Housing Studies, Vol. 21, No.

6, 909–927, November 2006

Of Marriages and Mortgages: The Second Demographic Transition and the Relationship between Marriage and Homeownership in Sweden
NATHANAEL T. LAUSTER* & URBAN FRANSSON**
*Department of Social Work and Family Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, ¨ **Institute for Housing and Urban Research, Gavle, Sweden

(Received August 2006; revised April 2006) ABSTRACT Past research has established a positive relationship between transitions to marriage and transitions into ownership. This paper explores how this relationship is changing by following a population as it advances through the Second Demographic Transition. Following a rational choice model for tenure decisions, it is hypothesized that the Second Demographic Transition is likely to affect the relationship between partnership and tenure in two ways. First, the preferences for ownership unique to marriage are likely to decline. Second, the importance of an extra income, especially for men, is likely to increase. Evidence is found supporting both these assertions for the ¨ population of Gavle, Sweden, between 1975 and 1990. KEY WORDS : Marriage, tenure choice, social change

Introduction Recent evidence from applying a life course perspective to the study of housing suggests that family formation behavior strongly influences choice of tenure in Western countries (Clark & Dieleman, 1996; Clark et al., 1997; Mulder & Wagner, 1998). In particular, research from the US, the Netherlands and Germany has connected tenure changes to family formation. Single people are most likely to rent in these countries, and seldom move into owner occupation (Clark & Dieleman, 1996; Clark et al., 1997; Mulder & Wagner, 1998). Only a few studies in these countries have looked at cohabiting couples, but when included in limited analyses they tend to move into owner occupation at a rate inbetween singles and married couples (Feijten & Mulder, 2005; Mulder & Wagner, 1998; Rindfuss & Van den Heuvel, 1989). Married couples move into owner occupation at the highest rates in all countries studied, and moves into owner occupation often coincide with
Correspondence Address: Nathanael T. Lauster, Department of Social Work and Family Studies, University of British Columbia, 2080 West Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada. Tel: 604 827 3083; Fax: 604 822 8656; Email: nlauster@interchange.ubc.ca ISSN 0267-3037 Print/1466-1810 Online/06/060909–19 q 2006 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/02673030600917826

910

N. T. Lauster & U. Fransson

moves into marriage (Clark & Dieleman, 1996; Mulder & Wagner, 1998). Childbearing often has an additional effect on entry into homeownership, although the effects tend to be mixed, with slight positive effects in the US, the Netherlands and Germany (Chevan, 1989; Clark et al., 1997; Feijten & Mulder, 2005), and slight negative effects in at least one analysis of Netherlands data (Mulder & Wagner, 1998). While these studies develop a better understanding of the role of family formation in housing tenure choice, patterns of family formation are, themselves, changing very rapidly as a result of what European demographers commonly call the Second Demographic Transition (Lesthaeghe, 1995, 1998; Van de Kaa, 1987). In particular, more adults are remaining single or cohabiting in non-marital relationships for longer periods of time, and choosing to delay or forego marriage altogether. The importance of marriage, in particular, is declining with respect to its determinant role in childbearing (Lesthaeghe, 1995; Raley, 2001). These changes in partnership patterns seem likely to coincide with changes in the relationships between partnership and tenure choice. It seems likely, for instance, that the role of marriage might also be declining with respect to determining housing tenure. This study considers how the Second Demographic Transition is changing the relationship between partnership and tenure choice. A rational choice perspective is adopted here to consider this relationship, dividing the process of tenure choice into the establishment of tenure preferences, and gathering of resources available to act upon preferences. Based upon the balance of available resources and individual preferences, rational actors decide whether to rent or own. It is theorized that partnership, including marriage, is likely to influence housing tenure choice in two ways. First, partnership is likely to influence tenure preferences (Coolen & Hoekstra, 2001). Second, partnership is likely to influence the means to act upon tenure preferences. A substantial housing literature has demonstrated that married individuals express greater desires for homeownership than singles (Dowling, 1998; Henretta, 1987; Mulder & Wagner, 1998; Pettersson, 1997; Rowlands & Gurney, 2001). These preferences may reflect couples’ desires for greater space and more privacy (Abramsson et al., 2002; Clark & Dieleman, 1996). In addition, married couples are often considered more stable than singles (Henretta, 1987), and more committed to one another than cohabiting couples (Bernhardt, 2002; Smock & Manning, 1997), and hence may have found it less risky to jointly invest their resources and futures in homeownership (Feijten & Mulder, 2005; Mok, 2002). In addition to expressing different tenure preferences, married couples also tend to have greater material wealth at their disposal than cohabiting couples, who, in turn, often have greater access to wealth than singles (Mulder & Wagner, 1998; Smock & Manning, 1997). Greater wealth allows couples, particularly married couples, to purchase homes more readily than others (Jones, 1990). The Second Demographic Transition describes changes in family formation patterns, especially declines in marriage and rises in non-marital cohabitation and childbearing, as coinciding with cultural changes moving toward post-materialistic and increasingly individualistic values (Lesthaeghe, 1995; Van de Kaa, 1987). The control exerted by institutions, marriage and family traditions erodes as individuals pursue new ways of defining themselves. The Second Demographic Transition also coincides with massive economic restructuring, especially along lines of gender. Men have lost economic power in relative terms, while women, by entering the labor force, have tended to make strong gains (Lesthaeghe, 1998).

with special attention paid to the relationship between partnership and tenure changes. led by pre-existing cohabiting couples wishing to preserve their benefits upon their partner’s deaths. in correspondence with the hypotheses about the Second Demographic Transition. This allows insight into how changes in partnership behavior might be influencing the relationship between partnership and tenure choice. Dual-income households are more likely to be able to afford ownership than single-income households. especially along the dimensions of acceptance of nonmarital cohabitation and delay of marriage (Bracher & Santow. including housing. These changes may coincide with the rising notion of the home as a financial investment. Kiernan. and a third category of semi-owned cooperative tenure is treated as a competing category. 2001). It describes the ¨ links between partnership and tenure in the population of Gavle. Tenure preferences are also separated out from means. In general. desirable for all individuals (Edwards. Demographic trends indicate that Swedes have traveled the furthest of any European country through the Second Demographic Transition. 1998. they are likely to increasingly be linked with homeownership. Single individuals and cohabiting couples may be expressing preferences for ownership increasingly similar to those expressed by married couples. At the same time. To the extent that cohabitation and marriage encourage the formation of dual-income households. Sweden between 1975 and 1990. The Swedish Case Sweden is a particularly good place to study the effects of the Second Demographic Transition on the links between partnership and tenure choice. To the extent that cohabiting couples and married couples vary with regard to being dual-income. Van de Kaa. 1995. Changes in this process over time are examined. Sweden serves as the primary example of the welfare regimes EspingAnderson (1990) uses to characterize the Scandinavian welfare states. Women’s entrance into the labor market. 2000. A minor change in the pension laws in 1989 is widely credited with leading to a fashionable boom in marriage. A noteworthy exception to the general trend following the delay and decline in marriage in Sweden is the miniature marriage boom in 1989. Only when an actual material benefit to marriage was perceived did cohabiting couples choose to marry. 1996). Much of this change in partnership behavior occurred both immediately prior to and during the time of study. and the public sector provides an . between 1975 and 1990. After an initial ¨ description of trends. 1987). they are likely to also differ with respect to tenure choices. the relationship between partnering and the means to purchase a home may also be changing. and the decline of men’s economic fortunes are probably leading to a strengthening of the importance of partnering in determining the means for homeownership. The remainder of this paper describes and models the changing relationship between ¨ partnership and tenure choice in Gavle. models are made for individual transitions for Gavle residents out of the rental market and into owner occupation. demographers familiar with this boom consider the response to a minor change in the pension law as evidence of public apathy over the legal status of partnerships (Andersson. 1998. Lesthaeghe. Hoem & Hoem. Rather than representing a revitalization of marriage. The rise in individualistic values seems likely to result in a decline in the importance of marriage in determining tenure preferences.Of Marriages and Mortgages 911 Both of these changes associated with the Second Demographic Transition may be expected to influence the relationship between family formation and tenure choice. The government intervenes in many sectors of society.

Turner & Whitehead. leveling out at roughly the same level as men1 (more than 80 per cent). 1991). and construction of both multi-family and single-family housing began to pick up again. temporarily discarding many subsidies. A similar economic transition also affected the housing market from 1975 to 1990. During the early 1980s. including interest subsidies. Between the mid-1960s and early 1970s. Interest rates were particularly low from 1975 to 1980. primarily through the provision of subsidies. a key feature linked to the Second Demographic Transition (Lesthaeghe. aimed at low-income and elderly households. The Swedish economy shifted dramatically during the 1960s and 1970s from an industrial base to a more service oriented economy. In 1975. replacing general subsidies with targeted subsidies. with the remainder of households in other categories. where the participation of women increased tremendously. largely detached single-family homes during the Swedish ‘villa boom’ (Bengtsson. while the federal government took control of housing financing. In general. the construction market turned toward building small. one-person households were paying upwards of 31 per cent of their disposable incomes (Turner & Whitehead. Housing type is closely related to housing tenure in Sweden. These changes had dramatic implications for the labor market. housing costs have gradually increased relative to income in Sweden. and 15 per cent in co-operative tenure in Sweden. the owner-occupied market. with real prices actually declining relative to inflation. Swedish housing policy has left the responsibility for infrastructural planning to local municipal governments. nominal and real interest rates increased dramatically while incomes declined. including subletting (SCB. measured at five-year intervals between 1975 and ¨ 1990. Since 1947.912 N. 1998). attempting to keep the expenses relating to each tenure type roughly equivalent (Davidson. 1999. a single-person household paid 24 per cent of his or her disposable income towards housing in the beginning of the 1980s. Micro-level census data are ¨ available for the population of Gavle. From 1985 to 1989. dominated by single-family detached dwellings. Fransson extensive social welfare net. 2002). T. On average. Mortgages tend to last between 30 and 40 years. up to 95 per cent on newly-constructed housing. with a loan-to-value ratio of 70 per cent. 2005). housing policy in Sweden again shifted. and a third. Swedes commonly choose between the rental market. 2004a). The housing market remained relatively stagnant. By the end of the 1990s. co-operative (semi-owned) market. nominal and real interest rates decreased. Until recently. while incomes rose. the Swedish government has generally pursued a tenure-neutral housing policy. 40 per cent renting. Survey evidence indicates that the Swedish population places tenure choices in a hierarchy with owner occupation at the top and rental at the bottom (Abramsson et al.. 2002). Lauster & U. Since 1990. with a slightly higher proportion of rental . including both multi-family and single-family housing. the distribution of households across these major categories was roughly 40 per cent owning. the government reintroduced general subsidies. Data ¨ This paper focuses on the Swedish municipality of Gavle. 2002). dominated by multi-family apartment buildings. known as the ‘Million ´ Programme’ (Hall & Viden. with real interest rates (after accounting for inflation) actually below zero during most of this time period. In 1990. and also experimented with new types of housing financing. Facing market demand driven by low interest rates and rising incomes. The municipality of Gavle contains a relatively representative 1 per cent of the Swedish population (88 568 people in 1990). Sweden entered into a public sector-led housing construction boom. In terms of tenure.

examinations of the ages at which 50 per cent and 75 per cent of the population were no longer single indicate that on the whole. However. However. comparable data are more difficult to collect. The difference between entry into cohabitation and entry into marriage in 1975 is roughly four years for all percentiles. In particular. The difference between entry into cohabitation and entry into marriage climbs to six. individuals can be linked between census years. the study hypothesizes that differences in preference for ownership are likely to lessen between single.6 per cent. over the time period under study. The age at which over 25 per cent were either cohabiting or married remained roughly the same between 1975 and 1990. eight and ten years by percentile in 1990. ages 12 – 44 Family-related transitions Cohabitating Age at . they also seem to be spending more time in non-marital cohabitations.2 Overall. The data indicate that over time people seem to be remaining single longer. This makes it possible to examine historical change. Hypotheses can also be formulated about the changes in the relationship between partnership and tenure choice likely to occur with the Second Demographic Transition. especially for men.0 per cent of the ¨ households are single-person households in Gavle and the corresponding figure for Sweden is 39. . cohabiting and married individuals. allowing the creation of a longitudinal dataset containing information about individual ‘life careers’. By studying the micro-level ¨ relationships between family formation and tenure choice in the town of Gavle. Sweden 1975 and 1990. each census year provides useful descriptive data about the population. After this point. An increasing number of Swedes began avoiding marriage entirely during the period from 1975 to 1990. Cross-sectionally. Over 25% Over 50% Over 75% 1975 21 24 29 1990 21 25 33 Married 1975 25 28 33 1990 27 33 43 Tenure-related transitions Householder 1975 19 21 24 1990 19 20 22 Owner/Co-op 1975 26 32 n/a 1990 23 29 n/a . it is also hypothesized that the presence of an extra income in the household will grow increasingly important. it is possible to clarify the ways in which partnership transitions relate to housing transitions. As much as 42. 50 per cent and 75 per cent of the population were located in various partner and tenure statuses in 1975 and 1990. The share of two-person (39 per cent) and three-person (12 per ¨ cent) households is roughly identical for Gavle and Sweden as a whole. . moves into partnerships and housing transitions are both strongly linked to age. By breaking down status by age (ages 12 – 44) for the census years 1975 and 1990. The most recent Census data for Sweden were the 1990 Census and the Swedish Censuses in the period up to 1990 include high-quality data on cohabitation. Table 1. The household structure ¨ in Gavle is much the same as in the whole country. Table 1 provides the ages at which at least 25 per cent.Of Marriages and Mortgages 913 housing than in the rest of Sweden but no other large differences. Moreover. people remained single for significantly longer in 1990 than in 1975. it is possible to get a descriptive sense of how family ¨ formation and housing conditions have changed in Gavle. Ages at which various proportions of the population have entered specified family and ¨ tenure-related statuses in Gavle. As apparent from the life course studies.

for householders aged 12 – 44 . No age group demonstrated a majority in the owner-occupation category in 1975. but most of those aged 36 and above owned homes in 1990. it is expected that two forces were at work in changing the relationship between partnership and tenure choice in Sweden during this time period. Similarly. Changes are expected in both the preferences individuals express and the resources individuals can bring to bear upon tenure preferences due to their partnership status. Returning to the hypotheses about the impact of the Second Demographic Transition. indicating a sharp divergence between partnering behavior and housing tenure behavior. high employment rates for both men and women in Sweden mean that partnered couples often bring two incomes Figure 1. Lauster & U. tenure transition trends reveal the opposite pattern. Numerically. it is demonstrated that the proportions of the population of owners who were married dropped decisively between 1975 and 1990. while the population of cohabiting couples owning their own homes more than tripled between 1975 and 1990. The proportions of the home-owning population who were single or cohabiting grew over this ¨ time period. over 50 per cent of the population had left the rental market for either co-operative or owner occupation by age 29 in 1990. far fewer people lived with their parents or rented homes in 1990 than in 1975. ¨ Strikingly. within a smaller age-range. a decline in 3 years of age from the similar figure for 1975. Focusing on those in owner-occupied tenure. Changes in the partnership composition of ownership and co-operative tenure categories ¨ in Gavle. In terms of resources. while time spent living as single and in non-marital cohabiting unions increased. The population in Gavle tended to leave home earlier in 1990 than in 1975. T. Figure 1 examines the relationship between partnership and tenure choice directly.914 N. It is expected that this divergence may indicate a significant change in the relationship between partnership and tenure choice between 1975 and 1990. the population of singles owning their own homes in Gavle more than doubled. Sweden between 1975 and 1990. Clearly. Fransson the role of marriage declined in the Swedish life course.

8 rooms. so this analysis is also limited to those living as householders (as opposed to dependants in their parents’ homes) in rented dwellings at the beginning of the measurement interval. Space and privacy were no longer values associated only with married couples. in particular. 1995. Income variables for each census year were not available (income data were not provided through the 1980 . one or two-family houses are available only in the owner-occupied tenure. Moves into owner occupation were likely to play an important role in the increasingly identity oriented construction of adulthood in Sweden (Lesthaeghe. rental tenure dwellings offer an average of 3. 1996). ¨ 2002. 2002. single to cohabiting and single to married. while the importance of an extra income. In sum. Census measurements.. a multilogistic model of tenure choice is constructed as it relates to partnership trajectory and is measured at the end of the five-year interval..2 rooms. the ability to trace individuals between censuses is used to provide repeated measures of the same individuals over time.3 supporting the link between tenure category and space.Of Marriages and Mortgages 915 into their housing decisions. In order to model the effects of partnership transitions. As a result. Modeling Partnership Resources and Preferences ¨ In addition to the descriptive. Most households begin in the rental sector. Gurney. cohabiting couples increasingly viewed their unions as stable and committed alternatives to marriage rather than uncertain precursors (Bernhardt. Hence partnerships are increasingly likely to lead to greater resources available to move from rental into co-operative tenure or owner occupation. partnered couples in the past may have preferred owner occupation due to their greater space demands (Abramsson et al. Each five-year interval is taken as ¨ a separate historical period for the measurement of partnering effects. Probabilities of continuing to rent versus moving into owner occupation are estimated. partnerships are increasingly likely to lead to an extra income for men. 1998). 1980. provide individual measurements in five-year intervals. Yet with the advent of the Second Demographic Transition. In similar fashion. Returning to the reasons for preference differences. 2002. only included are individuals beginning the interval as singles. Myers. over 70 per cent of detached. from 1975. affording more privacy to those in the owner-occupied category. providing greater resources than may be available for singles (Edwards. have made rising gains in employment. 2001. co-operative tenure dwellings offer an average of 4. it is hypothesized that differences in tenure preferences of singles. 1978). By only including those beginning the interval as single renters. became increasingly likely to perceive owner-occupied neighborhoods as more desirable than other neighborhoods (Abramsson et al. and moving into semi-owner co-operative occupation is treated as a competitive category. cohabiters and married individuals are likely to lessen over time during the Second Demographic Transition. 1999). Women. owner occupation was increasingly perceived as advantageous regardless of partnership status. and owner occupation offers an average of approximately 5. Trost.5 rooms. with an additional 10 per cent in co-operative tenure. Clark & Dieleman. and individuals. providing three partnership trajectories over the five-year interval. single to single. For the population measured in Gavle. Furthermore. 1985 and 1990. 1985). especially for men. where most entry into partnership takes place. cross-sectional use of census data describing Gavle above. The Gavle sample is limited to the single population beginning the interval at age 18 – 39. is likely to rise. regardless of partnership status.

providing the resources necessary to act upon housing preferences. Two variables are employed to measure the impact of children and childbearing. there is a control for the presence of children in the household. 1998). ¨ We control for those entering and leaving Gavle during the study period. Five-year multilogistic model Status at time t Rental (Single) Variables Partnership status (t þ 1) Extra earning presence (t þ 1) Control variables (t to t þ 1) Status at t þ 1 Rental Co-operative Owner occupation . By including a measure of employment. A measurement is also employed separating those of Swedish origin from foreign-born immigrants. it is possible to ensure that the relationship between partnership and tenure choice occurs independent of any other age effects. In addition to estimating the separate effects of entry into various forms of partnership and the addition of extra incomes on tenure choice.4 In order to capture change over time in the effects of partnership-related preferences and resources. but employment variables for each household member are known. and out-migrants are heading towards different residential environments. Since effects are likely to differ by gender. the multilogistic model also makes it possible to employ a variety of control variables. a basic measurement of the availability of a steady income at both the initiation and end of the period of study can be obtained. Two models are included. 1998.916 N. Fransson census). Swedes are often over-represented in the owner-occupied category of tenure. Table 2 displays a brief schematic of the multilogistic model. Bracher & Santow. By including age groups as controls. separate models are run for women and men accordingly. the effects of partnership transition and presence of an extra income are measured as separate aspects of partnership influencing tenure choice for all time periods. T. separating inmigrants. childbearing constitutes an integral part of the family formation process of interest in its own right. 1998). an additional variable reflecting the presence of an extra earner in the household at the end of the measurement interval is added. To separate partnership preferences from resources. From the means. At the same time. it is evident that the proportion of foreign-born beginning in the rental market Table 2. The second variable considers the presence of children in the household at the beginning of the interval. and probably also a positive influence on entering into ownerships and co-operatives. These interaction terms measure the change in these effects over time during the period of study. The first variable considers childbearing behavior taking place during the five-year interval.. Finally. making it important to control for foreign-born immigrant status in the analysis. While partnership serves as the primary variable of interest in this analysis. Means for each variable are included in Table 3. a factor thought to relate to a greater cultural desire for ownership (Abramsson et al. At the same time. out-migrants and stayers in the model. In the first model. 2002). more stable housing. It is also important to control for ¨ mobility into and out of Gavle. since in-migrants are coming from different residential environments. we interact these variables with time period in the second model. subdivided by gender and period. Swedes often differ in their partnership patterns relative to immigrants (Andersson. This at least partially controls for the effects of employment. Lauster & U. childbearing may increase both the likelihood of entering partnerships and the desire to find larger. a positive influence on entering partnerships for both sexes in Sweden (Bracher & Santow.

302 0.186 2362 Women 1980– 85 0.735 0.353 0.298 0.048 0.080 0.258 0.743 0.142 0.125 0.164 0.051 0.135 0.147 2782 Men 1985– 90 0.257 0.239 0.178 2032 Men 1980 –85 0.198 0.292 0.584 0.289 0.204 0.797 0.457 0.477 0.509 0.044 0.065 0.263 0.239 0.247 0.420 0.550 0.182 3291 Men 1975– 80 0.080 0.212 0.073 0.275 0.135 0.285 0.057 0.Table 3.449 0.247 0.432 0.086 0.564 0.076 0.227 0.161 0.067 0.175 0.237 0.544 0.180 3052 Of Marriages and Mortgages 917 .681 0.325 0.696 0.734 0.582 0.214 0.147 0.251 0.129 0.158 0.114 0.391 0.123 0.150 0.672 0.094 0.215 0.550 0.047 0.185 3081 Women 1985–90 0.066 0.257 0.252 0.307 0.040 0.130 0.777 0.233 0.235 0.312 0.101 0.129 0.063 0.648 0.052 0. Variable summaries by period and gender (all begin period as single renters.105 0.497 0.087 0.097 0.252 0.064 0.269 0.711 0.318 0.133 0.687 0.166 0.091 0.093 0.148 0.299 0.137 0.208 0.252 0.141 0.192 0. age 18– 39) Women 1975– 80 Begin age 18 – 22 Begin age 23 – 27 Begin age 28 – 32 Begin age 33 and above Foreign-born In-migrant Out-migrant Begin with children End with new children Employed-employed Unemployed-employed Employed-unemployed Unemployed-unemployed End single End cohabiting End marrying End with extra earner End renting End in co-operative End in owner occupation Number of observations 0.120 0.086 0.064 0.221 0.151 0.731 0.215 0.285 0.235 0.

single-married). Results The results of the multinomial logistic regression models for each period. The proportion of people employed in both measurements increased for both men and women. Primarily. For changing partnership careers (single-cohabiting. although the proportion of households with new children remained relatively stable. Mobility effects may relate to differences in housing markets or to the selective effects related to the mobility process. where the individual begins and ends the measurement period in the same state (singlesingle). The presence of children at the beginning of the time period also makes ownership more likely for women. immigrants seem to be less likely to move into owner occupation than native born Swedes (Abramsson. and reflecting the marriage boom in 1989. Presence of children declined across years. The data provide little to determine whether individuals might have purchased a home prior to marriage or after marriage. For women. especially when deciding matters of partnership and home. In this case. but there are no similar effects for men. Fransson increased sharply in the final period (1985 –90). Given the long-term plan-making ability of individuals. although the significance of this finding is marginal for men. the proportion of men adding an extra earner increased from 1975 to 1990. but was particularly fast for women. it is possible that partnerships have been initiated and ended within the intervening time-span. those in the lower age groupings are generally less likely to move into owner occupation. displayed in Table 4 for women and Table 5 for men. demonstrate the significant influence of both partnership transition (influencing tenure preference) and extra income (influencing the ability to act upon tenure preferences) upon tenure choice in model one. The addition of children during the time period makes ownership significantly more probable . a fiveyear measurement interval makes blatant assertions of causality problematic. Proportions cohabiting rise and then fall for women. For stable partnership careers. However. significantly clouding analytic distinctions on the time-ordering of decision-making. With regard to mobility. out¨ migrants leaving Gavle are more likely to move into ownership than those remaining. Correspondingly. T. In particular. Individuals engaged to marry at time A may purchase a home at time B and marry at time C. ¨ although the effects are marginal for men. Confirming past research into the matter. the impact of variables on risk of entry into owner occupation is examined and co-operative entry is treated as a competing risk. as did in-migration. although here the significance is marginal for women. Model two demonstrates the significance of change over time in these relationships. 2002). Proportions remaining single rise for all years for women. together with a falling and then rising proportion marrying.918 N. but a shorter measurement interval may risk making assertions of causality too unproblematic. but rise and then fall for men. 2005). those moving into Gavle are also ¨ more likely to move into ownership than those beginning and remaining in Gavle. time-ordering of events is difficult to establish. It is important to note that employing the multilogistic model for assessing the causal role of partnership trajectories on tenure choice remains somewhat problematic. Lauster & U. the timeordering of partnership changes remains unclear. time-ordering of actual transitions may not adequately reflect the causal process of decision-making (Feijten & Mulder. it is not considered that these shortcomings of the model are insurmountable. As expected with a life course process. indicating some fluidity between cohabitation and marriage.

52*** 0.53*** 6091 Of Marriages and Mortgages 21.10 2 0.65*** 21.27 0.22* 0.21*** 0.10c 20.81*** 0.26 0.31*** 2 0.39** 0.10*** 0.20*** 0.32 2 0.16* 0.04*** 2 0.06*** 0.08*** 0.08*** 0.58*** 2 0.65*** 2 0.¨ Table 4.04 8734 Risk of co-operative entry Model I 2 0.12 2 0.06 0.12 2 0.14*** 2 0.16*** 8734 2 1.65*** 2 1.26** 0. 1975– 90 (all begin as single.31 2 0.35*** 20.62*** 0.30*** 2 1.65*** 20.53*** Model II 2 0.63*** 20.39** 0.31*** 2 0.09*** 2 0.21*** 2 0.58*** 2 0.23*** 2 0.77** 0.15*** 0.14* 2 0.11*** 2 0.16* 0.54*** 2 0.77** 0.43*** 0.29*** 2 1. age 18 –39) Risk of home ownership Variable 18 –22 23 –27 (comparison) 28 –32 33 þ Foreign-born Out-migrant In-migrant Children New children Employed-employed (comparison) Unemployed-employed Employed-unemployed Unemployed-unemployed Married (comparison) Single Single £ 1980– 85 Single £ 1985– 90 Cohabiting Cohabiting £ 1980–85 Cohabiting £ 1985–90 Dual earner (comparison) Single earner Single earner £ 1980– 85 Single earner £ 1985– 90 Constant Year 1980– 85 Year 1985– 90 Total obs Model I 20.24* 0.31c 2 1.27** 0.14* 20.19c 0.33*** 0.19*** 0.10 2 0.11*** 0.54*** # end still renting 919 .10*** 2 0.22*** 0.52*** 0.54*** 0.06 0.03 2 0. Relative risks of five-year tenure transitions from rental tenure for women in Gavle.18*** 0.66*** 0.24* 0.32*** 2 0.19c 0. Sweden.32c 2 1.10c 2 0.13*** 0.03 2 0.21*** 20.40*** Model II 2 0.25*** 2 0.

**0. . T. *0. Lauster & U. and are included in parentheses next to coefficients.920 N.10.01. Fransson Table 4.05. Continued Risk of home ownership Variable Log-likelihood AIC Model I 25942 11889 Model II 2 5938 11881 Risk of co-operative entry Model I # end buying home # end entering co-operative Model II 1608 1035 Notes: Coefficients reflect risk relative to remaining in rental tenure. ***0. Robust standard errors are allowed to correlate within periods.10. Significance level key a ¼ c 0.

