UBB
CSP
Mihail Kogalniceanu nr. 1
Avram Iancu nr. 68
RO- 400084 Cluj-Napoca
RO- 400083 Cluj-Napoca
WORKING PAPER 2012-01
March 2012
The Role of Consensual Unions
in Romanian Total Fertility
by
Jan M. Hoem ([email protected])
Cornelia Mureşan ([email protected])
Mihaela Hărăguş ([email protected])
© Copyright is held by the author(s). Working papers receive only limited review. Views and opinions expressed in
UFCLCP WPs are attributable to the authors and do not necessarily reflect those held at the Center for Population
Studies.
2
The Role of Consensual Unions in Romanian Total Fertility
by
Jan M. Hoem1,3
Cornelia Mureşan2,3
Mihaela Hărăguş4
Abstract: The purpose of the present paper is to complete previous analyses of duration-based
Total Fertility Rates specific for consensual and marital unions separately based on the data from
the Romanian Generations and Gender Survey from 2005. It reproduces negative educational
gradients in fertility, now for both types of unions. For women with a low educational attainment
we find that the total fertility in marital and in cohabitational unions are largely of the same size
order. The Total Fertility Rate for a consensual union that is converted into a marriage has a
contribution from the cohabitational period added to a separate contribution from the marital
period.
Keywords: consensual unions’ fertility, marital fertility by length of premarital cohabitation,
fertility by educational attainment and union type, duration-based Total Fertility Rate, eventhistory modeling, GGS, Romania.
1
PhD., Emeritus Professor, Stockholm University, Demography Unit, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden, Phone: 0046
8 16 20 04, Email: [email protected]
2
PhD., Associate Professor, Babeş-Bolyai University, Faculty of Sociology and Social Work, Bd. 21 Decembrie
1989, No.128, 400604, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, Tel/Fax: +40 264 424 674, Email:
[email protected]
3
The authors have contributed equally to the present paper.
4
PhD., Scientific researcher III, Centre for Population Studies, Babeş-Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca, 68 Avram
Iancu St., 3rd floor, 400083 Cluj-Napoca, Romania, Tel/Fax: 0264-599613, Email: [email protected]
3
Section 1: Introduction
Recently, Hoem and Mureşan (2011b) developed the duration-based Total Fertility Rate,
specific for union type, defined by adding together duration-specific (rather than age-specific)
fertility rates for each union type.5 They applied it to Romanian Generations and Gender survey
data for four groups of women, namely (i) those who at any given time had never lived in a
marital or consensual union, (ii) cohabitants, (iii) married women who had lived in a
cohabitational union before they married (for all cohabitational durations combined), and
(iv) women who had married directly (i.e., without premarital cohabitation). The purpose of the
present paper is to extend their approach and to pay more attention to the role that consensual
unions have played in total fertility, partly as precursors to subsequent marital unions and partly
in their own right. Our focus on the role of consensual unions in the analysis of total fertility is
motivated by the decrease in the rate of direct marriage since the 1990s, combined with a steady
growth of cohabitation as a form of partnership (Mureşan 2007, 2008; Hoem et al. 2009). We
concentrate on the total fertility in and after consensual unions because when we combine it with
a simple smoothing procedure this turns out to provide a simple way of overcoming the strong
influence of random variation in a smallish data set like ours. The method constitutes a quickand-dirty alternative to more detailed event-history analyses and avoids some of the complexities
involved in the latter (Hobcraft et al. 1982).
A negative association between education and first birth in cohabitation has been
documented for a number of European countries (Perelli-Harris et al. 2010), both for countries
with a tradition of cohabitation (such as the Nordic countries) and countries where wide-spread
cohabitation is a more recent phenomenon, such as Russia. There is a negative educational
gradient for marital births too, but the negative gradient for births to cohabiting women is steeper
than that of marital births for all countries investigated by Perelli-Harris and collaborators
(2010), except Italy. For Romania, a deeper analysis has been made by Rotariu (2009, 2010,
2011) and Hărăguş (2010, 2011) and they make similar findings. Using vital statistics, Rotariu
shows that non-marital births have been more frequent among women with a low level of
education, who live in poverty, and who are from rural areas, and their births appear at much
5
As these authors made clear, they were inspired by well-known notions of parity-progression rates. While the
present authors were working on the present paper, John Hobcraft pointed out to us that duration-specific rates and
their sums were pervasive in the work around the World Fertility Survey already; see, e.g., Hobcraft et al. (1982)
and Hobcraft and Casterline (1983).
