Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Going Nuclear? Family Structure and Young Women’s Health in India, 1992–2006

  • Published:
Demography

Abstract

Scholars traditionally argued that industrialization, urbanization, and educational expansion lead to a decline in extended families and complementary rise in nuclear families. Some have suggested that such transitions are good for young married women because living in nuclear families benefits their health. However, extended families may also present advantages for young women’s health that outweigh any disadvantages. Using the Indian National Family Health Survey, this article examines whether young married women living in nuclear families have better health than those in patrilocal extended families. It also examines whether young married women’s living arrangements are changing over time and, if so, how such changes will affect their health. Results show that young married women living in nuclear families do not have better health than those in patrilocal extended families. Of eight health outcomes examined, only five differ significantly by family structure. Further, of the five outcomes that differ, four are patrilocal extended-family advantages and only one is a nuclear-family advantage. From 1992 to 2006, the percentage of young married women residing in nuclear families increased, although the majority remained in patrilocal extended families. This trend toward nuclear families will not benefit young women’s health.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The pattern of extended families having higher economic status than nuclear families may be unique to contexts with a cultural preference for living in extended families. Van Hook and Glick (2007) noted that in the United States and some Latin American countries, where there is no cultural preference for patrilocal extended-family living, extended families are formed because of extreme economic need and, thus, are worse off than nuclear families.

  2. There are two exceptions to this statement. The interactions of wave and family structure are significant for physical violence and meat consumption. However, the substantive interpretation is still identical across waves. Further, the questions on physical violence differed substantially between waves. Thus, it is likely that the difference between waves in the effect of family structure on physical violence is due to the change in measurement.

  3. International recommendations provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) recommend four antenatal check-ups. However, national Indian policy—namely, the Reproductive and Child Health Programme—recommends three check-ups.

  4. The physical and sexual violence measures are available for the 23,964 women selected for the family relations module, which make up 80 % of the analytical sample. This raises the question of whether the data are representative. Only a limited sample of women was selected for the family relations module in order to ensure strict confidentiality (IIPS and Macro International 2007). Only one woman per household (rather than all eligible women) was selected, and she was interviewed only if complete privacy was attained. If women who experienced violence were less able to secure private interviews in extended households, the sample could be biased. However, there appears to be little to no bias in the sample. Less than 1 % (0.6 %) of women selected for the family relations module were unable to complete the interview because of a lack of privacy (IIPS and Macro International 2007). Further, the selected women who were not interviewed because of privacy were “virtually identical” to those who completed the interviews in terms of age, residence, education, religion, caste/tribe, and wealth. Reporting of domestic violence, on the other hand, differs by age, education, and wealth. Many of the other health outcomes also further limit the analytical sample. However, these limitations restrict the sample in ways that should not bias the data. The samples are restricted to women for whom an outcome is recent and relevant (e.g., antenatal care and delivery assistance), accurate (e.g., underweight), or available (e.g., anemia).

  5. This eigenvalue and percentage of variance explained for the principle components analyses of household wealth and decision-making power refer to the 2005–2006 wave only. The survey waves included different items on household wealth and decision-making power. Therefore, the principle components analyses were run separately by wave.

  6. Accessibility of a health facility refers specifically to physical location. The question that this measure is derived from is, “When you are sick and want to get medical advice or treatment, is the distance to the health facility a big problem, a small problem, or no problem?” Within both rural and urban areas, women in patrilocal extended families are significantly more likely than those in nuclear families to say that the distance to the health facility is not a problem. This pattern may be another reflection of patrilocal extended families’ greater economic status. The homes of patrilocal extended families may be located in more central locations near health facilities, schools, roads, and other facilities.

