IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dem/demres/v36y2017i16.html

Division of housework and his and her view of housework fairness: A typology of Swedish couples

Author

Listed:
  • Leah Ruppanner

    (University of Melbourne)

  • Maria Brandén

    (Linköpings Universitet)

  • Eva Bernhardt

    (Stockholms Universitet)

Abstract

Background: Housework studies have long documented a fairness paradox, whereby unequal divisions of housework are evaluated as fair. Gender equality, both at home and at work, is strongly normative in a highly egalitarian country like Sweden, but not always matched by an equally egalitarian situation in the family which are often viewed as fair. Objective: To explore the relationship between housework-sharing and perceived fairness of this division, using both partners’ reports, to identify how Swedish couples cluster across these measures and what individual characteristics predict cluster membership. Methods: Using the couple-level design of the 2009 wave of the Young Adult Panel Study (YAPS, n=1,026), we are able to advance the research field and evaluate housework experience within broader couple dynamics. Our approach is exploratory and develops a typology using latent class analysis. Results: We identify six latent groups, with distinct features. The modal Swedish-couple category comprises those who share housework equally and agree that this arrangement is fair (33% of the couples). Applying a distributive justice perspective, we find that childhood socialization, presence of children in the household, and the distribution of employment, education, income, and egalitarianism across couples are important predictors of cluster membership. Conclusions: We find that equal-sharing/fair couples are most common in the Swedish context, suggesting clear benefits from Sweden’s expansive gender policies. Yet, there seems to be a generational divide, whereby Swedish women who witnessed housework inequality in their parental home are increasingly dissatisfied when this inequality replicates in their own lives. Contribution: Demonstrating that housework allocations, conflict and fairness may reflect different types of couples rather than associations across those measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Leah Ruppanner & Maria Brandén & Eva Bernhardt, 2017. "Division of housework and his and her view of housework fairness: A typology of Swedish couples," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 36(16), pages 501-524.
  • Handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:36:y:2017:i:16
    DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2017.36.16
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol36/16/36-16.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4054/DemRes.2017.36.16?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frances Goldscheider & Eva Bernhardt & Trude Lappegård, 2015. "The Gender Revolution: A Framework for Understanding Changing Family and Demographic Behavior," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 41(2), pages 207-239, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ivett Szalma & Michael Ochsner & Judit Takács, 2020. "Linking Labour Division within Families, Work–Life Conflict and Family Policy," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 1-7.
    2. Trude Lappegård & Frances Goldscheider & Eva Bernhardt, 2017. "Introduction to the Special Collection on Finding Work-Life Balance: History, Determinants, and Consequences of New Bread-Winning Models in the Industrialized World," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 37(26), pages 853-866.
    3. Katja Köppen & Heike Trappe, 2019. "The gendered division of labor and its perceived fairness: Implications for childbearing in Germany," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 40(48), pages 1413-1440.
    4. Michael Ochsner & Ivett Szalma & Judit Takács, 2020. "Division of Labour, Work–Life Conflict and Family Policy: Conclusions and Reflections," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 103-109.
    5. Ivett Szalma & Michael Ochsner & Judit Takács, 2020. "Linking Labour Division within Families, Work–Life Conflict and Family Policy," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 1-7.
    6. Ervin, Jennifer & Churchill, Brendan & Ruppanner, Leah & King, Tania, 2025. "Unpaid labour and mental health–the role of perceived fairness and satisfaction in division amongst working-age adults; a longitudinal analysis using 18 waves of panel data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 384(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Slätis, Victor, 2026. "The Modernity Trap : Structural Constraints on Fertility in Wealthy Democracies," SocArXiv xbe6p_v1, Center for Open Science.
    2. Barbara S. Okun & Liat Raz‐Yurovich, 2019. "Housework, Gender Role Attitudes, and Couples' Fertility Intentions: Reconsidering Men's Roles in Gender Theories of Family Change," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 45(1), pages 169-196, March.
    3. Liat Raz-Yurovich & Barbara S. Okun, 2024. "Are highly educated partners really more gender egalitarian? A couple-level analysis of social class differentials in attitudes and behaviors," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 50(34), pages 1005-1038.
    4. Lisa Van Landschoot & Helga de Valk & Jan Van Bavel, 2017. "Fertility among descendants of immigrants in Belgium: The role of the partner," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 36(60), pages 1827-1858.
    5. Fox, Jonathan & Klüsener, Sebastian & Myrskylä, Mikko, 2018. "Is a positive relationship between fertility and economic development emerging at the sub-national regional level? Theoretical considerations and evidence from Europe," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 88295, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Natalie Nitsche & Anna Matysiak & Jan Bavel & Daniele Vignoli, 2018. "Partners’ Educational Pairings and Fertility Across Europe," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 55(4), pages 1195-1232, August.
    7. Milovanović Miloš, 2023. "The Relationship between Fertility and Female Participation in the Labour Force in OECD Countries 2000–2020: It Is (Again) Negative," Central European Economic Journal, Sciendo, vol. 10(57), pages 254-274, January.
    8. Henrik-Alexander Schubert & Christian Dudel & Marina Kolobova & Mikko Myrskylä, 2023. "Revisiting the J-shape: human development and fertility in the United States," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2023-022, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    9. Siv Schéele & Gunnar Andersson, 2018. "Municipality attraction and commuter mobility in urban Sweden: An analysis based on longitudinal population data," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(9), pages 1875-1903, July.
    10. Robert A. Pollak, 2016. "Marriage Market Equilibrium," NBER Working Papers 22309, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Chen, Nana & Xu, Hangtian, 2021. "Why has the birth rate relatively increased in China's wealthy cities?," MPRA Paper 105960, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Giyeon Seo & Tanya Koropeckyj‐Cox & Sanghag Kim, 2022. "Correlates of Contemporary Gender Preference for Children in South Korea," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 48(1), pages 161-188, March.
    13. Athanasios Lapatinas & Anstasia Litina & Skerdilajda Zanaj, 2021. "Economic complexity shapes attitudes about gender roles," DEM Discussion Paper Series 21-16, Department of Economics at the University of Luxembourg.
    14. Tan, Jolene & Cui, Qi & Uchikoshi, Fumiya, 2025. "The increasing importance of changes in nuptiality: policy mismatch and fertility decline in low-fertility Asian societies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 127749, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Rodríguez-González, Ana, 2021. "The Impact of the Female Advantage in Education on the Marriage Market," Working Papers 2021:5, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    16. Zuzanna Brzozowska & Eva Beaujouan & Kryštof Zeman, 2022. "Is Two Still Best? Change in Parity-Specific Fertility Across Education in Low-Fertility Countries," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(5), pages 2085-2114, October.
    17. Angela Greulich & Olivier Thevenon & Mathilde Guergoat-Larivière, 2015. "Securing women's employment: A fertility booster in European countries?," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01298946, HAL.
    18. Jolene Tan, 2023. "Perceptions towards pronatalist policies in Singapore," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 1-27, September.
    19. Alessandra Trimarchi & Jan Van Bavel, 2017. "Pathways to marital and non-marital first birth: the role of his and her education," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 15(1), pages 143-179.
    20. repec:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:4b:p:883-900 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Costanza Giannantoni & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, 2025. "Regional government institutions and the capacity for women to reconcile career and motherhood," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 311-328.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:36:y:2017:i:16. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Editorial Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.demogr.mpg.de/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.