C RTF

No. C2004011 2004-7 000 No. C2004011 2004 7 16 1

000 No. C2004011 2004 7 16 2000 1990 1982 2000 1982 1990 1990 17%, 70 70, 2000 1990 90, 2

000 * * 2000 1990 1982 2000 1982 1990 1990 17%, 70 70, 2000 1990 90, Abstract The analysis in this article is based on micro data sets of the Chinese 2000, 1990, and 1982 census es. The percent of three-generation family households in 2000 increased considerably as compared to 1990 and 1982; the proportion of two-generation nuclear family households substantially dropped by about 17 percent in 2000 as compared to 1990. Such change, however, does not mean that Chinese families are returning to the more traditional structure. This is mainly caused by the demographic effects: given that most old parents still live with one married child (although declining), generations born after the early 1970s who have much fewer siblings have a smaller chance of moving out of the parental home to form an independent nuclear family household when they reach the family formation stage. In fact, the one-person and one-couple-only households have been increasing quickly; average household size decreased significantly; the proportions of elderly who did not live with children and elderly-couple only households substantially increased in 2000 as compared to 1990. We conclude that the family transformation in contemporary China was caused by the tremendous fertility decline and by significant changes in social attitudes and economic mobility related to co-residence between old parents and adult children. zengyi@duke.edu. 3

1. 20 80 1982 1990 20 80 Cartier 1995 Zeng, 2001 [1][2] 20 90 1982 1990 2000 i Coale 1984 [3] 1982 1953 1964 1982 100 1982 Kannisto 1986 Kincannon & Banister 1986 Yu 1986 [4][5][6] 20 90 Zeng 1996 [7] 2000 2000 10-20 1990 0-10 1.046 20 80 1982 1990 2000 2000-1.81% 1990-0.6% 3 1982 0.15 ii iii iv 1982 2000 2000 2000 1982 1990 1982 1990 4

2000 2 2000 20.1% 65 United Nations 2002a 2002b [8] 65 2000 7% 2030 15.7% 2050 22.7% 2000 65 9300 2030 2050 2.35 3.34 80 2000 1200 2030 2.7 2050 1 2000 13% 2050 30% United Nations 2002a 2002b [8] 2000-2050 4.4% 2.2-2.8% United Nations 2002a 2002b [8] 65 2 65-79 CLHLS ADL 65-69 5% 80-84 20% 90-94 40% v Torrey Torrey 1992 [9] 65-74 14.4 Poston and Duan 2000 [10] (Pei and Pillai, 1999 Chen and Silverstein, 2000 Sun 2002) [11][12][13] 2003 [14] / 1982 3 1982-2000 1982 4-5 6 28% 2000 3 5

30% 4 23% 1990 2000 6 1990 15.4 2000 8.1 1. 1982-2000 35 30 25 20 15 1982 1990 2000 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+ 1930-40 5.6 1953 4.3 1964 4.3 1982 4.36 1990 4 3.94 1982 9.6 2000 3.45 1990 12.4 1982-1990 1990-2000 1.26 1.36 1990 2000 1982 0.015 1990-0.06 2000-1.81 vi 1982 1990 2000 4.35 3.94 3.61 1982-1990 1.29 1990-2000 1.15 1982 1990 2000 0-14 2003 [14] 1982-1990 1990-2000 85.5% 59.4% 1990-2000 1982-1990 2000 2001 5.27 2000 1.5 6

1990 2000 6.3 8.3 1 1982 8.0 1982 20 70 80 1982 1982 3.84 3.95 1982 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 21.7 1996 23.1 1999 23.6 2003 [14] Zeng and Wu 2000 [15] 20 90 2000 12.70 1990 2.0 1982 2.7 1982-2000 5.7 1990 2000 DINK 20 90 DINK 10 2003 [16] 2000 28.9 25.7 2.9 1.9 7

1. 1982 1990 2000 1982 1990 2000 2000 2000 8.00 6.30 8.30 7.74 9.78 1.00 0.64 0.97 0.89 1.13 4.69 6.42 12.70 11.46 15.15 0.23 0.16 0.32 0.24 0.47 13.92 13.52 22.28 20.33 26.54 52.02 57.72 48.67 48.7 50.16 6.56 5.17 3.79 4.02 3.55 7.44 4.38 3.40 3.6 3.16 66.02 67.27 55.86 56.32 56.87 0.56 0.23 0.97 1.14 0.71 66.58 67.5 56.83 57.46 57.58 0.70 0.67 1.89 2.11 1.57 18.80 18.30 19.00 20.10 14.32 19.50 18.97 20.89 22.21 15.89 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 / 4.36 3.94 3.45 3.62 3.16 1 2 3 4 1982 1990 2000 1990 1982 2000 1990 17 2000 1990 16 27 17 1 Zeng and Wu 2000 [15] 1982 1990 2000 7.4% 4.4% 3.4% 1 85% Goldstein, Guo and Goldstein 2001 [17] 1982 1987 2000 1982 8

1982 1990 2000 0.71% 0.67% 1.89% 2000 1990 3 20 90 1982 1990 2000 18.8% 18.3% 19.0% 19.5% 18.97% 20.89% 1 1/4 Carter 1995 [1] 2001 [18] 2000 5.2 vii 2000 1990 1982 3.8% 1.1% 10.1% 7.1% 2000 1990 1982 1982 1990 2000 Pei and Pillai, 1999 Chen and Silverstein, 2000 Sun 2002 [11][12][13] 1990 1982 2000 65-79 1990 12.7% 8.8% 1990 2000 0.3% 1.0% 65+ 11.4% 7.2% 20 90 9

8 Chen 2002 [19] 1991 1997 1992-1994 1998 [20] 1982 1993 1997 2000 [21] 2 3 4 1982 1990 2000 2. 65+ 1982-2000 2000 1982 1990 2000 10.7 8.3 8.4 8.7 7.7 16.9 20.7 28.8 26.3 33.7 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 39.9 40.6 37.4 36.5 39.0 28.0 27.0 22.6 25.6 16.8 2.2 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.3 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 57.6 61.8 66.9 63.5 73.5 67.9 67.6 59.9 62.1 55.8 13.7 10.8 10.7 9.8 12.4 10.6 13.4 19.1 17.9 21.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 16.2 19.6 22.4 22.8 21.7 57.5 54.3 46.2 48.1 42.6 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 27.2 33.3 41.9 41.0 43.6 73.6 74.0 68.7 70.9 64.4 10

3. 65-79 1982-2000 2000 1982 1990 2000 10.3 7.9 8.0 8.4 7.2 17.1 21.2 30.2 27.7 35.0 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 41.7 42.7 39.1 38.3 40.7 26.4 24.9 19.9 22.7 14.6 2.1 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.3 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 59.7 64.4 70.0 66.7 76.4 68.1 67.6 59.0 61.0 55.2 13.0 10.1 10.2 9.4 11.9 11.7 15.0 21.7 20.4 24.0 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 18.0 22.2 25.4 25.9 24.4 55.2 50.9 41.3 43.0 37.9 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 30.2 37.6 47.5 46.7 49.1 73.2 73.1 66.7 68.9 62.3 4. 80+ 1982-2000 2000 1982 1990 2000 16.2 13.0 11.6 11.2 12.5 13.6 15.4 17.9 16.0 22.3 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.8 19.4 20.5 23.0 22.7 23.5 46.2 47.6 44.9 48.0 37.7 2.8 2.0 1.4 1.1 1.9 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.4 1.4 100.0 100.0 100.1 100.0 100.0 33.7 36.3 41.5 39.3 46.6 65.6 68.1 67.9 70.8 61.2 18.4 14.9 13.2 12.2 15.3 2.9 3.7 5.0 4.8 5.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 3.0 4.0 6.3 6.5 5.8 73.5 74.9 73.4 74.7 70.6 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.6 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 6.1 8.0 11.6 11.5 11.7 76.5 78.9 79.7 81.2 76.4 11

3 1982 1990 1990 2000 3 1982 1990 2000 4 20 80 90 2 3 4 1982 2000 1990 2000 42.9% 44.7% 16.2% 35.1% 20 90 2000 65+ 61.1% 33.6% 2.1 1.8 2000 65+ 3.7 3.5 viii 5 2000 2000 22.2% 15.9% 1.4 1 1 2000 3.2 3.6 3.6% 4.0% Cox 8.2% 14.6% Zeng and Wang, 1993 [22] 12

3.6% 3.2% 2 3 4 2000 65+ 65-79 80+ 65+ 2 2000 62.1% 55.8% 70.9% 64.4% 2 2002 22 4897 11163 ix 14.8% 11.3% 20.4% 23.3% Lavely and Ren, 1992 Cooney and Shi, 1999 [23][24] 1985-1987 9 2.3 Zeng et al., 1991 [25] 2000 28.1% 26.4% 26.5% 11.5% 2 6 2000 1990 1982 2000 1990 17% 13

2000 1990 1990 2000 20 70 20 70 20 70 1990 1982 2000 1990 20 70 2000 20 70 2000 x 20 90 20 90 2010 ; 1990 1986 Zeng, 1986, 1991 [26][27] 2000 17 2000 2000 1990 1982 20 70 1990 2000 Wolf (1986) [28] 14

Zhao 2000 Kobrin and Goldscheider, 1982 [29][30] 2003 [31], 20 70, Logan and Bian, 1999 [32], Zang 1999 [33], 1960 87.3% 1984 [34] 1997 54.3% Kim and Maeda 2001 [35] 37 1/3 i ii iii 3.9% 0.7% 5-1 NSB2002 iv 1990 0.1% 1.0% 0.1% Qiu 1988 v CLHLS 22 15

22 85% CLHLS 2004 Zeng Yi, James W. Vaupel, Xiao Zhenyu, Zhang Chunyuan and Liu Yuzhi. Sociodemographic and Health Profiles of Oldest Old in China. Population and Development Review, No. 2, Vol. 28 (2002). vi ; vii 2000 ProFamy 2000 ProFamy wangzl@duke.edu ProFamy viii 7 ix 5 x 2.1 16

[1] Michel Cartier, Nuclear Versus Quasi-stem Families: the New Chinese Family Model. Journa of Family History Vol. 20 (1995), p.307-27 [2] Zeng Yi, A Demographic Analysis of Family Households in China, 1982-1995. Journal of Comparative Family Studies. Vol. 33, No.1(2001), p. 15-34. [3] Ansley J.Coale, Rapid Population Change in China, 1952-1982. (Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.1984) [4] Vaino Kannisto, Features of the 1982 China Census from International Standpoint. Pp. 37-52 in A Census of One Billion People. Papers for International Seminar on China's 1982 Population Census, edited by Chengrui Li. ( Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press.1986). [5] Louis Kincannon, and Judith Banister. Perspectives on China's 1982 Census. Pp.288-312 in A Census of One Billion People. Papers for International Seminar on China's 1982 Population Census, edited by Chengrui Li. (Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press. 1986). [6] Y.C. Yu, The Reliability of China's 1982 Population Census. in A Census of One Billion People. Papers for International Seminar on China's 1982 Population Census, edited by Chengrui Li. (Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press.1986), p. 269-87. [7] Zeng Yi, Is fertility in China in 1991-92 Far below the Replacement Level? Population Studies Vol.50, No.1 (1996), p. 27-34. [8] U.N. (United Nations). 2002a. World Population Prospects. The 2002 Revision Volume I: Comprehensive Tables. New York: United Nations. U.N. (United Nations). 2002b. World Population Prospects. The 2002 Revision Volume II: Sex and Age. New York: United Nations. [9] Barbara Boyle Torrey, Sharing increasing costs on declining income: The visible dilemma of the invisible aged. In Richard M. Suzman, David P. Willis, and Kenneth G. Manton (Eds.). The Oldest Old. ( New York: Oxford University Press.1992), p.381-393. [10] Dudley L. Poston, and Chengrong Charles Duan, The Current and Projected Distribution of the Elderly and Eldercare in the People s Republic of China. Journal of Family Issues Vol. 21 (2000), p.714-732. [11] Pei, XiaoMei and V.K. Pillai. 1999. Old age support in China: the role of the state and family. International Journal of Aging & Human Development Vol. 49, No.3 (1999), p.197-212 [12] X. Chen, and M. Silverstein. Intergenerational social support and the psychological well- being of older parents in China. Research on aging Vol. 22, No.1 (2000), p. 43-65 [13] R. J. Sun, Old age support in contemporary urban China from both parents and children s perspectives. Research on Aging Vol. 24, No.3 (2002), p.337-359 [14] 90 2000 2003 3 28-31 17

[15] Zeng Yi, and Deqing Wu A Regional Analysis of Divorce in China Since 1980. Demography Vol. 37, No. 2 (2000), p. 215-219. [16] 90 2000 2003 3 28-31 [17] Alice Goldstein, Zhigang Guo, and Sidney Goldstein. The Relation of Migration to Changing Household Headship Patterns in China, 1982-1987. Population Studies Vol. 51(1997),p.75-84. [18] 2001 98BRK004 [19] Feinian Chen, Family Structures, Familial Relationship and Socioeconomic Changes in China and Russia Dissertation Abstracts International, A The Humanities and Social Sciences Vol. 62 (2002), 3948A-3949A. [20] 1998 10 3 p.231-40 [21] 2000 6 p. 31-37 [22] Zeng Yi, and Deming Wang. An Event History Analysis of Remarriage in China. Selected paper for publication in International Union for Scientific Studies of Population 22th General Conference Volumes, Liege: IUSSP.(1993) [23] William Lavely, and Xinhua Ren, Patrilocality and Early Marital Co-residence in Rural China, 1955-85. China Quarterly Vol. 130 (1992), p. 378-91. [24] Rosemary S. Cooney and Jing Shi. Household Extension of the Elderly in China, 1987. Population Research and Policy Review Vol. 18(1999), p.451-71. [25] Zeng Yi, Xiaoli Li, and Zhongdong Ma. The Trend and the Model Schedule of Leaving the Parental Home after Marriage in China. in Fertility in China (Published by International Statistical Institute (ISI). The Hague: ISI. 1991), p. 421-450. [26] Zeng Yi, Changes in Family Structure in China: a Simulation Study. Population and Development Review Vol.12 (1986), p. 675-703. [27] Zeng Yi, Family Dynamics in China: A Life Table Analysis. (Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.1991) [28] Arthur P.Wolf, The Preeminent Role of Government Intervention in China s Family Revolution. Population and Development Review Vol.12 (1986), p. 101-16. [29] Zhongwei Zhao, Coresdential Patterns in Historical China: A Simulation Study. Population and Development Review Vol. 26, No. 2 (2000), p. 263-293. [30] F.E.Kobrin, and C. Goldscheider. Family Extension or Nonfamily Living: Life Cycle Economic and Ethnic Factors. Western Sociological Review Vol.13, No.1(1982), p. 103-118. [31] 2000 2003 3 28-31 18

[32] John R. Logan, and Fuqin Bian, Family values and coresidence with married children in urban China. Social Forces Vol. 77, No. 4 (1999), p.1253-1282. [33] X Zang, Family, kinship, marriage, and sexuality. in: Understanding contemporary China Edited by R.E. Gamer. (Boulder, Colorado, Lynne Rienner Publishers.1999), p. 267-92. [34] 1984 [35] Ik Ki Kim,and Daisaku Maeda, A comparative study on sociodemographic changes and long-term health care needs of the elderly in Japan and South Korea. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology Vol. 16 (2001), p. 237-255. 19