Households and their characteristics in the Kingdom of ...

t&HOMES No. 1

Households And Their Characteristics

In The Kingdom of Thailand:

Projections from 1980 to 2015 Using HOMES

EAST-WEST POPULATION INSTITUTE

EAST-WEST CENTER HONOLULU, HAWAII

HOMES Research Reports are circulated to inform planners and researchers about research findings and training materials from the Household Model for Economic and Social Studies developed at the East-West Population Institute. The primary purpose of the H O M E S project is to expand the scope and improve the quality of demographic information available for development planning and the formulation of economic and social policy by providing projections of the number and demographic characteristics of households. In addit ion, modules have been developed to forecast economic changes in the household sector, for example in the composit ion of consumer expenditures, labor supply, and aggregate household saving. The HOMES project has been supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Asian Development Bank, and the General Motors Research Laboratories. Their support is gratefully acknowledged. A list of other HOMES publications is included with this report. For further information about HOMES please contact: Andrew Mason, East-West Population Institute, East-West Center, Honolu lu, Hawaii 96848.

H O M E S Research Report

' No. 1

Households And Their Characteristics

In The Kingdom of Thailand:

Projections from 1980 to 2015 Using HOMES

Andrew Mason Mathana Phananiramai Nipon Poapongsakorn

November 1987

East-West Population Institute East-West Center

1777 East-West Road Honolulu, Hawaii 96848

This report was prepared for the Asian Development Bank as part of the Technical Assistance to the Kingdom of Thailand for the Demographic and Economic Forecasting Pilot Study, in cooperation with the National Economic and Social Development Board. This work would not have been possible without the cooperation of the Director of the Population Survey Division, National Statistical Office, and we would like to acknowledge her support. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the technical and logistic assistance of Laura Srestha, Teh Yoke Yun, and Norma Uejo.

INTRCDUCTICN

The purpose of t h i s report i s to provide detailed descriptions —

h i s t o r i c a l information and projections — about the number and demographic

ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of households i n Thailand, For t h i s purpose, special

tabulations from the 1970 and 1980 population censuses have been used to

analyze the demographic structure of Thai households and, i n conjunction

with population projections recently prepared by NESDB, to project

households to the year 2015. Trie tabulations on which analysis i s based

were compiled i n cooperation with the National S t a t i s t i c a l Office of

Thailand using the 1 percent sample for 1980 and a 2.5 percent sample for

1970.

Die preparation and publication of population projections i s a

fi r m l y established operation i n many countries, and population projections

have proven useful for a variety of purposes — t o evaluate and to

establish population p o l i c i e s , as input to the economic planning process,

and as basic information for the business canmunity. Die preparation and

use of household projections i s much less f i r m l y established, yet for many

purposes household projections are c r i t i c a l . An increasing body of

research points t o the importance of the household.as a determinant of

so c i a l and economic behavior. Women who are rearing young children behave

d i f f e r e n t l y than women who are not. Children raised i n homes with both

parents present d i f f e r from those raised by a single parent. What the

household buys and what the household owns varies with the number of

members, th e i r age, and th e i r sex. The standard of l i v i n g of most people

depends as much on the earnings of other members of the household as i t

does on personal income. And the household provides l i m i t e d security from

the physical and economic r i s k s of everyday l i f e .

To address these issues requires detailed information about

households. Most projections work has attempted l i t t l e beyond tJie

projection of the number of households and the age of the head, but the

work reported here i s an application of a new computer package c a l l e d HOMES

(Mason, 1986) that provides considerable d e t a i l about both the number and

demographic ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of households including:

— number of households

— age and sex of household head

— households with single heads

— one-person households

— average household s i z e

— number of males and females

— age of household members

— number of children and grandchildren

— number of parents.

HOMES employs a unique methodology to determine the entire membership of

the household, including the head, the spouse, children, grandchildren,

parents, and other household members, so that projections are consistent

with underlying mortality and f e r t i l i t y trends. I f , for example,

childbearing becomes more concentrated among women i n t h e i r twenties, HCMES !

accounts for t h i s trend i n projecting the number of children i n households

i n subsequent years. Or i f mortality among the el d e r l y declines, HOMES

accounts for the impact on the number of households headed by el d e r l y , the

number of eld e r l y l i v i n g alone, and the number l i v i n g i n households headed

by t h e i r offspring.

HOMES has been developed to deal with household composition i n the

developing country context. I t s emphasis i s on analyzing the impact of

demographic change on both the composition and the number of households,

and i t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y well-suited for application to countries where

extended or multi-generational families are prevalent. HOMES has been

applied to a number of East and Southeast Asian countries, including Korea,

Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines i n addition to Thailand.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The number of households will grow quite rapidly over the next two decades.

The number of households i s projected to increase from 10.2

m i l l i o n i n 1985 to 18.1 m i l l i o n i n 2005. This amounts to an

average annual rate of growth over the period of 2.9 percent as

compared with a population growth rate of 1.4 percent over the same

period. The greatest increases, i n absolute terms, w i l l occur at

the turn of the century when the number of households w i l l be

increasing by .400,000 per year.

I

4

Young households will grow most slowly.

Households with a head under t h i r t y - f i v e years of age w i l l

grow most slowly so that by 2005 only one-quarter of a l l households

w i l l have a head so young. Those with heads 35 to 49 years of age

w i l l grow most rapidly, increasing t h e i r share from 36 percent to

40 percent between now and 2005.

I Households are becoming smaller.

In 1970 households averaged nearly s i x membeisapiece, but

by 2005 households should average only 3.7 members. The decline i n i

household s i z e w i l l occur across the board. Intact households and

households with single heads, households with young heads and those

with old heads w i l l a l l be considerably smaller within two decades.

The family household i s not on the decline.

i

In both 1970 and 1980 family households were dominant, as

fewer than f i v e percent of a l l households consisted of one person

or primary i n d i v i d u a l households. Nearly four of f i v e households

were headed by a husband and wife and no s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n

these numbers are projected.

i

i

i

t

5

Linea l households are on the upsurge.

Fewer household members have a non-lineal relationship to

the head. Between 1970 and 1980, the percentage of household

members who were brothers, s i s t e r s , aunts, uncles, etc. dropped

dramatically. At the same time, the number of members who were

parents, children, or grandchildren of the head increased. The

decline i n other household members should continue over the next

two decades. There i s no evidence of a decline i n the importance

of l i n e a l extended households.

Households cure becoming " a d u l t - i f i e d . "

Over the next two decades, the number of children l i v i n g i n

households w i l l decline by one-half. ,In 1985, the average inta c t

household had two members under 15 but i s projected to average only

one c h i l d by 2005. In contrast, the average number of adult

members w i l l decline only marginally during the same period. The

ove r a l l dependency r a t i o w i l l decline from 78 dependents per 100

prime-age adults i n 1980 to 44 dependents per 100 prime-age adults

i n 2005.

Elderly parents will not prove burdensome.

Over the next twenty years, the number of parents per

household w i l l increase only marginally and the number 65 and older

hardly at a l l . By 2005 there should be no more than 10 parents per

6

100 households, but as aging sets i n with more force during the twenty-first century the prevalence of el d e r l y parents i n the household should increase markedly.

CURRENT SITUATICN

Characteristics of Households

In 1985, Thailand's population passed 50 m i l l i o n and the number of

households reached the 10 m i l l i o n mark. As shown i n Table 1, t h i s

represents a very substantial increase from 1980. In that year, we

estimate that there were approximately 8.7 m i l l i o n households, so that an

additional 1.5 m i l l i o n households have been added i n only f i v e years. Hie

rapid increase i n the number of households i s the product of two forces.

Thailand's population has been growing rapidly since 1960. Averaging

annual growth of nearly 2 percent per year, the population i n 1985 was

v i r t u a l l y double that of I960. But the number of households has grown even

Table 1. Population and the Number of Households.

Population Year (1000 !s)

Households (1000's)

Average Household

Size

1960 26,258 4,600 5.68 1970 36,370 6,200 5.82 1980 46,718 8,700 5.32

Adjusted Values 1980 46,016 8,689 5.30 1985 50,902 10,215 4.99

NOTES: Adjusted values include only private household population adjusted for under-enumeration. Unadjusted values taken from census reports.

more rapidly as average household si z e has declined. Households i n 1970

averaged nearly s i x members each, but by 1985, they averaged only f i v e .

The overwhelming majority of households i n Thailand are family

households, i . e . , households i n which at least one of the members i s

related by blood or marriage to the household head. Only about 4% of a l l

households are one-person households or households consisting of unrelated

i n d i v i d u a l s . Almost four out of every f i v e households are i n t a c t , i . e . ,

the head's spouse i s present, whereas almost one i n f i v e i s headed by a man

or woman who i s unmarried or separated from his or her spouse. Of these

single heads, nearly three out of four are women.

Table 2. Type of Households, 1985.

Number Average Type of Household (1000's) Percentage Size

Intact Household 7,985 78.2 5.3

Single Heads Male Heads 475 4.7 4.5 Female Heads 1,311 12.8 4.6

Primary Individuals Male Heads 50 0.5 3.5 Female Heads 31 0.3 3.2

Single Persons Males 181 1.8 1.0 Females 182 1.8 1.0

TOTAL 10,215 100.0 5.0

These households vary i n many ways that w i l l be discussed below,

but one important difference i s pinpointed by Table 2. Intact households

tend to be the largest, with t h e i r average s i z e exceeding f i v e members.

8

Figure 1. Number of Households by Age and Sex of Head.

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS, THAILAND 1985

F E M A L E H E A D

I 1 5 , 9 I 1 5 0 0 1 2 0 0 9 0 0 6 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 6 0 0 9 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 5 0 0

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS(X 1000)

HOUSEHOLDS WITrJ SINGLE HEADS THAILAND 19B5

M A L E H E A D

2 0 0 1 6 0 1 2 0 8 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 6 0 1 2 0 1 6 0 2 0 0

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS (X 1000) E3 N O N - F A M I L Y H O U S E H O L D S • FAMILY H O U S E H O L D S

Single-headed households are. smaller, on average, by just under one person,

and primary individual' households have about three and one-half persons per

household.

Many of Thailand's households are headed by r e l a t i v e l y young

adults. The age pyramid of Figure 1 shows that the heaviest concentration

i s among households headed by men i n t h e i r t h i r t i e s . The age

cha r a c t e r i s t i c of the head i s very sensitive, however, to the type of

household i n question. For example, the age d i s t r i b u t i o n of men who are

single heads i s bi-modal with peaks i n the l a t e twenties and l a t e f i f t i e s ,

whereas younger men tend to head non-family households. On the other hand,

women i n t h e i r f i f t i e s , s i x t i e s , and even seventies frequently head

non-family and single-headed households.

Who are the members of households i n Thailand? There are several

ways to answer the question — we can describe t h e i r relationship to the

head, t h e i r age, and t h e i r sex. Table 3 provides an answer from a

relationship-to-head perspective.

Table 3. Average Number of Household Members by Their Relationship to the Household Head, 1985.

Intact Single Male Head Single Female Head Relationship Number Percent . Number Percent Number Percent

Head 1.0 19 1.0 .22 1.0 22 Spouse 1.0 19 — — — — Child 2.7 52 1.7 38 2.2 48 Parent 0.1 2 0.2 4 0.1 1 Grandchild 0.2 4 0.6 .. 12 0.7 16 Other 0.2 5 1.1 24 0.6 13

10

In family households, a p l u r a l i t y of members are children of the head. About hal f the members of intac t and female-headed households and just under fort y percent of the members of households headed by single males are the c h i l d of the head. This i s a remarkably high percentage given that households with heads w e l l past the childbearing and childrearing stages of t h e i r l i v e s are included i n Table 3. Furthermore, an additional 4 to 16 percent of a l l household members are the grandchildren of the head. By contrast, very few members are the parent of the household head — the number per household i s 0.2 members or less for each household type. But these numbers do not imply that older men and women i n Thailand are not l i v i n g with t h e i r children. Rather, i n many cases, older adults are designated the head even though they are l i v i n g with adult offspring.

The implication of a household including many children i s not clear

cut because the term c h i l d , as used here, denotes a b i o l o g i c a l

relationship. Many children of the head are adults and may shoulder a

substantial burden i n providing support for other members of the household.

Figure 2 provides some basic demographic d e t a i l , namely age and sex, of

household members who are children, parents, or grandchildren of the head

or other household members.

The great majority of children of the head are, i n f a c t , under age

twenty, but about two and one-half m i l l i o n males and two m i l l i o n females i n

t h e i r twenties are the c h i l d of the head. Even at older ages, being the

c h i l d of the head i s far from rare as close to a m i l l i o n persons i n t h e i r

e a r l y t h i r t i e s are the c h i l d of the head. Being the grandchild of the head

11

Figure 2. Number of Children, Grandchildren, Parents, and Other Household Members by Sex and Age.

3 0 0 0

NUMBER OF CHILDREN, THAILAND 1985

MALE AGE

O V E R 5 9

5 5 - 5 9

5 0 - 5 4

4 5 - 4 9

^ 4 0 - 4 4

3 5 - 3 9

3 0 - 3 4

2 5 - 2 9

2 0 - 2 4

1 5 - 1 9

FEMALE

1 0 - 1

5

NUMBER OF CHILDREN (X 1000) S I N G L E H E A D H O U S E H O L D S •

2 4 0 0

KTACT H O U S E H O L D S

NUMBER OF GRANDCHILDREN, THAILAND 1985

M A L E

7 5 0 6 0 0 3 0 0 1 5 0 7 5 0

S I N G L E H E A D H O U S E H O L D S

NUMBER OF GRANDCHILDREN (X 1000) • U T A C T H O U S E H O L D S

12

Figure 2. Number of Children, .Grandchildren, Parents, and Other Household Members ty Sex and Age (continued).

NUMBER OF PARENTS, THAILAND 1985 MALE AGE

O V E R 7 4

7 0 - 7 4

6 5 - 6 9

6 0 - 6 4

5 5 - 5 9

5 0 - 5 4

4 5 - 4 9

4 0 - 4 4

3 5 - 3 9

3 0 - 3 4

2 5 - 2 9

2 0 - 2 4

1 5 - 1 9

D

2 0 0 1 6 0 1 2 0

E 9 S I N G L E H E A D H O U S E H O L D S

FEMALE

1 6 0 6 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 A O 1 2 0

NUMBER OF PARENTS (X 1000) • INTACT H O U S E H O L D S

NUMBER OF OTHERS. THAILAND 1985 MALE

4 0 0 3 2 0 2 4 0

AGE O V E R 7 4

7 0 - 7 4

FEMALE

s 6 5

6 0

LI 5 5

Q] 5 0

E S »

2 5

2 0

1 5

1 0

5

0

6 9

6 4

5 9

5 4

4 9

ED

n 3 9 £

3 4

2 9

2 4

1 9

1 4

9

8 0 1 8 0 8 0 0 0

NUMBER OF OTHERS (X 1000) P R I M A R Y INDIVIDUAL H O U S E H O L D S £ 3 S I N G L E H E A D H O U S E H O L D S

1 6 0 2 4 0 3 2 0 4 0 0

1 | I N T A C T H O U S E H O L D S

13

i s much more close l y associated with age, as nearly a l l grandchildren are under age twenty.

Parents of the head are concentrated at the e l d e r l y ages and, i n

p a r t i c u l a r , among women. Other household members are concentrated among

young adults and children. About equal numbers of boys and g i r l s under

twenty are other household members, but among those twenty to t h i r t y - f o u r

men outnumber women.

A somewhat di f f e r e n t perspective emerges from Figure 3, which shows

how the composition of the household varies with the age of the household

head. By d e f i n i t i o n , i n t a c t households have a male head and a wife at

every age whereas single-headed households have one head and no spouse.

The number of children of the head increases during the childbearing years

and then declines as many children leave the nest. Some remain behind,

however, and the number of grandchildren increases among older heads. The

other categories are generally less s i g n i f i c a n t — parents tend to be

concentrated among younger households whereas other household members are

more evenly dist r i b u t e d across a l l households irrespe c t i v e of the age of

the head.

The age composition of households varies substantially among

dif f e r e n t types of households. Table 4 provides detailed information, but

a number of features stand out. Pqe composition varies s i g n i f i c a n t l y with

the l i f e cycle of the household. Households with heads under 35 years of

age tend t o have many young members, whereas households with heads over 65

tend t o have many older members. The l i f e cycle pattern i s usefully

14

Figure 3. Household Composition by Age of Household Head.

INTACT HOUSEHOLDS

7 -i

4 i i i j , , ( r i j» i i / i i ' i | i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i ' ' t i i ' ' l ' ' | ) | i ' | ' ' ' l » ' l | i ' ' ' ' ^ l ' ' * l ' l l ' ' l " * I M I ' M ' ' ' /•••¥••»'•> •» F T - H I I

25-29 35-39 45—4-9 55-59 65-69 A G E O F S P O U S E

summarized by the dependency ratio, which has a distinctive U-shape for

intact and female-headed households. Hie ratio of number of dependents per

prime-age adult i s near 1 to 1 for households with a head under age 35,

many of whom are shouldering childr earing responsibilities. The dependency

ratio declines markedly for households with middle-aged heads, but rises

again to 1.5 for intact households headed by elderly men and to one for

family households headed by elderly women. In general, the dependency

ratio i s considerably lower for households headed by single males, ftnong

men under age 35, the ratio i s a scant 0.36 and, although i t rises

substantially with the age of the head, i t i s s t i l l well below the level

that characterizes other household types.

15

Table 4. Age and Sex of Household Members, 1985.

Age of Age of Head or Spouse of H e a d — Member 15-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Total

Intact Households 0-14 2.14 2.31 1.24 1.11 2.02

15-34 1.94 1.76 2.22 1.28 1.90 35-49 0.29 1.73 0.17 0.43 0.78 50-64 0.06 0.26 1.76 0.17 0.41 65+ 0.06 0.09 0.23 1.87 0.15

D Ratio 0.96 0.64 0.35 1.59 0.70 Sex Ratio 100 104 102 98 102

Single Head , Male 0-14 0.95 1.33 1.33 1.39 1.25 15-34 2.51 2.01 2.01 1.75 2.08 35-49 0.30 0.65 0.39 0.57 0.46 50-64 0.27 0.36 0.66 0.40 0.44 65+ 0.16 0.18 0.27 0.68 0.31

D Ratio 0.36 0.50 0.52 0.76 0.52 Sex Ratio 165 157 154 144 155

Single Head , Female 0-14 1.64 1.75 1.30 1.35 1.49

15-34 1.87 1.89 2.16 1.45 1.90 35-49 0.04 1.0$ 0.20 0.67 0.52 50-64 0.09 0.04 1.04 0.14 0.44 65+ 0.08 0.11 0.04 1.03 0.27

D Ratio 0.86 0.62 0.39 1.05 0.62 Sex Ratio 55 66 66 62 62

Notes: Dependency r a t i o i s population 0 t o 14 and 65 and older divided by the population 15 to 64. Sex r a t i o i s male population divided by female population times 100.

The sex r a t i o i s also cl o s e l y associated with household type.

Intact households have a f a i r l y even sex r a t i o i r r e s p e c t i v e of the age of

the household head. Male-headed households, on the other hand, have about

f i f t y percent more men than women, whereas female-headed households have

about f i f t y percent more women than men.

16

Determinants of Household Characteristics

The number and cha r a c t e r i s t i c s of households are the products of

two forces: (1) s o c i a l l y determined rules that govern the way that family

and non-family members gather i n t o households; and, (2) demographic

processes that determine the number of people who are candidates for

household membership.

The impact of demographic processes on household composition i s i n

many ways obvious, but i n other ways i s more subtle. The number of

households w i l l vary with the number of prime-age adults; the prevalence of

single-headed households w i l l depend on mortality among spouses; the number

of children per household w i l l depend on f e r t i l i t y and c h i l d s u r v i v a l , and

i n which households children l i v e w i l l depend on the timing of f e r t i l i t y ;

the number of parents per household w i l l depend on su r v i v a l at older ages,

and so on.

One of the most obvious connections between ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of

households and the underlying population i s between the age d i s t r i b u t i o n of

the population and the number and age d i s t r i b u t i o n of household members.

Figure 4 shows one way of i l l u s t r a t i n g the connection between the

population and household membership. The implications of Thailand's

r e l a t i v e l y young age structure and the implications of the aging that the

population i s currently undergoing are apparent. A young population i s one

i n which young households w i l l be prevalent, i n which a high percentage of

household members w i l l be children, and i n which a low percentage of

members w i l l be parents. But as Thailand's population ages, described i n

17

detail below, household heads w i l l , on the average, be older; i n addition,

more members w i l l be parents and fewer w i l l be children or grandchildren.

Figure 4. Age and Sex of Household Members.

RELATIONSHIP TO HEAD THAILAND 1985

FEMALE

WSJ\\

3500 2800 2100 1400 700 0 0 700

NUMBER (X 1000) • MEAD £5 CHILD

E SPOUSE B3 GRANDCHILD

2 1 0 0 28O0 3 5 0 0

E2 OTHERS

PARENT

How many households and what kind?

The relationship between population and the number of households i n

1980 and 1970 i s detailed i n Figure 5, which charts headship rates, i . e . ,

the proportion of men and women in five-year age groups who are household

heads. As can be seen i n the figure, the overwhelming majority of a l l men

head a household at some time during their l i f e . The peak i n 1980 occurred

18

among men i n t h e i r f i f t i e s — 95% were household heads. The r i s e i n headship observed among men i n t h e i r twenties and t h i r t i e s accompanies the r i s e i n the number married, but couples i n Thailand frequently delay establishing households separate frcm the conjugal unit a number of years aft e r t h e i r marriage. The decline i n headship at older ages i s s i g n i f i c a n t as the headship mantle i s passed on to the next generation. Headship rates are low among women i n t h e i r twenties and t h i r t i e s but r i s i n g s t e a d i l y . By the time that women reach t h e i r s i x t i e s and seventies nearly a t h i r d are household heads.

Comparison of headship rates i n 1970 and 1980 shows that the

relationship between population and the number of households has been

r e l a t i v e l y stable. Headship rates showed evidence of very modest declines

at young ages and somewhat more substantial increases at older ages among

men. Among women, headship rates increased marginally at the young ages

between 1970 and 1980 and somewhat more s i g n i f i c a n t l y among older women.

The o v e r a l l headship rates shown i n Figure 5 conceal important

changes that occur i n l i v i n g arrangements as adults progress through t h e i r

l i v e s , however. Among young adults, i n t a c t households predominate (see the

Appendix for detailed f i g u r e s ) , but as fam i l i e s age alt e r n a t i v e forms

become increasingly important. Table 5 shows detailed rates for s i n g l e ,

primary i n d i v i d u a l , and one-person household headship for men and women i n

Thailand i n 1980. Several features of the table are noteworthy. F i r s t ,

primary i n d i v i d u a l headship i s rare — for no age or sex group does the

headship rate reach one percent. Second, one-person households are

19

Figure 5. Headship Rates for Men and Wcmen, 1970 and 1980. Overall Headship Rates

Thailand. 1970 k I960

15-19 25-29 35-39 45-49 55-59 65-59 75-79 55+

uncanmon. A l i t t l e over one percent of young men and a l i t t l e under one

percent of young women l i v e alone. But among older men and women, livi n g

alone i s somewhat more common. Of those over 65, around two to three

percent of men and five to six percent of women l i v e i n one-person

households. (Unlike the United States, members of one-person households

may be l i v i n g i n a housing unit with another household.) Third, being the

single head of a household i s quite common, particularly for women. Even

among women i n their late forties, nearly 15 percent are single heads and

around one-quarter of a l l wcmen 55 and older head households without a

husband present. Men are considerably less l i k e l y to be single heads —

single headship rates vary nearer ten percent for those over 55.

20 i

Table 5. Headship rates for Household i n which head and spouse are not both present, Thailand, 1980. Age of Single Head Primary Individuals One Person Head Male Female Male Female Male Female

15 - 19 .0034 .0035 .0015 .0007 .0028 .0019 20 - 24 .0139 .0138 .0055 .0025 .0110 .0051 25 - 29 .0183 .0246 .0061 .0036 .0124 .0057 30 - 34 .0190 .0427 .0029 .0014 .0113 .0069 35 - 39 .0208 .0718 .0034 .0016 .0107 .0069 40 - 44 .0274 .0996 .0020 .0014 .0113 .0074 45 - 49 .0422 .1421 .0019 .0005 .0121 .0098 50 - 54 .0560 .1933 .0014 .0014 .0132 .0156 55 - 59 .0802 .2340 .0020 .0023 .0174 .0235 60 - 64 .1016 .2684 .0015 .0010 .0245 .0311 65 - 69 .1091 •2826 .0008 .0042 .0282 .0531 70 - 74 .1397 .2627 .0031 .0036 .0258 .0635 75 - 79 .1612 .2541 .0000 .0022 .0311 .0612 8 0 - 8 4 .1356 .2335 .0073 .0014 .0313 .0698 85+ .1163 ' .1991 .0000 .0000 .0445 .0552

I

Although -the data reported above emphasize the household head, for

many purposes and p a r t i c u l a r l y for analyzing household composition, the

wife of the household head plays a c r i t i c a l r o l e . (Household headship i s

self-reporting i n the Thailand census and some in t a c t households report

female heads. To ease computation, reporting, and international

comparisons, we have followed the convention of designating the male as the

head and the female as the spouse of the head i n a l l i n t a c t households.)

Above a l l , the presence of children depends on childbearing, which i s

clo s e l y associated with the age of the wife. Table 6 shows, for women i n

selected age groups i n 1980, the proportion married to men i n the same age

group and adjacent age groups. As i s true i n most countries, Thai women

are l i k e l y to be married t o heads that are older, but the age difference

between heads and spouses i s not p a r t i c u l a r l y high by Asian standards, and

21

Thai wcmen are somewhat more w i l l i n g to marry younger men. As couples age, the average age gap declines. This occurs, of course, because younger husbands are more l i k e l y to survive and not because the age difference between newlyweds has been increasing over time.

Table 6. Proportion of women at selected ages who are the spouse of a head i n selected age groupings, Thailand, 1980*

Age of -Percentage Who are Spouse of Head Aged- Ages of Head Woman (X) X-5 X X45 X+10 X+15 Combined

20 - 24 .003 .093 .156 .053 .014 .330 30 - 34 .047 .242 .264 .094 .030 .699 40 - 44 .057 .282 .273 .103 .026 .779 50 - 54 .058 .255 .217 .085 .031 .687 60 - 64 .047 .170 .150 .060 .015 .477 70 - 74 .037 .096 .057 .017 .007 .240

Issues about household headship

Headship rates are used to project the number of households, but the

accuracy of the procedure depends on whether changes i n headship rates from

year to year are small or can be adequately predicted. A comparison of

Thailand's 1970 and 1980 headship rates indicates that, for the most

important age groups, i . e . , those with the largest numbers of people,

o v e r a l l headship rates have been r e l a t i v e l y stable. At the older age

groups, headship rates have ri s e n modestly, but for reasons that are not

altogether clear • . Increased headship. rates. accompany, increased

nuclearization of households, because older adults and t h e i r offspring

es t a b l i s h separate households. That headship rates have not increased

among adults under 55 suggests that t h i s may not be occurring. For men,

most of the increase i n headship between 1970 and 1980 has been an increase

22

i n i n t a c t households. This might very well be a product of increased longevity among spouses, reducing the number of j o i n t households, i . e . , those containing s i b l i n g s , aunts and uncles, etc. Evidence presented below supports t h i s view.

For Thai women, the proportions of single heads were r e l a t i v e l y stable

for women under 60 but increased by 2 to 8 percentage points between 1970

and 1980 for wcmen 60 and older. The greatest increases occurred for women

85 and over. The proportion l i v i n g i n one-person households and i n primary

in d i v i d u a l households was r e l a t i v e l y constant during t h i s period. Again,

the r i s e i n the proportion of single heads may be a consequence of

increased longevity among women, i . e . , because more women were o u t l i v i n g

t h e i r husbands. This i s speculative at the moment but- warrants further

i n v e s t i g a t i o n .

Children of the Head

The number of children refers t o surviving offspring of the household

head and h i s wife who have not established a separate household. Also

included are step-children, adopted children, and husbands or wives of

the head's children. The number, age, and sex of children i n the household

are products of two factors: the candidates for household membership,

consisting primarily of surviving offspring, and the rules that govern the

l i k e l i h o o d that ofrspring w i l l continue to l i v e i n t h e i r conjugal household

or that of t h e i r spouse.

23

The number of surviving offspring for an in d i v i d u a l couple depends on the couple's past childbearing and the mortality experience of t h e i r children. likewise, for a cohort of women the number of surviving offspring of each age and sex depends on the cohort's f e r t i l i t y experience and the mortality history of the cohort's offspring.

Using techniques described i n d e t a i l elsewhere (Mason and Martin,

1982) the number of surviving offspring per woman i s calculated and

presented i n Table 7. Only offspring below the age of t h i r t y are reported

i n Table 7 because few offspring over age t h i r t y are the c h i l d of a head;

however, a complete table i s used t o project the number of children as

reported below. The value of Table 7 i s two-fold — i t not only quantifies

the number of children available for household members but also i d e n t i f i e s

the households to which they would belong. Children under f i v e , for

example, w i l l be concentrated i n households with a wife of head i n her

twenties or early t h i r t i e s . Children aged 20-24, by contrast, would be

concentrated i n households i n which the spouse of the head i s i n her

f o r t i e s or f i f t i e s .

As the f e r t i l i t y t r a n s i t i o n proceeds i n Thailand the number of

children i n households w i l l be influenced by both the decline i n

childbearing and changes i n the timing of f e r t i l i t y . F e r t i l i t y decline

w i l l mean fewer children per household and changes i n the timing of

f e r t i l i t y w i l l influence the character of households i n which children

l i v e . In general, f e r t i l i t y tends t o be compressed i n t o fewer years as

older women, i n p a r t i c u l a r , bear fewer children and i n some cases f e r t i l i t y

among very young women declines as w e l l . The characteristics of

24

Table 7. Surviving oftspring per woman, 1980.

Age of Age of Surviving Offspring Women 0 - 4 5 - 9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 0-29

Male Offspring 15-19 0.036 0 0 0 0 0 0.036 20-24 0.265 0.039 0 0 0 0 0.304 25-29 0.319 0.232 0.031 0 0 0 0.583 30-34 0.259 0.342 0.237 0.022 0 0 0.860 35-39 0.186 0.292 0.384 0.212 0.016 0 1.090 40-44 0.116 0.222 0.364 0.378 0.201 0.017 1.297 45-49 0.051 0.166 0.316 0.402 0.383 0.209 1.528 50-54 0.006 0.067 0.245 0.388 0.451 0.423 1.580 55-59 0 0.008 0.093 0.273 0.405 0.471 1.251 60-64 0 0 0.010 0.091 0.254 0.385 0.740 65-69 0 0 0 0.012 0.093 0.267 0.372 70-74 0 0 0 0 0.011 0.100 0.111 75-79 0 0 0 0 0 0.013 0.013 80-84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Female Offspring 15-19 0.034 0 0 0 0 • 0 0.034 20-24 0.254 0.038 0 0 0 0 0.291 25-29 0.306 0.223 0.030 0 0 0 0.559 30-34 0.248 0.329 0.228 0.021 0 0 0.827 35-39 0.178 0.281 0.369 0.207 0.016 0 1.051 40-44 0.111 0.214 0.350 0.367 0.196 0.016 1.254 45-49 0.049 0.161 0.304 0.392 0.372 0.204 1.481 50-54 0.006 0.064 0.236 0.377 0.438 0.412 1.534 55-59 0 0.008 0.089 0.266 0.393 0.459 1.214 60-64 0 0 0.010 0.089 . 0.247 0.375 0.721 65-69 0 0 0 0.011 0.090 0.261 0.362 70-74 0 0 0 0 0.011 0.096 0.108 75-79 0 0 0 0 0 0.013 0.013 80-84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

households i n which children are found w i l l change correspondingly: the

greatest decline i n the number of children w i l l be i n older households.

Such a pattern of change has characterized Thailand's f e r t i l i t y t r a n s i t i o n

t o t h i s point. Figure 6 shows that the number of offspring under age 15

per adult declined only for women i n t h e i r l a t e r t h i r t i e s or older between

25

1950 and 1980. But by 2010, dramatic declines are expected among a l l those

thirty and older and more modest declines among women i n their twenties.

Figure 6. Children per Adult ty Age of Mother, 1950, 1980, and 2010.

THAILAND - AGE AND CHILDREN P E R PARENT 2 . 8 - j

Age of Mother

Uie number of surviving offspring quantifies only the supply of

potential children of the head. But the number who are the child of the

head varies systematically with the age of the child and with the age of

the mother. For the most part, young children are most l i k e l y to be the

child of a head. Table 8 reports the proportions of children who were the

child of a head i n 1970 and 1980.

26

Table 8, Proportion of Population who were the Child of a Head

1970 1980 Male Female Age Male Female

0- 4 5- 9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39

.807

.870

.877

.832

.654

.360

.192

.112

.819

.872

.876

.788

.532

.300

.167

.102

.744

.849

.875

.841

.661

.387

.211

.121

.747

.852

.872

.786

.540

.329

.210

.123

Those aged 0-4 i n Thailand are actually less l i k e l y to be the c h i l d

of the head than those who are somewhat older. This i s a r e l a t i v e l y common

phenomenon i n societies where extended households are prevalent: almost

a l l who are not the c h i l d are the grandchild of the head. As we reach

those over f i f t e e n years of age, the proportion who are the c h i l d of a head

declines s t e a d i l y as offspring establish separate households. In general,

the proportions decline more rapidly for women, r e f l e c t i n g t h e i r e a r l i e r

age at marriage. But the proportions are roughly equal for those over 30.

An unusally high percentage of older Thai's are the c h i l d of the head. The

proportions for those over t h i r t y years of age are substantially higher

than comparable values i n Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, or the

Philippines (Mason and Martin, 1985; Mason, 1986) • The l i k e l i h o o d of being

a c h i l d of the head has declined for young offspring, consistent with an i

increase i n grandchildren or three-generation f a m i l i e s . Among older

offspring the proportions have increased between 1970 and 1980, again

consistent with a r i s e i n three-generation f a m i l i e s . I t i s not at a l l

clear i f t h i s change r e f l e c t s behavioral change, i . e . , an increased

preference for the extended family. At l e a s t i n part, the change may be a

27

consequence of increased survival among the men and women who are parents of these offspring. But whether the source of change i s behavioral or demographic, the fact remains that the t r a n s i t i o n t o headship and the li k e l i h o o d of being i n a l i n e a l , three-generation family has increased i n Thailand. This i s a suprising r e s u l t and contrary to the view that modernization has eroded t r a d i t i o n a l values and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , the extended family.

The l i k e l i h o o d that offspring w i l l be the c h i l d of the head also

depends on the age of t h e i r mother. Figure 7 plots the l i k e l i h o o d of being

the c h i l d of the head (the r a t i o of children t o surviving offspring)

against age of spouse. For oftspring under age 10, the l i k e l i h o o d of being

the c h i l d of the head increases with the mother's age because older mothers

are more l i k e l y to have established separate households. For offspring 15

and older, the l i k e l i h o o d of being the c h i l d of the head decreases with the

mother's age. There are two obvious explanations for t h i s phenomenon.

F i r s t , offspring of older women are more l i k e l y to be orphaned. Second,

within any age group the oftspring of older mothers w i l l be older, on the

average, than the offspring of younger mothers and more l i k e l y t o have

established a separate household. The l i k e l i h o o d that those i n the 10-14

year-old age group are the c h i l d of the head r i s e s and then f a l l s , possibly

influenced by factors a f f e c t i n g younger and t h e i r older s i b l i n g s .

The offspring and l i k e l i h o o d data reported above address the

questions of whether oftspring are children of the head and, i f so, with

what age mothers w i l l they be l i v i n g . An unanswered question i s i n what

type of households w i l l they be residing? As a f i r s t approximation, one

might expect that each type of household would have on average the same

number of children. But t h i s i s u n l i k e l y for three reasons. F i r s t , i n t a c t

households do not have any apparent interruption to t h e i r childbearing due

to the separation of head and wife. Other factors aside, i n t a c t households

should have higher childbearing, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n recent years, than

households with single heads. Second, the choice of residence for children

may not be independent of the sex of the parent. In the case of divorce,

for example, children may be more l i k e l y to l i v e with t h e i r mother than

t h e i r father. Thus, the number of children per household would be

disproportionately small for households headed by single men. Third, the

existence of a separate household may depend on the number of children.

Single wcmen with a few or no surviving offspring may be absorbed back i n t o

t h e i r conjugal household, for example, whereas single wcmen with many

29

children may maintain separate households. Thus, households headed by

single females might have larger than average households.

The net effect of these various factors can be assessed by

comparing the observed number of children per household with the expected

number i f the average number i s independent of household type. The r a t i o s ,

calculated from 1980 data, are presented for selected ages i n Table 9.

Table 9. Ratio of Observed to Expected Daughters per Household

Age of —Age of Spouse at Time of B i r t h -Offspring 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54

Intact Households 0- 4 1.12 1.07 1.05 1.05 1.07 1.10 1.16 1.16

10-14 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.08 1.10 1.10 1.04 20-24 0.89 0.99 0.99 1.01 1.04 1.04 1.06 0.80 30-34 0.73 0.94 0.98 0.93 0.85 1.03 0.84 1.15

Single Head, Male 0- 4 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.20 0.25 0.23 0.32 0.55

10-14 0.83 0.47 0.49 0.54 0.49 0.49 0.76 1.65 20-24 3.26 1.06 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.93 1.32 2.04 30-34 3.86 4.53 1.58 1.18 1.04 1.02 1.10 1.34

Single Head, Female 0- 4 0.31 0.46 0.54 0.52 0.56 0.53 0.41 0.56

10-14 0.69 0.81 0.81 0.86 0.77 0.79 0.82 0.76 20-24 1.33 1.03 1.07 1.01 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.96 30-34 1.24 1.04 0.99 1.12 1.18 0.95 1.04. 0.83

The number of children per household i s apparently quite sensitive

to household type. Disproportionately small numbers of young children are

i n single-headed households, p a r t i c u l a r l y those headed by males.

Obviously, the expected number of young offspring would be more closely

associated with the current absence of a spouse than would the number of

older surviving offspring. Moreover, young children are most l i k e l y to

l i v e with t h e i r mothers. The picture i s quite d i f f e r e n t for older

30 children, however. Households with single heads have a disproportionately

large number of children. This i s understandable because the great

majority of people with spouses absent would have l i v e d with t h e i r spouses

twenty to t h i r t y years e a r l i e r so that the expected number of surviving

offspring 20 or 30 years old w i l l not be highly correlated with current

household type. That the r a t i o s for single-headed households are

frequently greater than one suggests that children i n single-headed

households are l e s s l i k e l y to leave than are those i n i n t a c t households.

This appears to be an example of how the family i n s t i t u t i o n operates to

mitigate the impact of exogenous shocks, e.g., mortality among household

members.

Grandchildren

That v i r t u a l l y a l l young offspring who are not sons or daughters of

the head are grandchildren of the head i s confirmed by Table 10, which

reports the proportion who were grandchildren according to the 1970 and

1980 censuses. In 1980, one i n f i v e children under age 5 was the

grandchild of the household head, but the proportions decline r a p i d l y with

age as the c h i l d ' s parents establish t h e i r own households. Even so, nearly

4 percent of those i n t h e i r l a t e teens were the grandchild of the head i n

1980. Although other East Asian populations examined to date show

s i g n i f i c a n t numbers of grandchildren, only i n Malaysia are the rates as

high among those over age 5 and no other country approaches the prevalence

for the under 5 population. The proportions increased notably between 1970

and 1980 • As noted above, t h i s phenomenon may r e f l e c t nothing more than

increased s u r v i v a l among grandparents.

31

Table 10. The Prevalence of Grandchildren

•1970- •1980 Pqe Males Females Males Females

0- 4 5- 9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29

.162

.089

.051

.030

.013

.003

.152

.088

.052

.025

.010

.003

.216

.114

.071

.036

.018

.007

.215

.109

.066

.034

.014

.005

The proportions i n Table 10 are a byproduct of several processes,

i n p a r t i c u l a r , the relationship between bearing children and establishing

separate households. A pure nuclear system would dictate that wcmen

establish separate households at the b i r t h of t h e i r f i r s t c h i l d , i n which

case a l l proportions i n Table 10 would be zero. Under one characterization

of the extended family system, childbearing and the mother's relationship

t o head would be independent. In t h i s case, the proportion of offspring

who are children w i l l be determined e n t i r e l y by the Independent decision of

women of childbearing age about establishing a separate household. In

actual cases, the decision t o bear a c h i l d and relationship t o head are

anything but independent. Oi the one hand, the b i r t h of a c h i l d provides

the impetus t o establish a separate household. On the other hand,

childbearing i n extended families may be encouraged by the presence of a

grandparent who can assume some of the c h i l d r earing r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Or

i t may be that a t r a d i t i o n a l outlook or other factors j o i n t l y a f f e c t l i v i n g

arrangements and childbearing. Whatever the cause, the inter-dependence of

childbearing and l i v i n g arrangements i s a c r i t i c a l determinant of the

prevalence of grandchildren i n any society.

32 Table 11 provides a means by which the dependence of childbearing

and l i v i n g arrangements can be assessed. Census data described above

report the number of daughters of childrearing age, i . e . , 15 and older, who

are the daughter of the head. I f t h e i r childbearing i s the same as that of

the general population, the number of surviving offspring w i l l equal that

for the general population. The product of the two factors w i l l give the

number of grandchildren expected per household i f childbearing and l i v i n g

arrangements are independent. Dividing the observed number of I

grandchildren by the "expected" number provides an index of the dependence

between childbearing and residence. A value less than one indicates that

daughters of the head have fewer children; an index greater than one

indicates that daughters of the head have more children than the population

at large.

These figures exhibit several i n t e r e s t i n g patterns. The values are i

near one, and often larger than one, for children under f i v e . This

suggests that having a young c h i l d does not push the parent out of the

household and that being i n the conjugal family may encourage higher

childbearing t o a l i m i t e d extent. The values i n Table 10 generally are

below 1 for children older than f i v e , i n d i c a t i n g that having older children

i s associated with the establishment of a separate household, although

there i s no way to say that the older c h i l d i t s e l f i s the motivating

factor. The values are c l e a r l y and p o s i t i v e l y associated with the age of

the head or h i s spouse (the grandparents) • This would be expected i f , for

example, a l l but one oftspring established a separate household as

childbearing began.1 Among older households, a high percentage of remaining

children of head would be the "permanent" member with childbearing

33

independent or even p o s i t i v e l y associated with t h e i r status as the hei

apparent.

Table 11. Ratio of Observed Grandchildren to "Expected Grandchildren.

Age of ^ e of Head Grandchildren 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 Intact Households

Male 0- 4 0.78 0.83 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.07 1.30 5- 9 0.58 0.50 0.68 0.70 0.67 0.82 1.09 10-14 0.63 0.50 0.67 0.80 0.62 0.81 1.14 15-19 . 1.14 0.35 0.54 0.69 0.60 0.62 0.87

Female 0- 4 0.76 0.85 0.94 1.04 0.92 1.06 1.16 5- 9 0.42 0.46 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.74 1.09

10-14 0.67 0.59 0.66 0.71 0.65 0.69 0.81 15-19 1.14 1.18 0.78 0.51 0.67 0.62 0.97 Single Male Head

Male 0- 4 0.86 0.95 1.02 1.05 1.04 1.02 1.00 5- 9 0.75 0.76 . 0.82 0.83 0.86 0.89 0.85 10-14 0.56 0.72 0.75 0.73 0.73 0.74 0.77 15-19 0.38 0.43 0.51 0.53 0.60 0.64 0.61 Female 0- 4 1.03 1.03 1.06 1.17 L 2 6 1.19 1.06 5- 9 0.68 0.69 0.75 0.81 0.85 0.87 0.92 10-14 0.54 0.56 0.61 0.61 0.64 0.68 0.72 15-19 0.45 0.45 0.55 0.60 0.64 0.63 0.63 Single Female Head

Male 0- 4 1.17 1.08 1.12 1.02 1.11 1.14 1.15 5- 9 0.44 0.67 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.78 1.01

10-14 1.22 0.63 0.54 0.88 0.84 0.76 0.80 15-1$ 1.75 1.06 1.14 0.76 0.71 0.68 0.61

Female 0- 4 1.15 1.21 1.20 0.97 0.99 1.09 1.00 5- 9 0.79 0.66 0.80 0.81 0.73 0.76 0.87

10-14 1.07 0.74 0.97 0.86 0.72 0.70 0.81 15-19 1.91 0.86 0.67 1.04 0.54 0.66 0.66

34

Parents

One of the remarkable features of the parent-of-head proportions i s

that i n both 1970 and 1980 fewer than f i f t y percent of any age and sex

group, save one, were the parent of a household head. That sole exception

was for women over 85 years of age i n 1970. In general, women were more

l i k e l y than men to be the parent of a household head, and older adults were

more l i k e l y than younger adults. Between 1970 and 1980 the proportion who

were the parent of a household head rose very substantially i n a l l age and

sex categories. This trend i s si m i l a r to those noted above i n that an

increasing number of household members have a direct l i n e a l r elationship t o

the household's head.

Table 12. Proportion of Population Who Were Parents of Head

1970 1980 Age Male Female Male Female

45-49 .001 .012 .003 .018 50-54 .006 .027 .011 .046 55-59 .015 .062 .022 .087 60-64 .040 .108 .060 .175 65-69 .053 .152 .101 .260 70-74 .102 .208 .166 .356 75-79 .162 .282 .253 .434 80-84 .225 .286 .338 .472 85+ .294 .287 .330 .557

The household i n which parents of the head reside depends on a

number of factors. F i r s t , i t depends upon the a v a i l a b i l i t y of surviving

offspring. The greater the number of surviving offspring aged 40-44, for

example, the greater the chances that those 75-79 w i l l l i v e i n households

headed t y someone aged 40-44. Secondly, i t depends on competition among

35

surviving offspring. I f those 75-79 also have many surviving offspring

aged 45-49, the l i k e l i h o o d that they w i l l l i v e i n a household with a head

40-44 are thereby diminished. These two demographic components are both

captured ty a single measure — parents per offspring. The measure i s an

estimate of the expected number of parents l i v i n g with offspring i f a l l

parents l i v e d with offspring (and the offspring l i v e d separately.) For

example, i n a family with 3 surviving brothers, two surviving s i s t e r s , and

two surviving parents, parents per offspring would be 2 parents/5 offspring

equal to 0.4.

Table 13. Surviving Parents per 100 Surviving Offspring, Thailand, 1980

Age of Offspring 55-59 60-64 65-69

—Age of Parents-70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ Combined'

FATHERS 15-19 1.58 0.45 0.04 20.98 20-24 2.77 1.48 0.36 0.03 18.28 25-29 3.76 2.61 1.21 .0.31 0.02 16.34 30-34 4.11 3.47 2.11 1.03 0.20 0.01 14.37 35-39 2.62 3.80 2.80 1.78 0.66 0.10 12.09 40-44 0.26 2.43 3.04 2.36 1.15 0.33 0.03 9.61 45-49 0.22 1.86 2.54 1.53 0.60 0.13 6.88 50-54 0.17 1.55 1.64 0.79 0.29 4.44 55-59 0.14 0.99 0.84 0.51 2.50 60-64 0.09 0.51 0.75 1.36 65-69 0.05 0.90 0.94

15-19 1.63 0..46 0.04 21.77 20-24 2.86 1.52 0.41 0.04 19.11 25-29 3.88 2.69 1.40 0.40 0.03 17.20 30-34 4.24 3.58 2.44 1.33 0.28 0.02 15.45 35-39 2.71 3.91 3.24 2.31 0.92 0.17 0.01 13.59 40-44 0.27 2.51 3.52 3.05 1.59 0.55 0.05 11.54 45-49 0.22 2.15 3.29 2.13 0.98 0.23 9.00 50-54 0.20 2.00 2.28 1.30 0.53 6.30 55-59 0.19 1.38 1.38 0.93 3.89 60-64 0.13 0.84 1.37 2.34 65-69 0.08 1.63 1.70

*Includes parents under age 55.

36

Table 13 reports the number of surviving parents per 100 surviving offspring for selected age groups. The highlighted row says that i n 100 households with a head or a spouse aged 50-54 we would f i n d 6.3 mothers of the head i f a l l mothers l i v e d with t h e i r oftspring/ t h e i r offspring a l l headed households, and i f the choice of household for the mother was independent of the age of the offspring. I f both the head and spouse were 50-54, then the "supply" of mothers would be 12.6. Of the 6.3 women, 2.00 would be 70-74 years of age, 2.28 would be 75-79, and 1.30 would be 80-84. That there are few parents per household i s i n large part a consequence of the demographic s i t u a t i o n , i . e . , survival among e l d e r l y and high past rates of childbearing.

Figure 8 compares calculated parents per offspring with the

observed parents per household l i v i n g i n households with a spouse (in the

case of i n t a c t households) or a head 50-54 years old. The t o t a l parents

per household varied from 3.65 per 100 households for i n t a c t households up

t o 4.43 per 100 for households headed by single men, or about one-half to

two-thirds of the potential number. The observed parents per household has

roughly the same shape as the parents per offspring index but there are

disproportionately many parents i n the youngest and oldest age categories.

There are a va r i e t y of explanations for such a pattern. Parents may have a

preference for l i v i n g with older or younger offspring, for example. But

there may also be errors i n the data — either i n the census data, e.g.,

age mis-reporting, or i n the construction of the parent-per-offspring

index; Furthermore, the observed values are based on very small numbers,

i n some cases no more than 3 or 4 observations.

37

Figure 8. Comparison of Surviving Mothers with Mothers of Head by Age of

Mother. Households with Heads Aged 50-54.

Mothers per Household Heads Aged 50-54

o.o -| 1 1 1 1 r— 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-64 85+

Ago of Mother

Other Household Members

The percent of any age group that was an other household member

varied from about 1 percent up to about 12 percent depending upon the sex

and age group i n question. About one out of every ten men and women i n

their late teens and early twenties was an other household member. Very

few of those between 25 and 64 years of age f e l l into this catch-all

category/ but the likelihood increases for those over 65 years of age.

Hie age pattern observed i n Thailand i n 1970 was similar to the

1980 pattern with one important exception. The proportions among

38

middle-aged and the elderly were substantially lower i n 1980 than 1970.

Among males the percentage was as high as 24 percent for those 85 and older

and among females 85 and older the percentage was 47 percent i n 1970. The

enormity of the shift i s readily apparent i n Figure 9, which plots

proportions of those who were other household members by age and sex for

the 1970 and 1980 populations.

Figure 9. Other Household Members by Age and Sex of Members.

Other Household Members Proportion of Ago— Sex Group

0.50 -i 1

o.oo H 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 • 1 » i ' 1 • i 1

0-4 10-14 20-24 30-34 40-44 50-54 60-64 70-74 80-84 Age of Member

To understand the source of such a dramatic change requires f i r s t

some notion about the kinds of people included i n this residual category.

The 1970 and 1980 censuses break the data down into other relatives,

non-relatives, and servants. In addition, the 1980 census reports

39

information about the number of grandparents of the head. The number of

servants i s n e g l i g i b l e , reaching 1 percent only for women 15 to 19 years of

age. Data on non-employees are reported for selected age groups i n Table

14.

Table 14. Proportions of Other Household Members

Unrelated Related Grandparents Age / Year Males Females Males Females Males Femal<

0 — 4 1970 .003 .003 .027 .026 - -1980 .005 .005 .033 .031 .000 .000

25 — 29 1970 .023 .010 .062 .042 - -1980 .024 .015 .052 .043 .000 .000

50 — 54 1970 .009 .007 .024 .066 - -1980 .008 .005 .014 .025 .000 .000

75 — 79 1970 .022 .027 .148 .288 - -1980 .009 .020 .027 .079 .009 .021

Notes: Grandparent values not available for 1970; values for members related t o the head includes grandparents.

I t i s clear that i n a l l age categories, the great majority of

members are related t o the head and non-relatives make up a. d i s t i n c t

minority. Furthermore, the declines i n the proportions are concentrated

among r e l a t i v e s rather than non-relatives. In 1980, among those 75-79, a

t h i r d or l e s s of r e l a t i v e s were grandparents of the household head, the

rest being non-lineal relations, e.g., aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, etc.

There i s no way of knowing for sure whether the decline between 1970 and

1980 was among grandparents or among non-lineal r e l a t i v e s . But i n d i r e c t

evidence suggests a decline i n both. I t i s clear that the decline i n the

proportions among those 50-54 occurred among non-lineal r e l a t i v e s of the

head, because these were too young t o be grandparents of a household head.

40

Thus, this provides clear evidence of a decline i n the importance of the joint extended family between 1970 and 1980.

The available evidence suggests that the decline i n other members

aged 70-74 i s accounted for ty a decline i n both grandparents and

non-lineal relatives of the head. The distribution of other members i n

1980, shown i n Figure 10, exhibits two concentration points — one among

middle age households and the other among young households. Because the

Figure 10. Others 75-79 Years Old by Age of Household Head, 1980

Others, Thailand 1980 75-79 Years of Age

I I c * V

It I

15-19 55-59

Ague of Household Head

65-69 75-79 85+

category other relatives does not include parents, other relatives of heads

aged 45-49 or i n adjacent age categories must be aunts or uncles or other

non-lineal relatives. (The grandparents reported i n the 50-54 age category

i s probably a coding or response error.) Other relatives of heads

41

i n t h e i r twenties are about evenly divided among grandparents and other r e l a t i v e s . A puzzling feature of the figure i s the substantial difference i n "generation lengths" as measured from the mid-point of the 75-79 age category to the two peaks. The thirty-year i n t e r v a l from 75-79 t o the 45-49 peak i s probably reasonably close to the mean generation length of a h i g h - f e r t i l i t y regime, which undoubtedly characterized f e r t i l i t y among women who are now eld e r l y . But the peak-to-peak i n t e r v a l of 22.5 years i s short of the mean generation length for women who were i n t h e i r l a t e f o r t i e s i n 1980. The shorter i n t e r v a l undoubtedly r e f l e c t s truncation of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of members of the t h i r d generation — younger members would not be household heads.

The 1970 pattern i s quite d i f f e r e n t and cannot be untangled with

complete certainty because grandparents were not tabulated separately i n

the 1970 census. Others aged 75-79 are concentrated among households with

heads 35-39 years of age and i n adjacent age groups. Although i n i t i a l

reaction might be that the distance to the peak represents two generations,

fo r t y years i s too short. More l i k e l y , the peak represents the sum of

overlap of members i n the second and t h i r d generation. Then the decline i n

other elderly members between 1970 and 1980 would represent, i n part, a .

decline i n households with a grandparent of the head, but a more

s i g n i f i c a n t decline i n households with non-lineal ancestors one or two

generations removed from the household head. Thus, the importance of the

j o i n t extended family apparently has declined over the l a s t ten years.

42

Figure 11. Others 75-79 Years Old fcy Age of Household Head, 1970.

Others, Thailand 1970 By Age of Household Head

15-19 25-29 35-39 45-49 55-59 65-69 75-79 854-

Age of Household Head

43

PROJECTIONS

Population

The number and demographic characteristics of households i s

projected try applying the projection package HOMES (Mason, 1986) to the

most recently prepared population projections for Thailand (NESDB, 1985).

The results reported here are based on population projections using the

medium f e r t i l i t y assumption that the t o t a l f e r t i l i t y rate w i l l decline from

3.46 for 1980-85 to replacement l e v e l during 1995-2000 and continue

declining t o reach 1.67 i n 2010-2015. Gradual improvements i n mortality

are anticipated so that l i f e expectancy at b i r t h w i l l reach 69.0 for men

and 72.75 for women i n 2010-2015 as compared with 60.25 and 66.25,

respectively, for the 1980-85 period. Immigration has a n e g l i g i b l e impact

on Thailand's national population and no account of i t s impact has been

included i n the projections employed.

Table 15. Assumptions underlying Thailand's Population Projection

Period TFR L i f e Expectancy at B i r t h

Males Females

1980-1985 1985-1990 1990-1995 1995-2000 2000-2005 2005-2010 2010-2015

3.46 2.84 2.35 2.11 1.94 1.78 1.67

60.25 61.75 63.50 65.25 66.75 68.00. 69.00

66.25 67.50 68.75 69.75 70.75 71.75 72.75

Source: NESEB (1985).

44

Population projections to the year 2015 are summarized i n Table 16.

Prom a t o t a l population estimated at 51.7 m i l l i o n i n 1985, Thailand's

population i s expected t o reach 67.9 m i l l i o n w i t h i n two decades, the period

on which t h i s study w i l l focus. The population growth rate during the

1980-1985 period was two percent per year but w i l l decline t o just over one

percent per year for the 2000-2005 period. Household projections are based

on the household population, which excludes members of the armed services

and i n d i v i d u a l s l i v i n g i n i n s t i t u t i o n s . The household population includes

at?out 98 percent of the t o t a l male population and over 99 percent of the

female population. (These values are projected using HOMES based on

constant proportions of each age-sex group being i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d or i n

the m i l i t a r y service.)

Table 16. Population Projections for Thailand (Population i n 1000's; growth rate i n percent)

Annual Population Household Population Growth

Year Total Male Female Total Male Female Rate

1980 46,718 23,428 23,290 46,016 22,835 23,182 —

1985 51,683 25,888 25,795 50,902 25,223 25,679 2.0 1990 56,186 28,117 28,143 55,499 27,476 28,023 1.7 1995 60,506 30,265 30,241 59,638 29,517 30,121 1.5 2000 64,389 32,206 32,183 63,502 31,438 32,064 1.2 2005 67,910 33,975 33,935 67,006 33,188 33,818 1.1 2010 70,865 35,462 35,403 69,960 34,669 35,291 0.9 2015 73,208 36,632 36,576 72,307 35,839 36,468 0.7

Sources: Population: NESEB, 1985; household population: calculated using HOMES*

A p a r t i c u l a r l y s a l i e n t feature of the population i s i t s age

structure. Both decreased mortality and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , declining

f e r t i l i t y w i l l j o i n forces t o accelerate the aging of Thailand's

population. The

45

important changes i n the population's age distribution are evident i n

Figure 12.

Figure 12. Population pyramid for 1985 and 2005.

POPUIATION PYRAMID FOR 1985 POPULATION PYRAMID FOR 2005

M O (MM 14)00 TOO 0 0 TOO 1*00 1100 2000 MOO 3 * 0 ZBOC 1100 1«O0 TOO 0 0 'OC 1*00 7100 2000

NUMBER (X 1000) NUMBLY (>* 1000)

Households

The number of households i s projected to grow at a more rapid pace

than i s Thailand's population. There were 10.2 million households i n 1985,

but this figure i s expected to reach 18.1 million fcy 2005. which represents

an average growth rate i n the number of households of 2.9 percent per annum

over the next two decades. Between 1980 and 1985 approximately one-quarter

of a million households were added each year, and fcy the end of the century

net annual additions should exceed 400 thousand. But as i s clear from

Table 17, the net increase w i l l begin t o decline early i n the twenty-first

century. Average si z e w i l l decline steadily. Whereas households averaged

nearly s i x members each i n 1970 and f i v e members each i n 1985, by 2005 the

average si z e i s projected t o be only 3.7 members.

Table 17. Projected Number of Households

Number of Household Average Annual Households Population

(1000's) Household Increase

Year QOOO's) Population (1000's) Size QOOO's)

1970 6,200 36,370 5.82 _ 1980 8,689 46,016 5.30 249 1985 10,215 50,902 4.98 305 1990 12,002 55,498 4.62 357 1995 13,977 59,638 4.27 395 2000 16,030 63,502 3.96 411 2005 18,091 67,006 3.70 412 2010 20,074 69,960 3.49 396 2015 21,870 72,307 3.31 359

No s i g n i f i c a n t changes are anticipated i n the types of households. i

As shown i n Table 18, family households should continue to be the dominant

household type, as primary i n d i v i d u a l and one-person households continue to

make up fewer than f i v e percent of a l l households. Of family households,

four of f i v e w i l l continue to be i n t a c t , i . e . , households i n which both the

head and spouse are present. One i n f i v e w i l l be headed by a single adult,

most often a female, and l i t t l e change i s anticipated here. I t should be

c l e a r l y understood, however, that the projections do not anticipate

. substantial s o c i a l or culture change. Increasing income, modernization,

and delayed age at marriage could combine forces t o increase the number of

young l i v i n g alone or i n primary in d i v i d u a l households. Similar forces

might increase the prevalence of divorce and reduce the number of in t a c t

47

households. And although these forces may become important, they are not

apparent i n changes i n household structure between 1970 and 1980 reviewed

above.

Table 18. Type of Households.

1980 1985 1990 Household Type Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS

Intact 6,778,775 0.780 7,985,033 0.782 9,394,088 0.783 Single Head Male Head 406,500 0.047 475,158 0.047 555,652 0.046 Female Head 1,124,421 0.129 1,310,765 0.128 1,535,090 0.128

Total 8,309,696 0.956 9,770,956 0.957 11,484,830 0.957

NCN-FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS Primary Individual Male Head. 42,567 0.005 50,300 0.005 58,318 0.005 Female Head 26,086 0.003 30,516 0.003 35,273 0.003

One-Person Households Males 154,063 0.018 180,848 0.018 211,479 0.018 Females 156,728 0.018 182,077 0.018 211,740 0.018

Total 379,444 0.044 443,741 0.043 516,810 0.043

Grand Total 8,689,140 1.000 10,214,697 1.000 12,001,640 1.000

1995 2000 2005 Household Type Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS Intact 10,938,232 0.783 12,508*,036 0.780 14,027,948 0.775 Single Head Male Head 646,303 0.046 748,324 0.047 863,248 0.048 Female Head 1,798,573 0.129 2,101,304 0.131 2,444,290 0.135

Total 13,383,108 0.957 15,357,664 0.958 17,335,486 0.958

NGN-FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS Primary Individual Male Head 65,338 0.005 70,614 0.004 75,251 0.004 Female Head 39,851 0.003 43,462 0.003 47,163 0.003

One-Person Households Males 242,956 0.017 274,343 0.017 306,180 0.017 Females 245,952 0.018 284,208 0.018 326,688 0.018

Total 594,097 0.043 672,627 0.042 755,282 0.042

Grand Total 13,977,205 1.000 16,030,291 1.000 18,090,768 1.000

48

Although the type of household w i l l be quite stable, the average

age of the household w i l l shift significantly between now and the year

2005. Figure 13 compares the age distribution of household heads i n 1985

to the distribution of 2005.

Figure 13. Age Distribution of Household Heads, 1985 and 2005.

AGE PYRAMID FOR HOUSEHOLD HEADS 1985 VS. 2005

MALE AGE OF HEAD FEMALE

3500 2800 2100 1400 700 - 0 0 700 1400 2100 2800 3500

NUMBER OF HEADS (X 1000) • 1985 S3 2005

49 The demographic character of households w i l l change quite

dramatically over the next two decades. The decline i n average household s i z e w i l l occur across the board. Figure 14 shows average household s i z e by age of head for selected years. Without exception, the average number of members declines markedly at each age.

Figure 14. Average Number of Members by Age of Household Head, 1980, 1990,

and 2005.

Average Household Size by Age of Head Thailand

15-19 . 25-29 35-39 45-49 53-59 65-69 75-79 85+

Ago of Head

50

Average household s i z e w i l l also decline quite s i g n i f i c a n t l y for

i n t a c t households and those with single heads a l i k e . Between 1980 and

2005, average household s i z e w i l l decline by 1.6 members for i n t a c t

households and households headed by single men, and t y 1.7 members for

households headed by single women. This represents a decline i n average

si z e ranging from 29 percent for i n t a c t households t o 35 percent for

households headed by single women.

Table 19. Average Number of Members of Family Households by Age of Members.

. Age of members 0 to 1 4 — — 1 5 to 6 4 — -65 & older- Dpndcy

Household Type Combined Male Female Male Female Male Female Ratio

1980 Intact 5.61 1.19 1.16 1.56 1.54 0.08 0.08 0.81 Sngl Hd, Male 4.77 0.74 0.71 1.89 1.11 0.24 0.08 0.59 Sngl Hd, Female 4.88 0.89 0.84 1.02 1.84 0.02 0.27 0.71 Combined 5.46 1.12 1.09 1.51 1.56 0.08 0.10 0.78

1985 t Intact 5.28 1.02 1.00 1.56 1.54 0.08 0.08 0.70 Sngl Hd, Male 4.54 0.63 0.61 1.89 1.10 0.24 0.07 0.52 Sngl Hd, Female 4.62 0.76 0.72 1.02 1.84 0.02 0.26 0.62 Combined 5.14 0.96 0.94 1.51 1.55 0.08 0.10 0.68





NOTE: Dependency Ratio i s the r a t i o of the population 0-14 or 65+ t o those aged 15-64. Combined includes primary i n d i v i d u a l households.

51

Table 19 also demonstrates that changes i n the age d i s t r i b u t i o n of household members w i l l be very s i g n i f i c a n t over the next two decades. The average number of members under 15 years of age w i l l decline by hal f or more during the next two decades; the number of members 15 to 64 years of age w i l l decline more modestly with greatest declines occurring among households with single heads; and the number of eld e r l y w i l l remain r e l a t i v e l y constant, but at low numbers through 2005. Whereas over 40 percent of the members of households were under 15 years of age i n 1980, by 2005 only 26 percent w i l l be so young. At the same time, the percent of members over 65 w i l l increase from 3.3 to 5.3. The o v e r a l l dependency r a t i o w i l l decline substantially: from 78 dependents per 100 prime age adults t o only 44 dependents per 100 prime age adults.

Mother dimension of the change i n the demographic character of the

household, detailed i n .Table 20, i s the change i n relationship t o head,

which i n many respects mirrors changes i n age composition. Between 1980

and 2005, r e l a t i v e l y fewer members of the t y p i c a l household w i l l be

children, grandchildren, or other household members and r e l a t i v e l y more

w i l l be the head, the spouse, or t h e i r parents. By 2005 roughly one-half

of a l l members w i l l be the head or spouse, substantially up from 1980 when

just one t h i r d of the members were the head or spouse. During the same

period, the percent who are children or grandchildren w i l l decline from

nearly 60 percent t o only 45 percent.

52

Table 20. Relationship t o Head of Thai Population (in percent).

Relationship 1980 1985 1990 to Head Male Female Both Male Female Both Male Female Both

Head 16.0 2.8 18.9 17.1 3.0 20.1 18.4 3.2 21.6 Spouse - 14.7 14.7 - 15.7 15.7 - 16.9 16.9 Chi l d 26.8 25.5 52.3 25.8 24.6 50.4 24.7 23.5 48.2 Grandchild 2.9 2.8 5.7 2.9 2.7 5.6 2.7 2.5 5.2 Parents 0.4 1.1 1.5 0.4 1.2 1.6 0.4 1.3 1.7 Others 3.5 3.4 6.9 3.4 3.3 6.7 3.3 3.0 6.3 •total 49.6 50.4 100.0 49.6 50.4 100.0 49.5 50.5 100.0

Relationship -1995- -2000- -2005-to Head Male Female Both Male Female Both Male Female Both

Head 19.9 3.5 23.5 21.4 3.8 25.2 22.8 4.2 27.8 Spouse - 18.3 18.3 - 19.7 19.7 - 20.9 20.9 Chi l d 23.5 22.2 45.6 22.2 20.8 43.1 21.0 19.5 40.5 Grandchild 2.3 2.3 4.8 2.3 2.2 4.5 2.2 2.0 4.2 Parents 0.5 1.4 1.9* 0.5 1.6 2.2 0.7 1.9 2.5 Others 3.1 2.7 5.9 3.0 2.4 5.4 2.9 2.0 4.9 Total 49.5 50.5 100.0 49.5 50.5 100.0 49.5 50.5 100.0

The close connection between relationship t o head and the age

composition of the population i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 15, which shows the

age breakdown of the populations of 1985 and 2005 and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o

household head.

53

Figure 15. Population ty Relationship to Head, Age, and Sex, . 1985 and

2005.


MALE AGE OF MEMBERS M OVER 74 Wffl\ n 70-74 e

65 - 69

6 0 - 6 4 jj g

55 - 5 9

5 0 - 5 4

4 0 - 4 4

FEMALE

c • - • I : ^ ^ ^ ^ 0 - 4 ^ ^ W ^ X ^ W ^ m

3500 2800 2100 700 700 2100 2800 3500

NUMBER (X 1000) HEAD

SPOUSE S3 CHILD

CRANDCHILD

• 0 OTHERS

PARENT


MALE AGE OF MEMBERS OVER 74

7 0 - 7 4

FEMALE

777m HP Tzzzzzzzzzm 40 - u wzzzzzzzzzzzm \

z;

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 0 - .

3000 2400

HEAD

SPOUSE

1200 600 0 0 600

NUMBER (X 1000) S3 CHILD

VA CBANDCHU-D

1200 1800 2400 3000

• E3

OTHERS

PARENT

54

The summary s t a t i s t i c s provided above .suggest important changes i n the demographic character of the household that w i l l bear on a host of a c t i v i t i e s and decisions of the household, including decisions related t o housing, schooling, labor force p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and consumer expenditures, to name the more obvious ones. The impact of the decline i n children and grandchildren w i l l vary depending upon the age of the children and grandchildren i n question. And although the number of children and grandchildren at a l l ages w i l l decline over the next two decades, both the magnitude and the timing of the decline w i l l vary among age groups.

Table 21 shows the average number of children and grandchildren per

household i n three age categories: pre-schoolers or those 0-4; school age

children or those 5-14; and young adults or those 15 and older. Over the

next two decades, the greatest percentage decline w i l l be among those under

15, and both the number of pre-schoolers and the number of school age

children w i l l decline by 56 percent. The number of young adults who are

children or grandchildren w i l l decline much more gradually, however. The

average number per household w i l l decline by only 27 percent over the

twenty-five year period under consideration.

Table 21. Children and Grandchildren per Household : Age of Members

Year 0 - 4 5 - 1 4 15 and older Total

1980 0.72 1.38 . 1.11 3.21 1985 0.62 1.18 1.11 2.92 1990 0.52 1.01 1.05 2.58 1995 0.41 0.87 0.97 2.25 2000 0.35 0.72 0.89 1.97 2005 0.30 0.61 0.81 1.73

55

Table 20 provides similar detail about parents of household heads.

In general, the increase in the number of parents per household, small as

i t i s , w i l l be among younger parents—those who are 64 years of age or

younger, whereas the number of older parents per household, i . e . , those 65

and older, nay actually decline somewhat before increasing toward the end

of this century. Table 20 also extends the information on parents to

include 2010 and 2015, showing that the number of parents per household

w i l l begin to increase with greater regularity and magnitude in the early

part of the twenty-first century.

Table 20. Parents per Hundred Households

Year Under 55 Age of Parent

55 to 64 65 to 74 75 and older Total

1980 0.9 2.0 3.1 2.3 8.2 1985 1.0 2.1 2.9 2.2 8.2 1990 1.0 2.2 2.9 2.2 8.3 1995 1.0 2.3 3.0 " 2 i l 8.4 2000 1.2 2.3 3.2 2.2 8.9 2005 1.6 2.4 3.3 2.4 9.7 2010 1.8 2.8 3.4 2.5 10.5 2015 1.5 3.4 3.5 2.7 11.2

The Household Life cycle

The information presented above emphasizes the demographic

characteristics of households at any point i n time, but many decisions

of the household depend on a horizon that encompasses expectations

about the household's future composition as well as i t s past experience.

Che important example would be decisions by the household to buy a

residence or other consumer durables. Households who are in the

56

family-building stage of their l i f e cycle would base their decisions, in part, on expectations about eventual household size and the future needs of members, whereas the current residences of households with older heads may reflect past as much as current household membership.

Limited information about the household l i f e cycle can be obtained

from the household projections data by following cohorts (of household

heads) over the forty-five years (1970 to 2015) for which data are

available. Figure 16 shows average household size for four cohorts

labelled ty the year household heads were 25-29 years old. This age i s

selected as the year in which households are formed because i t i s the age

at which headship rates reach 50 percent. Households "established" in 1980

averaged about 4.6 members and at their peak (reached at age 35-39) w i l l

average 5.2 members — a suprisingly small increase of barely more than

one-half additional members. Thereafter, household size w i l l decline

steadily with average household size reaching 2.8 members when the cohort

i s 60-64 in 2015.

Tb the extent that partial cohort "experience" can be used to

judge, other household cohorts have had and w i l l have similar l i fe-cycle

patterns of average household size, with average size rising during the

childbearing years, peaking during the thirties or perhaps the forties, and

declining thereafter. Although the age patterns are similar the levels are

not, as average household size at each age of head for successive cohorts

has dropped over time. Perhaps the most surprising feature of Figure 16 i s

the relatively constant differences in average household size across

successive cohorts. Demographic transition in Thailand i s not

57

leading to smaller family size only at a rather confined "childrearing"

interval. Rather, i t i s leading to smaller family size among households at

a l l ages.

Figure 16. Average Household Size by Age of Head for Selected Cohorts.

3 H

1 -i

25-29

Average Household Size For Cohorts

55-39 45-49 55-59 65-69 75-79 85+

Age of Head

58

REFERENCES Mason, Andrew 1986 HCMES; A Household Model for Economic and Social Studies> Version

1.0, Reference Guide for Household Projections, East-West Population Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii (September).

Mason, Andrew and Linda G. Martin 1982 Intergenerational Differences in Income: An Analysis of Japan, in

Yoram Ben-Porath, ed., Income Distribution and tjje Family special supplement of Population and Development Review 8,

1985 Recent Trends in Household Structure in Taiwan and Other Asian Countries, Conference on Population Changes in Taiwan During the Twentieth Century, Population Association of China, Taipei, Taiwan (December 14-15).

NESEB 1985 Human Resource Planning Division, Population Projections for

Thailand, 1980 - 2015 (October).

Table A . l . Headship rates for Belected Asian oouitrles.

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+

(DM3INFD, tales Indonesia, 1976 0.023 0.253 0.608 0.834 0.930 0.954 0.963 0.964 0.946 0.909 0.891 0.841 0.794 0.725 0.626 Korea, 1970 0.027 0.090 0.471 0.832 0.905 0.946 0.964 0.966 0.950 0.873 0.775 0.604 0.503 0.358 0.307 Korea, 1980 0.032 0.102 0.510 0.844 0.923 0.953 0.963 0.970 0.958 0.920 0.829 0.704 0.563 0.459 0.385 Malaysia, 1980 0.030 0.185 0.466 0.706 0.794 0.889 0.861 0.926 0.881 0.884 0.806 0.801 0.678 0.589 0.504 EhilippineB, 1975 0.020 0.229 0.573 0.783 0.875 0.915 0.934 0.938 0.931 0.908 0.870 0.796 0.730 0.655 0.525 Taiwan, 1980 0.016 0.083 0.593 0.858 0.938 0.956 0.951 0.902 0.805 0.603 0.468 0.334 0.285 0.160 0.159 Thailand, 1970 0.016 0.204 0.549 0.754 0..846 0.913 0.939 0.945 0.940 0.894 0.853 0.769 0.659 0.545 0.465 Thailand, 1980 0.019 0.201 0.529 0.740 0.844 0.902 0.935 0.948 0.950 0.912 0.876 0.790 0.702 0.598 0.524 g

0> OOrCINED, females Indonesia, 1976 0.005 0.013 0.027 0.057 0.095 0.152 0.199 0.243 0.288 0.322 0.321 0.333 0.337 0.319 0.220 o-Korea, 1970 0.008 0.021 0.027 0.046 0.085 0.127 0.149 0.147 0.121 0.102 0.080 0.053 0.034 0.034 0.023 £-Korea, 1980 0.027 0.063 0.048 0.063 0.092 0.124 0.169 0.211 0.228 0.211 0.188 0.155 0.126 0.092 0.078 >5' Malaysia, 1980 0.014 0.046 0.051 0.072 0.099 0.129 0.176 0.229 0.270 0.307 0.299 0.306 0.257 0.265 0.239 Fhllippines, 1975 0.001 0.004 0.012 0.025 0.042 0.066 0.094 0.129 0.154 0.187 0.201 0.222 0.232 0.213 0.166 £. Taiwan, 1980 0.011 0.035 0.026 0.030 0.040 0.039 0.038 0.032 0.042 0.030 0.035 0.037 0.041 0.000 0.000 g . Thailand, 1970 0.004 0.016 0.029 0.044 0.071 0.111 0.167 0.223 0.267 0.289 0.296 0.304 0.288 0.237 0.185 ~, . Thailand, 1980 0.006 0.021 0.034 0.051 0.080 0.108 0.152 0.210 0.260 0.301 0.340 0.330 0.317 0.305 0.254 S >o

INTACT HOUSOKUS « *g Indonesia, 1976 0.013 0.225 0.579 0.809 0.904 0.926 0.927 0.922 0.900 0.850 0.792 0.738 0.695 0.604 0.485 f. P Korea, 1970 0.002 0.035 0.403 0.811 0.891 0.924 0.932 0.925 0.896 0.805 0.695 0.523 0.408 0.239 0.216 « & Korea, 1980 0.001 0.042 0.431 0.813 0.900 0.925 0.926 0.924 0.904 0.853 0.750 0.608 0.459 0.315 0.220 « " felaysia, 1980 0.003 0.076 0.363 0.642 0.739 0.632 0.790 0.836 0.774 .0.755 0.664 0.633 0.511 0.424 0.389 f~ > fhilippines, 1975 0.014 0.209 0.543 0.750 0.835 0.662 0.867 0.853 0.632 0.786 0.742 0.657 0.577 0.475 0.373 ST Taiwan, 1980 0.001 0.034 0.485 0.805 0.898 0.906 0.880 0.806 0.681 0.500 0.368 0.256 0.216 0.160 0.053 g' Thailand, 1970 0.009 0.176 0.517 0.724 0.814 0.674 0.687 0.874 0.847 0.784 0.7a 0.601 0.490 0.323 0.301 p

Thailand, 1980 0.011 0.170 0.493 0.707 0.809 0.861 0.878 0.877 0.850 0.764 0.738 0.621 0.510 0.424 0.363 £ SINGLE HEAD, Kale §

Indonesia, 1976 0.007 0.019 0.019 0.017 0.019 0.022 0.031 0.034 0.035 0.046 0.068 0.073 0.071 0.077 0.129 5, Korea, 1970 0.025 0.055 0.067 0.021 0.012 0.021 0.031 0.039 0.052 0.067 0.077 0.079 0.094 0.119 0.060 g. Korea, I960 0.013 0.036 0.050 0.021 0.015 0.021 0.027 0.034 0.043 0.052 0.065 0.080 0.081 0.126 0.144 <* rfalaysia, 1980 0.011 0.053 0.050 0.036 0.027 0.034 0.041 0.057 0.063 0.078 0.088 0.104 0.100 0.100 0.054 fhilippines, 1975 0.003 0.013 0.021 0.024 0.031 0.043 0.056 0.069 0.079 0.096 0.095 0.099 0.112 0.123 0.116 Taiwan, 1980 0.014 0.043 0.094 0.047 0.031 0.043 0.050 0.049 0.052 0.054 0.035 0.039 0.006 0.000 0.000 Thailand, 1970 0.003 0.013 0.017 0.018 0.022 0.027 0.039 0.057 0.077 0.092 0.107 0.137 0.137 0.185 0.134 Thailand, 1980 0.003 0.014 0.018 0.019 0.021 0.027 0.042 0.056 0.080 0.102 0.109 0.140 0.161 0.136 0.116

SINGLE HEAD, Hartale Indonesia, 1976 0.002 0.009 0.022 0.051 0.085 0.134 0.166 0.163 o'.207 0.211 0.190 0.184 0.145 0.136 0.088 Korea, 1970 0.007 0.020 0.026 0.045 0.083 0.125 0.148 0.146 0.120 0.101 0.080 0.053 0.034 0.032 0.023 Korea, 1980 0.010 0.031 0.031 0.050 0.081 0.112 0.152 0.180 0.177 0.139 0.109 0.082 0.062 0.046 0.027 Malaysia, 1980 0.008 0.029 0.038 0.064 0.091 0.120 0.163 0.206 0.227 0.237 0.203 0.193 0.146 0.122 0.109 rhilippines, 1975 0.000 0.004 0.011 0.024 0.040 0.064 0.091 0.120 0.139 0.159 0.161 0.169 0.170 0.151 0.116 Taiwan, 1980 0.011 0.032 0.023 0.026 0.038 0.036 0.034 0.025 0.025 0.017 0.005 0.010 0.023 0.000 0.000 Thailand, 1970 0.003 0.011 0.024 0.040 0.065 0.105 0.157 0.209 0.240 0.250 0.248 0.248 0.218 0.170 0.113 Thailand, 1980 0.004 0.014 0.025 0.043 0.072 0.100 0.142 0.193 0.234 0.268 0.281 0.263 0.254 0.213 0.199

T&ble A . l . Headship rates for selected Asian countries (continued).

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+

ONE PERSON, Kale Indonesia, 1976 0.002 0.006 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.004 0.009 0.012 0.013 0.032 0.029 0.028 0.043 0.012 Korea, 1970 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.011 Korea, 1980 0.009 0.016 0.023 0.009 0.006 0.006 0.008 0.011 0.010 0.014 0.013 0.015 0.023 0.017 0.021 Malaysia, 1980 0.016 0.054 0.053 0.027 0.027 0.024 0.031 0.033 0.044 0.051 0.054 0.064 0.068 0.065 0.060 Philippines, 1975 0.002 0.005 0.007 0.007 0.008 0,009 0.010 0.013 0.018 0.024 0.031 0.036 0.036 0.052 0.032 Taiwan, 1980 0.000 0.005 0.014 0.007 0.009 0.007 0.021 0.047 0.073 0.048 0.066 0.036 0.063 0.000 0.105 Thailand, 1970 0.003 0.011 0.012 0.010 0.008 0.011 0.012 0.013 0.015 0.017 0.024 0.030 0.032 0.036 0.029 Thailand, 1980 0.003 0.011 0.012 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.012 0 013 0.017 0.025 0.028 0.026 0.031 0.031 0.045

ONE PERSON, Female Indonesia, 1976 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.010 0.018 0.033. 0.059 0.080 0.108 0.130 0.148 0.192 0.183 0.130 Korea, 1970 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.000 Korea, 1980 0.008 0.022 0.014 0.011 0.010 0.011 0.016 0.030 0.048 0.069 0.076 0.070 0.063 0.044 0.049 felaysia, 1980 0.006 0.017 0.013 0.008 0.009 0.009 0.015 0.023 0.043 0.070 0.096 0.113 0.112 0.143 0.130 Philippines, 1975 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.008 0.014 0.025 0.037 0.049 0.054 0.059 0.047 Taiwan, 1980 0.000 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.007 0.016 0.014 0.030 0.027 0.018 0.000 0.000 Thailand, 1970 0.001 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.009 0.013 0.026 0.038 0.047 0.053 0.066 0.067 0.072 Thailand, 1980 0.002 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.010 0.016 0.024 0.031 0.053 0.063 0.061 0.070 0.055

PRIMARY INDIVIDUAL, Male Indonesia, 1976 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 Korea, 1970 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Korea, 1980 0.010 0.008 0.006 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 Malaysia, 1980 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Philippines, 1975 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.004 Taiwan, 1980 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 Thailand, 1970 0.001 0.003 0.003- 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.001 Thailand, 1980 0.001 0.005 0.006 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.000 0.007 0.000

ERIMARY INDIVIDUAL, Female Indonesia, 1976 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 Korea, 1970 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Korea, 1980 0.010 0.011 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 Malaysia, 1980 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Fhilippines, 1975 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.008 0.003 0.002 Taiwan, 1980 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Thailand, 1970 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.001 0.001 Thailand, 1980 0.001 0.003 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.004 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.000

Note: Primary Individual Households were not tabulated in the Malaysia census

THE EAST-WEST CENTER is a public, nonprofit educational institution with an international board of governors. Some 2,000 research fellows, graduate students, and professionals in business and government each year work with the Center's international staff in cooperative study, training, and research. They examine major issues related to population, resources and development, the environment, culture, and communication in Asia, the Pacific, and the United States. The Center was established in 1960 by the United States Congress, which provides principal funding. Support also comes from more than 20 Asian and Pacific governments, as well as private agencies and corporations.

Situated on 21 acres adjacent to the University of Hawaii's Manoa Campus, the Center's facilities include a 300-room office building housing research and administrative offices for an international staff of 250, three residence halls for participants, and a conference center with meeting rooms equipped to provide simultaneous translation and a complete range of audiovisual services.

THE EAST-WEST POPULATION INSTITUTE, established as a unit of the East-West Center in 1969, carries out multidisciplinary research, training, and related activities in the field of population, placing emphasis on economic, social, psychological, and environmental aspects of population problems in Asia, the Pacific, and the United States.

Households and their characteristics in the Kingdom of ...

Documents

Transcript of Households and their characteristics in the Kingdom of ...