Determinants of Non-Formation of Partnership:
A French-Japanese Comparison1

Jean Louis RALLU (Institut National d’Etudes Démographiques, Paris) andHiroshi KOJIMA (National Institute of Population and Social Security Research,
Tokyo)

ABSTRACT
Besides cohabitation, new forms of partnership without common residence, including
friends, lover, fiancé(e), non-cohabiting couples, are (re)appearing as revealed by the
French FFS.

These types of partnership are more common in Japan than in societies

with a high prevalence of cohabitation.
of unions without cohabitation.

However, France also has a sizeable number

Determinants of these various types of partnershipand of the non-formation of partnership are socio-cultural (coresidence with parents) as
well as related to socio-economic status (education, labor force participation, andoccupation) of young men and women on the marriage market.

Thus, the trends ineconomic situation, especially unemployment and precariousness, have important
effects on partnership formation.

1

This is a revised version of our paper prepared for the poster session at the FFS Flagship Conference,

May 29-31, 2000, Brussels. We would like to thank anonymous referees for Jinko Mondai Kenkyu for
their helpful comments and Japan Ministry of Health and Welfare Scientific Grant for financial
assistance.

However, we are responsible for all the remaining errors and shortcomings.

1

INTRODUCTION
Recent changes in living arrangements at young adult ages, including longer
coresidence with parents (e.g., Kojima 1990a, Suzuki 1999) and an increase in
one-person households (e.g., Bozon et Villeneuve-Gokalp 1994, Lesthaeghe & Moors
1996), have been seen as a threat to family formation leading to low levels of fertility
and rapid aging in developed societies. It is partly because the decision about family
formation (marriage and/or childbearing) is also the decision about living
arrangement (living with a spouse and/or living with a child).

The factors of

non-formation of partnership need to be examined to understand recent trends inunion formation.

We previously studied the trends in fertility in France and Japan(Kojima & Rallu 1997, 1998) and found that similarities and differences in fertility areat least partly caused by those in nuptiality between Japan and France where
cohabitation has been much more prevalent.

Then, we realized the necessity tocompare nuptiality patterns at the individual level in the two societies with very
different types of union formation and different developments in the process of
non-formation of unions.

This is an extension of our previous work but a preliminary

study which explores the effects of only a few common factors on partnership (union)
formation or non-formation in France and Japan, drawing on micro data sets from thetwo societies.

Even though one of the authors previously reviewed the literature andconstructed an analytical framework for union formation (Kojima 1990b), this study
does not explicitly draws on it because of the limitation in the number andcomparability of variables as well as its preliminary nature.

2

DATA AND METHODSThis study has used the data from the French FFS (Family and Fertility Survey
with a sample size of above 2000) conducted by the Institut National de la Statistiqueet des Etudes Economiques (INSEE) in 1994 and the data from the 10th Japanese NFS(National Fertility Survey with a sample size of around 8000) conducted by theInstitute of Population Problems (currently, the National Institute of Population andSocial Security Research) in 1992.

The analysis has been limited to respondents

aged 21-34 for both surveys because the FFS had the lower age limit of 21 for French
respondents and because most marriages occur before mid-thirties and there might bemisreporting of marital status in the late 30s for Japanese women due to the stigma
attached to celibacy. A 4-category partnership status variable has been constructed:1) “having no partner” (or “alone”), 2) “having an intimate friend” (‘relation amoureusestable’ for France or ‘having friend(s) of the opposite sex’ for Japan), 3) “cohabiting”(‘cohabitant’ for France or ‘having a lover/fiancé(e)’ for Japan), and 4) “currently
married.”In France, cohabitors include 6% of respondents who declared to live “incouple” but were not residing together and single persons having a friend include 2%of respondents who declared a starting date of current union as ‘couple life.’
Cohabitors can be included in both “single” and “married” persons in the Japanesedata because 1% of single males and females reported to be in cohabitation andbecause the married couples include those married consensually, which are of small
percentages.

We do not mean to say that partnership categories are always

comparable between the two societies.

Even the meaning of being married might bedifferent between France with a high prevalence of cohabitation and Japan with a low

3prevalence.

However, each categorization of partnership status seems appropriate

for each country. Thus, we analyze the determinants of partnership formation or
non-formation based on this categorization. Independent variables used in this study
are only four basic ones, including education, labor force status/occupation andurban-rural residence, which have been made as similar as possible in French andJapanese data (Table 1).
Multinomial logit (logistic regression) and proportional hazards (Cox regression)models have been applied to French and Japanese data sets. For ease of computationand interpretation, only categorical variables in dummy coding have been used forindependent variables.

We have also conducted multinomial logit analyses for

3-category living arrangements:“living alone,” “living with parents before union”

and “living with a partner (in cohabitation or marriage)” because living with parents
is hypothesized to compete with living with a partner in some cases.
In the proportional hazards analysis of first union formation, we have analyzed
the timing (age) of first union (cohabitation or first marriage) for France and that offirst marriage for Japan.

For France we have also analyzed the determinants of firstmarriage either with or without previous cohabitation.

For the proportional hazards

analysis of Japanese data only never-married and first-married subjects are usedbecause the information on the timing of first marriage is not available for other kindof marital status.

RESULTS
Partnership status at the time of survey (Figure 1) shows that Japanese are less4

likely to be alone (with no partner) than French at all ages and for both sexes. They
are also less likely to have a friend, except for males aged 30-34.

The proportion

married is higher in Japan than in France. However, the total proportion in union(married or cohabiting) is higher in France, except at ages 30-34.

Japanese with alover or a fiancé(e) may actually represent the category where cohabitation is
beginning.

If social norms and economic conditions were different, cohabitation

would certainly be much more prevalent and the proportion married would be lower inJapan.

It is noticeable that the percentage “having no partner” among the total ofthis category plus the percentage “having a friend” are similar in both societies, except
for females aged 25-29 where Japanese are more often without a partner and among
males aged 30-34 where French are more often without a partner.

(1) Multinomial Logit Analysis of Partnership Status
Table 2 shows the results of multinomial logit analysis for determinants ofpartnership status.

Each column presents the effects of independent variables on theodds of “having no partner,” “having a stable partner without cohabitation” and “being
cohabiting” relative to “being married.”

In this and the following tables asterisks andnumber marks mean the significance level: *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05; and # p< .10.

Among French men, age as a whole has a negative effect on “having nopartner,” “having a stable partner without cohabitation” and “being cohabiting” inrelation to “being married” and the effect becomes larger as they get older.

This

means that unmarried men including cohabitors are increasingly more likely to getmarried as they age, which is as expected.

5Coresidence with parents before unionhas a significant and negative effect only on “having no partner” relative to “being
married,” which may mean that living with parents before union encourages French
men to have a marriage partner but not an unmarried partner with or without
cohabitation.

This may suggest that living with parents competes only with livingwith an unmarried partner.
Among educational levels, men with the highest education (more than 2 years inuniversity) are less likely to have no partner.

Those with 1-2-year university

education are more likely to have a stable partner without cohabitation presumably
because those with 1-2-year university education have chances to meet a partner atuniversity but possibly because they have financial difficulty to cohabit or marry.
Actually, most of them were still students.

French men with technical college

education or with the lowest education are generally more likely to be married
possibly because of their orientation towards traditional family life.
Men in unstable employment or unemployment are more likely to have nopartner or a stable partner without cohabitation.

They are also more likely to be

cohabiting, which may reflect their difficulty to have a partner and to cohabit or
marry if they have one, probably due to their lack of financial resources.

Men living

in Paris are slightly more likely to be cohabiting2.

2

Data on occupation are only available at the time of survey in the FFS. Although the results may besubject to reverse causation, the logit analysis of this data set reveals interesting aspects:
self-employed French men are more likely to have a stable partner without cohabitation and less likely
to cohabit. This reflects their traditional life style of proceeding to a stable relationship and then to
marriage without going through cohabitation. French men in professional and managerial occupations

6

We have also conducted the multinomial logit analysis of living arrangements,
although the table is not presented here.

The results show that unemployed French

men are highly likely to live with parents in relation to living with a (unmarried or
married) partner.

Therefore, these French men are more likely to have a stablepartner without cohabitation presumably because they face competition for living witha partner from living with parents.
For French women (Table 2, col. 4-6), as among French men, age as a whole has
negative effects on all non-married status in relation to “being married” and theeffects become larger as they get older.

This also means that unmarried women

including cohabitors are increasingly more likely to get married as they age.
Coresidence with parents has negative effects on all the three unmarried partnershipstatus, which means that French women living with parents are more likely to marryin relation to staying unmarried whatever the partnership status may be.

This maysuggest the effect of parental control over the partnership formation of French women
living with parents.
Among educational levels, the highest education (more than 2 years inuniversity) has weakly significant and positive effects on “having a stable partner
without cohabitation” and “cohabiting.”

Perhaps, some of the relationship and /or

cohabitation with the partner continue from their school days.

French women withtechnical college education are less likely to have a stable partner in relation to being
married.

These women may quickly proceed to marriage once they find a suitable

are less likely to have no partner in relation to being married, possibly because of their attractiveness as
marriage partners.

7

partner3.
French women in part-time employment are more likely to have no partner or apartner without cohabitation, or also to be cohabiting.
likely to be married, like for men.

This means that they are lessBut, unlike men, unemployed women are lesslikely to be cohabiting, meaning that they tend to marry more often than employed
ones, which may reflect the reverse causation. Regional variables do not have any
significant effects among French women.
Although the table is not presented here, French women in blue-collar
occupation are less likely to live with parents relative to living with a (unmarried or
married) partner.

This may also suggest that these French women face lesscompetition for living with a married partner from living with parents.
The seventh to twelfth columns of Table 2 show the results for Japanese men
and women. As among French men, age as a whole has negative effects on eachunmarried partnership status relative to “being married” and the effect becomeslarger as they age.

Coresidence with parents before marriage has a positive effect on“having no partner” and a negative effect on “having a lover or a fiancée.”Thissuggests that Japanese men living with parents are less likely to form an intimate
partnership except marriage.
Like French men with the lowest education, Japanese men with junior highschool (lowest) education are less likely to be unmarried as a whole or, alternatively,
more likely to be married.

3

They are particularly less likely to have friends of theIt may be the same for French women in blue-collar occupation (at the time of survey) because they

are also less likely to have a stable partner without cohabitation.

8

opposite sex, which may suggest that they have less chances to meet single women,
less skills to communicate with single women or lower desirability as a casual partner
for single women and that they tend to immediately go into marriage once they meet asuitable woman presumably through introduction because of their orientation towardtraditional family life.

On the other hand, Japanese men having graduated fromtechnical schools after senior high-school are more likely to be unmarried as a whole.
This may suggest that they need more time to build up their professional career
before going into marriage with an unmarried partner which they tend to have.
Junior (2-year) college education does not have any significant effects possibly becauseof small number of cases among Japanese men.

Japanese men with (4-year)

university education are more likely to be unmarried as a whole like technical school
graduates, partly for the same reasons.

This may be also caused by their lesstraditional attitude toward family life and less parental pressure for marriage which
are related to the fact that they are highly likely to live alone relative to living with amarried partner, as found in the analysis of living arrangements.
Among occupational groups (occupation before marriage for married persons andcurrent occupation for unmarried persons) self-employed Japanese men are more
likely to have friends of the opposite sex in relation to being married.

This may berelated to their higher probability to be unmarried and to live with parents relative toliving with a married partner, which is found in the analysis of living arrangements.
Japanese men in professional and managerial occupations and blue-collar occupations
as well as those in part-time employment or without employment are more likely to beunmarried as a whole and less likely to be married.

9Japanese men in professional

and managerial occupations are more likely to live alone and they may have lesstraditional attitude toward family life and less parental pressure for marriage. On
the other hand, Japanese men in blue-collar occupation may have less chances to meetsingle women and lack financial resources to marry. Japanese men in part-time
employment or without employment are highly unlikely to be married probably
because of their lack of financial resources to marry, which is similar to the situationof French men.
Among regional variables “living in Tokyo” (currently for the unmarried andpremaritally for the married) has no significant effect on the unmarried partnershipstatus among Japanese men.

But “living in other urban areas” has a negative effecton being unmarried as a whole, which may suggest the possible effects of marriage
squeeze in rural areas.
For Japanese women (Table 2, col. 10-12), as among Japanese men as well as
French women, age as a whole has increasingly negative effects on each unmarried
partnership status relative to “being married.” As among French women, coresidencewith parents before marriage also has a negative effect on each unmarried
partnership status relative to “being married” although its negative effect on “having
no partner” is barely non-significant.

This encouragement of marriage as a wholesuggests that Japanese women living with parents face more parental pressure to
marry.
Like French and Japanese men with the lowest education, Japanese women withjunior high-school education are less likely to be unmarried as a whole or,alternatively, more likely to be married although its negative effect on “having no10

partner” is not significant and they may tend to immediately go into marriage once
they meet a suitable men presumably through introduction because of theirorientation toward traditional family life.

On the other hand, Japanese women

having graduated from technical schools, (2-year) junior college and 4-year university
are more likely to be unmarried as a whole, which is similar to Japanese men with
4-year university or technical college education.

This may suggest that they needmore time to build up their professional career before going into marriage.

This maybe also caused by their less traditional attitude toward family life and less parentalpressure for marriage which are related to the fact that they are more likely to live
alone relative to living with a married partner, as found in the analysis of living
arrangements.
Among occupational groups the self-employed Japanese women are more likely
to have no partner and to have a lover or a fiancé relative to being married.

This

may be related to their higher probability to live with parents before marriage relative
to living with a married partner, as regards living arrangements.

Japanese womenin blue-collar occupation are less likely to have a lover or a fiancé perhaps because
they may have less chances to meet single men.

Japanese women in part-time

employment or without employment are unlikely to be married probably because of
their lack of financial resources to marry, which is similar to the situation of French
and Japanese men, as well as French women in part-time employment.
Among regional variables “living in Tokyo” has a positive effect on having nopartner and having a lover or a fiancé relative to being married, which suggests thatthey are less likely to be married as a whole. Among Japanese women as among

11

Japanese men, “living in other urban areas than Tokyo” has a negative effect on being
unmarried as a whole, suggesting the possible effects of marriage squeeze in rural
areas.

(2) Proportional Hazards Analysis of Age at First Union Formation
The first column of Table 3 presents the results of proportional hazards analysis
for determinants of age at first union (cohabitation or first marriage without
cohabitation) among French men, the second column shows the results fordeterminants of age at first marriage either with or without previous cohabitation andthe third column presents the results for first marriage without previous cohabitation.
The hazards of first marriage decline from cohorts born in the first half of the 1960s
and the decline is steeper in recent cohorts, but the hazards of first union(cohabitation or marriage) do not show significant change for French males.
Coresidence with parents before union has a weakly positive effect on the hazards tohave a first union, which would suggest that living with parents encourages French
men to start either cohabitation or marriage.

But the third column showing astronger positive effect suggests that coresidence with parents encourages firstmarriage without cohabitation.
French men with the lowest education have significantly higher hazards to havea first union, presumably a first cohabitation followed or not by marriage as suggestedby the non-significant effects in the second and third columns.

12

In other words, theyare less likely to go into “direct marriage 4 .”Men in part-time employment or

unemployment are less likely to have a first marriage, and unemployed men are evenless likely to be cohabiting or married due to lack of financial resources. French men
living in urban areas other than Paris have higher hazards to have a first union,
perhaps a first cohabitation without marriage rather than a first marriage.
For women (Table 3, col. 4-6), like for men, the hazards of first marriage decline
step by step and more and more steeply from cohorts 1960-1964 to cohorts 1970-1973,
but unlike for men, there is also a significant decline in unions (cohabitation or
marriage) in younger cohorts.

Coresidence with parents before union has a highly

positive effect on the hazards of first union, particularly on first marriage without
previous cohabitation.

These results are similar to those for French men perhaps

because French young adults are subject to higher parental pressure to marry without
going through cohabitation when they live with parents.
French women with the lowest education have significantly higher hazards tohave a first union followed or not by a marriage, like for men.

Women with thehighest education have somewhat lower hazards to have a first marriage as shown by
the fifth column, which may reflect the opposite orientation or their investment oftime and efforts to build up their career before marriage.

French women in part-time

employment are less likely to marry, like for men, however, unemployed women are
more likely to be cohabiting or married.

4

The regional variables do not have any

French men in professional and managerial occupations (at the time of survey) also have significantly

higher hazards to have a first union, but it is presumably a first cohabitation without marriage assuggested by the non-significant effects in the second and the third columns.

13

significant effects among French women.
It is not a surprise that the hazards of first marriage decline with cohort inJapan, but, unlike in France, the decline is not steeper in recent cohorts for males,
although similar trends are found for Japanese and French women alike.

In contrast

to the French results, coresidence with parents before marriage does not have any
significant effects on the hazards to have a first marriage among Japanese men andwomen (Table 3, col. 7-8).

However, the previous analysis of the same data set with alarger model by Kojima (1994 :100) shows that it has a positive effect on the hazards
to have a first marriage among Japanese women aged 18-34.

Therefore, the similar

positive effect of coresidence may appear at least among Japanese women in a moreelaborate model additionally controlling for father’s education, mother’s employment
status, sib size, inheritor status, geographical areas, although the change in age limits
can be also responsible for the significance level.
Japanese men and women with the lowest education have higher hazards tohave a first marriage while those with post-secondary education (technical schools
and 2-year and 4-year colleges) have lower hazards, except for men with 2-year college
education without statistical significance.

Therefore, education as a whole has anegative effect on union formation among both men and women in Japan, which issomewhat similar with the results for French women as regards unions, but not on“direct marriage” for which there is no significant effect in France.
Japanese men with all the (non-reference) occupational categories havesignificant and lower hazards to have a first marriage (for different reasons for higher
and lower occupations), which means that those in clerical and sales occupations

14

(reference category) have higher hazards because of their greater chances to meetsingle women. Among Japanese women only those in self-employment and those inpart-time employment or unemployment have lower hazards to have a first marriage.
“Living in Tokyo” does not have a significant effect among Japanese men but asignificant and negative effect on the hazards to have a first marriage among
Japanese women, suggesting the difficulty or non-desirability for unmarried women to
marry in Tokyo.

On the other hand, “living in urban areas other than Tokyo” haspositive effects on hazards to have a first marriage among both men and women,
again suggesting marriage squeeze in rural areas.
The role of sexual division of labor on decline in marriage in Japan has drawn
much attention in recent years from demographers and sociologists (Iwasawa 2000,
Segalen 2000). Decline in marriage in Japan is often attributed to a necessary choice
between family life and career.

Japanese women would delay their marriage because

it is traditionally followed by a birth in short intervals and mothers are traditionallyencouraged to stay home to care for children.

Logistic regression analysis ofpartnership status shows that ‘denial of sexual division of labor’ has a significant andnegative effect on marriage for females (Iwasawa 2000), but the author does not carryout the same analysis for males and variables relating to economic cost of marriage orchildren are not included in the analysis.
The comparison of labor force participation rates of married Japanese andFrench women (Table 4) shows that the former are more often in full-time
employment before marriage than the latter. But, between marriage and the survey,
many Japanese women enter self-employment (including agriculture) following

15

marriage, and many also shift to part-time work or even quit work.

The proportions

leaving full-time employment and shifting to unstable employment are much lower inFrance than in Japan.

In France, the main reason of work interruptions, beyond

company layoffs, is linked to births. It is probably the same for Japanese women, but
short marriage-first birth intervals would make it difficult to carry out a precise
comparison.

Finally, Japanese and French women have similar labor force

participation rates, but the former are more often in part-time employment.

Thus,

the empowerment of Japanese women enables a large majority of them to workoutside home, at a level comparable with an European society such as France where
the female labor force participation rate is among the highest in Europe.

While

Japanese traditions give an important role to women in their choices for household
expenditures,Japanese

women

show

one

of

the

decision-making positions at the occupational level in Asia.

lowestparticipationinAccusing sexual divisionof labor or gender roles, is certainly not a solution to the marriage bust in Japan aswell as in any other societies.

It might be better to consider that cohabitation would

be able to stabilize union formation.

But, as regards stabilizing fertility, births tocohabitors and working mothers should be also accepted.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The results presented above exhibited the differences and the similarities
between the two societies.

Although the effect of coresidence with parents as afamily demographic variable has been less often analyzed for the West, it has turned
out to encourage marriage for French women.

16

For Japanese women, proportional

hazards analysis does not show significant effects of coresidence with parents on
marriage in this study but other models have shown such an effect (Kojima 1994).
The effects of education also seem to be similar in the sense that higher one tends toencourage less “traditional” partnership behaviors.

Similarly, young adults inprofessional and managerial occupation tend to have more “modern” partnershipbehaviors while the self-employed in the two societies tend to have more “traditional”
ones.

Unstable employment and unemployment seem to restrict partnershipbehavior in the two societies.

Regional variables do not always have clear effects onpartnership behaviors, but they seem to constrain them in some cases possibly
through marriage squeeze.
In both societies, marriage is in competition with other forms of union with orwithout cohabitation.

In Japan, the proportion of women aged 25-29 having apartner but not cohabiting (Iwasawa, 2000) steadily increased from 7% in 1982 to
11 % in 1987 and 17% in 1992. At ages 30-34, the proportion increased from 2% in1982 to 5% in 1992.

Moreover, the proportion of women aged 30-34 without an

intimate friend also increased from 9% in 1982 to 15% in 1992.

In France, theproportion of women having a friend and not cohabiting are not negligible with 13% atages 25-29 and 6% at 30-34, but their trends are unknown.

While the proportion of

non-cohabiting couples is still low with 6% of cohabitors or less than 1% of women
aged 20-49 (Toulemon 1996), 12% of first unions started that way for women born in
1960-1964 and 1965-1969, but it has increased to 17% for cohorts 1970-1974 (for men
figures are respectively 17% and 21%).
However, it may be not only ideology or culture that differentiate the17partnership behaviors within and between the two societies (Iwasawa 2000), but it
may be also structural constraints (Ekert-Jaffé et Solaz 1998).

Demographic andfinancial constraints seem to exert strong structural effects on the partnershipbehaviors of both “traditional” and “modern” young adults in the two societies and theseemingly different partnership behaviors may be different representations of theirlimited choices or adaptive strategies under somewhat different constraints.

REFERENCES
Bozon, M, et C. Villeneuve-Gokalp, 1994, “Les enjeux des relations entre générations àla fin de l’adolescence,” Population, 49-6, pp.1527-1555.
Ekert-Jaffé O., and A. Solaz, 1998, “Unemployment and Formation of the Family inFrance,” Paper presented at 16ème Journées de Microéconomie Appliquée , Lyon, 3 et 4 juin 1998.
Iwasawa M., 2000, “The Transformation of Partnership of Japanese Women in the 1990s:
Increased Reluctance towards Traditional Marriages and the Prevalence of Non-Cohabiting
Couples,” Paper presented for the 2000 Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America,
Los Angeles, March 23-25 2000 (NIPSSR Working Paper Series (E), No.9).
Kojima, H., 1990a, “Coresidence of young adults with their parents in Japan: do sib sizeand birth order matter?,” Jinkogaku Kenkyu [J. of Population Studies], 13.
Kojima, H., 1990b. “Trends toward Later Marriage: Increase in Single Persons,”
Japanese Journal of Family Sociology, 2, pp.10-23 (in Japanese).
Kojima H., 1994, “Analysis of Marriage,” Institute of Population Problems (ed.),Attitudes toward Marriage and the Family among the Unmarried Japanese Youth : Report of
the Tenth Japanese National Fertility Survey in 1992, Volume II . Tokyo : Institute of Population
Problems, pp.95-102 (in Japanese).
Kojima, H., et J.-L. Rallu, 1997, “La fécondité au Japon et en France,” Population, 52-5,
pp.1143-1172.
Kojima H. and J.-L. Rallu, 1998, “Fertility in Japan and France,” Population: An
English Selection, 10, pp. 319-348.
Lesthaeghe, R., and G. Moors, 1996, “Living Arrangements, Socio-economic Position, andValues among Young Adults: a pattern description for France, West Germany, Belgium, and theNetherlands, 1990,” D. Coleman (ed.), Europe's population in the 1990s, New York, Oxford
University Press, pp.163-221.
Segalen M., 2000, Sociologie de la famille, 5ème édition, Paris, A. Colin.
Suzuki, T., 1999. Projection of Households in Japan with a Dynamic Macro-Simulation
Model, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
Toulemon L., 1996, “La cohabitation hors mariage s’installe dans la durée,” Population,
51-3, pp. 675-716.
Villeneuve-Gokalp C., 1997, “Vivre en couple chacun chez soi,” Population, 52-5, pp.
18

1059-1082.

19

T able 1 : Definition and frequency distribution of independent variables used in
multinomial logit analysis and proportional hazards. France and Japan
FranceMales

Japan
Females

Males

Females

Alone

34.3

24.1

25.9

Having friend

14.4

14.0

11.0

8.3

Cohab./L over-f.

21.6

22.1

17.6

16.9

Married

29.7

39.8

45.4

58.9

21-22

12.1

12.4

15.2

14.2

23-24

16.1

17.0

13.8

14.3

25-26

15.0

12.9

12.3

13.3

27-28

13.2

14.9

13.9

14.8

29-30

15.5

14.9

14.2

13.7

31-32

13.7

13.1

15.4

14.6

33-34

14.4

14.8

15.2

15.1

Coresidence w. parents *

60.8

62.3

60.8

76.8

E ducation

Univ. > 2 years

10.3

10.8

(1) 39.2

12.8

Univ. 1-2 years

2.9

2.7

(2) 4.3

23.6

T ech. soc. dipl.

8.6

11.8

(3) 9.0

12.6

B ac. gen./tech.

18.8

21.7

(4) 41.6

46.7<= 2ary 1 cycle

59.5

53.1

5.9

4.3

L F st – occ. Agri. craft. trades

3.6

0.8

(5) 5.9

1.6Manag., prof.

5.7

4.6

26.9

20.3

Clerical, serv. w.

16.4

30.4

37.6

59.7

Production w.

30.7

5.6

18.3

5.8

Part time

12.9

16.6

(6) 11.3

12.6

Not L F

30.7

42.2

R ural

3.6

2.8

4.8

4.6

Urban

73.5

76.7

84.4

83.9

Paris/T okyo

22.8

20.5

10.8

11.5

Union st.

Age

stR esidence

15.9* at time of survey or until union if any.
(1) university 4 years, (2) junior college, (3) technical sch., (4) junior high sch., (5) self empl., (6) unstable employment.
Due to small numbers ‘ part-time’ and ‘ not working/not L F’ have been included in the same ‘ unstable employment’group for Japan.

20

21

-0.711-1.240 ***1.570 *

0.370

0.451

1.018 *

1.224 **

0.453

0.255

-1.051 **-0.617 *0.065-0.942 #-0.2370.175

1.043 ***

-0.3430.068

tech. soc. dipl.

<= 2ary 1cyc

Agri. Craft. tr.

Manag. Prof.

Production w.

Part time

Not L F
0.772

0.605

0.419

0.144

-0.2440.290-1.268 #-0.372-0.901 *0.088-0.433-0.197-2.481 ***-1.780 **-1.563 *-1.196 #-1.004

0.797

1.007

0.228

0.317

-0.309-0.328-0.700 #-0.1050.339-0.263

0.875

0.386

-0.988 ***-3.197 ***-2.912 ***-2.793 ***-2.977 ***-2.148 ***-0.5362.058 **

no partner

0.572

0.739

-0.450 #-0.398-1.260 *-0.537-0.090-0.764 #-0.5100.671 #

-0.747 ***-5.165 ***-3.824 ***-3.152 ***-3.373 ***-2.421 ***-1.340 **1.908 *

stable friend

French females

0.667

0.752

-0.900 ***-0.447 #-0.542-0.5870.312-0.318-0.3020.598 #

-0.512 **-3.203 ***-2.505 ***-2.469 ***-2.307 ***-1.395 **-0.752 #1.364 #

Cohabitant

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

0.048

-0.775 ***1.919 ***

0.695 ***

0.301 **

0.230

-0.405 *0.499 **

-0.0130.495 ***

0.208 **

-3.912 ***-3.690 ***-3.185 ***-2.633 ***-1.675 ***-1.066 ***2.011 ***

No partner

0.095-0.556 ***1.586 ***

0.643 ***

0.230 #

0.618 **

-1.305 ***0.827 ***

0.411

0.995 ***

0.134

-4.688 ***-4.335 ***-3.842 ***-3.180 ***-1.977 ***-1.476 ***1.218 ***

Friend(s)Japanese males* at time of survey or until union if any
R ef : age 21-22 ; not coresiding with parents ; general-techn. B ac/senior high school ; clerical and service workers ; rural.
(1) university 4 years, (2) junior college, (3) technical school, (4) junior high school, (5) self employed, (6) unstable employment.
CAT MOD procedure of SAS package.

Paris/T okyo

R esid. Urban

L F.

1.964 *

0.804

Univ 1-2 y.

