Abstract
Numerous studies have shown that educational attainment and labour force status have a strong impact on the timing of family formation for both men and women. The effects of educational level, school enrolment and employment seem to be different for men and women. The aim of this article is to investigate how gender-specific differences in family formation have changed over time, and more particularly, whether these differences have disappeared in recent years. We use a large-scale survey (more than 240,000 men and women born after 1940) conducted within the French 1999 census and apply event history techniques. The sample size allows us to test our hypotheses with more sophisticated models that cover several interactions. Our data fully support the convergence hypothesis for men and women with regard to the effects of educational attainment and working status (working/not working). However, it is only partly relevant for the effects of their school enrolment status on entry into first union and parenthood. For both men and women, the impact of work experience on first union disappears over time, but remains important for first parenthood.
Résumé
De nombreux travaux ont étudié les fortes variations sociales de l’âge à la mise en couple et à la naissance du premier enfant. Les variations selon le niveau d’éducation, le statut face aux études et à l’emploi sont en général différentes pour les hommes et pour les femmes. Comment ces différences entre hommes et femmes ont-elles évolué au cours des quarante dernières années ? Pour répondre à cette question, nous appliquons des modèles de durée aux biographies de plus 240 000 hommes et femmes nées après 1940, recueillies en 1999 dans le cadre de l’enquête Étude de l’histoire familiale, intégrée au recensement général de la population.
La taille de l’échantillon nous permet de construire des modèles comprenant de nombreuses interactions. Pour les mises en couple et l’arrivée du premier enfant, nous mettons en évidence une convergence entre hommes et femmes dans les variations selon le niveau d’éducation et le statut professionnel ; la convergence est moins forte pour les variations selon le statut face aux études. Pour les hommes comme pour les femmes, l’expérience professionnelle perd son importance comme préalable aux unions, mais la garde pour l’arrivée du premier enfant.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A household member is said to have a comparative advantage in the household if the ratio of the marginal product in the household to his/her wage rate on the market is higher for him/her than for the other household member(s) if all contribute the same amount of time to the household and all invest in the same human capital (Becker 1981).
However, the effect of educational level on first union formation increases with age and loses significance, i.e. there is no effect of educational attainment of the timing of union formation for 24 to 30-year old Dutch and Flemish women.
Since introduction, entitlement regulations have been modified several times. In the beginning, only mothers were eligible for parental leave, which was extended to fathers in 1984. Under the new legislation, parents could also work part time, and in 1986 the period of parental leave was extended from 2 to 3 years.
The parental leave allowance was introduced in 1985 and only parents of three children, the youngest below age 3, were eligible. In 1994, the benefit was modified and extended to parents with two children.
The other questions were the following: First name, Sex, Date of arrival in the household for adopted children, Place of birth of the child, Date of leaving and place of residence if the child left the parental home, Live or still birth, and Age at death if the child is dead.
These percentages were derived by using sample weights in order to correct for the bias related to higher non-response rates of certain population groups. The raw percentages are 82 and 78 for all women and men, respectively, entering a first union; and 72 and 60% for all women and men, respectively, who had a first child before the time of the survey.
Moreover, events such as first birth and first union are very rare after the age of 40. Less than 1.3% of men and 0.9% of women born in the 1940s have a first birth after the age of 40 (they are aged 49–58 at the time of the survey); first unions are slightly more common: 2.3% of men and 1.4% of women of the same cohorts experienced a first union after the age of 40.
Several authors found that family-building behaviours such as union formation, particularly marriage and conception, are interrelated and estimation procedures not taking into account the possible endogeneity may lead to a biased interpretation of the effects they have on each other (see, e.g. Brien et al. 1999 for modelling the interrelations between cohabitation, marriage and non-marital conception). We tested for such endogeneity by comparing models on first births including or excluding conjugal status.
The Bayesian Information Criteria improved when we left out the mothers’ socio-occupational status.
We could have applied linear splines to single years in order to estimate the interaction between our covariates of interest and time, but we considered that seven 5-year periods were sufficient.
References
Aglietta, M., Blanchet, D., & Héran, F. (2002). Démographie et économie. Rapports du Conseil d’analyse économique, no 35. Paris: La documentation française
Baizán, P., Aassve, A., & Billari, E. (2004). The interrelations between cohabitation, marriage and first birth in Germany and Sweden. Population and Environment, 25, 531–561.
Becker, G. S. (1976). The economic approach to human behaviour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Becker, G. S. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bernhardt, E. (1990). Avoir un premier enfant à Stockholm avant 30 ans. Population, 6, 1013–1036.
