IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedbwp/16-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The influence of gender and income on the household division of financial responsibility

Author

Listed:
  • Marcin Hitczenko

Abstract

This paper studies how gender and income dynamics influence the division of responsibility in two-adult households for various activities, including those tasks directly related to financial decisionmaking. The data, from the 2012 Survey of Consumer Payment Choice, consist of the respondents? categorical self-assessments of their individual levels of responsibility for various tasks. A data construct, in which some households have both adults participate in the survey, is exploited to develop a penalized latent variable model that accounts for systemic response errors. The data reveal that that women, even when they are the primary earner, are much more likely than men to have the major responsibility for household shopping and bill paying. With regard to financial decisionmaking, however, there is a greater propensity to share responsibility equally, and income ranking is more important than gender in defining household roles, with higher earners more likely to have a larger share of responsibility.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcin Hitczenko, 2016. "The influence of gender and income on the household division of financial responsibility," Working Papers 16-20, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
  • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedbwp:16-20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/research-department-working-paper/2016/the-influence-of-gender-and-income-on-the-household-division-of-financial-responsibility.aspx
    File Function: Summary
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/Workingpapers/PDF/wp1620.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marianne Bertrand & Emir Kamenica & Jessica Pan, 2015. "Gender Identity and Relative Income within Households," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(2), pages 571-614.
    2. Schuh, Scott & Stavins, Joanna, 2010. "Why are (some) consumers (finally) writing fewer checks? The role of payment characteristics," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1745-1758, August.
    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. Scott Schuh, 2017. "Measuring consumer expenditures with payment diaries," Working Papers 17-2, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    2. Maria Esther Irigoyen-Camacho & Maria Consuelo Velazquez-Alva & Marco Antonio Zepeda-Zepeda & Maria Fernanda Cabrer-Rosales & Irina Lazarevich & Antonio Castaño-Seiquer, 2020. "Effect of Income Level and Perception of Susceptibility and Severity of COVID-19 on Stay-at-Home Preventive Behavior in a Group of Older Adults in Mexico City," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-16, October.
    3. Isha Chawla & Joseph Svec, 2023. "Household savings and present bias among Chinese couples: A household bargaining approach," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 648-672, January.
    4. Madelaine L’Esperance, 2020. "Does Responsibility for Financial Tasks Influence Credit Knowledge and Behavior?: Evidence from a Panel of US Couples," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 377-387, June.
    5. Ariane Agunsoye & Jerome Monne & Janette Rutterford & Dimitris P. Sotiropoulos, 2022. "How gender, marital status, and gender norms affect savings goals," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(2), pages 157-183, May.

    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. Marco Colagrossi & Claudio Deiana & Andrea Geraci & Ludovica Giua, 2022. "Hang up on stereotypes: Domestic violence and an anti‐abuse helpline campaign," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 40(4), pages 585-611, October.
    2. Daniel I. Tannenbaum, 2020. "The Effect of Child Support on Selection into Marriage and Fertility," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 611-652.
    3. Joanna Tyrowicz & Lucas van der Velde, 2017. "When the opportunity knocks: large structural shocks and gender wage gaps," GRAPE Working Papers 2, GRAPE Group for Research in Applied Economics.
    4. Cheng, Yawen & Kong, Dongmin & Wang, Qin, 2023. "Parents' early experience and children's years of schooling: The long-term impact of son preference," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    5. Leanne Roncolato & Alex Roomets, 2020. "Who will change the “baby?” Examining the power of gender in an experimental setting," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 823-852, September.
    6. Christian Pfeifer & Gesine Stephan, 2019. "Why women do not ask: gender differences in fairness perceptions of own wages and subsequent wage growth," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 43(2), pages 295-310.
    7. Benjamin Bennett & Isil Erel & Léa H. Stern & Zexi Wang, 2020. "Paid Leave Pays Off: The Effects of Paid Family Leave on Firm Performance," NBER Working Papers 27788, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Lepinteur, Anthony & Flèche, Sarah & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2016. "My Baby Takes the Morning Train: Gender Identity, Fairness, and Relative Labor Supply Within Households," IZA Discussion Papers 10382, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Bennett, Patrick & Ravetti, Chiara & Wong, Po Yin, 2021. "Losing in a boom: Long-term consequences of a local economic shock for female labour market outcomes," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    10. Bruno Karoubi & Régis Chenavaz & Corina Paraschiv, 2016. "Consumers’ perceived risk and hold and use of payment instruments," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(14), pages 1317-1329, March.
    11. Cemal Eren Arbatlı & Quamrul H. Ashraf & Oded Galor & Marc Klemp, 2020. "Diversity and Conflict," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 727-797, March.
    12. Greene, Claire & Prescott, Brian & Shy, Oz, 2022. "How people pay each other: Data, theory, and calibrations," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    13. Estefanía Galván, 2022. "Gender Identity and Quality of Employment," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(354), pages 409-436, April.
    14. Sumit Agarwal & Richard K. Green & Eric Rosenblatt & Vincent Yao & Jian Zhang, 2015. "Who Bears the Pen? Relative Income and Gender Gap in Mortgage Signing Order," Working Paper 9475, USC Lusk Center for Real Estate.
    15. Fang,Sheng & Goh,Chorching & Roberts,Mark & Xu,L. Colin & Zeufack,Albert G., 2020. "Female Business Leaders, Business and Cultural Environment, and Productivity around the World," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9275, The World Bank.
    16. Anders Kjelsrud & Kristin Vikan Sjurgard, 2022. "Public Work and Private Violence," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(9), pages 1791-1806, September.
    17. Christian Neumeier & Todd Sørensen & Douglas Webber, 2018. "The Implicit Costs of Motherhood over the Lifecycle: Cross‐Cohort Evidence from Administrative Longitudinal Data," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 84(3), pages 716-733, January.
    18. Stella Martin & Kevin Stabenow & Mark Trede, 2024. "Measurement Error in Earnings," CQE Working Papers 10824, Center for Quantitative Economics (CQE), University of Muenster.
    19. Aksoy, Billur & Chadd, Ian & Koh, Boon Han, 2023. "Sexual identity, gender, and anticipated discrimination in prosocial behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    20. Barigozzi, Francesca & Cremer, Helmuth & Roeder, Kerstin, 2020. "Having it all, for all: Child-care subsidies and income distribution reconciled," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 188-211.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    gender roles; household finances; probit models; penalized maximum likelihood;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A14 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Sociology of Economics
    • C51 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Construction and Estimation
    • D13 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Production and Intrahouse Allocation
    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination

    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:fip:fedbwp:16-20. 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: Catherine Spozio (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbbous.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.