Living Arrangements of Young Adults in Europe Living Arrangements of Young Adults in Europe* Katrin Schwanitz, Clara H. Mulder Abstract: Comparative research suggests that there are great cross-national and cross-temporal differences in living arrangements of young adults aged 18-34 in Europe. In this paper, we examine young adults’ living arrangements (1) across sev- eral European countries and different national contexts, and (2) by taking into ac- count cross-time variability. In doing so, we pay careful attention to a comprehen- sive conceptualisation of living arrangements (including extended and non-family living arrangements). The aim of this paper is to deepen our understanding of family structure and household arrangements in Europe by examining and mapping the cross-national and cross-temporal variety of young adults’ living arrangements. For our analysis we use data from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Inter- national (IPUMSi) for the census rounds 1980, 1990, and 2000 for eight European countries (Austria, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, Romania, and Swit- zerland). We employ log-linear models to ascertain the infl uence of individual and contextual factors on living arrangements. The analyses lend further support to a North/West – South/East divide in living arrangements and general gender differ- entials in extended family living. Other interesting results are the heterogeneity in the living arrangements of single mothers across geographic areas, and the upward trend of extended household living for young men and women between 1980 and 2000. Keywords: Living arrangements · Young adults · IPUMS-International · Transition to adulthood · Europe Comparative Population Studies Vol. 40, 4 (2015): 367-398 (Date of release: 25.11.2015) © Federal Institute for Population Research 2015 URL: www.comparativepopulationstudies.de DOI: 10.12765/CPoS-2015-14en URN: urn:nbn:de:bib-cpos-2015-14en5 * This article contains supplementary material in the form of an online Appendix: DOI 10.12765/ CPoS-2015-15en, URL: http://www.comparativepopulationstudies.de/index.php/CPoS/article/ view/158/216. http://www.comparativepopulationstudies.de/index.php/CPoS/article/view/158/216 http://www.comparativepopulationstudies.de • Katrin Schwanitz, Clara H. Mulder368 1 Introduction A high degree of diversity in the living arrangements of young adults has long been a characteristic European feature (Kuijsten 1996; Blossfeld et al. 2006; Fokkema/ Liefbroer 2008). Empirical research has lent particular support to strong regional patterns across groups of countries in Europe. Western and Northern Europe, for example, are generally characterised by small households (consisting of only the nuclear family members), non-familial arrangements (particularly living alone and shared arrangements), and non-residential relationships (Iacovou/Skew 2011). Con- versely, Southern Europe is generally characterised by large households where young adults live with their parents well into their 20s and are likely to leave home to marry rather than to live in cohabitation or as singles. The living arrangements in Central and Eastern Europe are in many respects most similar to Southern Europe, with large households, late home-leaving, and a high frequency of multi-genera- tional households (Ahmed/Emigh 2005; Iacovou/Skew 2011). Explanations for these regional patterns in young adults’ living arrangements stress, on the one hand, in- stitutional differences in terms of the mode and scope of welfare state provisions (e.g., Esping-Andersen 1990) and, on the other hand, long-term, persistent cultural differences (e.g., Hajnal 1965; Kertzer 1991; Reher 1998) between broad geographi- cal regions and along a North-South divide in Europe. Numerous demographic studies have also revealed that the diversity and de- standardisation of family forms, relationship and parenthood patterns in Europe has increased even further since the second half of the 20th century (Rindfuss 1991; Corijn/Klijzing 2001; Brüderl 2004; Elzinga/Liefbroer 2007; Sobotka/Toulemon 2008; Sobotka 2008; Billari/Liefbroer 2010). These changes seem to follow a rather similar trajectory all across Europe – in fact so much so that they sparked theoretical dis- courses on the discontinuation of the family as an institution. Europeans are gen- erally marrying later within the life course, and more are remaining unmarried; di- vorce rates have increased; non-marital cohabitation and non-marital childbearing have become more common; and “new” family forms and households (i.e., step- families, living apart together arrangements) have gained visibility (Corijn/Klijzing 2001; Brüderl 2004; Billari/Liefbroer 2010). Against this backdrop, we focus on (1) how much diversity in living arrange- ments is observable across European countries and (2) how the living arrangements of young adults have changed between 1980 and 2000, using data from the Inte- grated Public Use Microdata Series International (IPUMSi) for the census rounds 1980, 1990, and 2000 for eight European countries (Austria, France, Greece, Hun- gary, Ireland, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland). Unlike previous research (e.g., Fokkema/Liefbroer 2008) – which mainly examined a small set of living arrange- ments and has not paid a great deal of attention to the prevalence and variations in extended living arrangements – we provide a detailed picture of young adults’ living arrangements (including extended and non-family arrangements) and compare liv- ing arrangements between various groups of young adults (men and women; older and younger; people who live in different groups of countries). In doing so, we con- tribute to the demographic literature on the growing complexity of family forms and Living Arrangements of Young Adults in Europe • 369 living arrangements across Europe by mapping the extent to which young adults are surrounded by their families in a variety of living arrangements in a much more detailed way than previous research did. Furthermore, we add to the debate about whether there is an asynchrony of changes in living arrangements between Euro- pean countries and to what extent European diversity in young adults’ living ar- rangements remains. 2 Background This section presents a recap of what we know so far about young adults’ living arrangements in Europe. First, we discuss variation in the prevalence of living ar- rangements over time and present theoretical frameworks describing the dynamics and bounds of variation for European societies. Second, we discuss variation in the prevalence of living arrangements across countries and highlight the way institu- tional arrangements shape choices of living arrangements. We then synthesise the fi ndings of empirical research to describe more specifi cally how young adults live across contemporary Europe and identify knowledge gaps. 2.1 Processes of Social Change Europe witnessed profound and sometimes even radical changes in marriage and family life in the second half of the 20th century. In many countries, marriage and fertility rates have declined, divorce rates have increased, and unmarried cohabi- tation has become more common. In addition, the ways in which families live to- gether have changed, as well. Young adults in most Western countries, for exam- ple, have postponed leaving the parental home, marriage, and parenthood – with various complex living arrangements characterising this trend. At the same time, living alone has increased particularly among working-age adults (e.g., Sobotka/ Toulemon 2008; Billari/Liefbroer 2010). Some theorists have posited that these weakened traditional family patterns refl ect underlying value changes and an over- all shift towards privacy and autonomy, coined the Second Demographic Transition (SDT) (Lesthaeghe 1995). While the SDT predicts convergence of living arrange- ments over time, comparative research has highlighted that there are critical inter- dependencies between the SDT and social policies and cultural backgrounds thus suggesting persistent cross-national diversity in young adults’ living arrangements (Kuijsten 1996; Sobotka 2008). Other theorists applied a modernisation and globalisation perspective which underlines the increasing structural uncertainties in the domain of labour markets, fi nance, education, and family (Blossfeld et al. 2006; Mills/Blossfeld 2013). From this perspective, globalisation processes – specifi cally the internationalisation of markets, the intensifi cation of competition, the spread of global networks, and the rising importance of markets (Blossfeld et al. 2006: 2) – have generated labour market transformations and labour market instability (e.g., risk of unemployment, fi xed-term contracts). This in turn affected family forms and living arrangements as • Katrin Schwanitz, Clara H. Mulder370 young people have tended to remain in education longer, enter the labour market at later ages, and increasingly postpone family formation. The proponents of this glo- balisation perspective, however, add an important specifi cation to their model by considering country-specifi c and historically grown institutional settings and social structures that modify the impact of structural uncertainties. Consequently, young adults across different European countries and regions are not affected uniformly in the same way and a convergence to a new common pattern of living arrange- ments is empirically not observable (Blossfeld et al. 2006; Sobotka/Toulemon 2008). In this vein, some authors have particularly pointed to the role of welfare regimes shaping the impact of economic and social developments (Breen/Buchmann 2002). A specifi c case of social change is the transformation in the Central and Eastern European countries at the beginning of the 1990s, which happened more rapidly, more dramatically (e.g., the restructuring of welfare and policy regimes) and of- ten in directions opposite to developments in Western Europe. This transformation brought drastic changes to family life: young adults postponed family formation and substituted non-marital cohabitation for marriage, fertility generally declined (while the proportion of extra-marital births increased), and average household size declined (while the proportion of people living alone increased) (e.g., Sobotka/Tou- lemon 2008). 2.2 Conceptualising European Diversity in Living Arrangements Apart from changes across time, cross-national research furthermore suggests a signifi cant impact of relatively stable institutional arrangements – like welfare re- gimes and policy environments – on young adults’ living arrangements across Europe (e.g., Daatland/Herlofson 2003; Aassve et al. 2005; Albertini et al. 2007; Albertini/Kohli 2013; Chiuri/Del Boca 2007; Gauthier 2007; Steinbach 2012). Esping- Andersen (1990, 1999) developed a typology of welfare regimes which has gained a pivotal role in explaining how qualitatively different welfare state provisions and em- ployment and family policies across countries translate into different family struc- tures and living arrangements. The main argument is that living arrangements are infl uenced by the organisation and provision of social care, namely by the degree to which welfare regimes are either familistic or individualistic. In countries with familistic regimes (such as Spain, Italy, and Greece), care for children or the elderly is mainly provided by the familial household and there are hardly any family policies supporting young adults or parents. Conversely, in countries with individualistic welfare regimes (such as Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Belgium and France), care for children or the elderly is provided by the state. Young adults can thus rely on a number of governmental aids and services in order to live independently from their parents. Empirical fi ndings generally underscore the importance of welfare regimes – and their considerable and stable cross-national variation in the nature of provisions and policies – for shaping young adults’ living arrangements across Europe (e.g., Aassve et al. 2002; Breen/Buchmann 2002; Aassve et al. 2005). However, the literature has also pointed to problems in disentangling the effect of institutional arrangements and longstanding sociocultural differences (Kalmijn/ Living Arrangements of Young Adults in Europe • 371 Saraceno 2008; Billari/Liefbroer 2010). Researchers have long pointed to systemic variation in family forms and cultures – which loosely follows a North/West-South/ East divide and remains remarkably resilient – to account for living arrangement patterns as well as patterns of family solidarity and family obligations (Hajnal 1965; Kertzer 1991; Daatland/Herlofson 2003; Hank 2007; Kalmijn/Saraceno 2008; Alber- tini/Kohli 2013). Reher (1998) argues that Northern and Southern European coun- tries differ with respect to family ties. In countries with strong family ties, there are strong norms of intergenerational support, and people are more responsive to the needs of their family members (Reher 1998; Kalmijn/Saraceno 2008). In addition, prolonged coresidence of children with parents in extended family households is more common (Aassve et al. 2002). In countries with weak family ties, adult family members are more strongly committed to residential autonomy, young adults leave the parental home comparatively early, and living alone or living in nuclear house- holds is very common. 2.3 Young Adults’ Living Arrangements in Europe We know from the literature in family demography that young adults’ living arrange- ments vary greatly across Europe (e.g., Kiernan 1986; Lesthaeghe/Moors 1995; Kui- jsten 1996; Iacovou 2004; Hantrais 2006; Fokkema/Liefbroer 2008; Kalmijn/Sara- ceno 2008; Sobotka/Toulemon 2008; Hoem et al. 2009; Iacovou/Skew 2010, 2011). First, young adults tend to leave the parental home comparatively early in Western and Northern Europe. The mean age at leaving home, for example, varies between 20 years in Finland and over 27 years in Italy for young women, and between under 22 years in Finland and Denmark to almost 30 years in Italy for young men (Iaco- vou/Skew 2010). The share of young adults living with their parents is thus lower in Western and Northern Europe compared to Southern and Eastern Europe; and of those young adults who lived with their parents less than 1 percent in Denmark, the Netherlands, Ireland and Luxembourg were in a union which means living with a partner (please note that although using the terms union, relationship and couple interchangeably, we always refer to living with a partner). This proportion rises, however, to 8 percent and more in Lithuania, Latvia and Poland, and even up to 17.8 percent in Romania and 19.3 percent in Bulgaria (Choroszewicz/Wolff 2010). Second, living as a couple is generally a common living arrangement among young adults all across Europe, but again there are substantial differences: relationship formation starts early in the Northern and Western countries and rather late in the Southern European countries. For example, 48 percent of young men (aged 25) in Finland are in relationships compared to 8 percent in Italy (Iacovou 2004). Further- more, young adults in Northern and Western Europe far more often opt for unmar- ried cohabitation, whereas their counterparts in Southern Europe tend to live with a partner to whom they are married. In Central and Eastern Europe, relationships – not necessarily married – are formed early and young couples tend to have chil- dren early in the course of their relationship. The share of young adults living in relationships with children is thus high in Central and Eastern Europe, but levels of unmarried cohabitation vary across the region (Toulemon/Sobotka 2008; Hoem et • Katrin Schwanitz, Clara H. Mulder372 al. 2009). Third, Northern and Western European households are relatively small, in part because the nuclear family is a dominant household type, but also because the proportion of single households is relatively high. Living alone is generally much more common at all ages in Northern and Western Europe than in Southern and Eastern Europe, but particularly so at younger ages. After having left the paren- tal home, many young adults in Northern and Western Europe live alone before cohabiting or marrying and are thus more likely to live alone than their Southern and Eastern European counterparts (Fokkema/Liefbroer 2008). In Southern and Eastern Europe, however, households are larger and more often involve forms of the extended family. It is common, for example, that cohabiting or married young adults live with their parents (and possibly other relatives) (Ahmed/Emigh 2005; Toulemon/Sobotka 2008; Iacovou/Skew 2011). In addition, Chambaz (2001) showed that between 25 percent and 40 percent of single parents in Southern Europe live with their parents or other relatives. Although the literature has thus illustrated cross-national differences in living arrangements, it is important to note that many (descriptive) studies examined only a limited number of living arrangements in detail. Typically studies look at, for ex- ample, the prevalence of “young adults living with parents”, “young adults living alone”, and “young adults living in union”, but not at the prevalence of extended or non-family living arrangements – which are grouped together with various other living arrangements (such as living as single parents or living in collective house- holds, for example) in the residual category “other” (e.g., Iacovou 2004; Fokkema/ Liefbroer 2008; Sobotka/Toulemon 2008). This might be the case because there are few extended-family households in Northern and Western Europe, but also because extended and non-family living arrangements (e.g., living with non-relatives) have only lately garnered scientifi c attention. The challenge is to accommodate extended and non-family living arrangements in family and household demography. More recently, Iacovou and Skew (2011) used EU-SILC data to study the household com- position in Europe and explicitly included extended family households. This study provides important insight into the different family forms and living arrangements in Europe. Besides investigating differences in household composition it is, however, also important to investigate individuals in various living arrangements – in order to get a detailed picture of how young adults live and are surrounded by their families across Europe and how this has changed over time. 3 Data and Methods We use pooled census microdata for the census rounds 1980, 1990, and 2000 from eight countries (Austria, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland) to compare the living arrangements of young adults across Europe. (Note that we have grouped the exact census date by round, i.e., 1980, 1990 and 2000. Table 1 presents the exact census dates). We chose these eight countries on the basis of data availability, but also because comparisons among them illustrate particularly well cross-national differences in living arrangements across major Living Arrangements of Young Adults in Europe • 373 European regions: North and Western (Austria, France, Ireland, and Switzerland), Southern (Greece and Portugal) and Central–Eastern Europe (Hungary and Roma- nia). For the sake of simplicity, we refer to them as Western Europe, Southern and Eastern Europe, respectively. This geographic grouping has been used, for exam- ple, by Iacovou (2013) in previous research on living arrangements. It moreover follows the longstanding sociocultural systems described above, for example by Hajnal (1965) and Reher (1998), as well as the regional differences of welfare re- gimes across Europe (Esping-Andersen 1990). The census samples were obtained from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series International (IPUMSi) data archive (Minnesota Population Center 2011) and consist of approximately 5 percent of the French, Hungarian, Portuguese, and Swiss population, and 10 percent of the Austrian, Greek, Irish, and Romanian population. We restrict the data analysis to young adults (i.e., men and women aged 18-34) because across all European countries, it is in this age range that the transition to adulthood unfolds, thus producing variability in living arrangements. It is important to note that there is no clear-cut defi nition of young adults in the demographic litera- ture, mainly because it is diffi cult to identify the exact end of the transition to adult- hood. Therefore, we make a rather arbitrary choice to set the upper age limit to 34 to account for increases in the time spent in education and trends towards leaving the parental home later. Furthermore, we exclude those young adults living in collective households (e.g., student dorms or military barracks) and those with missing values on the dependent variables. Missing values (i.e., refusals or don’t knows) are only a minor issue, affecting at most 2 percent of the observations in our sample. The fi nal sample size is 6,119,500. The IPUMSi data are a unique source of information for cross-country analy- ses at the European level due to its standardised methodology and harmonised questionnaires, procedure in data collection, high response rates, and large sample sizes. They include a wide variety of useful and harmonised information, including indicators of household relationships – from which we construct measures of liv- ing arrangements – and key demographic and socioeconomic factors (e.g., age and Tab. 1: Available information and exact census dates for 8 European countries, 1980s-2000s 1980s 1990s 2000s Greece 1981 1991 2001 Portugal 1981 1991 2001 Romania 1977 1992 2002 Hungary 1980 1990 2001 Ireland 1981 1991 2002 France 1982 1990 1999 Switzerland 1980 1990 2000 Austria 1981 1991 2001 Source: IPUMSi • Katrin Schwanitz, Clara H. Mulder374 gender). Although the IPUMSi data are a useful and rich source to examine differen- tials and trends in living arrangements across Europe, they have certain limitations. First, the IPUMSi data are cross-sectional and thus we cannot assess changes in the timing and the frequency of transitions between different living arrangements. Second, apart from demographic variables the IPUMSi data do not contain other relevant information that might affect young adults’ living arrangements (e.g. pref- erences, attitudes, and family values). Third, the data do not contain information on all European countries – especially information on Scandinavian countries is miss- ing – and IPUMSi data thus can only be used to identify changes and patterns in a small part of Europe. 3.1 Measurements We use the “Family Relationship Variables”– harmonised pointer variables that iden- tify the presence of mother, father, spouse, and children for all household members – (Sobek/Kennedy 2009) in the IPUMSi to create nine mutually exclusive living ar- rangements based on the respective relationship and parental status of the young adult, and the information whether the young adults live in an extended family household: (1) with parents; (2) alone; (3) as a couple; (4) as a couple with parents and/or extended family; (5) as a couple with children; (6) as a couple with chil- dren and parents and/or extended family; (7) as single parent; (8) as a single parent with parents and/or extended family; or (9) sharing with others. An extended family household captures multiple generations (such as young adults and their parents), multiple relatives (such as siblings or any other relatives), non-relatives, or a com- bination of both living together. The category with parents jointly considers cases where young adults only live with their parents as well as cases in which young adults live with their parents and additional extended family members. It is possible that living alone and living with an unmarried partner are underreported in census data, because many young adults in Europe do not register address changes when leaving the parental home to live alone or with a partner or continue to report the parents’ household as place of residence if they keep returning to the parental home occasionally (Sobotka/Toulemon 2008). We do not know how large such a bias is in the IPUMSi data. The category sharing with others refers to shared – but non- institutional – accommodation of non-relatives, such as e.g., young adults sharing a fl at with friends. By using this broad categorisation, we aim to capture a wide variety of young adults’ living arrangements in different stages of their life course. Because the IP- UMSi data do not collect information about absent spouses or partners, our cat- egorisation is, however, limited in regard to non-standard living arrangements (i.e., non-cohabiting couples and living apart together relationships). It is also important to note that we cannot account for multi-residence (i.e., young adults living in more Living Arrangements of Young Adults in Europe • 375 than one household).1 In addition to living arrangements we use the following cat- egorical variables: (1) Country (8 categories: Austria, France, Greece, Hungary, Ire- land, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland), (2) Year (3 categories: 1980, 1990, 2000), and (3) Age (4 categories: 18-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34). The latter variable captures the effects of age-norms and age-graded transitions in the life course. Research suggests that important life course events (i.e., leaving the parental home, getting married, or having a child) are guided by specifi c age norms, which in turn affect residential choices and living arrangements (see for example: Billari/Liefbroer 2007). The four age groupings used refl ect those used commonly in census data. Because the scope of this article is already quite broad, we abstain from examining educa- tional, social class or ethnicity differences in young adults’ living arrangements. Studies have, however, shown that socio-economic characteristics (e.g., education and economic activity) and ethnicity shape young adults’ residential decisions and living arrangements (Stone et al. 2011; Zorlu/Mulder 2010). 3.2 Modelling Strategy and Method We fi rst calculate the weighted percentage distribution for men and women by age group, year and country in order to examine prevalence and overall change in liv- ing arrangements of young adults in Europe. Subsequently, we specify log-linear models for contingency tables to adjust for the changing marginal distributions of variables (e.g., country, year, or age group) that sort young adults into different liv- ing arrangements and to describe the associations between the variables in a stand- ardised way. We assess whether: (1) there are cross-national differences in living arrangements, (2) there are cross-temporal differences in living arrangements, and (3) the age pattern in living arrangements differs across countries. Log-linear models are a special case of the general linear model (GLM) for Pois- son – distributed data and are a powerful tool to analyse the relationships among different categorical variables – particularly for multi-way contingency tables (i.e., tables with more than 2 x 2 categorical variables). Log-linear models predict the expected frequencies in a contingency table, considering both main effects (that pertain to differences among the marginal distribution of a variable) and interaction effects (that pertain to associations between variables). They are different to other GLM’s in that the cell counts are the response and there is thus no formal distinc- tion in dependent and independent variables among the categorical variables in the model (Agresti 2013). A particular advantage of log-linear modelling for our pur- pose is that we can analyse the associations between demographic variables and changes over time net of changes in demographic composition. 1 In most censuses, some rules are applied in order to avoid double-counting of individuals (most often by restricting the observation of individuals to their main dwelling), but these rules do not allow for an accurate description of multi-residence (i.e., individuals living usually in two dwell- ings). • Katrin Schwanitz, Clara H. Mulder376 In order to identify a best-fi tting log-linear model of living arrangements, we tested, by process of backward elimination, whether any components could be re- moved from the saturated model (i.e., a model including all interaction and main effects). We rely on the Bayesian information criterion to assess the model fi t, be- cause χ2 – based test statistics may be overly sensitive to departures from the null hypothesis due to the large sample size (Raftery 1995). Our results (Table A1) indi- cate that a more parsimonious model than the saturated model does not fi t well, since the relationship between the four variables is not homogeneous. The log-linear model for a four-way contingency table is thus formulated below. L refers to the respondent’s living arrangement (with i = 1, … 9), C refers to the re- spondent’s country of residence (with j = 1, … 8), Y refers to the year (with k = 1, … 3), and A refers to the age group (with t = 1, … 4). The statistic Fijkt represents the number of young adults in each cell of the cross-tabulation of living arrangement, country, year, and age group (9 × 8 × 3 × 4= 864 cells): Because we apply effect coding, μ refl ects the grand mean of all observations. In addition to controlling for marginal distributions of the categorical variables ( ), we also account for the four-way interaction between living arrangement, country of residence, year, and age group ( ) and all lower-order interactions. Note that we (1) estimate separate but analogous log-linear models for men and women, (2) focus on selected key parameters from the saturated model for women and men, respectively, rather than interpreting all 864 parameters, and (3) enhance substantive interpretations by looking at model parameter estimates with an effect size larger than .10 (corresponding to a 10 percent over-representation compared with a distribution determined by the marginal distributions only) and which are signifi cant at the 5 percent level. We choose a cut-off at .10 in order to simplify the presentation of the results and not to present (negligibly) small effects (Tables A2- A7 present all parameters for the two-way and three-way interactions for men and women, respectively). Note, too, that while the saturated log-linear models do not as such tell us something we do not know from the raw numbers in the descriptive table, they allow better representing higher-order interaction terms and assessing signifi cance and effect size of the parameters. 4 Results 4.1 Cross-national Differences in Living Arrangements The weighted percentage distributions for men and women (Tables 2 and 3, respec- tively) show that there are considerable regional differences: living as a couple is more common in France and Switzerland than in Southern (Greece and Portugal) and Eastern (Hungary and Romania) Europe, while Southern and Eastern Europeans (1) Living Arrangements of Young Adults in Europe • 377 T a b . 2 : D is tr ib u ti o n o f liv in g a rr an g e m e n ts o f m e n in E u ro p e an c o u n tr ie s b y a g e g ro u p in 1 9 8 0 , 19 9 0 a n d 2 0 0 0 T y p e o f li v in g A u st ri a (A T ) S w it ze rl a n d ( C H ) F ra n c e ( F R ) Ir e la n d ( IE ) a rr a n g e m e n t 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 b y a g e g ro u p (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % 1 8 -1 9 (n = 13 ,6 3 4 ) (n = 11 ,0 3 5 ) (n = 9 ,9 8 6 ) (n = 3 ,5 17 ) (n = 4 ,5 0 7 ) (n = 3 ,7 6 8 ) (n = 4 2 ,5 4 6 ) (n = 3 7, 6 3 7 ) (n = 4 0 ,8 3 8 ) (n = 5 ,3 0 7 ) (n = 3 ,6 0 1) (n = 7, 3 6 7 ) w it h p a re n ts 9 4 .1 2 9 3 .2 3 9 4 .1 1 8 9 .2 8 8 9 .0 6 8 9 .4 4 8 8 .8 3 8 9 .4 5 8 4 .5 3 9 2 .8 6 9 5 .3 3 8 9 .7 5 a lo n e 2 .5 6 2 .3 7 3 .6 6 4 .0 4 3 .5 3 4 .8 6 3 .1 8 3 .5 9 6 .9 7 1. 0 9 0 .9 7 0 .5 6 a s a co u p le 0 .6 9 0 .6 1 0 .6 3 0 .6 5 0 .3 6 0 .6 1 1. 2 1 0 .9 4 0 .8 6 0 .3 4 0 .0 8 0 .2 9 a s a co u p le w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 0 .2 5 0 .4 3 0 .1 8 0 .0 3 0 .2 0 0 .0 8 0 .1 7 0 .1 2 0 .1 6 0 .1 3 0 .2 8 0 .1 8 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n 0 .4 6 0 .3 6 0 .2 4 0 .1 7 0 .0 4 0 .1 3 0 .5 3 0 .3 3 0 .3 3 0 .8 3 0 .0 6 0 .1 1 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n a n d e x te n d e d f a m il y 0 .2 2 0 .3 0 0 .1 4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .1 1 0 .0 5 0 .0 5 0 .1 9 0 .1 4 0 .0 1 a s si n g le p a re n t 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 3 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 a s a si n g le p a re n t w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 0 .0 1 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 2 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 sh a ri n g w it h o th e rs 1. 6 7 2 .6 9 1. 0 4 5 .8 3 6 .8 1 4 .8 6 5 .9 7 5 .5 3 7. 0 9 4 .5 4 3 .1 4 9 .1 1 2 0 -2 4 (n = 3 0 ,5 2 9 ) (n = 3 3 ,4 3 4 ) (n = 2 3 ,9 9 1) (n = 9 ,8 3 2 ) (n = 13 ,1 5 0 ) (n = 9 ,8 8 1) (n = 1 0 2 ,8 9 9 ) (n = 8 9 ,3 9 0 ) (n = 9 5 ,9 4 0 ) (n = 11 ,5 6 1) (n = 1 0 ,9 3 0 ) (n = 1 8 ,6 6 3 ) w it h p a re n ts 6 9 .7 0 7 1. 12 7 3 .7 3 5 8 .5 7 5 8 .8 1 6 3 .6 9 5 5 .6 0 6 1. 8 5 6 1. 17 7 5 .1 1 8 2 .0 2 7 8 .1 8 a lo n e 7. 3 0 8 .5 8 12 .0 4 14 .3 1 1 5 .4 6 17 .5 5 8 .9 7 1 0 .6 3 14 .9 1 2 .8 9 3 .0 1 1. 7 5 a s a c o u p le 7. 0 2 6 .4 0 5 .6 4 9 .6 1 1 0 .8 2 7. 2 6 1 6 .0 9 12 .8 4 1 0 .0 9 5 .8 2 2 .1 6 2 .5 2 a s a co u p le w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 1. 6 8 1. 8 3 1. 17 0 .5 2 0 .7 0 0 .6 6 0 .8 6 0 .5 9 0 .6 0 1. 3 0 1. 2 0 0 .8 7 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n 8 .7 4 5 .2 7 3 .7 5 4 .8 8 2 .8 7 1. 9 4 1 0 .5 0 6 .1 2 3 .3 8 9 .9 7 3 .7 5 1. 5 5 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n a n d e x te n d e d f a m il y 2 .3 5 1. 3 4 0 .9 9 0 .4 0 0 .2 0 0 .2 1 0 .6 4 0 .3 9 0 .2 4 1. 7 3 1. 13 0 .2 1 a s si n g le p a re n t 0 .0 9 0 .0 5 0 .0 5 0 .0 1 0 .0 1 0 .0 1 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 0 .0 6 0 .0 1 0 .0 1 0 .0 3 a s a si n g le p a re n t w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 0 .0 8 0 .0 9 0 .0 5 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 2 0 .0 4 0 .0 1 0 .0 3 0 .0 3 0 .0 5 0 .0 5 sh a ri n g w it h o th e rs 3 .0 4 5 .3 1 2 .5 7 11 .6 8 11 .1 3 8 .6 6 7. 2 7 7. 5 5 9 .5 2 3 .1 3 6 .6 8 14 .8 4 • Katrin Schwanitz, Clara H. Mulder378 T a b . 2 : C o n ti n u a ti o n T y p e o f li v in g A u st ri a (A T ) S w it ze rl a n d ( C H ) F ra n c e ( F R ) Ir e la n d ( IE ) a rr a n g e m e n t 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 b y a g e g ro u p (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % 2 5 -2 9 (n = 2 5 ,9 9 1) (n = 3 5 ,9 4 0 ) (n = 2 6 ,9 8 8 ) (n = 1 0 ,8 2 0 ) (n = 1 5 ,0 9 8 )( n = 11 ,2 3 5 ) (n = 1 0 2 ,5 8 8 )( n = 8 9 ,3 3 1) (n = 1 0 6 ,1 3 1) (n = 1 0 ,4 6 0 ) (n = 11 ,1 0 9 ) (n = 1 6 ,1 9 6 ) w it h p a re n ts 3 1. 4 5 3 8 .6 3 4 2 .7 5 2 0 .6 2 2 2 .0 4 2 3 .4 9 17 .5 8 2 3 .6 4 2 7. 5 8 3 4 .4 6 4 4 .3 8 51 .0 2 a lo n e 9 .3 8 12 .0 8 1 8 .4 9 1 6 .5 2 2 2 .9 1 2 9 .9 7 9 .7 0 13 .7 8 17 .6 8 4 .7 1 5 .6 0 4 .7 1 a s a co u p le 12 .4 6 11 .8 6 12 .7 2 2 1. 2 2 2 4 .8 8 2 3 .8 2 1 8 .7 0 2 1. 2 4 2 4 .3 6 13 .9 2 11 .8 7 13 .4 7 a s a co u p le w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 2 .0 2 2 .2 7 1. 9 9 1. 0 4 1. 0 5 1. 0 7 1. 0 8 0 .8 9 1. 0 2 1. 6 3 2 .9 7 2 .7 2 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n 3 5 .1 0 2 4 .6 2 17 .7 3 2 7. 2 8 1 8 .9 4 12 .7 5 4 6 .4 6 3 4 .5 7 2 3 .5 2 3 9 .9 3 2 4 .6 8 1 0 .2 1 a s a co u p le w it h c h il - d re n a n d e x te n d e d fa m il y 6 .2 2 4 .4 7 3 .1 1 1. 6 6 1. 0 2 0 .7 9 1. 9 5 1. 3 7 0 .9 7 2 .9 2 3 .4 9 1. 11 a s si n g le p a re n t 0 .2 4 0 .2 4 0 .2 3 0 .0 5 0 .0 6 0 .1 6 0 .1 8 0 .1 5 0 .2 1 0 .1 6 0 .1 4 0 .0 9 a s a si n g le p a re n t w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 0 .1 6 0 .3 1 0 .1 6 0 .1 4 0 .0 1 0 .0 4 0 .1 3 0 .0 7 0 .1 5 0 .0 9 0 .1 3 0 .0 9 sh a ri n g w it h o th e rs 2 .9 7 5 .5 0 2 .8 2 11 .4 8 9 .0 9 7. 9 2 4 .2 2 4 .3 0 4 .5 0 2 .1 8 6 .7 4 1 6 .5 7 3 0 -3 4 (n = 2 6 ,9 8 1) (n = 3 1, 7 7 1) (n = 3 3 ,6 8 2 ) (n = 12 ,4 2 7 ) (n = 14 ,3 2 2 )( n = 13 ,6 0 0 ) (n = 1 0 8 ,4 2 4 )( n = 8 9 ,2 6 2 ) (n = 1 0 6 ,2 5 6 ) (n = 9 ,8 7 1) (n = 11 ,8 9 7 ) (n = 1 5 ,0 3 8 ) w it h p a re n ts 13 .8 4 1 9 .4 8 2 2 .0 7 8 .8 0 8 .9 4 8 .5 3 8 .1 9 1 0 .5 8 12 .6 2 1 6 .9 9 2 0 .2 5 2 6 .8 3 a lo n e 8 .6 3 11 .0 2 17 .7 9 11 .6 0 17 .4 3 2 5 .5 5 7. 17 1 0 .7 1 14 .9 7 4 .5 4 5 .4 7 6 .5 7 a s a c o u p le 1 0 .7 0 1 0 .2 0 11 .8 6 1 5 .0 8 1 9 .4 0 2 2 .9 9 9 .1 6 11 .1 9 13 .9 2 7. 4 6 1 0 .3 1 17 .5 8 a s a co u p le w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 1. 3 2 1. 5 0 1. 4 2 0 .8 0 0 .9 1 0 .6 9 0 .6 0 0 .5 1 0 .7 2 0 .7 4 2 .0 3 2 .4 1 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n 5 4 .7 6 4 5 .8 7 3 8 .8 5 5 3 .4 4 4 4 .6 8 3 6 .2 4 6 7. 6 8 6 1. 3 3 5 2 .2 9 6 4 .7 0 51 .8 6 3 3 .4 0 a s a co u p le w it h c h il - d re n a n d e x te n d e d fa m il y 7. 7 5 6 .1 8 4 .7 9 3 .3 2 2 .3 6 1. 2 6 3 .1 8 2 .0 4 1. 7 7 3 .1 8 5 .3 0 3 .2 5 a s si n g le p a re n t 0 .4 7 0 .6 0 0 .4 7 0 .1 4 0 .2 9 0 .3 9 0 .4 1 0 .3 8 0 .4 8 0 .5 3 0 .5 0 0 .3 2 a s a si n g le p a re n t w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 0 .2 6 0 .5 3 0 .2 9 0 .1 1 0 .0 9 0 .0 6 0 .1 9 0 .1 3 0 .2 3 0 .2 3 0 .2 7 0 .2 3 sh a ri n g w it h o th e rs 2 .2 7 4 .6 2 2 .4 6 6 .7 2 5 .9 0 4 .2 9 3 .4 2 3 .1 3 2 .9 9 1. 6 3 4 .0 2 9 .4 0 Living Arrangements of Young Adults in Europe • 379 T a b . 2 : C o n ti n u a ti o n T y p e o f li v in g H u n g a ry ( H U ) R o m a n ia ( R O ) P o rt u g a l ( P T ) G re e c e ( G R ) a rr a n g e m e n t 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 b y a g e g ro u p (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % 1 8 -1 9 (n = 7, 1 5 6 ) (n = 7, 3 4 8 ) (n = 6 ,9 0 7 ) (n = 2 5 ,3 0 8 ) (n = 3 3 ,1 8 5 ) (n = 2 9 ,1 0 2 ) (n = 8 ,5 3 1) (n = 8 ,5 6 3 ) (n = 7, 4 2 1) (n = 11 ,3 2 6 ) (n = 1 0 ,8 6 1) (n = 12 ,9 9 1) w it h p a re n ts 8 1. 41 8 5 .0 6 8 2 .4 2 9 0 .9 5 9 5 .4 4 9 6 .4 8 9 5 .4 2 9 6 .7 2 9 5 .8 9 9 1. 2 1 9 3 .7 1 9 1. 3 1 a lo n e 3 .7 5 3 .2 8 2 .8 2 2 .0 9 0 .9 2 1. 1 6 1. 14 0 .6 9 1. 2 7 5 .0 2 3 .9 5 5 .4 0 a s a co u p le 0 .9 5 0 .6 4 0 .4 2 1. 5 6 0 .4 6 0 .3 5 1. 0 4 0 .5 5 0 .5 8 0 .2 7 0 .1 0 0 .1 8 a s a co u p le w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 1. 0 2 0 .5 7 0 .7 4 1. 7 3 1. 3 2 0 .9 6 0 .7 5 0 .6 8 0 .4 4 0 .3 9 0 .1 8 0 .1 3 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n 0 .9 1 0 .9 7 0 .5 6 0 .9 7 0 .4 8 0 .4 0 0 .7 5 0 .6 0 0 .4 7 0 .3 4 0 .1 5 0 .2 2 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n a n d e x te n d e d f a m il y 0 .6 7 0 .6 0 0 .5 5 0 .8 8 0 .8 8 0 .6 6 0 .4 7 0 .3 9 0 .4 0 0 .1 9 0 .1 3 0 .1 0 a s si n g le p a re n t 0 .0 7 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 a s a si n g le p a re n t w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 0 .0 6 0 .0 8 0 .0 0 0 .0 5 0 .0 5 0 .0 0 0 .0 1 0 .0 2 0 .0 0 0 .0 5 0 .0 0 0 .0 1 sh a ri n g w it h o th e rs 11 .1 7 8 .7 9 12 .4 8 1. 7 7 0 .4 5 0 .0 0 0 .4 2 0 .3 6 0 .9 4 2 .5 2 1. 7 8 2 .6 4 2 0 - 2 4 (n = 2 0 ,5 6 0 ) (n = 17 ,2 14 ) (n = 1 9 ,9 4 3 ) (n = 7 3 ,8 8 9 ) (n = 9 5 ,0 7 7 ) (n = 8 2 ,4 7 7 ) (n = 1 9 ,5 13 ) (n = 1 9 ,5 4 8 ) (n = 1 9 ,9 7 9 ) (n = 2 3 ,3 8 3 ) (n = 3 1, 5 9 8 ) (n = 3 7, 2 2 1) w it h p a re n ts 5 7. 74 6 3 .8 7 7 1. 4 2 6 4 .8 8 6 7. 1 8 8 0 .8 2 6 8 .7 4 7 9 .7 4 8 1. 0 0 74 .4 8 8 3 .9 5 8 5 .4 0 a lo n e 5 .3 7 6 .4 3 5 .4 6 3 .4 0 2 .6 0 2 .9 0 2 .0 0 1. 6 0 3 .6 0 7. 3 6 6 .0 8 6 .2 1 a s a c o u p le 5 .5 4 5 .9 8 4 .6 5 8 .6 1 5 .3 7 3 .3 2 6 .4 6 5 .3 8 5 .2 8 4 .1 4 2 .6 0 1. 7 7 a s a co u p le w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 4 .6 0 3 .4 9 2 .6 8 5 .8 1 8 .2 9 5 .0 2 4 .3 3 3 .0 8 1. 9 2 2 .1 3 1. 1 0 0 .9 0 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n 12 .2 3 8 .9 3 4 .7 7 1 0 .7 2 8 .2 9 3 .7 1 12 .0 7 6 .4 9 4 .9 3 5 .8 2 2 .8 2 1. 4 3 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n a n d e x te n d e d f a m il y 6 .2 2 3 .2 6 1. 9 4 5 .1 9 7. 3 0 4 .1 9 5 .5 6 3 .0 3 1. 6 9 2 .6 8 1. 0 5 0 .6 3 a s si n g le p a re n t 0 .4 0 0 .5 3 0 .0 4 0 .0 6 0 .0 4 0 .0 1 0 .0 3 0 .0 1 0 .0 2 0 .0 4 0 .0 1 0 .0 1 a s a si n g le p a re n t w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 0 .2 7 0 .4 1 0 .0 8 0 .2 0 0 .2 5 0 .0 4 0 .1 2 0 .0 8 0 .1 1 0 .1 0 0 .0 5 0 .0 2 sh a ri n g w it h o th e rs 7. 6 3 7. 1 0 8 .9 7 1. 13 0 .7 0 0 .0 0 0 .7 0 0 .6 0 1. 4 7 3 .2 4 2 .3 4 3 .6 3 • Katrin Schwanitz, Clara H. Mulder380 T y p e o f li v in g H u n g a ry ( H U ) R o m a n ia ( R O ) P o rt u g a l ( P T ) G re e c e ( G R ) a rr a n g e m e n t 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 b y a g e g ro u p (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % 2 5 -2 9 (n = 2 2 ,3 9 5 ) (n = 1 5 ,8 3 2 ) (n = 1 8 ,6 8 9 ) (n = 7 2 ,8 3 2 ) (n = 6 1, 4 9 1) (n = 8 3 ,6 1 8 ) (n = 1 6 ,9 4 9 ) (n = 17 ,6 7 8 ) (n = 2 0 ,3 3 9 ) (n = 2 9 ,9 2 3 ) (n = 3 1, 3 8 3 ) (n = 3 9 ,3 6 7 ) w it h p a re n ts 2 4 .5 3 2 8 .4 6 4 3 .6 1 1 8 .1 6 2 6 .0 4 4 0 .9 1 2 4 .7 2 3 8 .9 7 4 6 .8 6 4 0 .3 7 5 5 .0 3 6 6 .1 4 a lo n e 5 .4 6 7. 9 7 8 .1 7 4 .1 1 4 .0 8 3 .9 6 2 .4 9 2 .4 2 5 .3 1 6 .0 8 5 .8 2 6 .5 5 a s a co u p le 7. 6 6 8 .1 6 12 .5 3 12 .6 7 7. 8 7 9 .5 9 9 .8 5 11 .6 6 1 6 .2 0 9 .3 5 9 .0 3 8 .8 0 a s a co u p le w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 4 .1 6 3 .2 2 3 .6 7 5 .0 5 5 .8 7 8 .2 2 3 .6 8 3 .5 4 2 .6 6 3 .0 7 2 .5 9 2 .4 2 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n 41 .4 2 3 8 .5 4 2 4 .6 0 4 5 .1 3 3 8 .6 8 2 1. 6 5 4 4 .6 6 3 3 .4 5 2 2 .1 0 2 8 .9 7 1 9 .8 3 1 0 .0 8 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n a n d e x te n d e d f a m il y 11 .7 6 7. 9 8 4 .6 4 13 .5 6 1 6 .0 6 1 5 .3 2 13 .5 6 8 .9 7 4 .7 7 1 0 .5 1 5 .3 7 2 .7 6 a s si n g le p a re n t 1. 0 3 1. 6 0 0 .1 5 0 .2 6 0 .1 7 0 .1 2 0 .0 6 0 .0 8 0 .0 8 0 .0 9 0 .0 9 0 .0 4 a s a si n g le p a re n t w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 0 .4 3 0 .6 2 0 .1 6 0 .4 1 0 .6 2 0 .2 3 0 .2 2 0 .3 0 0 .2 5 0 .2 5 0 .2 2 0 .1 3 sh a ri n g w it h o th e rs 3 .5 5 3 .4 6 2 .4 8 0 .6 4 0 .6 1 0 .0 0 0 .7 7 0 .6 1 1. 7 8 1. 3 1 2 .0 4 3 .0 7 3 0 -3 4 (n = 1 8 ,9 3 4 ) (n = 1 9 ,3 7 1) (n = 1 6 ,2 6 6 ) (n = 5 8 ,6 3 6 ) (n = 7 5 ,8 5 2 ) (n = 9 5 ,9 7 8 ) (n = 1 5 ,2 6 8 ) (n = 1 6 ,7 4 9 ) (n = 1 9 ,1 1 8 ) (n = 3 0 ,5 9 1) (n = 3 2 ,7 9 3 ) (n = 4 0 ,5 5 2 ) w it h p a re n ts 12 .3 5 17 .2 7 2 0 .9 0 7. 14 13 .0 1 1 8 .9 8 9 .2 0 1 5 .9 1 2 2 .3 4 17 .0 3 2 6 .4 8 3 8 .3 6 a lo n e 5 .0 3 7. 4 3 8 .1 3 3 .0 0 4 .0 8 4 .0 0 1. 9 3 2 .5 8 5 .2 2 4 .4 2 4 .7 9 6 .6 2 a s a c o u p le 4 .8 7 5 .4 1 8 .9 3 7. 5 7 5 .2 7 7. 0 7 5 .1 7 6 .5 5 11 .7 2 7. 2 4 8 .5 1 11 .8 8 a s a co u p le w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 1. 6 8 1. 5 5 1. 2 8 2 .3 1 2 .1 2 3 .9 6 1. 8 2 2 .0 0 1. 7 8 2 .1 2 2 .3 4 2 .7 8 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n 5 9 .6 1 5 4 .9 2 5 3 .3 3 6 2 .5 7 5 9 .4 0 4 4 .5 6 6 4 .9 8 5 9 .4 1 4 9 .3 2 51 .9 4 4 5 .2 4 3 1. 3 7 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n a n d e x te n d e d f a m il y 12 .0 9 8 .2 2 4 .7 1 1 6 .0 1 14 .3 0 2 0 .5 9 1 6 .0 9 12 .2 6 7. 3 0 1 6 .0 4 1 0 .6 6 6 .3 3 a s si n g le p a re n t 1. 3 2 2 .1 8 0 .4 9 0 .4 5 0 .4 4 0 .3 3 0 .2 0 0 .2 4 0 .2 6 0 .1 9 0 .3 1 0 .1 8 a s a si n g le p a re n t w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 0 .4 4 0 .8 7 0 .2 4 0 .5 2 0 .8 1 0 .5 2 0 .2 1 0 .4 3 0 .4 4 0 .4 1 0 .5 5 0 .3 9 sh a ri n g w it h o th e rs 2 .5 9 2 .1 4 1. 9 9 0 .4 3 0 .5 6 0 .0 0 0 .4 1 0 .6 3 1. 6 3 0 .6 1 1. 12 2 .0 8 T a b . 2 : C o n ti n u a ti o n N o te : N = 3 ,0 6 9 ,0 6 6 . U n w e ig h te d n a n d w e ig h te d p e rc e n ta g e s. S o u rc e : O w n c al cu la ti o n s b as e d o n I P U M S i. Living Arrangements of Young Adults in Europe • 381 T a b . 3: D is tr ib u ti o n o f liv in g a rr an g e m e n ts o f w o m e n in E u ro p e an c o u n tr ie s b y a g e g ro u p in 1 9 8 0 , 19 9 0 a n d 2 0 0 0 T y p e o f li v in g A u st ri a (A T ) S w it ze rl a n d ( C H ) F ra n c e ( F R ) Ir e la n d ( IE ) a rr a n g e m e n t 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 b y a g e g ro u p (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % 1 8 -1 9 (n = 13 ,0 51 ) (n = 1 0 ,6 5 6 ) (n = 9 ,7 7 5 ) (n = 3 ,2 0 5 ) (n = 4 ,3 7 7 ) (n = 3 ,5 8 8 ) (n = 41 ,8 3 7 ) (n = 3 6 ,0 7 8 ) (n = 3 8 ,9 0 0 ) (n = 4 ,8 5 4 ) (n = 2 ,8 5 0 ) (n = 6 ,9 7 2 ) w it h p a re n ts 8 0 .0 6 8 4 .1 6 8 7. 2 5 7 3 .3 5 8 0 .3 5 8 4 .4 5 7 5 .8 8 8 0 .7 9 7 7. 1 5 8 7. 0 2 8 6 .3 9 8 6 .3 5 a lo n e 3 .8 2 2 .9 3 4 .4 6 7. 5 8 5 .0 3 6 .3 3 4 .3 0 5 .1 9 9 .1 9 1. 1 9 1. 4 7 0 .5 3 a s a co u p le 4 .3 8 3 .8 1 3 .2 6 4 .3 7 3 .6 1 2 .1 5 8 .5 0 4 .9 9 3 .7 4 1. 4 2 0 .2 8 0 .8 7 a s a co u p le w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 1. 4 4 1. 6 7 0 .8 8 0 .5 3 0 .3 4 0 .4 7 0 .6 5 0 .4 1 0 .4 7 0 .6 0 0 .4 2 0 .2 6 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n 3 .7 1 1. 9 1 1. 2 2 2 .6 2 0 .8 9 0 .4 7 3 .5 4 1. 4 5 1. 0 1 2 .6 0 0 .7 4 0 .4 4 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n a n d e x te n d e d f a m il y 1. 5 3 1. 0 3 0 .5 1 0 .1 6 0 .1 4 0 .0 6 0 .3 6 0 .2 0 0 .1 3 0 .7 2 0 .7 0 0 .0 6 a s si n g le p a re n t 0 .6 7 0 .5 2 0 .4 8 0 .0 0 0 .0 2 0 .0 6 0 .2 7 0 .3 6 0 .3 6 0 .0 6 0 .9 1 0 .6 0 a s a si n g le p a re n t w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 2 .1 9 1. 5 5 1. 0 0 0 .2 8 0 .2 3 0 .1 4 0 .6 3 0 .6 4 0 .4 8 0 .5 8 0 .6 3 0 .4 4 sh a ri n g w it h o th e rs 2 .1 9 2 .4 2 0 .9 3 11 .1 1 9 .3 9 5 .8 8 5 .8 7 5 .9 8 7. 4 8 5 .8 1 8 .4 6 1 0 .4 4 2 0 -2 4 (n = 2 9 ,8 9 3 ) (n = 3 1, 9 6 0 ) (n = 2 3 ,1 9 4 ) (n = 1 0 ,4 0 7 ) (n = 12 ,5 0 7 ) (n = 9 ,7 8 5 )( n = 1 0 2 ,1 0 6 ) (n = 8 8 ,1 6 9 ) (n = 9 2 ,3 4 0 ) (n = 1 0 ,6 1 6 ) (n = 1 0 ,5 9 0 ) (n = 1 8 ,8 6 6 ) w it h p a re n ts 41 .2 6 4 9 .1 4 5 6 .5 5 3 0 .3 2 3 8 .0 6 4 4 .7 6 3 2 .9 7 41 .6 7 4 3 .7 6 5 5 .7 2 6 5 .8 5 6 6 .8 9 a lo n e 8 .2 1 9 .4 9 12 .1 8 17 .8 3 17 .8 7 2 0 .4 9 9 .5 4 11 .9 3 17 .4 0 3 .6 2 2 .6 7 1. 2 3 a s a c o u p le 12 .3 2 12 .1 1 11 .1 3 2 0 .0 0 2 3 .0 5 1 6 .7 6 2 3 .0 9 2 1. 6 7 1 9 .7 3 1 0 .9 7 4 .9 2 4 .9 2 a s a co u p le w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 2 .4 4 2 .7 3 2 .1 0 1. 0 0 1. 14 0 .9 8 1. 2 4 0 .9 6 1. 0 5 1. 9 7 2 .2 9 1. 4 0 a s a co u p le w it h c h il d re n 2 2 .1 7 13 .0 8 9 .2 0 14 .4 0 9 .5 5 5 .8 0 2 5 .2 0 14 .9 8 8 .9 6 2 0 .2 7 8 .1 2 3 .3 7 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n a n d e x te n d e d f a m il y 4 .9 8 3 .2 5 2 .3 9 1. 11 0 .5 8 0 .4 1 1. 3 7 0 .9 0 0 .5 8 2 .6 9 2 .0 3 0 .4 7 a s si n g le p a re n t 2 .3 1 3 .0 4 2 .2 7 0 .5 3 0 .5 4 0 .6 3 1. 3 1 1. 7 5 1. 74 0 .5 1 2 .5 5 2 .7 8 a s a si n g le p a re n t w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 3 .7 9 3 .5 5 2 .2 2 0 .6 2 0 .2 8 0 .1 8 0 .9 1 1. 1 6 0 .8 7 0 .8 0 1. 3 6 1. 0 8 sh a ri n g w it h o th e rs 2 .5 2 3 .6 0 1. 9 7 14 .1 9 8 .9 2 9 .9 7 4 .3 7 4 .9 9 5 .9 1 3 .4 5 1 0 .2 0 17 .8 6 • Katrin Schwanitz, Clara H. Mulder382 T a b . 3: C o n ti n u a ti o n T y p e o f li v in g A u st ri a (A T ) S w it ze rl a n d ( C H ) F ra n c e ( F R ) Ir e la n d ( IE ) a rr a n g e m e n t 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 b y a g e g ro u p (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % 2 5 -2 9 (n = 2 5 ,9 13 ) (n = 3 4 ,1 2 6 ) (n = 2 7, 2 9 2 ) (n = 1 0 ,8 9 1) (n = 14 ,1 8 5 ) (n = 11 ,2 6 3 )( n = 1 0 1, 5 5 5 ) (n = 8 9 ,8 8 9 ) (n = 1 0 5 ,2 5 4 ) (n = 9 ,8 7 9 ) (n = 11 ,8 0 8 ) (n = 1 6 ,2 5 7 ) w it h p a re n ts 12 .6 5 1 8 .5 1 2 1. 5 9 7. 5 5 9 .3 1 11 .0 1 8 .3 2 11 .3 1 14 .0 6 1 8 .6 7 2 8 .6 7 3 7. 0 0 a lo n e 7. 6 1 9 .6 3 14 .9 9 13 .0 6 17 .3 1 2 3 .7 4 7. 8 7 1 0 .5 6 14 .6 8 3 .3 6 3 .2 4 2 .9 2 a s a co u p le 12 .5 6 12 .9 6 1 5 .5 0 2 1. 6 5 2 8 .0 4 3 0 .4 7 14 .4 0 17 .9 2 2 4 .2 0 13 .7 2 13 .4 4 17 .1 1 a s a co u p le w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 1. 4 9 2 .0 5 2 .0 5 0 .8 4 1. 2 1 0 .9 1 0 .7 8 0 .7 3 1. 0 1 1. 3 7 3 .1 5 3 .0 4 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n 4 9 .4 3 3 9 .2 8 3 1. 4 9 4 4 .3 0 3 4 .9 9 2 4 .8 2 5 9 .9 5 5 0 .4 1 3 7. 0 3 5 4 .8 4 3 4 .5 0 1 5 .7 3 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n a n d e x te n d e d f a m il y 7. 6 3 6 .0 9 4 .6 5 2 .5 9 1. 8 7 1. 17 2 .7 0 1. 8 0 1. 4 2 3 .7 3 4 .2 6 1. 6 9 a s si n g le p a re n t 4 .0 8 5 .9 3 5 .4 1 1. 7 8 1. 7 9 1. 9 3 3 .3 1 4 .1 4 4 .6 0 1. 4 8 3 .6 3 4 .9 7 a s a si n g le p a re n t w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 2 .8 3 3 .2 0 2 .6 2 0 .7 9 0 .4 2 0 .2 4 1. 0 1 1. 2 0 1. 0 8 0 .9 1 1. 4 5 1. 6 8 sh a ri n g w it h o th e rs 1. 7 1 2 .3 5 1. 7 1 7. 4 5 5 .0 5 5 .7 2 1. 6 6 1. 9 3 1. 9 1 1. 9 3 7. 6 6 15 .8 5 3 0 -3 4 (n = 2 6 ,2 8 7 ) (n = 3 0 ,2 2 7 ) (n = 3 3 ,0 12 ) (n = 12 ,0 5 5 ) (n = 13 ,3 3 1) (n = 13 ,7 9 2 )( n = 1 0 4 ,4 13 ) (n = 8 9 ,5 9 7 ) (n = 1 0 7, 3 6 2 ) (n = 9 ,4 4 8 ) (n = 12 ,1 8 8 ) (n = 1 5 ,0 6 6 ) w it h p a re n ts 5 .1 1 7. 5 2 8 .4 3 3 .3 6 3 .3 2 4 .1 3 3 .9 8 4 .2 0 5 .5 5 8 .8 1 11 .7 0 1 6 .9 5 a lo n e 5 .6 5 7. 8 6 11 .1 5 8 .6 7 11 .7 7 1 6 .2 3 5 .4 7 6 .9 7 9 .7 9 2 .7 3 3 .2 2 4 .2 7 a s a co u p le 8 .4 7 8 .8 3 1 0 .8 8 12 .0 9 1 6 .9 2 2 0 .4 8 6 .7 7 7. 7 9 1 0 .1 2 5 .3 3 7. 9 9 1 5 .7 2 a s a co u p le w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 0 .8 7 1. 0 9 1. 1 5 0 .6 2 0 .7 7 0 .6 5 0 .4 9 0 .3 7 0 .4 7 0 .6 6 1. 51 2 .1 8 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n 6 1. 9 4 5 5 .8 0 5 0 .7 3 6 2 .8 9 5 7. 1 9 4 9 .0 2 7 2 .5 4 6 9 .2 9 6 1. 9 0 74 .0 2 5 9 .1 7 41 .3 8 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n a n d e x te n d e d f a m il y 8 .7 5 7. 1 5 5 .5 4 4 .3 5 2 .9 5 1. 7 3 3 .7 6 2 .4 4 2 .0 2 3 .3 4 6 .4 1 3 .8 2 a s si n g le p a re n t 5 .9 7 7. 6 4 9 .0 1 3 .7 8 3 .7 0 4 .7 4 5 .1 6 6 .6 9 7. 9 1 2 .3 3 4 .8 2 6 .1 9 a s a si n g le p a re n t w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 2 .0 5 2 .6 0 2 .0 9 0 .9 4 0 .5 6 0 .4 0 0 .8 8 0 .9 9 1. 12 0 .7 9 1. 5 8 1. 7 9 sh a ri n g w it h o th e rs 1. 1 8 1. 5 2 1. 0 1 3 .3 0 2 .8 4 2 .6 2 0 .9 6 1. 2 5 1. 1 0 1. 9 9 3 .5 9 7. 6 9 Living Arrangements of Young Adults in Europe • 383 T a b . 3: C o n ti n u a ti o n T y p e o f li v in g H u n g a ry ( H U ) R o m a n ia ( R O ) P o rt u g a l ( P T ) G re e c e ( G R ) a rr a n g e m e n t 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 b y a g e g ro u p (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % 1 8 -1 9 (n = 6 ,5 1 8 ) (n = 6 ,7 2 4 ) (n = 6 ,5 2 1) (n = 2 6 ,8 0 5 ) (n = 3 2 ,5 2 8 ) (n = 2 8 ,2 9 8 ) (n = 8 ,2 6 4 ) (n = 8 ,0 9 5 ) (n = 7, 1 9 6 ) (n = 12 ,7 2 3 ) (n = 13 ,3 2 4 ) (n = 13 ,4 9 8 ) w it h p a re n ts 5 6 .6 7 6 8 .9 2 7 5 .7 1 6 4 .5 0 7 6 .2 2 8 1. 5 2 8 0 .7 4 8 7. 6 1 8 8 .0 1 7 2 .5 2 8 5 .0 6 8 4 .6 9 a lo n e 5 .7 2 4 .6 1 3 .6 2 1. 6 2 0 .5 8 1. 3 0 0 .9 1 0 .6 1 1. 9 0 3 .4 4 3 .4 8 6 .2 6 a s a co u p le 6 .3 2 4 .5 7 2 .1 3 8 .8 6 3 .7 0 2 .7 4 4 .2 1 2 .8 3 2 .5 7 5 .0 2 2 .5 8 1. 9 6 a s a co u p le w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 6 .1 8 3 .4 5 2 .1 3 6 .5 4 7. 3 8 5 .0 9 3 .1 0 2 .1 0 1. 3 5 2 .6 6 1. 5 7 1. 2 5 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n 8 .4 1 4 .5 7 2 .2 5 9 .5 9 4 .5 1 3 .4 7 5 .7 6 3 .1 4 2 .5 4 8 .7 2 3 .2 2 1. 5 5 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n a n d e x te n d e d f a m il y 5 .2 6 2 .5 6 1. 4 9 5 .4 5 5 .3 6 4 .5 1 3 .2 8 1. 7 7 1. 2 5 4 .5 0 1. 6 5 0 .8 5 a s si n g le p a re n t 0 .9 4 0 .9 8 0 .3 7 0 .2 4 0 .0 7 0 .1 2 0 .0 6 0 .1 0 0 .0 8 0 .1 3 0 .0 2 0 .0 4 a s a si n g le p a re n t w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 1. 41 1. 2 3 0 .9 4 1. 6 8 1. 4 0 1. 2 5 1. 0 9 1. 0 7 1. 1 0 0 .7 5 0 .1 6 0 .1 9 sh a ri n g w it h o th e rs 9 .0 8 9 .1 2 11 .3 6 1. 5 2 0 .7 6 0 .0 0 0 .8 6 0 .7 8 1. 2 0 2 .2 5 2 .2 7 3 .2 2 2 0 -2 4 (n = 1 9 ,7 9 0 ) (n = 1 6 ,4 7 0 ) (n = 17 ,8 17 ) (n = 7 6 ,5 6 8 ) (n = 9 5 ,2 1 5 ) (n = 8 0 ,8 4 8 ) (n = 1 9 ,2 7 1) (n = 1 8 ,8 2 4 ) (n = 1 9 ,5 5 4 ) (n = 3 2 ,3 6 0 ) (n = 3 4 ,7 5 0 ) (n = 3 6 ,6 9 9 ) w it h p a re n ts 2 4 .9 2 3 3 .5 6 5 4 .2 1 2 7. 5 4 3 5 .8 1 51 .7 3 4 5 .2 7 5 8 .5 7 6 5 .4 0 4 2 .7 9 5 8 .0 7 7 0 .9 3 a lo n e 5 .3 4 6 .9 6 6 .3 2 2 .2 2 1. 7 3 2 .5 2 1. 3 1 1. 7 5 3 .7 7 4 .2 0 5 .2 9 5 .9 4 a s a co u p le 9 .0 3 9 .9 8 9 .8 2 12 .7 1 7. 7 8 7. 3 5 9 .5 8 9 .3 6 9 .8 1 8 .1 6 7. 3 7 6 .7 2 a s a co u p le w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 5 .7 5 4 .9 3 4 .0 9 6 .1 9 8 .2 9 7. 9 7 4 .6 3 4 .0 1 2 .7 7 2 .8 7 2 .5 1 2 .4 0 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n 3 2 .4 4 2 5 .5 6 12 .2 9 3 5 .2 5 2 6 .3 2 14 .7 5 2 6 .2 9 17 .0 0 11 .0 3 2 7. 8 8 17 .2 8 8 .4 0 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n a n d e x te n d e d f a m il y 11 .9 4 7. 2 3 3 .7 2 12 .1 4 1 5 .2 5 12 .6 0 9 .5 9 5 .6 7 3 .4 9 1 0 .5 5 5 .8 3 3 .0 8 a s si n g le p a re n t 2 .8 5 3 .1 6 1. 3 3 0 .6 7 0 .6 7 0 .4 9 0 .6 2 0 .4 1 0 .5 8 0 .3 9 0 .3 1 0 .2 1 a s a si n g le p a re n t w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 2 .8 5 2 .9 4 2 .2 4 2 .3 9 3 .3 5 2 .5 9 1. 8 7 2 .3 3 1. 9 1 1. 2 0 0 .6 8 0 .5 3 sh a ri n g w it h o th e rs 4 .8 7 5 .6 8 5 .9 9 0 .8 9 0 .7 9 0 .0 0 0 .8 4 0 .9 1 1. 2 4 1. 9 6 2 .6 6 1. 8 0 • Katrin Schwanitz, Clara H. Mulder384 T a b . 3: C o n ti n u a ti o n T y p e o f li v in g H u n g a ry ( H U ) R o m a n ia ( R O ) P o rt u g a l ( P T ) G re e c e ( G R ) a rr a n g e m e n t 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 b y a g e g ro u p (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % (n ) % 2 5 -2 9 (n = 2 1, 7 5 5 ) (n = 1 5 ,2 41 ) (n = 17 ,8 17 ) (n = 7 3 ,3 7 6 ) (n = 6 0 ,7 9 9 ) (n = 8 1, 9 5 6 ) (n = 17 ,1 3 0 ) (n = 1 8 ,0 0 6 ) (n = 2 0 ,1 2 8 ) (n = 3 0 ,9 2 1) (n = 3 3 ,0 74 ) (n = 3 7, 8 8 5 ) w it h p a re n ts 1 0 .8 2 1 0 .1 0 2 2 .7 3 7. 8 4 1 0 .2 3 2 0 .3 5 1 5 .2 4 2 2 .5 5 3 0 .2 9 17 .3 9 2 5 .1 6 4 0 .7 7 a lo n e 3 .8 4 5 .4 7 6 .9 0 2 .2 3 2 .5 0 2 .9 0 1. 6 2 2 .2 3 4 .7 3 3 .5 3 3 .8 5 5 .6 6 a s a c o u p le 5 .8 1 6 .5 7 13 .5 0 8 .3 5 5 .8 8 9 .2 3 6 .4 8 1 0 .0 2 1 6 .8 6 7. 5 2 9 .1 9 12 .9 0 a s a co u p le w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 2 .2 7 1. 6 3 2 .5 6 2 .6 3 2 .7 2 5 .8 5 2 .4 9 2 .7 9 2 .4 8 1. 9 0 2 .1 8 2 .9 5 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n 5 5 .5 0 5 5 .4 7 4 0 .8 0 5 9 .5 5 5 7. 0 5 3 6 .2 4 5 4 .9 0 4 6 .2 3 3 4 .6 3 51 .2 1 4 5 .2 4 2 7. 8 8 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n a n d e x te n d e d f a m il y 12 .6 7 9 .2 5 5 .2 3 14 .9 6 1 5 .3 9 1 9 .7 8 14 .4 8 1 0 .9 5 5 .9 8 1 5 .2 8 1 0 .5 5 6 .5 0 a s si n g le p a re n t 4 .9 5 6 .6 3 4 .0 8 1. 6 1 2 .3 6 1. 6 8 1. 7 9 1. 5 9 1. 6 2 1. 0 4 1. 3 0 1. 0 6 a s a si n g le p a re n t w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 2 .6 8 3 .3 0 3 .0 7 2 .3 2 3 .3 7 3 .9 7 2 .2 0 2 .9 0 2 .3 0 1. 3 7 1. 3 0 1. 2 9 sh a ri n g w it h o th e rs 1. 4 7 1. 5 7 1. 13 0 .5 2 0 .5 0 0 .0 0 0 .7 9 0 .7 4 1. 12 0 .7 6 1. 2 3 0 .9 9 3 0 -3 4 (n = 1 8 ,5 6 7 ) (n = 1 9 ,3 0 8 ) (n = 1 5 ,5 0 8 ) (n = 5 8 ,3 0 3 ) (n = 7 5 ,7 4 2 ) (n = 9 5 ,6 5 0 ) (n = 1 6 ,1 12 ) (n = 17 ,7 3 8 ) (n = 1 9 ,0 7 5 ) (n = 3 1, 2 8 9 ) (n = 3 4 ,1 2 0 ) (n = 3 9 ,8 7 9 ) w it h p a re n ts 6 .0 6 5 .4 0 7. 2 6 3 .8 6 4 .0 7 8 .4 3 8 .9 4 9 .4 8 11 .3 4 8 .6 9 9 .8 1 17 .1 3 a lo n e 3 .2 2 3 .9 8 4 .7 8 1. 7 9 2 .4 2 2 .5 9 1. 5 9 1. 9 7 3 .9 2 2 .5 2 3 .2 2 4 .9 1 a s a co u p le 4 .3 2 4 .2 4 6 .4 0 5 .9 4 4 .0 5 5 .7 0 3 .6 6 4 .4 7 8 .7 1 4 .6 9 5 .8 1 9 .5 6 a s a co u p le w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 1. 2 0 1. 0 9 0 .8 0 1. 6 0 1. 1 9 2 .6 2 1. 2 2 1. 1 8 1. 2 4 1. 41 1. 3 9 2 .4 3 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n 6 2 .7 1 6 2 .6 3 6 5 .4 5 6 6 .5 6 6 7. 9 6 5 3 .5 9 6 3 .3 3 6 4 .4 4 5 9 .9 1 6 1. 0 0 6 2 .1 0 5 0 .6 6 a s a co u p le w it h ch il d re n a n d e x te n d e d f a m il y 12 .7 8 8 .7 8 3 .7 1 1 5 .1 9 12 .6 8 1 8 .8 1 1 5 .3 4 11 .9 9 8 .0 0 1 8 .2 8 13 .0 7 9 .7 2 a s si n g le p a re n t 6 .3 3 1 0 .1 8 8 .4 9 2 .6 9 4 .4 0 3 .9 4 2 .9 9 3 .2 8 3 .4 4 1. 8 6 2 .6 1 2 .9 4 a s a si n g le p a re n t w it h e x te n d e d f a m il y 2 .5 0 3 .0 4 2 .6 2 2 .0 7 2 .8 8 4 .3 3 2 .2 2 2 .7 2 2 .5 9 1. 3 0 1. 51 1. 9 6 sh a ri n g w it h o th e rs 0 .8 8 0 .6 7 0 .4 9 0 .3 1 0 .3 5 0 .0 0 0 .7 3 0 .4 7 0 .8 5 0 .2 5 0 .4 9 0 .7 0 N o te : N = 3 ,0 5 0 ,4 3 4 . U n w e ig h te d n a n d w e ig h te d p e rc e n ta g e s. S o u rc e : O w n c al cu la ti o n s b as e d o n I P U M S i Living Arrangements of Young Adults in Europe • 385 are particularly likely to live with members of the extended family – far exceeding levels in France and Switzerland. In Austria and Ireland, however, extended family living arrangements (i.e., couples with children and parents and/or extended fam- ily) are quite common, particularly for young adults in the age group of 30-34 years which mirror their Southern and Eastern European counterparts. Similarly, living with parents is considerably more common in Southern and Eastern Europe in the older age groups (i.e., 25-29 years old and 30-34 years old, respectively) than in Western Europe (Austria, France, Ireland, and Switzerland). We furthermore fi nd that across age groups living alone and sharing with others is generally m Distribu- tion of living arrangements of WOMEN in European countries by age group in 1980, 1990 and 2000ore prevalent in Western European countries and Hungary than in Southern and Eastern Europe. Living as a couple with children is the most common living arrangement for both men and women and the differences between the coun- tries are relatively small. The parameter estimates for the two-way interaction between living arrange- ment and country( ) from our log-linear model are shown in Figures 1 and 2 (for men and women, respectively); the effect sizes are drawn as country abbreviations along the x-axis for each of the nine living arrangements. Positive parameters dis- play overrepresentation and negative parameters underrepresentation with regard to the two-way interaction. For example, we see in Figure 1 that the country abbre- viation CH (= Switzerland) has a positive parameter (i.e., is situated to the right of 0) for the living arrangement alone. This means that living alone is overrepresented among young men in Switzerland. The opposite holds if a country abbreviation has a negative parameter. More substantively, we see that there are considerable dif- ferences in living arrangements across countries: Southern and Eastern Europeans are particularly likely to live with their parents and/or extended family. A case in point is living as a single parent with parents and/or extended family, which is more common in Southern and Eastern Europe. As a Western European country Ireland interestingly shows that young adults are more likely to be in the category living with parents, which means that they are in this respect closer to young adults in Southern and Eastern Europe. If we now look at non-family living arrangements (i.e., sharing with others and living alone), we see that these living arrangements are gen- erally more common in Western Europe. For example, young adults are more likely to live alone in Austria, France, and Switzerland – but not in Ireland. And fi nally, liv- ing as a couple is more common in France and Switzerland – but not in Austria and Ireland or Southern and Eastern Europe. 4.2 Cross- temporal Differences in Living Arrangements Again, we turn fi rst to Tables 1 and 2, and see that there is an upward trend of living with parents between 1980 and 2000, but the increase for the age groups 20-24, 25-29, and 30-34 was much stronger in the Southern and Eastern European coun- tries than in Western Europe. At the same time, living alone increases in Austria, Switzerland, and France across all age groups, but only slightly in the Southern and Eastern European countries and Ireland. Across all countries there is a decrease in • Katrin Schwanitz, Clara H. Mulder386 the percentages of young adults living as a couple with children. While the change over time for women generally mirrors that of their male counterparts, sex differ- ences have not diminished over time. The importance of the cross-national com- parison becomes salient when we examine changes in living arrangements over time in the European countries. To obtain more insight into the changes over time between 1980 and 2000, Figures 1 and 2 additionally present two parameter esti- mates for the three-way interaction between living arrangement, country and year ( ) from our log-linear model. Below each two-way interaction, we display over- Fig. 1: Cross-national and cross-temporal differences in young men’s living arrangements. Lambda parameters for the two-way (LC) and three-way interaction (LCY) Note: AT = Austria; CH = Switzerland; IE = Ireland; FR = France; GR = Greece; HU = Hungary; PT = Portugal; RO = Romania. Source: Own calculations based on IPUMSi = steady increase 1980-1990 and 1990-2000 = steady decrease 1980-1990 and 1990-2000 = increase 1980-1990/decrease 1990-2000 = decrease 1980-1990/increase 1990-2000 = ns 1980-1990/decrease 1990-2000 = ns 1980-1990/increase 1990-2000 = decrease 1980-1990/ns 1990-2000 = increase 1980-1990/ns 1990-2000 AT = ns 2-way interaction Living Arrangements of Young Adults in Europe • 387 and underrepresentation for the year 1980 and 2000, respectively by a line point- ing up or down. For example, in Figure 1 we see a line pointing down below the country abbreviation FR (=France) for the living arrangement alone. This means that living alone is underrepresented in both 1980 and 2000 (i.e., steadily decreased between the two time points) among young men in France. More substantively, we see that for both men and women across almost all countries – Romania being the exception – there was an upward trend in non-family living arrangements between 1990 and 2000. For example, it was more likely that young adults are sharing with Fig. 2: Cross-national and cross-temporal differences in young women’s living arrangements. Lambda parameters for the two-way (LC) and three-way interaction (LCY) Note: AT = Austria; CH = Switzerland; IE = Ireland; FR = France; GR = Greece; HU = Hungary; PT = Portugal; RO = Romania. Source: Own calculations based on IPUMSi = steady increase 1980-1990 and 1990-2000 = steady decrease 1980-1990 and 1990-2000 = increase 1980-1990/decrease 1990-2000 = decrease 1980-1990/increase 1990-2000 = ns 1980-1990/decrease 1990-2000 = ns 1980-1990/increase 1990-2000 = decrease 1980-1990/ns 1990-2000 = increase 1980-1990/ns 1990-2000 AT = ns 2-way interaction • Katrin Schwanitz, Clara H. Mulder388 others in 2000 compared to other years. Similarly, we see that between 1990 and 2000 there was a general downward trend across almost all countries in living as a couple with parents and/or extended family, and as a couple with children and par- ents and/or extended family. In Hungary and Romania, however, opposite changes occurred in the same period and extended family living arrangements did not be- come less common over time here. Finally, we see that young men and women have become less likely to be living as a couple in France and Switzerland in 2000 compared to other years. 4.3 Age Differences in Living Arrangements by Country Figures 3 and 4 present (for men and women, respectively) the parameter estimates for the three-way interaction between living arrangement, country and age group ( ); we display over- and underrepresentation for each age group (by country and living arrangement) with big and small circles. For example, we see in Figure 3 for the living arrangement alone in HU (= Hungary) two small circles for the age groups of 18-19 and 20-24 years and one big circle for the age group 30-34 years. This means that living alone is underrepresented in the two younger age groups but overrepresented in the oldest age group among young men in Hungary. The order of circles along the x-axis points to the order of the magnitude of the effects. Substantively, the results indicate country patterns for different age groups: it is generally more likely in Southern and Eastern European countries that young adults in the age groups of 18-19 and 20-24 years are either living as a couple, as a couple with children, as a couple with parents and/or extended family, or as a couple with children and parents and/or extended family, whereas young adults in Western Eu- ropean countries are underrepresented among these younger age groups and living arrangements. This pattern is quite similar for men and women, but we note that the age pattern for young men in Austria and Greece mimics that of Southern and East- ern Europe, and Western Europe, respectively. The results furthermore indicate that both young men and women in the age groups of 25-29 and 30-34 years are more likely to be in the category living with parents in Southern and Eastern Europe. For young adults sharing with others, however, the age pattern is less clear and we do not see a clear North/West – South/East divide. Similarly, the age pattern of young adults living alone in Greece is similar to those in Western Europe, and of young adults living alone in Ireland similar to Southern and Eastern Europe. Living as a single parent and living as a single parent with parents and/or extended family is least likely for young women in the age groups of 25-29 and 30-34 years in Western Europe, while it is more likely in the same age groups for their Southern and Eastern European counterparts. 4.4 Sex Differences in Living Arrangements If we compare the descriptive results from Tables 1 and 2 with respect to sex dif- ferences, we see that living with parents is much more common for men than for women across all countries and age groups. In addition, men are more often sharing Living Arrangements of Young Adults in Europe • 389 with others or living alone. The results also show that living as a single parent and living as single parent with parents and/or extended family are very much female living arrangements. Across all countries a maximum of only 2 percent of the men live in a single parent arrangement. Women live more frequently as single parents (and thus without parents or extended family) in Austria, France, Switzerland, but also in Ireland. By comparison, there are no large differences between living as single parent and living as single parent with parents and/or extended family in Romania, Portugal, and Greece. The changes over time are generally similar for men and women, but there are slight differences with respect to the various living arrangements of young couples. Here, the changes for women were less strong but did follow a cross-national pattern. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate furthermore that there are divergent trends of living as a single parent with parents and/or extended family between men and women. We should be cautious, however, to draw conclusions from this, because the proportion of men living in such a living arrangement is too small. For women, we see a regional pattern that is in line with the other extended living arrangements: in Western and Southern Europe single parents living with par- ents and/or extended family have become less common over time in all countries but Ireland, while it has become more common in Romania. 5 Conclusions and Discussion This paper focuses on variation in young adults’ living arrangements across eight European countries and different national contexts, as well as taking into account cross-time variability. Drawing on IPUMSi data for the census rounds 1980, 1990, and 2000 for eight European countries (Austria, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland), we examined associations between young adults’ living arrangements, country, year, and age group, controlling for the chang- ing marginal distributions of these characteristics, for men and women. Because we capture a wide variety of young adults’ living arrangements and explicitly include extended family living arrangements and non-family living arrangements, our fi nd- ings are a unique contribution to the literature on young adults’ living arrangements in Europe. Furthermore, we add to the debate about changes in living arrangements between European countries and European diversity in living arrangements. Meth- odologically, our analysis builds on saturated models, which do not reduce the com- plexity of estimating cell counts in the contingency table, but nevertheless provide a straightforward measure to assess cross-national and cross-temporal differences in young adults’ living arrangements differences. Because we are primarily con- cerned with describing regional differences and trends in young adults’ living ar- rangements, we concentrate on selected key parameters. Our fi rst question addressed how much diversity in living arrangements is ob- servable across European countries. We found that there are country differences for almost all nine living arrangements of young adults. The exception is living as a cou- ple with children, which is a dominant living arrangement across all countries partic- ularly among older age groups (i.e., 25-29 years and 30-34 years). But diversity is es- • Katrin Schwanitz, Clara H. Mulder390 F ig . 3: A g e d if fe re n ce s in y o u n g m e n ’s li v in g a rr an g e m e n ts . L am b d a p a ra m e te rs f o r th e t h re e -w ay in te ra c ti o n ( LC A ) Living Arrangements of Young Adults in Europe • 391 F ig . 4: A g e d if fe re n ce s in y o u n g w o m e n ’s li v in g a rr an g e m e n ts . L am b d a p a ra m e te rs f o r th e t h re e -w ay in te ra c ti o n ( LC A ) N o te : A T = A u st ri a; C H = S w it ze rl an d ; IE = Ir e la n d ; F R = F ra n ce ; G R = G re e ce ; H U = H u n g ar y ; P T = P o rt u g al ; R O = R o m an ia . T h e fi g u re d is p la y s th e p ar am e te r e st im at e s fo r t h e th re e -w ay in te ra ct io n b e tw e e n fa m ily li v in g a rr an g e m e n t, c o u n tr y a n d a g e g ro u p ( ). W e o n ly c o n si d e re d p ar am e te r e st im at e s w it h a n e ff e ct s iz e la rg e r th an 0 .1 0 a n d w h ic h a re s ig n ifi ca n t at p < .0 5 . B ig c ir cl e s re p re se n t p o si ti v e p ar am e te r e st im at e s (o v e rr e p re se n ta ti o n ) an d s m al l ci rc le s re p re se n t n e g at iv e p ar am e te r e st im at e s (u n d e rr e p re se n ta ti o n ). S o u rc e : IP U M S i, o w n c al cu la ti o n s • Katrin Schwanitz, Clara H. Mulder392 pecially pronounced if we look at extended and non-family living arrangements. Net of demographic controls, living alone or sharing with others is signifi cantly more common in Western European countries, whereas living with parents, living as a couple with parents and/or extended family, and living as a couple with children and parents and/or extended family is signifi cantly more common in Southern and East- ern Europe. This pattern is generally compatible with longstanding, systemic vari- ation in family forms and cultures that follows a North/West – South/East gradient (Hajnal 1965; Reher 1998). Nonetheless, we note that Ireland and Austria are much more similar to Southern and Eastern Europe with respect to (some) extended fam- ily living arrangements: living with parents and living with parents and/or extended family, respectively. It could be, for example, that a signifi cant proportion of South- ern and Eastern European young adults – namely those at younger ages, without a partner and those being single parents – are living with parents and/or extended family to rely on intergenerational assistance in shared living arrangements, given the smaller provision of institutional support in these countries, as prior research suggests (Chambaz 2001; Sobotka/Toulemon 2008; Albertini/Kohli 2013). Our second question asked how the living arrangements have changed between 1980 and 2000. We found that the changes over time also differed across countries: extended family living arrangements (i.e., as a couple with parents and/or extended family, or as a couple with children and parents and/or extended family) have be- come less common between 1980 and 2000 in Western and Southern Europe, but not in Hungary or Romania. Furthermore, there has been an upward trend – espe- cially in Southern and Eastern Europe – of both young men and women living with parents between 1980 and 2000. This period also marked an increase in non-fam- ily living arrangements in Austria, Switzerland, and France, but not in Ireland and Southern and Eastern Europe. But we also found similar changes across European countries – particularly a decline in young adults living as a couple with children over time (although most young adults aged 25 years or older still live with a partner and children). These results are generally in line with prior research (e.g., Fokkema/ Liefbroer 2008; Sobotka/Toulemon 2008; Billari/Liefbroer 2010) and might suggest that longer time spent in education, later labour-market entry, and postponement of relationship and family formation translates into young adults staying longer with their parents in Southern and Eastern Europe and Ireland, while young adults in Western and Northern Europe leave earlier and live at least for some time alone or share a fl at with others before married or unmarried cohabitation. It is important to note that extended living arrangements are quite robust in (parts) of Eastern Europe. This might suggest that a mix of economic constraints, housing and labour markets as well as the transition to market economy in Eastern Europe have affected living arrangements of young adults (Iacovou 2004; Sobotka/Toulemon 2008). We furthermore investigated differences in young adults’ family living arrange- ments by socio-demographic groups. We found that men are more likely to be living with their parents than women across all countries, but while these sex differences are generally similar across age groups in Southern and Western Europe, living with parents is most apparent among men from younger age groups in Western Europe. Both men and women in Eastern Europe – rather than just living as a couple – seem Living Arrangements of Young Adults in Europe • 393 to be more likely to live as a couple in an extended family living arrangement (e.g., as a couple with parents and/or extended family, or as a couple with children and parents and/or extended family). The largest differences between men and women, generally, pertain to living as a single parent and living as a single parent with par- ents and/or extended family. It is well documented in previous research that the age-structuring of life course events is different for young men and women (e.g., Fokkema/Liefbroer 2008; Sobotka/Toulemon 2008; Billari/Liefbroer 2010; Iacovou/ Skew 2011). Young women, in general, make transitions (e.g., forming relationships, having a fi rst child) earlier than men. Although early relationship and family forma- tion may also be related to biological limits of fertility, research has highlighted the importance of age norms that capture concepts about the timing, sequencing and duration of life course events and which affect young adults’ demographic and residential choices (Billari/Liefbroer 2007). In this light, our results are not surpris- ing, but it is nonetheless interesting to note that single young mothers in Eastern Europe particularly tend to live with parents and/or extended family and not alone. With respect to differences between age groups the results are consistent with pre- vious fi ndings and have been noted before (e.g., Kuijsten 1996; Fokkema/Liefbroer 2008; Sobotka/Toulemon 2008): in Southern and Eastern Europe it is much more common for young adults at younger ages (18-19 and 20-34) to live with a partner and children and at older ages (25-29 and 30-34) to live with their parents. Because our data are cross-sectional we cannot separate whether these differences are due to cohort or age effects. In general, our results on young adults’ family living arrangements match prior research fi ndings regarding regional differences and the North/West – South/East divide (e.g., Kalmijn/Saraceno 2008; Billari/Liefbroer 2010). But our results have also shown that, despite regional patterns in family living arrangements, countries re- main strikingly different – cases in point in our analysis are Ireland and Austria. It is a common puzzle of comparative research that studies do not always establish homogeneity in the outcome under consideration between all countries in one re- gional or welfare type classifi cation. We do not claim that the exceptions we have found justify overturning these classifi cations – more observations like this would be needed – but that an understanding of the variation in family living arrangements across Europe also warrants to be cautious about country-specifi c circumstances (including the cultural, religious, socio-economic and policy context). Our fi ndings moreover highlight the decrease in extended family living arrangements between 1980 and 2000 in Western and Northern Europe, which is largely absent in Eastern Europe, and update our understanding of family living arrangements in Europe. For future research, we suggest to expand the analysis to more European countries in order to arrive at a more complete picture about cross-national variation in fam- ily living arrangements and its determining factors. The choice of data sources is crucial in this respect. Although the IPUMSi data are of particular value due to their sample sizes and reliable measures across countries, they do not cover the whole of Europe. It would be particularly interesting to include the Scandinavian and Baltic countries into further analysis. • Katrin Schwanitz, Clara H. Mulder394 Acknowledgements Katrin Schwanitz’s work was conducted under the remit of the iPOPs laboratory of excellence, supported by heSam Université, under the reference ANR-10-Labx -0089. The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewer for their valua- ble comments and suggestions, and also wish to acknowledge the statistical offi ces that provided the underlying data making this research possible: Austria, National Bureau of Statistics; France, National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies; Greece, National Statistical Offi ce; Hungary, Central Statistical Offi ce; Ireland, Cen- tral Statistics Offi ce; Portugal, National Institute of Statistics; Romania, National In- stitute of Statistics; Switzerland, Federal Statistical Offi ce. References Aassve, Arnstein et al. 2002: Leaving home: a comparative analysis of ECHP data. In: Journal of European Social Policy 12,4: 259-275 [http://esp.sagepub.com/con- tent/12/4/259]. Aassve, Arnstein; Mazzuco, Stefano; Mencarini, Letitia 2005: Childbearing and well- being: a comparative analysis of European welfare regimes. In: Journal of European Social Policy 15,4: 283-299 [doi: 10.1177/0958928705057262]. Agresti, Alan 2013: Categorical Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Ahmed, Patricia; Emigh, Rebecca J. 2005: Household composition in post-socialist East- ern Europe. In: International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 25,3: 9-41 [doi: 10.1108/01443330510791117]. Albertini, Marco; Kohli, Martin 2013: The generational contract in the family: An analysis of transfer regimes in Europe. In: European Sociological Review 29,4: 828-840 [doi: 10.1093/esr/jcs061]. Albertini, Marco; Kohli, Martin; Vogel, Claudia 2007: Intergenerational transfers of time and money in European families: common patterns – different regimes? In: Journal of European Social Policy 17,4: 319-334 [doi: 10.1177/0958928707081068]. Billari, Francesco C.; Liefbroer, Aart C. 2007: Should I stay or should I go? The im- pact of age norms on leaving home. In: Demography 44,1: 181-198 [doi: 10.1353/ dem.2007.0000]. Billari, Francesco C.; Liefbroer, Aart C. 2010: Towards a new pattern of transition to adulthood? In: Advances in Life Course Research 15,2-3: 59-75 [doi: 10.1016/j. alcr.2010.10.003]. Blossfeld, Hans-Peter; Klijzing, Erik; Mills, Melinda; Kurz, Karin 2006: Globalization, Un- certainty and Youth in Society: The Losers in a Globalizing World. London/New York: Routledge. Breen, Richard; Buchmann, Marlis 2002: Institutional variation and the position of young people: A comparative perspective. In: The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 580,1: 288-305 [doi: 10.1177/000271620258000112]. Brüderl, Josef 2004: Die Pluralisierung partnerschaftlicher Lebensformen in West- deutschland und Europa. In: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 19: 3-10 [http://www.bpb. de/apuz/28344/die-pluralisierung-partnerschaftlicher-lebensformen-in-westdeutsch- land-und-europa?p=all]. Living Arrangements of Young Adults in Europe • 395 Chambaz, Christine 2001: Lone-parent families in Europe: A variety of economic and so- cial circumstances. In: Social Policy & Administration 35,6: 658-671 [doi: 10.1111/1467- 9515.00259]. Chiuri, Maria C.; Del Boca, Daniela 2007: Living arrangements in Europe: exploring gender differences and institutional characteristics. In: ChilD Working Paper 2007-24 [http://esp.sagepub.com/content/15/4/283]. Choroszewicz, Marta; Wolff, Pascal 2010: 51 million young EU adults lived with their parent(s) in 2008. In: Eurostat Statistics in Focus 2010-50. Corijn, Martine; Klijzing, Erik 2001: Transitions to adulthood in Europe. Dordrecht: Klu- wer Academic Publishers. Daatland, Svein O.; Herlofson, Katharina 2003: “Lost solidarity” or “changed solidarity”: a comparative European view of normative family solidarity. In: Ageing & Society 23,5: 537-560 [doi: 10.1017/S0144686X03001272]. Elzinga, Cees H.; Liefbroer, Aart C. 2007: De-standardization of family-life trajectories of young adults: A cross-national comparison using sequence analysis. In: European Journal of Population 23,3-4: 225-250 [doi: 10.1007/s10680-007-9133-7]. Esping-Andersen, Gosta 1990: The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Pol- ity Press. Esping-Andersen, Gosta 1999: Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. New York: Oxford University Press. Fokkema, Tineke; Liefbroer, Aart C. 2008: Trends in living arrangements in Europe: Con- vergence or divergence? In: Demographic Research 19: 1351-1418 [doi: 10.4054/Dem- Res.2008.19.36]. Gauthier, Anne H. 2007: Becoming a young adult: An international perspective on the transitions to adulthood. In: European Journal of Population 23,3-4: 217-223 [doi: 10.1007/s10680-007-9130-x]. Hajnal, John 1965: European marriage patterns in perspective. In: Glass, David V.; Ever- sley, David E. C. (Eds.): Population in history. Essays in historical demography. Lon- don: Arnold: 101-143. Hank, Karsten 2007: Proximity and contacts between older parents and their chil- dren: A European comparison. In: Journal of Marriage and Family 69,1: 157-173 [doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00351.x]. Hantrais, Linda 2006: Living as a family in Europe. In: Hantrais, Linda; Philipov, Dimiter; Billari, Francesco C. (Eds.): Policy implications of changing family formation. Stras- bourg: Council of Europe Publishing: 117-181. Hoem, Jan; Kostova, Dora; Jasilioniene, Aiva; Mureşan, Cornelia 2009: Traces of the Second Demographic Transition in four selected countries in Central and Eastern Eu- rope: Union formation as a demographic manifestation. In: European Journal of Popu- lation 25,3: 239-55. Iacovou, Maria 2004: Patterns of family living. In: Berthoud, Richard; Iacovou, Maria (Eds.): Social Europe. Living standards and welfare states. Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar: 21-45. Iacovou, Maria 2013: The relationship between incomes and living arrangements: vari- ation between countries, over the life course, and over time. In: ImPRovE Discussion Paper, 13/15. Antwerp [URL: http://improve-research.eu/?page_id=37]. Iacovou, Maria; Skew, Alexandra J. 2010: Household structure in the EU. Methodologies and working papers. Luxembourg: Publications Offi ce of the European Union. • Katrin Schwanitz, Clara H. Mulder396 Iacovou, Maria; Skew, Alexandra J. 2011: Household composition across the new Eu- rope: Where do the new Member States fi t in? In: Demographic Research 25: 465-490 [doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2011.25.14]. Kalmijn, Matthijs; Saraceno, Chiara 2008: A comparative perspective on intergeneration- al support. In: European Societies 10,3: 479-508 [doi: 10.1080/14616690701744364]. Kertzer, David I. 1991: Household history and sociological theory. In: Annual Review of Sociology 17: 155-179 [doi: 10.2307/2083339]. Kiernan, Kathleen 1986: Leaving home: Living arrangements of young people in six West-European countries. In: European Journal of Population 2,2: 177-184 [doi: 10.1007/BF01796889]. Kuijsten, Anton C. 1996: Changing family patterns in Europe: A case of divergence? In: European Journal of Population 12,2: 115-143 [doi: 10.1007/BF01797080]. Lesthaeghe, Ron 1995: The second demographic transition in Western countries: An interpretation. Gender and family change in industrialized countries. In: Oppenheim Mason, Karen; Jensen, An-Magritt (Eds.): Gender and family change in industrialized countries. New York: Oxford University Press: 17-62. Lesthaeghe, Ron; Moors, Guy 1995: Living arrangements, socioeconomic position, and values among young adults: A pattern description for Belgium, France, the Nether- lands and West Germany, 1990. In: van den Brekel, Hans; Deven, Fred (Eds.): Popula- tion and family in the Low Countries 1994. Dordrecht: Springer: 1-56. Mills, Melinda; Blossfeld, Hans-Peter 2013: The Second Demographic Transition meets globalization: A comprehensive theory to understand changes in family formation in an era of rising uncertainty. In: Evans, Ann; Baxter, Janeen (Eds.): Negotiating the life course. Stability and change in life pathways. Dordrecht: Springer: 9-33. Minnesota Population Center 2011: Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Interna- tional: Version 6.1. Machine-readable database. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota [https://international.ipums.org/international/citation.shtml]. Raftery, Adrian E. 1995: Bayesian model selection in social research. In: Sociological Methodology 25: 111-163 [doi: 10.2307/271063]. Reher, David S. 1998: Family ties in Western Europe: Persistent contrasts. In: Population and Development Review 24,2: 203-234 [doi: 10.2307/2807972]. Rindfuss, Ronald R. 1991: The young adult years: Diversity, structural change, and fertil- ity. In: Demography 28,4: 493-512 [doi: 10.2307/2061419]. Sobek, Matthew; Kennedy, Sheela 2009: The development of family interrelationship variables for international census data. In: Minnesota Population Center Working Pa- per Series 2009-02 [https://www.pop.umn.edu/research/working-papers]. Sobotka, Tomáš 2008: Overview Chapter 6: The diverse faces of the Second Demo- graphic Transition in Europe. In: Demographic Research 19: 171-224 [doi: 10.4054/ DemRes.2008.19.8]. Sobotka, Tomáš; Toulemon, Laurent 2008: Overview Chapter 4: Changing family and partnership behaviour: Common trends and persistent diversity across Europe. In: Demographic Research 19: 85-138 [doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.6]. Steinbach, Anja 2012: Intergenerational relations across the life course. In: Advances in Life Course Research 17,3: 93-99 [doi: 10.1016/j.alcr.2012.06.002]. Stone, Juliet; Berrington, Ann; Falkingham, Jane 2011: The changing determinants of UK young adults’ living arrangements. In: Demographic Research 25: 629-666 [doi:10.4054/DemRes.2011.25.20]. Living Arrangements of Young Adults in Europe • 397 Zorlu, Aslan; Mulder, Clara H. 2010: Location choices of migrant nest-leavers: Spatial assimilation or continued segregation? In: Advances in Life Course Research 15,2-3: 109-120 [doi:10.1016/j.alcr.2010.06.001]. Date of submission: 18.08.2014 Date of acceptance: 11.08.2015 Katrin Schwanitz (). University of Groningen, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, Department of Demography. Groningen, The Netherlands. E-mail: k.v.schwanitz@rug.nl URL: http://www.rug.nl/staff/k.v.schwanitz/ Institut National d‘Etudes Demographiques (Ined). Paris, France. E-mail: katrin.schwanitz@ined.fr URL: https://www.ined.fr/en/directory/katrin-schwanitz/512 Prof. Dr. Clara H. Mulder. University of Groningen, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, Department of Demography. Groningen, The Netherlands. E-mail: c.h.mulder@rug.nl URL: http://www.rug.nl/staff/c.h.mulder/ Published by / Herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. Norbert F. Schneider Federal Institute for Population Research D-65180 Wiesbaden / Germany Managing Editor / Verantwortlicher Redakteur Frank Swiaczny Assistant Managing Editor / Stellvertretende Redakteurin Katrin Schiefer Copy Editor (German) / Lektorat (deutsch) Dr. Evelyn Grünheid Layout / Satz Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs E-mail: cpos@bib.bund.de Scientifi c Advisory Board / Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Paul Gans (Mannheim) Johannes Huinink (Bremen) Michaela Kreyenfeld (Rostock) Marc Luy (Wien) Clara H. Mulder (Groningen) Notburga Ott (Bochum) Peter Preisendörfer (Mainz) Zsolt Spéder (Budapest) Comparative Population Studies www.comparativepopulationstudies.de ISSN: 1869-8980 (Print) – 1869-8999 (Internet) Board of Reviewers / Gutachterbeirat Martin Abraham (Erlangen) Laura Bernardi (Lausanne) Hansjörg Bucher (Bonn) Claudia Diehl (Konstanz) Andreas Diekmann (Zürich) Gabriele Doblhammer-Reiter (Rostock) Jürgen Dorbritz (Wiesbaden) Anette Eva Fasang (Berlin) E.-Jürgen Flöthmann (Bielefeld) Alexia Fürnkranz-Prskawetz (Wien) Beat Fux (Salzburg) Joshua Goldstein (Berkeley) Karsten Hank (Köln) Sonja Haug (Regensburg) Hill Kulu (Liverpool) Aart C. Liefbroer (Den Haag) Kurt Lüscher (Konstanz) Emma Lundholm (Umeå) Nadja Milewski (Rostock) Dimiter Philipov (Wien) Roland Rau (Rostock) Tomáš Sobotka (Wien) Jeroen Spijker (Barcelona) Olivier Thévenon (Paris) Helga de Valk (Brussel) Heike Trappe (Rostock) Michael Wagner (Köln) © Federal Institute for Population Research 2015 – All rights reserved