-4.857 ***-3.945 ***

33-34

0.324

-4.723 ***-3.119 ***31-32-0.373-4.623 ***-3.280 ***29-30

E duc. univ > 2 y.

-2.859 ***-2.251 ***

27-28

0.022

-2.422 ***-2.250 ***25-26-0.385 *0.012-0.09223-24

Age

Coresid. w. parents*

1.737 #

3.525 ***

Stable friend CohabitantIntercept

No partner

French males-0.083-0.821 ***1.046 ***

0.366 *

0.256 *

0.339

-0.673 **0.874 ***

0.019

0.920 ***

-0.166 *-5.139 ***-4.624 ***-3.749 ***-2.837 ***-1.801 ***-1.066 ***2.136 ***

0.305 *

-0.594 ***1.000 ***

0.134

0.043

0.950 **

-0.1850.717 ***

0.605 ***

1.053 ***

-0.179-3.804 ***-3.569 ***-3.186 ***-2.799 ***-2.078 ***-1.115 ***1.222 ***

L over/fiancé No partner

0.261-0.639 ***0.739 ***

-0.405

0.005

0.540

-0.986 *0.716 ***

0.837 ***

1.047 ***

-0.387 **-5.285 ***-4.099 ***-3.786 ***-3.100 ***-2.475 ***-1.252 ***1.108 ***

Friend(s)Japanese females

T able 2 : Coefficients of multinomial logit analysis of determinants of partnership status relative to being married, France and Japan.

0.299 *

-0.615 ***0.528 ***

-0.432 *0.005

0.688 #

-1.004 ***0.491 ***

0.470 ***

0.951 ***

-0.537 ***-4.979 ***-4.675 ***-4.200 ***-3.436 ***-2.211 ***-1.081 ***2.091 ***

L over/fiancé

22

0.00420.1427-0.145

Production w.

Part time

Not L F

0.3233-0.1470.2549-0.796 ***-0.142-0.34 #

0.18090.35510.6366 **0.2355-0.3460.0496-0.1860.1602-0.5280.26080.4018-0.3950.44790.40330.6616-14.3

0.73960.5014 #marriages

Direct 1st-0.021

0.003

0.0249-0.05-0.116-0.0230.2558 **0.0816-0.245-0.2150.5191 ***marriages

Cohabitant +-0.21-0.3370.2345 *0.21080.04470.00490.2219 #0.3319 #-0.14-0.488 #0.79260.60030.27450.26530.221-0.2950.5349 *0.6246 #-0.209-0.0151.3326 ***marriagesstDirect 1

0.4255 ***marriages

all 1stFemales

Japan

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

0.01750.3831 ***-1.149 ***-0.368 ***-0.169 **-0.254 **0.3135 ***-0.414 ***-0.068

Females-0.189 **0.1732 ***-0.493 ***0.0926-0.048-0.352 *0.2639 **-0.363 ***-0.375 ***-0.655 ***0.0474

1st marriage-0.465 ***-0.066

1st marriages

Males* at time of survey or until union if any
R ef : not coresiding with parents ; general-techn. B ac/senior high school ; clerical and service workers ; rural.
(1) university 4 years, (2) junior college, (3) technical school, (4) junior high school, (5) self employed, (6) unstable employment.
PHR E G procedure of SAS package.

Paris/Tokyo

0.56 *

0.5707 **Manag., prof.

R esid. Urban-0.013Agri., craft., tr.

<= 2ary 1 cycle

0.4481 ***T ech., soc. dipl.

LF

0.2213

Univ 1-2 y.

st

-0.01

0.2072E duc. Univ > 2 y.

0.0207

marriages

0.1567 #marriages

Coresid. w. parents*

All 1stMales

Cohabitant +FranceT able 3 : Coefficients of proportional hazards analysis of determinants of being cohabitant or married, France and Japan.

Figure 1 : Marital status of females and males aged 21‑34, France 1994 and Japan 1992
1
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
marriedlover-fiance/ cohab.
friend
alone

0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1

21-24
F rance
F emales21-24
J apanF emales25-29
F rance
F emales25-29
J apanF emales30-34
F rance
F emales30-34
J apanF emales21-24
F rance
Males

23

21-24
J apanMales

25-29
F rance
Males

25-29
J apanMales

30-34
F rance
Males

30-34
J apanMales