Advertisement

Journal of Population Economics

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 225–249 | Cite as

Household division of labor and cross-country differences in household formation rates

  • Almudena Sevilla-SanzEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper considers the extent to which the gender division of labor affects the likelihood of household formation. Using repeated cross sectional data covering highly-developed nations, we consider the differential effects of aggregate social norms regarding the division of household labor. Controlling for other factors that affect the marriage market, our findings indicate that more egalitarian norms are associated with an increase in the probability of forming a household. When additionally controlling for individual attitudes, we find that, ceteris paribus, more egalitarian women are less likely to form a household, while more egalitarian men are more likely to do so. This pattern of results is consistent with economic models of the marriage market where partners contract over the future household division of labor. Moreover, given the salience of household formation as a proximate determinant of fertility, our results potentially shed light onto the process of below replacement fertility and the economic challenges associated with it.

Keywords

Household formation Social norms Division of labor 

JEL Classification

D13 J0 Z13 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adsera A (2004) Changing fertility rates in developed countries. The impact of labor market institutions. J Popul Econ 17(1):17–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adsera A (2005) Vanishing children: from high unemployment to low fertility in develped countries. Am Econ Rev 95(2):189–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akerlof GA, Kranton R (2000) Economics and identity. Q J Econ 115(3):715–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albrecht JW, Edin P, Vroman SB (2000) A cross-country comparison of attitudes towards mothers working and their actual labor market experience. Labour 14(4):591–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alesina A, Giuliano P (2007) The power of the family. Working Paper 13051. National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker G (1975) Theory of the allocation of time. Econ J 75(299):493–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bittman M, England MP, Folbre N, Sayer L, Matherson G (2001) When does gender trump money? Bargaining and time in household work. Am J Sociol 109(1):186–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brines J (1994) Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. Am J Sociol 100(3):652–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chun H, Oh J (2004) An instrumental variable estimate of the effect of fertility on the labour force participation of married women. Appl Econ Lett 10(9):631–634Google Scholar
  10. Drewianka S (2003) Estimating social effects in matching markets: externalities in spousal search. Rev Econ Stat 85(2):409–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EUROSTAT (2004) How Europeans spend their time: everyday life of women and men. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  12. Fernández R, Fogli A, Olivetti C (2004) Mothers and sons: preference formation and female labor force dynamics. Q J Econ 119(4):1249–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fernández R, Fogli A, Olivetti C (2006) Fertility: the role of culture and family experience. JEEA 4(3):552–561Google Scholar
  14. Giuliano P (2007) Living arrangements in western Europe: does cultural origin matter? JEEA 5(5):927–952Google Scholar
  15. Grossbard S, Amuedo-Dorantes C (2008) Cohort-level sex ratio effects on women’s labor force participation. Rev Econ Household 6(3):249–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grossbard-Sechtman A (1984) A theory of allocation of time in markets for labour and marriage. Econ J 94(376):863–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guryan J, Hurst E, Kearney MS (2008) Parental education and parental time with children. J Econ Perspect 22(3):23–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ISSP (1994, 2002) International Social Survey Program, module: family and changing social norms. http://www.issp.org/index.shtml
  19. Juster T, Stafford F (1991) The allocation of time: empirical findings, behavioral models, and problems of measurement. J Econ Lit 29(2):471–522Google Scholar
  20. Kiernan K (2004) Redrawing the boundaries of marriage. J Marriage Fam 66(4):980–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kiernan K (2007) Cohabitation law reform and its impact on marriage: evidence from Australia and Europe. J Int Fam Law 63(2):71–73Google Scholar
  22. Loughran DS (2002) The effect of male wage inequality on female age at first marriage. Rev Econ Stat 84(2):237–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lundberg S, Pollak RA (1993) Separate spheres bargaining and the marriage market. J Polit Econ 101(6):988–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moulton BR (1990) An illustration of the pitfall in estimating the effects of aggregate units on micro units. Rev Econ Stat 72(2):334–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weil D (1999) Population growth, dependency, and consumption: why has fertility fallen below replacement in industrial nations, and will it last? In: Papers and proceedings of the one hundred eleventh annual meeting of the American Economic Association, vol 89, no 2, pp 251–255Google Scholar
  26. Young P (1993) The evolution of conventions. Econometrica 61(1):57–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations