Moving around separation: who moves and at what distance

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