Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Socioeconomic Resources and the Dissolution of Cohabitations and Marriages

Ressources socio-économiques et dissolution des cohabitations et des mariages

  • Published:
European Journal of Population / Revue européenne de Démographie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A large body of research focuses on the (socio)economic antecedents of marriage dissolution. Less is known about the factors that affect the stability of cohabitations. The focus in this study, which is based on Finnish register data, is on whether the socioeconomic resources of the partners affect the stability of cohabitations and marriages in a similar way. According to the results, a lower level of education, unemployment (of the man in particular) and the male partner’s (or the couple’s) low income increased dissolution rates in unions of both types. The stabilizing effects of each partner’s high educational level as well as the male partner’s employment and high income were stronger in marriages. The union types also seemed to differ in that the separation-promoting effect of the female partner’s high (absolute or relative) income was stronger in marriages, but high-income women are few and the interactions between union type and the income of the female partner were statistically insignificant. The overall conclusion is that in the Finnish context, the socioeconomic antecedents of union dissolution are remarkably similar in cohabitations and marriages, but socioeconomic resources are somewhat more important for the stability of marriages. Only weak support was found for the idea that cohabitations are more compatible with income equality.

Résumé

Un grand nombre d’études s’intéresse aux antécédents socio-économiques des dissolutions de mariage. Les facteurs qui ont une influence sur la stabilité des cohabitations sont moins connus. Cet article, basé sur des données du registre finlandais, étudie si les ressources socio-économiques des partenaires affectent de la même manière la stabilité des cohabitations et des mariages. Nos résultats montrent qu’un plus bas niveau d’instruction, le chômage (de l’homme en particulier), et de faibles revenus du partenaire masculin (ou du couple) augmentent les taux de dissolution pour les deux types d’union. Les effets stabilisateurs d’un niveau d’instruction élevé pour chacun des partenaires, d’un emploi pour le partenaire masculin et de revenus élevés étaient plus importants pour les mariages. Les résultats différent selon le type d’union. L’effet positif sur les ruptures d’un revenu élevé (absolu ou relatif) de la partenaire féminine était plus fort dans le cas de mariage, mais le nombre de femmes avec un haut niveau de revenus est faible et les interactions entre le type d‘unions et le revenu de la partenaire féminine sont statistiquement non-significatifs. En conclusion, dans le contexte finlandais, les antécédents socio-économiques des dissolutions d’union sont remarquablement similaires, mais les ressources socio-économiques ont un effet un peu plus marqué sur la stabilité des mariages. L’hypothèse qu’une égalité de revenus soit plus compatible avec la cohabitation se trouve peu appuyée par nos résultats.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is worth noting that one reason for the higher dissolution risks among women with higher incomes is that women respond to the expectation of marital disruption by increasing their supply of labor as they prepare to become more independent (see Rogers 1999). In countries such as Finland, partnered women tend to be employed in any case, and not in preparation for union dissolution. Still, it is possible that the minority of women who choose to restrict their involvement in paid work in order to engage in domestic work are selected for having an unusually deep trust in the continuity of their union.

  2. Finland is a sparsely populated country, and the population distribution is uneven. The rural–urban divide is strong and linked to the socioeconomic structure of the population.

  3. For a detailed analysis of the effect of educational homogamy on the dissolution of cohabitations and marriages, see Mäenpää and Jalovaara (2011).

References

  • Baxter, J. (2005). To marry or not to marry: Marital status and the household division of labor. Journal of Family Issues, 26(3), 300–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S., Landes, E. M., & Michael, R. T. (1977). An economic analysis of marital instability. Journal of Political Economy, 85(6), 1141–1187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blossfeld, H., Golsch, K., & Rohwer, G. (2007). Event history analysis with Stata. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brines, J., & Joyner, K. (1999). The ties that bind: Principles of cohesion in cohabitation and marriage. American Sociological Review, 64(3), 333–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bukodi, E., & Robert, P. (2003). Union disruption in Hungary. International Journal of Sociology, 33(1), 64–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, T. W., & Halpin, B. (2002). Union dissolution in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Sociology, 32(4), 76–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherlin, A. (1979). Work life and marital dissolution. In G. Levinger & O. Moles (Eds.), Divorce and separation: context, causes and consequences (pp. 151–166). New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, L., J. Erola, M. Evertsson, M. Gähler, J. Härkönen, B. Hewitt, M. Jalovaara, M.-Y. Kan, T. Lyngstad, L. Mencarini, J. Mignot, D. Mortelmans, A.-R. Poortman, C. Schmitt, & H. Trappe. (2011). Labor and love: employment and divorce risk in 11 countries. Paper presented at the 2011 Spring Meeting of the ISA RC28 University of Essex, UK, 13–16 April 2011.

