What if women earned more than their spouses? An experimental investigation of work-division in couples

  • François Cochard
  • Hélène Couprie
  • Astrid Hopfensitz
Original Paper

Abstract

Female specialization on household work and male specialization on labor-market work is a widely observed phenomenon across time and countries. This absence of gender neutrality with respect to work-division is known as the “work-division puzzle”. Gender differences regarding characteristics (preferences, productivity) and context (wage rates, social norms) are generally recognized as competing explanations for this fact. We experimentally control for context and productivity to investigate preferences for work-division by true co-habiting couples, in a newly developed specialization task. Efficiency in this task comes at the cost of inequality, giving higher earnings to the “advantaged” player. We compare behavior when men (or women) are in the advantaged position, which corresponds to the traditional (or power) couple case where he (or she) earns more. Women and men contribute equally to the household public good in all conditions. This result allows us to rule out some of the standard explanations of the work-division puzzle.

Keywords

Experiment on couples Time allocation Work-division 

JEL Classification

D13 C99 J16 

Supplementary material

10683_2017_9524_MOESM1_ESM.docx (398 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 398 kb)

References

  1. Alger, I., & Cox, D. (2013). The evolution of altruistic preferences: Mothers versus fathers. Review of the Economics of the Household, 11(3), 421–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashraf, N. (2009). Spousal control and intra-household decision making: An experimental study in the Philippines. American Economic Review, 99(4), 1245–1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balliet, D., Li, N. P., Macfarlan, S. J., & Van Vugt, M. (2011). Sex differences in cooperation: A meta-analytic review of social dilemmas. Psychological Bulletin, 137(6), 881–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beblo, M., & Beninger, D. (forthcoming). Do husbands and wives pool their incomes? A couple experiment. Review of Economics of the Household.Google Scholar
  5. Beblo, M., Beninger, D., Couprie, H., Cochard, F., & Hopfensitz, A. (2015). Efficiency-equality trade-offs in French and German Couples. Annales d’Economie et de Statistiques, 117(118), 233–252.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, G. (1981). A treatise of the family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1652–1678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blau, B., & Kahn, F. (2007). Changes in the labor supply behavior of married women: 1980–2000. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(3), 393–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bloemen, H., & Stancanelli, E. (2015). Toyboys or Supergirls? An analysis of partners’ employment outcome when she outearns him. Review of Economics of the Household, 13(3), 501–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bolton, G. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC—A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. American Economic Review, 90(1), 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brines, J. (1994). Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. American Journal of Sociology, 100(3), 652–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cochard, F., Couprie, H., & Hopfensitz, A. (2016). Do spouses cooperate? An experimental investigation. Review of Economics of the Household, 14(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2008). Differences in the economic decisions of men and women: Experimental evidence. Handbook of experimental economics results, 1, 509–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Engelmann, D., & Strobel, M. (2004). Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. American Economic Review, 94(4), 857–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Engelmann, D., & Strobel, M. (2006). Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments: Reply. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1918–1923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fehr, E., Naef, M., & Schmidt, K. (2006). Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments: Comment. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1912–1917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. I., Scheinkman, J. A., & Soutter, C. L. (2000). Measuring trust. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 811–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gneezy, U., Kenneth, L. L., & List, J. A. (2009). Gender differences in competition: Evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society. Econometrica, 77(5), 1637–1664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goerges, L. (2015). The power of love: A subtle driving force for unegalitarian labor division? Review of Economics of the Household, 13, 163–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greig, F., & Bohnet, I. (2009). Exploring gendered behavior in the field with experiments: Why public goods are provided by women in a Nairobi slum. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gronau, R. (1977). Leisure, home production and work—the theory of the allocation of time revisited. Journal of Political Economy, 85(6), 1099–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoddinott, J., & Haddad, L. (1995). Does female income share influence household expenditures? Evidence from Côte d’Ivoire. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 57(1), 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., & Smith, V. (1994). Preferences, property rights and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7(3), 346–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Isaac, R. M., & Walker, J. M. (1988). Group size effects in public goods provision: The voluntary contributions mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(1), 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Iversen, V., Jackson, C., Kebede, B., Munro, A., & Verschoor, A. (2011). Do spouses realise cooperative gains? Experimental evidence from rural Uganda. World Development, 39(4), 569–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kamas, L., & Preston, A. (2012). The importance of being confident: gender, career choice, and willingness to compete. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(1), 82–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ledyard, J. O. (1995). Public goods: A survey of experimental research. Handbook of experimental economics (pp. 111–194). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Loomes, G. (1999). Some lessons from past experiments and some challenges for the future. The Economic Journal, 109(453), 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lundberg, S. J., Pollak, R. A., & Wales, T. L. (1997). Do husbands and wives pool their resources? Evidence from the United Kingdom child benefit. Journal of Human Resources, 32(3), 463–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mani, A. (2011). Mine, your or ours? The efficiency of household investment decisions: An experimental approach. Working paper, No. 64, University of Warwick.Google Scholar
  32. Masclet, D., Noussair, C., Tucker, S., & Villeval, M. C. (2003). Monetary and non-monetary punishment in the voluntary contributions mechanism. American Economic Review, 93(1), 366–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murnighan, J. K., Oesch, J. M., & Pillutla, M. (2001). Player types and self-impression management in dictatorship games: Two experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 37(2), 388–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rizavi, S. S., & Sofer, C. (2010). Household division of labor: Is there any escape from traditional gender roles? Documents de travail du Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne, 2010, 09.Google Scholar
  35. Sapienza, P., Toldra-Simats, A., & Zingales, L. (2013). Understanding trust. Economic Journal, 123, 1313–1332.Google Scholar
  36. Sevilla-Sanz, A., Gimenez-Nadal, J. I., & Fernandez, C. (2010). Gender roles and the division of unpaid work in Spanish households. Feminist Economics, 16(4), 137–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sofer, C. (1985). La division du travail entre hommes et femmes. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  38. Thomas, D. (1990). Intra-household resource allocation: An inferential approach. Journal of Human Resources, 25(4), 635–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CRESE EA3190Université Bourgogne Franche-ComtéBesançonFrance
  2. 2.Université de Cergy-Pontoise (THEMA)Cergy-PontoiseFrance
  3. 3.Toulouse School of EconomicsUniversity of Toulouse CapitoleToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations