Young: Orientations of Young Adults in Slovenia Toward The Family Formation

ARTICLE
Young
Nordic Journal of Youth Research
Copyright 2008
SAGE Publications
(Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi and Singapore)
www.sagepublications.com
Vol 16(2): 15383
10.1177/110330880801600203
Orientations of young adults in Slovenia

toward the family formation
MIRJANA ULE
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
METKA KUHAR
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
Abstract
The article explores the circumstances influencing family formation in Slovenia.
Public opinion surveys in Slovenia have shown that young people have high aspirations regarding family life. These findings, however, stand in sharp contrast
to demographic indicators, that is, delayed parenthood and a low birth rate. The
qualitative analysis comprised both the personal factors, such as family lifestyles
identified by young people as being desirable and the role of the family in their
plans for the future, as well as structural factors affecting the starting of a family
(housing, employment, etc.) and the problems and obstacles accompanying this
process. One crucial finding is that personal factors rather than structural constraints are a key barrier to family formation.
Keywords
childbearing, family formation, gender, life course, Slovenia, young adults
154
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
ata from public opinion research among Slovenian youth clearly indicate
that family is highly ranked by young people (Ule and Kuhar, 2003). For
instance, young people express desires both for starting a family and for having
children. However, and in a surprising contrast to these desires, the young do
not display any attitude that can be understood as unfavourable to the current
low level of birth rate in Slovenia. Since these findings stand in sharp contrast to
demographic indicators in Slovenia, we employed subtler, qualitative research
methods, that is, focus groups and interviews, in order to find a better explanation
for the discrepancy between highly-ranked desire for family and children and the
low level of birth rate. This article thus explores the circumstances surrounding family formation, placing emphasis on the status passage to parenthood in
Slovenia.
Slovenia has one of the lowest fertility rates1 in Europe (1.26 in 2005). A low
fertility rate is not specific to Slovenia alone, but is nowadays common to several
European countries.2 In particular, it is typical of Mediterranean countries (cf.
the Mediterranean model: Cavalli and Galland, 1995; Cordon, 20063) and postsocialist countries. The group of countries with very low fertility rates, far below
the replacement level, includes all southern European countries, the majority of
the recently acceded EU states, as well as Austria and Germany.
This trend can be considered the result of two intertwined social and cultural
processes: one involves the growing importance of individual identity and its
close connection with intimacy and life politics (Giddens, 2000), and the other
the changing meaning of youth, adulthood, and the transition to adulthood. Many
authors refer to these trends as a second demographic transition.4 In the 1960s, it
set in motion similar trends towards de-standardization of life-courses, traditional
family forms and values in all developed industrial nations (Lesthaeghe, 2001).
The life experiences of people living in western Europe, and even more so
of those living in eastern Europe, have changed radically since the beginning of
the 1990s. These changes are related to the overall process of modernization of
European countries underpinned by intense globalization and individualization
processes, restructuring of the labour markets accompanied by an increasing demand for a specialized, flexible, educated workforce, and measures arising from
social policies which nearly everywhere in Europe prolong the period of young
peoples dependence on their families of origin.
Young people in post-socialist countries in particular are confronted with risks
that were unknown to the generation of their parents. The majority of changes
in the process of transition from a planned society to one based on the market
economy occurred within a relatively short period of time, so the mainstays that
once ensured more or less reliable and predictable transitions to adulthood have
become uncertain and obscure. The increasingly widespread neo-liberal stress on
the role of the market, the growing importance of personal initiative, self-reliance,
and a feeling of responsibility for ones own life have taken root and opened up
new options which, however, come with certain risks. The individualization of
risks in both eastern and western Europe means that situations that once triggered collective or political action are now interpreted as unfortunate individual
Ule and Kuhar Young adults in Slovenia
life stories that can be resolved only by the person affected, and only through
individual action (Ule, 2004). Accordingly, it is primarily young people who
are critically dependent, both materially and emotionally (and much more so
than in the previous system), on family support, especially in their transition to
adulthood.
Ever since the early 1990s, youth research in Slovenia has been revealing truly
radical changes in the life trajectories of individuals and in transitions between
individual life stages: youth has been extended, and the patterns of transition to
adulthood have become more plural and no longer predictable (Ule, 1996, 1998;
Ule et al., 2000; Ule and Kuhar, 2002a; Ule and Miheljak 1995). Increasing numbers
of young Slovenes, especially young people with higher education and those
living in cities, pursue the kinds of life patterns that can be described as choice
biographies (Du Bois Reymond, 1998). The life pathways of the mid-1980s generation of young people in Slovenia were more linear, less diverse, less complex
and less dynamic (Ule, 1988). These changes are similar to those in other European countries (cf. Beck-Gernsheim, 2002; Merino and Garcia, 2007; Pais, 2000).
As a result of the changing meaning of youth, adulthood and the transition
to adulthood, starting a family is becoming a less and less self-evident stage in
young peoples life trajectories. This most significant rite of passage in the human
life course is increasingly associated with the notion of crossing the Rubicon.
Parenthood is no longer perceived as either an obligation or destiny it has
become a carefully deliberated decision. Family and children may represent a
paramount value, but the fertility rate nevertheless remains very low. Young
people (and young adults) consider family and children to be a sign of the good
life and of authenticity but choose to delay marriage and parenthood. The
reasons underlying this trend are complex, multiple and interconnected. The
increasingly important concept of self-identity has become strictly connected
with intimacy and life politics (Giddens, 2000). In fact, a child (but not children) is considered to be an expression of the fulfilment of ones identity
while being, of course, also the natural expression of life as a couple (BeckGernsheim, 2002).
THE SLOVENIAN CONTEXT FOR TRANSITION TO PARENTHOOD

Demographic trends
When speaking of demographic trends, many authors incorrectly put Slovenia
alongside other post-socialist countries that experienced significant demographic
changes only in the early 1990s (Wallace, 2006). In fact, in the majority of East
European countries, a conspicuous drop in marriage and birth rates and the postponement of marriage and births, coupled with a rise in cohabitation and outof-wedlock births, occurred only following the change in the economic and
political system (Philipov, 2001). Since demographic changes in Slovenia have
been occurring steadily ever since the 1980s, it is an exception among postsocialist countries in eastern Europe in terms of reproductive patterns.5 The
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
155
156
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
fertility rate has been falling consistently since the 1980s. In 1955, it was 2.52
children per woman; at the beginning of the 1980s, it fell below the magic level
of 2.0 children per woman; by the mid 1980s it was 1.7, and by 2005 it had
fallen even further to 1.26 children (Statistical Yearbook, Statistical Office of the
Republic of Slovenia, 2006) (Table 1).
It should be noted that in Slovenia there was no childlessness among a certain
part of the female population past their reproductive years in generations born
after the Second World War, as was the case in other developed European countries (approximately 20 per cent), which seems to be a stable plateau in the
West following the contraceptive revolution of the early 1960s (Hakim, 2003).6
According to the Family and Fertility Surveys 1995, voluntary childlessness in the
generations born between 1956 and 1975 was below 10 per cent among both
men and women in many European countries,7 except in Belgium and Austria,
where 14 per cent of men and 10 per cent of women were certain they did not
want to have children. In Slovenia and Latvia, voluntary childlessness in this generation is less than 1 per cent among men and women (Hakim, 2003).
In contrast to results obtained for other European countries (Hakim, 2003), not
one of the recent public opinion surveys in Slovenia indicated that respondents
did not want to have children. For example, data from the Youth 2000 research
project in Slovenia (Ule and Kuhar, 2002b) show a strong disposition to have
children. Less than 2 per cent of 1629 year-olds stated that they did not intend
to have children. In the age range 26 to 29 inclusive, 44.9 per cent of those
polled (58.7 per cent of women and 25 per cent of men) actually have children.
By cross-referencing the answers to the question about children and data on
education, we were able to establish that young men and women up to 29 years
old who have children are, on average, less educated than those who still do not
have children. People from urban areas have significantly fewer children than
those from non-urban areas.
National public opinion surveys and representative studies of youth in the
1990s and at the beginning of the 21st century actually indicated a great implosion
towards family life in comparison with the representative youth survey in Slovenia
for 1985 (Ule, 1988; Ule and Miheljak, 1995; Ule, 1996; Ule et al., 2000; Ule and
Kuhar, 2002b; Slovenian public opinion surveys: SJM 1992/1, SJM 1993/2, SJM
1995/2, SJM 1999/3, 2003/2, 2004/2). The various value measurement scales
show that family and family life became, along with friendship and health, the
most important values for young people8. According to opinion surveys, young
Slovenes wish to have their own families; they have high aspirations regarding
children and demonstrate no anti-parenthood attitudes.
Despite these survey results in favour of parenthood, the cohort of women
born at the end of the 1960s was the last to give birth to at least one child in entirety (Obersnel-Kveder et al., 2001). Since then, around 20 per cent of women
still do not have a child at the age of 34. In a comparative study of European countries, Tomas Frejka and Grard Calot (2001) state that the basic general trend of
1.71
2.11
1.42
1991
1.34
1992
1.34
1993
1.32
1994
1.29
1995
1.28
1996
1.25
1997
Source: Statistical Yearbook, Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (2006)
1985
1980
Table 1 Total fertility rate for the period 19802006
1.23
1998
1.21
1999
1.26
2000
1.21
2001
1.21
2002
1.2
2003
1.25
2004
1.26
2005
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
157
158
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
rising proportions of childless women is undoubtedly present in Slovenia. This

proportion is expected to rise from 5 per cent to 19 per cent in the cohort born
in the 1970s.
The welfare state

The type of welfare state is one among the factors that have a major impact on
how easy or difficult it is to gain independence and to reconcile family and work,
so it directly influences the process of leaving home and also of starting a family
of ones own (Oinonen, 2003). Slovenia is frequently categorized as belonging to
the post-socialist system of welfare states,9 presumably characterized by strong
egalitarianism and de-emphasis of the family, with the state playing a dominant
role in the system (Blossfeld and Drobnic, 2001). The Slovenian authors (Kolaric,
1992; Kopac, 2004) dispute such a categorization, primarily by pointing out different constitutive elements of the system.
The self-management socialist system in Slovenia differed essentially from
that in the Soviet bloc countries. The role and the meaning of social policy were
significantly different. While the former Soviet Union was based on the centrallyplanned system of economic management and on total domination by the Communist Party, the system in the former Yugoslavia and in Slovenia in particular,
allowed significant economic independence to individual economic entities and
local communities. The political influence of the party and its satellite organizations was restricted to certain critical points of the system. Independent civil
society was formed during the 1980s at the latest. The unemployment rate was
low, and young people enjoyed various forms of economic support awarded to
families and parents.
Viewed from the perspective of social security, the Slovenian system was based
on Bismarcks insurance principle a legacy of the Austro-Hungarian system
which took over an important role when the socialist system disintegrated. In
other socialist countries, such a system did not exist or was far less developed, so
the shift that occurred with the introduction of the liberal model was considerable.
The system transformation in Slovenia after 1990 and the developments in the
era of globalization did not bring about fundamental changes, though a definite
move towards familial-ism and a decreasing role of the state could be observed.
Starting from the existing models of welfare state, Slovenia can more readily be
seen as belonging to the sub-protective system group than to the post-socialist
one, which at any rate is not precisely defined, and does not address the method
by which the government ensures the security and welfare of citizens (Kopac,
2004; Wright et al., 2004).
Although the welfare system typologies do, to some extent, explain the structural determinants of transition to family formation and parenthood, they can
only serve as a basic orientation. The more country-specific features enter the
picture, the less predictive the typology is. Cultural trends and traditions evade
the systematization of welfare regimes.
Slovenia is also difficult to categorize according to Maria Iacovous three models

of family formation (1998; 2002), which are to a certain degree connected to
the types of welfare regimes. Iacovou distinguishes between the Nordic model
of family formation (the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands) and the
Southern European model (Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain), with the Northern
model including EU-15 countries added later. According to this typology, a characteristic of the Nordic countries is that young people leave the parental home
at an early age; living alone is common; cohabitation is widespread among childless people, and to a lesser extent among those with children; the link between
marriage and childbirth has become weaker. In the group of southern countries,
by contrast, young people remain in the parental home for protracted periods
and leave it mainly to get married. In these countries, the link between marriage
and parenthood is strong, and children arrive relatively quickly after marriage.
The Northern model is intermediate, and includes countries that are usually
categorized as belonging to one of the two opposing welfare regimes, that is,
liberal and conservative. It is characterized by early departure from the parental
home and very diverse forms of households, and transitions preceding marriage
and parenthood. In analysing and identifying household and family formation
models, Iacovou did not investigate other European countries.
The housing situation

Young people in Slovenia remain in the parental home for a relatively long time
until their late twenties or early thirties, with men living with parents longer
on average than women. The percentages of young people that are still living
without partners in parental houses are: 90.2 per cent males and 79.1 per cent
females in the 2024 age group; 63.5 per cent males and 38.1 per cent females
in the age group 2529; and 32.9 per cent males and 11.9 per cent females in the
3034 age group (Census 2002, Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia).
There is only a tiny proportion of young people living alone (1.8 per cent in
the 2024, and 4.5 per cent in the 2534 age group, according to Census 2002,
Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia). Although young people in Slovenia
remain in the parental homes for extended periods, which is a pattern similar to
the Mediterranean model (cf. Cavalli and Galland, 1995; Iacovou, 1998, 2002),
Slovenia is not characterized by rapid entry into marriage after leaving the parental home.
The postponement of leaving the parental home is actually characteristic all
over Europe (Biggart et al., 2004; Holdsworth and Morgan, 2006). The average age
at which young people in north European countries leave their parents homes
is the early twenties, but it is increasing (Laaksonen, 2000; Oinonen, 2003). In
southern Europe, in contrast, young adults live with their parents until their early
thirties (Cordon, 2006; Giuliano, 2002; Iacovou, 1998; Leccardi, 2005; Palomba,
2001). Comparing the results of the European Quality of Life Survey (2003/04),
conducted in present EU member states, Srna Mandic (2007) confirmed that the
number of young people in the age group 1834 who still live in the parental
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
159
160
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
home is smallest in the Nordic and Atlantic countries and greatest in southern
European countries. This holds true for both men and women.
In all countries, more young women than men leave their parental homes.
However, there exist significant differences among countries: Sweden has the
lowest percentage of young people living with parents (10 per cent of women
and 10 per cent of men), while Italy has the highest (61 per cent of men and
57 per cent of women). Among the new EU members, the three most northern,
Baltic countries (particularly Estonia and Latvia) show the lowest percentages of
1834 year-olds living in parental homes (from 3037 per cent); next is a very
homogeneous group composed of Central European countries with percentages
between 46 per cent and 48 per cent. The new members, considered as a
group, are very close to the group of southern European countries with high
percentages of young people living in parental homes. However, even within
this new member group, there exist huge and consistent differences between
Central European and Baltic countries. In this group, Slovenia has the largest
percentage of young people living in parental households in addition to the
European record holder Malta, where 67 per cent of young people between
18 and 34 years of age live with their parents (Mandic, 2007).
Only one-fifth of young Slovenes between 25 and 29 years of age, already living
with their partners/spouses, have their own apartment (Statistical Yearbook,
Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2006). The housing supply is deficient in Slovenia, especially in the capital Ljubljana. In Slovenia, this problem is
especially pronounced because of the culture of housing ownership. More than
90 per cent of apartments and houses are privately owned (Kos, 2002). Slovenia
is among the countries with the lowest rental housing supply and one in which
this supply was reduced during the transition phase (through privatization and
denationalization of socially-owned rental apartments) it fell from 33 per cent
of the total housing supply in 1990 to only 9 per cent in 2003 (Mandic and
Gnidovec, 1999). The prices of new apartments and parcels of land are relatively
very high (even in comparison with other big European cities) and are still
increasing. Accordingly, protracted living in the parental home in Slovenia can
be understood as fall-out from the housing reform during the transition phase,
which radically reduced the public rental sector.
On the other hand, the findings of youth studies (Ule, 1996; Ule et al., 2000;
Ule and Kuhar, 2002b) indicate that the relations between growing children and
parents in Slovenia are exceptionally supportive and of relatively high quality10.
The majority of young Slovenians report that they are well provided with parental
emotional and instrumental support. Young people can enjoy quite a high level
of everyday freedom, even while living with parents. Less than a fifth of young
people do not feel good at home or wish for greater parental support (Ule
and Kuhar, 2002b). The importance of mothers has grown in particular; they act
as exceptionally important therapists and alleviators of stress and conflict with
the outside world. Apart from being the main adviser, comforter and assistant,
the mother is also the best friend to her children (Ule et al., 2000). The departure
and independence of children cause emotional stress for the parents, since they
have not yet adjusted to the changes in life courses either. Among the reasons
leading young people to delay leaving home is that they do not want to hurt
their parents, who fear an empty family nest (Ule et al., 2000).
Accordingly, the reasons for prolonged living with parents are both objective
(prolonged schooling, difficulty in finding jobs, that is, attaining economic independence, grappling with the demands of the work environment, housing problems, etc.) and subjective (comfortable and inexpensive living, material and
emotional security, a high level of freedom and autonomy at home, friendly
relations with parents, etc.) (Ule and Kuhar, 2003).
The precarious labour market

In addition to the housing problem, the generation born in Slovenia in the 1970s
had to cope with less certain economic and social circumstances, unknown
to previous generations. The labour market places young people, at least for a
certain period of time, in a weak and unfavourable position, because it is not
able to provide sufficient jobs for all who complete their education. So the
competition to secure the best possible position in society is inexorable. For
young people who are entering the labour market for the first time, lack of
employment opportunities, the probability that they will be subjected to new
employment patterns, less secure types of employment (part-time work or shortterm employment and unemployment), is much higher than for the labour force
that has been on the labour market for a longer period of time. In 2006, 57.1 per
cent of young people between 15 and 24 years, and 26.9 per cent between
25 and 30 years, were employed only for a limited period, while the national
average was 10.5 per cent (Labour Force Survey, 2006, Statistical Office of the
Republic of Slovenia).
Relatively, the working activity of young people is decreasing, since almost
half the younger population is engaged in tertiary education. In 2006, the working activity of young people (1524 years old) was 39.3 per cent (only 30.3 per
cent among young women) (Labour Force Survey, 2006, Statistical Office of the
Republic of Slovenia). The labour market is prejudiced against young people in
general and women in particular: in 2005 the unemployment rate among young
men (1524 years old) was 14.6 per cent, and 17.8 per cent among young women
in the same age group. There is a growing percentage of first-time employment
seekers (especially women, although, on average, they are more educated than
men) among the registered unemployed population (Eurostat, Key Employment
Indicators, 2005).
Pluralization of family formations

