Analysing home-ownership of couples: The effect of selecting couples at the time of the survey

  • Clara H. Mulder
Article
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

The analysis of events encountered by couple and family households may suffer from sample selection bias when data are restricted to couples existing at the moment of interview. The paper discusses the effect of sample selection bias on event history analyses of buying a home by comparing analyses performed on a sample of existing couples with analyses of a more complete sample including past as well as current partner relationships. The results show that, although home-buying in relationships that have ended differs clearly from behaviour in existing relationships, sample selection bias is not alarmingly large.

Keywords

Selection Bias Public Finance Sample Selection Event History History Analysis 

Analyse de l'acquisition du logement de couples: biais lorsque l'on travaille sur les couples au moment de l'enquête

Résumé

L'analyse d'événements connus par des ménages (couples ou familles) peut être affectée par un biais de sélection dû à l'échantillon, quand les données sont recueillies sur des couples observés lors de l'enquête. Cet article discute l'effet d'un tel biais obtenu lors d'une analyse biographique portant sur l'acquisition du logement: on compare ici les résultats obtenus à partir d'un échantillon de couples présents à l'enquête avec ceux obtenus sur un échantillon plus complet, comprenant des unions aussi bien passées qu'en cours. Bien que les comportements d'acquisition du logement diffèrent clairement selon que les unions persistent ou non, les résultats montrent que le biais de sélection n'est pas trop élevé.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allan, G., 1980. ‘A note on interviewing the spouses together’,Journal of Marriage and the Family: 205–210.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, P. D., 1982. ‘Discrete-time methods for the analysis of event histories’, in Samuel Leinhardt (ed),Sociological Methodology. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 61–98.Google Scholar
  3. Auriat, N., 1991. ‘Who forgets? An analysis of memory effects in a retrospective survey on migration history’,European Journal of Population 7: 311–342.Google Scholar
  4. Camstra, R., 1993. ‘De invloed van de geboorte van kinderen op veranderingen in de arbeids- en wooncarrière’,Bevolking en Gezin 2: 43–63.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, W. A. V., Deurloo, M. C. and Dieleman, F. M., 1994. ‘Tenure changes in the context of micro level family and macro level economic shifts’,Urban Studies 31(1): 137–154.Google Scholar
  6. Courgeau, D., 1991. ‘Analyse de données biographiques erronées’,Population 1: 89–104.Google Scholar
  7. Courgeau, D., 1995. ‘Event history analysis of household formation and dissolution’, in E. van Imhoff, A. Kuijsten, P. Hooimeijer and L. van Wissen (eds),Household Demography and Household Modelling. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Deurloo, M. C., Clark, W. A. V. and Dieleman, F. M., 1994. ‘The move to housing ownership in temporal and regional contexts’,Environment and Planning A 26: 1659–1670.Google Scholar
  9. Duncan, G. J. and Hill, M. S., 1985. ‘Conceptions of longitudinal households: fertile or futile?’,Journal of Economic and Social Measurement 13(3–4): 361–375.Google Scholar
  10. Glass, J., McLanahan, S. S. and Sørensen, A. B., 1985. ‘The consequences of divorce: effects of sample selection bias’, in G. H. Elder (ed),Life Course Dynamics. Trajectories and Transitions, 1968–1980. Cornell University Press, Ithaca/London, 267–281.Google Scholar
  11. Heckman, J., 1979. ‘Sample selection bias as a specification error’,Econometrica 47: 153–61.Google Scholar
  12. Hoem, J. M., 1983. ‘Distortions caused by nonobservation of periods of cohabitation before the latest’,Demography 20(4): 491–506.Google Scholar
  13. Hu, Y. and Goldman, N., 1990. ‘Mortality differentials by marital status: an international comparison’,Demography 27(2): 233–249.Google Scholar
  14. Kendig, H. L., 1984. ‘Housing careers, life cycle and residential mobility: implications for the housing market’,Urban Studies 21: 271–283.Google Scholar
  15. Manting, D., 1994.Dynamics in Marriage and Cohabitation. An Inter-temporal, Life Course Analysis of First Union Formation and Dissolution. Thesis Publishers/PDOD, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  16. Mulder, C. H. and Hooimeijer, P., 1995. ‘Moving into owner-occupation: Compositional and contextual effects on the propensity to become a home-owner’,Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 10(1): 5–25.Google Scholar
  17. Mulder, C. H. and Manting, D., 1994. ‘Strategies of nest-leavers: ‘Settling down’ versus flexibility’,European Sociological Review 10(2): 155–172.Google Scholar
  18. Prins, C. J. M. and Levering, J., 1992. ‘Huwelijkssluiting, huwelijksontbinding en sterfte 1976–1990; een overlevingstafelbenadering (Marriage, marriage dissolution and death 1976–1990; figures from life tables)’,CBS-Maandstatistiek van de Bevolking 40(3): 17–23.Google Scholar
  19. Prinz, C., 1995.Cohabiting, Married or Single. Portraying, Analyzing, and Modeling New Living Arrangements in the Changing Societies of Europe. Aldershot, Avebury.Google Scholar
  20. Richards, T., White, M. J. and Ong Tsui, A., 1987. ‘Changing living arrangements: A hazard model of transitions among household types’,Demography 24: 258–267.Google Scholar
  21. Yamaguchi, K., 1991.Event history analysis. Sage, Newbury Park (Applied Social Research Methods Series 28).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clara H. Mulder
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Geographical SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations