>From an outsider's perspective it appears as if British public debate on
the social role of the family is sometimes conducted in rather too strongly
drawn "either-or" terms. Further, debates on changes in family structure
are often also confused in practice with what is at least partly a separate
debate on what policy conclusions (if any!) should be drawn from the trends
observed. Research not least by UK demographers, conducting projects
linked to ESRC at the University of Essex, seems to indicate that there are
complex patterns of evidence speaking both for and against the view that
the prevalence of the traditional nuclear family is declining in Britain,
as well as for considerable multiplicity in the social implications of
increasing diversity in family forms.
On one hand, there does seem to be increased scope for alternative family
structures--with the number of lone parents in Britain, for example,
increasing (between 1971 and 1991) from 570,000 to 1.3 million. Further
research from last year by researchers at the Institute of Education, based
on the General Household Survey (GHS), has found that couple families have
declined relative to lone parent families, with trend extrapolations
indicating that the proportion of couple families may be less than two in
three by the year 2000. As is well-known, cohabitation is also
increasingly popular among younger generations--1997 research under the
direction of Jacqueline Scott at Cambridge indicates that whereas only 2%
of men and women born before 1930 cohabited before marriage, almost half of
those born in the 1960s have done so--and there is some evidence, lamented
by many, that cohabitative relationships are more likely to end in separation.
However, there are also findings with other implications than those
suggested above. Scott's survey research findings among 5000 British
households indicate that family concerns are still identified as very
central to people's lives. In addition, four out of five mothers would go
out to work if they had access to the form of childcare which they most
prefer--for most, this would be a relative or a partner. Reemphasizing the
Institute of Education findings, even if current trends are maintained,
two-parent families are likely to remain in the majority. In overall
perspective, families still play a central role in providing both for the
health, incomes and security of both older and younger members--without
these contributions, state welfare programs (particularily health care)
really would become overburdened, in Britain and elsewhere!
In addition, trends aside, their causal interpretation poses challenges of
an entirely different order. In a critical comment on ex-minister Alistair
Burt's denigration of unmarried parents as a threat to UK childrens'
welfare and family stability, Mike Murphy at LSE has pointed out (ESRC
Changing Britain 1995, issue 2) that greater instability in cohabitational
relationships (compared to marriages), as indicated by British Household
Panel Survey Data, has many explanations other than differences in
preferences and norms for those involved. These include factors as prosaic
as statistical artefacts--the actual number of those found to have
terminated cohab relationships in 1990-91 according to the BHPS was just 51
people, which makes farreaching causal analyses risky. There are also
problems of data quality in reporting of marital status. Finally, those
cohabiting differ from the married in many respects crucial in themselves
for relationship stability--cohabitants are generally younger, have started
the relationship more recently, and are also much less likely to have
children. Like are thus not being really compared with like--those
marrying younger, after all, (as well as spouses remaining childless) are
also more likely to get divorced!
All of this indicates broad scope for reasoned disagreement both on what
the relevant facts are on British family life, as well as on the policy
conclusions we should draw. To mention one topical example: does the
increasing of single mothers' paid work necessarily demand increased
economic penalties for "non-work," (through so-called "modernization" of
social security, depressingly often a codeword for beneficiary bashing)? Or
is it actually more important to expand the child care opportunities which
most mothers see as crucial for being able to choose paid work (aspirations
and rewards notwithstanding)? My impression is that it is difficult to get
a straight answer out of the Blair government on questions like these.
Emphasizing the importance of family values and civil society does not
address such dilemmas head on--it is little better than waffling and
begging the question. And it risks making New Labour looking suspiciously
much like the Old Tories on questions of crucial importance for parents who
are working hard as it is to provide for their children and to make ends meet.
Eero Carroll
Swedish Institute for Social Research
Stockholm University
-------------------------------------------------------------
Posted to uk-policy, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/
Hosting and email provided by new media consutants On-Line Publishing