The effect of first union dissolution on Uruguayan womens - - PDF document

1

The effect of first union dissolution on Uruguayan women’s reproductive behavior Mariana Fernández Soto Programa de Población Universidad de la República

• 1. Introduction

In Uruguay, some significant changes have occurred in nuptiality and fertility. These can summarize as increased cohabitation to the detriment of marriage, increased marital dissolutions, falling fertility below replacement, and rise out wedlock births. Marital dissolutions have become widespread events, leading, in many cases, to an increase in the number of short-term relationships throughout the life course. More people out of the first union at reproductive ages, growing rates of second (and even third) unions, and thus rising rates of step households, which may include (more) children. The relationship between marital and reproductive life seems to be changing as marital trajectories

• diversify. The changes in nuptiality and fertility have been studied but separately

(Cabella, 1998, 2008, 2014; Fernández Soto, 2010; Filguerira, 1996; Nathan, 2015; Nathan, Pardo, & Cabella, 2016; Paredes, 2003; Varela, Fostik, & Fernández Soto, 2012; Varela, Pardo, Lara, Nathan, & Tenenbaum, 2014). This study seeks to relate changes in nuptiality and fertility, especially among marital dissolutions and reproductive behavior. The objective of this work is to analyze the effect of this dissolution in the accumulated fertility and the factors associated with the probability of having a child after the break- up of the first union. To do this, I use the life-course approach. First, I analyze two groups

• f women: those that only had the first union and did not dissolve it and those that

experienced the dissolution of the first union. Second, I estimate multivariate regression models to study the effect of dissolution of the first union on reproductive behavior. This research aims to contribute to the explanations of the decline of fertility in Uruguay from a new approach that favors the interaction between the marital and reproductive life. It should note that this study is among the first in Latin America, a region where some of the transformations of the second demographic transition have been corroborated and specifically contributes to the literature on multi-partner-fertility with a case of a middle- income country, decentring the discussion of the northern hemisphere. The paper is structured in three sections. First, the antecedents of the subject are presented, then the objectives, data and methods, and finally the main results.

• 2. Background

Traditionally, Demographic studies have conceptualized nuptiality as a determinant of fertility (Bongaarts, 1978; Bongaarts and Potter, 1983). The proportion of women in a union is considered to be an indicator of exposure to the risk of procreation, as the vast majority of population conceive reproduction in the context of stable marital

• relationships. Conversely, marital instability is expected to reduce the proportion of

women in a union and, consequently, it has been conceived as an inhibitor of the exposure to reproductive risk (Bongaarts, 1978; Bongaarts and Potter, 1983; Leone and Hinde,

2

2002). Therefore, scholars have interpreted that the increase in separations and divorces are associated with fertility decline (Leone and Hinde, 2007). In recent decades there have been substantial changes in patterns of union and marital dissolution, as well as a general decline in the level of fertility in Western countries. Despite having children, partnering, and separating are often interrelated events, it is not clear how one affects the other, nor what the specific determinants for each of them are (Leone and Hinde, 2007; Guzzo, 2014). The increase in separations and divorces results in a larger number of people living

• utside a union - with different ages and different reproductive outcomes that may include

more or fewer children, to even childlessness. When this population increases and dissolutions occur at earlier ages, the chances of establishing a new relationship growth, and new unions may include (more) children. Also, it becomes more frequent for people to have their children in different marital situations, i.e., outside the union, in a single union or second or subsequent unions. Consequently, it is expected that marital dissolutions will affect reproductive decisions, making it more feasible to have children with more than one partner. In the literature, this phenomenon is referred to as multiple- partner-fertility (MPF) (Di Nallo, 2013; Guzzo, 2014). Thomson et al. (2002) distinguish three primary motivations for having children in a post-rupture union. 1) The "commitment effect," which leads to having a child with the new partner to strengthen the engagement of the new union. 2) The "brothers effect," the people who have kids of the first union want to give their children siblings. 3) Moreover, the "parenting status effect," people wish to have at least one child and to become parents (Beaujouan and Solaz, 2008, Thomson et al., 2002). To this latter effect, we add that studies show that it is more likely to have a child with a new partner (after dissolution) if the partner does not have any children (Guzzo, 2014; Holland & Thomson, 2011). The studies who were examining the relationship between marital dissolutions, the conformation of new unions and fertility have been developed mainly in Europe. These have focused primarily on the determinants of the intensity and timing of the fecundity

• f the second unions (Di Nallo, 2013; Beaujouan & Solaz, 2008; Buber & Prskawetz,

2000; Leone &Hinde, 2007; Manlove, Logan, Ikramullah, & Holcombe, 2008; Spijker, Simó & Solsona, 2012; Thomson & Li, 2002; Beaujouan & Wiles, 2011). Studies on the subject show that the increase in dissolutions produces two opposing forces. On the one hand, the duration of exposure to fertility decreases. On the other, the risk of formation