4
lower ages than marital births. Highly educated, professional women are less prone to give birth
outside marriage: Among children whose mothers have a tertiary education and are employed,
and whose fathers work outside agriculture, only 4.7% are born outside marriage (Rotariu 2011,
based on data for 2006-2009). Hărăguş (2011), using the same GGS data as us, also indicates a
strongly negative association between educational attainment and having the first birth in
cohabitation, and this association is much more visible than for first marital births.
Given these results, the present paper contains several extensions of previous empirical
work. In particular we have now
(1) subdivided the group of married women according to the length of any cohabitation
that preceded the marriage and have noted trends in the total fertility of each married subgroup
where feasible,6
(2) studied corresponding time series of total fertility in consensual unions,7
(3) studied trends in total fertility for cohabiting and directly married women, separately
by educational level, and
(4) studied corresponding trends for women of rural and urban origins.
It is particularly attractive to study group-specific trends in Romanian fertility because its
population was subject to unusually dramatic changes in family policies in our years of
investigation. In each of the cases just mentioned, we have therefore followed the trends over as
long a period as the data allow, and now include the years 1965-2005 instead of 1985-2005 as in
the paper by Hoem and Mureşan (2011b). Admittedly we are uncertain about the extra gain that
those twenty extra years actually give, in part because cohabitation may have been restricted to
special groups during the 1960s and 1970s and in part because there may have been problems
with the reliability of partnership histories in survey data so far back due to recall errors and
selective out-migration. Our results should therefore be interpreted with some caution.
In previous work (Mureşan and Hoem 2010, Hoem and Mureşan 2011b) the analysis has
contained control variables (like parity and union order) whose effects have been given as
6
For most groups of duration length there appears to be an uncomfortable amount of random variation in our survey
data, i.e. these data do not have enough respondents to allow the analyst to work with the curves without further
treatment. At each stage the only married groups really large enough for direct presentation seem to be (a) directly
married individuals and (b) those who married during the first year of their consensual union.
7
There does seem to have been enough cohabiting individuals for us to overcome the random variation that has
pestered our analysis of married women.
5
relative risks. We have experimented with similar features in the present setting as well and
(unsurprisingly) have found that group-specific TFRs decline systematically with an increasing
age at union formation. No interesting new patterns in the relative risks by parity and union order
have been revealed beyond those reported earlier. In general, the findings have turned out to be
quite robust against model or data re-specification, something which we did not know before.
Section 2: Data and method
Our data come from the Romanian Generations and Gender Survey of 2005. Its sample
consists of 11,986 respondents (5,977 men and 6,009 women) aged from 18 to 79 years at the
time of interview, but our interest is focused on the 5,847 women belonging to the Romanian or
Hungarian ethnic groups. We have excluded the 162 individuals who were of other ethnicities
(including Roma) because of their very special union formation and childbearing behavior; they
are too few for a reliable separate analysis. We have also eliminated 25 records because they had
improper marital or educational histories. Our final sample has 5,824 women.
Following Hoem and Mureşan (2011b) we have computed fertility rates f dg (t ) for
partnered women at union duration d for selected population subgroups g (such as women in a
consensual union at duration d) and corresponding group-specific “raw” Total Fertility Rates
g
TFRraw
(t )   d f dg (t ) for each calendar year t, to get, say, first values for the duration-based
TFRs for cohabiting women on which Figure 1 is based. The raw values initially computed in
this manner turned out to be too strongly influenced by random variation for our liking. To get
the entries in Figure 1 we have replaced the raw values by smoothed values
TFR g (t ) 
6
 TFR
s 6
g
raw
(t  s) /11, except in the tails of the curve, where we have used fewer terms
in the unweighted moving average that this procedure represents. (Since the smoothing is made
by the moving-average method, we lose smoothed values for the first and last years of
observation, even though we have used only five terms in the moving averages in the curve
tails.)
Moving average graduation is a classical technique for smoothing curves to reveal their
underlying structure.
6
Section 3: Trends in the TFR for women in a consensual union
Figure 1 contains the smoothed trends in the duration-based TFRs for cohabiting women
in the first year of their consensual union, or in the second or third year, or in the fourth to sixth
year, or finally in the seventh through fifteenth year of the union. (Previous investigations have
only studied first births.) We notice (i) that the fertility (measured by the TFR) consistently is the
lowest in the first year of the union and the highest at the longest durations we use, (ii) at the
shorter durations there is a slight downward trend in fertility (in most curves), but (iii) at the
longer union durations the TFR drops strongly from a level just below 1 to a level around onehalf (of a child) in the late 1980s, and then remains pretty stable after the fall of communism. 8
Note that we are considering a strongly dynamic situation: First of all the group of cohabiting
women, for whom the rates in Figure 1 have been computed, is decimated steadily both by union
dissolution and by union conversion, i.e., we take into account that cohabiting women (i) stop
living in a consensual union (or for that matter a marital union) and (ii) convert their consensual
union into a marriage. Second, at duration 0 the group of cohabiting women continuously
receives an in-flow of recruits who begin a (new) consensual union. It is an advantage of our
method that it smoothly allows such dynamics to take place and to be accounted for simply by
suitable computer programming.
Fertility in a consensual union is cumulative, in the sense that the cohabitational TFR
adds up children born in the first union year, children born in the second year, and so on, until
the union is dissolved or converted into a marriage. Figure 2 depicts this by one curve for each
duration year, from the first through the fifteenth year of union duration, which is a far as we
have found it sensible to keep count. Despite the smoothing produced by the aggregation over
duration years and the additional smoothing that we have introduced by the moving-average
procedure, Figure 2 faithfully reflects the vagaries of public policies during the years for which
we have data. A woman’s total fertility consists of a part produced in any consensual union and
an additional part produced in marriage.
8
We have collected our reflections concerning such patterns revealed in our data in Section 6 below.
7
Figure 1. Duration-based Total Fertility in a consensual union,
by grouped years of union duration. Romania 1965-2005
Figure 2. Duration-based Total Fertility in a consensual union,
by single years of duration
8
Section 4. Trends in the duration-based TFR for married women
To show the effect of pre-marital duration, Figure 3 displays the duration-based TFR for
married women by duration of any pre-marital cohabitation. The curve marked with little
triangles is for women who start with a consensual union which they convert to a marriage in
their first year of cohabitation; the curve marked with open rings is for women who married
during their second or third year of cohabitation, and so on. The way we read this diagram, it
provides functional TFR values for the directly married (who have a pre-marital cohabitation of
zero duration) and for married women with one year of cohabitation before marriage, but hardly
for women with durations of four years or more. We have smoothed these curves (by an 11-term
unweighted moving average as usual), and we cannot see that further smoothing or smoothing by
a different procedure can overcome the influence of this much random variation. (There seem to
be just too few married women with these lengths of pre-marital cohabitation in our data), so for
the rest of our analysis we concentrate on the directly married. Married women with 2 to 3 years
of premarital cohabitation may be a borderline case in Figure 3, but it simplifies matters without
much loss of information to concentrate on the directly married alone in what follows. This
means that for simplicity we also disregard married women with a single year of premarital
cohabitation in what follows.9
Note that Figure 3 pertains to married women and that the curves represent their TFR as
produced in marriage only. Any childbearing before the marriage is left out of account in Figure
3. To get a woman’s complete TFR we need to add her contribution from any premarital
cohabitation as derived in Section 3 to the contribution derived for Figure 3, as we have noted
already.
For completeness let us describe how we planned to handle cases with different lengths
of pre-marital cohabitation before we discovered the seriousness of the problems connected to
the small size of the present data:
The TFR values are cumulative, in the sense that an annual value for the 2 nd and 3rd year
(say) in a consensual union is produced by adding together the underlying duration-specific
fertility rates for the second and third year of cohabitation. A combined TFR for a union that is
9
We have also ignored the TFR contributions for women outside of any (consensual or marital) union because these
contributions are very small and contribute little to the women’s lifetime TFRs, computed across all union types.
9
consensual for two years and is then converted into a marriage during the third year of the union
is obtained by adding together the TFRs for the first two (consensual) years of the union, half the
TFR for the third year of the consensual union (on the standard assumption that the consensual
union is converted into a marriage half-way into the third year of the union), and the total TFR in
marriage for a union that is converted in its third year (cf. Figure 3). One might think that it
would be enough to organize marriages by duration of pre-marital cohabitation throughout and
then add pre-marital TFRs to the corresponding marital TFRs restricted to unions that were
converted at the various cohabitational durations, but that procedure would be anticipatory (since
for pre-marital periods one would condition on the subsequent conversion into a marriage), so
we have wanted to avoid such a procedure.
Figure 3. Trends 1965-2005 in duration-based TFRs for married Romanian women,
by duration of any premarital cohabitation
Section 5. The effect of educational attainment
Following up earlier work mentioned in our introduction, we now turn to one of the most
interesting covariate effects that can be illuminated by our data, viz. those of educational
attainment. For the present purpose we distinguish between the three educational levels ‘low’ (no
formal qualifications), ‘middle’ (high school completed or vocational certificate), ‘high’
10
(tertiarydegree or higher), and ‘under education’ (irrespective of any certificate or degree
attained up through current educational level).10
The patterns in the marital TFR appear in Figure 4, which displays the now well-known
negative gradient by educational attainment. (The smoothed curve for each level of attainment
essentially lies below the corresponding curve for lower attainments.) The diagram also shows
how married women who are under education, essentially have TFR values on the level of
married women with middle or high educational attainments. This is as one would expect,
because in recent times students mostly have middle or high levels of education and therefore
should have a corresponding behavior. For people in this category having their childbearing in
marriage has been a matter of prestige while childbearing outside marriage has long been
considered shameful.
Figure 5 shows that similar patterns pertain to women who live in consensual unions:
There is a clearly visible negative educational gradient,11 and cohabiting women who are under
education have a TFR level similar to cohabiting women with a middle or high level of
educational attainment.12 A closer comparison of Figures 4 and 5 shows that the fertility for
cohabiting female students is not as high as for directly married students, just as the same
relationship holds for non-student women.
All in all, births in consensual unions seem to be more characteristic of women with a
low educational attainment, and only recently (after 2000) have they increased slowly for
students or for highly educated women. Romanian society has started to accept modern behavior
like consensual unions and non-marital births in wealthy cities like Bucharest, but only recently
(Dohotariu 2010). Otherwise, consensual unions in Romania more frequently take the forms of
“concubinage”, which is specific for couples with a low socio-economic status and a low level of
10
For more exact definitions, see Mureşan and Hoem (2010).
11
Negative educational gradients are also reported by the 2002 census of Romania. At age 50-54 it found an
average number of children by the mother’s educational level as follows: without any studies 3.2 children, primary
school 3.1, gymnasium 2.6, high school 1.7, and tertiary education 1.4 children.
12
We actually are not sure how genuine our high level of the TFR for students is. It may (at least partly) be an
artifact due to the fact that we have needed to record a woman as under education even in periods where she has
interrupted her studies since complete educational histories are not available in the data.
11
education, living most often in rural settlements.13 Among cohabiting women, those with the
highest education, with the highest socio-economic status, and with residence in urban areas
rather tend to be childless (Hărăguş 2008).
In Figure 5 we have also plotted the official TFR for the whole population and see that its
time series is much like the TFR series for women with a low educational attainment. The latter
educational group also stands out by having TFR developments that remarkably are much the
same in consensual unions as in direct marriages (Figure 6), except that low-educated women in
consensual unions seem to be the more sensitive to political developments around the time of the
fall of state socialism. Not only do women with only compulsory education have more children
in consensual unions than those with higher levels of education, but we can now see that the ups
and downs that occurred in the implementation of the pro-natalist policies during communism
affected this group of the population more than others (Figure 5). Their increased fertility during
the first five years after 1967 (when the sudden introduction of the ban on abortions lead to a
doubling of the overall birth rates), and the firmly decreasing tendency in the TFR after 1987 is
more visible on the TFRs of cohabiting women with a low educational attainment than in other
union situations or for women on other educational levels. In fact these women depended more
on police-type actions of the forced pro-natalist policies, since they had less resources to escape
them. In addition, childcare allowances often were, and still are, the main living resources for
this poor population segment, which was also less successful on the marriage market. Their
plight may have played a role during the later years of our study, where one can notice a strong
decrease of fertility in this group of women from a level around 2.5 before the fall of
communism to a new level around 1.7 thereafter (Figures 5 and 6). The share of women with a
low level of education (and of rural origin) is (and has always been) relatively high in the
Romanian population, even if the secular trend is on the decrease. For example the female
sample of the GGS has 31% of women without any degree or certificate of education, 58% have
high school or a vocational degree, and only 11% have a tertiary degree. Seventy-one per cent of
the women were born and grew up in rural areas. In consequence the TFR pattern of these large
categories is naturally more similar to the total population of official statistics. What is new here
13
For this interpretation, see Rotariu (2009, 2010, 2011), who studied vital statistics, and Hărăguş (2010), who
worked with the same data set as we do.
12
is the discovery that differences linked to demographic policies to such an extent were connected
to by women in consensual unions with a low level of education or with a rural origin.
TFR levels for women of rural and urban backgrounds have approached each other both
for cohabitants (Figure 7) and for directly married women.14
Figure 4. Trends over 1965-2005 in duration-based TFRs for directly married
Romanian women, by level of education.
14
We do not document the latter here.
13
Figure 5. Duration-based Total Fertility Rates, specific for consensual unions,
by educational level. Romania, 1965-2005. Also official TFR for the whole population
Figure 6. Duration-based Total Fertility Rates specific for low educational attainment.
Cohabiting and directly married women, Romania, 1965-2005
14
Figure 7. Duration-based Total Fertility Rates for cohabiting women
of rural and urban origin. Romania, 1965-2005
Section 6: Discussion
Among the patterns that our extensions have revealed or confirmed are the following:
(a) Total fertility decreases monotonically as educational attainment increases, both for
cohabiting and for directly married women, as noted before by Mureşan and Hoem (2010) for all
women taken together. This covers births of all orders. Similar results for first births to
cohabiting women, were found by Perelli-Harris et al. (2010).
(b) Women with a rural background consistently have a higher total fertility than women
with an urban background both in cohabitational unions and in direct marriages.
(c) More remarkably, we have found that among women with a low educational
attainment the total fertility in marital and in cohabitational unions are largely of the same size
order.
Our findings neatly complement those of official Romanian statistics, where the 2002
census showed an average number of 1.97 children to couples in consensual unions and the
lower average number of 1.72 children to married couples. We have also found a remarkable
correspondence between the trends in the official Total Fertility Rate and those of women with
15
low educational attainment in consensual unions, as well as a roughly similar correspondence for
rural women in such unions. There is no such correspondence for women with more educational
attainment or for women in direct marriages. It is as if developments in the official TFR are
driven largely by rural women in consensual unions and by women with low educational
attainment in such unions.
There remains the question why women with a low socio-economic status and low
educational attainment more often choose alternative living arrangements and bear children
outside marriage. Several possible explanations have been discussed in the literature.
Rotariu (2011) emphasizes that most of the growth in non-marital childbearing after the
fall of the socialist regime is not due to the spread of the post-modern values and attitudes, but
comes from the revival of some behaviors that manifested themselves also during past centuries
in Romania. He argues that in this cultural area the modernization process was incomplete and
that births outside marriage have always existed, as an almost socially accepted behavior, at least
in some communities15. The socio-economic crisis that followed the change of the political
regime favored the spread of this behavior mainly in the cultural areas where it existed before.
Rotariu (2009, 2011) also points out that non-marital births have a high incidence in the Roma
population, which has a very low living standard, and whose social integration is deeply
deficient16. Due to its small size the Roma population was excluded from our analysis.
Cohabitation and non-marital childbearing in Eastern Europe show more similarities with
the U.S. than with Northern and Western European countries (Perelli-Harris et al. 2010, PerelliHarris and Gerber 2011, Hărăguş 2010, 2011). There is an important body of literature from the
U.S. that looks for explanatory mechanisms for this behavior, and we believe that some of the
mechanisms identified function to a certain extent in Romania also.
Financial aspects are important for marriage, as this institution includes expectations
about economic roles, while cohabiting unions require less initial commitment to fulfill longterm economic responsibilities (Seltzer 2000). Couples probably think they should reach specific
economic goals before they marry, such as stable employment, a certain financial situation, and
15
Kok (2009) also mentions the high level of illegitimacy around 1900 in provinces that form the present Romanian
territory and connects it with the family system in the region, arguing that the cohabitation and non-marital
childbearing seen nowadays seem to be a return to old traditions.
