1. Consensual unions – Nordic solution? An-Magritt Jensen Reassess, Family Strand, meeting in Copenhagen Nov. 26.- 27, 2009

2. Marriage bust Few other regions have had such a rapid growth in consensual unions as the Nordic countries. Since 1970 about every second child is born outside marriage, and mostly in consensual unions. Has the break-through of consensual unions received the sociological attention it deserves? Consensual unions – cohabitation: the same thing?

3. What is a consensual union A family form sidelined with marriage? Marriage light? A mulititude of family forms with no clear definition? A family type counteracting gender equality and child welfare?

4. Marriage vs consensual union Marriage is categorical. You are – or you are not married. A public matter – Public registration – Statistical category A personal matter – starting point: wedding – Often change of name – Often symbolic wedding ring A family matter – Two families brought together – Face to face contact – Kin naming system Consensual unions are floating. A private matter – often without public registration and problematic statistical categories. An individual matter – Gradual starting point: no celebration – No change of name and no ring A one-generational matter? – Older generations across the nuclear families have no clear family celebrations face to face. – No kin naming: ’husband/wife’ often substituted with partner, lover or friend, ’in-laws’ are substituted with personal names.

5. Differences between married and people in consensual unions? Married people are systematically less liberal e.g.: religious values, infidelity, women’s movement, childlessness. Lesthaeghe and Moors, in David Coleman, 1996: sample: living with partner, 20-29: France, West Germany, Belgium, Netherlands. Have consensual unions moved from a radical alternative to a low-class phenomenon over time and with diffusion? Have social scientists given much attention to this shift?

6. Do consensual unions ’work’ in similar ways as marriages do? No responsibility of provision of partner Lower likelihood of sharing costs of children, higher likelihood of mother’s having main economic responsibility for children. More conflicts in the family – between parents and children and between parents over upbringing, household duties, bedtime and money Jensen, 2000: Barndom – forvandling uten forhandling? Children growing up in intact consensual unions have systematically (and significant allthough not always very large) mothers with low education, they get lower grades at primary and high school. The differences between children with married parents and consensual unions are larger than gender differences (higher grades for girls than boys). Conclusion: even very long-lasting consensual unions seem less favourable for children’s school grades than marriage. Lauglo, 2008: Familiestruktur og skoleprestasjoner.

7. Father’s child care Research has arrived at varying conclusions on the relationship between consensual unions and fathers engagement in child care: A positive association is found between the proportion of children born outside marriage and father’s use of time in child care in rich countries (Thomson, 2003). In Sweden, a study found that ‘consensual’ fathers use their ‘daddy quota’ more than married fathers (Oláh, 2001). In Denmark, it is found that consensual fathers were more engaged in childcare of the newborn than married (Heide Ottosen, 2000) Consensual fathers are active and use their daddy quotas, but: In Norway, married fathers - rather than cohabiting – take longer parental leave (Lappegård, 2008). In Sweden, the same conclusion has been drawn: (Sundström and Duvander, 2002 quoted in Lappegård, 2008). Cohabiting fathers are ’modern’, but also traditional.

8. Break-up Consensual unions are systematically more fragile than marriages. Break-up interact with both family type and class: partners breaking up from consensual unions have less education and income than married. They have children at a younger age and after shorter duration of the relationship. Consensual unions are no longer a distinct alternative or a progressive life style, expressed among middleclass intellectuals (p. 79). Heide Ottosen, 2000

9. After break-up. Norway Five SSB-reports: – Kitterød, 2004: Foreldreskap på tvers av hushold; – Kitterød, 2005: Når mor og far bor hver for seg; – Kitterød og Lyngstad, 2006: Mest samvær med ressurssterke fedre?; – Kitterød og Lyngstad, 2007: Samværsfedre – sammenheng mellom inntekt og kontakt med barna også etter bidragsreformen; – Kitterød, 2008: Hvilke samværsfedre har lite kontakt med barna sine? All tables with information on marital status (at break or birth) find that consensual fathers have a weaker position than married (fathers who have never lived together are weakest). – Fewer have joint parental responsibility – but increase 2002-2004(Kitterød 2004 + 2005) – Fewer have a written contract and contact is less (Kitterød 2005, Kitterød og Lyngstad 2006) – Less often during last month, in holidays and have less often shared homes – controlled for background variables and significant with a few exceptions (Kitterød og Lyngstad 2007) – Using 11 measures on contact, 8 shows lower contact (the other 3 are marginal categories (Kitterød 2008)

10. Is cohabitation a blind spot? Conclusion:.. A large variation between groups of parents. Such as … fathers who have been married or consensual with the mother, have much more contact … compared to those who have not …(Kitterød og Lyngstad, 2007: 9). While impact of income and contact (title of report) varies and is not always systematic, and not linear, the impact of consensual unions is (almost) systematically negative, significant and substantial. Consensual unions hardly mentionned in the summaries and often not in comments to separate tables despite a clear pattern.

11. Statistical observance Other countries: much attention? Sweden – A report on childlessness (SCB 2009: 2) the main report does not distinguish between civil status. Attachment tables use: married, unmarried and divorced – whith consensual unions included in ’unmarried’? – A report on children’s families (SCB 2007: 4) examines the decline in separations (stagnation in Norway) both among marriages and consensual unions. It shows that the higher risk of separation among cohoabitants remain, but does not comment on this. Focus is on immigration.

12. Fertility in Europe: gender, welfare.. Contrasting explanations: The second demographic transition theory is widely used, often in combination with theories on individualisation and reflexivity to explain declining fertility with the new role of women (conflict between carreer and children). The Nordic model is the main contradiction. Theory of gender equality (McDonald, 2000) and the combination of gender and welfare state (Esping- Andersen, 2003) necessary for fertility increase. The Nordic model is the main case.

13. Family patterns: a Nordic model? Billari and Kohler (2004) find that stable marriages suppress fertility - countries with instable families have higher fertility (Nordic countries) and Berlin Institute for Population and Development (2008: 9) argues ”It makes absolutely no demographic sense to cling to traditional family structures, on the contrary: The more equality given to both men and women in working life, the more children are born.”

14. Nordic Model: gender, welfare and family – concurrence or contradiction? Do Nordic countries as pioneering this development have a particular responsibility to clarify consequences of cohabitation? – More mothers having sole economic and care responsibility – counteracting gender equality? ”As long as the social reaslity is, that men earn more than women, the construction of cohabitation implies a potential for a highly assymetrical and unsolidaric (power) relation, maintaining the economic weaker part, the woman, without rights in a poorly functionning relationship on the mercy of men (AMJ transl.): Heide Ottosen, 2000: 111 – More children commuting between two homes – higher risk of poverty.The importance of modification through welfare state.

15. Some sources Jensen og Clausen (2000): Barndom – forvandling uten forhandling? Samboerskap, foreldreskap og søskenskap. NIBR-rapp. Nr. 6 http://www.sv.ntnu.no/iss/an-magritt.jensen/Publications/Barndom%202000-6.pdf Lappegård, T. (2008): Changing the Gender Balance in Caring: Fatherhood and the Division of Parental Leave in Norway. Population Research and Policy Review Lauglo (2008): Familiestruktur og skoleprestasjoner. Tidsskrift for ungdomsforskning. McDonald (2000): Gender equity in theories of fertility transition. Population and Development Review Oláh, Livia Sz. (2001): ‘Policy Changes and Family Stability: the Swedish Case’. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, Vol. 15: 118-134 Ottosen, Mai Heide (2000): Samboskab, Ægteskap og Forældrebrud. En analyse af børns familieforhold gennem de første leveår. [Cohabitation, Marriage and Parental Break-Up]. København: Socialforskningsinstituttet 00:9. Statistiska centralbyrån (2009): Barn eller inte? Rapport nr. 2 Thomson, Elizabeth (2003): Partnerships and Parenthood: A Comparative View of Cohabitation, Marriage and Childbearing, CDE-Working Paper No. 18, University of Wisconsin-Madison: Center for Demography and Ecology