Is the French PACS similar to cohabitation or marriage? Recently merged census and tax data on partnership situations and transitions
Giulia Ferrari and Laurent Toulemon1
Paper presented at PAA 2018, session 156 Family Complexity and Diversity Outside the United States Friday, April 27, 2018
Introduction
In France, wo e ’ a d e ’s ouple o figu atio s ha e o siste tly ha ged o e the last fo ty years: marriage rates have dramatically declined and Pacs (i.e., French civil partnerships) have become increasingly common as a new form of legal union (Mazuy et al. 2014). At the same time, there is high uncertainty on the future evolution of marriage and Pacs in France: in 2015, 235,000 marriages and 192,000 Pacs were celebrated, with a very high total of , legalized u io s (INSEE 2017). There are currently few Pacs transformed into marriages. Marriages and Pacs are both occurring at older ages, while age at first cohabiting union is stable (Costemalle 2015). Unmarried (and unpacsed) unions are thus becoming more frequent, especially at young ages, but the long-term trend in couple situations remains uncertain. Previous research has investigated different couple situations, either based upon administrative data (thus missing unmarried cohabitations) or survey data (thus suffering of attrition and memory bias). However, to our knowledge there is not yet any study looking at the transition probabilities and the evolution of different couple situations in France, including cohabiting unions and Pacs. Moreover, none has yet studied how these phenomena vary across socio-economic strata, although theoretical considerations (Oppenheimer 1977) suggest that the diffusion of positive norms and attitudes towards unconventional forms of union and individualism may occur at different paces. In this paper, we start by looking at the current age and sex distribution of different types of partnerships and their future evolutions based on the transition probabilities observed between 2010 and 2015. We verify that although marriages are declining and occurring at older ages, they have been almost completely replaced by unmarried and unregistered cohabitations at young (and old) ages on the one hand, and Pacs on the other. Then we observe the characteristics of these alte ati e u io types: oha itatio ’s fo atio s a d dissolutio s ith espe t to fo al partnerships, marriage probabilities according to couple situation and Pacs as a prelude or rather as an alternative to marriage. Further, our analysis by gender, age and educational attainment sheds more light on the current and future changes that will occur in the way people form and dissolve partnerships in France.
Recent trends in partnership formation and dissolution in France and other European countries
In recent years we have observed consistent changes in couple configurations of men and women in France, with a dramatic decline in marriage rates and a recent increase in Pacs2 as a new form of
1 Institut national d'études démographiques (INED), 133, Bd DAVOUT, 75 980 PARIS Cedex 20 France. [email protected]; [email protected] 2 The Act of 15 November 1999 of the French Civil Code, amended several times since, provides unmarried couples the opportunity to organize their life together, with some social and tax advantages to boot. A Civil Partnership or Pacs (Pacte civil de solidarité) may be established by a private or notarial instrument. It is egiste ed at the dist i t ou t of the pa t e s’ joi t pla e of eside e. All the fo alities as ega ds
1
legal union (Mazuy et al. 2014). With respect to marriage, Pacs is simpler to start and to end, is less protective in terms of inheritance and reversion pension, but is also increasingly similar to marriage in terms of potential fiscal benefits3 and officiality4. At the same time, there is high uncertainty on the future evolution of marriage and Pacs in France: in 2015, 235,000 marriages and 192,000 Pacs were celebrated, with a very high total of 427,00 legalized u io s INSEE ). As Pacs has become popular only recently, very few Pacs are transformed into marriage (around 3,000 per year) but the current couple behaviors carry the potential for major changes. Although marriages and Pacs are both occurring at older ages (with an increase in mean age at first marriage for men and women of respectively 2.4 and 2.9 years between 2000 and 2015 (INSEE 2017)), age at first cohabiting union is stable (Rault & Régnier-Lolier 2015, Costemalle 2015). Unmarried (and unpacsed) unions are thus becoming more frequent, especially at young ages, but not only, many second unions being entered without a marriage or a Pacs (Costemalle 2015). Union dissolutions are generally more likely for cohabitants than for married couples (between 1.5 and 4 times higher according to the country) and this holds true even if children are present (Andersson et al. 2017). However, this trend may be affected by the contextual acceptance and diffusion of such a form of union and it has been proved that the dissolution risk of cohabitors, relative to married couples, is higher where premarital cohabitation represents either a small or a large proportion of partnerships (Liefbroer & Doulejin 2006). Since 1972 the number of marriages in France has declined. After stabilization between 1985 and 2000, they declined again, while Pacs spread as an alternative form of legal recognition of unions for different-sex couples (Rault 2009). Total first marriage rates have halved over the subsequent 40 years: between 1972 and 2012, they fell from 91.7% to 46.6% first marriages for 100 men and from 94.8% to 47.4% first marriages for 100 women. Pacs were introduced on 15 November 1999; A pacs may be chosen for at least three reasons: as an alternative to marriage, as a trial to marriage or, at least before 2013, as the only possible formal union for same-sex couples (Rault 2009). Pacs became rapidly quite diffused, not only among same- sex couples but also to different-sex couples: from 17,000 in 2000 to 180,000 in 2015 among different-sex couples. The number of Pacs is still increasing. In 2015 about 180,000 Pacs were registered, to be compared to 223,000 marriages representing more than 40% of officialized unions (marriages plus Pacs). After a peak of 150,000 in 2005, the number of divorces is back to 120,000, its value in 1995. However, probabilities of divorce by marriage duration have increased with successive cohorts: between the 1970 and 2000 cohorts they doubled for marriage durations of 10 years. Pacs dissolutions increased over the period 2010-2013, however we need to bear in mind that almost 40% of them are transformed into marriages. The analysis of same-sex couples implies a precise checking of the data, as a limited number of errors on the sex of one or another partner may lead to large relative errors on same-sex couples (Regnier-Loilier 2017). Same-sex Pacs have always been a small minority of Pacs: around 5,000 in 2000 and always less than 10,000 per year since (Insee 2017). In 2013 a new law authorized same-sex establishing the Pacs are centralized on a single register held at the registry of the court that recorded the initial instrument. 3 As of 2005, all Pacs couples are required to file joint tax returns, in the same manner as married couples. Due to the way that the progressive tax is applied in France, a couple filing joint income tax, in almost all cases, pays less tax than they would filing separately if one of the partners earns substantially more than the other. But partners do not inherit, nor can they receive reversion pension, in case of death, contrarily to married couples. 4 This has recently changed: from 1 November 2017, registration of the Pacs takes place in the town hall (and no longer in the court of first instance). The bill to modernize the justice of the XXI century has provided for the transfer to the registrar powers vested in the Registrar for Pacs by private deed. The possibility of signing Pacs with an attorney is maintained.
2
marriages. In that year, 7,000 same-sex marriages and 6,000 same-sex Pacs were contracted. For these reasons this study will not distinguish between same-sex and different-sex couples.
Socioeconomic differences in partnership formation and dissolution
Women have achieved increasingly higher levels of education in all high- and middle-income countries and the gender gap in education has reversed. In almost all countries with more than 20% of the population with tertiary education, women have an educational advantage over men (Esteve et al. 2016). This trend has profoundly affected family dynamics and outcomes, especially the way in which people form and dissolve unions. The reversal of education gap has translated into 1) the end of hypergamy (husbands having more education than wives) and the increase of hypogamy (wives having more education than husbands), particularly in countries where women in general are more educated than men; 2) the same trend with pa t e s’ income; 3) the positive association between i es’ edu atio i o e a d di o e is o lo ge sig ifi a t (Lyngstad & Jalovaara 2010). Nonetheless, to our knowledge no research has investigated how different partnership types are formed and dissolved at different life course stages by individual educational attainment. Indeed, socioeconomic differences deriving form education may translate in different transitions and evolutions over time of the various ways of entering and exiting a couple, that is through unmarried and unregistered cohabitations, registered and unmarried partnerships (Pacs) and marriages.
Assumptions and research questions
Based on previous literature and on the trends observed in France over the last 40 years, we expect:
1.a. a further decrease in the prevalence of married couples; 2.a. an increasing importance of unmarried and unregistered partnerships (so called, cohabitations), especially as first unions at young ages (Rault & Régnier-Lolier 2015); 3.a. an increasing importance in the prevalence of registered partnerships, both as an alternative to a iage a d as a t ial ti e fo it Mazuy et al. ; 4.a. a higher instability of unregistered and unmarried cohabitating unions (Costemalle, 2015) with respect to marriages and Pacs, Pacs being slightly more fragile than marriages.
Further we hypothesized the following differences by socioeconomic strata:
1.b. a further decrease in the prevalence of married couples, especially in higher-educated strata (Esping-Andersen & Billari 2015); 2.b. a stronger importance of cohabiting unions at young ages for low educated people; 3.b. an increase in Pacs and in Pacs relationships that last and do not transform into marriage especially for high educated people; 4.b. Higher dissolution rates of cohabiting couples in low socioeconomic strata, moderate differences by education in Pacs and marriage dissolutions.
In particular, we aim at answering to questions such as: (1) What is the distribution by age and sex of different couple situations (i.e. Single, Cohabitor, Married, and Pacsed)? (2) How many people transit to another couple situation from one year to the five next? (3) Do distributions and transition probabilities vary across socioeconomic strata? Here we want to answer to these questions using recently available administrative data and through multistate life tables.
3
Data and methods In order to answer to these questions and verify our assumptions, we take benefit of the availability of the French Demographic Panel, Échantillon démographique permanent, EDP, conducted by the INSEE, the French Institute of Statistics. For a 4% sample of all inhabitants of France, EDP is merging data from population censuses, vital events registration, and salaries. It is available for research through a secured remote access system (CASD, see https://casd.eu/). Since 2011, the dataset has been enriched with tax data (income and housing tax data, including all source of income). This dataset offers, on a yearly basis, information on household and family composition for a very large sample, without the shortcomings of surveys, namely non response, plus attrition in panel studies or memory bias in retrospective ones5. In France, the general population census has been replaced by annual census surveys, so that information from the census is, each year, available for 14% of the sample. Census forms include precise questions about couple status (are you living as a couple?) as well as a question on marital status (single, married, divorced, widowed) but, until 2017, no information on Pacs. Tax data allow identifying pacsed and married couples, but does not distinguish between unrelated persons sharing the same dwelling and unmarried couples. Preliminary checks showed that census and tax data are not entirely consistent on partner identity (date and place of birth) and couple status (cohabiting, married or pacsed). We thus decided to apply a raw definition of couple situation and change, based on the combination of census and tax data. In practice, we started with census data on couple status ( ased o the a s e to the uestio do you li e as a ouple? . Among people living as a couple according to the census, we collect information on a marriage or a Pacs in tax data. This step allows us to further distinguish people in a couple either in a married or a Pacs partnership, the remaining being in an unregistered and unmarried cohabitation. This procedure is similar to the one used by Heuveline et Timberlake (2002) to identify hild e ’s fa ily situatio : basing the measure on the female sample for the family situation of children living with their mother and, for children not living with their mother, using the male sample. Thanks to the rotation feature of the census (i.e., the same dwellings are included every fifth year), e ould also li k ou i itial sa ple ith the e sus u i , a d epeat the pa t e ships’ identification with the help of tax data in the same year. This operation has a very low attrition but it implies to accurately weight individuals included in 2010, whose inclusion probability in 2015 being much lower if they moved (around 14%) that if they did not move or moved with staying in the same small municipality or in the same address in a large town (100%). Based on these data, we build multistate life tables on the following transitions, between the states singlehood (S), cohabitation (C), Pacs (P), and marriage (M). Due to errors in the identification of the partner in tax and census data, we do not identify partner change as a change in couple situation, so that the four categories are based only on individual features in t and t+5. One transition only is allowed during the 5 year period; the transition probabilities are estimated separately for women and men for ages 15 to 75 and above and further by educational attainment. To simplify the analysis, age has been grouped into 13 five-year classes and educational attainment has been divided into 3 categories: low (i.e., below secondary school degree), middle (i.e., secondary school degree), and high (i.e., above secondary school degree). We estimate transition probabilities conditioned on survival and the absence of out-migration, but the death of a partner is considered as a move to the si gle state. In principle, moving from certain states to others, as from being married to be pacsed and from being married or pacsed to cohabit, are very rare if we consider a 1-year interval but are plausi le a d allo ed ith a -year interval, all the more that we do not consider the identity of the partner.
5 The EDP was launched by the INSEE since 1968. Information on this complex dataset and its history can be found at https://utiledp.site.ined.fr/en/. A complete description is present in (Jugnot 2014).
4
This multistate life table on partnership distribution provides rates of entry to and exit from each possible conjugal state (Brouard 1980).
t+5 S C M P TOT
Single S NSS NSC NSM NSP NS.
Cohabitor C NCS NCC NCM NCP NC.
t Married M NMS NMC NMM NMP NM.
Pacsed P NPS NPC NPM NPP NP.
TOT N.1 N.2 N.3 N.4 N..
With Nij being the (weighted) number of persons in state i at time t and in state j at t+5, with i and j in (S, C, M, P). From these values we can compute the probability of passing from one given state to another by dividing the number of people in that cell of the matrix by its row total. So, for instance, the probability of passing from being single in t to cohabiting in t+5 (forward) is the following: 6 qx(SC) = NSC/NS.. All in all, we can compute transition probabilities from one state to the other for each age group. We thus estimate the distribution by conjugal states deduced from these transition probabilities by recurrence on age: the distribution at age [x+5;x+10) is a function of the distribution at age [x;x+5) and the transition probabilities qx, computed as follows:
- S(15) = 1; C(15) = 0; M(15) = 0; P(15) = 0 - S(x+5) = S(x) * 5qx(S->S) + C(x) * 5qx (C->S) + M(x) * 5qx (M->S) + P(x) * 5qx (P->S) - C(x+5) = S(x) * 5qx (S->C) + C(x) * 5qx (C->C) + M(x) * 5qx (M->C) + P(x) * 5qx (P->C) - M(x+5) = S(x) * 5qx (S->M) + C(x) * 5qx (C->M) + M(x) * 5qx (M->M) + P(x) * 5qx (P->M) - P(x+5) = S(x) * 5qx (S->P) + C(x) * 5qx (C->P) + M(x) * 5qx (M->P) + P(x) * 5qx (P->P).
These life tables from 2010 to 2015 thus allow us producing two types of results. First, the stable proportions deduced from the transitions can be compared to the current proportions. As the latter are the consequence of transitions at ages lower than x in periods prior than t, while the former are based only on transitions in t, the comparison sheds light on the current trends and allows forecasting future couple situation distribution, especially at older ages. The life-table estimates are based on a series of simplifying assumptions used to compute the transition probabilities. First, the probabilities do not include all transitions, and some events remain unnoticed, in case more than one event occurs between 2010 and 2015. In case of a couple signing a Pacs followed by a rapid marriage, or a union disruption followed by a new union, only the transition between the situations in 2010 and 2015 are used: from cohabitation to marriage, in the first case, from union to union in the second case. Second, the transitions are estimated from the ratio of events to initial population, assuming that each group is homogenous conditional of sex and age. This assumption is obviously not fulfilled, as the transitions depend on many other characteristics of individuals: for those who are not living as a
6 This is different from considering the probability that those who are cohabiting in t+5 were single in t
(backward) which is computed by: qx(SC)=NSC/N.C. For an extensive discussion of the potential use of these backward probabilities, see (Brouard, 1980).
5
couple, we could add working status, profession, place of residence, couple history, number of children ever born or living with the person, etc. For individual living as a couple, additional characteristics of the partner could also be considered. Furthermore, the sequential feature of the couple history could lead to order the episodes (Teachman 2008) or to include more complex and inverse relationships, like e.g. the impact of couple situation on fertility or working status. These kind of models allow testing sophisticated assumptions (Bijlsma and Wilson 2017), but simpler models lead to more robust results, and are sufficient for our purpose in this paper. Our analysis by level of education is based on a stratification of individuals by educational attainment as observed in 2015, with neglecting the (very few) changes in educational attainment after age 25, especially after the first entry into union. We will first show results based on the projection of transition rates in different partnership situations and then we will analyse crucial transition probabilities for the general population and distinguishing by educational attainment and age.
Results
Future evolution of partnership types: the decline in marriage is partially offset by the rise in cohabitation and Pacs
Figure 1 compares the current situation (observed in t+5) and the distribution by age and sex deduced from the multistate life tables (estimates, est.). It shows that the current transitions, would they remain stable, would lead to a further decrease in the prevalence of married couples (red lines). The proportion of adult men or women not in a couple would remain stable (with a slight increase at ages after 55 years). Unregistered and unmarried partnerships (blue lines) are and will remain very common at young ages (up to 30 for men and up to 35 for women) and in the future will slightly increase at older ages (i.e., after 35 years for men and after 50 years for women). Pacs partnerships (green lines) were only introduced in 1999 and are thus not yet very common, however Pacs and marriages have the same likelihood at young ages (i.e., up to 30 for men and up to 25 for women) and Pacs are likely to become more common and reach the same frequency as cohabitation at older ages. Therefore, the decline in marriage would not be outweighed for by an ongoing increase in unmarried cohabitation but will be compensated by a dramatic increase of the prevalence of Pacs, especially at ages above 30. The number of single people (yellow lines) is also expected to rise, especially above 55 years for men and, to a lower extent, 60 years for women. Our analysis hence shows that the current situation is far from equilibrium and that untraditional partnership forms will likely go on substituting for traditional marriage, while singlehood may increase at higher ages, especially for men.
6
Figure 1 Distribution by sex and age of couple situation, as observed in 2015 and estimated from the transitions between 2010 and 2015 (percent) 100 100 MEN WOMEN 90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60 % % 50 % 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
S Obs C Obs M Obs P Obs S Obs C Obs M Obs P Obs S est C est M est P est S est C est M est P est
Although the decline in marriage and the increase of Pacs are ongoing phenomena, they do not occur at the same pace for every age and in all socio-economic strata. In figure 2 and table 1 we compare estimated and observed distributions of couple situations by individual educational attainment. According to life table estimates, marriage frequencies will decline for the whole French population, and this decline will be particularly important for low (very thin dotted lines) and middle (thin and small dashed lines) educated men up to age 40, for high (thick dashed lines) educated men between 40 and 55 and again for low educated men above 65 years; for women the decline will start for low educated up to age 30 and then shifts to middle educated.
7
Figure 2 Estimated and observed proportions by conjugal situation. Men and women aged 15-75+ by level of education
a. Low education
100 100 MEN WOMEN 80 80
60 60 % % % 40 40
20 20
0 0
L_S est L_C est L_M est L_P est L_S est L_C est L_M est L_P est L_S t+5 L_C t+5 L_M t+5 L_P t+5 L_S t+5 L_C t+5 L_M t+5 L_P t+5
b. Medium education
100 100 MEN WOMEN
80 80
60 60 % % % % 40 40
20 20
0 0
M_S est M_C est M_M est M_P est M_S est M_C est M_M est M_P est M_S t+5 M_C t+5 M_M t+5 M_P t+5 M_S t+5 M_C t+5 M_M t+5 M_P t+5
c. High education
100 100 MEN WOMEN
80 80
60 60 % % % % 40 40
20 20
0 0
H_S est H_C est H_M est H_P est H_S est H_C est H_M est H_P est H_S Obs H_C Obs H_M Obs H_P Obs H_S t+5 H_C t+5 H_M t+5 H_P t+5
8
Table 1 Differences between life tables estimates of couple situations observed in t+5 by age, sex and education MEN
Low educated Middle educated High educated All
S C M P S C M P S C M P S C M P
20-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25-30 1 0 -1 0 0 0 1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30-35 4 0 -6 2 8 -1 -8 1 -1 2 -1 0 2 1 -5 1 35-40 0 1 -5 4 2 0 -7 5 -2 1 -5 5 -1 1 -6 5 40-45 -1 0 -5 6 2 2 -12 8 4 2 -16 10 1 2 -11 9 45-50 1 1 -10 9 0 1 -12 11 1 1 -18 17 0 1 -13 13 50-55 3 2 -11 7 5 1 -21 15 -6 2 -12 16 0 1 -13 12 55-60 5 4 -15 6 2 2 -10 7 0 1 -16 15 2 2 -14 10 60-65 8 4 -16 4 1 2 -7 4 3 1 -16 12 4 3 -14 7 65-70 16 4 -22 3 -1 3 -9 6 0 1 -13 12 10 3 -18 5 70-75 18 3 -24 2 2 2 -4 0 0 2 -15 12 12 3 -19 4 75+ 14 2 -19 3 -10 3 8 0 -7 1 -7 13 7 2 -13 4
WOMEN
Low educated Middle educated High educated All S C M P S C M P S C M P S C M P 20-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25-30 1 2 -4 1 1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 -1 0 30-35 0 0 -2 2 6 0 -9 3 -1 0 -3 3 1 1 -4 3 35-40 -1 0 -2 2 5 -1 -13 9 1 -1 -5 4 1 0 -6 5 40-45 0 2 -5 2 3 -2 -13 11 -1 -1 -5 7 -1 0 -6 7 45-50 2 1 -5 2 5 -2 -11 7 -8 1 -5 13 -2 0 -6 8 50-55 4 3 -11 3 5 0 -15 10 -5 -1 -7 12 0 1 -10 9 55-60 5 5 -13 3 -1 1 -11 12 0 0 -9 9 1 3 -11 7 60-65 7 3 -13 3 0 3 -16 13 -3 7 -6 2 2 3 -11 6 65-70 10 2 -15 3 6 0 -21 14 1 5 -7 1 6 2 -13 5 70-75 8 1 -12 2 1 0 -16 15 0 3 -4 1 4 1 -10 4 75+ -8 0 5 2 -16 3 -2 0 -10 1 6 1 -11 1 6 4
The partial compensatory effect of registered partnerships will also be stronger in some socioeconomic strata than in others: for men they will moderately increase among low educated at ages higher than 30, while the increase will be larger for men with a high and middle education; among highly educated men, the increase would take place also at older ages. Pacs for women will also increase above age 30, especially among middle and high educated strata. Unmarried and unregistered cohabitations are not expected to increase a lot, however the rise in frequencies will be more important for low educated men and women above 50 years. Singlehood is expected to slightly increase, especially for low educated strata, above 55 years for men and above 65 years for women. By contrast, he proportion single would not increase among men and women with middle or high education, for whom the increase in Pacs and unmarried cohabitation will compensate for the ongoing decline in proportion married. Comparing contrasts by education based on observed and estimated proportions, the most striking trend is the increase in singleness among less educated men and women with a low level of
9
education at ages after 60, and among women with middle education at ages 35-60, while the proportion of men and women living as a couple would be the smallest among highly educated men and women.
Transition probabilities: Pacs are much more solid than unmarried cohabitation
Table 2, panel a, summarizes multistate life tables between 2010 and 2015 for men and women separately. Crucial and commented transitions are highlighted. Unmarried and unregistered partnerships are a common form of union for single people (underlined transitions). Transitions from the state of single to married or pacsed are less likely than transitions from single to unmarried cohabitations, especially for men (12.0% vs. 13.4%) and almost equal for women (10.8% vs. 10.6%). This suggests that people frequently start with cohabitation before entering a formal union, all the more that in 5 years people have enough time to start a cohabitation and transform it into a Pacs or a marriage. Relatively few Pacs are transformed into marriages (16.0% for men and 17.7% for women, bold transitions), however marriage probabilities among Pacsed people are higher than among cohabiting and single people (for men 16.0% vs 15.0% and 8.3% respectively, and for women 17.7% vs 13.4% and 7.5%, bold transitions). Of course, the transitions from unmarried cohabitation to Pacs or marriage, as well as from Pacs to marriage, may change with legal and taxation rules. Unmarried and unregistered partnerships are also more likely to end with respect to the other forms of union (transitions to Si gle status i itali s). On average, 17.3% of men and 26.5% of women exit cohabitating unions versus respectively 11.6 and 18.2% dissolving marriages or Pacs. Formal unions’ dissolutions are almost equally distributed between marriage and Pacs (respectively, 5.5% and 6.1% for men and 9.1% and 9.1% for both for women, transitions in italics). Hence, in terms of dissolution patterns, pacsed couples are much more similar to married than to cohabiting. As distributions by family situations widely differ by age, we present in panel b. age-standardized transitions based on a simple mean of transitions from ages 20 to 65. The major change relates with the i ease i the p o a ilities to o e to si gle status f o oha itatio o Pacs, mainly due to the i easi g p o a ility of u io e di g ith pa t e ’s death. Besides that, ou ajo esults a e robust to standardization: pacsed couples are more likely than cohabitors to get marries, and less likely to end their union;
10
Table 2 Transition probabilities of couple situations in t, t+5 by sex, all ages, row and column percentages a. Observed transitions
Men Women t+5=2015 t+5=2015 S C M P Total S C M P Total S 74.6 13.4 8.3 3.7 100 S 78.7 10.6 7.5 3.2 100 C 17.3 58.6 15.0 9.1 100 C 26.5 51.7 13.4 8.4 100 M 5.5 1.6 92.8 0.1 100 M 9.1 3.0 87.8 0.1 100
t=2010 t=2010 P 6.1 2.8 16.0 75.0 100 t=2010 P 9.1 3.7 17.7 69.6 100 Total 31.4 12.6 51.8 4.2 100 Total 40.9 11.8 43.3 4.0 100
b. Standardized transitions (all ages 20-65 having equal weight)
Men Women t+5=2015 t+5=2015 S C M P Total S C M P Total S 73.1 12.3 10.8 3.8 100 S 75.3 11.5 9.6 3.6 100 C 18.5 58.5 14.1 8.9 100 C 29.3 52.2 11.4 7.0 100 M 4.3 2.2 93.4 0.2 100 M 7.7 2.6 89.3 0.4 100
t=2010 t=2010 P 12.5 2.5 15.7 69.4 100 t=2010 P 8.9 5.2 12.7 73.2 100 Total 34.4 14.8 45.6 5.2 100 Total 36.8 14.4 43.5 5.3 100 Note: weighted to French resident population Source: census and tax data collected in 2010 and 2015
Transition probabilities: trends by educational attainment
Although unmarried and unregistered partnerships are a common form of union for single people, its preference shows a negative educational gradient for women (see Table 3, underlined transitions). The preference for union formation without Pacs or marriage is particularly important for men (without great differences by educational attainment) and low and middle educated women, while high educated women show a preference for Pacs or marriage (with a difference between the proportion of people who pass from singlehood to unregistered partnerships and the proportion of people who enter a Pacs or a marriage of 14.7 - 11.0 - 7.1 = -3.4 percentage points, panel a.), while this difference is positive for all other categories (more than half unions taking place without a marriage or a Pacs). This educational gradient strengthens and also applies to men if we concentrate the analysis on years 20 to 65 (table 3, panel b., underlined transitions): single men and women with a high level of education are more likely to move to a formal union rather than to cohabitation, with respect to lower educated single people. Conversely, the probability that single people remain single (see Table 3, panel a., bold and italics transitions) is higher among low educated people but the educational gap reduces if we focus on ages 20 to 65 (panel b.). Pacs are often considered as a prelude to marriage and many people that were pacsed in t got married by t+5 (see Table 3, panels a. and b., bold transitions). This holds particularly true for high educated women (21.8%, standardized 15.5%) and middle educated men (19.8%, standardized 28.5%). Nevertheless, most pacsed people did not change partnership type during the 5 years (see Table 3, panels a. and b., bold and underlined transitions). The proportion of people remaining in a Pacs relationship is the highest among high educated men and middle educated women. Cohabitations are more fragile among the less educated (see Table 3, panels a. and b., transitions in italics). High educated people are more likely to be single if previously cohabiting than if previously
11
in a formal union. This finding however is the consequence of two different processes involving high educated people: a lower likelihood to break cohabiting unions and a much lower likelihood to dissolve formal unions. As a matter of fact, both marriages’ a d Pa s’ dissolutio s a e negatively associated with individual education (see Table 3, transitions in italics): marriages are less likely to end among middle and high educated men and women, while Pacs are less likely dissolved by high educated men and women.
Table 3 Transition probabilities of couple situations in t, t+5 by sex and educational attainment, all ages, row percentages a. Observed transitions
Men Women t+5=2015 t+5=2015 S C M P Total S C M P Total S Low 78.2 11.6 8.4 1.9 100 S Low 85.4 7.7 6.0 0.9 100 Middle 76.8 12.4 6.9 3.8 100 Middle 77.6 12.3 6.5 3.6 100 High 66.4 17.3 9.4 6.7 100 High 67.2 14.7 11.0 7.1 100 C Low 19.1 61.8 12.8 6.4 100 C Low 31.2 53.5 10.9 4.4 100 Middle 14.0 57.0 16.7 12.3 100 Middle 24.0 50.7 13.8 11.5 100 High 15.6 52.7 18.6 13.1 100 High 21.8 49.7 16.6 11.9 100 M Low 6.0 1.8 92.2 0.0 100 M Low 10.7 3.1 86.2 0.1 100
t=2010 Middle 4.4 1.8 93.6 0.2 100 t=2010 Middle 6.8 3.8 89.3 0.2 100 High 5.0 1.1 93.7 0.3 100 High 7.0 2.4 90.5 0.2 100 P Low 7.9 3.6 14.5 74.0 100 P Low 18.5 5.0 11.2 65.2 100 Middle 10.0 3.6 19.8 66.7 100 Middle 14.1 2.6 9.4 73.9 100 High 3.7 2.1 15.6 78.6 100 High 4.8 3.6 21.8 69.7 100 Total Low 30.2 12.1 55.5 2.3 100 Total Low 43.9 9.9 44.8 1.4 100
Middle 39.4 13.8 41.7 0.0 100 Middle 42.9 13.7 38.5 4.9 100
High 29.0 12.8 50.6 7.6 100 High 34.0 14.0 43.7 8.3 100
b. Standardized transitions (all ages 20-65 having equal weight)
Men Women t+5=2015 t+5=2015 S C M P Total S C M P Total S Low 76.2 11.3 10.4 2.1 100 S Low 77.2 12.6 9.0 1.2 100 Middle 71.0 11.6 12.6 4.8 100 Middle 76.2 11.3 8.8 3.7 100 High 68.1 13.8 12.0 6.0 100 High 72.6 11.2 10.8 5.4 100 C Low 19.2 60.8 12.7 7.3 100 C Low 29.2 55.4 11.0 4.4 100 Middle 15.7 60.4 14.7 9.1 100 Middle 34.0 47.2 10.4 8.4 100 High 18.1 52.8 17.7 11.4 100 High 28.9 48.5 13.3 9.3 100 M Low 4.8 2.7 92.5 0.1 100 M Low 7.2 2.4 90.1 0.3 100
t=2010 Middle 3.5 1.7 94.6 0.2 100 t=2010 Middle 10.2 2.9 86.3 0.6 100 High 4.0 0.8 94.9 0.2 100 High 6.5 3.1 89.8 0.6 100 P Low 14.1 3.7 16.5 65.7 100 P Low 15.1 5.5 10.7 68.8 100 Middle 8.5 1.5 28.5 61.4 100 Middle 9.5 1.3 6.1 83.0 100 High 3.1 1.4 15.3 80.2 100 High 7.5 10.1 15.5 66.9 100 Total Low 39.4 18.1 34.9 7.6 100 Total Low 39.9 18.4 36.7 5.0 100
Middle 35.0 15.6 38.1 11.3 100 Middle 40.6 14.4 31.4 13.6 100
High 31.8 13.8 38.3 16.1 100 High 34.3 14.3 39.2 12.2 100 Note: weighted to French resident population Source: census and tax data collected in 2010 and 2015
12
However, according to standardized transition rates at ages 20-65, differences by education in oha itatio ’ a d a iage’s dissolutio are small while a negative gradient still exists for Pacs.
Transition probabilities by age: old cohabitors end their union, Pacs are transformed into marriages more often at young ages and, for men, between 50 and 65 years of age
Cohabitation is the preferred form of union after singlehood for young people only (see figure 3): men up to 30 years and women up to 25 years are more likely to enter cohabitation rather than a Pacs or a marriage, while older people are more likely to choose a formal union. Marriage probabilities among pacsed (see figure 4) show a bimodal distribution, with the first peak for men and women between 25 and 30 years, and a second between 50 and 60 years for men and between 50 and 65 years for women; these marriage probabilities are higher than among cohabiting or single at almost all ages. However, compared to the probability of remaining in a Pacs partnership, marriage probabilities are consistently lower and often following an opposite trend (see figure 5), meaning that the mean duration of a Pacs is not a prelude to marriage. They increase for men and women up to 25 years, then they reach their minima at 40 years for men and 45 years for women, and they slightly rise again up to age 55. In contrast, the probability to remain in a Pacs partnership reaches its maximum at 40 years for men and 45 years for women. In terms of dissolution, cohabiting relationship are much more likely to end than formal unions at almost every age (see figure 6). Women tend to dissolve more frequently their cohabiting couples than men, especially between 30 a d yea s, hile fo al u io s’ dissolutio s do ot sho lea gender differences. At ages higher than 60, the probability to end a union becomes extremely high among cohabiting women. Further analyses are needed to understand this strange result, which could be related to the death of the partner or his move to another dwelling (in the census definition) as his main residence. At ages after 65, less than 1% of men and women are engaged in a Pacs relationship, making the transition estimates very uncertain, but nearly 4.9% of women aged 60-65 in 2010 and 3.7% of those aged 70-75 were cohabiting in 2010, so that our estimates may be considered as reliable. Marriages and Pacs have almost the same pattern of dissolution across age (see figure 6); it is slightly lower for pacsed men between 25 and 45 years and slightly higher for women between 35 and 65 years (remember that at older ages, transitions of pacsed individuals are based on a very small sample size).
Figure 3 Probability to exit from singlehood by destination status of men and women aged 15-75+ (percent) 35 35 MEN WOMEN 30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
S->C S->M+S->P S->C S->M+S->P S->M S->P S->M S->P
13
Figure 4 Marriage probabilities according to starting status of men and women aged 20-75+ (percent) 70 70 MEN WOMEN 60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
S->M C->M S->M C->M P->M P->M
Figure 5 Destination probabilities of pacsed men and women aged 20-70 (percent) 100 100 MEN WOMEN 90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
P->M P->P P->M P->P
Figure 6 Transition probabilities to singlehood by starting couple status of men and women aged 20-75 (percent) 70 70 MEN WOMEN 60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
C->S M->S C->S M->S P->S P->S
14
Transition probabilities: trends by age and educational attainment
Figure 7 shows that the preference for unmarried and unregistered cohabitations for men at young ages is particularly evident for higher educated between 20 and 30 years; formal unions become then the favorite choice, especially for higher educated men between 35 and 50 and for middle educated men between 55 and 60 years. For women instead there is a clear educational gradient between 20 and 35 years: low educated more likely begin with cohabitation, while highly educated enter primarily a formal union. The formal-union-promoting effect of education is weaker but holds for older women as well. At young ages, higher marriage probabilities of cohabiting men are mainly driven by medium and high educated, while higher marriage probabilities of Pacs partnership are not clearly differentiated by education (see figure 8 and 9). High educated women show a clear marriage preference if already pacsed, compared to lower educated women (Figure 9). Middle and high educated cohabiting women are also more likely to enter a marriage than low educated. The second peak in marriage probabilities occurring between 50 and 60 years for men and between 50 and 65 years for women is mainly driven by middle educated men and high educated women. For men in Pacs partnerships the probability to marry or to remain pacsed does not differ across education, while the e is a positi e asso iatio et ee o e ’s edu atio a d the p o a ility that they transform a Pacs in a marriage and a negative association with the probability that they remain pacsed, especially up to 40 years. On the side of dissolutions, a negative educational gradient is more evident for certain ages. Figure 10 shows that low educated women between 25 and 40 years are more likely to dissolve cohabitation or Pacs than middle and high educated.
Figure 7 Probability to exit from singlehood by destination status of men and women aged 15-75+ and education (percent) 35 35 MEN WOMEN
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
L S->C M S->C H S->C L S->C M S->C H S->C L S->M+S->P M S->M+S->P H S->M+S->P L S->M+S->P M S->M+S->P H S->M+S->P
15
Figure 8 Marriage probabilities according to starting status of men and women aged 20-75+ by education (percent) 70 70 MEN WOMEN 60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
L S->M M S->M H S->M L S->M M S->M H S->M L C->M M C->M H C->M L C->M M C->M H C->M L P->M M P->M H P->M L P->M M P->M H P->M
Figure 9 Destination probabilities of pacsed men and women aged 20-70 by education (percent)
100 100 MEN WOMEN 90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
L P->M M P->M H P->M L P->M M P->M H P->M L P->P M P->P H P->P L P->P M P->P H P->P
Figure 10 Singlehood probabilities according to the starting status of men and women aged 20-70 by education (percent) 70 70 WOMEN MEN 60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
L C->S M C->S H C->S L C->S M C->S H C->S L M->S M M->S H M->S L M->S M M->S H M->S L P->S M P->S H P->S L P->S M P->S H P->S
16
Discussion
In this paper we used the recently released French Permanent Demographic Panel (EDP) to study how different partnerships types could evolve in the future and how people move from one partnership status to the other. We took benefit of the rotation feature of the census (i.e., the same dwellings are included every fifth year) to estimate transition probabilities for 5-year periods and we exploit tax data to make a finer description of partnership types, including also registered partnerships (Pacs . I the e pi i al a alysis e also dise ta gled e a d o e ’s pa t e ship behavior by 5-year age groups and level of education. At the beginning of the paper we stated several assumptions that we then tested in the empirical analysis. In line with the first of those assumptions (1.a.), our findings suggest that, if the current transition rates hold in the next future, marriage will continue to decline. However, it will not decline the most for high educated people of both sexes and all ages as expected (1.b.), but for high educated men between 40 and 55 years and middle educated women after 30 years. At young ages, cohabitation will not increase for the total population as expected, but it represents anyway the preferred form of union chosen after singlehood (2.a.). Further, it shows an opposite association with socioeconomic strata by sex: between 20 and 35 years it is a very common form of union for low educated women, while between 30 and 40 years it is most frequent for high educated men (2.b.). Registered partnerships will be an increasingly frequent form of union in the future, (3.a.), especially after 30 years for men and after 25 years for women, but the majority of them represent an alternative to marriage rather than a prelude to it: although marriage probabilities among pacsed are higher than among cohabiting or single to marriage at almost all ages, marriage probabilities are close to one in six in a 5-year period. The proportion of people considering Pacs as a prelude to marriage is higher for high educated women (3.b) but does not differ by education for men. Cohabiting unions are more likely to dissolve than marriages and Pacs (4.a.) at almost every age and for both sexes. Marriages and Pacs dissolutions are in turn equally distributed; hence, in terms of dissolutions patterns, pacsed couples are more similar to married than to cohabiting ones. Differences by education are more evident in dissolutions of cohabitations (4.b), with low educated people showing the highest probabilities to become single; but the same gradient, although much less pronounced, holds for Pacs and marriages as well. The multi-state life table method allows describing family behavior based on transitions and not on current status. We envision pursuing this analysis in four directions. First, we will check our results, starting with whether the very high dissolution rates among cohabiting women at ages higher than 65 are confirmed by other data and analyses. Second, we will add individuals present in the 2010 census and who have been included in a census annual wave in 2014 or 2016, after a move. The sample size would then be inflated by around 10%7, hile the u e of e e ts t a sitio s ill be larger, residential moves being correlated with change in couple situation. Third, we will try to use tax yearly data in order to work on yearly transition probabilities, allowing more precise estimates of different events based on one-year intervals. Fourth, we will add some covariates, the most important being the number of children ever born, working status and, for those living as a couple, partners characteristics (working status, education). The data are extremely rich and include information on income, salaries, place of residence, place of birth. But their accuracy must be carefully checked, due to the heterogeneity of data sources and the complex procedures of weighting individuals, and merging datasets.
7 The proportion of movers in 5 years is around one third, surveyed at a 14% rate in t+4 and in t+6.
17
Conclusions With including tax data in the French demographic panel, the French Institute of Statistics (INSEE) has transformed this panel into a socio-economic one. Further developments could include health data, on cause of death, and medical consumptions. As is, the panel is already very efficient as a complement to the census, allowing forecasting future trends in family behavior. We could show that the decline in the proportion of adults married will likely go on, being compensated up to ages 60 for men and 65 for women, by the increasing prevalence of registered partnerships (Pacs), while the proportion of unmarried and unregistered unions may remain stable. The positive gradient in Pacs by education is due one the one hand to a higher probability to engage in a Pacs at the beginning of a union, and more stability of Pacs, due to lower dissolution probabilities. The long term trend in registered and married unions may be uncertain, due to legal changes which may encourage couples to choose one or another type of partnership; nevertheless, and despite shortcomings described in the discussion above, we may assess that a further increase in the proportion of pacsed couples is very likely in France.
18
References
Andersson, G., Thomson, E., & Duntava, A. (2017). Life-table representations of family dynamics in the 21st century. Demographic Research, 37, 1081-1230. Bijlsma, M. J., Wilson, B. (2017). A new approach to understanding the socio-economic determinants of fertility over the life course. MPIDR Working Paper WP-2017-013, 29 pages. Rostock, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. https://www.demogr.mpg.de/en/projects_publications/publications_1904/mpidr_working_papers/a_new_ap proach_to_understanding_the_socio_economic_determinants_of_fertility_over_the_life_course_5840.htm Costemalle, V. (2015). Parcours conjugaux et familiaux des hommes et des femmes selon les générations et les milieux sociaux. Insee, Couples et familles, Édition 2015, p. 63-76. Dossier available at https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2017510?sommaire=2017528 Esping-Andersen, G., & Billari, F. C. (2015). Re-theorizing Family Demographics. Population and Development Review, 1-31. Este e, A., S h a tz, C. R., Ba el, J., Pe a ye , I., Kles e t, M., & Ga ía‐Ro , J. . The e d of hypergamy: Global trends and implications. Population and development review, 42(4), 615-625. Heuveline P., Timberlake J. M. (2002). Toward a child-centered life course perspective on family structures: Multi-state early life tables. In: Klijzing E., Corijn M., editors. Dynamics of Fertility and Partnership in Europe: Insights and Lessons from Comparative Research. Volume II. United Nations; New York and Geneva: 2002. pp. 175–191. www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/pau/_docs/ffs/FFS_V2_DynamicsFertilityPartenrshipEurope.pdf INSEE (2017). La situation démographique en 2015. État civil et estimations de population. Insee Résultats. https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2851587 Jug ot, S. . La o stitutio de l’É ha tillo Dé og aphi ue Pe a e t de . Do u e ts de t a ail de l’I see - Direction des statistiques démographiques et sociales. https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/1381113 Klesment, M., & Van Bavel, J. (2017). The reversal of the gender gap in education, motherhood, and women as main earners in Europe. European Sociological Review, 33(3), 465-481. Liefbroer, A. C., & Dourleijn, E. (2006). Unmarried cohabitation and union stability: Testing the role of diffusion using data from 16 European countries. Demography, 43(2), 203-221. Lyngstad, T. H., & Jalovaara, M. (2010). A review of the antecedents of union dissolution. Demographic Research, 23, 257. Mazuy, M., Barbieri, M., & d'Albis, H. (2014). Recent demographic trends in France: The number of marriages continues to decrease. Population, English Edition, 69(3), 273-321. https://www.ined.fr/en/publications/Demographic-situation/evolution-demographique-recente-en-france- diminution-du-nombre-de-mariages-se-poursuit/ Nitsche, N., Matysiak, A., Van Bavel, J., & Vignoli, D. (2018). Pa t e s’ edu atio al pai i gs a d fe tility across Europe. Demography. LP %%% Régnier-Loilie , A. . A e the Ge e atio s a d ge de su eys ell suited for studying same-sex couples? , European Journal of Population, published online, 1-12. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10680-017-9440-6 Rault, W. (2009). L'invention du Pacs: pratiques et symboliques d'une nouvelle forme d'union. Les Presses de Sciences Po. Rault, W., & Régnier-Loilier, A. (2015). First cohabiting relationships: recent trends in France. Population & Sociétés, 521. https://www.ined.fr/en/publications/population-and-societies/first-cohabiting-relationships- recent-trends-france/ Teachman, J. (2008). Complex life course patterns and the risk of divorce in second marriages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(2), 294-305.
19