Advertisement

Family Forerunners? An Overview of Family Demographic Change in Sweden

Chapter
Part of the International Handbooks of Population book series (IHOP, volume 7)

Abstract

The last half a century has witnessed swift changes in patterns of family formation and family dissolution in developed countries, followed by increased attention to these changes and to the causes and consequences of such change. In the wake of these developments, the field of family demography has developed in new directions. In the European context, Sweden and the other Nordic countries have frequently been referred to as forerunners in many aspects of family change, and these countries have gained much attention in family-demographic research. In the current contribution, we give an overview of the current state of Swedish family-demographic affairs.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Parts of this text build on the introductory chapter of the Ph.D thesis of the first author. The three authors are otherwise grateful for financial support from the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet), via the Linnaeus Center for Social Policy and Family Dynamics in Europe (SPaDE), grant registration number 349-2007-8701, and the Swedish Initiative for Research on Microdata in the Social and Medical Sciences (SIMSAM), grant 340-2013-5164.

References

  1. Agell, A. (1985). Samboende utan äktenskap: Rättsläge och rättspolitik [Cohabitation without marriage: Legal position and judicial politics], 2nd ed. Stockholm: Liber.Google Scholar
  2. Agell, A., & Brattström, M. (2008). Äktenskap, samboskap, partnerskap [Marriage, cohabitation, partnership], 4th ed. Uppsala: Iustus.Google Scholar
  3. Ahn, N., & Mira, P. (2002). A note on the changing relationship between fertility and female employment rates in developed countries. Journal of Population Economics, 15(4), 667–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, T., & Kohler, H.-P. (2015). Low fertility, socioeconomic development, and gender equity. Population and Development Review, 41(3), 381–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersson, G. (1997). The impact of children on divorce risks of Swedish women. European Journal of Population, 13(2), 109–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andersson, G. (2000). The impact of labour-force participation on childbearing behavior: Pro-cyclical fertility in Sweden during the 1980s and the 1990s. European Journal of Population, 16(4), 293–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Andersson, G. (2002). Children’s experience of family disruption and family formation: Evidence from 16 FFS countries. Demographic Research, 7(7), 343–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Andersson, G., & Kolk, M. (2015). Trends in childbearing, marriage and divorce in Sweden: An update with data up to 2012. The Finnish Yearbook of Population Research, 50, 53–70.Google Scholar
  9. Andersson, G., & Noack, T. (2010). Legal advances and demographic developments of same-sex unions in Scandinavia. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung/Journal of Family Research, 22, 87–101.Google Scholar
  10. Andersson, G., & Philipov, D. (2002). Life-table representations of family dynamics in Sweden, Hungary, and 14 other FFS countries: A project descriptions of demographic behavior. Demographic Research, 7(4), 67–144.Google Scholar
  11. Andersson, G., Noack, T., Seierstad, A., & Weedon-Fekjær, H. (2006). The demographics of same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden. Demography, 43(1), 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Andersson, G., Thomson, E., & Duntava, A. (2017). Life-table representations of family dynamics in the 21st century. Demographic Research, 37(35), 1081–1230.Google Scholar
  13. Becker, G. (1993). A treatise on the family. Enlarged ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bekkengen, L. (2002). Man får välja: Om föräldraskap och föräldraledighet i arbetsliv och familjeliv [Making choices: Parenthood and parental leave in working life and family life]. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Social Studies, Karlstad University. Malmö: Liber.Google Scholar
  15. Bernhardt, E. (2001). Att gifta sig – eller bara bo ihop? [To marry – Or just co reside?]. Välfärds Bulletinen, 4, 4–5.Google Scholar
  16. Bernhardt, E. (2004). Is the second demographic transition a useful concept for demography? Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 2, 25–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bernhardt, E., Noack, T., & Lyngstad, T. H. (2008). Shared housework in Norway and Sweden: Advancing the gender revolution. Journal of European Social Policy, 18(3), 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Billari, F., & Kohler, H.-P. (2004). Patterns of low and lowest-low fertility in Europe. Population Studies, 58, 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bracher, M., & Santow, G. (1998). Economic independence and union formation in Sweden. Population Studies, 52(3), 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cherlin, A. (2009). The marriage-go-round. The state of marriage and the family in America today. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  21. Cliquet, R. (1992). The second demographic transition: Fact or fiction? (Council of Europe Population Studies 23). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  22. Coleman, D. (2004). Why we don’t have to believe without doubting in the second demographic transition – Some agnostic comments. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 1, 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Coontz, S. (2005). A history of marriage: From obedience to intimacy, or how love conquered marriage. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  24. Council of Europe. (2006). Recent demographic developments in Europe 2005. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Duvander, A.-Z. (1999). The transition from cohabitation to marriage: A longitudinal study of the propensity to marry in Sweden in the early 1990s. Journal of Family Issues, 20(5), 698–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender and Society, 24(2), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Esping-Andersen, G. (2009). The incomplete revolution: Adapting to women’s new roles. Malden: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  28. Esping-Andersen, G., & Billari, F. (2015). Re-theorizing family demographics. Population and Development Review, 41(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eurostat. (2017). Statistics database. Statistics by theme. Retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/themes
  30. Evertsson, M. (2014). Gender ideology and the sharing of housework and child care in Sweden. Journal of Family Issues, 35, 927–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fahlén, S. (2013). The agency gap: Policies, norms, and working time capabilities across welfare states. In B. Hobson (Ed.), Worklife balance: The agency and capabilities gap (pp. 35–56). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Ferrarini, T., & Duvander, A.-Z. (2010). Earner-carer model at the cross-roads: Reforms and outcomes of Sweden’s family policy in comparative perspective. International Journal of Health Services, 40(3), 373–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Frejka, T., & Sobotka, T. (2008). Fertility in Europe: Diverse, delayed and below replacement. Demographic Research, 19, 15–45. Special Collection.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gerson, K. (2010). The unfinished revolution: Coming of age in a new era of gender, work, and family. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  36. Goldscheider, F. (2000). Men, children and the future of the family in the third millennium. Futures, 32, 525–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Goldscheider, F., Bernhardt, E., & Lappegård, T. (2015). The gender revolution: A framework for understanding family and demographic behavior. Population and Development Review, 41(2), 207–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gornick, J., & Meyers, M. K. (2008). Creating gender egalitarian societies: An agenda for reform. Politics and Society, 36(3), 313–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hajnal, J. (1982). Two kinds of preindustrial household formation system. Population and Development Review, 8(3), 449–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Heuveline, P., & Timberlake, J. (2004). The role of cohabitation in family formation: The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(5), 1214–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hiekel, N., Liefbroer, A., & Poortman, A.-R. (2014). Understanding diversity in the meaning of cohabitation across Europe. European Journal of Population, 30, 391–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hoem, J. M. (1991). To marry, just in case … the Swedish widow’s-pension reform and the peak in marriages in December 1989. Acta Sociologica, 34(2), 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hoem, J. M. (2005). Why does Sweden have such high fertility? Demographic Research, 13, 559–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Holland, J. (2017). The timing of marriage Vis-à-Vis coresidence and childbearing in Europe and the United States. Demographic Research, 36, 609–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lesthaeghe, R. (2010). The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Population and Development Review, 36(2), 211–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lewin, B. (1979). Om ogift samboende i Sverige med tonvikt på samtida förhållanden [On unmarried cohabitation in Sweden with emphasis on contemporary conditions]. Studia Sociologica Upsaliensia 15. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
  47. Löfström, Å. (2004). Den könsuppdelade arbetsmarknaden [The sex segregated labor market]. Statens offentliga utredningar (SOU) 2004:43.Google Scholar
  48. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  49. McDonald, P. (2000). Gender equity in theories of fertility transition. Population and Development Review, 26(3), 427–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McDonald, P. (2006). Low fertility and the state: The efficacy of policy. Population and Development Review, 32(3), 485–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Neyer, G., & Andersson, G. (2008). Consequences of family policies on childbearing behavior: Effects or artifacts? Population and Development Review, 34(4), 699–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ochiai, E. (2014). The meaning of the second demographic transition and the establishment of a mature society. European Societies, 16(3), 343–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. OECD. (2012). Education at a glance 2012. OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2012-en
  54. Ohlsson-Wijk, S. (2011). Sweden’s marriage revival: An analysis of the new-millennium switch from long-term decline to increasing popularity. Population Studies, 65(2), 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ohlsson-Wijk, S. (2014). Digit preferences in marriage formation in Sweden: Millennium marriages and birthday peaks. Demographic Research, 30(25), 421–432.Google Scholar
  56. Ohlsson-Wijk, S. (2015). Family formation in Sweden around the turn of the new millenium. Ph.D. thesis. Stockholm University Demography Unit – Dissertation Series 13.Google Scholar
  57. Oláh, L. Sz. (2015). Changing families in the European Union: Trends and policy implications. Analytical paper, prepared for the United Nations Expert Group meeting, “Family policy development: achievements and challenges,” New York, May 14–15, 2015.Google Scholar