Since the 1980s, Slovenia has been facing strong pluralization of family formations
and lifestyles (vab, 2001). Recent changes in life courses and in the transition to
adulthood as well as changed relations between the public and the private spheres
have substantially altered the patterns of family formation and childbearing. The
most widespread trends are prolonged stay with the family of origin, the form
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
161
162
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
of partnership termed living apart together (LAT), a combination of singlehood

and occasional non-formal partnerships, an increase in cohabitation, which is
linked with a decrease in marriages, delayed childbearing, and an increase in
out-of-wedlock births.
Formalized marriage has been losing its social status and significance. In
Slovenia, cohabitation is legally equated with marriage. An increasing number of
people, primarily young couples, opt for cohabitation. The number of marriages
has been declining steadily. In 2005, the total first marriage rate among women
was 0.41, the average age of women at first marriage was 29.8 years (23.7 in
1990), and the average age of men at first marriage 33 years (Statistical Yearbook,
Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2006).
The number of births outside marriage has been increasing. While in 1954,
only around one-tenth of children were born outside marriage, in 2005 this share
rose to 47 per cent. During the 1960s and the early 1970s, this percentage did not
change essentially; it even decreased. During the 1960s, 9.1 per cent of children
were born outside marriage, and in 1970 this figure was even smaller at 8.5 per
cent. This data suggest that during the 1960s the ideology of the nuclear family
that favoured marriage as a precondition of family life was prevalent in Slovenia,
much as in western countries. It began to lose importance in the 1970s for
example, in 1975, 10 per cent of children were born outside marriage, while during the 1980s this percentage increased to 13.1. It has been increasing steeply
ever since, by more than three-and-a-half times by 2005 (Statistical Yearbook,
Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2006). In the EU, children born
outside wedlock account for slightly less than one-third of all births (Eurostat,
59/2006).
The age of women at first birth is increasing. In 1965, the average age of a
mother at first birth was 26.2 years. Over the next 10 years it decreased, reaching its lowest value in 1975 when it was 22.8 years. Since then, it has been
increasing. The average age of women at first birth during the first half of the
1990s was 24.3 years, and during the second half 25.6 years. In 2005, the average
age was 27.8 years (Statistical Yearbook, Statistical Office of the Republic of
Slovenia, 2006). Compared to the average age in the EU (28.2 years), the average
age in Slovenia is still lower (Eurostat, 29/2006).
Gender roles
Ever since the early 1950s, Slovenia has had a tradition of relatively high participation of women in the workforce and therefore a dual earner model, with both
partners working full time11 and with unequal share of tasks (Jogan, 2000). Among
the post-socialist countries, Slovenia is unique in that womens participation in
the labour market has not decreased since transition. In Slovenia, the majority
ernic
of mothers go back to full-time work after maternity leave (Stropnik and C
Istenic, 2001).
According to research studies conducted since 1977, the distribution of roles
and relations in the family is rather traditional (Ule and Kuhar, 2004). As the
Eurostat research (32/2007) has shown recently, in Slovenia (and Lithuania)

women work the longest hours in Europe. According to research data, in
7580 per cent of cases it is exclusively women who, in addition to bearing a
full workload, do the majority of the housework and childcare. Tasks that have
been traditionally associated with women continue to be primarily their domain.
Women, more than men, do laundry, clean the house, prepare food and cook.
Men are responsible for small repairs around the house. It is also women who
mainly care for family members who are sick and need help. Grocery shopping
is also mainly their domain, although here men participate slightly more than,
for example, in caring for ill family members.
Although the trend towards a more active role for fathers in family life has
been traced in Slovenia as well, the males role in this context is limited to assistance. The majority of child care is still entrusted to women (Rener and vab,
2005; Rener and vab, 2006). Certain kinds of family work (housework and
looking after children) are more evenly distributed in extended families, but this
occurs between the procreative and parental family rather than between partners (for example, help from grandparents) (Ule and Kuhar, 2003).
Women are therefore doubly burdened at the workplace and at home
(cf. Hochschild, 1990; Menaric and Ule, 1994). Apart from this, in the 1990s,
primarily in the public domain and the labour market but also in private, the previously latent patriarchy of relations12 became more apparent, pushing young
women into an unequal position within the economic and political spheres, and
in terms of the division of work in the family of procreation (Pascall and Lewis,
2004; Rener et al., 2006; Ule et al., 2003).
FACTORS IN DECIDING ON PARENTHOOD

In attitudes towards family life and family formation, one can detect a duality
among young people in Slovenia: on the one hand, in public opinion polls they
cite the family and children as very important values and life aspirations, and
ascribe great importance to family life in their life and value orientations; on the
other hand, they are delaying the formation of their own families and childbearing.
Our present research investigated the gap between, on the one hand, the
official statistics showing low fertility rates, protracted living with parents, and
relatively favourable policy,13 and economic conditions and, on the other, profamily and pro-reproductive attitudes expressed in public opinion polls. The
emphasis was on young adults subjective perceptions of family formation,
especially the objective and subjective possibilities for childbearing, and the
problems and obstacles accompanying this process.
Research design
To highlight subjective experiences and meanings attached to the processes
of family formation, the decision to have children, and family and childbearing
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
163
164
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
preferences and aspirations among young adults in Slovenia, we decided to use

focus groups. Focus groups enable us to see young persons as actors who are
in charge of giving meaning to their lives. The focus group study fills the gap
between the considerable amount of knowledge about the institutional side of
parenthood (demographic and socio-economic data, policy measures) and our
limited knowledge about the subjective side.
During the last two decades, the focus group method has gained recognition within the social sciences (Greenbaum, 1998; Krueger, 1994; Morgan,
1997). Focus groups are more sensitive than quantitative methods because they
uncover peoples feelings, beliefs, experiences and reactions in a manner not
possible with questionnaire surveys. They are particularly good at discovering
the assumptions underlying participants attitudes, of which the participants
may not be aware until they discuss a topic with others. They are often forced
to reflect on their standpoints and elaborate on their answers. Focus groups
offer a unique research advantage because they stimulate everyday interpersonal
conversation that tends to make participants more comfortable with the research
process. The moderator takes the role of an observer, relying on questions that
initiate a free-flowing conversation.
The young adults who took part in our focus groups came from different
target environments14: the capital of Slovenia, suburbs of the capital, and two
non-urban regions. We chose four different environments to maximize the differences among the target population, hoping to tease out the full range of attitudes towards family formation and childbearing. Authors of the article facilitated
focus group discussions at each of these sites in 2002. Altogether there were
eight focus groups with 51 participants.15 The percentage of male and female
participants was 41.2 and 58.8, respectively; 70.1 per cent of the participants
were from the capital, its subrubs and two smaller cities, 29.9 per cent from the
countryside (see also Appendix Focus group composition). The strategy for
recruiting participants was snowball sampling the participants were recruited
by their friends.
Participants were between 23 and 33 years old. The lower age limit was set
based on the assumption that men and women in Slovenia, in general, do not
plan on entering parenthood much before the age of 23, since the mean age of
first-time mothers is 27.5 years, while that of first-time fathers is approximately
2.5 years higher (Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Slovenia, 2006). Their
levels of education attained and professions were diverse. Some were attending
school and many worked, at least part-time. We distinguished between the
following types of participants family forms: (1) single young adults, (2) couples
living in separate households (so called LAT phase; partners living in their parental
homes or separately in their own apartments), and (3) married or unmarried
young couples living in a joint household.
The questions that guided the focus group were:
(1) How important is family life to you?
(2) What do you think are the advantages of single life and life without
children?
(3) What do you think are the advantages of family life and of having
children?
(4) How do you imagine your partnership life at the age of 35?
(5) Do you anticipate having a child at some stage in life?
(6) If yes, how many children do you intend to have? What is your ideal
number of children?
(7) If not, why not?
(8) When do you think is the best time to have a child?
(9) What are the necessary preconditions for having a child?
(10) What are the specific factors that are postponing your decision to have
a child?
On average, the focus groups discussions lasted from an hour-and-a-half to two
hours. Each session was audio-taped. Following the sessions, transcripts were
created for each discussion. We reduced transcripts to individual snippets (one
per speaker per utterance), with a snippet being defined as the smallest meaningful statement. From our transcripts, we created a databank of 3014 valid snippets.
Finally, we created a coding scheme that was applied to all snippets. When coding
focus group transcripts, we followed conventional content analytic guidelines,
for example, creating precise operational definitions of all categories used and
reliability checks to ensure that all snippets were coded in similar ways. The
findings reported here derive primarily from our analysis of these snippets.
FOCUS GROUP RESULTS

How important is a family life to our respondents?
Analysis of the focus groups results confirmed the variance between the family
patterns recorded by statistics in Slovenia, and the declarations in favour of families and of having children in the quantitative surveys. However, participants
in these focus groups were considerably more reserved in their aspirations
for families and children. The high value placed on the family and the express
majority desire for two or three children were even ascribed to the idealization of
the family in Slovenia. Namely, in Slovenia, the ideology of the traditional family
and family roles as well as the idealization of motherhood are still deeply rooted.
The cultural imaginary still codes motherhood as exclusive and irreplaceable in
the ontology of family. To have a family is a socially expected response, being
desired in terms of values, and young peoples attitudes correspond to this.
Around one-tenth of the focus group participants directly stated that the public
opinion questionnaires involved desired responses.
There are many stereotypes about family in Slovenia and many pressures in that
direction. (Female 9)
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
165
166
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

Even today you are stigmatized in Slovenia if you dont have children. (Female 27)
I live in a village and Im stigmatized because Im unmarried; everybody asks me
when Im going to marry, when Im going to have children; they are afraid Ill never
have children. (Female 29)
However, young adults do not imagine the formation of a family as their life task
or a destiny accepted for the good of the nation, the state, norms or morality. The
family for them means primarily a means of emotional fulfilment and represents
an institution that functions as a personal support and social network. In deciding
to have a family, young people make the choice between the advantages provided
by family life (with children), and the advantages of single life (without a stable
partnership and children).
Family offers security. (Male 11)
You are not alone; there is always someone you can turn to. (Female 12)
However, the majority of participants expected to be married or in a steady

relationship and with children by the age of 35. It seems that heteronormative
notions of settling down are so deeply rooted that it is still difficult for young
people to imagine a future without a normative model of the proper thing to do.
Human beings are social, sociable beings, longing for someone, so the family is a
must. (Male 13)
Participants in the research cited freedom from responsibility and autonomy as

the main advantages of single life and life without children, and these appear to
them to be important determinants of quality of life. Within a family, they seek
intimacy and a safe and loving relationship, which, in the opinion of the research
participants, is at the same time an essential subjective condition for the decision
to have children.
Today everything is allowed, so many relationships break up. (Male 8)
When you decide to have a family, you choose security and connection as opposed
to freedom and autonomy. (Female 16)
Everyone wants to be free; no one wants to adjust, to give up anything, everyone
wants to have everything. (Male 6)
The most frequently cited advantages of family life were having someone with
whom you can share your life, a feeling of security, trust and intimacy. Intimacy
and a secure and loving relationship are generally considered to be preconditions
for parenthood. At the same time, focus group participants pointed out that partnership and parenthood demand relational work, a lot of mutual attention and
mutual affection, which over time may become strenuous and time consuming.
What is the right time for parenthood?

The focus group participants pointed out that today the decision to have children is carefully planned and evaluated. While young people desire in principle
to have a family and children, the decision to create a family is tied to many conditions and is no longer spontaneous and automatic. Young adults without children increasingly perceive the formation of a family as similar to the planning
and execution of a demanding project. Our respondents cited psycho-social
maturity and material security, rather than age as such, as the most important
conditions for entering parenthood.
No moment is ideal for having a child. You always think in terms of I could have
done this or that before. But probably, when the child arrives, the moment is always
right. (Female 9)
When youve worked for some time, you start to think that you could concentrate
on something else besides your work. You want something more your own
project. (Female 28)
There is a period when you still dont want to have a child, and not only because of
circumstances, but because of your own feelings. Then there comes the time when
you still dont think about having a child, but you also dont think it would be wrong
if it happened. There is some boundary you feel. (Male 21)
Among female students and among women with university education, we identified an attitude indicating that it seems entirely acceptable for them to have
a child without having a partner (that is, the conscious decision to be a single
parent). For example, one participant was talking about having a child even without having a steady relationship with a man.
If I dont find a partner, and I feel I could give something to a child, if I feel
financially safe, and if I can bring my work home, then I would have a child even
without a partner. (Female 7)
Here the biological clock is not such a restriction, since there is always the
possibility of adoption. (Female 8)
Preconditions for entering parenthood

Qualitative analysis was conducted to structure and analyse more precisely the
factors that young adults thought were contributing to the postponement of
family formation and childbearing. Among the factors manifested in focus group
interviews, we distinguish between structural and personal factors affecting the
decision to enter parenthood. The structural factors comprise the individuals
socio-economic situation, such as employment, financial and housing security, and
the institutional support for families. The personal factors comprise the individuals subjective readiness for parenthood, such as the desire to have children,
personal maturity and quality of partnership.
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
167
168
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
According to our findings, the most important structural factors affecting the
decision to have children are:
(1) Secure employment
Today a person doesnt have a sense of security. You work, but you dont
know if youll have a job tomorrow. (Male 19)
Young people have problems with finding employment; it is not right that
we can get only short-term employment which is then prolonged on and on.
(Female 3)
(2) Financial security

I will have children when Im economically independent, able to support
myself, and have a regular job; rather than searching around wondering if I
could make it to the end of the month. That means, when I know that we can
lead a normal life. (Male 7)
I first want a regular job, so that I have some sort of security; Id like first one
and then the other, and not everything crosswise. (Male 9)
Entry level salaries are too low you miss the chance to have more children
you dont have enough means because you have to take care of basic things,
and then you are too old to have a second or a third child. (Female 14)
(3) Basic provision of housing

How can I have children if my partner and I have to work for twenty years to
afford a two-room apartment in the capital where we are now sub-tenants and
spend all our money on rent. (Female 15)
Housing is a big problem. Apartments are expensive. There are few, or almost
no long-term rental apartments so you are constantly afraid that youll have
to look for another apartment next year. (Male 2)
(4) The possibility of coordinating work, career and family life: This
precondition was particularly stressed by women, although young
adults in general complained that jobs were very demanding. The
majority of organizational work patterns have an adverse effect
on (potential) family life (for example, weekend work, shift work,
overtime, fixed-term contracts). The experience of intensified
workloads and demands has an important impact on the timing of
parenthood and family size. Two full-time jobs, especially ones with
inflexible hours, are difficult to sustain.
Yesterday after I finished work I didnt even have the energy to cook dinner or
think about what to cook. Its the same every day. So its impossible to have a
child, too. (Female 17)
As an employee, you must prove successful or you will be overtaken by
competitors who are always close on your heels. If you want to be successful,
you have to make sacrifices for your job. (Male 7)

Today you sort of have to choose between employment and a child, because
both require all of you. (Female 6)
Dont shut your eyes to it thats how life today is. Today work doesnt last
from seven to three, but increasingly all day long. Those who want a career
have to accept that and can have children only later. (Female 1)
You first have to secure a foothold for yourself at work, a position, if you
want your job to be waiting for you when you return from maternity leave.
(Female 30)
The exploration of young adults family and childbearing orientations has shown
that personal factors are at least as important as structural constraints. The participants mentioned most frequently the following personal preconditions: (1) a
feeling of maturity; (2) readiness for the role of parent in both partners (decision
to take responsibility for a family and children, and overcoming the fear of losing
independence and personal autonomy); (3) quality of personal life (the feeling
of self-realization and having a comfortable life); (4) good relationship between
partners (stable partnership); (5) the perceived fair distribution of housework.
(1) Many young people between 23 and 33 openly stated that they did not
feel sufficiently mature for parenthood.
But we are still children ourselves! (Female 2)
I have a feeling that I myself am still a child, that Im not fully formed yet
and that I cannot take upon my shoulders a responsibility such as children.
(Female 4)
We are emotionally immature, and thats how we want to stay as long as
possible, up to 30 or even later. (Male 1)
I dont want to give up my standard of living for children Im quite spoilt,
and Id rather not have children. (Male 19)
(2) Participants themselves pointed out that young people today are
no longer prepared to make sacrifices and to take on (additional)
responsibility for a family and children.
Our generations are like that: a lot of parties, irresponsibility we dont know
about self-denial. (Male 2)
If you have children, every day is the same; you cannot truly switch off even for
one day. (Female 2)
Ill have a family when Im ready for it when I have exploited all the advantages;
because once you are married and have a child it is a different life. Its not like
this life now, when you can take risks and do nonsense. (Female 5)
(3) Young people place increasing importance on self-fulfilment in the

sense of working on oneself: further education, travel, etc.
I also think children are a long way away; I think, first study, then travel,
since then (after studying) Ill have the chance to see a little bit of the world.
(Female 1)
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
169
170
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

Today the world is open; everything is accessible, for instance, material things;
in the past people did not travel so much. (Male 14)
First you have to work on yourself on different things, and only then can you
have a child. (Female 21)
(4) Quality of the partnership: A fair number of participants in the

interviews mentioned their own unpleasant family experience or stories
of parents, whom they do not wish to emulate. Young adults do not
want to have children in an uncertain partnership. The decision to
postpone parenthood is also a unique resistance in response to negative
experience within the parental family.
For me it is important not to have a child until Im sure that this is a guy I want
to live with for the rest of my life. (Female 5)
Thats also a reflection on our parents generation. I have experiences from my
family of origin, and I know what I dont want. I dont want to have a family like
that thats all Im saying. (Male 6)
(5) Young women underlined that they expected their partners to help
them with domestic chores and in looking after children, since they
do not intend to be as burdened as their mothers.
Today women no longer accept doing all the chores ourselves. (Female 23)
Its good that they introduced fathers leave. (Female 29)
Young men expressed in principle a willingness to share work in the private
sphere; the majority would not choose this sharing on their own, but they are
aware that this is a necessity if they want to have a satisfactory relationship with
their partner.
Today women decide to have a child or not. And you do not have much choice
but to help with household chores. (Male 11)
I will share household chores with my partner, depending on who has time
and who prefers to do the work. I do not advocate the traditional division of
labour what is important is collaboration of partners. (Male 2)
Id take two or three hours to be with the child after work, and also during the
night, and the question is solved. A woman has more work, even if she is not a
housewife in the traditional sense of the word. (Male 9)
Children are such a demanding project

Starting a family has become increasingly a more carefully planned and demanding
project exacting great responsibility. Our research has confirmed the norm of
responsible parenthood: parents want to dedicate an abundance of attention to
children, to provide them with a high quality life and create favourable economic
circumstances for them. Virtually all respondents agreed that it is necessary to
offer the best to a child and to invest maximal effort. However, suitable education
and assistance in their professional and life promotions demand increasingly

more funds and effort.
In the past, children could play in the forest, on the street today, you have to
drive them to, say, music school, or a language school, or send them to England.
How, then, can you have four children, even though youd like to? (Female 13)
A child is a very demanding project that has to be perfect. (Female 19)
The child must be top notch, entertaining, cheerful, and able to handle a computer
when he is still tiny.... (Male 17)
Society sets high standards as to what children must have available in order not to
feel inferior to their peers. It is no longer enough to feed and dress your child. What
is important is to offer your child what all the other children have. If the child has
less than his peers, he will feel inferior you do not want to place your child in
such a position consciously, so you rather wait before having a child. (Male 13)
A large number of young people who (still) do not have children are afraid of the
great responsibility undoubtedly associated with modern parenthood. They felt
the bringing up of a child exacts a lot of time and energy.
Children are a really, really great responsibility. (Male 5)
Children cause your life to take too great a turn: you are put on the side track, and
the child takes the main track. (Male 15)
Everything revolves around the child from morning to night. (Female 19)
The problem lies with women

Young women in Slovenia today try to ensure economic security and autonomy.
Two salaries are a necessity in Slovenia, among other reasons, in order to be
able to maintain a middle-class standard of living. Parents and the educational
system encourage women to acquire knowledge and skills that enable them to
be competitive on the labour market. The educational and professional careers
are frequently in conflict with family formation.
Women in particular do not want to reproduce the life stories of their mothers,
who were overburdened by professional lives and full responsibility for the
household and relations within the family. They are no longer willing to accept
the division of labour established among the generation of their parents.
The postponement of having children is also a reflection on the generation of our
mothers. I have my own experience, and I know what I dont want. (Female 16)
Ive had a boyfriend for some time; its a firm relationship, we are already planning
our future, from marriage to children, but first I have to complete my education and
become independent financially. (Female 3)
Although I have a regular partner, hes had to face the fact that my goals and wishes
come before him. I must have economic stability, an apartment and all that, so that
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
171
172
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

later, when I have a family, I dont have to do everyday household work, by no
means anything like that, so that I can devote my spare time to the children and not
to chores. (Female 22)
Women expect men to expand their roles. We could identify friction among the
male and female participants as a result of ever-greater gender equality.
The problem lies with women women want a career, want to move in step
with men; women are not interested in having children; men have fewer problems
regarding children. I dont know any man who is against having a child if his steady
partner wants it. (Male 18)
It was interesting that the majority of women believed that they could freely
choose the age at which to give birth. There was a high level of trust among
women in modern medicine and modern artificial insemination procedures at
more advanced ages if they cannot conceive naturally.
CONCLUSIONS
Precisely because of the new dimensions of parenthood, new relations and
motives, the psychological desire to have a child is accompanied by dilemmas,
doubts and obstacles that make parenthood a difficult project, and for some
even unattainable. On the one hand, an individualized society creates a wish
in both genders to have their own lives, and a wish to attain self-realization,
autonomy and freedom. All this seems to contradict the readiness to assume responsibility for children. The decision to have a child causes doubts like Will
I be capable? and worries about whether everything will be fine. In a modern
partnership, caring for children is no longer a taken-for-granted responsibility of
one partner. Another important hindrance when making the decision to have a
child involves the greater demands connected with the bringing up of children,
socialization, time distribution and finances. In modern society, parenthood has
become a more responsible task and it is precisely this increased responsibility
that represents a burden and an obstacle when facing the decision to have a
child.
The stricter the requirement for optimal care for children is, the more demanding are the material preconditions for parenthood. This tendency is today
noticeable among all social classes. With the increase in demands associated with
the role of the parent and the birth of a child, a new pattern of decision making
has been emerging the conscious decision to have life without children. The
motive behind such a decision may be other projects that fulfil ones life, a career,
uncertain partnerships, a feeling of uncertainty, fear or even love for children.
This gives rise to a unique spiral of events: the fewer children are brought to life,
the more care is devoted to existing children, the more is invested in them, the
more precious they are and the more demanding parenthood becomes. The more
important and precious a child is, the more people fear the enormous tasks and
duties associated with parenthood.
The results of the qualitative research helped us to explain the gap between
the perception of the family as a high value, on the one hand, and the delay in
forming ones own family, on the other. In this research we highlighted the
structural constraints and personal barriers that prevent young people from
fulfilling their family aspirations. The crucial finding of the focus group segment
of the research is that personal factors are a key barrier for the majority of respondents. There is, however, one trend that seems to be universal: all or at least
most of the aforementioned conditions must be necessarily present for young
people to decide to have a child. The focus groups pointed out differences in
family orientation between urban and non-urban environments and also between
participants with higher and lower levels of education. For young adults from
non-urban areas, especially those less educated, the formation of their own family
is a value and an area of life to which they attach more importance than their
more educated peers and those living in large towns and cities. The concept of
family has a stronger symbolic significance for the former.
Non-urban young adults who are single and childless provide an excuse by
arguing that they have not found the right partner yet. In non-urban environments, there is no mention of a lack of time or energy for children, despite the
fact that many of those people work several shifts and have a full working day,
or more than an eight-hour shift. There is also much less talk about immaturity or
not being ready for the responsibility. Young people from non-urban areas, on
the other hand, did not talk about the possibility of investing in themselves, and
there was practically no mention of any desire to travel the world. They have or
presuppose greater parental help when having children than is available to their
counterparts in urban areas.
One of the most significant findings of the research is that the delayed establishment of family and late parenthood is directly related to the increasing need
among young women for individual planning of a personal life course and free
decision-making. For modern women, the maternal role is an emotional one rather than a mission. Actually, in Slovenia, it is primarily young women who delay
having children for an increasingly longer period. They have been achieving
higher educational levels and they show considerable desire to assert themselves
both professionally and personally. According to the statistical indicators, they are
better educated than their male colleagues, have more freedom and opportunities
than their mothers had, and they were brought up in an emancipatory spirit.
Education, work and careers are means of preserving their independence and
important components of their identity. They underlined that they expected
their partners to help them with domestic chores and in looking after children,
since they do not intend to be doubly burdened as their own mothers were.
If family policies in Slovenia continue to idealize the two-parent family as a
value, accepting the unequal division of labour within it instead of doing more
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
173
174
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
to improve everyday family practices (especially mens involvement in household

duties), we cannot expect long-term positive changes in the form of increased
fertility. That is to say, it definitely seems that in the future, women will be increasingly less willing to bear an unfair double workload. As for the government
itself, it would make no sense to lose the investment in their education by
pushing women out of the labour market into the maternal and housewife role
and thus impede their career development with an excessive workload in the
domestic sphere. One of the major challenges that Slovenia nowadays faces is a
balanced gender development.
APPENDIX
Table 1 Focus group 1 in Ljubljana, 10 January 2002, 10.3012.30 hrs
Gender
Age
Female 1
23
Female 2
Female 3
23
24
Female 4
25
Female 5
Female 6
25
26
Female 7
Female 8
27
28
Work/Educational Status
Studying. Working through student
job agency.
Studying.
job agency.
Studying.
Studying.
job agency.
Studying and working.
Partnership Status
Single
Single
Has had a partner for four
years, LAT
Has had a partner for one
year, LAT
Single
Has had a partner for two
years, LAT
Single
Single
Table 2 Focus group 2 in Ljubljana, 11 January 2002, 17.3019.00 hrs

Gender
Age
Male 1
Male 2
Male 3
Male 4
23
24
24
25
Male 5
Male 6
Male 7
26
27
27
Male 8
27
Male 9
29
Studying.
Studying.
Studying. Working through
student job agency.
Studying.
Studying and working. High
school degree.
Studying. Working through
student job agency.
High school degree.
Partnership Status
Single
Single
Has had a partner for one year, LAT
Single
Has had a partner for three years, LAT
Single
Has had a partner for five years, LAT
Single
Has had a partner for four years, LAT
Table 3 Focus group 3 in iri (a small town in the rural area), 17 January 2002,
19.0020.30 hrs
Gender
Age
Partnership Status
Male 10
22
Male 11
25
Looking for a job. Working through student

job agency. Secondary school diploma.
Male 12
Male 13
26
30
Working. High school degree.

Male 14
32
Studying and working. High school degree.
Single
Has had a partner for four
years, LAT
Single
Has had a partner for five
years, LAT
Single
Table 4 Focus group 4 in iri (participants from nearby villages), 18 January 2002,
19.0020.30 hrs
Gender
Age
Female 9
23 Working. Secondary school diploma. Has had a partner for three years,
LAT
25 Studying.
Single
26 Studying. Working through student Has had a partner for two years,
job agency.
LAT
31 Working. Secondary school diploma. Has had a partner for four years,
LAT
32 Working. Secondary school diploma. Has had a partner for six years,
joint household for four years
32 Working. High school degree.
Has had a partner for six years,
LAT
Female 10
Female 11
Female 12
Female 13
Female 14
Partnership Status
Table 5 Focus group 5 in Domale (a suburb of the capital), 21 January 2002,

19.0020.30 hrs
Gender
Age
Female 15
26
Female 16
27
Female 17
30
Female 18
Female 19
31
32
Looking for a job. Working

through student job agency.
High school degree.
school degree.
Working. High school degree
school degree.
Partnership Status
Has had a partner for nine years,
joint household for five years
Single
Has had a partner for seven years,

LAT
Single
Has had a partner for four years,
LAT
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
175
176
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
Table 6 Focus group 6 in Domale, 24 January 2002, 20.0021.30 hrs

Gender
Age
Female 20
Female 21
23 Studying. Working through student

job agency.
25 Studying. Working through student
job agency. High school degree.
24 Studying.
Male 16
24
Female 22
26
Male 17
29
Female 23
29
Male 18
30
Male 15
Partnership Status
The partner of Male 15 for three

years, LAT
The partner of Female 20 for
three years, LAT
The partner of Male 16 for two
years, LAT
Studying. Working through student The partner of Female 21 for two
job agency.
years, LAT
The partner of Male 17 for six
years, LAT
The partner of Female 22 for six
years, LAT
The partner of Male 18 for seven
years, LAT
Studying and working. High school The partner of Female 23 for
degree.
seven years, LAT
Table 7 Focus group 7 in Murska Sobota (a smaller city in the rural region),
25 January 2002, 17.1018.30 hrs
Gender
Age
Female 24
Male 19
25 Studying.
31 Working. Secondary school
diploma.
diploma.
diploma.
30 Studying and Working. High
school degree.
33 Working. High school degree.
Female 25
Male 20
Female 26
Male 21
Partnership Status
The partner of Male 19 for five years, LAT

The partner of Female 24 for five years,
LAT
The partner of Male 20 for four years,
LAT
The partner of Female 25 for four years,
LAT
The partner of Male 21 for eight years,
LAT
The partner of Female 26 for eight years,
LAT
Table 8 Focus group 8 in Murska Sobota (participants from nearby villages),

26 January 2002, 16.3018.00 hrs
Gender
Age
Female 27
Female 28
24 Studying.
Single
27 Working. Secondary school diploma. Has had a partner for nine years,
LAT
28 Working. Higher education degree. Has had a partner for two years,
LAT
29 Working. Secondary school diploma. Has had a partner for ten years,
joint household for seven year
Female 29
Female 30
Partnership Status
Notes
1 According to the Eurostat definition, the fertility rate is the mean number of children
that would be born alive to a woman during her childbearing years under the presumption of the current fertility rates (Eurostat, 32/2007).
2 The countries with the lowest fertility rates in 2005 include Poland (1.24), Slovakia
(1.25), Lithuania (1.27), the Czech Republic and Greece (both 1.28). The fertility rate
in some other countries is relatively high; for example, in 2005, this group included
France (1.92), Ireland (1.88), Denmark, Finland and the United Kingdom (all 1.80)
(Eurostat, 32/2007).
3 For the southern countries, two main drawbacks contribute significantly to the explanation: the situation of young adults and of working mothers (Cordon, 2006). The
delay in entering reproductive life is closely related to the economic situation (labour
market) and the housing situation (in Spain, in particular, it is practically impossible
for young people to have a home of their own). Young women in this part of Europe
actually belong to the first generation of women aiming to stay in the labour force,
while their mothers are part of the last generation of women that lived according
to the old male-breadwinner model. The context is still not supportive for working
mothers, so young women are not prepared for the major effort involved in having
children. Besides, these countries are lagging behind the other European countries as
regards new forms of union and births outside marriage (Cordon, 2006).
4 The second demographic transition, a theory first proposed by Lesthaeghe and van
de Kaa and later developed by them (Lesthaeghe, 1995; Lesthaeghe, 2001; van de
Kaa, 1987) is the dominant theoretical approach in demography to recent family
changes. One of the central ideas of this approach is that economic progress allows
for self-realizing behaviour. However, the populations that score highest on postmaterialistic values do not have lower fertility levels. This framework has reached an
impasse when dealing with very low-fertility countries (Cordon, 2006).
5 In EU15, high fertility rates known as the baby boom following World War II were
maintained until the mid-1960s, and have since fallen everywhere (Lutz and Wilson,
2006).
6 Voluntary childlessness is childlessness that goes beyond infertility. The United
Nationssponsored World Fertility Survey concluded that primary infertility affects
only 23 per cent of women aged 2550 years (Vaessen, 1984).
7 Fertility and Family Surveys 1995 were conducted in the following ECE countries:
Norway, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, Austria,
Switzerland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary,
Czech Republic, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and also in Canada, the US and New Zealand.
8 Youth 85 (Ule, 1988) was carried out on a group of 538 young people in Slovenia
aged 1624 years; Youth 93 (Ule and Miheljak, 1995) on a group of 2345 secondary
school students; Youth 95 (Ule, 1996) on a group of 1829 students, Youth 98 (Ule
et al., 2000) on a group of 1687 students aged 1517 years, and Youth 2000 (Ule and
Kuhar, 2002b) on a representative sample of 1262 young people in Slovenia aged
1629 years.
9 In comparing life course structures, many authors refer to Esping-Andersens three
types of welfare capitalism, with its division into social-democratic (Nordic), conservative (Continental) and liberal (Anglo-Saxon) regimes (Esping-Andersen, 1990),
and to his introduction of a fourth Mediterranean regime (Esping-Andersen, 1999),
implying diverse gender and social equality and extent of family support; or to
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
177
178
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
10
11
12
13
14
15
Gallie and Paugam (2000), who split the conservative regime type into employmentcentred (Germany, France, Netherlands) and sub-protective welfare regimes (of
Mediterranean countries in the latter case, with its particular role of the family and
informal work), while they refer to the social-democratic regime as universalistic,
with social rights defined by citizenship status. Hans-Peter Blossfeld and Sonja
Drobnic (2001) extended this typology even further and introduced the former
state socialist welfare regime. See also Andreas Walther (2006), who has modified
and nuanced welfare state typologies by applying them more specifically to youth
transitions.
The intergenerational help and kinship networks in Slovenia are traditionally well
developed and very supportive, including childcare (Ule et al., 2003; Rener and vab,
2005).
There is no tradition of part-time work in Slovenia; such work is rarely available or
afford-able (slightly less than 15 per cent of active population worked part-time in
2005, predominantly disabled and older workers) (Labour Force Survey, 2006, Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia).
Under socialism, there was formally no traditional division of labour by gender.
Slovenia had legislation that supported women as paid employees and mothers, predating that of Scandinavia. Womens labour was crucial to economic development,
and was encouraged by means of education, workplace social provision and state
guaranteed parental leave and benefits, kindergartens and nurseries, and laws about
marriage and the family that framed women as equal individuals. In public life, work,
studies, culture and politics, women had become (almost) equal, and they may have
felt (almost) equal. But in the private sphere, in partner relations, within the family
and the interpersonal arena, traditional ways of constructing men and womens roles
remained, by and large, untouched (Pascall and Lewis, 2004).
Slovenia has, even in the post-socialist period, one of the most generous family policies
in Europe. The parental leave (12 months) is one of the longest and most flexible in
Europe and is fully paid. Additional, generous family payments include financial aid at
the birth of a child, child allowance, large-family allowance and childcare allowance.
Pre-school childcare is also relatively well organized and subsidized, and there is a
choice of either public or private kindergartens. On the other hand, there are no
concrete measures that would essentially affect a traditional gender and life-work
balance.
According to official statistics, approximately half of the two million Slovenian population lives in urban areas, another half in non-urban areas (Statistical Office of the
Republic of Slovenia), but the countryside is also relatively developed and mostly
non-rural.
We also conducted four focus groups (34 participants) with people who were already
parents (Ule and Kuhar, 2002a), but in this article we decided to present only the
focus groups with people who were not (yet) parents.
References
Anketa o delovni sili 2006 (Labour Force Survey 2006). Ljubljana: Statisticni urad Republike Slovenije (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia).
Blossfeld, Hans-Peter and Drobnic, Sonja (eds) (2001) Careers of Couples in Contemporary Society: From Male-Breadwinner to Dual-Earner Families. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Beck-Gernsheim, Elisabeth (2002) Reinventing the Family: In Search of New Lifestyles.
Cambridge: Polity.
Biggart, Andy, Pias, Jos, Pappmikail, Lia, Bendit, Rene and Hein, Kerstin (2004) Families
and Transitions in Europe. Report Executive Summary, URL (consulted on March
2006): http://www.socsci.ulst.ac.uk/policy/fate/fate.html
Cavalli, Alessandro and Galland, Olivier (1995) Youth in Europe. Pinter: London.
Census 2002 (Popis 2002). Ljubljana: Statistini urad Republike Slovenije (Statistical
Office of the Republic of Slovenia).
Cordon, Juan Antonio Fernandez (2006) Low Fertility and the Scope for Social Policy:
Understanding the Context, in Wolfgang Lutz, Rudolf Richter and Chris Wilson (eds)
The New Generation of Europeans. Demography and Families in the Enlarged
European Union, pp. 2958. London: Earthscan.
Du Bois Reymond, Manuela (1998) I Dont Want To Commit Myself Yet: Young Peoples
Life Concepts, Journal of Youth Studies 1(1): 6379.
Esping-Andersen, Gsta (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Esping-Andersen, Gsta (1999) Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eurostat (2005) Key Employment Indicators. http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/
employment_analysis/employ_2006_en.htm (1.6.2006).
Eurostat (2006) The Family in the EU25 Seen through Figures, URL (consulted October
2006): http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat
Eurostat (2006) Quality of Work and Employment. News Release, 29/2006. www.euro
found.europa.eu/pubdocs/2006/60/en/1/ef0660en.pdf (1.9.2006).
Eurostat (2006) The family in the EU25 seen through figures. News Release, 59/2006.
epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/.../PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2006_MONTH_05/312052006-EN-AP.PDF (1.6.2006).
Eurostat (2007) A statistical illustration of the situation of women and men in the EU27.
News Release, 32/2007. epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/.../PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2007_
MONTH_03/3-05032007-EN-AP.PDF (1.4.2007).
Frejka, Tomas and Calot, Grard (2001) The Postponement of Births on Low Fertility
Countries: An Overview, Paper presented at the IUSSP Seminar on International Perspectives on Low Fertility: Trends, Theories and Policies, Tokyo, Japan, 2123 March,
URL (consulted on March 2002): http://demography.anu.edu.au/VirtualLibrary/
Conference Papers/IUSSP2001
Gallie, Duncan and Paugam, Serge (2000) Welfare regimes and the Experience of Unemployment in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giddens, Anthony (2000) Preobrazba intimnosti (Transformation of Intimacy). Ljubljana:
*cf.
Giuliano, Paola (2002) The Peter Pan Paradox: Why Mediterranean Youth Stay At
Home, Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children (And May Not Work). URL (consulted
on October 2003): www.iies.su.se/seminars/giulianopaola_paper1.pdf
Greenbaum, L. Thomas (1998) The Handbook for Focus Group Research. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Hakim, Catherine (2003) Childlessness in Europe. Research Report to the Economic and
Social Research Council (ESRC) on the project funded by research grant RES-000-230074. London: London School of Economics.
Hochschild, Arlie Russell (1990) The Second Shift. New York: Avon Books.
Holdsworth, Clare and Morgan, David (2006) Transitions in Context: Home, Independence
and Adulthood. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
179
180
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

Iacovou, Maria (1998) Young People in Europe: Two Models of Household Formation.
ISER Working Papers. Essex: Institute for Social and Economic Research.
Iacovou, Maria (2002) Regional Differences in the Transition to Adulthood, The Annals
of the American Academy 580(1): 4069.
Jogan, Maca (2000) Postsocializem in Androcentrizem (Postsocialism and Androcentrism),
in Maca Jogan (ed.) Tranzicija in (ne)enakost med spoloma (Transition and Gender In/equality), pp. 930. (Druboslovne razprave (Sociological debates), 16, 34/35).
Ljubljana: Faculty of Social Sciences.
Kaa, Dick J. van de (1987) Europes Second Demographic Transition, Population Bulletin 42(1): 147.
Kolaric, Zinka (1992) From Socialist to Postsocialist Social Policy, in Ivan Svetlik (ed.) Social Policy in Slovenia Between Tradition and Innovation, pp. 1532. Avebury:
Aldershot.
Kopac, Anja (2004) Aktivacija obrat v socialni politiki (Activation The Turn in
Social Policy). Ljubljana: Faculty of Social Sciences.
Kos, Drago (2002) Razprava o mestu (Discussion on a City), in Drago Kos (ed.) Socioloke
podobe Ljubljane (Sociological Images of Ljubljana), pp. 924. Ljubljana: Faculty of
Social Sciences.
Krueger, Richard A. (1994) Focus Groups. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Laaksonen, Helena (2000) Young Adults in Changing Welfare States: Prolonged Transitions and Delayed Entries for Under-30s in Finland, Sweden and Germany in the 90s,
Working Papers 12. Mannheim: MZES.
Leccardi, Carmen (2005) Facing Uncertainty. Temporality and Biographies in the New
Century, Young 13(2): 12346.
Lesthaeghe, Ron (1995) The Second Demographic Transition in Western Countries: An
Interpretation, in Karen Oppenheim and An-Magritt Jensen (eds) Gender and Family
Change in Industrialized Countries, pp. 1762. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lesthaeghe, Ron (2001) Low Fertility in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria and
Switzerland, Paper presented at the IUSSP Seminar on International Perspectives on
Low Fertility: Trends, Theories and Policies, Tokyo, Japan, 2123 March, URL (consulted on March 2002): http://demography.anu.edu.au/VirtualLibrary/Conference
Papers/IUSSP2001
Lutz, Wolfgang and Wilson, Chris (2006) Introduction, in Wolfgang Lutz, Rudolf Richter
and Chris Wilson (eds) The New Generation of Europeans. Demography and Families in the Enlarged European Union, pp. 314. London: Earthscan.
Mandic, Srna (2007) Odhod v prvo samostojno stanovanje: primerjalna analiza med dravami
Evropske unije (Leaving to Start an Autonomous Life: A Comparative Analysis of EU
Countries) Druboslovne razprave (Sociological Debates), 23(54): 724.
Mandic, Srna and Gnidovec, Meta (1999) Stanovanjska kariera in prehod iz stanovanja
starev v prvo samostojno stanovanje (Residential Career and Transition from Parental
Home to the first Independent Housing), in Srna Mandic (ed.) Kakovost ivljenja
(Quality of Life), pp. 4374. Ljubljana: Faculty of Social Sciences.
Merino, Rafael and Garcia, Maribel (2007) Emancipation Enlargement and the Acquisition
of Autonomy by Young People in Catalonia, Young 14(1): 3347.
Menaric, Silva and Ule, Mirjana (1994) Women in Croatia and Slovenia: A Case of
Delayed Modernization, in Marilyn Rueschemequer (ed.) Women in the Politics of
Postcommunist Eastern Europe, pp. 15370. New York, London: M.E.Sharpe.
Morgan, David L. (1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Obersnel Kveder, Dunja, Kouh Novak, Mateja, C ernic Istenic, Majda, ircelj, Vojislava,
Vehovar, Vasja and Rojnik, Branka (2001) Fertility and Family Surveys in Countries
of the ECE Region. Standard Country Report. Slovenia. New York and Geneva: United
Nations.
Oinonen, Eriikka (2003) Extended Present, Faltering Future: Family Formation in the
Process of Attaining Adult Status in Finland and Spain, Young 11(2): 12140.
Pais, Jose Machado (2000) Transitions and Youth Cultures: Forms and Performances,
International Social Science Journal 52(164): 21933.
Palomba, Rossella (2001) Postponement of Family Formation in Italy within the Southern European Context, Paper presented at the IUSSP Seminar on International Perspectives on Low Fertility: Trends, Theories and Policies, Tokyo, Japan, 2123 March,
URL (Consulted on March 2002): http://demography.anu.edu.au/VirtualLibrary/
ConferencePapers/IUSSP2001
Pascall, Gillian and Lewis, Jane (2004) Emerging Gender Regimes and Policies for Gender
Equality in a Wider Europe, Journal of Social Policy 33(3): 37394.
Philipov, Dimiter (2001) Low Fertility in Central and Eastern Europe: Culture or Economy?,
Paper presented at the IUSSP Seminar on International Perspectives on Low Fertility:
Trends, Theories and Policies, Tokyo, Japan, 2123 March, URL (Consulted on March
2002): http://demography.anu.edu.au/VirtualLibrary/ConferencePapers/IUSSP2001
Rener, Tanja, Sedmak, Mateja, vab, Alenka and Urek, Mojca (2006) Druine in druinsko
ivljenje v Sloveniji (Families and Family Life in Slovenia). Koper: Annales.
Rener, Tanja and vab, Alenka (2005) Vidiki novega oetovstva v Sloveniji: vpliv
starevskega dopusta na aktivno oetovanje (Prospects of New Fatherhood in Slovenia:
The Influence of Paternal Leave on Active Fatherhood). Ljubljana: Faculty of Social
Sciences.
Rener, Tanja and vab, Alenka (2006) Analiza oetovstva in predlogi za izboljanje
druinske politike na podroju uravnoteenja druine in dela (Analysis of Fatherhood and Proposals for Improving Family Policy in The Field of Reconciliation of
Family and Work). Ljubljana: Faculty of Social Sciences.
Slovenian Public Opinion Surveys: SJM 1992/1, SJM 1993/2, SJM 1995/2, SJM 1999/3,
2003/2, 2004/2. Ljubljana: Centre for Public Opinion Research, Faculty of Social
Sciences.
Statistini letopis Republike Slovenije 2006 (Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of
Slovenia). Ljubljana: Statistini urad Republike Slovenije (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia).
Stropnik, Nada, C ernic Istenic, Majda (2001) Prebivalstvo, druina in blaginja: stalia
do politike in ukrepov (Population, Family and Prosperity: Attitudes to Policy and
Measures). Report. Ljubljana: Intitut za ekonomska raziskovanja (Institute for Economic Research).
vab, Alenka (2001) Druina: od modernosti k postmodernosti (Family: From Modernity
to Post-modernity). Ljubljana: ZPS.
Ule, Mirjana (1988) Mladina in ideologija (Youth and Ideology). Ljubljana: Delavska
enotnost.
Ule, Mirjana (1996) Mladina v devetdesetih (Youth in the Nineties). Ljubljana: ZPS.
Ule, Mirjana (ed.) (1998) Youth in Slovenia: New Perspectives from the Nineties.
Ljubljana: Ministry of Education and Sport, Youth Department.
Ule, Mirjana (2004) No Time for Complacency: Sociology after Socialism, European
Societies (6)2: 15966.
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
181
182
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

Ule, Mirjana and Kuhar, Metka (2002a) Ekonomsko socialni poloaj mladih druin
(The Economic and Social Position of Young Families). Report. Ljubljana: Faculty of
Social Sciences.
Ule, Mirjana and Kuhar, Metka (2002b) Sodobna mladina: Izziv sprememb (Contemporary
Youth: The Challenge of Change), In Vlado Miheljak (ed.) Mladina 2000: Slovenska
mladina na prehodu v tretje tisoletje (Youth 2000. Slovenian Youth at the Turn of
the Third Millennium), pp. 3978. Maribor: Aristej.
Ule, Mirjana and Kuhar, Metka (2003) Mladi, druina, starevstvo: Spremembe ivljenjskih
potekov v pozni moderni (Young People, Family, Parenthood: Life Course Changes
in Late Modernity). Ljubljana: Faculty of Social Sciences.
Ule, Mirjana and Kuhar, Metka (2004) Zasebnost, druina, starevstvo: obrat od velikih
zgodb k analizi vsakdanjega ivljenja v javnomnenjskih raziskavah (Privacy, Family,
Parenthood: A Turn From Grand Stories to the Analysis of Everyday Life in Public Opinion Surveys), in Brina Malnar and Ivan Bernik (eds) S Slovenkami in Slovenci na tiri
oi: ob 70-letnici prof. Nika Toa (Eye to Eye with Slovenian Women and Men. On
the Occasion of the 70th Anniversary of Professor Niko To), pp. 21531. Ljubljana:
Faculty of Social Sciences, IDV, CJMMK.
Ule, Mirjana and Miheljak, Vlado (1995) Pri(e)hodnost mladine (Future and Transitionality
of Youth). Ljubljana: DZS.
Ule, Mirjana, Rener, Tanja, Miheljak, Vlado, Mencin-C eplak, Metka and Kurdija, Slavko (1996)
Predah za tudentsko mladino (Breather for Student Youth). Ljubljana: Juventa.
Ule, Mirjana, Rener, Tanja, Tivadar, Blanka and Mencin-C eplak, Metka (2000) Socialna
ranljivost mladih (Social Vulnerability of Young People). Maribor: Aristej.
Ule, Mirjana, Rener, Tanja, akelj, Tjaa, Hlebec, Valentina and Kuhar, Metka (2003) Tipi
druin in socialne mree (Types of Families and Social Networks). Report. Ljubljana:
Faculty of Social Sciences.
Vaessen, Martin (1984) Childlessness and Infecundity. World Fertility Survey Comparative
Studies No. 31. Voorburg: International Statistical Institute.
Wallace, Claire (2006) Family Forms and the Young Generation in the New Europe:
Fututre Trends, in Wolfgang Lutz, Rudolf Richter and Chris Wilson (eds) The New
Generation of Europeans. Demography and Families in the Enlarged European
Union, pp. 17788. London: Earthscan.
Walther, Andreas (2006) Regimes of Youth Transitions: Choice, Flexibility and Security
in Young Peoples Experiences across Different European Contexts, Young 14(2):
11939.
Wright, Sharon, Kopac, Anja and Slater, Gary (2004) Continuities within Paradigmatic
Change: Activation, Social Policies and Citizenship in the Context of Welfare Reform
in Slovenia and the UK, European Societies 6(4): 51134.
MIRJANA ULE is the professor of social psychology at the University of

Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences. She is the head of the Center for Social
Psychology and the coordinator of the postgraduate program, Sociology
of everyday life. Her main topics of research are youth studies, life course,
transition and trajectories (from youth to adulthood), identity studies. Ule
is the author of many books, namely, Mladina in ideologija (Youth and
Ideology), (1988), enske privatno, politicno (Woman, Private, Political),
(1990), Prihodnost mladine (The Future/Transition of Youth), (1995), Predah
za tudentsko mladino (Time-out for student youth) (ed.) (1996), Youth in
Slovenia, New Perspectives from the Nineties (1998), Social vulnerability of

young people (2000), and Youth, family and parenthood; Changes of life
course in Slovenia (2003). Address: Faculty of Social Sciences, Kardeljeval pl.5,
1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. [email: mirjana.ule@fdv.uni-lj.si]
METKA KUHAR is an assistant professor at the University of Ljubljana,
Faculty of Social Sciences. In the period from 20072008, she has been conducting a postdoctoral research project titled, Communicative and authority relationships between young people and parents. She has been also
involved in the international project Up2youth Youth actor of social
change (20062009). Her areas of research expertise are youth transitions
to adulthood and family life, body images of youth, and youth participation.
From 2004 she has been a national coordinator of the Council of Europes
Network of experts on youth research and information, and correspondent
of the Council of Europes European Knowledge Database. Address: Faculty
of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva pl. 5, 1000 Ljubljana,
Slovenia. [email: metka.kuhar@fdv.uni-lj.si]
Young 16:2 (2008): 15383
183

Young: Orientations of Young Adults in Slovenia Toward The Family Formation

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Young: Orientations of Young Adults in Slovenia Toward The Family Formation

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ARTICLE

Orientations of young adults in Slovenia

Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

Ule and Kuhar Young adults in Slovenia

THE SLOVENIAN CONTEXT FOR TRANSITION TO PARENTHOOD

Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

Source: Statistical Yearbook, Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (2006)

Table 1 Total fertility rate for the period 19802006

Ule and Kuhar Young adults in Slovenia

Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

rising proportions of childless women is undoubtedly present in Slovenia. This

The welfare state

Ule and Kuhar Young adults in Slovenia

Slovenia is also difficult to categorize according to Maria Iacovous three models

The housing situation

Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

Ule and Kuhar Young adults in Slovenia

The precarious labour market

Pluralization of family formations

Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

of partnership termed living apart together (LAT), a combination of singlehood

Ule and Kuhar Young adults in Slovenia

Eurostat research (32/2007) has shown recently, in Slovenia (and Lithuania)

FACTORS IN DECIDING ON PARENTHOOD

Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

preferences and aspirations among young adults in Slovenia, we decided to use

Ule and Kuhar Young adults in Slovenia

FOCUS GROUP RESULTS

Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

However, the majority of participants expected to be married or in a steady

Participants in the research cited freedom from responsibility and autonomy as

Ule and Kuhar Young adults in Slovenia

What is the right time for parenthood?

Preconditions for entering parenthood

Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

(2) Financial security

(3) Basic provision of housing

Ule and Kuhar Young adults in Slovenia

(3) Young people place increasing importance on self-fulfilment in the

Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

(4) Quality of the partnership: A fair number of participants in the

Children are such a demanding project

Ule and Kuhar Young adults in Slovenia

and assistance in their professional and life promotions demand increasingly

The problem lies with women

Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

Ule and Kuhar Young adults in Slovenia

Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

Young 16:2 (2008): 15383

to improve everyday family practices (especially mens involvement in household

Table 2 Focus group 2 in Ljubljana, 11 January 2002, 17.3019.00 hrs

Ule and Kuhar Young adults in Slovenia

Looking for a job. Working through student

Working. High school degree.

Studying and working. High school degree.

Table 5 Focus group 5 in Domale (a suburb of the capital), 21 January 2002,

Working. High school degree.