Culture, Modernization, and Politics: Ethnic Differences in Union Formation in Kyrgyzstan

Abstract

The unique cultural and political history of Central Asia has produced intriguing ethnic variations in union formation. We use data from a survey of 1,535 young adults conducted in 2005 in northern Kyrgyzstan to examine ethnic patterns of entry into marriage versus cohabitation. To reflect the historic-cultural and political realities of Kyrgyzstan, we subdivide ethnic Kyrgyz into two categories based on the degree of linguistic Russification-more-Russified Kyrgyz and less-Russified Kyrgyz-and compare them to each other and to respondents of European origin. The results of the multinomial discrete-time logit models show significant differences among the three groups. Thus, Europeans were most likely to enter cohabitation whereas less-Russified Kyrgyz were least likely to do so, net of other factors. The three groups were lined up in the converse order with respect to probability of entering marriage, but upon breakdown by gender this ordering was present only among women. In contrast, among men, more-Russified Kyrgyz were less likely to marry than both less-Russified Kyrgyz and Europeans. We interpret these findings in light of long-term historic-cultural and demographic distinctions as well as more recent politically induced cleavages in Kyrgyzstan.

Continuities in Transition: Ethnicity, Language and Labour Market Inequalities in Kyrgyzstan

“…Although respondents could choose more than one ethnicity, all but one person in Round I chose only one. Based on the response pattern and in congruence with earlier studies (e.g., Agadjanian and Dommaraju, 2011; Faranda and Nolle, 2011), we identify four ethnic categories: Kyrgyz, Uzbek, European (mainly ethnic Russian and other Russian‐speaking groups of European origin) and Other. We acknowledge that the last category, representing a mix of smaller groups that are mainly indigenous to the Central Asian region, is both small in size and heterogeneous in composition; we therefore refrain from interpreting the corresponding results.…”

“…Next, we further break down Kyrgyz who could speak Russian fluently or well on the basis of their reported use of the Russian language at home or outside the home: those who used mainly Russian vs those who did not. While Russian‐language proficiency and use among the titular ethnic group may correlate with other characteristics, such as urban residence, prior research has shown that they cannot be reduced to those characteristics (e.g., Agadjanian and Dommaraju, 2011; Agadjanian et al., 2008; Constant et al., 2012).…”

“…Russian‐language proficiency was associated with higher social prestige and with being more cultured, and for many representatives of native groups, Russian was the primary language used in both the private and the public spheres (Kosmarskaya and Kosmarski, 2019). Prior research by the first author has highlighted substantial differences in demographic characteristics and behaviour, not only between Central Asian native groups and European‐origin groups, but also within the former, based on the degree of linguistic (and, arguably, cultural) Russification (e.g., Agadjanian and Dommaraju, 2011; Agadjanian and Qian, 1997; Agadjanian et al., 2008). Not surprisingly, Russian speakers were found to be at the top of the ethno‐cultural hierarchy.…”

First union formation in urban Burkina Faso: Competing relationship transitions to marriage or cohabitation

“…The existing evidence from Western countries also suggests that unmarried conception and the birth of a child is an important factor in the analysis of the choice between marriage and cohabitation. Previous research shows that pregnancy and childbearing precipitate both marriage and cohabitation and that the effect is more pronounced in the transition to marriage, especially in countries or among social groups where the pressure to give birth within marriage is strong (Brien, Lillard, and Waite 1999;Gabrielli and Hoem 2010;Hoem and Kostova 2008;Agadjanian and Dommaraju 2011;Pereiro, Pace, and Didonna 2014). In Burkina Faso, although conception and birth outside formal unions are on the rise in urban areas, childbearing remains strongly associated with marriage plans (Calvès and Gnoumou Thiombiano 2014).…”

“…In contrast to industrialized countries (Manting 1996;Oppenheimer 2003;Manning, Longmore, and Giordano 2007;Thomson and Bernhard 2010;Agadjanian and Dommaraju 2011;Kalmijn 2011;Pereiro, Pace, and Didonna 2014), the choice between marriage and cohabitation among youth in sub-Saharan Africa and the factors affecting this choice have attracted little attention. Overall, however, two main general hypotheses emerge implicitly from the existing literature.…”