Population and Environment

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 531–561 | Cite as

The Interrelations Between Cohabitation, Marriage and First Birth in Germany and Sweden

  • Pau Baizán
  • Arnstein Aassve
  • Francesco C. Billari


We study the interrelationships between union-formation forms and fertility in Swedish and West German female cohorts born in 1949–1971. We apply simultaneous hazard models, permitting the presence of correlated unobserved heterogeneity. This method allows us to control for country-specific composition of the population with respect to several socio-economic variables, as well as with respect to unobserved factors jointly affecting childbearing and union formation behavior. Our results confirm that partnership formation and the transition to parenthood are partially interchangeable. Net of those selection effects, we find that the impact of being in a union on first birth is higher in Sweden than in Germany, in particular for cohabitation.

fertility nuptiality selection effects Germany Sweden 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 50, 179–211.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, G. (1998). Trends in marriage formation in Sweden 1971-1993 Europerean Journal of Population, 16(4), 293–333.Google Scholar
  3. Alm, J., & Whittington, L. A. (1999). For love or money? The impact of income taxes on marriage. Economica, 66(263), 297–316.Google Scholar
  4. Alm, J., Dickert-Conlin, S., & Whittington, L. A. (1999). Policy watch-The marriage penalty. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(3), 193–204.Google Scholar
  5. Barber, J. S., & Axinn, W.G. (1998). The Impact of parental pressure for grandchildren on young people's entry into cohabitation and marriage. Population Studies, 52, 129–44.Google Scholar
  6. Barber, J. S., Axinn, W.G., & Thornton, A. (2002). The influence of attitudes on family formation process. In R. Lesthaeghe (Ed.), Meaning and Choice: Value Orientations and Life Course Decisions (pp. 45–88). The Hague/Brussels: NIDI/CBGS Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Baizán, P., Michielin, F., & Billari, F.C. (2002). Political economy and life course patterns: The heterogeneity of the occupational, family and household trajectories of young Spaniards.Demographic Research, 6(8), 191–240. Available online Scholar
  8. Baizán, P., Aassve, A., & Billari, F. C. (2003). Cohabitation, marriage, and first birth: The interre-lationship of family formation events in Spain. European Journal of Population, 19, 147–169.Google Scholar
  9. Baumol, W. (1967). The macroeconomics of unbalanced growth. American Economic Review, 57, 415–426.Google Scholar
  10. Becker, G. (1981). Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bennett, N.G., Bloom, D.E., & Miller, C.K. (1995). The influence of nonmarital childbearing on the formation of first marriages. Demography, 32, 47–62.Google Scholar
  12. Berrington, A. (2001). Entry into parenthood and the outcome of cohabiting partnerships in Britain. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 80–96.Google Scholar
  13. Billari, F. C., Castiglioni, M., Castro Martín, T., Michielin, F., & Ongaro, F. (2002). Household and Union Formation in a Mediterranean Fashion: Italy and Spain. In M. Corijn & E. Klijzing (Eds.), Comparative Research on Fertility and the Family in Contemporary Europe: Findings and Lessons. New York/Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  14. Billari, F. C., & Kohler, H.-P. (2002). The Impact of Union Formation Dynamics on First Births in West Germany and Italy: Are There Signs of Convergence? In M. Corijn & E. Klijzing (Eds.), Comparative Research on Fertility and the Family in Contemporary Europe: Findings and Lessons. New York/Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  15. Blossfeld, H.-P., & Mills, M. (2000). A Causal Approach to Interrelated Family Events: A Cross-National Comparison of Cohabitation, Nonmarital Conception, and Marriage. Globalife Working Paper Series 14, Faculty of Sociology, University of Bielefeld.Google Scholar
  16. Blossfeld, H.-P., & Huinink, J. (1991). Human capital investments or norms of role transition? How women's schooling and career affect the process of family formation. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 143–168.Google Scholar
  17. Brien, M. J., Lillard, L. A., & Waite, L. J. (1999). Interrelated family-building behaviors: cohabitation, marriage, and nonmarital conception. Demography, 36(4), 535–551.Google Scholar
  18. Buchmann, M. (1989). The Script of Life in Modern Society. Entry into Adulthood in a Changing World. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Corman, D. (2000), Family Policies, Working Life Arrangements and the Third Child in Two Low-Fertility Populations: A Comparative Study of Contemporary France and Sweden. Stockholm Research Reports in Demography No. 140, Stockholms Universitet.Google Scholar
  20. Crimmins, E.M., Easterlin R.A., & Saito Y. (1991), Preference changes among American youth: Family, Work and Goods Aspirations, 1976-86. Population and Development Review 17(1), 115–133.Google Scholar
  21. Eissa N., & Hoynes, H. W. (2000). Explaining the fall and rise in the tax cost of marriage: The effect of tax laws and demographic trends, 1984-97. National Tax Journal, 53(3), Part 2, 683–711.Google Scholar
  22. Goldscheider, F. K., & Waite, L. J. (1986). Sex differences in the entry into marriage. American Journal of Sociology, 92(1), 91–109.Google Scholar
  23. Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gauthier, A. H. (1991). Family Policies in comparative Perspective. Discussion Paper 5. Oxford: Centre for European Studies, Nuffield.Google Scholar
  25. Granström, F. (1997). Fertility and Family Surveys in Countries of the ECE Region. Standard Country Report Sweden. Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  26. Gustafsson, S. (1992). Separate taxation and married women's labor supply. A comparison of West Germany and Sweden. Journal of Population Economics, 5(1), 61–85.Google Scholar
  27. Hoem, B. (2000). Entry into motherhood in Sweden. The influence of economic factors on the rise and fall in fertility, 1986-1997. Demographic Research, 2(4). Available online at: Scholar
  28. Hoem, B., & Hoem, J. (1996). Sweden’s family policies and roller-coaster fertility. Journal of Population Problems (Tokyo), 52( 3-4), 1–22.Google Scholar
  29. Hoem, B., & Hoem, J. (1988). The Swedish Family. Aspects of Contemporary Developments. Journal of Family Issues, 9(3), 394–424.Google Scholar
  30. Keeley, M. (1977). The economics of family formation. Economic Inquiry, 15, 238–250.Google Scholar
  31. Kiernan, K. (1999). Childbearing outside marriage in Western Europe. Population Trends, 98, 11–20.Google Scholar
  32. Kiernan, K. (2001). The rise of cohabitation and childbearing outside marriage in Western Europe. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 15(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  33. Kravdal, Ø. (2001). The high fertility of college educated women in Norway: An artefact of the separate modelling of each parity transition. Demographic Research, 5(6), 185–215.Google Scholar
  34. Kreyenfeld, M. (2002). Employment and Fertility. East Germany in the 1990s. PhD Thesis, University of Rostock.Google Scholar
  35. Kreyenfeld, M., & Hank, K. (2000). Does the availability of childcare influence the employment of mothers? Findings from western Germany. Population Research and Policy Review, 19(4), 317–337.Google Scholar
  36. Kreyenfeld, M., Spieß, C. K., & Wagner, G. G. (2001). Finanzierungs-und Organisationsmodelle institutioneller Kinderbetreuung. Neuwied: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
  37. Kohler, H.-P. (2001). Fertility and Social Interactions: An Economic Perspective. Oxford: Ox-ford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lesthaeghe, R., & Moors, G. (1995). Living Arrangements and Parenthood: Do Values Matter?. In R. de Moor (Ed.), Values in Western Societies. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lesthaeghe, R. (Ed.) (2002), Meaning and Choice: Value Orientations and Life Course Decisions. The Hague/Brussels: NIDI/CBGS Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Lichter, D.T., & Roempke Graefe, D. (2001). Finding a mate? The marital and cohabitation histories of unwed mothers. In L. L. Wu & B. Wolfe (Eds.), Out of Wedlock: Causes and Consequences of Nonmarital Fertility (pp. 317–344). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  41. Liefbroer, A. C. (1999). From youth to adulthood: Understanding changing patterns of family formation from a life course perspective. In L. J. G. van Wissen & P. A. Dykstra (Eds.), Population Issues. An Interdisciplinary Focus. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  42. Lillard, L. A. (1993). Simultaneous equations for hazards: Marriage duration and fertility timing. Journal of Econometrics, 56, 189–217.Google Scholar
  43. Lillard L. A., & Panis, C. W. A. (2000). aML Multilevel Multiprocess Statistical Software. Release 1.0, Los Angeles, CA: EconWare.Google Scholar
  44. Marini, M. M. (1985). Determinants of the Timing of Adult Role Entry. Social Science Research, 14, 309–50.Google Scholar
  45. Manning, W. D. (1993). Marriage and Cohabitation Following Premarital Conception. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 839–850.Google Scholar
  46. Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (1995). Why marry? Race and the Transition to Marriage among Cohabitors. Demography, 32(4), 509–520.Google Scholar
  47. Manting, D. (1996). The changing meaning of cohabitation and marriage. European Socio-logical Review, 12(1), 53–65.Google Scholar
  48. Mayer, K. U. (2001). The Paradox of Global Social Change and National Path Dependencies: Life Course Patterns in Advanced Societies. In A. Woodward & M. Kohli (Eds.), Inclusions and exclusions in European societies (pp. 89–110). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Montanari, I. (2000). From Family Wage to Marriage Subsidy and Child Benefits: Controversy and Consensus in the Development of Family Support. Journal of European Social Policy 10(4), 307–333.Google Scholar
  50. Mulder, C. H., & Manting, D. (1993). Strategies of nest-leavers: ''Settling down'' versus flexi-bility. European Sociological Review, 10(2), 135–154.Google Scholar
  51. O'Donoghue, C., & Sutherland, H. (1998). Accounting for the Family: The Treatment of Marriage and Children in European Income Tax Systems. Innocenti Occasional Papers, Economic and Social Policy Series, 65.Google Scholar
  52. Oláh, L. S. (1996). The Impact of Public Policies on the Second Birth Rates in Sweden: A gender perspective. Stockholm Research Reports in Demography No. 98. Demography Unit, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
  53. Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988). A theory of marriage timing. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 563–591.Google Scholar
  54. Orloff, A. (1993). Gender and social rights of citizenship, American Sociological Review, 58, 303–328.Google Scholar
  55. Pohl, K. (1995). Design und Struktur des deutschen FFS. Wiesbaden: Bundesinstitut für Bevö lkerungsforschung.Google Scholar
  56. Rao, K., & DeMaris A. (1995). Coital frequency among married and cohabiting couples in the United States. Journal of Biosocial Science, 27, 135–150.Google Scholar
  57. Roussel, L. (1989). La famille incertaine. Paris: Editions Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
  58. Sainsbury, D. (1997). Taxation, Family Responsabilities, and Employment. In D. Sainsbury (Ed.), Gender and Welfare State Regimes (pp. 185–210). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Smock, P. J., & Manning W. D. (1997). Cohabiting partners' economic circumstances and marriage. Demography, 34, 331–341.Google Scholar
  60. Sundström, M. (1996). Determinants of the use of parental leave benefits by women in Sweden in the 1980s. Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare, 5, 76–82.Google Scholar
  61. Van de Kaa, D. J. (1997). Options and sequences. Europe's demographic patterns. The Hague: Nethur-Demography Paper, 39.Google Scholar
  62. Wennemo, I. (1994). Sharing the Costs of Children. Studies on the Development of Family Support in the OECD Countries, Swedish Institute for Social Research, 25. Stockholm: Stockholms Universitet.Google Scholar
  63. Whittington, L. A. (1992). Taxes and the family: The impact of the tax exemption for depen-dants on marital fertility. Demography, 29(2), 215–226.Google Scholar
  64. Wiersma, G. E. (1983). Cohabitation. An Alternative to Marriage? A Cross-National Study. The Hague: NIDI.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pau Baizán
    • 1
  • Arnstein Aassve
    • 2
  • Francesco C. Billari
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Political and Social SciencesInstitució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA) and Pompeu Fabra UniversityBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.ISERUniversity of Essexuk
  3. 3.Institute of Quantitative MethodsBocconi University and Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research (IGIER)uk

Personalised recommendations