References

  • Adams, B. N. (2010). Themes and threads of family theories: A brief history. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 41, 499–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht, S. L., Miller, M. K., & Clarke, L. L. (1994). Assessing the importance of family-structure in understanding birth outcomes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 987–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allendorf, K. (2007a). Do women’s land rights promote empowerment and child health in Nepal? World Development, 35, 1975–1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allendorf, K. (2007b). Couples’ reports of women’s autonomy and health-care use in Nepal. Studies in Family Planning, 38, 35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astone, N. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices and high school completion. American Sociological Review, 56, 309–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balk, D. (1997). Defying gender norms in rural Bangladesh: A social demographic analysis. Population Studies, 51, 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barua, A., & Kurz, K. (2001). Reproductive health-seeking by married adolescent girls in Maharashtra, India. Reproductive Health Matters, 9(17), 53–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barua, A., Pande, R. P., MacQuarrie, K., & Walia, S. (2004). Caring men? Husbands’ involvement in maternal care of young wives. Economic and Political Weekly, 39, 5661–5668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, S. S., Wypij, D., & Das Gupta, M. (2001). Dimensions of women’s autonomy and the influence on maternal health care utilization in a North Indian City. Demography, 38, 67–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bongaarts, J. (2001). Household size and composition in the developing world in the 1990s. Population Studies, 55, 263–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronte-Tinkew, J., & DeJong, G. (2004). Children’s nutrition in Jamaica: Do household structure and household economic resources matter? Social Science & Medicine, 58, 499–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronte-Tinkew, J., Horowitz, A., & Scott, M. E. (2009). Fathering with multiple partners: Links to children’s well-being in early childhood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 608–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. L., & Manning, W. D. (2009). Family boundary ambiguity and the measurement of family structure: The significance of cohabitation. Demography, 46, 85–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunson, J. (2010). Confronting maternal mortality, controlling birth in Nepal: The gendered politics of receiving biomedical care at birth. Social Science & Medicine, 71, 1719–1727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, J. C., Reddy, P. H., & Caldwell, P. (1984). The determinants of family structure in rural South India. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 215–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chorgade, G. P., Barker, M., Kanade, S., & Fall, C. H. D. (2006). Why are rural Indian women so thin? Findings from a village in Maharashtra. Public Health Nutrition, 9, 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. J., Silverman, J. G., Shahrouri, M., Everson-Rose, S., & Groce, N. (2010). The role of the extended family in women’s risk of intimate partner violence in Jordan. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 144–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das Gupta, M. (1995). Life course perspectives on women’s autonomy and health outcomes. American Anthropologist, 97, 481–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das Gupta, M. (1999). Lifeboat versus corporate ethic: Social and demographic implications of stem and joint families. Social Science & Medicine, 49, 173–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, S., Hennessey, S., & Mukhopadhyay, R. S. (1999). Caste, class and family structure in West Bengal villages. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 30, 561–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyson, T., & Moore, M. (1983). On kinship structure, female autonomy, and demographic behavior in India. Population and Development Review, 9, 35–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Cruz, P., & Bharat, S. (2001). Beyond joint and nuclear: The Indian family revisited. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 32, 167–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsberg, M., Jansen, H., Heise, L., Watts, C. H., & Garcia-Moreno, C. (2008). Intimate partner violence and women’s physical and mental health in the WHO Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence: An observational study. Lancet, 371, 1165–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fomby, P., & Cherlin, A. J. (2007). Family instability and child well-being. American Sociological Review, 72, 181–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freed, S. A., & Freed, R. S. (1982). Changing family types in India. Ethnology, 21, 189–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gage, A. J., Sommerfelt, A. E., & Piani, A. L. (1996). Household structure, socioeconomic level, and child health in sub-Saharan Africa (Demographic and Health Surveys Analytical Reports No. 1). Calverton, MD: Macro International Inc.

  • Gage, A. J., Sommerfelt, A. E., & Piani, A. L. (1997). Household structure and childhood immunization in Niger and Nigeria. Demography, 34, 295–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, P., Matthews, Z., & Hinde, A. (2002). Gender, family, and the nutritional status of children in three culturally contrasting states of India. Social Science & Medicine, 55, 775–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Institute for Population (IIPS). (1995). National Family Health Survey (MCH and Family Planning), India 1992–93. Mumbai: IIPS.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Institute for Population Studies (IIPS) and Macro International. (2007). National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005–06: India. Mumbai: IIPS.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Institute for Population Studies (IIPS) and ORC Macro. (2000). National Family Health Survey (NFHS-2), 1998–99: India. Mumbai: IIPS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, D., & Wadley, S. S. (1977). Women in India: Two perspectives. New Delhi, India: Manohar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffery, P., & Jeffery, R. (1997). Population, gender, and politics: Demographic change in rural north India. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffery, P., & Jeffery, R. (2010). Only when the boat has started sinking: A maternal death in rural North India. Social Science & Medicine, 71, 1711–1718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffery, P., Jeffery, R., & Lyon, A. (1989). Labour pains and labour power: Women and childbearing in India. London, UK: Zed Books Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender and Society, 2, 274–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimbro, R. T. (2008). Together forever? Romantic relationship characteristics and prenatal health behaviors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 745–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kishor, S., & Johnson, K. (2006). Reproductive health and domestic violence: Are the poorest women uniquely disadvantaged? Demography, 43, 293–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, M. A., Ahmed, S., Hossain, M. B., & Mozumder, A. (2003). Women’s status and domestic violence in rural Bangladesh: Individual- and community-level effects. Demography, 40, 269–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolenda, P. (1987). Regional differences in family structure in India. Jaipur, India: Rawat Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolenikov, S., & Angeles, G. (2009). Socioeconomic status measurement with discrete proxy variables: Is principal component analysis a reliable answer? Review of Income and Wealth, 55, 128–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, C. B. (1999). Household structure and poverty: What are the connections? In M. Livi-Bacci & G. De Santis (Eds.), Population and poverty in the developing world (pp. 84–102). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madan, T. N. (1965). Family and kinship: A study of the Pandits of rural Kashmir. Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, A., & Schuler, S. R. (2005). Women’s empowerment as a variable in international development. In D. Narayan (Ed.), Measuring empowerment: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 71–88). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mberu, B. U. (2007). Household structure and living conditions in Nigeria. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 513–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLanahan, S. (1985). Family-structure and the reproduction of poverty. The American Journal of Sociology, 90, 873–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, S. O., McLanahan, S. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). Stability and change in family structure and maternal health trajectories. American Sociological Review, 73, 314–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minturn, L. (1993). Sita’s daughters: Coming out of purdah. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, V., Roy, T. K., & Retherford, R. D. (2004). Sex differentials in childhood feeding, health care, and nutritional status in India. Population and Development Review, 30, 269–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumtaz, Z., & Salway, S. M. (2007). Gender, pregnancy and the uptake of antenatal care services in Pakistan. Sociology of Health & Illness, 29, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murthy, P. S. N., Ramnath, T., Vijayaraghavan, K., & Rao, N. P. (1985). Nutritional profile of joint and nuclear families in rural Andhra Pradesh. Journal of Family Welfare, 32, 80–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niranjan, S., Nair, S., & Roy, T. K. (2005). A socio-demographic analysis of the size and structure of the family in India. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 36, 623–651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niranjan, S., Sureender, S., & Rao, G. R. (1998). Family structure in India: Evidence from NFHS. Demography India, 27, 287–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palloni, A. (2006). Reproducing inequalities: Luck, wallets, and the enduring effects of childhood health. Demography, 43, 587–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ram, M., & Wong, R. (1994). Covariates of household extension in rural India—Change over time. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 853–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (2002). Family relationships, social support and subjective life expectancy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43, 469–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggles, S., & Heggeness, M. (2008). Intergenerational coresidence in developing countries. Population and Development Review, 34, 253–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saavala, M. (2001). Fertility and familial power relations: Procreation in South India. Richmond, Surrey, UK: Curzon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santow, G. (1995). Social roles and physical health: The case of female disadvantage in poor countries. Social Science & Medicine, 40, 147–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, S. C. (1999). Women, family, and child care in India: A world in transition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah, A. M. (1996). Is the joint household disintegrating? Economic and Political Weekly, 31, 537–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, U. (1980). Women, work, and property in north-west India. London, UK: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takeda, Y., Kawachi, I., Yamagata, Z., Hashimoto, S., Matsumura, Y., Oguri, S., & Okayama, A. (2004). Multigenerational family structure in Japanese society: Impacts on stress and health behaviors among women and men. Social Science & Medicine, 59, 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, C. S. K., & Lai, B. P. Y. (2008). A review of empirical literature on the prevalence and risk markers of male-on-female intimate partner violence in contemporary China, 1987–2006. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 10–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, E., Hanson, T. L., & McLanahan, S. S. (1994). Family structure and child well-being: Economic resources vs. parental behaviors. Social Forces, 73, 221–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turagabeci, A. R., Nakamura, K., Kizuki, M., & Takano, T. (2007). Family structure and health, how companionship acts as a buffer against ill health. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umberson, D., Crosnoe, R., & Reczek, C. (2010). Social relationships and health behavior across the life course. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 139–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hook, J., & Glick, J. E. (2007). Immigration and living arrangements: Moving beyond economic need versus acculturation. Demography, 44, 225–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vera-Sanso, P. (1999). Dominant daughters-in-law and submissive mothers-in-law? Cooperation and conflict in South India. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 5, 577–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlassoff, C., & Manderson, L. (1998). Incorporating gender in the anthropology of infectious diseases. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 3, 1011–1019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wadley, S. S. (1994). Struggling with destiny in Karimpur, 1925–84. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wadley, S. S., & Derr, B. W. (1993). Karimpur families over sixty years. In P. Uberoi (Ed.), Family, kinship and marriage in India (pp. 393–415). Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waite, L. J., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage: Why married people are happier, healthier, and better off financially. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, E., & Takeuchi, D. T. (2010). Family structure, family processes, and well-being among Asian Americans: Considering gender and nativity. Journal of Family Issues, 31, 301–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wen, M., & Gu, D. A. (2011). The effects of childhood, adult, and community socioeconomic conditions on health and mortality among older adults in China. Demography, 48, 153–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K., Sassler, S., Frech, A., Addo, F., & Cooksey, E. (2011). Nonmarital childbearing, union history, and women’s health at midlife. American Sociological Review, 76, 465–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winship, C., & Mare, R. D. (1992). Models for sample selection bias. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 327–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuo, J. P. (2009). Rethinking family patriarchy and women’s positions in presocialist China. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 542–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Arland Thornton, Tim Liao, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. A previous version of this article was presented at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association in Las Vegas, NV.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 702 S. Wright St., Urbana, IL, 61801, USA

    Keera Allendorf

Authors
  1. Keera Allendorf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keera Allendorf.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 Selection probit model of living in a patrilocal extended family (n = 29,907)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Allendorf, K. Going Nuclear? Family Structure and Young Women’s Health in India, 1992–2006. Demography 50, 853–880 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-012-0173-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-012-0173-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation