户籍限制型人口流动的社会、经济、政治影响及对策研究-LSE课件

HOUSEHOLDSANDLIVINGARRANGEMENTSPROJECTIONSATNATIONALANDSUB-NATIONALLEVEL

--AnExtendedCohort-componentApproach

Yi

ZengProfessor,DukeUniversityandPekingUniversityHOUSEHOLDSANDLIVINGARRANGEM1.THECOREIDEASOFTHEProFamy

EXTENDEDCOHORT-COMPONENTMETHODCoreidea1:Amulti-stateaccountingmodel.☻Unlikemostothermacrosimulationmodelswhichusethehouseholdasthebasicunitandrequirethenon-conventionaldataontransitionprobabilitiesamonghousehold-typestatuses,☻WeuseindividualasthebasicunitofanalysisandthusonlyconventionallyavailabledemographicdataarerequiredinProFamymodelandweforecasthouseholdsandpopulationage/sexdistributionssimultaneously.

1.THECOREIDEASOFTHEProFaDemographicstatusesdistinguishedinourProFamymodel

StatusSymDefinitionandcodes

U.S.applicationAgeX0,1,2,3,…,W;Wischosenbyuserx=0,1,2,3,…,100SexS1.Female;2.Males=1,2Race(optional)RTobedeterminedbyuserr=1,2,3,4Marital/unionstatusM4or7maritalstatusmodelchosenbyuserm=1,2,3,4,5,6,7Co-residencewithparent(s)K1.Withtwoparents;2.withoneparentonly;3.Notwithparents.k=1,2,3ParityPp=0,1,2,…,H;Hischosenbyuserp=0,12,3,4,5+#co-residingchildrenCc=0,1,2,…,H(cp)c=0,1,2,3,4,5+Residence(optional)U1.Rural;2.UrbanNotconsideredProjectionyeartSingleyearfromt1tot2,chosenbyusert1=2000;t2=2050

DemographicstatusesdistinguiFigure1.Sevenmaritalstatusesmodel

Figure1.SevenmaritalstatuCoreidea2:

aninnovativecomputationalstrategyintheperiodicdemographicaccountingprocess

☻

Withneededindividualstatusesidentified,wewouldhavehugecross-statustransitionmatricesifadoptingconventionalcomputationstrategy;e.g.,if7marital/unionstatuses,3statusesofco-residencewithparents,6parityand6co-residencestatuseswithchildrenaredistinguishedaswhatwasdoneinU.S.applications,onehastoestimateacross-statustransitionprobabilitiesmatrixwith194,481elementsateachageofeachsexforeachrace–wouldrequirehugedatasets;NOTpractical.Thus,weadoptedaninnovativecomputationalstrategy,whichwasoriginallyproposedbyBongaarts(1987)andfurtherjustifiedmathematicallyandnumericallybyZeng(1991)Coreidea2:aninnovativecomFigure2.Computationalstrategytocalculatechangesinmarital/union,co-residencewithparents/children,migrationandsurvivalstatusesChangesinmarital/union,co-residencewithparents/children,migrationandsurvivalstatusesoccurinthemiddleofageinterval(x,x+1)xX+1Changesinparityandmaternalstatusesoccurinthe1sthalfofthesingleageinterval

Changesinparityandmaternalstatusesoccurinthe2ndhalfofthesingleageintervalFigure2.ComputationalstratCoreidea3:Ajudicioususeofstochastic

independenceassumptionstofacedatareality

AlsooriginallysuggestedbyBongaarts(1987)andadaptedandgeneralizedbyZeng(1987,1991)andothers.☻

Statisticalbasis:thereal-worldmostlyallowsassumptionsofstochasticallyindependent;limiteddatasourcesforceapplicationofanindependenceassumption.☻

InProFamyextendedcohort-componentmodel,

marital/unionstatustransitionsdependonage,sex,andrace,butindependentofotherstatuses;fertilitydependsonage,race,parityandmaritalstatus,butindependentofotherstatuses;mortalitydependsonage,sex,raceandmaritalstatus,butindependentofotherstatuses;

Coreidea3:AjudicioususeCoreidea4:

Useoftheharmonicmeantoensures

consistencybetweenthetwosexesandbetween

parentsandchildrenintheprojectionmodel.Weensuretheconsistencybetweenthetwosexesandbetweenparentsandchildrenfollowingtheharmonicmeanapproach,whichsatisfiesmostofthetheoreticalrequirementsandpracticalconsiderations(Pollard,1977;Schoen,1981;Keilman,1985;VanImholfandKeilman,1992;Zengetal.1997;1998).

Coreidea4:Useoftheharmo☻Thestandardschedulesformulatetheagepatternofdemographicprocesses.Onemaytakeintoaccountanticipatedchangesintheagepatterns,suchasdelayingoradvancingmarriageandfertility,changesinshapeofthecurvetowardsmorespreadormoreconcentrated,throughadjustingtheparameters(meanormedian,andinterquartilerange)(Zengetal.,2000).Coreidea5.Usingnationalmodelstandardschedulesandsummaryparametersatsub-nationalleveltospecifyprojecteddemographicratesofthesub-nationalregioninfutureyears.

☻Thesummaryparameters,e.g,TFR,Generalratesofmarriageanddivorce,etc.,canbeusedto“tune”thehouseholdandpopulationprojectionsupordownfordemographicscenarios.☻However,Dataforestimatingrace-sex-age-specificstandardschedulesofthedemographicratesforhouseholdprojectionmaynotbeavailableatthesub-nationallevel.--Thecoreideas2,3,4arenotdetailedhereduetotimeconstrains☻Thestandardschedulesformul☻Theage-race-sex-specificstandardschedulesatthenationallevelcanbeemployedasmodelstandardschedulesforprojectionsatthesub-nationallevel.☻Thisissimilartothewidelypracticedapplicationofmodellifetables(e.g.,Coale,Demeny,andVaughn,1983;U.N.,1982),theBrasslogitrelationallifetablemodel(e.g.Murray,2003),theBrassRelationalGompertzFertilityModel(Brass,1974),andotherparameterizedmodels(e.g.CoaleandTrussell,1974;Rogers,1986)inpopulationprojectionsandestimations.☻Numerousstudieshavedemonstratedthatparameterizedmodelsconsistingofamodelstandardscheduleandafewsummaryparametersofferanefficientandrealisticwaytoprojectorestimatedemographicage-sex-specificrates.☻Thedemographicsummaryparametersaremostcrucialfordeterminingchangesinlevelandagepatternoftheage-specificrates,aslongasthemodelstandardschedulesrevealthegeneralagepatterns.

(Brass,1978;Booth,1984;PagetandTimaeus,1994;Zengetal.,1994)☻Theage-race-sex-specificsta2.AComparisonbetweentheProFamyExtendedCohortComponentModelandStill-Widely-UsedHeadshipRateMethod(1)LinkagewithdemographicratesHeadshipRate:

cannotlinktodemographicevents,

extremelyhardtoincorporatedemographicassumptionsoffertility,mortality,marriage/unionformationanddissolutionetc.(MasonandRacelis1992;Spiceretal.,1992)TheProFamymodel:

Usedemographicratesfromconventionalsourcesasinput;closelylinkprojectedhouseholdswithdemographicratesandsummarymeasuresonmarriage/unionformationanddissolution,fertilityandmortalityetc.

2.AComparisonbetweenthePrTheProFamymodelhousehold,elderlylivingarrangementandpopulationprojection:usingdemographicratesasinputHeadship-ratehouseholdprojection:cross-sectionalextrapolationoftheage-specificheadship-rate,withoutlinkagetodemographicrateTheProFamymodelhousehold,e(2)Informationproducedandtheir

adequacyforplanning

HeadshipRate:

littleinformationonhouseholdtypesandno

householdsizesprojection,inadequateforplanningpurposes(Bell&Cooper,1990),especiallymosthouseholdsconsumptions(e.g.homevehicles,housing,energyuse…)largelydependsonhouseholdsize.