Billari, F. (2005). Partnership, childbearing and parenting: Trends of the 1990s. In M. Macura, P. A. L. McDonald, & W. Haug (Eds.), The new demographic regime: Population challenges and policy responses (pp. 63–94). Geneva: United Nations.
Billari, F. C., & Philipov, D. (2004). Women’s education and entry into a first union: A simultaneous-hazard comparative analysis of Central and Eastern Europe. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 2004, 91–110.
Blossfeld, H.-P. (1995). Changes in the process of family formation and women’s growing economic independence: A comparison of nine countries. In H.-P. Blossfeld (Ed.), The new role of women: Family formation in modern societies (pp. 3–32). Boulder: Westview Press.
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.
Blossfeld, H.-P., Huinink., J., & Rohwer, G. (1993). Wirkt sich das steigende Bildungsniveau der Frauen tatsächlich negativ auf den Prozeß der Familienbildung aus? In A. Diekmann & S. Weick (Eds.), Der Familienzyklus als sozialer Prozeß: Bevölkerunssoziologische Untersuchungen mit den Methoden der Ereignisanalyse (pp. 216–233). Berlin: Duncker & Humboldt.
Blossfeld, H.-P., & Jaenichen, U. (1992). Educational expansion and changes in women’s entry into marriage and motherhood in the Federal Republic of Germany. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 302–315.
Buber, I. (2002). Recent fertility trends in Austria. Dissertation, Vienna University of Technology.
Bracher, M., & Santow, G. (1998). Economic independence and union formation in Sweden. Population Studies, 52, 275–294.
Brien, M. J., Lillard, L. A., & Waite, L. J. (1999). Interrelated family-building behaviors: Cohabitation, marriage, and nonmarital conception. Demography, 36, 535–551.
Brüderl, J., & Diekmann, A. (1994). Bildung, Geburtskohorte und Heiratsalter: Eine vergleichende Untersuchung des Heiratsverhaltens in Westdeutschland, Ostdeutschland und den Vereinigten Staaten. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 23, 56–73.
Brüderl, J., & Klein, T. (1993). Bildung und Familiengründungsprozeß deutscher Frauen: Humankaptial- und Institutioneneffekt. In A. Diekmann & S. Weick (Eds.), Der Familienzyklus als sozialer Prozeß: Bevölkerunssoziologische Untersuchungen mit den Methoden der Ereignisanalyse (pp. 194–215). Berlin: Duncker & Humboldt.
Cassan, F., Héran, F., & Toulemon, L. (2000). Study of family history. France’s 1999 Family Survey. Courrier des statistiques, English series, no 6, 2000 annual issue, 7–19.
Cigno, A., & Ermisch, J. (1989). A microeconomic analysis of the timing of births. European Economic Review, 33, 737–760.
Cherlin, A. (2000). Toward a new home socioeconomics of union formation. In L. J. Waite, (Ed.), The ties that bind: Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation (pp. 126–144). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Coppola, L. (2004). Education and union formation as simultaneous processes in Italy and Spain. European Journal of Population, 20, 219–250.
Courgeau, D., & Lelièvre, E. (1986). Nuptialité et agriculture. Population, 41, 303–326.
Davis, N. J., & Bumpass, L. (1976). The continuation of education after marriage among women in the United States: 1970. Demography, 13, 161–174.
Ekert-Jaffé, O., Joshi, H., Lynch, K., Mougin, R., & Rendall, M. (2002). Fertility, timing of births and socio-economic status in France and Britain: Social policies and occupational polarization. Population-E, 57, 475–508.
Estrade, M.-A., & Minni, C. (1996). La hausse du niveau de formation. Insee Première, 488.
Eurydice (2005). Summary sheets on education systems in Europe. France. http://www.eurydice.org
Fagnani, J. (1999). Parental leave in France. In P. Moss & F. Deven (Eds.), Parental leave: Progress or pitfall? (pp. 69–83). The Hague/Brussels: NIDI/CBGS Publications.
Gauthier, A. H. (1996). The state and the family: A comparative analysis of family policies in industrialized countries. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Goldscheider, F. K., & Waite, L. J. (1986). Sex differences in the entry into marriage. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 91–109.
de Guibert-Lantoine, C., & Leridon, H. (1999). Contraception in France: An assessment after 30 years of liberalization. Population, an English Selection, 11, 89–114.
Grenet (2004). Is it enough to increase compulsory schooling to raise earnings? Evidence from the French Berthoin Reform. Working Paper Paris-Jourdan.
Happel, S. K., Hill, J. K., & Low, S. A. (1984). An economic analysis of the timing of childbirth. Population Studies, 38, 299–311.
Hoem, J. M. (1986). The impact of education on modern family-union initiation. European Journal of Population, 2, 113–133.
