CC BY-NC-ND
10
THE SEQUENCE OF LIFE EVENTS OF RUSSIAN MEN SERVING AND NOT SERVING IN THE MILITARY*
Ekaterina Mitrofanova, Alyona Artamonova
Using two representative Russian surveys - "Person, Family, Society" (usedfor building research models) and "Russian monitoring of the economic condition and health of the population " (for auxiliary, descriptive analysis) - we analysed the differences in the life courses of Russian men who served and did not serve in the army. For these two groups ofmen, we compared the ages and sequences of the most important first events (separation from the parental home, first job, obtaining an education, first cohabitation, first marriage, and first child). We constructed socio-demographic "portraits " of these men at the age of 15 and at the moment of the survey (2013).
Our results revealed that those men who served in the military have more socio-economic and demographic events than those who did not do military service: men with military experience start adult life earlier and more intensively. The mechanism of selecting men for military service has changed since the 1990s. Men who serve are mainly children ofparents without higher education and not occupying senior positions in the period of their children's socialisation. After completing military service, men often work and live separately, while those who did not serve in the army study and live with their parents.
Key words: army, conscription, military service, demographic behaviour, job, education, separation from parental home, marriage, cohabitation, Russia, life course, sequence analysis.
Introduction
Currently, the topic of military service, or more precisely, its impact on a man's life course, remains poorly understood. Existing research in this area can be divided into two main areas: the first is based on the assumption that military service makes a man out of a boy [Gradoselskaya 2005; Daniel 2005; Michel 2001], while the other shows that military service is a waste of time [Smirnov 2009; Sukhanov in 2014]. These judgments are often the subjective points of view of the authors and are not based on representative empirical data.
Ekaterina S. Mitrofanova ([email protected]), National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russia.
Alyona V. Artamonova ([email protected]), National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russia.
* The original article in Russian was published in Demographic Review, 2015, 2(4): 77-110. URL: https://demreview.hse.ru/2015--4/179984189.html
The article was carried out within the framework of the basic research program at the national research university higher school of economics (HSE) in 2016 (grant № 16-05-0011 "Development and testing of demographic sequence analysis and mining techniques") and supported within the framework of a subsidy granted to the HSE by the government of the Russian Federation for the implementation of the global competitiveness programme.
The view of military service as an important event in the life of a man is due to the fact that young people go into the army at the age of 18 - an age when, from both a legal and a psychological point of view, they are just beginning to acquire the status of an independent adult. Away from home and their familiar surroundings, they learn within a year or two to be independent in private life, but at the same time to obey orders, to maintain subordination and to stand up for themselves in a very particular kind of group. This complex combination of influences on a young man shapes his outlook and attitude to different aspects of life.
Due to data limitations, our study does not answer the question of causality: does military service affect a man's life, or is it that men who end up in the army are from the start predisposed to certain socio-demographic patterns of behaviour? In order to draw conclusions about causality, it is necessary to have a picture of the normative values and life course events at the start of military service (or at the age of 18 for those who do not serve) and after completion of the transition to adulthood. We have data only about the dates of the onset of the key events of life, the fact of military service and a number of auxiliary variables derived from the survey "Person, family, society" (PFS) in 2013 [Maleva et al 2014; PFS 2013].
Using sequence analysis (SA), we studied the ways in which the life course of men who served differed from those who did not. Without making any conclusions about causality, we recorded the differences themselves, which is an important step in understanding the phenomenon of life in the army in Russia. Such a detailed study of the data on service in the army in the context of the life course has never been carried out.
The main goal of the study is to examine the differences in the onset of sociodemographic events in the life course of Russian men who served and did not serve in the army.
The goal was broken down into the following objectives:
1. To determine the intergenerational differences in the ages of onset of sociodemographic events for men who served and did not serve in the army;
2. To identify the differences in the sequences of onset of sociodemographic events for men who served and did not serve in the army;
3. To construct "portraits" of men who served and did not serve in the army at age 15 and at the time of the survey (2013)
Before turning to the results of our solutions to these tasks, it is necessary to describe the structure of the present work. The first section deals with the features of military service in the world and in Russia, and examines the experience of sociologists and demographers in the study of military service as a stage of the life course. The second section is devoted to the features of the database on which the study is based. The final part of the work presents results of the conducted analysis.
Military service in historical context
There are, throughout the world, several ways of supplying an army with military personnel:
• A mercenary or contract army in which soldiers voluntarily serve by contract and receive a wage;
• A compulsory military service or conscript army, implying a general or selective (concerning only men) service;
• A militia or volunteer army, in peacetime consisting only of a registration system and command structure, with military service consisting of short-term, reservist training.
In different periods of time, one method or another of forming an army becomes most popular. For a long time in Europe and in the world, it was the mercenary army that predominated, but in 1798 in France there appeared a conscript army to protect the new-born republic from attack by neighbouring countries. According to a law passed in that year, all unmarried childless French men 20 years of age or older were called up for military service for 5 years. The clergy, workers at military enterprises, students of certain universities and officials were exempt from service. Wealthy Frenchmen could avoid conscription through the mechanism of drawing lots: with sufficient financial means, one could pay someone to serve in his place [Forrest 1989]. Gradually, compulsory military service began to show greater efficiency compared to the prevailing European practice of maintaining a mercenary army. This was due to the fact that conscription made it possible, in the event of military action, to quickly mobilise a large number of men in reserve, which was important in the period of the First and Second World Wars and at the beginning of the "Cold War" between the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Warsaw Pact. However, at the start of the 21st century, these major wars having ended, most countries again began to move towards a contract army [Shearer 1998].
In each country, how the army is formed is based on many factors, such as the nation's security priorities, the nature of external threats and economic opportunities, but one of the main factors is the demographic situation. A striking example of the impact of demographic waves on the toughness of legislation governing military enlistment is the experience of Russia.
In 1925, the previously voluntary military service became compulsory for all male workers of the USSR. Service in the armed forces was seen as an honourable duty and was enshrined in the Soviet Constitution of 1936 as every man's sacred duty to protect the Fatherland [Constitution...1936: Article 132, 133]. Recruits were men between 19 and 40 years of age belonging to the class of workers. The length of service was 2-4 years (depending on the type of troops). In 1939, the USSR adopted a law "On universal military duty", abolishing the ban on the recruitment of children of former officers, the Cossacks, the clergy, dispossessed peasants, merchants, noblemen and factory owners. Deferments appeared for reasons of disease and family. In 1946-1948, there was no conscription, as everyone was engaged in reconstruction work. In 1949, the length of service increased to 3-4 years, and the age of conscription was lowered to 18 years.
Due to the decline in fertility during the war, in the first half of the 1960s the cohort of 18-year-olds was small, which caused problems in recruitment. To neutralise the resulting shortage of recruits, university graduates began to be called up (as officers) for a period of 3 years. In the 1970s, when the generation of recruits had again become numerous, the length of service again increased to 2-3 years, but the list of deferments due to family circumstances was significantly expanded. Also, particularly important ministries and departments received the right to a special military registration, which allowed for specialists needed by these ministries to avoid recruitment for military service [Gradoselskaya 2005]. After the Soviet army's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, there was a need to increase the number of military personnel, for which the legislation governing military recruitment was amended, extending the categories of persons subject to conscription. In the mid-1980s, when the small cohorts were reaching the age of 18, deferments for men to continue their studies were suspended, and the number of ministries and departments entitled to a special military registration was reduced. But as soon as the draft contingent started to grow again, deferments returned. After the collapse of the USSR and the downsizing of the army, the number of deferments increased significantly and, as of 2007, the length of military service was reduced to 1 year.
Service in the army today
Today, the least popular type of army is a militia. It exists only in Switzerland. Universal conscription is no longer in first place, being retained only in a small number of countries1. Becoming more and more widespread is the contract army, which has several advantages. Firstly, a contract army consists of people who choose a military career consciously, rather than draftees thinking about how soon they will get out. Secondly, a contract army reduces personnel turnover, making it possible to save valuable man-hours it takes to prepare all the new recruits. Increasing the qualifications of servicemen creates the conditions for providing them with advanced equipment and technology. Thirdly, the professionalization of the army helps to ensure that young people can plan for life's key starting events: education, employment, entry into marriage and partnerships and beginning procreative behaviour per their own preferences [Friedman 1967].
Most countries, including Russia, are transitioning to a mixed form of military recruitment, combining in different proportions both draft and contract service. For example, in the countries of NATO contract soldiers make up about 45% of the total number of military personnel: in Germany 55%, in Greece and Norway around 30% and in Denmark and Belgium 60-65%.
