The deterioration of Finnish single mothers’ employment, 1987-2011: A decomposition analysisJUHO HÄRKÖNEN*†, EEVI LAPPALAINEN**, MARIKA JALOVAARA†*

* STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY** STATISTICS F INLAND† UNIVERSITY OF TURKU

Introduction• Single parents

• Significant minority (Finland ~20% of families with children)•Vast majority are women• In Finland, typically single parents as a consequence of

separation (more rarely from non-union childbearing)

•Experience more unemployment and other economic hardships than partnered parents (Kjeldstad & Rønsen 2004; Stewart 2009; Wu & Eamon 2011)•Single motherhood increasingly associated with low education

50

60

70

80

90

100

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

%

Figure 1. Employment rates (%) for single and partnered mothers, 1987–2011

Partnered mothers Single mothers

Introduction• This paper examines the composition of the differences in single and partnered mothers’ employment in Finland in 1987–2011 • Research questions:1. Do changes in educational background, age, and age of the

youngest child explain why single mothers’ employment rates declined relative to partnered mothers?

2. Do the development of employment rates among educational and age groups, and by the age of the youngest child explain these differences?

Characteristics of Finnish labor market and family policies• High (structural) unemployment since 1990s’ economic depression• Nordic family policy regime (Esping-Andersen 1999): generous parental leaves, subsidized child care, individualized taxation•A strong two-earner model• Part-time work is relatively rarely used as a means of combining

paid employment and family life• Families with 0–2-year-old children are entitled to child home-

care allowance (extended to all families with under three-year-old children in early 1990s)

Data• Register-based dataset: 10 % random sample of persons born between 1940–1995 who were in the Finnish population on any year between 1987 and 2011• Study sample• 18–49-year-old women •Born in Finland•Have 1–17-year-old resident children• 1,302,680 person-years

• Single mother: has resident children, no cohabiting, married or registered (same-sex) partner

VariablesDependent variable• Economic activity dummy: employed vs. not employed

Independent variables•Union status dummy: single vs. partnered•Age: 18–29, 30–39, 40–49•Age of youngest resident child: 1–2, 3–6, 7–17• Education: basic, secondary, low tertiary, high tertiary

Time• Variables are measured at the end of each year• Years are divided into 7 periods according to macroeconomic trends (3–4

years)

Statistical methods• Multi-factor decomposition of differences (Das Gupta 1993, Chevan & Sutherland 2009)• Decomposition by each category of each variable• Variables: age, education, children’s age• Seven decompositions: decomposition of employment differences between partnered and single mothers for each time period

Descriptive results

0

10

20

30

40

50

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

Partnered mothers

Basic Secondary L. tertiary H. tertiary

0

10

20

30

40

50

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

Single mothers

Basic Secondary L. tertiary H. tertiary

Educational composition 1987–2011:basic and secondary education, %

0

10

20

30

40

50

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

Partnered mothers

Basic Secondary L. tertiary H. tertiary

0

10

20

30

40

50

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

Single mothers

Basic Secondary L. tertiary H. tertiary

Educational composition 1987–2011:low and high tertiary education, %

0

20

40

60

80

100

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

Partnered mothers

18–29 30–39 40–49

0

20

40

60

80

100

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

Single mothers

18–29 30–39 40–49

Employment by age 1987–2011, %

0

20

40

60

80

100

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

Partnered mothers

Basic Secondary L. tertiary H. tertiary

0

20

40

60

80

100

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

Partnered mothers

Basic Secondary L. tertiary H. tertiary

Employment by education 1987–2011:basic and secondary education, %

Single mothers

0

20

40

60

80

100

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

Partnered mothers

Basic Secondary L. tertiary H. tertiary

0

20

40

60

80

100

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

Single mothers

Basic Secondary L. tertiary H. tertiary

Employment by education 1987–2011:low and high tertiary education, %

0

20

40

60

80

100

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

Partnered mothers

1–2 3–6 7–17

0

20

40

60

80

100

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

Single mothers

1–2 3–6 7–17

Employment by youngest child’s age 1987–2011, %

Decomposition results

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12Crude penalty

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

The crude difference in partnered and single mothers’ employment (%)

Crude penalty = composition effects + rate effects

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12Crude penalty Composition effects

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

…contribution of composition effects (%)…

Crude penalty = composition effects + rate effects

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12Crude penalty Composition effects Rate effects

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

…and contribution of composition and rate effects (%)

Crude penalty = composition effects + rate effects

-4-3-2-1012345

Total

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

A closer look at composition effects (%)

Total composition effect = Σ (variable composition effects)

-4-3-2-1012345

Total Age

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

A closer look at composition effects: age (%)

Total composition effect = Σ (variable composition effects)

-4-3-2-1012345

Total Age Education

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

A closer look at composition effects: age and education (%)

Total composition effect = Σ (variable composition effects)

-4-3-2-1012345

Total Age Education Age of child

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

A closer look at composition effects: age, education and age of youngest child (%)

Total composition effect = Σ (variable composition effects)

-0,2

0,3

0,8

1,3

1,8

18–29 30–39 40–49

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

Rate category effects: age (%)

Total rate effect = Σ (rate category effects)

-0,2

0,3

0,8

1,3

1,8

Compulsory Secondary Low tertiary High tertiary

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

Rate category effects: education (%)

Total rate effect = Σ (rate category effects)

-0,2

0,3

0,8

1,3

1,8

1-2 3-6 7-17

87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11

Rate category effects: age of youngest child (%)

Total rate effect = Σ (rate category effects)

Conclusions• Single mothers have an employment disadvantage in almost all age, educational, and children’s age categories • The importance of compositional differences—and of educational backgrounds especially—has become more important•Weak educational profile of single mothers is increasingly linked to low employment

Conclusions•Educational selection to and from single motherhood?•Low education jobs may be difficult to combine with single motherhood•”Diverging destinies” trend (McLanahan 2004) exists in Nordic welfare states as well•Family structure can be a mechanism for the reproduction of class and gender inequalities (McLanahan & Percheski 2008) •Overall economic inequality is on the rise in Finland; rising prevalence of single parenthood and growing inequality between single and partnered parents may play a role

50

60

70

80

90

10019

8719

8819

8919

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

0620

0720

0820

0920

1020

11

%

Figure 1. Employment rates (%) for single and partnered mothers, 1987–2011

Partnered mothers Single mothers

A project funded by:• Academy of Finland (decision number 275030)• FORTE (Dnr. 2010-0381)• European Union's Seventh Framework Programme

under grant agreement no. 320116

Tackling Inequalitiesin Time of Austerity