Advertisement

Housing Affordability, Housing Tenure Status and Household Density: Are Housing Characteristics Associated with Union Dissolution?

  • Sandra KrapfEmail author
  • Michael Wagner
Article

Abstract

Housing is an important dimension of social inequality between couples, but it has been largely ignored in prior research on union dissolution. Extending the literature that controlled for the stabilizing effect of homeownership, we investigate whether housing, measured as household density, housing tenure and housing affordability, is related to the risk of union dissolution. Based on data from the German Family Panel (pairfam), we analyze 3441 coresidential partnerships. We run discrete-time event-history models to assess the risk of separation within a time frame of 7 years. Housing affordability is found to be negatively related to the risk of union dissolution among couples, as those couples with a high residual income (i.e., household income after deducting housing costs) were less likely to separate than those with a lower residual income. By contrast, household density is found to be unrelated to separation. In line with previous research, our findings indicate that homeowners had more stable relationships than tenants. The analysis shows that this was the case regardless of whether the home was jointly owned or was owned by one partner only.

Keywords

Housing cost Household crowding Homeownership Separation Socioeconomic Situation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Lisa Schmid, Philipp Lersch, Nicole Hiekel and the PartnerLife team members for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper. This paper uses data from the German Family Panel pairfam, coordinated by Josef Brüderl, Sonja Drobnič, Karsten Hank, Bernhard Nauck, Franz Neyer und Sabine Walper. Pairfam is funded as a long-term project by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

Funding

The research for this paper is part of the project “Partner relationships, residential relocations and housing in the life course” (PartnerLife). Principal investigators are Clara H. Mulder (University of Groningen), Michael Wagner (University of Cologne) and Hill Kulu (University of Liverpool). PartnerLife is supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO, Grant No. 464-13-148), the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, Grant No. WA1502/6-1) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC, Grant No. ES/L01663X/1) in the Open Research Area Plus scheme.

References

  1. Ærø, T. (2006). Residential choice from a lifestyle perspective. Housing, Theory and Society,23(2), 109–130.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14036090600773139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison, P. D. (1982). Discrete-time methods for the analysis of event histories. Sociological Methodology,13, 61–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family,72(3), 650–666.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00723.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amato, P. R., & James, S. (2010). Divorce in Europe and the United States: Commonalities and differences across nations. Family Science,1(1), 2–13.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19424620903381583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andreß, H.-J., & Bröckel, M. (2007). Income and life satisfaction after marital disruption in Germany. Journal of Marriage and Family,69(2), 500–512.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00379.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Angelini, V., Laferrère, A., & Weber, G. (2013). Home-ownership in Europe: How did it happen? Advances in Life Course Research,18(1), 83–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2012.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arránz Becker, O., Brüderl, J., Buhr, P., Castiglioni, L., Fuß, D., Ludwig, V., et al. (2013). The German family panel: Study design and cumulated field report (waves 1 to 4). Release 4.0. Pairfam technical paper 01.Google Scholar
  8. Becker, G. S., Landes, E. M., & Michael, R. T. (1977). An economic analysis of marital instability. Journal of Political Economy,85(6), 1141–1187.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1837421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bodenmann, G., & Cina, A. (2006). Stress and coping among stable-satisfied, stable-distressed and separated/divorced Swiss couples. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage,44(1–2), 71–89.  https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v44n01_04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boehm, T. P., & Schlottmann, A. (2008). Wealth accumulation and homeownership: Evidence for low-income households. Cityscape,10(2), 225–256.Google Scholar
  11. Bracher, M., Santow, G., Morgan, S. P., & Trussell, J. (1993). Marriage dissolution in Australia: Models and explanations. Population Studies,47(3), 403–425.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0032472031000147216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brines, J., & Joyner, K. (1999). The ties that bind: Principles of cohesion in cohabitation and marriage. American Sociological Review,64(3), 333–355.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2657490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brüderl, J., & Kalter, F. (2001). The dissolution of marriages: The role of information and marital-specific capital. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology,25(4), 403–421.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.2001.9990262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brüderl, J., Hank, K., Huinink, J., Nauck, B., Neyer, F. J., Walper, S., Alt, P., Borschel, E., Buhr, P., Castiglioni, L., Fiedrich, S., Finn, C., Garrett, M., Hajek, K., Herzig, M., Huyer-May, B., Lenke, R., Müller, B., Peter, T., Schmiedeberg, C., Schütze, P., Schumann, N., Thönnissen, C., Wetzel, M., & Wilhelm, B. (2017). The German family panel (pairfam). Release 8.0. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5678 Data file Version 8.0.0.  https://doi.org/10.4232/pairfam.5678.8.0.0.
  15. Clark, W. A. V., Deurloo, M. C., & Dieleman, F. M. (2000). Housing consumption and residential crowding in U.S. housing markets. Journal of Urban Affairs, 22(1), 49–63.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2166.00039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family,72(3), 685–704.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Conger, R. D., Elder, G. H., Jr., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, K. J., Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., et al. (1990). Linking economic hardship to marital quality and instability. Journal of Marriage and the Family,52(3), 643–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Conley, D. (2001). A room with a view or a room of one's own? Housing and social stratification. Sociological Forum,16(2), 263–280.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011052701810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cooke, L. P. (2006). “Doing” gender in context: Household bargaining and risk of divorce in Germany and the United States. American Journal of Sociology,112(2), 442–472.  https://doi.org/10.1086/506417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coulter, R., & Thomas, M. (2019). A new look at the housing antecedents of separation. Demographic Research,40(26), 725–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coulter, R., van Ham, M., & Feijten, P. (2012). Partner (dis)agreement on moving desires and the subsequent moving behaviour of couples. Population, Space and Place,18(1), 16–30.  https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dechter, A. R. (1992). The effect of women’s economic independence on union dissolution. CDE working paper No. 92–28. Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  23. DESTATIS. (2013). Wirtschaftsrechnungen. Einkommens- und Verbrauchsstichprobe. Wohnverhältnisse privater Haushalte 2013. Fachserie 15, Sonderheft 1. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.Google Scholar
  24. Dewilde, C., & De Decker, P. (2016). Changing inequalities in housing outcomes across Western Europe. Housing, Theory and Society,33(2), 121–161.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2015.1109545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eads, A., & Tach, L. (2016). Wealth and inequality in the stability of romantic relationships. RSF,2(6), 197–224.  https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2016.2.6.10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Evans, G. W. (2003). The built environment and mental health. Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine,80(4), 536–555.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/jtg063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Evans, G. W., & Lepore, S. J. (1993). Household crowding and social support: A quasiexperimental analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,65(2), 308–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frick, J. R., & Grimm, S. (2010). Wohnen in Deutschland nach dem Mauerfall. Eine Analyse für die Jahre 1990 bis 2008 auf Basis der Daten des Sozio-oekonomischen Panels (SOEP). In P. Krause & I. Ostner (Eds.), Leben in Ost- und Westdeutschland. Eine sozialwissenchaftliche Bilanz der Einheit 1990–2010 (pp. 653–671). Frankfurt/New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  29. Gerber, T. P., & Zavisca, J. R. (2015). Housing and divorce in Russia, 1992–2013. In Paper presented at the PAA annual meeting in San Diego, April 30-May 02, 2015.Google Scholar
  30. Gómez-Jacinto, L., & Hombrados-Mendieta, I. (2002). Multiple effects of community and household crowding. Journal of Environmental Psychology,22(3), 233–246.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2002.0236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gove, W. R., & Hughes, M. (1983). Overcrowding in the household: An analysis of determinants and effects. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Grinstein-Weiss, M., Manturuk, K. R., Guo, S., Charles, P., & Key, C. (2014). The impact of homeownership on marriage and divorce: Evidence from propensity score matching. Social Work Research,38(2), 73–90.  https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svu016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grünheid, E. (2013). Ehescheidungen in Deutschland: Entwicklung und Hintergründe. BiB Working paper 1/2013. Wiesbaden: Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung.Google Scholar
  34. Haffner, M., & Heylen, K. (2011). User costs and housing expenses. Towards a more comprehensive approach to affordability. Housing Studies,26(04), 593–614.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2011.559754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hardie, J. H., Geist, C., & Lucas, A. (2014). His and hers: Economic factors and relationship quality in Germany. Journal of Marriage and Family,76(4), 728–743.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Härkönen, J. (2014). Divorce: Trends, patterns, causes, and consequences. In J. Treas, J. Scott, & M. Richards (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to the sociology of families (pp. 303–322). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hu, Y., & Coulter, R. (2017). Living space and psychological well-being in urban China: Differentiated relationships across socio-economic gradients. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space,49(4), 911–929.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518x16680213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Huinink, J., Brüderl, J., Nauck, B., Walper, S., Castiglioni, L., & Feldhaus, M. (2011). Panel analysis of intimate relationships and family dynamics (pairfam): Conceptual framework and design. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung,23(1), 77–101.Google Scholar
  39. Jalovaara, M. (2002). Socioeconomic differentials in divorce risk by duration of marriage. Demographic Research,7(16), 537–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jalovaara, M. (2013). Socioeconomic resources and the dissolution of cohabitations and marriages. European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie,29(2), 167–193.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-012-9280-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kalmijn, M. (2010). Country differences in the effects of divorce on well-being: The role of norms, support, and selectivity. European Sociological Review,26(4), 475–490.  https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kalmijn, M., Loeve, A., & Manting, D. (2007). Income dynamics in couples and the dissolution of marriage and cohabitation. Demography,44(1), 159–179.  https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2007.0005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kaplan, A., & Herbst, A. (2015). Stratified patterns of divorce: Earnings, education, and gender. Demographic Research,32(34), 949–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kaplan, A., & Stier, H. (2017). Political economy of family life: Couple’s earnings, welfare regime and union dissolution. Social Science Research,61, 43–56.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.06.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kaya, N., & Weber, M. J. (2003). Cross-cultural differences in the perception of crowding and privacy regulation: American and Turkish students. Journal of Environmental Psychology,23(3), 301–309.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00087-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Killewald, A. (2016). Money, work, and marital stability: Assessing change in the gendered determinants of divorce. American Sociological Review,81(4), 696–719.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416655340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kulu, H. (2008). Fertility and spatial mobility in the life course. Evidence from Austria. Environment and Planning A,40(3), 632–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kurz, K., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2004). Home ownership and social inequality in comparative perspective (studies in social inequality). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Lauster, N. T. (2008). Better homes and families: Housing markets and young couple stability in Sweden. Journal of Marriage and Family,70(4), 891–903.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00534.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lersch, P. M. (2014). Geburten und die Wohnraumversorgung von Familien: Anpassungen der Wohnung im zeitlichen Verlauf. Zeitschrift für Soziologie,43(2), 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lersch, P. M., & Vidal, S. (2014). Falling out of love and down the housing ladder: A longitudinal analysis of marital separation and home ownership. European Sociological Review,30(4), 512–524.  https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcu055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lersch, P. M., & Vidal, S. (2016). My house or our home? Transitions into sole home ownership in British couples. Demographic Research,35(6), 139–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Levinger, G. (1979). A social exchange view on the dissolution of pair relationships. In R. L. Burgess, T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  54. Lewis, R. A., & Spanier, G. (1979). Theorizing about the quality and stability of marriage. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family: Research-based theories (Vol. 1, pp. 268–294). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  55. Lyngstad, T., & Jalovaara, M. (2010). A review of the antecedents of union dissolution. Demographic Research,23(10), 257–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Meinfelder, F. (2014). Multiple imputation: An attempt to retell the evolutionary process. AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv,8, 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mood, C. (2010). Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review,26(1), 67–82.  https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mulder, C. H., & Billari, F. C. (2010). Homeownership regimes and low fertility. Housing Studies,25(4), 527–541.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02673031003711469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mulder, C. H., & Smits, J. (1999). First-time home-ownership of couples: The effect of inter-generational transmission. European Sociological Review,15(3), 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. O'Connor, T. G., Pickering, K., Dunn, J., & Golding, J. (1999). Frequency and predictors of relationship dissolution in a community sample in England. Journal of Family Psychology,13(3), 436–449.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.13.3.436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. OECD. (2011). How's life? Measuring well-being. Paris: OECD publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ostermeier, M., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (1998). Wohneigentum und Ehescheidung: Eine Längsschnittanalyse über den Einfluß gekauften und geerbten Wohneigentums auf den Prozeß der Ehescheidung. Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft,23(1), 39–54.Google Scholar
  63. Özcan, B., & Breen, R. (2012). Marital instability and female labor supply. Annual Review of Sociology,38(1), 463–481.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Palisi, B. J. (1984). Household crowding and well-being: A cross-cultural analysis. International Journal of Sociology of the Family,14(1), 17–31.  https://doi.org/10.2307/23027760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rapp, I., Klein, T., Fronk, S., & Stauder, J. (2015). Partner market opportunities and relationship stability. Comparative Population Studies Research on Divorce: Causes and Consequences,40(3), 229–250.Google Scholar
  66. Raz-Yurovich, L. (2012). Economic determinants of divorce among dual-earner couples: Jews in Israel. European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie,28(2), 177–203.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-012-9256-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Regoeczi, W. C. (2008). Crowding in context: An examination of the differential responses of men and women to high-density living environments. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,49(3), 254–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Roberts, L. J. (2000). Fire and ice in marital communication: Hostile and distancing behaviors as predictors of marital distress. Journal of Marriage and Family,62(3), 693–707.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00693.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Roos, M. W. M. (2006). Regional price levels in Germany. Applied Economics,38(13), 1553–1566.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840500407207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rossi, P. H. (1955). Why families move: a study in the social psychology of urban residential mobility. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  71. Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,16(2), 172–186.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rybkowska, A., & Schneider, M. (2011). Housing conditions in Europe in 2009: 30 million people in the EU suffered both lack of space and poor housing conditions: Eurostat Statistics in focus 4/2011. Population and social conditions. Luxemburg: Eurostat.Google Scholar
  73. Sayer, L. C., England, P., Allison, P. D., & Kangas, N. (2011). She left, he left: How employment and satisfaction affect women’s and men’s decisions to leave marriages. American Journal of Sociology,116(6), 1982–2018.  https://doi.org/10.1086/658173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schoen, R., Astone, N. M., Rothert, K., Standish, N. J., & Kim, Y. J. (2002). Women's employment, marital happiness, and divorce. Social Forces,81(2), 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. South, S. J. (2001). Time-dependent effects of wives' employment on marital dissolution. American Sociological Review,66(2), 226–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stanley, S. M., Whitton, S. W., & Markman, H. J. (2004). Maybe I do: Interpersonal commitment and premarital or nonmarital cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues,25(4), 496–519.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x03257797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stokols, D. (1972). On the distinction between density and crowding: Some implications for future research. Psychological Review,79(3), 275–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stone, M. E. (2006). What is housing affordability? The case for the residual income approach. Housing Policy Debate,17(1), 151–184.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2006.9521564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Taylor, M. P., Pevalin, D. J., & Todd, J. (2007). The psychological costs of unsustainable housing commitments. Psychological Medicine,37(7), 1027–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. van Buuren, S. (2012). Flexible imputation of missing data. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. van Damme, M. (2019). Overcrowded housing and relationship break-up. European Journal of Population,1, 2.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-019-09523-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wagner, M., & Mulder, C. H. (2000). Wohneigentum im Lebenslauf: Kohortendynamik, Familiengründung und sozioökonomische Ressourcen. Zeitschrift für Soziologie,29(1), 44–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wagner, M., & Mulder, C. H. (2015). Spatial mobility, family dynamics, and housing transitions. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie,67(Suppl), 111–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wagner, M., & Weiß, B. (2003). Bilanz der deutschen Scheidungsforschung. Versuch einer Meta-Analyse. Zeitschrift für Soziologie,32(1), 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wells, N. M., & Harris, J. D. (2007). Housing quality, psychological distress, and the mediating role of social withdrawal: A longitudinal study of low-income women. Journal of Environmental Psychology,27(1), 69–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wiik, K. A., Bernhardt, E., & Noack, T. (2009). A study of commitment and relationship quality in Sweden and Norway. Journal of Marriage and Family,71(3), 465–477.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00613.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wijburg, G., & Aalbers, M. B. (2017). The alternative financialization of the German housing market. Housing Studies,32(7), 968–989.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2017.1291917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Yabiku, S. T., Gager, C. T., & Johnson, D. (2009). Sexual frequency and the stability of marital and cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage and Family,71(4), 983–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zavisca, J. R., & Gerber, T. P. (2016). The socioeconomic, demographic, and political effects of housing in comparative perspective. Annual Review of Sociology,42(1), 347–367.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-081715-074333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mannheim Center for European Social ResearchUniversity of MannheimMannheimGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Sociology and Social PsychologyUniversity of CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations