147state, in which individual autonomy is complemented by reliance on the
central dyads of the nuclear family, in particular the married couple in
certain stages of the life course, and parents in the transition to adult-
hood. In contrast, individuals in Portugal are more oriented towards both
close and extended kin and, in addition to family ties, also include some
diversified ties such as friends. Path dependency related to a lasting
importance of informal support networks and, more recently, welfare
retrenchment in the context of the economic crisis which partially rekin-
dled solidarity norms, in part account for this inclusiveness. This ties in
with the work of Höllinger and Haller ( 1990 ), who found that kinship
ties remain prominent in Southern countries (Italy and Hungary in their
study). Nevertheless, compared to Lithuania, economic development
and improved welfare state support over the last few decades have also
promoted individual and residential autonomy, thereby underlining
more personal choice in close relationships and a wider array of affinities.
Finally, in Lithuania, individuals seem to have small configurations, often
restricted to the nuclear family or to lineal linkages. They do not compen-
sate for this restriction by including non-kinship ties, as is the case for
Switzerland and, to a lesser extent, in Portugal. Indeed, friends are almost
absent in Lithuanian personal configurations. Again, this may be related
to a strong emphasis on the family core and intergenerational support,
but social and political upheaval since the 1990s, leading to economic
hardship, difficult housing conditions and especially high rates of migra-
tion, may also explain this focus. In the following sections we look closely
at other potential explanations for those macro-context differences
embedded in social and family structures.
Individuals’ Positions in Social and Family
Structures
Interacting with the macro context, individuals’ positions in social and
family structures also explain how personal configurations develop.
Interestingly, the importance of specific aspects may vary from one coun-
try to another. It is important to look carefully at each country individu-
ally and see how a set of aspects shapes sociability patterns by doing
regressions within countries (see Tables 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6). We will first
Mapping the Plurality of Personal Configurations