216
housing benefits, as well as global demographic indicators such as fertil-
ity, marriage, and divorce rates (Aidukaite 2006 ; Arts and Gelissen 2002 ;
Wall and Escobedo 2009 ) help explain the form and frequency of the
various types of co-residence trajectories and personal networks revealed
by the analyses. The effect of social position, measured by gender and
level of education, indicates that sociability is differentially influenced by
social stratification, according to the type of economic and welfare state
regime settings. Indeed, social position is globally a predictor of personal
networks, as six types are influenced by the level of education and two by
the sex of the respondents. For instance, extended family networks, such
as Beanpole, Standard-nuclear, or Narrow-nuclear configurations, are
more typical of individuals with less cultural capital, while highly edu-
cated individuals tend more frequently to build up personal configurations
of the Wo rk type (commitment to occupation and need for bridging
social capital). However, this is less the case for Switzerland (two types
being explained by gender, two others by the level of education) and
Lithuania (two types explained by the level of education, none by gender)
than for Portugal (five types influenced by the level of education and
another one by gender). At the macro-sociological level, the country
(considered as a specific configuration of social policies with varying eco-
nomic wealth, and specific political and cultural anchorage), contributes
to explaining six of the nine relational configurations (one for Switzerland,
two for Lithuania, and three for Portugal). Individualized types (such as
Friendship) are more typical of the Swiss context, whereas Parental, Mixed,
and Extended conjugal are more frequent in Portugal, thereby revealing
the importance of kin ties for delineating networks of sociability in this
country. In Lithuania this is the case for the Beanpole and Narrow-nuclear
configurations, suggesting a central value put on intergenerational soli-
darity in this country.
In summary, reflecting back on what was developed in Chap. 2 with
the presentation of different biographical and institutional pathways
through adulthood and Chap. 5 with the mapping of the personal con-
figurations, bringing both together, conceptually and empirically, has
proven very insightful. Common experiences of co-residency are a key
dimension of the development of close and strong relationships in adult
life, tracing back to the frequent inclusion of parents and siblings in one’s
childhood and youth. This tackles the issue of ruptures in biographies, as
J.-A. Gauthier et al.