Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The article provides an empirical examination of the transitional dynamics of individuals choosing between marriage, cohabitation and being single. Cohabitation has become an accepted form of relationship in USA, but it is usually of short duration, typically less than one year. I empirically test how individuals’ labour market characteristics influence the relationship choices and transitions. Data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation are used to estimate a competing risks model to determine what influences the transitions of individuals from cohabitation to mar-riage or being single. A higher income for the male partner increases the likelihood of the couple transiting to marriage. A higher income for the female partner decreases the likelihood of transition to the state of being single. Increased education of the male and female partner increases the likelihood of transition from cohabitation to marriage but does not affect the transition to the state of being single.

Keywords

Cohabitation marriage survival analysis competing risks

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbring, J.H. and G.J.V.D. Berg (2000), ‘The Non-parametric Identification of the Mixed Proportional Hazards Competing Risks Model’, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, TI 2000-066/3, 1–21.

Berg, G.J.V.D. , M. Lindeboom and G. Ridder (1994), ‘Attrition in Longitudinal Panel Data and the Empirical Analysis of Dynamic Labour Market Behaviour’, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 9(4): 421–35.

Blumstein, P. and P. Schwartz (1983), American Couples: Money, Work, Sex. William Morrow and Company.

Brien, M.J. , L.A. Lillard and S. Stern (2006), ‘Cohabitation, Marriage, and Divorce in a Model of Match Quality’, International Economic Review, 47(2): 451–94.

Brines, J. and K. Joyner (1999), ‘The Ties that Bind: Principles of Cohesion in Cohabitation and Marriage’, American Sociological Association, 64(3): 333–55.

Bumpass, L.L. and H.-H. Lu (2000), ‘Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for Children’s Family Contexts in the United States’, Population Studies, 54(1): 29–41.

Bumpass, L.L. , T.C. Martin and J.A. Sweet (1991), ‘The Impact of Family Background and Early Marital Factors on Marital Disruption’, Journal of Family Issues, 12(1): 22–42.

Bumpass, L.L. and J.A. Sweet (1989), ‘National Estimates of Cohabitation’, Demography, 26(4): 615–25.

Cox, D.R. (1959), ‘The Analysis of Exponentially Distributed Life-Times with Two Types of Failure’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, 21(2): 411–21.

10.

Crowder, M.J. (2001), Classical Competing Risks, 1st edition. Chapman & Hall/CRC.

11.

Dolton, P. and W. van der Klaauw (1999), ‘The Turnover of Teachers: A Com-peting Risks Explanation’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 81: 543–50.

12.

Gu, X. and P.R. Sahib (2002), ‘Living in Sin and Marriage: A Matching Model’, Journal of Population Economics, 15(2): 261–82.

13.

Han, A. and J.A. Hausman (1990), ‘Flexible Parametric Estimation of Duration and Competing Risk Models’, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 5(1): 1–28.

14.

Heckman, J.J. and B.E. Honore (1989), ‘The Identifiability of the Competing Risks Model’, Biometrika, 76(2): 325–30.

15.

Lefebvre, P. and P. Merrigan (1997), ‘Social Assistance and Conjugal Union Dissolution in Canada: A Dynamic Analysis’, Canadian Journal of Economics, 30(1): 112–34.

16.

Lillard, L.A. , M.J. Brien and L.J. Waite (1995), ‘Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Dissolution: A Matter of Self-selection?’ Demography, 32(3): 437–57.

17.

Narendranathan, W. and M. Stewart (1993), ‘Modelling the Probability of Leaving Unemployment: Competing Risks with Exible Base-line Hazards’, Applied Statistics, 42(1): 63–83.

18.

Oppenheimer, V.K. (2002), ‘Cohabiting and Marriage Formation during Young Men’s Career Development Process’, California Center for Population Research-Online Working Paper Series, CCPR-004-02, 1–35.

19.

Phillips, J.A. and M.M. Sweeney (2005), ‘Premarital Cohabitation and the Risk of Marital Dissolution among White, Black, and Mexican American Women’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(2): 296–314.

20.

Prentice, R.L. and L.A. Gloeckler (1978), ‘Regression Analysis of Grouped Survival Data with Application to Breast Cancer Data’, Biometrics, 34(1): 57–67.

21.

Rindfuss, R.R. and A. VandenHeuvel (1990), ‘A Precursor to Marriage or an Alternative to Being Single?’ Population and Development Review, 16(4): 703–26.

22.

Rose, E. (2005), ‘Education and Hypergamy, and the “Success Gap”’. Department of Economics Working Paper, University of Washington Seattle, 353330: 1–49.

23.

Shaw, T.S. (2009), ‘Transition into and from Cohabitation’, dissertation sub-mitted to State University of New York, University at Buffalo.

24.

Smock, P. (2000), ‘Cohabitation in the United States: An Appraisal of Rresearch Themes, Findings, and Implications’, Annual Review of Sociology, 26: 1–20.

25.

Smock, P. and W. Manning (1997), ‘Cohabiting Partners’ Economic Circum-stances and Marriage’, Demography, 34(1): 331–41.

26.

Stevenson, B. and J. Wolfers (2007), ‘Marriage and Divorce: Changes and their Driving Forces’, NBER Working Paper, 12944: 1–30.

27.

Teachman, J. (2000), ‘Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution among Women’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(2): 444–55.

28.

Thornton, A. , W. Axinn and D.H. Hill (1992), ‘Reciprocal Effects of Religiosity, Cohabitation, and Marriage’, American Journal of Sociology, 98(3), 628–51.

29.

Tsiatis, A. (1975), ‘A Nonidentifiability Aspect of the Problem of Competing Risks’, Proceeding of National Academy of Sciences of United States of America, 72(1): 20–22.

30.

Waite, L. and M. Gallagher (2000), The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially. Doubleday.

31.

Wu, Z. and T.R. Balakrishnan (1995), ‘Dissolution of Premarital Cohabitation in Canada’, Demography, 32(4): 521–32.

32.

Wu, Z. and M.S. Pollard (2000), ‘Social Assistance and Conjugal Union Dissolution in Canada: A Dynamic Analysis’, Journal of Family Issues, 21(3): 303–28.

Transitions from Cohabitation

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References