Advertisement

Review of Economics of the Household

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 115–132 | Cite as

The relationship between Civil Unions and fertility in France: Preliminary evidence

  • Emilio GutiérrezEmail author
  • Pablo Suárez Becerra
Article

Abstract

This paper explores the relationship between fertility and the introduction of new laws regulating cohabitation, in a context of low fertility and high out of wedlock childbearing. We show that in France, while fertility and marriage rates moved closely together before 1999, since the introduction (in 1999) of the “Pacte Civil de Solidarité” (PACS)—a cohabitation contract less binding than marriage—this relationship is much weaker. Surprisingly, legal unions (defined as marriage plus PACS) and fertility continue to move together after this date. We provide evidence of the relationship between the introduction of PACS and fertility, utilizing the regional variation in the number of PACS per woman (PACS intensity) and the differences in fertility before and after 1999. We show that French Departments with high PACS intensity did not show a different trend in fertility before 1999 than those with low PACS intensity (excluding Metropolitan Paris). However, they did experience an increase in their fertility levels after the introduction of PACS. This suggests the need to collect better and more detailed data, in order to assess whether the recent increases in French fertility can be partially explained by the availability of PACS.

Keywords

Marriage Civil Unions Fertility 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the comments from the editor and two anonymous referees. We acknowledge the advisory of Nancy Qian and the valuable comments of Andrew Foster, the participants at the Applied Microeconomics Lunch at Brown University, ITAM brown bag seminar, and participants at the 2009 LACEA meetings. Adrián Rubli and James Doyle provided excellent research and editorial assistance.

References

  1. Alesina, A., & Giuliano, P. (2007). Divorce, fertility and the value of marriage. Discussion Paper No. 2136. Harvard Institute of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, G. (1981). A treatise on the family (1st ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Borrillo, D., & Waaldijk, K. (2005). Major legal consequences of marriage, cohabitation and registered partnership for different-sex and same-sex partners in France. In K. Waaldijk (Ed.), More or less together: Levels of legal consequences of marriage, cohabitation and registered partnership for different-sex and same-sex partners. Documents de Travail, 125.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, E., & Dittgen, A. (2000). Fertility of married and unmarried couples in Europe. Paper presented at the flagship conference: Partnership and fertility-a revolution? PAU-UN/ECE, CBGS and UNFPA. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  5. Carrasco, V. (2007). Le pacte civil de solidarité: une forme d’union qui se banalise. Infostat Justice. http://www.justice.gouv.fr/art_pix/1_infostat97.pdf. Accessed 10 November 2009.
  6. Digoix, M., Festy, P., & Garnier, B. (2004). What if same-sex couples exist in France after all? Mimeo.Google Scholar
  7. Drewianka, S. (2006). Divorce laws and family formation. Journal of Population Economics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  8. Goldscheider, F., & Kaufman, G. (1996). Fertility and commitment: Bringing men back in. Population and Development Review, 22, 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grossbard-Shechtman, A. (1982). A theory of marriage formality: The case of Guatemala. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 30(4), 813–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grossbard-Shechtman, S. (1993). On the economics of marriage: A theory of marriage, labor and divorce. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  11. Grossbard-Shechtman, S., & Lemennicier, B. (1999). Marriage contracts and the law-and-economics of marriage: An Austrian perspective. Journal of Socio-Economics, 28(6), 665–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gruber, J. (2004). Is making divorce easier bad for children? The long-run implications of unilateral divorce. Journal of Labor Economics, 22(4), 799–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Martin, C., & Théry, I. (2001). The PACS and marriage and cohabitation in France. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 15(1), 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Neyer, G. (2003). Family policies and low fertility in Western Europe. MPIDR Working paper WP 2003-021.Google Scholar
  15. Prioux, F., & Andreyev, Z. (2003). Recent demographic developments in France. Population-E, 58(4/5), 525–544 & 546–558.Google Scholar
  16. Prioux, F., & Mazuy, M. (2009). L’évolution démographique récente en France: Dix ans pour le pacs, plus d’un million de contractants. Population, 64(3), 445–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stevenson, B. (2007). The impact of divorce laws on marriage-specific capital. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(1), 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Waaldijk, K. (Ed.) (2005). More or less together: Levels of legal consequences of marriage, cohabitation and registered partnership for different-sex and same-sex partners. Documents de Travail, 125, 1–192.Google Scholar
  19. Waite, L. (1995). Does marriage matter? Demography, 32(4), 483–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Willis, R., & Haaga, J. (1996). Economic approaches to understanding nonmarital fertility. Population and Development Review, 22, 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de MéxicoMexico, D.F.Mexico
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations