Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byVictoria Lynch Modified over 6 years ago
1
A new look at the housing consequences of partnership dissolution
Rory Coulter, University College London Michael Thomas, University of Groningen Clara H Mulder, University of Groningen Understanding Society Conference, Colchester, 13th July 2017
2
Separation and housing
Separation often a ‘turning point’ in the housing career Alters trajectory and identities (Gotlib and Wheaton, 1997) Intensely gendered patterns and processes Homeowner Renting Renting with partner Shared housing Parental home
3
Known housing impacts Short-term Longer-term
Triggers moves constrained by time, finances and spatially ‘linked lives’ (Cooke et al., 2016) Suboptimal initial moves, reduced resources and new preferences elevate risk of moving (Feijten and van Ham, 2010) Exits from homeownership, returns to the parental home and reduced housing quality (Dewilde, 2008; Feijten and van Ham 2010) Lower odds of homeownership later in life course (Herbers et al. 2014)
4
Theoretical framework
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL Gender, children, income, tenure, housing history (contract status) Resources & restrictions HOUSING OUTCOMES Institutions LOCAL CONTEXT Urbanization, tenure structures, housing costs Opportunities & constraints
5
Motivations for the study
Place: rarely consider geography Emphasis on cross-national not local geographies Time: focused on homeownership in 1990s-2000s Reduced homeownership and rapid growth in private renting Also new housing benefit regime (SAR to age 35; LHA at 30% BRMA; benefit caps), constrained access to social sector, housing affordability pressures (vary spatially) Research question: How do the housing outcomes of partnership dissolution vary by tenure and across space in England and Wales?
6
Research design Household relationship grid to identify separations in W1-W6, defined as: “a transition from a legal marriage or cohabiting union observed at the wave t interview to living apart from the wave t spouse or partner at the wave t+1 interview” (Jenkins, 2009) Discard TSMs, same-sex couples, widowed and a small number of cases where partners split but stay in same HH Short panel so look at t to t+1 transitions (n=1480) Four outcomes (own, social rent, private rent, parents/sharing)
7
Housing Market Areas (HMAs)
CURDS project for short-lived NHPAU Use commute and migration patterns to create ‘functional’ geography using 2001 census We use silver standard and single tier version In practice, choice of HMA definition seems to have very little impact on results Blackburn London Source: Coombes and Wymer (2010)
8
Changes in housing position with separation
9
Destinations of homeowners
10
Destinations of social tenants
11
Destinations of private tenants
12
Outcome (ref=ownership)
Multinomial model Variable (measured at t) Outcome (ref=ownership) Social tenancy Private tenancy Parents/sharing Social tenant 5.319 2.632 2.985 Private tenant 3.131 3.690 2.814 2.073 0.741 2.593 Female -0.375 0.066 -0.025 social tenant # female 2.249 0.535 0.759 private tenant # female 2.246 1.440 1.444 parent/sharing # female 1.815 0.890 1.457 Lives with children 0.573 0.983 0.495 lives with children # female -0.265 -1.070 -1.786 Age 0.017 -0.068 Cohabiting -0.176 -0.344 -0.347 Repartnered at t+1 0.721 0.473 -0.872 Degree level qualifications -0.414 -0.012 -0.457 Income (£1000) -0.428 -0.174 -0.105 Ln population density of HMA -0.129 -0.128 0.075 % homeowners in HMA -0.065 -0.018 -0.006 Ln terraced house prices in HMA -0.260 0.459 0.262 N 1480 Notes: Extra controls for wave, housing contract status and survey origin. Bold indicates significant at 5% level.
13
Predicted probability of owning at t+1
14
Predicted probability of social tenancy at t+1
15
Predicted probability of private tenancy
16
Initial conclusions Separation a demographic risk with housing consequences Reduced homeownership, increased renting/parents/sharing Gendered impacts, especially if children present Relatively minor role of local housing geography Slightly reduced post-split homeownership in costly HMAs Next step: Two-stage models
17
Two step models Relational variables Housing contract status
Exit decision Move out Stay Destination selection Opportunity structure (HMAs) Owning Parental home/share Social rent Private rent
18
Acknowledgements Rory Coulter’s contribution to 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. Michael Thomas and Clara Mulder’s work on this paper is part of the project ‘Partner relationships, residential relocations and housing in the life course’ (PartnerLife). Principal investigators: Clara H. Mulder (University of Groningen), Michael Wagner (University of Cologne) and Hill Kulu (University of St Andrews). PartnerLife is supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research [NOW, grant number ], the Deutsche ForschungsGemeinschaſt [DFG, grant number WA1502/6-1] and the Economic and Social Research Council [ESRC, grant number ES/L0166X/1] in the Open Research Area Plus scheme. Understanding Society (UKHLS) is an initiative funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and various Government Departments, with scientific leadership by the Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, and survey delivery by NatCen Social Research and Kantar Public. The research data are distributed by the UK Data Service. The authors are solely responsible for all analyses and interpretations of the data. Census statistics are adapted from data from the Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v.3.0. We are grateful to Mike Coombes for supplying the HMA shapefiles used in this project.
19
References Cooke, T. J., Mulder, C. H., & Thomas, M. (2016). Union dissolution and migration. Demographic Research, 34(26), pp. 741–760. Coombes M., & Wymer, C. (2010) Geography of Housing Market Areas (HMAs) in England: Stage 2 Report from CURDS. Dewilde, C. (2008). Divorce and the housing movements of owner-occupiers: A European comparison. Housing Studies, 23(6), pp. 809–832. Feijten, P., & van Ham, M. (2010). The Impact of Splitting Up and Divorce on Housing Careers in the UK. Housing Studies, 25(4), pp. 483–507. Gotlib, I. H. & Wheaton, B. (1997). Trajectories and turning points over the life course: Concepts and themes, in I.H. Gotlib & B. Wheaton (Eds.) Stress and adversity over the life course: Trajectories and turning points. Cambridge: CUP. Herbers, D. J., Mulder, C. H., & Mòdenes, J. A. (2014). Moving out of home ownership in later life: The influence of the family and housing careers. Housing Studies, 29(7), pp. 910–936. Jenkins, S. P. (2009). Marital splits and income changes over the longer term, in: M. Brynin & J. Ermisch (Eds.), Changing Relationships, pp. 217–236. Abingdon: Routledge.
20
Appendix: Problem A: ‘Family attrition’
Attribute at t (col % or mean) Men Women Tracked Attrition Age 51.0 48.6 48.5 46.0 UKHLS sample 71.6 71.9 71.8 72.0 BHPS sample 18.8 12.7 18.7 EMB sample 9.6 15.4 9.5 15.3 Wave 1 19.6 32.0 31.9 Cohabiting 18.0 21.1 17.9 21.0 Lives with own child 53.8 55.9 54.6 57.0 Homeowner 78.7 69.0 68.9 London 11.2 16.3 11.1 16.2 Fully interviewed 81.0 66.2 91.4 80.8 White British 82.8 73.8 82.0 75.0 Low education (<=GCSE) 41.3 46.1 45.0 50.4 Personal income (£) 2420 2283 1436 1357 14% of enumerated couples at t lost completely t+1 12% of interviewed cases (8% in BHPS, Brewer and Nandi 2014: 8) Cannot know if split up
21
Problem B: ‘Break up attrition’
Attrition also correlates with separation (2.3% couples separate/wave) By using both partners’ records we can identify cases where separation occurs but one partner is lost 641 of 977 separating men tracked (66%) 1070 of 1214 separating women tracked (88%) Equivalents 78% and 94% in BHPS (Brewer and Nandi, 2014: 9) Potential problem if loss is selective
22
Modelling break up attrition (probit)
Variable (measured at t) Men (coeff.) Women (coeff.) Age -0.001 Survey origin (ref=UKHLS) BHPS -0.256 -0.346 EMB 0.234 -0.945* Wave (ref=1) 2 -0.692** 0.101 3 -0.350 4 -0.994*** -0.404 5 -0.526* -0.358 Cohabiting (ref=married) -0.475** -0.793*** Lives with child (ref=no) 0.797*** -1.023*** Housing tenure (ref=ownership) Social rent 0.342+ -0.083 Private rent 0.379+ -0.081 In housing contract (ref=no) -0.712*** -0.950*** Constant 0.231 0.914+ McFadden's pseudo-r2 0.085 0.097 Notes: ***=p<0.001 **=p<0.01 *=p<0.05 +=p<0.1 Insignificant controls not shown (London, education, employment, income) Implication Need to adjust models for selective dropout (Heckman?) Challenge= identifying movers! Work ongoing
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.