Two new reports by Canadian think tanks indicate that the traditional family of mother, father and children is becoming a relic of a bygone era with consequences for individuals and society.
According to a new report, Families Count: Profiling Canada’s Families, by the left-leaning Vanier Institute for the Family, the traditional family of married parents with children is no longer the norm. There are more singles, common-law couples, and homosexual unions than ever before. The headline numbers from the studies are that married couples with children no longer represent a majority of households – 39 per cent of households compared to 55 per cent in 1980. Just two-thirds of children live with their married parents compared to 81 per cent of children in 1986.
According to the Vanier Institute, a family is any combination of two or more persons who are bound together over time by ties of mutual consent, birth and/or adoption or placement and who, together, assume (various) responsibilities.
Newspapers dutifully reported the death of the traditional family as both a reality and an ideal. The Canadian Press story by Sheryl Ubelacker began: “If there were one way to pigeonhole the typical Canadian family, it would be this: there is no such thing.”
But a closer look at the Vanier Institute study might yield less of a dire analysis. While family structure is indeed changing, Quebec skews the numbers a lot. Since 1981, the number of common-law families has increased from 5.6 per cent of all families in Canada to 15.5 per cent. But in Quebec, three in ten couples live common-law and a majority of children live in such families. In the country as a whole, common-law families with children represent just 6.9 per cent of families. Take out the second largest (and most secular) province in the country and the figures are not nearly so alarming.
Another key statistic is that 29.9 per cent of families are married couples with no children living at home. The Vanier study admits that while an increasing number of couples are choosing childlessness, a large proportion of this category is the result of married couples growing older. That is, their children have grown up and left the house. This hardly represents the death of the traditional family. While the majority of current families – married, common-law, and same-sex – are childless, the number of current families who have or once had children would be higher.
The number of lone-parent families has also grown, from 11 per cent of families in 1981 to 15.9 per cent in 2006, a surprisingly slow rate of growth over a quarter century considering the other changes to family structure. The growth of single-parent families – more than 80 per cent of them headed by women – was arrested a decade ago and has held steady since 2001. Lone-parent families can be the result of out-of-wedlock births or divorce.
According to the socially conservative Institute of Marriage and Family Canada declining fertility rates have reshaped the family. Jon Peter Mitchell, senior researcher at IMFC, explored the myriad of reasons for falling fertility rates, why it matters and what can be done about it.
From 1971 to 2006, average family size fell from 3.7 members to 3.0, mostly due to a decline in the fertility rate which now sits at 1.66, significantly below the 2.1 replacement fertility rate. During the baby boom, the total fertility rate was nearly four.
Mitchell says there several explanations for why the average woman has fewer children than her mother and grandmother. The biggest factor is economic. “At the broadest level,” Mitchell says, “the move from an agrarian to a post-industrial society has been a significant factor.” When most families lived on farms, children were “economic assets” because they provided free labour. (In pre-industrial society, high child morbidity rates would also lead to families having more children.) However, “the expense of raising a child” is now “more likely to be a deterrent.” According to most studies, it will cost between $160,000 and $200,000 to raise a child to the age of 18, not including post-secondary education costs. It should be added that whether this is accurate or not, such perceived costs could lead couples to choose to have smaller families.
Sociological factors contributing to smaller families include increased rates of female participation in the workforce and more people going to college and university. Mitchell says women are postponing “childbearing until they have established their careers” and couples are securing their overall financial situation before having kids. With average age of first marriage growing later – just over 30 for men and just under 29 for women – childbearing is delayed for married couples (and indeed all women) having children. Generally speaking, women who put off having children until their 30s and 40s have fewer children.
Cultural factors contributing to decreased fertility rates include the decline in marriage (married couples are more likely to have children), divorce, easy access to birth control and abortion. The birth control pill was legalized for widespread use in the United States in 1960 and Canada in 1969. Fertility rates have been declining ever since. And as Mitchell notes, with nearly 100,000 abortions done annually in Canada, it cannot help having an effect on fertility rates.
Yet, there is good news. Mitchell points to studies that show potential parents intend to have more children than they do. While actual fertility in 1999 was 1.52, Canadian women intended to have 2.22 children – about 25 per cent higher than the reality, but still a good sign. And indeed, fertility rates have grown modestly from just over 1.5 to just under 1.7 from 1999 to 2006 – perhaps confirming the validity of the higher intention rate from the late 1990s.
But this begs the question: if women want more children, why are they not having them?
A combination of reasons seem likely. The use of the contraceptive pill and the procurement of abortions earlier in their lives could be affecting their personal fertility later in life. Women who put off childbearing have fewer children perhaps because of infertility due to age or changes in circumstances. Furthermore, as the Vanier Institute points out, families are under considerable economic pressures. Both fathers and mothers are working longer hours, household debt is increasing, and many adults are caring for their own ageing parents. There is less time and more stress for couples and they fear that having another child will only make things worse.
Does the structure and size of family matter? Most definitely yes.
While just 13 per cent of families were in poverty, that rate is much higher for lone-parent families. As a recent American study by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation pointed out, marriage is the “greatest weapon against child poverty.” Having two parents correlates strongly to higher educational achievement and work, and lower rates of criminality and welfare usage. Having two parents draw an income, even a part-time income in many cases, keeps children out of poverty. Previous studies have indicated that same is true in Canada.
Furthermore, as Mitchell notes, low fertility “is a serious public policy concern.” Jonathan Wellum, who works in the Canadian financial sector and is a senior fellow with Cardus, warned last year that declining fertility threatens private sector growth – fewer consumers means there is less need for products and services – and public policies that require a growing number of workers and taxpayers to foot the bill for future pensions, health care and debt.
It may be too late to address these problems, but assuming it is not, what can be done? The favourite ideas of politicians is to increase immigration and pay families to have more children. But as the C.D. Howe Institute has pointed out, Canada cannot attract enough young immigrants to make up for the growing proportion of those over 65 and dependent on government pension and health programs. And policies that pay families for children – baby bonuses, child care allowances, increased family leave – have only a negligible effect on family size.
Mitchell notes that there is some correlation between government spending and fertility rates. Perhaps the higher taxes necessary to pay for larger government decreases the resources couples have at their disposal and they forgo the expense of more children. Others, such as Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute, suggest that government programs create a false sense of security for women, making them less likely to entertain the idea of the security of marriage.
What is clear is that the family is changing, although the ideal is surviving even as it is being challenged by both the culture and the decisions people make about their own lives. The families that do exist are generally getting smaller. And all this is having a detrimental effect on society.
The Institute for Marriage and Family Canada suggests encouraging the value of marriage and urging couples to save so they can afford larger families. Perhaps bolder steps seem politically unpalatable, but reconsideration of the widespread availability of abortion and contraception would have more drastic and positive effects on the nation’s fertility rate. And it could be argued that abortion and contraception, which severs the connection between sexual relations and childbearing, have altered how society and individuals think about the role of family itself. Why privilege marriage and family in law – in legal definitions and social programs – if the connection between marriage and the creation/raising of the next generation is broken?
The family is under strain, but its not dead. The ideal exists even if it is not lived up to as often. Perhaps it is best to use the terminology of the animal conservation movement. The family is threatened and on the brink of endangerment, but despite what critics say, it is far from extinct. However, public policy and the culture needs to do more to uphold marriage and family life to ensure the vitality of the traditional norm – a married mother and father with children – is maintained and perhaps will once again flourish.
