In the present study, the effect of partners’ social support on women’s reentry into the labor market is examined by means of discrete-time event history analysis using the German Socio-Economic Panel (1984-2013). In doing so, we take into account partners’ instrumental and emotional support. A special focus is placed on the moderating effect of partners’ relative resources on partners’ support. Results reveal that both partners’ instrumental and partners’ emotional support play a major role in women’s return to employment. Particularly with a more egalitarian division of domestic labor and child care, women have a higher likelihood of returning to the labor market. However, a partner’s reduction of working hours can also accelerate women’s reemployment. In addition, we find moderating effects of partners’ resource constellations on partners’ support: with a partner’s increasing comparative advantage, help with housework facilitates labor market reentry, while educational homogamy moderates the effect of a partner’s emotional support.
AbendrothA.-K.van der LippeT.MaasI. (2012). Social support and the working hours of employed mothers in Europe. Social Science Research, 41, 581-597.
2.
AisenbreyS.EvertssonM.GrunowD. (2009). Is there a career penalty for mothers’ time out? A comparison of Germany, Sweden and the United States. Social Forces, 88, 573-605.
3.
AllmendingerJ.EbachM.HennigM.StuthS. (2010). Verschenkte Potenziale? Lebensläufe nicht erwerbstätiger Frauen [Wasted potential? Life careers of non-working women]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus.
4.
AlwinD. F.BraunM.ScottJ. (1992). The separation of work and the family: Attitudes towards women’s labour-force participation in Germany, Great Britain and the United States. European Sociological Review, 8, 13-37.
5.
AndreßH.-J.GolschK.SchmidtA. (2013). Applied panel data analysis for economic and social surveys. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
6.
BeckerG. S. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
BernascoW.de GraafP. M.UlteeW. C. (1998). Coupled careers: Effects of spouse’s resources on occupational attainment in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review, 14, 15-31.
8.
BlauP. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.
9.
BlossfeldH.-P.DrobničS.RohwerG. (2001). Spouses’ employment careers in (West) Germany. In BlossfeldH.-P.DrobničS. (Eds.), Spouses’ employment careers in (West) Germany (pp. 53-76). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
10.
BlossfeldH.-P.TimmA. (2003). Who marries whom? Educational systems as marriage markets in modern societies. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
11.
BoxmanE. A. W.de GraafP. M.FlapH. D. (1991). The impact of social and human capital on the income attainment of Dutch managers. Social Networks, 13, 51-73.
12.
BröckelM.Busch-HeizmannA.GolschK. (2015). Headwind or tailwind: Do partners’ resources support or restrict a promotion to a leadership position in Germany?European Sociological Review, 31, 533-545.
13.
BudigM. J.EnglandP. (2001). The wage penalty for motherhood. American Sociological Review, 66, 204-225.
14.
BuschA.BröckelM.GolschK. (2014). Berufliche Aufstiege im partnerschaftlichen Kontext: Zur Bedeutung von Homogamie und sozialer Unterstützung durch den Partner [Career advancement in partnership context: The role of homogamy and partners’ social support]. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 26(1), 3-28.
15.
CorrellS. J.BenardS.PaikI. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty?American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1297-1338.
16.
CutronaC. E. (1996). Sage series in close relationships: Vol. 13: Social support in couples: Marriage as a resource in times of stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
DiewaldM.LüdickeJ.LangF. R.SchuppJ. (2006). Familie und soziale Netzwerke: Ein revidiertes Erhebungskonzept für das Sozio-ökonomische Panel (SOEP) im Jahr 2006 [Family and social networks: A revised survey concept for the Socio Economic Panel in 2006] (Research Notes No. 14). Berlin, Germany: DIW.
18.
DiewaldM.SattlerS. (2010). Soziale Unterstützungsnetzwerke [Networks of social support]. In StegbauerC.HäußlingR. (Eds.). Soziale Unterstützungsnetzwerke [Networks of social support] (1st ed., pp. 689-699). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
19.
DommermuthL.Hohmann-MarriottB.LappegardT. (2015). Gender equality in the family and childbearing. Journal of Family Issues. 38, 1803-1824. doi:10.1177/0192513X15590686
20.
DraschK. (2013). The re-entry of mothers in Germany into employment after family-related interruptions: Empirical evidence and methodological aspects from a life course perspective (IAB-Bibliothek [Dissertationen]: Vol. 343). Bielefeld, Germany: W. Bertelsmann.
21.
ElderG. H. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 4-15.
22.
ElsasS.WölfelO.HeineckG. (2013). Familienpolitik und Erwerbsrückkehr von Müttern: Eine Analyse mit Daten des Sozio-oekonomischen Panels (SOEP) [Family policy and re-entry into employment of mothers: An analysis with data from the Socio Economic Panel]. In MühlingT.RostH.RuppM. (Eds.). Familienpolitik und Erwerbsrückkehr von Müttern: Eine Analyse mit Daten des Sozio-oekonomischen Panels (SOEP) [Family policy and re-entry into employment of mothers: An analysis with data from the Socio Economic Panel] (pp. 103-138). Opladen, Germany: Budrich.
23.
EzzedeenS. R.Grossnickle RitcheyK. (2008). The man behind the woman: A qualitative study of the spousal support received and valued by executive women. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1107-1135.
24.
GanglM.ZiefleA. (2009). Motherhood, labor force behavior, and women’s careers: An empirical assessment of the wage penalty for motherhood in Britain, Germany, and the United States. Demography, 46, 341-369.
25.
GershunyJ.BittmannM.BriceJ. (2005). Exit, voice, and suffering: Do couples adapt to changing employment patterns?Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 656-665.
26.
GrabkaM. M.FrickJ. R. (2003). Imputation of item-non-response on income questions in the SOEP 1984-2002 (DIW Research Note No. 29). Berlin, Germany: DIW.
27.
HanS.-K.MoenP. (1999). Work and family over time: A life course approach. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 562, 98-110.
28.
HoherzS. (2014). Maternity leave in the context of couples: The impact of both partners’ characteristics and employment experiences on mothers’ re-entry into the labour market (SOEP Papers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research No. 647). Berlin, Germany: DIW.
29.
HöhneA. (2007). Soziale Unterstützung in Partnerschaften: Individuelle Beschäftigungschancen und Risiken im ostdeutschen Transformationsprozess unter Berücksichtigung des Partnerschaftskontextes [Social support in partnerships: Individual employment opportunities and risks in the East German transition process, taking into account the context of the partnership]. Berlin, Germany: Logos.
30.
JacobM.KleinertC. (2014). Marriage, gender, and class: The effects of partner resources on unemployment exit in Germany. Social Forces, 92, 839-871.
31.
JanningM. (2006). Put yourself in my work shoes: Variations in work-related spousal support for professional married coworkers. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 85-109.
32.
Karaca-MandicP.NortonE. C.DowdB. (2012). Interaction terms in nonlinear models. Health Services Research, 47(1 Pt 1), 255-274.
33.
LambM. E. (2000). The history of research on father involvement. Marriage & Family Review, 29(2-3), 23-42.
34.
LiaoT. F.StevensG. (1994). Spouses, homogamy, and social networks. Social Forces, 73, 693-707.
35.
LundbergS.PollakR. A. (1996). Bargaining and distribution in marriage. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(4), 139-158.
36.
MoodC. (2010). Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review, 26, 67-82.
37.
PerrewéP. L.CarlsonD. S. (2002). Do men and women benefit from social support equally? Results from a field examination within the work and family context. In NelsonD. L.BurkeR. J. (Eds.), Do men and women benefit from social support equally? Results from a field examination within the work and family context (pp. 101-114). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
38.
Pfau-EffingerB. (1999). Change of family policies in the socio-cultural context of European societies. Comparative Social Research, 18, 135-160.
39.
SuitorJ.PillemerK.KeetonS. (1995). When experience counts: The effects of experiential and structural similarity on patterns of support and interpersonal stress. Social Forces, 73, 1573-1588.
40.
TreasJ.WidmerE. D. (2000). Married women’s employment over the life course: Attitudes in cross-national perspective. Social Forces, 78, 1409-1436.
41.
VangelistiA. L. (2009). Challenges in conceptualizing social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(1), 39-51.
42.
VerhofstadtL. L.BuyseeA.IckesW. (2007). Social support in couples: An examination of gender differences using self-report and observational methods. Sex Roles, 57, 267-282.
43.
WagnerG. G.FrickJ. R.SchuppJ. (2007). The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP): Scope, evolution and enhancements. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 127(1), 139-169.
44.
WallaceJ. E.JovanovicA. (2011). Occupational similarity and spousal support: A study of the importance of gender and spouse’s occupation. Industrial Relations, 66, 235-255.
45.
WangR.BianchiS. M. (2009). ATUS fathers’ involvement in childcare. Social Indicators Research, 93(1), 141-145.
46.
WippermannC. (2012). Zeit für Wiedereinstieg: Potenziale und Perspektiven [Time for re-entry: Potentials and perspectives]. Berlin, Germany: Bericht des BMFSFJ.
