El Recuerdo y la memoria

Does the positive association between generous family policies and the like-lihood of women living in unions mainly depend on a positive association between generous family policies and the likelihood of working women and women who are students living in unions? To test whether this is the case, I perform split-sample analyses among women with and without labor market attachment. The results from the models of the likelihood of women with labor market attachment living in unions are presented in Models 5 to 7 in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3. Odds ratios of women living in unions: working women and women who are students who do not have children below school age

Model 5 Model 6 Model 7

Individual level

Age 1.78 (.08)*** 1.78 (.08)*** 1.78 (.08)***

Age*Age .99 (.00)*** .99 (.00)*** .99 (.00)***

Living urban .79 (.05)*** .78 (.05)*** .78 (.05)***

University education .80 (.07)** .78 (.07)** .78 (.07)**

Monthly church 1.09 (.10) 1.10 (.10) 1.12 (.10)

Religiosity .97 (.01)* .97 (.01)* .97 (.01)*

Protestant 1.20 (.19) 1.16 (.17) 1.10 (.16)

Catholic 1.16 (.15) 1.17 (.15) 1.20 (.15)

Orthodox 1.29 (.28) 1.40 (.26)+ 1.37 (.23)+

Other .98 (.18) .97 (.18) .98 (.18)

Country level

(log)Dual-earner index 1.61 (.17)*** 1.36 (.12)***

(log)Benefits index 1.26 (.12)*

(log)Part-time work 1.00 (.12)

(log)Unemployment rate 1.27 (.14)*

(log)Living with parents .71 (.09)**

Random part

Intercept level 2 .35 (.06)*** .24 (.04)*** .17 (.03)***

Observations

Individuals 8292 8292 8292

Countries 22 22 22

Log likelihood -4376.192 -4368.932 -4362.354

AIC 8780.383 8767.863 8762.709

Standard errors in parentheses

+ p < 0.1, ^* p < 0.05, ^** p < 0.01, ^*** p < 0.001

THE LIKELIHOOD OF WOMEN LIVING IN UNIONS In line with the expectations, Model 7 shows that the dual-earner index is more strongly associated with the likelihood of working women and women who are students living in unions than with women’s overall likelihood of living with partners.

Figure 6.7, which illustrates the association, shows that a working woman who does not have children below school age has a predicted probability of about .5 of living with a partner in the country with the least generous dual-earner policies, when all other variables are held constant at their means. The predicted probability of a similar woman living in a union in the country with the most generous dual-earner policies is over .65.

Figure 6.7. The dual-earner index and the likelihood of working women and women who are students living in unions

Comments. Builds on Model 7 in Table 6.3. The graph shows the effects of the dual-earner index and women’s labor market status when all other variables are kept at the sample mean. The shaded areas show the 83-percent confidence intervals. This means that confidence intervals that do not overlap show likelihoods that are significantly different from each other at the 5-percent level.

Thus, each log unit separating the two countries on the dual-earner index is associated with a .075 (15 percent) increase in the predicted probability of working women who do not have children below school age living in unions.

This means that 30 percent more working women live with partners in the

.2.3.4.5.6.7Predicted probability

2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

(log)Dual-earner index

Confidence intervals Women in paid work

Women in education

BEDROOM POLITICS

country with the most generous dual-earner policies in comparison to the country with the least generous dual-earner policies.

The positive association between the dual-earner index and the likelihood of women who are students living in unions is even stronger. The predicted probability that women who are students live in unions is .14 higher in the country with the most generous dual-earner policies compared to what it is in the country with the least generous dual-earner policies. As the predicted probability of women who are students living in unions in the latter country is only .28, this means that almost 50 percent more women who are students are predicted to live in unions in the country with most generous dual-earner policies compared to in the country with least generous dual-earner policies.

The association between the dual-earner index and the likelihood of working women and women who are students living in unions in Model 7 is considerably stronger than the one found in the models in Table 6.2, which do not exclude women outside the labor market. To be more exact, the asso-ciation is 50 percent stronger (.1 compared to .15) for working women and 25 percent (.11 compared to .14) stronger for women who are students. Conse-quently, it is safe to say that the strength of the positive association between the dual-earner index and the likelihood of women living in unions is strong-er among working women and women who are students than among women outside the labor market.

The association between the benefits index and women’s likelihood of living in unions is also stronger among women who are working and study-ing than it is in the models that include women outside the labor market (see Figure 6.8). The predicted probability of working women living in unions is .15, or 33 percent, higher in the country with the most generous family bene-fits compared to in the country with the least generous family benebene-fits; the predicted probability of women who are students living in unions is .13, or nearly 50 percent, higher in the country with the most generous family bene-fits. The difference in the magnitude of the effects between the models in-cluding and exin-cluding women outside the labor market is of about the same size as that for the dual-earner index.

THE LIKELIHOOD OF WOMEN LIVING IN UNIONS Figure 6.8. The benefits index and the likelihood of working women and women who are students living in unions

Comments: Builds on Model 7 in Table 6.3. The graph shows the effects of the dual-earner index, the benefits index, and labor market status when all other variables are kept at the sample mean.

The shaded areas show the 83-percent confidence intervals. This means that confidence intervals that do not overlap show likelihoods that are significantly different from each other at the 5-percent level.

Two interesting observations regarding the behavior of the control models should be mentioned. The first is that the association between participation in organized religiousness and the likelihood of living in a union seems to be weaker among women in the labor market. The frequency of church attend-ance is not significantly associated with the likelihood of working women and women who are students living in unions, whereas self-estimated reli-giousness is actually negatively associated with the same likelihood. For some reason, religious working women and religious women who are stu-dents are less likely to live in unions than their more secular sisters. Perhaps this is a sign of the difficulty involved in simultaneously maintaining a career and adhering to religious teachings on women’s family duties.

Also, the observation that the unemployment rate is positively associated with the likelihood of working women and women who are students living in unions, whereas it is not significantly associated with women’s overall likeli-hood of living in unions, deserves mention. As was pointed out in the

meth-.2.3.4.5.6.7Predicted probability

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5

(log)Benefits index

Confidence intervals Women in paid work

Women in education

BEDROOM POLITICS

ods discussion, unemployment reduces the opportunity costs of reproduction drastically, because of the resulting loss of the woman’s wage. Other things being equal, this fact might tilt women who expect to be, or fear becoming, unemployed in the future toward considering a union (with children) a rela-tively attractive option. Thus, as the unemployment rate is likely a good proxy for women’s risk of unemployment, it is not surprising to find a posi-tive association between it and the likelihood of women living in unions.

However, one could wonder why only women who have jobs or who are currently or soon to be seeking one are affected by the unemployment rate.

The reason most likely is that such women, in contrast to women outside the labor market, under normal circumstances have relatively good earning op-portunities. Women who are, voluntarily or involuntarily, outside the labor market are likely to have relatively poor earning opportunities even during good labor market conditions and are, thus, in all probability less sensitive to labor market conditions when making their union decisions. This is easily illustrated by the fact that only women who have jobs risk losing their jobs in times of high unemployment. Women who actively plan on seeking jobs (i.e., women students) are also more sensitive to labor market conditions than women who have voluntarily chosen to stay outside the labor market, or who, even during normal circumstances, cannot manage to get a job.

In all, the results from Models 5 to 7 seem to confirm that the positive association between generous family policies and the overall likelihood of women living in unions mainly depend on a positive association between generous family policies and the likelihood of working women and women who are students living in unions. They also seem to confirm that working women and women who are students overall are more sensitive to economic factors than women outside the labor force. However, in order to draw such a conclusion with more certainty, it is necessary to also examine how variables are associated with the likelihood of women outside the labor market living in unions. Therefore, I also run a model of the likelihood of women outside the labor market living in unions. The results are presented in Model 8 in Table 6.5.

THE LIKELIHOOD OF WOMEN LIVING IN UNIONS Table 6.5. Odds ratios of women living in unions: women outside the labor market who do not have children below school age

Model 8 Individual level

Age 1.49 (.11)***

Age*Age .996 (.001)***

Living urban .75 (.08)**

University education .89 (.17) Monthly church 1.56 (.19)***

Religiosity .97 (.02)

Protestant 1.76 (.33)**

Catholic 1.21 (.22)

Orthodox 1.15 (.24)

Other 1.16 (.20)

Country level (log)Dual-earner index (log)Benefits index (log)Part-time work (log)Unemployment rate (log)Living with parents

Random part

Intercept level 2 .14 (.11)

Observations

Individuals 2253

Countries 22

Log likelihood -1255.118

AIC 2536.237

Standard errors in parentheses

+ p < 0.1, ^* p < 0.05, ^** p < 0.01, ^*** p < 0.001

Model 8, which only includes individual-level variables, shows that educa-tional attainment is not negatively associated with the likelihood of women outside the labor market living in unions. Although the coefficient of having a university education is slightly negative, it is not near to being statistically significant. This likely reflects the fact that women outside the labor market are not able to capitalize on their educations to the same extent as women who are established in the labor market. A woman’s education matters little for her earning potential if she nevertheless finds herself outside the labor market with few opportunities and little inclination to (re)enter it. It is also a fact that an education decreases in value with time if it is not kept up to date, for example, through work experience. It is, thus, no surprise to see a strong-er association between educational attainment and the likelihood of working women and women who are students living in unions than between

educa-BEDROOM POLITICS

tional attainment and the likelihood of women outside the labor market living in unions.

The impression that economic incentives do not affect the relationship decisions of women outside the labor market is further strengthened by the fact that the likelihood of such women living in unions does not vary signifi-cantly between countries. The random intercepts (presented in the random part of the model) are not even near conventional levels of significance (the coefficient is .14 with a standard error of .11). Because there is not a signifi-cant variation between countries to explain, there is no need to continue ex-ploring whether country-level characteristics are associated with the likeli-hood of women outside the labor market living in unions. Only the likelilikeli-hood of working women and women who are students living in unions is associat-ed with country-level characteristics. Consequently, H6 is confirmassociat-ed: the positive association between generous family policies and the overall likeli-hood of women living in unions is totally dependent on a positive association between generous family policies and the likelihood of working women and women who are students (i.e., women with relatively large expected future earnings) living in unions.