IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dem/demres/v36y2017i16.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Division of housework and his and her view of housework fairness: A typology of Swedish couples

Author

Listed:
  • Leah Ruppanner

    (University of Melbourne)

  • Eva Bernhardt

    (Stockholms Universitet)

  • Maria Brandén

    (Linköpings Universitet)

Abstract

Background: Housework studies have long documented a fairness paradox, whereby unequal divisions of housework are evaluated as fair. Gender equality, both at home and at work, is strongly normative in a highly egalitarian country like Sweden, but not always matched by an equally egalitarian situation in the family which are often viewed as fair. Objective: To explore the relationship between housework-sharing and perceived fairness of this division, using both partners’ reports, to identify how Swedish couples cluster across these measures and what individual characteristics predict cluster membership. Methods: Using the couple-level design of the 2009 wave of the Young Adult Panel Study (YAPS, n=1,026), we are able to advance the research field and evaluate housework experience within broader couple dynamics. Our approach is exploratory and develops a typology using latent class analysis. Results: We identify six latent groups, with distinct features. The modal Swedish-couple category comprises those who share housework equally and agree that this arrangement is fair (33% of the couples). Applying a distributive justice perspective, we find that childhood socialization, presence of children in the household, and the distribution of employment, education, income, and egalitarianism across couples are important predictors of cluster membership. Conclusions: We find that equal-sharing/fair couples are most common in the Swedish context, suggesting clear benefits from Sweden’s expansive gender policies. Yet, there seems to be a generational divide, whereby Swedish women who witnessed housework inequality in their parental home are increasingly dissatisfied when this inequality replicates in their own lives. Contribution: Demonstrating that housework allocations, conflict and fairness may reflect different types of couples rather than associations across those measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Leah Ruppanner & Eva Bernhardt & Maria Brandén, 2017. "Division of housework and his and her view of housework fairness: A typology of Swedish couples," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 36(16), pages 501-524.
  • Handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:36:y:2017:i:16
    DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2017.36.16
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol36/16/36-16.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4054/DemRes.2017.36.16?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frances Goldscheider & Eva Bernhardt & Trude Lappegård, 2015. "The Gender Revolution: A Framework for Understanding Changing Family and Demographic Behavior," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 41(2), pages 207-239, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Trude Lappegård & Frances Goldscheider & Eva Bernhardt, 2017. "Introduction to the Special Collection on Finding Work-Life Balance: History, Determinants, and Consequences of New Bread-Winning Models in the Industrialized World," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 37(26), pages 853-866.
    2. Michael Ochsner & Ivett Szalma & Judit Takács, 2020. "Division of Labour, Work–Life Conflict and Family Policy: Conclusions and Reflections," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 103-109.
    3. Ivett Szalma & Michael Ochsner & Judit Takács, 2020. "Linking Labour Division within Families, Work–Life Conflict and Family Policy," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 1-7.
    4. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. Liat Raz-Yurovich & Barbara S. Okun, 2024. "Are highly educated partners really more gender egalitarian? A couple-level analysis of social class differentials in attitudes and behaviors," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 50(34), pages 1005-1038.
    3. Anna Baranowska-Rataj & Anna Matysiak, 2016. "The Causal Effects of the Number of Children on Female Employment - Do European Institutional and Gender Conditions Matter?," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 343-367, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Héctor Bellido & Miriam Marcén, 2019. "Fertility and the business cycle: the European case," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 1289-1319, December.
    6. Chen, Nana & Xu, Hangtian, 2021. "Why has the birth rate relatively increased in China's wealthy cities?," MPRA Paper 105960, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Giyeon Seo & Tanya Koropeckyj‐Cox & Sanghag Kim, 2022. "Correlates of Contemporary Gender Preference for Children in South Korea," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 48(1), pages 161-188, March.
    8. Rodríguez-González, Ana, 2021. "The Impact of the Female Advantage in Education on the Marriage Market," Working Papers 2021:5, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    9. Zuzanna Brzozowska & Eva Beaujouan & Kryštof Zeman, 2022. "Is Two Still Best? Change in Parity-Specific Fertility Across Education in Low-Fertility Countries," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(5), pages 2085-2114, October.
    10. Jolene Tan, 2023. "Perceptions towards pronatalist policies in Singapore," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 1-27, September.
    11. Alessandra Trimarchi & Jan Van Bavel, 2017. "Pathways to marital and non-marital first birth: the role of his and her education," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 15(1), pages 143-179.
    12. Joanna Szczepaniak-Sienniak, 2021. "Transformations of State Family Policy in Poland from 1989 to the Pandemic Period," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4B), pages 883-900.
    13. Leen Marynissen & Eleonora Mussino & Jonas Wood & Ann-Zofie Duvander, 2019. "Fathers’ Parental Leave Uptake in Belgium and Sweden: Self-Evident or Subject to Employment Characteristics?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-21, November.
    14. Elena Bastianelli & Daniele Vignoli, 2021. "Instability of Employment Careers and Union Dissolution. A Complex Micro-level Relation," Econometrics Working Papers Archive 2021_04, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Statistica, Informatica, Applicazioni "G. Parenti".
    15. Coco Bastiaansen & Emmie Verspeek & Hedwig van Bakel, 2021. "Gender Differences in the Mitigating Effect of Co-Parenting on Parental Burnout: The Gender Dimension Applied to COVID-19 Restrictions and Parental Burnout Levels," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-10, March.
    16. Anatole Romaniuk & Oleksandr Gladun, 2015. "Demographic Trends in Ukraine: Past, Present, and Future," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 41(2), pages 315-337, June.
    17. Rishabh Tyagi & Peter Eibich & Vegard Skirbekk, 2024. "Gender norms and partnership dissolution following involuntary job loss in Germany," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2024-027, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    18. Chiara Ludovica Comolli, 2021. "Couples' paid work, state-level unemployment, and first births in the United States," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 45(38), pages 1149-1184.
    19. Stefano Arnolfo & Nicole Hiekel, 2024. "Pathways of family change: a typology of multipartnered fertility life courses in five Northern European countries," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2024-005, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    20. Glenn Sandström & Fredinah Namatovu & Jens Ineland & Daniel Larsson & Nawi Ng & Mikael Stattin, 2021. "The Persistence of High Levels of Living Alone Among Adults with Disabilities in Sweden, 1993–2011," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 40(2), pages 163-185, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    housework division; fairness; conflict; latent class analysis; Sweden; gender equality;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    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:dem:demres:v:36:y:2017:i:16. 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: Editorial Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.demogr.mpg.de/ .

    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.