Educational Assortative Mating and Income Inequality in Denmark

Abstract

Many writers have expressed a concern that growing educational assortative mating will lead to greater inequality between households in their earnings or income. In this article, we examine the relationship between educational assortative mating and income inequality in Denmark between 1987 and 2006. Denmark is widely known for its low level of income inequality, but the Danish case provides a good test of the relationship between educational assortative mating and inequality because although income inequality increased over the period we consider, educational homogamy declined. Using register data on the exact incomes of the whole population, we find that change in assortative mating increased income inequality but that these changes were driven by changes in the educational distributions of men and women rather than in the propensity for people to choose a partner with a given level of education.

Educational Homogamy and Inter-Couple Income Inequality: Linking Demographic and Socio-Economic Consequences of Educational Expansion in Germany and Switzerland

“…Observed educational homogamy in Switzerland Women 1999Men 19991981and younger 1976-19801971-19751966-19701961-19651956-19601951-19551946-1950 Before 1946 1976-1980 1971-1975 1966-1970 1961-1965 1956-1960 1951-1955 1946-1950 Before 1946 Observed educational homogamy in Germany Women 1999Men 19991981and younger 1976-19801971-19751966-19701961-19651956-19601951-19551946-1950 Before 1946 1976-1980 1971-1975 1966-1970 1961-1965 1956-1960 1951-1955 1946-1950 Before 1946 Although we do not find support for a clear increase in educational homogamy as hypothesized, this initial finding is nonetheless consistent with previous studies on educational homogamy trends in recent decades (Blossfeld and Timm 2003;Breen and Salazar 2010;Breen and Salazar 2011;Breen and Andersen 2012). Upon further investigation of gender differences in partner patterns, we find that highly educated women are more likely to be single than men, which could counteract the hy...…”

“…Most studies interested in sociodemographic explanations have attributed rising income inequality to changes in household structure, specifically with references to the increase of single households (e. g., Esping-Andersen 2007;Kollmeyer 2013;Western et al 2008). Only a few studies have empirically tested whether there is a relationship between educational homogamy and rising income inequality (for examples, see Breen and Salazar 2011;Schwartz 2010;Cancian and Reed 1999;Breen and Salazar 2010;Breen and Andersen 2012;Dribe and Nystedt 2013;Pestel 2015;Spitzenpfeil and Andress 2014). The vast majority of these studies, however, have only focused on countries that are typically characterized as dual-earner countries (i. e. Anglo-Saxon or Scandinavian countries, see Spitzenpfeil and Andress 2014).…”

Unequal Family Lives

“…The prevalence of single parenthood has been linked with higher inequality across sixteen European countries between 1967 and 2005, holding constant the level of female employment (which is itself associated with reduced inequality) (Kollmeyer 2013). An analysis of Denmark shows that greater educational assortative mating has increased inequality, but due to shifting educational distributions by gender (i.e., education increasing for both men and women -but more so for women) rather than partner choice (Breen and Andersen 2012). Certainly, families with greater socioeconomic resources are able to make greater investments (of both time and money) in their children (Kalil 2015;Kalil, Ryan, and Corey 2012;Lareau 2003), and these differential investments may be an important factor in growing inequality, especially across generations (Lundberg, Pollak, and Stearns 2016;Reeves 2017).…”

From Assortative to Ashortative Coupling: Men's Height, Height Heterogamy, and Relationship Dynamics in the United States

“…In 2010, 93 percent of married couples in the United States were racially homogamous (Lofquist et al 2012). 4 People also tend to match themselves on education (Breen and Andersen 2012;Dribe and Nystedt 2013;Gullickson and Torche 2014;Torche 2010), parental wealth and economic status (Charles, Hurst and Killewald 2013;Kalmijn 1994), and genetics (Domingue et al 2014). …”

“…A large body of literature indicates that people sort themselves in systematic ways on the marriage market, from education to political ideology, and even genetics (Breen and Andersen 2012;Domingue et al 2014;Dribe and Nystedt 2013;Gullickson and Torche 2014;Lichter et al 1992). Emerging evidence from studies of online dating and relationship formation among young adults suggests that physical attractiveness is often used as a form of capital on the dating market and is therefore an important element of initial sorting among couples (Alterovitz and Mendelsohn 2009;Hitsch, Hortaçsu and Ariely 2010;Toma and Hancock 2010).…”