Abstract
Union formation and dissolution are among the main determinants explaining variations in fertility. Compared to the rest of Canada, Quebec’s marital histories are more complex and its prevalence of common-law unions much higher. The objective of this article is to examine the role of marital behaviours on fertility by comparing different indicators of fertility and conjugal life that were obtained through microsimulation. Parameters of the microsimulation model were estimated from hazard regressions performed on the marital and fertility histories collected in two retrospective longitudinal surveys: the Canadian General Social Survey (GSS) 2001 and 2006. Results show that the more complex marital histories of Quebecers can explain more than one-quarter of their fertility differences with the rest of the country.
Highlights
Over the past few decades, Canadian union formation and dissolution have witnessed rapid and important changes
Parameters of the microsimulation model were estimated from hazard regressions performed on the marital and fertility histories collected in two retrospective longitudinal surveys on family transitions: the Canadian General Social Survey (GSS) cycles 15 and 20 (Statistics Canada 2002 and 2007)
First we present the results related to fertility, those about union formation and conjugal status, and those linked to the interaction between fertility and conjugal status
Summary
Over the past few decades, Canadian union formation and dissolution have witnessed rapid and important changes. Legal changes regarding formal unions resulted in increasing number of divorces and shorter durations of marriages, while common-law unions remained less stable than marriages. Marital histories became much more complex as average union durations diminished and the number of unions lived by an individual during his lifetime increased (Statistics Canada 2002). These changes in conjugal life affected all Canadian provinces but were more pronounced in the province of Quebec than elsewhere (Juby et al 2004; Statistics Canada 2002; Laplante 2004; Le Bourdais and Marcil-Gratton 1996; Belliveau and Oderkirk 1994)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
