IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/red/sed006/449.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuing Lost Home Production of Dual Earner Households

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher House
  • John Laitner
  • Dmitriy Stolyarov

Abstract

Over the last fifty years, home production output may have changed significantly due to dramatic increases in women's time allocation to market work. It is important to quantify this change: to the extent that increases in GDP derive from new time allocation patterns, failure to measure reductions in home-production output can create a biased impression of progress. This paper proposes a new method for measuring changes in home production activity. The main idea is to compare the accumulation of retirement wealth for single- and dual-earner couples. Assuming that male time allocation stays relatively stable, a household in which the wife works spends some of its income on goods and services that substitute for home production. Purchases of day care, cleaning services, restaurant meals, and so forth leave the household with less resources available for savings. As a result, we expect dual earner households to systematically consume a larger fraction of their measured income. We estimate the value of foregone home production from the differences in savings rates among single- and dual-earner couples using panel data from the Health and Retirement Study. We can then calculate the net contribution of the increases in female market employment to GDP growth. We formulate a life cycle model where women can allocate their time between home production and market work. Working more hours in the market leads to a loss of home production output. We model this loss as a convex function of market hours. We believe that such a specification has a priori appeal: a woman's hours at home may not all be equally valuable, and, if she seeks market work, she should sacrifice the hours with the lowest opportunity cost first. We solve the model analytically and derive the regression equation that is used for the estimation. Although some of our analytical results rely on functional form assumptions, our framework has several attractive features. In particular, the model allows many dimensions of household heterogeneity, including differences in ability to earn on the market and produce at home and differences in wage and family size profiles. Another advantage is that the model can be generalized to incorporate labor force participation and human capital accumulation decisions without affecting our estimates. Our results indicate that the value of foregone home production is modest. For every dollar that she earns in the market, a woman sacrifices 20-30 cents in lost home production. Thus the net gain of female employment is 70-80 percent of the woman's market earnings. We use our estimates to calculate the impact of dramatic changes in female employment on GDP and aggregate home production. Due to a rise in female labor force participation and the closing of the wage gap, the fraction of labor income earned by women increased from 20% in 1959 to over 35% in 1999. The corresponding fall in home production is substantial: we estimate that 5 percent of 1999 GDP consisted of goods and services that used to be produced at home in 1959

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher House & John Laitner & Dmitriy Stolyarov, 2006. "Valuing Lost Home Production of Dual Earner Households," 2006 Meeting Papers 449, Society for Economic Dynamics.
  • Handle: RePEc:red:sed006:449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~stolyar/Papers/de.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Banks, James & Blundell, Richard & Tanner, Sarah, 1998. "Is There a Retirement-Savings Puzzle?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 769-788, September.
    2. Benhabib, Jess & Rogerson, Richard & Wright, Randall, 1991. "Homework in Macroeconomics: Household Production and Aggregate Fluctuations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(6), pages 1166-1187, December.
    3. William D. Nordhaus & James Tobin, 1973. "Is Growth Obsolete?," NBER Chapters, in: The Measurement of Economic and Social Performance, pages 509-564, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. John Pencavel, 1998. "The Market Work Behavior and Wages of Women: 1975-94," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 33(4), pages 771-804.
    5. Goldin, Claudia, 1992. "Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195072709.
    6. Kendrick, John W, 1979. "Expanding Imputed Values in the National Income and Product Accounts," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 25(4), pages 349-363, December.
    7. Eisner, Robert, 1988. "Extended Accounts for National Income and Product," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 1611-1684, December.
    8. Gustman, Alan L & Steinmeier, Thomas L, 2000. "Retirement in Dual-Career Families: A Structural Model," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(3), pages 503-545, July.
    9. John W. Kendrick, 1979. "Expanding Imputed Values In The National Income And Product Accounts," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 25(4), pages 349-363, December.
    10. Milton Moss, 1973. "The Measurement of Economic and Social Performance," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number moss73-1, January.
    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. Christopher House & John Laitner & Dmitriy Stolyarov, 2008. "Valuing Lost Home Production Of Dual Earner Couples," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(2), pages 701-736, May.
    2. Christopher House & John Laitner & Dmitriy Stolyarov, 2008. "Valuing Lost Home Production Of Dual Earner Couples," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(2), pages 701-736, May.
    3. Jiri Skolka, 1985. "Wende in der Arbeitsteilung," Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft - WuG, Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien, Abteilung Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Statistik, vol. 11(4), pages 445-469.
    4. Warren, Paul, 2005. "Key Indicators in Canada," Economic Analysis (EA) Research Paper Series 2005037e, Statistics Canada, Analytical Studies Branch.
    5. Bridgman, Benjamin & Duernecker, Georg & Herrendorf, Berthold, 2018. "Structural transformation, marketization, and household production around the world," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 102-126.
    6. Gillian Hewitson, 2001. "A Survey of Feminist Economics," Working Papers 2001.01, School of Economics, La Trobe University.
    7. Andrea Brandolini & Eliana Viviano, 2016. "Accounting for total work in labour statistics [Der Gesamtbetrag der Arbeit in den Arbeitsmarktstatistiken]," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 49(3), pages 199-212, November.
    8. Georg Duernecker & Berthold Herrendorf, 2015. "On the Allocation of Time - A Quantitative Analysis of the U.S. and France," CESifo Working Paper Series 5475, CESifo.
    9. Andrea Brandolini & Eliana Viviano, 2014. "Accounting for total work," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 253, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    10. Duernecker, Georg & Herrendorf, Berthold, 2018. "On the allocation of time – A quantitative analysis of the roles of taxes and productivities," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 169-187.
    11. Emanuele Felice, 2016. "The Misty Grail: The Search for a Comprehensive Measure of Development and the Reasons for GDP Primacy," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 47(5), pages 967-994, September.
    12. Gianna C. Giannelli & Lucia Mangiavacchi & Luca Piccoli, 2012. "GDP and the value of family caretaking: how much does Europe care?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(16), pages 2111-2131, June.
    13. Christopher House & John Laitner & Dmitriy Stolyarov, 2006. "Home Production by Dual Earner Couples and Consumption During Retirement," Working Papers wp143, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center.
    14. Gregory Ponthiere, 2007. "Monetizing Longevity Gains under Welfare Interdependencies: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 449-469, September.
    15. Lintott, John, 1996. "Environmental accounting: useful to whom and for what?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 179-190, March.
    16. Daniel Ştefan Armeanu & Georgeta Vintilă & Ştefan Cristian Gherghina, 2017. "Empirical Study towards the Drivers of Sustainable Economic Growth in EU-28 Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-22, December.
    17. Eloi Laurent & Jean Jouzel, 2018. "The Well-being Transition: Measuring what counts to protect what matters," Sciences Po publications 35, Sciences Po.
    18. Nicolas Hérault & Guyonne Kalb, 2022. "Understanding the rising trend in female labour force participation," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 341-363, December.
    19. M. Sirgy, 2011. "Theoretical Perspectives Guiding QOL Indicator Projects," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 103(1), pages 1-22, August.
    20. James J. Heckman, 2015. "Introduction to A Theory of the Allocation of Time by Gary Becker," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(583), pages 403-409, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    home production; life-cycle model; female labor force participation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • E21 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - Consumption; Saving; Wealth
    • J22 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Time Allocation and Labor Supply

    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:red:sed006:449. 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: Christian Zimmermann (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sedddea.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.