This paper compares mothers’ experience of having children with more than one partner in two liberal welfare regimes (the United States and Australia) and two social democratic regimes (Sweden and Norway). We use survey-based union and birth histories in Australia and the United States and data from national population registers in Norway and Sweden to estimate the likelihood of experiencing childbearing across partnerships at any point in the childbearing career. We find that births with new partners constitute a substantial proportion of all births in each country we study. Despite quite different arrangements for social welfare, the determinants of childbearing across partnerships are very similar. Women who had their first birth at a very young age or who are less well educated are most likely to have children with different partners. Socioeconomic differentials in childbearing across partnerships appeared to be stronger in the United States, but not in comparison to differentials in childbearing in the same union. Thus, no strong evidence was found for a steeper educational gradient in the liberal as opposed to social democratic welfare regimes. The risk of childbearing across partnerships increased dramatically in all countries from the 1980s to the 2000s, and the educational differential also increased; again, however, the increases were not associated with welfare regime.
Many studies have found that married people have higher subjective well-being than those who are not married. Yet the increase in cohabitation raises questions as to whether only marriage has beneficial effects. In this study, we examine differences in subjective well-being between cohabiting and married men and women in midlife, comparing the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and Norway. We apply propensity score–weighted regression analyses to examine selection processes into marriage and differential treatment bias. We find no differences between cohabitation and marriage for men in the United Kingdom and Norway, and women in Germany. However, we do find significant differences for men in Australia and women in Norway. The differences disappear after we control for selection in Australia, but they unexpectedly persist for Norwegian women, disappearing only when we account for relationship satisfaction. For German men and British and Australian women, those with a lower propensity to marry would benefit from marriage. Controls eliminate differences for German men, although not for U.K. women, but relationship satisfaction reduces differences. Overall, our study indicates that especially after selection and relationship satisfaction are taken into account, differences between marriage and cohabitation disappear in all countries. Marriage does not lead to higher subjective well-being; instead, cohabitation is a symptom of economic and emotional strain. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s13524-019-00792-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
As a result of a rise in divorce rates coupled with an increased prevalence of cohabitation, a growing percentage of the population has experienced or will experience the breakdown of a relationship and also the possibility of forming another new relationship. This paper explores the impact of previous relationship and fertility histories on repartnering. Using a longitudinal approach we compare the nature of repartnering behaviour in the United Kingdom and Australia, countries with similar policy and legislative frameworks. Using prospective panels surveys (British Household Panel Survey and the Household, Income and Labour Dynamic in Australia), we find that within five years of becoming single, an estimated 49 per cent of the United Kingdom sample and 43 per cent of the Australian sample had entered a new relationship, most commonly cohabitation. Event history analysis reveals strong repartnering patterns by age, and residency of children. The effect of previous relationship type suggests that people who have previously cohabited are more likely to repartner that those who did not.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.