IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dem/demres/v37y2017i8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cross-national differences in women's repartnering behaviour in Europe: The role of individual demographic characteristics

Author

Listed:
  • Paulina Gałęzewska

    (University of Southampton)

  • Brienna Perelli-Harris

    (University of Southampton)

  • Ann Berrington

    (University of Southampton)

Abstract

Background: With rising union instability across Europe, more individuals now re-enter the partner market and eventually repartner. The increase in cohabitation may also be influencing repartnering behaviour. While several studies examine individual-level characteristics related to repartnering, few take a broader view and compare repartnering levels or explore how demographic characteristics associated with repartnering differ across Europe. Objective: We describe levels of repartnering and the characteristics of those exposed to repartnering in 11 European countries. We then examine whether the relationship between women’s demographic characteristics at union dissolution and repartnering are similar or different across countries. Given the recent increase in cohabitation, we pay particular attention to prior cohabitation and marriage, but we also compare age at first union dissolution, first union duration, and presence of children. Methods: Using the Harmonized Histories database, we apply discrete-time hazard models separately by country and to pooled cross-national data. Results: Despite large differences in levels of repartnering, in most countries we find similar associations between demographic characteristics and repartnering. First union type did not matter after controlling for age and children, except in France, where those who previously cohabited had significantly lower risks of repartnering. Age at union dissolution and presence of children are negatively associated with repartnering in almost all countries. Conclusions: Although cohabitation has increased everywhere, prior experience of a coresidential partnership outside of formal marriage makes little difference to repartnering behaviour after controls (except in France). However, regardless of country, older women and/or mothers are less likely to form second unions. Contribution: This study contributes to previous research by examining whether the effects of women’s demographic characteristics on repartnering are universal across 11 European countries and to what extent the differences in age and fertility at separation and first union type help explain the cross-national variation in repartnering in Europe.

Suggested Citation

  • Paulina Gałęzewska & Brienna Perelli-Harris & Ann Berrington, 2017. "Cross-national differences in women's repartnering behaviour in Europe: The role of individual demographic characteristics," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 37(8), pages 189-228.
    • Handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:37:y:2017:i:8
    DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2017.37.8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol37/8/37-8.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4054/DemRes.2017.37.8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sheela Kennedy & Steven Ruggles, 2014. "Breaking Up Is Hard to Count: The Rise of Divorce in the United States, 1980–2010," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 51(2), pages 587-598, April.
    2. Arnstein Aassve & Gianni Betti & Stefano Mazzuco & Letizia Mencarini, 2007. "Marital disruption and economic well‐being: a comparative analysis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 170(3), pages 781-799, July.
    3. Silvia Meggiolaro & Fausta Ongaro, 2008. "Repartnering after marital dissolution: Does context play a role?," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 19(57), pages 1913-1934.
    4. Eva Beaujouan & Anne Solaz, 2013. "Racing Against the Biological Clock? Childbearing and Sterility Among Men and Women in Second Unions in France," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(1), pages 39-67, February.
    5. Trude Lappegård & Turid Noack, 2015. "The link between parenthood and partnership in contemporary Norway - Findings from focus group research," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 32(9), pages 287-310.
    6. repec:cai:poeine:pope_501_0037 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Sofie Vanassche & Martine Corijn & Koen Matthijs & Gray Swicegood, 2015. "Repartnering and Childbearing After Divorce: Differences According to Parental Status and Custodial Arrangements," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 34(5), pages 761-784, October.
    8. Patrick Heuveline & Jeffrey M. Timberlake & Frank F. Furstenberg, 2003. "Shifting Childrearing to Single Mothers: Results from 17 Western Countries," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 29(1), pages 47-71, March.
    9. Monika A. Mynarska & Laura Bernardi, 2007. "Meanings and attitudes attached to cohabitation in Poland: qualitative analyses of the slow diffusion of cohabitation among the young generation," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2007-006, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    10. Brienna Perelli-Harris, 2014. "How Similar are Cohabiting and Married Parents? Second Conception Risks by Union Type in the United States and Across Europe," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 30(4), pages 437-464, November.
    11. Brienna Perelli-Harris & Ann Berrington & Nora Sánchez Gassen & Paulina Galezewska & Jennifer A. Holland, 2017. "The Rise in Divorce and Cohabitation: Is There a Link?," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 43(2), pages 303-329, June.
    12. L. Bryan, Mark & P. Jenkins, Stephen, 2013. "Regression analysis of country effects using multilevel data: a cautionary tale," ISER Working Paper Series 2013-14, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    13. Becker, Gary S & Landes, Elisabeth M & Michael, Robert T, 1977. "An Economic Analysis of Marital Instability," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 85(6), pages 1141-1187, December.
    14. Brienna Perelli-Harris & Theodore Gerber, 2011. "Nonmarital Childbearing in Russia: Second Demographic Transition or Pattern of Disadvantage?," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 48(1), pages 317-342, February.
    15. Monika Mynarska & Laura Bernardi, 2007. "Meanings and attitudes attached to cohabitation in Poland," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 16(17), pages 519-554.
    16. Brienna Perelli-Harris & Michaela Kreyenfeld & Wendy Sigle-Rushton & Renske Keizer & Trude Lappegård & Aiva Jasilioniene & Caroline Berghammer & Paola Di Giulio, 2012. "Changes in union status during the transition to parenthood in eleven European countries, 1970s to early 2000s," Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 66(2), pages 167-182, July.
    17. Elizabeth Thomson & Trude Lappegård & Marcia Carlson & Ann Evans & Edith Gray, 2014. "Childbearing Across Partnerships in Australia, the United States, Norway, and Sweden," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 51(2), pages 485-508, April.
    18. Tomáš Sobotka & Laurent Toulemon, 2008. "Overview Chapter 4: Changing family and partnership behaviour," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 19(6), pages 85-138.
    19. Francesco C. Billari, 2015. "Integrating macro- and micro-level approaches in the explanation of population change," Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 69(sup1), pages 11-20, April.
    20. Arnaud Régnier-Loilier & Eva Beaujouan & Catherine Villeneuve-Gokalp, 2009. "Neither single, nor in a couple. A study of living apart together in France," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 21(4), pages 75-108.
    21. R. Kelly Raley & Larry L. Bumpass, 2003. "The topography of the divorce plateau," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 8(8), pages 245-260.
    22. Paula England & Elizabeth Aura McClintock, 2009. "The Gendered Double Standard of Aging in US Marriage Markets," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 35(4), pages 797-816, December.
    23. Aart Liefbroer & Edith Dourleijn, 2006. "Unmarried cohabitation and union stability: Testing the role of diffusion using data from 16 European countries," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 43(2), pages 203-221, May.
    24. Brienna Perelli-Harris & Michaela R. Kreyenfeld & Karolin Kubisch, 2010. "Harmonized histories: manual for the preparation of comparative fertility and union histories," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2010-011, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    25. Ina Jaschinski, 2009. "Der Übergang in eine nacheheliche Partnerschaft: eine vergleichende Analyse zwischen Männern und Frauen auf Basis des deutschen Generations and Gender Surveys," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2009-038, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    26. Wilfred Uunk, 2004. "The Economic Consequences of Divorce for Women in the European Union: The Impact of Welfare State Arrangements," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 20(3), pages 251-285, September.
    27. Erzsébet Bukodi, 2012. "Serial Cohabitation among Men in Britain: Does Work History Matter? [Cohabitations successives des hommes en Angleterre : l’histoire professionnelle joue-t-elle un rôle ?]," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 28(4), pages 441-466, November.
    28. Arieke Rijken & Aart C. Liefbroer, 2012. "European views of divorce among parents of young children," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 27(2), pages 25-52.
    29. An Katrien Sodermans & Sofie Vanassche & Koen Matthijs, 2013. "Post-divorce custody arrangements and binuclear family structures of Flemish adolescents," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 28(15), pages 421-432.
    30. Kalev Katus & Allan Puur & Asta Põldma & Luule Sakkeus, 2007. "First union formation in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania: patterns across countries and gender," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 17(10), pages 247-300.
    31. Sarah Hayford & S. Morgan, 2008. "The quality of retrospective data on Cohabitation," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 45(1), pages 129-141, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zafer Buyukkececi, 2021. "Does Re-Partnering Behavior Spread Among Former Spouses?," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 37(4), pages 799-824, November.
    2. Haoming Song, 2022. "Women’s Divergent Union Transitions After Marital Dissolution in the United States," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(3), pages 953-980, June.
    3. Brienna Perelli-Harris & Stefanie Hoherz & Trude Lappegård & Ann Evans, 2019. "Mind the “Happiness” Gap: The Relationship Between Cohabitation, Marriage, and Subjective Well-being in the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and Norway," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 56(4), pages 1219-1246, August.
    4. Miri Endeweld & Anat Herbst-Debby & Amit Kaplan, 2022. "Do the Privileged Always Win? Economic Consequences of Divorce by Income and Gender Groups," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 77-100, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paola Di Giulio & Roberto Impicciatore & Maria Sironi, 2019. "The changing pattern of cohabitation: A sequence analysis approach," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 40(42), pages 1211-1248.
    2. Kelly Musick & Katherine Michelmore, 2018. "Cross-National Comparisons of Union Stability in Cohabiting and Married Families With Children," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 55(4), pages 1389-1421, August.
    3. Elizabeth Thomson & Maria Winkler-Dworak & Éva Beaujouan, 2019. "Contribution of the Rise in Cohabiting Parenthood to Family Instability: Cohort Change in Italy, Great Britain, and Scandinavia," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 56(6), pages 2063-2082, December.
    4. Brienna Perelli-Harris, 2014. "How Similar are Cohabiting and Married Parents? Second Conception Risks by Union Type in the United States and Across Europe," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 30(4), pages 437-464, November.
    5. Christine Schnor, 2014. "The Effect of Union Status at First Childbirth on Union Stability: Evidence from Eastern and Western Germany," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 30(2), pages 129-160, May.
    6. Marika Jalovaara & Gunnar Andersson, 2018. "Disparities in Children’s Family Experiences by Mother’s Socioeconomic Status: The Case of Finland," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 37(5), pages 751-768, October.
    7. Andreas Klärner, 2015. "The low importance of marriage in eastern Germany - social norms and the role of peoples’ perceptions of the past," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 33(9), pages 239-272.
    8. Brienna Perelli-Harris & Monika Mynarska & Ann Berrington & Caroline Berghammer & Anna Evans & Olga Isupova & Renske Keizer & Andreas Klärner & Trude Lappegård & Daniele Vignoli, 2014. "Towards a new understanding of cohabitation," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 31(34), pages 1043-1078.
    9. Brienna Perelli-Harris & Stefanie Hoherz & Fenaba Addo & Trude Lappegård & Ann Evans & Sharon Sassler & Marta Styrc, 2018. "Do Marriage and Cohabitation Provide Benefits to Health in Mid-Life? The Role of Childhood Selection Mechanisms and Partnership Characteristics Across Countries," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 37(5), pages 703-728, October.
    10. Judith Treas & Jonathan Lui & Zoya Gubernskaya, 2014. "Attitudes on marriage and new relationships," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 30(54), pages 1495-1526.
    11. Katrin Schwanitz & Clara Mulder & Laurent Toulemon, 2017. "Differences in leaving home by individual and parental education among young adults in Europe," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 37(63), pages 1975-2010.
    12. Brienna Perelli-Harris & Stefanie Hoherz & Trude Lappegård & Ann Evans, 2019. "Mind the “Happiness” Gap: The Relationship Between Cohabitation, Marriage, and Subjective Well-being in the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and Norway," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 56(4), pages 1219-1246, August.
    13. Rannveig Kaldager Hart, 2019. "Union Histories of Dissolution: What Can They Say About Childlessness?," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 35(1), pages 101-131, February.
    14. Maria Winkler-Dworak & Eva Beaujouan & Paola Di Giulio & Martin Spielauer, 2021. "Simulating family life courses: An application for Italy, Great Britain, Norway, and Sweden," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 44(1), pages 1-48.
    15. Caroline Berghammer & Katrin Fliegenschnee & Eva-Maria Schmidt, 2014. "Cohabitation and marriage in Austria," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 31(37), pages 1137-1166.
    16. Haoming Song, 2022. "Women’s Divergent Union Transitions After Marital Dissolution in the United States," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(3), pages 953-980, June.
    17. Kelly Musick & Katherine Michelmore, 2015. "Change in the Stability of Marital and Cohabiting Unions Following the Birth of a Child," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 52(5), pages 1463-1485, October.
    18. Júlia Mikolai & Ann Berrington & Brienna Perelli-Harris, 2018. "The role of education in the intersection of partnership transitions and motherhood in Europe and the United States," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 39(27), pages 753-794.
    19. Elena Pirani & Daniele Vignoli, 2021. "Childbearing Across Partnerships in Italy: Prevalence, Demographic Correlates, Social Gradient," Econometrics Working Papers Archive 2021_15, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Statistica, Informatica, Applicazioni "G. Parenti".
    20. Christine Schnor, 2015. "Does waiting pay off for couples? Partnership duration prior to household formation and union stability," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 33(22), pages 611-652.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    repartnering; Europe; union dissolution; marriage; cohabitation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:37:y:2017:i:8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Editorial Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.demogr.mpg.de/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.