, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 1135–1153 | Cite as

Socioeconomic Differences in Multipartner Fertility Among Norwegian Men

  • Trude LappegårdEmail author
  • Marit Rønsen


This article analyzes male fertility, with a particular focus on multipartner fertility, for cohorts born 1955 to 1984 in Norway. We find that socioeconomically disadvantaged men have the lowest chance of becoming fathers and the lowest likelihood of fathering multiple children in stable unions. Multipartner fertility, on the other hand, is positively associated with both disadvantage and advantage: higher-order birth risks with a new partner are more prevalent among men with low as well as high socioeconomic status. An intervening factor among disadvantaged men may be a higher union dissolution risk, and an elevated risk among advantaged men may be associated with their higher preferences for children and other features that make these men more attractive to women as partners and fathers of future children.


Male fertility Multipartner fertility Childlessness Socioeconomic differences 



This research was supported by the Research Council of Norway, and constitutes a part of the research project “Family dynamics, fertility choices, and family policy” (202442/S20). We are grateful for valuable comments from three anonymous referees and helpful suggestions from Torbjørn Hægeland, Øystein Kravdal, Turid Noack, Kjetil Telle, and participants at the XXVI IUSSP International Population Conference in Marrakech, Morocco, 2009.


  1. Allison, P. (1995). Survival analysis using the SAS® system: A practical guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, G., Rønsen, M., Knudsen, L. B., Lappegård, T., Neyer, G., Skrede, K., & Vikat, A. (2009). Cohort fertility patterns in the Nordic countries. Demographic Research, 20(14), 313–352. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2009.20.14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, G. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bernhardt, E. (2000). Att skaffa barn på 2000-tallet. Vad påverkar viljan att bli föräldar? [Having children in the 2000s. What affects the wish to become parents?]. Framtider, 4, 4–7.Google Scholar
  5. Buber, I., & Prskawetz, A. (2000). Fertility in second unions in Austria: Findings from the Austrian FFS. Demographic Research, 3(2). doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2000.3.2
  6. Byberg, I. H., Foss, A. H., & Noack, T. (2001). Gjete kongens harer – rapport fra arbeidet med å få samboere mer innplassert i statistikken [Report on cohabitation in statistics]. Reports 2001/40. Oslo: Statistics Norway.Google Scholar
  7. Carlson, M. J., & Furstenberg, F. F. (2006). The prevalence and correlates of multipartnered fertility among urban US parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 718–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldscheider, F., & Kaufman, G. (1996). Fertility and commitment: Bringing men back in. Population and Development Review, 22, 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gupta, N. D., Smith, N., & Stratton, L. S. (2007). Is marriage poisonous? Are relationships taxing? An analysis of the male marital wage differential in Denmark. Southern Economic Journal, 74, 412–433.Google Scholar
  10. Guzzo, K. B., & Furstenberg, F. F. (2007). Multipartnered fertility among American men. Demography, 44, 583–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Härkönen, J., & Dronkers, J. (2006). Stability and change in the educational gradient of divorce. A comparison of seventeen countries. European Sociological Review, 22, 501–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Henz, U. (2002). Childbirth in East and West German stepfamilies: Estimated probabilities from hazard rate models. Demographic Research, 7(6), 307–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoem, J. M. (1997). Educational gradients in divorce risks in Sweden in recent decades. Population Studies, 51, 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jalovaara, M. (2003). The joint effects of marriage partners’ socioeconomic positions on the risk of divorce. Demography, 40, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Juby, H., & Le Bourdais, C. (1999). Where have all the children gone? Comparing mothers’ and fathers’ declarations in retrospective surveys. Canadian Studies in Population, 26, 1–20.Google Scholar
  16. Kaufman, G. (2000). Do gender role attitudes matter? Family formation and dissolution among traditional and egalitarian men and women. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 128–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kitterød, R. H. (2002). Utdanning og ulikhet? En diskusjon av utdanningsnivåets betydning for deling av husarbeid blant småbarnsforeldre [Education and inequality? A discussion of the educational effect of the division of housework among parents with young children]. Sosiologisk Tidsskrift, 3, 179–208.Google Scholar
  18. Kitterød, R. H., & Pettersen, S. V. (2006). Making up for mothers’ employed working hours? Housework and childcare among Norwegian fathers. Work Employment and Society, 20, 473–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kravdal, O., & Rindfuss, R. R. (2008). Changing relationship between education and fertility: A study of women and men born 1960 to 1964. American Sociological Review, 73, 854–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kunze, A. (2011, May). Are all the good men fathers? An analysis of earnings dynamics using sibling data. Paper presented at the ESOP workshop on Gender and Households, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  21. Lappegård, T., Rønsen, M., & Skrede, K. (2011). Fatherhood and fertility. Fathering, 9, 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lundberg, S., & Rose, E. (2002). The effects of sons and daughters on men’s labor supply and wages. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lyngstad, T. (2004). The impact of parents’ and spouses’ education on divorce rates in Norway. Demographic Research, 10(5), 121–142. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2004.10.5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manlove, J., Logan, C., Ikramullah, E., & Holcombe, E. (2008). Factors associated with multiple-partner fertility among fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 536–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Manning, W. D., Smock, P. J., & Majumdar, D. (2004). The relative stability of cohabiting and marital unions for children. Population Research and Policy Review, 23, 135–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martín-García, T. (2009). “Bring men back in”: A re-examination of the impact of type of education and educational enrolment on first births in Spain. European Sociological Review, 25, 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oláh, L. S. (2001). Gender and family stability: Dissolution of the first parental union in Sweden and Hungary. Demographic Research, 4(2), 29–96. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2001.4.2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Petersen, T., Penner, A., & Høgsnes, G. (2011). The male marital wage premium: Sorting versus differential pay. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 64, 283–304.Google Scholar
  29. Rendall, M., Clarke, L., Peters, H. E., Ranjit, N., & Verropoulou, G. (1999). Incomplete reporting of men’s fertility in the United States and Britain: A research note. Demography, 36, 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rogers, W. M., III, & Stratton, L. S. (2010). The male marital wage differential: Race, training, and fixed effects. Economic Inquiry, 48, 722–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rønsen, M., & Skrede, K. (2006). Nordic fertility patterns: Compatible with gender equality? In A.-L. Ellingsæter & A. Leira (Eds.), Politicising parenthood: Gender relations in Scandinavian welfare state restructuring (pp. 53–76). Bristol, UK: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rønsen, M., & Skrede, K. (2010). Can public policies sustain fertility in the Nordic countries? Lessons from the past and questions for the future. Demographic Research, 22, 321–346. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2010.22.13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Skrede, K. (2004). Færre menn blir fedre [Fewer men are becoming fathers]. Økonomiske Analyzer, 6, 57–68.Google Scholar
  34. Thomson, E. (2004). Step-families and childbearing desires in Europe. Demographic Research, Special Collection, 3(5), 117–134. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2004.S3.5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. UNDP. (2009). Human development report 2009. Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development. New York: United Nations Development Programme.Google Scholar
  36. Vikat, A., Thomson, E., & Hoem, J. M. (1999). Stepfamily fertility in contemporary Sweden: The impact of childbearing before the current union. Population Studies, 53, 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research DepartmentStatistics NorwayOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations