IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cca/wpaper/376.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What is your couple type? Gender ideology, housework sharing and babies

Author

Listed:
  • Arnstein Aassve
  • Giulia Fuochi
  • Letizia Mencarini
  • Daria Mendola

Abstract

BACKGROUND It is increasingly acknowledged that not only gender equality, but also gender ideology plays a role in explaining fertility in advanced societies. In a micro perspective, the potential mismatch between gender equality (i.e. the actual sharing taking place in a couple) and gender ideology (i.e. gender equality in attitudes, as proxy for gender equity), may drive childbearing decisions. OBJECTIVE This paper assesses the impact of consistency between gender equality in attitudes and equality in the division of household labour on the likelihood of having another child, for different parities. METHODS Relying on two-wave panel data of the Bulgarian, French, Czech, Hungarian and Lithuanian Generations and Gender Surveys, we build a couple typology defined over gender attitudes and housework sharing.The typology identifies four types of couples: 1) gender unequal attitudes and gender unequal housework sharing; 2) gender equal attitudes and gender unequal housework sharing; 3) gender unequal attitudes and gender equal housework sharing; 4) gender equal attitudes and gender equal housework sharing. The couple types enter into a logistic regression model on childbirth. RESULTS The impact of the typology varies with parity and gender: taking as reference category the case of gender equal attitudes and gender equal division of housework, the effect of all the other couple types on a new childbirth is strong and negative for the second child and female respondents. CONCLUSIONS The consistency between gender equality in attitudes and the actual equality in housework sharing is only favourable for childbearing as long as there is gender equality in both the dimensions.

Suggested Citation

  • Arnstein Aassve & Giulia Fuochi & Letizia Mencarini & Daria Mendola, 2014. "What is your couple type? Gender ideology, housework sharing and babies," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 376, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
  • Handle: RePEc:cca:wpaper:376
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.carloalberto.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/no.376.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Melinda Mills & Katia Begall & Letizia Mencarini & Maria Letizia Tanturri, 2008. "Gender equity and fertility intentions in Italy and the Netherlands," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 18(1), pages 1-26.
    2. Frances Goldscheider & Eva Bernhardt & Maria Brandén, 2013. "Domestic gender equality and childbearing in Sweden," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 29(40), pages 1097-1126.
    3. Berna Miller Torr & Susan E. Short, 2004. "Second Births and the Second Shift: A Research Note on Gender Equity and Fertility," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 30(1), pages 109-130, March.
    4. Peter McDonald, 2013. "Societal foundations for explaining fertility: Gender equity," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 28(34), pages 981-994.
    5. Anneli Miettinen & Stuart Gietel-Basten & Anna Rotkirch, 2011. "Gender equality and fertility intentions revisited," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 24(20), pages 469-496.
    6. Mikko Myrskyla & Hans-Peter Kohler & Francesco C. Billari, 2011. "High development and fertility: fertility at older reproductive ages and gender equality explain the positive link," Working Papers 049, "Carlo F. Dondena" Centre for Research on Social Dynamics (DONDENA), Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi.
    7. Peter Mcdonald, 2006. "Low Fertility and the State: The Efficacy of Policy," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 32(3), pages 485-510, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Arnstein Aassve & Giulia Fuochi & Letizia Mencarini & Daria Mendola, 2015. "What is your couple type? Gender ideology, housework sharing, and babies," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 32(30), pages 835-858.
    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. Lars Dommermuth & Bryndl Hohmann-Marriott & Trude Lappegård, 2013. "Gender equality in the family and childbearing," Discussion Papers 759, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    4. Pau Baizan & Bruno Arpino & Carlos Eric Delclòs, 2016. "The Effect of Gender Policies on Fertility: The Moderating Role of Education and Normative Context," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 32(1), pages 1-30, February.
    5. Ansgar Hudde, 2018. "Societal Agreement on Gender Role Attitudes and Childlessness in 38 Countries," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 34(5), pages 745-767, December.
    6. Soo-Yeon Yoon, 2017. "The influence of a supportive environment for families on women’s fertility intentions and behavior in South Korea," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 36(7), pages 227-254.
    7. Hudde, Ansgar, 2016. "Fertility Is Low When There Is No Societal Agreement on a Specific Gender Role Model," EconStor Preprints 142175, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    8. 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.
    9. Juhua Yang, 2017. "Gendered division of domestic work and willingness to have more children in China," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 37(62), pages 1949-1974.
    10. Maria Gabriella Campolo & Antonino Di Pino & Ester Lucia Rizzi, 2020. "The labour division of Italian couples after a birth: assessing the effect of unobserved heterogeneity," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 107-137, June.
    11. Man-Yee Kan & Ekaterina Hertog, 2017. "Domestic division of labour and fertility preference in China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 36(18), pages 557-588.
    12. Jolene Tan, 2023. "Perceptions towards pronatalist policies in Singapore," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 1-27, September.
    13. Gerda Neyer & Trude Lappegård & Daniele Vignoli, 2013. "Gender Equality and Fertility: Which Equality Matters?," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(3), pages 245-272, August.
    14. Martin Kolk, 2019. "Weak support for a U-shaped pattern between societal gender equality and fertility when comparing societies across time," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 40(2), pages 27-48.
    15. Sinn Won Han & Mary C. Brinton, 2022. "Theories of Postindustrial Fertility Decline: An Empirical Examination," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 48(2), pages 303-330, June.
    16. Youngcho Lee, 2022. "Is Leave for Fathers Pronatalist? A Mixed-Methods Study of the Impact of Fathers’ Uptake of Parental Leave on Couples’ Childbearing Intentions in South Korea," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(4), pages 1471-1500, August.
    17. Mengni Chen & Paul S. F. Yip, 2017. "The Discrepancy Between Ideal and Actual Parity in Hong Kong: Fertility Desire, Intention, and Behavior," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 36(4), pages 583-605, August.
    18. Frances Goldscheider & Eva Bernhardt & Maria Brandén, 2013. "Domestic gender equality and childbearing in Sweden," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 29(40), pages 1097-1126.
    19. Zhiyun Li & Hualei Yang & Xianchen Zhu & Lin Xie, 2021. "A Multilevel Study of the Impact of Egalitarian Attitudes Toward Gender Roles on Fertility Desires in China," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 40(4), pages 747-769, August.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Fertility; gender equity; gender equality; gender couple typology; GGS survey;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth
    • J12 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Marriage; Marital Dissolution; Family Structure
    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cca:wpaper:376. 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: Giovanni Bert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fccaait.html .

    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.