Abstract
Partly due to differences in household resources, children in single-mother households tend to report lower own resources compared with children living with two original parents, e.g. in terms of health, educational performance and educational attainment. The paper uses large-scale cross-national data of 23 countries to analyse the implications of living with a single mother. Three central areas of children’s living conditions are focussed: social support, health, and economic resources. The aim of the study is to assess: 1) whether there are differences between children who live with a single mother and children who live with two original parents within these areas; and 2) whether the association between family type and the resources varies systematically across countries. The data come from the international WHO study Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) of 2001/02. Surveys have been conducted with nationally representative samples of school pupils of 11, 13, and 15 years of age in countries in Europe and North America. After relevant selections, total n=92,564. The main results are that children in single-mother households have lower social support from parents, less good health, and less economic resources than children living with two original parents. Findings are consistent for all included indicators and the general tendency is consistent across countries. There is no clear pattern in how the association with family type varies between countries, e.g., a low poverty rate among children in single-mother households relative to children in two-parent households is not associated with small family type differences in children’s resources.
Keywords Children; family structure; single-mother household; cross-national
Introduction
Divorce is a common phenomenon in Europe as well as North America. Large numbers of children have experienced parental separation and most of these continue to live with their mother, implying that single-mother households constitute a frequent family type (Andersson 2002a). The shares of children living with lone mothers have increased in a wide range of Western countries (Beaujot and Liu 2002). The present paper does not focus on consequences of divorce per se, but on implications of family structure for children, more specifically on characteristics associated with living with a single mother compared with living with two original parents. Three central areas of children’s living conditions are analysed: social support, health, and economic resources.
Although there is a large body of work on the implications of family structure for children, crossnational studies are scarce, and in particular studies that include a broader set of indicators which are based on reports from children themselves. A recent report on single parenthood and child well-being in the OECD includes a meta-analysis and a literature review (Chapple 2009), but a majority of the previous cross-national studies focus on family type differences in academic achievement (e.g., Schiller, Khmelkov and Wang 2002; Pong, Dronkers and Hampden-Thompson 2003; Hampden- Thompson and Pong 2005; Marks 2006; Garib, Martin Garcia and Dronkers 2007; de Lange, Dronkers and Wolbers, forthcoming).
The present paper uses large-scale cross-national data of 23 countries to assess, firstly, whether a range of living conditions of children here and now – as reported by the children themselves – differs between those who live with both original parents and those who live with a single mother, and secondly, whether the association between family structure and children’s living conditions varies systematically across countries. The living conditions which are focussed – social support, health, and economic resources – are three central aspects of children’s welfare, which are also intertwined.
Children in families suffering from economic stress have more psychosomatic complaints (Östberg, Alfvén and Hjern 2006) and less good social relations (Bolger et al 1995; Olsson 2007) than children in families with greater economic resources. There is also a connection between social relations and health. Strained social relations with and lack of social support from parents and peers are linked with more psychological and physical complaints (Due, Lynch, Holstein and Modvig 2003; Brolin Låftman and Östberg 2006) and ease of communication with parents is associated with better self-rated health (Pedersen, Granado Alcón and Moreno Rodriguez 2004).
Differences in resources between two-parent and single-mother households
The theoretical point of departure is that there are differences in resources between two-parent and single-mother households, which have consequences for children’s living conditions.1
Firstly, economic resources differ between the two household types. Single-mother households have lower income than two-parent households (Raschke 1987; Gähler 1998; Bradbury and Jäntti 1999; Beaujot and Liu 2002). The economic status of the household has been shown to be connected with a wide range of child outcomes, such as school attainment and achievement, internalising and externalising problems, the child’s own economy and material resources, social relations, leisure activities, health and well-being (see reviews by Voydanoff 1990; White and Rogers 2000, see also Jonsson and Östberg 2004).
Secondly, single-mother households have on average lower social class and lower education compared with two-parent households. This is due to the fact that there is only one, instead of two, adults to derive highest parental education and household social class from (Jonsson and Gähler 1997) and the non-resident father often has the highest class position.2 Because there is a strong association between parents’ and children’s educational level it is not surprising to find that children in single-mother households have lower educational achievement and attainment compared with children in intact families (for the US, e.g. Sandefur and Wells 1999; Biblarz and Gottainer 2000; for Sweden, Jonsson and Gähler 1997; Ringbäck-Weitoft, Hjern and Rosén 2004; for Germany, Mahler and Winkelmann 2004). Furthermore, social class is associated with a number of child outcomes including health related behaviours such as smoking and physical exercise (see e.g. Jonsson and Östberg 2001) as well as health (for a review of the Swedish case, see Bremberg 2002).
Thirdly, there is a difference in social resources between single-mother households and two original parent families. Single mothers can be expected to both provide and receive less social support than two parents who live together. Single mothers are likely to suffer from greater time stress than individuals with a partner with whom they can share household and other tasks, and parents’ time constraints imply smaller possibilities of monitoring and socialising children (Astone and McLanahan 1 In the present paper, I focus only on single-mother households vs. two original-parent households. Even though reconstituted families are an increasingly common phenomenon, living with both original parents or with a single parent are the two most common family types for children in all countries studied (yet with large cross country variation in absolute percentages) (Pedersen et al 2004, Figure 2.7). Children who live with single fathers are excluded as they constitute a very small group for which it would not be possible to obtain robust results with the data used here.
2 It is however not evident that children living with a single mother should automatically be categorised
according to the mother’s social class, as they may be in contact also with the non-residential father, and perhaps even live with him for part of the time. Obviously the range of “father contact” may be wide both within and between countries.
1991; Sandefur and Wells 1999; Carlson and Corcoran 2001), and of providing social support to the
children (Dornbusch et al 1985). There are also differences in access to social support between
married and single mothers (Gähler 1998). Single mothers have smaller social networks than mothers
in two-parent families (Gunnarsson and Cochran 1999). The existence of social networks is positively
associated with the individual’s health (see e.g. Cohen and Syme 1985). It also seems likely that
parents’ social networks are beneficial for the children in various ways. For instance, Coleman (1988)
argues that intergenerational closure, i.e. the fact that the parents know the parents of the children’s
friends, has a positive effect on school achievement because parents who know each other monitor
each others’ children.
Fourthly, single mothers have lower psychological well-being than married mothers and fathers (for
reviews, see Raschke 1987; Kitson and Morgan 1990). This may be due to stress from the divorce, or
from economic hardship and limited social resources (Carlson and Corcoran 2001). Single mothers
also have less good self-rated health and higher mortality than mothers with a partner (Fritzell,
Ringbäck Weitoft, Fritzell and Burström 2007). Parents’ depression has been shown to have negative
effects on outcomes related to children’s adjustment problems and depression (see review by Downey
and Coyne 1990).
To summarise, it is likely that children in single-mother households have less resources than children
living with two original parents, in particular due to single-mother households’ smaller financial
resources, lower average educational level and lower social class, greater time constraints, more
limited access to social support, and lower psychological well-being. However, it deserves to be
stressed that it does not follow that single-parent households have any intrinsic characteristics that are
detrimental to children’s well-being. Instead, the differences in household resources have implications
for the children. As pointed out clearly by Wu, Hou and Schimmele (2008), it is not family structure
per se, but the day-to-day familial circumstances that matter. And circumstances such as economic
deprivation, ineffective parenting, parent absence, and exposure to parental conflict are more prevalent
in single-headed households and reconstituted families than in married original-parent households
(Wu et al 2008).
Cross-national variability in effects of family structure on children’s living conditions?
There are reasons to believe that differences in resources between two-parent and single-mother
households exist in most if not all countries. However, these differences are likely to vary due a
number of factors, including cross-national differences in absolute divorce rates and in the selection
into divorce, differences in stigmatization, and variations in economic circumstances, which is closely
linked to differences in social policies.
5
The absolute divorce rates differ widely across countries in Europe and North America (Andersson
2002b; Kalmijn 2007), meaning that children’s experience of family dissolution varies substantially
across countries (Andersson 2002a), as well as the amount of children who live in single-mother
households (see Figure 1). Even though parental separation or divorce is one main reason behind
single motherhood, there are also other factors, which differ cross-nationally: the shares of single
mothers who never married or cohabited, who separated or divorced, and who are widowed in fact
vary considerably between countries (see Chapple 2009, Table 4).
[FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE]
The rate of single-mother households in a country may be of importance for children’s outcomes. In
their conceptual framework of why the effect of family type on academic achievement would differ
across countries, Pong et al (2003) as well as Garib et al (2007) point at the importance of the share of
single mothers in a country. They refer to the “family conflict hypothesis” (Pong et al 2003, p. 684),
according to which the selection of families that end up in divorce differs depending on norms and on
how common divorce is: in countries with low divorce rates, only high-conflict marriages will end up
in divorce, while in countries where divorce is common, also the “moderately dissatisfied” end up in
divorce. According to this hypothesis, it follows that “in nations where divorce rates are high, children
from single-parent homes only have the negative consequences of the parental divorce (greater
psychological stress) and fewer of the positive ones (less serious parental divorce) than do their
counterparts in countries where divorces are relatively rare, who have both the negative and positive
consequences of parental divorce.” (Garib et al 2007, p. 31). Both Pong et al (2003) and Garib et al
(2007) find empirically that the family type performance gap is greater in countries where singleparent
households are more prevalent.
The social selection into divorce also varies across countries, as suggested already by Goode (1962).
He argued that where divorce is difficult and costly, it is a phenomenon recurrent mostly in the higher
social strata. Goode’s argument receives empirical support still today, at least partially. In their
analysis of the effect of women’s education on marriage disruption in Italy, Germany, and Sweden,
Blossfeld et al (1995) conclude that the effect of education is strongest in Italy and weakest in Sweden
with Germany in between, meaning that in Italy divorce is most common among highly educated
women, whereas in Sweden women of all social strata divorce. Härkönen and Dronkers (2006)
conduct a similar analysis of 17 countries, and find a positive association between women’s education
and divorce in France, Greece, Italy, Poland and Spain, a negative association in Austria, Lithuania
and the USA, and no association in Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Sweden,
Switzerland, Flanders and Norway.
6
Kalmijn and Uunk (2007) find empirical support to the hypothesis that there is a stigma associated
with divorce in regions where divorce is less tolerated, as compared with regions where it is more
tolerated. They conclude that there is variability in stigmatization between countries in Europe but also
between regions within countries (Kalmijn and Uunk 2007). It seems possible that children of
divorced parents who live in locations where there is a stigma attached to it suffer more than those in
countries and regions where it is very common and tolerated.
Finally, there is considerable cross-national variability in the economic circumstances of single-mother
households (Bradbury and Jäntti 1999). This is due to differences in welfare systems, and, which is
related, to differences in single mothers’ labour market participation rates (Uunk 2004; Iversen,
Rosenbluth and Soskice 2005). At least two sets of factors may be at work here, namely, what Uunk
(2004) labels income-related welfare provisions and employment-related welfare provisions. Incomerelated
welfare provisions aim at directly affecting the post-divorce economic situation through
measures such as general social welfare and special allowances for single-parent families.
Employment-related welfare provisions aim at improving women’s post-divorce labour market
position, e.g. through employment programs for the inactive or for re-entry to the labour market, and
through public childcare provision (Uunk 2004).
There is great cross-national variability in the generosity of social expenditure, which according to
Beaujot and Liu (2002) is of importance for the economy of single-mother households. The share of
social expenditure that is targeted for children or families also varies between countries (Beaujot and
Liu 2002).
The association between single mothers’ labour market participation and children’s outcomes is
complex and it is not evident whether the association should be expected to be positive or negative.
High rates of single mothers’ labour market participation imply a better financial situation of these
households. At the same time, it means that the single mother is away from home and therefore has
less time for the children. Yet again, several studies indicate that parents’ unemployment has negative
implications for children (for a review, see Madge 1983). For instance, a negative association between
parental unemployment and children’s psychological well-being has been found (Hagquist and Starrin
1994).
Yet another factor which may play a role for differences in the economic situation of single mothers is
the fact that there are cross-national differences in the obligations of non-resident fathers to financially
support their children (Kunz, Villeneuve and Garfinkel 2001).
7
Consequently, poverty rates of children in both single-mother and two-parent households vary
substantially across countries. Obviously, there is a myriad of ways in which to define “poverty”. A
basic distinction is the one between absolute and relative poverty. Measures of relative poverty take
into account where in the income distribution an individual or a household is found. In contrast,
measures of absolute poverty are defined by a fixed amount of money which is said to be sufficient for
a certain standard of living. Here, figures of relative poverty rates from the Luxemburg Income Study
(LIS) are used, and presented in Figure 2. The bars illustrate the shares of children who live in poor
households – defined with a poverty threshold of 50 per cent, i.e. households with an income of less
than 50 per cent of the median income. In all included countries, it is much more common for children
in single-mother households to live in poverty, compared with children in two-parent families. The
United States have the greatest share of poor children in single-mother households (49 per cent),
followed by Ireland (47 per cent) and the UK (45 per cent). Yet, what interests us more is the relative
difference in poverty between family types, i.e. the gap between poor children in single-mother
households and in two-parent families. The bars in Figure 3 illustrate the ratio between the percentage
of poor children in single-mother households in a country and the percentage of poor children in twoparent
households in the same country. The relative family type difference is largest in the Czech
Republic, where children in single-mother households about eleven times as likely to be poor,
followed by Germany, where the risk is about eight times as high. What is noteworthy is that some
countries with low child poverty rates such as Sweden and Norway have large family type differences.
Conversely, the US, for instance, has rather high poverty rates for children in both household types
and thereby not a particularly high poverty ratio.
[FIGURES 2 AND 3 ABOUT HERE]
The present study aims to assess whether the associations between family type and the child outcomes
vary systematically across countries. Despite the complexity of single motherhood and the crossnational
variations in the characteristics linked with it, it seems reasonable to expect that the family
gap in child outcomes is associated with family type differences in economic conditions, i.e., that in
countries with small family type differences in economic conditions, the family type gap in child
outcomes is smaller, and conversely, that in countries with large family type differences in economic
circumstances, the family type gap in child outcomes is larger. Consequently, the country-wise
analyses of the family type differences in child outcomes will be sorted according to the relative
difference in poverty as shown in Figure 3.
8
Data
The data used are derived from the international WHO study Health Behaviour in School-aged
Children (HBSC) (see www.hbsc.org) of 2001/02. Cross-sectional surveys with children of 11, 13, and
15 years of age have been conducted regularly since 1983/84 (Roberts et al 2007). The 2001/02 survey
included 36 countries and regions of Western and Eastern Europe as well as Israel, Canada, and the
US. The data are nationally representative, with a few exceptions: regional samples were selected in
Germany, and separate studies cover the Flemish- and French-speaking regions of Belgium, as well as
England, Scotland and Wales of the United Kingdom. The sampling technique was cluster sampling
through school classes. The sample is approximately 1,500 students in each of the three age groups,
i.e. a total of approximately 4,500 from each country. The number of respondents in each country
ended up being around 4,000 and the total number of respondents for all 36 countries was 162,306.3
Questionnaires were delivered to schools, administered by teachers, and returned to the national
research institute in charge when completed (Roberts et al 2004). The Luxemburg Income Study
provide data on relative poverty rates of children in single-mother and two-parent households for 23 of
the countries included in the HBSC, so these were chosen in order to get a country-level “background
variable” for all cases. Furthermore, I only included children who live with two original parents or
with their mother only. Cases with a missing value on any of the variables used were excluded (9.5 per
cent). Thus, after selections, n=92,564. For details on the number of cases in each country, see Table
A1 in the Appendix.
