Adriano Cataldo
School of social sciences (university of Trento)
Paper for the ISSP Conference, Milan 15-17 September 2016
Male partner’s role in fostering gender equality, women’s and unpaid work
heterogeneity and the transition to the first child: a matter of time and timing?
1. Introduction
In a context of rising maternal employment, requests for work and family balance become
particularly high (Griffin et al. 2002; Voydanoff 2005). In this scenario, research has also shown
that the imbalance between work and family might reflect in a set of negative consequences on
women’s employment, well-being and fertility (Esping-Andersen 2009; OECD 2012) 1 . This
implies that, in considering its broader societal implications, the goal of work and family balance
becomes a matter of gender equality (Saraceno and Keck 2011; Mc-Donald 2013).
In this debate, there has been in the recent years a growing interest among scholars and public
opinion leaders on the role played by the male partner in fostering gender equality (Forste 2002;
Slaughter 2012; Farré 2013; Seiz-Puyuelo 2014; Oláh et al. 2014; Moravcsik 2015; Oláh 2015;
Bröckel 2016). In this framework, research has specifically investigated men’s propensity of taking
up unpaid work (especially housework and childcare), not only per se (Grunow 2013a, 2013b;
Treas and Lui 2013), but also in considering its many implications with fertility and female
partner’s well-being (Kalmijn 1999; Mencarini and Tanturri 2004; Mencarini and Sironi 2012).
However, despite of its doubtless importance, the association between the so-called “two stages
of gender role revolution” (Goldscheider et al. 2015) – namely women’s participation to the public
sphere of paid work and man’s participation to the private sphere of unpaid work – has been studied
less (Kitterød and Pettersen 2006; Seiz-Puyuelo 2014; Bröckel 2016).
This paper aims at filling this gap and will take into account a peculiar dimension of male
partner’s role in fostering gender equality: his support to his female partner’s employment. Male
1
The literature on the topic has proposed a set of metaphors that have a peculiar strength in defining the effects on
maternal employment connected to an “incomplete revolution” – namely the lack of adaptation of both men and the
welfare state to new role of women in the public sphere (Esping-Andersen 2009) – such as the “double burden” and the
“second shift” (Hochschild and Machung 1989).
1
partner’s support has been previously studied, and scholars have put peculiar emphasis on the
expressive and on the behavioural level (Perrewé and Carlson 2002; Bröckel 2016).
The first level involves the verbal and emotional sphere, while the second takes into account the
participation to unpaid work. Both dimensions of support might be relevant for the sake of work
and family balance (Voydanoff 2005). However, this paper will focus peculiarly on the
instrumental level, since it involves more directly the behavioural dimension (Perrewé and Carlson
2002), and conversely the debate on gender equality, which focuses on concrete outcomes of
gender relations (Saraceno and Keck 2011), while the expressive level mainly associates to gender
equity (Mc-Donald 2013).
Taken together, investigating male partner’s role in the private sphere in fostering gender
equality has a threefold meaning:
1. The main mechanism refers to male partner’s role as a matter of support to his female
partner‘s employment (Bröckel 2016).
2. This support is especially required when work and family balance comes into question
(Voydanoff 2005).
3. Male partner’s support is provided by means of equal unpaid work division (Fuochi et al.
2014).
So far, research has shown that gender equality is not equally spread among couples (Fuochi et
al. 2014; Dotti Sani 2014). More in detail, especially highly educated women, and hypothetically
more attached to the labour market, benefit from their male partner’s support (Kitterød and
Pettersen 2006; Bröckel 2016).
In this framework, to be fully suitable for the investigation of men’s role in fostering gender
equality, the threefold distinction, listed above, might also take into account women’s
heterogeneity. This might enable to study not only the “how”, but also the “where" of male
partner’s role. It will be thus expected that male partner’s role in fostering gender equality might be
especially required if the female partner is employment attached.
To do so, the investigation will be extended to the analysis of the heterogeneity of unpaid work
tasks (which means to understand how housework and childcare equal division differently
associates to female partner’s employment) and to the role played by the kid (which means to
understand in which moment of kid’s life the need for work and family balance is higher).
2
The investigation of unpaid work heterogeneity is not a new discovery of social research
(Ishii-Kuntz and Coltrane 1992; Kitterød and Pettersen 2006; Doucet 2015). However, studies
have so far succeeded in investigating unpaid work division’s determinants, but not its role on
female partner’s employment. In this framework, the strategy of the paper is to focus on couples
that have experienced the transition to the first child, since they have a strong need of work and
family balance (Voydanoff 2005). This is because childbirth implies different options for a
working woman, such as exiting the labour market, reduce working hours or continuing with the
same time schedule, according to the possibility of balancing the requests coming from the
workplace and from the family (Begall and Grunow 2015). Focus on those couples also allows to
properly investigate the heterogeneity between housework and childcare. In doing so, the paper
will investigate the issue of time, which is understood with a twofold distinction.
On one side, time refers to the moment of the day (timing) in which unpaid work is performed.
Besides, in the dimension of timing, the option of outsourcing the two tasks plays an important role
for female partner’s employment (Kitterød and Pettersen 2006; Craig et al. 2016).
On the other side, time relates to the age of the kid, which is a factor taken into account by
previous studies on unpaid work dynamics. It is well-known that the first years of kids’ life are
associated to higher request for care and housework loads (Ishii-Kuntz and Coltrane 1992; Fuochi
et al. 2014).
As the paper will show, the two dimensions of time are also strictly associated, especially
because of the role played by family policies, that to some extent define a time framework (Lalive
and Zweimüller 2009; Saraceno and Keck 2011), according to which different degrees of male
partner’s support can be hypothesised.
Taken together, it is expected that male partner’s participation to childcare and housework,
which reflects in an equal division of unpaid work, will have different effects on female partner’s
employment. The degrees of support will vary according to the age of the kid and to the moment in
which unpaid work is performed.
Using data from the German Family Panel, it will be shown that male partners’ involvement in
the equal division of unpaid work has different effects on female partners’ employment. Overall,
women benefit from housework division and increase their employment likelihood when the kid
grows older.
3
However, only employment attached women also benefit from outsourced childcare performed
in the morning. The paper concludes by suggesting an integration between the time perspective and
the current theoretical approaches used to explain couples’ unpaid work division.
2. Male partner’s role as a matter of support for his female partner‘s employment
Research has shown that the male partner can play a role for his female partner’s employment
(Farré 2013). In the very beginning of the research on this topic, scholars have peculiarly
investigated the role played by male partner’s economic. Couples’ careers have been investigated
as a result of a joint decision, based on the idea of a separate specialization in either paid or unpaid
work, according to the earning potential of the two couple’s members (Becker 1981). However,
empirical comparative research in the field has shown that this mechanism is different across
contexts, and that male partner’s resources alone do not fully define its role for his female partner’s
career (Blossfeld and Drobnič 2001; Grunow et al. 2012).
In fact, there has been recently a growing interest on male partner’s role as a matter of support
for his female partner’s career (Bröckel 2016). This interest is also justified by the research on
work and family balance, in whose dynamics male partners are asked to “do their parts”
(Voydanoff 2005). The support is thus understood as a help to find a fit between the demands that
contemporarily come from the workplace, in terms of performance, and from the family, in terms
of care (Griffin et al. 2002). In this scenario, male partner’s support can be considered in a twofold
distinction (Perrewé and Carlson 2002; Bröckel 2016: 3-6).
The first dimension refers to the role played by behaviour and can be defined as instrumental
support. The support thus reflects in the fact that the male partner takes up a substantial part of
unpaid work, in order reduce the work load of the female partner (Voydanoff 2005).
The second dimension refers to the verbal and communicative level and can be defined as
expressive support. This support reflects in the fact that in the communication between partners,
the man partner is ready to listen his partner, and is ready to give her suggestion or to motivate her
(Furman and Buhrmester 2009). In this way, expressive support also links to the fairness dimension
(Chong and Mickelson 2016).
Considering that instrumental support aims at linking more directly to tangible outcomes
(Bröckel 2016: 3-6), this paper will peculiarly take into account the role of instrumental support.
The choice is driven by the general aim of the paper, which is investigating men’s role in fostering
gender equality. In fact, according to the distinction provided by Mc-Donald (2013), gender
4
equality peculiarly refers to tangible outcomes of couple’s dynamics, such as equal unpaid work
division. On the opposite, gender equity refers more directly to couple’s beliefs in terms of fairness,
which pertain more directly the expressive support. Moreover, investigating the instrumental
support dimension might also give suggestion in solving one of the main issues that arise in
investigating the association between male partners’ contribution to unpaid work and female
partners’ employment, as the next paragraph shows.
3. A (almost) perfect circle: focussing on women’s heterogeneity to assess men’s role in fostering
gender equality?
Despite of its importance in studying gender equality dynamics, the association between male
partners’ contribution to unpaid work and female partners’ employment is still an
under-investigated research topic (Oláh et al. 2014; Goldscheider et al. 2015). This overlook is
mostly justified by the many issues that arise in investigating the topic (Kitterød and Pettersen
2006; Seiz-Puyuelo 2014).
The main issue arisen is probably the causal direction: which of the two elements has the
priority in the association? Is male partners’ participation responsive to female partners’
employment or does also the opposite hold?
Studies that do not have the possibility to account for individual variation over time show that
male partner’s participation to unpaid work is significantly associated to his female partner’s
employment, but only if she is full-time employed (Kitterød and Pettersen 2006). This might imply
that male partner’s support is only important when the female partner really needs it, for instance in
dealing with of work and family balancing requests. Moreover, the association between male
partners’ contribution to unpaid work and female partners’ employment would be different
according to the activity performed, with childcare being more important than housework (Kitterød
and Pettersen 2006).
Taken together, male partner’s unpaid work participation is a substantive factor for female
partner’s career, but only under given circumstances. Highly labour market attached women are
more able to obtain support from their partner (Slaughter 2012). Unfortunately, studies have found
a similar pattern by investigating the opposite association (Breen and Cooke 2005; Gracia and
Esping-Andersen 2015). It has been namely demonstrated that couples with high levels of
employment attachment are more likely to equally divide housework (Fahlén 2015).
5
Nevertheless, the empirical study of the association between male partner’s support and female
partner’s participation to paid work requires more complex analysis to properly disentangle the
causal order.
To this aim, many research in the last years has been done by analysing longitudinal data, which
allow to investigate individual changes over time and enable a better understanding of causal
directions (Blossfeld and Drobnič 2001). In this framework, the main part of the studies has
focussed on the role played by a triggering event that might hinder female partner’s career, namely
childbirth (Grunow 2013a). This event is associated with different options for employed women,
such as exiting the labour market, reduce working hours or continuing with the same time schedule
(Begall and Grunow 2015). It has been shown that male partners’ instrumental support by means of
unpaid work participation makes it easier for their partners to dedicate to employment and lowering
their economic penalty experienced after motherhood (Jacob and Kleinert 2014; Seiz-Puyuelo
2014; Bröckel 2016).
Interestingly, previous studies that use longitudinal data, however, confirm to some extent what
cross-sectional studies have already found. Highly educated women and couples that share high
levels of labour market attachment are those ones in which a positive effect of male partner’s
instrumental support is required (Jacob and Kleinert 2014; Seiz-Puyuelo 2014; Bröckel 2016).
Might this suggest that careers of couples “encounter” only when work and family balance
comes into question?
Two possible answers come from studies on homogamy and on game theory.
The first perspective might suggest that many of the dynamics associated to male partner’s
instrumental support reflect couple’s members similarity in terms of educational level (Blossfeld
and Drobnič 2001) or gender attitudes (Keizer and Komter 2015). This would mean that only
egalitarian couples or couples in which both members are attached to the labour market would
show a higher likelihood of male partner’s support to his female partner’s career by means of
unpaid work participation. This perspective might also explain why some couples are more likely
than others to go “one and a half step back” to traditional patterns of paid and unpaid work division
after childbirth (Grunow 2013a).
However, this perspective might not take into account those situations in which women have a
better position on the labour market than their male partners (Hoherz 2014; Vitali and Mendola
2014).
6
This aspect has been taken into account by a study investigating men’s participation to unpaid
work as the result of a “family game” (Breen and Cooke 2005). The authors argue that the
economic autonomy of the female partner represents the starting point of male partner’s
participation to unpaid work, which might also reflect in instrumental support to her career
(Esping-Andersen and Billari 2015).
The common denominator between the two perspective is thus the importance of partnered
women’s employment as a central factor for male partner’s instrumental support. On a more
general level, it might also be expected that women’s differences in terms of labour market
attachment would differently explain the extent to which they might receive instrumental support
from their partners, after childbirth. In this framework, the association between male partner’s
support and female partner’s employment can be defined using the metaphor of the (almost) perfect
circle, since the effect is not be equally spread among couples. Converting this metaphor in a
research hypothesis, it might be expected that:
After first childbirth, instrumental support from their male partners is especially relevant for
highly employment attached female partners (H1).
Having defined the general dynamics under investigation, the next two paragraphs are devoted
to further define the perspective of this paper. So far namely, the relationship between the male
partner and the female partner has been considered as the focus. However, considering that this
dynamic is also connected to childbirth, it might be necessary to account for the role played by the
child. To do so, the next two paragraphs will investigate more in detail the distinction between
housework and childcare, which conversely allows to assess male partner’s instrumental support,
by using the analytical dimension of time.
4. Unpaid work heterogeneity, kid’s age and male partner’s instrumental support: the issue of
time in a twofold distinction
4.1 Housework and childcare determinants: norms, stratification and preferences
The idea that childcare and housework are two different activities is well-established in the
academic debate (Ishii-Kuntz and Coltrane 1992; Treas and Lui 2013; Doucet 2015). The
difference lies in first instance in the puzzling fact, supported by empirical studies, that couples
7
display different patterns of housework and childcare division. It has been namely shown that
couples are more likely to equally divide childcare than housework (Sullivan and Coltrane 2008;
Hook 2010; Aassve et al. 2014; Fuochi et al. 2014). This result is mainly due because male partners
have significantly increased their participation to childcare, catching up with their female
counterparts (Gracia 2014; Gracia and Kalmijn 2016). On the opposite, even if women have
decreased their participation to housework – mainly because of both technological development
and because of changing behaviour – men have not conversely increased it (Kan 2008; Kan et al.
2011; Treas and Lui 2013). These differences have been investigated especially according to
ideational and economic perspectives (Davis and Wills 2014). However, only recently the research
has tried to overcome this simplistic distinction, by taking into account a broader perspective on
gender relations in the social structure (Korpi 2000; Risman 2004; Treas and Lui 2013).
In this framework, investigating the determinants of the two activities is made possible by
relying on three dimensions: norms (Fuochi et al. 2014; McGill 2014), stratification (Gupta 1999;
Dotti Sani and Treas 2016) and preferences (Ishii-Kuntz and Coltrane 1992).
The first dimension identifies the set of normative prescription connected to both the gendered
roles of mother/wife and father/husband. According to the different activity that is performed, it is
thus possible to identify for male partner’s role in the private sphere both a couple norm, the
“egalitarian husband” – which might “prescribe” an equal involvement in housework – and a
parenting norm, the “involved father” – which might “prescribe” the participation to childcare –
(Fuochi et al. 2014; McGill 2014). It is noteworthy that in the only in the first case the equal
division of the tasks is foreseen as the desiderata (Doucet 2015). However, research in the field
wrestles in demonstrating that so far common sense and public discourse (Slaughter 2012;
Moravcsik 2015) have put more effort in pushing men towards the “involved” or “new father”
norm (McGill 2014), rather than towards the “egalitarian husband” norm (Fuochi et al. 2014). An
effort that can be also seen in the increased number of countries that offer targeted parental leave
schemes for fathers (Evertsson et al. 2015; Koslowski and Moss 2016).
The second dimension understands both housework and childcare as a matter of stratification.
According to this perspective, highly educated men might be more likely to participate to childcare
than less educated men, because of a peculiar interest in the development of the kids, which might
be the precondition of late schooling success and thus a form of status transmission (Gracia 2014;
Dotti Sani and Treas 2016; Gracia and Kalmijn 2016). On the opposite, the division of housework
8
might “reflect” the gender structure (Gupta 1999), or the family model individual where confronted
with, during early stages of life (Dotti Sani 2016).
The third dimension takes into account the role played by individual preferences. Since the
beneficiary of childcare is another living person and the one of housework is an object, the former
might be more satisfying than the latter (Fuochi et al. 2014). This is also true to the extent to which
childcare is an activity less characterized by routine than housework (Treas and Lui 2013). For this
reason, the male partner would be more likely to take up childcare rather than housework
(Ishii-Kuntz and Coltrane 1992). Moreover, the male partner would only take part to housework on
a substantial basis only if the female partner is employed on a full-time basis (Breen and Cooke
2005).
Overall, it is quite easy to see that the three dimensions are to some extent intertwined and also
that they take into account the role played by the beneficiary of the activity performed. What is also
quite easy to be seen is that the three dimensions do not fully solve the problem of the (almost)
perfect circle, since norms, stratification and preferences might to some extent interact with labour
market attachment and educational level of the two couple’s members (Treas and Lui 2013).
4.2 Housework and childcare determinants: the “object” and the twofold distinction of time
To properly account for the effect of male partner’s instrumental support on his female partner’s
employment, the paper suggest to focus more in detail or the role played by the “object” to which
the performed task is directed. To do so, it is useful to move the focus to time dimension, which has
been investigated so far by using time diaries, that offer a rich data source to study unpaid work
dynamics (Gersbuny and Sullivan 1998; Baxter et al. 2008; Gracia 2014; Gracia and Kalmijn
2016).
The time dimension is distinguished between timing-outsourcing (Bröckel 2016; Craig et al.
2016) and life-time of the kid (Ishii-Kuntz and Coltrane 1992).
According to the timing-outsourcing dimension, childcare is a full-time activity, while
housework is a part-time activity. This is because housework implies an activity with an inanimate
thing, which reflects in that fact that it is more easily to be postponed than childcare, which on the
opposite implies an activity performed with a living person (for instance the child) with own needs
and requests (Bröckel 2016). Moreover, the two activities can be differently outsourced (Craig et
al. 2016), with childcare offering a wider set of solutions (public and private childcare services,
nannies, grandparents) when compared to housework (governess, au-pair).
9
However, public childcare is mostly provided on a part-time basis, especially in the morning
(Saraceno and Keck 2011). This reflects on the fact that maternal employment might be also
associated to availability of childcare (Kreyenfeld and Hank 2000).
In this framework it might be expected that:
both male partner’s participation to childcare and housework might play a role for his female
partner’s employment. However, childcare is expected to play a bigger role, especially if the male
partner takes up childcare on a full-time basis (H2).
According to the life-time dimension, childcare and housework are expected to be more
determinant when the couple has small kids. This is because small kids have more needs than older
kids (Ishii-Kuntz and Coltrane 1992; Fuochi et al. 2014; Bröckel 2016). This might imply that the
younger the kid is, the higher the request for male partner’s support.
Table 1 summarizes the “unpaid work galaxy”, by distinguishing between their determinants
and their characteristics according the time and timing perspective.
[Table 1 here]
4.3 The time framework identified by family policies
The age of the kid is an important issue also when taking into account the role of family policies
(childcare and parental leave) in defining individual’s opportunity structure (Pfau-Effinger 2014).
Not only family policies might explain women’s employment (Steiber and Haas 2012), but also
define the extent to which the male partner might support his female partner’s career after
childbirth (Grunow 2013b).
It has been shown for instance that male partner’s role in supporting his female partner’s career
can be considered as a sort of parallel option for couples. More precisely, male partner’s role would
be required especially if family policies are not effective, for instance if the parental leave period
expires or if kids are not covered by childcare services (Kitterød and Pettersen 2006; Lalive and
Zweimüller 2009). In this perspective, childcare and parental leave identify a time framework,
which is mainly associated with the age of the kid (Saraceno and Keck 2011; Hoherz 2014).
10
In fact, public childcare is universally provided2 only for kids in the 3-6 age group, while this
does not hold for kids aged between 0 and 3. Countries differ significantly in this pattern
(Plantenga and Remery 2009; Saraceno and Keck 2010, 2011; Guetto and Scherer 2013), and the
next paragraph will focus on the peculiar case of the country analysed in this paper.
It might be thus expected that if kids are in the age group 0-3, male partner’s support might be
more important.
Results also show that paid periods of parental leaves are related to increased probabilities of
remaining at home, especially during the first year of a child’s life (Pronzato 2009). Countries also
differ according to the parental leave period they provide, and whether it is paid or not (Pronzato
2009; Saraceno and Keck 2010, 2011; Koslowski and Moss 2016)3. This reflects in the fact that
countries display different patterns of women re-entering employment after the expiration of the
parental leave period (Aisenbrey et al. 2009; Lalive and Zweimüller 2009).
In this theoretical framework, it might be expected that:
Male partner’s support should be especially relevant for his female partner’s employment if the
kid is younger than 3 (H3).
The next paragraph will investigate the time and timing perspective in the context of analysis of
this paper.
5. The time perspective in the German context
According to H2, it is expected that male partner’s support by means of childcare is peculiarly
important if provided on a full-time basis, both because of the fact that housework is easier to be
postponed than childcare, but also because of the fact that public childcare is mostly provided on a
part-time basis.
Data on childcare usually distinguish between “childcare usage” – the ratio between enrolled children in a given age
group and the total number of children of the same age group – and “childcare coverage” – the ratio between slots
offered in childcare services to children in a given age group and the total number of children of the same age group –
(Saraceno and Keck 2011). The paper will not take into account the difference between the two indicators, and in some
cases consider them as synonyms. The choice is driven by the fact that considering them together, even if problematic
(Saraceno and Keck 2010), at least offers a general description of the childcare policy offered in a given context
(Plantenga and Remery 2009).
3
The UNICEF (2008) has recently compared these schemes and identified in a parental leave that at least provide a
50% substitution of the wage and lasts at least one year the ideal parental leave scheme, which would enable a good
balance between care duties and employment re-entry possibilities.
2
11
Recent data on Germany show that in 2015 for kids aged between 0 and 3, the percentage of
those enrolled in a full-time childcare provision4 is 18.1, while the same percentage for kids aged
between 3 and 6 is 43.9 (Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder 2016: 33-41). In this
scenario, it might be expected that, given the low levels of full-time provision, especially for the
age group 0-3, male partner’s support would play an important role for his female partner’s
employment.
This might lead to the second hypothesis, namely H3, according to which male partner’s support
should be especially relevant if the kid is aged between 0 and 3. This expectation has been build
according to the time framework that both childcare provision and parental leave schemes define.
Taking into account the age divide in childcare provision, Germany shows a pattern which is in
line with many European Countries: a low percentage of usage for kids in the 0-3 age group and an
almost universal usage for kids in the 3-6 age group (Oliver and Mätzke 2014). Data about the last
years confirm this pattern (see tab. 2 and tab. 3 below).
Table 2 actually shows that in the very first age of the kid, almost no kids are enrolled in
childcare services. When the kid grows older, however, the usage rate increases, even with some
difference between macro regions (an issues that will not be analysed in this paper). A situation
which might confirm the expectation of the importance of male partner’s support in the first years
of kid’s age.
[Table 2 and 3 here]
The expected importance of men’s role for kids aged between 0 and 3 is also confirmed by the
time framework identified by the parental leave scheme. In the last year, Germany has experienced
a reform of the leave scheme, in order to avoid the hindering effect on women’s career – due to the
extended period, which in the original form lasted three years – and to encourage fathers to take up
leave periods (Ondrich et al. 1996; Spiess and Wrohlich 2008; Koslowski and Moss 2016: 19-20).
The former parental leave scheme has been substituted by a system which allows to be more
flexible in the re-entering of employment, by providing 14 months of paid leave and by
encouraging fathers to take up leave periods. In fact, it has been shown that the participation to paid
4
Full-time childcare provision refers to the number of kids enrolled in public childcare service with a daily schedule of
more than seven hours (Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder 2016: 33).
12
work increase after the second year of the kid’s life (Spiess and Wrohlich 2008; DESTATIS 2015a;
DESTATIS 2016a).
In this scenario, it is expected that also H3 will hold in the German context.
6. Data, sample and variables
Empirical analysis will be performed using five waves (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012) of the
German Panel Analysis of Intimate Relationships and Family Dynamics (Pairfam) (Huinink et al.
2011). The sample will be restricted to couples with one kid in preschool age, namely between 0
and 5, as done in previous studies investigating unpaid work dynamics (Ishii-Kuntz and Coltrane
1992; Fuochi et al. 2014). This choice is also driven by the fact that these couples are more likely to
face work and family issues (Voydanoff 2005; Begall and Grunow 2015).
Unfortunately, this choice is contemporarily not safe from selection bias issues. In fact,
selecting only couples with one kid excludes those that have a second kid, few years after the first.
However, since Germany belongs to countries with low fertility levels (Kreyenfeld 2002), almost
25% of the couples only have one child (DESTATIS 2015b).
Moreover, as shown by research on fertility focussing on countries with low fertility levels, the
decision of having the first kid is non-informed (Billari and Kohler 2002). On the opposite, the
decision of having a second kid might be associated to positive or negative experiences of work
and family balance and unpaid work division (Mencarini and Tanturri 2004). In this framework,
the transition to the second child might be influenced by a set of couple characteristics that might
interact with her and his socio-economic characteristics (Kreyenfeld 2002).
