Mapping FaMily Change And

7/27/2019 Mapping FaMily Change And

1/72

An International Report rom

ANNIE E. CASEY FOUNDATION FOCUS GLOBAL SOCIAL TRENDS INSTITUTE

Co-Sponsors:

INSTITUTE OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY CANADA NETHERLANDS YOUTH INSTITUTE SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY UNIVERSIDAD DE LOS ANDES (CHILE)

UNIVERSITY OF ASIA AND THE PACIFIC (PHILIPPINES) UNIVERSIDAD DE LA SABANA (COLOMBIA) UNIVERSIDAD DE PIURA (PERU)

Sponsors:

Mapping FaMily Change andChild Well-being outCoMes

WorldFamilymap 2013

ESSAYTWo, one, or no parenTs

Childrens LivinArrangements an

Educational OutcomeAround the Worl


2/72

Mapping FaMily Change andChild Well-being outCoMes

Board o Advisors

Melania Bartholomew (Universidad de los Andes, Chile)Georgina Binstock (Centro de Estudios de Poblacin, Argentina)

Paul Corcuera (Universidad de Piura, Peru)

Anjli Panalal Doshi (Ministry o Women, Family & Community Development, Malaysia)

Parait Eloundou-Enyegue (Cornell University)

Frances Goldscheider (Brown University (emerita) & University o Maryland)

Bong Joo Lee (Seoul National University, Korea)

Kristin A. Moore (Child rends)

Andrea Mrozek (Institute o Marriage and Family Canada)

Andrs Salazar, (Universidad de La Sabana, Colombia)

Laura Speer (Annie E. Casey Foundation)Glenn Stanton (Focus Global)

Arland Tornton (University o Michigan)

Antonio orralba (University o Asia and the Pacic)

Erik Jan de Wilde (Netherlands Youth Institute)

Wei-Jun Jean Yeung (National University o Singapore)

Copyright

Child rends is a nonprot, nonpartisan research center that studies children at every stage o development.

Its mission is to improve outcomes or children by providing research, data, and analysis to the people andinstitutions whose decisions and actions aect children. For additional inormation on Child rends, including

a complete set o ree, downloadable Research Bries, visit our Web site at www.childtrends.org. For the latest

inormation on more than 100 key indicators o child and youth well-being, visit the Child rends DataBank at

www.childtrendsdatabank.org. For summaries o more than 565 experimental evaluations o social interventions

or children, visit www.childtrends.org/LINKS. Child rends materials are copyrighted, but can be used i Child

rends is cited.

WorldFamilymap 2013


3/72

Laura H. Lippman & W. Bradord Wilcox

Te amily is a core social institution that occupies a central place in the lives o men, women, and children around the

world: It is

uc ut, t btc, t vu cctv chvt;

ut cc uct cut;

t hv tht c t b uc t t;

vhc xtg cgvg cutu c th gt, btt w.

raditionally, the amily has been dened as a group o people linked through blood, marriage, or adoption, typically centered

on a married couple and their dependents and relatives. However, nontraditional amilies made up o people linked neither by

blood nor by marriage have oten existed, and are now ound in growing numbers in many regions around the world.

Given the centrality o the amily to child and adult well-being and the changing dynamics and structure o amilies

today, an urgent need exists to map trends in amily lie across the globe, with a special ocus on the consequences

o these trends or children. Enter Te World Family Map Project, a new, nonpartisan, nonsectarian initiative rom

Child rends, acting in partnership with a number o oundations, nongovernmental organizations, and universities,

including the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Focus Global, and the Social rends Institute.

Te World Family Map Project seeks both to monitor the health o amily lie around the globe and to learn more about

how amily trends aect the well-being o children. Tis eort is particularly timely because o dramatic demographic,

cultural, and economic changes aecting amily lie. Fertility and marriage rates are alling in much o the world,

especially in higher income regions. Te percentage o children living in two-parent amilies is also alling, particularly in

Europe, the Americas, and Oceania. Likewise, individualism is on the ascendancy, as is equality between the sexes, while

amily-centered values and adherence to traditional gender roles are losing ground in many regions. Te global economic

slowdown is also putting major pressures on amily lie, yet it is precisely in these times that strong amilies are needed

to support optimal child and youth development. Te World Family Map Project aims to broaden understanding about

how these developments among amilies aect children and youth in dierent regions o the world.

In pursuit o this mission, the project will issue an annual report, Te World Family Map, designed to paint a holistic

portrait o global amily lie by mapping trends in amily structure, amily socioeconomics, amily processes, and

amily culture in every region o the world. Te report will be the rst to provide internationally comparative data or

low-, middle-, and high-income countries on key characteristics o amilies across the selected domains. Te report

will also eature an essay on a topic o major international import to the amily, usually related to child well-being.

Executive Summary


4/72

4

For its inaugural 2013 edition, Te World Family Mapcovers amily trends in 45 countries. aken together, these countries

represent every region o the world, as well as a majority o the worlds population. Tis inaugural edition also eatures an

essay, wo, One or No Parents? Childrens Living Arrangements and Educational Outcomes Around the World, which explores

the links between one indicator o amily structure (i.e., the number o parents in the household) and childrens educational

outcomes in low-, medium-, and high-income countries.

Te indicators section oTe World Family Mapshows that amily trends and strengths vary markedly by region. Here

are some highlights:

Family Structure

athugh tw-t bcg c, th t cttut jt

u th gb. Ch t k t v tw-t a th

m et, wht k t v tw-t th ac, eu,

oc, sub-sh ac.

ext t b c a, th m et, suth ac, sub-sh ac.

Family Socioeconomics

Th t but vt th cut tu th t g z

ct v cut t 64 ct ng. Th t tv vt

ch g x ct (nth) t 33 ct (pu), wth th wt t u

a, eu, oc, th hght t u suth ac.

Th wt v t uct ttt u ac, w b a, th

m et, Ct suth ac. Th hght v u nth ac Wt eu.

Family Processes

Btw x ct (suth K) 39 ct (agt) 15-- cu tc

c u wth th t v t wk.

Th ctg 15-- wh t wth th gu v w

thughut th w, gg 62 ct i t 94 ct it.

Family Culture i th jt cut, t ut bv tht wkg th c tbh jut g

th wth th ch t-t-h th c.

i th jt cut, t ut bv tht ch h wth bth th

th t gw u h.


5/72

5

Tese amily trends are related to distinct patterns o economic wealth, amily solidarity, education, religiosity, and

urbanization, actors that oten cut in dierent directions, depending on the trend. Te World Family Mapalso shows that

no one country or region excels in all o the domains mapped out by the report.

Finally, the report s main essaywo, One or No Parents? Childrens Living Arrangements and Educational Outcomes Around

the Worldpresents strong evidence that children living in two-parent amilies in middle- and high-income countriesare more likely to stay on track in school and demonstrate higher reading literacy than are children living with one or no

parents. In these high- and middle-income countries, the additional nancial, social, and cultural capital that two parents

can provide to their children appears to give them an educational advantage over their peers rom single-parent homes and

those who do not live with either o their parents.

However, this amily structure advantage is not ound in many low-income countries (mostly in the southern hemisphere).

In these countries, children in one-parent households oten do about as well as or sometimes even better than children in

two-parent households on indicators such as secondary school enrollment and being the right age or their grade. Tere

are several reasons why children in single-parent households in poorer countries may be perorming well academically.

Te amily may receive social and nancial support rom extended kin or the resident parent may draw on the nancialresources o the nonresident parent who is working as a migrant worker away rom home. It is also possible that children

may benet rom living with single mothers i these mothers invest in their childrens education more heavily than do

athers and i single mothers have more control over the resources and decision-making that support childrens education.

In many low-income countries, amily structure simply may not matter as much or childrens education, given the

many obstacles to good educational outcomes that aect children in all types o amilies. Parents may not be able to

aord schooling or their children; schools and teachers may be inadequate; parents and their children may suer rom

poor health and nutrition; seasonal labor demands may take priority; and attitudes toward school may militate against

achievement.

Te inaugural World Family Mapessay concludes by noting the anomaly o the increasing ragility o two-parent amilies

in most middle- and high-income countries even as the evidence shows that such households give children a hand up in

excelling educationally. Ironically, perhaps, low-income countries may provide insight about how to strengthen amilies in a

climate o instability, both socially and economically, insoar as those countries rely on extended kin to buer children rom

the eects o single parenthood or orphanhood.

Overall, this report demonstrates the importance o monitoring the strength o the amily globally, and the benet o

understanding the variety o ways in which amilies contribute to the well-being o children and youth.


6/72

eXeCUTiVe sUmmary

World Family indiCaTors- Family sTrUCTUre

- Family soCioeConomiCs

- Family proCess

- Family CUlTUre

essay

tWo, one, or no parents? Children's living arrangeMentsand eduCational outCoMes around the World

ConClUsion

aCKnoWledGemenTs

3

10203442

48

TABLE OFCONTENTS

67

BaCK CoVer


7/72


8/72

8

General Methods

Figure 1

ASIA

MIDDLE

EAST

SUB-SAHARAN

AFRICA

CENTRAL AND

SOUTH AMERICA

NORTH

AMERICA

OCEANIA

WESTERN

EUROPE

EASTERN

EUROPE

NOT SELECTED

FOR WFM

COUNTRIES IN THE 2013 WORLD FAMILY MAP

China

India

Indonesia

Japan

Malaysis

Philippines

Singapore

SouthKorea

Taiwan

Egypt

Israel

Jordan

Qatar

SaudiArabia

Turkey

Ethiopia

Kenya

Nigeria

SouthAfrica

Argentina

Bolivia

Brazil

Chile

Colombia

CostaRica

Nicaragua

Paraguay

Peru

Canada

Mexico

UnitedStates

Australia

NewZealand

France

Germany

Ireland

Italy

Netherlands

Spain

Sweden

UnitedKingdom

Hungary

Poland

R o m a n i a

ASIA

MIDDLE

EAST

CENTRALAND

SOUTHAMERICA

NORTH

AMERICA

OCEANIA

WESTERN

EUROPE

EASTERN

SUB-S

AHARAN

AFRICA


9/72

9

sctg ct: Indicators were selected by the study team along with advisors representing every regiono the world using a research-based conceptual ramework o amily strengths. Four groups o indicators were generated

in the ollowing domains: amily structure, amily socioeconomics, amily process, and amily culture. Indicators were

chosen or each domain based upon their importance to amily and child well-being, data availability, and regional

representation, and in order to achieve balance in the number o indicators across domains.

sctg cut: When designing this report, it was necessary to select a set o countries that could providedata across the selected indicators as well as in the essay on living arrangements o children and their education outcomes.

While it was not possible to include all o the approximately 200 countries in the world, countries were selected to ensure

regional representation o high-, middle-, and low-income countries, and data availability or the desired time period was

considered as well, resulting in 45 countries that account or a majority o the worlds population. See Figure 1. As data

availability on key indicators o amily well-being increases, Te World Family Mapwill be able to include more countries.

dt uc: Tere are numerous data sources available on indicators o amily well-being. Te sources presented here(see Data Sources below) were selected or their quality and coverage o countries as well as indicators. Tese sources have a strong

reputation o rigorous data collection methodologies across countries, or i data are collected rom individual country sources, suchas censuses, they were harmonized post data collection to ensure comparability across countries. In addition, data sources were

chosen in which multiple countries were represented; however, data rom the same source may not be available or all countries or

or the same year across countries, so caution is needed in making comparisons. For each indicator a primary data source was chosen.

When data or a particular country were not available rom that source, other sources were used to supplement. In some cases, it was

necessary to sacrice recency to ensure consistency and comparability in measurement across countries.

Cut-v sucWhen data were not available rom an internationalsource, country-level data sources were sought. Examples include data rom national

statistic bureaus and country-level surveys.

dghc Hth suv (dHs) DHS is a survey o over 90 low-income nations, ocusing on population and health inormation. Tis report uses the

most recent data available or each country, ranging rom 2001 to 2011.

F agcutu ogzt (Fao) As part o the United Nations,FAO compiles statistics on ood- and agriculture-related indicators, including

undernourishment. Te most recent data are rom 2010-12 and are published in their

report Te State o Food Insecurity in the World.

itgt pubc U mct s-itt (ipUms)IPUMS is a compilation o harmonized censuses rom countries throughout the

world. Tis report uses the most recent data available or each country, ranging rom

1990 to 2010.

itt sc suv pg (issp) ISSP is a collaboration betweenannual national surveys to ensure data comparability on social science questions. Tis

report uses their 2002 collection on amily and changing gender roles. Unortunately,

data are only available or a handul o countries that are not representative o regions.

ISSP is conducting a similar set o items in 2012; the data will be released in 2013.

lis ( kw th luxbug ic stu) LIS is acollection o harmonized data on the income and wealth o individuals in middle- and

high-income countries. Data rom LIS used in this report range rom 2000 to 2010.

ogzt ecc Ct dvt (oeCdOECDs Family Database provides cross-national statistics on the well-being o

amilies and children throughout OECDs member and partner countries. A 2011

OECD report, Doing Better or Families, was also used as a source. OECD data used

in this report are generally rom 2007.

pg itt stut at (pisa) PISA is aninternational tri-annual assessment o literacy in reading, mathematics, and science.

PISA is administered in all OECD member countries as well as additional sel-selected

countries. Te indicator section o this report uses data rom the contextual part o the

2000 survey. Unortunately, the items o interest were asked in a small group o countri

in the 2009 survey. o ensure comparability, this report uses 2000 data.

UniCeF ict rch Ct A 2012 UNICEF report,MeasuringChild Poverty: New League ables o Child Poverty in the World's Rich Countries, was use

or up-to-date relative poverty rates.

W Vu suv (WVs) WVS is a survey o political and socioculturalvalues in over 50 countries. Tis report uses the most recent data available or each

country, rom the ourth and th survey waves, ranging rom 1999 to 2008. Te next

wave is currently being conducted.

For more inormation on specic sources, see ependix at wmm./-x.

Data Sources


10/72

10

Key Findings

Childrens lives are inuenced by the number o parents and siblings that they live with, as well as by whether their parents

are married. Te World Family Mapreports these key indicators o amily structure in this section.

athugh tw-t bcg c t th w, th t

cttut jt u th gb. Ch u g 18 k t v

tw-t th th a th m et, c wth

th g th w. Ch k t v wth t th ac,

eu, oc, sub-sh ac th th g.

ext (whch cu t() k ut th uc )

t b c a, th m et, suth ac, sub-sh ac, but t th

g th w.

mg t cg g. aut t k t b ac, a,

th m et, t k t b suth ac, wth eu, nth

ac, oc g btw. Chbtt (vg tgth wthut g)

c g cu eu, nth ac, oc, c suth ac.

Chbg t cg ww. Th hght tt t sub-sh ac.

a w gv bth t vg 5.5 ch ngw c t v th

1980, but t hgh b w t. mt t tt (2.3-3.1) u th

m et, v tt tht uct t c cut ut th xt

gt (but 2.1) u th ac oc. Bw ct-v tt

u et a eu.

Gv th c g t, chbg ut g t

chbg cg g. Th hght t t chbg

u suth ac eu, g c chbtt, wth t t

u nth ac oc, v t u sub-sh ac, th wt

t u a th m et.

Family Structure


11/72

11

Living Arrangements

Family living arrangementshow many parents are in the household and whether the household includes extended

amily membersshape the character and contexts o childrens lives, as well as the human resources available or

children. As evidenced in Figures 2 and 3, which are derived rom IPUMS, DHS, and national censuses, the living

arrangements that children experience vary substantially around the globe.

Kinship ties are particularly powerul in much o Asia, the Middle East, South America, and Sub-Saharan Arica. In the majority

o the countries in these regions, more than 40 percent o children lived in households with other adults besides their parents.See

Figure 2. In many cases, these adults were extended amily members. Indeed, at least hal o children lived with adults besides

their parents in parts o Arica (Kenya [52 percent], Nigeria [59 percent], and South Arica [70 percent]); Asia (India [50 percent]);

and South America (Nicaragua [55 percent], Peru [51 percent], and Colombia [61 percent]). In these regions, then, children were

especially likely to be aected by their relationships with other adults in the household, including grandparents, uncles, and cousins,

compared with children living in regions where extended household members played smaller roles in childrens day-to-day lives.

Whether in nuclear or extended amily households, children were especially likely to live with two parents (who could

be biological parents or step parents) in Asia and the Middle East. See Figure 3. On the basis o the data availableor the specic countries examined in these regions, more than 80 percent o children in these three regions lived with

two parents (ranging rom 84 percent in Israel/urkey to 92 percent in Jordan). About 80 to 90 percent o children in

European countries lived in two-parent households (ranging rom 76 percent in the United Kingdom to 89 percent

in Italy/Poland). In the Americas, about one-hal to three-quarters o children lived in two-parent households,

rom 53 percent in Colombia to 78 percent in Canada. Te two-parent pattern was more mixed in Sub-Saharan

Arica, ranging rom 36 percent (South Arica) to 69 percent (Nigeria). Some o these children living in two-parent

households were also living with extended amilies, as noted above.

By contrast, in much o South America and Sub-Saharan Arica, rom 16 percent (Bolivia) to 43 percent (South

Arica) o children lived in single-parent amilies and rom our percent (Argentina) to 20 percent (South Arica)o children lived in homes without either o their parents. Among the South American countries in this study, or

instance, Colombia had the highest percentage o children living without either o their parents: 12 percent. Te high

percentage o South Arican children living with one parent or without either parent43 percent and 20 percent,

respectively reects the high incidence o AIDS orphans,1 as well as adult mortality rom other causes and labor

migration.

Finally, although a small percentage o children in North America, Oceania, and Europe lived in households without

at least one o their parents, a large minorityabout one-thlived in single-parent households. Rates were slightly

lower in Europe. In these regions, the United States (27 percent), the United Kingdom (24 percent), and New

Zealand (24 percent) had particularly high levels o single parenthood. Many European countries have projected the

proportion o children living with single parents to grow through 2030.2

In sum, the regional patterns identied in this section oTe World Family Mapsuggest that children are especially likely

to live with two parents in Asia and the Middle East. Elsewhere large minorities o children live with either one parent

1 Neddy Rita Matshalaga and Greg Powell, "Mass Orphanhood in the Era o HIV/AIDS," British Medical Journal324 (2002), Anthony J. McMichael et al.,

"Mortality rends and Setbacks: Global Convergence or Divergence," Lancet 363 (2004).

2 Organization or Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), "Doing Better or Families," (OECD, 2011).


12/72

0-25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

NO DATA

0

50

100

Chi

na(1990)

Ind

ia(2004)

Indonesia(2010)

Jap

an(2007)

Malaysia(2000)

Philippin

es(2000)

S

ingapore

Sou

thKorea

Taiwan

Egy

pt(2006)

Isra

el(1995)

Jorda

n1

(2009)

Qatar

Sau

diArabia

Turk

ey(2000)

Ethiop

ia1

(2011)

Keny

a1

(2003)

Niger

ia1

(2008)

SouthAfrica(2007)

Argenti

na(2001)

Boliv

ia1

(2008)

Bra

zil(2000)

Ch

ile(2002)

Colomb

ia1

(2010)

CostaRica(2000)

Nicarag

ua(2005)

Paraguay

Pe

ru(2007)

Canad

a6

(2011)

Mexi

co(2010)

UnitedStates(20

05,

2011)

Australia

2(

20

09-

2010)

NewZealand(2007)

Fran

ce(2006)

German

y3

(2011)

Ireland(2006)

Italy(2001)

Netherlan

ds(2008)

Spa

in(2001)

Swede

n4

(2010)

UnitedKingdom

5(

2010)

Hunga

ry(2001)

Poland(2008)

R o m a n

i a ( 2 0 0 2 )

LIVING ARRANGEMENTS, 1990-2011Figure 2

ASIA

MIDDLE

EAST

CENTRALAND

SOUTHAMERICA

NORTH

AMERICA

OCEANIA

WESTERN

EUROPE

EASTERN

SUB-S

AHARAN

AFRICA

PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN LIVING WITH PROBABLE EXTENDED FAMILY (ADULTS IN ADDITION TO PARENTS)

NOT SELECTED

FOR WFM

Sources: www.wmm./2013/-x/f2


13/72

ASIA

LIVING ARRANGEMENTS, 1990-2011

MIDDLE

EAST

100

50

0

100

50

0

SUB-S

AH

ARAN

AFRI

CA

100

50

0

CENTRALAND

SOUTHAMERICA

100

50

0

NORTH

AMERICA

OCEANIA

100

50

0

100

50

0

WE

STERN

EU

ROPE

100

50

0

EASTERN

EUROPE

100

50

0

Figure 3

% of childrewith two par

% of childrewith one par

% of childrewith no pare



















China(1990) India(2004) Indonesia(2010) Japan

7

(2007) Malaysia(2000) Philippines(2000)

100

50

0

Egypt(2006)

Israel(1995)

Jordan1

(2009)

Turkey(2000)

Ethiopia1

(2011)

Kenya1

(2003)

Nigeria1

(2008)

South Africa(2007)

Argentina(2001)

Bolivia1

(2008)

Brazil(2000)

Chile(2002)

Colombia1

(2010)

Costa Rica(2000)

Nicaragua(2005)

Peru(2007)

Canada6

(2011)

Mexico(2010)

United States9

(2011)Australia2

(2009-2010)

New Zealand7

(2007)

France(2006)

Germany3

(2011)

Ireland(2006)

Italy(2001)

Netherlands8

(2008)

Spain(2001)

Sweden4

(2010)

United Kingdom5

(2010)

Hungary(2001)

Poland8

(2008)

Romania(2002)



14/72

14

(Europe, North America, Oceania, South America, and Sub-Saharan Arica) or neither parent (South America and Sub-

Saharan Arica). Extended amilies are common in Asia, the Middle East, South America, and Sub-Saharan Arica.

In general, then, extended kinship ties to children appear to be stronger in low-income regions o the world, and children

are more likely to live in two-parent amilies in regions where higher incomes or marriages (see below) are more prevalent.

Marriage and Cohabitation

Te nature, unction, and rsthand experience o marriage varies around the world. Marriage looks and eels dierent

in Sweden, compared with the experience in Saudi Arabia; in China, compared with the experience in Canada; and in

Argentina, compared with the experience in Australia. Nevertheless, across time and space, in most societies and cultures,

marriage has been an important institution or structuring adult intimate relationships and connecting parents to one another

and to any children that they have together.3 In particular, in many countries, marriage has played an important role in

providing a stable context or bearing and rearing children, and or integrating athers into the lives o their children. 4

However, today the hold o marriage as an institution over the adult lie course and the connection between marriage

and parenthood vary around much o the globe. Dramatic increases in cohabitation, divorce, and nonmarital childbearingin the Americas, Europe, and Oceania over the last our decades suggest that the institution o marriage is much less

relevant in these parts o the world.5 At the same time, the meaning o marriage appears to be shiting in much o the

world. Marriage is becoming more o an option or adults, rather than a necessity or the survival o adults and children.

Cohabitation has emerged an important precursor or alternative to marriage in many countries or any number o reasons.

Adults may look or more exibility or reedom in their relationships, or they may eel that they do not have sucient

nancial or emotional resources to marry, or they may perceive marriage as a risky undertaking.6

Given the changing patterns and perceptions about marriage and cohabitation in many contemporary societies, this section

oTe World Family Mapmeasures how prevalent marriage and cohabitation are among adults in their prime childbearing

and childrearing years (18-49) around the globe.

Figure 4 provides inormation compiled rom censuses and surveys conducted in 41 countries around the world,

primarily in the early- and mid-2000s. Tese data indicate that adults aged 18-49 were most likely to be married in Arica,

Asia, and the Middle East, and were least likely to be married in South America. Marriage levels ell in the moderate

range (about hal ) in most o Europe, Oceania, and North America. Moreover, the data show that a larger percentage o

adults were cohabiting in Europe, the Americas, and Oceania than in other regions.

3 See, or example, B. Chapais, Primeval Kinship: How Pair Bonding Gave Birth to Human Society(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008), K. Davis,

Contemporary Marriage: Comparative Perspectives on a Changing Institution (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1985), W. J. Goode, World Revolution and Family

Patterns(New York: Free Press, 1963).

4 Chapais, Primeval Kinship: How Pair Bonding Gave Birth to Human Society, P. Heuveline, J. imberlake, M., and F. F. Furstenberg, "Shiting Childrearing to Single

Mothers: Results rom 17 Western Countries," Population and Development Review 29 (2003).

5 R. Lesthaeghe, "A Century o Demographic and Cultural Change in Western Europe: An Exploration o Underlying Dimensions," Population and Development

Review 9 (1983), P. McDonald, Families in Australia: A Socio-Demographic Perspective(Melbourne: Australian Institute o Family Studies, 1995), D. Popenoe,

"Cohabitation, Marriage, and Child Well-Being: A Cross-National Perspective," (New Brunswick, NJ: Te National Marriage Project, 2008).

6 A. Cherlin, Te Marriage-Go-Round: Te State o Marriage and the Family in America oday(New York: Knop, 2009), S. Coontz,Marriage: A History: From Obedience

to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage(New York: Te Penguin Group, 2005), W. J. Goode, World Change in Divorce Patterns(New Haven, C: Yale University

Press, 1993), Heuveline, imberlake, and Furstenberg, "Shiting Childrearing to Single Mothers: Results rom 17 Western Countries."


15/72

% of adultsreproductiv(18-49) ma

% of adultsreproductiv(18-49) coh

ASIA

MARRIAGE AND COHABITATION, 1990-2011

MIDDLE

EAST

100

50

0

100

50

0

SUB-S

AHARAN

AFRICA

100

50

0

CENTRALAND

SOUTHAMERICA

100

50

0

NORTH

AMERICA

OCEANIA

100

50

0

100

50

0

WE

STERN

EU

ROPE

100

50

0

EASTERN

EUROPE

100

50

0

Figure 4











China1

(1990)

India1

(2004)

Indonesia1

(2010)

Malaysia1

(2000)

Philippines(2001)

Singapore(2002)

South Korea(2005)

Taiwan(2006)

100

50

0

Egypt(2008)

Israel1

(1995)

Jordan(2007)

Turkey(2007)

Ethiopia2

(2011)

Kenya2,3

(2008-2009)

Nigeria2,3

(2008)

South Africa(2007)

Argentina(2006)

Bolivia2,3

(2001)

Brazil(2006)

Chile(2005)

Colombia2

(2010)

Costa Rica1

(2000)

Nicaragua2

(2001)

Paraguay2,6

(2001)

Peru(2008)

Canada(2006)

Mexico(2000)

United States1,4

(2005)Australia(2005)

France(2006)

Germany(2006)

Ireland1,4

(2006)

Italy1,4

(2005)

Netherlands8

(2006)

Spain(2007)

Sweden(2006)

Great Britain(2006)

Hungary1,5

(2001)

Poland(2005)

Romania1,4

(2002)

Russian Federation(2006)





16/72

16

As Figure 4 also shows, between 47 (Singapore) and 77 percent (India) o the young adult population in the Asian

countries included in this report were married, and marriage was even more common in the Middle East, where a clear

majority o adults (between 61 [urkey] and 80 [Egypt] percent) were married.

By contrast, marriage patterns ell in the mid-range, or were less consistent, in the Americas, Europe, and Sub-Saharan

Arica. In North America and Oceania, about hal o adults aged 18-49 were married, ranging rom 43 (Canada) to 58

percent (Mexico). In the Sub-Saharan Arican countries studied, marriage patterns showed a great deal o variation,

with between 30 (South Arica) and 67 percent (Nigeria) o adults aged 18-49 married. Indeed, South Arica had one

o the lowest marriage levels o any country included in this study. Likewise, among the European countries, between 37

(Sweden) and 60 percent (Romania) o adults aged 18-49 were married, with marriage clearly being more common in

Eastern Europe. By contrast, in South America, generally, less than 40 percent o adults were married; in Colombia, the

proportion o married adults in that age group was a low 19 percent.

Figure 4 indicates that cohabitation was rare in Asia and the Middle East, two regions where relatively traditional mores

still dominate amily lie. Moderate to high levels o cohabitation were ound in North America and Oceania, where

between eight (Mexico/United States) and 19 percent (Canada) o adults aged 18-49 were in cohabiting relationships.

Levels o cohabitation in Sub- Saharan Arica varied considerably, with comparatively high levels o cohabitation in South

Arica (13 percent) and low levels in Ethiopia (4 percent), Nigeria (2 percent), and Kenya (4 percent).

Te data also show high levels o cohabitation in much o Europe. For example about one-quarter o Swedish and French

adults aged 18-49 were living in a cohabiting relationship. Cohabitation is most common among South Americans,

where consensual unions have played a longstanding role in South American society.7 Between 12 (Chile) and 39 percent

(Colombia) o adults aged 18-49 lived in cohabiting unions in South America, with Colombia registering the highest level

o cohabitation o any country in our global study.

In general, marriage seems to be more common in Asia and the Middle East, whereas alternatives to marriageincluding

cohabitationwere more common in Europe and South America. North America, Oceania, and Sub-Saharan Arica ellin between. Both cultural and economic orces may help to account or these regional dierences.

It remains to be seen, however, how the varied place o marriage in societyand the increasing popularity o cohabitation

in many regions o the worldaect the well-being o children in countries around the globe.

Childbearing

Family size also aects the well-being o children, in part because children in large amilies tend to receive ewer nancial

and practical investments than do children in small amilies.8 Alternatively, some research suggests that children who grow

up without siblings lose out on important social experiences.9 How, then, is region linked to amily size around the globe?

Table 1 presents the total ertility rate (the average number o children born to each woman o childbearing age) as a

proxy or amily size. Tese data indicate that large amilies were most common in Sub-Saharan Arica, where the total

7 . Castro Martin, "Consensual Unions in Latin America: Persistence o a Dual Nuptiality System,"Journal o Comparative Family Systems33 (2002).

8 D. Downey, "When Bigger Is Not Better: Family Size, Parental Resources, and Children's Educational Perormance," American Sociological Review60, no. 5 (1995).

9 D. Downey and D. Condron, "Playing Well with Others in Kindergarten: Te Benet o Siblings at Home," Journal o Marr iage & Family66, no. 2 (2004).


17/72

17

ertility rate (FR) ranged rom 2.5 children per woman in South Arica to 5.5 per woman in Nigeria. Fertility was also

high in the Middle East, ranging rom a FR o 2.4 in urkey to a FR o 3.1 in Jordan.

In the Americas and Oceania, ertility rates are now close to the replacement level o 2.1. Tis means that women in most

countries in these regions were having enough children or the population to replace itsel rom one generation to the next

or levels that were just slightly below replacement levels. For instance, the FR was 1.9 in Australia, 1.9 in Chile, 2.3 in

Mexico, and 1.9 in the United States. It is worth noting that ertility has allen markedly in South America in the last our

decades, which is one reason that ertility rates in South America (which range rom a FR o 1.8 in Brazil and Costa

Rica to 3.3 in Bolivia) now come close to paralleling those in North America and Oceania.10

Fertility rates in Europe had increased since their lows in the early 2000s, but generally remained below the replacement

level.11 Ireland had a replacement level FR o 2.1, but the FRs or all other countries in this region ell below this level,

ranging rom 1.4 to 2.0.

Finally, ertility rates in Asia, especially East Asia, have allen dramatically in recent years and vary substantially, to the

point where the FR ranged rom 3.1 (Philippines) to 1.1 (aiwan).12 Indeed, no country in East Asia had a ertility rate

higher than 1.4. Te long-term consequences o such low ertilityboth or the children themselves and or the societies

they live inremain to be seen.

10 A. Adsera and A. Menendez, "Fertili ty Changes in Latin America in Periods o Economic Uncertainty," Population Studies65, no. 1 (2011).

11 Organization or Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), "Doing Better or Families."

12 Social rends Institute, Te Sustainable Demographic Dividend (Barcelona: Social rends Institute, 2011).

ASIA

TOTAL FERTILITY RATE, 2010Table 1

1.2

2.6

2.1

1.4

2.6

3.1

1.3

1.3

1.1

China15

India

Indonesia

JapanMalaysia

Philippines

Singapore

South Korea

Taiwan13

2.2

3.3

1.8

1.9

2.4

1.8

2.6

3.0

2.5

Argentina

Bolivia

Brazil

ChileColombia

Costa Rica

Nicaragua

Paraguay

Peru

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

4.2

4.7

5.5

2.5

Ethiopia

Kenya

Nigeria

South Africa

MIDDLE EAST

2.7

2.9

3.1

2.3

2.8

2.4

Egypt

Israel

Jordan

QatarSaudi Arabia

Turkey

NORTH AMERICA

1.7

2.3

1.9

Canada

Mexico

United States14

EASTERN EUROPE

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.5

Hungary

Poland

Romania

Russian Federation

WESTERN EUROPE

2.0

1.4

2.1

1.4

1.8

1.5

1.9

1.9

France

Germany

Ireland

Italy

Netherlands

Spain

SwedenUnited Kingdom

OCEANIA

1.9

2.2

Australia

New Zealand

NUMBER OF CHILDREN WHO WOULD BE BORN PER WOMAN GIVEN AGE-SPECIFIC FERTILITY RATES

CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA

Sources: www.wmm./2013/-x/1


18/72

18

Nonmarital childbearing

racking nonmarital childbearing is important because in many societies, children born outside o marriage are less likely

to enjoy a stable amily lie than are children born to married parents. Children whose parents are not married also are less

likely to have positive outcomes in many areas o lie, rom social behavior to academic perormance.13

Figure 5 indicates that rates o nonmarital childbearing were especially high in South America, ollowed by those inmuch o Northern and Western Europe. In South America, well over hal o children were born to unmarried mothers,

with Colombia registering the highest levels (85 percent). In much o Europe, between a third and a hal o children were

born outside o marriage, whereas in France and Sweden, more than 50 percent o children were born outside o marriage.

In many European countries, the average age o rst childbirth is now younger than the average age o rst marriage.14

Similarly, in Colombia marriage rates are even lower among those under 30 than or the entire reproductive-aged

population.

Nonmarital childbearing was also common in Oceania and North America. In these regions, about our in 10 children

were born outside o marriage, ranging rom 27 (Canada) to 55 percent (Mexico), with the U.S. at 41 percent. By contrast,

trends in nonmarital childbearing were quite varied in Sub-Saharan Arica, ranging rom a low o 6 percent in Nigeria toa high o 62 percent in South Arica. Finally, nonmarital childbearing is comparatively rare throughout much o Asia and

the Middle East. With the exception o the Philippines (where 37 percent o children were born to unmarried parents),

nonmarital childbearing was in the single digits in these two regions. Not surprisingly, these patterns track closely with the

marriage and cohabitation trends identied above in Figure 3; that is, where marriage was prevalent, the proportion o

children born outside o marriage was smaller, and in countries with high levels o cohabitation, births outside o marriage

were more common.

13 Susan Brown, "Marriage and Child Well-Being: Research and Policy Perspectives," Journal o Marriage and Family72 (2010), Martin, "Consensual Unions in Latin

America: Persistence o a Dual Nuptiality System.", W. Bradord Wilcox, "Why Marriage Matters: 30 Conclusions rom the Social Sciences," (New York: Institute

or American Values/National Marriage Project, 2010).



