for older age richer, better educated and more likely to be employed? In J. Boston & J. Davey (Eds.), Implications of population ageing—opportunities and risks (pp. 51–98). Wellington NZ: Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
  3. Cotterell, G., Wheldon, M., & Milligan, S. (2008). Measuring changes in family wellbeing in New Zealand 1981–2006. Social Indicators Research, 86, 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deaton, A. (1997). The analysis of household surveys: A microeconomic approach to development policy. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Esping-Andersen, G. (2000). The sustainability of welfare states into the twenty-first century. International Journal of Health Services, 30(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fajth, G. (2000). Regional monitoring of child and family well-being: UNICEF’s MONEE project CEE and CIS in a comparative perspective. Statistical Journal of the United Nations Commission for Europe, 17(1), 75–99.Google Scholar
  7. Glenn, N. D. (2005). Cohort analysis (2nd ed. Vol. 5). Thousand oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Humpage, L. (2010). Revisioning comparative welfare state studies: An ‘indigenous dimension’. Policy Studies, 31(5), 539–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jensen, J. (1988). Income equivalences and the estimation of family expenditure on children. (Unpublished Note). Wellington, NZ: Department of Social Welfare.Google Scholar
  10. Khawaja, M. (2007). Growing childlessness and declining cohort fertility in New Zealand. Paper presented at population association of New Zealand conference, Wellington, July 2007.Google Scholar
  11. Milligan, S., Fabian, A., Coope, P., & Errington, C. (2006). Family wellbeing indicators from the 1981–2001 New Zealand censuses. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand.Google Scholar
  12. Moore, K. A., Vandivere, S., & Redd, Z. (2006). A sociodemographic risk index. Social Indicators Research, 75(1), 45–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Myers, D. (1999). Cohort longitudinal estimation of housing careers. Housing Studies, 14(4), 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ryder, N. (1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Sociological Review, 30(6), 843–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Statistics New Zealand. (1999a). Statistical standard for dwelling type. Wellington NZ: Statistics New Zealand.Google Scholar
  16. Statistics New Zealand. (1999b). Statistical standard for family type. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand.Google Scholar
  17. Statistics New Zealand. (1999c). Statistical standard for household composition. Wellington NZ: Statistics New Zealand.Google Scholar
  18. Statistics New Zealand. (2001a). New Zealand census of population and dwellings 2001: Definitions and questionnaires. Wellington NZ: Statistics New Zealand.Google Scholar
  19. Statistics New Zealand. (2001b). Introduction to the census (2001)–reference report. Wellington NZ: Statistics New Zealand.Google Scholar
  20. Statistics New Zealand. (2005). Consumers Price Index—Information releases. Consumers Price Index, 2005. http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/info-releases/cpi-info-releases.htm. Accessed Aug 31, 2008.
  21. Statistics New Zealand. (2008). Demographic trends 2007. http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/demographic-trends-2007.aspx. Accessed April 2, 2011.
  22. Wheldon, M. (2008). FWWP Cohort modelling brief. COMPASS Working paper. http://www.nzssds.org.nz/cohortmodelling. Accessed April 2, 2011.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Davis
    • 1
  • Mervyl McPherson
    • 1
  • Mark Wheldon
    • 1
  • Martin von Randow
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre of Methods and Policy Application in the Social Sciences (COMPASS)The University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations