Magic Statistics

Although Canadians are less likely to marry today than in the past, and divorce is more common than it used to be, over 80% of Canadians aged 25 and over have married and, of those, almost 89% marry only once, according to a study released earlier this week by Statistics Canada.  Only 10% of ever-married Canadians had married twice, and less than 1% three or more times.

At the time the survey was done [2001], over two-thirds of the 16.6 million people who had married at some point in their life were still with their first spouse. They had been married for an average of 23.5 years.

But for 23%, their first marriage had ended in dissolution following about 11 years of matrimony. For the remaining 9%, their first marriage had ended in their spouse's death after 34 years together.

About 43% of adults whose first marriage had ended in divorce had remarried at the time of the survey, as had about 16% of those whose first spouse had died.

By comparing characteristics of those whose marriages ended in divorce, annulment, or separation with those whose marriages remained intact, the analysts developed a “proportional hazard model” of factors associated with marriage dissolution.  The study focused on discussion of the risk factors.

Age at marriage was a highly significant variable.  The younger the age at time of marriage, the greater the risk of marriage dissolution.  Education was another: People who did not graduate high school had a significantly higher risk of marriage break-up.

Living common-law before marriage was also a key risk factor for breakdown of a first marriage.

Living common-law is . . . strongly associated with a first marital breakdown. In fact, the risk is 50% higher among people who lived with their partner before the wedding than among those who did not. This finding is supported by recent Canadian research which clearly shows that marriages preceded by a common-law union are distinctly less stable than those that began at the altar, possibly because the tradition of marriage is less important to people who have participated in non-traditional conjugal relationships. [footnotes omitted]

The longer a marriage has endured, the greater the chances of staying together.  The presence of children was associated with a huge (almost 75%) reduction in the risk that a first marriage collapsed. That marriages are much less likely to break up when the couple has children has been true in most societies and cultures.

The study disentangled religious affiliation and religious observance by analysing them as separate risk factors.  Interestingly, religious affiliation was not strongly correlated with differences in risk of marriage dissolution, whereas religious observance, as measured by attendance at organized religious services, was associated with a significantly lower risk.

Religious belief can also have a protective effect on first marriage. Although religious affiliation does not seem significant, religious observance is associated with marital durability. People who attend religious services during the year, even if only several times, have between a 10% and 31% lower predicted risk of marital dissolution than those who do not attend at all. (This excludes attending services on special occasions like weddings, christenings and funerals.)

Those who attended services at least once a month had the 31% lower risk of marriage breakdown; those who attended less frequently had the 10% lower risk.

The results for analysis of mother tongue, as an indirect indicator of cultural background, were not what might have been expected.  It is well-known that Francophone Quebecers have very high rates of common-law relationships and divorce, yet it was found that being a Francophone in Quebec was associated with an almost 30% lower risk of a first-marriage breakdown, compared with Anglophones outside Quebec.

The analysts attribute this finding to attitudinal variables included in the risk factor assessment.  Once those were taken into account, analysis of mother tongue produced the reported result.

The other factors are psychological in nature: The survey asked about attitudes to marriage, being part of a couple, and having children.  Those who said that marriage was “very important” to personal happiness were far less likely to experience dissolution of a marriage.  (This applies to all marriages, not just the first.)  Those who said marriage was “not very” or “not at all” important to happiness were at 2.7 to 4.3 times greater risk.

One would expect that people who marry multiple times are keen believers in the value of marriage and family, but the data tell a different story.
. . .
[T]his lack of commitment to the idea of marriage may become a self-fulfilling prophecy, since it is a key factor associated with marital collapse.
. . .
[C]ompared with those who believe they would stay in an irreparable marriage for the sake of their kids, the predicted risk of a first or second marriage dissolution is 69% to 116% higher for people who are prepared to leave.

This, to me, may be the salient result of this study: Those who believe in marriage, who believe that being part of a married couple is important to personal happiness, who believe having children is important to personal happiness—people with these beliefs are far more likely to stay married.  Those who do not think marriage or being part of a married couple or having children is important to their happiness are less likely to have enduring marriages.  “For better or for worse” and all that.

These estimates were derived from analysis of the 2001 General Social Survey, which interviewed almost 25,000 Canadians aged 25 and over living in the ten provinces.

The full study, along with other interesting analyses of the latest social statistics, is published in the Summer 2006 issue of Statistics Canada’s quarterly journal Canadian Social Trends, which can downloaded here for free (pdf).

Statistics Canada also publicised earlier this week guidelines for citation of Statistics Canada products.  Since they know where I live, I think it would be good for me to follow the proper protocol.  So, here are the sources for the data quoted above.

The complete study (pdf):

Clark, Warren, and Susan Crompton, 2006. “Till death do us part? The risk of first and second marriage dissolution.” Canadian Social Trends, No. 81.  Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-008, pp. 23-33. http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-008-XIE/2006001/PDF/death_81.pdf (accessed 30 June 2006).

The complete study (html):

Clark, Warren, and Susan Crompton, 2006. “Till death do us part? The risk of first and second marriage dissolution.” Canadian Social Trends, No. 81.  Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-008, pp. 23-33. http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-008-XIE/2006001/main_death.htm (accessed 30 June 2006).

The summary report in Statistics Canada’s Daily (html):

Statistics Canada, 2006. “The risk of first and second marriage dissolution.” The Daily.  July 28. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-001. http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060628/d060628b.htm (accessed 30 June 2006).

“How to cite Statistics Canada Products” (html):

Statistics Canada. 2006. How to Cite Statistics Canada Products. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 12-591-XWE. Ottawa. Version updated March 31. Ottawa. http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/12-591-XIE/12-591-XIE2006001.htm (accessed 30 June 2006).

As the Group of Eight (G8) prepares to meet next month in St Petersburg, concerns are mounting about the condition of Russia’s alleged democracy.  Most recently, a Kremlin-supported bill presented in the Duma would expand the definition of criminal extremism to include criticism of state bureaucrats.

The deputies propose that the definition of extremism should include "public slander of an individual who holds a Russian Federation or Russian Federation component state post in the course of implementation of his official duties or in connection with their implementation, combined with an accusation that the said individual committed acts displaying signs of extremism, of that he committed a serious or very serious crime."

Under that broad definition, accusing state officials of corruption, a serious crime, would qualify as extremism, even if the accusation has basis in fact, and the accuser could face criminal charges.  No threat to free speech or government accountability there.

Many observers have charged that President Vladimir Putin is turning Russia into an authoritarian state.  US Senator John McCain has even called on G8 leaders to boycott the upcoming summit for that reason.  Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice says American representatives will attend, but nevertheless recognises that critics have legitimate cause for concern.  Now today, Canadian Foreign Minister Peter MacKay says he will raise those issues at the summit itself.

Canada will get a chance to voice its concerns about the health of democracy and business transparency in Russia at the upcoming Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said Friday.

"There will be a period on the agenda that will allow leaders to bring forward issues that may not have been on the agenda," at the Russian-hosted summit, slated for July 15-17, MacKay said at the end of the two-day G8 foreign ministers meeting.

"Every country has to be prepared to do some introspection if they want to be part of this larger group, and Russia is no exception," he said.

Russia’s parliament seems to disagree with Mr MacKay on that last point.  Today, the Duma has ordered an inquiry into widespread criticism of Russia appearing in the Western press.

The lower house of Russia's parliament Friday instructed its information policy committee to request information from state bodies on the reasons for what it called an anti-Russian campaign in Western media.

Alexander Krutov, a deputy from the Rodina (Motherland) faction . . . said the campaign aimed at making Russia look like a country widely affected by xenophobia and interethnic strife, and at labeling St. Petersburg, which will host a G8 summit in mid-July, as Russia's capital of fascism.

Mr Putin’s spin meister spokesman, Vladislav Surkov, rebuffs the charge that Russia is becoming less democratic.

Mr Surkov, widely regarded as Russia’s second most powerful man, rejected the term “managed democracy”, which is often used to describe the highly centralised, and often authoritarian, political system that he has crafted as deputy head of the administration.

“Our democratic model is called ‘sovereign democracy’,” said Mr Surkov, a college dropout and PR expert, who joined the Kremlin in 1998 after spending a decade working for Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the oil tycoon, who is serving a prison sentence.

That Vladislav is a real survivor, isn’t he?  Then he comes out with this zinger.

“We don’t believe we were defeated in the Cold War. We think we defeated our own totalitarian regime.”

So, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, rejection of “peaceful co-existence”, and the build-up of Western defences had nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union?

What does the last dictator of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics think of Russia today?

Mikhail Gorbachev has called on Western countries to stop interfering in Russia’s domestic affairs.

Putting pressure on President Putin over human rights at next month’s G8 summit in St Petersburg, to be chaired by Russia, would be counterproductive, the last leader of the Soviet Union told The Times in an exclusive interview.

Butt out and mind your own business.  Everything’s fine.  Nothing to see here; just move along now and leave us alone.

Previous related post: Europe beholden to Russian energy supplies

Leo Lewis, Tokyo business correspondent for The Times of London, has found another jaw-dropping story in the Far Eastern press.

UEDA, Nagano — A woman who operates a company here has been swindled by someone claiming to be a moneylender out of a total of about 47 million yen on over 100 occasions, police said. The woman sent a check with the face value of 800,000 yen as a "deposit" to a location designated by the swindler. Moreover, the swindler notified the woman that other companies will extend loans to her company and asked her to pay deposits to them. The woman then sent a total of some 30 million yen to designated accounts on 86 occasions. The woman became suspicious when she did not receive any loans, and asked that her loan contracts be cancelled. The swindler then told her that she needed to pay cancellation charges. She then sent a combined 17 million yen on 18 occasions.

If The Darwin Awards are ever expanded to include excessively gullible victims of con artists, this woman should be first on the list.

At the current exchange rate, 47 million yen is about $459,000 Canadian.  How can she give away that much money and keep her company solvent?  What kind of business is she in, anyway?

Previous related posts:

• A (very) poor man’s Molotov cocktail
• Man bites parking cop