Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T16:37:43.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modernization and Household Size and Structure in the Urban and Rural Philippines*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2011

William F. Stinner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent years a considerable amount of theoretical and empirical activity in social and historical demography has been directed towards assessment of the relationship between modernization and household size and structure. Largely stimulated by Levy's postulation of discrepancies between idea and actual household configurations, Burch's pioneering cross-national evaluation of the Levy thesis, and the monumental historical demographic research of the Cambridge Group for the History of Population and Social Structure, studies have been conducted both historically in currently developed societies, as well as in contemporary developing societies. Focused on the co-residential domestic group, these social demographic investigations have questioned long-standing assumptions and conventional wisdom in family sociology with respect to such issues as the universality of extended family co-residential arrangements in pre-industrial societies, the implicit smooth evolutionary trend from extended to nuclear household structures, and the relative contribution of variations in the size of nuclear and extended (as well as non-relative) membership components to variations in overall household size.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 1982 , pp. 120 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, e.g., Coale, A.J. et al. , Aspects of the Analysis of Family Structure (Princeton, 1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Burch, T.K., “The Size and Structure of Families: A Comparative Analysis of Census Data”, American Sociological Review 32 (June 1967): 347–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Arriaga, E., “Some Aspects of Family Composition in Venezuela”, Eugenics Quarterly 15 (Sept. 1968): 177–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Laslett, P., “Size and Structure of the Household in England Over Three Centuries”, Population Studies 23 (Aug. 1969): 199–223CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Laslett, P., “The Comparative History of Household and Family”, Journal of Social History 4 (1970): 75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Laslett, P., The World We Have Lost, 2nd ed., (London, 1971)Google Scholar; Household and Family in Past Time, ed. Laslett, P. and Wall, R. (Cambridge, 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berkner, L.K., “The Stem Family and the Developmental Cycle of the Peasant Household: An Eighteenth-Century Austrian Example”, American Historical Review 77 (Apr. 1972): 398–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hardwerker, W.P., “Technology and Household Configuration in Urban Africa: The Bassa of Monrovia”, American Sociological Review 38 (Apr. 1973): 183–97Google Scholar; Van der Tak, J. and Gendell, M., “The Size and Structure of Residential Families, Guatemala City, 1963”, Population Studies 27 (Mar. 1973): 305–22Google Scholar; Parish, W.L. and Schwartz, M., “Household Complexity in Nineteenth Century France”, American Sociological Review 37 (Apr. 1973): 154–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; R. Freedman and B. Moots, “Household Size and Composition in Taiwan: 1967”, a preliminary paper prepared for the meeting of the Organization of Demographic Associates, Manila, 18–22 Dec. 1973; Laslett, B., “Household Structure on an American Frontier: Los Angeles, California, in 1850”, American Journal of Sociology 81 (July 1975): 109–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Laslett, B., “Social Change and the Family: Los Angeles, California, 1850–1870”, American Sociological Review 42 (Apr. 1977): 268–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Paydarfar, A., “The Modernization Process and Household Size: A Provincial Comparison for Iran”, Journal of Marriage and the Family (May 1975): 446–52Google Scholar; Wong, Fai-Ming, “Industrialization and Family Structure in Hong Kong”, Journal of Marriage and the Family 37 (Nov. 1975): 985–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar; A.H. Walker and M. Gendell, “The Relationship of Family Life Cycle and Rural/Urban Residence to Family Size and Composition: Guatemala, 1965”, a paper presented at the 1976 Population Association of America meetings; and Stinner, W.F., “Urbanization and Household Structure in the Philippines”, Journal of Marriage and the Family. (May 1977): 377–85.Google Scholar

2 M.J. Levy, “Aspects of the Analysis of Family Structure” in A.J. Coale et al., op. cit., pp. 1–63.

3 Burch, op. cit.

4 See, e.g., P. Laslett, 1969, op. cit., 1970, op. cit., 1971, op. cit.; P. Laslett and Wall, op. cit.

5 For initial statements on these issues, see Wirth, L., “Urbanism as a Way of Life”, American Journal of Sociology 44 (July 1938): 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Parsons, T., “The Kinship System of the Contemporary United States”, American Anthropologist 45 (1943): 22–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Parsons, T., “The Normal American Family”, in Man and Civilization: The Family's Search for Survival, ed. Farber, S.M. et al. , (New York, 1965), pp. 31–50Google Scholar; Goode, W.J., World Revolution and Family Patterns (New York, 1963)Google Scholar.

6 Hammel, E.A. and Laslett, P., “Comparing Household Structure Over Time and Between Cultures”, Comparative Studies in Society and History 16 (Jan. 1974): 73–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Burch, op. cit., 361; United Nations, The Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends, I, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Studies No. 50 (New York, 1973), p. 340.Google Scholar

8 See Zelinsky, W., “The Hypothesis of the Mobility Transition”, Geographical Review 61 (1971): 219–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Pryor, R.J., “Migration and the Process of Modernization”, in People on the Move, ed. Kosinski, L.A. and Prothero, R.M. (London, 1975), pp. 23–38Google Scholar, on the conceptualization of the mobility transition.

9 See, e.g., Burch, op. cit.

10 Ibid.

11 Walker and Gendell, op. cit.

12 Freedman and Moots, op. cit.

13 Paydarfar, op. cit.

14 Stinner, op. cit.

15 Levy, op. cit., p. 56.

16 Burch, op. cit., p. 360.

17 See Papanek, Hanna, “Women in Cities: Problems and Perspectives”, Women and World Development: With an Annotated Bibliography, ed. Tinker, Irene, Bo Bramsen, Michele, and Buvinic, Mayra (New York, 1976), p. 61.Google Scholar

18 Burch, op. cit., p. 361, Table 9.

19 Walker and Gendell, op. cit.

20 Stinner, op. cit.

21 Philippines National Census and Statistics Office, 1974, p. xiii.

22 Duncan, O.D., “Path Analysis: Sociological Examples”, American Journal of Sociology 72 (1966): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Ibid., p. 10.

24 Levy, op. cit.

25 Burch, op. cit.

26 For detailed statements on the relationship between modernization and fertility in the Philippine setting, see the collection of articles in Flieger, W. and Smith, P.C., A Demographic Path to Modernity: Patterns of Early-Transition in the Philippines (Quezon City, 1975)Google Scholar.

27 See, e.g., Abu-Lughod, J., “Migrant Adjustment to City Life: the Egyptian Case”, American Journal of Sociology 67 (1961): 22–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Caldwell, J.C., African Rural-Urban Migration: The Movement to Ghana's Towns (New York, 1969)Google Scholar; and H.L. Browning and W. Feindt, “The Social and Economic Context of Migration to Monterrey, Mexico”, Latin American Urban Research I, Ch. 3, ed. F.F. Rabinowitz and F.M. Trueblood, pp. 45–70.

28 Van der Tak and Gendell, op. cit., p. 322.

29 Carroll, J.J., Changing Patterns of Social Structure in the Philippines, 1896–1963 (Quezon City, Philippines, 1968), pp. 11–12Google Scholar; Eggan, F., “Philippine Social Structure”, Six Perspectives on the Philippines, ed. Guthrie, G.M. (Manila, 1968)Google Scholar; Carroll, J.J., “The Family in a Time of Change”, Philippine Institutions, ed. Carroll, J.J. (Manila, 1970), pp. 134–35.Google Scholar

30 Carroll, 1968, op. cit., p. 13.

31 Burch, op. cit., p. 362.

32 On the relationship between size of nuclear family core and presence of extended relatives, see Burch, op. cit.; Van der Tak and Gendell, op. cit.; and Walker and Gendell, op. cit.