, Volume 50, Issue 5, pp 1687–1714 | Cite as

Interrelationships Between Childbearing and Housing Transitions in the Family Life Course



Research has examined the effect of family changes on housing transitions and childbearing patterns within various housing types. Although most research has investigated how an event in one domain of family life depends on the current state in another domain, the interplay between them has been little studied. This study examines the interrelationships between childbearing decisions and housing transitions. We use rich longitudinal register data from Finland and apply multilevel event history analysis to allow for multiple births and housing changes over the life course. We investigate the timing of fertility decisions and housing choices with respect to each other. We model childbearing and housing transitions jointly to control for time-invariant unobserved characteristics of women, which may simultaneously influence their fertility behavior and housing choices, and we show how joint modeling leads to a deeper understanding of the interplay between the two domains of family life.


Housing Fertility Event history analysis Simultaneous-equations model Finland 



The authors are grateful to three anonymous referees for valuable comments and suggestions on a previous version of this article. The authors also thank Dr Andres Vikat for preparing a command file for the calculation of earnings in the Finnish context. The authors express their gratitude to Statistics Finland for providing the register data used in this study; and to Mrs. Marianne Johnson for valuable suggestions when preparing the data order. The analyses made in this study are based on the Statistics Finland Register Data at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (TK-53-1662-05). The study was supported by a research grant from the Economic and Social Research Council (RES-062-23-2265).

Supplementary material

13524_2013_216_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (367 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 366 KB)


  1. Andersson, G. (2004). Childbearing after migration: Fertility patterns of foreign-born women in Sweden. International Migration Review, 38, 364–392.Google Scholar
  2. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Jones, B. S. (2004). Event history modelling: A guide for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brien, M., Lillard, L., & Waite, L. (1999). Inter-related family building behaviors: Cohabitation, marriage, and nonmarital conception. Demography, 36, 535–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark, W. A. V. (2012). Do women delay family formation in expensive housing markets? Demographic Research, 27(article 1), 1–24. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2012.27.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, W. A. V., & Davies Withers, S. (2009). Fertility, mobility and labour-force-participation: A study of synchronicity. Population, Space and Place, 15, 305–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, W. A. V., & Huang, Y. (2003). The life course and residential mobility in British housing markets. Environmental and Planning A, 35, 323–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies Withers, S. (1998). Linking household transitions and housing transitions: A longitudinal analysis of renters. Environment and Planning A, 30, 615–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deurloo, M. C., Clark, W. A. V., & Dieleman, F. M. (1994). The move to housing ownership in temporal and regional contexts. Environment and Planning A, 26, 1659–1670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Enström Öst, C. (2012). Housing and children: Simultaneous decisions? A cohort study of young adults’ housing and family formation decisions. Journal of Population Economics, 25, 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feijten, P., & Mulder, C. H. (2002). The timing of household events and housing events in the Netherlands: A longitudinal perspective. Housing Studies, 17, 773–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hakim, C. (2000). Work-lifestyle choices in the 21st century: Preference theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hoem, J. M., & Kreyenfeld, M. (2006). Anticipatory analysis and its alternatives in life-course research. Part 2: Two interacting processes. Demographic Research, 15(article 17), 485–498. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2006.15.17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jalovaara, M. (2011, September). A study on union dissolution in Finland. Paper presented at the workshop on Register-based Demographic Research, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
  14. Kostelecky, T., & Vobecka, J. (2009). Housing affordability in Czech regions and demographic behaviour: Does housing affordability impact fertility? Czech Sociological Review, 45, 1191–1213.Google Scholar
  15. Kulu, H. (2005). Migration and fertility: Competing hypotheses re-examined. European Journal of Population, 21, 51–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kulu, H. (2006). Fertility of internal migrants: Comparison between Austria and Poland. Population, Space and Place, 12, 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kulu, H. (2008). Fertility and spatial mobility in the life course: Evidence from Austria. Environment and Planning A, 40, 632–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kulu, H. (2012). Why do fertility levels vary between urban and rural areas? Regional Studies, 46. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2011.581276
  19. Kulu, H., Boyle, P. J., & Andersson, G. (2009). High suburban fertility: Evidence from four Northern European countries. Demographic Research, 21(article 31), 915–944. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2009.21.31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kulu, H., & Vikat, A. (2007). Fertility differences by housing type: The effect of housing conditions or of selective moves? Demographic Research, 17(article 26), 775–802. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2007.17.26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lillard, L. A. (1993). Simultaneous equations for hazards: Marriage duration and fertility timing. Journal of Econometrics, 56, 189–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lillard, L. A., Brien, M. J., & Waite, L. J. (1995). Premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital dissolution: A matter of self-selection? Demography, 32, 437–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lillard, L. A., & Panis, C. W. A. (2003). aML multilevel multiprocess statistical software, version 2.0. Los Angeles, CA: EconWare.Google Scholar
  24. Long, L. H. (1972). The influence of number and ages of children on residential mobility. Demography, 9, 371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Malmberg, B. (2010). Low fertility and the housing market: Evidence from Swedish regional data. European Journal of Population, 26, 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Michielin, F., & Mulder, C. H. (2008). Family events and the residential mobility of couples. Environment and Planning A, 40, 2770–2790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mulder, C. H. (2006). Population and housing: A two-sided relationship. Demographic Research, 15(article 13), 401–412. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2006.15.13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mulder, C. H., & Billari, F. C. (2010). Homeownership regimes and low fertility. Housing Studies, 25, 527–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mulder, C. H., & Wagner, M. (1998). First-time home-ownership in the family life course: A West German-Dutch comparison. Urban Studies, 35, 687–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mulder, C. H., & Wagner, M. (2001). The connections between family formation and first-time home ownership in the context of West Germany and the Netherlands. European Journal of Population, 17, 137–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Murphy, M. J. (1984). The influence of fertility, early housing-career, and socio-economic factors on tenure determination in contemporary Britain. Environment and Planning A, 16, 1303–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Murphy, M. J., & Sullivan, O. (1985). Housing tenure and family formation in contemporary Britain. European Journal of Population, 1, 230–243.Google Scholar
  33. Myers, D., & Ryu, S. (2008). Aging baby boomers and the generational housing bubble foresight and mitigation of an epic transition. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74, 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rabe, B., & Taylor, M. (2010). Residential mobility, quality of neighbourhood and life course events. Journal of Royal Statistical Society A, 173, 531–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rossi, P. (1955). Why families move. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  36. Simon, C. J., & Tamura, R. (2009). Do higher rents discourage fertility? Evidence from U.S. cities, 1940–2000. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Statistics Finland. (2010). Official statistics of Finland: Quality description, migration 2010 [online publication]. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Retrieved from
  38. Statistics Finland. (2012a). Fertility [data file]. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Retrieved from
  39. Statistics Finland. (2012b). Housing conditions [data file]. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Retrieved from
  40. Statistics Finland. (2012c). Housing costs [data file]. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Retrieved from
  41. Steele, F., Kallis, C., Goldstein, H., & Joshi, H. (2005). The relationship between childbearing and transitions from marriage and cohabitation in Britain. Demography, 42, 647–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Steele, F., Kallis, C., & Joshi, H. (2006). The formation and outcomes of cohabiting and marital partnerships in early adulthood: The role of previous partnership experience. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 169, 757–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ström, S. (2010). Housing and first births in Sweden, 1972–2005. Housing Studies, 25, 509–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Upchurch, D. M., Lillard, L. A., & Panis, C. W. A. (2002). Nonmarital childbearing: Influences of education, marriage, and fertility. Demography, 39, 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vikat, A. (2002). Fertility in Finland in the 1980s and 1990s: Analysis of fertility trend by age and parity. Yearbook of Population Research in Finland, 38, 159–178.Google Scholar
  46. Vikat, A. (2004). Women’s labor force attachment and childbearing in Finland. Demographic Research, Special Collection 3(article 8), 177–212. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.0.S8.3
  47. Washbrook, E., Clarke, P., & Steele, F. (2012, September). Investigating non-ignorable drop-out in panel studies of residential mobility. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Royal Statistical Society, Telford, UK.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Centre for Multilevel Modelling, Graduate School of EducationUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations