SPRINGER BRIEFS IN POPULATION STUDIES POPULATION STUDIES OF JAPAN James M. Raymo Miho Iwasawa Diverging Destinies The Japanese Case 123 SpringerBriefs in Population Studies Population Studies of Japan Editor-in-chief Toshihiko Hara, Sapporo, Japan Series editors Shinji Anzo, Tokyo, Japan Hisakazu Kato, Tokyo, Japan Noriko Tsuya, Tokyo, Japan Toru Suzuki, Tokyo, Japan Kohei Wada, Tokyo, Japan Hisashi Inaba, Tokyo, Japan Minato Nakazawa, Kobe, Japan The world population is expected to expand by 39.4 % to 9.6 billion in 2060 (UN World Population Prospects, revised 2010). Meanwhile, Japan is expected toseeitspopulationcontractbynearlyone-thirdto86.7million,anditsproportion of the elderly (65 years of age and over) will account for no less than 39.9 % (National Institute of Population and Social Security Research in Japan, Population Projections for Japan 2012). Japan has entered the post-demographic transitional phase and will be the fastest shrinking country in the world, followed byformerEasternblocnations,leadingotherAsiancountriesthatareexperiencing drastic changes. A declining population that is rapidly aging impacts a country’s economic growth,labormarket,pensions,taxation,healthcare,andhousing.Thesocialstruc- tureandgeographicaldistributioninthecountrywilldrasticallychange,andshort- term as well as long-term solutions for economic and social consequences of this trend will be required. ThisseriesaimstodrawattentiontoJapan’senteringthepost-demographictran- sition phase and to present cutting-edge research in Japanese population studies. It willincludecompactmonographsundertheeditorialsupervisionofthePopulation Association of Japan (PAJ). ThePAJwasestablishedin1948andorganizesresearcherswithawiderangeof interestsinpopulationstudiesofJapan.Themajorfieldsare(1)populationstructure and aging; (2) migration, urbanization, and distribution; (3) fertility; (4) mortality and morbidity; (5) nuptiality, family, and households; (6) labor force and unem- ployment; (7) population projection and population policy (including family plan- ning);and(8)historicaldemography.Since1978,thePAJhasbeenpublishingthe academic journal Jinkogaku Kenkyu (The Journal of Population Studies), in which most of the articles are written in Japanese. Thus,thescopeofthisseriesspanstheentirefieldofpopulationissuesinJapan, impactsonsocioeconomicchange,andimplicationsforpolicymeasures.Itincludes population aging, fertility and family formation, household structures, population health,mortality,humangeographyandregionalpopulation,andcomparativestud- ies with other countries. Thisseries will beofgreatinteresttoawiderange ofresearchers inothercoun- tries confronting a post-demographic transition stage, demographers, population geographers, sociologists, economists, political scientists, health researchers, and practitioners across a broad spectrum of social sciences. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13101 James M. Raymo Miho Iwasawa (cid:129) Diverging Destinies The Japanese Case 123 James M.Raymo Miho Iwasawa Department ofSociology National Institute ofPopulation andSocial University of Wisconsin-Madison Security Research Madison,WI Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo USA Japan ISSN 2211-3215 ISSN 2211-3223 (electronic) SpringerBriefs inPopulation Studies ISSN 2198-2724 ISSN 2198-2732 (electronic) Population Studies of Japan ISBN978-981-10-0184-0 ISBN978-981-10-0185-7 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-0185-7 LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2016945780 ©TheAuthor(s)2017 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt fromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained hereinorforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade. Printedonacid-freepaper ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbySpringerNature TheregisteredcompanyisSpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingaporePteLtd. Contents 1 “Diverging Destinies”: A Review of the Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 “Diverging Destinies” as Part of the Second Demographic Transition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 Implications of Differential Family Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4 Posited Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.5 Generality and Variation Across Time and Space . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2 The Japanese Context and Existing Empirical Evidence . . . . . . . . . 15 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.2 Reasons not to Expect a Pattern of Diverging Destinies in Japan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.2.1 Homogenous Family Life Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.2.2 Contraceptive Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.2.3 Gender Division of Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.3 Reasons to Expect a Pattern of Diverging Destinies in Japan . . . . 18 2.3.1 Public Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.3.2 Changing Employment Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.3.3 Growing Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.3.4 Trends in Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.4 Empirical Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.4.1 Union Formation and Dissolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.4.2 Childbearing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.5 Synthesis of Existing Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3 Union Formation and Dissolution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.2 The National Fertility Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.3 Early Marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 v vi Contents 3.4 Husband’s Educational Attainment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 3.5 Cohabitation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3.6 Divorce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4 Childbearing and Maternal Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4.2 Early Childbearing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4.3 Nonmarital Childbearing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 4.4 Bridal Pregnancy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 4.5 Maternal Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 4.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Chapter 1 “ ” Diverging Destinies : A Review of the Research 1.1 Introduction “Diverging destinies” is a term used by Sara McLanahan in her 2004 presidential address to the Population Association of America to describe growing socioeco- nomic differentials in family behaviors associated with the second demographic transition. Drawing primarily on evidence from the U.S., McLanahan (2004) demonstrated that women at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum are increasingly engaging in family behaviors that are associated with reduction in the resources available to their children (e.g., nonmarital childbearing) while those at the upper end of the spectrum are engaging in family behaviors associated with increased resources (e.g., stable marriage). The core of her argument is that this pattern offamily bifurcation has important implications for inequality in opportu- nities for success across generations. Because McLanahan explicitly linked this pattern of diverging destinies to the broader constellation offamily changes asso- ciatedseconddemographictransition,itisusefultobegin withabriefoverviewof research on those changes.1 The “second demographic transition” is a framework for understanding the emergence of below-replacement fertility in industrialized countries and the accompanying changes in family behavior and related attitudes (Lesthaeghe 2010; van de Kaa 1987). Family changes associated with the second demographic tran- sition include delayed marriage, delayed childbearing, increases in the proportion who never marry and remain childless, and substantial increases in nonmarital cohabitation, nonmarital fertility (including fertility within cohabiting unions), 1Itisimportanttonotethatthereisdisagreementaboutnotonlytheconceptofaseconddemo- graphictransition,butalsoabouttheideaofdivergingdestiniesbeingpartoftheseconddemo- graphictransition.Notingtheroleplayedbyhighlyeducatedinnovatorsinconventionaldepictions of family change associated with the second demographic transition, growing socioeconomic differences in family behavior have also been referred to as a “pattern of disadvantage” (e.g., Perelli-Harrisetal.2010;Perelli-HarrisandGerber2011). ©TheAuthor(s)2017 1 J.M.RaymoandM.Iwasawa,DivergingDestinies, PopulationStudiesofJapan,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-0185-7_1 2 1 “DivergingDestinies”:AReviewoftheResearch maternalemployment,anddivorce(Lesthaeghe1995;LesthaegheandMoors2000; van de Kaa 1987). This “package” of new family behaviors has emerged, with variations in both the timing and the magnitude of change, across nearly all low-fertility countries (Lesthaeghe and Moors 2000; Sobotka 2008). Explanations for family changes associated with the second demographic transition include shifting attitudes and values, convergence in men’s and women’s roles in society and within families, and improvements in contraceptive technology. Interested readers can consult several broad overviews of the second demographic transition (Lesthaeghe 1995, 2010; Raymo 2015a; Sobotka 2008; van de Kaa 1987, 2001). Like research on the second demographic transition, the growing body of work ondivergingdestiniesseekstoevaluatethegeneralityofsocioeconomicbifurcation infamilybehaviorandtounderstandthewaysinwhichthepaceandnatureofthese changesareshapedbythesocial,economic,andpoliticalcontextinwhichtheyare observed (e.g., Perelli-Harris et al. 2010; McLanahan and Jacobsen 2015; Raymo etal.2015).OurgoalinthisstudyistoextendthisresearchbyfocusingonJapan— a relatively understudied country in which educational differences in family behavior appear to be growing despite many reasons to believe that a pattern of divergingdestiniesisunlikelytoemerge.Weaccomplishthisgoalinthreesteps.In thisfirstchapter,wesetthestagebydescribingthepatternofdivergingdestiniesin greater detail, summarizing its posited causes and consequences, and evaluating related empirical evidence from the U.S. and other low-fertility countries. In the second chapter, we turn ourattention toJapan—discussingthe theoreticalvalue of extendingresearchondivergingdestiniestotheJapanesecontextandprovidingan overview of the relatively small body of research on trends in educational differ- ences in family outcomes based on Japanese data. In Chaps. 3 and 4, we use data from multiple rounds of the Japanese National Fertility Survey to describe trends overtimeineducationaldifferencesinawiderangeoffamilyoutcomes.Thegoalof theseanalysesistoprovideacomprehensiveandsystematicsummaryofempirical evidence that can provide a basis for evaluating the extent to which patterns of familychangeinJapanareconsistentthoseemphasizedindiscussionsofdiverging destinies. 1.2 “Diverging Destinies” as Part of the Second Demographic Transition The concept of diverging destinies emerges from a large body of research docu- menting growing socioeconomic differentials in family behavior over the past 30–40 yearsintheU.S.Familyscholarshaverepeatedlydemonstratedthatmenand women at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum are increasingly engaging infamilybehaviorthatdiffersfromthatoftheircounterpartsattheupperendofthe spectrum (see Cherlin 2010 for a summary of this research). Bifurcation in family behaviorincludes anincreasing concentration of union formation and childbearing 1.2 “DivergingDestinies”asPartoftheSecondDemographicTransition 3 atrelativelyyoungages,childbearingthatoccursoutsideofmarriageorcohabiting unions, and unintended fertility among men and women with lower levels of educational attainment (Ellwood and Jencks 2004; England et al. 2012; Kennedy andBumpass2010;Musicketal.2009;Upchurchetal.2002).Inadditiontoearly (often unplanned) family formation, lower education is also now associated with a higher likelihood of never marrying in the U.S. (Goldstein and Kenney 2011). Within families, highly educated mothers are more likely to be stably employed across the life course (McLanahan and Jacobsen 2015). Marital dissolution is anotherexampleofdifferentialchange,withevidenceofstableordecliningdivorce ratesamonghighlyeducatedcouplesandincreasinglyfragileunions,andassociated growth in multi-partner fertility, among the less educated (Cherlin 2009; Martin 2006; Raley and Bumpass 2003; Tach et al. 2011). Most of the research on diverging destinies has focused on growing differences between women with a four-year college degree or more and women who completed high school or less education, but attention is also increasingly being paid to “moderately-educated” Americans (those who have completed some college). Several studies show that menandwomeninthisgroupareincreasinglymovingawayfromtheircounterparts with a college degree and more closely resembling those with less education (Cherlin 2011; McLanahan and Jacobsen 2015). A good deal of research on low-SES families in the U.S. focuses on the dis- tinctive features of “fragile families.” These are families formed as a result of nonmarital childbearing and characterized by subsequent instability in parental relationships and family structure (Kalil and Ryan 2010; Osborne and McLanahan 2007).BirthstounmarriedmothersarecommonintheU.S.,with36 %ofchildren born to unmarried mothers in 2013. The prevalence of such families differs markedly by race (29 % for whites vs. 68 % for blacks) and by educational attainment(57 %forthosewhodidnotcompletehighschoolvs.9 %forthosewith acollegedegree)(ShattuckandKreider2013).Manyoftheimportantcontributions to this research are based on data from the Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study—amultisitestudyofalargesampleofbirthstourbanmothersin1998–2000. By following children and their mothers from birth through age nine, these data have allowed researchers to describe family experiences across the socioeconomic spectrum. Whileeffortstodocumentgrowingfamilydifferentialsaremostprominentinthe U.S.,asimilarpatternofchangeisvisibleinmanylow-fertilitysocieties.Theclaim that socioeconomic bifurcation is a universal feature of family change associated with the second demographic transition was made initially, and perhaps most compellingly,byMcLanahan (2004)who useddatafrom theLuxembourgIncome Study(LIS)toshowthatyoungmothers,singlemothers,andnonemployedmothers are more prevalent at lower levels of education in the U.S., Canada, and several Western European countries. The results of other cross-national analyses of edu- cational differences in family behavior are generally consistent with the claim that diverging destinies is not a uniquely American phenomenon. Several studies pro- vide evidence of growing socioeconomic differences in union formation (Kalmijn 2013; Raymo et al. 2015; Rendall et al. 2010), childbearing within cohabiting