IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/labour/v15y2001i1p133-167.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Women’s Employment Status and Hours Employed in Urban Brazil: Does Husbands’ Presence Matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Rachel Connelly
  • Deborah S. DeGraff
  • Deborah Levison

Abstract

The determinants of hours worked for employed women in developing countries is a little‐studied topic. We compare the determinants of employment with the determinants of hours worked for prime‐aged urban Brazilian women with and without husbands present. Given employment status, we find systematic differences for women in couple‐headed and female‐headed households. For the former, the same variables that affect employment do a good job of explaining hours worked. In contrast, our model generally fails to capture determinants of variation in hours worked for women who are sole heads of households. Sample selectivity functions in opposite directions for the two groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachel Connelly & Deborah S. DeGraff & Deborah Levison, 2001. "Women’s Employment Status and Hours Employed in Urban Brazil: Does Husbands’ Presence Matter?," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 15(1), pages 133-167, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:labour:v:15:y:2001:i:1:p:133-167
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-9914.00158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9914.00158
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-9914.00158?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mahalia Jackman & Kishmar Lorde, 2021. "Gaps in the (paid) work hours of male and female heads of households: empirical evidence from Barbados," International Journal of Manpower, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 42(7), pages 1321-1337, January.

    More about this item

    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:bla:labour:v:15:y:2001:i:1:p:133-167. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/csrotit.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.