Moving in together and marrying for the first time

A comparison between European countries
  • Barbara Elisabeth FuldaEmail author


Family life has changed. While the standardized life courses of men and women during the “Golden Thirties” has been replaced by a magnitude of different lifestyles, politicians struggle with the development of adequate reactions. Meanwhile lifestyles continue to diversify.


Birth Cohort Marriage Rate Parental Home Labor Market Regulation Welfare Regime 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adler, M. (2004). ‘Child-free and unmarried: Changes in the life planning of young East German women’, Journal of Marriage and Family 66(5), pp. 1170–1179.Google Scholar
  2. Billari, F. C. & Liefbroer, A. C. (2010). ‘Towards a new pattern of transition to adulthood?’, Advances in Life Course Research 15(2-3), pp. 59–75.Google Scholar
  3. Blossfeld, H.-P. & Klijzing, E. (2005a). Becoming an adult in uncertain times. A14-country comparison of the losers of globalization, in H.P. Blossfeld, E. Klijzing,Google Scholar
  4. M. Mills & K. Kurz (2005). (eds), ‘Globalization, Uncertainty and Youth in Society’, Routledge, London/New York, pp. 423–441.Google Scholar
  5. Blossfeld, H.-P. & Klijzing, E. (2005b). Globalization, Uncertainty and Youth in Society, Routledge, London/New York.Google Scholar
  6. Buchmann, M. C. & Kriesi, I. (2011). ‘Transition to Adulthood in Europe’, Annual Review of Sociology 37(1), pp. 481–503.Google Scholar
  7. Elder, G. H. J. (1985). Life course dynamics: trajectories and transitions 1968-1980, Cornell University Press, New York et al.Google Scholar
  8. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  9. Friedman, D. & Becker, G. S. (1993), A Treatise on the Family. Vol. 22, Harvard University Press, Cambridge et al.Google Scholar
  10. Hajnal, J. (1965), European marriage patterns in perspective, in D. V. Glass & D. E. C. Eversley, eds, ‘Population in History: Essays in Historical Demography’, Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, pp. 101–143.Google Scholar
  11. Hiekel, N., Liefbroer, A. C. & Poortman, A. R. (2014), ‘Understanding Diversity in the Meaning of Cohabitation Across Europe’, European Journal of Population 30 (4), pp. 391–410.Google Scholar
  12. Iacovou, M. (2002), ‘Regional Differences in the Transition to Adulthood’, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 580 (1), pp. 40–69.Google Scholar
  13. Kalmijn, M. (2007), ‘Explaining cross-national differences in marriage, cohabitation, and divorce in Europe, 1990-2000’, Population Studies 61(3), pp. 243–263.Google Scholar
  14. Kalmijn, M. (2011), ‘The Influence of Men’s Income and Employment on Marriage and Cohabitation: Testing Oppenheimer’s Theory in Europe’, European journal of population = Revue europeenne de demographie 27(3), pp. 269–293.Google Scholar
  15. Konietzka, D. (2010), Die Kopplung des Auszugs aus dem Elternhaus mit anderen Übergängen im frühen Erwachsenenalter, in ‘Zeiten des Übergangs’, pp. 205–236.Google Scholar
  16. Kreyenfeld, M. & Konietzka, D. (2008), Wandel der Geburten- und Familienentwicklung in West- und Ostdeutschland, in N. F. Schneider, (eds.)., ‘Lehrbuch Moderne Familiensoziologie: Theorien, Methoden, empirische Befunde’, UTB, chapter 7.Google Scholar
  17. Lesthaeghe, R. (2011), The Second Demographic Transition: A Conceptual Map for the Understanding of Late Modern Demographic Developments in Fertility and Family Formation, in J. Ehmer, J. Ehrhardt & M. Kohli, (eds.), ‘Historische Sozialforschung, Special Issue: Fertilität in der Geschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts: Trends, Theorien, Politik, Diskurse’, vol. 36 no edn, Zentrum für historische Sozialforschung, Köln, pp. 179–218.Google Scholar
  18. Liefbroer, A. C. & Billari, F. C. (2010), ‘Bringing norms back. A theoretical and empirical discussion of their importance for understanding demographic behaviour’, Population, Space and Place 16(4), pp. 287–305.Google Scholar
  19. Lutz, W. (2013), ‘Culture, Religion, and Fertility: A Global View’, Genus 43(3), 15–35. Marini, M. M. (1984), ‘Age and Sequencing Norms in the Transition to Adulthood’, Social Forces 63(1), pp. 229–244. URL:
  20. Mulder, C., Clark, W. & Wagner, M. (2002), ‘A comparative analisy of leaving home in the United States, the Netherlands and the West Germany’, Demographic Research 7(17).Google Scholar
  21. Nauck, B., Brüderl, J., Huinink, J. & Walper, S. (2014), ‘The German Family Panel (pairfam)’, GESIS Data Archive, Cologne ZA5678(Data file Version 5.0.0).Google Scholar
  22. Nauck, B. & Lois, N. (2015), Forthcoming: Auszug aus dem Elternhaus in den Vereinigten Staaten, Taiwan und Deutschland, in J. Eckhard, I. Rapp & J. Stauder, (eds.), ‘Soziale Bedingungen der privaten Lebensführung’, Springer, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  23. Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988), ‘A Theory of Marriage Timing’, American Journal of Sociology 94(3), 563.Google Scholar
  24. Santarelli, E. & Cottone, F. (2009), ‘Leaving home, family support and intergenerational ties in Italy: Some regional differences’, Demographic Research 21, 1–22. URL:
  25. Sassler, S. & Miller, A. J. (2011), ‘Class Differences in Cohabitation Processes’, Family Relations 60(2), 163–177.Google Scholar
  26. Szoltysek, M. (2008), ‘Three Kinds of Preindustrial Household Formation Systems in Eastern Europe: Challenge to Spatial Patterns of the European Family’, The History of the Family 13(3), pp. 223–257.Google Scholar
  27. Thornton, A., Axinn, W. G. & Xie, Y. (2007), Marriage and Cohabitation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  28. Van de Kaa, D. J. (1987), ‘Europe’s Second Demographic Transition.’, Population Bulletin 42(1), pp. 1–59.Google Scholar
  29. Wiik, K. A. (2011), ‘Socioeconomic differentials in the transition to first cohabitation in Norway’, International Review of Sociology 21(3), pp. 533–548.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für SoziologieTU ChemnitzChemnitzGermany

Personalised recommendations