In 1998, Russia passed a law "On Military Duty" (Federal Law №53 from 28.03.1998), in section V of which were listed the conditions for concluding a contract and enlisting in the army. Over the 17 years of the existence of this form of military service, the number of contract soldiers has increased to 50% of the total number of military personnel [RBC 2015]. D.A. Medvedev, during his tenure as president, said: "We have, in fact, made a political decision on how to calmly move forward
1 Russia, Belarus, Israel, North Korea, Switzerland, Finland, Austria and, Estonia. 100
in the direction of a professional army. We will keep recruitment from both conscription and contract soldiers simultaneously. The draft will remain, but only those will serve who believe this extremely important and necessary for themselves. Everything else will be done by people hired by contract" [Forbes 2011]. That is, the country's leadership understands the priorities of the time: in an age of rapid technological development and enormous growth in information, a year of absence from one's professional environment represents a significant loss for a person's human capital. Today's young people who do not make a conscious choice in favor of the military service have a chance to invest this time in their own development. Of course, Russia still has universal military service, but there are more and more legal (and illegal) ways to avoid it. All this provides an opportunity to young people who choose and do not choose the military as their main profession to regulate the calendar of the onset of their life's events in greater accordance with their priorities.
SERVICE IN THE ARMY AS A STAGE IN THE LIFE COURSE
The concept of the life course emerged in the 1920s. The first to see a life as not a cycle but a course were psychologists [Bochaver 2008]. Then, starting in 1975 the concept was developed within the framework of the sociological sciences and has since become truly multi-disciplinary and paradigmatic [Yezhov 2005; Christmas 2012: 21].
The main difference between a "course" and a "cycle" is that a life is no longer perceived as a series of predetermined stages tied to a person's age [Cohn 1999]. A life course is the result of the personal choices of the individual in various spheres of life. Here too there are stages, but age is not what gives one a pass to the next level; rather, it is a person's achievements: the status he acquires determines at what stage of life he is. The life course consists of status transitions - significant events that change the person's social position, the way his life is arranged, his social identity and role as a member of society (e.g. employment, completion of education, marriage and birth of a child). Some events have an even stronger effect, influencing the change of an entire trajectory or multiple trajectories of life. Such events are called turning points.
Service in the army can be considered such a turning point, one which can change the direction of a man's life in several areas. At the age of 18, only just beginning the transition to adulthood, obtaining an active capacity in different spheres (legal, labor, civil), young people must fulfill their military service. This is a very long and difficult test, involving separation from loved ones, strict army order, subordination, limitations of everyday conditions, physical work and being in an exclusively male group. Some researchers believe that such tests make him strong, that is, they "make a man out of a boy" [Gradoselskaya 2005; Daniel 2005; Michel 2001], while others believe that a young man could spend these one or two years more usefully "in civilian life" [Smirnov 2009; Sukhanov 2014].
Despite the differences of opinion, there is one point of commonality: the majority of studies on the subject of service in the Russian army have been carried out without sufficient support from
representative empirical data. If, in other areas where there is insufficient Russian research, we can draw on the experience of different countries, then the present subject will receive little attention from our foreign colleagues, due to the fact that the majority of countries have switched to contract service, suggesting that military service is neither a duty to one's country nor an ordeal, but simply a paid job. Therefore, studies that are carried out based on representative empirical material are most often devoted either to servicemen (during a war) rather than conscripts, or to issues related not to demographic behaviour, but to the health and social and psychological characteristics of the soldiers.
In studying the effect of military service on the short-term and long-term health of conscripts [MacLean, Elder 2007; Sampson, Laub 1996], it was found that conscription has a negative impact on future health. Crime too has been studied through the prism of military service [Van Schellen, Apel, Nieuwbeerta 2012]. It was found that for the 1942 cohort, drafted into the army at the beginning of the Vietnam War, military service significantly reduced the likelihood of crime among younger offenders. The results showed that military service contributed to the overall decrease in violent crimes during this period. One study [Britton, Ouimette, Bossarte 2012] established a connection between military service and life satisfaction, depending on a man's propensity to depression: among those men not prone to depression who served in the army, 39% more were satisfied with life than those who did not serve.
One of those who have analysed the impact of military service on the demographic behaviour of soldiers is G. Elder, Jr. The principle he formulated (within the concept of the life course) of a "life stage" implies that the impact of historical events varies depending on the stage of human life. To test this principle, Elder conducted a study on the interaction between military service and age, using data from the Oakland Growth Study [Elder 1987]. He found that for men mobilised at a later age (older than 22), military service can destroy family relationships and careers.
According to Elder, soldiers receive the least personal benefit while participating in wars. He found that the divorce rate among American servicemen is higher than that of the civilian population. At the same time, the period of time in which the marriage took place is important: before, during or after a war. Marriages entered into before the war were hard to maintain, due to the long separation of partners. It is obvious that neither partner remains the same during a war: servicemen experience all the severity of military combat, while their wives, waiting for them at home, experience all the hardships of economic deprivation and complete responsibility for the family. After the end of the Vietnam War, soldiers returning home demonstrated a desire to start families as soon as possible, in contrast to their peers who did not participate in the war.
Thus, the particularities of the impact of fixed-term military service in the army on the life course of men have not been studied in a sufficiently comprehensive and deep way. In this paper, for the first time, biographies of Russian men will be studied in light of the presence or absence of army experience. This will be done on the basis of representative Russian data using one of the most advanced and promising methods - SA.
On the basis of the information we collected on changes in Russian legislation concerning military service, on the impact of external factors (wars and demographic waves) and on the understanding of the transformation vector of demographic behaviour, we have formulated the following hypotheses.
1. Intergenerational differences between those who served and who did not serve in the army will be seen only for those called up after 1991 (born in 1973), because, up to this time, opportunities for avoiding conscription were minimal, and generally only those with health problems did not serve in the army.
2. The long separation from loved ones, the idealisation of life "in the civilian world", can strengthen the desire of men returning from the army to create a family. We assume that the overall intensity of the onset of demographic events will be greater for men who have served.
THE informational base of research
This study used a database of two large Russian population surveys, "Person, family, society" (PFS) and "Russian monitoring of the economic situation and the health of the population" (RLMS). The first wave of PFS was conducted in 2013 by the Institute of Social Analysis and Forecasting of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration [Maleva et al 2014.; PFS 2013]. In the same year, the HSE held the 22nd wave of RLMS [RLMS 2013]. The main base is the PFS, because it contains complete and accurate information about the different events of the life course, as well as the issue of military service. RLMS is used in the descriptive section.
The PFS survey interviewed 9,500 respondents (45.3% men, 54.7% women) selected by multistage, stratified, regionalised sampling, which made it possible to achieve, with a 5% margin of error, representative data for the Russian population over 18 years of age. In the third stage of sampling, regionalisation was carried out via polling stations, so the sample did not include those doing time in prison or otherwise temporarily deprived of voting rights.
The PFS questionnaire included two questions regarding military service. The first question was direct, formulated as follows: "Have you served in the army?" A positive answer was given by 2,952 men, a negative one by 1,381. The second question (indirect) concerned the army as a reason for relocating. Only 19% of men reported military service as a reason for moving. The amount of data is small, so the analysis was based on the first question, used thereafter as a stratification variable. However, this question has a drawback: the wording is inaccurate and can give a positive answer for those who received the rank of officer, studied in a non-military university, or had a special military registration.
In the 2013 RLMS survey (a full sampling was used) the question of military service was put more correctly: "Have you done military service, that is, have you served in the army by conscription?". If the answer was yes, another question was asked: "From what year to what year did
you serve in the army?". The RLMS database included a total of 3,595 men who had done military service, and 2,476 who had not.
Despite the RLMS's more detailed information regarding service in the army, it was the PFS survey that was chosen as the primary database. The key reason was that it contains questions about the starting dates of events in different spheres of life, which determines the main focus of this research.
The difference in the wording of questions in the PFS and the RLMS, as well as errors in measurements, led to small differences in the distributions of the men who served in the army. Figure 1 shows the proportion of men in their cohort who did military service by year of birth. The sharp
swings in the curve are due to the small number of observations in the oldest and youngest age groups. >•
E
ro
<u
jz
c
ft0
c
>
<v
£ <U £ 4-
0
£
<U (_>
1_
qj
Q.
<U
= RLMS -PFS
Figure 1. Proportions of men serving in the army (one-year cohorts by year of birth), %
Source: compiled by the authors according to [RLMS 2013; PFS 2013].
In Figure 1, the 50% level is marked by a horizontal line. Above it is the situation in which the number of men who have done military service exceeds the number of those who have not. Below it is the reverse situation. The vertical line represents the year 1973 - the year of birth of the generation that reached the age of 18 in 1991, at the time of the Soviet Union's collapse. Until the birth year of 1987 according to the RLMS and of 1984 according to the PFS, the percentage of those who were called up exceeded the percentage of those who received a "white card" - a certificate of exemption from military service. As can be seen in the graph, the military registration system worked flawlessly during the Soviet period, registering virtually all able-bodied men of military age. In modern Russia, the selection mechanism for the army changed; the proportion of recruits in every cohort was reduced to 30% or less.
Figure 2 shows the distribution of ages at which young men were sent to serve in the army (according to [RLMS 2013]). Most of the young men were called up for military service on reaching the age of 18 years or the next year, if their birth date was later than the fall draft or if they had a deferment until finishing their secondary school or vocational training. For those entering military schools, an exception was made: they could begin military service at the age of 17, but such persons were few, according to the histogram. In total, more than 80% of those who did military service were called up before the age of 20.
In the 2000s, when the youngest generations began to reach the age of military duty, there was an increase in the popularity and accessibility of higher education, as well as in the number of deferments for the period of study. This led to a decrease in the proportion of 18-year-old recruits and smoothed out the age distribution of recruits.
70
111 U U 111 111 [TUrJYl rvn rJli -n- J1 _ n _
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25+
Age of the actual beginning of military service
□ 1950-59 □ 1960-69 □ 1970-79 □ 1980-89 □ 1990-95
Figure 2. Age of the actual beginning of military service of members of different generations, %
Source: compiled by the authors according to [RLMS 2013].
We believe that the average age of the most intensive formation of a young person's normative values regarding children and marriage is 20 years [Magun 2009]. The experience gained during this period affects the further trajectory of one's life course. For the majority of men over 40-49 years, this period came during military service in the army. Generations born after 1970 were called up after the change in the recruiting policy of the armed forces, as a result of which there was an increase in the percentage of those not serving and receiving deferments and, consequently, not spending the period of intensive formation of normative value consciousness in the barracks. These same generations are linked to the intergenerational breakdown in family values [Popov 2009]. This means that the reduction in the proportion of men having served in the army may have contributed to the move away from traditional family values among men, and have become one of the mechanisms initiating Russia's second demographic transition.
QJ 60 JZ.
50
E
re 40 o
ai
16 17
QJ ß
□ 1930-39 □ 1940-49
Main results
Socio-demographic "portraits" of men serving and not serving in the army
As shown in Figure 1, the number of men who have been in the army varies depending on the generations. While in Soviet times the number of recruits exceeded the number of "white cardholders", in modern Russia the number of those who do not serve exceeds the number of those who do. The reason may be the fact that, in Soviet times, the main criterion for conscription was the state of health of the recruit, while in modern Russia the selection mechanism has changed: the ones who serve are those unable to dodge, that is, young men from less well-off families, those who could not or did not want to get a higher education, and people from rural areas, for whom the army can become a social elevator. There is also a deferment for men who have two children. In order to examine the reasons for which the ratio of those serving to those not serving has changed, and to test hypothesis 1, we have constructed "portraits" of men in each category, those born before and after 1970.
To draw up "portraits" of men from the PFS questionnaire, we chose integral variables describing the respondent, both as an adolescent and at the time of the survey.
1. At the age of 15:
• existence of brothers and/or sisters;
• level of parents' education;
• occupational category of parents;
• level of family income;
• disability obtained as a child.
2. At the time of the survey:
• level of education;
• primary occupation;
• command of foreign languages;
• living with parents;
• having a disability.
As predicted in hypothesis 1, for the generations born before 1970 no significant differences were observed between those who had and had not served. The only exception is people with disabilities: there are more of them among those who did not serve in the army, but the proportion of such people in the PFS sample is so small that it would be incorrect to draw any conclusions.
In the case of more recent generations, the situation changes (Figures 3 and 4)2. As for statistically significant differences between those who served and did not serve, the first group consists mostly of young men whose parents, at the time of the young man's 15th birthday, had a professional (in the case of the fathers) or high school or less (in the case of the mothers) education, and were
2 Only results for those variables showing significant differences are shown. 106
engaged in physical labor (Figure 3). The "portrait" of contemporary young men not having served looks like this at age 15: these are the children of highly educated parents and highly qualified professionals.
Figure 3. Characteristics of men born after 1970 who served and did not serve,
at the age of 15 years, %
Note: * - The percentage is significantly higher (95%).
Source: compiled by the authors according to [PFS 2013].
At the time of the survey, men who had served in the army had the following set of characteristics (Figure 4): they lived separately (while those who did not serve lived with both parents or their mothers), worked (those who did not serve either studied or combined work with study), and, unlike those not having served, did not speak foreign languages.
Figure 4. Characteristics of men born after 1970 who served and did not serve,
at the time of the survey, %
Note: * - The percentage is significantly higher (95%).
Source: compiled by the authors according to [PFS 2013].
The supposition about the change in the selection mechanism was confirmed: before 1970, men who had and had not served in the military were distinguished only by the presence of a disability, while the differences in young cohorts are observed in several indicators. Of the characteristics of the respondent's situation in childhood, only his parents' job and education turned out to be significant.
The income of the family, the presence of siblings and a disability received as a child did not show any differences. These results suggest that it is advantageous social relations manifested in their parents' job and education - not income or state of health - which are the reason that today's young people avoid military service.
Characteristics of respondents after serving in the army differ across a wide range of indicators. Those who served were more likely to live alone, worked (at the time of the survey), and did not speak foreign languages. That is, in general, men who had gone through the "school of life" in the army were more independent, more likely to support themselves and to live separately. Educational attainment turned out to be insignificant, since the barriers to higher education which existed at certain times of the Soviet era do not exist in modern Russia. However, knowledge of foreign languages is indirect evidence that men avoiding military service are oriented towards a better education. The state of health once again is not different for those who did and those who did not do compulsory military service. That is, in the army, where originally the main criterion for selection was the health of conscripts, mechanisms of selection by this characteristic have stopped functioning.
Age characteristics of the onset of events in men
In this section, we will look at the differences in age of the onset of starting sociodemographic events in the life course of those who have done and have not done military service.
According to the theory of the second demographic transition [Jennings, Sullivan, Hacker 2012; van de Kaa 1987; Lesthaeghe 1995; Potarca, Mills, Lesnard 2013] the category of markers of demographic changes should include the increasing proportion of divorces and second marriages not registered officially, as well as the higher average age of marriage. All these changes give direction to transformations in other areas of life. Therefore, we chose for more detailed examination the following starting events of men who had served and had not served: the first separation from parents, the first employment, educational attainment, sexual debut, first partnership, first marriage and birth of the first child (Table 1).
Henceforth in our work, only part of the PFS array will be used. This is due to the fact that all the questions from the block "marriages, unions, children" representing great interest to us were asked only to respondents of reproductive age. Therefore, we are forced to limit ourselves to a subsample consisting of cohorts born in 1970-1995 (2,062 men, of whom 1,111 served and 951 did not). Respondents with these years of birth were called up for service starting in 1987, which makes it impossible to evaluate the link between military service and demographic events for men falling into periods of a consistently high level of recruitment.
Ages of the onset of socioeconomic and demographic events did not differ significantly between men who had and who had not served in the army, but it is interesting to look at the general trends which are the same for both groups of men. Before doing so, it is worth noting that some members of the younger generation at the time of the survey were not yet 20 years old, which affected
the value of the average ages and made comparison with the indicators calculated for the preceding generations more difficult.
Table 1. The average age of onset of sociodemographic events
Generations First separation from parents First job Highest level of education Sexual initiation First cohabitation First marriage First child
Served in the army
1970-1974 22.2 20.8 19.6 20.0 23.2 24.1 25.8
1975-1979 21.6 21.2 19.7 19.3 22.8 24.9 25.9
1980-1984 21.1 20.9 19.4 18.7 21.5 23.8 24.5
1985-1989 19.9 20.4 19.2 18.1 20.7 22.7 23.2
1990-1994 19.1* 19.7 18.2 17.1 18.1 20.3 19.8
Did not serve in the army
1970-1974 22.5 21.0 20.3 19.4 22.7 25.3 25.5
1975-1979 22.2 21.4 19.8 19.7 22.7 24.7 25.8
1980-1984 21.1 20.7 20.0 19.1 21.2 24.0 24.9
1985-1989 20.4 20.2 19.4 18.3 20.5 22.6 23.0
1990-1994 18.4 19.4 17.8 16.9 17.9 20.2 20.8
Note: * - significantly higher for members of the same generation not serving in the army.
