@article{Mogi_49_16,
author = {Mogi, Ryohei and Raymo, James and Iwasawa, Miho and Yoda, Shohei},
title={{An alternative version of the second demographic transition? Changing pathways to first marriage in Japan}},
journal = {Demographic Research},
volume = {49},
number = {16},
pages = {423--464},
doi = {10.4054/DemRes.2023.49.16},
year = {2023},
abstract = {Background: Growth in cohabiting unions and non-marital childbearing sits at the core of research on the second demographic transition and related discussions of family bifurcation and children’s diverging destinies. 

Objective: How should we think about these two highly influential and purportedly universal depictions of family change in low-fertility countries where the link between marriage and childbearing remains strong? Using data from large national surveys in Japan, we address this question by describing growing heterogeneity in pathways to first marriage, with a focus on the temporal ordering of cohabitation, pregnancy, engagement, initiation of living together as married, and registration of marriage. 

Results: Our descriptive analyses demonstrate a substantial increase across marriage cohorts in variation in pathways to family formation in Japan, primarily reflecting growth in premarital cohabitation. Among women in the 2010–2015 marriage cohort, 39% cohabited with their husband prior to marriage. Educational differences in cohabitation experience are small, but cohabitation is more likely to be associated with premarital pregnancy for women with lower levels of educational attainment. 

Contribution: Our descriptive summary of trends and differences in pathways to first marriage provides not only a needed update on changing pathways to family formation in Japan, but also a valuable empirical basis for contextual modification or adaptation of two of the most influential theoretical frameworks for understanding family change in low-fertility societies. },
URL = {https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol49/16/},
eprint = {https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol49/16/49-16.pdf}
}