Taken together, selecting couples that only have one child, or extending the analysis to couples
that have a second kid, would represent in both cases a matter of selection. In this framework, the
selection adopted has the clear advantage of controlling a set of dynamics that otherwise would
bias the analysis.
The dependent variable is a dummy defining female partner’s employment status. Considering
the importance of taking into account women’s heterogeneity in terms of employment attachment,
different groups of women will be compared.
In the first group, the reference category of the dummy dependent variable defines not employed
women.
In the second group, the reference category of the dummy dependent variable defines women on
13
both maternity or parental leave. In both groups, the outcome category is being employed.
Making the distinction between the two groups has the advantage of capturing different levels of
employment attachment. In fact, it is assumed that women on leave were also employed before the
childbirth, while not employed women are assumed to have left employment after the birth or being
not employed also before the event. The two statuses have also the role of being a proxy of the
pre-birth status, given that this information is not provided in the data. Lastly, this is important
given the role played by parental leave in defining the time framework defined in the previous
paragraph.
Male partner’s instrumental support is measured through male partner’s participation to unpaid
work, both considering housework and childcare. The division of the tasks is considered in the
framework of gender equality, so that couple’s equal unpaid work division is the main explanatory
variable. In this perspective, the variable of origin “housework division” is constituted by six
answer categories 5 that have been transformed in a dummy variable, describing whether
housework tasks are done principally by the female partner (unequally divided) or equally divided.
Moreover, those configurations in which male partners declare to do more have been considered as
being equal, given the interest of this paper. The very few cases of outsourced housework have
been considered as equal, as suggested by Treas and Tai (2012).
One of the advantages of the Pairfam is represented by the rich information on childcare. It is
namely possible to measure how childcare is divided in the morning and in the afternoon, and
besides to distinguish if the task is outsourced to another person or to childcare services. These
variables have been coded as follows. The reference category is always the “unequal division”,
which means that the female partner is in charge of the majority of childcare. If the couple divides
equally the task, the variable “couple childcare” is coded with 1. If the couple fully outsources
childcare, the variable “outsourced childcare” is coded with 1. In both cases, it is possible to
measure it according to the moment of the day in which the task is performed.
The other important explanatory variable is the age of the kid, which ranges from 0 to 5. Models
also control for marital status (cohabitating or married), both partner’s education and both partner’s
age.
5
(Almost) completely my partner; For the most part my partner; Split about 50/50; For the most part me; (Almost)
completely, me; Another person (Thönnissen et al. 2015).
14
7. Descriptive results
This paragraph offers a general description of the two groups.
7.1 First group: couples with not employed female partners and couples with employed female
partners
The first groups compares couples in which there is a not-employed female partner with couples in
which there is an employed female partner. The analytical sample is constituted by 1,539
observations clustered in 775 groups. Across the five waves, it is possible to have on average 2
waves for each person.
Employment status is a rather stable condition, which reflects in the fact that female partners are
more likely to make positive transitions from non-employment into employment, as the within
variation of the non-employed condition shows (tab. 4).
Table 5 shows that unequal housework division is the norm among couples, as the between
percentages show. Moreover, the equal configuration is slightly less stable than unequal
housework division within couples.
On the opposite, in line with empirical results of previous studies, couples are more likely to
equally divide childcare. This holds for both childcare performed in the morning and childcare
performed in the afternoon. In both cases, in fact, childcare is more likely to be either outsourced or
equally divided (tab. 6 and tab. 7). According to the timing of the day, patterns are to some extent
reversed: morning childcare is more likely to be outsourced – probably because of the role played
by childcare services that mostly offer a part-time provision – while afternoon childcare is most
likely to be equally divided. The percentages of unequal division are quite small, especially in the
morning. It becomes a bit higher in considering afternoon childcare, which is probably a moment in
which childcare is not provided by services and in which a part-time employed women might have
more time to care for the kid than their full-time employed partners. Noteworthy is also the fact that
the equal and the unequal division of childcare in the morning are less stable than the outsourced,
while the opposite holds for afternoon childcare.
Concerning the age of the first kid, table 8 shows that in the sample, the main part is represented
by kids between 1 and 4. The two “extreme cases” of a kid aged 0 or 5 are less present.
Lastly, table 9 shows that in the vast majority of the cases, the sample is constituted by married
couples. It is more likely to have both partners with a less than tertiary educational degree level
(tab. 10). On average, male partners are older than female partners.
15
7.2 Second group: couples with female partners on leave and couples with employed female
partners
In the second group, in which couples with a female partner on leave are compared to those in
which there is an employed partner, the analytical sample is constituted by 1,887 observations
clustered in 896 groups. On average, there are 2.1 waves for each person.
As for the previous group, employment status is a rather stable condition when compared to the
leave condition (tab. 11), which should be by definition transitory, as the previous paragraphs has
shown.
As for the previous group, unequal housework division is the norm among couples, and the
unequal division is more stable than the equal division (tab. 12).
Even if, as for the previous group, childcare division in the morning is more likely to be
outsourced or equally divided, there is a bigger percentage of childcare performed by the couple
(especially the equal division), as table 13 shows. The same holds for afternoon childcare division
(tab. 14).
Another existing difference is in the age of the kid. In the second group, in fact, there is a bigger
presence of a kid aged 0 (tab. 15).
Lastly, there are similarities with the previous group for what pertains the marital status (tab.
16), the educational level (tab. 17) and both partners’ age.
8. Bivariate results
In this paragraph, bivariate analyses show that on one side the expected results assessed in the three
research hypotheses are worth to be investigated . On the other side, the paragraph shows that the
two groups differ in terms of associations between outcome and explanatory variables.
8.1 First group
In analysing the first group, in which couples with a non-employed female partner are compared to
those in which there is an employed partner, graph 1 shows that the equal division of housework is
associated with higher percentages of employment of the female partner
[Graph 1 here]
16
This result might suggest that male partner’s egalitarian involvement in housework actually
plays a role for his female partner’s career. In this framework, to fully assess his role as a matter of
support, also his participation to childcare might be taken into account. To this aim, graph 2
displays the association between morning childcare and female partner’s employment. It is shown
that, when comparing couples with a non-employed female partner with couples in which there is
an employed partner, especially outsourced childcare plays a role in fostering female partner’s
employment, while there is only a barely significant difference between unequal or equal division.
[Graph 2 here]
The same holds for afternoon childcare. (graph 3). It is easy to see that outsourced childcare
plays the lion’s share in being positively associated to female partner’s employment.
[Graph 3 here]
In this framework, it might be expected that in the first group the most relevant part of support is
represented by housework, which is equally divided only in about one third of couples (see table 5).
On the opposite, since both types of childcare are for in the main part of the couples either equally
divided or outsourced, the unequal configuration might be less relevant (table 6 and 7), and it is
thus more difficult to understand their difference with regards to the equal configuration. Overall,
these results might also suggest that childcare performed by the couples is to some extent a parallel
option, which comes into question when outsourcing is not possible (Kitterød and Pettersen 2006).
Lastly, it is shown that, contrary to the expectations, in the first group, the age of the kid does not
play a consistent role for female partner’s employment. Graph 4 in fact shows that there is a
significant difference only when comparing couples in which the kid is three or five years old.
[Graph 4 here]
8.2 Second group
In analysing the second group, in which couples with a female partner on leave are compared to
those in which there is an employed partner, graph 5 confirms the result shown in graph 1, about
17
the positive effect of equal housework division on female partner’s employment. However, since
this group compares two groups of women that are peculiarly employment attached, the equal
housework division should be associated more directly to the fact that the female partner spends
less time on leave and returns to employment after the birth of the first child.
[Graph 5 here]
In the second group, differently from the first, there is also a positive and significant effect of
equal childcare division, both in the morning and in the afternoon. (graph 6 and 7). Graph 6 and
graph 7 also show that again (as for the first group), outsourced childcare plays the most important
role for female partner’s employment.
[Graph 6 and 7 here]
Lastly, contrary to the first group, there is a linear pattern in the association between the age of
the first kid and female partner’s employment, which is associated to the fact that in the first years
of kid’s age, the female partner is less employment attached. When the kid grows older, the
likelihood of being employed raises.
[Graph 8 here]
9. Empirical strategy
The empirical strategy of this paper consists in running random effects linear probability models,
by distinguishing the “between” and the “within” effects (Bell et al. 2016). This choice is justified
especially because of the outcome dummy variable (Scherer 2013: 122-123). Lastly, to test the
validity of the choice of preferring random effects rather than fixed effects, Hausmann test are
performed (Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal 2005: 113-124).
18
10. Multivariate results
Table 18 below shows the results of a random effects linear probability model6. In addition, the
table displays two different models, in which the first model shows the results for the first group
and the second model shows the results of the second group. Differently from the previous
paragraphs, in which the results have been discussed separately according to the group considered,
this section starts from the three research hypotheses assessed in paragraph 3 and 4.
According to H1, it is expected that in the couples of interest of this paper, male partner’s
instrumental support is especially relevant for highly employment attached female partners. This
implies that the effect of both equal housework division and equal childcare division in the
morning and in the afternoon on female partner’s employment might be statistically significant in
the second group.
[Table 18 here]
To fully assess the validity of this hypothesis, graph 9 to 12 display the predicted values of the
main between effects of model 1 and model 2. In model 1, the effect of equal housework division
on female partner’s employment is, despite of being positive, slightly significant (graph 9). At the
same time, the effect of equal childcare division in the morning is positive, but exceeds the
plausibility threshold (graph 10).
[Graph 9 and 10 here]
This would represent a first point on the validity of H1, since the instrumental support coming
from the male partner is not strongly associated to his female partner’s employment. However, to
hold, this hypothesis should also be confirmed by the opposite result. In this framework, the second
model should show that in the second group, in which employment attached women are present,
the effect of male partner’s support might be strong. In fact, graph 11 shows that equal housework
division has a positive and statistically significant effect on female partner’s employment. In a
6
The discussion of the results will put more emphasis on between effects, since the magnitude of the within effects is
driven by a low percentages of individuals making either negative or positive transitions (see paragraph 8 for details).
This has been confirmed by having previously ran fixed effects logistic regressions.
19
couple dividing equally housework, the female partner has a 8 percent higher probability of being
employed than a partner living in a couple in which housework is unequally divided.
[Graph 11 here]
On the opposite, the effect of childcare division in the morning is slightly significant (graph 12).
[Graph 12 here]
Taken together, the results might confirm that H1 is on one side valid, since only in the second
group there is actually a positive and statistically strong effect on female partner’s employment of
male partner’s instrumental support. However, on the other side, only equal housework division
plays this role, while childcare division does not.
This last result does also provide an answer about H2, according to which childcare is expected
to play a bigger role on female partner’s employment, especially if the male partner takes up
childcare on a full-time basis. The results in fact show that afternoon childcare does not play any
role for female partner’s employment, whereas childcare divided in the morning has a slightly
statistically significant effect.
The stronger effect of male partner’s participation to housework might also suggest that the
timing perspective should be abandoned. Moreover, it might be more feasible to adapt the norm,
preferences and stratification perspectives to explain male partner’s role in fostering gender
equality, as the next paragraph will do.
To test the third and last research hypothesis, which takes into account the time perspective
(which includes the effect of kid’s age), it is necessary to investigate the effect of the interaction
between housework division and first kid’s age. Graph 13 shows that the expectation that male
partner’s support is actually relevant for his female partner’s employment if the kid is younger than
3, and especially if aged between 1 and 3.
[Graph 13 here]
20
However, as previously shown, the effect of kid’s age on female partner’s employment does not
relate to childcare, since the interaction between the two variables is not significant (graph 14).
[Graph 14 here]
Graph 13 and graph 14 does suggest that, in considering male partner’s role in fostering gender
equality, this could be considered as a matter of time. The older the kid is, the lower the support
required for the female partner. This effect does of course also relate to the fact that the group of
interest compares female partners on leave with employed female partners. The effect of age also
decreases because women are on leave especially in the first three years of kid’s life. This is
demonstrated by the fact that after the fourth year the likelihood of being employed exceeds the
plausibility threshold. Graph 14 and the previous results, however, show that male partner’s role in
fostering gender equality should not be considered as a matter of timing, since childcare, which has
been defined as a full-time activity, not possible to be postponed, does not play a significant role for
female partner’s employment. On the opposite, the timing really cares in considering the role
played by outsourced childcare, as graph 15 shows.
[Graph 15 here]
It is quite easy to see that in the first three years of kid’s life, having the possibility to outsource
childcare in the morning, does play a role, not only for the second group, but also for the first (see
table 18, first model).
11. Discussion and conclusion
In the last years, a lot of research has been devoted to demonstrate that unsatisfied request for work
and family balance are associated with negative consequences for women, especially mothers
(Kalmijn 1999; Mencarini and Tanturri 2004; Esping-Andersen 2009; Mencarini and Sironi 2012;
OECD 2012).
The paper has moved from this debate, and has tried to assess to what extent a man might
represent a matter of support for his partner’s employment, by putting a peculiar focus on those
couples in which work and family balance is required (Perrewé and Carlson 2002; Voydanoff
21
2005). In this debate, studies focusing on male partners’ instrumental support have analysed their
unpaid work participation (Bröckel 2016).
Moreover, the paper has dealt with the literature on male partner’s role in work and family
dynamics, with a peculiar focus on gender equality (Forste 2002; Slaughter 2012; Farré 2013;
Seiz-Puyuelo 2014; Oláh et al. 2014; Moravcsik 2015; Oláh 2015; Bröckel 2016). In this
framework, by taking into account the strict association between work and family balance and
gender equality (Saraceno and Keck 2011; Mc-Donald 2013), but contrary to previous studies, this
paper has analysed the role played by both housework and childcare equal division.
It has been shown that in couples that have experienced the transition to the first child, and have
a kid aged between 0 and 5, the equal division of housework represents a support for female
partner’s employment. On the opposite, equal childcare division does not play any role.
However, these results holds especially if, in the couple, the female partner is employment
attached. This finding confirms previous empirical research that have employed cross-sectional or
longitudinal data (Kitterød and Pettersen 2006; Jacob and Kleinert 2014; Seiz-Puyuelo 2014;
Bröckel 2016). On a more general level, this result also implies that some of the dynamics
associated to male partner’s role in fostering gender equality might be associated to peculiar
characteristics – either of the couple (for instance, being both egalitarian or employment attached),
or of the partner (for instance, being able to bargain more support, given her employment status) –
that refer to the previous “story” of the couple, for instance the moment in which it has been
formed, and thus requires a deeper investigation to be disentangled. This means that the
investigation of the (almost) perfect circle is ongoing.
The difficulty of disentangling the mechanism underlying the circularity between male partner’s
role in the private sphere and female partner’s role in the public sphere is also probably due to the
characteristics of the sample selected, and to the empirical strategy. This choice has namely led to a
limited variation over time, so that it has not been possible to properly assess causal mechanisms.
This is without any doubt one of the limitations of this study.
Moreover, some of the limitations related to the sampling and to the data used are justified by
the fact that the paper has suggested to overcome the current theoretical distinction7 used to study
couples’ unpaid work division determinants. It has been namely suggested that norms, preferences
and stratification might fail in assessing men’s role in the private sphere and it might be more
7
Current theories are a theoretical innovation with regards to the more classical distinction between economic versus
ideational micro-explanations, and structural versus cultural macro-explanations.
22
useful to take into account the twofold distinction of time: timing-outsourcing (Bröckel 2016;
Craig et al. 2016) and life-time of the kid (Ishii-Kuntz and Coltrane 1992).
However, results have shown that only the second perspective actually explains the “where” and
the “when” of male partner’s role in fostering gender equality.
The importance of equal housework division over childcare division suggests that the timing
outsourcing perspective might be better assessed in the future. Adapting the norm, preferences and
stratification perspectives, to explain male partner’s role in fostering gender equality, means that
future research should focus on those activities that are less taken up by men in the context of
analysis, either because of low personal satisfaction or because of the persistence of gendered
structure and desired behaviour. These activities, like housework, are those that really make the
difference, since they are less spread among couples, and be thus more “innovative”. A result that
recalls the results obtained in the first paper, in which maternal employment in the previous
generation has been associated with female employment in the present generation.
On the opposite, the time perspective has been peculiarly feasible in its life-time dimension.
This dimension has been peculiarly effective in explaining the support of the male partner for the
group of the employment-attached female partners. This significant effect has been also consistent
with the time framework that leave scheme identify (Saraceno and Keck 2011; Hoherz 2014).
Lastly, results have shown that also the timing-outsourcing dimension matters, given the role
played by outsourced childcare.
This might suggest that future research should focus more in detail on the possibility that male
partner’s role in the private sphere represents a sort of parallel option for couples (Kitterød and
Pettersen 2006).
23
References
Aisenbrey, S., Evertsson, M., & Grunow, D. (2009). Is There a Career Penalty for Mothers’ Time Out? A Comparison
of Germany, Sweden and the United States. Social Forces, 88(2), 573–605. http://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0252
Baxter, J., Hewitt, B., & Haynes, M. (2008). Life Course Transitions and Housework: Marriage, Parenthood, and Time
on Housework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(2), 259–272.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00479.x
Becker G. S. (1981). A Treatise on the Family, Cambridge, MA.
Begall, K., & Grunow, D. (2015). Labour Force Transitions around First Childbirth in the Netherlands. European
Sociological Review, jcv068. http://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcv068
Bell, A., Fairbrother M., Jones, K. (2016). Fixed and Random effects: making an informed choice, unpublished
manuscript, access through:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299604336_Fixed_and_Random_effects_making_an_informed_choice
Billari F. C. and Kohler H. P. (2002). The impact of union formation dynamics on first births in West Germany and
Italy: are there signs of convergence, Dynamics of fertility and partnership in Europe, 2, 43-58.
Blossfeld, H. P., and Drobnič, S. (Eds.). (2001). Careers of Couples in Contemporary Society: From Male Breadwinner
to Dual-Earner Families: From Male Breadwinner to Dual-Earner Families. OUP Oxford.
Breen, R., & Cooke, L. P. (2005). The Persistence of the Gendered Division of Domestic Labour. European
Sociological Review, 21(1), 43–57. http://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jci003
Bröckel, M. (2016). The Role of Partners’ Support for Women’s Reentry Into Employment After a Child-Related
Career
Break
in
Germany.
Journal
of
Family
Issues,
0192513X16653435.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X16653435
Chong, A., & Mickelson, K. D. (2016). Perceived Fairness and Relationship Satisfaction During the Transition to
Parenthood The Mediating Role of Spousal Support. Journal of Family Issues, 37(1), 3–28.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X13516764
Davis, S. N., & Wills, J. B. (2014). Theoretical Explanations Amid Social Change A Content Analysis of Housework
Research (1975-2012). Journal of Family Issues, 35(6), 808–824. http://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X13513020
DESTATIS (2015a). Rund 80 % der Väter in Elternzeit beziehen Elterngeld für 2 Monate, Pressemitteilung Nr. 109
vom 25.03.2015,
https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2015/03/PD15_109_22922.html
DESTATIS (2015b). Jedes vierte minder-jährige Kind ist ein Einzel-kind, Pressemitteilung Nr. 343 vom 18.09.2015
https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2015/09/PD15_343_122.html;jsession
id=06F82B8B0A6C74D53ADFF52791BB04DF.cae3
DESTATIS (2016a). Personen in Elternzeit, access on line:
https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/Indikatoren/QualitaetArbeit/Dimension3/3_9_Elternzeit.html
DESTATIS (2016b). Betreuungsquote, access on line:
https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/Soziales/Sozialleistungen/Kindertagesbetreuun
g/Tabellen/Tabellen_Betreuungsquote.html
Dotti Sani, G. M (2014). Men’s Employment Hours and Time on Domestic Chores in European Countries. Journal of
Family Issues, 0192513X14522245. http://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14522245
Dotti Sani, G. M (2016). Undoing Gender in Housework? Participation in Domestic Chores by Italian Fathers and
24
Children of Different Ages. Sex Roles, 74(9-10), 411–421. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0585-2
Dotti Sani, G. M., & Treas, J. (2016). Educational Gradients in Parents’ Child-Care Time Across Countries, 1965–
2012. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(4), 1083–1096. http://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12305
Doucet, A. (2015). Parental responsibilities: Dilemmas of measurement and gender equality. Journal of marriage and
family, 77(1), 224-242.
Esping-Andersen, G. (2009). Incomplete revolution: Adapting welfare states to women's new roles. Polity.
Esping-Andersen, G., & Billari, F. C. (2015). Re-theorizing Family Demographics. Population and Development
Review, 41(1), 1–31. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00024.x
Evertsson M., Boye K. and Erman J. (2015). Fathers on call – A study on the sharing of care work among parents in
Sweden. A mixed methods approach, Families and Societies Working Paper Series, 27.
Fahlén, S. (2015). Gender equality within dual-earner and dual-career couples across different policy regimes and
norm systems in Europe. Families and Societies, Working Paper 48.
Farré, L. (2013). The Role of Men in the Economic and Social Development of Women: Implications for Gender
Equality. The World Bank Research Observer, 28(1), 22–51. http://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lks010
Forste, R. (2002). Where are All the Men? A Conceptual Analysis of the Role of Men in Family Formation. Journal of
Family Issues, 23(5), 579–600. http://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X02023005001
Fuochi, G., Mencarini, L., and Solera, C. (2014). Involved Fathers and Egalitarian Husbands: by Choice or by
Constraint? A Study on Italian Couples with Small Children. Carlo Alberto Notebooks 370
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (2009). Methods and Measures: The Network of Relationships Inventory: Behavioral
Systems Version. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(5), 470–478.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0165025409342634
Gersbuny, J., & Sullivan, O. (1998). The Sociological Uses of Time-use Diary Analysis. European Sociological
Review, 14(1), 69–85. Retrieved from http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/1/69
Goldscheider, F., Bernhardt, E., & Lappegård, T. (2015). The gender revolution: A framework for understanding
changing family and demographic behavior. Population and Development Review, 41(2), 207-239.
Gracia, P. (2014). Fathers’ Child Care Involvement and Children’s Age in Spain: A Time Use Study on Differences by
Education and Mothers’ Employment. European Sociological Review, 30(2), 137–150.
http://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcu037
Gracia, P., & Esping-Andersen, G. (2015). Fathers’ child care time and mothers’ paid work: A cross-national study of
Denmark,
Spain,
and
the
United
Kingdom.
Family
Science,
6(1),
270–281.
http://doi.org/10.1080/19424620.2015.1082336
Gracia, P., & Kalmijn, M. (2016). Parents’ Family Time and Work Schedules: The Split-Shift Schedule in Spain.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(2), 401–415. http://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12270
Griffin, J. M., Fuhrers R., Stansfeld, S. A. and Marmot, M. (2002). The importance of low control at work and home on
depression and anxiety: Do these effects vary by gender and social class? Social Science & Medicine 54(5):
783–798.
Grunow, D. (2013a). Zwei Schritte vor, eineinhalb Schritte zurück. Geschlechtsspezifische Arbeitsteilung und
Sozialisation aus Perspektive des Lebensverlaufs. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation,
33, 384-398.
Grunow, D. (2013b). Aufteilung von Erwerbs-, Haus-und Familienarbeit in Partnerschaften im Beziehungsverlauf.
25
Der Einfluss von Sozialpolitik in Europa. Lück, Detlev; Cornelißen, Waltraud, 237-263.
Grunow, D., Schulz, F., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2012). What determines change in the division of housework over the
course of marriage? International Sociology, 27(3), 289–307. http://doi.org/10.1177/0268580911423056
Guetto R. and Scherer S. (2013). Cultural and structural determinants of female labour market participation and
fertility in Europe: the role of public childcare services. Paper presented at the FamChIP Conference
“Comparing families: Does international perspective help?” Warsaw, December 17-18, 2013
Gupta, S. (1999). The Effects of Transitions in Marital Status on Men’s Performance of Housework. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 61(3), 700–711. http://doi.org/10.2307/353571
Hochschild, A., & Machung, A. (1989). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home. Avon Books,
New York.
Hoherz, S. (2014). Maternity Leave in the Context of Couples: The Impact of Both Partners’ Characteristics and
Employment Experiences on Mothers’ Re-Entry into the Labour Market. (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID
2435830).
Rochester,
NY:
Social
Science
Research
Network.
Retrieved
from
http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2435830
Hook, J. L. (2010). Gender inequality in the welfare state: Sex segregation in housework, 1965-2003. American
Journal of Sociology 115(5): 1480-1523.
Huinink J., Brüderl J., Nauck B., Walper S., Castiglioni L. and Feldhaus M. (2011). Panel analysis of intimate
relationships and family dynamics (pairfam): Conceptual framework and design. Zeitschrift für
Familienforschung-Journal of Family Research, 23(1).
Ishii-Kuntz M. & Coltrane S. (1992). Predicting the Sharing of Household Labor: Are Parenting and Housework
Distinct?. Sociological Perspectives, 35(4), 629-647
Jacob, M., & Kleinert, C. (2014). Marriage, Gender, and Class: The Effects of Partner Resources on Unemployment
Exit in Germany. Social Forces, 92(3), 839–871. http://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sot130
Kalmijn M. (1999). Father involvement in childrearing and the perceived stability of marriage, Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 409-421.
Kan, M. Y. (2008). Does gender trump money? Housework hours of husbands and wives in Britain. Work,
Employment & Society, 22(1), 45–66. http://doi.org/10.1177/0950017007087416
Kan, M. Y., Sullivan, O. and Gershuny, J. (2011). Gender convergence in domestic work: Discerning the effect of
interactional and institutional barriers from large-scale data. Sociology, 45, 234-251.
Kitterød, R. H., & Pettersen, S. V. (2006). Making up for mothers’ employed working hours? Housework and childcare
among Norwegian fathers. Work, Employment & Society, 20(3), 473–492. http://doi.org/10.1177/0950017006066997
Keizer, R., & Komter, A. (2015). Are “Equals” Happier Than “Less Equals”? A Couple Analysis of Similarity and
Well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(4), 954–967. http://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12194
Korpi, W. (2000). Faces of inequality: Gender, class, and patterns of inequalities in different types of welfare states.
Social Politics: international studies in gender, state and society, 7(2), 127-191.
Koslowski A. & Moss P. (2016). 12th International Review of Leave Policies and Related Research.
INTERNATIONAL NETWORK ON LEAVE POLICIES AND RESEARCH.
Kreyenfeld, M. (2002). Time-squeeze, partner effect or self-selection? An investigation into the positive effect of
women’s education on second birth risks in West Germany. Demographic research, 7(2), 15-48.
Kreyenfeld, M., & Hank, K. (2000). Does the availability of child care influence the employment of mothers? Findings
26
from western Germany. Population Research and Policy Review, 19(4), 317-337.
Lalive, R., & Zweimüller, J. (2009). How Does Parental Leave Affect Fertility and Return to Work? Evidence from
Two Natural Experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(3), 1363–1402. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40506259
Lucchini, M., Saraceno, C., & Schizzerotto, A. (2007). Dual-earner and dual-career couples in contemporary Italy,
Zeitschrift für Familienforschung-Journal of Family Research, 19(3): 290-310.
Mc-Donald P. (2013). Societal foundations for explaining low fertility: Gender equity. Demographic Research 28(34):
981-994. DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2013.28.34
McGill, B. S. (2014). Navigating New Norms of Involved Fatherhood Employment, Fathering Attitudes, and Father
Involvement. Journal of Family Issues, 35(8), 1089–1106. http://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14522247
Mencarini L. and Sironi M. (2012). Happiness, Housework and Gender Inequality in Europe, European sociological
review, 28(2): 203-219.
Mencarini L. and Tanturri M. L. (2004). Time use, family role-set and childbearing among Italian working women,
Genus: 111-137.
Moravcsik, A. (2015). Why I Put My Wife’s Career First, The Atlantic, October.
OECD (2012). Closing the Gender Gap. Act now, OECD Publishing. DOI:10.1787/9789264179370-en
Oláh L. Sz., Richter R. and Kotowska I. E. (2014). The new roles of men and women and implications for families and
societies, Families and Societies Working Paper Series, 11.
Oláh L. (2015). Changing families in the European Union: trends and policy implications Analytical paper, prepared
for the United Nations Expert Group Meeting, “Family policy development: achievements and challenges”, New
York, May 14-15, 2015. See: http://undesadspd.org/Family/MeetingsEvents/EGMonFamilyPolicyDevelopment.aspx
Oliver R. J. and Mätzke M. (2014). Childcare Expansion in Conservative Welfare States: Policy Legacies and the
Politics of Decentralized Implementation in Germany and Italy, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State
and Society.
Ondrich, J., Spiess, C. K., & Yang, Q. (1996). Barefoot and in a German kitchen: Federal parental leave and benefit
policy and the return to work after childbirth in Germany. Journal of Population Economics,9(3), 247–266.
http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00176687
Perrewé, P. L., & Carlson, D. S. (2002). Do men and women benefit from social support equally? Results from a field
examination within the work and family context. In D. L. Nelson & R. J. Burke (Eds.), Gender, work stress, and health
(pp. 101–114). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Pfau-Effinger, B. (2014). Explaining Differences in Child Care and Women’s Employment across Six European
“Gender Arrangements.” In M. León (Ed.), The Transformation of Care in European Societies (pp. 83–103). Palgrave
Macmillan UK. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137326515_5
Plantenga, J., & Remery, C. (2009). The provision of childcare services: A comparative review of 30 European
countries. Office for Official Publ. of the Europ. Communities.
Pronzato, C. D. (2009). Return to work after childbirth: does parental leave matter in Europe? Review of Economics of
the Household, 7(4), 341–360. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-009-9059-4
Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2005). Multilevel and Longitudinal Modelling Using Stata. College Station, Texas:
Stata Press.
Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a social structure theory wrestling with activism. Gender & society, 18(4), 429-450.
27
Saraceno, C., & Keck, W. (2010). Can We Identify Intergenerational Policy Regimes in Europe? European Societies,
12(5), 675–696. http://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2010.483006
Saraceno, C., & Keck, W. (2011). Towards an integrated approach for the analysis of gender equity in policies
supporting paid work and care responsibilities. Demographic Research, S11(11), 371–406.
http://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2011.25.11
Scherer, S. (2013). Analisi dei dati longitudinali. Il Mulino, Bologna.
Seiz Puyuelo, M. (2014). Male unpaid work and female employment trajectories : a dynamic analysis. Doctoral Thesis,
Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Departament de Ciències Polítiques i Socials http://hdl.handle.net/10803/145499
Spiess, C. K., & Wrohlich, K. (2008). The Parental Leave Benefit Reform in Germany: Costs and Labour Market
Outcomes of Moving towards the Nordic Model. Population Research and Policy Review, 27(5), 575–591.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-008-9086-5
Slaughter, A. M. (2012). Why Women Still Can’t Have It All. The Atlantic, October.
Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (2016). Kindertagesbetreuung regional 2015.Ein Vergleich aller 402
Kreise in Deutschland, Wiesbaden.
Steiber, N., & Haas, B. (2012). Advances in explaining women’s employment patterns. Socio-Economic Review,
10(2), 343–367. http://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwr039
Sullivan, O., & Coltrane, S. (2008). Men’s changing contribution to housework and childcare. Chicago, IL: Council on
Contemporary Families Briefing Paper (April 25).
Thönnissen, C., Wilhelm, B., Fiedrich, S., Alt, P. & Walper, S. (2015). Pairfam Scales Manual. Wave 1 to 6. Release
6.0.
Treas, J., & Tai, T. O. (2012). Apron strings of working mothers: Maternal employment and housework in
cross-national perspective. Social science research, 41(4), 833-842.
Treas, J., & Lui, J. (2013). Studying Housework Across Nations. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5(2), 135–149.
http://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12006
UNICEF (2008). The child care transition. Innocenti Report Card, 8, 2008.
Vitali, A., & Mendola, D. (2014). Women as Main Earners in Europe (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2555172).
Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2555172
Voydanoff, P. (2005). Toward a Conceptualization of Perceived Work-Family Fit and Balance: A Demands and
Resources
Approach.
Journal
of
Marriage
and
Family,
67(4),
822–836.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00178.x
28
Tabs and graphs
Tab. 1: “the unpaid work galaxy”
Childcare
Determinants
Norms (Fuochi et al. 2014; Mc
Gill 2014)
Preferences (Ishii-Kuntz and
Coltrane 1992)
Stratification
Time and timing
Timing (Bröckel 2016)
Outsourcing
Age of the kid
Germany
West
East
Year
2012
2013
2014
2015
Parenting Norms “involved father”
Satisfaction, the focus is a person
Intergenerational Transmission of status (Dotti
Sani and Treas 2016)
Housework
Couple Norms “egalitarian
partner”
Routine, the focus is an
object
Gender structure (Gupta
1999)
Non postponeable. “Full time”
Postponeable. “Part time”
Yes (public, private)
Yes (Craig et al. 2016)
The older the kid, the lower the need(Ishii-Kuntz and Coltrane 1992; Fuochi et al.
2014; Bröckel 2016)
Tab. 2: childcare usage rate for kids between 0 and 3 in 2015
0-3
0-1
1-2
32,9
2,6
35,8
28,2
2,3
28,3
51,9
4,1
66,4
Source: Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder 2016: 12
2-3
61,3
55,1
86,3
Tab. 3: childcare usage rate for kids in the age group 0-3 and 3-5 from 2012 to 2015
0-3
3-5
East
West
Germany
East
West
Germany
49.0
22.3
27.6
95.6
92.9
93.4
49.8
24.2
29.3
95.6
93.1
93.6
52.0
27.4
32.3
95.5
93.1
93.6
51.9
28.2
32.9
96.6
94.5
94.9
Source: DESTATIS 2016b
Tab. 4: Dependent Variable. Female Partner’s Employment Status (first group)
Overall
Between
Within
Freq.
%
Freq.
%
%
Not Employed
224
14.55
167
21.55
77.26
Employed
1,315
84.45
675
87.10
95.70
Total
1,539
100.0
842 (n = 775)
108.65
92.04
Tab. 5: Independent Variables: couple’s housework division (first group)
Overall
Between
Within
Freq.
%
Freq.
%
%
Unequal
1,027
66.73
584
75.35
90.61
Equal
512
33.27
301
38.84
81.67
Total
1,539
100.0
885 (n = 775)
114.19
87.57
29
Tab. 6: Independent Variables: couple’s childcare division in the morning (first group)
Overall
Between
Within
Freq.
%
Freq.
%
%
Unequal
128
8.32
104
13.42
74.73
Equal
359
23.33
265
34.19
71.68
Outsourced
1,052
68.36
583
75.23
87.02
Total
1,539
100.0
952 (n = 775)
122.84
81.41
Tab. 7: Independent Variables: couple’s childcare division in the afternoon (first group)
Overall
Between
Within
Freq.
%
Freq.
%
%
Unequal
234
15.20
176
22.71
75.84
Equal
1,060
68.88
596
76.90
87.89
Outsourced
245
15.92
178
22.97
66.12
Total
1,539
100.0
950 (n = 775)
122.58
81.41
Tab. 8: Independent Variables: kid’s age (first group)
Overall
Between
Within
Freq.
%
Freq.
%
%
0
57
3.70
56
7.23
66.19
1
312 20.27
307
39.61
61.49
2
366 23.78
359
46.32
52.22
3
335 21.77
326
42.06
45.08
4
265 17.22
257
33.16
43.07
5
204 13.26
200
25.81
52.02
Total 1,539 100.0 1,505 (n = 775) 122.58 51.50
Tab. 9: Independent Variables: couple’s marital status (first group)
Overall
Between
Within
Freq.
%
Freq.
%
%
Cohabitating
458
29.76
233
30.06
91.49
Married
1,081 70.24
582
75.10
96.53
Total
1,539 100.0 815 (n = 775) 105.16 95.09
Tab. 10: Independent Variables: both partners’ educational level (first group)
Overall
Between
Within
Female partner
Freq.
%
Freq.
%
%
Less than tertiary
1,082 70.31
530
68.39
100.00
Tertiary
457
29.69
245
31.61
100.00
Male partner
Less than tertiary
1,007 65.43
486
62.71
100.00
Tertiary
532
34.57
289
37.29
100.00
Total
1,539 100.0
775 (n = 775)
100.00 100.00
Tab. 11: Dependent Variable. Female Partner’s Employment Status (second group)
Overall
Between
Within
Freq.
%
Freq.
%
%
On leave
572
30.31
450
50.22
70.58
Employed
1,315
69.69
675
75.33
85.69
Total
1,887
100.0
1,125 (n = 896)
108.65
79.64
30
Tab. 12: Independent Variables: couple’s housework division (second group)
Overall
Between
Within
Freq.
%
Freq.
%
%
Unequal
1,301
68.95
704
78.57
88.53
Equal
586
31.05
357
39.84
76.40
Total
1,887
100.0
1,061 (n = 896)
118.42
84.45
Tab. 13: Independent Variables: couple’s childcare division in the morning (second group)
Overall
Between
Within
Freq.
%
Freq.
%
%
Unequal
281
14.89
216
24.11
70.65
Equal
632
33.49
430
47.99
73.29
Outsourced
974
51.62
551
61.50
77.72
Total
1,887
100.0
1,197 (n =896)
133.59
74.85
Tab. 14: Independent Variables: couple’s childcare division in the afternoon (second group)
Overall
Between
Within
Freq.
%
Freq.
%
%
Unequal
322
17.06
224
25.00
73.94
Equal
1,323
70.11
708
79.02
88.13
Outsourced
242
12.82
179
19.98
59.47
Total
1,887
100.0
1,111 (n = 896)
124.00
80.65
Tab. 15: Independent Variables: kid’s age (second group)
Overall
Between
Within
Freq.
%
Freq.
%
%
0
397 21.04
392
43.75
58.61
1
409 21.67
402
44.87
48.58
2
383 20.30
375
41.85
44.79
3
278 14.73
271
30.25
40.18
4
235 12.45
229
25.56
42.73
5
185
9.80
183
20.42
52.61
Total 1,887 100.0 1,852 (n = 896) 206.70 48.38
Tab. 16: Independent Variables: couple’s marital status (second group)
Overall
Between
Within
Freq.
%
Freq.
%
%
Cohabitating
542
28.72
281
31.36
89.13
Married
1,345 71.28
675
75.33
95.63
Total
1,887 100.0
956 (n = 896)
106.70
93.72
Tab. 17: Independent Variables: couple’s educational level (second group)
Overall
Between
Within
Female partner
Freq.
%
Freq.
%
%
Less than tertiary
1,288
68.26
599
66.85
100.00
Tertiary
599
31.74
297
33.15
100.00
Male partner
Less than tertiary
1,158
61.37
532
59.38
100.00
Tertiary
729
38.63
364
40.63
100.00
Total
1,887 100.00 896 (n=896) 100.00 100.00
31
Graph 1: housework division’s effect on female partner’s employment (first group)
Graph 2: morning childcare’s effect on female partner’s employment (first group)
Graph 3: afternoon childcare’s effect on female partner’s employment (first group)
32
Graph 4: first kid’s age effect on female partner’s employment (first group)
Graph 5: housework division’s effect on female partner’s employment (second group)
Graph 6: morning childcare’s effect on female partner’s employment (second group)
Graph 7: afternoon childcare’s effect on female partner’s employment (second group)
33
Graph 8: first kid’s age effect on female partner’s employment (second group)
34
Tab. 18: the effect of male partner’s equal involvement in unpaid work on female partner’s employment
(linear probability random effects regression)
Model 1: first group
Model 2: second group
Within
Between
Within
Between
Coef.
se
Coef.
se
Coef.
se
Coef.
se
Time varying variable
Married couple (ref. cohabitating)
0.02 (0.05)
0.03
(0.03)
0.04
(0.05)
-0.02
(0.02)
Equal housework division (ref. unequal) 0.07*** (0.03) 0.06** (0.03) 0.11*** (0.03) 0.08*** (0.02)
Equal childcare division in the morning
-0.04 (0.05) 0.14** (0.06) 0.08** (0.04)
0.07*
(0.04)
(ref. unequal)
Outsourced childcare in the morning (ref.
-0.00 (0.04) 0.27*** (0.06) 0.38*** (0.04) 0.33*** (0.04)
unequal)
Equal childcare division in the afternoon 0.08** (0.03)
0.01
(0.04) -0.01 (0.04)
-0.01
(0.04)
(ref. unequal)
Outsourced childcare in the afternoon
0.07* (0.04) 0.09* (0.05)
0.03
(0.04)
0.01
(0.05)
(ref. unequal)
First kid’s age
0.06* (0.04) -0.01 (0.01) 0.22*** (0.04) 0.13*** (0.01)
Female partner’s age
-0.06* (0.03) 0.01*** (0.00) -0.03 (0.04) 0.01*** (0.00)
Male partner’s age
0.03 (0.04) -0.00 (0.00) -0.06 (0.04) -0.01*** (0.00)
Time constant variables
Female partner has tertiary degree (ref.
0.06** (0.03)
0.05** (0.02)
less than tertiary)
Male partner has tertiary degree (ref. less
0.05* (0.03)
-0.02
(0.02)
than tertiary)
Constant
Observations
Number of id
0.40***
(0.09)
0.21***
1,539
775
Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
(0.07)
1,887
896
Graph 9: predicted values of housework division, between effects (model 1)
35
Graph 10: predicted values of childcare division in the morning, between effects (model 1)
Graph 11: predicted values of housework division, between effects (model 2)
Graph 12: predicted values of childcare division in the morning, between effects (model 2)
36
Graph 13: interaction between housework division and first kid’s age, between effects (model 2)
Graph 14: interaction between childcare division in the morning and first kid’s age, between effects (model 2)
Graph 15: interaction between childcare outsourced in the morning and first kid’s age, between effects (model 2)
37