Source: Compiled by the authors according to PFS 2013.
There is a strong decrease in the age of separation of young people from their parents, but this is the effect of the youth of the cohorts, as a study carried out on similar data shows young people postponing this event [Dolgova, Mitrofanova 2015]. In the case of the start of a work career, there is no apparent reduction of age: men start working at about age 20-21. The average age of completion of the highest level of education shows that the majority of men (regardless of whether they served in the army and which generation they belong to) have a secondary education, as it is obtained before the age of 20. Slight fluctuations may be caused by changes in the system of education in the country, in particular the number of years of schooling.
The average age of sexual debut has moved down among younger generations. This trend began in the years after the Russian Revolution of 1917 [Denisenko, Dalla Duan 2001] and, as can be seen in the table, continues to this day. The rate of decline of this age is not significantly different for those who have or have not served in the army. The generations born after 1960 more often begin life together with cohabitation rather than marriage [Artamonova, Mitrofanova 2016; Mitrofanova 2010]. Often this union takes the form of a trial marriage which can either crumble or turn into a marriage [Zakharov 2007]. This is indirectly confirmed by the fact that the age at first marriage is greater than the age at first cohabitation. By the early 1990s, the age differences in Russia of sexual debut, first marriage and birth of the first child were minimal. For representatives of the "Soviet" generations, the decline in the age of sexual debut, in the absence of modern means of contraception, often led to an unplanned pregnancy, which was often covered up by marriage [Zakharov 2007], but according to the classification of T.A. Gurko [Gurko 2001], unplanned pregnancy is hardly the only reason for marriage. Marriage, in his opinion, may be caused by the desire to:
• register legally a premarital pregnancy;
• legalise existing love, sexual relations;
• psychologically separate from parents;
• get married so as to get on a waiting list for housing;
• gain a foothold in the city;
• be like everyone else: "I've returned from the army - it's time to get married";
• have a family, children.
The existence of a motivation to get married after returning from the army is confirmed by an increase in cases of marriage at age 22 for men who had served.
As shown by analysis of the average age of sociodemographic events, we faced large drawbacks in the evaluation of indicators for the younger generations, as most of these cohorts have not yet made their choices in different areas of life, and those who have did so deliberately at early ages. To neutralise these drawbacks of standard statistical methods, we examined sequences of the onset of events, which give a more complete and objective picture of the changes taking place.
Sequence analysis of the onset of socio-demographic events of men who have and have not served
Sequence analysis of the onset of events is one of the most advanced methods of analysis of a life's events, giving unique information that cannot be obtained by other methods. SA allows one to work not with separate events, but with a chain of a fairly large number of events [Abbott 1995; Billari 2001; Billari, Piccarreta 2005; Ritschard, Oris 2005]. To present events in a sequence, one must go from using the format of events to using the format of statuses, consisting of a set of letters in which a person's status is encoded in each of the areas of life considered at a particular time. In this work, the unit of time chosen was a month. The starting point was a man's 15th birthday, and the final point his 35th - that is, for each respondent a 240-month-long segment of his life course was built. We limited the period of observation to his 35th birthday in order to equalise the chances of different generations for the onset of events and exclude marginal cases (since first events are most likely to occur in the first half of life).
Each status reflects the respondent's condition in three spheres: reproductive, matrimonial and socioeconomic. While the first two spheres have only a few combinations, as will be shown below, three socioeconomic events yield 26 combinations (including simultaneous onset of events). In order to reduce the total number of statuses, a trial analysis was first carried out, which revealed which events are more common, and which less. For the best possible representation of sequences in pairs of events we focused on the first event, while in trios of events - on the last. The breakdown of each sphere into categories is presented in the list below, and the grouping into statuses - in table 2.
1.
2.
3.
The reproductive sphere: no child;
there is at least 1 child. Matrimonial sphere: single;
has experience of living in at least one partnership; has experience of living in at least one marriage. Socioeconomic sphere:
no socioeconomic events or one of these events: separation from parents, work experience or highest level of education; 2 events: separation from parents, then one event; 2 events: hired for first job, then one event;
2 events: the completion of education of the highest level, then one event;
2 events came at the same time;
3 events: 2 events came at the same time or consecutively, then separation from parents; 3 events: 2 events came at the same time or consecutively, then employment; 3 events: 2 events came at the same time or consecutively, and then the completion of education;
• 3 events came at the same time.
Table 2. Grouping of events in statuses
Socioeconomic events
Demographic events
No children
Single
| no events ^
separation
work education
1 partner 1 marriage
1 child
Single
1 partner 1 marriage
No events or one event
Separation > event Work > event Education > event 2 events simultaneously 2 events > separation 2 events > work
2 events > education
3 events simultaneously Censoring
Table 2 displays not only status variants, but the colour codes for each of them, so as to simplify the graphic perception of the sequences. A table showing abbreviations for each status is available in table A-1 of the appendix. Figure 5 shows the chronograms for men who did (left) and did not do (right) compulsory military service. A chronogram represents the distribution of frequency
of the occurrence of each status with respect to the time intervals in which the given sequences of events were observed.
The sample includes respondents of different ages. The youngest at the time of the survey were only 19 years old, that is, we can construct a biography for only 4 years of their life. The part of their life course about which we know nothing is indicated on the chronogram by a burgundy-coloured gradient. In terms of advanced statistical analysis, such a lack of information about events not occurring within the range of observation is called censoring.
Served in the army
Did not serve in the army
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
,1
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Figure 5. Chronograms of the onset of starting events for men who served
and did not serve in the army
Source: Compiled by the authors according to [PFS 2013].
Differences in the chronograms of the onset of events indicate the particular features of a life course in the context of military service. While the number of men not having sociodemographic events at the beginning of the transition to adulthood is almost the same for both categories, the number of censored events is significantly higher in men who did not serve. This points to a smaller number of events in their lives, which may be due to the relative youth of this group of men; this is because among representatives of older generations, the percentage of those avoiding military service is minimal, whereas for young people it is becoming more typical.
At the beginning of the period of observation (age 15), men who served and did not serve have roughly the same set of events: a few events of the socioeconomic block (most often separation from their parents and attainment of their highest level of education) and a very small proportion of
1
1
0
0
demographic events, namely partnerships. By the age of 19 (when men who served were in the army), the proportion of men separating from their parents increases among those who have not served. This is most likely due to the fact that, among those who served, it is their departure from the army which is the reason for leaving the parental home for at least 3 months. By the end of the observation period (age 35), the differences between men who have and who have not served are particularly noticeable: the proportion of those in a first marriage, having one child and some events from the socioeconomic block (the purple range) is of the order of 23% among men who served, while among those who did not serve it is less than 10%. The remaining combinations of events, including demographic ones (red, pink and green ranges), are also to a far greater extent among men who served than among those who did not.
Table 3 (the full version is in Table A-2 of the appendix) presents statuses in order from the longest (in months) to the shortest for all men, for those who served and who did not serve in the army.
Table 3: Ranking of statuses from the longest to the shortest for all men (i.e. those who served
and those who did not serve in the army)
All Men who served in the army Men who did not serve in the army
№ Status Average duration, months Status Average duration, months Status Average duration, months
1 SC00 38.54 SC00 38.07 SC00 39.10
2 SC0E+ 14.37 M1C1++L 16.88 SC0E 13.47
3 SC0E 13.43 SC0E+ 16.08 SC0E+ 12.37
4 M1C1++L 13.32 SC0E 13.40 M1C1++L 9.16
5 M1C1++J 8.05 M1C1++J 10.46 SC0J+ 7.57
6 SC0J+ 6.87 SC0++J 8.98 SC0++L 5.76
7 SC0++J 6.75 M1C1++E 7.25 M1C1++J 5.23
8 SC0++L 6.39 SC0++L 6.92 P1C01 4.44
9 M1C1++E 5.70 SC0L 6.74 SC0L 4.37
10 SC0L 5.65 SC0J+ 6.28 SC0++J 4.14
The status in which men in both categories remain the longest is that of an absence of any type of event (more than three years). Next in terms of duration (16.9 to 18 months) among men who had served in the army comes the status of "in a first marriage, with one child, with three socio-economic events, the last of which is separation from parents", while among men who did not serve in the army it is the status of "no demographic events, presence of the highest level of education" (13.5 months). In third place for men who served (16 months) and who did not serve (12 months) comes the status of "no demographic events, two socio-economic events, the last of which is the presence of the highest level of education". The fourth longest status for men who served (13.4 months) is "no demographic events, the presence of education of the highest level", and for men who did not serve (9 months), it is "in the first marriage, with one child, three events, the last of which is separation from parents".
As seen in these rankings, the men who served in the army stayed in all statuses longer than those who did not serve. This suggests that they open up their trajectories earlier. The longest status
for men who served is also the most intense, the status in which there is a demographic and a socioeconomic component, whereas for men who did not serve, most characteristic is an absence of demographic events and the presence of education. Statuses of higher rank are very similar and differ mainly in their position on the list and in their duration.
Tables 4 and 5 (full versions are in tables A-3 and A-4, respectively, of the appendix show the most frequent subsequences of events for men who did and did not serve, where by "frequent" we mean those subsequences whose level of support (the proportion of men in the population of the respective category) exceeds 9%. Subsequences may consist of one or multiple statuses.
Table 4. Ranking of subsequences by frequency of occurrence among respondents who served
in the army
№ The sequence Proportion of men who served Persons
1 (SC00) 0.905 1005
2 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0E) 0.436 484
3 (SC00>SC0E) 0.436 484
4 (SC0E>SC0E+) 0.389 432
5 (SC00)-(SC0E>SC0E+) 0.356 395
6 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E>SC0E+) 0.350 389
7 (SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E>SC0E+) 0.350 389
8 (SC00>SC0L) 0.194 216
9 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0L) 0.194 215
10 (SC0L>SC0L+) 0.166 184
11 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0J) 0.163 181
12 (SC00>SC0J) 0.163 181
13 (M1C0++L>M1C1++L) 0.157 174
14 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0L)-(SC0L>SC0L+) 0.150 167
15 (SC00)-(SC0L>SC0L+) 0.150 167
16 (SC00>SC0L)-(SC0L>SC0L+) 0.150 167
17 (SC00)-(M1C0++L>M1C1++L) 0.143 159
18 (SC0J>SC0J+) 0.134 149
19 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0J)-(SC0J>SC0J+) 0.125 139
20 (SC00)-(SC0J>SC0J+) 0.125 139
21 (SC00>SC0J)-(SC0J>SC0J+) 0.125 139
22 (SC0E+>P1C0E+) 0.098 109
23 (SC00>P1C01) 0.096 107
24 (SC0E+>SC0++L) 0.095 105
25 (SC00)-(SC00>P1C01) 0.092 102
26 (SC0E>SC0E+)-(SC0E+>SC0++L) 0.092 102
Note: Subsequences containing demographic events are marked in bold.
The greatest number of men who served are in the "no events" status: 1,005 out of 1,111 men. This suggests that only 10% of men had had any events at the beginning of the observation period (their 15th birthday). A total of 44% of those who served have a subsequence of "no events, and then the presence of complete education", and 35% of them had one socioeconomic event (employment or separation from parents) after education. In 19% of men the first event was separation from parents. Some 17% of this number then had one other socioeconomic event. For 16% the first event was employment, in 13% of cases supplemented by another socioeconomic event. Then, among men who
served, we begin to see subsequences with demographic events. A share of 16% of men have the subsequence "in the first marriage, no children, three socio-economic events, the last of which is separation from parents, and then the same, but with one child". A share of 10% at first have only education and one other socioeconomic event, after which they enter their first partnership. The same number of respondents at first had not a single event, and then entered into their first partnership and had either one or no socioeconomic events. All other subsequences in this category of men have a support level of fewer than 100 people. That is, altogether for men who served, 26 subsequences were found among more than 9% of the subsample.
Among men who did not serve, 22 subsequences were found for more than 9% of the subsample (Table 5).
Table 5. Ranking of subsequences by frequency of occurrence among respondents who did not
serve in the army
№ The sequence Proportion of men who did not serve Persons
1 (SC00) 0.924 879
2 (SC00>SC0E) 0.441 419
3 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0E) 0.440 418
4 (SC0E>SC0E+) 0.306 291
5 (SC00)-(SC0E>SC0E+) 0.284 270
6 (SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E>SC0E+) 0.279 265
7 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E>SC0E+) 0.278 264
8 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0J) 0.205 195
9 (SC00>SC0J) 0.205 195
10 (SC0J>SC0J+) 0.182 173
11 (SC00)-(SC0J>SC0J+) 0.171 163
12 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0J)-(SC0J>SC0J+) 0.170 162
13 (SC00>SC0J)-(SC0J>SC0J+) 0.170 162
14 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0L) 0.135 128
15 (SC00>SC0L) 0.135 128
16 (SC00>P1C01) 0.129 123
17 (SC00)-(SC00>P1C01) 0.127 121
18 (SC0L>SC0L+) 0.111 106
19 (SC00)-(SC0L>SC0L+) 0.102 97
20 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0L)-(SC0L>SC0L+) 0.101 96
21 (SC00>SC0L)-(SC0L>SC0L+) 0.101 96
22 (M1C0++L>M1C1++L) 0.094 89
Note: Subsequences containing demographic events are marked in bold.
The most common subsequence also consists of a single status: "no events" (92%, or 879 of 951 men). The next most common subsequence also coincides for those who did and did not serve in the army: "No events, then the presence of education" (44%), to which in 30% of the cases is added another socioeconomic event. Then the situation changes: the third most common subsequence among men who did not serve is "no events, then employment" (20%); for 18%, after a while another socioeconomic event will be added. Fourth in terms of support level comes separation from parents (13%), in 11% of cases supplemented by another socioeconomic event. At this stage, among men who did not serve, demographic events begin to appear, but the support level is much less, and in first place
comes not marriage but partnership: located among 13% of men from the subsample is the subsequence "no events, then first partnership without a child ", and among 9.4% - "first marriage without children, three socio-economic events, the last of which is separation from parents, then the appearance of a baby'.
Thus, every ninth man in the sample (regardless of army service) had no sociodemographic events for some period of time. A share of 44% of the men at some point in time completed their education. A total of 19% of those who served and 13% of those who did not serve separated from their parents; some 16% and 18%, respectively, found employment; shares of 16% and 9%, respectively, got married, had a child and made all three status transitions in the socioeconomic sphere, the last of which was separation from their parents; and 10% and 13% started to live in a partnership. In general, sequences containing different demographic events are more common among men who did military service.
Next we consider chronograms of sequences of events for each cohort in the context of service in the army (see Figure 6).
Above all, attention should be paid to the number of men who did and did not serve in the army. While in the older generation the number of men who served was over twice the number of those who did not, for the generation born in 1990-1994 the situation is diametrically opposite. However, despite the variations in fullness of the categories, censoring was consistently greater among men who did not serve. That is, the army, whatever the percentage of the generation not serving, is conducive to a life course much richer in events.
The chronograms that most differ from each other are those for the oldest and youngest generations. Men born in 1970-1974, who served in the Soviet era, completed their education earlier (stopping at a lower level than men who did not serve) and separated earlier from their parents (which is likely due to service in the army). By the age of 17, men who did not serve were in partnerships without children more often than men who did serve. By the age of 35, among those who did military service there were more married men with children (purple range; more than 60%) than among those who did not (over 50%). In general, men who served had more sequences, including demographic events (all colour ranges except blue).
1
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0. 0,4
0. 0,3
0- 0,2
0 1 15
Served in the army Did not serve in the army
1970 -1974 years of birth
261 obser\>ations 250 obser\>ations
1980-1984 years of birth
214 obser\>ations 107 obser\>ations
16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2S 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2S 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
1975 - 1979
279 obser\>ations
years of birth
263 obser\>ations
i
16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2S 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Did not serve in the army of birth
277 obser\>ations
15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 3f
of birth
263 obser\>ations
Served in the army
1985 - 1989 years
250 obser\>ations
> 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
1990
107 obser\>ations
i
0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2
32 33 34 35 | 0,1
- 1994 years
i
0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0 1
15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
1
0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1
.5 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2S 29 30 31 32 33 34
Figure 6. Chronograms of the onset of starting events for men of different generations who served and did not serve in the army
Source: Compiled by the authors according to [PFS 2013].
www.demreview.hse.ru
Among men born after 1990 there is still a lot of censoring, as the youngest respondents at the time of the survey (2013) were only 19 years old, and the eldest respondents of this generation were 23. Nevertheless, the differences between the categories can be seen quite clearly: the men who served in the military had more socioeconomic and demographic events than those who did not serve. They had more separations from their parents, which is connected directly with army service. With greater speed and intensity they completed all socioeconomic events (blue), entered into a partnership (red range), got married (green) and had children (yellow, pink, and purple).
The chronograms presented here confirm both in the context of generations and in general for all cohorts, hypothesis 2 - that demographic events among those who served in the military would begin earlier and more intensively than among those who did not.
Conclusion
This study provides empirical evidence of a whole series of differences in the life courses of men who have served and have not served in the military.
In Soviet times, 80-90% of 18-year-old men were called up for military service (Figure 1), while in today's Russia this percentage is below the threshold of 50%. The cause of there being more men with exemptions than without lies in the change in the mechanism of recruiting men for service. Sociodemographic "portraits" show that for men who served in Soviet times there were no differences in characteristics at the time of their 15th birthday and on the date of the survey (2013). The only variable for which there are minor differences is a disability, which confirms that in Soviet times men were exempted only for reasons of health The characteristics of respondents who served in the post-Soviet period suggest that the possibility of avoiding military service is linked to the social connections of their parents. Men who received a similar deferment later than their peers who served become independent, but invest more of themselves in the development of their professional skills.
Sequence analysis has shown that men who have done military service complete socioeconomic and demographic events earlier and more intensively. The greatest differences are in the chronograms for the oldest and youngest generations. Men born in 1970-1974, who served in the Soviet era, completed their education earlier (stopping at a lower level than men who did not serve) and separated earlier from their parents. By the age of 35, among those who did military service there were more married men with children than among those who did not. Men born after 1990 still show a lot of censoring, yet complete all socioeconomic events, enter into partnerships, get married and have children faster and more intensively.
Taking into account that men who have served are most often members of the older generation, and that those who have not served are most often of the younger generation, we do not make firm conclusions about the impact of military service on life events, as we are dealing with intergenerational transformations of sociodemographic behaviour and with different susceptibilities of generations to censoring (young men have fewer events due to their young age). However, one can make the unambiguous conclusion that those who have experienced military service shape their life course somewhat differently than those who have not gone through the "school of life". To what this phenomenon is attributable (e.g. intergenerational transformations,
changes in attitudes to the army, selective recruitment or the effect of service itself, etc.), is an issue that requires further investigation with the assistance of advanced methods not only of analysis, but also of collecting information (cohort, longitudinal studies with a carefully outlined set of indicators).
REFERENCES
Abbott A. (1995). Sequence analysis: new methods for old ideas // Annual review of sociology. 21(1): 93-113.
Artamonova A., E. Mitrofanova (2016). Sozhitelstva v Rossii: promezhutochnoe zveno ili
legitimniy institut [Cohabitation in Russia: "trial" union or an independent social institution] // Monitoring obshestvennogo mneniya: economicheskie i socialnie peremeny [Monitoring of public opinion: economic and social changes]. 1: 126-145.
Billari F.C. (2001). Sequence analysis in demographic research // Canadian studies in population. 28(2): 439-458.
Billari F., R. Piccarreta (2005). Analyzing demographic life courses through Sequence analysis // Mathematical population studies. 12(2): 81-106.
Bochaver A. (2008). Issledovaniya zhiznennogo puti cheloveka v sovremennoy zarubezhnoy psihologii [Investigations of men's life course in contemporary foreign psychology] // Psihologicheskiy zhurnal [Psychological journal]. 5: 54-62.
Britton P., P. Ouimette, R. Bossarte (2012). The effect of depression on the association between military service and life satisfaction // Quality of life research. 21(10): 1857-1862.
ChSO [PFS] (2013). Obsledovaniye demokraticheskogo, sotsial'nogo i ekonomicheskogo
povedeniya naseleniya Rossiyskoy Federatsii "Chelovek, sem'ya, obshchestvo" (1-ya volna), provodimoye Institutom sotsial'nogo analiza i prognozirovaniya RANKhiGS [A survey of the demographic, social and economic behavior of the population of the Russian Federation "Person, family, society" (1st wave), conducted by the Institute for Social Analysis and Forecasting, RANEPA]. Moscow.
Danilova N. (2005). Srochniki, pidzhaki, professionaly: raznye muzhestvennosti uchastnikov postsovetskih voin [Different masculinities of post-Soviet wars participants] // Zhurnal sociologii i socialnoy antropologii [Journal of sociology and social anthropology]. 8(2):110-126.
Denisenko M., Zh.-P. Dalla Zuanna (2001). Seksualnoe povedenie rossiyskoy molodezhi [Sexual behavior of Russian youth] // Sociologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological studies]. 2: 8387.
Dolgova A., E. Mitrofanova (2015). Otdelenie ot roditel'skoy sem'i v Rossii:
mezhpokolencheskiy aspekt [Leaving the parental home in Russia: intergenerational aspects] // Economicheskaya sociologiya [Economic Sociology]. 16(5): 46-76.
Elder J.G.H. (1987). War mobilization and the life course: a cohort of World War II veterans // Sociological Forum 2: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 449-472.
Ezhov O. (2005). Paradigma zhiznennogo puti v zarubezhnoy sociologii [The paradigm of the life course in the foreign sociology] // Zhurnal sociologii i social'noy antropologii [Journal of sociology and social anthropology]. 8(3): 22-33.
Forbes (2011). October 25. URL: http://www.forbes.ru/news/76858-medvedev-cherez-5-7-let-dolya-prizyvnikov-v-armii-rf-sokratitsya-do-10-20 (data accessed: 24.02.2015).
Forrest A. (1989). Conscripts and deserters: the army and French society during the Revolution and Empire. New York: Oxford University Press. First edition. 304p.
Friedman M. (1967). Why not a volunteer army? // New individualist review. 4(4): 3-6.
Gradoselskiy V. (2005). Komplektovanie vooruzhennih sil SSSR v 1970—1980-e gody [Completion of Soviet Union armed forces in 1970-1980] // Voenno-istoricheskiy zhurnal [War-historical journal]. 9: 18-21.
Gurko T. (2001). Transformaciya brachno-semeinyh otnosheniy [The transformation of marital and family relationships] // Russia: transformiruyusheesya obshestvo [Russia: transforming society]/ V. Yadov, ed. Moscow: KANON-press: 272-283.
Jennings J.A., A.R. Sullivan, J.D. Hacker (2012). Intergenerational transmission of reproductive behavior during the demographic transition // Journal of Interdisciplinary History. 42(4): 543-569.
Kon I. (1999). Sociologicheskaya psihologiya [Sociological psycology] // Voronezh: MODEK: 254-270.
Konstituziya (Osnovnoy Zakon) SSSR [Constitution (the Basic Law) of the USSR (1940) // Konstituzii i konstituzionnye akty SSSR (1922-1936). Sbornik dokumentov [Constitutions and constitutional acts of the USSR (1922-1936). Collection of documents] / I.P. Traynin, ed. Moscow.
Lesthaeghe R. (1995). The second demographic transition in Western countries: an interpretation // Gender and family change in industrialized countries. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 17-62.
MacLean A., G.H. Elder (2007). Military service in the life course // Annual review of sociology. 33(1): 175-196.
Magun V. (2009). Normativnye vzglyady na semyu u rossiyan i francusov [Normative views on the family among Russian and French people] / S.Zaharov, T. Maleva, O. Sinyavskaya, eds. Roditeli i deti, muzhchiny i zhenshiny v sem'e i obshestve [Parents and children, men and women in family and society]. Moscow: NISP:139-162.
Maleva T. et al. (2014). Razrabotka metodologii i provedeniye pervoy pilotnoy volny
regulyarnogo obshenacional'nogo reprezentativnogo obsledovaniya naseleniya po izucheniyu demograficheskogo, social'nogo i ekonomicheskogo povedeniya, vkluchaya pensionnoe povedenie [Development of methodology and holding of the first pilot wave of regular national representative survey of population on the demographic, social and economic behavior, including retirement behavior]. Moscow: RANEPA.
Mihel' D. (2001). Muzhchiny, mal'chiki v pole boya [Men, boys on the battlefield] // Gendernye issledovaniya [Gender studies]. 6: 133-149.
Mitrofanova E. (2010). Semya i brak, matrimonial'noe, reproduktivnoe i seksual'noe povedenie v krestyanskoy, sovetskoy i sovremennoy Rossii [Family and marriage, matrimonial, reproductive and sexual behaviour in peasant, Soviet, and contemporary Russia] // Demoscope Weekly. 423 - 424. URL: http://demoscope.ru/weekly/2010/0423/student01.php (data accessed: 20.02.2015).
Popov D. (2009). Transformaciya semeinyh cennostey i vtoroy demograficheskiy perehod v rossii: kto v avangarde? [Transformation of family values and second demographic transition: who is in vanguard?] / S.Zaharov, T. Maleva, O. Sinyavskaya, eds. Roditeli i deti, muzhchiny i zhenshiny v sem'e i obshestve [Parents and children, men and women in family and society]. Moscow: NISP. 640 p.
Potarca G., M. Mills, L. Lesnard (2013). Family formation trajectories in Romania, the Russian Federation and France: towards the second demographic transition? // European journal of population. 29(1)1: 69-101.
RBK (2015). April 25. URL: http://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/553b923f9a79477833fc113b (data accessed: 24.02.2015).
Ritschard G., M. Oris (2005). Life course data in demography and social sciences: statistical and data-mining approaches // Advances in life course research. 10: 283-314.
RMEZ [RLMS] (2013). Rossiyskiy monitoring ekonomicheskogo polozheniya i zdorov'ya naseleniya NIU-VSHE (22-ya volna), provodimyy NIU "Vysshaya shkola ekonomiki" i ZAO "Demoskop" pri uchastii Tsentra narodonaseleniya Universiteta Severnoy Karoliny v Chapel Khille i Instituta sotsiologii RAN [Russian monitoring of the economic situation and public health HSE (22th wave) conducted by Higher School of Economics and CJSC "Demoscope" with the participation of the Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the population and the Institute of Sociology]. URL: http://www.hse.ru/rlms (date accessed: 20.02.2015).
Rozhdestvenskaya E. (2012). Biograficheskiy metod v sociologii [Biographical method in sociology]. Vysshaya Shkola Economiki [HSE Publishing House]. 381 p.
Sampson R.J., J.H. Laub (1996). Socioeconomic achievement in the life course of disadvantaged men: military service as a turning point, circa 1940-1965 // American sociological review. 61(3): 347-367.
Shearer D. (1998). Private armies and military intervention. London: Adelphi Paper. 316 p.
Smirnov A. (2009). Sluzhba v armii poteryannoe vremya [Military service as waste of time] // Sociologicheskie Issledovaniya [Sociological studies]. 12: 100-108.
Suhanova M. (2014). Otnoshenie yunoshey k sluzhbe v armii [Attitude of young men to military services] // Materialy IX mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii prepodavateley i studentov "Chelovek v XXI veke" [Proceedings of the IX International scientific-practical conference of teachers and students "Man in the XXI century man"]. Obninsk: 78-79.
Van de Kaa D.J. (1987). Europe's second demographic transition // Population bulletin. 42: 357.
Van Schellen M., R. Apel, P. Nieuwbeerta (2012). "Because you're mine, I walk the line"? Marriage, spousal criminality, and criminal offending over the life course // Journal of quantitative criminology. 28(4): 701-723.
Zaharov S. (2007). Demograficheskie obsledovaniya naseleniya: proshloe, nastoyashee, budushee [Demographic surveys: past, present, future] / S.Zaharov, T. Maleva, O. Sinyavskaya, eds. Roditeli i deti, muzhchiny i zhenshiny v sem'e i obshestve [Parents and children, men and women in family and society]. Moscow: NISP. 640 p.
APPENDIX
Table A-1. Grouping of events in statuses (with indication of the abbreviations for each status)
Demographic events
No children
Single
Single
Single
No children
Single
Single
Single
No events or one event
Separation > event Work > event Education > event 2 events simultaneously 2 events > separation 2 events > work
2 events > education
3 events simultaneously Censoring
SC00
SCOL SC0J SC0E SC0L+ SC0J+ SC0E+ SC02 SC0++L
P1C01 P1C0L+ P1C0J+ P1C0E+ P1C02 P1C0++L P1C0++J
M1C01 M1C0L+ M1C0J+ M1C0E+ M1C02 M1C0++L M1C0++J
SC0++E P1C0++E M1C0++E
P1C03
M1C03
SC11 SC1L+ SC1J+ SC1E+ SC12 SC1++L SC1++J
SC1++E SC13
P1C11 P1C1L+ P1C1J+ P1C1E+ P1C12 P1C1++L P1C1++J
M1C11 M1C1L+ M1C1J+ M1C1E+ M1C12 M1C1++L M1C1++J
P1C1++E M1C1++E P1C13 M1C13
Table A-2. Ranking of statuses from the longest to the shortest for all men (i.e. those who served and for those who did not serve in the army)
All Men who did not serve in the
Men who served in the army
№ army
Average Average Average
Status duration, months Status duration, months Status duration, months
1 SC00 38.54 SC00 38.07 SC00 39.10
2 SC0E+ 14.37 M1C1++L 16.88 SC0E 13.47
3 SC0E 13.43 SC0E+ 16.08 SC0E+ 12.37
4 M1C1++L 13.32 SC0E 13.40 M1C1++L 9.16
5 M1C1++J 8.05 M1C1++J 10.46 SC0J+ 7.57
6 SC0J+ 6.87 SC0++J 8.98 SC0++L 5.76
7 SC0++J 6.75 M1C1++E 7.25 M1C1++J 5.23
8 SC0++L 6.39 SC0++L 6.92 P1C01 4.44
9 M1C1++E 5.70 SC0L 6.74 SC0L 4.37
10 SC0L 5.65 SC0J+ 6.28 SC0++J 4.14
11 P1C0++L 4.31 M1C0++L 5.26 M1C1++E 3.89
12 P1C01 4.26 P1C0++L 4.71 P1C0++L 3.84
13 M1C0++L 4.09 P1C01 4.11 SC0J 3.83
14 SC0++E 3.58 SC0++E 4.01 SC0++E 3.08
15 SC0J 3.20 P1C0++J 3.58 M1C0++L 2.73
16 P1C0++J 3.00 P1C0E+ 3.39 P1C0E+ 2.40
17 P1C0E+ 2.93 SC0L+ 3.27 M1C0++J 2.38
18 M1C0++J 2.83 M1C0++J 3.21 P1C0++E 2.33
19 SC0L+ 2.58 M1C1E+ 3.07 P1C0++J 2.32
20 P1C1++L 2.44 P1C1++L 2.83 P1C1++L 1.98
21 P1C0++E 2.21 SC0J 2.67 P1C0J+ 1.92
22 M1C1E+ 2.18 M1C0++E 2.18 SC0L+ 1.78
23 M1C0++E 1.91 P1C0++E 2.10 M1C0++E 1.60
24 P1C0J+ 1.50 P1C1++J 1.92 SC1++L 1.27
25 SC1++L 1.30 SC1++J 1.63 SC02 1.18
26 SC1++J 1.29 M1C0E+ 1.59 M1C1E+ 1.15
27 P1C1++J 1.24 M1C1J+ 1.44 P1C0L+ 0.99
28 M1C1J+ 1.16 SC1++L 1.33 M1C13 0.90
All Men who did not serve in the
Men who served in the army
№ army
Average Average Average
Status duration, months Status duration, months Status duration, months
29 M1C0E+ 1.16 P1C0J+ 1.14 SC1++J 0.90
30 M1C13 0.90 SC03 0.98 P1C03 0.89
31 SC02 0.86 M1C1L+ 0.96 M1C1J+ 0.84
32 SC03 0.76 SC1E+ 0.90 P1C1++E 0.79
33 P1C1++E 0.75 M1C13 0.90 M1C0E+ 0.66
34 P1C0L+ 0.74 M1C01 0.80 SC1++E 0.61
35 SC1++E 0.71 SC1++E 0.80 M1C01 0.56
36 M1C01 0.69 P1C1++E 0.71 M1C03 0.50
37 M1C1L+ 0.66 SC02 0.58 SC03 0.49
38 P1C03 0.62 SC1J+ 0.57 M1C0L+ 0.48
39 SC1E+ 0.59 M1C11 0.56 P1C1++J 0.44
40 M1C0L+ 0.49 M1C0J+ 0.55 P1C1E+ 0.37
41 M1C0J+ 0.46 P1C0L+ 0.53 M1C0J+ 0.36
42 SC1J+ 0.43 SC11 0.51 M1C1L+ 0.32
43 M1C11 0.42 M1C0L+ 0.50 SC11 0.29
44 SC11 0.41 P1C03 0.39 SC1J+ 0.27
45 P1C1E+ 0.35 P1C1E+ 0.33 M1C11 0.25
46 M1C03 0.34 P1C11 0.25 SC1E+ 0.22
47 P1C11 0.21 M1C03 0.20 P1C1J+ 0.21
48 SC13 0.15 SC13 0.19 P1C11 0.16
49 P1C02 0.15 P1C1L+ 0.16 P1C02 0.15
50 P1C1J+ 0.14 P1C02 0.15 SC1L+ 0.14
51 SC1L+ 0.13 SC1L+ 0.12 SC13 0.10
52 P1C1L+ 0.09 P1C1J+ 0.07 M1C12 0.04
53 M1C02 0.05 M1C02 0.07 P1C13 0.04
54 M1C12 0.03 M1C12 0.02 M1C02 0.02
55 P1C13 0.02 SC12 0.00 P1C1L+ 0.01
56 SC12 0.00 P1C12 0.00 SC12 0.00
57 P1C12 0.00 P1C13 0.00 P1C12 0.00
Table A-3. Ranking of subsequences by frequency of occurrence among respondents who
served in the army
№ The sequence Proportion of men who served Persons
1 (SC00) 0,905 1005
2 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0E) 0.436 484
3 (SC00>SC0E) 0.436 484
4 (SC0E>SC0E+) 0.389 432
5 (SC00)-(SC0E>SC0E+) 0.356 395
6 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E>SC0E+) 0.350 389
7 (SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E>SC0E+) 0.350 389
8 (SC00>SC0L) 0.194 216
9 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0L) 0.194 215
10 (SC0L>SC0L+) 0.166 184
11 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0J) 0.163 181
12 (SC00>SC0J) 0.163 181
13 (M1C0++L>M1C1++L) 0.157 174
14 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0L)-(SC0L>SC0L+) 0.150 167
15 (SC00)-(SC0L>SC0L+) 0.150 167
16 (SC00>SC0L)-(SC0L>SC0L+) 0.150 167
17 (SC00)-(M1C0++L>M1C1++L) 0.143 159
18 (SC0J>SC0J+) 0.134 149
19 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0J)-(SC0J>SC0J+) 0.125 139
№ The sequence Proportion of men who served Persons
20 (SC00)-(SC0J>SC0J+) 0.125 139
21 (SC00>SC0J)-(SC0J>SC0J+) 0.125 139
22 (SC0E+>P1C0E+) 0.098 109
23 (SC00>P1C01) 0.096 107
24 (SC0E+>SC0++L) 0.095 105
25 (SC00)-(SC00>P1C01) 0.092 102
26 (SC0E>SC0E+)-(SC0E+>SC0++L) 0.092 102
27 (SC0E>SC0E+)-(M1C0++L>M1C1++L) 0.087 97
28 (SC0E>SC0E+)-(SC0E+>P1C0E+) 0.086 96
29 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0E)-(M1C0++L>M1C1++L) 0.086 95
30 (SC00)-(SC0E+>P1C0E+) 0.086 95
31 (SC00>SC0E)-(M1C0++L>M1C1++L) 0.086 95
32 (SC00)-(SC0E+>SC0++L) 0.085 94
33 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E+>SC0++L) 0.084 93
34 (SC00)-(SC0E>SC0E+)-(M1C0++L>M1C1++L) 0.084 93
35 (SC00)-(SC0E>SC0E+)-(SC0E+>SC0++L) 0.084 93
36 (SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E+>SC0++L) 0.084 93
37 (M1C0++J>M1C1++J) 0.083 92
38 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E>SC0E+)-(SC0E+>SC0++L) 0.083 92
39 (SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E>SC0E+)-(SC0E+>SC0++L) 0.083 92
40 (P1C0++L>M1C0++L) 0.080 89
41 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E>SC0E+)-(M1C0++L>M1C1++L) 0.080 89
42 (SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E>SC0E+)-(M1C0++L>M1C1++L) 0.080 89
43 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E+>P1C0E+) 0.077 86
44 (SC00)-(SC0E>SC0E+)-(SC0E+>P1C0E+) 0.077 86
45 (SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E+>P1C0E+) 0.077 86
46 (sC0L+>sC0++J) 0.076 84
47 (SC00)-(M1C0++J>M1C1++J) 0.075 83
48 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E>SC0E+)-(SC0E+>P1C0E+) 0.075 83
49 (SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E>SC0E+)-(SC0E+>P1C0E+) 0.075 83
50 (SC0++L>P1C0++L) 0.074 82
Note: Sequences containing demographic events are marked in bold.
A-4. Ranking of subsequences by frequency of occurrence among respondents who did not
serve in the army
№ The sequence Proportion of men who did not serve Persons
1 (SC00) 0.924 879
2 (SC00>SC0E) 0.441 419
3 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0E) 0.440 418
4 (SC0E>SC0E+) 0.306 291
5 (SC00)-(SC0E>SC0E+) 0.284 270
6 (SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E>SC0E+) 0.279 265
7 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E>SC0E+) 0.278 264
8 (sC00)-(sC00>sC0J) 0.205 195
9 (sC00>sC0J) 0.205 195
10 (sC0J>sC0J+) 0.182 173
11 (sC00)-(sC0J>sC0J+) 0.171 163
12 (sC00)-(sC00>sC0J)-(sC0J>sC0J+) 0.170 162
13 (sC00>sC0J)-(sC0J>sC0J+) 0.170 162
14 (sC00)-(sC00>sC0L) 0.135 128
15 (sC00>sC0L) 0.135 128
16 (SC00>P1C01) 0.129 123
17 (SC00)-(SC00>P1C01) 0.127 121
18 (sC0L>sC0L+) 0.111 106
19 (sC00)-(sC0L>sC0L+) 0.102 97
№ The sequence Proportion of men who did not serve Persons
20 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0L)-(SC0L>SC0L+) 0.101 96
21 (SC00>SC0L)-(SC0L>SC0L+) 0.101 96
22 (M1C0++L>M1C1++L) 0.094 89
23 (SC00)-(M1C0++L>M1C1++L) 0.084 80
24 (SC0E+>SC0++L) 0.069 66
25 (P1C0++L>M1C0++L) 0.068 65
26 (SC0E>SC0E+)-(SC0E+>SC0++L) 0.067 64
27 (SC0E+>P1C0E+) 0.066 63
28 (SC00)-(P1C0++L>M1C0++L) 0.064 61
29 (SC0E>SC0E+)-(SC0E+>P1C0E+) 0.063 60
30 (sC00)-(sC0E+>sC0++L) 0.062 59
31 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E+>SC0++L) 0.061 58
32 (SC00)-(SC0E+>P1C0E+) 0.061 58
33 (SC00)-(SC0E>SC0E+)-(SC0E+>SC0++L) 0.061 58
34 (SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E+>SC0++L) 0.061 58
35 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E>SC0E+)-(SC0E+>SC0++L) 0.060 57
36 (SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E>SC0E+)-(SC0E+>SC0++L) 0.060 57
37 (SC0++L>P1C0++L) 0.059 56
38 (SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E+>P1C0E+) 0.059 56
39 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E+>P1C0E+) 0.058 55
40 (SC00)-(SC0E>SC0E+)-(SC0E+>P1C0E+) 0.058 55
41 (SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E>SC0E+)-(SC0E+>P1C0E+) 0.056 53
42 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0E)-(SC0E>SC0E+)-(SC0E+>P1C0E+) 0.055 52
43 (SC00)-(SC0++L>P1C0++L) 0.053 50
44 (SC0L+>SC0++J) 0.050 48
45 (SC0L>SC0L+)-(SC0L+>SC0++J) 0.049 47
46 (P1C01>SC00) 0.048 46
47 (sC00)-(sC0L+>sC0++J) 0.047 45
48 (P1C0++L>M1C0++L)-(M1C0++L>M1C1++L) 0.046 44
49 (P1C01>P1C0L+) 0.046 44
50 (SC00)-(SC00>SC0L)-(SC0L+>SC0++J) 0.046 44
Note: Sequences containing demographic events are marked in bold.