16
Although 72% of all Roma births are out of wedlock, births by these women represent only 7.4% of total nonmarital births registered in Romania in 2007 (while 86.6% belongs to the Romanian ethnic group) (Rotariu 2009).
16
housing of a certain quality. For the US, Bumpass, Sweet and Cherlin (1991) found a negative
relation between income and expectations to never marry; in other words, among cohabiters,
those with more financial resources have the higher expectations to marry their partner and also
are the most likely to realize these intentions (Smock and Manning 1997). Less educated women
have less human capital to transform into economic resources and are likely to choose partners
with fewer economic resources also, and therefore the economic incentives for marriage for these
women are small (Upchurch, Lillard and Panis 2002). When the economic circumstances of
adult men are constrained, they postpone marriage; those with insecure economic prospects,
including those enrolled in education, rather choose cohabitation over marriage (Seltzer 2000).
Persons with low educational attainment have, implicitly, fewer chances on the labor market, and
these persons were most affected by the hardships of the socio-economic transition that followed
the fall of the socialist regime in Romania, making the achievement of a certain financial
stability required by marriage more difficult.
Marriage represents achievement and signifies prestige (Cherlin 2004); women with a
low education and with low income see marriage as something to aspire to, while parenthood is
attainable regardless of financial stability or marital status (Smock and Greenland 2010).
American women with a low educational attainment and low income seem to tend to choose to
have a child and not to marry in order to give a meaning to their life (Edin and Kefalas 2005). It
is unlikely that this explanation holds in Romanian society, and we believe that many of the
conceptions in cohabiting unions in Romania are in fact unplanned pregnancies due to
insufficient availability and inefficient use of contraception, a fact noted also by Perelli-Harris et
al. (2009) based on a massive change in partnership status observed between conception and
birth.
On the other hand, children bring social capital to their parents (Schoen and Tufiş 2003);
parenthood intensifies interactions and support from other members of the family, which eases
the tasks of childcare and childrearing. During the 1980s there were voices that suggested a
positive relationship between welfare benefits and non-marital births in the U.S. (Murray 1984,
cited by Edin and Kefalas 2005), but in Romania the maternity and childcare allowances are
conditioned by employment in the year previous to the birth, so women who are the least
educated and who are not employed do not benefit from this.
17
The fact that births in cohabiting unions mainly affect women with a low socio-economic
status and low educational attainment creates premises for challenges in the social, financial and
emotional development of children born and raised in such unions, given that the partner’s
socio-economic status and education are likely to be similar to the woman’s.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to John Hobcraft for reminding us of the use of duration-based fertility
rates in the work on the World Fertility Survey, and to Kim Lindoff Jansson for researchassistant services. Economic support for Cornelia Mureşan from the Max Planck Gesellschaft is
gratefully acknowledged. The work of Mihaela Hărăguş was supported by a grant of the
Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number PNII-ID-PCE-2011-3-0145 .
References
Bumpass, L, Sweet, J., and Cherlin, A. (1991). The Role of Cohabitation in Declining Rates of
Marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family 53(4): 913-927.
Cherlin, A. (2004). The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 66(4): 848-861.
Dohotariu, Anca (2010). Avec deux, ne faire qu’un: couple et cohabitation hors mariage dans le
postcommunisme roumain (Two Only Make Up One:The Couple and Cohabitation about
Marriage in the Romanian Postcommunism), Romanian Journal of Population Studies 1:
25-38.
Edin, K. and M. Kefalas. (2005). Promises I can keep: why poor women put motherhood before
marriage. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.
Hărăguş, Mihaela (2008). Tranziţia la statutul de părinte în Europa. Evoluţii recente şi posibili
determinanţi (Transition to parenthood in Europe. Recent evolutions and possible
determinants). Presa Universitară Clujeană: Cluj-Napoca.
Hărăguş, Mihaela (2010). Nonmarital Childbearing in Romania, Romanian Journal of
Population Studies 2: 44-64.
Hărăguş, Mihaela (2011). Naşterile în contexte diferite de cel marital (Childbearing in contexts
different from marriage). Forthcoming in Calitatea Vieţii.
Hobcraft, John N., Noreen Goldman, and V. C. Chidambaram (1982). Advances in the P/F ratio
method for the analysis of birth histories. Population Studies 36 (4), 291-316.
18
Hobcraft, John N. and John B.Casterline (1983). Speed of reproduction. World Fertility Survey
Comparative Studies 25. ISI Voorburg, The Netherlands.
Hoem, Jan M. and Cornelia Mureşan (2011a). An extension of the conventional TFR. European
Journal of Population 27 (4), 389-402.
Hoem, Jan M. and Cornelia Mureşan (2011b). The Total Marital Fertility Rate and its extensions.
European Journal of Population 27(3): 295-312.
Hoem, Jan M., Kostova, Dora, Jasilionine, Aiva and Cornelia Mureşan (2009). The Structure of
Recent First-Union Formation in Romania. Romanian Journal of Population Studies
III(1): 33-44.
Kok, Jan (2009). Family Systems as Frameworks for Understanding Variation in Extra-marital
Births, Europe 1900-2000. In Fauve-Chamoux, A. and Bolovan I. (eds.) Families in
Europe between the 19th and the 21st Centuries. From Traditional Model to
Contemporary PACS, Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitara Clujeana, pp. 13-38.
Mureşan, Cornelia (2007). Family dynamics in pre- and post-transition Romania: a life-table
description. MPIDR Working Paper WP-2007-018.
Mureşan, Cornelia (2008). Cohabitation, an alternative for marriage in contemporary Romania: a
life table description. Demográfia, 51 (5), English Edition: 36–65.
Mureşan, Cornelia and Jan M. Hoem (2010). The negative educational gradients in Romanian
fertility. Demographic Research 22(4): 95-114.
Perelli-Harris, B., Sigle-Rushton, W., Lappegard, T., Di Giulio, P., Jasilioniene, A., Renske, K.,
Koppen, K., Berghammer, C., and Kreyenfeld, M.(2009). Examining nonmarital
childbearing in Europe: how does union context differ across countries? MPIDR Working
Paper WP-2009-021
Perelli-Harris, B, Sigle-Rushton, W., Kreyenfeld, M., Lappegård T., Berghammer, C., and
Keizer, R. (2010). The educational gradient of childbearing within cohabitation in
Europe. Population and Development Review 36 (4), 775-801.
Perelli-Harris, B, and Gerber, T.P. (2011). Non-marital childbearing in Russia: second
demographic transition or pattern of disadvantage? Demography 48 (1): 317-342
Rotariu, Traian (2009). Marital and Extramarital Fertility in Latter-Day Romania. In FauveChamoux, A. and Bolovan I. (eds.) Families in Europe between the 19th and the 21st
Centuries. From Traditional Model to Contemporary PACS, Cluj-Napoca: Presa
Universitara Clujeana, pp. 361-380.
Rotariu, Traian. (2010). Extramarital Births in Romania versus Other European Countries - A
Few Considerations, Studia Sociologia 2: 37-60.
Rotariu, Traian (2011). Naşterile şi concepţiile extramaritale în România anilor 2006-2008.
Cazul primelor naşteri (Non-marital births and conceptions in Romania 2006-2008. The
case of the first birth). In P. Ilut (ed.), Studii de sociopsihologie, Cluj, Presa Universitară
Clujeană: 17-38.
Schoen, R., Tufis, P. (2003). Precursors of nonmarital fertility in the United States. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 65(4): 1030 – 1040.
19
Seltzer, J.A. (2000). Families Formed outside of Marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family,
62(4): 1247-1268.
Smock, P. J., and Manning, W. D. (1997). Cohabiting partners’ economic circumstances and
marriage. Demography, 34: 331 – 341.
Smock, P.J., and Greenland, F.R. (2010). Diversity in Pathways to Parenthood: Patterns,
Implications, and Emerging Research Directions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72:
576 – 593.
Sobotka, T. and L. Toulemon (2008). Overview Chapter 4: Changing family and partnership
behaviour: Common trends and persistent diversity across Europe. Demographic
Research 19: 85-138.
Upchurch, D.M., Lillard, L. A., and Panis, C. (2002). Nonmarital childbearing: Influences of
education, marriage, and fertility. Demography, 39(2): 311-329.