Microsoft Word - EJGE_05_2016-010.docx The pe amid in Ekaterina Alyona Art Abstrac Russia has Soviet Un cohabitatio trend throu this researc of entrance union is im aim, such m Cohabitatio proportion grow into a cities have childrearing social insti implications Keywor First matri Sequence JEL cla J12; J13; J Euro erspecti ncreasi Mitrofanova tamonova, N ct s long been ion collapse ons have be ugh the pers ch was to de e to non-ma mplicated in r methods as E on is not a of Russians a marriage is e started to c g. It demonst itution which s for children rds imonial unio Analysis. assificati 18; C23. opean Jou ives of f ng coha a, National R National Res n characteriz e, the aver come comm pective of th efine the natu arital unions recent dialog Event History complete a s from variou on the rise. consider non trates that co h is a trend n’s well-being ons; life co on urnal of G Volu 47 family p abitatio Research Uni search Unive zed by early rage age of mon. Many s he Second D ure of cohab in order to gues about fa y Analysis an alternative to us social stra Young, non n-marital unio ohabitation is d of great c g. ourse; family overnmen ume 5, Nu policy in on iversity, Highe ersity, Higher y and univer f marriage scholars exp Demographic bitations in R discuss how amily policy. nd Sequence o marriage ata for whom -religious, ed on appropria s close to be oncern to p y policy; E nt and Ec mber 1 (Ju ISSN: 2 n Russi er School of School of Ec rsal marriage has been plain the cau c Transition. ussia, revea w and why In order to a e Analysis w in Russia y m cohabitatio ducated peop ate for childb ecoming an in policymakers vent History conomics une 2016) 2254-7088 ia Economics conomics e. After the rising, and uses of this The aim of l the factors non-marital achieve the were used. yet, but the on does not ple from big bearing and ndependent s due to its y Analysis; Russian Federation Russian Federation Mitrofanova and Artamonova ● Perspectives of family policy in Russia 48 Introduction Modern social demographic policy of Russia is focused on family, which is founded upon the unit of the married couple. Here is a quote from the Concept of Demographic Policy of Russia to 2025: The solution of strengthening the family institution, the revival of spiritual and moral values of family relations includes: <...> propaganda on the values of families with more than one child, different forms of family placement of children without parental care – with the aim of creating a positive image of family in society with stable registered marriage of spouses – and having several children or adopting children without parental care. The quote shows that the modern family – which is not always based on stable marriage – is changing; and these transformations are ignored by lawmakers. Moreover, the changes in matrimonial behaviour are not accepted as a normal stage of development of the society, but are ignored and even demonized. More often there are such alarmist statements declaring family and family values to be in crisis, that there is an evident call to revive traditional values (although the meaning of these words is rarely explained). Instead of listening to the people and equalizing the rights and opportunities of registered and non-registered couples, lawmakers offer to increase the importance of marriage and neglect cohabitation. For example, in April 2015 in Rossiskaya Gazeta1, the proposal of one lawyer was published; in it, he claimed that, after two years from the beginning of cohabitation, such a living arrangement should be recognized as a marriage. The intended goal was the protection of financial rights of partners holding property jointly. Nevertheless, the selected way to achieve the goal is rather questionable. To explain why, the experience of countries with totalitarian regimes (that proclaimed their high birth rate) shows that the birth rate is falling rapidly after the regime change. The experiences of anti-alcohol campaigns (including Russian ones) show that, as soon as anti-alcohol campaigns end, the death rate from alcoholic poisoning increases dramatically and life expectancy falls. These, and many other examples, show that any interventions into the private lives of people by the government and the imposition of specific behaviour models may have negative consequences in the long term. The initiative of the transformation of cohabitations into marriage after two years constitutes not only the invasion of privacy of individuals, but also the attempt to make responsible decisions for people. If people decide not to marry, then such a decision constitutes a personal choice that should be considered not only at the level of society (which has already been happening for 20 years), but also at the government level. This article provides empirical evidence that Russia tends to have more cohabitations, and that these appendages of marriage turn into full-fledged matrimonial couples, in which children are born and raised. Which social and psychological factors stand behind the choice of this living arrangement is a question for future research. This work aims to draw attention to the fact that such choices are made: the amount of cohabitations, which will not result in a marriage, but which are stable and fit for childbearing, is increasing. We should stop ignoring this phenomenon (i.e. recognizing only marriages) and give it due consideration in legislation – not to transform cohabitations into marriages forcibly, but to equate their statuses at the legal level. It is necessary to expand the conceptualization of the family, without ignoring those people who have chosen alternative marriage forms. 1 Rossiskaya Gazeta. Cohabitation is going to become equal with marriage (http://www.rg.ru/2015/04/29/brak.html). European Journal of Government and Economics 5(1) 49 Marriages and cohabitations in Russia The study of the transformation of matrimonial behaviour in a population is an area of sociological and demographic research, the results of which help to explain changes in society and take part in improving family and demographic policy. This study is conducted to trace the dynamics of marriage and partnership formation by using the example of Russian generations which were socialized before the collapse of the Soviet Union (Levada, 2005) calls these generations Soviet) and after it (post-Soviet or modern generations). After the collapse of the USSR, all spheres of Russian society have undergone changes (although Russia had relatively low marital age and strong institute of marriage) that have led, since 1993, to the rise of average marital age; there was an increase in the number of unregistered couples, and the average age of people in these couples was decreased. Such changes in the culture of marital and partnership behaviour of the youth were regarded by demographers as the evidence of a Second Demographic Transition occurrence in our country, where unmarried couples became an alternative to marriage. What are these unions – a preparatory stage before marriage or an independent social institution? What segments of a population prefer to live in unregistered relationships? For how long are such relationships stable and strong? Are they suitable for birth and parenting? In this article we present the most relevant and empirically supported answers to these questions. But first we will address terminology. Among all the variety of terms for the unregistered relations between people, there are correct terms (e.g. cohabitation, partnership, consensual marriage, an unregistered marriage, the actual marriage) and incorrect terms (e.g. common-law marriage). All of these terms (except partnership) are synonyms and presuppose that individuals are living together, but cohabitation is the most concise, intuitive term and therefore is often used in demographic studies. This term has not caught on in society, because the word cohabitant has a negative connotation; the term is, however, accepted in science, so we will use it in our study. The main theoretical framework of this study is the conception of the life course. In sociology, the life course is studied as a development process, culturally constructed life stages and roles related to them (Elder and Glen, 1975; Mayer, 2009; Mills, 2000). The life course is a chain of phases of life which acquire different meanings in the process of socialization of the individual. In this sense, sociologists are studying periods of the human life from childhood to old ages, dividing them into different spheres: family, education and work. This study is focused on family at the beginning of marital or partnership trajectory. In recent decades, the life courses of Russians (which was standardized before the 1960s) were supplemented by characteristics such as the fundamental openness and diversity of individual maneuvers. Matrimonial behaviour ceased to be independent from sexual and reproductive incentives, as it was earlier under the traditional model of demographic behaviour (Zakharov, 2008). Marriage has been replaced by alternative forms of coresidence. The most common is cohabitation (Avdeev and Monnier, 2000). In many Western European countries, cohabitation ceased to be a form of deviant behaviour a long time ago; thus, it has been studied there far longer than in Russia. There are a few theories explaining the spread of cohabitations, but the main one is the theory of the Second Demographic Transition, developed by R. Lesthaeghe and D. Van de Kaa (1986). The researchers believe that it much better describes the changes in matrimonial behaviour than other theories. This point of view, strengthened after the publication of the study by Gerber and Berman (2010) which proved empirically that, rather Mitrofanova and Artamonova ● Perspectives of family policy in Russia 50 than the lack of good economic conditions, the focus on self-development and independence contribute to the spread of cohabitation. The Second Demographic Transition is bounded by fundamental shifts in the life course of the individual. The freedom of choosing a marriage partner and a living arrangement are more expansive, and approaches to the consequences of sexual relations are more responsible than earlier. The emergence of contraception and more careful life planning enhances individuals’ ability to control their destinies. A fixed sequence of events in individual biography was replaced by a variety of life courses (Lesthaeghe and Van de Kaa, 1986). Thinking about these changes on the value-normative level, Giddens (2003: 66) describes family and marriage as shell institutions, pointing out that the names remained the same, but the main inner content has changed. In the traditional family, which was an economic unit, the married couple was only a part of the structure, with communication with children and other relatives being more important. This structure was replaced by a couple, not necessarily married, but is based on romantic love and sexual attraction; such a unit became the main component of family life. As Giddens writes, the most correct current definition of what is happening in private life is the formation of couples and their break ups, rather than marriage and family creation. Mills and Blossfeld (2013) have supplemented the theory of the Second Demographic Transition with the theory of globalization. This complex approach shows that cohabitation is a ‘combination of emotional and physical intimate relations that mean living together and existing without legal or religious sanctioning’. Cohabitation is becoming an independent institution (common among young people) which is more oriented on acquiring education and self- development, but not on family creation in conditions of increasing uncertainty caused by globalization and world economic problems. Pluralism of forms of marital and reproductive behaviour, coupled with a rising general level of education of women and the advent of modern contraception, has led to the postponement of first births at a later age or not having children. As a result, young people prefer to enter into cohabitation as a union, not always involving the legitimation of relations in the future, but providing some of the benefits of marriage, including the ability to have a common budget. In many relationships, the flexibility of unregistered unions responds to the need of reducing the high level of economic and political uncertainty. According to the research of a group of theorists working under the guidance of Kierman, who compared matrimonial behaviours in a number of countries2, cohabitation during its diffusion goes through four ‘evolutionary stages’: innovation, popularization, legitimation, and habitualization (Kiernan, 2002; Sobotka and Toulemon, 2008; Matyasiak, 2009). In the first stage, non-marital unions are few and are found only among people with low income. In the second stage the practice of cohabitation becomes more common, and it can be found in almost all social layers, yet these unions remain short (marriages are still longer than cohabitations), are considered as the first step to marriage and regarded as inappropriate for childbirth and parenting. In the third stage, unregistered unions start to be considered as an alternative to marriage, the duration of which is equal to marriage and is quite suitable for parenting. In the last stage, cohabitations merge with marriages and efficiently perform all its functions. The structuring of the stages is presented in Table 1. 2 Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Ukraine, the United States, etc. European Journal of Government and Economics 5(1) 51 Table 1. The stages of the spread of cohabitation Features Stages 1. Innovation (cohabitation as marginal phenomenon) 2. Popularization (cohabitation as a prelude to marriage) 3. Legitimization (cohabitation as a substitute for marriage) 4. Habitualization (cohabitation and marriage are indistinguishable) Diffusion is practiced by marginal groups of society spreads among persons from the various social strata Permanency short duration or a short pre-marital experience lasts longer and is less likely to be converted into marriage Cohabitation as a family arrangement pregnancy is a reason for marriage parenthood becomes more and more common among cohabiting couples Russia, as a country of the Eastern Bloc, demonstrates demographic outcomes of the Second Demographic Transition (SDT) in an atypical fashion. In terms of de- standardized family forms, Russians began to perceive cohabitation as an alternative to marriage (Mills et al., 2013). Growing cohabitation rates alongside declining marital rates emerged in the Soviet Union in the middle of the 1980s, years before the fall of socialism (Gerber and Berman, 2010). Zakharov (2008) showed that the birth cohorts from the 1970s already started to postpone entry unions and demonstrate all features of SDT. Mills clarified that non-marital union in Russia in the long run is a signal of low education and limited financial capital that is more common for the United States than for Europe (Mills et al., 2013). The purpose of this study is to identify factors of people’s entry to cohabitations and to ascertain whether this type of union is an independent institution, which functions in the same way as marriage. We suppose that, in Russia, cohabitation is on the transition stage from popularization to legitimation; what this means is that it is not only exclusive to people with low income (as was shown in previous research (Zakharov, 2008)) and shorter than marriage, but also still inappropriate for childbirth and parenting. We hypothesize that: 1. Cohabitations are spread mainly among those of young generations who are non-religious, are living in big cities and have a secondary education; 2. Conception causes marriage as the first union or the transition from cohabitation to marriage; 3. The most common statuses for the modern generations are: single at the age of 15, cohabiting without children by the middle of the observed age window, married with at least one child by the age of 35 (was conceived being married). To test these hypotheses, we decided to apply methods used in life course sociology: Event History Analysis and Sequence Analysis. The use of these methods is possible only with longitudinal data and retrospective surveys. Database As the empirical base of the study, the panel part of the Russian part of the Generations and Gender Survey (GGS) (2004, 2007, 2011) and data from the survey Person, Family, Society (PFS) survey (2013) were selected.3 Both surveys 3 The Russian part of GGS is ‘Parents and Children, Men and Women in Family and Society’. The three waves of the survey were conducted by the Independent Institute for Social Policy (http://www.socpol.ru/eng/research_projects/proj12.shtml). Mitrofanova and Artamonova ● Perspectives of family policy in Russia 52 are retrospective and representative for Russia. It should be noted that the difference in years of the surveys is not very big – we would otherwise be able to compare the results. At the same time, coverage generations in surveys still differ: this provides an opportunity to supplement the data of the GGS survey (mainly reflecting the behaviour of the Soviet generation of Russians) using the data from the PFS survey (the sample of this research consists predominantly of the younger generation representatives). General information about the databases can be found in Table 1. Table 1. The GGS and PFS databases features GGS PFS Years of the surveys 3 waves: 2004, 2007, 2011 2013 Number of respondents 4948 cases 3572 cases Generations 1935-1984 years of birth 1975-1994 гг. years of birth Age of respondents 24-85 18-44 In order to complete the tasks of this study, we have to impose some restrictions on the data. One of the restrictions relates to the sequence of matrimonial events. It is necessary to consider only the first unions for understanding the nature of cohabitation in Russia. This localization allows for a better understanding of generational differences in the beginning of matrimonial and reproductive trajectories of respondents. Young generations choose new models of behaviour associated with marital or partnership spheres: they are focused on the emotional sphere of relations, hedonistic context and, accordingly, are not in a hurry to start a family and have children. In addition, the majority of Russians in their life are limited only by the first unions. Another restriction concerns the lower and upper age limits of respondents, who fall into the sub-sample to build some models. 15 years – the lower age limit – was taken as the age of beginning of reproductive behaviour. In the GGS sample there are representatives of five generations, the youngest respondents at the time of the third survey wave were 25 years old. There is an even younger generation in the PFS. To understand the changes, which happened to the matrimonial behaviour of Russians, one should equalize the chances of the representatives of all generations to entry to the first union. After considering several options for establishing the upper age limit, we decided on the age of 35 years, as this will help to avoid the influence of atypical ages of entry to first unions of older generation representatives, but at the same time maintain the age structure of the sample. Analysis of the occurrence of matrimonial events The first group of models focuses on the identification and comparison of factors of entry to cohabitation and marriage as first unions (Models 1 and 2). The second group of models describes how the conception is associated with the following events: entry into cohabitation and marriage as first unions (Models 3 and 4) and entry into marriage after the experience of living together (Model 5). The first group of models The beginning of matrimonial trajectories belonging to the first group of models, presented in Figure 1. The PFS survey was conducted by the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2559218). Figure 1. M M Cohabitat M Marriag For the mo two options the first co marriage a as first unio Specificatio Table 2. Ba Element Ev Su Dependent v Pred Stratifyin Table 3 pre in the anal age structu 1945 to 19 young Rus and wome obtained b women is 5 serious dis waves was result of r recalculate considered Marital-partne Model №1: tion as first unio odel №2: ge as first union odel which id s are suitable habitation an after the coha ons, it is nec on of Models asic characte ts of model vent bject variable (time) dictors ng variable esents the re lysis. The ge ure of the po 975. The PF ssians. To a n, the variab by the Russ 54 per cent splacement t s not made b respondent ed because d negligible. Europ ership traject on dentifies fact e: (1) when nd not marrie abitation. Fo cessary that s 1 and 2 are eristics of Co 15 years Months fro into elative numb enerational s pulation of R FS Survey is ccount for t ble Sex was sian Nationa of the popu towards wom because the e attrition is their diver pean Journal 53 tories for Mod tors of entry the respond ed, and (2) w or the model a marriage w e presented i ox regression Cox R № 1 s – 1st cohabitat E Russian om 15 years to 1st cohabitation ber of observ structure of t Russia, whic s aimed to id he differenc s included to al Population ulation. The d men. Recou estimation o not possibl rgence from of Governm dels 1 and 2 into cohabit ent was thro when the ind , identifying was not prec n Table 2. ns for Models Regressions for tion 15 Entry into first un ns at the age of entry Mont Sex Place of residen Level of educat Religiosity Generations vations for a the GGS sur h is dominat dentify featu e in matrimo o the model n Census 20 data array o unting of the f the displac e. The arra m the gener ent and Econ tation as the oughout his o dividual had a the factors ceded by a c s 1 and 2 r Models № 2 5 year – 1st direc nion 15+ years ths from 15 yea 1st marria nce ion ll the variabl rvey correspo ted by people res of the b onial behavi . According 010, the pr of the GGS p e array of al ement of the ay PFS dat ral populatio nomics 5(1) e first union, or her life in at least one of marriage cohabitation. ct marriage ars to entry into age les included onds to the e born from behaviour of iour of men to the data roportion of panel has a ll the panel e panel as a ta was not on can be Mitrofanova and Artamonova ● Perspectives of family policy in Russia 54 Table 3. The relative number of observations for the predictors of the first group of models, % Predictors of models Categories of variables GGS PFS Generations 1935-1944 16.8 - 1945-1954 21.4 - 1955-1964 26.8 - 1965-1974 21.4 - 1975-1984 13.5 48.1 1985-1994 - 51.9 Sex Male 32 49 Female 68 51 Place of residence Urban area 56.8 40.1 Rural area 43.2 59.9 Level of education Higher 22.3 33.8 Secondary general 54.6 37.6 Secondary vocational 23.1 28.6 Religiosity Religious 82.3 65.4 To control for the impact of the environment on respondents’ behaviour, we included the variable Type of the settlement. In the case of the GGS panel, this figure was taken at the time of the third wave (2011). Migration mobility of population in Russia is low, so the use of the current settlement type can only slightly shift the overall estimations. GGS largely covers the urban population, while in the array of the PFS, the rural population accounts for more than half of the respondents. Regarding the level of education, in the array of PFS surveys – which represents the young population of Russia – in comparison with GGS there is a higher proportion of people with higher education and a lower share of people with secondary education. The binary variable religiosity is created in order to manage the religiousness of the respondents with the categories “confess one religion” (religious) and “do not profess any religion” (non-religious). In the PFS there is a much smaller percentage of people belonging to the believers than in GGS. All variables were subjected to a correlation analysis, which showed that the variables are independent and can be included in the model. Results of the analysis of the first group of models Basic characteristics of the models indicate that at least one of the variables explains the change of the dependent variable, which means that it is associated with the risk of an onset of cohabitation or marriage. The significance of almost all coefficients does not exceed 5 per cent, that is, they are statistically significant. The coefficients of Model 1 are presented in Table 4. C l ti h d f ti Table 4. Co after the ag Predictors o Gend Level of ed Place of res Religio In accordan union is ab fact that w sexes to jo The respon the case o respondent group, that in Russia, a rural areas cities (GGS cohabitatio Those who 1.4 times ( religious pe Figure 2. H C um ul at iv e h az ar d fu nc tio n Months from The stratific represents representa PFS. The y ox regression ge of 15 f models C er ducation S sidence sity nce with Mod bout 1.2 time women enter in a union of ndents with of the GGS ts) more like t is, those w as revealed are 0.7 time S). In the c on for the res o do not refe (GGS) and eople. Hazard curve GGS m 15 years to st cohabitation cation for all the proba tives of each younger the Europ ns for Model ategories of var Male Female Higher Secondary gen Secondary voca Urban area Rural area Non-religiou Religious del 1, the pro es higher tha unions at a f any type are professional S responden ely to enter ith higher ed by Mills et a es less likely case of youn idents of rura r to themselv 1.1 times (P s for cohabit G tart the first l models of t ability functio h of the six g generation th pean Journal 55 №1: The ris riables neral ational a us obability of w an of men of an earlier ag e aligned at and genera nts) and 1.1 into cohab ducation that al. (2013). If w y to enter into nger genera al and urban ves as the fo PFS) more li tation as first Generations C um ul at iv e ha za rd fu nc tio n the study wa on of an generations f hat an individ of Governm sk to enter in GGS: 1444 events Models c R 1,18*** R 1,65*** 1,44*** R 0,73*** R 1,41*** * p = women to en f the same a ge than men the age of 40 al education 5 times (in itation than t display a ‘p we talk abou o cohabitatio tions (PFS), n areas are n ollowers of th kely to ente t union (strat Months fro as the variab entry into for GGS and dual represe ent and Econ to a first coh 192 coefficients Exp( Ref. group 1 Ref. group 1 1 Ref. group Ref. group 1 0.10, ** p = 0.05 gage in an u ages. This is n. The chanc 0. are about 1 the case o those in the pattern of dis t the type of n than those , the likeliho ot significant he existing r r into cohab ification by g PFS om 15 years to cohabitation ble Generatio marital unio the two gen ents, the mor nomics 5(1) habitation PFS: 25 events (B) 1,26*** 1,15*** 1,15*** 0,94 1,13*** 5, *** p = 0.01. unregistered s due to the ces of both .5 times (in of the PFS e reference sadvantage’ f settlement, e who live in ood to start tly different. religions are bitation than generation) start the first on. Figure 2 on for the nerations for re he or she C l ti h d f ti is prone to of 35 years age; howev a first coha Table 5. Co marriage a Predictors o Gend Level of e Place of re Religio Model 2 wa experience into marria of the sam of the GG cohabitatio the situatio marry than less likely The probab indicator, respondent cohabitatio Figure 3. P C um ul at iv e ha za rd fu nc tio n Months fro In Figure 3 higher cha representa Mitrofanov enter into co s. The repres ver, we can abitation will i ox regression fter the age o of models der ducation esidence osity as constructe e of prelimina ge as the fir e age, 1.2 tim GS responde on is loosely on is differen n their peers to register a bility of marri which is ca ts are abou on than religio Probability fun GGS om 15 years to star marriage 3 we see th ances to e tives of post va and Artam ohabitation a sentatives of already assu increase for n for Model № of 15 Categories variables Male Female Higher Secondary ge Secondary voca Urban are Rural area Non-religio Religious * p = 0.10 ed to identify ary coresiden st union is m mes more fo ents, the pr associated w nt: young Ru with genera a relationship iage of rural alculated fo t 0.7 times ous people. nction of entr G rt the first hat the respo enter into m -Soviet gene monova ● Pe 56 as a first unio the younges ume that the them. №2: The pro s of s eneral ational ea a ous s 0, ** p = 0.05, ** y factors of e nce (Table 5 more than the or GGS and robability to with the leve ussians with al education; p than their residents as or denizens less likely t ry into first m Generations C f ondents from marriage wit erations. erspectives o on. The dotte st generation e cumulative obability of en GGS: 3135 events Models c R 1,18*** R 0,96 1,10** R 1,22*** R 0,79*** ** p = 0.01. entry into a fi 5). The proba e same indic 1.5 times mo enter into el of educatio higher educ however, th peers with s the first uni of all gen o enter into marriage as fi C um ul at iv e ha za rd fu nc tio n Months m Soviet ge thout prior of family polic ed line show ns have not r probability t ntering into a 56 coefficients Exp( Ref. group 1 Ref. group Ref. group Ref. group 0 rst marriage ability of wom cator calcula ore for PFS. marriage w on. In the ca cation are mo hey are abou professional on 1.2-fold e erations. N marriage w irst union PFS from 15 years to st marriage nerations ha cohabitation cy in Russia ws the onset reached this to enter into a first PFS: 68 events (B) 1,55*** 0,78** 1,28** 1,19** 0,69*** e without the men to enter ated for men In the case without prior ase of PFS, ore likely to ut 1.3 times l education. exceeds this on-religious without prior start the first ave 3 times n than the The seco The purpos is suitable after they For this pu and marria cohabiting, analyzed u Figure 4. M for Models The indepe the fact of unions. For marked by In the case belonged t respondent Figure), it marriage o the first con the child w thus conce Because th childbirth, b the concep considered Table 6. In Elements of Event Subjec Dependent varia Predicto In the situ conception ond group se of the sec for parentin have found rpose, it was age as first where con nion (Figure Marital-partne 3, 4 and 5 endent varia f conception r Models 3 a purple and g e of Model to one or a t entered int is difficult to r cohabitatio nception and was at least t eption had s he marriage but to legitim ption, which o d as the stimu itial characte model 1 1s ct able (time) Mo ors uation, when (marked Europ p of model cond group o g or the res out about co s necessary t unions, a nception was 4 and Table ership traject able was con occurrence and 4 the con green) did no 5, because another unio o cohabitatio o understand on. It was fou d marriage w three years o stimulated en was not has mize the right occurs more ulator of coha eristics of the №3 15 years – 1st cohabitation st cohabitation Russians in the a onths from 15 years n the marria in yellow) pean Journal 57 ls of models is spondents pr onception (t to compare as well as s an explana e 6). tories and oc nstructed se strictly befo nstruction of ot cause any of the lack on, in a situ on and then d whether co und that more were not less old at the tim ntry into coh sty, it is like ts of the child e than 45 mo abitation (Mo e Cox regress Cox Re №4 15 year – 1st marriage 1st direct marria age of 15+ years s to entry to 1st unio Conceiving be age was aft happened of Governm to understan refer to form he so-called the model o marriage af atory variab ccurrence of parately for re entry into f this variable y questions. of informatio ation where into marriag onception inc e than 80 pe s than 45 mo me of marria habitation in ly that it wa d and family onths before odel 3). sions for Mo egressions for mode t 1s age 1st m Russia on Months f fore entry to analyz er the expe strictly be ent and Econ nd whether c malize their re “marriage a of entry into c fter the exp le about ent conception each model o each of th e (the fact of on about wh e, after conc ge (marked in creases the r cent of cas onths, which age after livin stead of into s intended n at the legal the marriage dels 3, 4 and els №5 t cohabitation – 1st marriage after 1st co ans after entry to 1s rom 1st cohabitation zed union erience of c etween ma nomics 5(1) cohabitation elationships after baby”). cohabitation perience of try into the l to capture he analyzed f conception hich partner ception, the n red in the chances of ses between means that ng together, o marriage. not to cover level. Thus, e, was then d 5 marriage ohabitation st cohabitation n to 1st marriage cohabitation, rriage and cohabitatio Models 3, 4 The resu In order to unions, thr small num built for Mo not given. in the form According t stimulated marriages According happened higher prob conception the signific conception Figure 5. T types (GGS According 6.9 per cen and 6 per c in the surv of such coh experience the GGS sa proved itse the PFS sa who, in ca sample. Th their partne Mitrofanov on (even if i 4 and 5 are p ults of the o evaluate th ree Cox reg ber of event odels 3, 4 an However, si of schemes to all three m the beginnin and 16 per to the reg have 4 times bability to en before entr cance of the , but other fa The role of co S) to the PFS s nt of cohabit cent of marr ey of stimula habitations in e of living ample, wher elf to be suita ample, that se of birth o his step could ers. va and Artam t was the c presented in analysis o he role of co ressions we ts that matc d 5 turned ou gnificant res (Figures 5 a models built f ng of 20 per cent of ma ression coe s higher likel nter into a m ry into any u e coefficient actors stimula onception in t survey (Figu ations as firs riages after t ated marriag n PFS is alm together e more matu able for raisi represents y of children, h d act as a gu monova ● Pe 58 cohabitation Table 6. of the sec onception in ere construct ch the specif ut to be low sults were ag and 6). for GGS (Fig r cent of firs arriages after efficients, th lihood to ent marriage as f union. In Mo is much gr ate the entry the process ure 6), a con st union, 21 the experien ges is only 2 most 3 times is 2.6 tim ure individua ing children young gener had more of uarantee of t erspectives o of second cond group the process ted for each fied trajector in quality, so ggregated, a gure 5), it wa st cohabitatio r the experie ose couples ter into a coh first union th odel 3 (marri eater than 5 y into a such of entering in nception stim per cent of ce of living t per cent fro less, and tha mes less. T als were pres – almost on ration, there fficial relation the seriousn of family polic order). Spec p of mode of forming h database. ry, the Cox o the detailed analyzed and as found that ons, 23 per ence of livin s in which habitation an han the coup age after co 5 per cent, marriage. nto unions of mulated the b marriages as together. The om GGS. The at of marriag This means sented, coha a par with m are more r nships than i ess of young cy in Russia cification of els matrimonial Due to the regressions d results are d presented t conception cent of first ng together. conception nd a 3 times ples without ohabitation), so it is not f various beginning of s first union e difference e difference ges after the s that, in abitation has marriage. In respondents in the GGS g people for Figure 6. T unions of v The aggr In the Seq reproductiv different ev the typical the behavio In Figure respondent ages of th have not generations axes the p shown. These chro solitude or Marriage a end of the decreases place to th traditional f confirms th 4 We used th The role of co various types regated fa quence Ana ve events of vents, we ad statuses of ours of repre 7, we see ts over gene e responden yet reached s we had to proportions o onograms sh r Living Apa nd marriage age window during the hose who ra form of matr he assumptio he R package T Europ onception in t s (PFS) amily form lyses,4 we f both surve ded the sec life of the re esentatives o the distribu erations. On nts between d the upper work with ce of individuals how that sin art Together with concep . The freque transition fro aise children rimonial beha on of de-instit raMineR (Gaba pean Journal 59 the process mation traje constructed eys. In orde cond unions. espondents, of different ge ution of par the horizont n 15 and 35 age limit, ensored data s belonging glehood, to is the mos ptions are do ncy of these om Soviet to n while singl aviour gives tutionalized l adinho et al. 201 of Governm of entering in ectories chronogram er to trace t This allowed but also to enerations. rtnerships a tal axes of th years. The therefore, in a (indicated to each sta which can b st frequent s ominant statu statuses by o post-Sovie le or in the way to the o life courses. 11). ent and Econ nto ms for matri he transition d us not only notice the d nd fertility s he chronogra youngest r n the case in grey). On ate at a give be referred t state at the uses for Rus the age of 3 et generation second ma other sequen nomics 5(1) monial and ns between y to capture difference in statuses of ams are the respondents of modern the vertical en age are to as actual age of 15. ssians at the 35 gradually ns, giving a arriage. The nces, which Figure 7. D 1935-44 GGS: 833 interviews 1945-54 GGS: 1,058 interviews 1955-64 GGS: 1,328 interviews 1965-74 GGS: 1,058 interviews C S co Single Single, Statuses s (cohabitatio Mitrofanov Distribution of “Soviet Union” ge Censored Single, no onceptions e, 1 conception , 2 conceptions stand out w on as a trial 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 15 16 17 18 19 The propo of cohabit people, especially at least 1 child, is ve small 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 15 16 17 18 19 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 15 16 17 18 19 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 15 16 17 18 19 2 va and Artam f partnership enerations First coh First co First coh Sec Second c Second c when marriag marriage), a 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ortion ting with ery 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 monova ● Pe 60 ps and fertility 1975- GGS 670 intervi 1975- PFS 1,71 intervi 1985- PFS 1,85 intervi Legend habitation, no conce ohabitation, 1 conce habitation, 2 conce cond cohabitation, n conceptions cohabitation, 1 con cohabitation, 2 conc ge is prece and also an 6 27 28 29 3 6 27 28 29 3 6 27 28 29 3 6 27 28 29 3 erspectives o y statuses by “Mode - 84 S: 0 ews -84 S: 17 ews -94 S: 55 ews eptions eption eptions no ception ceptions eded by one interlayer of 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 15 16 1 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 15 16 1 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 15 16 1 The propo cohab peop child has b incre of family polic y generation ern” generations First marriage, n First marriage, First marriage, Second ma concep Second marriage Second marriage e or two co f those who 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ortion of biting le with ren been asing cy in Russia no conceptions 1 conception 2 conceptions arriage, no ptions e, 1 conception e, 2 conceptions ohabitations have never 3 24 25 26 27 28 29 3 3 24 25 26 27 28 29 3 3 24 25 26 27 28 29 3 3 3 3 European Journal of Government and Economics 5(1) 61 been married and had one or two conceptions in the first or second cohabitation (cohabitation as an independent union). Such interlayers are becoming increasingly visible for each subsequent generation, and thus, the spread of cohabitation is gradually moving from the stage of promotion to the stage of legitimation. Conclusions The aim of this study was to identify factors of entry into the first cohabitation, compare them with the factors of entry into the first marriage, determine the stage of the spread of cohabitation in Russia and, finally, demonstrate that policymakers should stop ignoring this phenomenon. Not all of our hypotheses were confirmed. 1. For the Soviet generations (GGS data), women from 1965-74, those who received secondary or vocational education, urban residents and non-religious people are more likely to enter into cohabitation as a first union. The probability of entry into marriage as a first union is loosely associated with the level of education. The chance is higher for women, religious people and those who live in rural areas. For modern generations (PFS data), the probability of entering into unions of various types are associated only with gender (females are more likely to enter into any matrimonial unions), level of education (people with vocational education are more likely to engage in cohabitation than in marriage) and religiosity in a situation of marriage (the risk of marriage is higher for the religious than for the nonreligious). 2. Conception often precedes cohabitation and marriage as first unions, but does not act as a strong incentive for transition from cohabitation to marriage. 3. There are respondents with children (had at least one conception) in cohabitation in the samples of the surveys. Sequence analysis has revealed that the most frequent status for all generations by the age of 35 is “married, was conceived”. Besides such states as “raising one or two children”, “alone” or “in cohabitation” are becoming more common for the representatives of the modern generations by the end of the observed age. In these cases cohabitation is an alternative to marriage. The modern generations begin their matrimonial biographies with cohabitation as a union, involving a lower degree of responsibility than marriage, but at the same time having the benefits of marriage (e.g. general budget, housing), which is especially important in a period of uncertainty. The changing of norms and values in the modern world leads to the fact that people consider religious, social and family traditions to be less important than before, starting to shape and fill their life courses based on their own priorities. Therefore, young, urban, non-religious, less- educated people are considered to be the engine of change in the matrimonial field in Russia, confirming once more that cohabitations in Russia are more associated with the less-educated as opposed to Western European countries where the highly-educated are significantly more likely to follow long term cohabitation trajectories (Mills et al. 2013). In modern Russian society, forms of marital partnership and reproductive behaviour are becoming more diverse and unpredictable. A standardized sequence of events in individual biographies is replaced by a variety of life courses, in which cohabitation becomes one of the options: cohabitations in Russia gradually have come to the stage of legitimation. Policy-makers should treat the new institution as a decision of the people. An important question arises: why do people choose cohabitations instead of marriages? This question is for further studies, but what we know now for sure is Mitrofanova and Artamonova ● Perspectives of family policy in Russia 62 that cohabitations are gaining power and popularity, and we cannot ignore them anymore. Acknowledgements The article was prepared within the framework of the Academic Fund Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) in 2016 (grant № 16-05-0011) and supported within the framework of a subsidy granted to the HSE by the Government of the Russian Federation for the implementation of the Global Competitiveness Program. The authors also want to thank some colleagues who contributed in this paper. Heartfelt gratitude to Sergey V. Zakharov for a permanent scientific advising, insightful recommendations and openness to new ideas. Sincere thanks to Francesco C. Billari and Melinda Mills for the revision of our work in Life Course methods. A lot of thanks to Philippe Blanchard, Roxana Leu, Alla O. Tyndik, and Svetlana S. Biryukova for their consultations on Sequence Analysis. Finally, thanks to Vladimir A. Kozlov and Thomas H. Espy for their consulting on politics and inestimable help in the preparation of this paper. References Avdeev, Alexandre, Monnier, Alain (2000) ‘Marriage in Russia: A Complex Phenomenon Poorly Understood’, Population: An English Selection 12: 7–49. Billari Francesco C. (2001) ‘Sequence Analysis in Demographic Research. Special Issue on Longitudinal Methodology’, Canadian Studies in Population 28(2): 439- 458. Gabadinho, Alexis, Gilbert Ritschard, Nicholas S. Müller and Mathia Studer (2011) ‘Analyzing and visualizing state sequences in R with TraMineR’, Journal of Statistical Software 40(4): 1-37. Gerber, Theodore P. and Danielle Berman (2010) ‘Entry to Marriage and Cohabitation in Russia, 1985–2000: Trends, Correlates, and Implications for the Second Demographic Transition: La mise en couple en Russie, 1985–2000: tendances, facteurs associés et implications par rapport à la seconde transition démographique’, European Journal of Population-Revue Europeenne de Demographie 26(1): 3–31. Giddens Anthony (2003) Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping Our Lives, London: Profile Books Ltd. Kaa, Dirk J. van de (1987) ‘Europe’s Second Demographic Transition’, Population Bulletin 42(1): 3–57. Kaa, Dirk J. van de and Ron Lesthaeghe (1986) ‘Two Demographic Transitions?’, Population: Growth and Decline 9–24. Lesthaeghe, Ron (1995) The Second Demographic Transition in Western countries: An interpretation, in: Gender and Family Change in Industrialized Countries, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lesthaeghe Ron and Karel Neels (2002) ‘From the First to the Second Demographic Transition: An Interpretation of the Spatial Continuity of Demographic Innovation in France, Belgium and Switzerland European’, Journal of Population 18(4): 325-360. Levada, Yu. (2005) ‘Generations of ХХ Century: Opportunities of Studies’ in Yu Levada , Т. Shanin (Eds) Fathers and Children: Analysis of Contemporary Russian Generations. Moscow: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, pp. 39-60. European Journal of Government and Economics 5(1) 63 Matysiak Anna (2009) ‘Is Poland really ‘immune’ to spread of cohabitation?’, Demographic Research 21(8): 215-234. Mayer, Karl U. (2004) ‘Whose Lives? How History, Societies, and Institutions Define and Shape Life Courses’, Research in Human Development 1(3): 161–187. Mills, Melinda (2004) ‘Stability and change: the structuration of partnership histories in Canada, the Netherlands, and the Russian Federation’, European Journal of Population Revue Europeenne de Demographie 20(2): 141–175. Mills, Melinda and Blossfeld, Hans P. (2013) ‘The Second Demographic Transition Meets Globalization: A Comprehensive Theory to Understand Changes in Family Formation in an Era of Rising Uncertainty’, Life Course Research and Social Policies 1(1): 9-33. Mills, Melinda, Laurent Lesnard and Gina Potarca (2013) ‘Family Formation Trajectories in Romania, the Russian Federation and France: Towards the Second Demographic Transition?’, European Journal of Population 29(1): 69-101. Mitrofanova, Ekaterina S. (2013) ‘Demographic behavior of Russians: family and fertility patterns across generations’, Macrotheme Review 2(3): 71–80. Philipov, Dimiter and Aiva Jasilioniene (2008) ‘Union formation and fertility in Bulgaria and Russia: A life table description of recent trends’, Demographic Research 19: 2057–2114. Sobotka, Tomas and Laurent Toulemon (2008) ‘Overview Chapter 4: Changing family and partnership behaviour: Common trends and persistent diversity across Europe’, Demographic Research 19(6): 85-138. Vikat, Andrés, Zsolt Spéder, Gijs Beets, Francesco C. Billari, Christoph Bühler, Aline Désesquelles, Tineke Fokkema, Jan M. Hoem, Alphonse MacDonald and Gerda Neyer (2008) ‘Generations and Gender Survey (GGS): Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course’, Demographic Research 17: 389–440. Vishnevsky, Anatoly G. (2009) ‘A new stage of Russian demographic development’, in Vishnevsky, A. G. and S.N. Bobilev (Eds.) Russia Facing Demographic Challenges. National Human Development Report Russian Federation, Moscow, pp. 18–25. Zakharov, Sergei (2008) ‘Russian Federation: From the first to Second Demographic Transition’, Demographic Research 19, 907–972.