• f new unions increases where the partners´ desire for children may be is present

(Beaujouan y Solaz, 2008; Spijker, Simó y Solsona, 2012; Beaujouan & Wiles, 2011). Other studies also show that the depressing or driving effect of marital dissolution on fertility also depends on the timing of the formation of the first union, the dissolution, and the first child birth (Thomson et al., 2012; Meggiolaro and Ongaro, 2010; Jansen, Wijckmans and Van Bavel, 2008). For example, the study of the French case, carried out by Thomson et al. (2012), shows that differences in final fertility between the groups of people with and without marital dissolution tend to narrow if the formation of union and dissolution occurs after the age of thirty. Thus, the age at dissolution determines, to a certain extent, the likelihood of a union after separation, as well as the odds of having children in that eventual union (Jansen, Wijckmans, Bavel, & Van_Bavel, 2009). At an intermediate point, we find other studies that suggest that the complexation of the conjugal trajectory does not per se have a negative or positive effect on fertility. The effect varies according to the contexts and schedules of union, dissolution, and

3

reproduction of males and women (Jansen, Wijckmans, & Bavel, 2008; Leone & Hinde, 2007; Persson & Tollebrant, 2013; Thomson, Winkler-Dworak, Spielauer, & Prskawetz, 2012). A common concern of these studies is to check whether children with the new partner(s) compensate for "lost" fertility during postpartum periods. Recent research in Europe and the United States have shown that an increasing proportion of parents in the younger cohorts have been in multiple pairs, so the hypothesis of "lost" fertility recovery may be proving (Di Nallo, 2013). Studies on the subject in Latin America are also scarce and show results in different

• directions. In a recent study in Brazil that specifically investigates the impact of conjugal

solutions on the fecundity that women accumulate, it shows that women with more than

• ne union report higher cumulative fertility (Leone, 2002; Leone & Hinde, 2007).

Another study, qualitative study on second nuptials in Brazil, shows that the existence of children of previous unions and the type of contact with them interfere in the desire to have children in the couple (Dos Santos, 2009). From mid-eighties to the present, several transformations concerning the formation and dissolution of marital unions have occurred in Uruguay. These changes include the increase of cohabitation to the detriment of marriage and the increase of divorces and

• separations. Simultaneously, the fertility registered a new drop along the 1990s, reaching

replacement level by the mid-2000s; this fall was accompanied by a sustained increase in unmarried births, which represented 70% of total births in 2010 (Cabella, Fernández Soto and Prieto, 2015; Cabella, 2008). This context poses the question on how the reproductive behavior of Uruguayan women does develop after episodes of separation or divorce. Despite the fact that the changes in fertility and union patterns have been extensively studied in the country (Nathan, Pardo and Cabella, 2016, Nathan, 2015, Cabella, 1998, 2009, 2014, Fernández Soto, 2010, Varela et al., 2014; Varela, Pollero and Fostik, 2008, Varela, Fernández and Fostik, 2012, Paredes, 2003, Peri, 1994, Filgueira 1996, among

• thers). There is a gap in the literature concerning the impact of dissolutions on fertility.

This research aims to simultaneously assess the changes infertility and conjugal union from a perspective that focuses on the interrelation between both events, by estimating the effect of separations and divorces on accumulated fertility.

• 3. Data and methods

This paper uses data from an Uruguayan survey about family arrangements (Encuesta de Situaciones Familiares, ESF), where longitudinal and retrospective information was collected from a sample of 1,229 women, from 25 to 67 years old, living in Montevideo and its metropolitan area in 2008. The questionnaire gathered retrospective information

• n both, marital trajectory (from their current partner to the three previous partners) and

reproductive history of the interviewees, recording the dates of initiation and dissolution

• f unions. Also, it provides retrospective information about individual and household

sociodemographic characteristics concerning the respondent´s children, their relationship with both parents, and self-administered questions on their views about certain aspects of family life. This study focuses only on women aged 25-67 who had at least one union. Those who never joined, those who married for the first time after the age of 45, those who ended their conjugal union before the age of 45, and those who ended their first union due to

4

widowhood or migration, are all excluded from the analysis. The definite sample totals 1040 cases. I have focused in two analytical categories that define two target groups of women: 1) women in a single union and 2) women that experienced at least one marital dissolution. The latter group is composed of both, women who have dissolved their first union and have not experienced a second union, and women who have experienced remarriage after the first union. To achieve my research aims the analysis combines two methodological strategies from the life-course approach. First, I describe the sociodemographic characteristics of the two groups of women already mentioned and estimate the risk of having a child after the dissolution of the first union by educational attainment, the presence of children of the first union, and if there was remarriage, using the Kaplan-Meier estimation method. Second, I specified both, discrete-time logistic regressions to examine the main determinants of the probability of having another child after a separation, and Poisson regression models to identify the effect of the dissolution of the first union on the cumulative number of children per women. The independent variables considered for descriptive and multivariate analysis could be classified into three groups. 1) Control variables, such as age at the time of the survey, educational attainment, age at first union, and the number of fertile years within a union. 2) Variables related to the conjugal history, such as age at first union, type of first union, number of unions, percentage of women with two or more unions, percentage of women with two or more unions who had children only by the first union, percentage of women with two or more unions who had children in the first and second unions, percentage of women with two or more unions who had children only by the second union, and parents' conjugal history regarding dissolution. 3) Moreover, variables related to the reproductive history, such as the number of children born, age at first birth, time elapsed between first child birth and first marriage, and time passed between first and second child births.

• 4. Main results

a. Descriptive findings The descriptive analysis shows that 33% of women aged 25-67 had at least one dissolution, and no significant differences between the two groups of women in the study were observed concerning the parity rates. However, remarkable differences between these groups were identified about the type of the first union and on the family formation

• calendar. Specifically, most of these women started their life couple through cohabitation,

and their median ages at first marriage and first child are earlier than those for women who have remained within the first union. Besides, half of the women who had at least

• ne dissolution have gone into a second union, though most of them had their children

during the first union, and only a third of them had children in several unions and/or

• utside a union (Table 1 and Table 2).

5

Table 1. Sociodemographic characterization of women according to whether or not they have experienced episodes of marital dissolution.1 Montevideo-Uruguay, 2008 In a single union At least one conjugal dissolution Total 66,9 33,1 Age at the time of survey (years) 25 a 34 68,1 31,9 34 a 44 68,5 31,5 45 a 54 65,1 34,9 55 a 67 64,9 35,1 Educational attainment Low (Hasta ciclo básico completo) 62,2 37,8 Medium (bachillerato incompleto y completo) 70,9 29,1 High (estudios terciarios) 70,6 29,4 Numer of children 7,5 12,3 1 22,1 23,5 2 38,1 31,3 3 and more 32,3 32,9 Children and conjugal unions % children only outside marital union 3,3 13,7 % children only in a single conjugal union 91,2 55,2 % children in several unions and out of conjugal union 5,6 31,1 N=1040

Weight percentages.

Source: own elaboration based on ESF 2008.

About fertility history, first is observed that women who separated once had an early onset

• f family life: they present both a beginning of motherhood and the formation of the first

union at younger ages than that have a single union without rupture. Second, there are no significant differences in the average number of children they have - even though the women who at least dissolved their first marital union had a somewhat higher proportion

• f women who did not have children. There was also no significant difference in the time

intervals between the first union and the first child, and between the first and second child (Table 2). 2

1 Unless noted otherwise, all the results presented refer to women aged 25 to 67 years with at least one

union and who had their first union before age 45 and for those who dissolved it before the age of 45 years.

2 The differences are not statistically significant at a significance level of 0.01%.

6

Table 2. Characterization of the reproductive and conjugal trajectories of the women according to whether

• r not they have experienced episodes of marital dissolution. Montevideo-Uruguay, 2008

In a single union At least

• ne

conjugal dissolution Marital history First conjugal union with marriage 85,5 14,5 First conjugal union with cohabitation 37,0 63,0 Median age at first conjugal union 23,0 21,0 Duration of the first conjugal union: 0-5 years 11,1 48,8 6-10 years 15,8 24,5 11-15 years 14,9 11,7 More than 15 years 58,2 15,1 Mean number of conjugal unions 1,6 Standard deviation of the mean number of conjugal unions (0,7) Median age at the dissolution of the first marital union 28,0 Third quartile of age at the dissolution of the first conjugal union 35,0 Proportion with a first dissolved and without the second union 51,4 Proportion with a first dissolved and with the second union 48,6 Proportion of persons with two or more unions with children only first union 63,5 Proportion of persons with two or more unions with children in first and second union 20,0 Proportion of people with two or more unions with children only in the second union 16,6 Reproductive history Proporción who have children 92,4 87,3 Mean of number of children 2,2 2,1 Standard deviation of the mean of number of children (1,4) (1,6) Median age at the first birth 25,0 24,0 Mean age at the first birth 25,6 25,3 Standard desviation of the age of the first birth (6,6) (7,6) Median distance in years between the first union and the first child 2,0 3,0 Median distance in years between first child and second child 4,0 5,0 N=1040

Weight percentages. Kaplan Meier method was used to calculate the calendar and interval indicators.

Source: own elaboration based on ESF 2008.

7

Graph 1. Cumulative proportion of women who had children after the dissolution of the first conjugal union according to whether they had a second union and according to the number of children in the first

• union. Montevideo-Uruguay, 2008.3

Weighted estimates. N=322 Source: own elaboration based on ESF 2008.

When examining the risk of having a child after marital dissolution, very significant differences in intensity are identified depending on whether a second marital union was

• formed. At the end of the reproductive period, only 8% of the women who did not have

a conjugal union after the dissolution of the first union have a child. While the percentage accumulated at that age reaches 71% in women, who did have a second union. Entering a marital union after separation appears as one of the key factors in the probability of having a child after the dissolution of the first union. For example, at age 37 years, 55%

• f women who had a second union had a child then the dissolution of the first union. At

the same age, without a second union, only 6% had a child (Graph 1). The remarriage would seem to be one of the crucial aspects to having (more) children. If this information is related to the average age at the dissolution of the first union, which reaches 38.8 years, it is possible to establish that it is likely that the majority of women who have a child after the dissolution of the first union are those that separate at relatively early ages. Another factor that affects the risk of having a child after the separation/divorce of the first marital union is having had children in the first union (Graph 1). If in the first union

3Estimates made using the Kaplan Meier method. The differences between the curves are statistically

significant with a significance level of 0.01, evaluated with the log-rank test.

0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0 20 30 40 50

Edad Without second marital union With second marital union

0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0 20 30 40 50

Edad 0 child 1 child 2 or more children

8

there were no children, the cumulative percentage of women who had at least one child after the dissolution of the first marital union practically triplicates - between 25 and 35 years - compared to those who had only one child in the first union. From that age, the gap between the accumulated percentages begins to be progressively reduced. There are also differences in the percentages accumulated between women who had only one child and who had 2 and more children. The difference between the percentages accumulated in all ages is tripled. The gap is may be reflecting the so-called "parental status effect" when there are differences between those who had 0 and one children and "sibling effect" among those who had a child and 2 or more children (Beaujouan and Solaz, 2008, Thomson et al., 2002; Buber & Prskawetz, 2000). Also some studies have shown that couples who already have children from previous unions are more likely to have a child than the new union, often considered as a bonding union effect (Buber & Prskawetz, 2000; Prskawetz, Vikat, Philipov, & Engelhardt, 2003; Vikat, Thomson, & Hoem, 1999). However, other studies have also shown that having children from the first union decreases the probability of having children after marital dissolution (Guzzo, 2014; Holland & Thomson, 2011). b. About the relationship between the dissolution of the first union and the number of children that women have In this part, I analyze the relationship of the dissolution of the first marital union with the accumulated fecundity by the women. I will be considered all women with at least one union and united for the first time before the age of 45. About the average number of children taken according to marital history, I observed that there are no statistically significant differences between the total means between the two groups of women. Although, the average number of children in the first union is lower among the women who dissolved that the first marital union than those who did not

• separate. The average is compensated by either the children in a second union or outside

a conjugal union (Table 3). The average number of children that women accumulate with at least one dissolution outside a union is similar to that accumulating at a second (or later) union. It would be important to study in more depth what conditions are surrounding the fact of having children outside a union.

Table 3. Mean and standard deviation of the number of children taken according to marital status and union number. Montevideo-Uruguay, 2008

Children in the first conjugal union Children in the second conjugal union Children outside conjugal union Total

Mean Standard desviation Mean Standard desviation Mean Standard desviation Mean Standard desviation

In a single union 2,03 1,33

• - 0,13

0,55 2,16 1,35 At least one conjugal dissolution 1,15 1,34 0,42 0,80 0,51 1,05 2,08 1,61 Total 1,74 1,40 0,14 0,50 0,25 0,77 2,13 1,44 N=1016 Source: own elaboration based on ESF 2008.

9

The analysis of the Poisson regressions for accumulated fertility at the time of the survey shows that women who have experienced at least one dissolution are equally likely in the number of children they could accumulate than those who have not dissolved the first

• union. I observed this in the six models: in none, the variable "Having had at least one

dissolution" - while showing a negative effect - is not statistically significant when controlled by the rest of the covariables. At the same time, I can also observe that reproductive time within a marital union also has no significant effect on the number of children that women accumulate. Thus, it is possible to argue that the number of children that women have would not be affected by time within a conjugal union but depends on variables such as the educational level attained and the moment in which marital and reproductive life begins (Table 4). When the average number of children is estimated according to whether they have experienced an episode of marital dissolution through model number 6, I corroborated what I was shown in the descriptive analysis: there are no significant differences in the average number of children that accumulate (Table 3 and Table 5). The dissolution of the first marital union does not imply that there is a "loss" of the fecundity that women accumulate.

