Population Research and Policy Review

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 329–351 | Cite as

A room of one’s own or room enough for two? Access to housing and new household formation in Sweden, 1968–1992

  • Nathanael T. LausterEmail author


Familistic and individualistic theories both provide explanations for recent declines in family household formation. Securing access to housing plays a key role in new household formation for both these theories. Familistic theories hypothesize a positive relationship between access to housing and new family household formation. Individualistic theories hypothesize a positive relationship between access to housing and nonfamily household formation. Here I test these hypotheses in Sweden by modeling leaving home for family and nonfamily household formation using the Swedish Family Survey and supplemental housing data. I find significant support for the familistic notion that greater access to housing increases the likelihood of family household formation. I fail to find support for the individualistic theory.


Cohabitation Family Housing Nest-leaving Sweden 



I received significant support for the research of this paper from Brown University. Professors Frances Goldscheider, John Modell, David Lindstrom, and Nicholas Townsend provided valuable commentary on and review of this paper. Professor Eva Bernhardt of Stockholm University and Lars-Erik Borgegård and Urban Fransson of Uppsala University also provided valuable review. Professor Rebecca Upton of DePauw University also provided significant review of this paper. All errors are my own.


  1. Aassve, A., Billari, F., Mazzuco, S., & Ongaro, F. (2002). Leaving home: A comparative analysis of ECHP data. Journal of European Social Policy, 12(4), 259–275.Google Scholar
  2. Abramsson, M., Borgegård, L., & Fransson, U. (2002). Housing careers: Immigrants on local Swedish housing markets. Housing Studies, 17(3), 445–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abramsson, M., Borgegård, L., & Fransson, U. (2004). The first years as independent actors in the housing market: Young households in a Swedish municipality. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 19, 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agresti, A. (1996). An introduction to categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Anas, A., Jirlow, U., Hårsman, B., & Snickars, F. (1991). The Swedish housing market: Development and institutional setting. In B. Hårsman, & J. Quigley (Eds.), Housing markets and housing institutions: An international comparison (pp. 31–62). London, England: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Andersson, G. (1998). Trends in marriage formation in Sweden 1971–1993. European Journal of Population, 14, 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker, G. (1973). A theory of marriage: Part I. The Journal of Political Economy, 81(4), 813–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. (1996). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Billari, F., Philipov, D., & Baizán, P. (2001). Leaving home in Europe: The experience of cohorts born around 1960. International Journal of Population Geography, 7, 339–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bodnar, J., & Borocz, J. (1998). Housing advantages for the better connected? Institutional segmentation, settlement type and social network effects in Hungary’s late state-socialist housing inequalities. Social Forces, 76(4), 1275–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bracher, M., & Santow, G. (1998). Economic independence and union formation in Sweden. Population Studies, 52(3), 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bradley, D. (1996). Family law and political culture: Scandinavian laws in comparative perspective. London, England: Sweet and Maxwell.Google Scholar
  13. Buck, N., & Scott, J. (1993). She’s leaving home: But why? An analysis of young people leaving the parental home. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55(4), 863–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bumpass, Larry L. (1990). What’s happening to the family? Interactions between demographic and institutional change. Demography, 27(4), 483–498.Google Scholar
  15. Cherlin, A. J. (2000). Toward a new home socioeconomics of union formation. In L. Waite, C. Bachrach, M. Hindin, E. Thomson, & A. Thornton (Eds)., Ties that bind: Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation (pp. 126–144). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  16. Frykman, J., & Löfgren, O. (1987). Culture builders: A historical anthropology of middle class life. Translated by A. Crozier. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goldscheider, F. K., & DaVanzo, J. (1986). Semiautonomy and leaving home in early adulthood. Social Forces, 65(1), 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldscheider, F., & DaVanzo, J. (1989). Pathways to independent living in early adulthood: Marriage, semiautonomy, and premarital residential independence. Demography, 26(4), 597–614.Google Scholar
  19. Goldscheider, F., & Goldscheider, C. (1993). Leaving home before marriage: Ethnicity, familism, and generational relationships. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  20. Goldscheider, F., Thornton, A., & Young-DeMarco, L. (1993). A portrait of the nest-leaving process in early adulthood. Demography, 30(4), 683–699.Google Scholar
  21. Goldscheider, F., & Goldscheider, C. (1998). The effects of childhood family structure on leaving and returning home. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(3), 745–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldscheider, F., Thornton, A., & Yang, L. (2001). Helping out the kids: Expectations about parental support in young adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 727–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hajnal, J. (1965). European marriage patterns in perspective. In D. V. Glass & E. C. Eversley (Eds.), Population in history: Essays in historical demography (pp. 101–143). London, England: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  24. Hajnal, J. (1982). Two kinds of preindustrial household formation system. Population and Development Review, 8(3), 449–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hogan, D. (1978). The variable ordering of events in the life course. American Sociological Review, 43(4), 573–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holdsworth, C., & Solda, M.I. (2002). First housing moves in Spain: An analysis of leaving home and first housing transition. European Journal of Population, 18(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  27. Hughes, M. E. (2003). Home economics: Metropolitan labor and housing markets and domestic arrangement in young adulthood. Social Forces, 81(4), 1399–1429.Google Scholar
  28. Håkanson, S. (1999). “...då skall han taga henne till äkta...’’: Oäkta födslar, äktenskapsmarknad och giftermålssystem i Östsverige och Västsverige 1750–1850. Stockholm, Sweden: Stads-Och Kommun-Historiska Institutet.Google Scholar
  29. Johansson, S. R. (1987). Status anxiety and demographic contraction of privileged populations. Population and Development Review, 13(3), 439–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kiernan, K. (2000). European perspectives on union formation. In: L. Waite, C. Bachrach, M. Hindin, E. Thomson, & A. Thornton (Eds.), Ties that bind: Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation (pp. 40–58). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  31. Laslett, B., & Brenner, J. (1989). Gender and social reproduction: Historical perspectives. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 381–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lauster, N. (2002). Hem Ljuva Hem: Cohabitation, marriage, and access to home ownership in Sweden, 1972–1992. Scandinavian Population Studies, 13, 171–190.Google Scholar
  33. Lauster, N. (2005a). Roommates or families? Access to housing and the transition to nonmarital cohabitation in Sweden. Working Paper #2, Minnesota Population Center Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
  34. Lauster, N. (2005b). Better housing equals stronger families? The impact of housing opportunities on transitions from cohabitation to marriage or separation in Sweden. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Sociological Society, Minneapolis MN, March 31-April 3.Google Scholar
  35. Lauster, N. & Fransson, U. (2006). Of marriages and mortgages: The second demographic transition and the relationship between marriage and home ownership in Sweden. Housing Studies 21(6).Google Scholar
  36. Lawson, J. (2001). Comparing the causal mechanisms underlying housing networks over time and space. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 16, 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lesthaeghe, R. & Surkyn, J. (1988). Cultural dynamics and economic theories of fertility change. Population and Development Review, 14(1), 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lesthaeghe, R. & Moors, G. (1996). Living arrangements, socio-economic positions, and values among young adults: A pattern description for France, West Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands, 1990. In D. Coleman (Ed.), Europe’s population in the 1990s (pp. 163–221). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lesthaeghe, R. (1998). On theory development: Applications to the study of family formation. Population and Development Review, 24(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewin, B. (1982). Unmarried cohabitation: A marriage form in a changing society. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44(3), 763–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Matovic, M. (1984). Stockholmäktenskap. Familjebildning och partnerval i Stockholm, 1850–1890. Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  42. Matovic, M. (1990). Migration, family formation, and choice of marriage partners in Stockholm, 1860–1890. In A. van der Woude, A. Hayami, & J. de Vries (Eds.), Urbanization in history: A process of dynamic interactions (pp. 220–242). Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  43. Mulder, C., & Clark, W. A. V. (2000). Leaving home and leaving the state: Evidence from the United States. International Journal of Population Geography, 6, 423–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mulder, C., Clark, W. A. V., & Wagner, M. (2002). A comparative analysis of leaving home in the United States, the Netherlands and West Germany. Demographic Research, 7, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nilsson, K., & Strandh, M. (1999). Nest leaving in Sweden: The importance of early educational and labor market careers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(4), 1068–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988). A theory of marriage timing. American Journal of Sociology, 94(3), 563–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oppenheimer, V. K. (1994). Women’s rising employment and the future of the family in industrial societies. Population and Development Review, 20(2), 293–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Perin, C. (1977). Everything in its place: Social order and land use in America. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Pettersson, T. (1997). Drömmen om villa – om bostadmarknad och bostadpreferenser. In Å E. Andersson (Eds.), Bostadsmarknaden på 2000-talet. Stockholm, Sweden: SNS Förlag.Google Scholar
  50. Popenoe, D. (1987). Beyond the nuclear family: A statistical portrait of the changing family in Sweden. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49(1), 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. South, S. J., & Lloyd, K. M. (1992). Marriage opportunities and family formation: Further implications of imbalanced sex ratios. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(2), 440–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Statistics Sweden. (2002). Swedish statistical data website. Available at: Scholar
  53. Trost, J. (1978). Attitudes toward occurrence of cohabitation without marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 40(2), 393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Turner, B. (1999). Social housing finance in Sweden. Urban Studies, 36(4), 683–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wall, R. (1989). Leaving home and living alone: An historical perspective. Population Studies, 43(3), 369–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social Work and Family StudiesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations