Reference no: EM131090092

Week 2: Discussion questions

Goldstein and Kenney (2001)

1. What do you see as the shortcomings of the Coale-McNeil model described by Goldstein and Kenney (G&K) (pp.510-11)?

2. What explanations (substantive or methodological) might we give for the vastly different conclusions about the future of marriage drawn by Retherford, Ogawa, and Matsukura (ROM) for Japan and G&K for the U.S.?

Oppenheimer (1988)

1. The theoretical explanation for changing marriage timing proposed by Oppenheimer (1988, 1994) is probably very attractive to life course sociologists. What are some of the key foci of the life course approach found in Oppenheimer's theory?

2. I imagine that a common response among the lay population to the way in which demographers study marriage is the absence of any emphasis on key determinants of marriage such as love, physical attraction, and shared interests/goals. How do you respond to such criticism? How would Oppenheimer respond?

3. This question anticipates some of the readings on marriage markets, but I'd like to think about what kinds of data and analytical methods one would need to evaluate Oppenheimer's (1988) spouse search model. That is, what kinds of data and methods would we need to conduct empirical analyses of marriage timing that do justice to the complexity of her model? Given data and methodological limitations, what kinds of empirical evaluations do you think are possible?

Oppenheimer (1994)

1. Oppenheimer criticizes what she refers to as the "specialization and trading model of marriage" or "the reduced gains to marriage" explanation and proposes an alternative model. What are the key components or key theoretical building blocks of these two alternative models?

2. On what grounds does Oppenheimer criticize the "specialization and trading model?"

3. How has the specialization and trading model typically been empirically evaluated? What kind of support has it received? How does support depend on the nature of the data used? What do you think of the way in which women's "economic independence" has typically been operationalized?

4. These two alternative models present a common dilemma in family research - both predict the same general relationship, i.e., a negative relationship between indicators of women's economic resources and marriage. How can the two alternative models be evaluated when they predict the same outcome? (Note that some of the non-required readings may be helpful here - Oppenheimer and Lew (1995) and Raymo (1998) in particular).

5. Oppenheimer (1994) also presents several plausible explanations for empirical evidence that does not support either of the above explanations (e.g. the results presented in the Goldstein and Kenney paper). What are some of the possible explanations for evidence indicating that women's economic status may actually be positively associated with marriage?

6. What do these models say about the marriage behavior of men? Can studies of male marriage behavior shed any light on different theoretical explanations for changes in women's marriage behavior?

7. What do these two alternative models of marriage timing say about other family behaviors (e.g., cohabitation, divorce, fertility)? That is, how do these other dimensions of family change fit into explanations of change in marriage timing? Or alternatively, how do these two models of marriage timing, proving insights helpful in understanding change in other family processes?

8. Where do changes in attitudes and/or expectations fit into these models?

9. What is the role of welfare in the specialization and trading model of marriage?

10. Why is the issue of later marriage one of policy concern, i.e., why do people care about trends in marriage timing?

11. Why has the specialization and trading model of marriage provided an appealing explanation to such diverse groups as "family values" politicians and feminists?

12. What evidence does Oppenheimer (1994) offer in her critique of the specialization and trading model?

Retherford, Ogawa, and Matsukura (2001)

1. I have obviously not included the Retherford, Ogawa, and Matsukura (ROM) article for its methodological rigor or sophistication, but rather for its comparative value. (ROM) take a kind of "kitchen sink" approach in trying to explain the truly dramatic changes taking place in Japanese marriage timing. How do the many components of their analysis fit with the two theoretical frameworks discussed in the papers by Oppenheimer? Are there other components that appear different (perhaps unique to Japan)?

2. A semantic question: What do you perceive to be the difference between marriage "squeezes" and marriage market "mismatches"? The ROM article discusses both.

3. ROM estimate proportional hazards models to evaluate the effect of education on marriage and use the estimated coefficients to calculate life table estimates of the proportion who never marry. What do you think of this strategy? Why might this not be a very good approach?

4. ROM also use life table measures of age at marriage (SMAM) and non-marriage (S50) to describe changing marriage behavior. What do you think of this approach? (and their use of LCR - lifetime celibacy rate)? What are the limitations/problems with these measures?