Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Gender ideology, division of housework, and the geographic mobility of families

  • Household Decision Making in Germany and South Africa
  • Published:
Review of Economics of the Household Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper studies the relevance of gender ideology for the geographic mobility of families using data from the German Socio-economic Panel. The analysis proceeds in two steps. First, it is shown that single men and women—who are in some sense “unconstrained” optimizers—reveal identical mobility patterns. There are no fundamental gender differences in the inter-regional mobility of German singles. Second, I focus on dual-earner households and split this group into “traditional” and “egalitarian” couples using information on their factual division of housework rather than their reported gender ideology. Separate migration analyses for both groups reveal important differences indicating the significance of gender ideology in families’ migration behavior: job-related characteristics of men statistically dominate those of women in traditional couples, whereas in egalitarian couples, male and female characteristics have the same effect on family migration behavior, i.e. there is no gender bias. Failure to account for the heterogeneity in gendered family roles across families thus misses an important explanatory factor in migration research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baltagi, B. H. (1995). Econometric analysis of panel data. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beblo, M. (1999). How do German couples spend their time? A panel data analysis. DIW-Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 68, 146–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, M., Foster, M., & Wallston, B. S. (1978). Finding Two Jobs. In: R. Rapoport, & R. N. Rapoport (Eds.), Working couples. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bielby, W. T., & Bielby, D. D. (1992). I will follow him: family ties, gender-role beliefs, and reluctance to relocate for a better job. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1241–1267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, G. A., & Bird, G. W. (1985). Determinants of mobility in two-earner families: Does the wife’s income count? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 753–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blossfeld, H.-P., & Timm, A. (2003). Who marries whom? Educational systems as marriage markets in modern societies (European Studies of Population, Vol 12). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Bover, O., & Arellano, M. (2002). Learning About Migration Decisions from the Migrants: Using Complementary Datasets to Model Intra-regional Migrations in Spain. Journal of Population Economics, 15, 357–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, P., Cooke, T. J., Halfacree, K., & Smith, D. (2001). A cross-national comparison of the impact of family migration on women’s employment status. Demography, 38, 201–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Büchel, F. (2000). Tied movers, tied stayers: The higher risk of overqualification among married women in West Germany. In: S. S. Gustafsson, & D. E. Meulders (Eds.),Gender and the labour market. Econometric evidence of obstacles to achieving gender equality, New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Compton, J., & Pollak, R. A. (2004). Why are power couples increasingly concentrated in large metropolitan areas? NBER Working Paper 10918.

  • Costa, D. L., & Kahn, M. E. (2000). Power couples: Changes in the location choice of the college educated, 1940–1990. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 1287–1315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DaVanzo, J. (1976). Why families move: A model of the geographic mobility of married couples. Santa Monica: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • DaVanzo, Julie (1981). Microeconomic approaches to studying migration decisions. In: G. F. De Jong, & R. W. Gardner (Eds.), Migration decision making, New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Laat, Joost and Almudena. Sevilla-Sanz (2004). Working women, husband’s home time, and lowest-low fertility in Europe. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference of the European Society for Population Economics, Bergen.

  • Duncan, R. P., & Perucci, C. (1976). Dual occupation families and migration. American Sociological Review, 41, 252–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, C. S. (1982). To dwell among friends. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1974). Getting a job. A study of contacts and careers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenstein, T. (1996). Husbands’ participation in domestic labour: Interactive effects of wives’ and husbands’ gender ideologies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 585–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenstein, T. (2000). Economic dependence, gender, and the division of labor in the home: A replication and extension. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 322–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M. J. (1975). Research on internal migration in the United States: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 13, 397–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M. J. (1997). Internal migration in developed countries. In: M. R. Rosenzweig, & O. Stark (Eds.), Handbook of population and family economics, Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hersch, J., & Stratton, L. S. (1994). Housework, wages, and the division of housework time for employed spouses. American Economic Review, 84(Papers and Proceedings), 120–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiller, D. V. (1984). Power dependence and the division of family work. Sex Roles, 10, 1003–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression. 2nd ed. New York, Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J., & Spitze, G. (1983). Sex stratification: Children, housework, and jobs. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, J. (2000). Why do people still live in East Germany? NBER Working Paper 7564.

  • Hunt, J. (2004). Are migrants more skilled than non-migrants? Repeat, return and same employer migrants. DIW Discussion Paper 422.

  • Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jürges, H. (1998a). Beruflich bedingte Umzüge von Doppelverdienern [Job-related Geographic Mobility of Dual-Earner Couples]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 27, 358–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jürges, H. (1998b). Einkommen und berufliche Situation von Doppelverdienern nach Umzügen [Income and Job Characteristics of Dual Earners After Migration]. Mitteilungen aus der Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung, 31, 234–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lansing, J. B., & Mueller, E. (1967). The geographic mobility of labor. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lennon, M. C., & Rosenfeld, S. (1994). Relative fairness and the division of housework: The importance of options. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 506–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichter, D. T. (1982). The migration of dual-worker families: Does the wife’s job matter? Social Science Quarterly, 63, 49–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichter, D. T. (1983). Socioeconomic returns to migration among married women. Social Forces, 62, 487–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, L. H. (1974). Women’s labour force participation and the residential mobility of families. Social Forces, 52, 342–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. A. (1996). Bargaining and distribution in marriage. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10, 139–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. A. (2003). Efficiency in marriage. Review of Economics of the Household, 1, 153–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manser, M., & Brown, M. (1980). Marriage and household decision making. A bargaining analysis. International Economic Review, 21, 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, N. L. (1988). Economic returns to migration: Marital status and gender differences. Social Science Quarterly, 60, 108–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • McElroy, M. B., & Horney, M. (1981). Nash bargained household decisions. International Economic Review, 22, 333–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mincer, J. (1978). Family migration decisions. Journal of Political Economy, 86, 749–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, D. R., & Lichter, D. T. (1988). Family migration and female employment: The problem of underemployment among married women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50, 161–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nivalainen, S. (2004). Determinants of family migration: Short moves vs. Long Moves. Journal of Population Economics, 17, 157–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ott, N. (1992). Intrafamily bargaining and household decisions. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. H. (1980). Why families move. 2nd ed. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandell, S. H. (1977). Women and the economics of family migration. Review of Economics and Statistics, 59, 406–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shihadeh, E. S. (1991). The prevalence of husband-centered migration: Employment consequences for married mothers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 432–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjaastad, L. A. (1962). The costs and returns of human migration. Journal of Political Economy, 70, 80–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SOEP Group (2001). The German socio-economic panel (SOEP) after more than 15 years – Overview. Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 70, 7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spitze, G. (1984). The effect of family migration on wives’ employment: How long does it last? Social Science Quarterly, 65, 21–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2005). Human development report 2005. New York: United Nations Development Programme.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

Part of this research was conducted while I was a guest researcher at the Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW), whose hospitality is gratefully acknowledged. I would like to thank Miriam Beblo, Axel Börsch-Supan, Karsten Hank, and Konrad Menzel for helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hendrik Jürges.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 8 Sample description
Table 9 Logistic regressions predicting the geographical mobility of dual-earner couples, alternative specifications of the egalitarian threshold

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jürges, H. Gender ideology, division of housework, and the geographic mobility of families. Rev Econ Household 4, 299–323 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-006-0015-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-006-0015-2

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Navigation