35** 2 0.05 0.03 0.80c 0.10*** 2 0.05*** 2 0.33*** 2 0.81*** 0.33 2 0.71*** 2 0.31*** 2 0.06 2 0.09*** 0.46*** 20.59*** 0.27c 20.26 0.32*** 0.59c 2 1.49c 2 1.13 2 0.62*** # end still renting 921 .29 0.05 0.50c 2 1.79c 0.24 0.16 2 0.69*** 20.17*** 2 0. age 18 – 39) Risk of homeownership Variable 18 –22 23 –27 (comparison) 28 –32 33 þ Foreign-born Out-migrant In-migrant Children New children Employed-employed (comparison) Unemployed-employed Employed-unemployed Unemployed-unemployed Married (comparison) Single Single £ 1980– 85 Single £ 1985– 90 Cohabiting Cohabiting £ 1980–85 Cohabiting £ 1985–90 Dual earner (comparison) Single earner Single earner £ 1980– 85 Single earner £ 1985– 90 Constant (1975 – 80) Year 1980– 85 Year 1985– 90 Total obs Model I 20.31c 0.39*** 2 0.10 2 0.31c 0.34*** 2 0. Relative risks of five-year tenure transitions from rental tenure for men in Gavle. Sweden.35*** 2 0.25 0.24 0.13*** 2 0.27c 2 0.10 2 0.08*** 2 0.17 2 0.30 0.17*** 0.51* 0.98*** 5516 Of Marriages and Mortgages 21.13*** 2 0.15 0.83*** 2 0.33 2 0.17 0.03 0.59 21.41*** Model II 2 0.83*** 0.24*** Risk of co-operative entry Model I Model II 2 0.13 2 0.63*** 2 0.17* 2 0.28*** 2 1.¨ Table 5.84*** 20.17* 2 0.35*** 2 0.19*** 0.18*** 7866 2 1.04 20.52* 0.72*** 2 0.11*** 20.31*** 0.35** 2 0.60*** 0.73*** 2 0.30*** 2 0. 1975– 90 (all begin as single.70*** 20.50*** 0.17*** 7866 2 0.05 2 0.14*** 2 0.

Significance level key a ¼ c 0. **0. T.05. Continued Risk of homeownership Variable Log-likelihood AIC Model I 25755 11514 Model II 2 5743 11489 Risk of co-operative entry Model I # end buying home # end entering co-operative Model II 1322 1028 Notes: Coefficients reflect risk relative to remaining in rental tenure.922 N. *0. Fransson Table 5.01.10. ***0. Lauster & U.10. . Robust standard errors are allowed to correlate within periods.

Of Marriages and Mortgages 923 for both men and women. employment career generally fails to act as a strong determinant on tenure preference. the hypothesis that marriage loses its distinctive relationship to homeownership over time during the Second Demographic Transition seems to receive robust support. although where effects are significant they remain in expected directions. Relative to the period 1975– 80. Women beginning the period unemployed are particularly unlikely to move into owner occupation relative to women employed in both time points. Net of other factors. and cohabitation retaining a secondary position between marriage and being single. the comparison category. the availability of extra income in the household is an important factor in tenure choice. The negative effect of remaining single on entrance into owner occupation also attenuates. the comparison category. in model two. For men. However. these interactions are resoundingly positive. the period from 1980 – 85 was the most stagnant time period for the market. Except for the addition of interaction variables. women without additional incomes were more likely to enter owner occupation in both 1980 –85 and 1985– 90. The addition of interaction variables results in modest improvements in model fit. Remaining the sole income in the household greatly decreases the likelihood of moving into owner occupation for both sexes. Men who are unemployed at both time points of the period are also particularly unlikely to move into owner occupation relative to those employed at both time points. when buying a home was the poorest form of investment. indicating that the rise in purchasing for singles relative to married individuals is unlikely to be explained by financial incentive alone. relative to adding an additional income. For both sexes in model one. As model one indicates. For men. In effect. the decline in the likelihood of ownership for cohabiting individuals is not as great as the decline for single individuals. the negative effects of being a single-income household on entrance into owner occupation attenuate over time. partnership related variables are interacted with time period. For women. Model two also investigates the changing effects of being a single-earner household. However. Relative to the period 1975 –80. those remaining single during the time period studied are significantly less likely to move into owner occupation than those who marry. at least in the short term. Those singles moving into non-marital cohabitation by the end of the measurement period are significantly less likely to enter ownership as well. with marriage remaining the most strongly linked. and also in accordance with theory. and interacted variables prove highly significant. Here the effects are markedly different for women and men. In model two. the effects are reversed. For women. Overall. being single and being in a non-marital cohabitation look increasingly like being married with respect to their effects on entrance into homeownership. models one and two differ little. Strikingly. for each sex. The models compare those remaining single earners at the end of the period with those adding an extra income. the negative effect of entering a non-marital cohabitation on entrance into owner occupation progressively attenuates over time. men . The negative effect of entering a nonmarital cohabitation also progressively attenuates over time. family formation strongly influences preferences for owner occupation. although the effect is greater for the period from 1980 –85 than from 1985– 90. As for women. for both men and women. The models compare those remaining single or entering a non-marital cohabitation with those entering a marriage by the end of the time period. The negative effect of remaining single on entrance into owner occupation progressively attenuates over time. the interacted variables are also positive.

it is found that it is similar to owner occupation in many ways. the distinctive effects of marriage on entry into co-operative tenure attenuate for women. Figure 2 shows the odds ratios associated with comparisons between partnership categories for men and women.924 N. Treating semi-owned co-operative tenure as a competing risk. but dissimilar in key others. Lauster & U. Matters surrounding the marriage boom in 1989 may represent a confounding effect. The results are similar with respect to being single for women. childbearing occurring between measurements had no effect on transitions to co-operative tenure. who in turn are more likely to move into co-operatives than singles. when markedly fewer men in the sample entered owner occupation. For men. the patterns for entrance into co-operative tenure do not correspond to the patterns for entry into owner occupation. the number of children at the beginning of measurement intervals tended to decrease the likelihood of moving into co-operatives for women. Fransson without additional incomes were significantly less likely to enter owner occupation in both 1980– 85 and 1985– 90. a smaller proportion of people choose to move into co-operative tenure relative to ownership. Returning to the consideration of ownership. a matter bearing further study in the future. During the stagnant housing market of 1980 – 85. single earners are less likely to move into co-operative tenure than those adding an extra income. In accordance with the hypothesis. Women who move from employed to unemployed are less likely to enter cooperative tenure relative to those employed in both periods. Yet over time. T. Transitions into co-operative tenure are similar to transitions into owner occupation in terms of the basic effects of partner preferences. Clearly. while these distinctive effects grow larger for men. this climb is not progressive. Moreover. Cohabitation clearly becomes more like marriage for both men and women with respect to risk of entry into owner occupation during the Second Demographic Transition. The effect of having a single income relative to adding an extra income to the household varies dramatically by gender and time period. the Second Demographic Transition results in greater importance for the extra income a partnership might bring for men. Unlike moves into owner occupation. with those unemployed in both periods the least likely to enter a co-operative arrangement. with a drop-off between 1980 –85 and 1985– 90. but still positive effects for men. This effect increases over time for both men and women. The younger and older groups tend to be less likely to move into co-operatives from rental. Age groupings demonstrate roughly the same relationship with entry into co-operatives as they do with entry into owner occupation. the odds ratios for entering a non-marital cohabiting relationship climb for both men and women over time. and less importance for that income for women. the effects of having an extra income practically evened out for men and women. Employment career again seems to be of limited importance in determining entry into cooperatives. However. In the first time period. the odds ratios for being single also tend to climb towards marriage over time. this observation bears further study. Extra income provided by men (and applied to women’s transitions) declined in buying power. While general trends rather strongly support the hypothesis of change during the Second Demographic Transition. while extra income . With respect to the importance of an extra income. an extra income was strongly associated with moving into homeownership for women. Men unemployed in any period are also less likely to move into co-operative tenure. Compared to marrying. Marrying individuals are more likely to move into co-operatives than cohabiting individuals (although the difference for men remains insignificant). Immigrants are typically as likely to move into cooperatives as native Swedes. Overall. with greatly diminished. with a slight increase over native Swedes for women.

Of Marriages and Mortgages 925 Figure 2. here it is found that features of the housing market may also play a role in determining the relative importance of an extra income by gender. Despite the significance of marriage in the analyses. 1975– 90 (householders aged 16 –44) provided by women (applied to men’s transitions) increased in buying power. It was hypothesized that the advent of the Second Demographic Transition was likely to lead to changes in two features of this relationship. from 1985– 90. indeed. Historical change: odds ratios of the likelihood of ownership comparing partnership categories for men and women relative to married and dual income status (respectively). Conclusions This study presents evidence on the changing relationship between partnership and tenure choice in Sweden. While overall the models support the hypothesis that an extra income became less important for women and more important for men over time during the Second Demographic Transition. Gavle. During a period of greater availability in the market. the importance of women’s extra income relative to men’s declined again. by five-year ¨ period. Sweden. but not for women. Evidence supports both of these assertions. changing the relationship between partnership and tenure choice in Sweden. but remained significantly greater than in the earliest time period. The progression of the Second Demographic Transition seems to result in a gradual flattening of the preferences for ownership across categories of partnership. It was hypothesized that the distinctive and positive relationship between marriage and preference for ownership was likely to decline relative to cohabitation or remaining single. The Second Demographic Transition is. It was also hypothesized that the importance of a second income in a household was likely to increase for men. a key finding from the results is the steady and significant decline in the preferences for ownership uniquely attributable to marriage over the time period under study. The difference in preferences between singles. cohabiting .

M.. Scandinavian Population Studies. The effects measured in both models remain substantively similar in the 1985–90 period. Borgegard. resulting in a one-time marriage boom right before the 1990 Census (Andersson. Notes 1 2 3 4 Despite these changes in labor force participation. Sweden is widely considered to be at the forefront of the changes in the family known as the Second Demographic Transition. the wage gap between men and women remained roughly the same through this time period. T. Overall. Lauster & U. References ˚ Abramsson. 445 –464. The existence is noted of substantial minorities of individuals taking on partners (for both sexes) without adding an extra income. Instead the opposite occurred. while actually declining slightly for women. Housing Studies. 13. models based on Swedish data from 1975– 90 may point towards current and future trends in other contexts. The decline in marriage in Sweden did not lead to a similar decline in ownership. As a result. European Journal of Population. rather than employment as a control. 2004b). expectations and plans. This seems to be as a result of changing relationships between family status and tenure choice. 1998. trends in marital delay are understated by these statistics following a change in pension law that motivated many couples to marry in 1989.8 rooms in 1990. pp. If anything. the importance of an extra income in the household tends to rise over time for men. 14. and the rising security of women in the labor force. he passed away in February 2003. without adding partners. L. Arkiv i nuet Om ˚ arkitektur och arkiv (Arktektutmuseet: Arsbok). B. (1991) Att lagga marknaden till ratta—Bostadsfragan under 1900–talet. (1998) Trends in marriage formation in Sweden 1971–1993.926 N. pp. 157 –178. 1996). 17. ˚ ¨ ¨ Bengtsson. U. providing further justification for the robustness of the modeling procedure. This points toward other features contributing to the Second Demographic Transition. At the same time. For the 1985–90 time period. pp. The addition of partner’s income is measured directly in these models. Bernhardt. . 157 –170. a substantial minority of single individuals add extra incomes. This helps us avoid collinearity in the modeling. Rising from 5. where many researchers think the Second Demographic Transition continues to progress. Future research to clarify how the relationship between partnership and tenure choice is changing in other contexts would be particularly helpful in determining the likely course of events linking the Second Demographic Transition to observed housing patterns. G. In addition. in the form of roommates or other family members. E. (2002) Housing careers—immigrants in local Swedish housing markets.4 rooms in 1975 and 5.-E. Sadly. where appropriate data are available. Andersson. with women earning on average 78 per cent of the wages of men (SCB. & Fransson. including the decline of men’s incomes. Fransson couples and married couples tends to decline between time periods. Hoem & Hoem. (2002) Cohabitation and marriage among young adults in Sweden: attitudes. Nordic demography: trends and differentials. models are also run using income. Acknowledgements ˚ Lars-Erik Borgegard of Uppsala University collaborated on the paper during its early state. This follows the definition of the Second Demographic Transition as a shift in values. the findings encourage consideration of the widespread and ongoing changes in the family when measuring the effects of family status on tenure choice. The theory of the Second Demographic Transition predicts and explains these changes relatively well.

class and home ownership: placing the connections. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. Demography. C. Hoem. J. 471– 486. Lesthaeghe. A. & VandenHeuvel. 1–14. (2002) Sharing the risk of home-ownership: a portfolio approach. pp. housing market context. (1998) Gender. D. in: Linda Waite (Ed. Clark. B. (1998) First-time home ownership in the family life course: a West German-Dutch comparison. Myers. NJ: Rutgers University). Theory and Society. 52. Social Science Quarterly. 1– 59. Mason & A. D. Edwards. C. pp. 39. (1995) The Second Demographic Transition: an interpretation. Rindfuss.) ˚ ¨ Bostadsmarknaden pa 2000-talet (Stockholm: SNS Forlag). NJ: Princeton University Press). Feijten. (1998) Economic independence and union formation in Sweden. -M. 703–726. and first home purchase by young married households. 424–432. (1997) Cohabiting partners’ economic circumstances and marriage. Jones. V. (2001) Increasing fertility in cohabiting unions: evidence for the Second Demographic Transition in the United States?. pp. 26. & Viden. 14(4). Working Paper (Stockholm: SUDA). pp. & Wagner. Rowlands. & Whitehead. (1987) Europe’s Second Demographic Transition. R. (2005) The Million Homes Programme: a review of the great Swedish planning project. (2005) Life course experience and housing quality. 36. L. O. Social Forces.. Demography. R. Clark. Trost. pp. in: K. 17. 20. Population and Development Review. M. Population Bulletin. pp. pp. Social Science Quarterly. (1990) Current wealth constraints on the housing demand of young owners. Journal of Marriage and the Family. R. Housing Studies.) The Ties that Bind. Housing. F.Of Marriages and Mortgages 927 Bracher. & Gurney. pp. Henretta. Davidson. pp. 301– 328. . pp. pp. 39. Urban Studies. G. C. pp. (2000) European perspectives on union formation. K. Population Studies. Urban Studies. (1989) The growth of home ownership: 1940–1980. 249– 266. 1705– 1722. Turner. S. D. 369–383. Urban Studies. Smock. M. H. (1997) Entry to home-ownership in Germany: some comparisons with the United States. Dowling. Jensen (Eds) Gender and Family Change in Industrialized Countries. ˚ ˚ Statistiska centralbyran (SCB) (2004b) Hushallens ekonomi (HEK): Arbetsinkomst. & Santow. (1996) Sweden’s family policies and roller-coaster fertility. pp. 121–130. Urban Studies. T. 24. 42(1). (2002) Reducing housing subsidy: Swedish housing policy in an international context. Mulder. B. Raley. 13. J. 16. pp. pp. J. Chevan. ´ Hall. Urban Studies. K. 66. 201 –217. & Dieleman. (2001) Young peoples’ perceptions of housing tenure: a case study in the socialization of tenure prejudice. G. pp. (1997) Drommen om villa—om bostadmarknad och bostadpreferenser. 16(4). V. & Manning. 331– 341. (2001) Values as determinants of preferences for housing attributes. & Dieleman.och byggnadsstatistisk arsbok 2004. W. 687 –713. 571 –588. & Hoem. (1985) Wives’ earnings and rising costs of homeownership. Mok. pp. pp. pp. F. 7 –19. C. (1987) Family transitions. P. C. R. 66. pp. Esping-Anderson. pp. A. 319 –329. in: AE. W. C. J. (1996) Households and Housing: Choice and Outcomes in the Housing Market (New Brunswick. 82. 285 –306. 520 –536. 35. pp. Coolen. 393–400. 38. 72. P. ˚ ˚ Statistiska centralbyran (SCB) (2004a) Bostads. Deurloo. Gurney. 34. Housing Studies. C. Planning Perspectives. Andersson (Ed. 453–472. (2001) Home ownership. M. Housing Studies. 1095–1112. & Mulder. J. (1999) Lowering the drawbridge: a case study of analogy and metaphor in the social construction of home-ownership. T. 17–62 (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Kiernan. pp. (1998) On theory development: applications to the study of family formation. W. Lesthaeghe. 20. R. M. The Review of Economics and Statistics. & Hoekstra. 59 –66. D. pp. affordability. 40–58 (New York: Aldine de Gruyter). ˚ ¨ Pettersson. (1999) Alternative models of social housing: tenure patterns and cross-renting in New Zealand and Sweden. A. M. 275– 294. and mothers’ changing work and family roles. A. Van de Kaa. 34. H. 40. Demography. A. (1978) Attitudes toward occurrence of cohabitation without marriage. Population and Development Review. pp. E. (1990) Cohabitation: a precursor to marriage or an alternative to being single?. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Princeton.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful