Single parenthood in the life course: Family Dynamics and Inequality in the Welfare State 3658400803, 9783658400804

Table of contents :
Preface
Contents
Contents
Contents
1: Introduction
2: Living Conditions of Single Parents
2.1 State of Research
2.2 Heterogeneity of Single Parenthood
3: Definitions
3.1 Definitional Approaches
3.1.1 Subjective Definitions
3.1.2 Legal Definitions
3.1.3 Social and Administrative Definitions
3.1.4 Definitions in Official Statistics
3.2 Single Parenthood in the Life Course
3.2.1 Living Arrangements
3.2.2 Risks
4: Macrostructural Conditions
4.1 Historical and Geographical Contexts
4.2 Single Parenthood in the Welfare State: Classical Approaches
4.3 Life Course and Welfare State
4.3.1 The Fordist Life Cycle
4.3.2 Social Change and Risk Management
4.4 Risk Types
4.5 Empirical Mapping of Single Parenthood as a Living Arrangement in the Welfare State
4.5.1 Methodological Aspects
4.5.2 Data
5: Timing of Single Parenthood and Family Policy
5.1 Parental Leave Reform
5.2 Analytical Approach
5.2.1 Before and After Design
5.2.2 Data
5.2.3 Methods
5.3 Results
5.3.1 Transitions
5.3.2 Marital Status
5.4 Summary and Discussion
6: Single Parenthood and Social Integration
6.1 Social Integration Over the Life Course
6.1.1 Linked Lives
6.1.2 Time and Place
6.2 Analytical Approach
6.2.1 Dependent Variables
6.2.2 Independent Variables
6.3 Results
6.3.1 Frequency of Contact in East and West Germany
6.3.2 Effects of the Transition to Single Parenthood on Contacts
6.3.3 Frequency of Contact by Marital Status of Single Parents
6.4 Summary
7: Discussion
7.1 Demographic Trends
7.2 Data Availability
7.3 Support Potential
7.4 Conclusion and Outlook
Appendix
References

Citation preview

Hannah Zagel

Single parenthood in the life course Family Dynamics and Inequality in the Welfare State

Single parenthood in the life course

Hannah Zagel

Single parenthood in the life course Family Dynamics and Inequality in the Welfare State

Hannah Zagel WZB Berlin Social Science Center Berlin, Germany

ISBN 978-3-658-40080-4    ISBN 978-3-658-40081-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40081-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 This book is a translation of the original German edition „Alleinerziehen im Lebensverlauf “ by Zagel, Hannah, published by Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH in 2018. The translation was done with the help of artificial intelligence (machine translation by the service DeepL.com). A subsequent human revision was done primarily in terms of content, so that the book will read stylistically differently from a conventional translation. Springer Nature works continuously to further the development of tools for the production of books and on the related technologies to support the authors. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer VS imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany

Preface

Writing this book about single parenthood and the living conditions associated with it is motivated by the continuing high socio-political relevance of the topic. A large and increasing number of people experience periods of single parenthood during their lives, in childhood or as parents. Single parenthood entails material and social risks for the parents and children concerned. Politics and society have not yet found a way to prevent disadvantage and to integrate single parenthood as an equal living arrangement. In my view, at least two things have impeded this process. First, the continuing ideological fixation on the two-parent family as the normative standard for family life, and second, the socio-political orientation towards this standard in social policy. Single parenthood is often constructed as a deviation from the so-called normal family with two biological parents. However, this has not meant that social and family policy has fully compensated for non-­ resident parents’ contribution to the family household. Neither do financial benefits provided by the state, such as child benefit or maintenance payments, cover the lack of support from the other parent. Nor are the available care services sufficiently adapted to the needs of single parents. One contribution of sociology to soften the relatively stable normative models and to offer alternative orientations to politics can be to point out new theoretical perspectives on single parenthood that take its dynamics and the heterogeneity of its inherent risks seriously. The image of the marriage-based ‘nuclear family’ is less rigid today than it was three decades ago. Family ideals now increasingly include non-marital parenting couples with children. Family research often examines differences in the living conditions of children in marital and non-marital ‘cohabiting’ parental arrangements. Single parenthood should consequently be constructed more as a heterogeneous living arrangement. By presenting differences not only v

vi

Preface

between single-parent and two-parent families but also within these categories, we arrive at a more comprehensive picture of contemporary family life. This will allow to better formulate solutions to problems resulting from social inequalities among families. This book aims to contribute to this endeavour. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the research field and to make theoretical and empirical contributions to the analysis of the living conditions of single parents. The approach focuses on the life course and the welfare state as two contextual dimensions in whose interplay the risks of single parenthood are constituted. Reducing disadvantage for single parents, the book concludes, requires an engagement with the diversity of risks of single parenthood in these contexts. I see the book as a starting point and stimulus for further research on single parenthood. The realization of this book project was made possible by the support of the Kompetenzzentrum Nachhaltige Universität of the University of Hamburg, for which I am very grateful. I want to thank student assistant Maximilian Fröhlich, who helped with data preparation. I would also like to thank Henning Lohmann for his support and review of parts of the manuscript, especially in the early stages of the project. The study has also benefited significantly from the conscientious reading and comments by Anette Fasang, Johannes Huinink and Michaela Kreyenfeld, to whom I extend my sincere thanks. All remaining errors are my own. Berlin, Germany September 2017

Hannah Zagel

Contents

1 Introduction ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 2 Living  Conditions of Single Parents��������������������������������������������������������� 5 2.1 State of Research��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5 2.2 Heterogeneity of Single Parenthood��������������������������������������������������� 8 3 Definitions���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������13 3.1 Definitional Approaches���������������������������������������������������������������������14 3.1.1 Subjective Definitions �����������������������������������������������������������14 3.1.2 Legal Definitions �������������������������������������������������������������������16 3.1.3 Social and Administrative Definitions�����������������������������������16 3.1.4 Definitions in Official Statistics���������������������������������������������18 3.2 Single Parenthood in the Life Course�������������������������������������������������18 3.2.1 Living Arrangements �������������������������������������������������������������19 3.2.2 Risks���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������22 4 Macrostructural Conditions ���������������������������������������������������������������������27 4.1 Historical and Geographical Contexts �����������������������������������������������28 4.2 Single Parenthood in the Welfare State: Classical Approaches ���������29 4.3 Life Course and Welfare State �����������������������������������������������������������32 4.3.1 The Fordist Life Cycle�����������������������������������������������������������32 4.3.2 Social Change and Risk Management�����������������������������������33 4.4 Risk Types�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������35 4.5 Empirical Mapping of Single Parenthood as a Living Arrangement in the Welfare State���������������������������������������������������������������������������������38 4.5.1 Methodological Aspects���������������������������������������������������������38 vii

viii

Contents

4.5.2 Data ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������39 5 Timing  of Single Parenthood and Family Policy�������������������������������������43 5.1 Parental Leave Reform�����������������������������������������������������������������������44 5.2 Analytical Approach���������������������������������������������������������������������������45 5.2.1 Before and After Design���������������������������������������������������������46 5.2.2 Data ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������48 5.2.3 Methods ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������50 5.3 Results�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������51 5.3.1 Transitions �����������������������������������������������������������������������������51 5.3.2 Marital Status�������������������������������������������������������������������������52 5.4 Summary and Discussion�������������������������������������������������������������������53 6 Single  Parenthood and Social Integration�����������������������������������������������55 6.1 Social Integration Over the Life Course���������������������������������������������56 6.1.1 Linked Lives���������������������������������������������������������������������������57 6.1.2 Time and Place�����������������������������������������������������������������������60 6.2 Analytical Approach���������������������������������������������������������������������������61 6.2.1 Dependent Variables���������������������������������������������������������������63 6.2.2 Independent Variables������������������������������������������������������������63 6.3 Results�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������65 6.3.1 Frequency of Contact in East and West Germany �����������������65 6.3.2 Effects of the Transition to Single Parenthood on Contacts�������68 6.3.3 Frequency of Contact by Marital Status of Single Parents������ 71 6.4 Summary���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������72 7 Discussion ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������77 7.1 Demographic Trends���������������������������������������������������������������������������78 7.2 Data Availability���������������������������������������������������������������������������������79 7.3 Support Potential���������������������������������������������������������������������������������80 7.4 Conclusion and Outlook���������������������������������������������������������������������82 Appendix���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������85 References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������93

List of Figures

Fig. 3.1

Fig. 3.2 Fig. 4.1

Fig. 5.1

Fig. 5.2

Dimensions of single parenthood, parent perspective. (Own representation, based on Huinink and Konietzka 2007, p. 39)�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������20 Risk space of single parenthood���������������������������������������������������������23 The risk space of single parenthood and the protection of risk types in the welfare state. (Own representation based on Kaufmann 1982)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������36 Distribution of single parents with young children and early intervention policies in 13 European countries, 2000s (Notes: Early intervention index is sum index of three standardised indicators [standardisation: divide by observed maximum value]: Proportion of 0–2 year olds in formal childcare, number of weeks of maternity leave, and payments during parental leave [as a share of a woman’s average income in manufacturing]). (Sources: EU-­SILC; Comparative Family Policy Database; OECD Family Database, own calculations)���������������������������������������47 Log net household income at transition to single parenthood before and after parental leave and parental allowance reforms by age of youngest child. (Notes: Fixed-effects regressions; control variables: Number of own children, mother’s employment status and educational attainment, and place of residence. For the full models, see Table A.1 in the Appendix). (Own representation)���������������������������������������������������������������������������52

ix

x

Fig. 5.3

Fig. 6.1

Fig. 6.2

Fig. 6.3

Fig. 6.4

Fig. 6.5

List of Figures

Estimated relative income position by type of transition to single parenthood before and after the parental leave and parental allowance reforms (Notes: SOEP (v30); OLS regression; shown is the interaction effect between marital status and period; control variables: Number of own children, age of youngest child, mother’s age, employment status and educational attainment, and place of residence. For the full model, see Table A.2 in the Appendix). (Own representation)�������������������������������������������������������53 Differences in the frequency of contact with family members between single parents and mothers in partnerships in East and West Germany. (Source: SOEP (v30) data, pooled, 1990, 1995, 1998, 2003, 2008, 2013, own calculations) ���������������������������������������66 Differences in the frequency of contact with friends and acquaintances between single parents and mothers in partnerships in East and West Germany. (Source: SOEP (v30) data, pooled, 1990, 1995, 1998, 2003, 2008, 2013, own calculations) ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������67 Estimated frequency of contact with family members over time (Notes: OLS regression; control variables: Youngest child’s age, mother’s age, employment status and educational attainment, household income, and period in which single parenthood was experienced [1980s, 1990s or 2000s]. For the full model, see Table A.3 in the Appendix). (Own representation)�����������������������������68 Estimated frequency of contact with friends over time. (Own representation). (Source: SOEP data pooled [1990, 1995, 1998, 2003, 2008, 2013]; sample of mothers 18–59 years; results based on OLS regression with robust standard errors [control variables: Educational attainment, employment, income, mother’s age, and age of youngest child in household, period 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s]. For the full model, see Table A.4 in the Appendix)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������69 Effects of single parenthood on frequency of contact with family members and friends, fixed-effects regressions, 4 models. (Own representation). (Source: SOEP data pooled [1990, 1995, 1998, 2003, 2008, 2013]. Notes: Sample of mothers with children under 18 in the household; control variables: Mother’s age, age of youngest child, highest level of education attained, employment and household income. For the full models, see Table A.5 in the Appendix)�����������������������������������������������������������������70

List of Figures

Fig. 6.6

Fig. 6.7

xi

Frequency of contact with family during single parenthood by marital status. (Source: SOEP data pooled [1990, 1995, 1998, 2003, 2008, 2013]; sample of mothers aged 18–59 years; results based on OLS regression with robust standard errors, 90% confidence intervals [control variables: Educational attainment, employment, income, mother’s age, and age of youngest child in household, period 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s]. For the full model, see Table A.6 in the Appendix)�����������������������������������������������������������72 Frequency of contact with friends during single parenthood, by marital status. (Own representation). (Source: SOEP data pooled [1990, 1995, 1998, 2003, 2008, 2013]; sample of mothers aged 18–59 years; results based on OLS regression with robust standard errors, 90% confidence intervals [control variables: Educational attainment, employment, income, mother’s age, and age of youngest child in household, period 1980s, 1990s or 2000s]. For the full model, see Table A.7 in the Appendix) ���������������������������73

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Table 5.1 Table 6.1 Table A.1

Table A.2 Table A.3 Table A.4

Table A.5

Table A.6 Table A.7

Welfare state regulations according to risk types�����������������������������37 Descriptive statistics of the samples before and after the 2007 reform, in percent�����������������������������������������������������������������������������49 Descriptive statistics on the sample by place of residence in East and West Germany��������������������������������������������������������������������64 Change in relative income position in the transition to single parenthood before and after the parental leave and parental allowance reforms (fixed-effects regressions)����������������������������������86 Relative log income position by marital status during single parenthood����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������87 Linear regression of the frequency of contact with family members before and after the transition to single parenthood���������88 Linear regression of the frequency of contact with friends and acquaintances before and after the transition to single parenthood����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������89 Fixed-effects regressions of the frequency of contact with family members and friends and acquaintances in East and West Germany����������������������������������������������������������������������������������90 Frequency of contact with family members by marital status in eastern and western Germany�������������������������������������������������������91 Frequency of contact with friends by marital status in eastern and western Germany�����������������������������������������������������������������������92

xiii

1

Introduction

Single parenthood – the cohabitation of a person with their minor children but without a partner – has particular social relevance, as a large and growing proportion of people in post-industrial societies have direct personal experience of it. Today, more marriages end in divorce, more non-marital partnerships end in separation, and there are more births to unmarried or non-cohabiting parents. As a result, more children are growing up in single-parent households before they reach adolescence, at least for some of their childhood, than in the 1980s (Härkönen et al. 2017). Single parenthood is an increasing part of the lived family reality of societies in the rich countries of Western Europe and North America (OECD 2017). As the number of single-parents and children of single-parents increases, the experiences of this family type also pluralise. This book addresses how the high and increasing plurality of realities of single parenthood can be conceptualised and quantitatively investigated. This is a prerequisite for distinguishing event constellations with positive, neutral and negative effects for families, and for defining support services accordingly. While children are often the focus of this discussion, and today 10% of single parents in Germany are fathers, this book focuses on mothers, who still make up the clear majority of single parents. Single parenthood is both an individual and a social phenomenon. On the individual level, it directly affects parents and children in their social and economic contexts. On the societal level, single parenthood represents one of the many types of family life which make up large parts of the social structure. The numerically increasing importance of the single-parent family creates economic realities for households and contributes to the macro-structural distribution of resources (Kollmeyer 2013). In both respects, single parenthood is gaining the increasing © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 H. Zagel, Single parenthood in the life course, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40081-1_1

1

2

1 Introduction

attention of social policy. Policy addresses the economic insecurity of single parents and their children in order to protect the individuals concerned, but also to mitigate increasing inequality in society. In public debate, single parenthood is often discussed as a social problem. There is a history of blaming single mothers for social ills, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries (for example, Conway 2010; Sky News 2011). In Germany, the public discussion features less reprimanding of single mothers, but emphasises the social and economic risks of the situation (e.g. Hank 2010). At the same time, social acceptance of alternative ways of living, and single parenthood in general, seems to be growing. There is often also a political willingness to consider extending the support of single parents (EU Commission 2015). In public discussion, single parent families are usually considered as a distinct family type, and compared to two-parent families. This comparison is also common in social science research on the living conditions of families. The group comparison shows that single-parent families are socially and economically disadvantaged compared to two-parent families. There are two possible explanations for this finding. On the one hand, single parenthood may have a causal negative effect. Its specific characteristics may lead to the relative disadvantage of family members; the single parent has the sole task of organising everyday life, is the first point of contact for the children’s concerns, and has no partner present for immediate social and psychological support. On the other hand, the observed relationships may reflect differences that existed prior to entering the family situation. The two explanations, which can be termed experience and selection (Stanley et al. 2006), are both supported by empirical studies. It is likely that they are not mutually exclusive (see McLanahan and Percheski 2008; Härkönen et al. 2017). The motivation for comparing single and two-parent families as distinct family types reflects at least two societal issues. On the one hand, it reflects concerns about the unintended consequences of changes in family structures for parents and their children (Beck-Gernsheim 2002). This intergenerational perspective is discussed in sociology as the reproduction of social inequalities. The lack of social, economic and cultural resources means that the development and achievements of the children of single parents lag behind those from two-parent families, replicating the inequalities of their generation (McLanahan and Percheski 2008). On the other hand, the group comparison also reflects a desire to identify support potentials for social policy, to uncover and counteract inequalities. Both issues have received sufficient attention in research on single parents. In this book, I argue that to gain a deeper understanding of the social and economic conditions in which single parents live, greater attention needs to be paid to the heterogeneous contexts of the family type. A key observation from previous

1 Introduction

3

research is that group comparisons between single parents and two-parent families fall short on a number of levels. This observation is elaborated in this study with three main arguments. First, single parenting can be conceptualised as a heterogeneous living arrangement that emerges through different familial transitions in the life course, and is characterised by the combination of two types of relationships – cohabitation and parenting – as well as timing in the life course. Single parenthood can result from non-marital separations and marital divorces, the death of a parent, and births or (in rare cases) adoptions by single women. Second, the various family transitions from which single parenthood arises are associated with different social risks. Third, the heterogeneous living conditions are influenced by the prevailing historical-geographical and institutional contexts. In the following chapters, I first present the current state of research on the living conditions of single parents (Chap. 2). I then trace some frequently applied definitions of single parenthood and situate them in their respective fields of application (Sect. 3.1). Next, based on principles of life course sociology, I propose my own conceptualisation of single parenthood in microstructural contexts (Sect. 3.2). In Chap. 4, I extend this perspective to the macro-structural level. I begin by examining the importance of the historical-geographical contexts in which life courses unfold (Sect. 4.1). After evaluating previous research on single parenthood in the welfare state (Sect. 4.2) and on the relationship between the life course and the welfare state (Sect. 4.3), I outline an approach to risk types of single parenthood in the context of the welfare state (Sect. 4.4). The chapter concludes with a discussion of the conditions and limitations of empirically mapping single parenthood as a life course phenomenon in the welfare state (Sect. 4.5). This is followed by two chapters in which individual aspects of the proposed approach are empirically implemented. These chapters contribute to the research literature by considering two different dimensions of single parents’ well-being. Chapter 5 examines the economic effects of single parenthood as a function of timing in the life course, in the context of the 2007 parental leave and parental allowance reforms in Germany. Chapter 6 examines the social integration of single parents in East and West Germany according to different microstructural contexts of single parenthood. In Chap. 7, I summarise the findings from the empirical analyses in light of the proposed conceptualisation of single parenthood.

2

Living Conditions of Single Parents

2.1 State of Research Previous research has shown that single parenthood can have negative consequences for the socio-economic status and well-being of both mothers and their children. This section provides an overview of the findings from previous studies regarding the position of single parents. The intergenerational reproduction of inequalities via family structures has been extensively addressed. Central aspects of the child-centred perspective are briefly summarised here, followed by an overview of the research on the social and economic effects on mothers. Empirical studies suggest that children of single parents perform less well than children in two-parent families on various indicators of achievement and development.1 Children living with a single parent in OECD and similar countries are at a higher risk of poverty than children in two-parent families (Chzhen and Bradshaw 2012; OECD 2016). Even when adjusting for the socioeconomic status of parents, differences between children with one or two parents persist. One event that leads to single parenthood – parental separation – has received particular attention in this field of research. Numerous studies have shown that parental separation is associated with children’s lower performance in academic achievement and noncognitive development than children who do not experience separation (Dronkers 1994; McLanahan and Sandefur 1994; Thomson et  al. 1994; Amato 2001, 2005; McLanahan and Percheski 2008). However, the extent to which these relationships represent causal mechanisms remains an open question (Carlson and England  Married parents often serve as a comparison group, due to the lower availability of information on non-marital cohabiting couples or stepfamilies (cf. Kreyenfeld et al. 2016). 1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 H. Zagel, Single parenthood in the life course, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40081-1_2

5

6

2  Living Conditions of Single Parents

2011). The data and methods used in studies often preclude conclusions on whether the associations uncovered are causal, or whether they can be explained by pre-­ existing problems prior to separation. Parental conflict is an important confounding factor (Amato 2002; Musick and Meier 2010). In some studies, the negative effects of parental separation on children’s well-being can no longer be detected, when parents’ socioeconomic status is considered, pointing to the role of socioeconomic factors rather than family structure alone (e.g. McMunn et al. 2001; Ginther and Pollak 2004). However, research in this area has advanced considerably in recent years. Overall, there is relative agreement that parental separation can have a weak to moderately negative effect on children’s well-being (Härkönen et al. 2017). Less is known about how differential effects of parental separation on children can be explained. There is evidence that the timing of separation, parental conflict prior to separation and the socioeconomic position of the parents play a role (Härkönen et al. 2017). Moreover, parental separation is only one of the pathways leading to single parenthood; differential effects for children who do not experience single parenthood through separation are poorly understood (see Biblarz and Gottainer 2000 for a comparison with children of widowed mothers). There is also a large literature on the well-being of single mothers compared to partnered mothers, particularly regarding employment, income and health. With regard to the employment of single mothers, the overall labour force participation of single parents is lower than that of partnered mothers in most countries (OECD 2016). However, countries differ in the extent to which this relationship persists for mothers with children of different age groups, and for mothers of different educational levels (OECD 2012, 2016). Moreover, analyses of individual labour force transitions in Germany and the US show that single parents do not differ from mothers in partnerships in terms of leaving the labour force, and are even more likely to enter the labour force (Drobnič 2000). In the UK, however, single parent unemployment is particularly evident and persistent (Gregg and Harkness 2003). A common explanation for such differences between countries is the differential treatment of single parents in social security systems. Since the late 1980s, the United Kingdom has had a comparatively generous system regarding the duration (though not the amount) of benefits for single parents: until 2008, mothers were entitled to benefits until the youngest child reached the age of 16. One result was that economic incentives to take up paid work were low, particularly for low-­ earning mothers – although other barriers to stable jobs also existed particularly for this group. The UK’s market-based childcare provision for children under three, associated with relatively high individual costs (Jenkins and Symons 2001; Viitanen 2005), and the less generous parental leave arrangements (Ciccia and Verloo 2012)

2.1  State of Research

7

are further explanatory factors for the weak labour-market participation of single parents in the UK. The context in which single parenthood is experienced is thus an important factor for how living in a single parent family setting affects mothers and children. In contrast to these findings, Harkness (2016) used UK data to demonstrate that single parenthood has no additional effect on labour market integration beyond the negative effect of the transition to motherhood. While this finding sheds new light on the causality between single parenthood and social disadvantage, the extent to which it applies to other domains of life and in other countries has yet to be explored. It also remains unclear whether certain routes into single parenthood present greater barriers to paid work than others. Does having a child without being in a stable partnership pose greater economic difficulties for women’s employment than divorce? Single parents also often live in economic insecurity despite being employed (Nieuwenhuis and Maldonado 2018). Comparative statistics on the economic situation of single mothers show that single mothers (and their children) generally face a higher risk of poverty than mothers in partnerships (OECD 2016). This increased risk of poverty appears to be mitigated by social policy, particularly through universal benefits (Brady and Burroway 2012), generous work-family reconciliation policies (Maldonado and Nieuwenhuis 2015), and targeted transfers for children (Van Lancker et al. 2015). Whether these findings apply equally to all single parents, or whether certain routes into single parenthood are better safeguarded than others, has not yet widely been theoretically elaborated or empirically investigated (for empirical exceptions see Hübgen 2020; Kühn 2018). Research on the health of single parents shows that single mothers have a higher overall risk of ill health than mothers in partnerships. However, the relationship varies both for different aspects of health and between countries. Hancioglu (2015) examined the subjective health and well-being of mothers in Germany who experience a transition into single parenthood; both dimensions of health are negatively affected by the transition to single parenthood, but well-being “recovers”, while subjective health continues to decline with the duration of single parenthood. As a longitudinal perspective is taken here and longer time periods and transitions are considered using appropriate methods, it is better possible to speak of single parenthood as a causal factor. Nevertheless, a preselection of mothers experiencing separation due to poorer health cannot be ruled out. Van de Velde et  al. (2014) found country variance in differences in subjective health between single parents and mothers in partnership. In addition to generally lower ratings by single parents, single mothers have an increased likelihood of rating their general health as worse than partnered mothers, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries, while the difference in reporting of depressive feelings is larger in continental Europe (Van de Velde

8

2  Living Conditions of Single Parents

et al. 2014). Berkman et al. (2015) used retrospective longitudinal data and cross-­ country comparison to examine whether single parenthood has longer-term effects on subjective health and limitations in daily life. They found that while negative effects on health also exist across countries in the US and Europe, they differ in strength. Women who became single mothers before the age of 20 and those who remained single mothers for 8 years or more had the highest risk of daily life ­limitations. The risk was highest for mothers in England and Scandinavia, and lowest in Eastern European countries. Differences between countries in the relationship between single parenthood and well-being are usually explained by the design of the country’s welfare state. However, direct effects of the welfare state on the health of single parents are not obvious. One identified mechanism is mediated through employment. In general, a positive relationship between labour force participation and health status can be assumed (Huber et al. 2011). Harkness (2015) showed that the health of single parents in the UK benefited from work-promoting reforms, while the positive effect for mothers in partnership was limited. In contrast, a study of the subjective quality of life of single parents in work-promoting interventions in Australia reported poorer health ratings compared to the general population (Cook et  al. 2009). Struffolino et al. (2016) also found no positive effect of labour force participation on subjective health for single mothers in Switzerland. Selection effects cannot be ruled out in any of these studies (cf. Berkman et al. 2015). The likelihood of separation or giving birth outside of a partnership could be higher for those with greater health risks than those with lower risks. It is also likely that mothers with higher health risks are less likely to be in paid employment. Accordingly, Struffolino et al. (2016) describe the possibility of a “two-way selection process” (p.  205) that can only be deciphered by incorporating large-scale comprehensive longitudinal data. For health too, the question of the possible differences between single parents who experience separation, divorce, out-of-partner births or widowhood arises.

2.2 Heterogeneity of Single Parenthood The core argument of this book is that the heterogeneity in the living arrangements of single parents must be given greater attention to gain a deeper understanding of the living conditions of single parents. The comparisons between single parents and two-parent families that have dominated previous research fall short on several levels. Theory development in this area lags behind methodological development and empirical description of family dynamics in affluent societies. First, the

2.2  Heterogeneity of Single Parenthood

9

c­ onceptual perspective of single parents as a comparison group to two-parent families ignores the increasing diversity of living arrangements in social structures. Second, group comparisons neglect the temporal dynamics that unfold over time in individual family trajectories. Generally, group comparison is associated with an assumption that individuals within groups are more similar to each other than between groups (Solga et  al. 2013). However, empirical findings indicate that this assumption does not hold for single parents; group comparison only offers a limited view of family structures (Skew 2009; Ott et  al. 2012; Hancioglu and Hartmann 2013; Hancioglu 2015; Bastin 2016). Moreover, disregarding intra-group heterogeneity may hinder the correct assessment of links between family structure and inequality. Inequalities between families seem to arise in the tension between diversity and stability, rather than between static family types (Thomson et al. 1994; Thomson and McLanahan 2012). Family diversity represents the sum of possible family constellations. These constellations are inadequately represented by the categories of single parent and parents in partnership, and far more complex patterns of resource distribution can be mapped within them (Cohen 2015). Breaking down the categories of single parents and parents in partnership into smaller units can produce new insights. On the one hand, particularly disadvantaged subgroups can be identified within the supercategories. Within the single parent category, women who have a child without being in a partnership may be particularly affected socio-economically. Likewise, within the category of two-parent families, there may be subgroups with similarly disadvantageous socioeconomic positions as single parents. On the other hand, the opposite could be true; all subgroups of single parents could be equally disadvantaged compared to the average two-parent family. Stability marks a dimension of the respective family constellations that can be described both qualitatively and quantitatively. According to Family Stress Theory, instability in the form of frequent changes in family relationships is usually associated with negative consequences (Amato 2000; Teachman 2003; Sweeney 2010). However, it cannot be assumed that family stability has exclusively positive effects. This can be exemplified by the well-being of children in stable families where there is a high level of conflict (Musick and Meier 2010; Härkönen et al. 2017). Taken together, inequalities between families emerge in the context of time-varying family settings. Overall, diversity and stability are thus useful conceptual dimensions against which the unequal distribution of resources between families can be examined. Research on demographic development highlights single parenthood as one of the consequences of modern lifestyles, and diversity and stability play a central role. Demographers and life course sociologists offer a variety of concepts to

10

2  Living Conditions of Single Parents

d­ escribe the dimensions of diversity and (in)stability on the macro level. Terms such as individualisation (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2001), pluralisation (Peuckert 1996), deinstitutionalisation (Kohli 1985, 2003), and differentiation (Mayer 1991) of life and family trajectories are often used interchangeably. However, the theoretical and empirical examination of these concepts reveals their conceptual peculiarities, and that they conceal different socio-structural macro-trends. Huninik and Wagner (1998) demonstrated that individualisation of living arrangements does not necessarily entail a pluralisation of family types. Brückner and Mayer (2005) developed the distinction between differentiation (increasing diversity within individual life courses) and de-standardisation (growing diversity between life courses within a society). However, it is difficult to empirically test the assumptions about developments in social theory that are inherent in macro concepts. A rare exception is the study by Van Winkle (2018), which demonstrates that family trajectories in Europe have differentiated between cohorts. For such an analysis, both historical time and individual lifetimes need to be considered. Time plays a role in the tension between diversity and stability of family life at the micro level in three respects: first, in terms of the timing of family events such as births or separations (when); second, with regard to staying in certain family constellations (how long); and third, with regard to the frequency of changes (how often). Only the systematic recording of the temporal dimension of family life enables identification of whether the observed group differences between single parents and parents in partnership are a matter of social selection, properties of group composition, or actual consequences of family processes (cf. Huinink and Feldhaus 2009). Two further arguments support the inclusion of the temporal dimension in the conceptualisation of family. First  – and this is the conceptual bridge to the macro concepts discussed above – certain family demographic developments can only be understood if trends of postponement, extension or shortening of certain transitions and life phases are also included (Konietzka and Kreyenfeld 2013). For single parenthood, this means that the growing proportions of single parent households observed internationally at the aggregate level (cf. OECD 2011) may reflect different aspects of structural change in family life. The individual components of this change can only be revealed by including the temporal dimension (cf. Bernardi and Mortelmans 2017a, b). The increase in the share of single parents in all households in a country measured in cross-sections may conceal the fact that more and more children are growing up permanently with only one parent, after the separation of their parents or after births outside partnerships. However, widespread short periods of single parenthood could also be responsible for this trend. A second advantage of including the temporal dimension concerns the micro-­sociological perspective. It enables to capture family processes systematically, and to reveal dif-

2.2  Heterogeneity of Single Parenthood

11

ferences within the “group” of single parents (Ermisch and Francesconi 2000; cf. Bastin 2016). In the following section, the temporal dimension of single parenthood in the life course is included as timing of single parenthood. The limited explanatory power of group comparison between single parents and parents in partnership also relates to the assessment of the influence of macro-­ structural conditions on the social and economic well-being of single parents. Life course sociology has highlighted the influence of historical, socio-cultural ­conditions and institutional contexts, particularly the design of welfare states (Elder et al. 2003; Mayer 2004). Empirical cross-national comparative life course research confirms that macro contexts significantly influence family trajectories (e.g. Huinink et al. 2012; Fasang 2015; Aisenbrey and Fasang 2017; Raab 2017). However, this research has rarely focused on single parents2 or examined specific characteristics of welfare state systems as influencing factors. Rather, this research establishes the importance of context by highlighting differences in family trajectories across countries or cohorts. Although most studies carefully discuss theoretical mechanisms, they usually do not model macro contexts. Another lively field of research is the analysis of the effects of social and family policy regulations on the position of single parents compared with parents in partnership. This research makes little reference to the diversity and stability of family forms over the life course. International comparative studies often highlight the role of welfare systems, and family policies in particular, in country differences in single parents’ disadvantage compared with parents in partnerships (Brady and Burroway 2012; Misra et al. 2012; Maldonado and Nieuwenhuis 2015). This group comparison is useful, because family and social policies commonly categorise people by membership in family or household structures, among other factors. Benefit entitlements, for example, are often derived from whether children are living with one or two parents in the household. Comparative research has decisively increased knowledge of the effectiveness of different welfare systems for single parents. However, the perspective on single parents and parents in partnership implicitly  considers the consequences of family policy benefits as uniform for the respective group; this suggests an inaccurate assessment, particularly given the diversity and temporal variability of routes into single parenthood and its duration, as different needs arise in each case. For example, social and family policy has a different function in the case of a divorce of parents with several children than in the case of the birth of a child by a single woman. The degree of institutionalisation of the partnership in the first case lays the foundation in many countries for more  An exception is the individual comparative contributions to the edited volume by Bernardi and Mortelmans (2017a, b). 2

12

2  Living Conditions of Single Parents

generous rights to financial protection, whether from the ex-partner or the state. The single mother in the second case, on the other hand, will be entitled to parental leave or care allowance payments, which may no longer be applicable for the divorced mother with older children. The three main arguments advanced in this book, building on these considerations, expand or systematise previous perspectives on single parenting: First, in contrast with static definitions, I conceptualise single parenthood as a h­ eterogeneous living arrangement that emerges through different familial transitions in the life course. It is particularly characterised via the combination of two types of relationship, partnership and parenting relationships, as well as timing in the life course. I underpin the importance of this distinction by showing, second, that different family transitions are associated with different social risks. This conceptualisation implies the expectation that the degree of disadvantage faced by single parents will vary depending on the conditions from which the living arrangement emerged. Third, to determine these differences between single parents, I elaborate on how the historical-geographical and institutional contexts influence the conditions arising from different family transitions. Outlining the influence of macro-­contextual conditions involves describing how cultural norms shape the organisation of family life in society, which family practices prevail, and which social networks are commonly used, as well as the concrete measures of social protection, such as family or labour market policies, or laws on household taxation and maintenance arrangements. The main thesis of this book can be summarised as follows. When assessing the living conditions of single parents, it is becoming increasingly important to consider the heterogeneity of the events that lead to single parenthood and the respective associated risks. The public debate and the majority of previous research on single parenthood has not considered whether and to what extent the living conditions of single parents differ according to the contexts of individual family dynamics and macro-structural conditions. This is due to the limited conceptualisation of single parenthood oriented primarily towards comparison with parents in partnerships, and to the type of empirical research questions tailored to this comparison. As a consequence, much of our previous understanding of the living conditions of single parents is based on generalising assumptions based on group membership, making it difficult to evaluate the extent to which targeted support services are needed.

3

Definitions

The public perception of single parenthood, and the perception in research, is shaped by different approaches to defining single parenthood. Some central ones of these approaches are discussed below. The delimitation of the term is particularly important, as there is no uniform definition of single parenthood. The definition of single parenthood is determined anew in each study and in each commentary. Often, however, this is done in passing, or implicitly. A common assumption is that it is clear what is meant by the term single parent. In this chapter, I argue that this is a misconception, demonstrating this by describing the variety of existing definitions that are applied for different purposes. Even the linguistic designation can have conceptual significance that goes unnoticed. Whereas the term single parent is a designation of a group, the term single parenthood (or single-parenting as an adjective) describes a status, situation or course of action into which individuals may enter – and from which they may exit. Single parent is the most widely used term,1 consistent with its conception as a social group considered in comparison with two-parent families (see Introduction). Reference to single parenthood is more likely to be found in the conceptualisation of living arrangements presented in the second part of this chapter (see Huinink and Konietzka 2007). Conceptions of family structure and single parenthood can influence the results of empirical studies. However, they also represent important foundations for the definition of benefit eligibility in the welfare state. In this chapter, therefore, specifics of different definitions of single parenthood are highlighted, as well as the (possible)  The linguistic designation of single parenthood is also noteworthy in international and historical comparisons. In English, for example, the term fatherless family has mostly been replaced by lone parent (UK) and single parent (USA). 1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 H. Zagel, Single parenthood in the life course, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40081-1_3

13

14

3 Definitions

c­ onsequences for how single parenthood is recorded (Sect. 3.1). In the second part of the chapter (Sect. 3.2), delimitation characteristics within the living arrangement of single parenthood are discussed. These should form the basis of a comprehensive analysis of the characteristics and consequences of single parenthood for the individuals involved.

3.1 Definitional Approaches The prevailing idea is that single parenthood is a structural description of family in which a parent lives together with at least one child. This largely fits with legal and scientific definitions. However, there are also differences that have received little attention.

3.1.1 Subjective Definitions One possible approach to defining single parenthood uses the subjective assessment of family situations. In comparison with other ‘objective’ definitions, this allows identifying single parents who are structurally classified as two-parent family, because they live with a partner, but who factually care for their children on their own (i.e. the partner is not involved). On the other hand, parents who live with their children and no partner in the household but do not define themselves as single parents (e.g. because they receive a lot of support from the non-resident parent or other persons) might not be included in the subjective definition of single parenthood. Studies on subjective definitions of single parenthood reveal that those who are structurally categorised as single parents often do not identify with this term, or do not use the term to describe their living situation (May 2004, 2010; BMFSFJ 2011). Motherhood, or the role of working mother, may be alternative templates for identification. At least three reasons seem to be responsible for mothers, who are structurally defined as single mothers, to seek an alternative subjective orientation. First, the social prejudices associated with the term and to which individuals are exposed discourage ‘single parents’ from using the term for themselves (May 2004; BMFSFJ 2011). Common prejudices encountered by people categorised as single parents include the attributed inability to maintain a stable couple relationship, and being seen as members of a problematic social group (May 2004; BMFSFJ 2011). Second, the term often does not reflect the actual life situation of the individuals. Single parents often do not see themselves as bearing the sole responsibility for raising their children (BMFSFJ 2011), and individuals do not sub-

3.1  Definitional Approaches

15

jectively identify themselves exclusively through their family situation, but also, for example, through their occupation. Duncan and Edwards (1997a, b) discuss this in relation to the socio-political rights usually granted to either ‘mother’ or ‘worker’, making a normative case for not drawing this distinction. Third, the use of the term in a public context seems to be associated with an unwanted disclosure of the private circumstances of life for people categorised as ‘single parents’ (BMFSFJ 2011). This discomfort with the term single parent contrasts with the assessment, equally made by those so categorised, that it “captures relatively well what it is supposed to denote” (BMFSFJ 2011, p. 30), leading to its rather passive or selective use in everyday life (BMFSFJ 2011, p. 30). Subjective definitions of single parenthood are therefore instructive in understanding subjective perceptions of the family situation. However, there are clear limits to the generalisability of the circumstances of people who define themselves as single parents. Subjective definitions of single parenthood are useful for testing the validity of ‘objective’ definitions (whether they are measuring what was intended) or understanding which subjective realities lie behind the categorisation. One criticism of previous studies of the subjective definition of single parenthood is that they often refer to respondents who are categorised as single parents on the basis of structural criteria. Thus, no impression is gained as to how the number of ‘structural single parents’ may differ from the number of ‘subjective single parents’. It may be useful to include a question (battery) on the subjective definition of single parent in existing surveys.2 This would enable to see whether primary care-­ givers in two-parent families who do not receive any support from the second parent may be prone to identify themselves as single parents. Findings on the subjective definition of single parenthood suggest a possible discrepancy between individual and contextual levels of interpretation of the family situation. This tension arises above all with regard to the legal and administrative definition of family types.

 The degree of single parenthood could be defined with a scale, e.g.: “For the following statements, please indicate the extent to which it applies to you (0 = does not apply at all, 5  =  applies completely). The term ‘single parent’ describes my own situation.” Or more specifically, “The term ‘single parent’ describes my own situation in terms of caring for my child/children, and the daily household chores.” 2

16

3 Definitions

3.1.2 Legal Definitions Single parent status is legally defined in most countries in family and civil law, in which other family forms are also considered (Hantrais 2004). For non-marital cohabitation, however, there is still a large regulatory gap. In Germany, the Civil Code (§ 1626ff. BGB) regulates aspects of parents’ custody of their children. This can be used to provide a legal definition of single parenthood, in a similar way to Parental Responsibility in the UK (Children Act 1989, Family Law Reform Act 1987). However, single parent status can only be derived very imprecisely via ­custody law provisions. If the Civil Code is applied, single parents can be understood as being solely entitled and obliged to care for children whom they have either given birth to or adopted. However, the mother only receives sole parental care upon the birth of the child if there is no marriage, no joint declaration of custody has been made, or no other family law decision taken (likewise in the United Kingdom). Since 1998, both parents have automatically been granted custody in Germany, even in the event of separation – unless the mother objected to shared parenting. The legal determination of custody is also detached from the spatial condition of joint residence. Thus, sole custody also exists irrespective of whether another adult person lives in the household. This also applies if this person is the other parent but does not share custody with the legal guardian (cf. Hancioglu 2015). Therefore, mothers who live with their partner and child(ren) in the same household can be considered single parents if their partner does not have custody (this is common, for example, for same-sex parent couples), and single mothers who have joint custody with the father are not legally single parents. In addition, since 2013, fathers in Germany can file an application for joint custody or sole custody (Section 1671 (2) sentence 1 BGB). The court bases its decision on the best interests of the child, considering the respective life situation. The subjective assessments of mothers (and fathers) and the actual care and upbringing activities may not correspond to the custodial assessment. This is particularly relevant as separations often involve conflict.

3.1.3 Social and Administrative Definitions In German social law, single parents are usually determined as a category of people entitled to benefits on the basis of (a) the spatial condition and (b) the age of the (youngest) child, and the associated duty of care. The Social Code II mentions “persons who live together with one or more minor children” (§ 21 (3) SGB II).

3.1  Definitional Approaches

17

The addition “…and alone provide for their care and upbringing” (§ 21.3 SGB II) makes it explicit that single parents are defined by their care responsibilities towards their child. This is different to the provision under custody law discussed above. The socio-legal perspective is oriented less towards the welfare of the child and more towards the question of where the costs of care and upbringing are incurred. Since the spatial condition is decisive for this, the ‘alternating model’, in which the child lives and is cared for alternately with the parents, is not considered in this perspective. In March 2016, there were 612,094 single-parent households in Germany as defined by SGB-II. This represents 18.6% of all households in need and 56% of households in need with children. The additional burden faced by (all) parents in comparison to childless persons is classified by the legislator in the Social Code as requiring special consideration if the youngest child is under 3 years old. Employed persons with children are not expected to work if the care of the child is not ensured, or the youngest child has not yet reached the age of three (§ 10.3 SGB II). In summary, the definition of single parents as a clearly demarcated group of persons is oriented towards the objective of determining entitlement to benefits. On the other hand, with the definition of gradual age limits there is also a fluid definitional element; the ‘reasonableness’ of parental employment while caring for young children. Single parents as defined by the Social Code, are thus parents of children at least under 3 years of age and at most under 18 years of age, and who live with their children without another person having custody. A reference to the life course perspective can be made here. Social policy has an institutionalising effect on the family situation of single parents through the division of life phases into support periods. This connection is explained further below (Living arrangements of single parenthood). However, one issue remains with the numerical recording and analysis of single parents based on the legal-administrative definition. Here, people provide information on their family situation to determine their eligibility for benefits. Now, when analysing data on single parents receiving benefits generated from social insurance reports (e.g. from the Institute for Employment Research, IAB), it must be noted that they include as single parents those who at the time meet the legal conditions for support through social policy measures. From the life course perspective, this means that single parenthood only becomes ‘visible’ as an institutionalised support period.

18

3 Definitions

3.1.4 Definitions in Official Statistics The definition of single parents in official statistics is usually also linked to the spatial condition, living together in the same household, and the marital status of the child. For this definition, it is irrelevant who has legal custody of the children. Single parents are regarded as a type of family to be distinguished from other types, such as cohabiting couples (married couples and unmarried different-sex and same-sex cohabiting couples) with children. The motivation behind this definition is to capture the distribution of different family types in society. A family is defined by having children in the household who are unmarried and do not yet have children of their own. At least in Germany, using the household as a determinant of living arrangements means that single parents who live with their child and a new partner are counted as couple with children. There has been little research on this constellation, often referred to as a stepfamily, mainly due to the household-­ centeredness of official statistics (Konietzka and Kreyenfeld 2013). Similarly, parents who have moved out of the single-parent household are not included. Two parents who are in a relationship but live in different households are counted as single parents on one side and as living alone on the other. This concept fails to precisely differentiate between different types of single parents and implies the existence of a homogeneous group compared to two-parent constellations. Moreover, stepfamilies are not recorded (Kreyenfeld et al. 2016). Official statistics in Germany have only included non-marital cohabiting partners in the household in the micro-census since 1996. According to the Federal Statistical Office, there were 2.7 million single parents in Germany in 2014 (Destatis 2016). As official statistics are usually conducted as cross-sectional surveys, the analysis of single-­ parent households necessarily involves a static design that does not consider transitions and duration. The surveys conducted as part of the rotating panel survey of the European Union Statistics of Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) are one of the exceptions.

3.2 Single Parenthood in the Life Course In this section, single parenthood is conceptualised from a sociological life course perspective. This approach enables the inclusion of aspects that have not received enough attention in previous analyses of single parenthood. The sociological life course perspective implies that single parenthood is defined as a changeable living arrangement that is subject to the dynamics of family life, rather than as a static

3.2  Single Parenthood in the Life Course

19

family structure. Single parenthood is a part of the family trajectory that individuals experience during their lives. The life course perspective builds on several theoretical principles (Mayer 1998; Elder et al. 2003), some of which are discussed in this and the following chapter. Central to this is the concept of the life course, and the principle of timing (this section), as well as that of macro- and micro-level interdependencies in institutional and historical-geographical context (next chapter). The life course approach should first be distinguished from the family cycle model, an earlier approach to constructing the family as a temporal phenomenon (Elder 1994). This approach assumed that individuals pass through successive stages of a family development process (Glick 1947). The model has been shown to be inaccurate due to its close attachment to the development of the ‘nuclear family’, and has lost popularity since the 1980s (Huinink and Konietzka 2007). The use of the family as the unit of analysis in the family cycle model has also been criticised in recent life course research. As family constellations can always ­reconfigure, the individual should be taken as the starting point. The concept of the individual family trajectory replaces the earlier approach (Elder 1992; Huinink and Konietzka 2007). The life course approach understands the family as one of the interdependent life spheres of individual life courses (Mayer 1998). The family trajectory concept describes development in the family domain as episodes, transitions and sequences over time. It allows for all possibilities of the sequence and duration of different phases without assuming a normal course. Thus, the concept assumes that family trajectories contain intra-individual dynamics and interpersonal heterogeneity. Above all, the family trajectory concept can serve as a basis for a comprehensive empirical description of lived patterns. Family trajectories can be examined in different ways, depending on the focus; for example, in terms of the patterns that emerge over time in family formation (Fasang and Raab 2014; Raab et al. 2014; Jalovaara and Fasang 2015) or in partnerships (Bastin 2012, 2016).

3.2.1 Living Arrangements The concept of living arrangement provides a starting point for the analysis of single parenthood in the family trajectory. It is used in family sociology to account for the diversity of familial and non-familial ways of living together. The ‘universe’ of living arrangements can be defined using criteria relevant to the respective research question (such as parenthood, couple relationship, type of relationship and degree of institutionalisation, household form and size), within which diversity and change can be mapped (Huinink and Konietzka 2007). In this way, single parenthood can also be understood as a living arrangements. Figure  3.1 illustrates

20

3 Definitions Parenthood status

Parenthood dimension

With child Child (age2 y.

Fig. 5.2  Log net household income at transition to single parenthood before and after parental leave and parental allowance reforms by age of youngest child. (Notes: Fixed-effects regressions; control variables: Number of own children, mother’s employment status and educational attainment, and place of residence. For the full models, see Table A.1 in the Appendix). (Own representation)

5.3.2 Marital Status The results on income differences between single parents with different marital status are summarised in Fig.  5.3, which shows the level of logarithmised standardised household income of single parents according to their marital status before and after the parental leave reforms, estimated on the basis of an OLS regression. The square markers refer to single parents before the reform and the round markers to single parents after the reform. Never married single parents do not differ from divorced and separated single parents in terms of their relative income position, but they do differ from widowed single parents before the reform. The differences between never married and separated single parents within the two periods are not statistically significant. Estimated incomes after the reform are higher for all single parents, except the incomes of widowed single parents did not im-

5.4  Summary and Discussion

53

Estimated relative income position after transition to single parenthood relative log. Income position

0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 le

sing

d

wed

d

arate

/sep

ed ivorc

wido

Marital status during single parenthood Before reform

After reform

Fig. 5.3  Estimated relative income position by type of transition to single parenthood before and after the parental leave and parental allowance reforms (Notes: SOEP (v30); OLS regression; shown is the interaction effect between marital status and period; control variables: Number of own children, age of youngest child, mother’s age, employment status and educational attainment, and place of residence. For the full model, see Table A.2 in the Appendix). (Own representation)

prove after the reform (but this may be due to the small size of the subgroup of widowed single parents in the sample). Overall, the results suggest that the patterns of income inequality between the groups of single parents (captured by marital status) changed to a small extent as a result of the reform. However, the relative income position seems to have converged between the groups.

5.4 Summary and Discussion Two main results emerge from the empirical analyses of the impact of the parental leave reform in Germany in 2007 on the economic position of single parents, from which conclusions can be drawn for the theoretical considerations presented in this book. The analysis of the impact of the transition to single parenthood on income

54

5  Timing of Single Parenthood and Family Policy

shows that differences between mothers with young children under 3 (the main target group of the reform) and mothers with older children converged after the reform. The transition to single parenthood did not have a uniform effect on the economic position of single parents, at least in the period 1992–2006. This result suggests that it may be useful to differentiate differences in the timing of single parenthood. The results also show that the parental leave reform seems to have had a mitigating effect on the adverse economic circumstances associated with single parenthood. This finding is particularly clear for single parents with young children under 3 years of age. Although this substantive finding may not be surprising, given that the family policy measure is tailored to families with newborn children, it does illustrate another factor. Single parents with older children are also affected by the extension of social rights, but to a lesser extent. Since the present analysis does not distinguish actual use, a more precise statement cannot be made about this. One possible institutional factor that could have influenced the results (and is not considered in the fixed-effects model) is the expansion of daycare that took place around the same time. However, the results suggest that it is reasonable to consider the heterogeneous effects of family policy reforms on single parents in international analyses, which so far overwhelmingly compare average effects for the group of single parents. The second main result concerns the inequalities in the economic position of single parents with different marital status before and after the parental leave reform. For the period before the reform, differences in the relative income position can be identified between never married and divorced or separated single parents and widowed single parents. These differences are less clear for the post-reform period. However, only divorced and separated single parents improved their relative income position between the periods under consideration. On the basis of the rough distinction of marital status  – without differentiating between divorced mothers and those leaving a non-marital partnership – statements on the different living conditions of single parents in different partnership contexts are only possible to a limited extent. However, the general finding is interesting in light of the theoretical arguments presented in this book. The differential impact of family policy reform on single parents of different marital statuses appears to have meant that improvements in the situation of divorced and separated single parents have reduced existing differences in income position between single parenthood contexts. This also suggests that there are limits to the aggregate consideration of the well-being of single parents in cross-country comparisons.

6

Single Parenthood and Social Integration

The focus of research and policy on the economic well-being of single parents obscures the possible effects of this living arrangement on other areas of life. A much smaller share of empirical research has been devoted to social well-­being, such as integration into social networks. As a socio-political goal, the social integration of single parents has also received less attention than integration into the labour market and income security. However, the discourse around social policy strategies for single parents increasingly includes a recognition that social integration, while not a precondition for success in other areas of life, is nevertheless interlinked with it.1 This chapter addresses the social well-being of single parents in an exploratory way, with consideration of the conceptual considerations from Chaps. 2 and 3. Social integration or social inclusion can be understood as the sum of existing informal social relationships, determined by the size of the social network and the frequency of contacts (Schwarzer et al. 1994). Social integration is conceptually distinguished from social support, which may or may not result from existing networks (Schwarzer et al. 1994). One cause of the weaker social integration of single mothers compared to mothers in partnerships is their scarcer time resources (Krüger and Micus 1999). Single parents may also face negative prejudices (Valiquette-­Tessier et  al. 2016), which make social integration more difficult. Single parents also have the disadvantage of having no (or limited) access to their partner’s family and friends. This is particularly true with conflictual relationships  For example, pilot projects to support single parents in Germany in the early 2000s included strategies to promote social integration (gsub and SÖSTRA 2013; Rambøll Management Consulting 2013). 1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 H. Zagel, Single parenthood in the life course, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40081-1_6

55

56

6  Single Parenthood and Social Integration

with the separated parent. Some studies have shown that single parents are less socially integrated (e.g. Helfferich et al. 2003). Intuitively, however, an opposite mechanism also seems plausible; single parents might compensate for the loss or absence of a partner in the household with other social relationships to provide emotional or structural support. Studies have shown that divorce can lead to the intensification of friendship networks (Kalmijn 2012) and that elderly widows are more socially integrated than elderly women in partnerships (Cornwell et al. 2008). However, most studies reference separation in general, rather than single parents in particular. Moreover, the question arises to what extent it is primarily family relationships that compensate for the absence of a partner in the case of single parents. Previous research has shown that grandparents can be a particularly important source of support for single mothers (Wheelcock and Jones 2002). This chapter aims to describe the patterns of mothers’ social contacts around the entry into single parenthood and during single parenthood. Three research questions are addressed relating to individual-level connections, and one that focuses on the influence of macro factors. First, I examine whether and to what extent single parenthood is associated with a reduction in social contacts for mothers. Second, I ask whether the possible changes differ between different relationship types: family and friends. The third question refers to the possible differences in the social integration of single parents with different marital statuses. The question about macro-conditions addresses the extent to which relationships are contextspecific - dependent on the socio-cultural conditions in East and West Germany. To answer these questions, the theoretical framework of single parenthood as a life course phenomenon is applied. Above all, two principles of the life course approach are in the foreground: linked lives and time and place (Elder et al. 2003). Based on the presentation of these theoretical concepts, I derive expectations in the following sections and test them in empirical analyses. As before, the SocioEconomic Panel serves as a data source, using data on the frequency of contact with friends and acquaintances, and family members and relatives collected in six survey waves. To examine context dependence, I compare East and West Germany.

6.1 Social Integration Over the Life Course Social contacts significantly determine the degree of a person’s social integration. Social integration is defined as the sum of all informal social relationships, in terms of network size and frequency of contacts (Schwarzer et al. 1994). Social contacts are interactions between two or more people that may differ in the type of ­relationship, frequency, and duration (Andreß et al. 1995). In addition to face-to-

6.1  Social Integration Over the Life Course

57

face contact, there are also interactions via telephone and electronic communication. The more social contacts a person has, the better they are generally socially integrated. However, the extent to which different types of interaction are used, or the focus on one area (electronic/personal contacts), determines the degree of social integration achieved. Social integration must also be distinguished from social support, which may or may not result from social integration (Schwarzer et  al. 1994). In situations of special need for support, however, well-integrated persons will find it easier to mobilise support than socially isolated persons. Social contacts can help people to cope with everyday life and have positive effects on the compatibility of family and work, such as with childcare, transport services and help with errands. Informal support during single parenthood can help with finding employment, continuing an existing job (Wheelcock and Jones 2002), or even averting poverty (Gladow and Ray 1986; Gray 2005). In addition to this instrumental function of social inclusion, social contact also has the positive benefit of counteracting emotional isolation. In this chapter, social contacts are therefore seen as a prerequisite for social support for single parents. From a life course perspective, social relationships evidently change over the course of life (Lang 2003) and are influenced by crucial life events, such as the birth of a child or the separation of a partnership (Wrzus et al. 2013). The following section conceptualises single parenthood as a crucial life event, illustrating theoretical connections with the frequency of reciprocal visits as a form of social contact. I focus on two types of social relationships and distinguish between contact with family members and friends, as previous studies have identified different patterns of the effects of separation on contact with different reference groups (Lang 2003; Kalmijn 2012; Wrzus et al. 2013). I then empirically test these expectations based on theoretical considerations.

6.1.1 Linked Lives The principle of linked lives from the life course approach states that life courses develop in interdependence (Elder et al. 2003, p. 13). These interdependencies are mediated by interactions between individuals (Huinink and Feldhaus 2009). Over the life course, social relationships are shown to build early in life, stagnate in midlife, and decline later in life (Kalmijn 2012; Wrzus et al. 2013). These patterns vary with the type of social relationship, such as between friendships and family relationships, which can be attributed to the importance of certain social ­relationships for the individual life phases and their sequencing (Lang 2003).

58

6  Single Parenthood and Social Integration

However, it can also be attributed to influences that crucial life events have on social relationships (Wrzus et al. 2013). Single parenthood can be regarded as a crucial life event for social relationship patterns in various respects. First, the status of single parenthood means that there is no co-residential partnership from which further social relationships can emerge. In couple relationships there is the opportunity for contact with members of the partner’s family, which is not the case to the same extent with single parents. In the event of separation, it is initially likely that some contacts that existed through the partner will reduce or cease. Social inclusion following the death of a partner functions in a similar way; the contacts that existed through the partner fall away or are reduced. Social relationships may ‘recover’ after such events, and contacts may return to or even grow beyond the number of previous ones over the long term (Wrzus et al. 2013). It may also be the case that the relationships maintained in the partnership can be continued after separation or the death of a partner. However, it seems unlikely that life events will occur entirely without shifts in contact patterns, not least because of changes in the use of time. Second, single parents can be assumed to have a higher average time burden than mothers in a partnership, and this can have an impact on their social relationships. Single parents cannot divide their housework, employment and childcare within the partnership (Lewis 1989; Orloff 1993). Although housework and childcare is empirically far from equally distributed between men and women in couples (Craig and Mullan 2011), time is particularly scarce for single parents (Mattingly and Bianchi 2003; Mattingly and Sayer 2006). However, social contact takes time, so single parents can be expected to have a reduced frequency of contact in social relationships. Previous studies generally imply that these expectations may be true, as both divorce and partner death are associated with reduced social contact (Milardo 1987; Hurlbert and Acock 1990; Helfferich et al. 2003; Sprecher et al. 2006; Wrzus et al. 2013). Most previous studies do not refer specifically to single parents. In a qualitative study of single parents in Germany, however, Krüger and Micus (1999) found that lack of time resources may be a reason for their low social involvement. Alongside the first mechanism, this can be used to formulate a hypothesis of withdrawal from social relationships for single parents. Conversely, a third mechanism points towards an expansion of social contacts for single parents. Intuitively, it seems obvious that single parents will intensify their social relationships to seek support. Lang (2003) suggests that increased need for support is one of the main sources of change in social networks. Further theoretical support for this notion can be provided by a variation of the dyadic withdrawal thesis (Johnson and Leslie 1982) from psychology. This describes ­withdrawal from social relationships as a reaction to entering into a partnership.

6.1  Social Integration Over the Life Course

59

Partnership separation can now be associated with the opposite movement, a reversed withdrawal; the persons affected by the separation compensate for the loss of contact with the partner through other social relationships (cf. Kalmijn 2012). In principle, family members, distant relatives and friends can take on this compensatory role. However, there are different aspects involved in friendships than in contacts with relatives. Friendships mostly exist between people who are similar in many characteristics (also referred to as homophily) (McPherson et al. 2001). This can become particularly significant when friends’ life situations change, resulting in less commonality between them. Empirically, the transition to parenthood is accompanied by a reduction in social contacts, especially when the first child is born (Kalmijn 2012). Parents first have to settle into their new life situation, and the new role of young parents can lead to alienation from their childless contacts. Single parenthood also requires a reorganisation of the life situation and can be accompanied by a reduction in the intensity of friendships. Contact with family members (such as older parents) may become more important for those affected by a family event, such as the birth of a child or separation. Research on grandparental support in childcare suggests that single parents’ contact with their own parents is often close (Wheelcock and Jones 2002). Particularly in the UK and the US, where single motherhood is often associated with young age, mothers often continue to live or return to live with their parents (see Bryson et al. 1999; Mutchler and Baker 2009). Moreover, Hank and Buber (2009) show that grandparents in European countries are more likely to care for their grandchildren, and more likely to do so regularly, when parents are separated than when they live together. It therefore seems likely that single parenthood does not affect all social relationships equally; there are indications that single parents withdraw more from relationships with friends and compensate more with family members. Finally, there is the question of whether and to what extent there are differences in social integration between single parents with different past partnership trajectories. Such differences are plausible, as the different paths into single parenthood are characterised by differences in institutional protection and social acceptance. Non-­marital motherhood and, moreover, motherhood outside a partnership may face stronger social rejection than divorces of marriages in which children were born (cf. Valiquette-Tessier et  al. 2016). Friends, acquaintances and neighbours may perceive a higher moral barrier to intensive social contacts with single mothers than with divorced ones, the more traditional the family norms in society and the stronger the institutional preference for marriage. However, there is also a contrary mechanism, especially considering social changes since the Golden Age of the Family in the 1950s and 1960s. In contexts where family norms are less traditional, the degree of social integration among single parents of different marital status can

60

6  Single Parenthood and Social Integration

be expected to be shaped more by social structural factors or those that reflect customary lifestyles. Accordingly, never married single parents are younger on average than divorced single parents and tend to have a less traditional lifestyle, which is also associated with a weaker focus on the ‘nuclear family’. It is also likely that single parenthood is associated with more urban and mobile lifestyles, characterised by extra-familial relationship networks. The following analyses explore for the first time the possible differences in social integration among single parents with different marital status.

6.1.2 Time and Place As explained in Sect. 4.1, the time and place principle of the life course perspective implies that geographical and historical contexts determine individual options for action, giving rise to specific forms of life courses (Elder et al. 2003). Accordingly, the shaping of social relationships over the life course is also context-specific. Due to the decades-long separation and subsequent reunification of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), Germany provides a vivid case to examine the influence of macro-structures on the organisation of family life, and specifically on individual social relationships. Previous studies on family structures and demographic processes in East and West Germany have shown that differences between regions remain strong (Rosenfeld et al. 2004; Huinink et al. 2012; Fasang 2015; Kreyenfeld et al. 2016; Raab 2017). Single parenthood is more widespread in the former East Germany (27% of all families with children) than in West Germany (19%) (2009 figures, Destatis 2010). This difference is partly explained by the higher occurrence of non-marital cohabitation and non-marital births in East Germany, as well as the lower age of mothers at first birth. As a result, single parenthood is a more common part of family life in East Germany. Previous research on social relationships in East and West Germany suggests that the socialist legacy in East Germany had a major influence on the shape of social relations. Public space in the former GDR was structured by the state and monitored by the state secret service (the ‘Staatssicherheitsdienst’). The state intervened strongly in the organisation of the social life of its citizens, including through children’s and youth organisations that served socialist education (Uhlendorff 2003). Most children, youth, and parents participated in these organisations, which served as family policy tools. Families who did not participate were suspected of disloyalty to the system, which could result in social exclusion. A by-product of the state’s support of employment and its organisation of the public sphere was the

6.2  Analytical Approach

61

provision of a nationwide state-institutional childcare system. It was tailored to enable mothers’ employment in the socialist state, creating opportunity structures that remained in place after reunification (Hank et al. 2004; Huinink et al. 2012). Not only the organised spheres were under surveillance in the GDR. The state secret service created a climate of mistrust by using civilians to spy on the general population, penetrating private spheres. This could also make it difficult to form friendships, which were often made in the organised spheres and at the workplace. Friendships were less numerous and broader networks often only constituted loose ties. The family represented the counterpart to the sphere of the public. For the citizens of the GDR, it developed into a social niche and a place of retreat, in which personal opinions could be exchanged confidentially and intensive relationships cultivated (Uhlendorff 2004). This separation of the family and public spheres did not dissolve after reunification in 1990. The extent of civilian collaboration with the secret police only became visible after reunification, which often strengthened this distrust (or at least did not invalidate it). As a result, social trust in East Germany remained comparatively low and family orientation high (Uhlendorff 2003, 2004; Schmelzer 2005). In contrast, the state in the old Federal Republic was not interested in socialising the family, but sought to support families as independent households (Uhlendorff 2004). Family was more individualised. The supply of childcare places for children of pre-school age was rudimentary in West Germany compared to the GDR. The policies of the old Federal Republic were oriented towards a traditional image of the family and a gendered division of labour in marriage (Gerlach 2009). On the other hand, extra-familial networks had already been larger and more homogeneous than in East Germany (Bernardi et al. 2007). Social integration thus differs fundamentally between East and West Germany in the size and intensity of relationships with family members and friends. It remains an empirical question whether and to what extent these patterns apply to the specific case of the transition to single parenthood.

6.2 Analytical Approach For the following analysis, I used data from the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) (Wagner et al. 2007; Goebel et al. 2019) to empirically examine the relationships described above. I used data from all six survey waves in which the frequency of contact with family members and friends and acquaintances was surveyed (1990, 1995, 1998, 2003, 2008, 2013). I only retained women who were born after 1945 and between the ages of 18 and 59 in the sample, and who lived in

62

6  Single Parenthood and Social Integration

the household with a child under the age of 18. This sample amounts to 4246 mothers (3134 of whom lived in West Germany and 1112 in East Germany at the first observation point). The analysis is divided into two steps according to the research questions. First, to investigate whether and to what extent single parenthood is associated with a reduction in social contacts for mothers, and how this differs between contacts with family and friends, I exploit the potential of the panel data using fixed-­ effects (FE) regression. This method has several advantages over OLS regressions (see previous chapter). By using intra-individual variation, only information from individuals who actually experienced a transition (within-estimators) is processed. Possible bias due to inter-individual differences is eliminated (between-­estimators). This bias can also arise due to selection mechanisms, such as when single parenthood is bypassed by certain mothers (for example, by avoiding separations of even dysfunctional partnerships) for whom specific patterns of contact with family members and friends would also be typical (for example, a small, stable circle of friends). FE regression is therefore better suited than OLS regression for making cautious statements about the causal relationship of the relationship under consideration. Due to the survey intervals of the contact frequency in the SOEP, there are 3–5 years between the observation points in the analytical sample. The FE coefficients of the transition to single parenthood thus refer to changes in contact frequency between two points in time that are on average about 4 years apart. This means that the analysis does not pick up all the dynamics in family and social relationships that actually take place during this time; the results tend to reflect longer-­ term developments. Second, to investigate the possible differences in social integration among single parents with different marital status, I compared the estimated frequency of contact during single parenthood based on Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression, with robust standard errors between subgroups of single parents.2 Cross-­ sectional analysis is preferable because the observed transition is not crucial to the research question, so a larger number of cases within the marital status categories can be used. I used models with robust standard errors to account for the data structure of multiple observations per individual. The extent to which the correlations depend on socio-cultural conditions is addressed through the comparative perspective between mothers in East and West Germany.  To corroborate the results, I also conducted the analyses using ordered logit models (Williams 2012; Long and Freese 2014), which better account for the ordinal scaling of the dependent variable, but whose interpretation is less intuitive. The analyses produced the same substantive results. 2

6.2  Analytical Approach

63

6.2.1 Dependent Variables In the analysis, I draw on two dependent variables for social contacts: reciprocal visits with family (including family members and relatives)3 and reciprocal visits with friends (including neighbours, friends and acquaintances). The frequency of contact with family and friends was surveyed in the SOEP with a question on leisure activities. The wording of the question is: “For each activity, please indicate how often you do: Reciprocal visits from neighbours, friends, or acquaintances” or “Reciprocal visits from family members or relatives.” The response categories are shown on a five-point scale. For the following analysis, the categories have been reversed so that smaller values represent lower frequency of contact (1  =  never, 2 = less frequently than once a month, 3 = at least once a month, 4 = at least once a week, 5 = every day). Because the dependent variables are ordinally scaled, OLS regression is limited. However, robustness analyses with ordered logit regressions confirm the results.

6.2.2 Independent Variables The central independent variables in the following analyses are the mother’s partnership status, her marital status and her place of residence at the time of the interview (East or West Germany). A household concept is applied to the partnership status. It is measured by whether the respondents state that they are currently in a stable partnership and live with their partner (=in partnership) or not (=single). Marital status is collected in the SOEP in the annual survey, and I distinguish between the three categories: (a) never married, (b) divorced and (c) widowed. Residence is collected in the SOEP as the survey region in East or West Germany. In the OLS analyses, I control for mothers’ socioeconomic status (educational attainment, employment, and net disposable household income), demographic characteristics (mother’s age, age of youngest child in household, partnership stability), and the period in which single parenthood is experienced (1980s, 1990s, 2000s). Only the time-varying variables are included in the fixed-effects models, to keep the possible influence on the relationship between single parenthood and contact frequency constant.

 The following question was asked in the questionnaire: “For each activity, please indicate how often you do it: … Reciprocal visits from neighbors, friends, or acquaintances. … Reciprocal visits from family members or relatives.” 3

64

6  Single Parenthood and Social Integration

Table 6.1 characterises the sample separately according to the mother’s place of residence at the first observation time. The distribution of the mothers’ characteristics in the sample concurs with studies on family structures in East and West Germany; in East Germany, there is a lower prevalence of marriage and higher prevalence of single motherhood, as well as a lower average age of the mother at first birth, higher maternal employment and lower average income. Table 6.1  Descriptive statistics on the sample by place of residence in East and West Germany Mother in partnership Single mother  Never married  Divorced  Widowed Average age of mother (in years) Age at first birth  2 years Beta SE

Relative log income position Single parent (reference: in −0.078 *** 0.002 −0.064 *** 0.004 partnership) Number of children 0.009 *** 0.001 0.008 *** 0.001 Mother’s educational level (reference: lower than high school diploma/apprenticeship)  A-levels or 0.000 0.003 0.007 0.016 apprenticeship  Higher than abitur/ 0.008 * 0.004 0.045 ** 0.017 apprenticeship Employed (reference: not 0.010 *** 0.001 0.006 *** 0.001 employed) Place of residence 0.005 0.001 0.008 −0.006 (reference: West Germany) Constant 0.972 *** 0.002 0.957 *** 0.013 Within-R2 0.233 0.187 Between-R2 0.353 0.320 Overall-R2 0.314 0.295 Rho 0.731 0.779 N (persons) 2780 1799 n (person years) 7982 3514

Relative log income position Single parent (reference: in −0.072 *** 0.001 −0.060 *** 0.001 partnership) Number of children 0.009 *** 0.001 0.017 *** 0.002 Mother’s educational level (reference: lower than high school diploma/apprenticeship)  A-levels or apprenticeship 0.001 0.001 0.021 0.006  Higher than abitur/ 0.007 *** 0.001 0.023 ** 0.007 apprenticeship Employed (reference: not 0.012 *** 0.000 0.011 *** 0.001 employed) Place of residence 0.002 −0.020 0.005 −0.009 (reference: West Germany) Constant 0.983 *** 0.002 0.955 *** 0.007 (continued)

Appendix

87

Table A.1 (continued)

Within-R2 Between-R2 Overall-R2 Rho N (persons) n (person years)

Before reform (1992–2006), children >2 years 0.275 0.383 0.354 0.752 5954 31.729

After reform (2007–2013), children >2 years 0.208 0.385 0.370 0.810 5048 15.135

Table A.2  Relative log income position by marital status during single parenthood Relative log income position Marital status (reference: single)  Divorced  Widowed Number of children Age of the youngest child Age of the mother Mother’s educational level (reference: lower than high school diploma/apprenticeship)  A-levels or apprenticeship  Higher than abitur/apprenticeship Employed (reference: not employed) Place of residence (reference: West Germany) Period after reform (reference: before reform) Marital status*period  Divorced*after reform  Widowed*after reform Constant R2 n (person years) Notes: SOEP (v30); OLS regression

Beta

SE

−0.002 0.017 0.009 0.001 0.001

*** *** *** ***

0.008 0.032 0.030 −0.002 0.005

*** 0.001 *** 0.002 *** 0.001 0.001 ** 0.002

0.002 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000

0.002 0.002 0.005 −0.010 * 0.838 *** 0.003 0.260 6975

Appendix

88

Table A.3  Linear regression of the frequency of contact with family members before and after the transition to single parenthood Beta Age of the youngest child (reference: 13–18 years)  0–2 years  3–6 years  7–12 years Mother’s educational level (reference: lower than high school diploma/ apprenticeship)  A-levels or apprenticeship  Higher than abitur/apprenticeship Employed (reference: not employed) HH net income (log) Age of the mother Single parent cohort (reference: 2000s)  Single parent 1980s  Single parent 1990s Time t (reference: two measurement times before transition (−2))  One measurement point before transition (−1)  Transition to single parenthood (0)  One measurement point after transition (1)  Two measurement points after transition (2) Place of residence (reference: West Germany)  East Germany Interaction term marital status*residence  t-1*East Germany  t0*East Germany  t1*East Germany  t2*East Germany Constant N (persons) n (person years) R2

0.18 0.16 0.11

SE ** ** **

0.08 0.06 0.05

0.11 0.07 0.20 *** 0.06 0.05 −0.05 0.02 0.04 −0.01 *** 0.00 −0.18 −0.04

0.09 0.06

−0.03 −0.02 0.08 0.00

0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10

−0.20

0.13

0.19 0.36 0.24 0.35 3.55 1140 2894 0.04

0.13 0.14 0.15 ** 0.16 *** 0.41 **

Appendix

89

Table A.4  Linear regression of the frequency of contact with friends and acquaintances before and after the transition to single parenthood Age of the youngest child (reference: 13–18 years)  0–2 years  3–6 years  7–12 years Mother’s educational level (reference: lower than high school diploma/ apprenticeship)  A-levels or apprenticeship  Higher than abitur/apprenticeship Employed (reference: not employed) HH net income (log) Age of the mother Single parent cohort (reference: 2000s)  Single parent 1980s  Single parent 1990s Time t (reference: two measurement times before transition (−2))  One measurement point before transition (−1)  Transition to single parenthood (0)  One measurement point after transition (1)  Two measurement points after transition (2) Place of residence (reference: West Germany)  East Germany Interaction term time of measurement*residence  t-1*East Germany  t0*East Germany  t1*East Germany  t2*East Germany Constant N (persons) n (person years) R2

Beta

SE

0.08 0.09 0.03

0.06 0.05 0.04

0.06 −0.09 0.05 −0.04 0.04 −0.06 0.05 *** 0.04 0.00 −0.02 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.04 0.09 −0.03 −0.09

0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09

−0.07

0.12

−0.26 −0.13 −0.12 −0.07 3.53 *** 1140 2894 0.05

0.13 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.37

90

Appendix

Table A.5  Fixed-effects regressions of the frequency of contact with family members and friends and acquaintances in East and West Germany Frequency of contact with family members Single parent (reference: in partnership) Age of the youngest child (reference: 13– 18 years)  0–2 years  3–6 years  7–12 years Mother’s educational level (reference: lower than high school diploma/apprenticeship)  A-levels or apprenticeship  Higher than abitur/apprenticeship Employed (reference: not employed) HH net income (log) Age of the mother Constant Within-R2 Between-R2 Overall-R2 Rho N (persons) n (person years)

East Beta 0.00

West SE Beta SE 0.06 −0.13 *** 0.04

0.24 *** 0.06 0.18 0.09 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.01 −0.02

0.06 0.05 0.04 −0.01 0.05 0.03 0.04 −0.06 0.04 0.04 −0.04 0.02 0.04 *** 0.00 −0.08 *** 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.72 *** 0.36 4.21 *** 0.18 0.01 0.0124 0.02 0.0209 0.02 0.0217 0.56 0.59 10.033 22.351 East

Frequency of contact with friends and acquaintances Single parent (reference: in partnership) Age of the youngest child (reference: 13– 18 years)  0–2 years  3–6 years  7–12 years Mother’s educational level (reference: lower than high school diploma/apprenticeship)  A-levels or apprenticeship  Higher than abitur/apprenticeship Employed (reference: not employed) HH net income (log) Age of the mother

*** 0.03 *** 0.02 0.02

West

Beta −0.01

SE Beta 0.06 0.02

0.01 −0.03 −0.06

0.05 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.00

−0.10 −0.02 −0.11 −0.03 −0.01 ***

0.06 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.00

SE 0.03

**

0.08 ** 0.04 −0.07 −0.04 ** −0.02 ***

0.02 0.02 0.02

0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00

(continued)

Appendix

91

Table A.5 (continued) Frequency of contact with friends and acquaintances Constant Within-R2 Between-R2 Overall-R2 Rho N (persons) n (person years)

East

West

Beta SE 4.74 *** 0.34 0.0172 0.0935 0.0611 0.56 10.033 22.351

Beta SE 4.67 *** 0.16 0.0316 0.0506 0.0432 0.54

Table A.6  Frequency of contact with family members by marital status in eastern and western Germany Frequency of contact with family members Age of the youngest child (reference: 13–18 years)  0–2 years  3–6 years  7–12 years Mother’s educational level (reference: lower than high school diploma/ apprenticeship)  A-levels or apprenticeship  Higher than abitur/apprenticeship Employed (reference: not employed) HH net income (log) Age of the mother Single parent cohort (reference: 2000s)  Single parent 1980s  Single parent 1990s Marital status  Divorced  Widowed Place of residence (reference: West Germany)  East Germany Interaction term marital status*residence  Divorced*East Germany  Widowed*East Germany Constant N (persons) n (person years) R2 Notes: SOEP (v30); OLS regression

Beta 0.24 0.24 0.30

SE 0.14 * 0.12 *** 0.08

0.22 ** −0.02 0.00 −0.02 −0.01 *

0.09 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.01

−0.12 0.06

0.14 0.09

−0.20 −0.15

0.10 0.15

0.06

0.12

0.05 0.23 3.87 750 1035 0.07

0.16 0.20 ***

Appendix

92

Table A.7  Frequency of contact with friends by marital status in eastern and western Germany Frequency of contact with friends and acquaintances Age of youngest child (reference: 13–18 years)  0–2 years  3–6 years  7–12 years Mother’s educational level (reference: lower than high school diploma/ apprenticeship)  A-levels or apprenticeship  Higher than abitur/apprenticeship Employed (reference: not employed) HH net income (log) Age of the mother Single parent cohort (reference: 2000s)  Single parent 1980s  Single parent 1990s Marital status  Divorced  Widowed Place of residence (reference: West Germany)  East Germany Interaction term marital status*residence  Divorced*East Germany  Widowed*East Germany Constant N (persons) n (person years) R2 Notes: SOEP (v30); OLS regression

Beta 0.26 0.16 0.15

SE * **

0.12 0.07 −0.12 0.10 −0.01 0.07 0.24

0.13 0.95 0.07

0.08 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.01

**

0.11 0.08

−0.13 −0.16

0.09 0.14

−0.19

0.11

0.15 −0.07 0.28 −0.21 2.82 *** 0.64 750 1035 0.06

References

Achatz, Juliane, Andreas Hirseland, Torsten Lietzmann, and Cordula Zabel. 2013. Alleinerziehende Mütter im Bereich des SGB II eine Synopse empirischer Befunde aus der IAB-­Forschung. Nürnberg: IAB. Aisenbrey, Silke, and Anette Fasang. 2017. The interplay of work and family trajectories over the life course: Germany and the United States in comparison. American Journal of Sociology 122: 1448–1484. Allison, Paul David. 2009. Fixed effects regression models. Los Angeles: Sage. Amato, Paul R. 2000. The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and Family 62: 1269–1287. ———. 2001. Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology 15: 355–370. ———. 2002. Good enough marriages: Parental discord, divorce, and children’s well-being. Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law 9: 71–94. ———. 2005. The impact of family formation change on the cognitive, social, and emotional well-being of the next generation. Future of Children 15: 75–96. ———. 2010. Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family 72: 650–666. Andreß, Hans-Jürgen, Gero Lipsmeier, and Kurt Salentin. 1995. Soziale Isolation und mangelnde soziale Unterstützung im unteren Einkommensbereich? Zeitschrift für Soziologie 24: 300–315. Arbeitsstelle Kinder- und Jugendhilfstatistik. 2005. Im Überblick: Die Entwicklung der Adoptionszahlen in Deutschland. Dortmund: Universität Dortmund. http://www.akjstat. tu-­dortmund.de/fileadmin/Analysen/Adoption/adop.pdf. Barry, Brian. 1990. The welfare state versus the relief of poverty. Ethics 100: 503–529. Bastin, Sonja. 2012. Dynamik alleinerziehender Mutterschaft. Partnerschaften in der frühen Elternbiografie. In Familie und Partnerschaft in Ost- und Westdeutschland: ähnlich und doch immer noch anders, eds. Johannes Huinink, Michaela Kreyenfeld, and Heike Trappe. Opladen: Budrich. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 H. Zagel, Single parenthood in the life course, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40081-1

93

94

References

———. 2016. Partnerschaftsverläufe alleinerziehender Mütter – Eine quantitative Untersuchung auf Basis des Beziehungs- und Familienpanels. Berlin: Springer. Bastin, Sonja, Michaela Kreyenfeld, and Christine Schnor. 2012. Diversität von Familienformen in Ost- und Westdeutschland. Rostock: Max-Planck-Inst. für Demografische Forschung. Beck, Ulrich, and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim. 2001. Individualization: IInstitutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. London: Sage. Beck-Gernsheim, Elisabeth. 2002. Reinventing the family: In search of new lifestyles. Malden: Polity Press. Belsky, Jay, and Michael Rovine. 1990. Patterns of marital change across the transition to parenthood: Pregnancy to three years postpartum. Journal of Marriage and Family 52: 5–19. Berkman, Lisa F., et al. 2015. Mothering alone: Cross-national comparisons of later-life disability and health among women who were single mothers. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 69: 865–872. Bernardi, Laura, and Dimitri Mortelmans, eds. 2017a. Introduction. In Lone parenthood in the life course. New York: Springer. ———, eds. 2017b. Lone parenthood in the life course. New York: Springer. Bernardi, Laura, Sylvia Keim, and Holger von der Lippe. 2007. Social influences on fertility a comparative mixed methods study in Eastern and Western Germany. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1: 23–47. Bernardi, Laura, Andreas Klärner, and Holger von der Lippe. 2008. Job insecurity and the timing of parenthood: A comparison between Eastern and Western Germany. European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie 24: 287–313. Biblarz, Timothy J., and Greg Gottainer. 2000. Family structure and children’s success: A comparison of widowed and divorced single-mother families. Journal of Marriage and the Family 62: 533–548. BMAS. 2011. Alleinerziehende unterstützen – Fachkräfte gewinnen. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales. http://www.bmas.de. Accessed 7 Feb 2012. BMFSFJ. 2008. Alleinerziehende in Deutschland – Potenziale, Lebenssituationen und Unterstützungsbedarfe. http://www.bmfsfj.de/bmfsfj/generator/BMFSFJ/familie,did=116710. html. Accessed 25 Mar 2010. ———. 2011. Lebenswelten und -wirklichkeiten von Alleinerziehenden. Forschungsbericht. Bonoli, Giuliano. 2005. The politics of the new social policies: Providing coverage against new social risks in mature welfare states. Policy & Politics 33: 431–449. ———. 2007. Time matters. Postindustrialization, new social risks, and welfare state adaptation in advanced industrial democracies. Comparative Political Studies 40: 495–520. Brady, David, and Rebekah Burroway. 2012. Targeting, universalism, and single-mother poverty: A multilevel analysis across 18 affluent democracies. Demography 49: 719–746. Brady, David, Ryan M. Finnigan, and Sabine Hübgen. 2017. Rethinking the risks of poverty: A framework for analyzing prevalences and penalties. American Journal of Sociology 123 (3): 740–786. Brückner, Hannah, and Karl Ulrich Mayer. 2005. De-standardization of the life course: What it might mean? And if it means anything, whether it actually took place? Advances in Life Course Research 9: 27–53.

References

95

Bryan, Mark L., and Stephen P. Jenkins. 2016. Multilevel modelling of country effects: A cautionary tale. European Sociological Review 32: 3–22. Bryson, Ken, Lynne M. Casper, and United States Bureau of the Census. 1999. Coresident grandparents and grandchildren. Census Bureau. Büchel, Felix, and C. Katharina Spieß. 2002. Kindertageseinrichtungen und Müttererwerbstätigkeit – Neue Ergebnisse zu einem bekannten Zusammenhang. Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung 71: 95–113. Buchmann, Marlis C., and Irene Kriesi. 2011. Transition to adulthood in Europe. Annual Review of Sociology 37: 481–503. Bujard, Martin, and Jasmin Passet. 2013. Wirkungen des Elterngelds auf Einkommen und Fertilität. ZfF  – Zeitschrift für Familienforschung/Journal of Family Research 25 (2): 212–237. Carlson, Marcia, and Paula England. 2011. Social class and changing families in an unequal America. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Chambaz, Christine. 2001. Lone-parent families in Europe: A variety of economic and social circumstances. Social Policy & Administration 35: 658–671. Chzhen, Yekaterina, and Jonathan Bradshaw. 2012. Lone parents, poverty and policy in the European Union. Journal of European Social Policy 22: 487–506. Ciccia, Rossella, and Mieke Verloo. 2012. Parental leave regulations and the persistence of the male breadwinner model: Using fuzzy-set ideal type analysis to assess gender equality in an enlarged Europe. Journal of European Social Policy 22: 507–528. Clasen, Jochen, and Daniel Clegg. 2011. Unemployment protection and labour market change in Europe: Towards “Triple Integration”? In Regulating the risk of unemployment: National adaptations to post-industrial labour markets in Europe, eds. Jochen Clasen und Daniel Clegg. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clasen, Jochen, and Nico Siegel, eds. 2007. Investigating welfare state change: The “dependent variable problem” in comparative analysis. Cheltenham: Elgar. Cohen, Philip. 2015. The family: Diversity, inequality, and social change. New York: W. W. Norton. Conway, Ellie. 2010. Poor cows or dangerous beasts? The representation of “Underclass” women in broadsheet newspapers: Media portrayels, political identity and policy. Paper Presented at the Social Policy Association Conference, Lincoln. Cook, Kay, Elise Davis, Paul Smyth, and Hayley McKenzie. 2009. The quality of life of single mothers making the transition from welfare to work. Women & Health 49: 475–490. Cornwell, Benjamin, Edward O. Laumann, and L. Philip Schumm. 2008. The social connectedness of older adults: A national profile. American Sociological Review 73: 185–203. Craig, Lyn, and Killian Mullan. 2011. How mothers and fathers share childcare a cross-­ national time-use comparison. American Sociological Review 76: 834–861. Daly, Mary, and Katherine Rake. 2003. Gender and the welfare state. Oxford: Polity. Destatis. 2010. Alleinerziehende in Deutschland. Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus 2009.Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt. www.destatis.de. ———. 2016. Datenreport 2016. http://www.destatis.de. Deutscher Bundestag. 2007. BEEG – Gesetz zum Elterngeld und zur Elternzeit. http://www. gesetze-­im-­internet.de/beeg/BJNR274810006.html#BJNR274810006BJNG000101119. Acccessed 11 Sept 2017.

96

References

Diekmann, Andreas. 2007. Empirische Sozialforschung Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch. Dienel, Christiane. 1994. The history and political impact of family concepts. In Conceptualising the family, cross-national research papers, ed. Linda Hantrais and Marie-Thérèse Letablier, 11–16. Loughborough: Loughborough University. Diewald, Martin. 2013. Lebensverlauf. In Handwörterbuch zur Gesellschaft Deutschlands, ed. Steffen Mau and Nadine M. Schöneck, 552–564. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. Drobnič, Sonja. 2000. The effects of children on married and lone mothers’ employment in the United States and (West) Germany. European Sociological Review 16: 137–157. Dronkers, Jaap. 1994. The changing effects of lone parent families on the educational attainment of their children in a European welfare state. Sociology 28: 171–191. Duncan, Simon, and Rosalind Edwards. 1997a. Single mothers – Mothers versus workers or mothers and workers. In Single mothers in an international context: Mothers or workers? ed. Simon Duncan and Rosalind Edwards, 269–275. London: UCL Press. ———, eds. 1997b. Single mothers in an international context: Mothers or workers? London: UCL Press. Edin, Kathryn, and Maria Kefalas. 2005. Promises i can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. Berkeley: University of California Press. Eichhorst, Werner, and Paul Marx. 2015. Non-standard employment in post-industrial labour markets: An occupational perspective. Cheltenham: Elgar. Elder, Glen H. Jr. 1974. Children of the great depression: Social change in life experience. Boulder: Westview Press (25th anniversary Aufl.). Elder, Glen H., Jr. 1992. Models of the life course. Contemporary Sociology 21: 632–635. Elder, Glen H. 1994. Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly 57: 4–15. Elder, Glen H., Monica Kirkpatrick Johnson, and Robert Crosnoe. 2003. The emergence and development of life course theory. In Handbook of the life course, handbooks of sociology and social research, ed. Jeylan T. Mortimer and Michael J. Shanahan, 3–19. New York: Springer. Ermisch, John, and Marco Francesconi. 2000. The increasing complexity of family relationships: Lifetime experience of lone motherhood and stepfamilies in Great Britain. European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie 16: 235–249. Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1999. Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. EU Commission. 2015. Support for Lone Parents. Summary Report. Paris. Fasang, Anette Eva. 2015. Intergenerationale Fertilitätstransmission in Ost- und Westdeutschland. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 67: 11–40. Fasang, Anette Eva, and Marcel Raab. 2014. Beyond transmission: Intergenerational patterns of family formation among middle-class American families. Demography 51: 1703–1728. Fendrich, Sandra, and Thomass Mühlmann. 2016. Kurzbericht zu aktuellen Entwicklungen der Adoptionen in Deutschland – Datenauswertungen auf der Basis der amtlichen Kinder- und Jugendhilfestatistik für die Jahre 2005 bis 2015.Dortmund: DJI Deutsches Jugendinstitut und TU Dortmund. http://www.akjstat.tu-­dortmund.de/fileadmin/Analysen/Adoption/Kurzbericht_Adoptionen_2005-­2015_AKJStat.pdf. Gerlach, Irene. 2009. Familienpolitik. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

References

97

Geyer, Johannes, C. Haan Peter, Katharina Spieß, and Katharina Wrohlich. 2013. Das Elterngeld und seine Wirkungen auf das Haushaltseinkommen junger Familien und die Erwerbstätigkeit von Müttern. ZfF – Zeitschrift für Familienforschung/Journal of Family Research 25 (2): 193–211. Giesselmann, Marco, and Michael Windzio. 2012. Regressionsmodelle zur Analyse von Paneldaten. Berlin: Springer VS. Ginther, Donna K., and Robert A. Pollak. 2004. Family structure and children’s educational outcomes: Blended familes, stylized facts, and descriptive regressions. Demography 41: 671–696. Gladow, Nancy Wells, and Margaret P. Ray. 1986. The impact of informal support systems on the well being of low income single parents. Family Relations 35: 113–123. Glick, Paul C. 1947. The family cycle. American Sociological Review 12: 164–174. Goebel, Jan, Markus M.  Grabka, Stefan Liebig, Martin Kroh, David Richter, Carsten Schröder, and Jürgen Schupp. 2019. The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP). Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik/Journal of Economics and Statistics 239 (2): 345–360. Goldman, Noreen, Charles F. Westoff, and Charles Hammerslough. 1984. Demography of the marriage market in the United States. Population Index 50: 5–25. Gornick, Janet C., and Marcia K. Meyers. 2003. Families that work: Policies for reconciling parenthood and employment. NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation. Graham, Susanna. 2012. Choosing single motherhood? Single women negotiating the nuclear family ideal. In Families: Beyond the nuclear ideal, ed. Daniela Cutas and Sarah Chan. London: Bloomsbury. Grätz, Michael. 2015. When growing up without a parent does not hurt: Parental separation and the compensatory effect of social origin. European Sociological Review 31: 546–557. Gray, Anne. 2005. The changing availability of grandparents as carers and its implications for childcare policy in the UK. Journal of Social Policy 34: 557–577. Gregg, Paul, and Susan Harkness. 2003. Welfare reform and lone parents in the UK. The Centre for Market and Public Organisation Working Paper 03. gsub, und SÖSTRA. 2013. Entwicklungspartnerschaft “Vereinbarkeit von Familie und Beruf für Alleinerziehende” Abschlussbericht. Berlin: BMFSFJ. https://lokale-­buendnisse-­ fuer-­familie.de/fileadmin/lbff/Praxis-­Infothek/Entwicklungspartnerschaft__Vereinbarkeit_von_Familie_und_Beruf_fuer_Alleinerziehende__Abschlussbericht.pdf. Hagemann, Steffen, and Simone Scherger. 2016. Increasing pension age – Inevitable or unfeasible? Analysing the ideas underlying experts’ arguments in the UK and Germany. Journal of Aging Studies 39: 54–65. Hancioglu, Mine. 2015. Alleinerziehende und Gesundheit. Die Lebensphase “alleinerziehend” und ihr Einfluss auf die Gesundheit. Bochum: Ruhr-Universität Bochum. http:// hss-­opus.ub.ruhr-­uni-­bochum.de/opus4/frontdoor/index/index/docId/4445. Accessed 23 März 2016. Hancioglu, Mine, and Bastian Hartmann. 2013. What makes single mothers expand or reduce employment? Journal of Family and Economic Issues 35: 27–39. Hanel, Barbara, and Regina T. Riphahn. 2012. The employment of mothers – Recent developments and their determinants in East and West Germany. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 232: 146–176.

98

References

Hank, Karsten, and Isabella Buber. 2009. Grandparents caring for their grandchildren findings from the 2004 survey of health, ageing, and retirement in Europe. Journal of Family Issues 30: 53–73. Hank, Karsten, Michaela Kreyenfeld, and C. Katharina Spieß. 2004. Kinderbetreuung und Fertilität in Deutschland/Child Care and Fertility in Germany. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 33: 228–244. Hank, Rainer. 2010, January 24. Alleinerziehende Die Hätschelkinder der Nation. FAZ.NET. http://www.faz.net/themenarchiv/wirtschaft/arbeitsmarkt-­und-­hartz-­iv/alleinerziehende-­ die-­haetschelkinder-­der-­nation-­1909446.html. Accessed 28 Aug 2012. Hansen, Kirstine, Denise Hawkes, and Heather Joshi. 2009. The timing of motherhood, mothers’ employment and child outcomes. In Fertility, living arrangements, care and mobility, ed. Dylan Kneale, Ernestina Coast, and John Stillwell, 59–80. Dordrecht: Springer. Hantrais, Linda. 2004. Family policy matters: Responding to family change in Europe. Bristol: Policy Press. Harkness, Susan. 2015. The effect of employment on the mental health of lone mothers in the UK before and after new labour’s welfare reforms. Social Indicators Research 128: 763–791. Harkness, Susan E. 2016. The effect of motherhood and lone motherhood on the employment and earnings of British women: A lifecycle approach. European Sociological Review 32: 850–863. Härkönen, Juho, Fabrizio Bernardi, and Diederik Boertien. 2017. Family dynamics and child outcomes: An overview of research and open questions. European Journal of Population 33: 163–184. Hauser, Richard. 2007. Probleme Des Deutschen Beitrags Zu EU-SILC Aus Der Sicht Der Wissenschaft – Ein Vergleich Von EU-SILC, Mikrozensus Und SOEP. Rochester: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1441868. Accessed 5 Sept 2016. Heimer, A., T. Knittel, and H. Steidle. 2009. Vereinbarkeit von Famile und Beruf für Alleinerziehenden. http://www.bmfsfj.de. Accessed 29 Jan 2010. Helfferich, Cornelia, Anneliese Hendel-Kramer, and Heike Klindworth. 2003. Gesundheit alleinerziehender Mütter und Väter. Berlin: Robert-Koch-Institut. Henninger, Annette, Christine Wimbauer, and Rosine Dombrowski. 2008. Geschlechtergleichheit oder “exklusive Emanzipation”? Ungleichheitssoziologische Implikationen der aktuellen familienpolitischen Reformen. Berliner Journal für Soziologie 18: 99–128. Hering, Sabine. 1998. Makel, Mühsal, Privileg? Eine hundertjährige Geschichte des Alleinerziehens. Frankfurt a. M: Dipa-Verl. Heuveline, Patrick, Jeffrey M. Timberlake, and Frank F. Furstenberg. 2003. Shifting childrearing to single mothers: Results from 17 western countries. Population and Development Review 29: 47–71. Hokema, Anna, and Simone Scherger. 2016. Working pensioners in Germany and the UK: Quantitative and qualitative evidence on gender, marital status, and the reasons for working. Journal of Population Ageing 9: 91–111. Huber, Martin, Michael Lechner, and Conny Wunsch. 2011. Does leaving welfare improve health? Evidence for Germany. Health Economics 20: 484–504.

References

99

Hübgen, Sabine. 2020. Understanding lone mothers’ high poverty in Germany: Disentangling composition effects and effects of lone motherhood. Advances in Life Course Research 44 (June): 100327. Huinink, Johannes. 2016. Kinderwunsch und Geburtenentwicklung in der Bevölkerungssoziologie. In Handbuch Bevölkerungssoziologie, Springer NachschlageWissen, ed. Yasemin Niephaus, Michaela Kreyenfeld, and Reinhold Sackmann, 227–251. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. Huinink, Johannes, and Michael Feldhaus. 2009. Family research from the life course perspective. International Sociology 24: 299–324. Huinink, Johannes, and Dirk Konietzka. 2007. Familiensoziologie: eine Einführung. Frankfurt a. M: Campus. Huinink, Johannes, und Michael Wagner. 1998. Individualisierung und die Pluralisierung von Lebensformen. In Die Individualisierungs-These, 85–106. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Huinink, Johannes, Michaela Kreyenfeld, and Heike Trappe, eds. 2012. Familie und Partnerschaft in Ost- und Westdeutschland: ähnlich und doch immer noch anders. Opladen: Budrich. Hurlbert, Jeanne S., and Alan C. Acock. 1990. The effects of marital status on the form and composition of social networks. Social Science Quarterly 71 (1): 163–174. Iacovou, Maria, Olena Kaminska, and Horacio Levy. 2012. Using EU-SILC data for cross-­ national analysis: Strengths, problems and recommendations. Institute for Social and Economic Research. http://ideas.repec.org/p/ese/iserwp/2012-­03.html. Accessed 10 Dez 2012. Iversen, Torben, and Anne Wren. 1998. Equality, employment, and budgetary restraint: The trilemma of the service economy. World Politics 50: 507–546. Jaehrling, Karen, et al. 2012. Arbeitsmarktintegration und sozio-ökonomische Situation von Alleinerziehenden. Ein empirischer Vergleich: Deutschland, Frankreich, Schweden, Vereinigtes Königreich. Berlin: BMAS. Jaehrling, Karen, Thorsten Kalina, and Leila Mesaros. 2014. Mehr Arbeit, mehr Armut? Ausmaß und Hintergründe der Entkoppelung von Erwerbsarbeit und materieller Sicherheit von Alleinerziehenden im Ländervergleich. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 66: 343–370. Jalovaara, Marika, and Anette Eva Fasang. 2015. Are there gender differences in family trajectories by education in Finland? Demographic Research 33: 1241–1256. Jenkins, Stephen, and Elizabeth Symons. 2001. Child care costs and lone mothers’ employment rates: UK evidence. The Manchester School 69: 121–147. Jenson, Jane. 2008. The LEGO paradigm and new social risks: Consequences for children. In Children, changing families and welfare states, ed. Jane Lewis. Cheltenham: Elgar. Johnson, Michael P., and Leigh Leslie. 1982. Couple involvement and network structure: A test of the dyadic withdrawal hypothesis. Social Psychology Quarterly 45: 34–43. Kalmijn, Matthijs. 2012. Longitudinal analyses of the effects of age, marriage, and parenthood on social contacts and support. Advances in Life Course Research 17: 177–190. Kaufmann, Franz-Xaver. 1982. Elemente einer soziologischen Theorie sozialpolitischer Intervention. In Staatliche Sozialpolitik und Familie, ed. Franz-Xaver Kaufmann, 49–86. Munich: Oldenbourg. Kelly, Joan B. 2007. Children’s living arrangements following separation and divorce: Insights from empirical and clinical research. Family Process 46: 35–52.

100

References

Klüsener, Sebastian, and Joshua R. Goldstein. 2016. A long-standing demographic east-west divide in Germany. Population, Space and Place 22: 5–22. Kohli, Martin. 1985. Die Institutionalisierung des Lebenslaufs: Historische Befunde und theoretische Argumente. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 37: 1–29. ———. 2003. Der institutionalisierte Lebenslauf: ein Blick zurück und nach vorn. In Entstaatlichung und soziale Sicherheit: Verhandlungen des 31. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Leipzig 2002, eds. Jutta Allmendinger, 525. Leipzig: VS Verlag. Kollmeyer, Christopher. 2013. Family structure, female employment, and national income inequality: A cross-national study of 16 western countries. European Sociological Review 29: 816–827. Konietzka, Dirk. 2010. Zeiten des Übergangs: Sozialer Wandel des Übergangs in das Erwachsenenalter. Berlin: Springer. Konietzka, Dirk, and Johannes Huinink. 2003. Die De-Standardisierung einer Statuspassage? Zum Wandel des Auszugs aus dem Elternhaus und des Übergangs in das Erwachsenenalter in Westdeutschland. Soziale Welt 54: 285–311. Konietzka, Dirk, and Michaela Kreyenfeld. 2013. Familie und Lebensformen. In Handwörterbuch zur Gesellschaft Deutschlands, ed. Steffen Mau and Nadine Schöneck, 257– 271. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. Korpi, Walter, and Joakim Palme. 1998. The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare state institutions, inequality, and poverty in the western countries. American Sociological Review 63: 661–687. Kraus. 2014. Wege aus der Armut für Alleinerziehende. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. Kreyenfeld, Michaela, Dirk Konietzka, and Valerie Heintz-Martin. 2016. Private Lebensformen in Ost- und Westdeutschland. In Handbuch Bevölkerungssoziologie, ed. Yasemin Niephaus, Michaela Kreyenfeld, and Reinhold Sackmann, 303–325. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Krüger, Dorothea, and Christiane Micus. 1999. Diskriminiert? Privilegiert? Die heterogene Lebenssituation Alleinerziehender im Spiegel neuer Forschungsergebnisse und aktueller Daten. Bamberg: Staatsinstitut für Familienforschung an der Universität Bamberg. Kühn, Mine. 2018. Changes in Lone Mothers’ health: A longitudinal analysis. In Lone Parenthood in the Life Course, eds. Laura Bernardi and Dimitri Mortelmans, 323–38. Life Course Research and Social Policies. Cham: Springer International Publishing Lang, Frieder R. 2003. Die Gestaltung und Regulation sozialer Beziehungen im Lebenslauf: Eine entwicklungspsychologische Perspektive. Berliner Journal für Soziologie 13: 175– 195. Leisering, Lutz. 2003. Government and the life course. In Handbook of the life course, handbooks of sociology and social research, ed. Jeylan T. Mortimer and Michael J. Shanahan, 205–225. New York: Springer. Leitner, Sigrid. 2003. Varieties of familialism: The caring function of the family in comparative perspective. European Societies 5: 353–375. Lessenich, Stephan. 1995. Wohlfahrtsstaatliche Regulierung und die Strukturierung von Lebensläufen: Zur Selektivität sozialpolitischer Interventionen. Soziale Welt 46: 51–69. Lévy, René. 1977. Der Lebenslauf als Statusbiographie: die weibliche Normalbiographie in makrosoziologischer Perspektive. Stuttgart: Enke.

References

101

Lévy, René, and Eric D. Widmer, eds. 2014. Gendered life courses between standardization and individualization. A European approach applied to Switzerland. Zurich: Lit. Lewis, Jane. 1989. Lone parent families: Politics and economics. Journal of Social Policy 18: 595–600. ———. 1992. Gender and the development of welfare regimes. Journal of European Social Policy 2: 159–173. ———. 1997. Gender and welfare regimes: Further thoughts. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 4: 160–177. ———. 2001. The decline of the male breadwinner model: Implications for work and care. Social Politics 8: 152–169. Lewis, Jane, and Susanna Giullari. 2005. The adult worker model family, gender equality and care: The search for new policy principles and the possibilities and problems of a capabilities approach. Economy and Society 34: 76–104. Lewis, Jane, and Barbara Hobson. 1997. Introduction. In Lone mothers in European welfare regimes: Shifting policy logics, ed. Jane Lewis, 1–20. Philadelphia: J. Kingsley Publishers. Liefbroer, Aart C., and Edith Dourleijn. 2006. Unmarried cohabitation and union stability: Testing the role of diffusion using data from 16 European countries. Demography 43: 203–221. Lister, Ruth. 1994. ‘She has other duties’: Women, citizenship and social security. In Social security and social change: New challenges to the beveridge model, ed. Sally Baldwin and Jane Falkingham, 31–44. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Lohmann, Henning, and Hannah Zagel. 2016. Family policy in comparative perspective: The concepts and measurement of familization and defamilization. Journal of European Social Policy 26: 48–65. Long, J. Scott, and Jeremy Freese. 2014. Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata. College Station: StataCorp LP. Lundgren-Gaveras, Lena. 1996. Work-family needs of single parents: A comparison of American and Swedish policy trends. The Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 23: 131. Lux, Thomas, and Simone Scherger. 2017. By the sweat of their brow? The effects of starting work again after pension age on life satisfaction in Germany and the United Kingdom. Ageing & Society 37: 295–324. Maldonado, Laurie C., and Rense Nieuwenhuis. 2015. Family policies and single parent poverty in 18 OECD countries, 1978–2008. Community, Work & Family 18: 395–415. Marshall, Victor, and Margaret Mueller. 2003. Theoretical roots of the life course. In Social dynamics of the life course. Transitions, institutions, and interrelations, ed. Walter Heinz and Victor Marshall, 3–32. New York: De Gruyter. Mattingly, Marybeth J., and S.M. Bianchi. 2003. Gender differences in the quantity and quality of free time: The US experience. Social Forces 81: 999–1030. Mattingly, Marybeth J., and Liana C. Sayer. 2006. Under pressure: Gender differences in the relationship between free time and feeling rushed. Journal of Marriage and Family 68: 205–221. May, Vanessa. 2004. Narrative identity and the re-conceptualization of lone motherhood. Narrative Inquiry 14: 169–189.

102

References

———. 2010. Lone motherhood as a category of practice. The Sociological Review 58: 429–443. Mayer, Karl Ulrich. 1991. Soziale Ungleichheit Und Die Differenzierung von Lebensverläufen. In Die Modernisierung moderner Gesellschaften: Verhandlungen des 25. Deutschen Soziologentages in Frankfurt am Main 1990, ed. Wolfgang Zapf. Frankfurt a. M: Campus. ———. 1998. Lebensverlauf. In Handwörterbuch zur Gesellschaft Deutschlands, ed. Bernhard Schäfers and Wolfgang Zapf, 438–451. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. ———. 2004. Whose lives? How history, societies, and institutions define and shape life courses. Research in Human Development 1: 161–187. ———. 2009. New directions in life course research. Annual Review of Sociology 35: 413– 433. McLanahan, Sara, and Christine Percheski. 2008. Family structure and the reproduction of inequalities. Annual Review of Sociology 34: 257–276. McLanahan, Sara, and Gary Sandefur. 1994. Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. McLaughlin, Eithne, and Caroline Glendinning. 1994. Paying for care in Europe: Is there a feminist approach? In Family policy and the welfare of women. Cross-National Research Papers, Bd. 3, eds. Linda Hantrais and Steen Mangen, 52–69. Loughborough: Loughborough University of Technology. McMunn, Anne M., James Y. Nazroo, Michael G. Marmot, Richard Boreham, and Robert Goodman. 2001. Children’s emotional and behavioural well-being and the family environment: Findings from the health survey for England. Social Science & Medicine 53: 423–440. McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415–444. Milardo, Robert. 1987. Changes in social networks of women and men following divorce: A review. Journal of Family Issues 8: 78–96. Millar, Jane. 2008. Work is good for you: Lone mothers, children, work and well-being. Helsinki. http://opus.bath.ac.uk/1078/. Accessed 17 Febr 2010. Millar, Jane, and Karen Rowlingson, eds. 2001. Lone parents, employment and social policy: Cross-national comparisons. Bristol: Policy Press. Miller, Amalia R. 2009. The effects of motherhood timing on career path. Journal of Population Economics 24: 1071–1100. Misra, Joya, Stephanie Moller, Eiko Strader, and Elizabeth Wemlinger. 2012. Family policies, employment and poverty among partnered and single mothers. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 30: 113–128. Musick, Kelly, and Ann Meier. 2010. Are both parents always better than one? Parental conflict and young adult well-being. Social Science Research 39: 814–830. Mutchler, Jan E., and Lindsey A. Baker. 2009. The implications of grandparent coresidence for economic hardship among children in mother-only families. Journal of Family Issues 30: 1576–1597. Myles, John. 1990. States, labour markets, and life cycles. In Beyond the marketplace: Rethinking economy and society, eds. Roger Owen Friedland und A.  F. Robertson. New Jersey: Transaction. Nazio, Tiziana. 2008. Cohabitation, family and society. New York: Routledge.

References

103

Nieuwenhuis, Rense, and Laurie C.  Maldonado. 2018. The triple bind of single parents. Bristol: Policy Press. OECD. 2011. Doing better for families. Paris: OECD. ———. 2012. OECD family database. http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/oecdfamilydatabase. html. ———. 2016. OECD family database. http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.html. Accessed 19 Mai 2016. ———. 2017. SF1.1: Family size and household composition. http://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF_1_1_Family_size_and_composition.pdf. Orloff, Ann. 1993. Gender and the social rights of citizenship: The comparative analysis of state policies and gender relations. American Sociological Review 58: 501–518. Ostner, Ilona. 2010. Farewell to the family as we know it: Family policy change in Germany. German Policy Studies 6: 211–244. Ott, Notburga, et al. 2003. Alleinerziehende im Sozialhilfebezug. BMAS Forschungsprojekt: ZEFIR Bochum. Ott, Notburga, Mine Hancioglu, and Bastian Hartmann. 2012. Dynamik der Lebensform “Alleinerziehend”. Bochum: BMAS. Perelli-Harris, Brienna, et al. 2012. Changes in union status during the transition to parenthood in eleven European countries, 1970s to early 2000s. Population Studies 66: 167– 182. Peuckert, Rüdiger. 1996. Theoretische Erklärungsansätze für den sozialen Wandel von Ehe, Familie und Partnerschaft. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Pfau-Effinger, Birgit. 2005. Welfare state policies and the development of care arrangements. European Societies 7: 321–347. Raab, Marcel. 2017. Childhood family structure and early family formation in East and West Germany. Journal of Marriage and Family 79: 110–130. Raab, Marcel, Anette Eva Fasang, Aleksi Karhula, and Jani Erola. 2014. Sibling similarity in family formation. Demography 51: 2127–2154. Rambøll Management Consulting. 2013. Programmbegleitung des ESF-Ideenwettbewerbs „Gute Arbeit Für Alleinerziehende“. Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales, Berlin. https:// www.bmas.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Ministerium/schwerpunkt-alleinerziehende-abschlussberichtprogrammbegleitung-gafa.html Rønsen, Marit, and Marianne Sundström. 2002. Family policy and after-birth employment among new mothers – A comparison of Finland, Norway and Sweden. European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie 18: 121–152. Rosenfeld, Rachel A., Heike Trappe, and Janet C. Gornick. 2004. Gender and work in Germany: Before and after reunification. Annual Review of Sociology 30: 103–124. Rossi, Alice S. 1968. Transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family 30: 26–39. Rowlingson, Karen, and Stephen McKay. 1998. The growth of lone parenthood: Diversity and dynamics. London: Policy Studies Institute. Rözer, Jesper, Anne-Rigt Poortman, and Gerald Mollenhorst. 2017. The timing of parenthood and its effect on social contact and support. Demographic Research 36: 1889–1916. Rürup, Bert, and Sandra Gruescu. 2006. Nachhaltige Familienpolitik im Interesse einer aktiven Bevölkerungsentwicklung. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend. Sainsbury, Diane. 1994. Gendering welfare states. London: Sage.

104

References

———. 1999. Gender and welfare state regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Saraceno, Chiara. 2008. “Care” leisten und “Care” erhalten zwischen Individualisierung und Refamilialisierung1. Berliner Journal für Soziologie 18: 244–256. Saraceno, Chiara, and Wolfgang Keck. 2010. Can we identify intergenerational policy regimes in Europe? European Societies 12: 675–696. Schier, Michaela, and Sandra Hubert. 2015. Alles eine Frage der Opportunität, oder nicht? Multilokalität und Wohnentfernung nach Trennung und Scheidung. ZfF – Zeitschrift für Familienforschung/Journal of Family Research 27 (1): 3–31. Schier, Michaela, Nina Bathmann, Sandra Hubert, Diane Nimmo, und Anna Proske. 2011. Wenn Eltern sich trennen: Familienleben an mehreren Orten. Auf einen Blick. DJI Online Thema 2011/12. Schmelzer, Paul. 2005. Netzwerkveränderung als Folge der Transformation? Berliner Journal für Soziologie 15: 73–86. Schneider, Norbert, Dorothea Krüger, Vera Lasch, Ruth Limmer, and Heike Matthias-Bleck. 2001. Alleinerziehen: Vielfalt und Dynamik einer Lebensform. Weinheim: Juventa. Schneider, Norbert F., Martin Bujard, Christof Wolf, Tobias Gummer, Karsten Hank, and Franz J. Neyer. 2021. Family research and demographic analysis (FReDA): Evolution, framework, objectives, and design of “the German family demography panel study”. Comparative Population Studies 46 (2021): 149–186. Schnor, Christine. 2014. The effect of union status at first childbirth on union stability: Evidence from Eastern and Western Germany. European Journal of Population 30: 129–160. Schwarzer, Ralf, André Hahn, and Harry Schröder. 1994. Social integration and social support in a life crisis: Effects of macrosocial change in East Germany. American Journal of Community Psychology 22: 685–706. Seltzer, Judith A. 1998. Father by law: Effects of joint legal custody on nonresident fathers’ involvement with children. Demography 35: 135–146. Siegel, Nico A. 2007. Methoden der vergleichenden Wohlfahrtsstaatsforschung. In Der Wohlfahrtsstaat, ed. Manfred G. Schmidt, Tobias Ostheim, Nico A. Siegel, and Reimut Zohlnhöfer, 96–114. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Skew, Alexandra. 2009. Leaving lone parenthood: Analysis of the repartnering patterns of lone mothers in the U.K. PhD Thesis. Southampton: University of Southampton. Skew, Alexandra, Ann Evans, and Edith Gray. 2009. Repartnering in the United Kingdom and Australia. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 40: 561–585. Sky News. 2011. PM: Tackling gangs new national priority. Sky news online. http://news. sky.com/home/politics/article/16050003. Solga, Heike, Christian Brzinsky-Fay, Lukas Graf, Cornelia Gresch, and Paula Protsch. 2013. Vergleiche innerhalb von Gruppen und institutionelle Gelingensbedingungen: Vielversprechende Perspektiven für die Ungleichheitsforschung. WZB Discussion Paper. http://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/71288. Accessed 29 Apr 2016. Sprecher, Susan, Diane Felmlee, Maria Schmeeckle, and Shu Xiaoling. 2006. No breakup occurs on an island: Social networks and relationship dissolution. In Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution, ed. Mark A. Fine, 457–478. Mahwah: Psychology. Stange, Kevin. 2011. A longitudinal analysis of the relationship between fertility timing and schooling. Demography 48: 931–956. Stanley, Scott M., Galena Kline Rhoades, and Howard J.  Markman. 2006. Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect*. Family Relations 55: 499–509.

References

105

Stauder, Johannes. 2006. Die Verfügbarkeit partnerschaftlich gebundener Akteure für den Partnermarkt. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 58: 617– 637. Steele, Fiona, Wendy Sigle-Rushton, and Øystein Kravdal. 2009. Consequences of family disruption on children’s educational outcomes in Norway. Demography 46: 553–574. Struffolino, Emanuela, Laura Bernardi, and Marieke Voorpostel. 2016. Self-reported health among lone mothers in Switzerland: Do employment and education matter? Population­E 71: 187–214. Sweeney, Megan M. 2010. Remarriage and stepfamilies: Strategic sites for family scholarship in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family 72: 667–684. Taylor-Gooby, Peter. 2004. New risks and social change. In new risks, new welfare: The transformation of the European welfare state, 1–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Teachman, Jay. 2003. Childhood living arrangements and the formation of coresidential unions. Journal of Marriage and Family 65: 507–524. Thomson, Elizabeth. 2014. Family complexity in Europe. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 654: 245–258. Thomson, Elizabeth, and Sara S. McLanahan. 2012. Reflections on “family structure and child well-being: Economic resources vs parental socialization”. Social Forces; A Scientific Medium of Social Study and Interpretation 91: 45–53. Thomson, Elizabeth, Thomas L. Hanson, and Sara McLanahan. 1994. Family structure and child well-being: Economic resources vs. parental behaviors. Social Forces 73: 221–242. Timm, Andreas. 2000. Strukturelle Rahmenbedingungen und Partnerwahl. Eine Längsschnittanalyse der Wahl des ersten Partners in West- und Ostdeutschland. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation 3: 164–187. Uhlendorff, Harald. 2003. Family and family orientation in East Germany. In Reinventing gender: Women in Eastern Germany since unification, ed. Eva Kolinsky and Hildegard Maria Nickel. Hove: Psychology Press. ———. 2004. After the wall: Parental attitudes to child rearing in East and West Germany. International Journal of Behavioral Development 28: 71–82. Valiquette-Tessier, Sophie-Claire, Marie-Pier Vandette, and Julie Gosselin. 2016. Is family structure a cue for stereotyping? A systematic review of stereotypes and parenthood. Journal of Family Studies 22: 162–181. de Velde, Van, Clare Bambra Sarah, Koen Van der Bracht, Terje Andreas Eikemo, and Piet Bracke. 2014. Keeping it in the family: The self-rated health of lone mothers in different European welfare regimes. Sociology of Health & Illness 36: 1220–1242. Lancker, Van, Joris Ghysels Wim, and Bea Cantillon. 2015. The impact of child benefits on single mother poverty: Exploring the role of targeting in 15 European countries. International Journal of Social Welfare 24: 210–222. Van Winkle, Zachary. 2018. Family trajectories across time and space: Increasing complexity and diversity in family life courses in Europe? Demography 55: 135–164. Viitanen, Tarja K. 2005. Cost of childcare and female employment in the UK. Labour 19: 149–170. Vikat, Andres, et al. 2008. Generations and gender survey (GGS): Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course. Demographic Research 17: 389–440.

106

References

Wagner, Gert G., Joachim R. Frick, and Jürgen Schupp. 2007. The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP): Scope, evolution and enhancements. DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). http://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwsop/diw_sp1.html. Accessed 18 Aug 2012. Wheelcock, Jane, and Katherine Jones. 2002. “Grandparents are the next best thing”: Informal childcare for working parents in urban Britain. Journal of Social Policy 31: 441–463. Williams, Richard. 2012. Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects. Stata Journal 12: 308–331. Wrzus, Cornelia, Martha Hänel, Jenny Wagner, and Franz J. Neyer. 2013. Social network changes and life events across the life span: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 139: 53–80. Zagel, Hannah. 2014. Are all single mothers the same? Evidence from British and West German women’s employment trajectories. European Sociological Review 30: 49–63. ———. 2015. Support for lone parents in Germany. Paris. Zagel, Hannah, and Sabine Hübgen. 2018. A life course approach to single mothers’ economic wellbeing in different welfare states. In The triple bind of single parents, ed. Rense Nieuwenhuis and Laurie C. Maldonado. Bristol: Policy Press. Zagel, Hannah, Sabine Hübgen, and Rense Nieuwenhuis. 2022. Diverging trends in single-­ mother poverty across Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom: Toward a comprehensive explanatory framework. Social Forces 101 (2): 606–638.