Householdstypesprojectedbyheadshipratesmethods(BureauoftheCensus,1996)

CodeHouseholdtypeHouseholdsize1MarriedcouplehouseholdNotavailable2Female-headedhousehold,nospouseNotavailable3Male-headedhousehold,,nospouseNotavailable4Femalenon-familyhouseholdNotavailable5Malenon-familyhouseholdNotavailable(2)InformationproducedandtTheProFamymodelneedsconventionallyavailabledataandprojectsmuchmoredetailedinformationonhouseholdsandlivingarrangementsTypecode

Householdtypes

Householdsizes

Onegenerationhouseholds1-6

Onepersononlybysexandmaritalstatus

1

7-12

Oneperson&other/non-relativebysexandmaritalstatusoftheperson

2,3,4,5,or6+

13-14

Onemarriedcoupleonly;Onecohabitingcoupleonly

215-16

Onemarriedcouple&other/non-relative;Onecohabitingcouple&other/non-relative3,4,5,6,or7+

Two-generationhouseholds

17-18Marriedcouple&children;Cohabitingcouple&children3,4,5,6,7,8,or9+

19-24Single-parent&childrenbysexandmaritalstatusofthesingleparent

2,3,4,5,6,7,8,or9+

Three-generationhouseholds25-28

Married(orcohabiting)couplewithchildrenand1or2grandparents

4,5,6,7,8,or9+

29-40

Sex-maritalstatus-specificsingle-parent&children&1or2grandparents

3,4,5,6,7,8,or9+

TheProFamymodelneedsconven3.Dataneededforhouseholdforecastingat

nationalandsub-nationallevels(1)Basepopulation

ContentsofthedataMaindataresources(USapplications)Acensusmicrodatafileforthestate,withafewneededvariablesofsex,age,race(optional),marital/unionstatus,relationshiptothehouseholder,andwhetherlivinginaprivateorinstitutionalhousehold.Ifasampledatasetisused,100%tabulationsofage-sexdistributionsoftheentirepopulationandthoselivingingroupquarters,derivedfromthecensusdatamustbeprovided.Census5%microdataormorerecentandcumulativeAmericanCommunitySurvey(ACS)datafilesandthepublishedonline100%censusorACScross-tabulations.3.DataneededforhouseholdContentsofthedataMaindataresources(a)Age-race-sex-specificdeathrates(marital-statusspecific,ifpossible).CensusBureau’sestimates,SchoenandStandish(2001)(b)Age-race-sex-specifico/eratesofmarriage/unionformationanddissolutionPooledNSFH,NSFG,CPS,SIPPdatasets,seeZengandLandetal.(2006).(c)Age-race-parity-specifico/eratesofmaritalandnon-maritalfertility(d)Age-race-sex-specificnetratesofleavingtheparentalhome,estimatedbasedontwoadjacentcensusmicrodatafilesandtheintra-cohortiterativemethod(Coale1984;1985;Stupp1988;Zeng,Coaleetal.,1994).The1990,and2000censusesmicrodatafiles(e)Age-sex-specificratesofinternationalemigrationandimmigration.Census5%microdataorACSdatafiles(2)-IModelstandardschedulesatnationallevel(canbeusedforhouseholdsprojectionsatsub-nationallevel)

ContentsofthedataMaindata

(2)-IIModelstandardschedulesatsub-nationallevel

(f)Race-sex-age-specificratesofdomesticin-migrationandout-migrationforeachstateCensus5%microdata,ACSdatafiles(3)Demographicsummarymeasuresforthenationandsub-nationalregions

(a)Race-specificgeneralratesofmarriageandgeneralratesofdivorceBasedon,censusmicrodata,vitalstatisticsandpooledsurveydatasets(b)Race-specificgeneralratesofcohabitingandgeneralratesofuniondissolution(c)Race-specificTotalFertilityRates(TFR)byparityBasedonestimatesreleasedbytheCensusBureauandtheNationalCenterforHealthStatistics(d)Race-sex-specificLifeexpectanciesatbirth(e)Race-sex-specifictotalnumbersofmaleandfemalemigrants(f)Race-sex-specificmeanageatfirstmarriageandbirths(2)-IIModelstanda4.Validationoftheextendedcohort-componentmethodforhouseholdforecastingatsub-nationallevelZengandLandetal.(2006)andZengetal.(2008)didvalidationtestsofhouseholdsprojectionsforUSandChinaatnationallevelfrom1990to2000,andthencomparedtothe2000censusobservations.WedoTWOsetsofvalidationtestsofhouseholdforecastsfrom1990to2000foreachofthe50statesandDCfoUSA,allusingthenationalmodelstandardschedules.Usingthe1990censusdataasbasepopulationandthesummarymeasuresestimatedbasedondatabefore1991,andcomparetheprojectedandthecensus-observedin2000.(2)Usingthe1990censusdataasbasepopulationandsummarymeasuresestimatedbasedondatain1990s,andcomparestheprojectedandthecensus-observedin2000.

4.ValidationoftheextendedFigure3a.Distributionsoftheabsolutepercenterrors(APE)offorecastsfrom1990to2000,6mainindicesofhouseholdsforeachofthe50statesandDC,intotal306pairsofcomparisonsbetweenProFamyforecastedandcensusobservationsin2000(A)basedondatabefore1991 (B)includingdatain1990sFigure3a.DistributionsofthFigure3b.Distributionsoftheabsolutepercenterrors(APE)offorecastsfrom1990to2000,6mainindicesofpopulationforeachofthe50statesandDC,intotal306pairsofcomparisonsbetweenProFamyforecastedandcensusobservationsin2000(C)basedondatabefore1991 (D)includingdatain1990sFigure3b.DistributionsofthTable2a.TheMeanAbsolutePercentError,MeanAlgebraicPercentErrorandMedianAbsolutePercentErrorofthemainindicesofhouseholdprojectionbetweentheProFamyprojectionsfrom1990to2000andtheCensusobservationsin2000foreachofthe50statesandDCTable2a.TheMeanAbsolutePeTable2b.TheMeanAbsolutePercentError,MeanAlgebraicPercentErrorandMedianAbsolutePercentErrorofthemainindicesofpopulationprojectionbetweentheProFamyprojectionsfrom1990to2000andtheCensusobservationsin2000foreachofthe50statesandDCTable2b.TheMeanAbsolutePeThediscrepanciesarewithinaveryreasonablerange,andtheProFamyextendedcohortcomponentapproachisvalidatedatsub-nationallevel.However,theProFamyapproachneedssubstantiallymoredatathandoestheclassicheadship-ratemethod.IsitstillworthwhiletoemploythenewProFamyapproachratherthantheclassicheadship-ratemethod,iftheusersonlysimplyneedstheprojectionsofthehome-basedconsumptiondemands,suchasnumbersofhousingunitsbynumberofbedrooms,butdonotcareaboutthedetailsofthehouseholdcharacteristicsandthestatusesofthereferencepersons,suchasmarital/unionstatus,co-residencestatuswithparentsandchildren,etc.?

Toanswerthisquestion,weprojectfrom1990to2000housingdemandsby#ofbedroomsforeachof50statesandDC,employingheadship-ratemodelandProFamyapproachusingdatabefore1990.Bycomparingtheprojectedandthecensus-observed#ofhousingunitsby#ofbedroomsin2000,weestimated/comparedtheforecastserrors,bytheheadship-ratemethodandtheProFamyapproach.

ThediscrepanciesarewithinaTable3.ForecasterrorsofMeanAlgebraicPercentError(MALPE),MeanAbsolutePercentError(MAPE)andMedianAbsolutePercentError(MEDAPE)ofhousingdemandsprojectionsfrom1990to2000(comparedtothe2000censusobservations),ComparisonsbetweentheProFamycohort-componentapproachandtheconstantheadship-ratesTable3.ForecasterrorsofMeTheconstantheadship-ratedidmuchworsethanProFamyinhousingdemandforecasting,butonemayarguethatwecouldhaveheadshiprateschanging…So,wedidanothertestbelow:

Table4.ForecasterrorsofMeanAlgebraicPercentError(MALPE),MeanAbsolutePercentError(MAPE)andMedianAbsolutePercentError(MEDAPE)ofhousingdemandsprojectionsfrom1990to2000(comparedtothe2000censusobservations),ComparisonsbetweentheProFamycohort-componentapproachandtheadjustedchangingheadship-rates,bothapproachesresultedinthesameprojectedtotalnumberofhouseholdsasobservedinthe2000census.Theheadship-ratestilldidsubstantiallyworse.

Theconstantheadship-ratedid--Thechangingheadship-ratemodelstilldidsubstantiallyworse.

Why?Thecensusesdatashown,ascomparedto1990,the1,2,3,45,and6+personshouseholdsin2000increasedby20.6,16.9,9.2,9.3and15.1percent,respectively.Americanhouseholdswith12persons(whichmorelikelyneed0-1bedroom)and6+persons(whichmorelikelyneed4-bedrooms)increasesubstantiallyfasterthanthe3-and45personhouseholds(whichmorelikelyneed23bedrooms).

Thus,theheadship-ratemethod,whichcannotforecasthouseholdsbysize,resultedinsubstantiallymoreseriousforecasterrorsinprojectingthedemandsofhousingunitsbynumberofbedrooms,ascomparedtotheProFamyapproachwhoseforecastsdoincludedetailedhouseholdssizeinformation.

--Thechangingheadship-rate5.Asummaryoffindingsofhouseholdsprojectionsfrom1990to2000forthe50statesandDC

(1)theaveragehouseholdsizewoulddecreaseconsiderablyinalmostallstatesupto2020orso,especiallyinthestateswithhigherdegreeofpopulationaging,andremainrelativelystableafterwards;(2)%ofone-personhouseholdswouldincreasesubstantiallyinallstates.(3)Husband-wifehouseholdswoulddecreasemoderatelyandcohabiting-couplehouseholdswouldincreasesubstantially,upto2020orso,andremainrelativelystableafterwards;(4)Directionsofchangesinpercentofsingle-parenthouseholdsamongthetwo-generationhouseholdsarediversified,increasemoderatelyinsomestatesbutdecreasemoderatelyorremainunchangedintheotherstates.(5)Percentofhouseholdswithatleastoneelderaged65+ofthetotalnumberofhouseholds,percentofelderlyaged65+livingaloneandpercentofoldest-oldaged80+livingalonewillincreasesubstantiallyandpervasivelyinallstates.5.Asummaryoffindingsofho6.Conclusionremarks:

ProFamyextendedcohort-componentmodeldoessubstantiallybetterthanthestill-widely-usedclassicheadshipratesmethodinhouseholdsprojections.Inadditiontotheacademicresearch,theProFamymethod/softwarecanbeusedforhome-basedconsumptionandservicesneeds/costsprojections.Forexample,ProFamymethod/softwarewasemployedfortheU.S.householdsenergyconsumptionprojectionsinDaltonetal.(2008),fortheU.S.housingprojectionsatnationalandsub-nationallevelsinSmithetal.(2008;2012),forAustrianandtheU.S.home-basedvehiclesconsumptionprojectionsinPrskawetzetal.(2004)andFengetal.(2011).6.Conclusionremarks:

ThankYou！

HOUSEHOLDSANDLIVINGARRANGEMENTSPROJECTIONSATNATIONALANDSUB-NATIONALLEVEL

--AnExtendedCohort-componentApproach

Yi

ZengProfessor,DukeUniversityandPekingUniversityHOUSEHOLDSANDLIVINGARRANGEM1.THECOREIDEASOFTHEProFamy

EXTENDEDCOHORT-COMPONENTMETHODCoreidea1:Amulti-stateaccountingmodel.☻Unlikemostothermacrosimulationmodelswhichusethehouseholdasthebasicunitandrequirethenon-conventionaldataontransitionprobabilitiesamonghousehold-typestatuses,☻WeuseindividualasthebasicunitofanalysisandthusonlyconventionallyavailabledemographicdataarerequiredinProFamymodelandweforecasthouseholdsandpopulationage/sexdistributionssimultaneously.

