[‘Gender effect on housework allocation: Evidence from Spanish two-earner couples’]"> [‘Gender effect on housework allocation: Evidence from Spanish two-earner couples’]"> [‘G">
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ecpoli/v20y2005i41p6-50..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Marketization of household production and the EU–US gap in work
[‘Gender effect on housework allocation: Evidence from Spanish two-earner couples’]

Author

Listed:
  • Richard B. Freeman
  • Ronald Schettkat
Abstract
Summary Jobs and homework, Time-use evidenceEmployment rates and hours worked per employee are very different in the EU and the US. This paper relates the greater time worked in the US to greater marketization in the US of traditional household production: food preparation, childcare, elderly care, cleaning houses. Since women do most household work, marketization is particularly relevant to the EU–US difference in hours worked by women. We suggest that to raise employment rates the EU should develop policies that make it easier for women to move from the household to the market and to substitute market goods and services for household production.— Richard B. Freeman and Ronald Schettkat

Suggested Citation

  • Richard B. Freeman & Ronald Schettkat, 2005. "Marketization of household production and the EU–US gap in work [‘Gender effect on housework allocation: Evidence from Spanish two-earner couples’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 20(41), pages 6-50.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ecpoli:v:20:y:2005:i:41:p:6-50.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1468-0327.2005.00132.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Timo Boppart & L. Rachel Ngai, 2021. "Rising inequality and trends in leisure," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 153-185, June.
    2. Claudia Olivetti & Barbara Petrongolo, 2011. "Gender Gaps Across Countries and Skills: Supply, Demand and the Industry Structure," CEP Discussion Papers dp1093, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    3. Michael Burda & Daniel Hamermesh & Philippe Weil, 2013. "Total work and gender: facts and possible explanations," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 26(1), pages 239-261, January.
    4. Turner Thomas, 2019. "Remaining active in the labour market: Trends and characteristics of the over 50s," The Irish Journal of Management, Sciendo, vol. 38(1), pages 16-25, December.
    5. Fang, Tony & Lin, Carl & Tang, Xueli, 2024. "Where did the time go? The effects of China's two-day weekend policy on labor supply, household work, and wages," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    6. Michael C Burda & Daniel S Hamermesh & Philippe Weil, 2008. "Total Work, Gender and Social Norms in EU and US Time Use," Post-Print hal-00972821, HAL.
    7. Gimenez-Nadal, Jose Ignacio & Molina, José Alberto, 2021. "How do women allocate their available time in Europe? Differences with men," GLO Discussion Paper Series 908, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    8. Tine Dhont & Freddy Heylen, 2008. "Why Do Europeans Work (Much) Less? It Is Taxes And Government Spending," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 46(2), pages 197-207, April.
    9. Karapanagiotis, Pantelis & Reimers, Paul, 2024. "Why does the schooling gap close while the wage gap persists across country income comparisons?," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    10. Tito Boeri & Jan van Ours, 2013. "The Economics of Imperfect Labor Markets: Second Edition," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10142.

    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:oup:ecpoli:v:20:y:2005:i:41:p:6-50.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cebruuk.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.