Table 4. Estimated coefficients of generalized Poisson regression models on the number of children

• accumulated. Montevideo, 2008

Independent variables Model (1) Model (2) Model (3) Model (4) Model (5) Age at the time of survey (years)

• 0,0409***
• 0,0438***
• 0,0449***
• 0,0430***
• 0,0456***

(0,00224) (0,00251) (0,00248) (0,00235) (0,00380)

At least one conjugal dissolution (ref. single union)

• 0,0770
• 0,0432
• 0,0425
• 0,0627
• 0,0416

(0,0462) (0,0479) (0,0479) (0,0580) (0,0635)

Age at the first martial union

0,0258*** 0,0360*** 0,0799*** 0,0823*** (0,00598) (0,00636) (0,00790) (0,00885)

Medium educational attainment (ref. low)

• 0,228***
• 0,104*
• 0,102*

(0,0484) (0,0450) (0,0455)

High educational attainment (ref. low)

• 0,266***
• 0,00155
• 0,00451

(0,0478) (0,0410) (0,0414)

Type of the first union: cohabitation (ref. marriage.)

0,0981 0,103 (0,0523) (0,0539)

Age at the first birth

• 0,0732***
• 0,0726***

(0,00669) (0,00660)

Fertile years in a conjugal union : 10 a 19 años (ref. <10)

• 0,0579

(0,0607)

Fertile years in a conjugal union : > de 20 años (ref. <10)

0,0454 (0,0810)

Constant

• 0,304**
• 0,745***
• 0,792***
• 0,233
• 0,197

(0,102) (0,141) (0,142) (0,123) (0,127)

10

Ln (exposure time =

age-age first union) 1 1 1 1 1

Deltha

• 0,0177
• 0,0428**
• 0,0591***
• 0,117***
• 0,128***

ll

• 436753,0
• 432871,3
• 428253,7
• 403917,7
• 403376,2

aic

873514,0 865752,6 856521,3 807853,3 806774,5

bic

873532,9 865776,3 856554,5 807896,0 806826,6

N

844 844 844 844 844

Standard errors in parentheses.

* p < 0,05, ** p < 0,01, *** p < 0,001

Source: own elaboration based on ESF 2008. Table 5. Average of the number of children estimated through the generalized Poisson regression model according to whether it had at least one dissolution. Montevideo-Uruguay, 2008

Mean number of children Standard error z P>z [95% confidence interval]

In a single union

2,38 0,06 38,96 0,00000 2,260 2,499

At least one conjugal dissolution

2,28 0,11 20,53 0,00000 2,065 2,500

Source: own elaboration based on ESF 2008.

c. About factors associated with the probability of having a child after marital dissolution Multivariate analysis corroborates part of what the descriptive analysis shows (Table 2 and Table 3). The factors that have the greatest effect on the probability of having a child after the dissolution of the first union are age, forming a second union, the age at which the dissolution of the first union occurs and having ) children of the first union (Table 6).

Table 6. Coefficients exponentiated from discrete time logistic regression models of the probability of having at least one child after the dissolution of the first marital union. Montevideo-Uruguay, 2008

Independent variables Model (1) Model (2) Model (3) Model (4) Model (5) Model (6) Control variables

Age at the time of survey (years)

0,756** 0,835 0,774* 0,767* 0,834 0,828 (0,0759) (0,0834) (0,0809) (0,0815) (0,0835) (0,0838) Age2 (years) 1,002* 1,002 1,002 1,002* 1,002 1,002 (0,00116) (0,00113) (0,00119) (0,00121) (0,00113) (0,00114)

Medium educational attainment (ref. low)

0,974 1,021 1,101 1,051 1,056 1,036 (0,208) (0,218) (0,242) (0,237) (0,234) (0,235)

High educational attainment (ref. low)

0,812 0,847 0,845 0,783 0,812 0,786 (0,211) (0,207) (0,210) (0,206) (0,199) (0,197) 1,092* 1,077 1,079

11

Variables related to the marital history Age at the first marital union (years) (0,0401) (0,0409) (0,0446)

Type of the first union: cohabitation (ref. marriage.)

1,280 1,276 1,307 (0,389) (0,392) (0,405) Age at the dissolution of the first union (years) 0,914*** 0,918** 0,913** (0,0237) (0,0258) (0,0283)

There was a second union (ref. not second union)

4,230*** 4,125*** 4,221*** (1,640) (1,593) (1,616) Variables related to fertility history Age at the first birth (years)

1,011 1,010 1,022 1,032 (0,0238) (0,0254) (0,0233) (0,0249)

Presence of children

• f the first union (ref.

no) 0,544** 0,974 (0,117) (0,212) Number of children in first marital union : 0 children (ref. 2 or more children) 2,551** 0,869 (0,798) (0,288) Number of children in first marital union: 1 child (ref. 2 or more children) 2,084* 1,012 (0,602) (0,300) Constant 113,3* 3,049 57,80 25,53 2,402 2,636 (239,8) (6,382) (125,5) (57,52) (5,043) (5,701) Ll

• 112640,6
• 106410,3
• 111392,5
• 110923,0
• 106305,1
• 106262,3

AIC

225291,1 212838,6 222799,0 221862,1 212632,2 212548,7

BIC

225318,4 212887,8 222837,3 221905,8 212692,3 212614,2

Pseudo R2

0,0605 0,112 0,0709 0,0748 0,113 0,114

N

1744 1744 1744 1744 1744 1744

Standard errors in parentheses.

* p < 0,05, ** p < 0,01, *** p < 0,001

Source: own elaboration based on ESF 2008.

In sum up, there is a significant influence of the conjugal calendar on the risk of having a child after breaking with the first union, since to dissolve a marriage at a young age and have chances of having a child after this event is necessary to form the first union also in

12

young age. On the other hand and as noted above, the remarriage is a key variable in the probability of having a child after the dissolved of the first marital union. The chances of having a child are tripled if there is the remarriage that does not happen. These two covariables are significant in all models that were included (models 2, 5 and 6). Finally, having children in the first marriage has a negative and significant effect on the probability of having children after divorce (model 3) -that is if don't control by variables related to marital history. When considering the number of sons of the first marital union, a positive effect is identified when there are no kids, or there is only one concerning those who have 2 or more children from the first union (model 4). In models 5 and 6, in which variables related to the marital history are included, the presence of children of the first union and the number of children lose significance and effect on the probability of having a post-dissolution child.

Graph 2. Predicted probability of having a post-dissolution of the first union by age at which the first union was dissolved and if there were second union and children of the first union. Montevideo-Uruguay, 20084 Source: own elaboration based on ESF 2008.

4Ver ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.,¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la

• referencia. y en el anexo para ver valores de las estimaciones puntuales e intervalos de confianza.

0,00 0,50 1,00 20 25 30 35 40 45 Age at the dissolution of the first marital union No Yes

By if there were second marital union

0,00 0,50 1,00 20 25 30 35 40 45 Age at the dissolution of the first marital union No Yes

By presence of child(ren) of the first marital union

0,00 0,50 1,00 20 25 30 35 40 45 Age at the dissolution of the first marital union 1 2 or more children

By number of child(ren) of the first matital union

0,00 0,50 1,00 20 25 30 35 40 45 Age at the dissolution of the first marital union Not 2ª union and not child 1ª union With 2ª union and not child 1ª union Not 2ª union with child 1ª union With 2ª union with child 1ª union

By if there were second union and presence of child(ren) of the first union

13

Therefore, the findings support that dissolution of the first conjugal union does not have a significant effect on the number of children that Uruguayan women accumulate along life course. However, certain factors, such as the age of dissolution, the formation of a second union and the presence of a single child of the first union affect the chances of having a child after the break-up, making that the accumulated fecundity was similar to that of the women who maintain intact their first union.

14

• 5. References

Allison, P. D. (1982). Discrete-Time Methods for the Analysis of Event Histories. Source: Sociological Methodology, 13, 61–98. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org Allison, P. D. (1984). Event history analysis. Regression for longitudinal event data (Sage Public). California. Amarante, V., & Perazzo, I. (2009). Determinantes de la fecundidad en Uruguay, 1996-

• 2006. Serie documentos de trabajo-Instituto de Economía (Vol. DT 08/09).

Montevideo. Bay, G., & Popolo, F. Del. (2003). Determinantes próximos de la fecundidad. Una aplicación a países latinoamericanos. Serie Población Y Desarrollo-CELADE- CEPAL, 43. Retrieved from http://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/7180/1/S039583_es.pdf Beaujouan, É. (2012). Repartnering in France: The role of gender, age and past fertility. Advances in Life Course Research, 17, 69–80. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2012.03.001 Beaujouan, E., & Solaz, A. (2008). Childbearing after separation: Do second unions make up for earlier missing births? Evidence from France. INED. Beaujouan, É., & Wiles, E. (2011). Second-Union Fertility in France: Partners’ Age and Other Factors. Population (English Edition, 66(2), 239–273. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41488601 Bongaarts, J. (1987). Data and Perspectives The Proximate Determinants of Exceptionally Fertility. Population and Development Review, 13(1), 133–139. Bongaarts, J. (2015). Modeling the fertility impact of the proximate determinants: Time for a tune-up. DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, 33(19), 535–560. http://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2015.33.19 Bongaarts, J., & Potter, R. G. (1983). Fertility, Biology, and Behavior An Analysis of the Proximate Determinants. Academic Press. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08- 091698-9.50006-3 Buber, I., & Prskawetz, A. (2000). Fertility in second unions in Austria: Findings from the Austrian FFS. DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, 3(17). http://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2000.3.2 Cabella, W. (1998). La evolución del divorcio en Uruguay (1950-1995=. Notas de

15

Población, 26(67–68). Retrieved from http://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/12681/NotaPobla67- 68.pdf?sequence=1 Cabella, W. (2008). Dos décadas de transformaciones de la nupcialidad uruguaya. La convergencia hacia la segunda transición demográfica. Estudios Demográficos Y Urbanos, 24(2), 389–427. Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=31221534005 Cabella, W. (2014). La recomposición de pareja en el Uruguay : un estudio a partir de dos encuestas retrospectivas de la década de 2000. Revista Latinoamericana de Población, 8(14), 5–30. Cerrutti, M., & Binstock, G. (2009). Familias latinoamericanas en transformación: desafíos y demandas para la acción pública Este documento fue preparado por. Serie Políticas Sociales-CEPAL, 147. Retrieved from http://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/6153/S0900608_es.pdf?sequen ce=1 Chackiel, J. (2004). La transición de la fecundidad en América Latina 1950-2000. Papeles de Población, 41. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/pp/v10n41/v10n41a2.pdf Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression Models and Life-Tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical

• Society. Series B (Methodological), 34(2), 187–220. Retrieved from

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0035- 9246%281972%2934%3A2%3C187%3ARMAL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6 Davis, K., & Blake, J. (1956). Social Structure and Fertility: An Analytical Framework. Economic Development and Cultural Change. De Graaf, P. M., & Kalmijn, M. (2003). Alternative Routes in the Remarriage Market- Competing-Risk Analyses of Union Formation After Divorce. Social Forces, 81(4), 1459–1498. http://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2003.0052 Di Nallo, A. (2013). Fertility in new couples, the influence of previous children. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 53(9), 1689–1699. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Dos Santos, G. (2009). Segundas nupcias: redefinición de los vínculos amorosos y de crianza*. Estudios Demográficos Y Urbanos, 24(271), 323–349. Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/312/31221534003.pdf Fernández Soto, M. (2010). Estudio sobre las trayectorias conyugales de las mujeres

16

del Gran Montevideo. Filguerira, C. (1996). Sobre revoluciones ocultas: la familia en Uruguay. (CEPAL (Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe), Ed.) (CEPAL).

• Montevideo. Retrieved from http://www.cepal.org/publicaciones/xml/6/10566/lc-

r141 .pdf García, B., & Rojas, O. L. (2002). Cambios en la formación y disolución de las uniones en América Latina. Papeles de Población, 8(32). Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/112/11203201.pdf Guzzo, K. B. (2014). New Partners, More Kids: Multiple-Partner Fertility in the United

• States. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,

654(1), 66–86. http://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214525571 Harris, T., & Yang, Z. (2012). Modeling underdispersed count data with generalized Poisson regression. The Stata Journal, 12(4), 736–747. Retrieved from http://www.stata-journal.com/sjpdf.html?articlenum=st0279 Holland, J., & Thomson, E. (2011). Stepfamily childbearing in Sweden: Quantum and tempo effects, 1950—99. Source: Population Studies, 65(1), 115–128. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23056731 Jansen, M., Wijckmans, B., & Bavel, J. Van. (2008). The influence of divorce on the cumulated fertility of men and women across Europe. European Population

• Conference. Barcelona.

Jansen, M., Wijckmans, B., Van_Bavel, J., Bavel, J. Van, & Van_Bavel, J. (2009). Divorce and the cumulated fertility of men and women across Europe. Interface Demography Working …, (June), 40. Retrieved from http://www.vub.ac.be/SOCO/demo/papersonline/IDWP2009-1.pdf Jefferies, J., Berrington, A. N. N., Diamond, I. A. N., European, S., Revue, P., Démographie, E. De, … Diamond, I. A. N. (2000). Childbearing following Marital Dissolution in Britain. European Journal of Population, 16(3), 193–210. Leone, T. (2002). Fertility and union dynamics in Brazil. Department of Social Statistics-Faculty of Social Sciences. University of Southampton. Leone, T., & Hinde, A. (2007). Fertility and union dissolution in Brazil: An example of multi-process modelling using the demographic and health survey calendar data. Demographic Research, 17, 157–180. http://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2007.17.7 Lesthaeghe, R., & Moors, G. (1994). Living Arrangements and Parenthood : Do Values Matter ? Brussels.

17

Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. Stata Press books. Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/b/tsj/spbook/long2.html Manlove, J., Logan, C., Ikramullah, E., & Holcombe, E. (2008). Factors associated with multiple-partner fertility among fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(2), 536–548. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00499.x Meggiolaro, S., & Ongaro, F. (2010). The implications of marital instability for a woman’s fertility: Empirical evidence from Italy. DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, 23, 936–996. http://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2010.23.34 Mortelmans, D., & Pasteels, I. (2015). Dyadic analysis of repartnering after divorce: do children matter? In U. Zartler, V. Heintz-Martin, & O. Arránz Becker (Eds.), Family dynamics after separation. A life course perspective on post-divroce families (Journal of, pp. 143–164). Berlin. Nathan, M. (2015). La creciente heterogeneidad en la edad al primer hijo en el Uruguay: un análisis de las cohortes de 1951 a 1990. Notas de Población, 100, 35–60. Nathan, M., Pardo, I., & Cabella, W. (2016). Diverging patterns of fertility decline in

• Uruguay. Demographic Research, 34(20), 563–586.

http://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2016.34.20 Paredes, M. (2003). Los cambios en la familia en Uruguay:¿hacia una segunda transición demográfica? In NUEVAS FORMAS DE FAMILIA PERSPECTIVAS NACIONALES E INTERNACIONALES (UNICEF-UNF). Montevideo. Peri, A. (1994). Las unidades familiares de residencia en Montevideo. Una aproximación bajo sospecha (No. DT No5). Montevideo. Retrieved from http://cienciassociales.edu.uy/unidadmultidisciplinaria/wp- content/uploads/sites/6/2014/06/Las-unidades-familiares-de-residencia-en- Montevideo.pdf Persson, L., & Tollebrant, J. (2013). Having children in new relationships. Demographic Reports (Vol. 1). Prskawetz, A., Vikat, A., Philipov, D., & Engelhardt, H. (2003). Pathways to stepfamily formation in Europe: Results from the FFS. Demographic Research, 8, 107–149. http://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2003.8.5 Quilodrán, J. (2008). Los cambios en la familia vistos desde la demografía, una breve reflexión. Estuidos Demográficos Y Urbanos, 23(1), 7–20. Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/312/31223101.pdf

18

Rosero Bixby, L. (1978). Nupcialidad y fecundidad en cuatro zonas rurales de América

• Latina. CELADE, 1008. Retrieved from

http://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/8493/S7800482.pdf?sequence= 1 Spijker, J. J. A., Simó, C., & Solsona, M. (2012). Post first-union repartnering and parenthood patterns in late 20th century Europe. Papers de Demografia 376. Spijker, J., Simó, C., & Solsona, M. (2012). Post first-union repartnering and parenthood patterns in late 20 th century Europe. Papers de Demografia, 376, 1– 42. Sweeney, M. M. (1997). Remarriage of Women and Men After Divorce: The Role of Socioeconomic Prospects. Journal of Family Issues, 18(5), 479–502. http://doi.org/10.1177/019251397018005002 Thomson, E. (2004). Step-families and childbearing desires in Europe. Demographic Research, 10(SUPPL. 3), 117–134. http://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2004.S3.5 Thomson, E., Hoem, J. M., Vikat, A., Prskawetz, A., Buber, I., Toulemon, L., … Kantorová, V. (2002). Childbearing in stepfamilies : how parity matter. In E. C. Klijzing Martine. (Ed.), Dynamics of fertility and partnership in Europe : Insights and lessons from comparative research (2nd ed., pp. 87–99). Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Stockholm University: United Nations. Economic Commission for Europe. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-77373 Thomson, E., Winkler-Dworak, M., Spielauer, M., & Prskawetz, A. (2012). Union Instability as an Engine of Fertility ? A Microsimulation Model for France. Demography, 49(1), 175–195. Toulemon, L., & Knudsen, L. B. (2006). Stepfamilies in Denmark and France . Does the number of previous children from both partners and whether the previous children live with the couple influence fertility ? In Population Association of

• American. Los Angeles.

Varela, C., Fostik, A., & Fernández Soto, M. (2012). Maternidad en la juventud y desigualdad social. Montevideo: UNFPA. Retrieved from http://www.unfpa.org.uy/userfiles/publications/74_file1.pdf Varela, C., Pardo, I., Lara, C., Nathan, M., & Tenenbaum, M. (2014). La fecundidad en el Uruguay (1996-2011): desigualdad social y diferencias en el comportamiento

• reproductivo. Montevideo: UNFPA, INE, Programa de Población, IECON,

19

MIDES, OPP. Varela, C., Pollero, R., & Fostik, A. (2008). La fecundidad:evolución y diferenciales en el comportamiento reproductivo. In La población uruguaya a inicios del siglo XXI demografía de una sociedad en transición La población uruguaya a inicios del siglo XXI (Trilce). Montevideo. Retrieved from http://www.unfpa.org.uy/userfiles/publications/43_file1.pdf Vikat, A., Thomson, E., & Hoem, J. M. (1999). Stepfamily fertility in contemporary Sweden: The impact of childbearing before the current union. Population Studies, 53(2), 211–225. http://doi.org/10.1080/00324720308082 Winkelmann, R., & Zimmermann, K. F. (1994). Count data models for demographic

• data. Mathematical Population Studies, 4(3), 205–221.

http://doi.org/10.1080/08898489409525374 Wu, Z., & Schimmele, C. M. (2005). Repartnering after first union disruption. Journal

• f Marriage and Family, 67(1), 27–36. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-

2445.2005.00003.x