The Economic Consequences of Partnership Dissolutioneswf.uni-koeln.de/aktuelles/vortraege/oslo.pdf · The Economic Consequences of Partnership Dissolution A Comparative Analysis of

The Economic Consequences of Partnership Dissolution

A Comparative Analysis of Panel Studies from Five

European Countries

Economic consequences ...• have been studied in numerous scholarly articles• mostly negative, especially for women• most analyses done for the US, few in other countries

– e.g., Sweden (Fritzell 1990, Gähler 1998), The Netherlands (Poortman 2001), Great Britain (Jarvis/Jenkins 1997), Canada (Finnie 1993), Germany (Burkhauser et al. 1990, 1991; DiPrete/McManus 2000; Andreß et al. 2003)

• very few truly comparative analyses– Dewilde 2003, Uunk 2004 (both using ECHP)

• small number of cases, short observation periods, focus on women and less so on men

• great variance of findings across countries

National context matters …

• Autonomy– freedom not to continue a potentially

repressive relationship, e.g., because of economic dependency (Orloff 1993).

• Research question– How much autonomy is granted to the weaker

family members within the national context?– the national configuration (“welfare mix”) of

market, state, and family

Structure1. Typology of national contexts2. Hypotheses3. Data4. Descriptive Results5. Statistical model6. Multivariate results

• collaborative work done by Barbara Borgloh, Miriam Bröckel and Marco Giesselmann (University of Bielefeld), Dina Hummelsheim, Hans-Jürgen Andreß (University of Cologne)

Typology of Family Support

Italymodel of extended familial solidarity

Great Britainmarket modelrudimentary

Swedensupport for care facilities and gainful employment

Germany(Belgium)

financial compensation for familial burdens

extensive

CandidatesModel ofIntervention

Public Policy Orientation

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1980 1985 1990 1995

Perc

ent Belgium

GermanyItalySwedenUK

Quelle:

OECD (2001)

Family cash benefits as % of GDP

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Perc

ent Belgium

Germany

Italy

Sweden

UK

Quelle: ILO, MZES, Nat.Stat.Onl. (versch. Jahre)

Child benefits as % of monthly income

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

9019

83

1988

1993

1998

Proz

ent

Belgium

Germany

Italy

UK

Quelle: Eurostat: New Cronos (2003)

Women’s employment rate

Quelle: ILO (1999, 90, 98, 2002)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Perc

ent Belgium

GermanySwedenUK

Women’s earnings as % of men’s earnings

Women’s Economic Autonomy

3=high, 1=lowAutonomy

++--00+Low part-time employment

--+0-++Employment rateWomen’s Employment

+--0+03-6 year olds------+++0-3 year oldsPublic

Childcare

--0-+0Social assistance----++0Child benefits

--0-0++Family cash benefits

Cash Transfers

Italy

Great

Britain

Germ

any

Belgium

Sweden






Childcare



Cash Transfers

Italy

Great

Britain

Germ

any

Belgium

Sweden






Childcare



Cash Transfers

Italy

Great

Britain

Germ

any

Belgium

Sweden






Childcare



Cash Transfers

Italy

Great

Britain

Germ

any

Belgium

Sweden






Childcare



Cash Transfers

Italy

Great

Britain

Germ

any

Belgium

Sweden

Hypotheses1. Partnership dissolution has an effect on income

a. causes income changes for both partners. b. women – compared to men – experience more often and more

severe income losses.2. Gender gap in post-separation income decreases with

autonomya. low in Sweden, high in Germany, Great Britain, and Belgium, and

especially high in Italyb. individual living conditions should be controlled (employment,

child care, coping resources: age and education)3. Short-term consequences (welfare state, extended

family)- Italy (highest), Germany, Great Britain, Belgium, Sweden (lowest)

4. Long-term consequences (employment, public infrastructure

- no a-priori hypothesis

Five household panels used

men and women between 18 and 60 years of ageSeparations

183170

6051

470674

684753

181222

MenWomen

Household head, partner, and max. 1 adult household

member

All household members present

on 31.12. of interview year

All household members at time

of interview


of interview


of interview

Target Population

77111611Waves

analysed

every 2-3 yearsevery 2-3 yearsannualAnnualannualPanel

Design

1984 – 19981987 – 20021991 – 20011984 – 19991992 – 2002Time period

University of GothenburgBanca d’Italia

Institute for Social and Economic

Research

German Institute for Economic

Research

Universities of Antwerp and

LüttichInstitution

Household Market and Nonmarket Activities (HUS)

The Banc of Italy Survey of House-holds’ Income and

Wealth (SHIW)

British Household Panel Survey

(BHPS)

German Socio-Economic Panel Study (GSOEP)

Panel Studie van Belgische Huis-houdens (PSBH)

Name

SwedenItalyGreat BritainGermanyBelgium

Income indicators

• monthly income• household level• net income• support payments controlled• adjusted for household size (OECD)• adjusted for inflation (consumer price index)

= adjusted disposable monthly household income

Adjusted household income (Median)

500

1000

1500

2000

-5 0 5 -5 0 5

Men Women

Belgium GermanyItaly SwedenUK

Hou

seho

ld In

com

e (E

uro)

Years from Separation

Percentage change of adjusted household income (t versus t-1)

-50 0 50Income changes in %

Women

Men

Sweden

Belgium

Great Britain

Italy

Germany

Italy

Great Britain

Belgium

Germany

Sweden

25. percentile median 75. percentile

-28-56 +7

Statistical Model

separation ofyear :0time womenandmen 2,1gender

nsobservatio162ngcontributiS) GB, D, (B, countries4,,1from

sindividual3364,,1about data

),,,( 210

768

54

210

==

≤≤==

++

⋅+⋅+⋅+++++=

ttg

mci

utg

sepemplsepagesepeducemplchildeducageincome

i

i

gcgccitititiiti

itc

itc

iic

it

K

K

αααβββ

βββββ

Model controls for ...

i

gcgccitititiiti

itc

itc

iic

it

utg


++

⋅+⋅+⋅+++++=

),,,( 210

768

54

210

αααβββ

βββββ

• different national levels of income• different socio-demographic characteristics of

national samples


i

gcgccitititiiti

itc

itc

iic

it

utg


++

⋅+⋅+⋅+++++=

),,,( 210

768

54

210

αααβββ

βββββ

• parental obligations and gainful employment• depending on national context (country-specific

effects)


i

gcgccitititiiti

itc

itc

iic

it

utg


++

⋅+⋅+⋅+++++=

),,,( 210

768

54

210

αααβββ

βββββ

• coping resources in the event of separation– education, age– employment (taxation depends of family status)


i

gcgccitititiiti

itc

itc

iic

it

utg


++

⋅+⋅+⋅+++++=

),,,( 210

768

54

210

αααβββ

βββββ

• α0 income trend before separation(by country)

• α1 separation effect(by country and gender)

• α2 income trend after separation(by country and gender)


i

gcgccitititiiti

itc

itc

iic

it

utg


++

⋅+⋅+⋅+++++=

),,,( 210

768

54

210

αααβββ

βββββ

• unobserved individual characteristics• controlled by estimation procedure (random and

fixed effects)

Gender gap (women vs. men)estimated difference of post-separation incomes

-187-310

-227-359

-290-326

-304-341

-206-279

-252-327

-94-128

-78-113

-400-300-200-1000

Great Britain

Germany

Belgium

Sweden

Base Child Care Employment Both


-187-310

-227-359

-290-326

-304-341

-206-279

-252-327

-94-128

-78-113

-400-300-200-1000

Great Britain

Germany

Belgium

Sweden



-187-310

-227-359

-290-326

-304-341

-206-279

-252-327

-94-128

-78-113

-400-300-200-1000

Great Britain

Germany

Belgium

Sweden



-187-310

-227-359

-290-326

-304-341

-206-279

-252-327

-94-128

-78-113

-400-300-200-1000

Great Britain

Germany

Belgium

Sweden


Short- and long-term consequencesestimated income changes for women

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0E

uro

0 5 10 15years from separation

Sweden Belgium Great Britain Germany

Summary• equivalised five national household panels• number of cases larger and observation period

longer than in other studies• women more negatively affected than men in all

countries• national context matters

– autonomy decreases gender gap– autonomy decreases short-term separation effect for

women– surprising long-term effects

Thank you for your attention!

more info

www.wiso.uni-koeln.de/eswf

Documents

The Economic Consequences of Partnership Dissolutioneswf.uni-koeln.de/aktuelles/vortraege/oslo.pdf · The Economic Consequences of Partnership Dissolution A Comparative Analysis of