Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byClarence Hamilton Modified over 9 years ago
1
Vlada Stankūnienė Aušra Maslauskaitė Marė Baublytė Demographic Research Center, ISR Lithuania Lithuania International conference “Changing Family: Demographic Challenges for Social Policy”, 28-29 November 2007, Moscow 28-29 November 2007, Moscow DIFFERENCES IN PARTNERSHIP AND FAMILY FORMATION IN 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
Decrease of marriage rates Postponement and “ageing” of marriage Spread of cohabitation Increase of never married Decrease of fertility, etc… Family transformation
5
Marital/partnership status MALESFEMALES with every younger generation – increase in cohabitation, decrease in marriage among females - high level living without partner
6
Relative risk of never marrying MALES *** p<0,001 Source: GGS_Lithuania, 2006 Rural/low educated/ unempoyed males have relatively „low value“ in the „marriage market“. They are in social and „demographic exclusion“
7
Lower_sec_rural Lower_sec_urban Secondary_rural Secondary_urban Higher_rural Higher_urban 1950-54 1955-59 1960-64 1965-69 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Never married males: urban/rural by education Population census Lithuania, 2001
8
Cumulative percentages of first partnership as marriage MALESFEMALES
9
Cumulative percentages of first partnership as marriage 1960-1979 MALESFEMALES
10
Cumulative percentages of first partnership as cohabitation, 1930-1979 birth cohorts MALESFEMALES
11
MALESFEMALES Cumulative percentages of first partnership as cohabitation, 1960-1979
12
Cumulative percentages of first marriage/cohabitation/partnership, 1960-79 MALES partnership cohabitationmarriage
13
Cumulative percentages of first marriage/cohabitation/partnership, 1960-79 FEMALES marriagecohabitation partnership
14
partnership/marriage/cohabitation FEMALES Cumulative percentages of first partnership 1948-19551968-1975 78,9 85,5 70,3 57,5
15
Cumulative percentages of first partnership: partnership/marriage/cohabitation MALES 1948-19551968-1975
16
Cumulative percentages of first partnership MALES FEMALES
17
Cumulative percentages, who had by specified age entered a first partnership MALES marriagecohabitation partnership
18
Cumulative percentages, who had by specified age entered a first partnership FEMALES marriagecohabitation 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 age and sex in urban and rural areas, census 2001 urban women urban men rural women rural men Population Census_Lithuania, 2001
22
*** p<0,001 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
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 age groups; for the groups with thelowest education; more for urban than rural population
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.