IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/red/sed006/411.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Gender roles and technological progress

Author

Listed:
  • Stefania Albanesi
  • Claudia Olivetti

    (Boston University)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to study how progress in home production technologies and in medical technologies influences gender differences in labor market outcomes and the household division of labor, in an economy with endogenous gender roles. We consider a model in which incentive problems on the labor market play a crucial role in the emergence of unequal labor market outcomes across genders. In turn, the differential labor market outcomes influence gender roles within the household, thus generating a feedback mechanism. Households in our economy efficiently choose how to optimally allocate time of each spouse to the production of a home public good, produced with home hours and market goods. We view children as a crucial component of this good. Biological gender differences, namely women's ability to bear children, will be reflected in the spouses' relative productivity in the production of the home public good. We model this by allowing women's marginal productivity to be greater than men's in the home production function. We assume that female and male workers are equally productive in market work. Women's comparative advantage in home production can be interpreted as tied to the decreased market productivity of women during and after pregnancy. Alternatively, it captures women's higher contribution to the nourishment of children via breast feeding. A consequence of women's comparative advantage is that they will optimally allocate more time to home work than men. The extent of this difference, however, also depends on the degree of substitutability in the spouses' home hours and on other features of the home production technology, such as the contribution of market goods and the level of technological progress in home production. Each individual in our model is also employed by firms to produce market goods, which requires time, market hours, and effort. As argued by Becker (1977) and Holmstrom and Milgrom (1991), if an agent increases the amount of time or attention devoted to one activity, the marginal cost of other activities increases. Hence, we assume that higher home hours increase the marginal cost of market hours and effort. We also assume that effort is private information, while market hours and output are observed. Given the higher marginal cost of market work for workers with higher home hours, the optimal labor contracts will assign lower market hours, effort and earnings to these workers. Hence, women's higher home hours will determine a negative differential in earnings, market hours and effort, relative to men. The incentive problem in the labor market, due to the unobservability of effort, provides an amplification mechanism for the relative productivity differences across genders. As a result, the equilibrium gender differences in earnings will be greater than the relative productivity difference. The feedback mechanism between labor market outcomes and household decisions on home production determines the equilibrium allocation of home versus market hours across genders and the gender earnings differential. We interpret this process as an endogenous attribution of gender roles. Since earnings are decreasing in home hours, the households' opportunity cost of home hours is decreasing in home hours. Hence, the labor market outcome also influences the households' trade-off between market goods versus home hours in home production. We analyze the effects of progress in home production and in medical technologies in the context of our model. There was a rapid diffusion of consumer durables, such as home appliances, in the post-war period, as documented by Greenwood, Seshadri, Yorukoglu (2005). This can be interpreted as a reflection of technological progress in home production. Advancement in medical technologies with an impact on home production occurred prior to this. Specifically, in the mid 1930's, childbirth became increasingly medicalized, leading to a sharp decline in maternal mortality rates between 1936 and 1956, which reduced the physical cost of pregnancy. Over the same period, there was also a rapid decline in the price of breast milk substitutes. This reduced mothers' required contribution to the nourishment of infants. We argue that both these developments determined a decline in women's comparative advantage in home production. Improvements in these medical technologies continued after 1955, however, at a more gradual pace. On this basis, we conclude that the introduction of new home appliances likely played a dominant role after 1955. Greenwood, Seshadri, Yorukoglu (2005) argue that the introduction of home appliances is a critical determinant of rising female labor force participation in the course of the twentieth century. However, the widespread diffusion of household appliances only started in the 1950's. Before World War II, household appliances were primarily adopted by wealthy households, and their labor savings effects mostly resulted in a reduction in the number of servants (Cowan, 1983). Female labor force participation increased from 24.8% in 1930 to 29.8% in 1947. This increase is arguably mostly related to the changes in medical technologies rather than to progress in consumer durables. Female labor force participation continued to increase in the post-war period, rising from 35.7% in 1955 to 46.3% in 1975. The effect of improved home production technologies should dominate that of medical technologies over this period. We use our model to show how these different sources of technological progress impact gender differentials in labor market outcomes and home hours. We find that improvements in medical technologies determine a significant decline in female home hours and gender differentials on the labor market. The endogeneity of earnings differentials and their negative dependence on home hours, however, dampens the equilibrium effects of improvements in home production technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefania Albanesi & Claudia Olivetti, 2006. "Gender roles and technological progress," 2006 Meeting Papers 411, Society for Economic Dynamics.
  • Handle: RePEc:red:sed006:411
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jesus Fernandez-Villaverde & Arijit Mukherji, 2002. "Can We Really Observe Hyperbolic Discounting?," NajEcon Working Paper Reviews 391749000000000478, www.najecon.org.
    2. N/A, 2003. "Abstracts," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 12(2), pages 251-270, September.
    3. Valerie A. Ramey & Neville Francis, 2009. "A Century of Work and Leisure," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 189-224, July.
    4. Larry E. JONES & Rodolfo E. MANUELLI & Ellen R. McGRATTAN, 2015. "Why Are Married Women Working so much ?," JODE - Journal of Demographic Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(1), pages 75-114, March.
    5. Jeremy Greenwood & Nezih Guner, 2009. "Marriage and Divorce since World War II: Analyzing the Role of Technological Progress on the Formation of Households," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2008, Volume 23, pages 231-276, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Claudia Goldin & Lawrence F. Katz, 2002. "The Power of the Pill: Oral Contraceptives and Women's Career and Marriage Decisions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(4), pages 730-770, August.
    7. Becker, Gary S, 1985. "Human Capital, Effort, and the Sexual Division of Labor," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(1), pages 33-58, January.
    8. Thaler, Richard, 1981. "Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 201-207.
    9. Goldin, Claudia, 2006. "The Quiet Revolution That Transformed Women’s Employment, Education, and Family," Scholarly Articles 2943933, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    10. Jeremy Greenwood & Ananth Seshadri & Mehmet Yorukoglu, 2005. "Engines of Liberation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(1), pages 109-133.
    11. Alessandra Fogli & Raquel Fernandez, 2009. "Culture: An Empirical Investigation of Beliefs, Work, and Fertility," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 146-177, January.
    12. Chiappori, Pierre-Andre, 1988. "Rational Household Labor Supply," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(1), pages 63-90, January.
    13. Charles Hirschman & Marilyn Butler, 1981. "Trends and differentials in breast feeding: An update," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 18(1), pages 39-54, February.
    14. Chiappori, Pierre-Andre, 1997. "Introducing Household Production in Collective Models of Labor Supply," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(1), pages 191-209, February.
    15. Richard Blundell & Pierre-André Chiappori & Costas Meghir, 2005. "Collective Labor Supply with Children," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 113(6), pages 1277-1306, December.
    16. George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 1992. "Anomalies in Intertemporal Choice: Evidence and an Interpretation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 107(2), pages 573-597.
    17. Todd Sarver, 2008. "Anticipating Regret: Why Fewer Options May Be Better," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(2), pages 263-305, March.
    18. Peter Kuhn, 1985. "A General Equilibrium Model of 'Efficient' Unions," University of Western Ontario, Departmental Research Report Series 8508, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
    19. Jason G. Cummins & Giovanni L. Violante, 2002. "Investment-Specific Technical Change in the US (1947-2000): Measurement and Macroeconomic Consequences," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 5(2), pages 243-284, April.
    20. Read, Daniel & Roelofsma, Peter H. M. P., 2003. "Subadditive versus hyperbolic discounting: A comparison of choice and matching," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 140-153, July.
    21. Stefania Albanesi & Claudia Olivetti, 2006. "Gender and Dynamic Agency: Theory and Evidence on the Compensation of Female Top Executives," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series WP2006-061, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    22. Raquel Fernández & Alessandra Fogli & Claudia Olivetti, 2004. "Mothers and Sons: Preference Formation and Female Labor Force Dynamics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(4), pages 1249-1299.
    23. R. H. Strotz, 1955. "Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 23(3), pages 165-180.
    24. 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.
    25. Goldin, Claudia, 1992. "Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195072709.
    26. N/A, 2003. "Abstracts," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 12(1), pages 131-154, March.
    27. John Knowles, 2005. "Why are Married Men Working So Much?," PIER Working Paper Archive 05-031, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    28. Claudia Olivetti & Stefania Albanesi, 2005. "Home Production, Market Production and the Gender Wage Gap: Incentives and Expectations," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series WP2005-013, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    29. Yoram Halevy, 2008. "Strotz Meets Allais: Diminishing Impatience and the Certainty Effect," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 1145-1162, June.
    30. Jeremy Greenwood & Ananth Seshadri & Guillaume Vandenbroucke, 2005. "The Baby Boom and Baby Bust," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 183-207, March.
    31. Claudia Goldin, 2006. "The Quiet Revolution That Transformed Women's Employment, Education, and Family," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 1-21, May.
    32. Efe A Ok & Yusufcan Masatlioglu, 2003. "A General Theory of Time Preferences," Levine's Bibliography 234936000000000089, UCLA Department of Economics.
    33. Alessandra Fogli & Laura Veldkamp, 2007. "Nature or Nurture? Learning and Female Labor Force Dynamics," Working Papers 07-11, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    34. Anke Gerber & Kirsten I.M. Rohde, 2007. "Anomalies In Intertemporal Choice?," Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series 07-12, Swiss Finance Institute.
    35. Sue Bowden & Avner Offer, 1994. "Household appliances and the use of time: the United States and Britain since the 1920s," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 47(4), pages 725-748, November.
    36. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2007. "Choice Over Time," IZA Discussion Papers 2993, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    37. Read, Daniel, 2001. "Is Time-Discounting Hyperbolic or Subadditive?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 5-32, July.
    38. Maurizio Mazzocco, 2007. "Household Intertemporal Behaviour: A Collective Characterization and a Test of Commitment," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 74(3), pages 857-895.
