THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF PARTNERSHIP DISSOLUTION 535 family,market,and state institutions that moderates the consequences.It is an important question,from both a economic effects of partnership dissolution. practical and a theoretical point of view,whether Although such institutional explanations are both income losses can be compensated in the years following plausible and popular,they have not been tested very often separation and what factors help to do so.Finally,unlike with comparative studies applying the same methodology other studies we not only concentrate on the economic on equivalent longitudinal data in each country.Most consequences for women,but have a look at both genders. previous studies were conducted on a national level and The article is organized as follows.In A Typology of Fam- sometimes even use only cross-sectional data(Table 1). ily Support we develop a typology that distinguishes four So far there exist only two longitudinal country different configurations of family,market,and state institu- comparisons including more than three countries tions.Compared to general typologies of welfare regimes (Dewilde,2003;Uunk,2004).Besides that,research on like,e.g.,Esping-Andersen's(1990)three worlds of welfare the consequences of partnership dissolution is often capitalism,this typology is focused on different types of plagued by the small number of separations observed in family support.A Typology of Family Support also presents population-wide survey samples.For example,one of data about the five countries selected and asks whether the first comparative analyses for Germany(Burkhauser these countries are valid representatives of the typology. et al.,1990,1991)is based on 56 women and 45 men.As Hypotheses introduces our hypotheses,Data and Methodol- a consequence,country rankings of separation effects on ogy our data and methods.The results are presented in household income are not very stable and observed Results in two steps.First,a descriptive overview about differences between countries may as well be a result of income changes before and after separation is given for unreliable estimates.Furthermore,different studies use both men and women in all selected countries.This over- different methods of analysis,as Table I notes,which is view suggests a certain impact function on how separation another source of variation that makes substantive con- affects individual income trajectories.In a second step,this clusions difficult.Finally,many studies focus on women impact function is included in a multivariate panel model alone,although inequalities resulting from partnership and the hypotheses from Hypotheses are tested sequentially. dissolution are most clearly visible by comparing men's Discussion concludes with a discussion of the main results and women's income development.In sum,there is still in the light of the proposed typology of family support. a demand for comparative analyses based on greater number of cases than in previous studies for both genders and using the same methodology for each country. A Typology of Family Support Such a comparative analysis is most easily done with a cross-national survey like the European Community To what extent families and partnerships are supported Household Panel (ECHP)that uses equivalent instru- and promoted by state and society varies among differ- ments in each country.Unfortunately,the current ver- ent countries.Historically,two ways of ensuring the sion of the ECHP includes only a small number of welfare of families have emerged:some welfare states separations and divorces for each country as the analyses primarily provide monetary transfers and fiscal relief, by Uunk (2004)and Dewilde (2003)show.Instead,this while others focus on public infrastructure enabling article uses a similar approach to Burkhauser et al. family members to participate in the labour market. (2001),who succeeded in creating a cross-national With respect to partnership dissolution another task of equivalent file from several independent national house- the state is to enact laws,which protect children and hold panels.Starting from a typology of family support former partners from negative economic consequences. we select five countries(Belgium,Germany,Great Brit- The market,in turn,can secure individual welfare by ain,Italy,and Sweden),in which such panel studies exist providing opportunities to earn one's keep.Finally,family since several years.Even if each panel wave observes only and social networks can offer social and financial support, few separations and divorces,it is possible to collect a suf- especially in case of separation or divorce. ficient number of cases over time with such long-running In a former article,Andref(2003)suggested a typol- surveys.Another advantage of this approach is that each ogy of family support in industrialized countries, separated individual is represented in the data with a which shows how the particular national configuration long time-series ofobservations before and after separation. of state,market,and family influences the economic Using suitable statistical methods this enables us to consequences of separation and divorce.One dimen- study not only the short-term(before and after)changes sion of this typology is public policy orientation and found in most other studies,but also the long-term distinguishes between extensive and rudimentaryTHE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF PARTNERSHIP DISSOLUTION 535 family, market, and state institutions that moderates the economic effects of partnership dissolution. Although such institutional explanations are both plausible and popular, they have not been tested very often with comparative studies applying the same methodology on equivalent longitudinal data in each country. Most previous studies were conducted on a national level and sometimes even use only cross-sectional data (Table 1). So far there exist only two longitudinal country comparisons including more than three countries (Dewilde, 2003; Uunk, 2004). Besides that, research on the consequences of partnership dissolution is often plagued by the small number of separations observed in population-wide survey samples. For example, one of the first comparative analyses for Germany (Burkhauser et al., 1990, 1991) is based on 56 women and 45 men. As a consequence, country rankings of separation effects on household income are not very stable and observed differences between countries may as well be a result of unreliable estimates. Furthermore, different studies use different methods of analysis, as Table 1 notes, which is another source of variation that makes substantive con￾clusions difficult. Finally, many studies focus on women alone, although inequalities resulting from partnership dissolution are most clearly visible by comparing men’s and women’s income development. In sum, there is still a demand for comparative analyses based on greater number of cases than in previous studies for both genders and using the same methodology for each country. Such a comparative analysis is most easily done with a cross-national survey like the European Community Household Panel (ECHP) that uses equivalent instru￾ments in each country. Unfortunately, the current ver￾sion of the ECHP includes only a small number of separations and divorces for each country as the analyses by Uunk (2004) and Dewilde (2003) show. Instead, this article uses a similar approach to Burkhauser et al. (2001), who succeeded in creating a cross-national equivalent file from several independent national house￾hold panels. Starting from a typology of family support we select five countries (Belgium, Germany, Great Brit￾ain, Italy, and Sweden), in which such panel studies exist since several years. Even if each panel wave observes only few separations and divorces, it is possible to collect a suf￾ficient number of cases over time with such long-running surveys. Another advantage of this approach is that each separated individual is represented in the data with a long time-series of observations before and after separation. Using suitable statistical methods this enables us to study not only the short-term (before and after) changes found in most other studies, but also the long-term consequences. It is an important question, from both a practical and a theoretical point of view, whether income losses can be compensated in the years following separation and what factors help to do so. Finally, unlike other studies we not only concentrate on the economic consequences for women, but have a look at both genders. The article is organized as follows. In A Typology of Fam￾ily Support we develop a typology that distinguishes four different configurations of family, market, and state institu￾tions. Compared to general typologies of welfare regimes like, e.g., Esping-Andersen’s (1990) three worlds of welfare capitalism, this typology is focused on different types of family support. A Typology of Family Support also presents data about the five countries selected and asks whether these countries are valid representatives of the typology. Hypotheses introduces our hypotheses, Data and Methodol￾ogy our data and methods. The results are presented in Results in two steps. First, a descriptive overview about income changes before and after separation is given for both men and women in all selected countries. This over￾view suggests a certain impact function on how separation affects individual income trajectories. In a second step, this impact function is included in a multivariate panel model and the hypotheses from Hypotheses are tested sequentially. Discussion concludes with a discussion of the main results in the light of the proposed typology of family support. A Typology of Family Support To what extent families and partnerships are supported and promoted by state and society varies among differ￾ent countries. Historically, two ways of ensuring the welfare of families have emerged: some welfare states primarily provide monetary transfers and fiscal relief, while others focus on public infrastructure enabling family members to participate in the labour market. With respect to partnership dissolution another task of the state is to enact laws, which protect children and former partners from negative economic consequences. The market, in turn, can secure individual welfare by providing opportunities to earn one’s keep. Finally, family and social networks can offer social and financial support, especially in case of separation or divorce. In a former article, Andreß (2003) suggested a typol￾ogy of family support in industrialized countries, which shows how the particular national configuration of state, market, and family influences the economic consequences of separation and divorce. One dimen￾sion of this typology is public policy orientation and distinguishes between extensive and rudimentary