Household projections produced by official agencies usually use the headship rate method, based on the proportion of people designated as ‘head of household’ (or ‘reference person’) in various sex, age, and family categories. Reasons are discussed why this method has been criticised in recent years: the headship method does not incorporate any behavioural assumptions or dynamic aspects; only the characteristics of the head are included explicitly; and the concept of ‘head’ is thought to be incompatible with more egalitarian household roles.
The advantages of dynamic models are discussed, and a number of alternative dynamic models of household formation and dissolution are presented. The data source used is the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys 1% longitudinal study, which contains linked information on 500000 people in the 1971 and 1981 England and Wales Censuses of Population.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkkermanA, 1980, “On the relationship between household composition and population age distribution”Population Studies34525–534
2.
BatesJBrackenI, 1982, “Estimation of migration profiles in England and Wales”Environment and Planning A14889–900
3.
BatesJBrackenI, 1987, “Migration age profiles for local authority areas in England, 1971–1981”Environment and Planning A19521–535
4.
BeresfordJCRivlinAH, 1966, “Privacy, poverty and old age”Demography3247–258
5.
BrackenIBatesJ, 1983, “Analyses of gross migration profiles in England and Wales: Some developments in classification”Environment and Planning A15343–355
6.
BrassW, 1983, “The formal demography of the family: An overview of the proximate determinants”, in The Family: Proceedings of the British Society for Population Studies Conference OP-31, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, St Catherine's House, 10 Kingsway, London WC2, pp 37–49
7.
BurchTK, 1970, “Some demographic determinants of average household size: An analytic approach”Demography761–69
8.
BurchTK, 1979, “Household and family demography: A bibliographic essay”Population Index45173–195
9.
CarlinerG, 1975, “Determinants of household headship”Journal of Marriage and the Family3728–38
10.
CoaleAJ, 1984, “Life table construction on the basis of two enumerations of a closed poplation”Population Index50192–213
11.
CornerI, 1985BREHEP Headship Program for Household Projections. Users' Guide and Program ListingsBuilding Research Establishment, Bucknall's Lane, Watford WD2 7JR
12.
CornerI, 1989, “Developing centralised household projections for national and sub-national areas”, in Advances in Regional Demography: Information, Forecasts, Models Eds CongdonPBateyP (Belhaven Press, London) pp 91–106
13.
CSO, 1977Social Trendsnumber 8, Central Statistical Office (HMSO, London)
14.
DoE, 19881985 Based Estimates of Numbers of Households in England, the Regions, Counties, Metropolitan Districts and London Boroughs 1985–2001Department of the Environment, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1
15.
ElderGHJr (Ed.), 1985Life Course Dynamics: Trajectories and Transitions, 1968–1980 (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY)
16.
ErmischJ, 1988, “An economic perspective on household modelling”, in Modelling Household Formation and Dissolution Eds KeilmanNKuijstenAVossenA (Clarendon Press, Oxford) pp 23–40
17.
ErmischJFOvertonE, 1985, “Minimal household units: A new approach to the analysis of household formation”Population Studies3933–54
18.
FoxAJGoldblattPO, 1982Longitudinal Study: Socio-demographic Mortality Differentials Office of Population Censuses and Surveys Monitor Series LS 1 (HMSO, London)
19.
FoxAJGrundyE, 1985, “A longitudinal perspective on recent socio-demographic change”, in Measuring Socio-demographic Change: Proceedings of the British Society for Population Studies Conference OP-34, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, St Catherine's House, 10 Kingsway, London WC2, pp 10–25
20.
GoldthorpeJH, 1983, “Women and class: In defence of a conventional view”Sociology17465–488
21.
GrundyE, 1987, “Household change and migration among the elderly in England and Wales”Espace, Populations, Sociétés1109–123
22.
HaskeyJ, 1989, “Current prospects for the proportion of marriages ending in divorce”Population Trends5234–37 (HMSO, London)
23.
HobcraftJ, 1985, “Measuring demographic change and its consequences”, in Measuring Socio-demographic Change: Proceedings of the British Society for Population Studies Conference OP-34, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, St Catherine's House, 10 Kingsway, London WC2, pp 39–50
24.
HobcraftJMurphyM, 1986, “Demographic event history analysis: A selective review”Population Index523–27
25.
HobcraftJMenkenJPrestonS, 1982, “Age, period and cohort effects in demography: A review”Population Index484–43
26.
KiernanK, 1986, “Leaving home: Living arrangements of young people in six West-European countries”European Journal of Population2177–184
27.
KobrinFE, 1976, “The fall in household size and the rise of the primary individual in the United States”Demography13127–138
28.
KonoS, 1987, “The headship rate method for projecting households”, in Family Demography: Methods and Their Applications Eds BongaartsJBurchTWachterK (Clarendon Press, Oxford) pp 287–308
29.
LinkeW, 1988, “The headship rate approach in modelling households: The case of the Federal Republic of Germany”, in Modelling Household Formation and Dissolution Eds KeilmanNKuijstenAVossenA (Clarendon Press, Oxford) pp 108–122
30.
McMillanDBHerriottRA, 1985, “Towards a longitudinal definition of households”Journal of Economic and Social Measurement13349–360
31.
MurphyM, 1986, “Household modelling: A synthesis”, paper presented to the British Society for Population Studies Conference, September, 1986; copy available from author
32.
MurphyMSullivanO, 1985, “Housing tenure and family formation in contemporary Britain”European Sociological Review1230–243
33.
MurphyMSullivanO, 1986, “Unemployment, housing and household structure among young adults”Journal of Social Policy15205–222
34.
MurphyMSullivanOBrownA, 1988, “Sources of data for modelling household change with special reference to the OPCS 1% Longitudinal Study”, in Modelling Household Formation and Dissolution Eds KeilmanNKuijstenAVossenA (Clarendon Press, Oxford) pp 56–66
35.
OECD, 1979Child and Family: Demographic Developments in the OECD Countries Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, Paris)
36.
OPCS, 1974Census 1971. Great Britain: Non-private households Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (HMSO, London)
37.
OPCS, 1975Census 1971. England and Wales: Household Composition Tables, Parts I, II and III Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (HMSO, London)
38.
OPCS, 1983Census 1981: Communal Establishments: Great Britain Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (HMSO, London)
39.
OPCS, 1984Census 1981: Household and Family Composition: England and Wales Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (HMSO, London)
40.
OPCS, 1987Population Projections 1985–2025 OPCS Monitor Series PP2 number 15, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (HMSO, London)
41.
OPCS, 1988Census 1971–81: The Longitudinal Study. Linked Census Data: England and Wales Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (HMSO, London)
42.
PollakRA, 1989, “Two-sex demographic models”, paper presented to the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population Conference, Delhi, September, 1989; copy available from University of Pennsylvania, 3718 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 1904–6297
43.
PrestonSHCoaleAJ, 1982, “Age structure, growth, attrition, and accession: A new synthesis”Population Index48217–259
44.
RainwaterL, 1984, “Foreword”, in Years of Poverty, Years of Plenty. The Changing Economic Fortunes of American Workers and Families Ed. DuncanGJ, University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp v–vii
45.
RogersA, 1986, “Parameterized multistate population dynamics and projections”Journal of the American Statistical Association8148–61
46.
RoseD, 1991, “Microsocial change in Britain”, unpublished mimeograph, ESRC Research Centre on Microsocial Change, University of Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ
47.
SussmanMBBurchinalL, 1962, “Kin, family network: Unheralded structure in current conceptualizations of family functioning”Marriage and Family Living24231–240
48.
ToddJGriffithsD, 1986Changing the Definition of a Household: Report by the Social Survey Division (HMSO, London)
49.
United Nations, 1973aPopulation Studies Number 50. The Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends: New Summary of Findings on Interaction of Demographic, Economic and Social Factors, volume 1 (United Nations, New York)
50.
United Nations, 1973bPopulation Studies Number 54. Manuals on Methods of Estimating Population, VII. Methods of Projecting Household and Families (United Nations, New York)
51.
USBC, 1943Population—Special Reports, series P-46, No 4 US Bureau of the Census (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
52.
USNRPC, 1938The Problems of a Changing Population United States National Resources Planning Committee (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
53.
USBC, 1985Current Population Reports Series P-20. Household and Family Characteristics: March 1984 US Bureau of the Census (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
54.
WallR, 1982, “The household: Demographic and economic change in England, 1650–1970”, in Family Forms in Historic Europe Eds WallRRobinJLaslettP (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 493–512
55.
WillekensF, 1988, “A life course perspective on household dynamics”, in Modelling Household Formation and Dissolution Eds KeilmanNKuijstenAVossenA (Clarendon Press, Oxford) pp 87–107
56.
WrigleyEASchofieldRS, 1981The Population History of England 1541–1871: A Reconstruction (Edward Arnold, Sevenoaks, Kent)
57.
ZabaB, 1985, “A parameterized procedure for projecting population”, in International Population Conference Florence 1985, Volume IV International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, rue des Augustins, 34–4000 Liège, Belgium, pp 137–150