    39. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2007. "Choice Over Time," IZA Discussion Papers 2993, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    40. Peter J. Hammond, 1976. "Changing Tastes and Coherent Dynamic Choice," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 43(1), pages 159-173.
    41. Shane Frederick & George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue, 2002. "Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 351-401, June.
    42. Tjalling C. Koopmans, 1959. "Stationary Ordinal Utility and Impatience," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 81, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    43. Svetlana Boyarchenko & Sergei Levendorskii, 2005. "Discount factors ex post and ex ante, and discounted utility anomalies," Microeconomics 0510013, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 13 Dec 2005.
    44. Martha J. Bailey, 2006. "More Power to the Pill: The Impact of Contraceptive Freedom on Women's Life Cycle Labor Supply," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(1), pages 289-320.
    45. Kreps, David M & Porteus, Evan L, 1978. "Temporal Resolution of Uncertainty and Dynamic Choice Theory," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 185-200, January.
    46. Rios-Rull, Jose-Victor, 1993. "Working in the Market, Working at Home, and the Acquisition of Skills: A General-Equilibrium Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(4), pages 893-907, 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. Hanno Lustig, "undated". "The Wealth-Consumption Ratio: A Litmus Test for Consumption-based Asset Pricing Models," UCLA Economics Online Papers 420, UCLA Department of Economics.
    2. Stefania Albanesi & Claudia Olivetti, 2016. "Gender Roles and Medical Progress," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(3), pages 650-695.
    3. Jawwad Noor, 2007. "Hyperbolic Discounting and the Standard," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000000939, UCLA Department of Economics.
    4. Tiago Cavalcanti & José Tavares, 2016. "The Output Cost of Gender Discrimination: A Model‐based Macroeconomics Estimate," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 126(590), pages 109-134, February.
    5. Doepke, M. & Tertilt, M., 2016. "Families in Macroeconomics," Handbook of Macroeconomics, in: J. B. Taylor & Harald Uhlig (ed.), Handbook of Macroeconomics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1789-1891, Elsevier.
    6. Raquel Fernandez, 2007. "Culture as Learning: The Evolution of Female Labor Force Participation over a Century," NBER Working Papers 13373, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Akbulut, Rahşan, 2011. "Sectoral Changes And The Increase In Women'S Labor Force Participation," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 240-264, April.
    8. Fernández, Raquel, 2007. "Culture as Learning: The Evolution of Female Labour Force Participation Over a Century," CEPR Discussion Papers 6451, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Jeremy Greenwood & Nezih Guner & Guillaume Vandenbroucke, 2017. "Family Economics Writ Large," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1346-1434, December.
    10. Matthias Doepke & Moshe Hazan & Yishay D. Maoz, 2015. "The Baby Boom and World War II: A Macroeconomic Analysis," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 82(3), pages 1031-1073.
    11. Fernández, Raquel & Wong, Joyce Cheng, 2011. "The Disappearing Gender Gap: The Impact of Divorce, Wages, and Preferences on Education Choices and Women's Work," IZA Discussion Papers 6046, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Suqin Ge & Fang Yang, 2013. "Accounting For The Gender Gap In College Attainment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 478-499, January.
    13. Machado, Matilde & Carro, Jesus & Mora, Ricardo, 2014. "Transmission of preferences and beliefs about female labor market participation: direct evidence on the role of mothers," CEPR Discussion Papers 10218, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Haaland, Venke Furre & Rege, Mari & Telle, Kjetil & Votruba, Mark, 2018. "The intergenerational transfer of the employment gender gap," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 132-146.
    15. Fernández, Raquel & Wong, Joyce Cheng, 2011. "The Disappearing Gender Gap: The Impact of Divorce, Wages, and Preferences on Education Choices and Women's Work," CEPR Discussion Papers 8627, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Victor Gay, 2017. "The Legacy of the Missing Men: The Long-Run Impact of World War I on Female Labor Force Participation," 2017 Papers pga905, Job Market Papers.
    17. repec:cte:werepe:we1421 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Raquel Fernández & Joyce Cheng Wong, 2011. "The Disappearing Gender Gap: The Impact of Divorce, Wages, and Preferences on Education Choices and Women's Work," NBER Working Papers 17508, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Raquel Fernandez, 2009. "Culture as Learning: The Evolution of Female Labor Force Participation over a Century," 2009 Meeting Papers 78, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    20. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda, 2012. "The missing link: unifying risk taking and time discounting," ECON - Working Papers 096, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Oct 2018.
    21. Masao Fukui & Emi Nakamura & Jón Steinsson, 2023. "Women, Wealth Effects, and Slow Recoveries," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 269-313, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    gender; home production; employment; wages; technological progress;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D13 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Production and Intrahouse Allocation
    • J22 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Time Allocation and Labor Supply
    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination

    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:red:sed006:411. 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: Christian Zimmermann (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sedddea.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.