Advertisement

The Impact of Job-Related Mobility and Migration Intentions on Union Dissolution

Chapter

Abstract

This contribution considers the question of whether long-distance commuting between the place of residence and the place of work increases the risk of separation for couples. Starting with theoretical considerations based on the social exchange theory and the micro-economic theory of divorce, both married and unmarried couples with different spatial household arrangements are analysed. The data come from random samples drawn from the panel study ‘Migration Decisions in the Life Course’ in two German cities. Partnership, residence, and occupational information are investigated longitudinally for 890 couples over an observation period of 3 years. Discrete event history models show that long-distance commuting between home and work significantly enhances the risk of separation for couples if the woman commutes but not if the man commutes. Furthermore, important differences between Eastern and Western Germany appear, replicating newer findings about the influence of female full-time employment on the stability of partnerships: In the West German sample, female full-time employment per se exerts a negative effect on the stability of partnerships. In the East German sample, though, it is not the full-time employment of women but the necessity to commute over long distances that enhances the risk of separation significantly. Further analyses show that the negative effects of female long-distance commuting between home and workplace are detectible in both parts of Germany. The findings provide little evidence for the exchange theory and the micro-economic theory of divorce but rather support bargaining model theories.

Keywords

Labour Force Participation Female Labour Force Participation Labour Market Participation Social Exchange Theory Union Dissolution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

References

  1. Abraham, M., Auspurg, K., & Hinz, T. (2010). Migration decisions within dual earner partnerships. A test of bargaining theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 876–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 650–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arránz Becker, O., & Hill, P. B. (2010). Wie handlungsrelevant sind Trennungsgedanken? Zur prädiktiven Bedeutung von (In-) Stabilitätswahrnehmungen für die Auflösung von Paarbeziehungen. In S. Walper & E.-V. Wendt (Eds.), Partnerschaften und die Beziehungen zu Eltern und Kindern. Befunde zur Beziehungs- und Familienentwicklung in Deutschland. Familie und Gesellschaft (pp. 153–180). Würzburg: Ergon Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, G. S., Landes, E. M., & Michael, R. T. (1977). An economic analysis of marital instability. Journal of Political Economy, 85(6), 1141–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bielby, W., & Bielby, D. (1992). I will follow him. Family ties, gender role beliefs and the reluctance to relocate for a better job. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1241–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, W. A., & Huang, Y. (2003). The life course and residential mobility in British housing markets. Environment & Planning A, 35(2), 323–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Engelhardt, H. (2002). Zur Dynamik von Ehescheidungen. Theoretische und empirische Analysen. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  8. Frisco, M. L., & Williams, K. (2003). Perceived housework equity, marital happiness, and divorce in dual-earner households. Journal of Family Issues, 24(1), 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gabler, S., Häder, S., & Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, J. H. P. (Eds.). (1998). Telefonstichproben in Deutschland. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Hill, P. B., & Kopp, J. (1999). Ehescheidung: Historische Entwicklungen und theoretische Erklärungen. In T. Klein & J. Kopp (Eds.), Scheidungsursachen aus soziologischer Sicht (pp. 23–42). Würzburg: Ergon Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. Huinink, J., & Röhler, A. (2005). Liebe und Arbeit in Paarbeziehungen. Zur Erklärung geschlechtstypischer Arbeitsteilung in nichtehelichen und ehelichen Lebensgemeinschaften. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Kalter, F. (1994). Pendeln statt Migration? Die Wahl und Stabilität von Wohnort-Arbeitsort-Kombinationen. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 6, 460–467.Google Scholar
  13. Kalter, F. (1998). Partnerschaft und Migration. Zur theoretischen Erklärung eines empirischen Effekts. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 50(2), 283–309.Google Scholar
  14. Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kley, S. (2010). Multilokalität als Strategie zur Nutzung von Chancen. In H.-G. Soeffner (Ed.), Unsichere Zeiten. Herausforderungen und gesellschaftliche Transformationen. Verhandlungen des 34. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, CD-Rom.Google Scholar
  16. Kley, S. (2011). Explaining the stages of migration within a life-course framework. European Sociological Review, 27(4), 469–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kley, S. (2012). Gefährdet Pendelmobilität die Stabilität von Paarbeziehungen? Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 41(5), 356–374.Google Scholar
  18. Kley, S., & Huinink, J. (2006). Die Gründung des eigenen Haushalts bei Ost- und Westdeutschen nach der Wiedervereinigung. Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft, 31(1), 127–154.Google Scholar
  19. Kley, S., & Huinink, J. (2010). ZA5228 – Migrationsentscheidungen im Lebensverlauf. Methodenbericht. Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
  20. Konietzka, D., & Huinink, J. (2003). Die De-Standardisierung einer Statuspassage? Zum Wandel des Auszugs aus dem Elternhaus und des Übergangs in das Erwachsenenalter in Westdeutschland. Soziale Welt, 54, 285–312.Google Scholar
  21. Koslowsky, M., Kluger, A., & Reich, M. (1995). Commuting stress. Causes, effects, and methods of coping. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  22. Künzler, J. (1999). Wandel der Geschlechterverhältnisse im internationalen Vergleich. Habilitationsschrift, Universität Würzburg.Google Scholar
  23. Levinger, G. (1965). Marital cohesiveness and dissolution. An integrative view. Journal of Marriage and Family, 27(1), 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewis, R. A., & Spanier, G. B. (1979). Theorizing about the quality and stability of marriage. In W. R. Burr et al. (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family. General theories/theoretical orientations (pp. 268–294). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  25. Limmer, R. (2005). Berufsmobilität und Familie in Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 17(2), 96–114.Google Scholar
  26. Limmer, R., & Schneider, N. F. (2008). Studying job-related spatial mobility in Europe. In N. F. Schneider & G. Meil (Eds.), Mobile living across Europe, volume I. Relevance and diversity of job-related spatial mobility in six European countries (pp. 13–45). Opladen/Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  27. Long, S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  28. Lyngstad, T. H. (2011). Does community context have an important impact on divorce risk? A fixed-effects study of twenty Norwegian first-marriage cohorts. European Journal of Population, 27, 57–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lyngstad, T. H., & Jalovaara, M. (2010). A review of the antecedents of union dissolution. Demographic Research, 23(10), 257–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nisic, N. (2010). Mitgegangen – mitgefangen? Die Folgen von Haushaltsumzügen für die Einkommenssituation von Frauen in Partnerschaften. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 62, 515–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pfau-Effinger, B. (2010). Cultural and institutional contexts. In J. Treas & S. Drobnic (Eds.), Dividing the domestic. Men, women and household work in cross-national perspective (pp. 125–146). Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Röhler, K. A., & Huinink, J. (2010). Pair relationships and housework. In J. Treas & S. Drobnic (Eds.), Dividing the domestic. Men, women and household work in cross-national perspective (pp. 192–213). Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sandow, E. (2010). Till work do us part. Dissertation, Umea University, Sweden.Google Scholar
  34. Schmitt, C., & Trappe, H. (2010). Die Bedeutung von Geschlechterarrangements für Partnerschaftsdauer und Ehestabilität in Ost- und Westdeutschland. In P. Krause & I. Ostner (Eds.), Leben in Ost- und Westdeutschland (pp. 227–239). Frankfurt a.M./New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  35. Schneider, N. F., et al. (2008). Germany – A country of locally attached but highly mobile people. In N. F. Schneider & G. Meil (Eds.), Mobile living across Europe, volume I. Relevance and diversity of job-related spatial mobility in six European countries (pp. 105–147). Opladen/Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  36. Schroedter, J. H., Lechert, Y., & Lüttinger, P. (2006). Die Umsetzung der Bildungsskala ISCED 1997 für die Volkszählung 1970, die Mikrozensus-Zusatzerhebung 1971 und die Mikrozensen 1976–2004. ZUMA-Methodenbericht.Google Scholar
  37. South, S. J. (2001). The geographic context of divorce. Do neighborhoods matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 755–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stutzer, A., & Frey, B. S. (2008). Stress that doesn’t pay: The commuting paradox. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 110(2), 339–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  40. Treas, J., & Drobnic, S. (Eds.). (2010). Dividing the domestic. Men, women and household work in cross-national perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. van der Lippe, T. (2010). Women’s employment and housework. In J. Treas & S. Drobnic (Eds.), Dividing the domestic. Men, women and household work in cross-national perspective (pp. 41–58). Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van Ham, M. (2002). Job access, workplace mobility, and occupational achievement. Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
  43. Viry, G., Widmer, E., & Kaufmann, V. (2010). Does it matter for us that my partner or I commute? Spatial mobility for job reasons and the quality of conjugal relationships in France, Germany, and Switzerland. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 22(2), 149–171.Google Scholar
  44. Wagner, M. (1997). Scheidung in Ost- und Westdeutschland. Zum Verhältnis von Ehestabilität und Sozialstruktur seit den 30er Jahren. Frankfurt a.M./New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  45. Wagner, M., & Weiß, B. (2003). Bilanz der deutschen Scheidungsforschung. Versuch einer Metaanalyse. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 32(1), 29–49.Google Scholar
  46. Winship, C., & Radbill, L. (1994). Sampling weights and regression analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 23(2), 230–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social SciencesHamburg UniversityHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations