1 / 18

Moving around separation: who moves and at what distance

Moving around separation: who moves and at what distance. Clara H. Mulder and Gunnar Malmberg University of Amsterdam; Umeå University. Research aim. Add to the explanation of moving around separation and divorce. Issue: who moves, how far from the joint home

lali
Download Presentation

Moving around separation: who moves and at what distance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Moving around separation: who moves and at what distance Clara H. Mulder and Gunnar MalmbergUniversity of Amsterdam; Umeå University

  2. Research aim • Add to the explanation of moving around separation and divorce. Issue: who moves, how far from the joint home • Previous research on who moves: Not that much. Some studies for Germany, Denmark, U.K.; previous paper by Mulder & Wagner (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2010. Presented in Antwerp last year) • Previous research on moving distance: Feijten & Van Ham, 2007, all divorced people (not specifically moves at the occasion of the separation)

  3. Theory: who moves • See Mulder & Wagner (2010) • If costs of moving C(MO) are lower than costs of staying C(S) for any separated person, this person moves • If C(MO) > C(S) for both ex-partners: partner with lower C(MO) moves (rule of fairness) • If any ex-partner has insufficient resources to pay for joint home alone, this ex-partner moves • So: probability of moving is decreased by higher C(MO) and by resources and increased by [idem] of other ex-partner

  4. Theory: what distance • Distance decreased by local ties (note: these ties may also be seen as a cost of moving and decrease its likelihood) • Distance increased by (the likelihood of) additional reasons for moving

  5. Hypotheses: local ties • Hypotheses for individual: - on moving and distance. Partner: + on moving • Children (particularly young or school age);gender difference expected • Parents, siblings close (< 2 km) • Working from home • Living in county of birth

  6. Hypotheses: resources • Hypothesis for individual: - on moving. Partner: + on moving (relative resources). • Income • Level of education • Age (assets, career advantage) • Note: these variables also indicate reasons for moving

  7. Hypotheses: additional reasons Hypothesis: + on distance, - on moving. No hypotheses for partner on distance (except…) • Dispersal of jobs: level of education • Income, idem, BUT greater satisfaction with job given level of education • Unemployment • Enrolment in education • Fewer reasons with increasing age • New partner (and: partner has new partner) • Fewer reasons in urban areas, large cities • Homeowner: better housing but higher cost. Housing more dispersed

  8. Additional reasons / controls • Migrant status:Differences in social networksMoving back to home country not observed • Women:More likely to initiate separationMore likely child custodyPossibly lower investments when working from homeLess favorable position when homeowner; probably less frequently ‘single owner’

  9. Data • ASTRID data: register data for Sweden (entire population) • Couples in 2004 living in the same 100m square (married; cohabiters with children), separated and no longer living in the same 100m square in 2005 • N = 32,867, n moved = 20427 • Random designation of one person in couple as the separated person, the other as the partner

  10. Methods • Logistic regression of whether separated person moved around separation • OLS regression of log-distance moved for movers • *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05

  11. Results: children

  12. Results: family, county of birth

  13. Results: workplace

  14. Results: income, education, age

  15. Results: more reasons for moving

  16. Results: urbanization, homeowner

  17. Conclusions (1) • Ties to a location decrease likelihood of moving and distance moved • Some evidence of importance of (relative) resources to allow staying (income, age) • Additional reasons: working far away, new partner, urbanization, homeowner… • But not education, income

  18. Conclusions (2) • Gender differences, even in Sweden • Moving for separation is special:- importance of partner variables- no impact of level of education- strikingly great impact of local ties

More Related