The use of population registers for recording and analysis of cohabitation
Abstract
This paper discusses the possibilities and limitations of using population registers to study the trends of nuptiality, focusing mainly on the registration of different types of cohabitation. The paper describes European practice in recording them (registered partnerships, cohabitation agreements). The article is essentially an overview, revealing the distinctive features of the functioning of modern population registers in developed countries, which are rich in opportunities for researching the demographic behavior of a population. Their advantages include coverage of all the population in the region, up-to-date data and the opportunity for longitudinal analysis of family relations. The authors reveal the main methodological problems of using population registers for the study of cohabitation and the solutions to these problems – information about the addresses of people and data about their children in common. The paper identifies the differences in methodology of registers in different countries, for instance registration of foreign citizens.
The article presents an overview of foreign research which uses register data for studying the institution of the family: estimates of the prevalence of cohabitation, its duration, factors of formation and dissolution and the impact of type of partnership on reproductive behavior and life expectancy.
Downloads
References
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.