Huinink, J. (1995). Education, work, and family patterns of men: The case of West Germany. In H.-P. Blossfeld (Ed.), The new role of women: Family formation in modern societies (pp. 247–262). Boulder: Westview Press.
Kohler, H.-P., Skytther, A. & Christensen, K. (2001). The age at first birth and completed fertility reconsidered: Findings from a Sample of Identical Twins. Working Paper WP2001–006. Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.
Kravdal, Ø. (1994). The importance of economic activity, economic potential and economic resources for the timing of first births in Norway. Population Studies, 48, 249–267.
Kravdal, Ø. (1999). Does marriage require a stronger economic underpinning than informal cohabitation? Population Studies, 53, 63–80.
Leridon, H., & Toulemon, L. (1995). Country-specific studies on the trends in family formation and the new role of women: France. In H.-P. Blossfeld (Ed.), The new role of women: Family formation in modern societies (pp. 77–101). Boulder: Westview Press.
Letablier, M.-T. (2003). Fertility and family policies in France. Journal of Population and Social Security (Population), 1, 245–261.
Liefbroer, A. C., & Corijn, M. (1999). Who, what, where, and when? Specifying the impact of educational attainment and labour force participation on family formation. European Journal of Population, 15, 45–75.
Marini, M. M. (1985). Determinants of the timing of adult role entry. Social Science Research, 14, 309–350.
Martín-García, T., & Baizán, P. (2006). The impact of the type of education and of educational enrolment on first births. European Sociological Review, 22, 259–275.
McLaughlin, D. K., Lichter, D. T., & Johnston, G. M. (1993). Some women marry young: Transition to first marriage in metropolitan and non metropolitan areas. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 827–838.
Meron, M., & Widmer, I. (2002). Unemployment leads women to postpone the birth of their first child. Population - E, 2, 301–330.
Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988). A theory of marriage timing. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 563–591.
Oppenheimer, V. K. (1994). Women’s rising employment and the future of the family in industrial societies. Population and Development Review, 20, 293–342.
Oppenheimer, V. K. (2000). The continuing importance of men’s economic position in marriage formation. In L. J. Waite (Ed.), The ties that bind: Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation (pp. 283–301). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Oppenheimer, V. K., & Lewin, A. (1999). Career development and marriage formation in a period of rising inequality: Who is at risk? What are their prospects? In A. Booth, A. C. Crouter, & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Transitions to adulthood in a changing economy: No work, no family, no future? (pp. 189–225). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Richet-Mastain, L. (2007). Bilan démographique 2006: un excédent naturel record. Insee Première 1118.
Rindfuss, R. R., Bumpass, L., & St. John, C. (1980). Education and fertility: Implications for the roles women occupy. American Sociological Review, 45, 431–447.
Robert-Bobée, I., & Mazuy, M. (2003). Calendriers de constitution des familles et âge de fin des études. Documents de Travail F0308. INSEE.
Santow, G., & Bracher, M. (2001). Deferment of the first birth and fluctuating fertility in Sweden. European Journal of Population, 17, 343–363.
Thornton, A., Axinn, W. G., & Teachman, J. D. (1995). The influence of school enrolment and accumulation on cohabitation and marriage in early adulthood. American Sociological Review, 60, 762–774.
Toulemon, L. (1995). The place of children in the history of couples. Population: An English Selection, 7, 163–186.
Toulemon, L. (1997). Cohabitation is here to stay. Population: An English Selection, 9, 11–56.
Toulemon, L. (2006). La fécondité est-elle encore naturelle? Application au retard des naissances et à son influence sur la descendance finale. Chapter 1. In M. Loriaux & É. Vilquin (Eds.), Entre nature et culture. Quelle démographie(s) ? (pp. 15–42). Louvain-La-Neuve: Academia Bruylant.
Toulemon, L., & Leridon, H. (1999). La famille idéale : combien d’enfants, à quel âge? Insee Première 652.
Van de Kaa, D. J. (1994). The second demographic transition revisited: Theories and expectations. In G. C. N. Beets, J. C. van den Brekel, R. L. Cliquet, G. Dooghe & J. de Jong Gierveld (Eds.), Population and family in the Low Countries 1993 (pp. 81–126). Lisse: Zwets and Zeitlinger.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
A large part of this work was undertaken while Maria Winkler-Dworak was a visiting researcher at the Institut national d’études démographiques. Her work was subsidised by a grant (contract HPRN-CT-2001-00234) awarded under the European Community’s Human Potential Programme.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Winkler-Dworak, M., Toulemon, L. Gender Differences in the Transition to Adulthood in France: Is There Convergence Over the Recent Period?. Eur J Population 23, 273–314 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-007-9128-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-007-9128-4