IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/war/wpaper/2022-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

When are women who work from home more likely to have children?

Author

Listed:
  • Beata Osiewalska

    (University of Warsaw, Faculty of Economic Sciences; LabFam - Interdisciplinary Centre for Labour Market and Family Dynamics; Cracow University of Economics)

  • Anna Matysiak

    (University of Warsaw, Faculty of Economic Sciences; LabFam - Interdisciplinary Centre for Labour Market and Family Dynamics)

  • Anna Kurowska

    (University of Warsaw, Faculty of Political Sciences and International Relations; LabFam - Interdisciplinary Centre for Labour Market and Family Dynamics)

Abstract

We examine the timely yet severely under-researched interplay between the opportunity to work from home and childbearing. According to previous research, home-based work (HBW) may both facilitate and jeopardise work-family balance, depending on family and work circumstances. Following this research, we develop a theoretical framework on whether and under which conditions HBW may facilitate fertility. We perform random-effect logistic regression on UK Household Longitudinal Survey 2009-2019 data and consider a set of potential moderators related to woman’s family and work context. Our findings suggest that HBW can indeed help certain women have children, but only those who live far from their offices or want to combine paid work and care but receive little support from their partners. This is not the case for other women, likely because HBW entails higher expectations toward workers to perform more housework, leads to more multitasking and may have negative consequences for women’s work careers.

Suggested Citation

  • Beata Osiewalska & Anna Matysiak & Anna Kurowska, 2022. "When are women who work from home more likely to have children?," Working Papers 2022-13, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    • Handle: RePEc:war:wpaper:2022-13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/download_file/1731/0
    File Function: First version, 2022
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter McDonald, 2000. "Gender Equity in Theories of Fertility Transition," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 26(3), pages 427-439, September.
    2. Dingel, Jonathan I. & Neiman, Brent, 2020. "How many jobs can be done at home?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    3. Heejung Chung & Mariska van der Horst, 2020. "Flexible Working and Unpaid Overtime in the UK: The Role of Gender, Parental and Occupational Status," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 495-520, September.
    4. Yvonne Lott, 2020. "Does Flexibility Help Employees Switch Off from Work? Flexible Working-Time Arrangements and Cognitive Work-to-Home Spillover for Women and Men in Germany," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 471-494, 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. Emma Brulin & Sofie Bjärntoft & Gunnar Bergström & David M. Hallman, 2023. "Gendered Associations of Flexible Work Arrangement and Perceived Flexibility with Work–Life Interference: A Cross-Sectional Mediation Analysis on Office Workers in Sweden," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 167(1), pages 571-588, June.
    2. Senhu Wang & Lambert Zixin Li & Zhuofei Lu & Shuanglong Li & David Rehkopf, 2022. "Work Schedule Control and Allostatic Load Biomarkers: Disparities Between and Within Gender," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 163(3), pages 1249-1267, October.
    3. Yvonne Lott & Clare Kelliher & Heejung Chung, 2022. "Reflecting the changing world of work? A critique of existing survey measures and a proposal for capturing new ways of working," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 28(4), pages 457-473, November.
    4. Piotr Lewandowski & Katarzyna Lipowska & Mateusz Smoter, 2022. "Working from home during a pandemic – a discrete choice experiment in Poland," IBS Working Papers 03/2022, Instytut Badan Strukturalnych.
    5. Lewandowski, Piotr & Lipowska, Katarzyna & Smoter, Mateusz, 2023. "Mismatch in preferences for working from home: Evidence from discrete choice experiments with workers and employers," Ruhr Economic Papers 1026, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    6. Juan C. Palomino & Juan G. Rodríguez & Raquel Sebastian, 2023. "The COVID-19 shock on the labour market: poverty and inequality effects across Spanish regions," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(5), pages 814-828, May.
    7. 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.
    8. Jon Anson, 2010. "Beyond Material Explanations: Family Solidarity and Mortality, a Small Area‐level Analysis," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 36(1), pages 27-45, March.
    9. David Baqaee & Emmanuel Farhi, 2020. "Nonlinear Production Networks with an Application to the Covid-19 Crisis," NBER Working Papers 27281, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Graham, James & Ozbilgin, Murat, 2021. "Age, industry, and unemployment risk during a pandemic lockdown," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    11. Basso, Gaetano & Boeri, Tito & Caiumi, Alessandro & Paccagnella, Marco, 2020. "The New Hazardous Jobs and Worker Reallocation," IZA Discussion Papers 13532, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Marcel Raab & Emanuela Struffolino, 2020. "The Heterogeneity of Partnership Trajectories to Childlessness in Germany," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 36(1), pages 53-70, March.
    13. Kouki, Amairisa, 2023. "Beyond the “Comforts” of work from home: Child health and the female wage penalty," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    14. Nizamani, Sarah & Waheed, Muhammad Shahid, 2020. "Poverty and Inequality amid COVID-19 – Evidence from Pakistan’s Labour Market," MPRA Paper 100422, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. John Gathergood & Fabian Gunzinger & Benedict Guttman-Kenney & Edika Quispe-Torreblanca & Neil Stewart, 2020. "Levelling Down and the COVID-19 Lockdowns: Uneven Regional Recovery in UK Consumer Spending," Papers 2012.09336, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2020.
    16. Gottlieb Charles & Grobovšek Jan & Poschke Markus & Saltiel Fernando, 2022. "Lockdown Accounting," The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, De Gruyter, vol. 22(1), pages 197-210, January.
    17. Matthias Dütsch, 2022. "COVID-19 and the labour market: What are the working conditions in critical jobs?," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 56(1), pages 1-17, December.
    18. Brum, Matias & De Rosa, Mauricio, 2021. "Too little but not too late: nowcasting poverty and cash transfers’ incidence during COVID-19’s crisis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    19. Filippos Petroulakis, 2023. "Task Content and Job Losses in the Great Lockdown," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 76(3), pages 586-613, May.
    20. Mirko Licchetta & Giovanni Mattozzi & Rafal Raciborski & Rupert Willis, 2022. "Economic Adjustment in the Euro Area and the United States during the COVID-19 Crisis," European Economy - Discussion Papers 160, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    fertility; childbearing; home-based work; remote work; work flexibility;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth

    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:war:wpaper:2022-13. 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: Marcin Bąba (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fesuwpl.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.