{"word_count": 3314, "character_count": 26973}
Responsables du num&#233;roYoann Doignon et Thierry EggerickxArgumentaireAu d&#233;but des ann&#233;es 1970, les pays d&#8217;Europe du nord-ouest sont touch&#233;s par des mutations profondes affectant durablement les diff&#233;rentes dimensions du comportement familial, la structure des m&#233;nages et leur composition. On assiste &#224; une augmentation importante des divorces, alors que les individus se marient &#224; des &#226;ges de plus en plus tardifs. Simultan&#233;ment, on observe une diminution importante du nombre de mariages dans la population : les individus se marient plus tard, mais surtout ils se marient moins. Cette d&#233;saffection du mariage n&#8217;implique pas un rejet du couple et des unions puisque la cohabitation hors mariage se d&#233;veloppe. Par ailleurs, les couples font de moins en moins d&#8217;enfants dans le cadre du mariage (les naissances en dehors du mariage augmentent sensiblement), traduisant une d&#233;connexion entre le mariage et la procr&#233;ation. Ces diff&#233;rentes tendances constituent de v&#233;ritables ruptures avec les mod&#232;les familiaux ant&#233;rieurs et ont un impact sur l&#8217;&#233;volution de la structure des m&#233;nages. Ceux-ci se diversifient, se d&#233;composent et se recomposent fr&#233;quemment, ce qui n&#8217;est pas sans cons&#233;quences sur les choix r&#233;sidentiels, contraints ou non, et sur les besoins en termes de logement.La transformation est profonde puisqu&#8217;il ne s&#8217;agit pas d&#8217;un changement d&#8217;une seule dimension familiale, mais de l&#8217;ensemble du processus de formation de la famille et de constitution des m&#233;nages. De nombreuses th&#233;ories ont &#233;t&#233; formul&#233;es pour expliquer ces transformations, que ce soit la Seconde Transition D&#233;mographique (Van de Kaa and Lesthaeghe, 1986), les th&#233;ories &#233;conomiques (Becker, 1981; Oppenheimer, 1997), la gender revolution (Goldscheider et al., 2015), le Pattern of Disadvantage (Perelli-Harris and Gerber, 2011) ou encore l&#8217;explication fond&#233;e sur l&#8217;incertitude &#233;conomique engendr&#233;e par la mondialisation (Blossfeld et al., 2005).Les &#233;tudes empiriques sur les mutations contemporaines du comportement familial et de la composition des m&#233;nages sont abondantes et les diff&#233;rents aspects explor&#233;s par la litt&#233;rature sont tr&#232;s vari&#233;es. En revanche, la dimension spatiale de ces transformations est plus rarement abord&#233;e. Certaines &#233;tudes r&#233;v&#232;lent des disparit&#233;s r&#233;gionales importantes de ces comportements d&#233;mographiques (Munoz-P&#233;rez, 1991; Decroly, 1992; Prioux, 1993; Lesthaeghe and Neidert, 2009; Kulu, 2012; Walford and Kurek, 2016). D&#8217;autres se concentrent sur les persistances des structures spatiales historiques, notamment la continuit&#233; spatiale entre la premi&#232;re transition d&#233;mographique (XVIIIe-XXe si&#232;cles) et la Seconde Transition D&#233;mographique (Lesthaeghe and Lopez-Gay, 2013; Kl&#252;sener, 2015). Enfin, quelques &#233;tudes se sont int&#233;ress&#233;es &#224; l&#8217;&#233;volution dans le temps des structures spatiales des comportements familiaux, en mettant en &#233;vidence un processus de diffusion spatiale de l&#8217;innovation (Shorter et al., 1971; Vitali et al., 2015).Malgr&#233; l&#8217;int&#233;r&#234;t grandissant sur la dimension spatiale de ces mutations contemporaines depuis une quinzaine d&#8217;ann&#233;es environ, les connaissances g&#233;ographiques sur le sujet restent encore limit&#233;es et parcellaires. Ce num&#233;ro d&#8217;Espace Populations Soci&#233;t&#233;s est donc ouvert &#224; toute contribution pouvant participer &#224; une meilleure connaissance et compr&#233;hension des structures et des dynamiques spatiales des mutations contemporaines relatives &#224; la nuptialit&#233;, aux comportements familiaux, aux nouvelles structures et compositions des m&#233;nages. Les articles propos&#233;s pour ce num&#233;ro d&#8217;Espace Populations Soci&#233;t&#233;s pourront s&#8217;inscrire dans au moins l&#8217;un des trois axes suivants :1. Les dynamiques spatialesQuelques &#233;tudes ont mis en &#233;vidence un processus de diffusion spatiale de l&#8217;innovation, par exemple pour la f&#233;condit&#233; hors mariage (Vitali et al., 2015) et les familles monoparentales (Caltabiano et al., 2019), mais aussi un processus de diffusion sociale (Nazio, 2008).Les propositions d&#8217;articles pourront &#233;tudier les dynamiques spatiales des mutations familiales et des m&#233;nages, c&#8217;est-&#224;-dire la fa&#231;on dont &#233;voluent dans le temps les structures spatiales de ces comportements d&#233;mographiques. Il sera souhaitable de d&#233;crire et expliquer le sch&#233;ma g&#233;ographique de ces dynamiques, mais aussi d&#8217;identifier des r&#233;gularit&#233;s observables. Toutefois, une attention particuli&#232;re sera accord&#233;e aux articles s&#8217;inscrivant dans ce cadre de la diffusion spatiale, et aux articles avec une dimension temporelle permettant d&#8217;&#233;tudier ces mutations depuis leur commencement (au d&#233;but des ann&#233;es 1970). Les articles abordant les m&#233;canismes de la diffusion sociale de comportements d&#233;mographiques sont &#233;galement bienvenus.&#160;2. L&#8217;explication des structures spatialesLes propositions d&#8217;articles pourront &#233;galement se concentrer sur l&#8217;explication des structures spatiales, c&#8217;est-&#224;-dire identifier les d&#233;terminants explicatifs des disparit&#233;s g&#233;ographiques des diff&#233;rentes dimensions des transformations familiales et des situations de m&#233;nage. Plusieurs directions peuvent &#234;tre envisag&#233;es.Tout d&#8217;abord, les articles pourront confronter les diff&#233;rentes th&#233;ories explicatives existantes (culturelles, &#233;conomiques, fond&#233;es sur les rapports de genre etc.) (Lappegard et al., 2014). Quelle th&#233;orie est la plus pertinente pour expliquer les distributions spatiales observ&#233;es ?Les articles pourront &#233;galement mettre en &#233;vidence des d&#233;terminants originaux, ou peu abord&#233;s par les diff&#233;rentes th&#233;ories existantes, le logement par exemple.Ensuite, les articles pourront questionner les fronti&#232;res en tant que discontinuit&#233;s spatiales quant aux transformations des comportements d&#233;mographiques (Kl&#252;sener et al., 2013). Les fronti&#232;res politiques, culturelles, linguistiques, constituent-elles des ruptures dans l&#8217;espace et des barri&#232;res &#224; la diffusion spatiale ? Expliquent-elles une partie de la distribution spatiale observ&#233;e ?Enfin, les articles pourront approfondir les travaux effectu&#233;s sur la continuit&#233; spatiale entre la premi&#232;re transition d&#233;mographique et l&#8217;&#233;mergence des comportements d&#233;mographiques contemporains. Dans quelle mesure les structures spatiales du pass&#233; expliquent-elles les structures spatiales actuelles ?3. Le r&#244;le des migrations dans les mutations du comportement familialIl a souvent &#233;t&#233; reproch&#233; &#224; la th&#233;orie de la transition d&#233;mographique d&#8217;ignorer la composante migratoire (Pich&#233;, 2013). Cette remarque peut &#233;galement &#234;tre faite &#224; la grande majorit&#233; des travaux empiriques sur les transformations contemporaines du comportement familial et des situations de m&#233;nage. Les propositions d&#8217;article pourront &#233;tudier le r&#244;le des migrations sur l&#8217;&#233;volution d&#233;mographique dans les territoires. Les migrations acc&#233;l&#232;rent-elles les transformations familialesou au contraire les freinent-elles ? Les articles pourront &#233;galement aborder le lien entre migration, interne et/ou internationale, et &#233;volution des comportements individuels. Comment &#233;volue le comportement familial des migrants ? Le migrant conserve-t-il le comportement du territoire d&#8217;origine (hypoth&#232;se de socialisation) ou contraire s&#8217;adapte-t-il aux normes du territoire d&#8217;accueil (hypoth&#232;se d&#8217;adaptation) ? Les migrants arrivant dans un territoire constituent-ils un groupe s&#233;lectionn&#233; d&#8217;individus dont les comportements avant la migration se rapprochent d&#233;j&#224; de ceux de la population d&#8217;accueil (hypoth&#232;se de s&#233;lection) ? Ou encore, est-ce la migration elle-m&#234;me qui perturbe les comportements d&#233;mographiques des migrants (hypoth&#232;se de perturbation) ?Structure de la proposition d&#8217;articleLes auteurs int&#233;ress&#233;s par ce num&#233;ro d&#8217;Espace Populations Soci&#233;t&#233;s devront envoyer un r&#233;sum&#233; qui devra comporter les &#233;l&#233;ments suivants :L&#8217;axe dans lequel s&#8217;inscrira l&#8217;article propos&#233;&#160;La probl&#233;matique de recherche et les hypoth&#232;ses de travail&#160;Un expos&#233; explicite des donn&#233;es que les auteurs exploiteront dans leur article&#160;Niveau d&#8217;observation g&#233;ographique choisi (&#233;chelon administratif ou autre)&#160;La m&#233;thodologie envisag&#233;eCe num&#233;ro d&#8217;Espace Populations Soci&#233;t&#233;s ne se fixe pas de limites concernant l&#8217;aire g&#233;ographique d&#8217;&#233;tude. Les propositions d&#8217;articles pourront traiter des pays d&#233;velopp&#233;s comme des pays en d&#233;veloppement et pourront s&#8217;appuyer sur des recherches empiriques comme sur des r&#233;flexions plus th&#233;oriques. Ils devront &#233;tudier une ou plusieurs dimensions des transformations familiales parmi les suivantes : mariage/union civile, divorce, cohabitation hors mariage, nouvelles structures de m&#233;nages, naissances hors mariage, report de l&#8217;&#226;ge moyen au 1er mariage, formes d&#8217;union et de dissolution des unions, familles monoparentales, inf&#233;condit&#233;, remariages, etc.Les articles en anglais sont bienvenus.CalendrierDate limite pour l&#8217;envoi des propositions d&#8217;articles (titre et r&#233;sum&#233; d&#8217;environ 1-2 pages) : 04/05/2020S&#233;lection des r&#233;sum&#233;s par le Comit&#233; de r&#233;daction : Juin 2020Date limite de l&#8217;envoi des articles au Comit&#233; de r&#233;daction : 1er D&#233;cembre 2020Consignes de publications : https://journals.openedition.org/eps/3344Parution du num&#233;ro en Mai 2021ContactsLes titres, r&#233;sum&#233;s et articles sont &#224; envoyer &#224; :Yoann Doignon, Chercheur post-doctorant, Centre de recherches en d&#233;mographie, Universit&#233; Catholique de Louvain yoann.doignon@uclouvain.beThierry Eggerickx, Ma&#238;tre de recherche FNRS, Professeur, Centre de recherches en d&#233;mographie, Universit&#233; Catholique de Louvain thierry.eggerickx@uclouvain.beBibliographieBecker GS. 1981. A treatise on the family. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.Blossfeld H-P, Klijzing E, Mills M, Kurz K (eds). 2005. Globalization, uncertainty and youth in society. Routledge: London; New York. Available at: http://site.ebrary.com/id/10162704 [Accessed 11 June 2019]&#160;Caltabiano M, Dreassi E, Rocco E, Vignoli D. 2019. A subregional analysis of family change: The spatial diffusion of one-parent families across Italian municipalities, 1991-2011. Population Space and Place 25: 16 DOI: 10.1002/psp.2237Decroly J-M. 1992. Les naissances hors mariage en Europe. Espace Populations Soci&#233;t&#233;s 10: 259&#8211;264 DOI: 10.3406/espos.1992.1532Goldscheider F, Bernhardt E, Lappeg&#229;rd T. 2015. The Gender Revolution: A Framework for Understanding Changing Family and Demographic Behavior. Population and Development Review 41: 207&#8211;239 DOI: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00045.xKl&#252;sener S. 2015. Spatial variation in non-marital fertility across Europe in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries: recent trends, persistence of the past, and potential future pathways. The History of the Family 20: 593&#8211;628 DOI: 10.1080/1081602X.2015.1099112Kl&#252;sener S, Perelli-Harris B, S&#225;nchez Gassen N. 2013. Spatial Aspects of the Rise of Nonmarital Fertility Across Europe Since 1960: The Role of States and Regions in Shaping Patterns of Change. European Journal of Population 29: 137&#8211;165 DOI: 10.1007/s10680-012-9278-xKulu H. 2012. Spatial variation in divorce and separation: compositional or contextual effects? Population, Space and Place 18: 1&#8211;15 DOI: 10.1002/psp.671Lappegard T, Kl&#252;sener S, Vignoli D. 2014. Social norms, economic conditions and spatial variation of childbearing within cohabitation across Europe. Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (MPIDR working paper): 40Lesthaeghe R, Lopez -Gay A. 2013. Spatial continuities and discontinuities in two successive demographic transitions: Spain and Belgium, 1880-2010. Demographic Research 28: 77&#8211;136 DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2013.28.4Lesthaeghe R, Neidert L. 2009. US Presidential Elections and the Spatial Pattern of the American Second Demographic Transition. Population and Development Review 35: 391&#8211;400Munoz-P&#233;rez F. 1991. Les naissances hors mariage et les conceptions pr&#233;nuptiales en Espagne depuis 1975. II. Diversit&#233; et &#233;volution r&#233;gionales. Population 46: 1207&#8211;1248Nazio T. 2008. Cohabitation, family and society. Routledge: New York.Oppenheimer VK. 1997. Women&#8217;s employment and the gain to marriage: the specialization andtrading model. Annual Review of Sociology 23: 431&#8211;453 DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.431Perelli-Harris B, Gerber TP. 2011. Nonmarital childbearing in Russia: Second DemographicTransition or pattern of disadvantage? Demography 48: 317&#8211;342&#160;Pich&#233; V. 2013. Chapitre 1 : Les fondements des th&#233;ories migratoires contemporaines. In Les Th&#233;ories de La Migration, Pich&#233; V (ed.).INED &#233;ditons: Paris; 15&#8211;60.Prioux F. 1993. La f&#233;condit&#233; hors mariage en France depuis 1968 : &#233;volution des contrastes interd&#233;partementaux. Espace Populations Soci&#233;t&#233;s 11: 281&#8211;291 DOI: 10.3406/espos.1993.1585Shorter E, Knodel J, Van De Walle E. 1971. The decline of non-marital fertility in Europe, 1880-1940. Population Studies 25: 375&#8211;393Van de Kaa D, Lesthaeghe R (eds). 1986. Twee demografische transities? In Bevolking: groei en krimpVan Loghum Slaterus: Deventer; 9&#8211;24.Vitali A, Aassve A, Lappeg&#229;rd T. 2015. Diffusion of childbearing within cohabitation. Demography 52: 355&#8211;377 DOI: 10.1007/s13524-015-0380-7&#160;Walford N, Kurek S. 2016. Outworking of the Second Demographic Transition: National Trends and Regional Patterns of Fertility Change in Poland, and England and Wales, 2002&#8211;2012. Population, Space and Place 22: 508&#8211;525 DOI: 10.1002/psp.1936Issue editorsYoann Doignon and Thierry EggerickxArgumentAt the beginning of the 1970s, the countries of north-western Europe were affected by major changes that lastingly affected the various dimensions of family behaviour, household structure and composition. There was a significant increase in divorces, while individuals were marrying at increasingly later ages. At the same time, there is a significant decrease in the number of marriages in the population: individuals are marrying less and later. This disaffection with marriage does not imply a rejection of the couple and unions since nonmarital cohabitation is developing. Moreover, couples are having fewer and fewer children within marriage (births outside marriage are increasing significantly), reflecting a disconnection between marriage and procreation. These different trends constitute real breaks with previous family models and have an impact on the evolution of household structure. Households diversify, decompose and re-compose frequently, which has consequences for residential choices, whether forced or not, and for housing needs.The transformation is deep, since it is not a change in a single family dimension, but in the entire process of family formation and household formation. Numerous theories have been formulated to explain these transformations, including the Second Demographic Transition (Van de Kaa and Lesthaeghe, 1986), economic theories (Becker, 1981; Oppenheimer, 1997), the gender revolution (Goldscheider et al., 2015), the Pattern of Disadvantage (Perelli-Harris and Gerber, 2011) and the explanation based on the economic uncertainty generated by globalization (Blossfeld et al., 2005).Empirical studies on contemporary changes in family behaviour and household composition are large and the various aspects explored in the literature are very varied. However, the spatial dimension of these transformations is more rarely addressed. Some studies reveal significant regional disparities in these demographic behaviours (Munoz-P&#233;rez, 1991; Decroly, 1992; Prioux, 1993; Lesthaeghe and Neidert, 2009; Kulu, 2012; Walford and Kurek, 2016). Others focus on the persistence of historical spatial structures, including the spatial continuity between the first demographic transition (18th-20th centuries) and the second demographic transition (Lesthaeghe and Lopez-Gay, 2013; Kl&#252;sener, 2015). Finally, some studies have looked at the evolution over time of spatial structures of family behaviour, highlighting a process of spatial diffusion of innovation (Shorter et al., 1971; Vitali et al., 2015).Despite the growing interest in the spatial dimension of these contemporary changes over the last fifteen years or so, geographical knowledge on the subject is still limited and fragmented. This issue of Space Populations Societies is therefore open to any contribution that can contribute to a better knowledge and understanding of the spatial structures and dynamics of contemporary changes relating to nuptiality, family behaviour and new household structures and compositions. The papers proposed for this issue of Space Populations Societies may fit at least one of the following three axes:1. Spatial dynamicsA few studies have highlighted a process of spatial diffusion of innovation, for example for non-marital fertility (Vitali et al., 2015) and single-parent families (Caltabiano et al., 2019), but also a process of social diffusion (Nazio, 2008).&#160;Paper proposals could study the spatial dynamics of family and household change, i.e. how the spatial structures of these demographic behaviours evolve over time. It will be appropriate to describe and explain the geographical pattern of these dynamics, but also to identify observable regularities. However, we will give a particular attention to papers that fit within this framework of spatial diffusion, and to papers with a temporal dimension that will make it possible to study these changes since their beginning (in the early 1970s). Papers addressing the mechanisms of social diffusion of demographic behaviours are also welcome.2. Explanation of spatial structuresPaper proposals may also focus on explaining spatial structures, i.e. identifying the determinants that explain the geographical disparities in the different dimensions of family transformations and household situations. Several directions can be envisaged.First, the papers may compare the various existing explanatory theories (cultural, economic, gender-based, etc.) (Lappegard et al., 2014). Which theory is the most relevant to explain the observed spatial distributions?&#160;The papers may also highlight original determinants, or determinants little addressed by the various existing theories, such as housing for example.Then, the papers may question boundaries as spatial discontinuities in terms of transformations in demographic behaviour (Kl&#252;sener et al., 2013). Do political, cultural and linguistic borders constitute spatial ruptures and barriers to spatial diffusion? Do they explain part of the observed spatial distribution?Finally, the papers can further the work carried out on the spatial continuity between the first demographic transition and the emergence of contemporary demographic behaviours. To what extent do the spatial structures of the past explain current spatial structures?3. The role of migration in changing family behaviorDemographic transition theory has often been criticized for ignoring the migration component (Pich&#233;, 2013). This remark can also be made to the vast majority of empirical work on contemporary transformations in family behaviour and household situations. The proposals for papers could study the role of migration on demographic change in the territories. Does migration accelerate family transformations or, on the contrary, does it slow them down? Papers may also address the link between internal and/or international migration and changes in individual behaviour. How does the family behaviour of migrants evolve? Does the migrant maintain the behaviour of the territory of origin (socialisation hypothesis) or on the contrary adapt to the norms of the host territory (adaptation hypothesis)? Do migrants arriving in a territory constitute a selected group of individuals whose pre-migration behaviour is already similar to that of the host population (selection hypothesis)? Or is it migration itself that disrupts the demographic behaviour of migrants (disruption hypothesis)?Structure of the paper proposalAuthors interested in this issue of Space Populations Societies should send an abstract which should include the following elements:The axis in which the proposed paper will fit&#160;The research questions and working hypotheses&#160;An explicit statement of the data that the authors will use in their paper&#160;Level of geographical observation chosen (administrative or other)&#160;The methodology envisagedThis issue of Space Populations Societies does not set any limits concerning the geographical area of study. Proposals for papers may deal with both developed and developing countries and may be based on empirical research as well as on more theoretical considerations. They should study one or more of the following dimensions of family transformations: marriage/civil union, divorce, cohabitation outside marriage, new household structures, births outside marriage, postponement of the average age at first marriage, forms of union and dissolution of unions, single-parent families, infertility, remarriages, etc.Papers in English are welcome.Calendar&#160;Deadline for submission of paper proposals (title and abstract of about 1-2 pages): May 4th 2020&#160;Selection of abstracts by the Editorial Board: June 2020&#160;Deadline for submission of articles to the Editorial Committee: December 1st 2020&#160;Publication guidelines: https://journals.openedition.org/eps/3344&#160;Publication of the issue in May 2021ContactsTitles, abstracts and papers should be sent to:Yoann Doignon, Post-doctoral Researcher, Centre for Demographic Research, UCLouvain yoann.doignon@uclouvain.beThierry Eggerickx, Ma&#238;tre de recherche FNRS, Professeur, Centre for Demographic Research, UCLouvain thierry.eggerickx@uclouvain.beBibliographyBecker GS. 1981. A treatise on the family. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.Blossfeld H-P, Klijzing E, Mills M, Kurz K (eds). 2005. Globalization, uncertainty and youth in society. Routledge: London; New York. Available at: http://site.ebrary.com/id/10162704 [Accessed 11 June 2019]Caltabiano M, Dreassi E, Rocco E, Vignoli D. 2019. A subregional analysis of family change: The spatial diffusion of one-parent families across Italian municipalities, 1991-2011. Population Space and Place 25: 16 DOI: 10.1002/psp.2237Decroly J-M. 1992. Les naissances hors mariage en Europe. Espace Populations Soci&#233;t&#233;s 10: 259&#8211;264 DOI: 10.3406/espos.1992.1532Goldscheider F, Bernhardt E, Lappeg&#229;rd T. 2015. The Gender Revolution: A Framework for Understanding Changing Family and Demographic Behavior. Population and Development Review 41: 207&#8211;239 DOI: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00045.xKl&#252;sener S. 2015. Spatial variation in non-marital fertility across Europe in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries: recent trends, persistence of the past, and potential future pathways. The History of the Family 20: 593&#8211;628 DOI: 10.1080/1081602X.2015.1099112Kl&#252;sener S, Perelli-Harris B, S&#225;nchez Gassen N. 2013. Spatial Aspects of the Rise of Nonmarital Fertility Across Europe Since 1960: The Role of States and Regions in Shaping Patterns of Change. European Journal of Population 29: 137&#8211;165 DOI: 10.1007/s10680-012-9278-xKulu H. 2012. Spatial variation in divorce and separation: compositional or contextual effects? Population, Space and Place 18: 1&#8211;15 DOI: 10.1002/psp.671Lappegard T, Kl&#252;sener S, Vignoli D. 2014. Social norms, economic conditions and spatial variation of childbearing within cohabitation across Europe. Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (MPIDR working paper): 40Lesthaeghe R, Lopez -Gay A. 2013. Spatial continuities and discontinuities in two successive demographic transitions: Spain and Belgium, 1880-2010. Demographic Research 28: 77&#8211;136 DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2013.28.4Lesthaeghe R, Neidert L. 2009. US Presidential Elections and the Spatial Pattern of the American Second Demographic Transition. Population and Development Review 35: 391&#8211;400&#160;Munoz-P&#233;rez F. 1991. Les naissances hors mariage et les conceptions pr&#233;nuptiales en Espagne depuis 1975. II. Diversit&#233; et &#233;volution r&#233;gionales. Population 46: 1207&#8211;1248Nazio T. 2008. Cohabitation, family and society. Routledge: New York.Oppenheimer VK. 1997. Women&#8217;s employment and the gain to marriage: the specialization and trading model. Annual Review of Sociology 23: 431&#8211;453 DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.431Perelli-Harris B, Gerber TP. 2011. Nonmarital childbearing in Russia: Second Demographic Transition or pattern of disadvantage? Demography 48: 317&#8211;342Pich&#233; V. 2013. Chapitre 1 : Les fondements des th&#233;ories migratoires contemporaines. In Les Th&#233;ories de La Migration, Pich&#233; V (ed.).INED &#233;ditons: Paris; 15&#8211;60.Prioux F. 1993. La f&#233;condit&#233; hors mariage en France depuis 1968 : &#233;volution des contrastes interd&#233;partementaux. Espace Populations Soci&#233;t&#233;s 11: 281&#8211;291 DOI: 10.3406/espos.1993.1585Shorter E, Knodel J, Van De Walle E. 1971. The decline of non-marital fertility in Europe, 1880-1940. Population Studies 25: 375&#8211;393Van de Kaa D, Lesthaeghe R (eds). 1986. Twee demografische transities? In Bevolking: groei en krimpVan Loghum Slaterus: Deventer; 9&#8211;24.Vitali A, Aassve A, Lappeg&#229;rd T. 2015. Diffusion of childbearing within cohabitation. Demography 52: 355&#8211;377 DOI: 10.1007/s13524-015-0380-7&#160;Walford N, Kurek S. 2016. Outworking of the Second Demographic Transition: National Trends and Regional Patterns of Fertility Change in Poland, and England and Wales, 2002&#8211;2012. Population, Space and Place 22: 508&#8211;525 DOI: 10.1002/psp.1936