Taylor & Francis

Taylor & f ra neis G roup

Age at Marriage and Proportions Marrying

Author(s): John Hajnal
Source: Population Studies, Nov., 1953, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Nov., 1953), pp. 111-136
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Population Investigation
Committee
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2172028

TSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about TSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the TSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and are collaborating with TSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Population Studies

JSTOR
This content downloaded from
185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Age at Marriage and Proportions Marrying
By John Hajnal1

i. Introduction
A sudden increase in marriages and marriage rates in the last few years has been
noticed in many of the Western industrial countries where birth rates are low.
A general description of this development has been published elsewhere.2 A con­
venient method of studying aspects of the recent history of marriage is provided by
easily available data regarding the proportion of single persons at various dates.
The purpose of the present paper is to use these data to disentangle two effects in
the ‘marriage boom’: (i) the extent to which the cohorts3 whose marriages have
formed the main contribution to the ‘marriage boom’ are marrying more, i.e.
whether the proportion who will ultimately remain single is likely to be lower than
in previous generations; (2) the extent to which the mean age at marriage of these
generations is likely to fall below that of their predecessors. Some ancillary
methodological investigations which proved to be involved in the problem stated
are presented in the appendices.
There is necessarily a speculative element in calculations of this nature, since
some of the marriages of the cohorts in question lie in the future and assumptions
have to be made regarding these future marriages. A set of simple, and, therefore,
necessarily crude, calculations has been carried out in a uniform way for a dozen
countries. It was felt that this was worth doing, but of course the results are no
substitute for detailed studies using the various types of statistical materials
available in each country.
The raw material for the computations to be presented consists of the proportions
single at two recent dates for each of thirteen countries. The aim was to choose the
two dates (to be designated and Z2) in such a way as to include between them as
much as possible of the period of high marriages in each country. In general, there
was no choice. Marital status data are in most countries available only from
censuses and the two latest had to be used.4 A few estimates were available, but
these, like censuses, are not necessarily available for the dates most convenient from
the point of view of this study.
The estimates and sample figures may in part be less accurate than census data.
Exclusion of much of the armed forces from the data for Z2 (owing to their absence
from the country as in New Zealand, or for statistical reasons as in the United
States) may affect the comparability of proportions single for men in some cases.
1 This paper was prepared while the author was on the staff of the Office of Population Research,
Princeton University.
2 ‘The Marriage Boom’, Population Index, vol. 19, no. 2, April 1953.
3 In accordance with the usage of several authors, the word ‘ cohort ’ will be used to denote a group
of persons born in the same period whose demographic history is being followed through their lives.
4 The statistical offices of the Netherlands and Switzerland kindly supplied unpublished estimates
of population by marital status.
[ hi ] 8-2

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
112 JOHN HAJNAL

Czechoslovakia underwent substantial changes of territory between tr and i2.

Nothing could be done about such defects1 in the data beyond ‘keeping them in
mind ’ in considering the results of the computations.
Since the discussion is based on proportions single, the term ‘ marriages ’ denotes
‘first marriages’ unless otherwise stated.
No adjustment has been made in the calculations for the fact that mortality and
migration are not equal in their incidence on the single and on the married popula­
tion. Some data on this factor are contained in Appendix II. To avoid clumsy
qualifications, the main argument itself is conducted as though this factor were
negligible.
A general view of the basic data may be obtained from Table i. (The sources
have been listed in Appendix V.) The ‘marriage boom’ is, of course, reflected in
reductions in the proportions single. There has been a sharp decline in proportions
single in the United States, Australia and New Zealand. In Europe there is a clear
decline in the proportions single for women in all countries covered except France

Table i. Proportions single at two recent dates in various countries

Men Women
Country Date
20-24 25-29 45-49 20-24 25-29 45-49
Europe:
Czechoslovakia 1 Dec. 1930 o-88 o-43 OO6 0-62 0-30 010
22 May 1947 0-85 0-46 o-o6 O'54 023 010
Denmark 5 Nov. 1935 0-89 0-51 O"IO o-68 o-35 0-16
15 June 1945 0-85 o-44 o-ior 0*59 0-26 0-16
England & Wales Mid-year 1935 0-85 0-48 o-io 0-72 0-40 017
8 Apr. 1951 0-76 o-35 010 0-52 0-22 015
France 8 Mar. 1936 o-79 036 010* o-49 0-23 0-13*
Mid-year 1949 081 039 0-12* o-54 022 o-ii*
Ireland 16 Nov. 1941 0-97 0-83 o-34 o-88 0-64 026
12 May 1946 0*95 o-8o o-33 0-83 0-57 0-26 .
Luxembourg 31 Dec. 1935 090 056 0-14 o-68 0-35 0-15
31 Dec. 1947 090 0-58 0-14 0-70 o-33 0-15
Netherlands 31 Dec. 1930 0-90 o-49 Oil o-75 0-38 015
31 Dec. 1951 089 0-48 009 0-71 0-31 0-13
Norway 1 Dec. 1930 o-8oj o-8of 0-16* 0-67']' 0-67! 0-23*
3 Dec. 1946 o-75f o-75t 0-17* o-s&j 0-56} 0*22*
Sweden 31 Dec. 1935 o-94 066 0-17 0-78 o-49 0-23
31 Dec. 1945 0-87 0-52 017 064 0-30 0-21
Switzerland 1 Dec. 1941 0*94 0-62 0-14 o-8o 0-45 020
31 Dec. 1950 o-86 0-50 0-13 066 031 0-19
Non-European
countries:
Australia 30 June 1933 0-87 0-56 0-15 0-69 0-38 0-14
30 June 1947 076 0-38 0-14 052 0-21 0-13
New Zealand 24 Mar. 1936 0-90 0-56 0-14 0-72 0-38 0-14
25 Sept. 1945 0-82 O'45 012 0-63 0-28 0-13
United States 1 Apr. 1940 0-72 036 OIlJ o-47 0-23 O-O9J
Apr. 1951 0-52 O’2O o-o8J 0-31 O-II o-o7i

* io-year age group 40-49. f 10-year age group 20-29. f 10-year age group 45-54.
1 See also Appendix V.

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AGE AT MARRIAGE AND PROPORTIONS MARRYING 113
and Luxembourg; the figures for men fail to show a decline in Czechoslovakia,
Ireland and the Netherlands, as well as in France and Luxembourg. In the
remaining five countries (Denmark, Great Britain, Norway,1 Sweden and Switzer­
land) there were declines in proportions single for both sexes, though the changes
were greater for women than for men.

2. Increase in marriage frequency

Before getting to the main subject of this paper, we may deal briefly with a pre­
liminary question: by how much have the marriage rates at each age risen? The
proportions single may be used to supply a partial answer. If fewer people have
been left single in one cohort than in an earlier cohort, the later cohort must have
experienced higher marriage rates. It may be shown2 that if one cohort experiences
a certain set of marriage rates such that in the age group from age x to x + n the
proportion remaining single3 is and another cohort experiences marriage
rates exactly k times those of the original cohort, then in the second cohort the
proportion remaining single in the same age group will be roughly 52(x), where
S2(v)=|.S’,(.v)|a.
This formula can be applied to data of the type considered in this study. For this
purpose the formula is conveniently written
logS2(x)
log^x)-
For example, among Swedish women aged 20-24 in 1935, 78-3 % were single,
while in 1945 only 63-6% remained single in the same age group. The formula
thus gives
(log o-636)/(log 0783) = 1-8.
This may be interpreted in the following way: In the later cohort (those aged
20-24 in 1945) the number of women remaining single was that which would have
resulted if at each age this cohort had experienced marriage rates i-8 times as great
as those of the earlier cohort. In fact, the marriage rates did not rise in the same
proportion at each age. The marriage rates of the later cohort did not at each age
bear the same ratio to the corresponding rate of the earlier cohort. Moreover, the
marriages which members of the later cohort experienced at any particular age
were spread over a considerable period. Thus the oldest women in the group were,
say, 18 in 1938, the youngest in 1943, and the marriage rates of women at age 18
were not constant in that period. In some countries marriage rates have fluctuated
very widely in the period covered.
The figure of i-8 is thus some kind of average of the ratios of marriage rates
experienced by the later cohort to the rates recorded 10 years earlier. The marriage
rate of single women aged 15-19 was 16 per 1000 in 1936-40, and 24 in 1940-45.
1 The data for Norway, published only in 10-year age groups, were omitted from several sub­
sequent calculations.
2 See Appendix IV.
3 In Appendix IV the proportion single in the age group x to x + w is denoted S(x, n). Since in
the body of the paper the variable n plays no role in the argument, the simpler notation S(x) is used.

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 114 JOHN HAJNAL

The marriage rate of single women aged 20-24 was 148 per 1000 in 1940-45. The
corresponding rates 10 years earlier had been 10, 12 and 81 per 1000. The ratios of
the later to the earlier rates are i-6, 2-1 and I-8.1
Values of log 52(x)/log S^x) for three age groups are shown for each country in
Table 2. It will be seen that in general the figures decrease as Table 2 is read from
left to right. The average increase in marriage rates was greater for the younger

Table 2. Ratio of ‘average' marriage rates of recent cohorts to those

of earlier cohorts
log Sfx)
Values of k =
log Sfjc)

Men Women
Country
20-24 25-29 3°-34 20-24 25-29 3°~34
Czechoslovakia i’3 0-9 i-o i*3 1-2 1-2
Denmark 1-4 1-2 i-i i’4 i’3 1-2
England and Wales i-7 1*4 1-2 2-0 i-7 i’4
France o*9 0-9 0-9 0-9 i-o i-i
Ireland i-6 1-2 I-I i-5 1-2 1-2
Luxembourg i-o I-o i-o i-o i-o i-o
Netherlands i*3 I-I i-o i-3 1-2 I-I
Sweden 2*1 i-6 i’3 i-8 1-7 i-5
Switzerland 2-2 i-4 i’3 i-9 i-5 i’3
Australia 2-0 i-7 1-4 i-8 i-6 i-3
New Zealand I‘9 i-4 1-2 1-4 i-3 1-2
United States 2-0 i-6 i’3 i-6 i*5 1-2

than for the older age groups at t2. There seem to be two reasons for this. First, the
marriage rates for all ages were very high in most countries just before t2. The older
cohorts had contracted some of their marriages at a time when marriage rates were
lower. Secondly, it would seem that marriage rates increased most at the younger
ages (under 25). At least this is shown by data for Sweden and England and
Wales where marriage rates by age were available. In Sweden the ratio of the
average first-marriage rate in 1941-5 to that of 1931-5 was as follows:2
Age group 15-19 20-24 25-29 3°-34 35-39 40-44 45-49
Men 8-8 i-95 i’5° 1-22 i-i5 1-14 I-2O
Women 2-1 1*83 i-6o 1-48 i*53 i-52 i’49
(In this connexion the distinction between first marriages and all marriages may
well be important. If marriage rates by age of unmarried persons as a whole were
considered, it would probably not be true that the rates at the younger ages have
risen most.)
3. Proportion remaining single
It may be shown from the proportions single that both a reduction in the age at
marriage and an increase in the proportion marrying at least once in the course of
their lives is occurring in several countries. More precisely, it may be shown that
1 Rates from Statistisk Arsbok for Sverige, vol. xxxvn, 1950, p. 64.
2 Rates from Statistisk Arsbok for Sverige, vol. xxxvn, 1950, p. 64. For the English rates, see
The Registrar General's Statistical Review of England and Wales for the six years 1940-1945, Text,
vol. 11, Civil, London, 1951, pp. 3°-i-

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AGE AT MARRIAGE AND PROPORTIONS MARRYING II5

when the cohorts who were under 30 in the later i94.o’s have passed beyond their
fiftieth birthday (1) a greater proportion of them will have married than among their
predecessors and (2) the mean age at marriage of those who have married will be
lower. Point (1) will be discussed first, since point (2) cannot be treated without
reference to it. Point (1) will be treated in terms of the proportion married in the
age group 45-49, i.e. roughly the proportion married before age 50. For many
purposes the proportion marrying once or more in the course of their lives without
limitation of age is the more important concept, but major changes in this factor are
probably sufficiently accurately reflected by the proportion who marry before age 50,
particularly in the case of women.
The procedures involved in the calculations here presented may be illustrated by
the example of Swedish women. The following table gives (in percentages) the
proportions single among women in Sweden according to the censuses of 1935 and
1945:
Age group 1935 1945
15-19 98-8 97’O
20-24 78-3 63-6
25-29 48-6 30-4
30-34 337 20*4
35-39 27-0 19-0
40-44 24-0 20*4
45-49 23-1 21-0
50-54 22*1 21-0

The figures for 1935 form a steadily diminishing series. They might represent the
proportions recorded by a cohort at successive ages, consequently they might be
figures recorded by a population at census after census. In fact, the proportions
single had been fairly constant for decades before 1935. The 1945 figures, on the
contrary, clearly represent a transitional stage. It is inconceivable that either in
a single cohort or permanently in a population a greater proportion of people should
be married at 35-39 than at 40-44. It is clear that a greater proportion of the cohorts
who were under 30 in 1945 will be married ultimately than among their predecessors.
In order to study the changes in marriage rates in recent years as reflected in the
1945 figures, we may use the 1935 data as a standard of comparison. We may treat
the 1935 data as a rough representation of the normal marriage rates of several
decades before the recent increase. The justification for doing this is that the
proportions single had been fairly constant for some decades before 1935. If the
1935 proportions are thought of as constant over time and thus as representing the
proportions recorded by a cohort as it passes through life, then the ratios between
the proportions at different ages reflect the marriage rate between those ages.
The marriage rates thus ‘implied’ in the 1935 proportions single may be used to
project the proportions who may ultimately remain single among the women who
were under 30 in 1945. For example, according to the marriage frequencies
‘implied’ in the 1935 proportions, 23-1/48-6 = 0-475 of the women who were single
in the age group 25-29 were still single at age 45-49. If the women who were aged
25-29 in 1945 and single were to marry (i.e. reduce their numbers) in the future in

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Il6 JOHN HAJNAL

the same ratio, 30-4 x 0-475 = 14-4 % would remain single when the group was in the
age range 45-49.
A similar calculation has been made for the cohort 30-34 in 1945, and estimates
of the proportion of them who will be single at 45-49 have thus been obtained.
Analogous computations have also been made for other countries. The results are
shown in Table 3. They are compared with the actual proportion single in the age
group 45-49 at t1. The hypothetical figures projected for the recent cohorts are
lower than those recorded except in France and Luxembourg, and, for men, in
Czechoslovakia and the Netherlands. Differences between the figures reflect in
part differences between the experiences of successive cohorts, but in part
differences due to the different ages at which the cohorts were observed at t2. In
general, the figures for the two age groups do not differ very much.
It may be argued that the projected proportions single computed in this way are
probably too high. They imply that, at the higher ages, the recent cohorts will
experience marriage rates no higher than the ‘normal’ rates of the last decade.
However, marriage rates at these higher ages have already risen, and the recent
cohorts have already experienced at the younger ages marriage rates far in excess
of those of their predecessors.
A set of projections was therefore made allowing for increases in marriage rates
at the higher ages. These projected figures are shown in Table 4. The meaning of
the figures and the procedure used to obtain them may be explained by an example.
As Table 2 shows, the Danish women aged 25-29 in 1945 had experienced before
that date marriage rates roughly 1-3 times as high as those experienced by the
cohort aged 25-29 in 1935. The proportion single among the women aged 45-49 in
1935 was 0-158. From these figures we may compute the proportion which would
be left single at age 45-49 in a cohort which throughout its life experienced marriage
rates 1-3 times as high as those of the women aged 45-49 in 1935.1 In other words,
the assumption is equivalent to the hypothesis of a uniform increase in marriage
rates at all ages over the marriage rates ‘implied’ by the 1935 proportion single.
Similar calculations were carried out for the cohorts aged 30-34 at Z2 (i-e. using
the k value appropriate to them from Table 2). The projected proportions single, in
Table 4 are generally lower than the corresponding ones in Table 3, as would be
expected from the nature of the assumptions. In Table 4 (in contrast with Table 3)
there is often a considerable difference between projections for cohorts aged 25-29
and 30-34. The projection for the cohort aged 25-29 is frequently much lower.
This is due to the higher k values for the cohorts aged 25-29. This phenomenon
was discussed above at the end of Section 2. The projected proportions single for
the cohort 25-29 in Table 4 are sometimes very low compared with past experience;
in a few cases (notably the United States) they are unparalleled for a country of
Western civilization where the sex ratio is not too abnormal.2 However, as was

1 The formula is (o-is8)1,3 = 0-091. The formula is based on the same considerations as the
computation of k in Table 2. The argument is given in Appendix IV. In the computation of Table 4,
k was used to more places of decimals than are given in Table 2.
2 Areas being newly colonized by an overwhelmingly male immigration of course present
exceptional situations.

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AGE AT MARRIAGE AND PROPORTIONS MARRYING II7

Table 3. Projected proportions single (percentage) at age 45-49 on assumption of constant

marriage rates at higher ages*
Men Women
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
(1) Projection Actual Decrease! Projection Actual Decrease!
Country for cohort proportion [column for cohort proportion [column
aged single (4) aged single (8)
aged minus aged minus
25-29 30-34 45-49 column 25-29 30-34 45-49 column
at t2 at i2 at ti (3)] at t2 at t2 at tr (7)]
Czechoslovakia 6 6 6 __ 7 6 IO 3
Denmark 8 9 IO I 12 11 16 4
England and Wales 7 8 IO 2 9 IO i7 7
France J IO 11 IO — I 12 11 13 2
Ireland 33 32 34 2 25 23 26 3
Luxembourg 14 14 14 — 15 14 15 1
Netherlands 11 IO 11 I 12 11 15 4
Sweden 13 13 17 4 14 14 23 9
Switzerland 12 11 14 3 15 16 20 4
Australia IO IO 15 5 8 9 14 4
New Zealand 11 11 14 3 IO IO 14 3
United States 6 7 11 4 4 6 9 3
* Computed from the formula . , . , „, s *S2(x)
Projected percentage single =o1(45) x ó - x 100,
oi(x)
where iS^Us) is the proportion single in the age group 45-49 at tlf while ^(x) and S2(x) are the proportions single at
and t2 respectively in the age group named in the column heading.
t Owing to rounding, the last digit does not always agree with the difference of the figures shown in the previous columns.
Í Aged 40-49.

Table 4. Projected proportions single (percentage) in age group 45-49 on assumption of uniform
increases in marriage rates at higher ages*
Men Women
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Actual Decrease! Actual Decrease!
(1) Projection proportion [column Projection proportion [column
Country for cohort single for cohort single
aged (4) aged (8)
aged minus aged minus
45-49 column 45-49 column
25-29 30-34 at (3)] 25-29 30-34 at tx (7)]
Czechoslovakia 7 6 6 — 6 6 IO 4
Denmark 6 8 IO 2 9 IO 16 5
England and Wales 4 7 IO 3 5 8 17 9
France! 12 11 IO —1 12 11 13 2
Ireland 27 30 34 4 19 21 26 5
Luxembourg 15 14 14 14 14 15 1
Netherlands 9 9 11 2 IO IO 15 5
Sweden 6 9 17 7 9 12 23 11
Switzerland 8 IO 14 4 13 15 20 5
Australia 4 7 15 7 5 8 14 7
New Zealand 7 IO 14 4 7 9 14 4
United States 3 6 11 6 3 5 9 4
* Computed from the formula projected percentage single = 100^(45)?,
where *$1(45) is the proportion single in the age group 45-49 at t± and the value k is that given in Table 2.
f Owing to rounding, the last digit does not always agree with the difference of the figures shown in the previous columns,
t Age group 40-49.

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
n8 JOHN HAJNAL

pointed out in Section 2, there is much evidence that marriage rates at younger ages
have increased more than at older ages, so that the assumption underlying these very
low projections in Table 4 (i.e. the extension to all ages of the increase in
nuptiality at ages under 30) is unrealistic.
It is possible that even the projected proportions in Table 3 will turn out to be
too low. Comparison between countries shows that in those where marriage rates
are high at the important younger ages (such as France or the United States)
marriage rates at ages over 30 are sometimes lower than in countries with generally
low marriage rates (such as Ireland or Sweden). It is possible that as a new pattern
of higher marriage rates at the younger ages becomes established, marriage rates
at older ages may ultimately fall even below the level of the i93o’s in some countries.

4. Age at marriage
Suppose that the proportions single experienced at successive ages by a cohort as it
passes through life are known. Then one may deduce the marriage rates at each age
from the rate at which the single are ‘disappearing’.1 In actual practice, if the
proportions single have been fairly constant over time, i.e. from cohort to cohort,
the proportions recorded at a census for successive ages may be taken to represent
approximately the experiences of a single cohort passing through life. This pro­
cedure has been followed in the previous section, the proportions single at t± being
treated in this way.
If one has a set of marriage rates by age, one may derive various measures from
them. Without any additional information, one may reconstruct the experience of
a hypothetical cohort which is subject at each age to the marriage rates in question
and in which there are no deaths among persons of marriageable age. Such a
computation is identical with the computation of a gross nuptiality table,2 except
that such tables are usually based on marriage rates obtained by relating
registered marriages to the single population and not marriage rates derived from
proportions single.
The proportion left single at each age in such a hypothetical cohort is, of course,
simply the proportion single from which the calculation was started. Various
indices may be obtained from the distribution of marriages by age yielded by the
computation. We are here concerned with the mean age at marriage. For con­
venience of exposition, the mean age at marriage computed in this way will be called
the singulate mean age at marriage.3 For practical reasons it is necessary to limit
the age range at the upper end; in the present paper the limit has been set at 50.
All figures given for the singulate age at marriage relate to the singulate age at
marriage of persons marrying under 50.

1 This statement is, of course, strictly correct only if the rates of mortality and migration at each
age are the same for the single as for the total population.
2 One may, of course, also subject a hypothetical cohort to decrement from both (1) the marriage
rates obtained from the proportions and (2) mortality in accordance with a suitable life table. Such
a calculation would correspond to a net nuptiality table.
3 Occasionally this phrase will be abbreviated to ‘ singulate age at marriage ’ since there is no risk
of confusion.

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AGE AT MARRIAGE AND PROPORTIONS MARRYING 119

Singulate mean ages at marriage computed from the proportions single at t± and
Z2 are shown in Table 5. Since the proportions single had in general been fairly
constant some decades before ix, the singulate mean age derived from figures for
that date may be regarded as fairly characteristic of the cohorts passing through
their marriageable ages in the interwar period. Even here the general level of the
figures is significant, rather than the last decimal given, for there were some
fluctuations in proportions single, and other factors affect the figures.1

Table 5. Singulate mean ages at marriage of persons marrying under 50

(derived from actual proportions single at t± and t2)
Men Women
Country Age at marriage Age at marriage
Difference*
h ¿2 h. ¿2
Czechoslovakia 27’3 27‘4 + o-i 24-8 23-0 -1-8
Denmark 28-0 27‘3 — o-6 24-9 23-1 -1-8
England and Wales 27*3 25-9 -1-3 25-5 22-1 -3’5
France 26-2 26-9 + 0-7 22-9 22'9 —
Ireland 32-6 31-9 -O-7 28-7 27-4 -1-3
Luxembourg 28-2 28-7 + 0-4 24-6 24-6 —
Netherlands 27’3 27*4 4-o-i 25*4 24-4 — i-o
Norway 29’7 28-7 — i-o 26-9 24*4 -2-5
Sweden 300 27-8 — 2-2 26-3 22*9 -3-4
Switzerland 29-2 27-4 -1-8 26-2 23-3 -2-9
Australia 28-2 25-8 -2-4 25-0 22'5 -2-5
New Zealand 28-3 26-8 -1-5 25-4 23-9 -1-5
United States 25-6 23*3 -2*4 22-7 20-8 — 2-0

* Owing to the effects of rounding, the last digit does not always agree with the difference of the
figures shown in the previous columns.

In order to obtain the singulate mean age at marriage, it is not necessary to obtain
the number of marriages at each age in the hypothetical cohort and then take the
mean. There is a very simple arithmetical procedure for obtaining the singulate age
at marriage directly from the proportions single. This procedure, which has been
used in this paper, is described in Appendix III.
It is a difficult matter to obtain meaningful estimates of the decline in the singulate
age at marriage in recent years. The difference between the singulate ages derived
from data for t1 and for t2 is shown in Table 5. However, these decreases are often
not really meaningful. The proportions single at the second date have been affected
by the rapid changes in marriage rates in the intervening period. Proportions single
at the younger ages have decreased rapidly, while there has been little change at the
older ages. A cohort which experienced throughout its life the proportions recorde d
in recent years at various ages would have many marriages early in life and almost
none after about 35. (In some cases, e.g. among women in Sweden in 1945 and in
England and Wales in 1951, the constant maintenance of the recent proportions

1 For the effect of mortality and migration, see Appendix II; for the use of 5-year age groups in
the computation, see Appendix III. The combined effect of those ‘biases’, if they should happen to
run in the same direction, might run as high as 0-5 year in extreme cases.

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 120 JOHN HAJNAL

would imply the occurrence of ‘ negative’ marriages at the older ages.) The singulate
mean age at marriage as calculated from such data is, of course, very low.
One may attempt to obtain more meaningful figures by using the proportions
single at older ages projected for recent cohorts which are described in Section 3
above. Two methods of projection were used in that section, and calculations of the
singulate mean age have been made corresponding to each of them. The results
are shown in Table 6. The calculations were based upon the proportions single as
actually recorded for ages under 35 and on projected proportions for age groups
35-39 to 45-49. The projected proportions were based on the proportions single

Table 6. Singulate mean age at marriage at t2 based on ‘projected' proportions

single for ages over 35

Men Women
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
(1) Mean age based on Mean age Mean age based on Mean age
Country partly projected from Difference* partly projected from Difference*
proportionsf actual [col. (3) proportionsf actual [col. (7)
propor­ minus propor­ minus
tions at col. (4)] tions at ty col. (8)]
(i) (ii) (i) (ii)
Czechoslovakia 27-3 27-3 27-3 — 23*8 23-9 24-8 -0-9
Denmark 27-3 27-3 28-0 — o-6 23-8 24-0 24’9 -0-9
England and Wales 25-9 26-0 27-3 -1-3 23*3 23-5 25’5 — 2-0
France 26-6 26-5 26-2 + 0-3 23’3 23-4 22*9 + o-5
2§‘O 28*7 -0*7
Ireland 32-0 32-1 32-6 -0-5 27*8
Luxembourg 28-3 28-3 28-2 + o-i 24-6 24*6 24-6 —
Netherlands 27-1 27-2 27*3 — o-i 24-8 24*9 25’4 -0-5
Sweden 28-2 28-4 30-0 -1-5 24’3 24*6 26*3 -1-7
Switzerland 277 27-8 29-2 -1-4 24-4 24*6 26-2 —1-6
Australia 26-2 26-4 28-2 -1-7 23*1 23’3 25-0 -i’7
New Zealand 27-0 27-1 28-3 — i-i 243 24-5 25*4 -0*9
United States 23’5 23-7 25*6 — 2-0 2I-I 21-2 22*7 —1-6

* Owing to rounding, the last digit does not always agree with the difference of the figures shown in the previous columns,
t (i) ‘Constant marriage rates’ (proportions single in age 45-49 as in Table 3). (ii) ‘Uniform increase in marriage rates’
(proportions single in age group 45-49 as in Table 4).

in the age group 30-34 at i2. They were obtained by the same methods as the
projections described in Section 3 above for the age group 45-49. The significance
of the two singulate means as calculated may thus be roughly explained as follows.
They represent the singulate mean age at marriage of a cohort which experiences
at ages under 35 the proportions single recorded at t2, and over 35 either (i) the
marriage rates implied in proportions single at t± or (ii) marriage rates which bear
a constant ratio to those mentioned under (i).
In most cases the two figures are very close together. In cases where the pro­
portions ultimately remaining single differ considerably under the two assumptions
(as shown in Tables 3 and 4), there is also some difference in the computed mean
ages. In general, the mean under assumption (ii) is somewhat higher. The mean age
at marriage of those marrying at the older ages is actually lower under assumption (ii),
for assumption (ii) involves higher marriage rates than assumption (i). However,
under assumption (ii) the marriages at older ages are greater in number, and form

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AGE AT MARRIAGE AND PROPORTIONS MARRYING 121
a greater proportion of the total marriages of the hypothetical cohorts.1 It is
possible to imagine that the number of marriages at the older ages may actually be
as great as under assumption (ii), while the mean age at which these older marriages
take place is that produced by assumption (i). Even in these circumstances the
mean age for all marriages would never exceed that obtained under assumption (ii)
by more than year. (In general, the difference will be much less.) However,
assumption (ii) is an extreme assumption regarding the ultimate proportion single
(and, therefore, the number of marriages taking place at older ages). The figures
under assumption (ii) in Table 6 may on the whole be regarded as rather high
estimates of singulate age at marriage for the recent cohorts, and the data in the last
column of that table may be treated as minimum estimates of the decline in the
singulate age at marriage in each country during the period covered.

5. Discussion
The main results of the present study are set out in Tables 3, 4 and 6. Since the
methods used depend entirely on proportions single, no interesting conclusions can
be expected to emerge except in countries where the proportions single changed
substantially between tr and Z2. It may be recalled from Section 1 that of the countries
covered in Tables 3, 4 and 6 there were substantial decreases in proportions single
for both sexes in the United States, Australia and New Zealand and in the following
European countries: Denmark, England and Wales, Sweden and Switzerland. For
the sake of simplicity, the following discussion relates to these seven countries only,
though the statements made apply to a smaller degree to some of the other
countries. In making comparisons between countries, it should be remembered that
the dates used in the study (ix and Z2) are not the same for different countries. For
example, if Z2 for England and Wales had been 1945 as for Denmark, the change in
age at marriage as shown by the tables might have been about the same for the two
countries. The influence of the war should also be considered. It may be significant
that none of the seven countries just enumerated experienced fighting on their own
soil. It may be that in some of the other countries the change in marriage patterns
was retarded, so that later figures could show changes more similar to those in the
seven countries mentioned.
As Tables 3 and 4 show, some reduction in the proportions remaining single is
to be expected in all seven countries. The most striking reduction appears to be
taking place among Swedish women; the most conservative projection shows only
14% remaining single in the age 45-49 as compared with 21 % in 1945. In the
European countries, the projected reduction in ultimate proportions single is less
for men than for women. This is not the case in the United States, Australia and
New Zealand.
1 A table corresponding to Table 6 was also computed using hypothetical proportions single from
the age group 30-34 onwards (i.e. basing the adjustment on the proportions single in the group 25-29
at i2, instead of the proportion in the group 30-34). The results are almost exactly the same as in
Table 6. The two effects (differences in (a) the number of marriages at the higher ages and in (b) the
mean age of those marrying at the higher ages) roughly cancel out as they do between hypotheses
(i) and (ii) in Table 6.

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
122 JOHN HAJNAL

This difference between the sexes in the European countries is probably in large
part due to recent change in the age-sex composition of the populations concerned.
There seem to be two main trends: (i) a fall in the ratio of women to men of the
same age caused by the cessation of large-scale (and preponderantly male) migration
and by the wearing off of the effects of the first World War, (2) the trend towards
an older population. This second trend increases the chances of marriage for women,
since men tend to marry women younger than themselves. Up to around 1910, the
annual number of births was increasing slightly in the north-west European
countries. The subsequent decline meant that in recent years the ratio of men in the
principal marriageable ages to women a few years younger has changed sharply.1
The projected proportions single at 45-49 were obtained for each sex separately
with no regard to their compatibility with the age-sex structure likely to
obtain in the future. Even if the age-sex composition were definitely known for
all future dates, detailed study of the implications for proportions single would be
a complex matter, since the effect of changes in the proportion among marriages
of single persons which involve a widowed or divorced partner, and also changes in
the pattern of relationships between age of bridegroom and age of bride, would have
to be taken into account. However, even without complex arguments, one predic­
tion may easily be rendered plausible. In most north-west European countries
(Ireland is a striking exception) a larger proportion of women have remained single
than of men. In the first half of the twentieth century the proportion single among
women aged 45-49 exceeded that among men by at least 5 % (e.g. in Denmark
16% of women and only 10% of men in this age group were single in 1935).
Tables 3 and 4 show that this gap is likely to be sharply reduced in the near future.
It may easily be shown that the gap may well disappear entirely, i.e. that in the
future more men may be left single than women. Under modern Western mortality
conditions and with a normal sex ratio at birth, the number of male survivors in
a cohort will exceed the number of female survivors of the same age until around
50 years of age. There will thus be more men than women of the same age in the
marriageable age range unless migration or abnormal mortality (e.g. wartime
mortality) alters the balance. The fact that some marriages take place between single
persons and widowed or divorced persons strengthens the argument. In general,
there have been more marriages of single men with widowed or divorced women
than marriages of single women with widowed or divorced men. Thus, it may be
expected that in the future fewer women than men will remain single in the north­
west European countries.
The United States, Australia and New Zealand, being countries of immigration,
have in the past had a surplus of men at the marriageable ages. The gradual dis-
1 Calculations to illustrate this point and other factors which have influenced the ratio of men to
women may be found in P. H. Karmel, ‘ An analysis of the sources and magnitudes of inconsistencies
between male and female net reproduction rates in actual populations’, Population Studies, vol. 11,
no. 2, September 1948. For a general discussion of changes in the age-sex structure of European
countries see F. W. Notestein and others, The Future Population of Europe and the Soviet Union,
Geneva, 1944, chapter vi. An index of the supply of potential marriage partners for men and women
of various ages in England and Wales is developed by P. R. Cox, ‘ Studies in recent marriage and
fertility data in England and Wales’, Population Studies, vol. v, no. 2, November 1951.

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AGE AT MARRIAGE AND PROPORTIONS MARRYING 123

appearance of this surplus has to some extent been counterbalanced for the
purposes of the present discussion by the process of ageing. For the reasons stated
above, the proportion of women remaining single throughout life is likely to remain
below the corresponding proportion for men.
The calculations relating to the age at marriage reveal a similar difference
between the sexes. In the north-west European countries, the reduction in age at
marriage has been greater among women than among men; in Australia, New
Zealand and the United States it is the age at marriage of men which has fallen
more. Owing to the method of calculation and for other reasons, no significant
inference can be drawn regarding the trends in the difference between the ages of
bride and bridegroom at marriage.
In the seven countries mentioned, the reduction in singulate age at marriage has
been of the order of one year or more. Taking account of the length of the period
between tx and Z2, the reduction has been proceeding at an average rate of o-i year
per annum or more for the female population (in Denmark and England and Wales
the rate of reduction was apparently slightly less for men). Such a rate of decline
clearly cannot go on for long, particularly in a country such as the United States,
where people already marry young.
While a decline in the singulate age at marriage at the rate of o-1 year per annum
is taking place, the number of marriages every year is roughly 10% greater than
before or after the decline.1 While the present decline in age at marriage is in
progress, it has thus been causing a ‘swelling’ in the number of marriages which
will subside when the decline ceases. This swelling is likely to carry with it an
equally temporary swelling in the number of births, which causes a swelling in
birth rates, conventional reproduction rates and many other indices of fertility.
The decline in age at marriage has thus made a not inconsiderable contribution to
the ‘ baby boom ’ independently of any tendency for people to have more children
as a result of marrying younger.

APPENDIX I
Proportions single as a tool for the study of marriage habits
The results obtained in the present paper differ in some respects from those which
might be obtained by other techniques of analysis. In particular, figures for the
crude general mean age at marriage2 in several countries show a much smaller
decline in age at marriage than is revealed by a study of the proportions single. This
Appendix describes the reasons for some of these differences and, in so doing, may
help to explain some of the advantages of proportions single as a tool for studying
marriage habits. Proportions single have in the past been mainly used for the
calculation of age at marriage and similar purposes in countries which have no
adequate registration data regarding marriages, rather than because proportions single
1 For a more precise statement of the conditions under which this proposition holds, see J. Hajnal,
‘Births, marriages and reproductivity in England and Wales, 1938-47’, Papers of the Royal Com­
mission on Population, vol. n, section D, pp. 385-403.
2 I.e. the mean of the ages at which the marriages contracted in a given year occurred, where all
marriages (including the marriages of widowed and divorced persons) are taken into account.

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
124 JOHN HAJNAL

were believed to have any intrinsic advantages. Indeed, there has, on occasion, been
an implied assumption that except for errors introduced by biases in proportions
single, the results obtained by their use ought to be substantially the same as those
which might have been derived by more orthodox techniques.1 It is, of course, not
intended to suggest that ‘ proportions single ’ represent the right method of studying
marriage, but only that the technique of using proportions single has its own
advantages over other methods, quite apart from the availability of data. This last
point may not be negligible in an international study, even if the countries dealt
with have adequate data. For the collection of detailed marriage data for a period
of years and a number of countries (for example, for the calculation of nuptiality
tables) involves a very large amount of labour.
There seem to be two main reasons2 why the crude mean age at marriage may
show a much smaller decline in the past few years than the techniques used in this
paper, (a) the effect of re-marriages, (Z>) the effect of failure to take account of
cohort experience. For example, in Sweden, the crude mean age at marriage of
brides for all marriages was 26-9 in 1936-40 and 26-7 in 1941-5. For single brides,
the figures were 26-5 and 26-1; for widowed and divorced brides, 38-0 and 37-2.
The decrease in crude mean age at marriage of all women marrying was so slight
only because the proportion of re-marriages increased suddenly.
The importance of the cohort effect may be illustrated again by the data relating
to women in Sweden, in the interval 1940 to 1945, as set out in the following table:

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Proportions Proportions Change during Cumulative total
Age group single in 1940 single in 1945 1940-5 for in col. (4)
(per 1000) (per 1000) each cohort* from bottom
10-14 1000 1000 30 1136
15-19 981 970 345 1106
20-24 716 636 412 761
25-29 394 304 190 349
30-34 272 204 82 159
35-39 248 190 44 77
40-44 231 204 21 33
45-49 222 210 12 12
50-54 222 210 — —
* The figures in this column have been placed in the row corresponding to the age of the cohort
in 1940.
By subtracting the proportion single in 1945 from the proportion in 1940 for the
same cohort (i.e. the women five years younger in 1940), one obtains the change in
1 This may sometimes have beneficial effects. For example, because of the inadequate state of
registration data on marriage, the United States Census Bureau publishes regularly figures for the
median age at marriage computed from proportions single (they might be termed ‘ singulate medians ’).
They have been widely quoted, often without indication of the method of computation. Some who
use them might hesitate if they realized that the ‘median age at marriage in 1940’, for example, had
very little to do with the median of the distribution by age of the marriages occurring in 1940.
Because these medians have been widely quoted, the recent fall in the age of marriage is much better
known in the United States than in some other countries where there are good registration data and
the crude mean age at marriage regularly computed by the appropriate statistical agency has shown
little decrease.
2 Changes in age distribution are generally not very significant in intervals of time as short as
those considered in this paper.

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AGE AT MARRIAGE AND PROPORTIONS MARRYING 125

the interval as shown in Column (4). One may regard the table as illustrating what
would happen in a population where the number of women reaching age 10
remained constant at 200 per year (giving 1000 women in the 5-year group 10-14)
and no woman died between the tenth and fiftieth birthday, on the assumption
that the proportions single were to change in 5 years as they did change in Sweden
between 1940 and 1945. Column (4) would show the number of marriages in each
cohort. The total of these is 1136, more than the total number of women, 1000,
reaching marriageable age in each 5-year period.1 Moreover, the age distribution
of these marriages is peculiar. The fraction of marriages occurring in cohorts which
were 25-29 or older at the beginning of the 5-year period is = The
corresponding fraction for a cohort subject throughout life to the proportions single
of 1940 would be -------- =0-22. We thus have the paradoxical result that
1000 — 222
a change towards younger marriage can result temporarily in a larger proportion of
marriages taking place at the older ages.
The most refined technique commonly used for dealing with marriage data is
the nuptiality table. There is a relationship between the results obtained from
proportions single and nuptiality tables. For a population in which mortality and
migration have no effect on the proportions single, these proportions would
correspond to the numbers single in generation gross nuptiality tables (a concept
analogous to that of a generation life table). However, marriage rates fluctuate
greatly from year to year, and measures derived from ordinary nuptiality tables for
single years or short periods of years also display strong variations. An actual
cohort passing through life will generally experience periods of both low and high
marriage rates. The characteristics of nuptiality tables thus often fall outside the
range of experience of any actual cohorts.
As an illustration, we may take a series of gross nuptiality calculations made for the
State of Massachusetts on the basis of the marriages occurring in census years.2 The
percentage of persons remaining single according to these computations compares
as follows with proportions single in the age group 45-54 recorded at the census:

Men Women
Census Gross nuptiality Census Gross nuptiality
(% single (% who (% single (% who
45-54) never marry) 45-54) never marry)
1890 97 123 122 I7-3
1900 ii-5 13*6 I4'2 190
1910 127 113 160 156
1920 I3-9 7-2 17*3 9’9
1930 i3-4 157 i6-6 21*9
1940 12-9 5’3 i4-9 8-5

1 This phenomenon is analogous to the well-known result by which more than 1000 first births
per 1000 women are obtained if the conventional female gross reproduction rate for certain years is
split into the components by birth order.
2 Thomas P. Monahan, ‘One hundred years of marriages in Massachusetts’, American Journal of
Sociology, vol. lvi, no. 6, May 1951.
j d vii ii 9

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56+00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
I2Ó JOHN HAJNAL

The comparison between the data derived from gross nuptiality and the census
results of the same year has no particular significance, but the table as a whole shows
the greater variability of the results obtained from gross nuptiality. The year 1920
showed exceptionally high marriage rates; the 1930 marriage rates were exceptionally
low. The proportions single in the gross nuptiality tables obtained from these
marriage rates fell outside the range of any actually recorded.
It is difficult to guess a priori just how much difference this problem would make
if a study of recent marriage trends were made by means of nuptiality tables.
Proportions single at the younger ages reflect the cumulative effect of the marriage
rates of only a few years; proportions single at the older ages have been sub­
jected to special treatment in the present study. It may well be, therefore, that
if nuptiality tables were computed for, say, the 5 years preceding tr and the 5 years
preceding Z2> and if the change in proportions ultimately remaining single and in
the mean age at marriage were derived, the results would not differ greatly from
those of the present paper.

APPENDIX II
The effect of mortality and migration on proportions single
Proportions single reflect other influences besides marriage rates. Leaving aside
inaccuracies of enumeration, we need to consider mortality and migration. To
what extent does their influence1 affect the use of proportions ever married in the
study of marriage habits?
The mortality of the single population is generally heavier than that of the
married, and this factor would reduce the proportion single at higher ages even if
no one married above, say, age 30. A measure of this effect may be obtained by
computing life tables using the death rates of single persons at each age. The ratio
of survivors in such a life table at a given age to the survivors in the usual life table
shows the proportion in which the proportions single would be reduced by the
selective effect of mortality in a cohort subject to the mortality in question.2 Ratios
of this kind for some countries are shown in Table A.
For the present purpose, the important points illustrated by the table are: (1) the
effect of mortality selection on proportions single is much heavier for men than for
women; (2) at ages under 30 the effect is negligible; (3) by age 45-49 the effect may
approach 10% among men. 10% of the proportion single is, of course, a much
smaller fraction of the proportion ever married.3
1 The following argument is concerned only with the fact that mortality and migration, being
unequal in incidence for single and married persons, cause changes in the proportions single which
have no relation to marriage frequencies. They may also cause changes in marriage frequencies, for
example, by altering the age-sex structure of the population, but such phenomena are not under
discussion here.
2 See Appendix IV for an examination of such ratios in mathematical terms.
3 P. Depoid, in a study of mortality by marital status, noted that in France the ratio of single
mortality to the mortality of the married was considerably higher than in four other countries whose
data he studied. He suggested that this may in part be due to errors in the basic data for France
{Bulletin de la Statistique de la France, Jan.-March 1938, vol. xxvii, no. 2, ‘Tables nouvelles relatives
á la population fransaise’, p. 288). The ratios given in Table A for France are probably lower than
those applicable in any other country covered in the present paper.

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AGE AT MARRIAGE AND PROPORTIONS MARRYING 127

The incidence of migration on the various marital status groups has been studied
much less than that of mortality. There is very little statistical material on this subject.
The few figures which follow regarding Swedish migration in 1901-10 (a decade
of fairly heavy migration) are intended only to suggest some notion of the order of
magnitude involved. For the present purpose it makes sense to treat migration as
exactly analogous to mortality (immigration being treated as negative mortality).
The data have been presented more fully than those for mortality since the
subject is unfamiliar. Table B shows the basic rates.
Table A. Ratio of survivors in a single life table to survivors in a general life table
Men Women
England England
Sweden Italy France and Sweden Italy France and
'roup Wales Wales
1891- 1901- 1941- 1930- 1933- 1938- 1891- 1901- 1941- 1930- 1933- 1938-
1900 1910 1945 1932 1938 1939 1900 1910 1945 1932 1938 1939
-24 i-oo i-oo i-oo i-oo i-oo i-oo i-oo i-oo i-oo i-oo i-oo i-oo
-29 I’OO i-oo i-oo i-oo o-99 i-oo i-oo i-oo i-oo i-oo o-99 i-oo
-34 0-98 o-99 o-99 O‘99 o-97 o-99 i-oo i-oo O’99 0-99 0-98 i-oo
■39 0-97 o-97 0-98 o-97 0*95 0-98 i-oo i-oo o-99 o-99 o-97 099
■44 o-94 O’95 o-97 o-95 0-91 096 i-oo i-oo 0-98 0-98 o-97 o-99
■49 0-91 0-92 0-96 o-93 0-87 O‘94 O‘99 o-99 0-97 o-97 0-96 o-99
•54 088 0-89 o-95 090 083 092 0-98 098 0-97 096 o-95 098
irces:
eden: Life tables computed by Reed-Merrell method from data in Sveriges Officiella Statistik: Befolkningsrorelsen
kt for aren, igoi—igio, p. 72*, and Befolkningsrorelsen, 1947, p. 19*.
ly: Luigi Galvani, ‘Tavole de mortalita della popolazione italiana 1930-32’, Annali di Statistica, series vii, vol. 1,
2~3, 78-9-
nee: Statistique Genérale, ‘Tables nouvelles relatives á la population frangaise vers 1936’, Etudes démographiques,
Paris, 1945.
yland and Wales: J. Hajnal, ‘ Births, marriages and reproductivity in England and Wales, 1938-1947’, in Papers of the
Commission on Population, vol. n, Reports and Selected Papers of the Statistical Committee, London, 1950, pp. 404-6.

Treating out-migration like mortality, ‘life tables’ were constructed using the
out-migration rates in Table B. The ‘survivors’ at each age are shown in Table C.
Out-migration was used rather than net migration so as to suggest an upper limit
to the effect of selective migration on proportions single. The ratio columns in
Table C measure this effect in the same way as Table A, for mortality. (However,
the ratios in Table A are for the stationary population in 5-year age groups, whereas
in Table C the ratios are for survivors at exact ages). The influence of selective
migration on the proportions single in this paper is probably in general far less than
shown in the ratios of Table C.
The size of the ‘bias’ for proportions single is suggested by Tables A and C.
What difference does this make to the computations of the mean age at marriage?
It is clear that the figures for mean age at marriage as computed in this paper are
higher than they would have been if no selective mortality had occurred. This
selectivity causes a reduction of the proportions single in a population as one passes
from the lower to the higher age groups. This has the same effect on the computa­
tion as the reduction of proportions single by the occurrence of marriages. Since,
however, the selectivity as shown in Table A begins to be substantial only after
9-2

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 128 JOHN HAJNAL

age 35, the effect is as though additional marriages at the older ages had occurred.
Thus, mortality selection tends to increase the figures computed for the mean age
at marriage.
Table B. Migration rates, Sweden, 1901-10
(Average annual number of migrants per 1000 mean population in corresponding group.*)
Out-migration In-migration Net outward balance
Age Men Women Men Women Men Women
group
Single Total Single Total Single Total Single Total Single Total Single Total
0-4 2*2 2*2 2-2 2*2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 i-o i-o i-o i-o
5-9 2-0 2-0 2-o 2-0 i-o i-o i-i i-i i-o i-o 0-9 o-9
10-14 i-7 1-7 i-8 i-8 o-6 o-6 o-7 o-7 i-i i-i i-i i-i
15-19 14-8 14-8 n-3 II-2 1-2 1-2 i-i i-i 13-6 I3’6 10-2 io-i
20-24 19-7 18-6 i5-i 13-2 3’2 3-i 3’i 3-2 16-5 i5’5 12-0 10-0
25-29 15*4 n-7 n-9 8-3 5’2 4-0 47 3-8 10-2 7.7 7-2 4*5
30-34 9*4 6-6 7-5 4’9 7-i 4-0 4’3 2-9 2-3 2-6 3’2 2-0
35-39 7-i 4’7 4*4 2-9 6-3 3’i 3-2 2-0 o-8 i-6 1-2 o-9
40-44 5-i 3’i 2-8 i-9 5-8 2*5 2-3 1*3 -0-7 o-6 0-5 o-6
45-49 2-9 2-0 i’5 i-3 4-i i’7 i-7 o-9 — 1-2 0-3 — 0-2 o-4
50-54 i-8 1-2 1-2 1-2 3‘3 1-2 i-i o-6 -1-5 — o-i o-i o-6
55-59 i’3 0-9 o«9 I-I 2’3 o-8 0-9 o-5 — i-o 0-1 o-o o-6
60 and 0-7 o-6 o-4 o-7 i-4 0-4 o-4 0-3 -0-7 0-2 0-0 o-4
over
All ages 7-5 5-6 5-6 4-i 2-! i-8 i-6 i-3 5-4 3-8 4-0 | 2-7
* Computed from: Sveriges Officiella Statistik, Befolkningsrorelsen oversikt for aren 1901-1910, p. 102 (mean
population) and p. 197 (migrants).

Table C. 'Emigration' table, Sweden, 1901-10

Numbers which would remain in Sweden at each age out of 1000 born in cohorts subjected to the
out-migration rates in Table B (if there were no mortality).
Men Women
Ratio Ratio
Age All marital (single) -+ All marital (single) -+
Single status (all marital Single status (all marital
status) status)
0 1000 1000 i-oo 1000 1000 i-oo
5 989 989 i-oo 989 989 i-oo
10 979 979 i-oo 979 979 i-oo
15 961 961 i-oo 970 970 i-oo
20 892 892 i-oo 917 926 O’99
25 808 813 o-99 850 867 0-98
30 748 767 0-98 801 832 0-96
35 714 742 0-96 771 812 O’95
40 689 724 o-95 755 800 0-94
45 672 713 o-94 744 792 o-94
50 662 706 o-94 739 787 o-94
55 656 702 0-93 734 782 o-94

The magnitude of this effect depends not only on the extent of selectivity in
mortality and migration, but also on the magnitude of the proportions single. In
a country where proportions single at ages over 35 are high, a larger increase in the
computed singulate age at marriage will result from the same selectivity in mortality
than in a country with low proportions single. An idea of the possible magnitude
of this effect may be obtained by multiplying the proportions single by the

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AGE AT MARRIAGE AND PROPORTIONS MARRYING 129

reciprocals of such ratios as those shown in Table A and computing the singulate
age at marriage from the adjusted proportions. An extreme effect is obtained by
taking the proportions single for Ireland in 1941 and adjusting them by the ratios
derived from the French life table of 1933-8; for men this produces a figure of
32-11 instead of 32-60 (32-6 is the value given in Tables 5 and 6). For women, the
corresponding figures are 28-64 and 28-71. However, even for men the effect of
mortality selection must, in general, be much smaller than in this extreme example.
For example, if the Swedish proportions single in 1935 (which are fairly high at
older ages) are adjusted in accordance with the mortality of 1891-1900 (when the
selective effect was much stronger than that shown in later life tables), the resulting
singulate age at marriage for men is 29-81, as compared with 29-96 from the
unadjusted figures. For women the adjustment produces 26-25 instead of 26-32.
In some countries, migration and mortality have operated in different directions
(in cases of net in-migration). In most of the countries studied here, the two effects
will, however, reinforce one another. This must be kept in mind in interpreting the
proportions single at the higher ages. The changes over a short period can, however,
hardly be affected by changes in the selective operation of mortality or migration.
The methods of calculation by which the tables were derived are such that all the
figures for any one country carry substantially the same ‘ bias ’ due to mortality and
migration. Experiments show that a constant ‘bias’, even if it were much larger
than the actual biases appear to have been, would have had almost no effect on the
figures obtained for changes in the singulate mean age at marriage.

APPENDIX III
Computation of singulate mean age at marriage
(i) Description of computation
When proportions single are used to study marriages in a country where registra­
tion statistics are deficient, the first step is often the derivation of the number of
marriages at each age by a process of differencing. However, if only the singulate
mean age at marriage is required, it may be computed directly by the simple method
described in the following paragraph. (Since addition is involved rather than multi­
plication, the method is simpler than the usual procedure for computing a mean).
The formula on which the method is based is given in section (ii) of this Appendix.
We may consider, as an example, the proportions single among women in Sweden
in 1935. Expressed as percentages, these proportions were:

Proportion
Age group single

15-19 98-8
20-24 78-3
25-29 48-6
30-34 33*7
35-39 27-0
40-44 240
45-49 23-1
50-54 22-1

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
i3° JOHN HAJNAL

Consider a cohort of women passing through life, and suppose that at each age
the proportion among them who are single is as given in this table. Suppose further
that no woman dies between her fifteenth and fifty-fifth birthday. The problem is
to compute the mean age at first marriage of the women marrying before they
reach 50. The steps involved may be set out as follows:1

(I) Add the proportions single up to and including the 333’5 x 5 = 1667-5
age group 45-49 and multiply the sum by 52 4-1500-0
(2) Add 1500 3i67’5
(3) Average the proportions for 45-49 and 50-54 |(22-I +23-1) = 22-6
(4) Multiply the result by 50 and subtract it from (2) 3167-5
— 22*6 X 50= — II30-0
2037-5
(5) Subtract the result of (3) from 100 100 — 22-6 = 77-4
(6) Divide the result of (4) by the result of (5) 2037-54-77-4=263

This gives the final result.

The procedure may be regarded as a means of computing the average number of
years lived in the single state by those who marry before age 50. This average is
obviously equivalent to the average age at marriage.3 For the calculation, one
clearly requires an estimate of the numbers who have married by age 50. This
estimate has been obtained somewhat arbitrarily by averaging the percentages ever
married in the age groups 45-49 and 50-54 (or, what amounts to the same thing,
averaging the percentages single to obtain those who did not marry and subtracting
the result from 100).
The stages of the computation follow from these considerations. The number of
years lived in the single state between the ages 15 and 50 by the whole cohort of 100
(including those who did not marry by age 50) is the sum of the proportions single
in the 5-year age groups, multiplied by five. To this have to be added the 15 x 100
years lived before the fifteenth birthday. The number of years lived by those who
did not marry before age 50 has to be subtracted. The total is then divided by the
number who have married.
The effect of using 5-year age groups in place of single years is small. Thus in
the case of Switzerland (1941), the 5-year age groups gave 29-20 for men and 26-23
for women. Using single years, the corresponding figures are 29-28 and 26-18.

1 The proportions single have been expressed as percentages. The illustrative example may thus
be considered as relating to a cohort of 100 persons. This matter (i.e. the place of the decimal point
in the computation) is, of course, arbitrary.
2 The factor 5 arises, of course, from the use of 5-year age groups. It is not necessary that the
data be available in age groups of the same width for all ages. If the width of the groups differs,
each proportion single is multiplied by the width of the group to which it relates and the products
are added.
3 Similarly, in a life table the average number of years lived, i.e. the mean expectation of life at
birth, is the same as the mean age at death.

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AGE AT MARRIAGE AND PROPORTIONS MARRYING I3I

(ii) Formulae
Consider a cohort in which the proportion single at each age is s(x) and no death
or migration of persons of marriageable age occurs. Then the number of marriages
occurring at each age x is — d[s(x)] = n(x) dx, say. Suppose that we wish to calculate
the mean age at marriage (x) of persons marrying between ages d and D. The
following formula is easily derived by integration by parts:

It will easily be seen that the computation outlined above corresponds to this
formula (remembering that if d is the earliest age at which marriages take place,
5(¿)=l).
The formula is an application of a general principle for calculating the means of
distributions. Let f(x) be a frequency function where a x < b and f /(x) ¿Zx= i.
b a
Define R(x) = f(f) dt. R(x) then represents the proportion of cases where the
JX
variable is greater than x. For the mean, one obtains simply

The convenience of this type of formula in certain demographic applications is

that figures (such as proportions single) are sometimes available which quickly
yield R(x) or some equivalent, whereas values of f(x) may be more difficult to
obtain. In the present case, s(Z)) —s(x), i.e. the marriages occurring after age x, is
equivalent to R(x), while the marriages at age x [corresponding to /(x)] are not so
easily obtainable from the proportions single. It may be noted also that the well-
known formula

is an application of the principle described.

In most ordinary statistical applications, R(x) must first be computed by summa­
tion. A general procedure for obtaining not only means, but also higher moments
by successive summation, is described in A. C. Aitken, Statistical Mathematics,
pp. 40-1.

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
132 JOHN HAJNAL

APPENDIX IV
Formulae for computing changes in marriage rates from proportions single1
The situation described by the following formulae is that of a cohort passing through
life. All quantities are functions of the age x.
The following notations will be used:
U(x) Number single at age x.
s(x) Proportion single at age x.
P(x) Total number of persons (all marital conditions) at age x. P(o) = U(o).
D(x) Number of deaths of single persons occurring up to age x.
N(x) Number of marriages of single persons occurring up to age x.
T(x) Excess of number of single persons leaving the country over number of
single persons entering up to age x.
I dD(x)
Force of mortality for single at age x.
V(x) dx
I dN(x)
Force of nuptiality for single at age x.
U(x) dx
I dT(x)
Force of migration for single at age x.

(It will be seen that the definition of /¿(x) is equivalent to the standard actuarial
definition;2 v(x) and r(x) have been analogously defined. The choice of signs is
somewhat arbitrary. The definition used for T(x) and t(x) is such that positive
values correspond to net out-migration, negative values to net in-imigration. This
is consistent with the convention that mortality and nuptiality, which, like out­
migration, cause decrements in the single population, are positive.)
/¿(^) Force of mortality (for total population (all marital status), defined
f(x) Force of migration) analogously to /¿(x) and t(x).
We thus have: U(x) = U(o) - D(x) - N(x) - T(x), (1)

(2)

D(x) = D(o) exp £—J [/¿(0 + KO + KO] >

(3)

Similarly, F(x) = F(o) exp I” — Í [/t(0 + r(i)] dt\,

(4)
o
X»)==exP [ - Jo W dt~^ exP [ - Jo WO - X01

x exp [ - Jo h(0 - X01• (5)

1 There is little that is original about the following formulae—cf., for example, S. D. Wicksell,
‘Nuptiality, fertility and reproductivity’, Skandinavisk Aktuarietidskrift, 1931, pp. 126-57.
2 However, /¿(x) here relates to the single and not the total population. The function here denoted
/¿(x) is that usually denoted /¿(x) in actuarial literature.

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AGE AT MARRIAGE AND PROPORTIONS MARRYING T33
We now define the function s*(x) = exp [-J/H . This function, unlike s(x),

depends only on the ‘force of nuptiality’, p(x), and may be regarded as a good
measure of the marriage habits of the cohort. The figures in a gross nuptiality table
are in effect values of exp p(í) = , where the p(i)’s correspond to the
marriage rates by age in a period of time and not for the same cohort.
For the study of marriage, it is convenient to treat actual proportions single
[i.e. values of s(<x)] as though they were values of s*(x), as has been done in this
paper.
Inferences regarding marriage rates may then be made from the proportions
single without regard to mortality or migration. It may also be noted the function
5*(x) is related to r(x) in the same way in which the survivors in a life table are
related to the force of mortality; in other words, the formulae for s*(x) are precisely
analogous to the standard actuarial formulae, with nuptiality playing the role of
mortality. If
Jo [X0+TW“X0-T(01 dt = o,

we have s(x) = s*(x).

In particular, this equation will hold if /¿(x)=/Z(x) and t(x) = t{x) for all x, i.e. if
at all ages the incidence of mortality and migration is the same for the single as for
the total population. The extent to which this assumption approximates to the
facts is discussed in Appendix II. The error committed in treating s(x) as though it
were s*(x) is indicated by the factors
exp[_/o and exp|^—J [r(¿) — t(¿)] dt~^

which appear in equation (5). The first factor

£ - J [/¿(í) — X01 J=exP £ - J XO J ■=■ exP £—J xo J
exp

represents the ratio of survivors in the life table based on the mortality of the single
to the survivors in the general life table (as is well known, exp [-/>«)*] is the

proportion of survivors at age x in a life table with force of mortality [i(t) at age t).
The second factor has a similar interpretation in regard to migration. An idea of
the order of magnitude of these factors is given in Tables A and C of Appendix II.
We may now derive the formula used in Section 2 above. Consider two cohorts
(numbered 1 and 2) such that the force of nuptiality experienced by the second
cohort is at each agej times that of the first cohort.

Then s* (#) = exp (6)

or (7)

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
i34 JOHN HAJNAL

In the computations, actual proportions single were used in place of s*(x), i.e.
the formula used was in effect
log S2(x, ri)
tySfon)’ W

where 5(x, ri) is the proportion single in the age group x to x + n.

The difference between formula (8) and formula (7) is composed of two aspects:
first, s(x) is not s*(x) and, secondly, s(x) relates to the exact age x and not to an age
interval. The first of these points has already been discussed; to illustrate the
second, we use the following definitions:
t fic+n
5*(x, n) = -j^ s*(t)dt (9)

s*(x) — 5*(x + ri)

and r(x, ri) = (10)
nS*(x, ri)
5*(x, ri) is the analogous expression to s*(x) for an age interval. It will be seen
that 5*(x, ri) is almost the same as the proportion single in the age group x to x + n.
5*(x, ri) would be the same as the proportion single if s*(x) were equal to s(x) and
if the total population were evenly distributed over the age range x to x + n [this
would mean that P(y) = constant for x^y <x + n]. Similarly, r(x, ri) would be the
marriage rate in the age group x to x + n, i.e. the number of marriages occurring as
the cohort passes through this interval divided by the population at risk.
We have1
r(x, n) = — z--------- t-5-*S'*(x,n). (11)
v ’ 7 S*(x, x + ri)dx v ’ 7 v 7

Hence 5*(x, n) = C exp (12)

On the assumption that 5*(o, n) = 1 (in other words, that no marriages occur before
age n, an assumption which is certainly reasonable where n = 5 as in the present
paper), one obtains r “I
S*(x, n) = exp I — J r(t,ri)dtj. (13)

If cohort number 2 experiences at each age marriage rates [r(x, n)] which are
k times those of cohort 1, we have in analogy with formula (7)
SÍ(x, n)
k* = log (14)
S*(x, ri) ’
This is the same as formula (8), the formula used for computation in the present
paper, apart from the substitution of the actual proportions single 5(x, ri) in place
of 5*(x, ri).
The difference between formula (14) and formula (7), which was derived earlier,
is thus a difference in point of view. Formula (7) relates to the increase in the force
1 Formulae (11) and (12) were suggested by analogous formulae for mortality; see T. N. E.
Greville, ‘Short methods of constructing abridged life tables’, The Record of the American Institute
of Actuaries, vol. xxxii, part 1, no. 65, June 1943, p. 34.

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AGE AT MARRIAGE AND PROPORTIONS MARRYING T35
of nuptiality r(x) and formula (14) to that of the marriage rates r(x, n). The latter
point of view seems somewhat artificial in some circumstances. A discussion of
this point would be involved. It may be worth mentioning that the two formulae
will not give exactly the same results. [Formula (7) could, of course, be applied in
practice only if the proportions single at an exact age x were first derived from the
proportions relating to age groups.] The two results would differ more the larger n
and the greater v(f) in the interval from x to x + n. An idea of the magnitudes
involved may be obtained from the following hypothetical example.
Suppose that, in the initial state, s*(2o) = o-8o and that between the twentieth
and twenty-fifth birthday there is a constant force of nuptiality p = o-i.

Then £*(20, 5) = ^ J e~°’1¿ = (1 —e~°‘5) = 0-6297.

If v is increased at all ages in the ratio of 1-50, we have

S*(2o, 5) = (-£|^5 f e~°’15¿ = 0-5034.

Jo
Using formula (14) we obtain
. „ log 0-5034 o
~ =1 ’484>
log 0-6297
whereas formula (7) applied for any age between 20 and 25 would have given 1-500.

APPENDIX V
The basic data
Most of the data were taken from the United Nations Demographic Yearbook,
1949-50, Table 6, pp. 214 sqq. The following notes indicate the other sources used
and give some qualifications of the data:

Czechoslovakia
1930 data relate to the territory of 1930; those of 1947 to the territory of 1947.

England and Wales

1935: The Registrar General's Statistical Review of England and Wales for the
years 1938 and 1939, Text, p. 157.
1951: Census 1951, Great Britain, One per cent Sample Tables, Part 1, London,
H.M.S.O., Table 1. 2, p. 5.

France
1936: National Office of Vital Statistics, Summary of International Vital Statistics,
193^-1944, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1947, pp. 94-5.
1949: Instituí National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, Bulletin
Mensuel de Statistique, Nouvelle Série, Supplement, juillet-septembre 1951, p. 2.

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
i36 JOHN HAJNAL

Netherlands
1951: Estimates of the population by marital status and age supplied by the
Netherlands Central Bureau of Statistics.

Norway
1946: Statistisk Arbokfor Norge, 1950, p. 16.

Switzerland
1950: Estimates of total and single population by age supplied by the Swiss
Federal Statistical Office. The Statistical Office state that an allowance for migration
is included in the estimates of total population but not those of the single population.
The proportions single derived from these estimates are probably somewhat too
low.

Australia
Excluding full-blood aborigines.

New Zealand
Excluding Maoris.

United States
1951: United States Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series
P-20, no. 38, ‘Marital Status and Household Characteristics: April 1951 \
These data are for the ‘civilian population’, but about 610,000 members of the
armed forces living off post or with their families on post are covered; other
non-civilians excluded. The sampling variation (estimated at the 5 % level) of some
of the proportions single exceeds o-oi.

This content downloaded from

185.235.103.162 on Sun, 01 Oct 2023 10:17:56 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms