How is the employment status of women influenced by long-distance family migration? In particular, are women more likely to be unemployed or economically inactive following such a move? According to research by Paul Boyle of the University of St Andrews, women who move long distances with their partner have a higher chance of unemployment or economic inactivity than non-migrant women, short-distance migrant women or long-distance migrant women who move to join their partner.
This is true in both the UK and the United States, even allowing for the fact that 'long' distances in the former represent less significant distances than in the latter, where population centres are more widely dispersed. However, while women in the UK are especially likely to be unemployed following family migration, similar women in the United States are more likely to be economically inactive.
Research carried out by others during the 1970s and 1980s found that women are often 'tied' to the careers of their 'breadwinner' partners. But this is the first study to use relatively up-to-date information from the early 1990s to see whether changes in gender relations and gender roles have reduced 'tied migration'. It is also the first to use genuinely cross-national analysis, making it possible to compare the situation in two countries where one might expect that the effects of family migration are different. Differences in equal opportunity legislation, childcare provision and the social acceptance of mothers' work, for example, suggest that any 'tied migration' effects may vary considerably.
Boyle also explores whether the phenomenon of 'tied migration' applies to both 'traditional' couples, where the man has a higher ranking occupation than the woman, and 'non-traditional' couples, of which there are far fewer, where the woman has a higher ranking occupation than the man.
The findings confirm that the probability of unemployment or economic inactivity is higher for 'tied migrant' women than any other migrant/gender group. What is more, while the highest probability of all is for 'tied migrant' women in 'male-dominated' families, the second highest probability is for women living in 'female-dominated' families who have moved long distances with their partners. Relative spousal 'power' does not alter the fact that family migration is more deleterious to women's employment status than to men's.
(Co-researchers on this project: Tom Cooke (Connecticut), Keith Halfacree (Swansea), Darren Smith (Leeds))