IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/diw/diwvjh/83-1-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ökonomische Analysen des Paarverhaltens aus der Lebensverlaufsperspektive und politische Implikationen

Author

Listed:
  • Miriam Beblo
  • Christina Boll

Abstract

Couple decisions can have diverging consequences for the individual partners, particularly in the middle or long run. When specializing on unpaid care work, and thereby withdrawing from the labour market, women often incur financial risks that may threaten their material security at presence as well as in old age. This asymmetric dynamic may create conflicting interests within a couple beyond their private affair, due to the consequences for the society as a whole (as regards number of children and care responsibilities). The aim of our contribution is threefold. After a theoretical introduction we will first expose the main decision spheres (fertility, work division and use of income) with empirical evidence on conflicting intra-couple interests. Secondly, we will specify those factors that have been identified empirically as determinants of couples’ sharing in the three decision spheres. Our study will thirdly derive political implications: Where does the state govern into couple behaviour by means of tax, family and labour market policy measures? Eine auf Paarebene getroffene Entscheidung kann für die einzelnen Partner unterschiedliche Folgen haben, insbesondere in der mittleren bis langen Frist. Durch Spezialisierungsentscheidungen auf unbezahlte Care-Arbeit und den damit verbundenen Rückzug vom Arbeitsmarkt gehen vor allem Frauen finanzielle Risiken ein, die ihre materielle Sicherheit nicht nur aktuell, sondern auch im Alter bedrohen. Diese asymmetrische Dynamik kann Interessenskonflikte im Paar erzeugen, die mit ihren Folgen für die Gesellschaft (vor allem auf Kinderzahl und Pflegeleistungen) nicht mehr nur „Privatsache“ sind. Unser Beitrag verfolgt deshalb drei Ziele. Nach einer theoretischen Einführung in die Problemlage legt er erstens dar, in welchen zentralen Entscheidungssituationen (Fertilität, Arbeitsteilung und Einkommensverwendung) es empirische Hinweise auf Interessenskonflikte auf Paarebene gibt. Er trägt zweitens die Faktoren zusammen, die empirisch als maßgebliche „Entscheidungs- beziehungsweise Teilungsfaktoren“ in den genannten drei Entscheidungsbereichen identifiziert worden sind. Die Studie zeigt drittens die politischen Implikationen auf: Wo wirkt der Staat mittels steuer-, familien- und arbeitsmarktpolitischer Instrumente in das Verhalten der Paare hinein?

Suggested Citation

  • Miriam Beblo & Christina Boll, 2014. "Ökonomische Analysen des Paarverhaltens aus der Lebensverlaufsperspektive und politische Implikationen," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 83(1), pages 121-144.
  • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:83-1-8
    DOI: 10.3790/vjh.83.1.121
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.83.1.121
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3790/vjh.83.1.121?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. Martin Browning & Pierre-André Chiappori & Valérie Lechene, 2006. "Collective and Unitary Models: A Clarification," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-14, March.
    2. Browning, Martin & Francois Bourguignon & Pierre-Andre Chiappori & Valerie Lechene, 1994. "Income and Outcomes: A Structural Model of Intrahousehold Allocation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(6), pages 1067-1096, December.
    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. Holger Bonin & Reinhold Schnabel & Holger Stichnoth, 2014. "Zur Effizienz der ehe- und familienbezogenen Leistungen in Deutschland im Hinblick auf soziale Sicherungs- und Beschäftigungsziele," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 83(1), pages 29-48.
    2. Klaus Hurrelmann & Stefan Sell & Miriam Beblo & Notburga Ott, 2015. "Debatte um das Betreuungsgeld: Falsche Anreize für eine moderne Familienpolitik?," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 68(11), pages 07-19, June.
    3. Bublitz, Elisabeth & Boll, Christina, 2016. "Individual determinants of job-related learning and training activities of employees - An exploratory analysis of gender differences," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145865, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    4. Christina Boll & Elisabeth Bublitz, 2018. "A Cross‐Country Comparison of Gender Differences in Job‐Related Training: The Role of Working Hours and the Household Context," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 56(3), pages 503-555, September.
    5. Christina Boll & Simone Schüller, 2020. "Die Lage ist ernst, aber nicht hoffnungslos – empirisch gestützte Überlegungen zur elterlichen Aufteilung der Kinderbetreuung vor, während und nach dem COVID-19 Lockdown," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 1089, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).

    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. Du, Qingyuan & Wei, Shang-Jin, 2013. "A theory of the competitive saving motive," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 275-289.
    2. Du, Qingyuan & Wei, Shang-Jin, 2016. "A Darwinian perspective on “exchange rate undervaluation”," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 111-138.
    3. Lay, Jann & Golan, Jennifer, 2009. "The Impact of Agricultural Market Liberalisation from a Gender Perspective: Evidence from Uganda," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 39944, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    4. Ortigueira, Salvador & Siassi, Nawid, 2013. "How important is intra-household risk sharing for savings and labor supply?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 650-666.
    5. Laurens Cherchye & Sam Cosaert & Thomas Demuynck & Bram De Rock, 2020. "Group Consumption with Caring Individuals," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(627), pages 587-622.
    6. Couprie, Hélène & Peluso, Eugenio & Trannoy, Alain, 2010. "Is power more evenly balanced in poor households?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(7-8), pages 493-507, August.
    7. Laurens CHERCHYE & Thomas DEMUYNCK & Bram DE ROCK, 2010. "Noncooperative household consumption with caring," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven ces10.34, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    8. Natalya Y. Shelkova, 2020. "Stronger women, better men? Family bargaining and public policy in contemporary Russia," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 335-355, June.
    9. John Ermisch & Chiara Pronzato, 2008. "Intra-Household Allocation of Resources: Inferences from Non-resident Fathers' Child Support Payments," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(527), pages 347-362, March.
    10. Rana Hendy & Catherine Sofer, 2010. "A Collective Model of Female Labor Supply : Do Distribution Factors Matter in the Egyptian Case ?," Post-Print halshs-00482492, HAL.
    11. Kaushik Basu, 2006. "Gender and Say: a Model of Household Behaviour with Endogenously Determined Balance of Power," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(511), pages 558-580, April.
    12. Chris Klaveren & Bernard Praag & Henriette Maassen van den Brink, 2008. "A public good version of the collective household model: an empirical approach with an application to British household data," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 169-191, June.
    13. Chiappori, Pierre-André & Donni, Olivier, 2009. "Non-unitary Models of Household Behavior: A Survey of the Literature," IZA Discussion Papers 4603, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Laurens Cherchye & Thomas Demuynck & Bram De Rock, 2011. "Revealed Preference Analysis of Non‐Cooperative Household Consumption," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 121(555), pages 1073-1096, September.
    15. Jungmin Lee & Mark L. Pocock, 2007. "Intrahousehold allocation of financial resources: evidence from South Korean individual bank accounts," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 41-58, March.
    16. Lechene, Valérie & Preston, Ian, 2011. "Noncooperative household demand," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(2), pages 504-527, March.
    17. Jeremy Lise & Ken Yamada, 2019. "Household Sharing and Commitment: Evidence from Panel Data on Individual Expenditures and Time Use," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(5), pages 2184-2219.
    18. Beblo, Miriam & Beninger, Denis, 2014. "Experimental Evidence on Bargaining Power Within Couples," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100628, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    19. Christian Bredemeier & Falko Juessen, 2013. "Assortative Mating and Female Labor Supply," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(3), pages 603-631.
    20. Aline Bütikofer & Michael Gerfin, 2017. "The economies of scale of living together and how they are shared: estimates based on a collective household model," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 433-453, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Paarentscheidungen; Verhandlungen; Interessenskonflikte; Fertilität; Einkommensverwendung; Arbeitsteilung;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D13 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Production and Intrahouse Allocation
    • H31 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents - - - Household
    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth
    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
    • 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:diw:diwvjh:83-1-8. 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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.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.