19/72

% of all live

that are to

womenASIA

NONMARITAL CHILDBEARING, 1990-2011

MIDDLE

EAST

100

50

0

100

50

0

SUB-S

AH

ARAN

AFRI

CA

100

50

0

CENTRALAND

SOUTHAMERICA

100

50

0

NORTH

AMERICA

OCEANIA

100

50

0

100

50

0

WE

STERN

EU

ROPE

100

50

0

EASTERN

EUROPE

100

50

0

Figure 5

% of all live

that are to

women

% of all live

that are to

women

% of all live

that are to

women

% of all live

that are to

women

% of all live

that are to

women

% of all live

that are to

women

India

4

(2005-2006) Japan

3

(2009) Philippines

10

(2008)

South Korea9,11

(2006) Taiwan(2009)

100

50

0

Turkey7

(2010)

Ethiopia4

(2011)

Kenya4

(2008-2009)

Nigeria4,16

(2008)

South Africa4

(1998)

Argentina2

(2000)

Bolivia4

(2008)

Brazil4

(1996)

Chile6

(2011)

Colombia4

(2010)

Nicaragua4

(2001)

Paraguay4

(1990)

Peru4

(2008)

Canada5

(2009)

Mexico9

(2009)United States12

(2008)Australia3

(2009)

New Zealand3

(2009)

France7

(2010)

Germany7

(2011)

Ireland7

(2011)

Italy7

(2011)

Netherlands7

(2011)

Spain7

(2011)

Sweden7

(2011)

United Kingdom7

(2011)

Hungary7

(2011)

Poland7

(2011)

Romania7

(2011)

Russian Federation3

(2009)



20/72

20

Key Findings

Socioeconomic indicators measure the material, human, and government resources that support amily and child well-

being. Te socioeconomic indicators highlighted in this report include poverty; undernourishment (as a marker o material

deprivation); parental education and employment; and public amily benets.

i th tu, vt ccut (th ctg th ut vg

bw $1.25 ) c (th ctg ch vg huh

g th h th huh c cut). Th t but

vt th cut u tu g z v cut t 64 ct ng. Th t tv vt ch g x t 33 ct, wth th

wt t u a, eu, oc, th hght t u suth ac.

i th m et, nth ac, oc, eu, th v ct th ut

uuh. i ctt, th hght v uuht u ac, a,

suth ac.

lv t uct hw b ct c uct g w

u th w. Th wt v u ac, w b a, th m et,

Ct suth ac. Th hght v u nth ac Wt eu.

Btw 45 97 ct t ww, wth th hght t

t t u a; ctt hgh t u th m et; u-t-

hgh t u th ac eu.

pubc bt c cut t th ogzt ecc

Ct dvt (oeCd) g 0.7 t 3.7 ct g tc uct

(Gdp). Th hght bt eu oc, w b i, nth

ac, a, th Ch.

Poverty

Poverty is a well-documented risk actor or many negative outcomes in childhood. Children growing up in poverty have more

social, emotional, behavioral, and physical health problems than do children who do not grow up in poverty. 15 Children who are

Family Socioeconomics

15 D. Lempers, D. Clark-Lempers, and R. Simons, "Economic Hardship, Parenting, and Distress in Adolescence," Child Development60, no. 1 (1989), D. Seith and

E. Isakson, "Who Are America's Poor Children? Examining Health Disparities among Children in the United States," (New York: National Center or Children in

Poverty, 2011).


21/72

21

poor also score lower on cognitive tests and are less likely to be ready to enter school than are their more afuent peers. 16

Poverty aects children dierently depending on the age at which it is experienced. Developmental dierences between

children who are poor and those who are not can be detected by a childs second birthday.17 In adolescence, poverty

can lead parents to provide less nurture and more inconsistent discipline or their children, leading to young peoples

subsequent eelings o loneliness and depression.18

Prolonged poverty is especially detrimental to healthy child development. Experiencing poverty or at least

hal o childhood is linked with an increased risk or teenage pregnancy, school ailure, and inconsistent

employment in adulthood in the United States.19

In the United States and elsewhere, poverty is oten related to amily structure as well. Children living in single-parent

households, especially those headed by a woman, are more likely to grow up in poverty.20 Tis report considers two

measures o poverty as indicators o amily socioeconomics: absolute poverty and relative poverty.

Absolute Poverty

Te absolute poverty indicator captures the living conditions in one country, compared with others, by using an

international poverty line and determining the percentage o the population living below that line. Te international

poverty line that we used in this report is set by the World Bank at 1.25 U.S. dollars a day. One o the United Nations

Millennium Development Goals is to cut the proportion o people who live on less than one U.S. dollar a day in hal.21

Data or this indicator come rom Te World Bank, which has compiled inormation rom individual countries

government statistical agencies based on household surveys and LIS. Because individuals and countries themselves

provide the inormation on poverty levels, instead o a more objective source, it is possible that these rates

underrepresent the true level o absolute poverty. Another limitation is that data are not available or this indicator or

the most economically prosperous countries, including the United States and countries in Western Europe.

Absolute poverty rates varied widely in Asia, ranging rom zero percent in Malaysia to 42 percent in India. Te

remaining Asian countries had absolute poverty rates between 16 and 23 percent, as shown in Figure 6. Te selected

Middle Eastern countries had relatively low levels o absolute poverty. Tree percent o people or ewer lived on less

than 1.25 U.S. dollars a day in these countries.

Te highest rates o absolute poverty were ound in Arica. In the Sub-Saharan countries selected or this study,

between 17 and 64 percent o the population lived in poverty. Nigeria had the highest poverty rate: 64 percent o the

16 . Halle et al., "Background or Community-Level Work on School Readiness: A Review o Denitions, Assessments, and Investment Strategies. Part Ii: Reviewing

the Literature on Contributing Factors to School Readiness. Paper Prepared or the John S. And James L. Knight Foundation," (Washington, DC: Child rends, 2000).,

Moore, K. A., Z. Redd, M. Burkhauser, K. Mbwana, and A. Collins. "Children in Poverty: rends, Consequences, and Policy Options." In Child rends Research Brie.

Washington, DC: Child rends, 2009, Duncan, Greg J., and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, eds. Consequences o Growing Up Poor. New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 1997.

17 Ibid.

18 Lempers, Clark-Lempers, and Simons, "Economic Hardship, Parenting, and Distress in Adolescence."

19 Caroline E. Ratclie and Signe-Mary McKernan, "Childhood Poverty Persistence: Facts and Consequences," (Washington, DC: Te Urban Institute, 2010).

20 Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, "America's Children in Brie: Key National Indicators o Well-Being, 2012," (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Oce, 2012).

21 United Nations. "Te Millennium Development Goals Report." United Nations Department o Economic and Social Aairs, 2010.


22/72

ASIA

ABSOLUTE POVERTY

MIDDLE

EAST

100

50

0

100

50

0

SUB-S

AHARAN

AFRICA

100

50

0

CENTRALAND

SOUTHAMERICA

100

50

0

NORTH

AMERICA

100

50

0

EA

STERN

EU

ROPE

100

50

0

Figure 6

% of populliving below$1.25/day(for most reyear availa

% of populliving below

$1.25/day(for most reyear availa


% of populliving below$1.25/day

(for most reyear availa


China(2005-2009)

India(2005-2009)

Indonesia(2005-2009)

Malaysia(2005-2009)

Philippines(2005-2009)

100

50

0

Egypt(2005-2009)

Jordan(2005-2009)

Turkey7

(2010)

Ethiopia(2005-2009)

Kenya(2005-2009)

Nigeria(2005-2009)

South Africa(2005-2009)

Argentina(2005-2009)

Bolivia(2005-2009)

Brazil(2006)

Chile(2005-2009)

Colombia(2004)

Costa Rica(2005-2009)

Nicaragua(2005-2009)

Paraguay(2005-2009)

Peru(2004)

Mexico(2004)

Hungary(2009)

Poland(2009)

Romania(2009)

Russian Federation(2000)



23/72

The highest rates o absolute poverty were ound in Arica. In

the Sub-Saharan countries selected or this study, between 17

and 64 percent o the population lived in poverty.


24/72

24

population lived below the international poverty line. Kenya and South Arica had poverty rates that were high at 20 and

17 percent, respectively, when compared with those outside the Arican continent, but these rates were still much lower

than those o Nigeria and Ethiopia, at 64 and 39 percent, respectively.

In Central and South America, three countries (Bolivia, Colombia, and Nicaragua) had poverty rates that at approximately 15

percent were much higher than those in the remaining selected countries. Brazil, Paraguay, and Peru had poverty rates aroundve percent, while in the remaining Central and South American countries, one percent o their citizens were living in poverty.

O the countries or which data were available, those in Eastern Europe had the lowest rates o absolute poverty. According to

the international denition, zero or one percent o people in these countries were poor.

Relative Child Poverty

Te World Family Mapalso presents rates o relative poverty as an indicator o well-being o children in middle- and high-income

countries. Tese rates speak to the poverty experienced by children living in amilies relative to that o other amilies within each

country. Tus, the relative poverty indicator describes the share o children who live in households with household incomes that

are less than hal o the national median income or each country.22

Te higher the relative poverty rate, the more children areliving in poverty in comparison with the average income o all households with children within that country. Tis indicator also

speaks to the income distribution within a country.

Data or this indicator come rom household surveys, as reported by UNICEFs Innocenti Research CentersMeasuring

Child Povertyreport card.23

Troughout the countries or which relative child poverty was measured, between six and 33 percent o children lived in

households with incomes that were below hal o the national median income. Tere was wide regional variation on this

indicator, as seen in Figure 7.

Te selected Asian countries had comparatively low rates o relative child poverty. In aiwan, eight percent o children

lived in households with incomes that were below hal o the populations median income. Te rates were slightly higher

or South Korea and Japan, at 10 and 15 percent, respectively.

Israel, the sole representative o the Middle East due to data limitations, had a relative child poverty rate o 25 percent.

Te three countries included in the study rom South America had higher relative poverty rates or children, ranging rom

27 to 33 percent. Peru had the highest rate o all South American countries included in the study, with 33 percent o

children living in households earning less than hal o the median income.

Te North American countries relative child poverty rates ranged rom 13 to 23 percent. Canada had the lowest levels o

relative child poverty, with 13 percent o children living in households with incomes below hal o the countrys median

income. Te United States and Mexico, in contrast, had higher levels o relative child poverty, at 23 and 22 percent,

respectively. In act, the United States has the highest relative child poverty rates o the selected high-income nations.

22 Income is adjusted according to household size and composition.

23 UNICEF Innocenti Research Center, "Measuring Child Poverty: New League ables o Child Poverty in the World's Rich Countries'," in Innocenti Report Card10

(Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Center, 2012). Data come rom EU-SILC 2009, HILDA 2009, PSID 2007, the Japanese Cabinet Oce, Gender Equality

Bureau (2011), and B. Perry, "Household Incomes in New Zealand: rends in Indicators o Inequality and Hardship 1982 to 2010.," (Wellington, NZ: Ministry o

Social Development, 2011).


25/72

ASIA

RELATIVE CHILD POVERTY, LATEST AVAILABLE YEAR

MIDDLE

EAST

100

50

0

100

50

0

CENTRA

LAND

SOUTHA

MERICA

100

50

0

NORTH

AMERICA

OCEANIA

100

50

0

100

50

0

WESTERN

EUROPE

100

50

0

EA

STERN

EUROPE

100

50

0

Figure 7

% of childre

who are liv


26/72

26

In Oceania, Australia had a relative child poverty rate o 11 percent, and New Zealands was 12 percent.

Western Europe had the lowest rates o relative child poverty o the regions, led by the Netherlands at six percent. Sweden,

Ireland, Germany, and France all had rates that were below 10 percent. Te United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain had higher

rates, ranging rom 12 to 17 percent.

In Eastern Europe, between 10 and 26 percent o children lived in households with incomes below hal o the countrys

median income. Hungary had the lowest relative poverty rate, at 10 percent, whereas Romania had the highest, at 26 percent.

Undernourishment

One o the United Nations Millennium Development Goals is to cut the proportion o people who suer rom hunger in

hal between 1990 and 2015.24Te percentage o the entire population o each country that is undernourished is an indicator

o material deprivation, disproportionately aecting amilies with children. In an eort to protect their children, mothers tend

to go hungry beore their children in some cultures.26 Unortunately, this tendency means that undernourishment is passed

rom generation to generation, because pregnant women and their babies are especially vulnerable to the eects o hunger. For

example, undernourished mothers are more likely to give birth to undernourished babies.27

Not having enough to eat and being poor are related in a cyclical ashion. Children growing up in amilies that lack the

means to provide adequate and nutritious ood are more likely to have physical ailments, such as blindness, stunted growth,

iron deciencies, and overall poor health. Children who are undernourished are also more likely to have delays in mental

development, to show symptoms o depression, and to have behavior problems. Academically, undernourished youth have lower

achievement and lower IQs. Undernourishment is a actor in one in three deaths o children under ve throughout the world.28

Te loss o productivity associated with undernourishment among children can cost a country up to three percent o its GDP.29

Te World Family Mappresents inormation on undernourishment or the entire population rather than or amilies with

children specically because the available data are limited. As it is, the data on undernourishment come rom the Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO) o the United Nations and the World Bank.30,31 Te FAO denes undernourishment as

an extreme orm o ood insecurity, arising when ood energy availability is inadequate to cover even minimum needs or a

sedentary liestyle. 32

In the majority o countries throughout the world with data, less than ve percent o the population was undernourished. All

countries in Europe, the Middle East, North America, and Oceania had undernourishment rates under ve percent. Countries

with higher levels o undernourishment were concentrated in Arica, Asia, and South America, as seen in Figure 8.

24 United Nations, "United Nationals Millennium Development Goals."

26

United Nations System Standing Committee on Nutrition, "Te Impact o High Food Prices on Maternal and Child Nutrition," in SCN Side Event at the 34thSession o the Committee on World Food Security(Rome: United Nations System Standing Committee on Nutrition, 2008).

27 E. Munoz, "New Hope or Malnourished Mothers and Children," in Brieng paper(Washington: Bread or the World Institution, 2009).

28 M. Nord, " Food Insecurity in Households with Children: Prevalence, Severity, and Household Characteristics," in Economic Inormation Bulletin (Washington,

DC: United States Department o Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2009), United Nationals Children's Fund (UNICEF), "Te State o the World's Children

2012," (New York, NY: United Nationals Children's Fund (UNICEF), 2012).

29 Munoz, "New Hope or Malnourished Mothers and Children."

30 Data or aiwan come rom C. Y. Yeh et al., "An Empirical Study o aiwans Food Security Index," Public Health Nutrition 13, no. 7 (2010).

31 Note that dates are not comparable. See Figure 8 or detail.

32 FAO, WFP, and IFAD. "Te State o Food Insecurity in the World 2012. Economic Growth Is Necessary but Not Sucient to Accelerate Reduction o Hunger and

Malnutrition." Rome: FAO, 2012.


27/72

0-10%

10-20%

20-30%

30-40%

NO DATA

0

50

100

China

India

Indones

ia

Japan

1

Ma

lays

ia

P

hilipp

ines

S

ingapore

2

So

uthKorea

Ta

iwan

3

Egyp

t

Israe

l1

Jordan

1

Qa

tar

Sau

diAra

bia

Turkey

Ethiop

ia

Keny

Nigeria

So

uthAfrica

Argen

tina

Bo

liv

ia

Braz

il

Chile

Co

lom

bia

C

os

taRica

Nicaragua

Paraguay

Peru

Cana

da

1

Mex

ico

Unite

dStates

1

Aus

tra

lia

1

New

Zea

lan

d1

France

1

Germany

1

Ire

lan

d1

Ita

ly1

Ne

therlan

ds

1

Spa

in1

Swe

den

1

Un

ited

King

dom

1

Hungary

1

Po

lan

d1

R o m a n

i a1

UNDERNOURISHMENT, CIRCA 2010Figure 8

ASIA

MIDDLE

EAST

CENTRALAND

SOUTHAMERICA

NORTH

AMERICA

OCEANIA

WESTERN

EUROPE

EASTERN

SUB-S

AHARAN

AFRICA

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POPULATION THAT IS UNDERNOURISHED

NOT SELECTED

FOR WFM



28/72

28

Undernourishment rates varied widely in Asia, rom under ve percent (Malaysia, South Korea, Singapore, aiwan,

and Japan) to 18 percent (India). Following India, the countries with the highest levels o undernourishment were the

Philippines and China, at 17 and 12 percent, respectively.

Te countries in Sub-Saharan Arica or which data are available had higher levels o undernourishment than countries in

other regions. In Ethiopia, two out o ve people were undernourished; in Kenya, one out o three. Rates were much lower

in Nigeria and South Arica, where approximately less than one out o 10 people were undernourished.

In Central and South America, undernourishment also varied widely. Te highest rate o undernourishment was ound in

Paraguay, where 26 percent o the population was undernourished. Bolivia and Nicaragua also had higher undernourishment

rates, at 24 percent and 20 percent o the population, respectively. Brazil and Costa Rica had lower rates, at seven percent each.

Te percentage o the population that suers rom undernourishment varies widely throughout the world, and does not always

ollow the level o absolute poverty in a given country. Despite having higher poverty levels, some countries were able to protect

their populations rom undernourishment. While the year o data are not the same across indicators, the percentage o the

population living in absolute poverty (on less than 1.25 U.S. dollars a day) was greater than the percentage o the population that

was undernourished in China, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Nigeria, South Arica, and Colombia. For example, in Nigeria 64

percent o the population lived on less than $1.25 a day and nine percent were undernourished. Some countries are able to make

combating hunger a high priority among expenditures; in addition, private sector programs as well as international ood aid, ood

pricing dierences, land ownership patterns, and a countrys ood distribution inrastructure may help explain these dierences. 33

Parental Education

Parental education inuences parenting behaviors and child well-being. Well-educated parents are more likely to read to their

children and provide their children with extracurricular activities, books, cognitive stimulation, and high educational expectations.

Such parents are more likely to be active in their childrens schools and are less likely to use negative discipline techniques.34

Internationally, children o well-educated parents have higher academic achievement and literacy.35,36 Parents transmit their

education, knowledge, skills, and other aspects o human capital to their children, and parents levels o education directly inuence

their access to social networks and well-paying jobs with benets. Tese advantages are, in turn, conerred upon their children.

Due to data limitations, this report used a proxy measure or the parental education indicator: the percentage o children who

live in households in which the household head had completed secondary education, as shown in Figure 9. In the United

States, completing secondary education equates to earning a high school diploma or GED. Data or this indicator came rom

the Integrated Public Use Microdata SeriesInternational (IPUMS) and the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS).37

33 FAO, WFP, and IFAD. "Te State o Food Insecurity in the World 2012. Economic Growth Is Necessary but Not Sucient to Accelerate Reduction o Hunger

and Malnutrition." Rome: FAO, 2012.

34 P. Davis-Kean, "Te Inuence o Parent Education and Family Income on Child Achievement: Te Indirect Role o Parental Expectations and the Home

Environment,"Journal o Family Psychology19, no. 2 (2005), E. Hair et al., "Parents Matter: Parental Education, Parenting and Child Well-Being" (paper presented at

the Society or Research in Child Development, 2007), S. Hoerth and F.J. Sandberg, "How American Children Spend Teir ime," Journal o Marr iage & the Family

63, no. May (2001), K. R. Phillips, "Parent Work and Child Well-Being in Low-Income Families," (Washington, DC: Te Urban Institute, 2002).

35 M. Lemke et al., "Outcomes o Learning: Results rom the 2000 Program or International Student Assessment o 15-Year-Olds in Reading, Mathematics, and

Science Literacy," (Washington, DC: U.S. Department o Education, National Center or Education Statistics, 2001).

36 I. V. S. Mullis et al., "ims 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings rom IEA's Repeat o the Tird International Mathematics and Science Study at the

Eighth Grade," (Boston: International Study Center, Lynch School o Education, Boston College, 2000).

37 In this report, we present data or the most recent year available, which diers across countries. As with other indicators, we caution readers to rerain rom making

direct comparisons between countries that have data rom dierent years.


29/72

0

50

100

China(1990)

India(2004)

Indone

sia(2010)

Japan

Malay

sia(2000)

Philippines1(

2008)

S

ingapore

SouthKorea

Taiwan

Egypt(2006)

Israel(1995)

Jordan1(

2009)

Qatar

Sau

diArabia

Turk

ey(2000)

Ethiop

ia1(

2011)

Kenya1(

2008-2009)

Niger

ia1(

2008)

SouthAfr

ica(2007)

Argentina(2001)

Boli

via(2001)

Brazil(2000)

Ch

ile(2002)

Colomb

ia1(

2010)

CostaR

ica(2000)

Nicarag

ua(2005)

Paraguay

Peru(2002)

Canada2

Mexico(2010)

UnitedStates3(

2012)

Australia

New

Zealand

Fran

ce(2006)

Germany

Irela

nd(2006)

It

aly(2001)

Netherlands2

Spain(2001)

Sweden

UnitedKingdom2

Hungary(2001)

Poland

R o m a n i a ( 2 0 0 2 )

PARENTAL EDUCATION, 1990-2011Figure 9

ASIA

MIDDLE

EAST

CENTRALAND

SOUTHAMERICA

NORTH

AMERICA

OCEANIA

WESTERN

EUROPE

EASTERN

SUB-S

AHARAN

AFRICA

0-25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

NO DATA

PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLDS IN WHICH HOUSEHOLD HEAD HAS A SECONDARY EDUCATION

NOT SELECTED

FOR WFM



30/72

30

Levels o parental education varied widely across Asian countries. In 2000, 12 percent o Malaysian children lived with a

household head who had completed secondary education. Eighteen percent o children did so in India in 2004. In 2010,

31 percent o Indonesian children lived with a household head who had completed secondary education. Filipino children

were the most likely to live with an educated household head: 42 percent did so in 2008.

Among the Middle Eastern countries studied, urkey had the lowest percentage o children living in a household with ahousehold head who had completed secondary education, at 18 percent in 2000. In the remaining surveyed Middle Eastern

countries, between 35 percent ( Jordan in 2009) and 62 percent (Israel in 1995) o children lived with a household head who

had completed secondary education.

Parental education was lower in Sub-Saharan Arica than in other regions. Among the Sub-Saharan Arican countries

studied, between ve and 25 percent o children lived in households in which the heads o these households had completed

secondary education. For example, in Kenya, South Arica, and Nigeria, at least 20 percent o children lived in such

households, in 2007-09. In contrast, in Ethiopia, ve percent o children lived in such households in 2011.

In Central and South America, between 12 and 44 percent o children lived in a household in which the household head hadcompleted secondary education. For example, 17 percent o Brazilian children lived in a household in which the head o that

household had completed secondary education in 2000; and that year, 22 percent o children in Costa Rica did so. wenty-six

percent o children lived in a household in which the household head had completed secondary education in Argentina and

Colombia, in 2001 and 2010, respectively. In Peru, 44 percent o children lived in such circumstances in 2007.

For North American children, levels o parental education also varied widely. wenty-three percent o Mexican children

lived in a household in which the head o the household had completed secondary education in 2010. Eighty-ve percent

o American children lived in such households in 2012.

In Western Europe, 42 percent o children in Italy and 44 percent o children in Spain lived in a household in which the

head o the household had completed secondary education in 2001. In 2006, 41 percent o French children and 63 percent

o Irish children lived in such households.

Eastern Europe had some o the highest rates o parental education. Fity-seven percent o children in Romania in 2002 and 70

percent o children in Hungary in 2001 lived in a household in which the head o the household had completed secondary education.

Parental Employment

Researchers agree that poverty has detrimental eects on child and adolescent outcomes. Employed parents are more likely to be able

to provide or their children, as well as to connect their amilies to important social networks and to serve as important role models

or productive engagement. Having an employed parent creates an opportunity or the consumption o goods and services that are

especially valuable during childhood, such as health care. In act, adolescents o unemployed parents report lower levels o health.38

Parental unemployment can create stress in a amily. Te nancial and emotional strain associated with unemployment

can lead to depression and lower levels o satisaction with a spouse or partner.39 Family conict created rom this strain,

38 Maria Sleskova et al., "Does Parental Unemployment Aect Adolescents' Health?"Journal o Adolescent Health 38, no. 5 (2006).

39 A. D. Vinokur, R. H. Price, and R. D. Caplan, "Hard imes and Hurtul Partners: How Financial Strain Aects Depression and Relationship Satisaction o

Unemployed Persons and Teir Spouses,"Journal o Personality and Social Psycholog y71, no. 1 (1996).


31/72

31

whether in the setting o an intact amily or one separated by divorce, is detrimental to child well-being.40

Parental employment is also related to the number o parents present in a household. Children living with two parents are

less likely to live in a jobless household than children living with one parent.41

Data limitations restricted the measurement o parental employment to the percentage o children who live in households

in which the household head has a job. Tis measure is limited or a number o reasons. It does not provide inormation

on whether the employment is ull-time or ull-year, or on how many hours a day the provider is working. In addition, the

measure does not shed light on what the parents work means in the context o the childs lie. For example, the data about

parental employment do not reveal whether one or multiple adults in the household are working, where and with whom the

child spends time while the parent is working, how old the child is while the parent is working, or what hours o the day

the parent is working, all o which can have an impact on child well-being outcomes.

Te data used to calculate parental employment were drawn primarily rom LIS and Integrated Public Use Microdata

SeriesInternational (IPUMS). Data or most countries are rom 2000 to 2010. Tis indicator is very sensitive to

country economic conditions and general economic climate, so we do not recommend that readers use these data to make

comparisons across countries or dierent years.42

Troughout the world, between 45 and 97 percent o children under the age 18 lived in households in which the head o

the household was employed. See Table 2 or more details.

As a region, Asia had the highest percentage o children living in households with an employed household head, ranging

rom 88 percent in Malaysia in 2000 to 97 percent in aiwan in 2005.

Parental employment levels were slightly lower in the selected Middle Eastern countries. Jordan, Israel, and urkey had

parental employment rates o less than 80 percent. In Egypt, 88 percent o children lived in a household with an employed

head o household.

Te selected Sub-Saharan Arican countries had the largest range o parental employment in a region. Forty-ve percent o

children lived in a household with an employed household head in South Arica, whereas 88 percent did so in Kenya.

Central and South Americas parental employment rates also had a large span, rom 68 percent in Chile and Argentina

to 90 percent in Peru. In North America, parental employment rates ranged rom 71 percent in the United States to

88 percent in Mexico and 90 percent in Canada. In Australia, the sole country or which we have data in Oceania, the

parental employment rate was 81 percent.

40 G.D. Sandeur and A. Meier, "Te Family Environment: Structure, Material Resources and Child Care," in Key Indicators o Child and Youth Well-Being: Completing

the Picture, ed. B.V. Brown (New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008).


42 See able 2 or detail


32/72

32

In Western Europe, parental employment rates ranged rom 60 percent in Ireland to 90 percent in Sweden.46 In the

majority o selected countries in this region, approximately 80 percent o children lived in a household in which the head o

household was employed.

Rates were similar in Eastern Europe, where they ranged rom 84 to 88 percent. Romania was an exception to these

relatively high rates: 63 percent o children in the country lived in a household in which the head o the household

was employed.

Public Spending on Family Benefts

Government spending on benets or amilies provides support when parents need time o work to take care o a newborn,

and to replace lost income during this time, as well as to support parental employment through early care and education.

Te Organization or Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) reports public spending on amily benets,

including child care supports, parental leave benets, child allowances, and amily tax breaks. Unortunately, these data are

only available or members o the OECD, which are middle and high income nations. Tese data are also limited because

unding plans dier between countries and local expenditures may not be depicted or all nations.47

Public spending on amily benets may be viewed as one potential measure o governmental spending priorities. Here, we

ocus on the percentage o gross domestic product (GDP) that a country allocates to amily benets. As presented in Table 3,

governments spent between 0.7 and 3.7 percent o their GDP on benets exclusively or amilies in 2007.

46 Interpret Swedens rate with caution. More than 15 percent o data is missing.

47 Organization or Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), "Public Spending on Family Benets," http://www.oecd.org/els/

amiliesandchildren/37864391.pd.

ASIA

PARENTAL EMPLOYMENT, 1990-2010Table 2

94

89

93

88

93

97

China1 (1990)India (2004)

Indonesia1 (2010)Japan

Malaysia1 (2000)PhilippinesSingapore

South Korea (2006)Taiwan (2005)

Argentina1 (2001)Bolivia1 (2001)

Brazil (2006)Chile1 (2002)

Colombia (2004)Costa Rica1 (2000)Nicaragua1 (2005)

ParaguayPeru (2004)

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

88

45

EthiopiaKenya1 (1999)

NigeriaSouth Africa (2008)

MIDDLE EAST

88

72

72

77

Egypt1 (2006)Israel (2007)

Jordan1 (2004)Qatar

Saudi ArabiaTurkey1 (2000)

NORTH AMERICA

90

88

71

Canada (2007)Mexico (2004)

United States (2010)

EASTERN EUROPE

Hungary (2005)Poland (2004)

Romania1 (2002)Russian Federation (2000)

WESTERN EUROPE

88

80

60

81

81

82

90

79

France (2005)Germany (2007)

Ireland (2004)Italy (2004)

Netherlands (2004)Spain (2004)

Sweden (2005)

United Kingdom (2004)

OCEANIA

81

Australia (2003)New Zealand

PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN UNDER 18 IN HOUSEHOLDS IN WHICH THE HOUSEHOLD HEAD IS EMPLOYED

CENTRAL AND SOUTH AME



33/72

33

In Asia, Japan spent 1.3 percent o its GDP on amily benets and South Korea spent 0.7 percent. Israel, the only

represented country in the Middle East, spent two percent o its GDP on amily benets, despite a hety military budget.

In North America, spending on amily benets hovered around one percent, ranging rom 1.0 percent in Mexico to

1.4 percent in Canada. South American countries, as represented by Chile, had lower levels o spending on amilies,

at 0.8 percent.

Oceanic countries placed more monetary emphasis on amily benets. New Zealand spent 3.1 percent o its GDP in this

area and Australia spent 2.8.

Western European countries had the highest levels o government spending on amily benets. France led the selected

countries by spending 3.7 percent o its GDP on amily benets. Te United Kingdom and Sweden also spent more than 3

percent o their GDP on amily benets.

In Eastern Europe, Hungary spent more than three percent o its GDP on amily benets, whereas Poland and Romania

spent 1.6 and 1.7 percent, respectively.

ASIA

PUBLIC SPENDING ON FAMILY BENEFITS, CIRCA 2007Table 3

1.3

0.7

ChinaIndia

Indonesia

Japan

Malaysia

Philippines

Singapore

South Korea

Taiwan

0.8

ArgentinaBolivia

Brazil

Chile

Colombia

Costa Rica

Nicaragua

Paraguay

Peru

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

EthiopiaKenya

Nigeria

South Africa

MIDDLE EAST

2.0

EgyptIsrael1

Jordan

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Turkey

NORTH AMERICA

1.4

1.0

1.2

Canada

Mexico

United States

EASTERN EUROPE

3.3

1.6

1.7

Hungary

Poland

Romania

Russian Federation

WESTERN EUROPE

3.7

2.7

2.7

1.4

2.8

1.5

3.4

3.6

France

Germany

Ireland

ItalyNetherlands

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

OCEANIA

2.8

3.1

Australia

New Zealand

PUBLIC SPENDING ON FAMILY BENEFITS IN CASH, SERVICES AND TAX MEASURES, IN PERCENT OF GDP

CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA



34/72

34

Key Findings

Family process indicators describe the interactions between members o a amily, including their relationships,

communication patterns, time spent together, and satisaction with amily lie. Data on amily processes are challenging

to obtain in a way that allows or international comparisons, but this situation is likely to improve in the next ew years as

new data are released. Here are some examples o indicators o amily processes that can inuence child and amily well-

being: amily satisaction; agreement or disagreement over household work; social and political discussions; and amily

meals together. While ew countries had data on these measures, there was wide variation across the countries that did

have data available.

Btw 31 ct (ru) 74 ct (Ch) ut u th w ct

v t wth th (8 cut wth t)

Btw 55 ct (ru) 88 ct (ph) cu t w v

gt u huh wk (8 cut)

Btw x ct (suth K) 39 ct (agt) 15-- cu tc

c u wth th t v t wk (25 cut)

Th ctg 15-- wh t wth th v w thughut thw, gg 62 ct i t 94 ct it (25 cut)

Family Satisaction

Family satisaction both inuences and is inuenced by amily structure, economics, and culture. Te International Social

Survey Program (ISSP) rom 2002 provides data on this indicator or only a handul o countries. So, unortunately,

inormation in this area is quite limited.

Te data that are available show that satisaction with amily lie varied widely throughout the world. In the eight surveyed

countries, between 31 and 74 percent o respondents reported being completely or very satised with their amily lie, as seenin Figure 10.

Te highest levels o amily satisaction were ound in South America, where 74 percent o Chileans reported being satised

with their amily lie. Te lowest levels o amily satisaction were ound in Eastern Europe, with only 31 percent o Russian

adults being satised with their amily lie. Te surveyed countries in Western Europe and Asia ell in the middle, with

satisaction rates between 45 and 66 percent.

Family Processes


35/72

35

48 G. Brody, I. Arias, and R. Finchman, "Linking Marital and Child Attributions to Family Process and Parent-Child Relationships," Journal o Family Psychology10,

no. 4 (1996), S.L. Brown, "Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Te Signicance o Parental Cohabitation," Journal o Marriage and Family66 (2004), C. Buehler

and J. Gerard, "Marital Conict, Ineective Parenting, and Children's and Adolescents' Maladjustment,"Journal o Marr iage and Family64 (2002), J. M. Gerard, A.

Krishnakumar, and C. Buehler, "Marital Conict, Parent-Child Relations, and Youth Maladjustment: A Longitudinal Investigation o Spillover Eects," Journal o

Family Issues27, no. 7 (2006), G. . Harold, J. J. Aitken, and K. H. Shelton, "Inter-Parental Conict and Childrens Academic Attainment: A Longitudinal Analysis. ,"

Journal o Child Psychology and Psychiatry48, no. 12 (2007), Sandra L. Hoerth, "Residential Father Family ype and Child Well-Being: Investment Versus Selection,"

Demography43, no. 1 (2006), K. Kitzman, "Eects o Marital Conict on Subsequent riadic Family Interactions and Parenting," Developmental Psychology36, no. 1

(2000), S. McLanahan and G.D. Sandeur, Growing up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), K. A. Moore,

A. Kinghorn, and . Bandy, "Parental Relationship Quality and Child Outcomes across Subgroups," (Washington, DC: Child rends, 2011), D. K. Orthner et al.,

"Marital and Parental Relationship Quality and Educational Outcomes or Youth,"Marriage and Family Review 45, no. 2 (2009).

49 K.A. Moore et al., "What Is a 'Healthy Marriage'? Dening the Concept," (Washington, DC: Child rends, 2004).


51 L. Guzman, G. Hampden-Tompson, and L. Lippman, " A Cross-National Analysis o Parental Involvement and Student Literacy" (paper presented at the International

Society or Child Indicators, June 28 2007), Organization or Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), "Knowledge and Skills or Lie: First Results rom the

Oecd Program or International Student Assessment (Pisa) 2000," (Paris: Organization or Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2001).

Disagreement Over Household Work

Research in the United States has demonstrated that children tend to have better outcomes when they are living with both

parents and when their parents have a low-conict marriage.48 Research on relationship quality also points to the importance o

low levels o conict in maintaining healthy relationships.49 Tereore, maintaining a marriage or partnership that is not plagued

by conict has implications or each member o the entire amily. Because responsibility or household work represents one area

o potential disagreement that is shared by just about all couples who live together, the extent to which couples disagree about

sharing household work can be seen as an indicator o amily processes that couples throughout the world have in common.

Te extent to which couples share household work is aected b

Documents

Mapping FaMily Change And