Advertisement

Institutionelle Determinanten einer partnerschaftlichen Aufteilung von Erwerbsarbeit in Europa und den USA

  • Lena HippEmail author
  • Kathrin Leuze
Abhandlungen

Zusammenfassung:

Warum teilen Paare in manchen Ländern bezahlte Arbeit egalitärer auf als in anderen? Mittels einer Mehrebenenanalyse von Daten der Europäischen Arbeitskräfteerhebung und des amerikanischen Current Population Surveys, denen wir Länderinformationen zugespielt haben, untersuchen wir in diesem Artikel, inwiefern Steuer- und Sozialgesetzgebung, nationale Arbeitsmarktcharakteristika und Geschlechternormen Arbeitszeitunterschiede innerhalb von heterosexuellen Paaren beeinflussen. Wir können zeigen, dass die Aufteilung von Erwerbsarbeit zwischen Partnern in den Ländern geringer ausfällt, in denen Einkommen individuell besteuert werden, Kinderbetreuung gut ausgebaut ist, Männer und Frauen ähnliche Stundenlöhne für gleiche Arbeit bekommen und in denen egalitäre Geschlechternormen vorherrschen. Mit diesen Erkenntnissen liefert der Artikel einen wichtigen Beitrag zur aktuellen politischen Diskussion um „Partnerschaftlichkeit“ und stärkt unser Verständnis für fortbestehende Geschlechterungleichheiten auf dem Arbeitsmarkt.

Schlüsselwörter:

Erwerbsarbeitszeit Paarebene Geschlechterungleichheiten Mehrebenenanalyse Europa und USA 

Determinants of working time differences within couples in Europe and the U.S.

Abstract:

Why do couples in some countries pursue a more equal division of paid labor than in others? To answer this question, we use an exchange framework that simultaneously considers country and household level characteristics to explain working hour differences both within couples and between countries. Our multilevel analyses are based on a unique dataset that links data from the US and Europe with country-level information on public policies, cultural norms, and economic conditions. Our analyses show that working time differences between heterosexual partners are considerably smaller in countries with more progressive gender norms, less wage inequality between men and women, higher childcare coverage, and individualized taxation systems. This article makes an important contribution regarding gendered labor market inequalities by systematically linking the household to the country context.

Keywords:

Working hours Couples Household Gender inequalities Multilevel analyses Europe and US 

Literatur

  1. Aisenbrey, Silke, und Hannah Brückner. 2008. Occupational aspirations and the gender gap in wages. European Sociological Review 24:633–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrén, Thomas. 2003. The choice of paid childcare, welfare, and labor supply of single mothers. Labour Economics 10:133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anxo, Dominique. 2004. Working time patterns among industrialized countries: A household perspective. In Working time and workers’ preferences in industrialized countries. Finding the balance, Hrsg. Jon C. Messenger, 60–107. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bach, Stefan, Johannes Geyer, Peter Haan und Katharina Wrohlich. 2011. Reform of income splitting for married couples: Only individual taxation significantly increases working incentives. DIW Economic Bulletin 5:13–19.Google Scholar
  5. Baron, James N., Davis-Blake Alison und William T. Bielby. 1986. The structure of opportunity: How promotion ladders vary within and among organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 31:248–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker, Gary S. 1962. Investment in human capital: A theoretical analysis. The Journal of Political Economy 70:9–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker, Gary S. 1981. A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA, London, UK: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Becker, Gary S. 1985. Human capital, effort and the sexual division of labour. Journal of Labour Economics 3:33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernardi, Fabrizio. 1999. Does the husband matter?: Married women and employment in Italy. European Sociological Review 15:285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bernasco, Wim, M. de Graaf Paul und C. Ultee Wout. 1998. Coupled careers: Effects of spouse’s resources on occupational attainment in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review 14:15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berninger, Ina. 2009. Welche familienpolitischen Maßnahmen fördern die Arbeitsmarktpartizipation von Müttern? Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 61:355–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bielby, William T. 2000. Minimizing workplace gender and racial bias. Contemporary Sociology 29:120–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bittman, Michael, Paula England, Liana Sayer, Nancy Folbre und George Matheson. 2003. When does gender trump money? Bargaining and time in household work. American Journal of Sociology 109:186–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Blood, Robert O., und Donald M. Wolfe. 1960. Husbands and wives. The dynamics of married living. Glencoe, Ill.:Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Blossfeld, Hans-Peter, und Sonja Drobnic. 2001. Careers of couples and trends in inequality. In Careers of couple in contemporary societies: From male breadwinner to dual earner families, Hrsg. Hans-Peter Blossfeld und Sonja Drobnic, 371–386. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. BMFSJ. 2014. ElterngeldPlus: Moderne Familienpolitik setzt auf Partnerschaftlichkeit. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend.Google Scholar
  17. Boeckmann, Irene, Joya Misra und Michelle J. Budig. 2015. Cultural and institutional factors shaping mothers’ employment and working hours in postindustrial countries. Social Forces 93:1301-1333.Google Scholar
  18. Breunig, Robert, Andrew Weiss, Chikako Yamauchi, Xiaodong Gong und Joseph Mercante. 2011. Child care availability, quality and affordability: Are local problems related to labour supply? Economic Record 87:109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brines, Julie. 1994. Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. American Journal of Sociology 100:652–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brynin, Malcolm, und Marco Francesconi. 2004. The material returns to partnership: The effects of educational matching on labour market outcomes and gender equality. European Sociological Review 20:363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Budig, Michelle J., und Paula England. 2001. The wage penalty for motherhood. American Sociological Review 66:204–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Budig, Michelle J., Joya Misra und Irene Boeckmann. 2012. The motherhood penalty in cross-national perspective: The importance of work-family policies and cultural attitudes. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 19:163–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bühlmann, Felix, Guy Elcheroth und Manuel Tettamanti. 2010. The division of labour among European couples: The effects of life course and welfare policy on value–practice configurations. European Sociological Review 26:49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Busch-Heizmann Anne, und Miriam Bröckel. 2015. Die Auswirkungen geschlechts(un)typischer Berufstätigkeiten auf die Aufteilung der Hausarbeit in Partnerschaften. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 67:475–507.Google Scholar
  25. Bygren, Magnus. 2004. Being different in the workplace: Job mobility into other workplaces and shifts into unemployment. European Sociological Review 20:199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Castilla, Emilio J. 2008. Gender, race, and meritocracy in organizational careers. American Journal of Sociology 113:1479–1526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cha, Youngjoo. 2010. Reinforcing separate spheres: The effect of spousal overwork on men’s and women’s employment in dual-earner households. American Sociological Review 75:303–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cha, Youngjoo. 2013. Overwork and the persistence of gender segregation in occupations. Gender & Society 27:158–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Charles, Maria. 2011. A world of difference: International trends in women’s economic status. Annual Review of Sociology 37:355–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Charles, Maria, und Karen Bradley. 2009. Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of Sociology 114:924-976.Google Scholar
  31. Connelly, Rachel. 1992. The effect of child care costs on married women’s labor force participation. The Review of Economics and Statistics 74:83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Cook, Alison, und Christy Glass. 2013. Women and top leadership positions: Towards an institional analysis. Gender, Work & Organization 21:91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Correll, Shelley J. Stephen Benard und In Paik. 2007. Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology 112:1297–1339.Google Scholar
  34. Craig, Lyn, und Killian Mullan. 2011. How mothers and fathers share childcare: A cross-national time-use comparison. American Sociological Review 76:834–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Davis, Shannon N., und Theodore N. Greenstein. 2004. Cross-national variations in the division of household labor. Journal of Marriage and Family 66:1260–1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Dearing, Helene, Helmut Hofer, Christine Lietz, Rudolf Winter-Ebmer und Katharina Wrohlich. 2007. Why are mothers working longer hours in Austria than in Germany? A comparative microsimulation analysis. Fiscal Studies 28:463–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Del Boca, Daniela, Silvia Pasquay und Chiara Pronzatoz. 2009. Motherhood and market work decisions in institutional context: A European perspective. Oxford Economic Papers 61:i147–i171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Diefenbach, Heike. 2002. Gender ideologies, relative resources, and the division of housework in intimate relationships: A test of Hyman Rodman’s theory of resources in cultural context. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 43:45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Dingeldey, Irene. 2001. Familienbesteuerung in Deutschland. Kritische Bilanz und Reformperspektiven. In Rot-grüne Steuerreformen in Deutschland - eine Zwischenbilanz, Hrsg. Achim Truger, 201–229. Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  40. Emerson, Richard M. 1962. Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review 27:31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. England, Paula. 1992. Comparable worth: Theories and evidence. New York: Aldine DeGrutyer.Google Scholar
  42. Esping-Andersen, Gøsta, Diederik Boertien, Jens Bonke und Pablo Gracia. 2013. Couple specialization in multiple equilibria. European Sociological Review 29:1280–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fasang, Anette Eva. 2012. Retirement patterns and income inequality. Social Forces 90:685-711.Google Scholar
  44. Fasang, Anette Eva, Silke Aisenbrey und Klaus Schömann. 2013. Women’s retirement income in Germany and Britain. European Sociological Review 29:968-980.Google Scholar
  45. Fortin, Nicole M. 2005. Gender role attitudes and the labour-market outcomes of women across OECD countries. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 21:416–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Frodermann, Corinna, Dana Müller und Martin Abraham. 2013. Determinanten des Wiedereinstiegs von Müttern in den Arbeitsmarkt in Vollzeit oder Teilzeit. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 65:623–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ganzeboom, Harry B.G. 2010. International standard classification of occupations ISCO-08 with ISEI-08 scores. http://www.harryganzeboom.nl/isco08/isco08_with_isei.pdf (Zugegriffen: 16.09.2015).
  48. Ganzeboom, Harry B.G., Paul M. DeGraaf und Donald J. Treiman. 1992. A standard international socio-economic index of occupational status. Social Science Research 21:1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gash, Vanessa. 2008. Preference or constraint? Part-time workers’ transitions in Denmark, France and the United Kingdom. Work, Employment & Society 22:655–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Grunow, Daniela. 2013. Zwei Schritte vor, eineinhalb Schritte zurück. Geschlechtsspezifische Arbeitsteilung und Sozialisation aus Perspektive des Lebensverlaufs. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation 33:384–398.Google Scholar
  51. Grunow, Daniela. 2014. Aufteilung von Erwerbs-, Haus- und Familienarbeit in Partnerschaften im Beziehungsverlauf. Der Einfluss von Sozialpolitik in Europa. In Geschlechterunterschiede und Geschlechterunterscheidungen in Europa, Hrsg. Detlev Lück und Waltraud Cornelißen, 231–257. Stuttgart: Lucius u. Lucius.Google Scholar
  52. Grunow, Daniela, und Dana Müller. 2012. Kulturelle und strukturelle Faktoren bei der Rückkehr in den Beruf: ostdeutsche, westdeutsche und ost-west-mobile Mütter im Vergleich. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung. Sonderheft: 55–77.Google Scholar
  53. Grunow, Daniela, Silke Aisenbrey und Marie Evertsson. 2011. Familienpolitik, Bildung und Berufskarrieren von Müttern in Deutschland, USA und Schweden. Kölner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 63:395–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Grunow, Daniela, Florian Schulz und Hans-Peter Blossfeld. 2012. What determines change in the division of housework over the course of marriage. International Sociology 27:289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Haan, Peter, und Katharina Wrohlich. 2011. Can child care policy encourage employment and fertility?: Evidence from a structural model. Labour Economics 18:498–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Halleröd, Björn. 2005. Sharing of housework and money among Swedish couples: Do they behave rationally? European Sociological Review 21:273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hegewisch, Ariane, und Janet C. Gornick. 2008. Statutory routes to workplace flexibility in cross-national perspective. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research.Google Scholar
  58. Heisig, Jan Paul. 2011. Who does more housework: Rich or poor?: A comparison of 33 countries. American Sociological Review 76:74–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hendrickx, J., Wim Bernasco und Paul M. de Graaf. 2001. Couples’ labour-market participation in The Netherlands. In Careers of couples in contemporary societies: From male breadwinner to dual earner families, Hrsg. Hans-Peter Blossfeld und Sonja Drobnic, 77–97. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Hilgemann, Christin. 2007. Cross-national variation in the gap in employment hours among couples. Irvine: University of California.Google Scholar
  61. Hirsh, C. Elizabeth, und Cha Youngjoo. 2008. Understanding employment discrimination: A multilevel approach. Sociology Compass 2:1989–2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Hofäcker, Dirk, Rumiana Stoilova und Jan R. Riebling. 2013. The gendered division of paid and unpaid work in different institutional regimes: Comparing West Germany, East Germany and Bulgaria. European Sociological Review 29:192–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hook, Jennifer L. 2010. Gender inequality in the welfare state: Sex segregation in housework, 1965–2003. American Journal of Sociology 115:1480–1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Jacobs, Jerry A. 1998. Measuring time at work: Are self-reports accurate? Monthly Labor Review 121:42–53.Google Scholar
  65. Jacobs, Jerry A., und Janet C. Gornick. 2002. Hours of paid work in dual-earner couples: The United States in cross-national perspective. Sociological Focus 35:169–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Jaumotte, Florence. 2004. Labour force participation of women: Empirical evidence on the role of policy and other determinants in OECD Countries. OECD Economic Studies 37:51–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kornstad, Tom, und Thor O. Thoresen. 2007. A discrete choice model for labor supply and childcare. Journal of Population Economics 20:781–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Krüger, Helga. 1995. Dominanzen im Geschlechterverhältnis: Zur Institutionalisierung von Lebensläufen. In Das Geschlechterverhältnis als Gegenstand der Sozialwissenschaften, Hrsg. Regina Becker-Schmidt und Gudrun-Axeli Knapp, 195-219. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  69. Krüger, Helga. 2003. Berufliche Bildung. Der deutsche Sonderweg und die Geschlechterfrage. Berliner Journal für Soziologie 13:497-510.Google Scholar
  70. Kühhirt, Michael. 2012. Childbirth and the long-term division of labour within couples: How do substitution, bargaining power, and norms affect parents’ time allocation in West Germany? European Sociological Review 28:565–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lippe, Tanja, und Liset van Dijk. 2002. Comparative research on women’s employment. Annual Review of Sociology 28:221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Lippe, Tanja, und Jacques J. Siegers. 1994. Divison of household and paid labour between partners: Effects of relative wage rates and social norms. Kyklos 47:109–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lippe, Tanja, Judith de Ruijter, Esther de Ruijter und Werner Raub. 2011. Persistent inequalities in time use between men and women: A detailed look at the influence of economic circumstances, policies, and culture. European Sociological Review 27:164–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lundberg, Shelly. 1988. Labor supply of husbands and wives: A simultaneous equations approach. The Review of Economics and Statistics 70:224–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Lundberg, Shelly, und Robert A. Pollak. 1996. Bargaining and distribution in marriage. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 10:139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Mandel, Hadas, und Michael Shalev. 2009. How welfare states shape the gender pay gap: A theoretical and comparative analysis. Social Forces 87:1873–1911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Maume, David. 1999. Occupational segregation and the career mobility of white men and women. Social Forces 77:1433–1459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Misra, Joya, Michelle Budig und Irene Boeckmann. 2011a. Work-family policies and the effects of children on women’s employment hours and wages. Community, Work & Family 14:139–157.Google Scholar
  79. Misra, Joya, Michelle J. Budig und Irene Boeckmann. 2011b. Cross-national patterns in individual and household employment and work hours by gender und parenthood. In Comparing European Workers, Part A, Hrsg. David Brady, 169–207. Bradford, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  80. Nieuwenhuis, Rense, Ariana Need und Henk Van Der Kolk. 2012. Institutional and demographic explanations of women’s employment in 18 OECD Countries, 1975–1999. Journal of Marriage and Family 74:614–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Nisic, Natascha. 2012. Mitgegangen – mitgefangen? Die Folgen von Haushaltsumzügen für die Einkommenssituation von Frauen in Partnerschaften. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 62:515–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Ochsenfeld, Fabian. 2012. Gläserne Decke oder goldener Käfig: Scheitert der Aufstieg von Frauen in erste Managementpositionen an betrieblicher Diskriminierung oder an familiären Pflichten? Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 64:507–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. OECD. 2012. Employment outlook 2012. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Oppenheimer, Valerie Kincade. 1997. Women’s employment and the gain to marriage: The specialization and trading model. Annual Review of Sociology 23:431–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Pettit, Becky, und Jennifer Hook. 2005. The structure of women’s employment in comparative perspective. Social Forces 84:779–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Pfau-Effinger, Birgit. 1998. Culture or structure as explanations for differences in part-time work in Germany, Finland and the Netherlands. In Part-time prospects - an international comparison of part-time work in Europe, North America, and the Pacific Rim, Hrsg. Jacqueline O’Reilly und Colette Fagan, 177–198. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  87. Presser, Harriet B. 1994. Employment schedules among dual-earner spouses and the division of household labor by gender. American Sociological Review 59:348–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Rabe-Hesketh, Sophia, und Anders Skrondal. 2012. Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata. Volume I: Continuous responses. Third ed.. College Station, Texas: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  89. Reskin, Barbara, und Denise D. Bielby. 2005. A sociological perspective on gender and career outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19:71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Riach, Peter A., und Judith Rich. 2002. Field experiments of discrimination in the market place*. The Economic Journal 112:F480–F518.Google Scholar
  91. Rosenfeld, Rachel, und Arne L. Kalleberg. 1990. A cross-national comparison of the gender gap of income. The American Journal of Sociology 96:69–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Rusconi, Alessandra, und Heike Solga. 2011. Gemeinsam Karriere machen. Die Verflechtung von Berufskarrieren und Familie in Akademikerpartnerschaften. Opladen: B. Budrich.Google Scholar
  93. Schober, Pia S. 2013. The parenthood effect on gender inequality: Explaining the change in paid and domestic work when British couples become parents. European Sociological Review 29: 74-85.Google Scholar
  94. Schober, Pia S., und C. Katharina Spiess. 2015. Local day-care quality and maternal employment? Evidence from East and West Germany. Journal of Marriage and Family 77:712-729.Google Scholar
  95. Schober, Pia S. 2014. Parental leave, maternal and paternal domestic work: A longitudinal study of two reforms in West Germany. Journal of Social Policy 43: 351-372.Google Scholar
  96. Skaggs, Sheryl, und Jennifer Bridges. 2013. Race and sex discrimination in the employment process. Sociology Compass 7:404–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Sorensen, Aage. 1983. Women’s employment patterns after marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family 45:311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle. 2008. Women, labour, and public policy: Female labour market integration in OECD countries. A comparative perspective. Journal of Social Policy 37:383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Steiber, Nadia, und Barbara Haas. 2009. Ideals or compromises? The attitude–behaviour relationship in mothers’ employment. Socio-Economic Review 7:639–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Steiber, Nadia, und Barbara Haas. 2012. Advances in explaining women’s employment patterns. Socio-Economic Review 10:343–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Tharenou, Phyllis. 1999. Is there a link between family structures and women’s and men’s managerial career advancement? Journal of Organizational Behavior 20:837–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Thébaud, Sarah. 2010. Masculinity, bargaining, and breadwinning: Understanding men’s housework in the cultural context of paid work. Gender & Society 24:330–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Uunk, Wilfred, Matthijs Kalmijn und Ruud Muffels. 2005. The impact of young children on women’s labour supply. Acta Sociologica 48:41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Verbakel, Ellen. 2010. Partner’s resources and adjusting working hours in the Netherlands: Differences over time, between levels of human capital, and over the family cycle. Journal of Family Issues 31:1324–1362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Voicu, Mălina, Bogdan Voicu und Katarina Strapcova. 2009. Housework and gender inequality in European countries. European Sociological Review 25:365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Waldfogel, Jane. 1998. Understanding the ’Family gap’ in pay for women with children. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 12:137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wimbauer, Christine. 2012. Wenn Arbeit Liebe ersetzt. Doppelkarriere-Paare zwischen Anerkennung und Ungleichheit. Frankfurt a. M: Campus.Google Scholar
  108. Wimbauer, Christine, und Heike Solga. Hrsg. 2005. „Wenn zwei das Gleiche tun…“ – Ideal und Realität sozialer (Un-) Gleichheit in Dual Career Couples. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  109. Wrohlich, Katharina. 2006. Labor supply and child care choices in a rationed child care market. DIW Discussion Paper No. 1169.Google Scholar
  110. Yerkes, Mara. 2010. Diversity in work: The heterogeneity of women’s employment patterns. Gender, Work & Organization 17:696–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB)Arbeitsgruppe Arbeit und Fürsorge, Reichpietschufer 50BerlinDeutschland
  2. 2.Institut für Soziologie der Leibniz Universität HannoverHannoverDeutschland

Personalised recommendations