Why are marriage and family formation increasingly disconnected across Europe? A multilevel perspective on existing theories

Abstract

Childbearing outside of marriage has increased drastically in recent decades. However, the existing explanations for this development are not coherent. Proponents of the Second Demographic Transition framework view the rise in nonmarital childbearing as part of a pattern of progress driven by processes such as emancipation from traditional social norms, whereas other scholars perceive this trend in the context of a “pattern of disadvantage,” as nonmarital births are often concentrated among lower socioeconomic groups. In this paper, we posit that the relevance of the aforementioned theoretical explanations might vary depending on the geographic scale at which variation occurs: that is, across nation states, subnational regions, or individuals. To explore this hypothesis, we analyse harmonised survey data from 16 European countries. We apply hierarchical models to study how the likelihood that a woman living in a couple will have her first child either within nonmarital cohabitation or within marriage is linked to national and subnational regional variation in socioeconomic conditions that are related to explanations based on the existing theoretical considerations. Our results suggest that the Second Demographic Transition framework is very important for understanding variation between countries, whereas arguments pointing to a pattern of disadvantage seem to be more relevant at the individual and subnational regional level. It thus appears that taking a multilevel perspective can help us better understand why the existing theoretical explanations are not fully coherent.

The Great Recession and Fertility in Europe: A Sub-national Analysis

“…We show that across Europe, both between-country and within-country variations in economic conditions are relevant for understanding fertility dynamics. The between-country dimension proved to be especially relevant, in agreement with the results of other recent studies (Klüsener et al 2013;Lappegård et al 2017;Fox et al 2019). In particular, our findings are most informative for the countries and regions that experienced most severe economic setbacks, i.e.…”

A subregional analysis of family change: The spatial diffusion of one‐parent families across Italian municipalities, 1991–2011

“…These differences are often influenced by the governing political party in the locality (Andreotti, Mingione, & Polizzi, 2012;Bifulco, Bricocoli, & Monteleone, 2008;Boccuzzo, Caltabiano, Dalla-Zuanna, & Loghi, 2008). At the same time, sociocultural norms at regional level (or below), for example, on the social acceptability of remarriage and repartnering after union dissolution (Meggiolaro & Ongaro, 2008), represent crucial correlates of family-related behaviours (Kertzer, White, Bernardi, & Gabrielli, 2009;Lappegård et al, 2017). The local milieu of each municipality influences the culture, customs, and social norms of its residents.…”

“…The profound changes in demographic dynamics, which are normally assessed at the regional or provincial level, are, however, deeply rooted in individual municipalities. The social norms and customs that influence demographic dynamics (for example, age at marriage and at first child; social acceptance of divorce; moral obligation for offspring to take care of elderly parents; and so forth) are usually tied to local settings rather than to larger spatial units (Lappegård, Klüsener, & Vignoli, 2017;Ruggles, 2012;Viazzo, 2010); note, too, that the role of social pressure and social networks is especially relevant at the local level (Dykstra & Komter, 2012;Jappens & Van Bavel, 2012;Meggiolaro & Ongaro, 2008). Here, they produce effects that alter the general population dynamic and structure, sometimes profoundly.…”

Cohabitation and Marriage: Complexity and Diversity in Union‐Formation Patterns

“…Complexity is expressed in myriad ways—in the structure and function of coresidential intimate unions, in the sequencing of different kinds of unions, in their genesis and disposition, in the diversity across population groups, and their uneven cultural diffusion over time and place. Marriage and cohabitation can mean different things emotionally or culturally to different subpopulations and are revealed differently around the world (Hiekel, Liefbroer, & Poortman, ; Lappegård, Klüsener, & Vignoli, ).…”