Method
The method used is logistic regression. The effect of family structure on each separate outcome is
analysed country-wise, with controls for gender and age. The figures shown in the tables are odds
ratios with corresponding p-values, showing the over- or underrisk for children living with a single
mother compared with children living with both original parents. To correct for the fact that
respondents are clustered in school classes, I have estimated robust standard errors using Stata’s
‘cluster’ command.4
To assess country differences in the effect of family type, I have analysed the entire sample with
dummy variables for each country, and included interactions between each country and family type. In
3 For details on number of respondents in each country, by gender and by age group, see Roberts et al 2004,
Table 2.
4 In the analyses, I used the cluster command for school class, with some exceptions: in the analyses of Belgium,
Estonia, and Greece, I clustered on school, because information on school class was not available for all cases. In
the analyses of Germany, I did not use the cluster command since for a large number of cases, information on
both school class and on school was missing.
9
these analyses, I have estimated robust standard errors to account for the fact that respondents are
clustered in countries.5
Variables
Family type is defined from the pupil’s responses to a question with whom he/she lives. The options
were ”Mother”, ”Father”, ”Stepmother (or father’s girlfriend)”, ”Stepfather (or mother’s boyfriend)”,
”Grandmother”, ”Grandfather”, ”I live in a foster’s home or children’s home”, ”Someone or
somewhere else: please write it down”. Those who ticked ”Mother” and ”Father” are defined as living
with two original parents, and those who ticked ”Mother” but not ”Father” or ”Stepfather” are defined
as living with the mother only. The question was posed for ”your main or your only home”, but also
for a second home if there was one. I only included information for the main home, and I only
included young persons who stated that they lived in the main household ”All the time” or ”Most of
the time”.
Social support from mother is derived from the question ”How easy is it for you to talk to the
following persons about things that really bother you?”, with response options ”Very easy”, ”Easy”,
”Difficult”, ”Very difficult” and ”Don’t have or see this person”. Those who found it ”Very easy” or
”Easy” to talk with their mother are defined as having social support from their mother.
Social support from father is derived from the same question as above. Those who found it ”Very
easy” or ”Easy” to talk with their father are defined as having social support from their father. Those
who replied “Don’t have or see this person” were excluded from the analysis.6
Health complaints is constructed from the question: ”In the last 6 months, how often have you had the
following….?” The complaints listed are: Headache, stomach-ache, back ache, feeling low, irritability
5 Even though a number of previous studies have used multilevel analysis on the HBSC data, I prefer not to do
this due to the relatively small number of countries. Grouping countries into welfare state typologies, classified
according to various criteria, is also common in cross-national research. Yet, this is not necessarily ideal for
every purpose. For instance, there may be empirical exceptions to the expected pattern as well as within-regime
type variation (see e.g. Uunk 2004). Lumping countries together according to a given typology may hide
similarities and differences between countries. Given the exploratory and descriptive objective of this paper, it
seems appropriate to start by analysing countries separately, and, as a second step, look for country clusters or
patterns in the obtained findings. More importantly, social policy and economy are not the only possible factors
which affect the living conditions of children in single-mother households. Thus, it is not evident that welfare
regime types are an ideal way of categorising the countries in this study. Furthermore, the n in each country is
large enough to analyse separately.
6 The reason for this is that in some countries, such as Italy and Austria, a substantial share of single mothers are
in fact single due to widowhood (Chapple 2009, Table 4). When excluding children whose father is deceased
(but also, due to the wording of the response option, those who are not in contact with their father), the variable
becomes more comparable across countries. Consequently, the number of cases is somewhat smaller in the
analyses of this item: n=88,184.
10
or bad temper, feeling nervous, difficulties in getting to sleep, feeling dizzy. For each complaint, the
respondent could choose between ”About every day”, ”More than once a week”, ”About every week”,
”About every month”, ”Rarely or never”. Those who had two or more complaints, more than weekly
were defined as having health complaints. This is the definition used in HBSC reports (Torsheim,
Välimaa and Danielson 2004).
Less than good self-reported health is derived from the question ”Would you say your health is…”,
with response options ”Excellent”, ”Good”, ”Fair”, and ”Poor”. Those who replied that they had fair
or poor health were defined as having less than good self-reported health.
Computer in household is defined from the question ”How many computers does your family own?”
and the response options are: ”None”, ”One”, ”Two”, ”More than two”. I dichotomised the variable
into those who do not have a computer and those who have at least one computer.
Not well off comes from the question ”How well off do you think your family is?”. The response
options were ”Very well off”, ”Quite well off”, ”Average”, ”Not very well off” and ”Not at all well
off”. The three latter alternatives were defined as regarding one’s family as not well off.
Gender and age at the time of the interview are included as control variables.
Results
The analytical strategy is to conduct a set of country-wise analyses for each outcome variable. Logistic
regression analyses were run with family type as the independent variable and with gender and age as
control variables. Each graph presents the results for one dependent variable: the bars show the odds
ratios and p-values are derived from robust standard errors. Raw percentages by family type are shown
below the graph. Results are presented country-wise in the same order as in Figure 3, i.e. according to
the relative difference in poverty between children in single-mother households and children living
with two original parents. It is expected that family type differences in the child outcomes are larger
the greater the family type differences in economic conditions, i.e., the further to the right on the x axis
of the graph.
To assess whether there are differences between countries, for each dependent variable I conducted
analyses of the whole sample, i.e. all cases in all countries, and included interactions between country
dummy variables and the single-mother household dummy variable. Interaction terms were included
one at the time and the US was chosen as reference category. Countries which are significantly
different from the US are marked with an inequal sign (_).
11
The first two graphs present findings for children’s experience of social support from their parents,
measured by an indicator of ease of communication with one’s mother and father, respectively. As to
ease to talk with one’s mother (Figure 4), in eleven countries there is a statistically significant
association with family type showing that children in single-mother households less often find it easy
to talk with their mother, compared with children living with two original parents. In the remaining 12
countries, there are no statistically significant associations, even though the direction of the association
is similar in all cases but one (Denmark). In the next graph, showing ease of communication with
father (Figure 5), children in single-mother households report less social support from the father in 17
of the 23 included countries.7
[FIGURES 4 AND 5 ABOUT HERE]
There is also consistency across countries when looking at health outcomes. Both health complaints
(Figure 6) and less than good self-reported health (Figure 7) are more common among children in
single-mother households than in intact families in a range of countries.
[FIGURES 6 AND 7 ABOUT HERE]
The association between economic resources and family type is very clear across countries. In all but
four countries, children in single-mother households are more likely than children in intact families to
report that they do not have a computer (Figure 8). What is noteworthy is the large cross-national
differences in absolute numbers (see percentages below the graph) and how this affects the odds
ratios: for instance in Russia 51 per cent of children in intact families report to have a computer, and
38 per cent of children in single-mother households. In the Netherlands, the percentages are 99-95,
which in fact renders a much lower odds ratio than the one for Russia. This figure makes clear that one
needs to look at both the absolute and the relative family type differences to get a fuller picture.
When it comes to the description of one’s household as ”not well off”, children in single-mother
households tend to report this more often than their peers living with two original parents in all
included countries (Figure 9).
[FIGURES 8 AND 9 ABOUT HERE]
7 As noted in the Variables section, respondents who replied “Don’t have or see this person” about the father
were excluded from this analysis. However, I also conducted analyses where I included these cases and coded
them as not having social support from father. With this alternative variable, family type differences were very
clear for all countries and larger than those presented in Figure 5 (p<0.001 for all countries).
12
To assess whether there is a pattern in the association between family structure and the included
dependent variables, a summary of the statistically significant family type differences for each
outcome, by country, is presented in Table 1. Again, countries are sorted by family type differences in
economic conditions, with the smallest family type difference in poverty at the top (Russia) and the
largest at the bottom (the Czech Republic). It was expected that the family type gap in child outcomes
would be smaller in countries with small family type differences in poverty, and larger in countries
with large family type differences in poverty. However, no such evident pattern is shown. In all
countries, there is at least one statistically significant difference by family type. Some countries, such
as Israel, Spain, and Greece, report a family type difference on only one outcome, while other
countries – Russia, Belgium, Switzerland, the USA, the UK, the Netherlands and France – report
family type differences on all the studied outcomes. There seems to be a vague pattern indicating that
countries with small shares of children in single-parent households tend to report fewer differences,
and countries with large shares of children in single-mother households report more differences.
However, nor this pattern holds fully, as for instance Netherlands with a relatively small share of
children in single-mother households reports statistically significant family type differences on all
included indicators.
[TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE]
When analysing the whole sample and testing for statistically significant differences between countries
(with the US as reference category), a number of such differences are found and marked with inequal
signs in the graphs. No clear pattern is found, although there is a weak tendency that (some) family
type differences are significantly smaller in countries where family type differences in poverty are
small, such as Russia, Poland, and Estonia, and larger in countries where family type differences in
poverty are larger, such as the Netherlands, France and Sweden. This tendency is however far too
weak to be used to drawing any conclusions about the variation in family type ‘effects’ between
countries.
Concluding discussion
The present study has analysed the relative difference between children living with a single mother
and with two original parents on a number of living conditions indicators in 23 countries, based on
reports from the children themselves. Children in single-mother households have lower social support
from parents, less good health, and smaller economic resources than children living with two original
parents. Findings are consistent for all indicators. However, the absolute family type differences are
overall relatively modest. This reflects the previously observed finding that there is a small but
13
consistent gap in well-being between children in divorced and in two original-parent families (Amato
and Keith 1991; Amato 2000; Pryor and Rodgers 2001; Chapple 2009).
Interestingly, the general tendency that children in single-mother households report less welfare is
rather consistent across all countries. Even though far from all differences are statistically significant,
it is striking that the bars in the graphs in nearly all cases point in the expected direction. Thus, the
associations between family structure and various living conditions are systematic in a wide range of
countries. There is no clear pattern in how the family type difference in poverty is associated with
family type differences in the child outcomes. However, the countries with the fewest statistically
significant family type differences – Israel, Spain, and Greece – all have small shares of children
living in single-mother households (see Figure 1). Furthermore, the USA and the UK, with the largest
shares of children in single-mother households, report statistically significant differences by family
type on all included items. This finding is in line with the results of Pong et al (2003) and Garib et al
(2007): that children of single-mother households in countries with small shares of single-mother
households come out better compared with their peers in countries where single-mother households
are more common. Yet, the empirical pattern is not fully consistent. For Italy, with one of the lowest
divorce rates in Europe, we find statistically significant family type differences on several outcomes.
Conversely, countries with rather small shares of children in single-mother households such as
Switzerland and the Netherlands (see Figure 1) report family type differences on all included
indicators.
Several previous studies on the HBSC data have found clear cross-national differences in the
socioeconomic gradient in children’s health. Torsheim et al (2006) come to the conclusion that
children in countries with a high dispersion of material resources have poorer self-rated health
compared with children in countries with greater equality in material resources, also when adjusted for
the individual family level of affluence. Zambon et al (2006) categorise the countries into different
welfare regimes and find that the association between socioeconomic position and health is weaker in
social democratic and conservative regime types and stronger in liberal and other regime types. How
come, then, that there are no systematic country differences in the effect of family type in the
outcomes studied here – at least not following a pattern of family type differences in poverty? One
reason may be that single-motherhood is complex and that also other characteristics associated with it,
apart from economic hardship, have consequences for children. Single mothers have on average lower
educational level and social class than two-parent families, greater time constraints, less social support
and less good psychological health – characteristics which may all contribute to the family type gap in
child well-being. And these characteristics are not necessarily systematically related to social policy
and other macro-level variables.
14
In fact, several cross-national studies of family structure and child outcomes do not find that family
type differences are smaller in countries with a strong welfare state. In a recent meta-analysis and
literature review of single parenthood and child outcomes in OECD countries, Chapple (2009)
concludes that the effect sizes differ between countries but that there is no systematic link to
differences in policies. The average effect size is somewhat larger for the US and for the Nordic
countries compared with other OECD countries (Chapple 2009). From their cross-national analyses of
family type and mathematics achievement, Schiller et al (2002) conclude that the negative effect of
non-traditional family types is greater in more affluent countries. Marks (2006) finds similar results in
his analyses of reading and mathematics scores: effects of family type are not weakest in countries
with generous welfare systems, but relatively strong family type effects are found in Belgium, Finland,
Norway and Sweden. Furthermore, in their overview of studies of family transitions and child
outcomes, Pryor and Rodgers (2001) conclude that there is a small but consistent gap between children
in intact and separated families in a range of outcomes, and that the effect sizes are similar across
geographical locations (though only the UK, the US and Australia are included in their overview).
Schiller et al (2002) discuss their results in terms of an increasing importance of parental time and
attention, and suggest that this may be lacking especially in non-traditional families in more
industrialised nations. They also argue that geographical mobility is higher in these countries and that
extended families are smaller, which implies lower access to social support from extended family and
community networks (Schiller et al 2002).
Despite the fact that we do not find a systematic cross-national pattern of family type differences, is it
possible to draw any conclusions from the findings with regard to social policy? It should be noted
that the analyses focus on the relative difference in living conditions between children in singlemother
households and children living with both original parents. The relative difference is to a great
extent rather similar across countries. That the absolute living conditions may, and do, vary across
countries becomes particularly evident in our measure of economic resources, whether or not there is a
computer in the household. Also here, a gap between family types is depicted in most countries, but
just as noteworthy is that the absolute shares of children with a computer in their household differ
substantially, in particular between Eastern and Western Europe. A parallel can be drawn to Bradbury
and Jäntti’s (1999) comparison of absolute and relative child poverty levels: they show that in Russia, child poverty is around 25 per cent when defined by a relative poverty line, but that 98 per cent of children are poor when the US official poverty line is used (i.e. a measure of absolute poverty) (Bradbury and Jäntti 1999, Table 3.3). Hence, just because there is no systematic cross-national pattern in the family type difference in children’s living conditions, one cannot draw the conclusion that social policy or macroeconomic conditions make no contribution at all. A high absolute average level of living conditions, with a small family type gap, is obviously to prefer than a low average level of living conditions, also with a small family type gap.
Finally, although the family type differences in children’s living conditions are relatively small, they should not be neglected by policy-makers. From a general equality as well as from a child rights perspective, all children should have equal chances. One of the main principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is non-discrimination, i.e. that all children have equal rights and thus that these rights shall be equally accessible for all children (Article 2 of the CRC). The systematic and cross-nationally consistent findings that children in single-mother households fare less well compared with children living with two original parents hence counter the non-discrimination claim of Article 2 of the CRC. What is noteworthy is that this goes also for countries such as the Nordic ones, which have explicitly “child-friendly” policies.
No comments:
Post a Comment