The Economic Consequences of Partnership...
Transcript of The Economic Consequences of Partnership...
The Economic Consequences of Partnership Dissolution
A Comparative Analysis of Panel Studies from Five
European Countries
Economic consequences ...• have been studied in numerous scholarly articles• mostly negative, especially for women• most analyses done for the US, few in other countries
– e.g., Sweden (Fritzell 1990, Gähler 1998), The Netherlands (Poortman 2001), Great Britain (Jarvis/Jenkins 1997), Canada (Finnie 1993), Germany (Burkhauser et al. 1990, 1991; DiPrete/McManus 2000; Andreß et al. 2003)
• very few truly comparative analyses– Dewilde 2003, Uunk 2004 (both using ECHP)
• small number of cases, short observation periods, focus on women and less so on men
• great variance of findings across countries
National context matters …
• Autonomy– freedom not to continue a potentially
repressive relationship, e.g., because of economic dependency (Orloff 1993).
• Research question– How much autonomy is granted to the weaker
family members within the national context?– the national configuration (“welfare mix”) of
market, state, and family
Structure1. Typology of national contexts2. Hypotheses3. Data4. Descriptive Results5. Statistical model6. Multivariate results
• collaborative work done by Barbara Borgloh, Miriam Bröckel and Marco Giesselmann (University of Bielefeld), Dina Hummelsheim, Hans-Jürgen Andreß (University of Cologne)
Typology of Family Support
Italymodel of extended familial solidarity
Great Britainmarket modelrudimentary
Swedensupport for care facilities and gainful employment
Germany(Belgium)
financial compensation for familial burdens
extensive
CandidatesModel ofIntervention
Public Policy Orientation
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1980 1985 1990 1995
Perc
ent Belgium
GermanyItalySwedenUK
Quelle:
OECD (2001)
Family cash benefits as % of GDP
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Perc
ent Belgium
Germany
Italy
Sweden
UK
Quelle: ILO, MZES, Nat.Stat.Onl. (versch. Jahre)
Child benefits as % of monthly income
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
9019
83
1988
1993
1998
Proz
ent
Belgium
Germany
Italy
UK
Quelle: Eurostat: New Cronos (2003)
Women’s employment rate
Quelle: ILO (1999, 90, 98, 2002)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Perc
ent Belgium
GermanySwedenUK
Women’s earnings as % of men’s earnings
Women’s Economic Autonomy
3=high, 1=lowAutonomy
++--00+Low part-time employment
--+0-++Employment rateWomen’s Employment
+--0+03-6 year olds------+++0-3 year oldsPublic
Childcare
--0-+0Social assistance----++0Child benefits
--0-0++Family cash benefits
Cash Transfers
Italy
Great
Britain
Germ
any
Belgium
Sweden
Women’s Economic Autonomy
133=high, 1=lowAutonomy
++--00+Low part-time employment
--+0-++Employment rateWomen’s Employment
+--0+03-6 year olds------+++0-3 year oldsPublic
Childcare
--0-+0Social assistance----++0Child benefits
--0-0++Family cash benefits
Cash Transfers
Italy
Great
Britain
Germ
any
Belgium
Sweden
Women’s Economic Autonomy
1233=high, 1=lowAutonomy
++--00+Low part-time employment
--+0-++Employment rateWomen’s Employment
+--0+03-6 year olds------+++0-3 year oldsPublic
Childcare
--0-+0Social assistance----++0Child benefits
--0-0++Family cash benefits
Cash Transfers
Italy
Great
Britain
Germ
any
Belgium
Sweden
Women’s Economic Autonomy
12233=high, 1=lowAutonomy
++--00+Low part-time employment
--+0-++Employment rateWomen’s Employment
+--0+03-6 year olds------+++0-3 year oldsPublic
Childcare
--0-+0Social assistance----++0Child benefits
--0-0++Family cash benefits
Cash Transfers
Italy
Great
Britain
Germ
any
Belgium
Sweden
Women’s Economic Autonomy
122233=high, 1=lowAutonomy
++--00+Low part-time employment
--+0-++Employment rateWomen’s Employment
+--0+03-6 year olds------+++0-3 year oldsPublic
Childcare
--0-+0Social assistance----++0Child benefits
--0-0++Family cash benefits
Cash Transfers
Italy
Great
Britain
Germ
any
Belgium
Sweden
Hypotheses1. Partnership dissolution has an effect on income
a. causes income changes for both partners. b. women – compared to men – experience more often and more
severe income losses.2. Gender gap in post-separation income decreases with
autonomya. low in Sweden, high in Germany, Great Britain, and Belgium, and
especially high in Italyb. individual living conditions should be controlled (employment,
child care, coping resources: age and education)3. Short-term consequences (welfare state, extended
family)- Italy (highest), Germany, Great Britain, Belgium, Sweden (lowest)
4. Long-term consequences (employment, public infrastructure
- no a-priori hypothesis
Five household panels used
men and women between 18 and 60 years of ageSeparations
183170
6051
470674
684753
181222
MenWomen
Household head, partner, and max. 1 adult household
member
All household members present
on 31.12. of interview year
All household members at time
of interview
All household members at time
of interview
All household members at time
of interview
Target Population
77111611Waves
analysed
every 2-3 yearsevery 2-3 yearsannualAnnualannualPanel
Design
1984 – 19981987 – 20021991 – 20011984 – 19991992 – 2002Time period
University of GothenburgBanca d’Italia
Institute for Social and Economic
Research
German Institute for Economic
Research
Universities of Antwerp and
LüttichInstitution
Household Market and Nonmarket Activities (HUS)
The Banc of Italy Survey of House-holds’ Income and
Wealth (SHIW)
British Household Panel Survey
(BHPS)
German Socio-Economic Panel Study (GSOEP)
Panel Studie van Belgische Huis-houdens (PSBH)
Name
SwedenItalyGreat BritainGermanyBelgium
Income indicators
• monthly income• household level• net income• support payments controlled• adjusted for household size (OECD)• adjusted for inflation (consumer price index)
= adjusted disposable monthly household income
Adjusted household income (Median)
500
1000
1500
2000
-5 0 5 -5 0 5
Men Women
Belgium GermanyItaly SwedenUK
Hou
seho
ld In
com
e (E
uro)
Years from Separation
Percentage change of adjusted household income (t versus t-1)
-50 0 50Income changes in %
Women
Men
Sweden
Belgium
Great Britain
Italy
Germany
Italy
Great Britain
Belgium
Germany
Sweden
25. percentile median 75. percentile
-28-56 +7
Statistical Model
separation ofyear :0time womenandmen 2,1gender
nsobservatio162ngcontributiS) GB, D, (B, countries4,,1from
sindividual3364,,1about data
),,,( 210
768
54
210
==
≤≤==
++
⋅+⋅+⋅+++++=
ttg
mci
utg
sepemplsepagesepeducemplchildeducageincome
i
i
gcgccitititiiti
itc
itc
iic
it
K
K
αααβββ
βββββ
Model controls for ...
i
gcgccitititiiti
itc
itc
iic
it
utg
sepemplsepagesepeducemplchildeducageincome
++
⋅+⋅+⋅+++++=
),,,( 210
768
54
210
αααβββ
βββββ
• different national levels of income• different socio-demographic characteristics of
national samples
Model controls for ...
i
gcgccitititiiti
itc
itc
iic
it
utg
sepemplsepagesepeducemplchildeducageincome
++
⋅+⋅+⋅+++++=
),,,( 210
768
54
210
αααβββ
βββββ
• parental obligations and gainful employment• depending on national context (country-specific
effects)
Model controls for ...
i
gcgccitititiiti
itc
itc
iic
it
utg
sepemplsepagesepeducemplchildeducageincome
++
⋅+⋅+⋅+++++=
),,,( 210
768
54
210
αααβββ
βββββ
• coping resources in the event of separation– education, age– employment (taxation depends of family status)
Model controls for ...
i
gcgccitititiiti
itc
itc
iic
it
utg
sepemplsepagesepeducemplchildeducageincome
++
⋅+⋅+⋅+++++=
),,,( 210
768
54
210
αααβββ
βββββ
• α0 income trend before separation(by country)
• α1 separation effect(by country and gender)
• α2 income trend after separation(by country and gender)
Model controls for ...
i
gcgccitititiiti
itc
itc
iic
it
utg
sepemplsepagesepeducemplchildeducageincome
++
⋅+⋅+⋅+++++=
),,,( 210
768
54
210
αααβββ
βββββ
• unobserved individual characteristics• controlled by estimation procedure (random and
fixed effects)
Gender gap (women vs. men)estimated difference of post-separation incomes
-187-310
-227-359
-290-326
-304-341
-206-279
-252-327
-94-128
-78-113
-400-300-200-1000
Great Britain
Germany
Belgium
Sweden
Base Child Care Employment Both
Gender gap (women vs. men)estimated difference of post-separation incomes
-187-310
-227-359
-290-326
-304-341
-206-279
-252-327
-94-128
-78-113
-400-300-200-1000
Great Britain
Germany
Belgium
Sweden
Base Child Care Employment Both
Gender gap (women vs. men)estimated difference of post-separation incomes
-187-310
-227-359
-290-326
-304-341
-206-279
-252-327
-94-128
-78-113
-400-300-200-1000
Great Britain
Germany
Belgium
Sweden
Base Child Care Employment Both
Gender gap (women vs. men)estimated difference of post-separation incomes
-187-310
-227-359
-290-326
-304-341
-206-279
-252-327
-94-128
-78-113
-400-300-200-1000
Great Britain
Germany
Belgium
Sweden
Base Child Care Employment Both
Short- and long-term consequencesestimated income changes for women
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0E
uro
0 5 10 15years from separation
Sweden Belgium Great Britain Germany
Summary• equivalised five national household panels• number of cases larger and observation period
longer than in other studies• women more negatively affected than men in all
countries• national context matters
– autonomy decreases gender gap– autonomy decreases short-term separation effect for
women– surprising long-term effects
Thank you for your attention!
more info
www.wiso.uni-koeln.de/eswf