1. Sait Bayrakdar and Rory Coulter, University of Cambridge
How do parental background and local house prices influence leaving home in Britain?
Sait Bayrakdar and Rory Coulter, University of Cambridge
University of Groningen, 24th November 2016

2. Outline Background and questions Theory Data and approach
Preliminary results
Discussion and next steps

3. BACKGROUND

4. 1. Why study leaving home? Important for young people
Poverty risk (Iacovou 2010); housing career (Mulder 2003)
Important for parents and family dynamics
Resources; decision-making; privacy; time-use
Relationships and exchanges with children
Behaviours of young people and their siblings

5. 1. Why study leaving home?

6. 1. Why study leaving home? Important for society
Transmissions of (dis)advantage; housing systems
Leaving home
Source: Burrows (1999: 30)

7. 1. Historical perspectives: Pre-industrial
2 types of route out of the parental home in pre- industrial England (see Wall, 1983)
1. Fast-track
2. Slower-track
Young age (teens common)
Often in mid twenties
To work but not necessarily form a household (eg. girls in domestic service, boys in apprenticeships)
To marry and form a household
(few large multigenerational households)

8. 1. Historical perspectives: 1970s-1980s
Some resonance with patterns in 1970s and early 80s
Source: Berrington and Murphy (1994: 239)
Timing
Relatively early
Returns fairly rare - Kiernan (1991) estimates 33% men & 26% women returned by age 23 in 1958 cohort
2. Synchronization
Often linked to higher education or forming partnerships (early marriage until 1970s) ♀ ♂

9. 1. Historical perspectives: 1970s-early 80s
Variation in timing and pathways by gender and class (Berrington and Murphy, 1994)
Early exits facilitated by range of factors:
Favourable housing access and affordability
Supportive welfare system with student grants, eligibility for social benefits etc (Berrington and Stone, 2014)
Fit into model of “early, contracted and simple” pathway to adulthood (Billari and Liefbroer, 2010)

10. 1. New perspectives? Model breaking down from mid 1980s
“Late, protracted and complex” transitions?
Conceptual critiques
New trends
Transition to adulthood subjective, not defined by roles/events
(Arnett, 2000; White, 1994)
Increased
residence in parental home
36% % 2015
(ONS 2015a)
Widespread returns or ‘boomerangs’
(Stone et al., 2014)
‘Semi dependence’ across HH (Arundel and Ronald, 2016; Heath and Calvert, 2013)

11. 1. Macro-structural explanations
Two constellations of (overlapping) perspectives
Optimistic perspectives
Cautious perspectives
1. Theories
Individualization, Second Demographic Transition,
emerging adulthood
Individualization, risk society, intergenerational injustice
2. Mechanisms generating diversity/
de-standardisation
Increased scope for and attachment to exercising agency (building “choice biographies”)
Young people face greater ‘precarity’, restrictions and constraints. Reduced state welfare support.
3. Implications for leaving home
Postponement of partnership reduces likelihood of leaving home to marry/cohabit. Expansion of HE encourages early exits (esp. for women)
Youth unemployment, student debts and housing market constraints make it harder to afford to live independently

12. 1. Implications of trends
Restrictions and constraints on home-leaving increasingly seen as a threat to social equity/justice
2 main problems identified:
Intergenerational effects social disparities

13. 1. Implications of trends

14. 1. Implications of trends
Restrictions and constraints on home-leaving increasingly seen as a threat to social equity/justice
2 main problems identified:
Intergenerational effects social disparities
Local housing markets spatial disparities

15. 1. Redfern Review (November 2016)
“Indeed, looking at data for the UK, the number of year-olds living at home with parents increased by 1 million between 1997 and 2015, from 5.6 million to 6.6 million, despite the population of that age group rising by only 300,000. It is difficult to believe that, all of a sudden, the preference of year-olds has changed so that they want to stay at home. Their decisions must be being influenced by the changing availability of housing and the changing affordability constraints faced by this group.” (Redfern Review, p. 53)

16. 1. Implications of trends
Source: Shelter (2014: 20)

17. 1. Implications of trends
Correlation between Local Authority median house price and median rents
Affordability of homeownership
Affordability of renting
Source: ONS (2015: 7)
Source: National Housing Federation (2014: 24-25)

18. 1. Research question
How do parental background and local house prices influence the timing and household destinations of young adults’ transitions out of the parental home?
Two main contributions (hopefully!)
Examine patterns for recent cohort
Examine role of local housing prices

19. 2. THEORY

20. 2. Conceptualizing leaving home
Decisions influenced by (i) preferences for independence and (ii) ability and opportunity to act on preferences (Buck and Scott, 1993; Murphy and Wang, 1998)
Good evidence that no single process of leaving home (Iacovou, 2010)
Conceptualize multiple ‘competing risks’
Distinguish (1) partnership, (2) full-time student and (3) other arrangements (solo living, sharing, kids…)

21. 2. Conceptualizing leaving home
HOUSING CONTEXT
‘Linked lives’ of parents
Preferences
Individual attributes and trajectories
Leaving home decision
Ability and opportunities

22. 2. Individual level factors
Expected impact(s)
References
Age
Age increases exits to partnership but decreases exits to study. Exit probability increases with age.
Aassve et al. (2013); Kiernan (1991)
2. Ethnicity
Some minority groups may have lower risk of leaving home (eg. South Asians).
Stone et al. (2011)
3. Poor health
Lowers risk of leaving home by strengthening intergenerational connectivity.
South and Lei (2015)
4. Income and work
Higher income accelerates exits, less likely for unemployed/students to leave (except for partner?)
Ermisch (1999); Iacovou (2010)
5. Family status
Complex, but likely that having a partner and/or kids propels people out of parental home.
Ermisch (1999)

23. 2. Parental factors Factor Expected impact(s) References
1. Family structure
Living with both biological parents lowers risk of leaving home to all destinations. Space pressure increases risk of exit to ‘other’ arrangements.
Aquilino (1991); Di and Liu (2006); Ermisch (1999)
2. Higher education
Increases student departures but reduces exits to partnership.
De Jong Gierveld et al. (1991); South and Lei (2015)
NB not UK evidence
3. Economic position
Unclear. Higher incomes could facilitate leaving, especially to education. However parents could use resources to enforce leaving ‘on schedule’.
Avery et al. (1992); Ermisch (1999); Iacovou (2010)
4. Housing
“Feathered nest” (eg. homeownership) lowers risk of exits, except to education. However ownership might financially support exits.
Discussed by McKee (2012); Mulder (2013)

24. 3. Local housing prices
Cross-national evidence people leave home more quickly where housing (especially in the rental sector) is affordable and accessible (Mandic, 2008)
Work by Ermisch (1999) & Ermisch and Di Salvo (1997) suggested higher regional house prices reduce exits, especially to partnership
To what extent is this still/less/more strongly the case?

25. 3. DATA AND APPROACH

26. 3. Data
United Kingdom Household Longitudinal Study Waves 1-5 ( )
Enriched with Local Authority house prices from ONS House Price Index
Mix-adjusted three monthly means in £2015
Young people aged in parental home at t who completed an interview (cf. Ermisch, 1999)
N= 11,242 (49.2% men, 50.8% women)

27. 3. Approach Look at where young people go at t+1
Stay at home
Leave to full-time education, partnership or ‘other’ independent arrangements
NB: Very few ‘boomerangs’ in the sample
Examine transition rates, including attrition
Probit models of exit risk with Heckman selection equation

28. 4. RESULTS
(preliminary…)

29. 4. Raw transition patterns
Ermisch (1999: 58)
Ermisch replication
UKHLS
Outcome at t+1
% of
men
women
Parents
87.4
82.6
Student
3.6
4.5
Partner
5.1
7.6
Other
3.9
% of
men
women
86.7
81.7
3.7
4.8
5.4
8.0
4.1
5.5
% of
men
women
92.8
90.0
1.8
2.9
4.4
2.5
3.9
Data: BHPS
Data: BHPS
Data: UKHLS
BUT attrition=14% in BHPS, 29% in UKHLS!

30. 4. Probit modelling: Control effects
Variable (lagged)
Leaving home
(all destinations)
Leaving for partnership
Leaving for other destination
Female
0.165***
0.184***
0.223***
Ethnic minority
-0.335***
-0.241***
-0.256
Age
0.531***
0.357**
0.397***
Poor health
0.035
-0.081
0.076
Unemployed
0.089
0.087
0.042
Student
0.047
-0.123
-0.263***
Personal income
0.011***
0.010**
0.011**
Lives with partner
0.666***
0.656***
-0.383
Lives with child
0.560***
0.172
0.744***
Lives with both
0.850***
0.820***
-0.504
Notes: ***=p<0.001 **=p<0.01 *=p<0.05. Cluster robust standard errors. Models include regional fixed effects.

31. 4. Probit modelling: Parents and prices
Variable (lagged)
Leaving home
(all destinations)
Leaving for partnership
Leaving for other destination
Both bio parents
-0.186***
-0.077
-0.264***
1-2 ‘others’ in HH
-0.022
0.020
-0.020
3+ ‘others’ in HH
0.070
0.120
0.103
Parental degree
0.117**
-0.073
0.198**
Parental income
0.002**
0.001
0.002
Social tenant
0.074
0.098
0.206**
Private tenant
0.125
0.242***
0.259*
Local house prices
-0.000
-0.002**
Notes: ***=p<0.001 **=p<0.01 *=p<0.05. Cluster robust standard errors. Models include regional fixed effects.

32. 5. DISCUSSION AND NEXT STEPS

33. 5. Discussion
Parental family structure, economic position and housing important (but not for leaving to partnership)
High local house prices lower risk of leaving home
However – effects relatively small (note large negative London effect at regional level)
Although there is lots of attrition in UKHLS, perhaps this isn’t too great a problem for modelling work

34. 5. Next steps Investigate gender breakdown
Ermisch (1999) found no significant differences
2. Test for interactions (eg. parents x prices)
3. Extra geographic variables
Unemployment rate, population density, housing stock…
4. Multilevel modelling

35. Acknowledgements
This research is supported by an Economic and Social Research Council Future Research Leaders award [ES/L009498/1]. Financial support from the Isaac Newton Trust is also gratefully acknowledged. The United Kingdom Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) is conducted by the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex. UKHLS data were accessed via the UK Data Service. Neither the original collectors of the data nor the UK Data Service bear any responsibility for the analyses or interpretations presented in this study.

36. References
Aassve A, Arpino B and Billari FC (2013) Age norms on leaving home: Multilevel evidence from the European Social Survey. Environment and Planning A. 45 (2), 383–401. 
Aquilino WS (1991) Family structure and home-leaving: A further specification of the relationship. Journal of Marriage and Family. 53 (4), 999–1010.
Arnett JJ (2000) Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist. 55 (5), 469–480.
Arundel R and Ronald R (2016) Parental co-residence, shared living and emerging adulthood in Europe: semi-dependent housing across welfare regime and housing system contexts. Journal of Youth Studies. 19 (7), 885–905.
Avery R, Goldscheider F and Speare A (1992) Feathered nest/gilded cage: Parental income and leaving home in the transition to adulthood. Demography. 29 (3), 375–388.
Berrington A and Murphy M (1994) Changes in the living arrangements of young adults in Britain during the 1980s. European Sociological Review. 10 (3), 235–257.
Berrington A and Stone J (2014) Young adults’ transitions to residential independence in the UK: The role of social and housing policy. In: L. Antonucci, M. Hamilton, & S. Roberts eds. Young People and Social Policy in Europe: Dealing with Risk, Inequality and Precarity in Times of Crisis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 210–235.
Billari FC and Liefbroer AC (2010) Towards a new pattern of transition to adulthood? Advances in Life Course Research. 15 (2–3), 59–75. 
Buck N and Scott J (1993) She’s leaving home: but why? An analysis of young people leaving the parental home. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 55 (4), 863–874.

37. References
Burrows R (1999) Residential mobility and residualisation in social housing in England. Journal of Social Policy. 28 (1),
De Jong Gierveld J, Liefbroer A and Beekink E (1991) The effect of parental resources on patterns of leaving home among young adults in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review. 7 (1), 55–71.
Di Z and Liu X (2006) The effects of housing push factors and rent expectations on household formation of young adults. Journal of Real Estate Research. 28 (2), 149–166.
Ermisch J (1999) Prices, parents, and young people’s household formation. Journal of Urban Economics. 45 (1), 47–71.
Ermisch JF and Di Salvo P (1997) The economic determinants of young people’s household formation. Economica. 64, 627– 644.
Heath S and Calvert E (2013) Gifts, loans and intergenerational support for young adults. Sociology. 47 (6), 1120–1135.
Iacovou M (2010) Leaving home: Independence, togetherness and income. Advances in Life Course Research. 15 (4), 147– 160.
Kiernan K (1991) Transitions in young adulthood in Great Britain. Population Studies. 45 (S1), 95–114.
McKee K (2012) Young people, homeownership and future welfare. Housing Studies. 27 (6), 853–862.
Mandic S (2008) Home-leaving and its structural determinants in Western and Eastern Europe: An exploratory study. Housing Studies. 23 (4), 615–637.
Mulder CH (2003) The housing consequences of living arrangement choices in young adulthood. Housing Studies. 18 (5), 703–719.

38. References
Mulder CH (2013) Family dynamics and housing: Conceptual issues and empirical findings. Demographic Research. 29 (14), 355–378. Murphy M and Wang D (1998) Family and sociodemographic influences on patterns of leaving home in postwar Britain. Demography. 35 (3), 293–305. ONS (2015a) Families and households: Newport: Office for National Statistics. ONS (2015b) Housing Summary Measures Analysis. Newport: Office for National Statistics. Redfern Review (2016) The Redfern Review into the decline of home ownership. Shelter (2014) The clipped wing generation: Analysis of adults living at home with their parents. London: Shelter. South SJ and Lei L (2015) Failures-to-Launch and Boomerang Kids: Contemporary Determinants of Leaving and Returning to the Parental Home. Social Forces. Advance Access. Stone J, Berrington A and Falkingham J (2014) Gender, turning points, and boomerangs: returning home in young adulthood in Great Britain. Demography. 51 (1), 257–276. Stone J, Berrington A and Falkingham J (2011) The changing determinants of UK young adults´ living arrangements. Demographic Research. 25, 629–666. Wall R (1983) The household: Demographic and economic change in England, In: R. Wall, J. Robin, & P. Laslett eds. Family forms in historic Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 493–512. White L (1994) Coresidence and leaving home: Young adults and their parents. Annual Review of Sociology. 20, 81–102.