Abstract
In an earlier paper, I argued that “effective singlehood” in East Asia had run ahead of the West – if cohabitation was equated with marriage. In the decade since then, some interesting changes have taken place. In Europe, singlehood on the whole appears to have increased, even when those currently cohabiting are removed from the “single” category, but the trend is less clear when those who have ever cohabited are removed from the category. Though cohabitation has increased in Spain and Italy, these countries still have much higher proportions effectively single than do Scandinavia or Western Europe. Effective singlehood is increasing more sharply in some of the countries of East Asia than in Europe, tending to further widen the gap between the higher levels of effective singlehood in East Asian countries than those in Europe. The chapter goes on to examine the meanings of cohabitation across Europe, the limited evidence about trends in cohabitation in East Asia, and whether rising prevalence of singlehood by choice in East Asia and some European countries is evidence of the second demographic transition. The similarity in some aspects of family patterns between Southern European and East Asian countries are analysed in relation to high levels of effective singlehood in these countries. In an earlier paper, I argued that “effective singlehood” in East Asia had run ahead of the West – if cohabitation was equated with marriage. In the decade since then, some interesting changes have taken place. In Europe, singlehood on the whole appears to have increased, even when those currently cohabiting are removed from the “single” category, but the trend is less clear when those who have ever cohabited are removed from the category. Though cohabitation has increased in Spain and Italy, these countries still have much higher proportions effectively single than do Scandinavia or Western Europe. Effective singlehood is increasing more sharply in some of the countries of East Asia than in Europe, tending to further widen the gap between the higher levels of effective singlehood in East Asian countries than those in Europe. The chapter goes on to examine the meanings of cohabitation across Europe, the limited evidence about trends in cohabitation in East Asia, and whether rising prevalence of singlehood by choice in East Asia and some European countries is evidence of the second demographic transition. The similarity in some aspects of family patterns between Southern European and East Asian countries are analysed in relation to high levels of effective singlehood in these countries.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The figures for Poland and the Russian Federation indicate a much lower mean age at marriage than in any of the other countries in the table. Unfortunately, data on these two countries are not available for 2000.
- 2.
As an aside, it might be noted that Fig. 9.1 shows that, although all the highly developed East Asian countries have experienced remarkable increases in singlehood, singlehood has not increased nearly as dramatically for Asia as a whole, because the three largest Asian countries (China, India and Indonesia) have had only modest increases from very low rates of singlehood.
- 3.
Aside from Singapore, the one exception to sharp increases in proportions single is China, where fertility has reached low levels (probably a TFR of 1.5, if not lower), though not as low as those of most other East Asian countries. It is likely that the lower level of socio-economic development in China than in other East Asian countries is the main reason (Jones and Yeung 2014).
- 4.
Kertzer et al. (2006) claim that the argument low fertility in Italy has to do with factors such as the reluctance of the Italian state to provide public daycare for very young children overlooks the strong cultural bias in Italy against the practice of sending very young children to daycare centers. ***
References
Bumpass, L., Rindfuss, R., Choe, M. K., & Tsuya, N. (2008, November 12–14). The institutional context of low fertility: The case of Japan. Paper presented at the International Conference on Low Fertility and Reproductive Health in East and Southeast Asia, Tokyo, Japan.
Centre for Comparative Social Surveys. (2012). European Social Survey (ESS), Round 6 (2012). London: City University London, Centre for Comparative Social Surveys.
Chang, K.-S. (2010). South Korea under compressed modernity: Familial political economy in transition. London: Routledge.
Cherlin, A. (2012). Goode’s world revolution and family patterns: A reconsideration at fifty years. Population and Development Review, 38(4), 577–607.
Dalla Zuanna, G., & Micheli, G. A. (2004). Strong family and low fertility: A paradox? New Perspectives in interpreting contemporary family and reproductive behaviour. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Dominguez-Folgueras, M., & Castro-Martin, T. (2013). Cohabitation in Spain: No longer a marginal path to family formation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 422–437.
Esteve, A., Lesthaeghe, R., & Lopez-Gay, A. (2012). The Latin American cohabitation boom, 1970–2007. Population and Development Review, 38(1), 55–81.
Festy, P. (2000, October 16–18). Looking for European demography, desperately? Paper presented at the Expert Group Meeting on Population Responses to Population Ageing and Population Decline, United Nations, New York.
Fokkema, T., & Liefbroner, A. C. (2008). Trends in living arrangements in Europe: Convergence or divergence? Demographic Research, 19, 1351–1418.
Frejka, T., Jones, G., & Sardon, J.-P. (2010). East Asian childbearing patterns and policy developments. Population and Development Review, 36(3), 579–606.
Goldstein, J. R., Sobotka, T., & Jasilionene, A. (2009). The end of “lowest-low” fertility? Population and Development Review, 35(4), 663–699.
Goode, W. (1963). World revolution and family patterns. New York: The Free Press.
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.
Hiekel, N., Liefbroer, A. C., & Poortman, A.-R. (2011). The meaning of cohabitation across Europe, Netherlands interdisciplinary Demographic Institute. http://epc2012.princeton.edu/papers/120762
Johnson-Hanks, J. A., Bachrach, C. A., Philip Morgan, S., & Kohler, H.-P. (2011). Understanding family change and variation: Toward a theory of conjunctural action. Dordrecht: Springer.
Jones, G. W. (2007). Delayed marriage and very low fertility in Pacific Asia. Population and Development Review, 33(3), 453–478.
Jones, G. W. (2012a). Population policy in a prosperous city-state: Dilemmas for Singapore. Population and Development Review, 38(2), 311–336.
Jones, G. W. (2012b). International marriage in Asia: What do we know, and what do we need to know? In D.-S. Kim (Ed.), Cross-border marriage: Global trends and diversity. Seoul: Korea Institute of Health and Social Affairs (KIHASA).
Jones, G. W., & Gubhaju, B. (2009). Factors influencing changes in mean age at first marriage and proportions never marrying in the low-fertility countries of East and Southeast Asia. Asian Population Studies, 5(3), 237–265.
Jones, G. W., & Yeung, W.-J. J. (2014). Marriage in Asia. Journal of Family Issues, 35(12), 1567–1583.
Jones, G. W., Yanxia, Z., & Zhi, P. C. P. (2012). Understanding high levels of singlehood in Singapore. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 43(5), 731–750.
Kasearu, K., & Kutsar, D. (2010). Patterns behind unmarried cohabitation trends in Europe. European Societies, 13(2), 307–325.
Kertzer, D. I., White, M. J., Bernardi, L. & Gabrielli, G. (2006, April). Toward a better theory of very low fertility: Lessons from Italy, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Los Angeles, CA.
Kiernan, K. (2004). Unmarried cohabitation and parenthood in Britain and Europe. Law and Policy, 26(1), 33–55.
Lesthaeghe, R. (2010). The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Population and Development Review, 36(2), 211–251.
Livi Bacci, M. (2001). Too few children, too much family. Daedalus, 130(3), 139–156.
McDonald, P. (1992). Convergence or compromise in historical family change? In E. Berquo & P. Xenos (Eds.), Family systems and cultural change (pp. 15–30). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Myrskyla, M., Kohler, H.-P., & Billari, F. C. (2009). Advances in development reverse fertility declines. Nature, 460, 741–743.
Nazio, T., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2003). The diffusion of cohabitation among young women in West Germany, East Germany and Italy. European Journal of Population, 19, 47–82.
Noack, T., Bernhardt, E., & Wiik, K. A. (2014). Cohabitation or marriage? Contemporary living arrangements in the West. In A. Abela & J. Walker (Eds.), Contemporary issues in family studies: Global perspectives on partnership, parenting and support in a changing world (pp. 16–30). Chichester: Wiley.
Pereiro, T. G., Pace, R., & Didonna, M. G. (2014). Entering first union: The choice between cohabitation and marriage among women in Italy and Spain. Journal of Population Research, 31, 51–70.
Perelli-Harris, B., Sigle-Rushton, W., Lappegard, T., Jasilioniene, A., Di Giulio, P., Keizer, R., Koeppen, K., Berghammer, C., & Kreyenfeld, M. (2009). Examining nonmarital childbearing in Europe: How does union context differ across countries? (MPIDR Working Paper WP 2009-021) Rostock: Max Plank Institute for Demographic Research.
Raymo, J., Iwasawa, M., & Bumpass, L. (2009). Cohabitation and family formation in Japan. Demography, 46(4), 785–803.
Reher, D. S. (1998). Family ties in Western Europe: Persistent contrasts. Population and Development Review, 24(2), 203–234.
Sobotka, T., & Toulemon, L. (2008). Changing family and partnership behaviour: Common trends and persistent diversity across Europe. Demographic Research, 19, 85–138.
Suzuki, T. (2008). Korea’s strong familism and lowest-low fertility. International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 17, 30–41.
Therborn, G. (2004). Between sex and power: Family in the world, 1900–2000. London: Routledge.
Tsuya, N. O. (2015). Below-replacement fertility in Japan: Patterns, factors and policy implications. In R. R. Rindfuss & M. K. Choe (Eds.), Low and lower fertility: Variations across developed countries. Dordrecht: Springer.
Tsuya, N. O., Bumpass, L. L., Choe, M. K., & Rindfuss, R. R. (2013). Employment and household tasks of Japanese couples, 1994–2009. Demographic Research, 27, 705–718.
van de Kaa, D. (1987). Europe’s second demographic transition. Population Bulletin, 42, 1–59.
Xenos, P., Achmad, S., Lin, H. S., Luis, P. K., Podhisita, C., Raymundo, C., & Thapa, S. (2006). Delayed Asian transitions to adulthood: A perspective from national youth surveys. Asian Population Studies, 2(2), 149–185.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Wajihah Hamid and Divya Ramchand for research assistance in the preparation of this chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jones, G. (2018). What Is Driving Marriage and Cohabitation in Low Fertility Countries?. In: Poston, Jr., D. (eds) Low Fertility Regimes and Demographic and Societal Change. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64061-7_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64061-7_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64059-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64061-7
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)