  • Coviello, V., & Boggess, M. (2004). Cumulative incidence estimation in the presence of competing risks. Stata Journal, 4(2), 103–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S. N., Greenstein, T. N., & Gerteisen Marks, J. P. (2007). Effects of union type on division of household labor. Do cohabiting men really perform more housework? Journal of Family Issues, 28(9), 1246–1272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duvander, A. (1999). The transition from cohabitation to marriage—A longitudinal study of the propensity to marry in Sweden in the early 1990s. Journal of Family Issues, 20(5), 698–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnäs, F. (1995). Entry into consensual unions and marriages among Finnish women born between 1938 and 1967. Population Studies, 49(1), 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, H. (2005). Unemployment and marital dissolution: A panel data study of Norway. European Sociological Review, 21(2), 135–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Härkönen, J., & Dronkers, J. (2006). Stability and change in the educational gradient of divorce. A comparison of seventeen countries. European Sociological Review, 22(5), 501–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., & Zahidi, S. (2010). The Global Gender Gap Report 2010. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henz, U., & Jonsson, J. O. (2003). Union disruption in Sweden. International Journal of Sociology, 33(1), 3–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoem, J. M. (1997). Educational gradients in divorce risks in Sweden in recent decades. Population Studies, 51(1), 19–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jalovaara, M. (2001). Socio-economic status and divorce in first marriages in Finland 1991–93. Population Studies, 55(2), 119–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jalovaara, M. (2003). The joint effects of marriage partners’ socioeconomic positions on the risk of divorce. Demography, 40(1), 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jalovaara, M. (2012). Socio-economic resources and first union formation in Finland, cohorts born 1969–81. Population Studies, 66(1), 69–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalmijn, M., De Graaf, P. M., & Poortman, A.-R. (2004). Interactions between cultural and economic determinants of divorce in The Netherlands. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(1), 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalmijn, M., Loeve, A., & Manting, D. (2007). Income dynamics in couples and the dissolution of marriage and cohabitation. Demography, 44(1), 159–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiernan, K. (2002). Cohabitation in Western Europe: trends, issues, and implications. In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter (Eds.), Just living together: implications of cohabitation on families, children, and social policy (pp. 3–31). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kravdal, Ø. (1999). Does marriage require a stronger economic underpinning than informal cohabitation? Population Studies, 53(1), 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulu, H., & Boyle, P. J. (2010). Premarital cohabitation and divorce: Support for the ‘Trial Marriage’ theory? Demographic Research, 23(31), 879–904.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinger, G. (1976). A social psychological perspective on marital dissolution. Journal of Social Issues, 32(1), 21–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichter, D. T., Qian, Z., & Mellott, L. M. (2006). Marriage or dissolution? Union transitions among poor cohabiting women. Demography, 43(2), 223–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liefbroer, A. C., & Dourleijn, E. (2006). Unmarried cohabitation and union stability: Testing the role of diffusion using data from 16 European countries. Demography, 43(2), 203–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, G. & Vikat, A. (2004). Does divorce risk depend on spouses’ relative income? A register-based study of first marriages in Sweden in 1981–1998. MPIDR Working Paper WP-2004-010.

  • Lyngstad, T. H., & Jalovaara, M. (2010). A review of the antecedents of union dissolution. Demographic Research, 23(10), 257–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyngstad, T. H., Noack, T., & Tufte, P. A. (2011). Pooling of economic resources: A comparison of Norwegian married and cohabiting couples. European Sociological Review, 27(5), 624–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäenpää, E. (2009). Cohabiting partners’ socioeconomic characteristics and the transition to marriage in Finland. Finnish Yearbook of Population Research, 44, 63–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mäenpää, E., & Jalovaara, M. (2011). The effects of homogamy in socio-economic background and education on union dissolution: divergent effects in cohabitations and marriages? Stockholm Research Reports in Demography, 2011, 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mäenpää, E., & Jalovaara, M. (forthcoming). The effects of homogamy in socioeconomic background and education on the transition from cohabitation to marriage. Acta Sociologica.

  • Moors, G., & Bernhardt, E. (2009). Splitting up or getting married? Competing risk analysis of transitions among cohabiting couples in Sweden. Acta Sociologica, 52(3), 227–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikander, T. (1996). Perheiden muodostuminen ja hajoaminen: avo- ja avioparien yhteen ja erilleen muutto [Family formation and dissolution: The moving together and separation of cohabitants and married couples]. Helsinki: Statistics Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nock, S. L. (1995). Commitment and dependency in marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57(2), 503–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nock, S. L. (2001). The marriages of equally dependent spouses. Journal of Family Issues, 22(6), 756–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2009). Labour Force Statistics 1988–2008.

  • Oláh, L., & Bernhardt, E. (2008). Sweden: Combining childbearing and gender equality. Demographic Research, 19(28), 1105–1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ono, H. (1998). Husbands’ and Wives’ resources and marital dissolution. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(3), 674–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988). A theory of marriage timing. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 563–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, V. K. (1997). Women’s employment and the gain to marriage: The specialization and trading model. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 431–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, S. J. (1999). Wives’ income and marital quality: Are there reciprocal effects? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(1), 123–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, S. J. (2004). Dollars, dependency, and divorce: Four perspectives on the role of wives’ income. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(1), 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rønsen, M., & Sundström, M. (2002). Family policy and after-birth employment among new mothers—A comparison of Finland, Norway and Sweden. European Journal of Population, 18(2), 121–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, H. L., & Sawhill, I. V. (1975). Time of transition: The growth of families headed by women. Washington DC: Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassler, S., & McNally, J. (2003). Cohabiting couples’ economic circumstances and union transitions: A re-examination using multiple imputation techniques. Social Science Research, 32(4), 553–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, L. C., & Bianchi, S. M. (2000). Women’s economic independence and the probability of divorce—A review and reexamination. Journal of Family Issues, 21(7), 906–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoen, R., & Weinick, R. M. (1993). Partner choice in marriages and cohabitations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55(2), 408–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smock, P. J. (2000). Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings, and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smock, P. J., Manning, W. D., & Porter, M. (2005). Everything’s there except money: How money shapes decisions to marry among cohabitors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(3), 680–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobotka, T., & Toulemon, L. (2008). Changing family and partnership behaviour: Common trends and persistent diversity across Europe. Demographic Research, 19(6), 85–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • StataCorp. (2009). Stata statistical software: release 11.1. College Station: StataCorp LP.

  • Statistics Finland. (2009). 14.12.2009-last update, cost-of-living index 1951: 10=100 [Homepage of Statistics Finland]. http://www.stat.fi/til/khi/2009/index_en.html. Accessed Dec 2009.

  • Statistics Finland. (2010). Perheet 2009 [Families 2009]. Helsinki: Statistics Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surkyn, J., & Lesthaeghe, R. (2004). Value orientations and the second demographic transition (SDT) in Northern, Western and Southern Europe: An update. Demographic Research, Special Collection, 3(3), 45–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teachman, J. (2010). Wives’ economic resources and risk of divorce. Journal of Family Issues, 31(10), 1305–1323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tjøtta, S., & Vaage, K. (2003). Union disruption in Norway. International Journal of Sociology, 33(1), 40–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Kaa, D. (2003). Second demographic transition. In P. Demeny & G. McNicoll (Eds.), Encyclopedia of population (pp. 872–875). New York: McMillan Reference USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voydanoff, P. (1990). Economic distress and family relations: A review of the eighties. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52(4), 1099–1115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiik, K. A., Bernhardt, E., & Noack, T. (2010). Love or money? Marriage intentions among young cohabitors in Norway and Sweden. Acta Sociologica, 53(3), 269–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful for the useful comments provided by Jani Erola, Jan M. Hoem, Juho Härkönen, Torkild H. Lyngstad, Elina Mäenpää, the anonymous referees, and the editors, and Elina Mäenpää also for her invaluable contributions during the data creation phase. The study has been funded by the Academy of Finland (decision numbers 126562 and 138208).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Research, University of Turku, Assistentinkatu 7, 20014, Turku, Finland

    Marika Jalovaara

  2. Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Marika Jalovaara

Authors
  1. Marika Jalovaara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marika Jalovaara.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jalovaara, M. Socioeconomic Resources and the Dissolution of Cohabitations and Marriages. Eur J Population 29, 167–193 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-012-9280-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-012-9280-3

Keywords

Mots-clés

Search

Navigation