Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Regional Variations in Multiple-Partner Fertility in Canada

  • Published:
Canadian Studies in Population Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using retrospective biographical data from the 2011 GSS, we examine regional variations in multiple-partner fertility in Canada. We document its prevalence across regions from both a cross-sectional and a longitudinal perspective. Furthermore, we analyse regional disparities in the family trajectories that lead to multiple-partner fertility (MPF), focusing on the conditions surrounding the first birth. While we find no significant differences across regions in the occurrence of multiple-partner fertility among fathers, our analysis shows striking variations in the prevalence and timing of MPF among mothers. Women living in the Atlantic provinces, in the Prairies and, to a lesser degree, in British Columbia experience a higher rate of multiple-partner fertility than those living in Ontario and Quebec. Regional differences in the divergent pathways leading to MPF partly contribute to explaining the observed variation across the country. Giving birth at young ages and in non-residential partnerships is associated with a higher likelihood of multiple-partner fertility, while repartnering after the break-up of the union in which the first child is born is more common in provinces where it is less prevalent.

Résumé

À partir des données rétrospectives de l’Enquête sociale générale de 2011, nous examinons les variations régionales de la fécondité issue de partenaires multiples au Canada. Nous adoptons à la fois une approche transversale et longitudinale pour documenter l’ampleur du phénomène dans les différentes régions. Nous analysons ensuite les disparités régionales dans les trajectoires familiales menant à la naissance d’enfants issus de conjoints différents, en accordant une attention particulière aux conditions entourant la première naissance. Alors que nous ne trouvons pas de différences significatives entre régions chez les hommes, l’analyse révèle des variations marquées dans la fréquence et le calendrier de la fécondité issue de partenaires multiples parmi les femmes. Les femmes résidant dans les provinces de l’Atlantique, dans les Prairies et, dans une moindre mesure, en Colombie-Britannique enregistrent un taux plus élevé de fécondité issue de partenaires multiples que celles vivant en Ontario et au Québec. Les différences régionales dans les trajectoires suivies contribuent à expliquer les variations observées à travers le pays. Avoir son premier enfant à un âge précoce ou dans le cadre d’une relation non-cohabitante est associé à une probabilité plus forte de fécondité issue de partenaires multiples, alors que la remise en couple après la dissolution de l’union dans laquelle est né le premier enfant est plus fréquente dans les provinces où le phénomène est moins répandu.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A few researchers have adopted an extra-residential definition and included as members of a stepfamily children born from previous relationships who reside in another household (for example, see Le Bourdais and Lapierre-Adamcyk 2015; Stewart 2001; Toulemon and Pennec 2010).

  2. Among those who married directly without first cohabiting with their partner

  3. The 2017 GSS on family was still not available in Canadian Research Data Centres when completing our study.

  4. The GSS also collected information on the stepchildren raised by respondents.

  5. Only for children living with the respondent at the time of survey do we know whether the respondent’s partner is their biological/adoptive parent. As discussed in the last section of the paper, this constitutes a limitation of the dataset.

  6. From now on, referring to respondents’ births includes adoptions and the notion of children comprises both biological and adopted children.

  7. Separate tests showed that more restrictive or permissive definitions do not alter our MPF estimate by more than 0.8 percentage points.

  8. Less than 30 such cases are found in our data. Their exclusion should not significantly affect our MPF estimate.

  9. This variable measures the total union duration for respondents who married their partner after first cohabiting.

  10. Only 170 cases (i.e. 1% of the sample) were excluded because of incomplete/inconsistent conjugal and parental histories.

  11. The cumulated probabilities of having a second child with the same partner are not presented but are available upon request.

References

  • Beaujot, R., Du, C. J., & Ravanera, Z. (2013). Family policies in Quebec and the rest of Canada: Implications for fertility, child-care, women's paid work, and child development indicators. Canadian Public Policy, 39(2), 221–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binette Charbonneau, A. (2018). Mariages et nuptialité. In C. Cirard (Ed.), Le bilan démographique du Québec, Édition 2018 (pp. 99–114). Québec: Institut de la statistique du Québec.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonhert, N. (2011). Examining the determinants of union dissolution among married and common-law unions in Canada. Canadian Studies in Population, 38(3–4), 75–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brauner-Otto, S. R. (2016). Canadian fertility trends and policies: a story of regional variation. In R. R. Rindfuss & M. K. Choe (Eds.), Low fertility, institutions, and their policies: variations across industrialized countries (pp. 99–130). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronte-Tinkew, J., Horowitz, A., & Scott, M. E. (2009). Fathering with multiple partners: links to children's well-being in early childhood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(3), 608–631.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, M. J., & Furstenberg Jr., F. F. (2006). The prevalence and correlates of multipartnered fertility among urban US parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(3), 718–732.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, M. J., & Furstenberg Jr., F. F. (2007). The consequences of multi-partnered fertility for parental involvement and relationships. New Jersey: Bendheim-Thoman Center for research on child wellbeing, Princeton University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherlin, A. J. (1978). Remarriage as an incomplete institution. American Journal of Sociology, 84(3), 634–650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorius, C. (2012). Does MPF put women at risk? Theories of multipartnered fertility and health (pp. 12–770). University of Michigan: Population Studies Center, Research Report.

  • Girard, C. (2012). Naissances et fécondité. In C. Girard (Ed.), Le bilan démographique du Québec, Édition 2012 (pp. 36–53). Québec: Institut de la Statistique du Québec.

    Google Scholar 

  • Girard, C. (2018). Naissances et fécondité. In C. Cirard (Ed.), Le bilan démographique du Québec, Édition 2018 (pp. 31–49). Québec: Institut de la statistique du Québec.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, E., & Evans, A. (2008). The limitations of understanding multi-partner fertility in Australia. People and Place, 16(4), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, K. B. (2014). New partners, more kids: Multiple-partner fertility in the United States. Annals AAPSS, 654(July), 66–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, K. B., & Dorius, C. (2016). Challenges in measuring and studying multipartnered fertility in American survey data. Population Research & Policy Review, 35(4), 553–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, K. B., & Furstenberg Jr., F. F. (2007a). Multipartnered fertility among young women with a nonmarital first birth: Prevalence and risk factors. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 39(1), 29–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, K. B., & Furstenberg Jr., F. F. (2007b). Multipartnered fertility among American men. Demography, 44(3), 583–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamplová, D., Le Bourdais, C., & Lapierre-Adamcyk, É. (2014). Is the cohabitation-marriage gap in money pooling universal? Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(5), 983–997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heintz-Martin, V., Le Bourdais, C., & Lapierre-Adamcyk, É. (2014). Childbearing among Canadian stepfamilies. Canadian Studies in Population, 41(1–2), 61–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henz, U. (2002). Childbirth in East and West German stepfamilies: Estimated probabilities from hazard rate models. Demographic Research, 7(6), 307–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juby, H., & Le Bourdais, C. (1999). Where have all the children gone? – Comparing mothers’ and fathers’ declarations in retrospective surveys. Canadian Studies in Population, 26(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juby, H., Le Bourdais, C., & Marcil-Gratton, N. (2001). A step further in family life: The emergence of the blended family. In A. Bélanger, Y. Carrière, & S. Gilbert (Eds.), Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada 2000 (pp. 169–203). Ottawa: Statistics Canada (cat. n° 91-209).

    Google Scholar 

  • Juby, H., Le Bourdais, C., & Marcil-Gratton, N. (2005). Moving on: The expansion of the family network after parents separate, Research Report. Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreyenfeld, M., Geisler, E., Castro Martin, T., Hannemann, T., Heintz-Martin, V., Jalovaara, M., Kulu, H., Meggiolaro, S., Mortelmans, D., Pasteels, I., Seiz, M., & Solaz, A. (2017). Social policies, seaparation, and second birth spacing in Europe. Demographic Research, 37(37), 1245–1274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laplante, B. (2016). A matter of norms: Family background, religion, and generational change in the diffusion of first union breakdown among French-speaking Quebeckers. Demographic Research, 35(27), 785–812.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laplante, B., & Fostik, A. L. (2015). Disentangling the Quebec fertility paradox: The recent evolution of fertility within marriage and consensual union in Quebec and Ontario. Canadian Studies in Population, 42(1–2), 81–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laplante, B., & Fostik, A. L. (2016). Cohabitation and marriage in Canada. The geography, law and politics of competing views on gender equality. In R. Lesthaeghe & A. Esteve Palós (Eds.), Partnership formation in the Americas: Geo-historical legacies and new trends (pp. 59–77). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lappegård, T., & Rønsen, M. (2013). Socioeconomic differences in multipartner fertility among Norwegian men. Demography, 50(3), 1135–1153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Bourdais, C., & Lapierre-Adamcyk, É. (2004). Changes in conjugal life in Canada: Is cohabitation progressively replacing marriage? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 929–942.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Bourdais, C., & Lapierre-Adamcyk, É. (2015). Who is in, who is out of (step)families? The impact of respondents’ gender and residential status. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung (Journal of Family Research), 10(Special Issue), 257–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Bourdais, C., D'Astous, P., & Desrosiers, H. (1995). Disparités régionales dans la propension des Canadiennes à vivre en famille recomposée. Cahiers de géographie du Québec, 39(106), 25–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Bourdais, C., Lapierre-Adamcyk, É., & Roy, A. (2014). Instabilité des unions libres: Une analyse comparative des facteurs démographiques. Recherches sociographiques, 55(1), 53–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesthaeghe, R. (1995). The second demographic transition in Western countries: An interpretation. In K. O. Mason & A.-M. Jensen (Eds.), Gender and family change in industrialized countries (pp. 17–62). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J.-C. A. (2006). The institutionalization and pace of fertility in American stepfamilies. Demographic Research, 14(12), 237–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2000). “Swapping” families: Serial parenting and economic support for children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(1), 111–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcil-Gratton, N., Juby, H., & Le Bourdais, C. (2003). Du passé conjugal des parents au devenir familial des enfants: un exemple de la nécessité d'une approche longitudinale. Sociologie et Sociétés, 35(1), 143–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monte, L. M. (2011). Multiple partner maternity versus multiple partner paternity: What matters for family trajectories. Marriage and Family Review, 47(2), 90–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monte, L. M. (2019). Multiple-partner fertility in the United States: A demographic portrait. Demography, 56(1), 103–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier, D. (2016). The diffusion of cohabitation and children’s risks of family dissolution in Canada. Demographic Research, 35(45), 1317–1342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rendall, M., Clarke, L., Peters, H. E., Ranjit, N., & Verropoulou, G. (1999). Incomplete reporting of men’s fertility in the United States and Britain: A research note. Demography, 36(1), 135–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Canada. (2011). Canadian vital statistics, divorce database and marriage database. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Canada. (2012). Portrait of Families and Living Arrangements in Canada. Ottawa: Statistics Canada (cat. n° 98-312-X2011001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Canada. (2019a). Table 13-10-0416-01. Live births, by age of mother. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310041601. Accessed 21 June 2019.

  • Statistics Canada. (2019b). Table 13-10-0419-01. Live births, by marital status of mother. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310041901. Accessed 21 June 2019.

  • Stewart, S. D. (2001). Contemporary American stepparenthood: Integrating cohabiting and nonresident stepparents. Population Research and Policy Review, 20(4), 345–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, S. D. (2002). The effect of stepchildren on childbearing intentions and births. Demography, 39(1), 181–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, E. (2004). Stepfamilies and childbearing intentions in Europe. Demographic Research, S3(5), 117–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, E., Lappegård, T., Carlson, M., Evans, A., & Gray, E. (2014). Childbearing across partnerships in Australia, the United States, Norway, and Sweden. Demography, 51(2), 485–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulemon, L., & Pennec, S. (2010). Multi-residence in France and Australia. Why count them? What is at stake? Double counting and actual family situations. Demographic Research, 23(1), 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Kaa, D. J. (1987). Europe’s second demographic transition. Population Studies, 42(1), 1–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vikat, A., Thomson, E., & Prskawetz, A. (2004). Childrearing responsibility and stepfamily fertility in Finland and Austria. European Journal of Population, 20(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Z., & Schimmele, C. M. (2005). Repartnering after first union disruption. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(1), 27–36.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Work on this article received support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (grant no. 435-2013-0048) and the McGill Canada Research Chair on Social Statistics and Family Change (SSHRC grant no. 950-224544). The analysis was conducted at the McGill Branch of the Quebec Interuniversity Centre for Social Statistics (QICSS) which is part of the Canadian Research Data Centre Network (CRDCN). The services and activities provided by the QICSS are made possible by the financial or in-kind support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), Statistics Canada, the Fonds de recherche du Québec - Société et culture (FRQSC) and Santé (FRQS) – and the Quebec universities.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, McGill University, 855 Sherbrooke West, Montréal, Québec, H3A 2T7, Canada

    Ana Fostik & Céline Le Bourdais

Authors
  1. Ana Fostik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Céline Le Bourdais
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Céline Le Bourdais.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Table 5 Characteristics of men and women aged 25–64 years
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fostik, A., Le Bourdais, C. Regional Variations in Multiple-Partner Fertility in Canada. Can. Stud. Popul. 47, 73–95 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42650-020-00024-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42650-020-00024-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation