Youth Social Policy

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjys20

Journal of Youth Studies

ISSN: 1367-6261 (Print) 1469-9680 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjys20

Parental co-residence, shared living and emerging adulthood in Europe: semi-dependent housing across welfare regime and housing system contexts

Rowan Arundel & Richard Ronald

To cite this article: Rowan Arundel & Richard Ronald (2016) Parental co-residence, shared living and emerging adulthood in Europe: semi-dependent housing across welfare regime and housing system contexts, Journal of Youth Studies, 19:7, 885-905, DOI: 10.1080/13676261.2015.1112884

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2015.1112884

Published online: 12 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1175

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 45 View citing articles

Parental co-residence, shared living and emerging adulthood in Europe: semi-dependent housing across welfare regime and housing system contexts Rowan Arundela and Richard Ronalda,b

aCentre for Urban Studies, Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research (AISSR), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; bSchool of Social Policy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

ABSTRACT Transitions to adulthood not only represent a key period for individual development but also contribute to processes of social stratification. Growing evidence has pointed to increased complexity, postponement and individualization in transition dynamics. Previous research has focused on trends in school-to- work transitions and family formation; however, the central role of housing represents an interrelated process that is less understood. As pathways to adulthood have diversified, many young people experience partial independence in one sphere while continued dependence in others. Semi-dependent housing, either through parental co-residence or shared living, can be an important coping mechanism. Using the European Survey on Income and Living Conditionst, the research investigates the role that semi- dependent living plays within emerging adulthood across varied European contexts. The data suggests that the extent and type of semi-dependent housing varies substantially across EU15 countries. The findings indicate that levels of housing independence can be partly explained by welfare regime context while the propensity for shared living appears correlated with affordability in the rental market. Although socio-cultural and economic trends play an important and interrelated role, the study argues that housing dynamics of young adulthood and the role of semi-dependent living is fundamentally shaped by the context of the housing system and welfare regime.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 12 February 2015 Accepted 22 October 2015

KEYWORDS Parental co-residence; shared living; emerging adulthood; welfare regime; housing systems

1. Introduction

Transition to adulthood is by no means a clear-cut process and comprises varied sequences of institutionalized status passages from school completion, to labour market entry, to parental home-leaving, to family formation and potential parenthood. It has been argued that the transition period to adulthood has become more extended and diversified in recent decades (Arnett 2000; Buchmann and Kriesi 2011). Much research has focused on changes in school-to-work transitions and especially family formation pro- cesses. However, the role of housing transitions in the period of emerging adulthood rep- resents a key interrelated process that remains less understood. Housing is an important

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

CONTACT Rowan Arundel [email protected]

JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES, 2016 VOL. 19, NO. 7, 885–905 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2015.1112884

consideration both in its impact on quality of life as well as, through property investment, potential future economic security (Doling and Ronald 2010). The simple ‘housing ladder’ model posits progressive shifts from home-leaving to rental housing, to eventual home- ownership (Beer and Faulkner 2011; Kendig, Paris, and Anderton 1987). However, it has become clear that housing transitions have also increased in complexity (Clapham 2002). Studies have pointed to higher levels of parental co-residence among young adults through either delayed home-leaving or returns to the natal home (Aassve, Cottini, and Vitali 2013; Stone, Berrington, and Falkingham 2014). Destinations after home-leaving have also diversified with evidence of increases in non-marital cohabitation and sharing arrangements with non-family members (Mykyta and Macartney 2011). Such states of semi-dependence in housing represent an increasingly important intermediate stage with partial independence in one sphere while continued dependence in others.

This paper sets out to examine the role of housing in this period of adulthood transition and the specific importance of ‘in-between phases’ of housing represented by semi- dependent living, either in parental co-residence or shared living, across advanced econ- omies. While separate literatures have attempted to understand diversification and increasing complexity of adulthood transitions through the lenses of changing youth pre- ferences and lifestyle choices (Arnett 1997, 2006) or through structural changes of an increasingly precarious and uncertain ‘risk society’ (Beck 1992, 2000; Giddens 1999), there has been little recognition of the extent that these dynamics manifest in the domain of housing, both in impacting housing trajectories of young adults, as well as the interrelated nature of housing with other important transition markers of adulthood. Crucially, housing transitions are set within and against important structural and cultural contexts that affect young adults’ housing constraints, opportunities and preferences. At the national level, two important contextual dimensions can be seen to mediate young people’s increasingly complex housing outcomes: the welfare regime and the nature of the housing system. Welfare regime theory has been one of the primary lenses used to understand housing and life-course transitions across societies; integrating various social dimensions including the intersection – or mix – of family, state and market. While specificities of the housing system – albeit presenting some overlap with welfare regime classifications – play a further key role in shaping housing careers.

Whereas previous studies have focused on the USA or the UK (e.g. Calvert 2010; Mykyta and Macartney 2011; Stone, Berrington, and Falkingham 2014), Europe presents a valuable setting for comparative research as countries exhibit substantial differentiation in cultural, housing and welfare contexts. Through a quantitative macro analysis of 14 European countries using the European Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC), our study examines to what extent semi-dependent housing (either parental co-residence or shared living) plays a role in the period of adulthood transition, how this differs across Europe, and to what extent welfare regime and housing system factors can explain cross-country variations. The paper brings together four important foci that have been the subject of previous research but have not been clearly integrated in under- standing housing trajectories of younger adults: (1) the increasing diversification and com- plexity of adulthood transitions, (2) intermediary/semi-dependent housing arrangements, (3) welfare regimes and (4) housing systems. Through these dimensions, the research explores the role of semi-dependent housing within the processes of increasingly complex transitions to adulthood. Although shorter-term socio-cultural and economic

886 R. ARUNDEL AND R. RONALD

trends have an impact, we argue that these significant in-between phases in housing careers and the role of semi-dependent living is fundamentally shaped by the context of the housing system and welfare regime.

2. Transitions to adulthood across Europe

The transition from youth to adulthood is often conceptualized as a series of status pas- sages across a period considered ‘demographically dense’ (Buchmann 1989; Kohli 2007; Rindfuss 1991). Transition into adulthood represents a key stage in the life-course where decisions and events can have long-lasting effects for individual development (Buchmann 1989) as well as in shaping stratification at the societal level (Macmillan 2005; Muller and Gangl 2003; Settersten 2007). Traditionally, these transitions have been seen as being part of a relatively linear, gendered and normative process of standardized pathways from family of origin into family of destination (Wallace 1987). Molgat (2007) contends that when these transitions followed in relatively close sequence and over a short time, the transition to adulthood did not seem overly problematic. In recent decades, however, a growing body of research has argued that the process has become increasingly diversified with non-linearity in housing, education and employment tran- sitions characterized by routes in-and-out of the parental home and job instability – aka boomerang or ‘yo-yo’ transitions (Arundel and Lennartz 2015; Calvert 2010; Biggart, Stauber, and Walther 2001; Pais 2003).

In the European context, Buchmann and Kriesi (2011) identify a number of recent and critical changes in adulthood transitions. First, evidence of an increasingly prolonged tran- sition processes with postponement of traditional transition markers has been noted (see Gauthier 2007; Settersten 2007). Secondly, there appears to be greater age variations in transition event timing (Billari and Wilson 2001; Gangl, Muller, and Raffe 2003; Sobotka and Toulemon 2008). They conclude that despite rather uniform postponement, there appears to be no convergence with cross-national differences remaining large and stable over time (see Frejka and Sardon 2006; Iacovou 2002). These trends have led, none- theless, to claims of a more or less universal ‘destandardization’ in life-course transitions to adulthood, albeit bearing the markers of specific socio-cultural pathways related to var- iance in home-leaving age and its decoupling with marriage or job-entry events (Bernardi and Nazio 2005; Brückner and Mayer 2005; Mulder, Clark, and Wagner 2002). While Buch- mann and Kriesi (2011) provide an important overview of research on adulthood tran- sition, like many demographers, they fail to fully acknowledge the significance of housing; both its central role as a marker of adulthood and in housing’s interrelated influ- ence on other transition dimensions. Housing careers are clearly intertwined with family formation transitions yet destandardization in housing pathways and how these vary across regional contexts is not well understood. Indeed, normalized routes into adulthood are bound up with movement through different types of housing and tenure, with the latter mediating the former both culturally and materially. Specifically, in many, if not most contexts, the achievement of homeownership has not only become synonymous with the full realization of independent adult status, it has also become a criterion upon which the realization of long-term partnership and fertility rest (Mulder and Billari 2010; Vignoli, Rinesi, and Mussino 2013). Housing systems are thus critical in respect to their liquidity or rigidity in mediating transition from dependence to independence and,

JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 887

moreover, have been linked with broader socio-structural determinants, such as welfare regimes (e.g. Hoekstra 2003).

The changing nature of pathways to adulthood have been further framed within the contexts of larger societal shifts and the emergence of a ‘risk society’. Beck (1992, 2000) and Giddens (1999) have argued that changes in economic and social structures have eroded certainties that existed under previous Fordist conditions. These changing circum- stances have led to increasing ‘individualization’ where households have more agency in shaping life-courses but also take on greater risks – or potential returns – associated with a more volatile socio-economic system (Beck 1992). While, in the past, individual risk was mitigated through stronger welfare states, embedded social institutions such as marriage and family, and widespread wage employment, in recent decades these frameworks have unravelled. Indeed, roll-back of the welfare state, post-industrial ‘flexibilisation’ of employ- ment and decoupling of education systems to job opportunities, as well as family and household fragmentation, have led to increased precarity in transition pathways (Beck 1992, 2000; Calvert 2010). Uncertainty has reshaped routes into and through family for- mation, education, labour retraining and housing (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2002; Beer and Faulkner 2011). The restructuring of risk has interacted with housing as a mediator of individualization, as housing careers represent key intersections of family and employ- ment trajectories as well as socio-economic and market conditions. In particular, dimin- ished employment security has undermined the stability needed for home purchase, or even finding secure, independent rental property.

The impact of ‘the restructuring of risk’ on transition pathways have challenged tra- ditional perceptions of maturity and resulted in the conceptualizing of an ‘emerging adult- hood’ where there is a significant life-course phase in-between youth and adulthood. Arnett (2006) views this period as being highly unstructured and unsettled – with neither a sense of adolescence nor full adulthood. Increasing importance is placed on indi- vidual conceptions of autonomy, but less so on traditional markers of adulthood (Arnett 1997; Calvert 2010). ‘Emerging adulthood’ thus manifests itself as leisurely and lengthy explorations of identity, lifestyle and career possibilities (Arnett 1997). Criticism has been levelled at this representation, however, for conflating free choice and the ‘explora- tion of identities’ with coping mechanisms in the face of structural forces (Bynner 2005; Côté and Bynner 2008). Bynner argues that Arnett’s emerging adulthood dismisses struc- tural factors as merely ‘environmental influences and constraints in the way of life-goals rather than as shaping, in a fundamental way, roles and identities to match modern con- ditions’ (2005, 369). Such a universalizing concept overlooks important institutional, social and cultural contexts in shaping adulthood transitions, as well as significant cross-national variations (Calvert 2010; Mitchell 2006). Particularly absent has been concern with housing pathway outcomes within these structural shifts and their intersection with conceptions of dependence and independence through these transition stages of emerging adulthood.

3. Semi-dependent housing and emerging adulthood

As with other adulthood markers, housing trajectories of young adults have also become more ‘fuzzy’ in recent years, and constitute a critical, but largely understudied element of emerging adulthood. Whereas the traditional view of housing transitions proposed a ‘ladder’ where the first rung after home-leaving was renting, then homeownership with

888 R. ARUNDEL AND R. RONALD

a steady progression of increasing housing quality and consumption (Kendig, Paris, and Anderton 1987), the reality of contemporary transitions appear more complex with evi- dence of often chaotic and non-linear pathways to stable living for young home-leavers (Arundel and Lennartz 2015; Hochstenbach and Boterman 2015; Rugg, Ford, and Burrows 2004). Extended co-residence or returns to the parental home seem to play an increasingly important role in many countries (Aassve, Cottini, and Vitali 2013; Lennartz, Arundel, and Ronald 2015; Stone, Berrington, and Falkingham 2014) and, outside the natal home, non-traditional forms of sharing might also represent a significant short- or longer-term option. Shared housing can be a coping mechanism where other forms of family or state support are not available and can range from the informal and transitory, such as in ‘couch surfing’ (McLoughlin 2013), to being a longer-term strategy. Shared living with strangers, friends or other relatives can represent exactly the type of intermediary (in) dependence that can provide partial autonomy where economic conditions do not allow for fully independent housing status or – as a lifestyle choice – where continued social support is desired within the housing arrangement. While extended co-residence with parents provides less independence in the short-term, it can also be a strategy in accumu- lating capital for a down-payment thereby enhancing stable independence in the long- term. Saving costs through co-residence has also been characterized as a way for young adults to increase autonomy in other life domains through increased discretionary spend- ing – emphasized in Japanese representations of ‘parasite singles’ (Hirayama and Ronald 2008).

What these trends point to is a growing importance of what would traditionally be seen as ‘in-between’ or liminal phases in the housing career where states of semi-dependent housing play an important role during the period of emerging adulthood (or even beyond). US studies have pointed to recent increases in ‘doubled-up families’ and various types of sharing arrangements (Mykyta and Macartney 2011), albeit conceding that this is not a new phenomenon in itself with historical precedents for many variations of shared living (see Modell and Hareven 1973).1 Semi-dependent housing arrangements, either as parental co-residence or sharing, appear to represent an important stage in their own right in the housing dimension of adulthood transitions. Nonetheless there is also evi- dence of strong cross-country variance and that underlying cultural, economic and insti- tutional contexts play a key role in influencing opportunities or constraints in young people’s housing careers.

4. Structural determinants of semi-dependent housing

Although there have been arguments of changing individual preferences among young adults (Arnett 2006), it is also clear that structural and institutional settings can impact pathway decisions (Clausen 1991; Elder and Shanahan 2006). By looking at the variation that remains apparent across European country contexts, one can help to untangle some of the contextual factors that influence young adults’ housing outcomes. While this paper seeks to highlight the potential influence of structural contexts, it is understood that these act on top of or in relation to individual factors. Whereas, for example, econ- omic resources make a key difference in attaining housing goals and influence the propen- sity to choose semi-dependent arrangements, while individual preferences may have a clear impact on housing decisions such as the likelihood to share for social or lifestyle

JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 889

reasons. Nonetheless, these factors remain interrelated with the structural context, which frame socio-cultural expectations and constrain the economic resources of young people. Two key structural dimensions that are examined in relation to housing opportunities, con- straints and preferences are the welfare regime and housing system contexts.

4.1. Welfare regime

Welfare regime theory, especially since Esping-Andersen (1990), has been central to research on societal differences and – albeit not immune to criticism – is an important lens by which to understand variation across Europe in adulthood transitions. Welfare con- figurations can have important effects on relative life-course constraints and opportunities as well as the normative expectations of pathway choices. Welfare regimes reflect, among other things, the generosity of state support – or lack thereof – that can enable economic stability needed for accessing independent housing while mitigating subsequent econ- omic setbacks. Underlying socio-cultural expectations are strongly linked to welfare regimes and the interplay of welfare mix – whether seen as the motivation for policies or the outcome of the established system. Regime contexts frame reliance on state support versus family in adult transitions, as well as expectations of early independence compared to preferences for continued co-residence (Matznetter and Mundt 2012). Four main regime types are commonly identified describing important differences in the level of state support, the role of the market and the extent that the family is a key provider of welfare. For example, strong state support in social democratic countries con- trasts to market-reliance in liberal contexts. In conservative/corporatist countries, mean- while, there is likely to be more of a mix of influences in housing pathways compared to a strong familialist-orientation in southern European societies. Welfare regime typologies present a valuable perspective in describing significant differences in the socio-cultural and institutional contexts that would impact young adults’ housing transitions albeit their explanatory limitations are also accepted. Welfare regime theories have been particu- larly criticized for not properly incorporating the role of housing, which does not always map clearly onto regime typologies (Hoekstra 2003; Kemeny 2001) thus motivating an examination of further specificities of the housing system.

4.2. Housing system context

Within the welfare domain, housing system factors can relate to accessibility and avail- ability of social or public housing, subsidized rent schemes and regulation. Beyond this, housing system factors also relate to market supply mechanisms, demand, pricing and access to mortgage credit. In consideration of adulthood transitions, the housing system context clearly affects the availability and affordability of various housing options. Since the first destination after the parental home is typically renting (Lee and Painter 2013), the regulation and affordability of rental housing is of key importance as a structural determinant. It would be expected that the relative affordability of the rental sector would determine to what extent shared living would be employed to cope with high rents for those who still wish or need to leave the parental home. Rental housing affordability is therefore an important consideration in explaining variations in sharing among young people across Europe. However, it is also recognized that rental

890 R. ARUNDEL AND R. RONALD

affordability is strongly interrelated with other institutional features related to welfare regime or the housing system, such as rent regulation and competition between the social and private sectors (Lennartz 2013).

5. The research

In consideration of the presented context, the exploratory research contributes some foundational understanding of the housing dimension within emerging adulthood and the role of semi-dependent living arrangements – either in co-residence or sharing. The premise is that welfare regime and housing system contexts are likely to have an impor- tant role in influencing young people’s housing status and thus the research seeks to relate the role of semi-dependent living to the social, cultural and institutional contexts that likely mediate these dynamics. The following research questions are presented:

(1) To what extent do semi-dependent housing arrangements play a role in the period of emerging adulthood across Europe? (2) How does this differ across country contexts? (3) And to what extent do the housing system and welfare regime contexts explain these differences?

5.1. Methodology

The study remains exploratory in scope and examines macro-data at the country level. The research uses the EU-SILC data set to investigate housing arrangements of young adults (defined as between 18 and 34) in a comparable way across European countries. To look at underlying patterns across Europe while partially controlling for short-term fluctu- ations in housing status, a multi-year average is used for the full period of compatible data: 2005–2011. Data were analysed for 14 countries, including all EU15 countries with the exception of Ireland, for which recent data was unavailable.2 The results are first presented descriptively across the countries and, subsequently, the relationships between semi- dependent housing and economic capacity of young adults, the contexts of the welfare regime, and housing systems are examined.

As a key indicator of economic capacity, a measure of youth unemployment was used. The national average youth unemployment rates for the same 2005–2011 period were included for those aged 15–29.3 Welfare regime groupings were based on conventional classifications from the literature (see Aassve, Cottini, and Vitali 2013; Esping-Andersen 1990; Lennartz, Arundel, and Ronald 2015) with our sample consisting of the regime typol- ogies of social democratic (including Denmark, Finland and Sweden), conservative (includ- ing Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands), southern European (including Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal) and liberal (represented by the UK). Finally, as an indicator of housing system context, rental affordability was measured looking at the ratio of average annual private rent to median equivalized income for each country.4 Whereas, the size of the rental sector as well as the relative cost and means of entry to homeownership are also important housing system considerations, these appeared strongly correlated with rental sector affordability as a measure that likely already reflects these characteristics.5

Bivariate correlations were performed to test the macro-level relationship between the housing outcomes and indicators of economic capacity and housing system. Plotted

JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 891

correlations in the resulting figures present the R2 value and the statistical significance of the relationship. In evaluating welfare regime groupings, ANOVAs were carried out along with simple linear regression analyses for each housing status rate at the macro-level.

5.1.1. Housing status In terms of individual housing status, the options can be simplified into either living in an independent household, in parental co-residence or in shared living.6 An independent household is defined as either in a single-person household or in a single ‘family unit’ (i.e. with a married or cohabitating spouse and with or without children). Parental co-resi- dence is any 18–34-year-old living with one or more parents. Shared living is being in a house with ‘extra adults’ defined as individuals that are not the spouse, children or parents of the head of the household and therefore would include housemates such as friends, strangers and other relatives.7 Semi-dependent housing includes both those in parental co-residence or in shared living, where there is a certain degree of depen- dence or pooling of resources in securing living arrangements. Housing status frequen- cies are calculated using the appropriate EU-SILC weighting.

6. Descriptive results

6.1. The role of semi-dependent housing among young Europeans

The initial results of the analysis look at the descriptive divisions in housing status among 18–34–year-olds across the examined countries, in terms of whether they are an indepen- dent household, in parental co-residence, or shared living (Figure 1).

Looking at the data, some important patterns are revealed. Firstly, it appears indeed that semi-dependent housing plays a very significant role in the period of emerging adult- hood for young Europeans. Co-residence, whether late home-leaving or returns, is an especially important source of shelter for young adults in many countries. While sharing

Figure 1. Housing status of 18–34-year-olds (2005–2011 averages). Data source: Eurostat, EU-SILC.

892 R. ARUNDEL AND R. RONALD

rates are unsurprisingly lower, these represent nonetheless a significant proportion in several EU countries.

The EU-SILC data reveals that there remains much variation across the EU15 countries in all three housing outcomes with little evidence of a united housing transition dynamic for young adults in Europe. The countries are grouped based on welfare regimes with the descriptive examination of housing status appearing to reflect differentiation across these regime typologies. Simply looking at the number of 18–34-year-olds that have established an independent home, we can see that this ranges from above or near 80% in the social democratic countries to below 40% in southern Europe, with conservative regime countries of north-western Europe and the liberal case of the UK lying between these extremes. While shared arrangements in some countries make up just 1% of young adults, in other countries – notably the UK – the rates are nearly 1-in-10. Previous considerations of sharing and young people’s housing have focused on US and UK examples, however, the data show that there is little evidence of uniformity across advanced economies. This points to the importance of national context and raises ques- tions on how specificities of economic, socio-cultural and institutional variation may shape the transition choices, opportunities and expectations of young adults. While pre- vious comparative research focused only on co-residence, adding sharing as an alternative presents an important new pattern in many contexts, such as in the liberal UK case, where it is apparent that young adults rely on co-residence as well as sharing.

7. Explaining variation

In considering the second question, the study looked at variation across EU15 countries in terms of measures of economic capacity, welfare regime typologies and housing system context. While such a country-level analysis cannot untangle all contextual impacts on young adults’ housing transitions and the investigation remains exploratory rather than purporting to determine specific causal mechanisms, the intent is to help establish a fun- damental empirical basis for future research.

7.1. Economic capacity of young adults

Economic capacity is clearly an overarching factor in the ability of young adults to afford independent housing. It would be expected that macro-level differences in younger cohorts’ economic conditions would help explain variation in housing status and degree of semi-dependent arrangements due to economic constraints. However, the interest of this paper lies in looking beyond underlying economic conditions of young adults to how the context – in terms of institutional constraints and opportunities as well as socio-cultural expectations and preferences – shapes emerging housing careers. The economic condition of young adults was examined in terms of a control variable in understanding to what extent this could explain young adults’ housing outcomes.

The key indicator used was the national youth unemployment rates for those aged 15–29. The measure was examined against overall levels of semi-dependent housing as economic capacity would be expected to influence whether independent living was achieved and less the specific type of semi-dependent alternative – co-residence or shared – itself more a reflection of the particular socio-cultural, welfare and housing

JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 893

system context. The results (Figure 2) show higher rates of youth unemployment relating to higher proportions of young adults in either co-residence or shared living. However, with the correlation having a p value of .09 the results do not clearly show statistical significance. Fur- thermore, with an R2 of .21, a large majority of the variance remains unexplained by the economic indicator. At best, it appears that the measure of economic capacity has a very marginal correlation with independent living and this underscores the importance of con- sidering other contextual factors. Looking at the scatterplot distribution, there further appears to be some grouping of countries based on welfare regime typologies. The low explanatory power and partial regime clustering supports the contention that, beyond econ- omic capacity, other factors characterizing the institutional and socio-cultural context of the different welfare regimes may have an impact on young people’s housing independence.

7.2. Welfare regimes and semi-dependent housing

Welfare state configurations can have important effects on constraints and opportunities faced by young adults as well as the normative expectations of their pathway decisions. Welfare regimes influence the relative generosity of state support that can enable econ- omic stability needed for accessing housing and overall independence during early adult- hood, and is strongly linked to underlying socio-cultural expectations of independence and/or reliance on family versus state or market support (Matznetter and Mundt 2012). Looking at patterns of housing status in relation to the four common welfare regime classi- fications (Table 1) helps to untangle potential relations between welfare configurations and semi-dependent housing.

7.2.1. Social democratic The social democratic welfare regime, exemplified by the selected Scandinavian countries, represents a strong welfare state system where entitlements are more universalistic and

Figure 2. Semi-dependent living vs. unemployment rate (2005–2011 averages). Data Sources: Eurostat, EU-SILC & unemployment by age [http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/ page/portal/statistics/]

894 R. ARUNDEL AND R. RONALD

less contingent on individual need or circumstances (Esping-Andersen 1990). State support reduces reliance on family leading to a stronger orientation towards household autonomy (Esping-Andersen 1990). The tertiary education system based on vocational training provides easier access to labour markets, although strong protection of senior workers partly dampens this for young entrants (Buchmann and Kriesi 2011). In terms of housing, institutional support and cultural norms foster earlier home-leaving and there- fore lower rates of co-residence among young adults (Mandic 2008). Traditionally, public housing allowed for more independent living, although recent residualization of this sector (Christophers 2013), means that access has decreased for younger generations. The descriptive results from the EU-SILC data (Table 1a) seem to support these dynamics with the lowest levels of parental co-residence among social democratic countries, reflect- ing the younger home-leaving culture and the support for autonomy through state welfare. Since fluctuations in economic conditions are tempered by public support, a lower likelihood of returns to the parental home would also be expected. The data

Table 1. Housing status of 18–34-year-olds by country and welfare regime (EU-SILC 2005–2011). 2005–2011 averages

(a) Co-residence (%) Shared (%) Independent (%)

Denmark 14.65 3.67 81.68 Finland 19.67 1.20 79.14 Sweden 18.36 4.27 77.36 Social democratic average 17.72 3.30 78.98 (Standard deviation) −2.12 −1.33 −1.77

Austria 43.55 4.50 51.95 Belgium 38.02 5.53 56.45 Germany 40.42 2.75 56.83 France 29.81 2.52 67.68 Luxembourg 44.37 1.99 53.64 Netherlands 30.06 5.28 64.66 Conservative average 35.60 3.16 61.25 (Standard deviation) −5.87 −1.40 −5.71

Spain 53.09 6.92 39.98 Greece 57.10 4.94 37.96 Italy 57.09 4.01 38.90 Portugal 56.71 4.59 38.69 Southern European average 55.47 5.29 39.23 (Standard deviation) −1.69 −1.10 −0.72

UK 39.23 9.79 50.97 Liberal regime average 39.23 9.79 50.97

Outcome:

(b) Independent Shared Co-residence

ANOVA F Sig. F Sig. F Sig.

Between welfare regimes 46.12 0.000 5.974 0.013 36.578 0.000

Linear regression β Sig. β Sig. β Sig.

Welfare regime (Reference = Conservative)

Social democratic .578** 0.000 −.141 0.508 −.587** 0.000 Southern European −.599** 0.000 0.293 0.186 .587** 0.000 Liberal −.131 0.155 .745** 0.004 .028 0.775

R2 value .933** .917** .917**

Data source: Eurostat EU-SILC. *p < .05 **p < .01

JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 895

further show relatively lower rates of shared living compared to other regime typologies, likely a reflection of the same public assistance allowing greater independent living. None- theless, the distinction based on welfare regime is imperfect, as intra-group variation remains significant. Whereas Finland does show the lowest shared living rates, Denmark and Sweden rather have medium rates and not lower than several conservative countries.

7.2.2. Liberal The liberal welfare regime characteristic of the UK and other Anglo-Saxon countries, is also oriented towards the individual but is guided by the principle of the market with public benefits targeted only at the most needy through means-testing (Esping-Ander- sen 1990; Matznetter and Mundt 2012). Individual self-reliance and weaker ties to family are fostered which motivate earlier adulthood transitions, such as home-leaving, although without the state support of social democratic regimes protecting against economic and labour uncertainty. Labour market entry is relatively early although the limited safety-net means subsequent setbacks are also common (Buchmann and Kriesi 2011). In terms of the role of semi-dependent housing, the descriptive results (Table 1a) show medium co-residence levels in the UK lying between the low social democratic and high southern European rates. Although it is impossible with the exist- ing data to separate the type of co-residence, the findings support expectations of a norm of earlier home-leaving, however, with a combination of higher economic instabil- ity and lack of public assistance which would lead to more returns (i.e. boomerang kids) (Arundel and Lennartz 2015). Looking at sharing, the liberal case of the UK clearly stands out as having the highest rates with nearly 1 in 10 18–34-year-olds in shared living. This supports the assumption that the normative push to leave home early coupled with lower levels of job security or public assistance, as well as arguably a cultural acceptance of non-family sharing (at least in comparison to more conserva- tive and family-oriented regimes in southern Europe), would result in more young adults resorting to shared arrangements.

7.2.3. Conservative The conservative regime – including Germany, France, Belgium and, in most cases, the Netherlands – is characterized by a stronger orientation towards the family with some status-based social benefits channelled, typically, through the head of household (Esping-Andersen 1990). The vocationally oriented education system makes labour market entry smoother and more stable, although young people often stay longer in school. The regime’s institutional context tends to strengthen family ties and results in somewhat later home-leaving and a lower prevalence of non-traditional families (albeit with France as exception) (Buchmann and Kriesi 2011). The descriptive findings (Table 1a) show intermediate average rates of both co-residence and shared living among the conservative cases reflecting the role of semi-dependent housing in a system that falls between social democratic and southern European extremes. This reflects a stronger role of the family than in the Nordic countries and a greater socio-cultural acceptance of later home-leaving and co-residence. There is also, potentially, the reflection of a catho- lic/protestant divide in approaches to familialism (see Iacovou 2004), albeit not as engrained as in southern Europe.

896 R. ARUNDEL AND R. RONALD

Nevertheless, the data suggests substantial intra-group variation when looking at all three housing outcomes (as confirmed by the higher standard deviation values) with France, Luxembourg and, to a lesser extent, Germany having lower than expected shared living rates. This variation is not unexpected due to the fact that conservative countries present a large block of cases that include quite a substantial amount of within-group variation, especially in terms of housing systems or public housing policy making it harder to predict the outcomes for co-residence, sharing and indepen- dent living. Germany, for example, is generally characterized by a large and affordable rental sector while other countries have less accessible housing markets or stronger ideo- logical and institutional support for homeownership (Ronald 2008). This could have con- trasting effects on the likelihood of leaving the parental home earlier (made easier where affordable housing is available) or to opt for semi-dependent housing arrangements (where affordable rental is not plentiful and preferences for homeownership result in increased desire to save for future property investment) thus reflected in the higher intra-group variation among conservative cases.

7.2.4. Southern European An additional regime type subsequently proposed is the southern European variant (including Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal), which like the conservative regime reflects strong family ties although to an even greater extent and further characterized by low levels of state welfare provision (Esping-Anderson 2006; Ferrera 1996). In these countries, the household (male) breadwinner benefits from relatively stronger employ- ment protection and pensions with welfare support mainly distributed – and accessed – through the family and kinship networks rather than via market or state institutions. The result is the delay of all major transition markers to adulthood, such as completion of schooling or home-leaving, and difficulties in job-entry further complicated by pro- tected labour markets (Baranowska and Gebel 2010; Breen 2005; Gangl, Muller, and Raffe 2003). The EU-SILC data (Table 1a) reveals the highest levels of semi-dependent housing among young adults with especially high co-residence rates reflecting the strongly engrained reliance on the family for assistance (see Mandic 2008). Although it would be anticipated that the continued interconnection of home-leaving with family formation and a strong expectation of homeownership (Buchmann and Kriesi 2011) would result in the lowest levels of non-family shared households, this is not clearly reflected in the data. The southern European countries seem to rather portray medium sharing levels among young adults, while Spain appears as a partial outlier with relatively high rates. The key limitation of the data, however, is that some cases of living with other relatives are included as shared living.8 Whereas living with an extended family member would be less likely in northern European countries than sharing with friends/housemates, in strongly familialist countries, such as in southern Europe, kinship networks commonly extend beyond the nuclear family and therefore the higher rates may partly reflect living with more distant relatives.

JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 897

7.2.5. Welfare regimes as explanatory factor In evaluating whether the variation across welfare regime groupings was statistically sig- nificant, ANOVA tests were carried out separately for each housing outcome proportion. The ANOVA confirmed that there were statistically significant differences between the welfare regime groups for co-residence (p < .01), independent (p < .01) and shared living rates (p < .05) (Table 1b). Whereas there was overall statistical significance in differ- ences across welfare regimes, running simple linear regressions9 – notwithstanding the small sample – helps evaluate the extent that differing welfare regimes statistically relate to the three outcomes. Compared to the conservative regime countries, social democratic and southern European contexts do indeed correlate with higher and lower rates of independent living, respectively, while the opposite holds true for parental co-resi- dence. Whereas the liberal regime reflects intermediary values that are not statistically different from the conservative cases. Finally, only the liberal regime shows a statistically significant correlation with shared living. While some correlation is evidenced between welfare regime typologies and housing status, the explanatory power remains limited in terms of the type of housing arrangement. Absolute levels of semi-dependent housing (and in counterpart total independent living rates) do correlate quite well with welfare regime groupings, however, this is principally associated with co-residence levels as the largest proportion. In terms of shared living, the pattern is only partly related to regime typologies. The highest level of sharing is indeed found in the liberal case of the UK, which would match the assumed correlation of low familialism, early home-leaving and lack of state support. Furthermore, the stronger state support in the social democratic countries does seem to correlate with lower likelihoods of shared living, however, several southern European cases reflect higher than expected levels. Finally, higher intra-cluster variation for sharing rates undermines the predictive power of welfare regime classifications, as further reflected in the regression model R2 values.

Despite the limited explanatory power in sharing propensities, welfare regimes do appear correlated to overall levels of young adults attaining independent living. Whereas economic capacity most certainly plays a role in gaining independence, there is evidence that this may be moderated by the welfare context: in other words, how housing functions in the welfare mix. In reconsidering the scatterplot of unemployment and semi-dependent rates (Figure 2), the apparent grouping of values along welfare regimes hints at this relationship. The scatterplot indicates lower than expected levels of semi-dependent housing within social democratic countries (as well as France) com- pared to youth unemployment, likely reflecting the buffering role of state support. On the other hand, southern European countries (along with Austria and partly Luxembourg and the UK) seem to over-represent semi-dependent rates compared to unemployment, likely indicative of the lower levels of state support and/or stronger socio-cultural expec- tations of familial support.

While welfare regime might somewhat moderate economic capacity in attaining inde- pendent housing and the likelihood of co-residence, the results indicate it only partly explains the role of specific types of semi-dependent housing. Since welfare regimes show a lot of internal variation in housing-related welfare systems (Kemeny 2001), it is likely that housing system factors might further explain variation in young adults’ propen- sity to share, as discussed in the subsequent section.

898 R. ARUNDEL AND R. RONALD

7.3. Housing systems and semi-dependent housing

A crucial element affecting the likelihood of entering shared living (at least for economic reasons) is the nature of the rental sector within which most sharing occurs. An indicator of rental housing affordability was taken as a key measure as it captures the major barrier in accessing independent rental housing. Figure 3 shows the correlation between the ratio of average annual private rent to median equivalized income and proportions of 18–34-year- olds in shared living.

The results show an impressive correlation between the two factors with lower afford- ability in rental relating to higher proportions of sharing. The two variables are highly cor- related with an R2 of over .6 that is strongly significant. Although there is clearly a proportion of variance that remains unexplained relating to other elements of the insti- tutional and socio-cultural context, this correlation supports the notion that the housing system can have important influences on the role of semi-dependent living beyond welfare regime classifications and youth employment conditions. While welfare regime might help in explaining overall levels of semi-dependent housing, the specific likelihood of sharing appears dependent on the conditions of rental housing affordability.

8. Discussion and conclusion

Some important caveats need to be delineated in interpreting the study results. Firstly, the data does not allow an understanding of specific motivations for housing choices such as whether sharing is undertaken as a lifestyle choice or as an economic coping strategy. Nonetheless, looking at both gives insight into arrangements where some form of

Figure 3. Shared living vs. private rental sector affordability. Data Source for average annual private sector rent: Dol and Haffner (2010) Housing Statistics in the European Union (AT, FI, FR, DE, GR, LU, NL=2009/IT, ES, SE=2008 / DK=2002 / UK=2003). Data Source for median equivalised income: Eurostat 2001–2009 (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/ portal/page/portal/statistics) (AT, FI, FR, DE, GR, LU, NL=2009 data/IT, ES, SE=2008 / DK=2003 / UK=2001 / Data for BE and PT not available).

JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 899

sharing of resources occurs whether economic or social – in contrast to living indepen- dently. Secondly, EU-SILC data only includes household members who reside longer than 6 months and therefore the analysis excludes very short-term co-residence or sharing; thus likely underestimating total semi-dependence levels as previous research has identified common practices of temporary sharing (i.e. ‘couch surfing’) where other avenues of state or family support are not available (McLoughlin 2013). Thirdly, the study focuses on welfare regime and housing system contexts and does not purport to look at an exhaustive list of potential factors. Additional dimensions (i.e. demographic composition, in-and-out migration) might add explanatory power and, while not within the scope of this research, could provide useful avenues of future elaboration. Fourthly, in comparing welfare contexts, the UK is the only available liberal regime example avail- able in the data, although the UK case does reflect a large sample. Finally, as mentioned, short-term fluctuations would have an impact on housing options of younger cohorts, especially economic changes such as the recent crisis in Europe. While this is an interesting investigation that merits further research, this study chooses to focus on an initial under- standing of the underlying variations across countries through examining average housing outcomes over a multi-year period from 2005 to 2011. While there are some clear limit- ations to such a macro-level exploratory analysis, the study presents a key initial assess- ment of the role of semi-dependent living and explanations for variation across European contexts with the aim of fostering future research into specific housing and con- textual correlations.

As this study exposes, it is apparent that the housing conditions and careers of young adults are more complex than have been presented in the standard housing ladder model, with non-traditional ‘in-between’ phases in the housing career playing a very important role for many young Europeans. These findings seem to tie in with conceptions of emer- ging adulthood put forth by Arnett (2000, 2006) where this phase is characterized less by traditional markers of adulthood but rather the lengthy explorations of identity, lifestyle and career possibilities. Here, the attainment of independent housing is replaced by more flexible, adaptable housing ‘arrangements’ such as shared living and periods of par- ental co-residence. Furthermore, the economic savings from semi-dependent housing may allow expressions of autonomy in other lifestyle spheres or facilitate better indepen- dent housing options in the future. The trend towards increasing semi-dependent living may also reflect changing housing aspirations and priorities, which are framed within the scope of societal transformations such as the increasing individualized risk and uncer- tainty characteristic of Beck’s (1992) second modernity. This may also strongly reflect shift- ing economic and labour market conditions in recent years that have enhanced the precarity of early adulthood (Forrest and Hirayama 2009), which have demanded that the links between autonomy, family formation and home become more flexible.

The results of the analysis also highlight the continued diversity across European con- texts. The economic, socio-cultural and institutional settings appear to be important in structuring young adult’s housing; whether in terms of moulding expectations or the rela- tive constraints and opportunities in attaining different housing outcomes. In explaining diversity across European contexts, various factors seem to relate to housing status differ- entiation. Economic capacity is assumed critical to the attainment of independent living and while youth unemployment rates are marginally related to levels of semi-dependent

900 R. ARUNDEL AND R. RONALD

housing, much of the variance remains unexplained, pointing to the important mediating role of other factors such as the welfare regime and housing system context.

Welfare regime classifications provide insight into explaining differing housing con- ditions of emerging adulthood. Absolute levels of semi-dependent housing and rates of independent living correlate quite well with welfare regime groupings, however, the explanatory power of welfare regimes in predicting the ‘type’ of semi-dependent housing and the propensity for sharing is weaker. Nonetheless, liberal regime contexts, as exemplified by the UK, do appear to promote the highest rates of shared arrangements among young adults. This supports the assumption that earlier home-leaving coupled with unstable labour opportunities, lower state support and less familial-orientation increases the likelihood of sharing, while in social democratic countries with stronger and more universalistic welfare support, lower rates of co-residence and sharing are found. On the other hand, southern European countries show higher than expected rates of sharing perhaps capturing arrangements of extended kinship networks and living with distant relatives.

In recognizing the imperfect alignment of housing dynamics and welfare regime typol- ogies, housing system indicators were also examined. The results showed a strong corre- lation between private rental affordability and shared living rates supporting arguments for the centrality of rental accessibility in attaining independent living. While not detract- ing from the important contribution of welfare regime theory towards describing the socio-cultural and institutional contexts that mediate young people’s housing transitions, the findings point to the essential importance of considering housing system specifics that do not map clearly onto regime classifications.

Overall, the paper contends that, beyond short-term socio-economic fluctuations, the housing dynamics of young adulthood and the role of semi-dependent housing arrange- ments are fundamentally mediated by the context of the housing system and welfare regime. The interaction between welfare regimes and housing systems has been strongly contested in recent decades with the debate focused on differences between rental (dualist) and owner-occupation (unitary) orientated systems (see Hoekstra 2003). These analyses have not, however, considered socio-economic transformations and their impact on housing transitions and extended adolescence across social or regime contexts, although attention has recently turned to some extreme cases. Our research, while exploratory, points to important comparative differences with regards to the interaction of the market, family and state in the organization, and stability of, housing ‘ladders’ and transitions.

Regardless of the diversity in relative levels of co-residence and sharing arrangements, the findings highlight the key role of semi-(in)dependent housing in the period of emer- ging adulthood. It further supports previous studies that recognize increasingly diversified and complex transitions where in-between phases are a significant life-stage in their own right; framed by lengthier explorations of individual autonomy (Arnett 2006) and growing precarity (Beck 2000). While understanding of contemporary societal transformations have focused on intensified individualization, our research findings point rather to a contempor- ary ‘re-familiazation’ of living arrangements, or at least that these two processes are, in line with intensified neo-liberalization and hollowing out of welfare states in many contexts, progressing together. Moreover, housing systems, norms and practices seem to be an important mediator of social transformation that frame propensities for prolonged

JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 901

singlehood and adolescence, the strength of and reliance on social networks, and the role of kinship networks and different kinds of family assets, such as the parental home. Semi- dependent housing arrangements, albeit manifested differently in each housing and welfare system context, may even be seen as a form of re-familiazation, where support is provided either within the traditional parental home, extended kinship networks or ‘families of choice’ consisting of friends and strangers in shared living arrangements. These trends motivate future research into the specific nature of support dynamics in semi-dependent housing arrangements and how these are mediated by the existing and changing socio-economic, cultural and institutional contexts. More fundamentally, the call is for an integration of housing into the understanding of the key life-course period of emerging adulthood where housing plays both a central role in proscribing future and current well-being as well as being strongly interrelated with other essential markers of autonomy and adulthood.

Notes

1. Historical data from the USA, for example, show very high levels of shared living during the 1800s and early 1900s through the common practice of taking in ‘lodgers’, although this fell out of favour through the second half of the twentieth century, both in practice and in social acceptance (Modell and Hareven 1973). While acknowledging the historical precedent, this article focuses on contemporary dynamics of co-residence and sharing among young people’s transitions.

2. Eastern European countries were not included in this analysis because of several data years missing as well as still being transition economies in which housing markets function very differ- ently (e.g. super high homeownership rates and high volatility) with less clear classification of these cases within the current welfare regime literature.

3. While not a perfect overlap, this was the closest age range available in the comparable data sets. 4. The indicator remains imperfect as it is not available for the precise age group examined and

there is some variation in the data years and availability across the countries. Nonetheless, it pro- vides the best comparative indicator available on the relative affordability of private rental.

5. Other variables were tested for the housing system but considering multicollinearity tests, rental housing appeared as the best variable in capturing the key dimensions of the housing system influencing semi-dependent housing outcomes.

6. Previous analyses by the author (see Lennartz, Arundel, and Ronald 2015) looked at tenure among young Europeans and it is acknowledged that tenure is an important component of housing status, however, herein the focus is on housing variegation in terms of dependency con- ditions (independent living versus semi-dependent arrangements).

7. Due to the data limitations in defining all kinship relationships, other relatives would also be included as ‘extra adults’ in the household, such as cousins and nephews. Grandparents and sib- lings would also be included where the parents are not also household members or aunts and uncles when grandparents are not also included in household.

8. For example, siblings and/or grandparents when parents are not there, aunts and uncles when both parents and grandparents are not present.

9. Post-hoc tests such as Tukey–Kramer or Games-Howell were not used as the UK represents the only Liberal case. A MANOVA was carried out including both sharing and co-residence proportions as the dependent variables. The results of the MANOVA corroborated the signifi- cant ANOVA results (p < .0005; Wilks’ Λ = 0.029; partial η2 = 0.829), however, there were issues with the assumption of linearity and separate ANOVAs were deemed more appropriate.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

902 R. ARUNDEL AND R. RONALD

Funding

This work was supported by the European Research Council under the ERC Starting Grant 283881 as part of the HOUWEL project (http://houwel.uva.nl/).

References

Aassve, A., E. Cottini, and A. Vitali. 2013. “Youth Prospects in a Time of Economic Recession.” Demographic Research 29 (36): 949–962.

Arnett, J. J. 1997. “Young People’s Conceptions of the Transition to Adulthood.” Youth and Society 29 (1): 3–23.

Arnett, J. J. 2000. “Emerging Adulthood: A Theory of Development from the Late Teens Through the Twenties.” American Psychologist 55 (5): 469–480.

Arnett, J. J. 2006. “Emerging Adulthood in Europe: A Response to Bynner.” Journal of Youth Studies 9 (1): 111–123.

Arundel, R., and C. Lennartz. 2015. “Returning to the Parental Home: Boomerang Housing Trajectories of Younger Adults and the Welfare Regime Context.” HOUWEL Working Paper Series (6). Amsterdam: HOUWEL Research Project, University of Amsterdam.

Baranowska, A., and M. Gebel. 2010. “The Determinants of Youth Temporary Employment in the Enlarged Europe: Do Labour Market Institutions Matter?” European Societies 12 (3): 367–390.

Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a new Modernity. Vol. 17. London: Sage. Beck, U. 2000. The Brave New World of Work. Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck, U., and E. Beck-Gernsheim. 2002. Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social

and Political Consequences. Vol. 13. London: Sage. Beer, A., and D. Faulkner. 2011. Housing Transitions Through the Life Course: Aspirations, Needs and

Policy. Bristol: The Policy Press. Bernardi, F., and T. Nazio. 2005. “Globalization and the Transition to Adulthood in Italy.” In

Globalization, Uncertainty and Youth in Society, edited by H.P. Blossfeld, E. Klizing, M. Mills and K. Kurz, 349–374. London: Routledge.

Biggart, A., B. Stauber, and A. Walther. 2001. “Avoiding Misleading Trajectories: Transition Dilemmas of Young Adults in Europe.” Journal of Youth Studies 4 (1): 101–118.

Billari, F. C., and C. Wilson. 2001. “Convergence Towards Diversity? Cohort Dynamics in the Transition to Adulthood in Contemporary Western Europe.” Working Paper WP2001-039. Rostock, Germany: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.

Breen, R. 2005. “Explaining Cross-national Variation in Youth Unemployment Market and Institutional Factors.” European Sociological Review 21 (2): 125–134.

Brückner, H., and K. U. Mayer. 2005. “De-standardization of the Life Course: What It Might Mean? And If It Means Anything, Whether It Actually Took Place?” Advances in Life Course Research 9: 27–53.

Buchmann, M. 1989. The Script of Life in Modern Society: Entry Into Adulthood in a Changing World. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Buchmann, M. C., and I. Kriesi. 2011. “Transition to Adulthood in Europe.” Annual Review of Sociology 37: 481–503.

Bynner, J. 2005. “Rethinking the Youth Phase of the Life-Course: The Case for Emerging Adulthood?” Journal of Youth Studies 8 (4): 367–384.

Calvert, E. 2010. “Young People’s Housing Transitions in Context.” Economic and Social Research Council Working Paper 8/2010. Southampton, UK: Centre for Population Change, University of Southampton.

Christophers, B. 2013. “A Monstrous Hybrid: The Political Economy of Housing in Early-Twenty-First Century Sweden.” New Political Economy 18: 885–911.

Clapham, D. 2002. “Housing Pathways: A Post Modern Analytical Framework.” Housing, Theory and Society 19 (2): 57–68.

Clausen, J. S. 1991. “Adolescent Competence and the Shaping of the Life Course.” American Journal of Sociology 96 (4): 805–842.

JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 903

Côté, J., and J. M. Bynner. 2008. “Changes in the Transition to Adulthood in the UK and Canada: The Role of Structure and Agency in Emerging Adulthood.” Journal of Youth Studies 11 (3): 251–268.

Doling, J., and R. Ronald. 2010. “Home Ownership and Asset-based Welfare.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 25 (2): 165–173.

Elder, G. H. Jr, and M. J. Shanahan. 2006. “The Life Course and Human Development.” In Handbook of Child Psychology, edited by W. Damon and R.M. Lerner, 665–715. New York: Wiley.

Esping-Andersen, G. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press. Ferrera, M. 1996. “The ‘Southern Model’ of Welfare in Social Europe.” Journal of European Social Policy

6 (1): 17–37. Forrest, R., and Y. Hirayama. 2009. “The Uneven Impact of Neoliberalism on Housing Opportunities.”

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33 (4): 998–1013. Frejka, T., and J. P. Sardon. 2006. “First Birth Trends in Developed Countries: A Cohort Analysis.”

Demographic Research 15: 147–180. Gangl, M., W. Muller, and D. Raffe. 2003. “Conclusions: Explaining Cross-national Differences in School-

to-Work Transitions.” In Transition from Education to Work in Europe: The Integration of the Youth into the EU Labour Market, edited by W. Miller and M. Gangl, 107–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gauthier, A. H. 2007. “Becoming a Young Adult: An International Perspective on the Transitions to Adulthood.” European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie 23 (3–4): 217–223.

Giddens, A. 1999. “Risk and Responsibility.” The Modern Law Review 62 (1): 1–10. Hirayama, Y., and R. Ronald. 2008. “Baby-boomers, Baby-busters and the Lost Generation:

Generational Fractures in Japan’s Homeowner Society.” Urban Policy and Research 26 (3): 325–342. Hochstenbach, C., and W. R. Boterman. 2015. “Navigating the Field of Housing: Housing Pathways of

Young People in Amsterdam.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 30 (2): 257–274. doi:10. 1007/s10901-014-9405-6.

Hoekstra, J. 2003. “Housing and the Welfare State in the Netherlands: An Application of Esping- Andersen’s Typology.” Housing, Theory and Society 20 (2): 58–71.

Iacovou, M. 2002. “Regional Differences in the Transition to Adulthood.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 580 (1): 40–69.

Iacovou, M. 2004. “Patterns of Family Living.” In Social Europe: Living Standards and Welfare States, edited by R. Berthoud and M. Iacovou, 21–45. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Kemeny, J. 2001. “Comparative Housing and Welfare: Theorising the Relationship.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 16 (1): 53–70.

Kendig, H., C. Paris, and N. Anderton. 1987. Towards Fair Shares in Australian Housing. Canberra: Highland Press.

Kohli, M. 2007. “The Institutionalization of the Life Course: Looking Back to Look Ahead.” Research in Human Development 4 (3–4): 253–271.

Lee, K. O., and G. Painter. 2013. “What Happens to Household Formation in a Recession?” Journal of Urban Economics 76: 93–109.

Lennartz, C. 2013. Competition Between Social and Private Rental Housing. Vol. 47. Delft: IOS Press. Lennartz, C., R. Arundel, and R. Ronald. 2015. “Young Adults and Homeownership in Europe Through

the Global Financial Crisis.” Population, Space and Place. doi:10.1002/psp.1961 Macmillan, R. 2005. “The Structure of the Life Course: Classic Issues and Current Controversies.”

Advances in Life Course Research 9: 3–24. Mandic, S. 2008. “Home-leaving and its Structural Determinants in Western and Eastern Europe: An

Exploratory Study.” Housing Studies 23 (4): 615–637. Matznetter, W., and A. Mundt. 2012. “Housing and Welfare Regimes.” In The Sage Handbook of

Housing Studies, edited by D. F. Clapham, W.A.V. Clark, and K. Gibb, 274–294. London: Sage. McLoughlin, P. J. 2013. “Couch Surfing on the Margins: The Reliance on Temporary Living

Arrangements as a Form of Homelessness Amongst School-Aged Home Leavers.” Journal of Youth Studies 16 (4): 521–545.

Mitchell, B. A. 2006. “Changing Courses: The Pendulum of Family Transitions in Comparative Perspective.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 37 (3): 325–343.

Modell, J., and T. K. Hareven. 1973. “Urbanization and the Malleable Household: An Examination of Boarding and Lodging in American Families.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 35 (3): 467–479.

904 R. ARUNDEL AND R. RONALD

Molgat, M. 2007. “Do Transitions and Social Structures Matter? How ‘Emerging Adults’ Define Themselves as Adults.” Journal of Youth Studies 10 (5): 495–516.

Mulder, C. H., and F. C. Billari. 2010. “Homeownership Regimes and Low Fertility.” Housing Studies 25 (4): 527–541.

Mulder, C. H., W. A. Clark, and M. Wagner. 2002. “A Comparative Analysis of Leaving Home in the United States, the Netherlands and West Germany.” Demographic Research 7: 565–592.

Muller, W., and M. Gangl. 2003. “The Transition from School to Work: A European Perspective.” In Transitions from School to Work in Europe, edited by W. Muller and M. Gangl, 1–20. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mykyta, L., and S. Macartney. 2011. “The Effects of Recession on Household Composition: ‘Doubling up’ and Economic Well-being.” SEHSD Working Paper (2011–4). Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.

Pais, J. M. 2003. “The Multiple Faces of the Future in the Labyrinth of Life.” Journal of Youth Studies 6 (2): 115–126.

Rindfuss, R. R. 1991. “The Young Adult Years: Diversity, Structural Change, and Fertility.” Demography 28 (4): 493–512.

Ronald, R. 2008. The Ideology of Home Ownership: Homeowner Societies and the Role of Housing. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rugg, J., J. Ford, and R. Burrows. 2004. “Housing Advantage? The Role of Student Renting in the Constitution of Housing Biographies in the United Kingdom.” Journal of Youth Studies 7 (1): 19–34.

Settersten, R. A. Jr. 2007. “Passages to Adulthood: Linking Demographic Change and Human Development.” European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie 23 (3–4): 251–272.

Sobotka, T., and L. Toulemon. 2008. “Changing Family and Partnership Behaviour: Common Trends and Persistent Diversity Across Europe.” Demographic Research 19 (6): 85–138.

Stone, J., A. Berrington, and J. Falkingham. 2014. “Gender, Turning Points, and Boomerangs: Returning Home in Young Adulthood in Great Britain.” Demography 51 (1): 257–276.

Vignoli, D., F. Rinesi, and E. Mussino. 2013. “A Home to Plan the First Child? Fertility Intentions and Housing Conditions in Italy.” Population, Space and Place 19 (1): 60–71.

Wallace, C. 1987. For Richer, For Poorer: Growing Up In and Out of Work. London: Tavistock.

JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 905