Advertisement

Stability and Change: The Structuration of Partnership Histories in Canada, the Netherlands, and the Russian Federation

  • Melinda Mills
Article

Abstract

This paper explores stability and change in women's partnership histories since the late 1940s in Canada, the Netherlands, and the Russian Federation. Giddens' (1984) theory of structuration is used to understand how the social structure enables or constrains behaviour. Entire partnership histories are examined by applying a Markov and semi-Markov multistate approach to investigate the type, timing, duration, and complexity of partnerships. Results show earlier union formation for younger cohorts in the Russian Federation compared to postponement trends in the other countries. Cohabitation appears to increasingly serve as an alternative to marriage, particularly in Canada. When facilitated by the social structure, divorce levels are high (Russian Federation, Canada). Widowhood in the Russian Federation persists even among younger women. Re-partnering is the highest in the Russian Federation, with post-marital cohabitation gaining ground in Canada. Partnership histories are increasingly complex in the Netherlands and particularly Canada but remain stable in the Russian Federation.

Canada cohabitation divorce marriage multistate life tables remarriage Russia structuration The Netherlands 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ARPL, 2000. Annual Review of Population Law Database. Harvard Law School: UN Population Fund <<http://www.law.harvard.edu/Programs/>>Google Scholar
  2. Avdeev, A. and Monnier, A., 1994. 'La nuptialitérusse, une complexitéméconnue', Population 54(4-5): 635–676.Google Scholar
  3. Axinn, W. G. and Thornton, A., 1992. 'The Relationship between cohabitation and divorce: Selectivity or causal influence?', Demography 29: 357–374.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, M., 1995. Canadian Family Policies: Cross-National Comparisons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, G. S., 1981. A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, N. G., Blanc, A. K. and Bloom, D. E., 1988. 'Commitment and the modern union: Assessing the link between premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital stability', American Sociological Review 53: 127–138.Google Scholar
  7. Belanger, A. and Turcotte, P., 1999. 'L'influence des caractéristiques sociodémographiques sur le début de la vie conjugale des Québécoises', Cahier Québécois de Démographie 28(1-2): 173–197.Google Scholar
  8. Brines, J. and Joyner, K., 1999. 'The ties that bind: Principles of cohesion in cohabitation and marriage', American Sociological Review 64: 333–355.Google Scholar
  9. Butz, W. P. and Ward, M. P., 1979. 'The emergence of countercyclical US fertility', American Economic Review 69(3): 318–328.Google Scholar
  10. DaVanzo, J. and Adamson, D., 1997. 'Russia's Demographic 'Crisis' How Real Is It?' RAND Issue Paper. Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies. Labor and Population Program.Google Scholar
  11. Easterlin, R., 1976. 'The conflict between aspirations and resources', Population and Development Review 2(3): 417–425.Google Scholar
  12. Forsyth, C. J. and Johnson, E. L., 1995. 'A sociological view of the never married', International Journal of Sociology of the Family 25(2): 91–104.Google Scholar
  13. Gauthier, A. H., 1996. The State and the Family. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  14. Giddens, A., 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  15. Goskomstat of Russia, 1994. The Demographic Yearbook of the Russian Federation, 1993. Goskomstat of Russia, Moscow.Google Scholar
  16. Hannan, M. T., 1984. 'Multistate demography and event history analysis', in A. Diekmann and P. Mitter (eds), Stochastic Modelling of Social Processes. London,: Academic Press, Inc. 39–88.Google Scholar
  17. Heiner, R. A., 1983. 'The origin of predictable behaviour', The American Economic Review 73: 560–595.Google Scholar
  18. Hoem, J. M. 1972. 'Inhomogeneous semi-Markov processes, select actuarial tables, and duration dependence in demography', in T. N. Greville (ed), Longitudinal Analysis of Labour Market Data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 251–296.Google Scholar
  19. Hutter, I., 1994. Being Pregnant in Rural South India. Thela Thesis, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  20. Imbrogno, S. and Imbrogno, N. I., 1989. 'Soviet women and the autonomous family', International Journal of Sociology of the Family 19: 1–20.Google Scholar
  21. Janssen, J. P. G. et al., 1998. 'The instability of marriages and cohabiting relationships in the Netherlands' [in Dutch] Mens en Maatschappij 73(1): 4–26.Google Scholar
  22. Jonker, J. M. L., 1990. Under the Spell of the Family: Some Considerations over the Meaning of Primary Networks as a Safety Net [in Dutch]. Catholic University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  23. Latten, J. and De Graaf, A., 1997. Fertility and Family Surveys in countries of the ECE region. Standard Country Report. The Netherlands. UN/ECE, Economic Studies No. 10c. United Nations, Geneva.Google Scholar
  24. Le Bourdais, C. and Marcil-Gratton, N., 1996. 'Family transformations across the Canadian/ American border: When the laggard becomes the leader', Journal of Comparative Family Studies 27(3): 415–436.Google Scholar
  25. Lesthaeghe, R., 1995. 'The second demographic transition in Western countries: An interpretation', in K. O. Mason and A.-M. Jensen (eds), Gender and Family Change in Industrialized Countries. New York: Oxford University Press 17–62.Google Scholar
  26. Lesthaeghe, R., 1998. 'On theory development: Applications to the study of family formation', Population and Development Review 24(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
