1

Johannes Huinink / Dirk Konietzka

Leaving Parental Home in the Federal Republic of Germany and the GDR

The changing interrelation of leaving home and other transition events to adulthood

Paper presented on the Workshop on „Leaving Home - A European Focus“6. - 8. September 2000Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Rostock

2

1. Introduction

In this paper, we analyse the process of leaving parental home in East and West Germany

before the German Unification in 1990. We understand leaving the parental home as an

important part of the transition to adulthood (see Buchmann 1989; White/Lacy 1997;

Furstenberg 2000). This transition represents a multi-dimensional process including different,

but related ‚status passages‘ in the life course that affect social, cultural and economic

dimensions of gaining independence from the parents‘ household.

In the following, we will look in some detail at the relatedness of leaving home to those other

key events that constitute the transition to adulthood. Here, our analysis concentrates on the

interdependence of leaving parental home on the one hand and entry into vocational (or

academic) training, first employment, marriage and parenthood on the other hand. Doing this,

we compare different cohorts different cohorts in the two former German states.

We agree with White (1994: 84) that knowledge on „the role coresidence plays in the

transition to adulthood: empirically, normatively, conceptually“ is rather fragmentary. Here,

one major deficit relates to long-term trends in the process of leaving parental home. Most

empirical studies are of „short-term nature“ and even longitudinal studies typically „follow a

single cohort for only a few years“ (White 1994: 85). Closely connected to this deficit, the

question of the changing embeddedness of leaving parental home in the whole process of

transition to adulthood seems unresolved so far.

In this paper, we will use cohort data on leaving home in East and West Germany that cover a

historical time period of more than 40 years. The data provide the opportunity to compare the

patterns of leaving parental home in the two former German states. Against this background,

the aim of our paper is two-fold:

First, we want to follow different birth cohorts with respect to the age (timing) at leaving

parental home and the interrelation of this event with other steps towards social and economic

independence, among which participation in training, starting the employment career, getting

married and forming one’s own family have been outstanding aspects – even though reaching

the ‘stage’ of adulthood does not in each individual case necessarily require the occurrence of

each of these transitions.

Our second emphasis is on a comparison of West German and East German patterns of

leaving home. This is supposed to be particularly instructive, since the West and East German

cohorts under consideration were submitted to different societal conditions which also implied

quite different opportunity structures. On this ground, we can relate the process of leaving

3

parental home beyond individual characteristics also to restrictions that stem from differences

in the institutional settings on a societal level.

Our analysis of transition patterns encompasses the historical time period from the late 1930s

to the late 1980s/early 1990s. The oldest cohort in the West German sample (born 1920) had

already left the parental home in times before the East-West division of Germany. Their

transition experiences inform about the conditions of leaving home that prevailed under the

specific historical and political conditions during and immediately after Word War II. On the

other hand, the East and West German cohorts 1930 probably still shared characteristic

conditions in their transition from home in the post-war decade despite the political division.

The youngest cohorts were born around 1960 and typically left home in the 1980-decade.

In spite of our broad cohort basis, our analyses are restricted in two respects: First, we cannot

answer the question of recent changes in the process of leaving home that possibly have

occurred in the 1990s – specifically in East Germany after Unification. In order to answer at

least hypothetically the question of a growing age at leaving home in Germany, we will

discuss some findings of other studies in our theoretical considerations. Secondly, we cannot

analyse the connection of leaving parental home and entering consensual unions. In our West

German data, no sufficient information on these kinds of living arrangements – which have

gained importance in the last three decades – is available.

After outlining our theoretical and conceptional framework and presenting some results of

previous research on the leaving home issue we discuss some hypotheses on patterns of

leaving home in the FRG and the GDR and their change over time or different birth cohorts

resp. We then turn to our own empirical analyses which consist of three parts: an overview on

cohort specific changes in the median age at leaving parental home for men and women, a

connection of these patterns to median ages of other transitions on the route to adulthood, and

a multiple clock analysis of rates of leaving home following the assumption that they to

simultaneously depend on different clocks defined by the other events of the transition to

adulthood.

2. Theoretical Considerations

Leaving parental home is an important step in the process of the transition to adulthood. Yet,

few studies have worked on this event theoretically in a systematic manner. In this chapter,

we will give a general outline on the logic of the individual decision that leads to the life

course transition to leave home.

4

2.1. Leaving parental home as an individual decision process

Leaving parental home signifies a decisive change in the living arrangement of a person.

Living arrangements are patterns of living together with other people in close relationships,

particularly in households. One basic aspect of a person’s living arrangement is whether

he/she is (still) living in the parents’ household or not. The decision in favour of a certain

living arrangement is part of planning the individual life course over time. Here, leaving the

parental household can be perceived as an important step towards economic and social

independence, i.e. the transition to adulthood. We suppose that in the last three decades –

similar to other changes in individuals’ living arrangements – the incidence as well as the

timing of this event has become less a matter of normative prescription, but more and more a

matter of young adults’ decision. Certainly parents as well (still) play an active role in this

process – by either encouraging or restraining their children from finishing their coresidence.

But even if we take additionally into account that leaving home usually “involves complex

decisions by both generations” (Goldscheider/Goldscheider 1993: 862), the basic assumption

still holds that, in the last decades, leaving home has increasingly gained the character of a

decision process. As a result, leaving home and marriage have been de-coupling. This is only

one incidence of a growing ‘de-institutionalization’ or ‘de-standardisation’ of life course

transitions (Buchmann 1989).

In general, we assume that individuals – who act under given external conditions and

individual resources and follow individually preferred goals – try to realize subjectivly

optimal living conditions in different life domains. In regarding the consequences of their

action, they take into account not only the immediate consequences on their life course, but

also middle and long term future effects. How can we specify the decision process regarding

leaving home, more general choosing a living arrangement or – even more general –

performing a certain action, independently of the specific situation of an individual?

Firstly, we have to identify the potential incentives and disincentives of action. They are given by thespectrum of expectable consequences of that action which we call the general incentive structure.Some consequences in principle can be seen as advantages, others as disadvantages. The expectedadvantages (or benefits) depend on the degree of instrumentality of an act to pursue more generalgoals of the individual. Disadvantages are caused by the level of the needed investments and resources(direct cost) and foregone advantages (opportunity cost). The advantages and disadvantages can beshort, medium or long term consequences.The concrete aspects of the situation of an actor facing a particular decision problem – for example: toleave or not to leave parental home – mould the actor’s specific incentive structure. The situationalaspects can be structured by three dimensions of conditions of action. These dimensions have effectson the relative relevance of incentives and disincentives of a certain action in a different way.

5

First, there are the objective conditions of action (objective opportunity structure): cultural, social,political, economic and ecological conditions which favour or disfavour a certain kind of action(opportunities and restrictions). Here we have to differentiate between the macro level of the society,the meso-level of the social context, the family of origin, and a potential partnership.Second, we have to regard the resources the individual has access to or controls: economic capital,human/cultural capital, psychic capital, biological/genetic capital. The resources determine theindividual opportunities to act.Third, there are the individual psycho-social dispositions which could be seen as a subjectiveopportunity structure with elements which are differently stable in time: beliefs and convictions;values, expectations, orientations; emotions.

These three dimensions affect the subjective interpretation of the situation in which action takes place.It leads to the weights, the different aspects of the general incentive structure have for the individualactor in three ways: regarding the (instrumental) goals the actor is concerning (a preference structureas an order of goals one could pursue), regarding the assumed instrumentality of a certain action forsuch goals (situational, subjective incentive/ disincentive structure), and regarding the probability thatthe action has the desired consequences.In order to specify, how the conditions of action (objective and subjective opportunity structure,resources) affect the subjective incentive/ disincentive structure in a particular situation, it is necessaryto formulate bridge hypotheses that are derived from a socio-psychological theory of decision makingand action.

Keeping the theoretical action concept we have introduced in mind, helps to get a systematic

view on leaving home as a decision problem. Since nearly all people leave the parental home

sometime in their life, the timing and the kind of living arrangement after the leave has to be

primarily considered. Today, young people typically face the option to live as a single, in

cohabitation, in a ‘Wohngemeinschaft' or in marital union. They can live with and without

children.

In the following, we apply the theoretical concept to our specfic question and try to specify someaspects of the incentive/disincentive structure and the dimensions of the decision problem even thoughwe will not analyse only a few of them.In Figure 1 on the following page, we show, for every category of items in our model, differentaspects which are important to consider aiming to explain the decision to leave parental home. The listshall not be assumed to be complete but to represent a rather detailed summary of important aspects.Against this theoretical background, an explanation of leaving parental home presumes setting upbridge hypotheses for the effects of the opportunity structures and individual resources on theindividual and subjective relevance of different aspects of the general incentive/disincentive structure,which again have to take into account the given (objective and subjective) opportunity structure andthe individual resources. Having done this and obeying the optimization assumption, we can deducehypotheses for the leaving parental home process as part of the life course. We here concentrate on aone very special, however, important issue.

6

Figure 1:

ð General incentive/disincentive structure for leaving the parental home- Advantages of leaving the parental household:

- Autonomy in establishing the own living arragement and household structure- Higher flexibility in pursuing und realizing live plans- Escaping social control by the parents- Escaping negative externalites of living with in the parental family as a sharing group

- Cost of leaving the parental household:- Loss of parental help und the advantages from participation in the parental household production- Cost of establishing an autonmous living arrangement and communication structure- Burdens of own household production in trems of time and money- Loss of non-transferable investements in the parental houshold and housing

ð Objective opportunity structure:- Societal conditions:

- Economic: Economic conditions, training opportunities, labour market, housing market and otheraspects of the infra structure

- Structural: Place of living of the family with it specific the local infra structure and conditions of living- Cultural: Values, social norms, and legal arragements concerning the living arrangements of young

people und the relation of the the generations- Social context: Structure of the socal network, expectations of its members- Attributes of the parental family:

- Economic: Income and property, amout of transferable (for example money) and intransferableressources, housing conditions

- Structural: Labour force participation of the parents, structure and magnitude of the parental household;marital status of the parents, social status of the parents;

- Cultural: Values and Expectaions of the parents concerning the way of life, Religiosity of the parents- Social: quality of inner family communication, strength of the relationship with the parents, climate of

family life- Conditioning aspects of the life status

- Acticity status: training status, employment status- Partner status, marital status- Number of children

ð Individual ressources and life status- Age, sex- Education, training level, and accumulated human capital- Income and level of ecomonic independancy from the parents- Other kinds of competencies needed to conduct an independent life

ð Subjective opportunity structure and psycho-social dispositions- Strength of the emotional bond to the parents- Life plans und perspectives- Values concerning family life and other aspects of the organisation of private life- Religiosity

7

2.2 ‘Multiple clocks’ in a life course perspective

From the life course perspective, we can assume that in one’s life more than one clock is

ticking which says ‘it might be on time to leave the parental home’. Generally, we can

conceptualize the life course as a complex process composed of several interdependent sub-

processes with changing statuses and (shorter or longer) durations of staying in those statuses.

Each of these subprocesses defines an own clock in addition to the ‘biological clock’ of age.

E.g., at one point in life, a person may be 25 years old and at same time trained since 7 years,

being employed since 4 years, married since 1 year and might have left the parental home

since 6 years, and so on.

From our theoretical considerations, we know that not only – maybe not even primarily – age

determines the rate of leaving the parental home. In addition, other life course events affect

the decision to leave home either. By talking of ‘multiple clocks’, we want to express that live

events (or transitions) may in fact be affected by other events, statuses, and – this is one

important additional aspect – by the sojourn times (duration) in statuses in those different

subprocesses.

One could even argue that certain life course transitions might affect behaviour in advance.

E.g., the expectation or plan to experience one specific event – say marriage – may lead

individuals to perform a shift in another life domain (leaving home) already some time before

this event really happens (anticipation effect). On the other hand, one cannot only assume an

immediate effect of the event itself (event effect), but also that the new status which is

achieved after the event affects subsequent behavior. In addition, these effects may depend on

the duration time elapsed after that event (status and duration effect).

2.3. Leaving parental home and different types of effect

By differenciating the types of effects mentioned above, in the following analyses, we will

analyze the temporal closeness of the start of training, start of the first employment, marriage,

and birth of the first child to the rate of leaving parental home.

In general, we expect each of these events to cause leaving home in terms of an event effect,

in which case we would observe much synchronicity. In the case of the start of training and

employment, such synchroneous events might be directly induced by conjoint residential

migration behaviour: Starting training may cause a residential move because of a lacking

opportunity to realise the desired vocational training or university study in the place where the

parents live. The same can be true for the start of employment. In the case of marriage, an

8

event effect is most likely induced by the particular need (or the opportunity) of the new

couple to gain an independent residential and social status.1

One can also expect anticipation effects – i.e. leaving home may happen in advance of the

other events, but is caused by expecting them. These should be less important. In reverse, one

could as well expect a decrease of rates of leaving home shortly before one of the other events

happens. Facing the start of the occupational career or marriage, staying at home means one

opportunity to plan these consequential and costly events (including a following move) in a

situation of social stability and economic support by the parents.

Finally there are state and/or duration effects – i.e. leaving home follows (sooner or later) one

of the other events and is caused by the new state after these events happened – can

particularly be expected for the start of employment. In the case that the parental home is not

left immediately at the start of employment, it is likely that event takes place only when the

person’s new economic situation is perceived to be stable and to provide enough resources to

afford an own household. In other words, it not so much the very transition to the first job, but

the early career phase that sets the fundamentals to add to economic also a greater social

independence.

Traditionally, transition to adulthood was part of a well-ordered transition from the parents’

household to one’s own household that centred around marriage. The different events in the

transition to adulthood were “closely intertwined and interdependent” (Furstenberg 2000:

898), but marriage surely was the decisive factor for the leave of the parental household.2

Marriage constituted “the primary route out of the parental home” (Goldscheider/

Goldscheider 1993: 851). Marriage itself did typically first require achievement of economic

independence (by the male partner) from the parents. Nowadays, premarital residential

independence has emerged as a new period in the life course that provides a general accepted

alternative to family living (ibid.: 861). We can also assume, however, that the strength of

social control inside the parental household decreased over time.

These facts of weakening normative prescriptions and cultural liberalisation regarding living

arrangements did not leave the parental home unaffected. Given this, two diverging prospects

1 Buck/Scott 1993: 864 stress that „the conception of causality is also problematic. Moves associated witheducation, career, or marriage do not rule out that the primary motivation is to embrace the freedom ofindependent living.“2 “Typically, marriage was the central event that orchestrated the many aspects of the passage to adulthood,including school departure; entrance to the labor force; the onset of sexual relations ...; and departure from thenatal household” (Furstenberg 2000: 898).

9

emerge: One the one hand, since new forms of independent living have become available in

young adult life, the potential benefits of leaving home may have gained relevance (as ‘pull

factors’). On the other hand, the potential costs of staying in the parental household (as ‘push

factors’) have lost relevance, since life in the parental home has typically become normatively

less restrictive. From this point of view, the decision of leaving home may have become

increasingly ambivalent: The prospect of reduced parental control, on the one hand, is

counteracted by the prospect of reduced parental support on the other hand (White/Lacy 1997:

984).

Against this background, we assume that gaining greater social independence, i.e. greater

control over one’s life, via establishing premarital residential independence, serves as a

crucial motivation to leave the parental home. However, events which are connected to (steps

to) economic independence should account more exclusively for the decision to leave home.

Given that the local opportunities to realise one’s life plans and economic conditions are

getting all the more important.

So far, our major conclusion is: Leaving home is not only and not primarily be connected with

marriage anymore, since normative rules restricting the opportunities to leave parental home

lost strength. Young people can establish their own household living alone or moving together

with partners or other persons. Economic independence (ressources) surely is a prerequisite

for this step – as it was the case before. It is an open question, however, whether a basic

motivation of leaving parental home may still be dominated by social factors in the sense that

young adults search for exclusive living arrangements that satisfy social and emotional needs

in (close) relationships. Unfortunately due to restrictions in our data, we cannot study these

aspects in detail.

3. Previous Research

3.1 Trends in leaving parental home in West Germany

In the international research, numerous hypotheses on determinants of the age at leaving

home have been established and tested empirically so far in a more or less systematic manner

(for an overview see e.g. Weick 1993; White 1994; Corijn 1996). Yet, only few studies have

analysed the process of leaving home in West Germany (see Mayer/Schwarz 1989;

Wagner/Huinink 1991; Weick 1993; Silbereisen et al. 1994; Hullen 1998; Juang et al. 1999).

From this line of research we can extract some basic knowledge on the social structures and

dynamics of leaving the parental home in West Germany. E.g., we know that young men stay

longer at the parental home than women (Wagner/Huinink 1991; Weick 1993: 88). Over

10

different cohorts, the median age of leaving parental home had declined up to those born in

the 1950s (from age 24 to 22-23, according to different data sets).

Though it is rather unclear in what direction the age at leaving home has moved in the recent

past. Some evidence was reported in earlier research that the cohort born 1958-62 and in

particular those born 1963-65 left home later than prior cohorts (Wagner/Huinink 1991: 46).

Wagner and Huinink (1991) found for the cohorts 1963-1965 a median age at leaving home of

24.6 and 21.4 (SOEP-Data). Nevertheless, recent data like the 1996 Shell Study suggests that

for males the age of leaving home has not further increased in younger cohorts: Juang et al.

(1999: 509) report a median age of 23 (males) and 21 (females) for those born between 1967

and 1976. So comparing the Shell Study results with the cohort 1949-51 of the GLHS, points

at almost no cohorts changes at the median ages of leaving home.

As a first step towards an explanation of this – surprising – stability at the age of leaving

home, Hullen (1998: 69ff.) distinguished two sub-groups with divergent timing patterns. For

those persons who move out when marrying or getting a child, in fact rising ages at leaving

parental home over cohorts are visible. This goes along with the fact that the age at marriage

and family formation increased over recent cohorts. But for those who leave parental home in

connection with other reasons, no delay or even an acceleration of leaving parental home

evolved. Thus divergent behaviour patterns of subgroups resulted on a cohort level in

declining ages at leaving parental home (1998: 75).

However, it is risky to draw far-reaching conclusions from results which stem from different

data bases. Considerable differences in the estimation of the timing of moving out so in fact

evolve from different data sources (see Wagner and Huinink 1991). One possible reason for

those divergent results are different concepts, definitons and operationalizations of the

transition from home to one’s own household. We will pursue this aspect later.

3.2 Research on leaving parental home in the GDR

We know very little about the timing and structure of leaving parental home in the former

GDR. Yet it seems evident that moving out was highly dependent on specific ‚opportunity

structures‘ and constraints on the societal level, among which the housing situation probably

was of outstanding importance. Housing shortages might have hindered young people from

founding their own household even in the case that individual resources would have allowed

them to leave home. In general, compared to the West German situation, restrictions of that

kind had a much greater influence on leaving home. In line with this reasoning, Wendt (1997:

138) reports a GDR-survey from 1982 that displayed „that 17 per cent of the younger women

with one child did not live in their own flat“. Nevertheless, empirical evidence – which is

11

based on median ages founding one’s own household – also points to the fact that young adult

left home grosso modo not much later than their West German counterparts (Huinink/Wagner

1995: 156f.). Yet, taking events like ‚first moving together‘ (cohabitation) and ‚first own

household‘ as proxies, some specific characteristics of the transition to adulthood in the GDR

emerge. On a cohort level, East German women and men moved together earlier than they

founded their own household. In the 1951-53 cohort, the median age for ‚moving together‘

was 21 for women, in the 1959-61 cohort it was even lower. At the same time, the median age

for entering the first own household was slightly higher: in both cohorts between age 21 and

22. Obviously, many young couples lived some time in one of the parents‘ household until

they were finally obliged to enter their own household.

While for women both events took place earlier in the life course in the younger cohorts, for

men there was much more stability at the age of ‚first moving together‘ over the cohorts. As a

result, this age was about 2 years higher than for women in the younger cohorts. Another

remarkable difference is that the age of founding the first own household was – slightly, but

constantly – growing over the cohorts: from an age under 24 to over 24. The positive age

difference between founding the first own household and first moving together points again to

GDR-specific restrictions on the housing market and regulations for access to flats

3.3 Findings on recent East-West-Differences in the timing of leaving parental home

So far, there are no studies that exclusively deal with the time period after the German

unification. Both the data analysed by Hullen (1998) and Silbereisen et al. (1994)

predominantly relate to leaving parental home in the GDR before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Silbereisen et al. (1994), using data from the former Shell Youth Study of 1991, report that

young East and West Germans (aged 20-29) did not differ in the timing of leaving parental

home. Hullen (1998: 68) reports on the basis of the 1992 FFS that young adults aged 20-39

left home in West Germany at age 22,9 (males) and 21,4 (women). For East Germany he gets

a very similar picture (22,6 and 21,1). In a recent study, Juang et al. (1999) replicated the

analyses by Silbereisen et al. (1994) on leaving parental home of young adults aged 20-29 in

West and Germany, using data from the Shell Youth Study 1996. Results of that study show

(Juang 1999: 509), that East Germans now left home 1 year earlier (at median age 22 (males)

and 20 (females)) than West Germans (at median age of 23 (males) and 21 (females)). The

authors conclude that „the earlier timing of adult responsibilities in East Germany now seems

to coincide with the choice of leaving home earlier“ (: 512).

From our point of view, this interpretation looks rather doubtful, since marriage and

childbearing were postponed quite considerably in East Germany in the first half of the 1990s.

12

So it seems not persuasive to explain an acceleration of leaving the parental home by events

like marriage and childbearing, that were actually postponed in this period. Alternative

explanations should stronger relate to (ongoing) differences in opportunity structures, e.g.

those provided by the educational systems that affect individual educational behaviour.

Although it is in principal right to suppose that prior to 1991, „structural restrictions ... limited

the feasibility of making this transition“ (512), it is also true that until recently, e.g. in the East

German school system access to the abitur was possible 1 year earlier than in West Germany.

This could be at least one factor explaining age differences in leaving home, as well as rapidly

changing opportunities in the housing market.

4. Hypotheses on changing Conditions/causes/incentives of leaving parental home

4.1 Leaving parental home and the transition to adulthood in the FRG

4.1.1 New patterns of ‚social independance‘: From Marriage to new living arrangements?

We argued that marriage and childbearing have lost significance as reasons to leave parental

home (as means to achieve social independence). In fact, leaving parental home before

marriage has become more widespread over the cohorts, while in older birth cohorts marriage

and rates of leaving parental home had been strongly tied together (Wagner/Huinink 1991:

54). In the younger cohorts, a de-coupling of leaving home and marriage can be observed,

which can obviously be related to the spread of new living arrangements. Since the early

1970s, marriage has been postponed and cohabitation and single living arrangements have

become important living arrangements in young adult age. While marriage and childbearing

have been postponed in the life course, the share of young people living in a cohabitation has

risen enormously since the early 1970s. If it is true that social factors still are decisive for

leaving parental home one could conclude: „Therefore, cohabitation should be more salient to

the timing of home leaving than marriage for young adults today“ (Juang et al. 1999: 507).

However, most studies on leaving home have not dealt with the increased importance of

cohabitation as a reason to leave home. Juang et al. are an exception. They show that „living

with a partner was the strongest predictor of moving out, and marriage did not significantly

predict moving out“ for both men and women in East and West Germany(ibid.: 510).

With the data we used for our study, we are not able to directly measure new living

arrangements. Therefore we only expect to show for the FRG – according to our theoretical

assumptions – that a process of de-coupling of leaving parental home and marriage

proceeded over cohorts (Hypothesis 1). With regard to the type of effect, we expect that the

13

‘event’ and ‘duration’ effects of marriage on leaving parental home have decreased over the

cohorts.

4.1.2 From Marriage to economic independance? Leaving parental home, education and

employment

Several previous studies supposed that leaving parental home is strongly – and increasingly –

associated with transitions in the educational system and especially the transition from the

educational system to the labour market (Mayer/Wagner 1986; Wagner/Huinink 1991: 55; see

also Texmon 1996: 39). Nilson/Strandh (1999: 1069) conclude that “employment is central

for residential independence and that lack of employment creates a greater residential

dependence on parents”. Corijn (1996: 129) obviously has in mind ‘event effects’ when she

expects “that completing one’s studies strongly increases the risk of leaving the parental

home“. Beyond that, in line with our assumptions above, we also expect duration effects of

labour market entry, since in general, a period of successful labour market performance is a

major prerequisite for providing young people with resources to rent an own flat.

However, results on the effect of level of education on leaving parental home in Germany

look rather confusing. Juang et al. (1999: 506) ascertain „inconsistent findings associated with

education“. According to Ott (1986, according to Weick 1993: 94), tertiary education

accelerates leaving parental home. However, Wagner and Huinink (1991: 49) have shown that

from the 1953-57 cohort on higher education had a postponing effect on leaving parental

home. Weick (1993: 99f., 104f.) again did not only find different patterns in a cohort

comparison, but also gender-specific effects for higher educated persons: Men from cohorts

born after 1952 with university-degree showed a lower risk of an early leave of the nest. In

addition, persons without vocational training had a higher risk of leaving parental home in the

younger cohorts (ibid: 105). Against that, the 1996 Shell Study did not reveal any delaying

effects of higher education on leaving home – neither for men or women in West or East

Germany (Juang et al. 1999: 509f.).

These rather ambiguous results on effects of education on the rate of leaving home might at

least partly be related to conceptual (mis-)specifications. Most studies considered (completed)

levels of educational or simply distinguished higher from other education. Instead one should

take the life course perspective. Participation in education, and – in the German institutional

context – specifically entry in vocational training or studying and the transition to the first job

are part of the current conditions of living arrangements and thus relevant factors for the

decision of leaving parental home.

14

Our argumentation derives from two developments: First, as stated above, nonmarital living

arrangements – living in a one-person-household or in cohabitation – have become signatures

of a new period in the individual life course among young adults since the 1970s. Second

though, founding one’s own household – traditional or non-traditional – requires economic

resources. This is typically achieved through gainful employment in the labour market which

again requires human capital gainfully achieved in vocational training or studying. Because

the social factors loose their normative power, we expect in West Germany a shift in the

dominance of factors of ’local dependence‘ with leaving home – from the normative

‘package’ centred around marriage to the required set of steps towards economic

independence, i.e. completing vocational training or study and gaining a stable job career

(Hypothesis 2).

For a majority of the young people in our cohorts, the pathway to the first job was structured

by apprenticeship training. Especially in the younger cohorts, vocational training or a study

became an almost universal part in the transition from school to work and an even stronger

prerequisite for entering a state of economic independence (Konietzka 1998; 1999).3

Therefore, it might be especially useful to take into account the effect of training and entering

the labour market on the timing of moving out of parental home.

One cannot expect the large majority to leave parental home before finishing vocational

training and entering the first regular job. Most young people who do not study are engaged

in firms in the local labour market and individual resources are too scarce to found an own

household while being in training. For this reason, we only expect a minority of the cohort

members in this group to leave parental home at the beginning of vocational training which

takes place at an age of 15-17 (event effect of start of training). Against that, the transition to

employment and the subsequent process of consolidating in the labour market involvement is

likely to be an important predictor of leaving parental home which takes place at an age of 18

to 21 (entry and status effects). From this point of view, aspects like permanent employment

and regular income should contribute to the process home-leaving of this group. Thus, the

labour market entry is rather a proxy for a longer time period in which economic

independence is likely to be achieved.

What about the change of the mean age at leaving parental home in this group? It seems

plausible to assume that only differences in the age at which a secure job situation is achieved

might effect heterogeneity in the age at leaving home. Therefore a question of major

importance for the cohorts addresses the changing structural conditions of labour market

3 The socio-economic significance of the transitions from general schooling into vocational training andfrom training to the first job is expressed by the common terms ‚first‘ and ‚second threshold‘.

15

chances for young adults in the last decades. In general, not primarily a prolonged duration of

training, but other factors may lead to a higher age at the transition from training to

employment, for example, reinforced labour market entry problems.

It is generally assumed that entry into the labour market has become more difficult since the

1970s (see Furstenberg 2000: 899). However, this only partly applies to the German situation.

By and large, the cohorts born around 1960 still experienced quite stable job entry processes

(Konietzka 1999, Solga/Konietzka 1999), confirming the notion that in the German

(occupational based) labour market even the first job tends to be a rather stable job –

compared to instable early years in the labour market that are common in many other

countries (like the US, Britain, France, Italy). From a comparative point of view, it is

therefore of major importance to realise the “striking differences in the arrangement of the

transition from school into the labor force in countries that have a tradition of providing

apprenticeships as part of the schooling system” (Furstenberg 2000: 904).

So our expectation is that in these cohorts the timing of the first job still was a good predictor

for a successful and stable labour market integration, which again precedes leaving parental

home. The moderate changes in educational careers and the conditions of the entry into the

labour market therefore should effect only a moderate postponement of leaving parental home

in younger cohorts.

From this ‘trend’ we have to distinguish another argument: There are prolonged educational

careers which have led to a gradual postponement of the transition to the first job in the last

decades. The average age of apprentices has been rising, partly because of a higher entrance

age, partly because of longer training durations, partly because of multiple training episodes

(Konietzka 1999). A slightly rising proportion of cohort members experienced unsuccessful

transitions after training (unemployment, mismatch in the labour market, discontent with job).

Therfore, on a cohort level, we should observe (for the FRG cohorts) a growing spread or de-

standardization of age at leaving parental home (Hypothesis 3).

We can argue for this additionally by emphazising that an increasing minority in the cohorts

achieved higher education and studied. On the one hand, student loans and grants and/or

parental resources supply students with sufficient resources to rent their own flat after starting

their study. On the other hand, a substantial share of those enrolled in higher education stay at

the parental home because of economic reasons or reasons of more favourable living

conditions in the parental home. As students typically depend on the one or other type of cash

transfers, they are in more vulnerable state of economic independence. Since they also often

return to their parental home after graduation (Nilsson/Strandh 1999: 1077), it follows that

“the university students’ nest leaving may not be the same leap into adulthood” (ibid.) as for

16

those in employment. The same argument is stressed by Buck/Scott (1993: 865) who note that

moves related to entry into college “often entail some continuing economic dependence”.

They propose to make a basic distinction between ‘leaving home’ and ‘living away’. We will

pick up this difference later. However, for cohort members who study, Hypothesis 2 does not

hold in the same concise manner as argued for the other group. This supports Hypothesis 3:

4.2 Achieving social and economic independence in the GDR: Stability or Change?

In East Germany, we expect partly similar, partly different patterns of timing and spacing of

leaving parental home. For an East-West comparison, it is important to note that in both

countries, despite of fundamental system differences, very similar institutional settings

structured transition into the employment system.

Yet, in the GDR, the proportion in higher education was smaller than in the FRG. Because of

a less widespread university system, but also because of more restricted living conditions in

the parents‘ flats, students more likely had to leave parental home and move into another city.

Still, in most cases they lived in student accommodations, since they had no access to own

flats. For men, military service was a common part of the transition to adulthood. This should

on the one hand accelerate an early first leave, but on the other hand imply a common return

to parental home. Therefore, we expect in general a larger gap between leaving parental home

and founding an own household and also a higher rate of returning to parents‘ homes –

leading to a significant age difference between first and last leaving parental home at least

for men (Hypothesis 4).

Because of housing regulations in the GDR and a shortage of housing up to the seventies,

access to flats was rather restricted for young people. A priority list defined the parts of the

population that were favoured in the distribution process. On this list, young families and

families with many children ranked high. Therefore, one way to render the leave of the

parental household was to marry or to get a child. The strictness of this system relaxed not

until the 1980s. In this decade, young people got a better opportunity to find a flat in the big

cities, above all in unattractive neighbourhoods (old houses) which more and more got in a

state of decay.

However, unlike in the FRG, we do not expect an increasing relevance of economic aspects

for the transition to adulthood in the GDR, i.e. a increasing coupling of leaving parental home

to entry to the labour market. While in West Germany labour market integration became not

only a necessary, but also increasingly a sufficient cause to leave parental home, in the GDR

this was not the case. Not necessary it was because risks regarding the individual work career

17

and economic support, which individuals typically face in a market economy, were not

apparent. The biographical perspectives were fairly safe. These preconditions as such should

have supported an early leaving the parental household. Another reason for an early leave

should have been the housing conditions of the parental household (a push effect) (in a later

stage of this research we will look for that). But economic independence was not sufficient

because participation in the labour force was not a primary criterion for access to flats in the

state controlled housing market. Instead, the pressure to early marriage and even first birth

remained an important means to gain independence from home. Because of the strict housing

regulations, we expect in general a strong link between early marriage, childbearing and

leaving parental home which only slightly weakened in younger cohorts (Hypothesis 5).

5. Data, Variable Definitions and Hypotheses

5.1 The data

We use data of the German Life History Project (GLHP). For the FRG we have data from

three surveys covering the six cohorts 1919-21, 1929-31, 1939-41, 1949-51, 1954-56, 1959-

61. The surveys were conducted in the 1980s. For the GDR we have data for the four cohorts

1929-31, 1939-41, 1951-53, 1959-61. The survey was conducted in 1991/92. The information

about the age at leaving home the first and the last time is extracted from a complete history

of residences. We also have retrospective data on other important life domains like training

and employment, partnership and family. In this analysis, we only use a small portion of the

information available.

The data provides the opportunity a) to follow simultaneously individual careers in different

life domains b) to compare different birth cohorts – both in East and West Germany. This

allows us to analyse the transition from home in its interrelation with other steps related to

social and economic independence. In the following, we will concentrate on the transition into

vocational training, the first job, marriage (and first birth). Because of restrictions of the West

German data set, cohabitation, although it has become an important destination among the

younger West German cohorts, will not be included in our analytical design. We will discuss

the substantial problems that derive from this deficiency in our empirical chapters.

18

6. Empirical Analysis

6.1 Considering first or last leave of the parental home? On the reversability of life

course transitions

Leaving parental home is not a one-way street. Considerable amounts of young people return

to their parents’ home. This holds true for GB, USA, AUS (White 1994: 92). From a life

course perspective, leaving and returning (the multiplicity of) leaving home is an important

indicator of ‘disorder’ in the life course (White 1994: 84). The widespread notion of

increasing life course disorder (Rindfuss et al. 1987), a de-standardization and de-coupling of

events in the transition to adulthood (Buchmann 1989) point to more complex and reversible

transitions in this life period. Against this background, we expect to find a growing difference

between first and last leaving parental home.

The notion of reversibility of transitions like leaving home also has methodological

implications: There are different ways to specify the event of ‘leaving home’. Do we relate to

the first time young adults leave home (including military service)? How do we, in this case,

handle students living in student accommodations and returning to parental home regularly

over a period of sometimes several years? As mentioned above, students life situation is often

characterised by a combination of ongoing economic dependence form (parental) transfers

with living out of the parental household (Buck/Scott 1993). They may live some months a

year at parental home, some months in the university town. They may (officially or not) have

two residential addresses during that period. They may be ‘living away’ from the parental

home without “the explicit purpose of establishing an independent residence” (Buck/Scott

1993: 864). In different data sources (surveys and censuses), there are often inconsistencies

how to count college students and army servants in surveys and censuses (Yi, Coale et al.

1994; White 1994: 88, Buck/Scott 1993: 865).

The case of military service, above all in the GDR, also makes clear that to determine the

‚true‘ timing of leaving parental home may be ambiguous not only because of increasing life

course disorder, but also because of highly institutionalised transitions (as entering military

service). Moreover, as will be shown, World War II contributed to an enormous de-

standardisation of the timing of leaving parental home in older birth cohorts. Because of these

problems, it is necessary to decide what kind of event is taken under consideration when

analysing leaving home. Since we assume that leaving parental home in many cases is not a

single transition, in the following analyses, we will distinguish between the first and last time

(until interview date) leaving home.

19

6.2 Trends in timing of leaving parental home on a cohort level

Fig. 1 a-d display the age structure of last leaving parental home for men and women in East

and West Germany. In the West, we see a clear trend towards an earlier leave over the

decades. For males, the age at finally leaving home has fallen from a median age of 27 to age

23; for women we observe a decline from 26 to 20 years. Only for them in the youngest

cohort, we find a tendency towards a slight rise in age. Taking additionally into account

interquartile distances (i.e. the difference between the 1rst and 3rd quartile) of the age at

leaving home, we see that the ‚time corridor‘ has narrowed over the cohorts. Judged from that

evidence, there is no indication for de-standardised patterns of leaving parental home in terms

of cohort-specific age variation. Our hypotheses 2 and 3 are not supported – by part the

contrary seems to be true.

One related question raised in the literature was aimed at a growing life course disorder. Did

the process of leaving parental home become more reversible over the cohorts? Has it

therefore also become more difficult to determine leaving parental home as a specific event?

As shown in Fig. 2a, the youngest cohorts (those born around 1955 and 1960) display only

marginally growing differences between first and last leaving parental home. Instead, the two

oldest cohorts display deviant patterns. In particular, those born around 1920 experienced by

far the greatest life course disorder in terms of spacing of first and final leaving home. On

average, a difference of 5-6 years lay between the first and the last transition out of the

parental home. Those highly irregular patterns basically can be attributed to the impact of

WW II.

Compared to West Germany, the East German data show in general less cohort-specific

differences (Fig. 1c,d). The median age for men stayed around 23 in all observed cohorts,

while for women it fell from 23 to 21. In addition, the interquartile age spread for women was

decreasing over the cohorts. As a result, the standardisation of the timing of leaving parental

home was growing. Comparing first and last leaving parental home in East Germany, we find

minor differences for women, but growing differences for men (Fig. 2b). For them, in the two

younger cohorts the distance between first and last leaving parental home was 3 years and

more. We can basically attribute this difference to the compulsory military service that

affected large parts of the male cohort (and much larger parts than in the West).

20

6.3 Cohort trends in median ages of leaving parental home and transition to adulthood

As a the next step, we focus on the timing of those other events that constitute the transition

process to adulthood. According to our theoretical outline, we expect for West Germany a

weaker link between leaving home and marriage and family formation over the cohorts. As a

parallel development, we should find a closer link between leaving home and labour market

entry – presuming the latter (still) validly indicating an important step towards economic

independence.

Fig. 3a-b reveal some characteristic changes in the age structure of transitions to adulthood.

For both men and women, up to the cohort 1940 the median age of first marriage and first

birth as well lay close to the average age of leaving parental home. Yet, women of the oldest

cohort display a particular pattern. For them, the median age of leaving home was higher than

that of marriage and even first birth. From the cohort 1950 on, the curves for the median age

of leaving parental home and marriage clearly fell apart: While the median age of first

marriage rose strongly, the age of leaving parental home declined. On the other hand, the

median age of labour market entry (and also first vocational training) rose from age 18 to age

20 for both sexes over the cohorts. This fits our expectations of prolonged educational

careers.

Nevertheless, we can also depict from this figure that – on a cohort level – the postponement

of economic independence did not result in a parallel trend of a higher age at transitions out of

co-residence. Instead, we observe a closer approximation of age of first job and age of leaving

parental home. For the women of the 1960 cohort, the median age of leaving home was only a

few months higher than of entering the first job. For men, the age difference decreased to

somewhat 2 years – compared to more than 8 years in the oldest cohort. The closeness of

median ages of first job and leaving parental home seem to confirm our argument that labour

market entry provides young adults with sufficient resources and stable perspectives that

allow them to form their own household. Certainly, we have to prove this ‘trend’ on the

individual level. Before we turn to the question of spacing of these events, we will first have a

short look on the East German patterns.

The East German data provide a clearly different picture (Fig.3 c,d). While we can observe a

slight rise in median ages of entering vocational training and the first job, the age of leaving

parental home was very stable over the cohorts for men and it slightly fell for women. More

important, the median age of leaving parental home, first marriage and family formation are

very close to each other in all cohorts. The data also give a hint of a slightly changed relation

between leaving home and the two aspects of family formation: while for both men and

21

women – on a cohort level – the age relation between leaving parental home and first birth

was very stable over the cohorts. In the youngest cohort, the median age of first marriage was

appearantly growing, but not the age of leaving parental home. Instead, this process resulted

in a convergence of the median age of marriage and first birth.

6.4 The spacing of leaving parental home and other transitions to adulthood: Bivariate

relations on the individual level

We now shift our perspective from the aggregate level (as represented by cohort-specific

median ages) to the timing and spacing of events on the individual level. Here, we compute

the median (and quartile) differences (in years) between the transitions mentioned above and

leaving parental home in the individual’s life course. Using Kaplan-Meier survival

techniques, we restrict our analyses to those who already experienced the event of leaving

home.

The following figures display a synopsis of the median values of the local interdependence

between leaving parental home and the other events under consideration. We see that in the

younger West German cohorts marriage and first birth have ‘departed’ from leaving parental

home (Fig. 4 a,b). Also, the distance between leaving parental home and first birth has grown

faster than the distance to first marriage. At the same time, from cohort to cohort leaving

parental home followed more closely the transition to the first job, although there still

remained a significant time gap between the two transitions, confirming that not the event of

labour market entry determines leaving home.

In the GDR, the local interdependence of leaving parental home and family related transitions

stayed very much the same in all cohorts(Fig. 4 c,d). The median was close to zero in all

cohorts. We only see a slightly increasing gap between first marriage and leaving home.

Besides that, also the distance between leaving parental home and the first job was shrinking

over the cohorts, yet not in a extend comparable to the FRG. These results basically confirm

the patterns of relative change in West Germany and relative stability in East Germany that

already emerged from the aggregate median ages of first marriage/birth and first training/job.

Taking into account not only the median, but also quartile age differences between the first

job and leaving parental home, the West German data reveal a clear strengthening of the

‚local independence‘ of leaving parental home and labour market entry (Fig. 5 a,b). E.g., three

quarters of the 1960 cohort had left home within 5 (men) and 3 (women) years after entering

the labour market. Opposed to that, in the cohort 1940, it took men more than 8 and women 7

years, in the 1920 cohort 11 and 12 years resp.

22

In East Germany, the cohort development followed the same direction, but was much less

dynamic (Fig. 5 c,d). In the 1960 cohort, it took the men’s third quartil more than 6 years after

labour market entry until they finally moved out – compared to 8 years in the 1930 cohort.

Against that, East German women show a pattern that is very similar to the West German one.

Although they did leave home not as soon after their first job as West German women, the

spacing of both events was more standardised on a cohort level – as the interquartile distance

shows, the first quartile of the West German cohorts left home almost two years before the

first job.

The largest East-West differences for women are certainly related to the spacing of leaving

parental home and first birth (Fig. 6 a,b). In East Germany, still in the cohort 1960 we observe

very few variation among the cohorts. For women, first birth followed within 1 year after

leaving parental home It is specifically to emphasise that in all cohorts, the first quartile had

their first birth before leaving home. Still, even within the third quartile, a close coupling of

first birth to leaving parental home remains over all observed cohorts. The younger West

German women reveal a totally different relation between leaving parental home and first

birth. The cohorts 1930 and 1940 still showed pattern very similar to their East German

counterparts. But the three youngest cohorts deviate heavily from that earlier pattern. They

left home more and more independent from family formation. This trend is not only to be read

off the median time differences (7 years), but even characteristic for the first quartile, where

first births happened 3 years after leaving home in the cohort 1960. In addition to that, we

observe a strongly growing interquartile range: In the 1960 cohort, for the third quartile the

difference between first birth and leaving parental home was 14 years. (For men we even

could not compute values for the third quartile because of right-censored cases).

6.4 Multiple clocks of leaving the parental home

So far we looked for local interdependencies of leaving the parental home with one after the

other single event. There are different possibilities to model the interdependence between

these events simultaneously. One is the use time varying covariates in a rate regression. We

followed another idea one wanted to see whether the approach could add something

substantial to our knowledge.

We pick up the idea of the multiple clocks and estimate the transition rates of leaving home as

it simultaneously depends on different clocks. There is age or the duration of the episode

(“Episode Clock”), the duration since the start of the first training (“First Training Clock”)

and since one year before the start of employment (“First Job Clock”), one year before first

23

marriage (“First Marriage Clock”), and one year before the birth of the first child (“First Child

Clock”). We expect to get from this answers to the following questions:

Is there a considerable difference of the relevance of the events and the respective clocks

between cohorts and between the FRG and the GDR? Are there trends which support our

hypotheses? To which extent can the pure age effect on the transition rate of leaving parental

home be captured by the other clocks, i.e. by anticipation, event or duration effects start of

training, start of first job, marriage, and the birth of the first child?

The rate model is an one episode model with an the absorbing state “the last time left the

parental household” and censoring in case that no leave of the parental home is observed up to

the interview date.

The episodes start at age 14 (168 months after birth) and end at the last leave of the parental

home or are censored. All clocks start ticking from this age on. The unit of measurement is a

month. The episode clock is set to 0 months at the beginning of the episodes. The first training

clock is set to zero at the month of the start of first training. It is negative before. For example

if first training starts192 months after birth at the beginning of the episode the score of this

clock is –24. If, to continue with this example, leaving home takes place at month 240 after

birth, the score of the training clock is 8.

The first job, first marriage, and first child clocks are set to 0 one year before the respective

event. At the event the score is 12. To be sure for those cases which did not experience one of

the these three events, that leaving parental home happened at least one year before we

artificially moved the interview date one year back.

In the case that the scores of the clocks are negative, we restrict the effects to be zero. So we

only estimate effects of duration since first training or since one year before the other three

events by a linear spline function and a clock specific intercept. It relates the level of the

transition rate to leaving home at the 0 of the clock to that of the time before.

The estimations we present in the following were computed with the aML program of Lillard

and Panis. The age effects and the effects of the other “clocks” on the transition rate to

leaving home are estimated as linear spline functions which are piecewise linear functions

(linear splines). The nodes are selected “by hand”. As far as possible (so far) we tried to

control for artefactual results. We looked for large insignificant effects which might be a hint

to poor data. The risk of artefacts is not small because of the complexity of the model.

In each model we chose the following nodes (months) for the linear spline function regarding:

24

- Episode Clock: month 36, 72, 108, 144 (=months after age 14)

- First Training Clock: month 3 and 12 (=months after starting first training)

- First Job, First Marriage, and First Child Clock: month 10, 12, 14, 24 (=2 months before

the event, month of event, 2 months after the event, 12 months after the event). For men

of the GDR the node 12 is skipped because of technical reasons.

For first training we can estimate event, state, and duration effects on the transition rate. For

the three other events we additionally can estimate anticipation effects.

We present only some results showing figures in which the estimates are visualised for

women of the cohorts 1930 and 1960 of FRG and GDR. In the figures only significant

estimates of the spline slopes are included. We are aware of the fact that this might be not

adequate in several cases – particularly when the number of cases is not too large and some

parameters are close to significance. But we use significance as the only criterion of stability

because other methods of diagnostics are not available in the applied program.

Comparing the cohorts 1930 and 1960 in the FRG and the GDR we find some characteristic

patterns which we will show you presenting the findings for women in the next figures and

referring to some results for the men.

Figures 7a, b; Figures 8a, b with women from cohort 1930 of the FRG and the GDR and

women from cohort 1960 the FRG and the GDR

In the first part of our analysis we found that comparing the cohorts in the FRG the proposed

de-coupling of marriage and leaving home took place. This could not be observed on the basis

of comparing medians in the GDR to that extent. They stay fairly close together. We did not

find support for our hypotheses 2 and 3 assuming a postponement of leaving home in later

cohorts and a decreasing age grading. What do we learn with respect to this from our multi

clock analysis?

1. The event effects of the First Marriage Clock are very strong for men and women of the

cohort 1930. For women they are displayed with the red lines in the figures 7a and b for

women in the FRG and in the GDR. The red lines show the linear splines of the effects of the

First Marriage Clock from one year before the first marriage on. Event effects are reflected by

25

the steepness of the line between month 10 and 12 (month of the marriage). We find not only

event effects but also effects of marriage duration. Even though the spline curve is declining

after marriage date the previous rise is not compensated for completely. The effects of the

First Marriage Clock are smaller in the later cohort of the 1960 born women, even though

they are still strong (the last chance). The effects fairly half. Moreover and somewhat

surprisingly the duration pattern is stable. See for this figures 8a and b for women in the FRG

and in the GDR.

These are effects for those who stayed at home until one year before marriage. In the younger

cohorts of the FRG this is a rather small and selective group, in the GDR its share is larger.

However as in the FRG also of the GDR the event effects of marriage considerably shrunk. A

detailed inspection of the GDR data shows the number of synchronous events is shrinking –

as it is the case in the FRG, but still marriage are still quite evenly distributed around the date

of the leave of parental home. This is not clearly mirrored in the results of our model.

There is also evidence for negative anticipation effects of marriage in the case of the FRG

women in the cohorts 1930 and 1960. The same holds true for the men in the 1930 cohorts.

For the women in the GDR we do not find this.

2. We proposed only event effects of a start of training whereas duration effects of the start

into employment at least in the FRG should become stronger in younger cohorts. First training

in all cohorts and both states has significant event effects on leaving home. A significant

intercept slope is followed by a significant negative slope for the following three months.

Again we only look at the women of cohorts 1930 and 1960 in the FRG (Figures 7a, 8a). The

effects of the “First Training Clock” are displayed by the peeked green line. Here very nicely

we see what event effects mean.

As far as the start of the first job is concerned comparing West German women of cohorts

1930 and 1960 show the expected patterns. In the 1960 cohort there indeed seems to be

duration (or even status) effect of the start of the job career in the FRG which we did not find

in the older cohort (figure 8a). The reason why we conclude this is that after the event the

spline function in this cases remains well above the 0-Line. Whether this difference is

significant we do not know, however.

What we do not show in detail is that we do not find this duration or status effect of

employment in any of the 1930 cohorts except maybe the East German men. In contrast to

that we find this pattern in every 1960 cohort. It is more pronounced in the FRG than in the

GDR though. This was quite expected. However, remember that this is no proof because we

26

need a test of positive status effects of employment. To do this one has to estimate models

with time dependent covariates.

3. Our hypothesis was that the age dependence of leaving home in older cohorts is mainly

caused by the relatedness to the events of family formation and in later cohorts by the start of

the occupational career. This means that in the multiple clock model no significant effect of

the episode clock should be left.

In the 1930 cohort this effect indeed diminishes completely after including the other clocks

for men and women in the FRG and the GDR –particularly after including the First Marriage

Clock. In the 1960 cohorts this is not true anymore. Figures 7a and b show the age effects for

women of the cohort 1930 in the FRG and the GDR in the one clock model (age only, solid

black line) and the multiple clock model (dashed black line). While we find significant

positive age effects on the logarithm of the rate of leaving home in the one clock model this is

not the case in multiple clock model. Figures 8a and b show the age effects for women of the

cohort 1960 in the FRG and the GDR in the one clock model (age only, solid black line) and

the multiple clock model (dashed black line). Now we find significant positive age effects on

the logarithm of the rate of leaving home in the one clock model and in the multiple clock

model. It seems that it is less decreasing in the FRG than in the GDR.

This is a remarkable result because it contradicts our hypotheses 2 and 3. Obviously we

particularly for the FRG miss important events to grasp the age grading effects in the younger

cohorts. There must be something else causing this fairly highly age graded pattern of leaving

home in the cohort 1960 additionally to the events we included in our model. The reason

could be that still not only or even not primarily economic reasons are responsible for the age

at leaving the parental home but social factors play a role. Given economic stability (or not

even given that?) age at leaving home is determined by the age the young people of the cohort

1960 are willing to live together in an intimate partnership and they start union formation.

This would still be in line with hypothesis 1.

Just to illustrate the results in a different way, one can show artificial log-rate curves on the

basis of the estimated effects of the different clocks. We let the covariate events “happen”

fairly at the median age when the presented part of the sample experienced them. For example

for a woman of the cohort 1930 in the FRG – assuming a life course without training, starting

a job at age 18, marry at age 23 and have the first child at 24 – the log rate curve would look

like that in figure 9a.

27

Figure 9a, b, c showing a typical pattern for a women from the cohort 1930 in the GDR and

cohorts 1960 in the FRG and the GDR.

Figures 9b and 9c show a typical pattern for a West and East German women from the cohort

1960. Here we see that the age trend is obvious. It is stronger in the FRG than in the GDR.

This makes that the median of the leave of parental home is similar in both countries: in the

FRG already shortly, in the GDR somewhat later after the median age at the start of first job.

On top of the age trend we have the diverse event and duration effects of our observed events.

Missing here is start of cohabitation. The question is whether controlling for this might

explain enough of the age effects to get them insignificant.

If we compare the results of the multi-clock models for the FRG and the GDR it is quite

apparent that there are no major differences in the patterns of the spline functions. This might

be surprising. On the other hand this means that the differences between leaving home in

these two countries were due to differences in the covariate events, their timing and rate of

incidence. The ‘logic’ of the local interdependence between these events and leaving home is

quite similar.

7. Conclusions

Leaving parental home in Germany has changed in several aspects. In the West, we depicted a

long term trend towards leaving home earlier, while in the GDR we observed more stability.

In both countries, historically established differences between men and women in the timing

of leaving home continued to exist. Also most recent data cited above do not clearly point

towards rising ages at leaving parental home in Germany, as was expected before and can be

observed in several other European countries. There even can be found a slight tendency

towards a higher age grading of leaving home.

Concerning the transition to adulthood, one conceptual conclusion was to distinguish between

first and last leaving parental home. The latter seems to reflect the transition to adulthood, in

terms of gaining (social and/or economic) independence, closer than the former. The

difference between the first and last leave of the parental home did not grow strongly. In this

respect, at least up to our cohorts we could not find major indications of a growing disorder

and reversibility of events in the transition to adulthood. Only East German men showed

remarkable differences between first and last leaving parental home – not indicating life

course disorder but highly institutionalised transitions (i.e. military service).

28

Comparing the GDR and the FRG, we found many differences, but also surprising

similarities. First of all, the median age at the last leave of the parental home has been quite

the same for men and women born around 1960 in both countries. In older cohorts, it was

higher in the FRG. The proximity of the last leave to institutionalised events of gaining social

independence (i.e. via marriage, and a first child) was larger in the GDR than in the FRG.

Now one could ask whether in the GDR an early entry into marriage and parenthood favoured

the leave or whether the motivation to leave early favoured early family formation – which in

addition to economic independence was a prerequisite to get priority access to flats? There are

many facts supporting the second hypothesis.

In the FRG, the picture turned out being completely different. Here, the leave became freed

from the institution ‘marriage and the family’. It not clear, however, to which degree it is left

to be a matter of economic affordability. The growing social acceptance of new living

arrangements (like cohabitation, single and other alternative living arrangements) during the

last three decades allowed delaying marriage and family formation without losing the

opportunities to live an independent social life. The stability of the age at leaving parental

home and the low variance could be caused by a fairly common pattern of using these

opportunities – in connection with establishing intimate relations or union formation or

establishing a one person household. In line with this the multi-clock estimations showed that

in the cohort 1960 the events we analysed could not “explain” the age trends. Probably other

events like union formation have to be included.

In addition, a relatively high rate of those who study leave the parental home quite early

because of other reasons. This also points to the problem that, for tertiary students, it is rather

difficult to determine the event of leaving parental home. Many students experience a longer

period of ‚living away’ from the parents’ home before last leaving home. However, besides

this, the outcome of the multi-clock models is quite restricted. Further research is necessary: It

has to be shown, whether we are better off using models with time dependent covariates

compared to multi-clock models, and including other covariates into the model. However,

controlling for unobserved heterogeneity leads to the expectation that the results we presented

here do not change much.

The empirical evidence from the two countries helps to get a deeper insight in how individual

resources and opportunity structures (e.g. youth labour markets, and housing market

regulations) shape cohort specific paths to adulthood. While leaving parental home is an

ingredient part of the transition to adulthood, its interrelation, spacing and ‚local dependency‘

29

on other events in this transition turned out as highly variable. The finding for West Germany,

namely that leaving parental home became less linked to marriage (and family formation),

presumably points to a closer relatedness to new living arrangements. Yet, a growing social

acceptance of new living arrangements has to be supported by the availability of economic

resources to found one’s own household in early adult life. Here, the prospects of stable

employment are necessary conditions for entering new living arrangements. In today’s

Europe, precarious youth labour markets and high youth unemployment have worsened the

conditions to realise early economic independence from home in many countries. As a result,

rising ages at leaving parental home have been observed in the 1990s.

Despite this, the multi-clock models also suggested that, even under relatively advantageous

labour market conditions for young adults, labour market entry has not simply taken over the

role marriage once played for leaving home. Rather, the first job is a starting point for a

longer period of enhanced transition risks out of the parental home. It is also quite plausible

that diverse social factors mould the individual decision to leave home in the years after

entering the labour market. Taking additionally into account the rising enrolment in tertiary

studies and especially the distinct conditions of leaving home among university students, we

might conclude that leaving home has gained a new role in the transition process. The short

and clear-cut transition with closely interrelated transitions in different life domains has

changed into prolonged and more gradual transition patterns to adulthood and a less

predictable order of life events (Buchmann 1989). One further conclusion might be that

during this process leaving home has become “less of a secondary process that follows in the

wake of other choices” (Buck/Scott 1993: 872). Instead, leaving home has become “more

independent of other life events, such as marriage and cohabitation” (ibid.: 865).

30

Literature:

Buchmann, M. (1989): The Script of Life in Modern Society. Entry Into Adulthood in a Changing World,Chicago/London.

Buck, N.; Scott, J. (1993): She’s Leaving Home: But why? An Analysis of Young People Leaving the ParentalHome. In: Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 55: 863-874.

Corijn, M. (1996): Transition into adulthood in Flanders. Results from the Fertility and Family Survey 1991-92.Vlaamse hemeenschap.

Furstenberg, F.F. (2000): The Sociology of Adolescence and Youth in the 1990s: A Critical Commentary. In:Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 62: 896–910.

Goldscheider, F.; Goldscheider, C. (1993): Whose Nest? A Two-Generational View of Leaving Home Duringthe 1980s. In: Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 55: 851-862.

Huinink, J.; Wagner, M. (1995): Partnerschaft, Ehe und Familie in der DDR. In: J. Huinink et al.: Kollektiv undEigensinn. Lebensverläufe in der DDR und danach, Berlin: 145-188.

Hullen, G. (1998): Lebensverläufe in West- und Ostdeutschland. Längsschnittanalysen des deutschen Family andFertility Surveys. Opladen.

Juang, L. P.; Silbereisen, R. K.; Wiesner, M. (1999): Predictors of Leaving Home in Young Adults Raised inGermany: A Replication of a 1991 Study. In: Journal of Marriage and the Family. Vol. 61: 505-515

Konietzka, D. (1998): Langfristige Wandlungstendenzen im Übergang von der Schule in den Beruf. In: SozialeWelt, Vol. 49: 107-134.

Konietzka, D. (1999): Ausbildung und Beruf. Die Geburtsjahrgänge 1919–1961 auf dem Weg von der Schule indas Erwerbsleben. Opladen/Wiesbaden.

Mayer, K. U., Schwarz, K. (1989): The Process of Leaving Home: Some German Data. In: Grebenik, E., Höhn.C., Mackensen, R.: Later Phases of the Family Life Cycle. Oxford: 145-163.

Nilsson, K.; Strandh, M. (1999): Nest Leaving in Sweden: The Importance of Early Educational and LaborMarket Careers. In: : Journal of Marriage and the Family. Vol. 61: 1068-1079.

Rindfuss, R. R.; Swicegood, C. G.; Rosenfeld, R. A. (1987): Disorder in the Life Course: How Common andDoes It Matter? In: American Sociological Review, Vol. 52: 785-801.

Silbereisen, R. K.; Meschke, L. L.; Schwarz, B. (1994): Leaving the Parental Home: Predictors for YoungAdults Raised in Former East and West Germany. In: New directions for child development 71: 71-86.

Solga, H.; Konietzka, D. (1999): Occupational matching and social stratification. Theoretical insights andempirical observations taken from a German-German comparison. In: European Sociological Review, Vol.15: 25-47.

Texmon, I. (1996): Leaving the parental home among young adults. In: Economic Suervey 3/96: 32-42.

Wagner, M.; Huinink, J. (1991): Neuere Trends beim Auszug aus dem Elternhaus. In: G. Buttler et al. (Ed.):Acta Demographica, Heidelberg 1991: 39-62.

Weick, S. (1993): Determinanten des Auszugs aus der elterlichen Wohnung. In: A. Diekmann; S. Weick (Ed.):Der Familienzyklus als sozialer Prozeß, Berlin: 86-108.

Wendt, H. (1997): The Former German Democratic Republic: the Standardized Family. In: Kaufmann, F.-X. etal. (Ed.): Family Life and Family Policies in Europe. Oxford: 114-154.

31

White, L. (1994): Coresidence and Leaving Home: Young Adults and Their Parents. In: Annual review ofsociology, Vol. 20: 81-102.

White, L., Lacy, N. (1997): The Effects of Age at Home Leaving and Pathways from Home on EducationalAttainment. In: Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 59: 982–995.

Yi, Z.; Coale, A.; Choe, M. K.; Zhiwu, L.; Li, L. (1994): Leaving the Parental Home: Census-based Estimatesfor China, Japan, South Korea, United States

Fig. 1a, 1b: Age at Last Leaving Parental Home

West Germany

Age at Last Leaving Parental Home (KM-Estimation)

14,0

16,0

18,0

20,0

22,0

24,0

26,0

28,0

30,0

1919-21 1929-31 1939-41 1949-51 1954-56 1959-61

Cohort

Age

Men 3.Quartil

MenMedian

Men 1.Quartil

Age at Last Leaving Parental Home (KM-Estimation)

14,0

16,0

18,0

20,0

22,0

24,0

26,0

28,0

30,0

1919-21 1929-31 1939-41 1949-51 1954-56 1959-61

Cohort

Age

Women3. Quartil

WomenMedian

Women1. Quartil

Fig. 1c, 1d: Age at Last Leaving Parental Home

East Germany

Age at Last Leaving Parental Home (KM-Estimation) - East Germany

14,0

16,0

18,0

20,0

22,0

24,0

26,0

28,0

30,0

1929-31 1939-41 1951-53 1959-61

Cohort

Age

Men 3.Quartil

MenMedian

Men 1.Quartil

Age at Last Leaving Parental Home (KM-Estimation)

14,0

16,0

18,0

20,0

22,0

24,0

26,0

28,0

30,0

1929-31 1939-41 1951-53 1959-61

Cohort

Age

Women3. Quartil

WomenMedian

Women1. Quartil

Fig. 2a, 2b: First and Last Leaving Parental Home

West Germany

East Germany

Median Age at First and Last Leaving Parental Home (KM-Estimation)

18,0

20,0

22,0

24,0

26,0

28,0

1929-31 1939-41 1951-53 1959-61

Cohort

Age

Men First

WomenFirstMen Last

WomenLast

Median Age at First and Last Leaving Parental Home (KM-Estimation)

18,0

20,0

22,0

24,0

26,0

28,0

1919-21 1929-31 1939-41 1949-51 1954-56 1959-61

Cohort

Age

Men First

WomenFirstMen Last

WomenLast

Fig. 3a, 3b: Median Ages Transition to Adulthood

West Germany

Median Ages Transition to Adulthood - Men - (KM-Estimation)

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

1919-21 1929-31 1939-41 1949-51 1954-56 1959-61

Cohort

Age

First Birth

FirstMarriage

LastLeavingHomeFirst Job

First Voc.Training

Median Ages Transition to Adulthood - Women - (KM-Estimation)

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

1919-21 1929-31 1939-41 1949-51 1954-56 1959-61

Cohort

Age

First Birth

FirstMarriage

LastLeavingHomeFirst Job

First Voc.Training

Fig. 3c, 3d: Median Ages Transition to Adulthood

East Germany

Median Ages Transition to Adulthood - Men - (KM-Estimation)

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

1929-31 1939-41 1949-51 1959-61

Cohort

Age

First Birth

FirstMarriage

LastLeavingHomeFirst Job

First Voc.Training

Median Ages Transition to Adulthood - Women - (KM-Estimation)

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

1929-31 1939-41 1949-51 1959-61

Cohort

Age

First Birth

FirstMarriage

LastLeavingHomeFirst Job

First Voc.Training

Fig. 4a, 4b: Leaving Parental Home and Transition to Adulthood

West Germany

Median Differences Transition to Adulthood - Last Leaving Parental Home - Men (KM-Estimation)

-14

0

14

1919-21 1929-31 1939-41 1949-51 1954-56 1959-61

Cohort

Diff

eren

ce (i

n Y

ears

)

First Birth

FirstMarriageFirst Job

First Voc.Training

Median Differences Transition to Adulthood - Last Leaving Parental Home - Women (KM-Estimation)

-8

0

8

1919-21 1929-31 1939-41 1949-51 1954-56 1959-61

Cohort

Diff

eren

ce (i

n Y

ears

)

First Birth

FirstMarriageFirst Job

First Voc.Training

Fig. 4c, 4d: Leaving Parental Home and Transition to Adulthood

East Germany

Median Differences Transition to Adulthood - Last Leaving Parental Home - Men (KM-Estimation)

-14

0

14

1929-31 1939-41 1951-53 1959-61

Cohort

Diff

eren

ce (i

n Y

ears

)

First Birth

FirstMarriageFirst Job

First Voc.Training

Median Differences Transition to Adulthood - Last Leaving Parental Home - Women (KM-Estimation)

-8

0

8

1929-31 1939-41 1951-53 1959-61

Cohort

Diff

eren

ce (i

n Y

ears

)

First Birth

FirstMarriageFirst Job

First Voc.Training

Fig. 5a, 5b: Spacing of First Job and Last Leaving Parental Home

West Germany

Difference First Job - Last Leaving Parental Home (KM-Estimation)

-13-12-11-10

-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1012

1919-21 1929-31 1939-41 1949-51 1954-56 1959-61

Cohort

Diff

eren

ce (i

n Y

ears

)

Men 3.Quartil

MenMedian

Men 1.Quartil

Difference First Job - Last Leaving Parental Home (KM-Estimation)

-13-12-11-10

-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1012

1919-21 1929-31 1939-41 1949-51 1954-56 1959-61

Cohort

Diff

eren

ce (i

n Y

ears

)

Women3. Quartil

WomenMedian

Women1. Quartil

Fig. 5c, 5d: Spacing of First Job and Last Leaving Parental Home

East Germany

Median Difference First Job - Last Leaving Parental Home

(KM-Estimation)

-13-12-11-10

-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1012

1929-31 1939-41 1951-53 1959-61

Cohort

Diff

eren

ce (i

n Y

ears

)

Men 3.Quartil

MenMedian

Men 1.Quartil

Median Difference First Job - Last Leaving Parental Home

(KM-Estimation)

-13-12-11-10

-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1012

1929-31 1939-41 1951-53 1959-61

Cohort

Diff

eren

ce (i

n Y

ears

)

Women3. Quartil

WomenMedian

Women1. Quartil

Fig. 6a, 6b: Spacing of First Birth and Last Leaving Parental Home

West Germany

East Germany

Median Difference First Birth - Last Leaving Parental Home (KM-Estimation)

-3-2-10123456789

101112131415

1929-31 1939-41 1951-53 1959-61

Cohort

Diff

eren

ce (i

n Y

ears

)

Women3. Quartil

WomenMedian

Women1. Quartil

Median Difference First Birth - Last Leaving Parental Home (KM-Estimation)

-3-2-10123456789

101112131415

1919-21 1929-31 1939-41 1949-51 1954-56 1959-61

Cohort

Diff

eren

ce (i

n Y

ears

)

Women 3.Quartil

WomenMedian

Women 1.Quartil

Fig. 7a

Multiple Clocks of Leaving Parental Home: Women, FRG, Cohort 1930

-10,0

-8,0

-6,0

-4,0

-2,0

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Log Rate

One clock: Age (Episode clock) Multiple clocks: Age (Episode clock)Multiple clocks: Start of first training Multiple clocks: Start of first jobMultiple clocks: First marriage Multiple clocks: First child

Age

First training clock

-12 0 12

Episode clock;first job,

marriage, and child clock

0 12 24 36 48

24 36

Fig. 7b

Multiple Clocks of Leaving Parental Home: Women, GDR, Cohort 1930

-10,0

-8,0

-6,0

-4,0

-2,0

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Log Rate

One clock: Age (Episode clock) Multiple clocks: Age (Episode clock)Multiple clocks: Start of first training Multiple clocks: Start of first jobMultiple clocks: First marriage Multiple clocks: First child

Age

First training clock -12 0 12

Episode clock;first job, marriage,

and child clock0 12 24 36 48

24 36

Fig. 8a

Multiple Clocks of Leaving Parental Home: Women, FRG, Cohort 1960

-10,0

-8,0

-6,0

-4,0

-2,0

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Log Rate

One clock: Age (Episode clock) Multiple clocks: Age (Episode clock)Multiple clocks: Start of first training Multiple clocks: Start of first jobMultiple clocks: First marriage Multiple clocks: First child

Age

First training clock -12 0 12

Episode clock;first job, marriage,

and child clock0 12 24 36 48

24 36

Fig. 8b

Multiple Clocks of Leaving Parental Home: Women, GDR, Cohort 1960

-10,0

-8,0

-6,0

-4,0

-2,0

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Log Rate

One clock: Age (Episode clock) Multiple clocks: Age (Episode clock)Multiple clocks: Start of first training Multiple clocks: Start of first jobMultiple clocks: First marriage Multiple clocks: First child

Age

First training clock -12 0 12

Episode clock;first job, marriage,

and child clock0 12 24 36 48

24 36

Fig. 9a

Multiple Clocks of Leaving Parental Home: Women, FRG, Cohort 1930No training, start of first job at 18, first marriage at 23, first child at 24 (LPH-

Median = 23,6)

-10,0

-8,0

-6,0

-4,0

-2,0

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Log Rate

Multiple clocks: Age (Episode clock) Multiple clocks: Start of first trainingMultiple clocks: Start of first job Multiple clocks: First marriageMultiple clocks: First child Sum

Age

Fig. 9b

Multiple Clocks of Leaving Parental Home: Women, FRG, Cohort 1960Start of first training at 17, start of first job at 20, first marriage at 25, first child

at 28 (LPH-Median = 20,6)

-10,0

-8,0

-6,0

-4,0

-2,0

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Log Rate

Multiple clocks: Age (Episode clock) Multiple clocks: Start of first trainingMultiple clocks: Start of first job Multiple clocks: First marriageMultiple clocks: First child Sum

Age

Fig. 9c

Multiple clocks of the LPH: Women, GDR, Cohort 1960Start of first training at 17, start of first job at 19, first marriage and first child at

22 (LPH-Median = 20,7)

-10,0

-8,0

-6,0

-4,0

-2,0

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Log Rate

Multiple clocks: Age (Episode clock) Multiple clocks: Start of first trainingMultiple clocks: Start of first job Multiple clocks: First marriageMultiple clocks: First child Sum

Age

Fig. A.1a, A.1b

West Germany

Number Leaving Parental Home - Men

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1920 1930 1940 1950 1955 1960Cohort

Not (Yet) Left Home Left once Left at least twice

Number Leaving Parental Home - Women

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1920 1930 1940 1950 1955 1960Cohort

Not (Yet) Left Home Left once Left at least twice

Fig. A.1c, A.1d

East Germany

Number Leaving Parental Home - Men

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1930 1940 1950 1960Cohort

Not (Yet) Left Home Left once Left at least twice

Number Leaving Parental Home - Women

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1930 1940 1950 1960Cohort

Not (Yet) Left Home Left once Left at least twice