Advertisement

Alternative Options for Living Arrangement Models: A Sensitivity Analysis

  • Christopher Prinz
  • Åke Nilsson
  • Hakan Sellerfors
Chapter
Part of the The Plenum Series on Demographic Methods and Population Analysis book series (PSDE)

Abstract

Projections of the living arrangements structure of the Swedish population are carried out using actual marital status (in contrast to legal marital status) as the main criterion. The analyses and projections are based on an excellent Swedish data set which gives unique information on consensual unions as compared to marriages. By comparing demographic differentials in fertility, mortality, and couple formation and dissolution, both by actual and legal marital status, it is concluded that de facto marital status is by far more discriminatory than de jure status. Fertility among cohabiting women is found to be higher than usually recognized. Several alternative status selections as input to the multi-state projection model are suggested and tested, ranging from the ‘minimum model’ which only considers actual marital status to the ‘complete model’ which considers all actual and legal marital status combinations. It is found that, for the projection of living arrangements, the inclusion of legal marital status information is superfluous. Based on conservative assumptions, the proportion of consensual unions among all unions is projected to increase from about 23 in 1985 to 34 per cent by 2020 among the working age population, and from three per cent in 1985 to 12 per cent by 2020 among the elderly population (aged 65 years and over). While the number of consensual unions will increase remarkably, even by 2020 the majority of Swedes would still live in marital unions. Projected developments in the legal marital status distribution in no way reflect expected changes in actual marital status, i.e. in living arrangements.

Keywords

Marital Status Living Arrangement Total Fertility Rate Standardize Mortality Ratio Consensual Union 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Coale, A., and P. Demeny (1983), Regional Model Life Tables and Stable Populations, Second Edition, Academic Press: New York.Google Scholar
  2. Gonnot, J.P. (1995), Demographic Changes and the Pension Problem: Evidence from Twelve Countries. /n: GONNOT, KEILMAN and PRINZ.Google Scholar
  3. Gonnot, J.P., N. Keilman and CH. Prinz (eds.) (1995) Social Security, Household, and Family Dynamics in Ageing Societies, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  4. Keilman, N., and CH. Prinz (1995), Modelling the Dynamics of Living Arrangements. In: GONNOT, KEII.MAN and PRINZ.Google Scholar
  5. Keyfitz, N. (1985), Applied Mathematical Demography, Second Edition, Springer-Verlag: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Preston, S. (1987), Estimation of Certain Measures in Family Demography Based upon Generalized Stable Population Relations. In: J. BONGAARTS, TH. BURCH and K. WACHTER (eds.) Family Demography: Methods and their Applications, Clarendon Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
  7. Prinz, CH. (forthcoming), Modelling Legal and Actual Marital Status: A Theoretical Note with Some Examples. In:CH. HÖHN (ed.) Demographic Implications of Marital Status,Schriftenreihe des Bundesinstituts fur Bevölkerungsforschung, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  8. Prinz, CH. (forthcoming), Cohabiting, Married, or Single? Portraying, Analysing and Modeling New Living Arrangements in the Changing Societies of Europe,Avebury: Aldershot.Google Scholar
  9. Rogers, A. (1975), Introduction to Multiregional Mathematical Demography. John Wiley: New York.Google Scholar
  10. Scherbov, S., and V. Grechucha (1988), DIAL — A System for Modelling Multidimensional Demographic Processes, Working Paper WP-88–36, IIASA: Laxenburg.Google Scholar
  11. Shryock, H., J. Siegel and E. Stockwell (1976), The Methods and Materials of Demography, Academic Press: New York.Google Scholar
  12. VAN Imhoff, E. (1990), The Exponential Multidimensional Demographic Projection Model, Mathematical Population Studies, Vol. 2 (3), pp. 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. VAN Imhoff, E., and N. Keilman (1991), LIPRO 2.0: An Application of a Dynamic Demographic Projection Model to Household Structure in the Netherlands. NIDI CBGS Publications 23, Swets and Zeitlinger: Amsterdam/Lisse.Google Scholar
  14. Willekens, F., and P. Drewe (1984), A Multiregional Model for Regional Demographic Projection. In: H. TER HEIDE and F. WILLEKENS (eds.) Demographic Research and Spatial Policy: the Dutch Experience, Academic Press: London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Prinz
    • 1
  • Åke Nilsson
    • 2
  • Hakan Sellerfors
    • 2
  1. 1.European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and ResearchViennaAustria
  2. 2.Population UnitStatistics SwedenÖrebroSweden

Personalised recommendations