Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Income dynamics in couples and the dissolution of marriage and cohabitation

  • Published:
Demography

Abstract

Several studies have shown that a wife’s strong (socio)economic position is associated with an increase in the risk of divorce. Less is known about such effects for cohabiting relationships. Using a unique and large-scale sample of administrative records from The Netherlands, we analyze the link between couples’ income dynamics and union dissolution for married and cohabiting unions over a 10-year period. We find negative effects of household income on separation and positive effects of the woman’s relative income, in line with earlier studies. The shape of the effect of the woman’s relative income, however, depends on the type of union. Movements away from income equality toward a maledominant pattern tend to increase the dissolution risk for cohabiting couples, whereas they reduce the dissolution risk for married couples. Movements away from income equality toward a female-dominant pattern (reverse specialization) increase the dissolution risks for both marriage and cohabitation. The findings suggest that equality is more protective for cohabitation, whereas specialization is more protective for marriage, although only when it fits a traditional pattern. Finally, we find that the stabilizing effects of income equality are more pronounced early in the marriage and that income equality also reduces the dissolution risk for same-sex couples.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Becker, G.S. 1981. A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G.S., E.M. Landes, and R.T. Michael. 1977. “An Economic Analysis of Marital Instability.” Journal of Political Economy 85:1141–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blossfeld, H.P. and R. Muller. 2002. “Union Disruption in Comparative Perspective: The Role of Assortative Partner Choice and Careers of Couples.” International Sociology 32:3–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein, P. and P. Schwartz. 1983. American Couples: Money, Work, Sex. New York: William Morrow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracher, M., G. Santow, S.P. Morgan, and J. Trussel. 1993. “Marriage Dissolution in Australia: Models and Explanations.” Population Studies 47:403–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brines, J. and K. Joyner. 1999. “The Ties That Bind: Principles of Cohesion in Cohabitation and Marriage.” American Sociological Review 64:333–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brüderl, J., A. Diekmann, and H. Engelhardt. 1997. “Erhöht eine Probeehe das Scheidingsrisiko? Eine empirische Untersuchung mit dem Familiensurvey” [Does a trial marriage increase the risk of divorce]. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 49:205–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brüderl, J. and F. Kalter. 2001. “The Dissolution of Marriages: The Role of Information and Marital-Specific Capital.” Journal of Mathematical Sociology 25:403–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherlin, A.J. 1979. “Work Life and Marital Dissolution.” Pp. 151–66 in Divorce and Separation: Context, Causes and Consequences, edited by G. Levinger and O.C. Moles. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1992. Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, rev. and enlarged ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciano-Boyce, C. and L. Shelley-Sireci. 2002. “Who Is Mommy Tonight? Lesbian Parenting Issues.” Journal of Homosexuality 43(2):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkberg, M., R.M. Stolzenberg, and L.J. Waite. 1995. “Attitudes, Values, and Entrance Into Cohabitational Versus Marital Unions.” Social Forces 74:609–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Rose, A. 1992. “Socioeconomic Factors and Family Size as Determinants of Marital Dissolution in Italy.” European Sociological Review 8:71–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, D.R. and J.Z. Zhao. 1995. “Cohabitation and Divorce in Canada: Testing the Selectivity Hypothesis.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 57:421–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckert, D.A., T.C. Nowak, and K.A. Snyder. 1998. “The Impact of Husbands’ and Wives’ Relative Earnings on Marital Disruption.” Journal of Marriage and Family 60:690–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jalovaara, M. 2003. “The Joint Effects of Marriage Partners’ Socioeconomic Positions on the Risk of Divorce.” Demography 40:67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalmijn, M., P.M. De Graaf, and A.R. Poortman. 2004. “Interactions Between Cultural and Economic Determinants of Divorce in The Netherlands.” Journal of Marriage and Family 66:75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiernan, K. 2002. “Cohabitation in Western Europe: Trends, Issues, and Implications.” Pp. 3–32 in Just Living Together: Implications of Cohabitation on Families, Children, and Social Policy, edited by A. Booth and A.C. Crouter. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komarovsky, M. 1962. Blue-Collar Marriage. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latten, J.J. and P.F. Cuyvers. 1994. “Relatie en gezinsvorming in de jaren negentig” [Union and family formation in the nineties]. Voorburg/Heerlen: CBS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesthaeghe, R. and J. Surkuyn. 1988. “Cultural Dynamics and Economic Theories of Fertility Change.” Population and Development Review 14:1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liefbroer, A. 1991a. “Kiezen tussen ongehuwd samenwonen en trouwen” [Choosing between marriage and cohabitation]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Vrije Universiteit.

  • — 1991b. “The Choice Between a Married and Unmarried First Union for Young Adults: A Competing Risk Analysis.” European Journal of Population 7:273–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liefbroer, A.C. and P.A. Dykstra. 2000. Levenslopen in verandering: Een studie naar ontwikkelingen in de levenslopen van Nederlanders geboren tussen 1900 en 1970. [Life courses in transition: A study of the life courses of Dutch persons born between 1900 and 1970]. Report. Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, Den Haag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, G. and A. Vikat. 2004. “Does Divorce Risk Depend on Spouses’ Relative Income? A Register-Based Study of First Marriages in Sweden in 1981-1998.” MPIDR Working Paper No. 2004-010. Max-Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manting, D. 1994a. Dynamics in Marriage and Cohabitation: An Inter-temporal, Life Course Analysis of First Union Formation and Dissolution. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1994b. “Meer scheidingen dan echtscheidingen” [More breakups than divorces]. Maandstatistiek van de Bevolking 42:6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manting, D. and J.A. Loeve. 2004. “Economic Circumstances and Union Dissolution of Couples in the 1990s in The Netherlands.” Voorburg/Heerlen: Statistics Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • McManus, P.A. and T.A. DiPrete. 2001. “Losers and Winners: The Financial Consequences of Divorce for Men.” American Sociological Review 66:246–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, S.P. and R.R. Rindfuss. 1985. “Marital Disruption: Structural and Temporal Dimensions.” American Journal of Sociology 90:1055–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nock, S.L. 1995. “Commitment and Dependency in Marriage.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 57:503–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ono, H. 1998. “Husband’s and Wife’s Resources and Marital Dissolution.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 60:674–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, V.K. 1997. “Women’s Employment and the Gain to Marriage: The Specialization and Trading Model of Marriage.” Annual Review of Sociology 23:431–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 2003. “Cohabiting and Marriage During Young Men’s Career-Development Process.” Demography 40:127–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poortman, A.R. and M. Kalmijn. 2002. “Women’s Labour Market Position and Divorce in The Netherlands: Evaluating Economic Interpretations of the Work Effect.” European Journal of Population 18:175–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raftery, A.E. 1996. “Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research.” Pp. 111–63 in Sociological Methodology, edited by P.V. Marsden. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindfuss, R.R. and A. Van den Heuvel. 1990. “Cohabitation: A Precursor to Marriage or an Alternative to Being Single?” Population and Development Review 16:703–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, S.J. 2004. “Dollars, Dependency, and Divorce: Four Perspectives on the Role of Wives’ Income.” Journal of Marriage and Family 66:59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, H.L. and I.V. Sawhill. 1975. Time of Transition: The Growth of Families Headed by Women. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, L.C. and S.M. Bianchi. 2000. “Women’s Economic Independence and the Probability of Divorce.” Journal of Family Issues 21:906–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoen, R., N.M. Astone, K. Rothert, N. Standish, and Y.J. Kim. 2002. “Women’s Employment, Marital Happiness, and Divorce.” Social Forces 81:643–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schor, J. 1991. The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, T. and M. O’Connell. 2003. “Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households 2000.” Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, I.H. and P. England. 1981. “Conjugal Work Roles and Marital Solidarity.” Journal of Family Issues 34:331–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smock, P.J. 2000. “Cohabitation in the United States: An Appraisal of Research Themes, Findings, and Implications.” Annual Review of Sociology 26:1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smock, P.J. and S. Gupta. 2002. “Cohabitation in Contemporary North America.” Pp. 53–84 in Just Living Together: Implications of Cohabitation on Families, Children, and Social Policy, edited by A. Booth and A.C. Crouter. College Station, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, S.E., E.D. Rothblum, and K.F. Balsam. 2005. “Money, Housework, Sex, and Con ict: Same-Sex Couples in Civil Unions, Those Not in Civil Unions, and Heterosexual Married Siblings.” Sex Roles 52:561–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • South, S.J. 2001. “Time-Dependent Effects of Wives’ Employment on Marital Dissolution.” American Sociological Review 66:226–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • South, S.J. and G. Spitze. 1986. “Determinants of Divorce Over the Marital Life Course.” American Sociological Review 51:583–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, E. and U. Colella. 1992. “Cohabitation and Marital Stability: Quality or Commitment?” Journal of Marriage and the Family 54:259–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, A., W.G. Axinn, and D.H. Hill. 1992. “Reciprocal Effects of Religiosity, Cohabitation, and Marriage.” American Journal of Sociology 98:628–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Gostomski, B.C., J. Hartmann, and J. Kopp. 1998. “Soziostrukturelle Bestimmungsgründe der Ehescheidung: Eine empirische Uberprufung einiger Hypothesen der Familienforschung” [Socialstructural bases of divorce: An empirical test of some hypotheses from family studies]. Zeitschrift für Sozialisationsforschung und Erziehungssoziologie 18:117–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voydanoff, P. 1990. “Economic Distress and Family Relations: A Review of the Eighties.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 52:1099–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, M. 1993. “Sociale Bedingungen des Ehescheidungsrisikos aus der Perspektive des Lebensverlaufs” [Social determinant of the risk of divorce from a life course perspective]. Pp. 372–93 in Der Familienzyklus als sozialer Prozeß, edited by A. Diekmann and S. Weick. Berlijn: Duncker and Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waite, L.J. 1995. “Does Marriage Matter?” Demography 32:483–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Tilburg University, Box 90153, 5000, Tilburg, LE, The Netherlands

    Matthijs Kalmijn

  2. Netherlands Institute for Spatial Research, Box 90153, 5000 LE, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Anneke Loeve & Dorien Manting

Authors
  1. Matthijs Kalmijn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anneke Loeve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dorien Manting
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthijs Kalmijn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kalmijn, M., Loeve, A. & Manting, D. Income dynamics in couples and the dissolution of marriage and cohabitation. Demography 44, 159–179 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2007.0005

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2007.0005

Keywords

Search

Navigation