Demography

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 159–179 | Cite as

Income dynamics in couples and the dissolution of marriage and cohabitation

Article

Abstract

Several studies have shown that a wife’s strong (socio)economic position is associated with an increase in the risk of divorce. Less is known about such effects for cohabiting relationships. Using a unique and large-scale sample of administrative records from The Netherlands, we analyze the link between couples’ income dynamics and union dissolution for married and cohabiting unions over a 10-year period. We find negative effects of household income on separation and positive effects of the woman’s relative income, in line with earlier studies. The shape of the effect of the woman’s relative income, however, depends on the type of union. Movements away from income equality toward a maledominant pattern tend to increase the dissolution risk for cohabiting couples, whereas they reduce the dissolution risk for married couples. Movements away from income equality toward a female-dominant pattern (reverse specialization) increase the dissolution risks for both marriage and cohabitation. The findings suggest that equality is more protective for cohabitation, whereas specialization is more protective for marriage, although only when it fits a traditional pattern. Finally, we find that the stabilizing effects of income equality are more pronounced early in the marriage and that income equality also reduces the dissolution risk for same-sex couples.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Becker, G.S. 1981. A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, G.S., E.M. Landes, and R.T. Michael. 1977. “An Economic Analysis of Marital Instability.” Journal of Political Economy 85:1141–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blossfeld, H.P. and R. Muller. 2002. “Union Disruption in Comparative Perspective: The Role of Assortative Partner Choice and Careers of Couples.” International Sociology 32:3–35.Google Scholar
  4. Blumstein, P. and P. Schwartz. 1983. American Couples: Money, Work, Sex. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
  5. Bracher, M., G. Santow, S.P. Morgan, and J. Trussel. 1993. “Marriage Dissolution in Australia: Models and Explanations.” Population Studies 47:403–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brines, J. and K. Joyner. 1999. “The Ties That Bind: Principles of Cohesion in Cohabitation and Marriage.” American Sociological Review 64:333–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brüderl, J., A. Diekmann, and H. Engelhardt. 1997. “Erhöht eine Probeehe das Scheidingsrisiko? Eine empirische Untersuchung mit dem Familiensurvey” [Does a trial marriage increase the risk of divorce]. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 49:205–22.Google Scholar
  8. Brüderl, J. and F. Kalter. 2001. “The Dissolution of Marriages: The Role of Information and Marital-Specific Capital.” Journal of Mathematical Sociology 25:403–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cherlin, A.J. 1979. “Work Life and Marital Dissolution.” Pp. 151–66 in Divorce and Separation: Context, Causes and Consequences, edited by G. Levinger and O.C. Moles. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  10. — 1992. Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, rev. and enlarged ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ciano-Boyce, C. and L. Shelley-Sireci. 2002. “Who Is Mommy Tonight? Lesbian Parenting Issues.” Journal of Homosexuality 43(2):1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clarkberg, M., R.M. Stolzenberg, and L.J. Waite. 1995. “Attitudes, Values, and Entrance Into Cohabitational Versus Marital Unions.” Social Forces 74:609–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Rose, A. 1992. “Socioeconomic Factors and Family Size as Determinants of Marital Dissolution in Italy.” European Sociological Review 8:71–91.Google Scholar
  14. Hall, D.R. and J.Z. Zhao. 1995. “Cohabitation and Divorce in Canada: Testing the Selectivity Hypothesis.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 57:421–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heckert, D.A., T.C. Nowak, and K.A. Snyder. 1998. “The Impact of Husbands’ and Wives’ Relative Earnings on Marital Disruption.” Journal of Marriage and Family 60:690–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jalovaara, M. 2003. “The Joint Effects of Marriage Partners’ Socioeconomic Positions on the Risk of Divorce.” Demography 40:67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kalmijn, M., P.M. De Graaf, and A.R. Poortman. 2004. “Interactions Between Cultural and Economic Determinants of Divorce in The Netherlands.” Journal of Marriage and Family 66:75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kiernan, K. 2002. “Cohabitation in Western Europe: Trends, Issues, and Implications.” Pp. 3–32 in Just Living Together: Implications of Cohabitation on Families, Children, and Social Policy, edited by A. Booth and A.C. Crouter. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  19. Komarovsky, M. 1962. Blue-Collar Marriage. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  20. Latten, J.J. and P.F. Cuyvers. 1994. “Relatie en gezinsvorming in de jaren negentig” [Union and family formation in the nineties]. Voorburg/Heerlen: CBS.Google Scholar
  21. Lesthaeghe, R. and J. Surkuyn. 1988. “Cultural Dynamics and Economic Theories of Fertility Change.” Population and Development Review 14:1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liefbroer, A. 1991a. “Kiezen tussen ongehuwd samenwonen en trouwen” [Choosing between marriage and cohabitation]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Vrije Universiteit.Google Scholar
  23. — 1991b. “The Choice Between a Married and Unmarried First Union for Young Adults: A Competing Risk Analysis.” European Journal of Population 7:273–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liefbroer, A.C. and P.A. Dykstra. 2000. Levenslopen in verandering: Een studie naar ontwikkelingen in de levenslopen van Nederlanders geboren tussen 1900 en 1970. [Life courses in transition: A study of the life courses of Dutch persons born between 1900 and 1970]. Report. Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, Den Haag.Google Scholar
  25. Liu, G. and A. Vikat. 2004. “Does Divorce Risk Depend on Spouses’ Relative Income? A Register-Based Study of First Marriages in Sweden in 1981-1998.” MPIDR Working Paper No. 2004-010. Max-Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.Google Scholar
  26. Manting, D. 1994a. Dynamics in Marriage and Cohabitation: An Inter-temporal, Life Course Analysis of First Union Formation and Dissolution. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. — 1994b. “Meer scheidingen dan echtscheidingen” [More breakups than divorces]. Maandstatistiek van de Bevolking 42:6–8.Google Scholar
  28. Manting, D. and J.A. Loeve. 2004. “Economic Circumstances and Union Dissolution of Couples in the 1990s in The Netherlands.” Voorburg/Heerlen: Statistics Netherlands.Google Scholar
  29. McManus, P.A. and T.A. DiPrete. 2001. “Losers and Winners: The Financial Consequences of Divorce for Men.” American Sociological Review 66:246–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morgan, S.P. and R.R. Rindfuss. 1985. “Marital Disruption: Structural and Temporal Dimensions.” American Journal of Sociology 90:1055–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nock, S.L. 1995. “Commitment and Dependency in Marriage.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 57:503–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ono, H. 1998. “Husband’s and Wife’s Resources and Marital Dissolution.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 60:674–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oppenheimer, V.K. 1997. “Women’s Employment and the Gain to Marriage: The Specialization and Trading Model of Marriage.” Annual Review of Sociology 23:431–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. — 2003. “Cohabiting and Marriage During Young Men’s Career-Development Process.” Demography 40:127–49.Google Scholar
  35. Poortman, A.R. and M. Kalmijn. 2002. “Women’s Labour Market Position and Divorce in The Netherlands: Evaluating Economic Interpretations of the Work Effect.” European Journal of Population 18:175–202.Google Scholar
  36. Raftery, A.E. 1996. “Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research.” Pp. 111–63 in Sociological Methodology, edited by P.V. Marsden. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Rindfuss, R.R. and A. Van den Heuvel. 1990. “Cohabitation: A Precursor to Marriage or an Alternative to Being Single?” Population and Development Review 16:703–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rogers, S.J. 2004. “Dollars, Dependency, and Divorce: Four Perspectives on the Role of Wives’ Income.” Journal of Marriage and Family 66:59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ross, H.L. and I.V. Sawhill. 1975. Time of Transition: The Growth of Families Headed by Women. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  40. Sayer, L.C. and S.M. Bianchi. 2000. “Women’s Economic Independence and the Probability of Divorce.” Journal of Family Issues 21:906–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schoen, R., N.M. Astone, K. Rothert, N. Standish, and Y.J. Kim. 2002. “Women’s Employment, Marital Happiness, and Divorce.” Social Forces 81:643–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schor, J. 1991. The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  43. Simmons, T. and M. O’Connell. 2003. “Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households 2000.” Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  44. Simpson, I.H. and P. England. 1981. “Conjugal Work Roles and Marital Solidarity.” Journal of Family Issues 34:331–41.Google Scholar
  45. Smock, P.J. 2000. “Cohabitation in the United States: An Appraisal of Research Themes, Findings, and Implications.” Annual Review of Sociology 26:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smock, P.J. and S. Gupta. 2002. “Cohabitation in Contemporary North America.” Pp. 53–84 in Just Living Together: Implications of Cohabitation on Families, Children, and Social Policy, edited by A. Booth and A.C. Crouter. College Station, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  47. Solomon, S.E., E.D. Rothblum, and K.F. Balsam. 2005. “Money, Housework, Sex, and Con ict: Same-Sex Couples in Civil Unions, Those Not in Civil Unions, and Heterosexual Married Siblings.” Sex Roles 52:561–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. South, S.J. 2001. “Time-Dependent Effects of Wives’ Employment on Marital Dissolution.” American Sociological Review 66:226–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. South, S.J. and G. Spitze. 1986. “Determinants of Divorce Over the Marital Life Course.” American Sociological Review 51:583–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thomson, E. and U. Colella. 1992. “Cohabitation and Marital Stability: Quality or Commitment?” Journal of Marriage and the Family 54:259–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thornton, A., W.G. Axinn, and D.H. Hill. 1992. “Reciprocal Effects of Religiosity, Cohabitation, and Marriage.” American Journal of Sociology 98:628–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Von Gostomski, B.C., J. Hartmann, and J. Kopp. 1998. “Soziostrukturelle Bestimmungsgründe der Ehescheidung: Eine empirische Uberprufung einiger Hypothesen der Familienforschung” [Socialstructural bases of divorce: An empirical test of some hypotheses from family studies]. Zeitschrift für Sozialisationsforschung und Erziehungssoziologie 18:117–33.Google Scholar
  53. Voydanoff, P. 1990. “Economic Distress and Family Relations: A Review of the Eighties.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 52:1099–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wagner, M. 1993. “Sociale Bedingungen des Ehescheidungsrisikos aus der Perspektive des Lebensverlaufs” [Social determinant of the risk of divorce from a life course perspective]. Pp. 372–93 in Der Familienzyklus als sozialer Prozeß, edited by A. Diekmann and S. Weick. Berlijn: Duncker and Humblot.Google Scholar
  55. Waite, L.J. 1995. “Does Marriage Matter?” Demography 32:483–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthijs Kalmijn
    • 1
  • Anneke Loeve
    • 2
  • Dorien Manting
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SociologyTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Netherlands Institute for Spatial ResearchTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations