Использование регистров населения для учета и анализа незарегистрированных браков
Аннотация
Рассматриваются возможности и ограничения использования регистров населения для изучения тенденций брачности, в фокусе внимания авторов находятся вопросы учета разных типов незарегистрированных браков. Описана европейская практика их оформления (зарегистрированные партнерства, соглашения о сожительстве). Статья носит обзорный характер, в ней раскрываются особенности функционирования современных регистров населения в развитых странах, которые имеют богатые возможности для исследования демографического поведения населения. К их преимуществам относятся покрытие всего населения региона, низкие издержки извлечения данных, актуальность данных и возможность проведения лонгитюдного анализа семейных отношений. Показаны основные методологические сложности использования регистров для учета незарегистрированных браков и пути их преодоления: использование информации об адресе проживания граждан, совместных детях. Выявлены различия между методологией регистров в разных странах, в том числе по учету иностранных граждан.
В статье представлен обзор зарубежных исследований, использующих данные регистров для изучения института брака: для оценок распространенности незарегистрированных брачных союзов, их длительности, факторов формирования и прекращения, а также влияния пребывания в том или ином типе партнерства на репродуктивное поведение и продолжительность жизни.
Скачивания
Литература
Andrichenko L.V., Meshheryakova М.А. (2012). Informatsionnye registry kak effektivnoe sredstvo sbora i monitoringa dannykh o naselenii [Information registers as an effective tool to collect and control data about population] // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava [Journal of Russian law]. 8: 16-40.
Baxmetova G. Sh., Isupov A.A. (1999). Registr naseleniya kak sistema demograficheskogo ucheta [Population register as a system of demographic accounting] // Voprosy statistiki [Problems in statistics]. 5: 33-39.
Carlson M., I. Garfinkel, S. McLanahan, R. Mincy, W. Primus (2004). The effects of welfare and child support policies on union formation // Population research and policy review. 23: 513–542.
Christiansen S.G., N. Keilman (2013). Probabilistic household forecasts based on register data - the case of Denmark and Finland // Demographic research. 28(43): 1263-1302.
Drefahl S. (2012). Do the married really live longer? The role of cohabitation and socioeconomic status // Journal of marriage and family. 74: 462 – 475.
Dribe M., M. Stanfors (2009). Does parenthood strengthen a traditional household division of labor? Evidence from Sweden // Journal of marriage and family. 71(1): 33–45.
Duvander A-Z. E. (1999). The transition from cohabitation to marriage. A longitude study of the propensity to marry in Sweden in the early 1990s // Journal of family issues. 20 (5): 698-717.
Haandrikman K., C. Harmsen, L.J.G. van Wissen, I. Hutter (2008). Geography matters: patterns of spatial homogamy in the Netherlands // Population, space and place. 14: 387–405.
Haandrikman K., L.J.G. van Wissen, C. Harmsen (2011). Explaining spatial homogamy. Compositional, spatial and regional cultural determinants of regional patterns of spatial homogamy in the Netherlands // Appl. spatial analysis. 4: 75–93.
Hoem J.M., M. Jalovaara, C. Mureşan (2013). Recent fertility patterns of Finnish women by union status: A descriptive account // Demographic research. 28(14): 409-420.
Holland J.A. (2013). Love, marriage, then the baby carriage? Marriage timing and childbearing in Sweden // Demographic research. 29(11): 275-306.
Isupova O.G. (2013). My prosto zhivem vmeste [We just live together] // Demoskop Weekly [Demoscope Weekly]. №565-566. URL: http://demoscope.ru/weekly/2013/0565/tema01.php (accessed: 22.04.2016).
Ivanova Е. I. (2012). Sovremennyy tekushchiy statisticheskiy uchet estestvennogo dvizheniya naseleniya: vozmozhnosti ego primeneniya dlya sotsial'no-demograficheskogo analiza [Modern vital statistics: its application for the socio-demographic analysis] // Vestnik RGGU [Bulletin of RGGU]. 2: 98-112.
Jalovaara M. (2012). Socio-economic resources and first-union formation in Finland, cohorts born 1969–81 // Population studies. 66(1): 69–85.
Jalovaara M. (2013). Socioeconomic resources and the dissolution of cohabitations and marriages // European journal of population. 29(2): 167–193.
Kalmijn M., A. Loeve, D. Manting (2007). Income dynamics in couples and the dissolution of marriage and cohabitation // Demography. 44(1): 159-179.
Keilman N., H. Brunborg (1995). Probabilistic household forecasts based on register data- the case of Denmark and Finland // Demographic research. 28(43): 1263-1302.
Klupt М.А., Nikiforov О.N. (2010). Al'ternativnye metody provedeniya perepisey naseleniya: primenimy li oni v Rossii? [Alternative methods of population census conducting: are they applicable in Russia?] // Voprosy statistiki [Problens in statistics]. 9: 3-8.
Koskinen S., K. Joutsenniemi, T. Martelin, P. Martikainen (2007). Mortality differences according to living arrangements // International journal of epidemiology. 36:1255-1264.
Kravdal Ø. (1988). The impact of first-birth timing on divorce: new evidence from a longitudinal analysis based on the central population register of Norway // European journal of population. 4(3): 247-269.
Liu G. (2002). How premarital children and childbearing in current marriage influence divorce of Swedish women in their first marriages // Demographic research. 7(10): 389-406.
Lyngstad T.H. (2004). The impact of parents' and spouses' education on divorce rates in Norway // Demographic research. 10(5): 122-142.
Mäenpää E. (2009). Cohabiting partners’ socioeconomic characteristics and the transition to marriage in Finland // Finnish yearbook of population research: 63-77.
Mäenpää E., M. Jalovaara (2013). The effects of homogamy in socio-economic background and education on the transition from cohabitation to marriage // Actasociologica. 56(3): 247–263.
Mäenpää E., M. Jalovaara (2014). Homogamy in socio-economic background and education, and the dissolution of cohabiting unions // Demographic research. 30(65): 1769−1792.
Martikainen P., T. Martelin, E. Nihtilä, K. Majamaa, S. Koskinen (2005). Differences in mortality by marital status in Finland from 1976 to 2000: analyses of changes in marital-status distributions, socio-demographic and household composition, and cause of death // Population studies. 59(1): 99-116.
Neravenstvo i smertnost' v Rossi [Inequality and mortality in Russia] (2000) / V. Shkolnikov, E. Andreev, T. Maleva, eds. M.: Moskovskiy centr Karnegi [Moscow Carnegie center]. 107 p.
Pyankova A.I. (2014). Traditsionnyy i al'ternativnye metody provedeniya perepisey naseleniya [Traditional and alternative methods of population census conducting]: dis. ... kand. sotsiol. nauk. Federal'noe gosudarstvennoe avtonomnoe obrazovatel'noe uchrezhdenie vysshego professional'nogo obrazovaniya «Natsional'nyy issledovatel'skiy universitet «Vysshaya shkola ekonomiki» [Dissertation. National research university “High school of economics”]. Moskow.
Perelli-Harris B., N. Sánchez Gassen (2012). How similar are cohabitation and marriage? Legal approaches to cohabitation across Western Europe // Population and development review. 38(3): 435–467.
Pitkänen K., М. Jalovaara (2007). Perheet ja perheenmuodostus [Family formation]. 2nd renewed edition: 115–168.
Poulain M., A. Herm (2013). Central population registers as a source of demographic statistics in Europe // Population-E. 68(2): 183-212.
Rønsen M. (2004). Fertility and public policies – evidence from Norway and Finland // Demographic research. 10(6): 143-170.
Sobotka T., L. Toulemon (2008). Overview chapter 4: changing family and partnership behaviour: Common trends and persistent diversity across Europe // Demographic research. 19(6): 85-138.
Statistics of Sweden (2014). URL: http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/ (дата обращения: 23.05.2016).
Svarer M. (2004). Is your love in vain? Another look at premarital cohabitation and divorce // Journal of human resources. 39(2): 523-535.
Thomson E. (2005). Partnership and parenthood: connections between cohabitation, marriage and childbearing // Booth A., Crouter N. The new population problem: why families in developed countries are shrinking and what it means. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate: 129–149.
Thomson E., H. Eriksson (2013). Register-based estimates of parents’ co-residence in Sweden, 1969-2007 // Demographic research. 29(42): 1153-1186.
Vanassche S., M. Corijn, K. Matthijs (2015). Post-divorce family trajectories of men and women in Flanders // Demographic research. 32(31): 859−872.
