The Japanese Journal of Population, Vol.2, No.1 (March 2004)

Partnership Transition in Contemporary Japan:
Prevalence of Childless Non-Cohabiting Couples

Miho Iwasawa

1. Introduction

this point that I focus in this paper. Decades ago, marriage used to represent several life events simultaneously,
such as the beginning of a regular sexual relationship(preparation for childbearing), leaving the parental home,living with a partner, and for a woman, leaving their occupation (Manting 1994). Also in Japan, until the 1970s,
we could see the strong linkage among romantic love,sexual relationships and marriage, that is, intimate relationships between men and women and reproductive
behaviour were tightly bound to marriage. Up to and inthat period, it was fairly easy to identify the meaning ofmarriage. However, in today’s society, these links havebecome weaker, bringing about confusion in understanding of the current non-marrying society.
In order to be more realistic, we should examine
the decline in marriage from a wider perspective. In thisstudy marriage is reconsidered as one of the male/female
partnerships. The term ‘partnership’ here is used as a
general term for intimate relationship behaviour. And
when I use an expression such as “those who have an
intimate partner,” they are considered to be currently involved in sexual relationships with their partner. In order to gain an understanding of the overall changes ofpartnerships, it is effective to use indicators for which
the significance is comparatively stable. Therefore, I will
focus on such indicators as sexual experience, the presence of an intimate partner, and living arrangements (living with or separate from the intimate partner). The question here is which among these behavioral changes has
the closest correlation to the drop of marriage in Japan.
I will proceed in three stages. First, I will illustrate the descriptive trends concerning relational
behaviour. Then, comparisons will be made with datafrom other developed countries in Europe or North
America, to help us identify the distinctive features ofJapan with regard to the recent partnership pattern. In
the last part, I will mention some prospects concerning
partnership patterns. A multinomial logistic model will
be applied to the sample and the results of simulations bySince the 1970s there has been a drastic drop in
fertility, as well as a sharp decrease in the married population in Japan. The total fertility rate (TFR) reached its
lowest point in 2002, at 1.32. The decline of marriedpeople has been one of the main causes of the belowreplacement fertility in Japan, where the rates of extramarital birth are extremely low (approximately one percent of live births). The purpose of this paper is to examine the changes in relationships amongst men and womenthat might be central to the decline in nuptiality in contemporary Japan. I will approach the very low fertility
issue by focusing on intimate sexual relationships fromwhich childbirth arises.
Figure 1 presents a year-to-year comparison of the
proportion of those married by age for women between
the ages of 18 and 49, based on the census data (the total
is the sum of married females and never-married females).
There has been a significant decrease in the proportion
married since 1980 especially for those in their mid tolate 20s. Various hypotheses on this postponing of marriage have been postulated through much research. For
example, as the socio-economic status of women continues to rise, women are likely to reject the current institution of marriage, which forces an excessive burden on
the female (Ohashi 1993). A pampered life at home withfinancially secure parents has further raised theirchildren’s expectations about their married life in the future (Miyamoto et al. 1997). As a dating culture to replace the traditional arranged marriage is still not fully
developed, singles are passive about finding a partner(Atoh 1998). The increasing methods of meeting members of the opposite sex through travel, work and social
interaction are working to delay decisions to get married(Yamada 1994).
Nevertheless, some ambiguity remains in termsof how these explanations contribute to understanding of
the non-marrying society. This ambiguity seems to berelated to the change in the meaning of marriage. It is on76

The Japanese Journal of Population, Vol.2, No.1 (March 2004)
100%

75%

50%

1980
1985
1990

25%

1995
0%
18 20

22 24

26 28

30 32

34 36

38 40

42 44

46 48

Age
Source: Census of Japan (1980, 1985, 1990, 1995)

Figure 1. Percentage of Married Women by Age

4.3 percent. There was no differentiation made between
the first marriage and the second or later marriage, andall those in intact marriages were handled as one group,i.e., ‘married.’ According to the data from the 11th JNFS
(1997), 3.3 percent of wives among married couples(women age 18 - 49) are re-married, and the proportionof re-married is 2.0 percent of the entire female population. For the married sample, whether or not they hadborne children was known, while for the never married,the existence of an intimate partner as well as the desire
or intent to marry that partner were reported. The sample
size was 11,788 for the 9th survey, 13,216 for the 10thsurvey, and 11,534 for the 11th survey.
When the proportions out of the combined samplesof never married and married are displayed, estimates are
made based on the population structure by marital statusfrom the national census (the ratio of married females tonever married females).2 Based on this breakdown by
marital status, the patterns in intimate relationshipbehaviour by age for the female population are reported.
Since the ultimate goal of this study is to identify the
relationship between intimacy and reproductive
behaviour, only relationships between men and womenare considered.

that model will be shown, which would project future
trends of partnership patterns.

2. Data
I use individual-level data from the three most recent Japanese National Fertility Surveys (JNFS) conducted in the 9th (1987), the 10th (1992) and the 11th
(1997) by the National Institute of Population and Social
Security Research (Takahashi et al. 1998; Takahashi etal. 1999). The JNFS is a nationally representative sampleof unmarried men and women and married women aged
18 to 49 (only for unmarried men and women in the 9th
survey, up to age 35). For each survey, the sample size
was approximately 15,000.
In the following sections, sexual behaviour anddating relationships, which is often reported for nevermarried people, and reproductive behaviour, which isoften reported for married people, are studied based on
women as a whole. A partner includes a male lover,fiancé, cohabitant, or husband.1
The sample of these analyses was limited to currently married and never married women. That is, those
who have been separated from a spouse by divorce ordeath have been excluded. The percentage of women(age 18 - 49) who are either widowed or divorced was

77

The Japanese Journal of Population, Vol.2, No.1 (March 2004)
intercourse. This rose to 37 percent in 1992, and to 46
percent in 1997, showing a 17-point increase over theperiod of 10 years. However, in the early 30s, there wasa slight decrease in the proportion of those with sexual
experience. For the older age groups, there was no significant change observed over the same 10-year period.
Other surveys on sexual behaviour among thoseof school age also support the fact that sexual experience(premarital intercourse) has been increasing dramaticallysince the 1980s (JASE 1994; Wagatsuma 1998; Sato etal. 1999), and attitudes toward premarital sexual activity
have changed. The proportion of those who agree that‘premarital intercourse is acceptable if “there is love” between the partners’3 has reached 82 percent of nevermarried men under the age of 35, 81 percent of nevermarried women, and 87 percent of married women (the11th JNFS in 1997). We should conclude that the total
level of sexual experience among women has been almost stable during the decade and what should be attained
is increasing detachment of sexual experience from marriage.
(2) Intimate Partner
The focus of this section is the presence of an intimate partner. I am interested in exploring what changes,

3. Trends of Relational Behaviour(1) Sexual Experience
There is not a great deal of reliable data on thehistorical trends on premarital intercourse. It is believed,
however, to have been increasing throughout the 20th
century in Europe and America, and since 1980, many
countries are reporting that the age for sexual experience(age on first having sexual intercourse) is dropping(Cliquet 1991). With the recent decrease in the proportion of married people, this raises a question about whatkind of changes regarding sexual experience can be foundamong the population as a whole, including both married and never married women. Single respondents havebeen asked about their sexual experience in the JNFS.
Although there were no questions regarding the sexual
experience of married subjects, all married respondents
were included in the calculations in the category of ‘sexually experienced.’ Figure 2 shows a comparison for eachsurvey of the patterns of sexual experience by age, including both married and never married respondents.
Between 1987 and 1992, the younger age groups,
up through the early 20s, show an increasing proportionof sexually experienced members. Between 1992 and1997 there was a further increase in the early twenties, aswell as a simultaneous expansion of the increased range
through the group aged 27. For example, in 1987, 29
percent of 20-year-old women had experienced sexual78The Japanese Journal of Population, Vol.2, No.1 (March 2004)
if any, have occurred since 1980 in the proportion of
women who have a male partner. Figure 3 shows the
proportion of women who have had sexual experienceand have a partner, that is, who are considered to be currently in a sexually intimate relationship. In this case,‘sexual experience’ does not necessarily mean that there
is a sexual relationship with the current partner. At least,
those who are dating without a sexual relationship canbe excluded from the group of intimate partnerships.
According to the result of the survey in 1997, 96.6 percent of those never married women who are dating agree
that ‘premarital intercourse is acceptable.’ Therefore, we
can assume that there is a high probability of the existence of a sexual relationship with the current partner.
Although those age groups around 30 show a slightdecrease, 88 percent in 1987, 84 percent in 1992 and 81
percent in 1997 respectively, the early 20s age groups
show an increase in the proportion of women with a partner.
One might ask whether this indicates increasingease in finding a partner among the younger age groups
and increasing difficulty in doing so among the older age
groups on account of age effects. This distribution pattern by age group only shows the situation at a specificpoint in time, however, there is another possibility thatwhen the women currently in their early 20s reach their30s, they will show a higher proportion of partnerships
than the current group of those in their 30s. In any case,while there is a noticeable trend by age with regard to thepresence of a partner, the change observed here is lesscompared to that of the proportions married, shown in
Figure 1.
Besides the number of those who are dating, we
can also know their intention of marriage from the surveys. In the 10th and the 11th JNFS, unmarried respondents with partners were asked about their intention to
marry their current partner. Differentiating between respondents who intended to marry their current partners
and those who did not intend to marry their current partners, the latter group was confirmed to be larger among
those in their mid-20s or younger. Furthermore, the survey in 1997 showed a slight increase in this group evenamong those in their late 20s. Even if women are in an
intimate relationship, some might be ‘outside’ the marriage process.
(3) Living with a Partner
Next, the proportion of women living with a malepartner is considered. Figure 4 shows that in each subse100%

75%

50%

198

199

25%

199

0%
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
Age
Source: JNFS, the 9th (1987), the 10th (1992) and the 11th (1997)
Note: "An intimate partner" includes a lover, a cohabitant and a husband.

Figure 3. Percentage of Women who Currently Have an Intimate Partner by

79

The Japanese Journal of Population, Vol.2, No.1 (March 2004)
quent survey there is a large decrease in the proportionof women living with a partner. For example, in 1987,
86 percent of 30 year-old women reported living with apartner, then the figure dropped to 80 percent in 1992,
and to 73 percent in 1997. Referring to Figure 1, we cansee the decrease in the number of women cohabiting witha partner almost equals the decrease in that of women
who are married.
To summarize, the figures I have been presenting
show that the linkage between having a partner and living with that partner or the intention to marry the partner
is weakening. On the other hand, there is still a strong
linkage between living with a partner and marriage inJapan.
A review of the characteristics of never married
women currently cohabiting with a partner revealed thatnearly all of them (more than 90 percent) wanted to getmarried in the future. Among them, 70 percent expected
to get married to their current partner, while 30 percent
expected to get married to somebody else. It is a lower
level compared to American cohabiters, with about threequarters expecting to marry their current partner (Manning and Smock 2000). However, approximately oneout of every five never-married women cohabiting witha partner engaged to be married to that partner (Iwasawa
1999). Based on the observation that cohabitation is relatively high among women in their early-20s, one can saythat cohabitation in Japan is not as much a completely

new life style that replaces marriage as a step towards
marriage. Indeed, 10 percent of women currently engaged to marry are cohabiting with their fiancé (the 11th
survey in 1997).

4. Changes in the Partnership Pattern
In the previous sections, I have looked at thechanges related to sexual experience, the presence of apartner and living arrangements. These results can bepresented differently with a focus on the partnership pattern.
1) First, I can make inferences about the relationships from the behavioral data presented above. For example, if one is living with a partner, then this implies
the presence of a partner; however, the presence of a partner does not necessary imply living together. In otherwords, it is possible to infer relations like the following:(a. being married) •¼ (b. living with a partner) •¼ (c.
Have a partner). The cases in which partners (husbands)
live separately after marriage are not considered here. In
the following illustration, only women who seem to be
having sexual relationship with a partner are defined as
women who have an intimate partner. The criterion usedhere is (c. have an intimate partner).
2) From these criteria (a, b, c), four partnership
typologies can be constructed, which are differentiatedby varying degree of physical intimacy. First, the group

100%

75%

50%
1987
1992

25%

1997

0%
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48
Age
Source: JNFS, the 9th (1987), the 10th (1992), the 11th (1997)

Figure 4. Percentage of Women Living with Their Partner by Age

80

The Japanese Journal of Population, Vol.2, No.1 (March 2004)
tive, with the PM effect contributing more to the overall
decrease in marriage (59.2 percent in the first term and78.3 percent in the latter term). As for the 30 to 34 year
olds, in the beginning of the 1990s, the PP effect, that is,
the increase of those who did not have a partner, wasconsidered to be the primary factor contributing to thedecrease of married women. In recent years, however,the PM effect has been increasing (from 15.9 percent to43.4 percent).
Based on this result, decreasing nuptiality cannot
be explained entirely by the decline of dating activities
or an increase in the number of people who do not havean intimate partner. Rather, in the younger age groups,
we can see an increase in the proportion of women withan intimate partner. The changes contributing to the sharp
drop in the proportion of those married are the increaseof women who have an intimate partner but do not live
together.

satisfying all criteria (a, b, c) can be called ‘married
couples,’ typically considered to be the ‘traditional’ formof marriage. Another group, ‘(non-marital) cohabiting
couples,’ includes those who are living together but notmarried (only b and c). Then there are people who are in
an intimate partnership, but are neither married nor living together (c only), which can be called ‘non-cohabiting couples.’ Common to these groups is the presenceof an intimate partner. In other words, women in thesegroups are considered to have chances of pregnancy inthe current intimate partnership. Respondents who do
not fit into any of these three groups can be categorizedas ‘no intimate partner.’
Table 1 shows the changes in the relative proportion of these categories for each age group in five-yearincrements. The evidence in the above sections has indicated that while there has been comparatively little change
in the proportion of women with sexual experience orwith a partner, the proportion of those living with a partner has remarkably decreased. The same phenomenon
can be observed in the increase of non-cohabiting couples
in all age groups in Figure 5. On the other hand, there isa large decrease in married couples.
The above results can be presented more clearlyby the decomposition method. Using this method, I can
breakdown the change of proportions of those who aremarried relative to the total population into two distinct
changes; the ‘changes in the proportion of women who
have a partner of any type out of the total female population’ (hereafter abbreviated as the PP effect) and the‘changes in the proportion of those who are married as
relative to the people who have a partner’ (hereafter, thePM effect).4
This manipulation enables us to gain a better understanding of the factors contributing to the recent marriage decline, whether due to a stagnation in dating, or an
increase in the number of couples who choose not tomarry. Table 2 shows the results of the PP effect and thePM effect relative to the total changes in the proportionof married women, from 1987 to 1992 and from 1992 to
1997, respectively. The 18 to 19 year old group shows
the least change in the overall proportion of married
women with the PP effect being positive, and the PM
effect, negative. For the 20 to 24 year old group, there isan overall decrease in the proportion of married women;
although the PP effect is actually positive, it is cancelledby the negative PM effect. With regard to the 25 to 29
year old group, both the PP and the PM effects are nega-

From the above illustrations, marriage decline in
the 1990s in Japan accompanies partnership transition.
We are in the process of shifting from marital coresidential
relationships to non-cohabiting relationships in which
couples are sexually involved, but neither live together
nor have legal ties. And about 70 percent out of those
women are living with their parents. As these non-cohabiting couples are usually childless in Japan, this transition leads immediately to fertility decline.
To understand why those who are in an intimate
relationship are reluctant to get married, we can refer thereason for remaining unmarried. In the JNFS, unmarried
men and women were asked to identify which of the categories shown in Figure 6 represented their reasons forremaining unmarried. This figure presents the percentage of each reason among never married men and women
aged 25-34 who have an intimate partner.
As for men, ‘feel no need’ and ‘can’t afford marriage’ are high, while for women, ‘feel no need’ and ‘can’t
meet an appropriate partner’ are remarkable. Comparedwith the previous survey, however, reasons such as ‘dedicated to work or study’ or ‘enjoy hobbies or leisure’ or‘don’t want to lose their freedom’ have risen significantly.
In addition to the lack of positive reasons for getting
married, the rising priority of work or leisure over marriage seems to put restrictions on marriage. In otherwords, marital life in Japan is considered to be less compatible with their ambitions for self-satisfaction.
Should the partnership transition in Japan be accounted for in the same way as the second demographic

81

The Japanese Journal of Population, Vol.2, No.1 (March 2004)

Table 1. Frequency Distribution of Each Partnership Typec. having an intimate partner
Age groupb. living with a partner

Year ofthe surveyN

T otal（ not a･b･c）
No intimate
partnera. being married
Non-cohabiting
couples

Cohabiting
couples

Marriedcouples

18-19

1982
1992
1997

634
828
579

100.0%
100.0
100.0

87.7%
83.3
81.3

9.5
14.2
16.3

.8
.8
1.0

2.0
1.6
1.4

20-24

1982
1992
1997

1,601
1,974
1,857

100.0
100.0
100.0

63.8
61.9
56.6

17.4
23.4
28.6

.7
1.0
2.1

18.1
13.7
12.7

25-29

1982
1992
1997

1,682
1,910
1,788

100.0
100.0
100.0

24.6
29.2
31.5

6.6
11.3
17.2

.6
.5

68.9
58.9
50.8

30-34

1982
1992
1997

1,971
1,975
1,747

100.0
100.0
100.0

8.7
11.8
15.4

2.0
2.3
4.8

.1
.2
.3

89.2
85.7
79.5

Source: Japanese National Fertility Surveys, the 9th (1987), the 10th (1992) and the 11th (1997)

100%

No intimate partner75%

Non-cohabiting couples
Cohabiting couples
Married couples

50%

25%

18-19

20-24

25-29
Age of Women

Source: Japanese National Fertility Surveys, the 9th (1987), the 10th (1992) and the 11th (1997)

Figure 5. Change in Partnership Pattern

82

30-34

1997

1992

1987

1997

1992

1987

1997

1992

1987

1997

1992

1987

0%

The Japanese Journal of Population, Vol.2, No.1 (March 2004)

Table 2. Decomposition of Marriage Decline, 1987-97
Ages 18-19

Change in the proportion married amongfemale population%

Decomposition

Change in the proportion married
among women with partners(the PM effect)%
Change in the proportion of womenwith partners(the PP effect)
%

25-29

30-34

1992-97

1987-92

1992-97

1987-92

1992-97

1987-92

1992-97-0.0036-0.0024-0.0438-0.0096-0.1000-0.0804-0.0355-0.0614

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

-0.0092-0.0042-0.0521-0.0267-0.0592-0.0630-0.0057-0.0266

256.7

173.8

119.0

277.5

59.2

78.3

15.9

43.4

0.00560.00180.00830.0171-0.0408-0.0174-0.0298-0.0348-156.7

-73.8

-19.0

-177.5

40.8

21.7

84.1

56.6

Men

(%)
30

20-24

1987-92

25

20

15

Women

10

5

0

5

0

22
21

10

15

20

11

26
22
5

Dedicated to work or study

5

95

Enjoy hobbies or leisure

7
12

8
11

Don't want to lose their freedom

9
18

15
25

Can't meet an appropriate partner

11
0
1
20
20

Can't have a good relationship with amember of the opposite sex

21
0
1
11
11

Can't afford marriage

3
4

1992
1997

4
5

30

1

Feel no need

14

25

2

T oo young

8

5

(%)

Can't find a place to live

Can't get approval of parents or peers

1
2

1992
14

1997

10

Note: Based on never-married men and women aged 25-34 who currently have an intimate partner, including a lover or a cohabitant.
For men, a sample of 276 in 1992 and 304 in 1997, and for women, a sample of 165 in 1992 and 291 in 1997.
Source: JNFS,1992,1997

Figure 6. Reasons for Remaining 'S ingle' among Never-Married Men and Women in Intimate Relationships

83

The Japanese Journal of Population, Vol.2, No.1 (March 2004)
transition in Europe, or is this the appearance of something completely different? The answer to this questionis also important to verify the applicability of the second
demographic transition hypothesis in Japan (van de Kaa
1987). Considering the other countries, the decrease innuptiality in Western Europe and North America sincethe 1960s has been accompanied by an increase in cohabitation. This differs from the situation in Japan where
there is a decrease in nuptiality without a popularizationof cohabitation (Atoh 1997). The next section will present
cross-national comparisons focusing on intimate relationships.

tions of both marriage and cohabitation.
For the data of Japan and some Southern European countries, shaded portions are added to represent
the proportion of women who have an intimate partner,
but are neither living together nor married. These partnerships can be called non-cohabiting couples or moregenerally, dating couples. To calculate the proportionsof those who are dating in Southern European countries,
I substituted the figures reported by Kiernan who used
the same data from the FFS (Kiernan 2000). These figures are the percentages of those who ‘currently have an
intimate relationship with someone who lives in a separate household’ among those who ‘had never been in acoresidential partnership until that time.’ In Italy andSpain, almost all non-cohabiting singles had never cohabited, i.e., 98 percent in Italy and 84 percent in Spain.
These figures are considered to represent the closest figures to the actual proportions of those dating out of thetotal number of non-cohabiting singles.
Considering dating couples in these regions, there
is not much of a difference among countries with regard
to the total proportion of women in an intimate relationship. That is, the limited amount of union in Southern
Europe or Japan is offset by the prevalence of people
who are dating. This is an additional tendency to thecommon features of these areas that have been observed
so far (Dalla Zuanna et al. 1998). Initially, even though
Japan is assumed to have the lowest level of dating activities, we should not come to a conclusion without further examination. It is because the definition of ‘dating’
could vary from country to country. Furthermore, evenin Japan each subsequent survey shows an increase in
the proportion of people in the younger age groups thathave an intimate partner, so it is reasonably likely thatthe differences with other nations in dating activity will
shrink in the future.
In both Europe and Japan, the 1960s and 1970s
were a time of early marriage and an extremely highmarriage rate. The proportion of those never married atage 50 in the 1930-40 birth cohorts in Europe was lessthan five percent (Festy 1980). In the 1980s and 1990s,
there was a decrease in the proportion of married womenin both Europe and Japan. However, the increase in nonmarital cohabitation that accompanied the decline inmarriage in Northern and Central Europe is not seen in
Southern Europe or Japan. In Japan and perhaps Southern Europe, a unique pattern is found whereby non-married non-cohabiting couples are replacing marital cohabi-

5. Comparison with Other Countries
Figure 7 shows the proportion of women aged
from 25 to 29 in union of any type. Furthermore, union
is subdivided into marriage and cohabitation. The data
for Japan is taken from the JNFS, and that for other nations from the European Fertility and Family Survey(FFS) (Klijzing and Macura 1997).
I will first look at the characteristics of Europe,
Canada, and New Zealand. The data show that there is
not much of a difference among countries in the total proportion of women being married or in cohabitation. These
countries can be roughly divided into three groups: (a)countries in which only the proportion of marriage is high,(b) countries in which the proportion of those married islow, and instead cohabitation is prevalent, and (c) countries in which both are low. This classification corresponds to the geographical distribution as well, where(a) includes Eastern Europe plus Belgium, and (b) includes Northern and Central Europe. Canada and New
Zealand fall into the (b) pattern. Southern European countries like Italy and Spain can be grouped as (c).
The data for Japan show that over the reported
10-year period, both the proportion of cohabiting andmarriage dropped. A considerable increase in the proportion of unmarried cohabiting couples cannot be seen.
While in 1997, the proportion of married women in Japan was slightly higher than that of Northern European
nations at the time of the surveys, the proportion of thoseliving with a partner (cohabitation plus marriage) was
the lowest among all 21 countries shown in the figure.
In other words, while the pattern in Japan in 1987 was
one of high proportions of marriage, resembling Eastern
Europe, it has changed over a 10-year period, and now
resembles the Southern European pattern of low propor-

84

The Japanese Journal of Population, Vol.2, No.1 (March 2004)

0

20

40

60

80

81

Hungary(1992/93 ）76

4

Slovenia(1995)

71

15
13

63

4

74

Lithuania（ 1994/95)

16

Estonia(1994)

60

Latvia(1995)

59

11

Norway(1988/89 ）56

22

Finland（ 1989/90)
Sweden （ 1992/93)

25

48

31

41

11

72

Belgium （ 1991/92)

24

France（ 1994)

46

Netherlands（ 1993)

49

24

Canada（ 1990 ）54

17

New Zealand（ 1995 ）49

Switzerland（ 1994/95 ）53

20

Austria(1995/96 ）50

21

W-Germany （ 1992)

49

Italy(1995/96 ）50

Spain （ 1995 ）

21

14
3

26
5

58

15
Marriage0Japan （ 1997 ）668Japan （ 1987 ）Japan （ 1992 ）(%)

0Poland(1991)

E-Germany （ 1992)

100

58

1

50

1

11

Cohabitation
Dating (including LAT )17

Sources: Excluding Japan, based on the results of European Fertility and Family Surveys (FFS) in Klijzing andMacura (1997) or Kiernan (2000). For Japan, JNFS.
Note: T he values of 'Dating (including LAT )' for Italy and Spain are estimated by the use of the percentagesof never-cohabited women who are currently having an intimate relationship with someone who lives in a
separate household shown in Kiernan (2000). T he figures in parentheses indicate the year of the survey.

Figure 7. Frequency Distribution of Women Having an Intimate Relationship, Ages 25-29

85

The Japanese Journal of Population, Vol.2, No.1 (March 2004)
tation.

women aged 18 to 34 who have an intimate partner. In
total, 11,751 cases are used in this analysis. The descriptive statistics of independent variables is shown in Table
3. Except for the birth cohort that had been confirmed tohave linear relation with the partnership types and wasincluded as a continuous variable, covariates were included in the model as categorical variables. Parameterization was based on a deviation from the mean model;
the sum of the coefficients of each category comes tozero, and coefficients were estimated by the maximum
likelihood method.
Table 4 presents the results from the multinomial
logistic regression that examines the relationship between
the partnership types and the variables. I present coefficients associated with the likelihood of being dating or
cohabiting rather than being in a marriage, and also show
the odds ratios compared to the omitted categories. As
expected, the recent birth cohorts increase the odds ofbeing dating or cohabiting.
The partnership transition is best illustrated withpredicted probabilities of each partnership type. The probabilities can be computed using coefficients in the model
proposed.5 Figure 8 presents the predicted probabilities
of women under certain conditions by year of birth. Thesesimulations are completely based on this kind of women;
28-31 years old; university graduates; have a current relationship at the workplace; full-time worker; never divorced.
I show them by three different conditions concerning duration of relationship; the third year, the fifth year
and the seventh year of relationship. The first graph shows
the probability in the third year of a relationship. The
probability of being married was over 0.8 in the 1950birth cohort, while it dropped to 0.4 in the mid-1960s
cohort. Instead, the probabilities of dating and cohabitation are increasing steadily every year. However, the increase of cohabitation is far slower than in dating. Dotted lines is for the women who had not yet reached theage of 30 at the time of the survey conducted in 1997. If
the effect of birth cohort continues from now on, predicted probabilities are as shown.
Although women in longer partnerships are more
likely to be married, declining trends can be seen in all ofthese three figures. Predicted probabilities indicate andsupport a visible change, from the formal ties to looser
ones, based on intimacy amongst men and women.

Finally, there is another trend in Europe that shouldbe mentioned. It has been pointed out that besides theprevalence of cohabitation in Europe, there is an increasein the number of unmarried couples who maintain separate living arrangements. These arrangements have beencalled LAT relationships (living apart together) (Trost
1998, Kiernan 2000). The concept of the LAT relationships recognizes that the people in question are, in fact,
in steady partnerships, where living together is not necessarily a requirement. This trend may suggest the possibility that the partnership pattern of Europe will moreclosely resemble that of Japan. It is necessary to acquirea more in-depth understanding of young adults who maintain a non-cohabiting intimate relationship to determine
the future trend of intimate relationships in Japan: whether
non-cohabiting intimate relationships will decrease orwhether such relationships will remain a permanent pattern like the LAT relationships in the West.

6. Potential Future Trends
Finally, I would like to mention some prospects
for future trends. In order to examine the trends morequantitatively, I propose a multinomial logistic model thatpredicts the probabilities for women of each partnership
type under certain conditions. The dependent variable isa three-category partnership status: dating relationship;
cohabitation; and marriage. I focus particularly on thebirth cohort effect to have an understanding of the future
trends.
The control variables are those that have beenfound in prior research to affect the relationship status.
The respondent’s age and duration of relationship arehighly expected to have a strong effect on the likelihoodof partnership types. People of older ages and in longer
relationships are more likely to get married. It is also
known that the risks of marriage vary with the methodsof meeting the current partner (Kaneko 1995). Other
than these variables, the respondent’s educational background and employment status are included to assess theeffects of socioeconomic status. I also expect partnership type to vary by whether the respondent has divorced
previously. By controlling these variables, we can findthe birth cohort effect on the probabilities of partnershiptypes.
I applied this model to all of the data from thethree most recent JNFS, confining the cases only to86

The Japanese Journal of Population, Vol.2, No.1 (March 2004)
Table 3. Descriptive S tatistics for Variables Used in Partnership Type Analysis

DatingPartnership type
Cohabitation

Marriage

T otal(5.05)

0.11
0.27
0.33
0.22
0.06
0.01
61.52

(5.24)

0.08
0.21
0.28
0.25
0.14
0.04
63.47

(6.11)(4.14)

0.00
0.03
0.11
0.23
0.29
0.34
29.44

(3.42)

0.04
0.11
0.16
0.21
0.23
0.26
27.80

(4.42)

Birth Cohort
1952-54
1955-59
1960-64
1965-69
1970-74
1975-79
Means [in years] a

0.00
0.03
0.16
0.33
0.35
0.13
68.94

Age at the T ime of the Survey
18-19
20-22
23-25
26-28
29-31
32-34
Means [in years]

0.14
0.34
0.29
0.14
0.05
0.03
23.14

Duration of Partnership
1 year or under
2-3
4-5
6-7
8-9
10-11
12 and over
Means [in months]

0.49
0.29
0.13
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.01
31.66 (29.62)

0.38
0.36
0.13
0.06
0.03
0.01
0.03
38.89 (41.16)

0.04
0.12
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.13
0.20
98.59 (49.07)

0.16
0.17
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.10
0.15
81.15 (53.61)

Academic Background
Junior high school
High school
Vocational college etc.
University or higher

0.03
0.41
0.39
0.18

0.08
0.41
0.33
0.18

0.07
0.51
0.32
0.09

0.06
0.49
0.34
0.12

Method of Meeting the Current Partner
At school
At workplace
Neighbor/through club
Arranged introduction b
T hrough a part-time job
While downtown/during a trip

0.18
0.32
0.09
0.24
0.09
0.07

0.20
0.26
0.09
0.21
0.06
0.19

0.08
0.35
0.07
0.39
0.04
0.07

0.11
0.34
0.07
0.35
0.06
0.07

0.70

0.48

0.20

0.33

0.10

0.24

0.25

0.21

0.05
0.15

0.09
0.20

0.55
0.00

0.42
0.04

Previously Divorced[0=No/1=Yes]

0.02

0.07

0.02

0.02

N

2,958

117

8,676

11,751

Employment Status
Working full-timeWorking part-time/Self-employed/Family businessNot working
Student(4.90)

0.00
0.03
0.15
0.26
0.37
0.20
69.79

(3.49)

0.13
0.37
0.25
0.10
0.09
0.06
23.59

a Birth cohort is implemented as the year of birth minus 1900.
b Arranged introduction includes 'through a matrimonial agency, friends or siblings.'
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate standard deviation.
Source: JNFS,1987,1992,1997

87

The Japanese Journal of Population, Vol.2, No.1 (March 2004)

Table 4. Multinomial Logistic Regression Estimates of Partnership Type for Women in an Intimate Relationship

Dating vs. Marriage
b1

Cohabitation vs. Marriage
Odds Ratiob2

Odds Ratio

Intercept-7.13 ***

-14.83 ***Birth Cohort [in years] a0.10 ***

1.23

0.19 ***

1.45

18-19

1.28 ***

9.36

0.37

1.63

20-22

1.05 ***

7.41

0.76 **

2.40

23-25

0.22 **

3.25

-0.04

1.08

26-28

-0.57 ***

1.47

-0.75 **

0.53

29-31

-1.02 ***

0.94

-0.23

0.90

1 year or under2.53 ***

67.14

2.07 ***

15.50

2-3

1.11 ***

16.19

1.23 ***

6.73

4-5

0.24 **

6.78

0.15

2.28

6-7

-0.23 *

4.22

-0.23

1.55

Age at the T ime of the Survey (32-34 omitted)

Duration of Partnership (12 years and over omitted)

8-9-0.78 ***

2.45

-0.88 #

0.81

10-11

-1.20 ***

1.61

-1.67 #

0.37

-0.62 ***

0.53

0.03

1.04

Academic Background (High school omitted)
Junior high school
Vocational college etc.

0.28 ***

1.30

0.02

1.02

University or higher

0.33 ***

1.37

-0.05

0.95

At school

0.80 ***

4.84

0.72 **

4.53

At workplace-0.16 *

1.84

-0.34 #

1.57

Neighbor/through club

0.15

2.51

0.07

2.36

T hrough a part-time job

0.20

2.65

-0.42

1.45

While downtown/during a trip

-0.22 #

1.73

0.76 **

4.74

Working part-time/Self-employed/Family business-0.84 ***

0.19

-0.50 *

0.52

Not working-2.64 ***

0.03

-2.70 ***

0.06

Student

2.67 ***

6.46

3.05 ***

18.12

0.72 ***

4.21

1.08 ***

8.59

Method (Arranged introduction omitted)

Employment Status (Working full-time omitted)

Previously Divorced [0=No/1=Yes]-2 Log Likelihood5665.86

Model Chi-square

8837.65 ***df

48

Pseudo R-square

0.6093

Number of Cases

11,751

88

The Japanese Journal of Population, Vol.2, No.1 (March 2004)【 T he T hird Year of Relationship 】
1.00

Predicted Probability

0.80
Marriage
0.60

Dating0.40

Cohabitation

0.20
0.00
1950

1955

1960

1965
Year of Birth

1970

1975

1980

【 T he Fifth Year of Relationship 】
1.00

Predicted Probability

0.80
Marriage
0.60
Dating0.40

Cohabitation

0.20
0.00
1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

Year of Birth【 T he Seventh Year of Relationship 】
1.00

Predicted Probability

0.80
Marriage
0.60
Dating0.40

Cohabitation

0.20
0.00
1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

Year of Birth
Note: Characteristics other than age, duration of relationship are: university graduates, have a current relationship at
workplace, full-time worker, never divorced. Dotted lines mean women of that birth cohort had not yet become 30 years ofage at the time of the latest survey in 1997.

Figure 8. Predicted Probabilities of Each Partnership Type among Women of around 30 years of Age, by Yearof Birth and Duration of Relationship

89The Japanese Journal of Population, Vol.2, No.1 (March 2004)
We can say that intimate relationships still continue to be of primary interest to the younger generation.
However, the establishment of legal ties or living together
is viewed as unnecessary by them. The current decreasein nuptiality does not mean that there are fewer people
finding partners due to stagnation in dating and social
interaction; instead, it can be claimed that partnership
patterns are in the process of shifting from a traditional
marriage to a non-cohabiting style.
Comparing these results with those from various
countries in Western Europe and North America where
there is also a drop in the proportion of married people,
we can confirm the prevalence of non-cohabitating relationships in Japan and some southern European countries. It is distinct from Northern or Central Europe, where
non-marital cohabitation is replacing marriage (Bumpass
et al. 1991). According to the results of the model analysis, this shift from legal ties to looser ones is expected tocontinue for a while in Japan. In the future, if the strong
norm of avoiding extramarital birth is still effective, childbearing will be postponed or avoided in significant numbers.

7. Conclusion
It is not just that the number of married people isdecreasing; the linkage between intimate relationships andmarriage are also changing. For those people who got
married before the 1980s, the married/unmarried differentiation was one of the most important codes (a set of
conventions governing behaviour or activity) in theirlives. That is, for almost all people, it was extremely
hard to obtain financial stability, social trust, emotional
satisfaction, and so on without being married. Recently,
however, for younger people, especially those living inurban areas, being married or not, has not been so essential to their usual lives. Instead, another code has been of
more concern to them; being in an intimate relationshipor not.
I recognize that the proportion of those intending
to marry sometime remains high even today. However,‘marriage’ in this case is the one which they expect to befounded on affection or one that will make them feel content. The number of people among those who consider
the merit of marriage to be ‘gaining social recognition’or ‘being able to live a more convenient life’ has fallen
remarkably (Takahashi et al. 1999).
Nowadays the question ‘Do you intend to marry?’can be almost interchangeable with the question ‘Do you
desire to form an intimate relationship with someone?’
It would lead one to think that marriage is not necessarily essential to maintain an intimate relationship. One
could also say that marriages not based on intimacy should
be avoided.
In order to gain an overall understanding of thecurrent decrease in nuptiality, I have stepped away fromthe binary married/not married classification and has considered the trends in the pattern of women’s relationships.
The findings during the 10-year period from 1987 can besummarized as below.
Although there is some increase among theyounger age groups in the proportion of women who have
had sexual experience, the overall percentage remains
unchanged.
There is not much of a change in the proportion of
women with a partner at around age 30, and rather there
is an increase in the proportion of women in the younger
age groups who have had sexual experience and currently
have a partner.
There is a large decrease in the proportion of
women living with a partner, as well as in the proportionof those who are married.

Notes
It is assumed that the women and their partners are involved in an exclusive relationship. The questionnaire
for single respondents included questions about theexistence of friends of the opposite sex, but these were
not included in the definition of partner because it isoften the case that friendships with members of the
opposite sex are not exclusive.
2
The 9th survey (1987) referred to population composition by marital status of the census in 1985. In thesame way, the 10th (1992) referred to the 1990 census,
and the 11th (1997) referred to the 1995 census. In
the 9th survey, the target group for single subjects was
only those between the ages of 18 and 34. Therefore,
in order to make the calculations for the 35 to 49 yearold age group for the 9th survey data, it is assumed
that there is no change in the breakdown within thenever-married group over age 34.
3
The original wording is ‘It doesn’t matter if a man and awoman have sexual intercourse even prior to marriage,
as long as they love each other.’ The percentages are
the total of those who responded either ‘completely
agree’ or ‘agree more than disagree.’4
The proportion of married females (PMF) in each age
190The Japanese Journal of Population, Vol.2, No.1 (March 2004)ning): 61-80.
Bumpass,L.L., J.A.Sweet, and A.Cherlin. 1991. “The Roleof Cohabitation in Declining Rates of Marriage,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53: 913-27.
Cliquet,R.L. 1991. The second demographic transition:
fact or fiction? Population Studies 23, Strasbourg:
Council of Europe.
Dalla Zuanna,G., M.Atoh , M.Castiglioni and K.Kojima.
1998. “Late Marriage Among Young People: The Caseof Italy and Japan,” Genus, 54 (3-4): 187-232.
Festy,P. 1980. “On the new context of marriage in Western Europe,” Population and Development Review,
6(2): 311-315.
Iwasawa,M. 1999. “Dokushin Seinen-sou no Dosei no
Genjou (Trends of Cohabitation among Unmarried
Japanese Youth),” Tokei, 50(6): 70-73.
JESE (The Japanese Association for Sex Education). 1994.
Seisyo-nen no Sei-kodo; Wagakuni no Chugakusei,
Kokosei, Daigakusei ni kansuru Chosa-hokoku, the 4th(Sexual Behavior of Youth: The 4 th Survey Report ongroup is given byPMF =MF  Pt  MF =
 = PP ⋅ PM ,N F  N F  Pt 

where NF represents the total number of females in thatage group, and MF is the number of married females,
and Pt stands for the number of females with an intimate partner.
According to the decomposition method (Retherford
and Cho 1973), the difference between PMF and PMF’at two different time points is shown to be∆PMF = PMF − PMF ′ PP + PP′  , PM + PM ′ = (PP − PP′)

 + (PM − PM ′)
2
2





where the first term means the effect of change in the
proportion of females with partners, and the second
term means the effect of change in the proportion of
married females in the group of those with partners.
5
Model-predicted probabilities of each partnership typeare calculated by:Prmarriage =Junior-high School Students, Senior-high School Students and College Students in Japan).
Kaneko,R. 1995. “Wagakuni Joshi Cohort Bankon-ka no
Yoin ni tsuite (On Determinants of Marriage Delay inJapanese Female Cohorts: Decomposition of Increasein Mean Age at First Marriage by Segment of the Process),” Jinko Mondai Kenkyu (Journal of Population
Problems), 51(2): 20-33.
Kiernan,K. 2000, ‘European Perspective on Union Formation,’ in L.J.Waite(ed.), The Ties that Bind, Aldine
de Gruyter, New York.
Klijzing,E. and M.Macura. 1997. “Cohabitation and Extra-marital Childbearing: Early FFS Evidence,” in
IUSSP, International Population Conference, Beijing
1997, 2: 885-901.
Manning,W.D., and P.J.Smock, 2000, ‘First Comes Cohabitation and Then Comes Marriage?’ Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the Population Associationof America in Los Angeles.
Manting,D. 1994. Dynamics in Marriage and Cohabitation: An Inter-Temporal, Life Course Analysis of Union
First Formation and Dissolution, PDOD Publications,
Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
Miyamoto,M., M.Iwakami and M.Yamada. 1997. Mikonka Syakai no Oyako Kankei (The Relationship between
P a re n t s a n d t h e i r C h i l d re n i n U n m a r r i e dSociety),Yuhikaku Sensyo.
Ohashi,T. 1993. Mikon-ka no Syakai-gaku, NHK Books

1

1 + exp (x ′b 1 ) + exp (x ′b 2 ) ,Prdating =exp(x ′b 1 )1 + exp(x ′b 1 ) + exp(x ′b 2 ) ,Prcohab . =exp (x ′b 2 )1 + exp (x ′b 1 ) + exp (x ′b 2 ) ,where b1 and b2 are the vectors of coefficients associated with the independent variables included in themodel, and x is the vector of the independent variables.

References
Atoh,M. 1997. “Shoshika ni Kansuru Wagakuni no
Kenkyu-Doko to Seisaku-teki Kenkyu Kadai (Researchon Below-Replacement Fertility in Japan: Its Review
and New Agenda),” Jinko Mondai Kenkyu (Journal of
Population Problems), 53(4): 1-14.
Atoh,M. 1998. “Mikon-Josei no Dento-teki Kazoku-Ishiki(Attitudes toward the Traditional Family among Nevermarried Women),” Mainichi Shinbun-sya Jinko Mondai
Chosa-kai(ed.), Kazoku no Mirai, Gender wo Koete;
The 24th Zenkoku Kazoku-keikaku Seron-chosa (The
Future of the Family, Beyond the Gender: The 24th
Mainichi Shinbun-sya National Survey on Family Plan-

91The Japanese Journal of Population, Vol.2, No.1 (March 2004)
ture,” in Koen Matthijs(ed.), The Family: Contemporary Perspectives and Challenges, Leuven University
Press.
van de Kaa,D.J. 1987. “Europe’s Second Demographic
Transition,” Population Bulletin, 42(1), PRB.
Wagatsuma,T. 1998. “Mikon Josei no Sei-kodo, Josei no
Hinin, Chuzetsu no Henka (Trends on Sexual Behavior of Never-married Females, Contraception and Abortion),” Mainichi Shinbun-sya Jinko Mondai Chosakai(ed.), Kazoku no Mirai, Gender wo Koete; The 24th
Zenkoku Kazoku-keikaku Seron-chosa (The Future of
the Family, Beyond the Gender: The 24th Mainichi
Shinbun-sya National Survey on Family Planning):
109-126.
Yamada,M. 1994. “Bankon-ka Gensyo no Syakai-gakuteki Bunseki (Sociological Explanation of the Marriage
Delay),” Gendai Kazoku to Syakai Hosyo (The family
and the Social Security), Tokyo Daigaku Syuppan-kai.

666, Nihon Hoso Syuppan Kyokai.
Retherford,R.D. and L-J.Cho. 1973. “Comparative analysis of recent fertility trends in East Asia,” IUSSP, International Population Conference, 2.
Sato,R. and F.Mita. 1999. “Isei tono Kosai (Trends ofDating),” National Institute of Population and Social
Security Research, Dokushin Seinen-sou no Kekkonkan to Kodomo-kan (Attitudes toward Marriage andthe Family among the Unmarried Japanese Youth: The
11 th National Fertility Survey).
Takahashi,S., R.Kaneko, R.Sato, M.Ikenoue and F.Mita,
T,Sasai, M.Iwasawa, Y.Shintani. 1998. “Dai 11 kai
Syussyo Doko Kihon Chosa; Fufu Chosa no Kekka
Gaiyo (The Summary of the 11 th National Fertility
Survey: Trends in Marriage and Fertility in Japanese
Couples),” Jinko Mondai Kenkyu(Journal of Population Problems),54(2): 46-74.
Takahashi,S., R.Kaneko, R.Sato, M.Ikenoue and F.Mita,
T,Sasai, M.Iwasawa, Y.Shintani. 1999. “Gendai
Wakamono tachi no Kekkon Jijyo, Dai 11 kai Syussyo
Doko Chosa, Dokushin-sya chosa no Kekka kara (Major Findings from the 11th National Fertility Survey),”(Miho Iwasawa
IPSS)

Kosei no Shihyo, 46(5): 3-12.
Trost, Jan. 1998. “LAT relationship now and in the fu-

92