  58. Oppenheimer, V. K. (1997). Women’s employment and the gain to marriage: The specialization and trading model. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 431–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Perelli-Harris, B., & Sánchez Gassen, N. (2012). How similar are cohabitation and marriage? Legal approaches to cohabitation across western Europe. Population and Development Review, 38(3), 435–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Perelli-Harris, B., Sigle-Rushton, W., Kreyenfeld, M., Lappegård, T., Keizer, R., & Berghammer, C. (2010). The educational gradient of childbearing within cohabitation in Europe. Population and Development Review, 36(4), 775–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Perelli-Harris, B., Kreyenfeld, M., Sigle-Rushton, W., Keizer, R., Lappegård, T., Jasilioniene, A., Berghammer, C., Di Giulio, P., & Koeppen, K. (2012). Changes in union status during the transition to parenthood: An examination of 11 European countries. Population Studies, 66(2), 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Popenoe, D. (1988). Disturbing the Nest: Family change and decline in modern societies. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  63. Reher, D. (1998). Family ties in western Europe: Persistent contrasts. Population and Development Review, 24(2), 203–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sandström, G. (2011). Socio-economic determinants of divorce in early twentieth-century Sweden. The History of the Family, 16(3), 292–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sandström, G. (2012). Ready, willing and able – The divorce transition in Sweden 1915–1974. Doctoral dissertation. Report No. 32 from the Demographic Data Base, Umeå University.Google Scholar
  66. Schiratzki, J. (2008). Mamma och pappa inför rätta [Mom and dad in court]. Stockholm: Iustus.Google Scholar
  67. Simonsson, P., & Sandström, G. (2011). Ready, willing, and able to divorce: An economic and cultural history of divorce in twentieth-century Sweden. Journal of Family History, 36(2), 210–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sobotka, T. (2008a). Does persistent low fertility threaten the future of European populations? In J. Surkyn & P. Deboosere (Eds.), Demographic challenges for the 21st century: A state of the art in demography (pp. 27–90). Brussels: VUB Press.Google Scholar
  69. Sobotka, T. (2008b). The diverse faces of the second demographic transition in Europe. Demographic Research, 19, 171–224. Special Collection.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sobotka, T., & Toulemon, L. (2008). Changing family and partnership behaviour: Common trends and persistent diversity across Europe. Demographic Research, 19, 85–138. Special Collection.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stanfors, M., & Goldscheider, F. (2017). The forest and the trees: Industrialization, demographic change, and the ongoing gender revolution in Sweden and the United States, 1870–2010. Demographic Research, 36(6), 173–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Statistics Sweden. (2014a). Medelålder vid giftermål 1871–2013 [Mean age at marriage 1871–2013]. Retrieved from http://scb.se/sv_/Hitta-statistik/. Accessed 15 Dec 2014.
  73. Statistics Sweden. (2014b). Olika familjer lever på olika sätt – om barns boende och försörjning efter en separation [Different families live in different ways – A survey on residence and support of children after a separation]. Demografiska Rapporter 2014:1. Örebro: Statistics Sweden.Google Scholar
  74. Statistics Sweden. (2017). Befolkningsutvecklingen 1749–2016. Statistics Sweden’s Online Statistics Database. www.scb.se. Retrieved 13 May 2017.
  75. Strandell, J. (2017). Increasing marriage rates despite high individualization: Understanding the role of internal reference in Swedish marriage discourse. Cultural Sociology, 12(1), 75–95.Google Scholar
  76. Surkyn, J., & Lesthaeghe, R. (2004). Value orientations and the second demographic transition (Sdt) in northern, western and southern Europe: An update. Demographic Research, 3(3), 45–86. Special Collection.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Thomson, E. (2004). Step-families and childbearing desires in Europe. Demographic Research, 3(5), 117–134. Special Collection.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thomson, E. (2014). Family complexity in Europe. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 654, 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Thomson, E., & Eriksson, H. (2013). Register-based estimates of parental separation in Sweden. Demographic Research, 29, 1153–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Thomson, E., Hoem, J. M., Vikat, A., Buber, I., Fuernkranz-Prskawetz, A., Toulemon, L., Henz, U., Godecker, A., & Kantorova, V. (2002). Childbearing in stepfamilies: Whose parity counts? In E. Klijzing & M. Corijn (Eds.), Dynamics of fertility and partnership in Europe: Insights and lessons from comparative research (Vol. II, pp. 87–99). Geneva/New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  81. Thomson, E., Lappegård, T., Carlson, M., Evans, A., & Gray, E. (2014). Childbearing across partnerships in Australia, the United States, Norway and Sweden. Demography, 51, 485–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Trost, J. (1979). Unmarried cohabitation. Västerås: International Library.Google Scholar
  83. Turunen, J. (2011). Entering a stepfamily – Children’s experience of family reconstitution in Sweden 1970–2000. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung/Journal of Family Research, 23(2), 154–172.Google Scholar
  84. Turunen, J., & Kolk, M. (2015). The prevalence of half-siblings over the demographic transition in northern Sweden 1750–2007. IUSSP Working Paper.Google Scholar
  85. van Bavel, J. (2010). Sub-replacement fertility in the west before the baby boom: Past and current perspectives. Population Studies, 64(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Winkler-Dworak, M., & Engelhardt, H. (2004). On the tempo and quantum of first marriages in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland: Changes in mean age and variance. Demographic Research, 10(9), 231–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. World Values Survey. (2015). Ronald Inglehart’s “Cultural evolution.” Retrieved from http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Södertörn University School of Social SciencesHuddingeSweden

Personalised recommendations