Para Caisson Neumático

Perhaps, the mobility pattern that we find can be described by “ordinary” life cycle behavior. People enter the city when they are young and have relatively strong preferences for bars, clubs, cinemas and other city amenities and then leave the city when they are

older and richer and have stronger preferences for land. One way to “isolate” the search effect is to consider the mobility patterns of couples who have moved to the country site and who got divorced there. If they moved to the countryside for life cycle motives other than the marriage market, we expect them to stay in the countryside after divorce whereas according to the marriage market model they should move back to the city once they become single again. We find that our model still holds. Since the observations we use are annual, we only know that a divorce has occurred during the year but not the exact date. We therefore present results for both individuals who are divorced 1 year and those who are still divorced after 2 years.

Table 15: Logit for transition from rural to city

Men Women

Coeff. Std Coeff. Std Coeff. Std. Coeff. Std.

Divorced, 1 year 0.765∗ _{0.061 0.667}∗ _{0.085 1.141}∗ _{0.059 1.059}∗ _0.078 Attractiveness 0.447∗ _{0.021 0.359}∗ _0.023 Divorced∗attractiveness -0.115 0.086 0.027 0.075 Divorced, 2 years 0.477∗ _{0.084 0.486}∗ _{0.115 0.497}∗ _{0.097 0.454}∗ _0.127 Attractiveness 0.437∗ 0.021 0.353∗ 0.022 Divorced∗attractiveness 0.023 0.114 0.108 0.119 # Observations 82469 75628

Figure 13: Interaction of divorcee for 1 year and attractiveness - transition from rural to city.

Figure 14: Interaction of divorcee for 2 years and attractiveness - transition from rural to city.

Table 16: Logit for transition from city to rural

Men Women

Coeff. Std. Coeff. Std. Coeff. Std. Coeff. Std.

Divorced, 1 year 0.734∗ _{0.063 0.747}∗ _{0.087 0.631}∗ _{0.063 0.726}∗ _0.079 Attractiveness 0.097∗ 0.022 0.032 0.022 Divorced∗attractiveness 0.057 0.076 -0.020 0.071 Divorced, 2 years 0.127 0.092 0.102 0.128 -0.374∗ 0.112 -0.267∗∗ 0.138 Attractiveness 0.107∗ _{0.021 0.029 0.021} Divorced∗attractiveness -0.215∗ _{0.118 -0.137 0.127} # Observations 31607 30023

Note: ∗ denotes significant different from 0 at the 5% level.

Figure 15: Interaction of divorcee for 1 year and attractiveness - transition from city to rural.

Figure 16: Interaction of divorcee for 2 years and attractiveness - transition from city to rural.

Not surprisingly, because of the nature of a divorce, divorcees are more likely to move. Therefore we must compare the likelihood to move to the city with the likelihood to move out of the city. For men, there is no large difference after the first year of divorce. In the second year after divorce they are however more likely to move to the city, but not to the rural areas compared to the reference group. For women, the propensity of the divorced to move to the city is larger than to move out of the city12. This pattern is even more pronounced after 2 years of divorce and can be explained by the fact that it is typically harder to find a place to live in the city than on the countryside. This supports the marriage market hypothesis.

6

Conclusion

In this paper we extend the Burdett-Coles (1997) marriage market model with a distinc- tion between efficient marriage markets (cities) and less efficient search markets (rural 12_{Although this is evident from the size of the coefficients we have also investigated the marginal effects}

areas) and derive how individuals sort into those markets. Our model predicts that sin- gles and in particular attractive singles move to the city while couples move out of the city. Those predictions are confirmed by the data. We find that in particular for females, the cross partial of single and attractiveness on the probability of moving is positive and statistically significant. Why the cross effect is less pronounced for males is still an open issue.

In this paper we solely focussed on marriage decisions and abstracted from divorces. One interesting motivation for married couples to move to a rural area is that it is an efficient way to make a commitment. Burdett et al. (2004) showed that if one of the partners is likely to continue searching “on the job”, this by itself stimulates the other partner to continue search as well. Given the many long term investments that are required, like raising children and buying a house, which all require a stable relationship, it can be efficient to move to an inefficient search market to limit “on the job” search.

References

[1] Ai, C, and E.C. Norton (2003). “Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models”, Economics Letters, 80, 123-129.

[2] Anderberg, D. (2004). “Getting Hitched: The Equilibrium Marriage Market Be- haviour of a British Cohort”, Manuscript, Royal Holloway University of London. [3] Becker, G (1973). “A Theory of Marriage: Part I”, Journal of Political Economy,

82(4), 813-846.

[4] Bloch F. and H. Ryder (2000), “Two-Sided Search, Marriages, and Matchmak- ers”, International Economic Review, 41(1), 93-115.

[5] Burdett, K. and M. G. Coles (1997). “Marriage and Class”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 141-168.

[6] Burdett, K. and M. G. Coles (1999). “Long-term Partnership Formation: Mar- riage and Employment”, Economic Journal, 109, 307-334.

[8] Black, D., G. Gates, S. Senders and L. Taylor (2002). “Why Do Gay Men Live in San Francisco?”, Journal of Urban Economics, 51, 54-76.

[9] Compton, J. and R. Pollak (2004). “Why are Power Couples Increasingly Con- centrated in Large Metropolitan Areas?”, NBER Working Paper No. 10918.

[10] Costa, D. L. and M. E. Kahn (2000). “Power Couples: Changes in the Locational Choice of the College Educated, 1940-1990”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1287- 1315.

[11] Diamond P.A. (1982). “Wage Determination and Efficiency in Search Equilibrium”, Review of Economic Studies, 217-227.

[12] Edlund, L. (2004). “Sex and the City”, Forthcoming Scandinavian Journal of Eco- nomics.

[13] Gale, D. and L. Shapley (1962). “College Admission and the Stability of Mar- riage”, American Mathematical Monthly, 69, 9-15.

[14] Goldin, C. (1992). “The Meaning of College in the Lives of American Women: The Past One-Hundred Years”, NBER Working Paper No. 4099.

[15] Goldin, C. and L. Katz (2002). “The Power of the Pill: Oral Contraceptives and Women’s Career and Marriage Decisions”, Journal of Political Economy, 110, 730-770.

[16] Greenwood, M.J. (1997). “Internal Migration in Developed Countries”, Handbook of Population and Family Economics, ed. M. Rosenzweig & O. Stark, Vol. 1B, 647- 720.

[17] Hamermesh, D. and J. Biddle (1994). “Beauty and the Labour Market”, Amer- ican Economic Review, 84, 5, 1174-1194.

[18] Johnson, R.A. and D. W. Wichern (1998). Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 4th edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

[19] Mincer, J. (1978). “Family Migration Decisions”, Journal of Political Economy, 86, 749-773.

[20] Smith, L. (1997), “The Marriage Model with Search Frictions”, mimeo University of Michigan.

[21] Svarer, M. (2004). “Is Your Love in Vain? Another Look at Premarital Cohabita- tion and Divorce”, Journal of Human Resources, 39(2), 523-536.

[22] Teulings C.N. and P.A. Gautier (2004). “The Right Man for the Job”, Review of Economic Studies, 71-2, 553-580.

[23] Wong, L. (2003). “Structural Estimation of Marriage Models”, Journal of Labor Economics, 21(3), 699-727.