Patrilocality and Early Marital Co-Residence in Rural China, 1955—85

The China Quarterly

Volumn 130, Issue , 1992, Pages 378-391

  Lavely, William ^a   Ren, Xinhua ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84972371335     PISSN: 03057410     EISSN: 14682648     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0305741000040789     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Zeng Yi “Changes in family structure in China: a simulation study Population and Development Review, Vol. 12, No. 4 (December 1986), pp. 683–85 and 691–692, offers a clear statement of each of these cases (although not with the same labels).
2. See Myron Cohen, House United, House Divided: The Chinese Family in Taiwan (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976)
3. and Susan May Greenhalgh, “Demographic differentiation and the distribution of income: the Taiwan case,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Columbia University, 1982.
4. See Ronald Freedman, Baron Moots, Te-hsiung Sun and Mary Beth Weinberger, “Household composition and extended kinship in Taiwan,” Population Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1 (March 1978), pp. 65-80;
5. Ronald Freedman, Ming-cheng Chang and Te-hsiung Sun, “Household composition, extended kinship and reproduction in Taiwan: 1973-1980,” Population Studies, Vol. 36, No. 3 (November 1982), pp. 395-411;
6. Maxine Weinstein, Te-hsiung Sun, Ming-cheng Chang and Ronald Freedman, “Household composition, extended kinship, and reproduction in Taiwan: 1965-1985,” Population Studies, Vol. 44, No. 2 (July 1990), pp. 217-239;
7. Zeng Yi, Li Xiaoli and Ma Zhongdong, “The trend and the model schedule of leaving the parental home after marriage in China,” Yale University Economic Growth Center Discussion Paper No. 616 (1990);
8. Zeng Yi, Family Dynamics in China: A Life Table Analysis (Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991).
9. For an account of the World Fertility Survey, see John Cleland and John Hobcraft (eds.), Reproductive Change in Developing Countries: Insights from the World Fertility Survey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985).
10. State Statistical Bureau (SSB), Department of Population Statistics, China In-Depth Fertility Survey Phase I: Shaanxi, Hebei, Shanghai (1986).
11. Marriage type here is defined strictly by the co-residence pattern of husband and wife at the time of marriage. If a respondent reported that she and her husband resided with her own parents after marriage, the marriage is counted as “uxorilocal.” The use of the term is not intended to imply a traditional uxorilocal marriage designed to produce a successor for the wife's family. A respondent residing with her own parents after marriage could be in a de-jure duolocal marriage. This typically results when a man with an urban registration marries a rural resident. Such split registration households are not uncommon in peri-urban areas. The IDFS questionnaire does not distinguish variants of this kind, which would probably be classifed as uxorilocal in our scheme.
12. The data were grouped into two-year marriage cohorts in an overlapping fashion, e.g. 1961–62, 1962–63, etc., as a simple smoothing technique.
13. G. William Skinner, “Regional urbanization in nineteenth century China,” in G. William Skinner (ed.), The City in Late Imperial China (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1977).
14. Ronald Freedman et al“Household composition and extended kinship in Taiwan.”
15. Zeng Yi, “Changes in family structure in China”
16. Guo Zhigang, “Guanyu jiatinghu yanjiude jige wenti” (“Some questions about the family household”), Renkou yanjiu, No. 2 (1987), pp. 10–17.
17. See William Lavely and Ronald Freedman, “The origins of the Chinese fertility decline,” Demography, Vol. 27, No. 3 (August 1990), pp. 357–367.
18. Evidence on the emergence of core-periphery differentials in fertility is presented in William Lavely, “The spatial approach to Chinese history,” The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 48, No. 1 (February 1989), pp. 100–113.
19. William L. Parish and Martin King Whyte, Village and Family in Contemporary China (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), pp. 131–38.
20. These changes are described in the series of articles by Ronald Freedman and colleagues cited above.
21. See, for example, the study of specialized households in Sichuan cited by Zeng Yi, “Changes in family structure in China,” p. 693.
22. Bernard and Rita S. Gallin, “Socioeconomic life in rural Taiwan,” Modern China, Vol. 8 (1982), pp. 205-246;
23. William Lavely, “Industrialization and household complexity in rural Taiwan,” Social Forces, Vol. 69, No. 1 (September 1990), pp. 235–251.