Residential variation in the size of each component of the

Table 3.12 shows the residential variation in the size of each component of household by type of household. The mean number of nuclear family members in both the nuclear and the extended type of family households was smallest in Metropolitan Manila and was largest in the rural areas. The mean size of extended family component was largest in the residential categories highly urban areas and other urban areas. As a consequence, the mean size of extended family household was highest in the urban areas outside Metropolitan Manila (Table 3.12). The mean size of nuclear family households, by comparison, increased with decreasing level of urbanisation.

It is also evident from Table 3.12 that the non-relative component for all types of households increased as the level of urbanisation rose. Noteworthy from this table is the smaller average size of the nuclear family component in extended family households than in nuclear family households for all four types of residence. Burch (1967: 360) found a similar pattern in the data from Panama. He noted that the proportion of families with one or more relatives other than the spouse (or companion) and children of the head of the household decreased regularly as the number of children of the head increased. He declared that this relationship may help explain why the average household size in a nation like Panama seldom exceeds six persons.

Burch (1967: 360) suggested the existence of a complex process whereby kin aggregate so as to avoid very large or very small households. The data in Table 3.12 show that a similar tendency holds involving the non-relatives. The mean number of non-relatives increased as the mean size of nuclear family component decreased. The mean number of non-relatives in non-family households of related persons, where the nuclear family component is absent, was larger than in nuclear and extended family households for all four categories of residence. It will also be observed that extended family households had a higher mean number of non-relatives than nuclear family households.

Table 3.12. Mean size of components of household by type of household and by area of residence, Philippines: 1990

Component of Philippines Metro Highly Other Rural

household size Manila urban urban

N u c le a r F a m ily h o u seh o ld s: T o ta l h o u s e h o ld 5.04 4.68 4.90 5.01 5.13 N u c le a r fa m ily m e m b e r s 4.99 4.53 4.77 4.95 5.11 O th e r r e la tiv e s 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N o n - r e la tiv e s 0.05 0.15 0.13 0.06 0.02 E x te n d e d fa m ily h o u seh o ld s: T o ta l h o u s e h o ld 6.65 6.46 6.70 6.75 6.60 N u c le a r f a m ily m e m b e r s 4.28 4.02 4.24 4.27 4.34 O th e r r e la tiv e s 2.28 2.21 2.29 2.38 2.22 N o n - r e la tiv e s 0.09 0.23 0.17 0.10 0.04

N o n -fa m ily h o u se h o ld s o f re la ted p erson s:

T o ta l h o u s e h o ld 3.89 4.12 4.03 4.13 3.61

H e a d 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

O th e r re la tiv e s 2.75 2.85 2.83 2.96 2.55

N o n - r e la tiv e s 0.14 0.27 0.20 0.17 0.06

N o n -fa m ily h o u se h o ld s o f u n r ela ted p erson s:

T o ta l h o u s e h o ld 3.21 3.92 3.31 2.70 2.74

H e a d 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

O th e r re la tiv e s 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N o n - r e la tiv e s 2.21 2.92 2.31 1.70 1.74

Source: Calculated using a 0.5 per cent sample from the 1990 census data for the Philippines.

3. 8.3. Analysis of variance to test differences in the means of the components of family households between residential groups

Analyses of variance were carried out to test whether residential variation really exists in the population regarding the size of the family nucleus, the number of other relatives, and the number of non-relatives in the two types of family households, namely, the nuclear family household and the extended family household. The results of the statistical tests are discussed in the following paragraphs.

The components of nuclear family households: statistical tests of the differences between the means of four residential areas Tested in this sub-section are two null hypotheses:

(1) the mean number of nuclear family members in nuclear family households of the four residential groups, namely Metropolitan Manila, highly urban areas, other urban areas, and rural areas, are equal, and

(2) the mean number of non-relatives in nuclear family households of the aforementioned four residential groups are equal.

The results of the statistical tests are shown in Appendix Table 3.5. The probabilities corresponding to the calculated F ratios are less than 0.01, and therefore the null hypotheses specified above are rejected. Thus, it can be concluded that the residential group means of these two components in the population are not equal. Multiple comparison procedures were carried out to determine which pairs of the group means are statistically different, and which pairs are not. The outcomes of these tests indicated that all pairs of residential group means are statistically different at the 0.05 level of significance.

The components of extended family households: statistical tests of the differences between the means of four residential areas

Three null hypotheses are tested in this sub-section:

(1) the mean size of the family nucleus in extended family households of the four residential groups, namely Metropolitan Manila, highly urban areas, other urban areas, and rural areas, are equal,

(2) the mean number of other relatives in extended family households of the aforementioned four residential groups are equal, and

(3) the mean number of non-relatives in extended family households of the aforementioned four residential groups are equal.

The same statistical tests as in the preceding sub-section were employed. The results are summarised in Appendix Table 3.6. The probabilities corresponding to the calculated F ratios are less than 0.01, which means that it is very unlikely (the probability is less than 0.01) that these F ratios would be obtained if the null hypotheses specified above were true. All these hypotheses are therefore rejected. Thus, it can be concluded that there are differences between the four residential groups with respect to the mean size of the family nucleus, the mean number of other relatives and the mean number of non-relatives in their respective family households.

The multiple comparison procedures that were carried out to determine which pairs of means were statistically different at the 0.05 level of significance, and which pairs were not, gave the following results:

(1) The mean number of nuclear family members in family households of Metropolitan Manila is significantly different from the means for the other three residential groups. Other pairs of group means are not significantly different, statistically.

(2) The mean number of other relatives in family households of other urban areas is significantly different from the means for Metropolitan Manila and the rural areas. Other pairs of group means are not statistically different.

(3) All pairs of group means for the number of non-relatives present in the family household are statistically different.

3. 9. Male- and female-headed households: sizes and types compared

In this section, Philippine households headed by men, particularly with respect to distributions by size and type, are compared with those headed by women. The proportions of households headed by a woman in the Philippines and in selected Latin American countries are also compared. The Philippines and these Latin American countries have at least one experience in common - they had been under the Spanish rule. The Spaniards brought to these countries the patriarchal-extended form of family

authority - the notion that an older male should preside over his family that extends beyond his nuclear unit to include his married sons and other kin (De Vos, 1987: 503; Medina, 1991: 151).