1.THECOREIDEASOFTHEProFaDemographicstatusesdistinguishedinourProFamymodel

StatusSymDefinitionandcodes

U.S.applicationAgeX0,1,2,3,…,W;Wischosenbyuserx=0,1,2,3,…,100SexS1.Female;2.Males=1,2Race(optional)RTobedeterminedbyuserr=1,2,3,4Marital/unionstatusM4or7maritalstatusmodelchosenbyuserm=1,2,3,4,5,6,7Co-residencewithparent(s)K1.Withtwoparents;2.withoneparentonly;3.Notwithparents.k=1,2,3ParityPp=0,1,2,…,H;Hischosenbyuserp=0,12,3,4,5+#co-residingchildrenCc=0,1,2,…,H(cp)c=0,1,2,3,4,5+Residence(optional)U1.Rural;2.UrbanNotconsideredProjectionyeartSingleyearfromt1tot2,chosenbyusert1=2000;t2=2050

DemographicstatusesdistinguiFigure1.Sevenmaritalstatusesmodel

Figure1.SevenmaritalstatuCoreidea2:

aninnovativecomputationalstrategyintheperiodicdemographicaccountingprocess

☻

Withneededindividualstatusesidentified,wewouldhavehugecross-statustransitionmatricesifadoptingconventionalcomputationstrategy;e.g.,if7marital/unionstatuses,3statusesofco-residencewithparents,6parityand6co-residencestatuseswithchildrenaredistinguishedaswhatwasdoneinU.S.applications,onehastoestimateacross-statustransitionprobabilitiesmatrixwith194,481elementsateachageofeachsexforeachrace–wouldrequirehugedatasets;NOTpractical.Thus,weadoptedaninnovativecomputationalstrategy,whichwasoriginallyproposedbyBongaarts(1987)andfurtherjustifiedmathematicallyandnumericallybyZeng(1991)Coreidea2:aninnovativecomFigure2.Computationalstrategytocalculatechangesinmarital/union,co-residencewithparents/children,migrationandsurvivalstatusesChangesinmarital/union,co-residencewithparents/children,migrationandsurvivalstatusesoccurinthemiddleofageinterval(x,x+1)xX+1Changesinparityandmaternalstatusesoccurinthe1sthalfofthesingleageinterval

Changesinparityandmaternalstatusesoccurinthe2ndhalfofthesingleageintervalFigure2.ComputationalstratCoreidea3:Ajudicioususeofstochastic

independenceassumptionstofacedatareality

AlsooriginallysuggestedbyBongaarts(1987)andadaptedandgeneralizedbyZeng(1987,1991)andothers.☻

Statisticalbasis:thereal-worldmostlyallowsassumptionsofstochasticallyindependent;limiteddatasourcesforceapplicationofanindependenceassumption.☻

InProFamyextendedcohort-componentmodel,

marital/unionstatustransitionsdependonage,sex,andrace,butindependentofotherstatuses;fertilitydependsonage,race,parityandmaritalstatus,butindependentofotherstatuses;mortalitydependsonage,sex,raceandmaritalstatus,butindependentofotherstatuses;

Coreidea3:AjudicioususeCoreidea4:

Useoftheharmonicmeantoensures

consistencybetweenthetwosexesandbetween

parentsandchildrenintheprojectionmodel.Weensuretheconsistencybetweenthetwosexesandbetweenparentsandchildrenfollowingtheharmonicmeanapproach,whichsatisfiesmostofthetheoreticalrequirementsandpracticalconsiderations(Pollard,1977;Schoen,1981;Keilman,1985;VanImholfandKeilman,1992;Zengetal.1997;1998).

Coreidea4:Useoftheharmo☻Thestandardschedulesformulatetheagepatternofdemographicprocesses.Onemaytakeintoaccountanticipatedchangesintheagepatterns,suchasdelayingoradvancingmarriageandfertility,changesinshapeofthecurvetowardsmorespreadormoreconcentrated,throughadjustingtheparameters(meanormedian,andinterquartilerange)(Zengetal.,2000).Coreidea5.Usingnationalmodelstandardschedulesandsummaryparametersatsub-nationalleveltospecifyprojecteddemographicratesofthesub-nationalregioninfutureyears.

☻Thesummaryparameters,e.g,TFR,Generalratesofmarriageanddivorce,etc.,canbeusedto“tune”thehouseholdandpopulationprojectionsupordownfordemographicscenarios.☻However,Dataforestimatingrace-sex-age-specificstandardschedulesofthedemographicratesforhouseholdprojectionmaynotbeavailableatthesub-nationallevel.--Thecoreideas2,3,4arenotdetailedhereduetotimeconstrains☻Thestandardschedulesformul☻Theage-race-sex-specificstandardschedulesatthenationallevelcanbeemployedasmodelstandardschedulesforprojectionsatthesub-nationallevel.☻Thisissimilartothewidelypracticedapplicationofmodellifetables(e.g.,Coale,Demeny,andVaughn,1983;U.N.,1982),theBrasslogitrelationallifetablemodel(e.g.Murray,2003),theBrassRelationalGompertzFertilityModel(Brass,1974),andotherparameterizedmodels(e.g.CoaleandTrussell,1974;Rogers,1986)inpopulationprojectionsandestimations.☻Numerousstudieshavedemonstratedthatparameterizedmodelsconsistingofamodelstandardscheduleandafewsummaryparametersofferanefficientandrealisticwaytoprojectorestimatedemographicage-sex-specificrates.☻Thedemographicsummaryparametersaremostcrucialfordeterminingchangesinlevelandagepatternoftheage-specificrates,aslongasthemodelstandardschedulesrevealthegeneralagepatterns.

(Brass,1978;Booth,1984;PagetandTimaeus,1994;Zengetal.,1994)☻Theage-race-sex-specificsta2.AComparisonbetweentheProFamyExtendedCohortComponentModelandStill-Widely-UsedHeadshipRateMethod(1)LinkagewithdemographicratesHeadshipRate:

cannotlinktodemographicevents,

extremelyhardtoincorporatedemographicassumptionsoffertility,mortality,marriage/unionformationanddissolutionetc.(MasonandRacelis1992;Spiceretal.,1992)TheProFamymodel:

Usedemographicratesfromconventionalsourcesasinput;closelylinkprojectedhouseholdswithdemographicratesandsummarymeasuresonmarriage/unionformationanddissolution,fertilityandmortalityetc.

2.AComparisonbetweenthePrTheProFamymodelhousehold,elderlylivingarrangementandpopulationprojection:usingdemographicratesasinputHeadship-ratehouseholdprojection:cross-sectionalextrapolationoftheage-specificheadship-rate,withoutlinkagetodemographicrateTheProFamymodelhousehold,e(2)Informationproducedandtheir

adequacyforplanning

HeadshipRate:

littleinformationonhouseholdtypesandno

householdsizesprojection,inadequateforplanningpurposes(Bell&Cooper,1990),especiallymosthouseholdsconsumptions(e.g.homevehicles,housing,energyuse…)largelydependsonhouseholdsize.

Householdstypesprojectedbyheadshipratesmethods(BureauoftheCensus,1996)

CodeHouseholdtypeHouseholdsize1MarriedcouplehouseholdNotavailable2Female-headedhousehold,nospouseNotavailable3Male-headedhousehold,,nospouseNotavailable4Femalenon-familyhouseholdNotavailable5Malenon-familyhouseholdNotavailable(2)InformationproducedandtTheProFamymodelneedsconventionallyavailabledataandprojectsmuchmoredetailedinformationonhouseholdsandlivingarrangementsTypecode

Householdtypes

Householdsizes

Onegenerationhouseholds1-6

Onepersononlybysexandmaritalstatus

1

7-12

Oneperson&other/non-relativebysexandmaritalstatusoftheperson

2,3,4,5,or6+

13-14

Onemarriedcoupleonly;Onecohabitingcoupleonly

215-16

Onemarriedcouple&other/non-relative;Onecohabitingcouple&other/non-relative3,4,5,6,or7+

Two-generationhouseholds

17-18Marriedcouple&children;Cohabitingcouple&children3,4,5,6,7,8,or9+

19-24Single-parent&childrenbysexandmaritalstatusofth