Cohabitation in Norway: an accepted and gradually more regulated way of living

Noack, Turid

doi:10.1093/lawfam/15.1.102

Cited by 47 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cohabitation has become increasingly common in Norway as in most other developed countries [33,34], and also these transitions should ideally have been modeled in order to determine whether the chance of forming any relationship, not only marriage, is affected by cancer. Unfortunately, reliable data on cohabitation are not available.…”

Section: An Evaluation Of Possible Mechanisms In Light Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, fertility is widely assumed to affect the chance of developing breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancer, with the risk of cancer declining with increasing parity, while the inverse is true for cervical cancer development [32]. Lately, births out of wedlock have become increasingly more common in Norway as in most other developed countries [33], and the earlier causal relation between marriage and fertility is currently challenged. Some models were therefore set up to explore the complex relationship between childbearing and marriage, and the differential effects of cancer depending on whether persons were childless, had children prior to their cancer diagnosis, or had had any children after their cancer diagnosis (Table 5).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does cancer affect marriage rates?

Syse

2008

J Cancer Surviv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Finding a life partner is of great importance for persons' life satisfaction, but cancer's potential impact on family life is not well described. Cancer's impact on marriage formation rates was therefore explored. Method Data on the entire unmarried Norwegian population aged 17-44 in 1974-2001 (N=2.2 million) come from the Cancer Registry and the Central Population Register. Marriage rates for 12,100 persons diagnosed with cancer were compared to marriage rates for otherwise similar persons using discrete-time hazard regression models. Results Men with cancer had a marriage probability that was five percent higher (OR 1.05, CI 1.01-1.11) than cancer-free men. No cancer forms reduced men's marriage rates, and significantly elevated rates were seen after skin and testicular cancer (OR 1.16 and 1.11). Cancer did not impact significantly on women's overall marriage rate (OR 0.95, CI 0.90-1.00), but pronounced deficiencies were seen after brain and breast cancer (OR 0.62 and 0.74). Skin cancer elevated women's marriage rate (OR 1.27). Male cancer survivors with children were more likely to marry than their female counterparts. Significant increases in cancer survivors' marriage rates were observed over time. Conclusion Marrying after cancer is more common today than previously, and only slight overall differences were observed in cancer survivors' marriage rates relative to those of the cancer-free population. However, while brain and breast cancer in women is associated with reduced marriage rates, testicular cancer is associated with increased rates. The differences observed between common cancer forms in young adults deserve further exploration. Implications for cancer survivors In general, marriage rates in survivors of most types of cancer are very similar to those in the population as a whole. Women with brain and breast cancer have lower marriage rates than their cancerfree counterparts. While it is necessary to identify exactly why this was observed, the information can alert those with these cancers to the potential impact on marriage and thus work to reduce the possible effect, if desired.

show abstract

Section: An Evaluation Of Possible Mechanisms In Light Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does cancer affect marriage rates?

Syse

2008

J Cancer Surviv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cohabitants do not, however, have a mutual duty to provide for each other as the Norwegian Marriage Act imposes on married partners. In public law areas like pensions, social security and taxes, the most marriage-like unions (i.e., those that have lasted for more than two years or where the partners have common children) have, however, attained a legal status that is virtually equal to that of 4 married couples (Noack 2001). An important argument for these comprehensive changes has been a general sense of justice and the fear of a legislation that in some situations could make cohabitation more economically profitable and thereby threaten the legitimacy of the established welfare and taxation arrangements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pooling of Economic Resources: A Comparison of Norwegian Married and Cohabiting Couples

Lyngstad¹,

Noack²,

Tufte³

2010

European Sociological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using Norwegian survey data (n = 4116), we study couples" likelihood of pooling their economic resources. The proportion of cohabitation compared to marriages is high in Norway. Over the last decades, tax policy and the social security system have moved towards equating cohabitation with marriage. Our knowledge of the economic organization of the two types of couples is, however, rather imperfect. Our main hypothesis is that cohabitants are less likely to pool their economic resources than married couples, but that this difference is less if they hold plans to marry. We take into account important factors that largely have been ignored in many earlier studies, namely the presence of children and the duration of the relationship. The results confirm our hypothesis but also show that the difference between cohabitants and married couples is reduced once these important factors are controlled for.Implications for policy are discussed.(145 words)

show abstract

“…Cohabitation has also become legally recognized. Since the 1990s, cohabiting partners may by registering their partnership acquire the same entitlements and duties as married couples have with regard to social-secturity benefits, pensions and taxation (Noack, 2001). Noack & Seierstad (2003, p. 2) have also analyzed survey data showing that most adults in the family-formation stage (ages 27-36) have experienced a cohabitation relationships; and that most adults in the general population think cohabitation and marriage are of equal worth, also as conditions for raising children.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Family Structure as Social Capital for Education?

Lauglo¹

2014

HERJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A b s t r a c t Does family structure influence academic performance of adolescents? Using family-based 'social capital' as a heuristic device, this study analyzes data from Norwegian official registers on a cohort that in 2004 completed the lower-secondary stage of compulsory basic education. Both before and after controls for parental education attainment, the findings show that adolescents growing up in traditional nuclear families (with both their parents who are married to each other) on average perform better than those growing up with cohabiting parents. The contrast is stronger with other family types (single parent, or one of their parents and a step-parent). These findings fit Coleman's argument about family-based 'social capital', but other explanations are also possible.K e y w o r d s : adolescents, educational achievement, family structure, Norway IntroductionThe concept of "social capital" opens for diverse contents for different purposes. Portes (1998) concludes that the concept is a useful heuristic concept. Such heuristic devices may not suffice for final interpretations of analysis. But they can direct attention to relationships which otherwise tend to be ignored. That is its intended usage in this analysis of Norwegian registry data on young people. The concept tends to be quite broadly defined and usually stresses reciprocal social relations enabling actors to work together for common goals (Field, 2003), but usage varies considerably.The most influential scholars who launched the concept of social capital, used it for quite diverse purposes, ranging from meso-and macro-level preconditions for political democracy in Italy and the U.S. (Putnam 1995(Putnam , 2000, to exchange of favours among Kabylian peasants, or benefits from socially exclusive networks for career access in France (Bourdieu, 1984(Bourdieu, [1979; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1970), to family-and community-based social regulation for individual-level educational outcomes in the United States (Coleman 1988(Coleman , 1990). Coleman's usage has influenced research on educational outcomes (Field, 2003) and is of particular interest to the present study. His functional definition of social capital, however, is 1 University of Oslo 2 It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to submit a paper to this special issue honouring the internationally distinguished Hungarian educator and sociologist Professor Tamas Kozma with whom I had the good fortune to personally get acquainted, by sheer chance once, for several very stimulating hours, on an airliner.Jon (Coleman, 1988, p. 98).Lauglo: Family structure as social capital for education? Hungarian Educational Research Journal, Volume 4, Issue 1, 2014. doi 10.14413In his practice Coleman (1988Coleman ( , 1990) focused on quite specific phenomena: positive effects of relatively strong social regulation exerted by adults, for young people's socialization during transition to adulthood -especially their extent of success in formal education. The context for his theorizing was modern US society ...

show abstract

Cohabitation in Norway: an accepted and gradually more regulated way of living

Cited by 47 publications

References 0 publications

Does cancer affect marriage rates?

Does cancer affect marriage rates?

Pooling of Economic Resources: A Comparison of Norwegian Married and Cohabiting Couples

Family Structure as Social Capital for Education?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About