  27. Lesthaeghe, R. and Meekers, D., 1986. 'Value changes and the dimensions of familism in the European community', European Journal of Population 2: 225–68.Google Scholar
  28. Lesthaeghe, R. and Moors, G., 2000. 'Recent Trends in Fertility and Household Formation in the Industrialized World', IPD-Working Paper, no 2000:2. Belgium: Vrije Universiteit Brussels.Google Scholar
  29. Lillard, L. A., Brien, M. J. and Waite, L. J., 1995. 'Premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital dissolution: A matter of self-selection?' Demography 32(3): 437–457.Google Scholar
  30. Manting, D., 1994. Dynamics in Marriage and Cohabitation. Thesis Publishers, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  31. Manting, D., 1996. 'The changing meaning of cohabitation and marriage', European Sociological Review 12: 53–65.Google Scholar
  32. Mills, M., 2000. 'Providing space for time: The impact of temporality on life course research', Time & Society 9(1): 91-127Google Scholar
  33. Ministry of Justice, The Netherlands, 1997. Registered Partnerships [in Dutch] Information Department, Internal and External Communication Section, The Hague.Google Scholar
  34. Mosko., W., 1983. 'Divorce in the USSR', Journal of Marriage and the Family 45(2): 419–425.Google Scholar
  35. Namboodiri, K. and Suchindran, C. M., 1987. Life Table Techniques and Their Applications. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  36. Namboodiri, K. 1991. Demographic Analysis. A Stochastic Approach. San Diego, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  37. O'Connor, J., Orlo., A. S. and Shaver, S., 1999. States, Markets, Families. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Oppenheimer, V. K., 1988. 'A theory of marriage timing', American Journal of Sociology 94(3): 563–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Poortman, A.-R. and Kalmijn, M., 2002. 'Women's labour market position and divorce in the Netherlands: Evaluating economic interpretations of the work effect', European Journal of Population 18(2): 175–2002.Google Scholar
  40. Preston, S. H., 1986. 'Changing values and falling birth rates', Population and Development Review 12: 176–195.Google Scholar
  41. Prinz, C., 1995. Cohabiting, Married or Single. Avebury, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  42. Rajulton, F., 1992. Life History Analysis: Guidelines for Using the Program LIFEHIST. Discussion Paper 92-5, Canada: University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
  43. Rindfuss, R. R. and Vandenheuvel, A., 1990. 'Cohabitation: A precursor to marriage or an alternative to being single?' Population and Development Review 16(4): 703–726.Google Scholar
  44. Roberts, K. et al. 2003. 'Economic conditions and the family and housing transitions of young adults in Russia and the Ukraine', Journal of Youth Studies 6(1): 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rogers, A., 1975. Introduction to Multiregional Mathematical Demography. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. Scherbov, S. and Van Vianen, H., 2001. 'Marriage and fertility of Russian women born between 1900 and 1960: A cohort analysis', European Journal of Population 17: 281–294.Google Scholar
  47. Schoen, R., 1988. Modelling Multigroup Populations. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  48. Statistics Canada, 1997. Public Use Microdata File Documentation and User's Guide, 1995 General Social Survey. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
  49. Toulemon, L., 1997. 'Cohabitation is here to stay', Population 9: 11–46.Google Scholar
  50. Trost, J., 1980. 'The concept of the one-parent family', Journal of Comparative Family Studies 11(1): 129–138.Google Scholar
  51. Turcotte, P. and Goldscheider, F., 1998. 'Evolution of factors influencing first union formation in Canada', Canadian Studies in Population 25(2): 145–173.Google Scholar
  52. United Nations, 1997. Demographic Yearbook, 1970-1995. United Nations, New York.Google Scholar
  53. Uunk, W., 1999. 'Remarriage in the Netherlands. Sociodemographic determinants of married and unmarried cohabitation after divorce' [in Dutch] Mens en Maatschappij, 74(2): 99–118.Google Scholar
  54. Villeneuve-Gokalp, C., 1990. 'Du mariage aux unions sans papiers: Histoire récente des transformation conjugales', Population, 49(2): 265–297.Google Scholar
  55. Vishnevsky, A. G., 1996. 'Family, fertility and demographic dynamics in Russia: Analysis and forecast', in J. DaVanzo (ed), Russia's Demographic 'Crisis'. Rand Conference Proceedings, Santa Monica, CA, 1–35.Google Scholar
  56. Volkov, E., 1999. Methodology and Organization of the 1994 Microcensus in Russia. PRC Working Paper 99-5, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  57. Von Frank, A. A., 1979. Family Policy in the USSR since 1944. R&E Research Assoc, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
  58. Willekens, F. J., 1987. 'The marital status life table', in J. Bongaarts, T. K. Burch and K. W. Wachter (eds), Family Demography: Methods and Their Applications. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 125–149.Google Scholar
  59. Willekens, F. J., 1991. 'Life table analysis of staging processes', in H. A. Becker (ed), Life Histories and Generations. ISOR, Volume II. University of Utrecht, The Netherlands, 477–518.Google Scholar
  60. Wu, Z., 2000. Cohabitation: An Alternative Form of Family Living. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melinda Mills
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Social-Cultural Sciences, Faculty of Social SciencesVrije Universiteit (Free University) AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations