Decisions to move and decisions to stay: life course events and mobility outcomes

Abstract

The decision to move is preceded by thinking about moving and then planning the move. Previous work has used varying measures of the intention to move to estimate models of what lies underneath the intention to move. That work has shown how family contexts, life course events, and economic resources play roles in forming the intention to move. This paper extends previous research in four ways. We use logistic regression models of moves conditional on an intention to move, we include measures of family structure specifically in the model, we estimate the role of satisfaction in the decision to move or stay, given an intention to move and we use a eleven-year panel data-set rather than cross-sectional data as in many studies. We confirm some of the findings of previous studies including the strong effects for life course events, but neither education nor income are predictors. We also show the role of a strong intention to move in the model. There are modest effects of higher levels of satisfaction with housing and community for those who did not intend to move. It is important to emphasize that this study while confirming some of the previous results reiterates that we need replication to complete and extend our understanding of these social processes.

Keywords:

• Mobility
• intentions
• expectations
• life course
• satisfaction

Acknowledgements

This paper uses unit record data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. The HILDA Project was initiated and is funded by the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) and is managed by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research (Melbourne Institute). The findings and views reported in this paper, however, are those of the author and should not be attributed to either FaHCSIA or the Melbourne Institute.

Notes

1. Attrition in longitudinal surveys is always an issue and while the rates from the HILDA survey are somewhat similar to other surveys like the BHPS there is a higher attrition of younger single households which will modestly affect the outcomes (see Watson & Wooden, 2004 for a discussion). However, the attrition rate in the HILDA survey is among the lowest in large panel surveys. The HILDA survey also added a “top-up” sample in 2011.

2. A reviewer raised the question of the coincidence of responses to the likelihood question in the survey. We examined the distribution of responses and approximately 92 per cent of couples report similar responses to the intention question.

3. Owner: 2960/40 797 7.3 per cent, Renter: 6193/19 991 31.0 per cent.

4. We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for stressing the need to look at an extended mobility window.

5. Defined as separated from spouse or long-term partner in the HILDA questionnaire.

6. We thank a reviewer for pointing out the need to include panel-level random effects. The estimates, however, change only at the margins and the same set of variables are significant in pooled and random effects models.