1 / 25

DIFFERENCES IN PARTNERSHIP AND FAMILY FORMATION IN LITHUANIA

International conference “Changing Family: Demographic Challenges for Social Policy”, 28-29 November 2007, Moscow . DIFFERENCES IN PARTNERSHIP AND FAMILY FORMATION IN LITHUANIA. Vlada Stankūnienė Aušra Maslauskaitė Marė Baublytė Demographic R esearch Center, ISR Lithuania .

badu
Download Presentation

DIFFERENCES IN PARTNERSHIP AND FAMILY FORMATION IN LITHUANIA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. International conference “Changing Family: Demographic Challenges for Social Policy”, 28-29 November 2007, Moscow DIFFERENCES IN PARTNERSHIP AND FAMILY FORMATION IN LITHUANIA Vlada Stankūnienė Aušra Maslauskaitė Marė Baublytė Demographic Research Center, ISR Lithuania Research was funded by the Lithuanian Science and Studies Foundation

  2. Data • Gender and Generations Survey_Lithuania, 2006 • Population Census_Lithuania, 2001

  3. Presentation outline • Marital/partnership status: changes, differencies • Partnership/family formation:strategy, differences • Turning point to new family formation pattern • Conclusions

  4. Family transformation • Decrease of marriage rates • Postponement and “ageing” of marriage • Spread of cohabitation • Increase of never married • Decrease of fertility, etc…

  5. Marital/partnershipstatus MALES FEMALES • with every younger generation – increase in cohabitation, decrease in marriage • among females - high level living without partner

  6. Relative risk of never marrying MALES Rural/low educated/ unempoyed males have relatively „low value“ in the „marriage market“. They are in social and „demographic exclusion“ *** p<0,001 Source: GGS_Lithuania, 2006

  7. Never married males: urban/rural by education Population census Lithuania, 2001 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Lower_sec_rural Lower_sec_urban Secondary_rural Secondary_urban Higher_rural Higher_urban 1950-54 1955-59 1960-64 1965-69

  8. Cumulative percentages of first partnership as marriage MALES FEMALES

  9. Cumulative percentages of first partnership as marriage 1960-1979 MALES FEMALES

  10. Cumulative percentages of first partnership as cohabitation, 1930-1979 birth cohorts MALES FEMALES

  11. Cumulative percentages of first partnership as cohabitation, 1960-1979 MALES FEMALES

  12. Cumulative percentages of first marriage/cohabitation/partnership, 1960-79 MALES partnership marriage cohabitation

  13. Cumulative percentages of first marriage/cohabitation/partnership, 1960-79 FEMALES partnership marriage cohabitation

  14. partnership/marriage/cohabitation Cumulative percentages of first partnership FEMALES 1948-1955 1968-1975 78,9 85,5 70,3 57,5

  15. Cumulative percentages of first partnership: partnership/marriage/cohabitation MALES 1948-1955 1968-1975

  16. Cumulative percentages of first partnership MALES FEMALES

  17. Cumulative percentages, who had by specified age entered a first partnershipMALES partnership marriage cohabitation

  18. Cumulative percentages, who had by specified age entered a first partnershipFEMALES marriage cohabitation partnership

  19. First partnership: cohabitation or marriage, by age and residence, percentage

  20. First partnership: cohabitation or marriage, by age and residence, percentage

  21. Cohabitants by ageand sex in urban and rural areas, census 2001 rural men rural women urban men urban women Population Census_Lithuania, 2001

  22. Relative risk of ever entering the cohabitation • The highest risk to experience cohabitation: • for youngest age groups; • for the groups with the lowest education; • more for urban than rural population *** p<0,001

  23. Conclusions Marital/partnership status: • With every younger generation: increase in cohabitation, decrease in marriage • There is the highest risk not to marry for rural/low educated/ unempoyed males

  24. Conclusions Partnership/marriage strategy: • Postponement of marriage: • from very young age to older age • Postponement of marriage is compensated by cohabitation in younger age: • spread of cohabitation/rejuvenation of cohabitation • cohabiting unions replace married unions • Rejuvenation/increase of partnerships – females • Rejuvenation/increase of partnerships - females • General partnership level remains near the same: • “daughters” start partnership earlier than “mothers”

  25. Conclusions Cohabitation: • The highest risk to experience cohabitation: • for youngest agegroups; • for the groups with thelowest education; • more for urban thanrural population

More Related