Juho Härkönen, Eevi Lappalainen & Marika Jalovaara: The deterioration of Finnish single mothers’ employment, 1987-2011: A decomposition analysis. Presentation at TITA WP2 seminar 21.4.2016.

1. The deterioration of Finnish
single mothers’ employment,
1987-2011: A decomposition
analysis
JUHO HÄRKÖNEN*†, EEVI LAPPALAINEN**, MARIKA JALOVAARA†*
* STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY
** STATISTICS FINLAND
† UNIVERSITY OF TURKU

2. Introduction
• Single parents
• Significant minority (Finland ~20% of families with children)
• Vast majority are women
• In Finland, typically single parents as a consequence of
separation (more rarely from non-union childbearing)
•Experience more unemployment and other economic hardships than
partnered parents (Kjeldstad & Rønsen 2004; Stewart 2009; Wu &
Eamon 2011)
•Single motherhood increasingly associated with low education

3. 50
60
70
80
90
100
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
%
Figure 1. Employment rates (%) for single and partnered
mothers, 1987–2011
Partnered mothers Single mothers

4. Introduction
• This paper examines the composition of the differences in single
and partnered mothers’ employment in Finland in 1987–2011
• Research questions:
1. Do changes in educational background, age, and age of the
youngest child explain why single mothers’ employment rates
declined relative to partnered mothers?
2. Do the development of employment rates among educational and
age groups, and by the age of the youngest child explain these
differences?

5. Characteristics of Finnish labor market
and family policies
• High (structural) unemployment since 1990s’ economic depression
• Nordic family policy regime (Esping-Andersen 1999): generous
parental leaves, subsidized child care, individualized taxation
• A strong two-earner model
• Part-time work is relatively rarely used as a means of combining
paid employment and family life
• Families with 0–2-year-old children are entitled to child home-care
allowance (extended to all families with under three-year-old
children in early 1990s)

6. Data
• Register-based dataset: 10 % random sample of persons born
between 1940–1995 who were in the Finnish population on any year
between 1987 and 2011
• Study sample
• 18–49-year-old women
• Born in Finland
• Have 1–17-year-old resident children
• 1,302,680 person-years
• Single mother: has resident children, no cohabiting, married or
registered (same-sex) partner

7. Variables
Dependent variable
• Economic activity dummy: employed vs. not employed
Independent variables
• Union status dummy: single vs. partnered
• Age: 18–29, 30–39, 40–49
• Age of youngest resident child: 1–2, 3–6, 7–17
• Education: basic, secondary, low tertiary, high tertiary
Time
• Variables are measured at the end of each year
• Years are divided into 7 periods according to macroeconomic trends
(3–4 years)

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

9. Descriptive results

10. 0
10
20
30
40
50
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
Partnered mothers
Basic Secondary L. tertiary H. tertiary
0
10
20
30
40
50
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
Single mothers
Basic Secondary L. tertiary H. tertiary
Educational composition 1987–2011:
basic and secondary education, %

11. 0
10
20
30
40
50
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
Partnered mothers
Basic Secondary L. tertiary H. tertiary
0
10
20
30
40
50
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
Single mothers
Basic Secondary L. tertiary H. tertiary
Educational composition 1987–2011:
low and high tertiary education, %

12. 0
20
40
60
80
100
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
Partnered mothers
18–29 30–39 40–49
0
20
40
60
80
100
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
Single mothers
18–29 30–39 40–49
Employment by age 1987–2011, %

13. 0
20
40
60
80
100
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
Partnered mothers
Basic Secondary L. tertiary H. tertiary
0
20
40
60
80
100
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
Partnered mothers
Basic Secondary L. tertiary H. tertiary
Employment by education 1987–2011:
basic and secondary education, %
Single mothers

14. 0
20
40
60
80
100
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
Partnered mothers
Basic Secondary L. tertiary H. tertiary
0
20
40
60
80
100
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
Single mothers
Basic Secondary L. tertiary H. tertiary
Employment by education 1987–2011:
low and high tertiary education, %

15. 0
20
40
60
80
100
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
Partnered mothers
1–2 3–6 7–17
0
20
40
60
80
100
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
Single mothers
1–2 3–6 7–17
Employment by youngest child’s age
1987–2011, %

16. Decomposition results

17. -2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Crude penalty
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
The crude difference in partnered and
single mothers’ employment (%)
Crude penalty = composition effects +
rate effects

18. -2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Crude penalty Composition effects
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
…contribution of composition effects
(%)…
Crude penalty = composition effects +
rate effects

19. -2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Crude penalty Composition effects Rate effects
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
…and contribution of composition and
rate effects (%)
Crude penalty = composition effects +
rate effects

20. -4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Total
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
A closer look at composition effects (%)
Total composition effect =
Σ (variable composition effects)

21. -4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Total Age
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
A closer look at composition effects:
age (%)
Total composition effect =
Σ (variable composition effects)

22. -4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Total Age Education
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
A closer look at composition effects:
age and education (%)
Total composition effect =
Σ (variable composition effects)

23. -4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Total Age Education Age of child
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
A closer look at composition effects:
age, education and age of youngest child (%)
Total composition effect =
Σ (variable composition effects)

24. -0,2
0,3
0,8
1,3
1,8
18–29 30–39 40–49
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
Rate category effects: age (%)
Total rate effect =
Σ (rate category effects)

25. -0,2
0,3
0,8
1,3
1,8
Compulsory Secondary Low tertiary High tertiary
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
Rate category effects: education (%)
Total rate effect =
Σ (rate category effects)

26. -0,2
0,3
0,8
1,3
1,8
1-2 3-6 7-17
87–90 91–93 94–96 97–00 01–04 05–08 09–11
Rate category effects: age of youngest
child (%)
Total rate effect =
Σ (rate category effects)

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

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

29. 50
60
70
80
90
100
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
%
Figure 1. Employment rates (%) for single and partnered
mothers, 1987–2011
Partnered mothers Single mothers
A project funded by:
• Academy of Finland (decision number 275030)
• FORTE (Dnr. 2010-0381)
• European Union's Seventh Framework Programme
under grant agreement no. 320116
Tackling Inequalities
in Time of Austerity