lessons learned from cross-national research on marital homogamy albert esteve and luis lópez...
TRANSCRIPT
LESSONS LEARNED FROM CROSS-NATIONAL RESEARCH ON MARITAL HOMOGAMY
Albert Esteve and Luis López
Integrated European Census Microdata Project
Centre d’Estudis Demogràfics
Census Microdata: findings and futuresUniversity of Manchester
September 1-3, 2008
Centre d’Estudis DemogràficsUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Discuss the advantages and limitations of carrying out cross-national research on marital homogamy based on census microdata (IPUMS). Lessons learned from my own research on educational and race-ethnic homogamy
Structure of the presentationConcepts, definitions and scientific relevanceAdvantages of using census microdataLimitations of using census microdataConcluding remarks
Main purpose and structure of the presentation
Advantage no. 1 : IPUMS international
dark greendark green = already integrated = already integrated (35 countries, 111 censuses, 263 millon person records)(35 countries, 111 censuses, 263 millon person records)
green = to be integrated (39 countries, 103 censuses, 150 mill.)green = to be integrated (39 countries, 103 censuses, 150 mill.)
IntegratedIntegrated census microdata open to the research community!!!
Advantage no. 1 : IPUMS international
Census Microdata Samples in the Mediterranean Countries2000s 1990s 1980s 1970s 1960s
Albania 2001 1989 1979 1960, 1969Algeria 1998 1987 1977 1966Bosnia-Herzegovina 2001 1991Croatia 2001 1991Cyprus 2001 1992Egypt 2006 1996 1986 1976 1960France 1999 1990 1982 1975 1962, 1968Greece 2001 1991 1981 1970 1960Israel 1995 1983 1972 1961, 1962Italy 2001 1991 1981 1971 1961Jordan 2004 1994 1979Lebanon 1970Libya 1995 1984 1973 1966Macedonia 2002 1991, 1994Malta 2005 1995 1985 1967Morocco 2004 1994 1982 1971 1960Portugal 2001 1991 1981 1970 1960Palestine 2007 1997Serbia Montenegro 1991 1981 1971 1961Sirya 2004 1994 1981 1970 1960Slovenia 2002 1991Spain 2001 1991 1981 1970 1960Tunisia 2004 1994 1984 1975 1966Turkey 2000 1990 1980, 1985 1970, 1975 1960, 1965* In Bold: census microdata surviveSource: Integrated Public Use of Microdata Series international (IPUMS-International), https://international.ipums.org/international/microdata_inventory.html
Advantage no. 2 : sample densities and coverage
n %Brazil 2000Asians 40667 0,40Indigenous 40952 0,41
Chile 2002Mapuche 37370 4,03Aimara 2580 0,28Atacameño 1160 0,13Other 1100 0,12
Ecuador 2001Mulato 14330 2,61Black 11670 2,18Other 1830 0,34
Mexico 2000Indigenous 293080 5,05
Unions of men and women aged 30 – 39 that belong to a minority group that represents less than 5% of the total
population
Advantage no. 3 : persons in households
SAMPLE HHid URBAN PERNUM SPLOC AGE SEX MARST RELIGION SCH YRS ACTIVITY
South Africa 2001 386 Urban 1 2 44 Male Married Christian No 12 EmployedSouth Africa 2001 386 Urban 2 1 40 Female Married Christian No 12 InactiveSouth Africa 2001 386 Urban 3 - 24 Female Single Christian No 12 EmployedSouth Africa 2001 386 Urban 4 - 23 Female Single Christian No 12 UnemployedSouth Africa 2001 386 Urban 5 - 16 Male Single Christian Yes 9 InactiveSouth Africa 2001 386 Urban 6 - 12 Female Single Christian Yes 8 NIUSouth Africa 2001 386 Urban 7 - 10 Female Single Christian Yes 6 NIU
*HHid, Household Identifier*PERNUM, person number*SPLOC, spouse location*MARST, marital status*SCH, school attendance*YRS, years in school*ACTIVITY, activity status
Using SPOUSE LOCATION, we can Using SPOUSE LOCATION, we can easily match all characteristics of the easily match all characteristics of the
spouses reported in the census!!!spouses reported in the census!!!
And the IPUMS extraction system And the IPUMS extraction system does it systematically!!!!!!!does it systematically!!!!!!!
Advantage no. 4 : multiple dimensions of homogamy
Spouse no. 1 Spouse no. 2
SEX Male Female
AGE 44 40
Religion Christian Christian
Education Secondary completed Secondary Completed
Occupation
Race and ethnicity
Place (region or country of birth)
and others....
South Africa 2001, household no. 386
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
< 4 4 -7 8 - 10 11 - 14 >= 15
1970 1980 1991 2000
Homogamous marriages are favored and are increasing at higher levels of educational attainment over time.
Log odds for homogamous pairings by level of schooling and census year, Brazil
In Union
Not in Union
Spouse absent
Spouse present
Consensual Union
Marriage
Consensual Union
Marriage
IN UNION SPOUSE PRESENCE TYPE OF UNION PLACE TIME
Country
Abroad
Country
Abroad
After migration
Before migration
After migration
Country
Abroad
Country
Abroad
CENSUS CENSUS
Advantage no. 5 : complete universe of unions
Advantage no. 6 : hierarchical analysis
• Most often, datasets are organized in hierarchichal way: – Individuals– Households– Region– Country
• This makes multilevel modeling possible. Independent variables can be incorporated at any level
• Surprisingly, samples for some developed countries do not use this sample design.
Advantage no. 6 : hierarchical analysis
Dependent Variable : Educational Homogamy
Independent Variables
Contextual Effects
SEXRATIO: Log transformation of the number of educational group members of the opposite sex divided by the number of group members of the same sex by region of residence
GROUPSIZE: Log transformation of the relative educational group size at the regional level
ETHNIC / RACE / BIRTHPLACE SIMILARITY: Percentage of the educational group that have the same race-ethnicity/birthplace country
Individual Effects
SEX
EDUCATION: Based on IPUMSI “Educational Attainment”
RACE / ETHNICITY / BIRTHPLACE
Argentina Brazil
Ecuador Mexico
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Birthplace Similarity
Od
ds
Ra
tio
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
12,0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Race Similarity
Odd
s R
atio
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
4,5
5,0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Race Similarity
Odd
s R
atio
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
8,0
9,0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Ethnic Similarity
Odd
s R
atio
Less than Primary Primary Completed Secondary Completed University Completed
Advantage no. 6 : hierarchical analysis
Effect of Race-ethnic similarity in educational homogamy by level of educational attainment
Censuses only capture current unions and not all unions prevail
Separation Divorce Widowhood Remarriage
Is the likelihood of union dissolution equal for all types of unions?
Limitation no. 1 : only prevailing unions
Limitation no. 1 : only prevailing unions
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
Homogamy Hypergamy
25-29 35-39 46-50
Brazil, women born 1945 – 49 (log odds ratio)
Do homogamy and hypergamy levels change for the same cohort at different ages?
Limitation no. 2 : only co-residing partners
Country Percentage
Argentina 2001 2.4%
Brazil 2000 2.2%
Chile 2002 2.4%
Costa Rica 2000 2.6%
Ecuador 2001 1.8%
México 2000 1.7%
Proportion of married individuals with spouse absent
When did they get married? When was the union formed?
What were the individual’s characteristics at the time of marriage?
Is this the first time they marry?
Where did they get married?
What was the parents’ educational attainment?
Limitation no. 3 : cross-sectional data with little biographical information
Limitation no. 4 : international comparability
Concluding remarks
Availability of international census microdata offers an unprecedented opportunity to carry out cross-national research on marital homogamy and other topics
Most of developing countries have census microdata samples
There are obvious limitations (prevalence, co-residing partners, cross-sectional data), that can be overcome by restricting the analysis to certain types of unions
The most important challenge is to obtain meaningful results for the countries individually and in comparative perspective
Thanks!!!
Albert Esteve [email protected]
Census Microdata: findings and futuresUniversity of Manchester
September 1-3, 2008
Centre d’Estudis Demogràfics Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona