Advertisement

The Effects of Marriage on Couples’ Allocation of Time Between Market and Nonmarket Hours

Chapter
Part of the International Series on Consumer Science book series (ISCS)

Abstract

Living arrangements have undergone considerable change in recent decades. In most Western countries, marriage rates have fallen, divorce rates have risen, and fertility outside legal marriage has become commonplace (Lundberg and Pollak, 2007; Stevenson and Wolfers, 2007). Marriage is no longer the exclusive context of family formation. Cohabitation substitutes for marriage among many couples at younger ages and is a permanent alternative to marriage for a growing number of couples. For instance, in the USA, the percentage of marriages preceded by cohabitation has risen from about 10% in the period 1965–1974 to well over 50% for 1990–1994 (Bumpass and Lu, 2000). In the same way, the number of unmarried couples has nearly doubled in the 1990s. Cohabitation has also developed in Europe and has become very important in countries such as Germany, France, or Sweden (Stevenson and Wolfers, 2007).

Keywords

Labor Market Labor Supply Married Couple Domestic Work Market Work 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anderberg D., “Voluntary income sharing and the design of unemployment insurance”, Journal of Population Economics 16 (2003) 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basu K., “Gender and say: A model of household behaviour with endogenously determined balance of power”, The Economic Journal 116 (2006) 558–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, Gary, “A Theory of Marriage: Part I,” Journal of Political Economy 81:4 (1973), 813–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blundell Richard, Alan Duncan and Costas Meghir, “Estimating Labor Supply Responses Using Tax Reforms,” Econometrica 66:4 (1998), 827–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brien, Michael J., Lee. A. Lillard, and Steven Stern, “Cohabitation, Marriage, and Divorce in a Model of Match Quality,” International Economic Review 47:2 (2006), 451–494.Google Scholar
  6. Browning, Martin, and Costas Meghir, “The Effects of Male and Female Labor Supply on Commodity Demands,” Econometrica 59:4 (1991), 925–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Browning, Martin, “Children and Household Economic Behavior,” Journal of Economic Literature 30:3 (1992), 1434–1475.Google Scholar
  8. Browning M, Gørtz M., “Spending time and money within the household”, Discussion Papers Series 288, (2006) University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Bumpass, Larry L., and H. H. Lu, “Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the U.S,” Population Studies 54:1 (2000), pp 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bumpass Larry L. and Sweet J., “Cohabitation, marriage, and union stability: Preliminary findings from NSFH2. NSFH Working Paper no 65 (1995).Google Scholar
  11. Chiappori P-A., “Rational household labor supply”, Econometrica 56 (1988) 63–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chiappori, Pierre-André, Bernard Fortin, and Guy Lacroix, “Marriage Market, Divorce Legislation and Household Labour Supply,” Journal of Political Economy 110:1 (2002), 37–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Choi, Hyung-Jai, Joesch Jutta M, and Shelly Lundberg, “Work and Family: Marriage, Children, Child Gender and the Work Hours and Earnings of West German Men,” Mimeo (2005).Google Scholar
  14. Couprie H., “Time allocation within the family: welfare implications of life in a couple”, The Economic Journal 117 (2007) 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deutsches Jugendinstitut, “Zahlenspiegel. daten zu tageseinrichtungen für kinder” Fact book on daycare facilities for children, Muenchen, Germany: Deutsches Jugendinstitut (2002).Google Scholar
  16. Dustmann, Christian, and María Engracia Rochina-Barrachina, “Selection Correction in Panel Data Models: An Application to Labour Supply and Wages,” IZA Working Paper No. 162 (2000).Google Scholar
  17. Gonzalez-Chapela, Jorge, “On the price of recreation goods as a determinant of female labor supply,” Mimeo (2004).Google Scholar
  18. Gornick, Janet C., and Marcia K. Meyers, “Families That Work: Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment” (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2003).Google Scholar
  19. Gray J., “The fall in men’s return to marriage: Declining productivity effects or changing selection?”, The Journal of Human Resources 22 (1997) 481–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gustafsson S., “Separate taxation and married women’s labor supply. A comparison of West Germany and Sweden”, Journal of Population Economics 5 (1992) 61–85.Google Scholar
  21. Kiker B, Ng Y-C., “A simultaneous equation model of spousal time allocation”, Social Science Research 19 (1990) 132–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kooreman, Peter, and Arie Kapteyn, “A Disaggregated Analysis of the Allocation of Time Within the Household,” The Journal of Political Economy 95:2 (1987), 223–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kotlikoff L and Spivak A. “The family as an incomplete annuites market”, Journal of Political Economy 89 (1981), 372–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kyriazidou, Ekaterini, “Estimation of a panel data sample selection model,” Econometrica 65 (1997), 1335–1364.Google Scholar
  25. Lefgren L, McIntyre F., “The relationship between women’s education and marriage outcomes”, Journal of Labor Economics 24 (2006) 787–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lillard L, Panis C., “Marital status and mortality: The role of health”, Demography 33 (1996) 313–327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lillard, Lee A., Brien, Michael J., and Waite Linda J., “Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Dissolution: A Matter of Self-Selection?,” Demography 32:3 (1995), 437–457.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lundberg S. “Limits to specialization: Efficiency and the division of labor in modern families”. working paper University of Washington (2002).Google Scholar
  29. Lundberg, Shelly, and Robert A. Pollak, “The American Family and family Economics,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 21:2 (2007), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lundberg S, Rose E., “The effects of sons and daughters on men’s labor supply and wages” The Review of Economic and Statistics 84 (2002) 251–268.Google Scholar
  31. Mundlak, Yair., “On the pooling of time series and cross section data,” Econometrica 46 (1978), 69–85.Google Scholar
  32. Nordblom, Katarina, “Cohabitation and Marriage in a Risky World,” Review of Economics of the Household 2 (2004), 325–340.Google Scholar
  33. Pencavel, John, “A life cycle perspective on changes in earnings inequality among married men and women,” The Review of Economic and Statistics 88:2 (2006), 232–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pollak, Robert A., and Michael L.Wachter, “The Relevance of the Household Production Function and Its Implications for the Allocation of Time,” The Journal of Political Economy 83:2 (1975), 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Semykina, Anastasia, and Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, “Estimating panel data models in the presence of endogeneity and selection: Theory and application,” Working Paper Michigan State University (2005).Google Scholar
  36. Stevenson, Betsey, and Justin Wolfers, “Marriage and Divorce: Changes and their Driving Forces,” Quaterly Journal of Economics121:1 (2006), 267–288.Google Scholar
  37. Stevenson, Betsey, “The Impact of Divorce Laws on Marriage-Specific Capital,” Journal of Labor Economics 25:1 (2007), 75–94.Google Scholar
  38. Stevenson, Betsey, and Justin Wolfers, “Marriage and Divorce: Changes and their Driving Forces,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 21:2 (2007), 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stintzing H., “Constitutional values and social change the case of german marital and family law”, Institutional Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 13 (1999) 132–146.Google Scholar
  40. Stratton, Leslie S., “The Degree of Intrahousehold Specialization in Housework and How Specialization Varies Across Couple Households,” (2005), paper presented at the June 2005 SOLE Meetings.Google Scholar
  41. Van der Klaauw W., “Female labour supply and marital status decisions: A life cycle-model”, The Review of Economic Studies 63 (1996) 199–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wells R, Maher M., “Time and surplus allocation within marriage”. working paper (1998) Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  43. Wrede M., “The income splitting method: Is it good for both marriage partners?” German Economic Review 4 (2003) 203–216.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de la Réunion, CEMOISaint-DenisFrance
  2. 2.Institud Supérieur de Gestion de TunisTunisTunisia

Personalised recommendations