1. Vlada Stankūnienė Aušra Maslauskaitė Marė Baublytė Demographic Research Center, ISR Lithuania Lithuania International conference “Changing Family: Demographic Challenges for Social Policy”, 28-29 November 2007, Moscow 28-29 November 2007, Moscow DIFFERENCES IN PARTNERSHIP AND FAMILY FORMATION IN LITHUANIA Research was funded by the Lithuanian Science and Studies Foundation

2. Data  Gender and Generations Survey_Lithuania, 2006  Population Census_Lithuania, 2001

3. Presentation outline  Marital/partnership status: changes, differencies  Partnership/family formation: strategy, differences  Turning point to new family formation pattern  Conclusions

4. Decrease of marriage rates Postponement and “ageing” of marriage Spread of cohabitation Increase of never married Decrease of fertility, etc… Family transformation

5. Marital/partnership status MALESFEMALES with every younger generation – increase in cohabitation, decrease in marriage among females - high level living without partner

6. Relative risk of never marrying MALES *** p<0,001 Source: GGS_Lithuania, 2006 Rural/low educated/ unempoyed males have relatively „low value“ in the „marriage market“. They are in social and „demographic exclusion“

7. Lower_sec_rural Lower_sec_urban Secondary_rural Secondary_urban Higher_rural Higher_urban 1950-54 1955-59 1960-64 1965-69 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Never married males: urban/rural by education Population census Lithuania, 2001

8. Cumulative percentages of first partnership as marriage MALESFEMALES

9. Cumulative percentages of first partnership as marriage 1960-1979 MALESFEMALES

10. Cumulative percentages of first partnership as cohabitation, 1930-1979 birth cohorts MALESFEMALES

11. MALESFEMALES Cumulative percentages of first partnership as cohabitation, 1960-1979

12. Cumulative percentages of first marriage/cohabitation/partnership, 1960-79 MALES partnership cohabitationmarriage

13. Cumulative percentages of first marriage/cohabitation/partnership, 1960-79 FEMALES marriagecohabitation partnership

14. partnership/marriage/cohabitation FEMALES Cumulative percentages of first partnership 1948-19551968-1975 78,9 85,5 70,3 57,5

15. Cumulative percentages of first partnership: partnership/marriage/cohabitation MALES 1948-19551968-1975

16. Cumulative percentages of first partnership MALES FEMALES

17. Cumulative percentages, who had by specified age entered a first partnership MALES marriagecohabitation partnership

18. Cumulative percentages, who had by specified age entered a first partnership FEMALES marriagecohabitation partnership

19. First partnership: cohabitation or marriage, by age and residence, percentage

20. First partnership: cohabitation or marriage, by age and residence, percentage

21. Cohabitants by age and sex in urban and rural areas, census 2001 urban women urban men rural women rural men Population Census_Lithuania, 2001

22. *** p<0,001 Relative risk of ever entering the cohabitation The highest risk to experience cohabitation:  for youngest age groups;  for the groups with the lowest education;  more for urban than rural population

23. Conclusions Marital/partnership status:  With every younger generation: increase in cohabitation, decrease in marriage  There is the highest risk not to marry for rural/low educated/ unempoyed males

24. Conclusions Partnership/marriage strategy:  Postponement of marriage:  from very young age to older age  Postponement of marriage is compensated by cohabitation in younger age:  spread of cohabitation/rejuvenation of cohabitation  cohabiting unions replace married unions  Rejuvenation/increase of partnerships – females  Rejuvenation/increase of partnerships - females  General partnership level remains near the same:  “daughters” start partnership earlier than “mothers”

25. Conclusions Cohabitation: The highest risk to experience cohabitation:  for youngest age groups;  for the groups with thelowest education;  more for urban than rural population