The Role of Partners’ Support for Women’s Reentry Into Employment After a Child-Related Career Break in Germany

Abstract

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.

Keywords

work and family family processes household labor life course quantitative

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abendroth

A.-K.

van der Lippe

Maas

(2012). Social support and the working hours of employed mothers in Europe. Social Science Research, 41, 581-597.

Aisenbrey

Evertsson

Grunow

(2009). Is there a career penalty for mothers’ time out? A comparison of Germany, Sweden and the United States. Social Forces, 88, 573-605.

Allmendinger

Ebach

Hennig

Stuth

(2010). Verschenkte Potenziale? Lebensläufe nicht erwerbstätiger Frauen [Wasted potential? Life careers of non-working women]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus.

Alwin

D. F.

Braun

Scott

(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.

Andreß

H.-J.

Golsch

Schmidt

(2013). Applied panel data analysis for economic and social surveys. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

Becker

G. S.

(1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bernasco

de Graaf

P. M.

Ultee

W. C.

(1998). Coupled careers: Effects of spouse’s resources on occupational attainment in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review, 14, 15-31.

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

Blossfeld

H.-P.

Drobnič

Rohwer

(2001). Spouses’ employment careers in (West) Germany. In Blossfeld

H.-P.

Drobnič

(Eds.), Spouses’ employment careers in (West) Germany (pp. 53-76). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

10.

Blossfeld

H.-P.

Timm

(2003). Who marries whom? Educational systems as marriage markets in modern societies. Boston, MA: Kluwer.

11.

Boxman

E. A. W.

de Graaf

P. M.

Flap

H. D.

(1991). The impact of social and human capital on the income attainment of Dutch managers. Social Networks, 13, 51-73.

12.

Bröckel

Busch-Heizmann

Golsch

(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.

Budig

M. J.

England

(2001). The wage penalty for motherhood. American Sociological Review, 66, 204-225.

14.

Busch

Bröckel

Golsch

(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.

Correll

S. J.

Benard

Paik

(2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1297-1338.

16.

Cutrona

C. 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.

Diewald

Lüdicke

Lang

F. R.

Schupp

(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.

Diewald

Sattler

(2010). Soziale Unterstützungsnetzwerke [Networks of social support]. In Stegbauer

Häußling

(Eds.). Soziale Unterstützungsnetzwerke [Networks of social support] (1st ed., pp. 689-699). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

19.

Dommermuth

Hohmann-Marriott

Lappegard

(2015). Gender equality in the family and childbearing. Journal of Family Issues. 38, 1803-1824. doi:10.1177/0192513X15590686

20.

Drasch

(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.

Elder

G. H.

(1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 4-15.

22.

Elsas

Wölfel

Heineck

(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 Mühling

Rost

Rupp

(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.

Ezzedeen

S. R.

Grossnickle Ritchey

(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.

Gangl

Ziefle

(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.

Gershuny

Bittmann

Brice

(2005). Exit, voice, and suffering: Do couples adapt to changing employment patterns? Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 656-665.

26.

Grabka

M. M.

Frick

J. R.

(2003). Imputation of item-non-response on income questions in the SOEP 1984-2002 (DIW Research Note No. 29). Berlin, Germany: DIW.

27.

Han

S.-K.

Moen

(1999). Work and family over time: A life course approach. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 562, 98-110.

28.

Hoherz

(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.

Höhne

(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.

Jacob

Kleinert

(2014). Marriage, gender, and class: The effects of partner resources on unemployment exit in Germany. Social Forces, 92, 839-871.

31.

Janning

(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-Mandic

Norton

E. C.

Dowd

(2012). Interaction terms in nonlinear models. Health Services Research, 47(1 Pt 1), 255-274.

33.

Lamb

M. E.

(2000). The history of research on father involvement. Marriage & Family Review, 29(2-3), 23-42.

34.

Liao

T. F.

Stevens

(1994). Spouses, homogamy, and social networks. Social Forces, 73, 693-707.

35.

Lundberg

Pollak

R. A.

(1996). Bargaining and distribution in marriage. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(4), 139-158.

36.

Mood

(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.

Perrewé

P. L.

Carlson

D. S.

(2002). Do men and women benefit from social support equally? Results from a field examination within the work and family context. In Nelson

D. L.

Burke

R. 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-Effinger

(1999). Change of family policies in the socio-cultural context of European societies. Comparative Social Research, 18, 135-160.

39.

Suitor

Pillemer

Keeton

(1995). When experience counts: The effects of experiential and structural similarity on patterns of support and interpersonal stress. Social Forces, 73, 1573-1588.

40.

Treas

Widmer

E. D.

(2000). Married women’s employment over the life course: Attitudes in cross-national perspective. Social Forces, 78, 1409-1436.

41.

Vangelisti

A. L.

(2009). Challenges in conceptualizing social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(1), 39-51.

42.

Verhofstadt

L. L.

Buysee

Ickes

(2007). Social support in couples: An examination of gender differences using self-report and observational methods. Sex Roles, 57, 267-282.

43.

Wagner

G. G.

Frick

J. R.

Schupp

(2007). The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP): Scope, evolution and enhancements. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 127(1), 139-169.

44.

Wallace

J. E.

Jovanovic

(2011). Occupational similarity and spousal support: A study of the importance of gender and spouse’s occupation. Industrial Relations, 66, 235-255.

45.

Wang

Bianchi

S. M.

(2009). ATUS fathers’ involvement in childcare. Social Indicators Research, 93(1), 141-145.

46.

Wippermann

(2012). Zeit für Wiedereinstieg: Potenziale und Perspektiven [Time for re-entry: Potentials and perspectives]. Berlin, Germany: Bericht des BMFSFJ.