-
Agree improves mutual trust sharing work brings couples together
Doctor Tony Beatton
Visiting Fellow, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) -
Disagree Prefer not to share views publicly on this topic.
Professor Jan-Emmanuel De Neve
Associate Professor of Economics and Strategy, University of Oxford -
Agree Any well-functioning cooperative venture, presumably the aspiration for all households, should have an agreed pattern of contributions to household well-being. Any efficient allocation will reflect tastes, abilities, and provide may opportunities for shared activities for the good of the household, and for society as a whole. The sharing itself is a powerful source of well-being.
Professor John Helliwell
Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of British Columbia -
Neither agree nor disagree The answer to this question likely depends on social and cultural norms. Li, Zuckerman & Diener (2021, Psychological Science), for example, using cross-national data from both World Gallup Poll and The World Values Study, found that gender equality elicits different psychological reactions in conservative and liberal societies. In liberal societies, gender inequality was negatively related to SWB measures whereas in conservative societies there was no significant relationship. An even stronger finding was previously reported by Tesch-Romer et al. 2008, Social Indicators Research), who found that in countries where participants rejected gender inequality, the gap between male and female life satisfaction widened as relative female economic activity increased. Given this evidence, I expect greater gender equality in work roles (both paid and unpaid) to only lead to improved well-being of both partners where there is broad acceptance of gender equality principles. But even in societies where gender equality is accepted , it is still not clear that equality in work roles within households will necessarily mean higher well-being levels for both partners. This is reflected in the persistence of gender differences in preferred working hours: on average more women than men prefer part-time working hours, while more men than women prefer long work hours.
Professor Mark Wooden
Professorial Research Fellow and Director of the HILDA Survey Project, Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic and Social Research, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Melbourne -
Agree I believe greater gender equality is generally good for the subjective well-being of both women and men, which is supported by peer-reviewed research. However, I think the socioeconomic context matters a lot. If gender equality increases in the workplace but not home, women may take on additional responsibilities and feel worse off as a result. For men, as gender gaps close (incompletely, more progress is necessary) men lose in relative terms, which paired with technological change, globalization, and loss aversion, can create a class of men that feels particularly bad. This could exacerbate disengagement, substance abuse, and suicide, which is already higher for men. Aspirations may also increase for women faster than circumstances. Altogether, greater gender equality may cause some short-term problems, but ultimately lead to a better society.
Doctor Kelsey J O'Connor
Researcher in the Economics of Well-being -
Agree The difficulty in answering this question is sorting out: (i) association from causality, and (ii) the influence of culture. In societies that have largely adopted the precepts of the enlightenment, there appears to be an association between both men's and women's life satisfaction and their reported satisfaction with their paid and their unpaid (household) work. (This statement is informed through current analysis of a survey with each of these questions asked.) However, we cannot tell whether this relationship is causal or not. Evidence from the World Values Survey (Qasim and Grimes, 2022) indicates that across all countries covered in the survey, "housewives" have higher life satisfaction, ceteris paribus, than other occupational groups, suggesting that there is also a selection effect to take into account; i.e. some people may prefer an uneven split of housework balanced by an offsetting uneven split of paid work. Reference: Qasim M, Grimes A. 2022. “Sustainability and wellbeing: The dynamic relationship between subjective wellbeing and sustainability indicators.†Environment and Development Economics, 27(1), 1-19.
Professor Arthur Grimes
Chair of Wellbeing and Public Policy, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington -
Agree Among developed countries there is significant cross-country variation in the gender gap in subjective wellbeing both for evaluative measures and measures of affect (OECD, 2011). In a small majority of countries mean life satisfaction is higher for women, but for measures of affect mean affect is higher for men across the majority of countries. Although this relationship is clearly mediated by a range of different factors - including expectations and cultural norms in responding - there is a clear pattern where countries with better gender equality have higher wellbeing for women and higher wellbeing overall.
Doctor Conal Smith
Principal, Kōtātā Insight -
Disagree The available data do not support that statement. Correlations with happiness tend to vary around zero, which means that positive and negative effects on happiness tend to balance. Full time housewives apear to be quite happy and often happier than working married wives. These research findings ilustrate that the things we deem ideal do not always make us happy.
Professor Ruut Veenhoven
Professor of Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam -
Neither agree nor disagree This is a politically appealing thing to say nowadays, but the evidence is conflicted in Western countries. For instance, a 2013 article concluded that what Dutch women wanted (on average) was a part-time job in a relationship with gendered roles (rather than having the same life as their partner) (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00148-012-0417-9). Similarly, a 2020 study into German, British, and American couples found that women who overtook their men became less happy (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2020.101866), whilst divorce rates and women's career progression are still strongly related (Folke and Rickne, 2020). The essential question is whether having the same life (income, employment, household production) makes for happy partners, or whether there are benefits to gendered roles in partnerships. Partnering up with yourself sounds like a dull life to me.
Professor Paul Frijters
Professorial Research Fellow, CEP Wellbeing Programme, London School of Economics -
Agree Greater equality should improve well-being to the extent that it enables both parties to fulfill their needs for respect and relatedness. But we need to think about this carefully. A dual-income couple that splits everything down the middle in terms of housework and paid work may not necessarily be happy if they don't have time for each other. And a couple where one does paid work and the other primarily does unpaid work can be happy of this division of labor does not interfere with their commitment to each other.
Professor William Tov
Associate Professor of Psychology at Singapore Management University -
Agree The fact that people get the same economic treatment for comparable jobs is fair irrespectively whether this is across gender or other characteristics, different treatment would generate resentment and bad feelings
Professor Eugenio Proto
Alec Cairncross Professor of Applied Economics and Econometrics, University of Glasgow, Adam Smith Business School -
Completely agree -
Professor Martin Binder
Professor of Socio-Economics at Bundeswehr University Munich -
Agree I would completely agree, if ‘equality’ between the genders means equal pay for equal work, equal rights, dignity and opportunities in education and at work. Both women and men would thus benefit within households, although closing the gender gaps when this is initially wide, e.g. for cultural reasons, would require some progression. But I think that women’s beliefs and behaviours have a specificity that contributes to both their well-being and that of their partners, including when such gender specificity proves valuable at work, e.g. when relationships are involved. Differences between genders might be appreciated when they interact, both for a fortunate mix and because men might learn from women. I worry that women lose this specificity when I see the disturbing evidence about suicides. Fortunately, the suicide rate for women is usually much lower than for men. However, in recent years the suicide rate among girls has skyrocketed, thus narrowing the gap with boys, while it increases for both genders, at least in the US and the UK (rate increase for girls 10-14y in the US 2000-2021: 0.6 to 2.3, and 2.3 to 3.5 for boys. Rate increase for females 10-24y in England and Wales 2000-2021: 1.4 to 3.6, and 6.1 to 8.0 for males) (Garnett et al., 2022; Garnett and Curtin, 2023; Office for National Statistics, 2023). Further research is urgently needed to better understand all these aspects. Garnett, M.F., Curtin, S.C., Stone, D.M. (2022). Suicide mortality in the United States, 2000–2020. NCHS Data Brie,f No. 433. Garnett, M.F., Curtin, S.C. (2023). Suicide mortality in the United States, 2001–2023. NCHS Data Brie,f No. 464. Office for National Statistics (2023): https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/suicidesintheunitedkingdom/2021registrations
Professor Maurizio Pugno
Full Professor of Economics, University of Cassino -
Agree It is certain that greater equality within households is desirable. One can imagine that in households where there is more equality, the spouses are happier (especially women). However, this will depend on several factors, particularly (i) the expectations and social norms shared by both spouses (whether traditional or not), (ii) the norms of the country/community in which they live, and (iii) whether the spouses share the same norms. One can imagine that the choice of spouse will largely depend on these shared norms, which makes identifying a causal effect of equality within the couple on well-being difficult.
Professor Sarah Flèche
CNRS Research Fellow, University of Paris 1-Panthéon Sorbonne -
Neither agree nor disagree What appears to matter more is whether each member of the couple matches the broader societal norms about what is appropriate. Also, a split of work according to comparative advantage and preferences, rather than stiffly down an ideologically-derived 50-50 line, would logically provide more efficiency and hence higher quality of life within the household.
Professor Gigi Foster
Associate Professor and Undergraduate Coordinator, School of Economics, UNSW Business School -
Completely agree It seems clear that gender equality will improve the wellbeing of females who will, for example, see their labor market opportunities increase, enjoy more leisure time and suffer less stress. This has the exact opposite effect on male’s wages, labor market opportunities, and leisure time and stress. However, they will see their wellbeing increased, as they will feel less social pressure to perform in the labor market. In addition, male partnered with female, have more time to enjoy with children and spend time with happier females. In addition, more gender equality would mean to take maximum advantage of each individual in society and this would increase development.
Professor Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell
Professor of Economics, IAE-CSIC -
Neither agree nor disagree No comment
Professor Ronnie Schob
Professor, School of Business and Economics, Freie Universitat Berlin -
Agree This is actually a difficult question, despite being an item on the political agenda. In general, greater gender equality within households can improve the wellbeing of both partners (why two, there can be a triplet, let's not be conservative...), but that depends largely on context. If partners compare themselves with each other, gender inequality may reduce the wellbeing of one, especially if inequality can be attributed to the other's doing (or, rather, non-doing). If, however, gender inequality is attributed to societal influences and perhaps not even paid attention to, it may have no impact at all on wellbeing. I could also imagine a policy that aims at increasing gender equality of one partner having unintended, negative consequences on the wellbeing of the other. For example, a policy that increases income of one partner, if violating a traditional social norm (e.g. male breadwinner model), could have a negative effect on the other, and vice versa. So, while I think that greater gender inequality within households can, and probably will, improve the wellbeing of each partner on average, I think that there is potential for lot sof heterogeneities and that the answer to this question is not that straightforward at all.
Professor Christian Krekel
Assistant Professor in Behavioural Science, London School of Economics -
Completely disagree my choice is driven by my way of approaching the concept of equality. What does mean "greater equality"? I would completely agree that lower gender inequality for both unpaid and paid work established by mutual respect, understanding, and appreciation will increase (why "improve"?) the subjective well-being of both partners.
Professor Daniela Andrén
Senior Lecturer, Örebro University School of Business -
Completely agree I completely agree. Self-determination theory, for example (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000), state that the satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs (BPNS) for autonomy, competence and relatedness are key predictors of subjective well-being (SWB; Diener, 1984). Greater gender equality makes both partners to increase their needs for relatedness (they are important close ones; the welfare of one is key for the welfare of the other partner and vice-versa). Greater gender equality makes also both partners to increase their needs for competence (equality means that both partners can approach all roles effectively and efficiently; thus means that both will feel competence in their day-to-day duties). Finally, is greater gender equality is based on autonomous decision of both partners, it will even increase not only their needs for relatedness, but also their needs for relatedness and competence. Further, when BPNS increase for both partners, SWB will increase too.
Professor Wenceslao Unanue
Assistant Professor, Business School, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez
World Wellbeing Panel
The 2023 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel was awarded to Prof Claudia Goldin for “for having advanced our understanding of women's labour market outcomes” through the centuries. Her work demonstrates how despite women's gains in education and employment opportunities, there are still persistent gender gaps in employment and earnings. In her 2021 book, Career and Family, Goldin explains how in high-income countries today, earnings differences between men and women are not due to different career choices, but mostly become apparent after the birth of a first child. This parenthood effect (often referred to as a motherhood penalty) reflects how women are more likely than men to be responsible for childcare and household management, which can negatively affect career progression and earnings. Her research demonstrates the importance of studying gender inequality in both paid and unpaid work as inequalities in the household can negatively affect labour market outcomes. In the latest World Wellbeing Panel survey, we asked panel members how such inequalities might be related to subjective well-being. In June 2023, members of the World Wellbeing Panel were asked for their views on the relationship between gender equality and wellbeing and the role of government policy to contribute towards more gender equality. The two statements were as follows:
Statement 1: Greater gender equality within households, for both unpaid and paid work, improves the subjective wellbeing of both partners.
Statement 2: Government policy (and/or workplace initiatives) can contribute to greater gender equality in both unpaid and paid work.
Response options for each statement were: “completely agree”, “agree”, “neither agree nor disagree”, “disagree”, “completely disagree”.
Greater gender equality within households, for both unpaid and paid work, improves the subjective wellbeing of both partners.
Government policy (and/or workplace initiatives) can contribute to greater gender equality in both unpaid and paid work.
-
Agree yes, maternity leave for both females and males
Doctor Tony Beatton
Visiting Fellow, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) -
Completely agree There is no question in my mind that public policy has a major role to play in structuring incentives and shaping outcomes in terms of gender equality. Varied parental leave policies have led to very different outcomes. For example, mandatory and equally split parental leave policies between genders in Scandinavia has reduced gender pay gaps. Whereas the parental leaves focussed on women in the UK (up to 1 year maternity leave) may seem generous it has come at the cost of a larger gender pay gap between men and women. Thus reducing gender inequality on the labour market front. That said, these are complex questions with pros and cons on different dimensions. It's really hard to know what's best unless we perhaps consider the joint household levels of wellbeing but I haven't seen work on that front.
Professor Jan-Emmanuel De Neve
Associate Professor of Economics and Strategy, University of Oxford -
Agree Most official policy pronouncements, in most organizations and governments, accept the equality of opportunity for all. There are still gaps, often unintended, where there doors need to be opened.International comparisons of subjective well-being reveal countries with more equality of opportunity have higher average happiness, as well as being more likely to return each others' lost wallets.
Professor John Helliwell
Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of British Columbia -
Completely agree It is clear that the extent of gender inequality (as measured for example by gender differences in labour market participation, hourly earnings, caring roles, etc) varies widely across countries, some of which is the result of policy interventions. Obvious examples here include equal pay laws, compulsory parental leave provisions, publicly funded child care, but there are many others. This is not to say that government policy can bring about strict equality. Even those countries that have been most aggressive in pursing a gender equality policy (Scandinavian countries) still have gender gaps in employment rates, hours worked, and hourly pay.
Professor Mark Wooden
Professorial Research Fellow and Director of the HILDA Survey Project, Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic and Social Research, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Melbourne -
Completely agree It is obvious that government policy CAN contribute to greater equality. How, to what degree, and what equality means is less obvious. Gender equality plans, affirmative action, family-oriented social support (e.g., caregiving and family leave policies) can be used to increase the participation of women in paid activities and positions of leadership. However, social norms are still very important and slow to change. Even in the more de jure gender-equal countries of Northern Europe, many occupations remain dominated by one gender. Household dynamics are also less susceptible to policy and may require cultural change. In terms of equality, it is not clear if we should aim to equalize objective or subjective outcomes. I prefer to let people decide for themselves (i.e., equalize subjective well-being). Let’s use government policies to increase opportunities and support cultural change, for instance through education and by promoting women’s stories. Affirmative action for a specified period of time may increase the number of women in decision making positions, and thereby initiate a positive cycle that leads to a new equilibrium in which women feel equally well off. At that point, we should no longer need affirmative action.
Doctor Kelsey J O'Connor
Researcher in the Economics of Well-being -
Agree Government can do little directly to affect allocation of activities at home. Through regulation, they may have some effect on hours of work, though social factors are likely to dominate government edicts. The most effect that government may have is on funding of early childcare which frees up parents to undertake paid work if they wish to do so, and reduces unpaid household care of young children (as witnessed most clearly in Scandinavian countries). A more far-reaching policy initiative in many countries would be to free up the supply of housing, so reducing house prices, which alleviates the need for two parents to work to reach a particular material standard of living. Relief of this constraint may lead to reallocation of time of one partner back towards early childcare, potentially creating a greater imbalance in unpaid household duties but with the possibility of increasing the wellbeing of all concerned.
Professor Arthur Grimes
Chair of Wellbeing and Public Policy, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington -
Completely agree While cross country variation in levels of gender equality clearly has many drivers outside of the control of government the claim that government has some ability to contribute should be entirely uncontroversial given the legal and policy tools available and the record of significant changes in gender equality - often associated with government policy - across the world over the last 70 years.
Doctor Conal Smith
Principal, Kōtātā Insight -
Agree Several studies have documented such policy effects. One of these studies showed that success in getting married women to involve in paid work was attended by a drop in their happiness.
Professor Ruut Veenhoven
Professor of Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam -
Agree Of course government policy can enforce greater gender equality. The question is the degree to which governments should mandate outcomes and whether it is good for government to have that level of power over our lives.
Professor Paul Frijters
Professorial Research Fellow, CEP Wellbeing Programme, London School of Economics -
Agree In some of the most unequal places, women have little access to education--and in part this is due to those in power choosing to limit this access. So government policies can have a massive role in mitigating inequality. In addition, policies can equalize unpaid work--but primarily by reducing the amount of unpaid work that one or the other partner has to do. For example, by providing subsidies or tax breaks to help families pay for child care or domestic workers. The risk of such policies though is that many female workers are hired from lower-income countries to help fill this need. They are leaving their families behind and in some cases, their older female children must step up and take over housework rather than fully focusing on their education. So while inequality is mitigated in one country, it is reinforced in another country.
Professor William Tov
Associate Professor of Psychology at Singapore Management University -
Agree These kind of policies are difficult to implement in practice, but overall it is possible to think of good way to do that.
Professor Eugenio Proto
Alec Cairncross Professor of Applied Economics and Econometrics, University of Glasgow, Adam Smith Business School -
Completely agree Yes but this requires so much more than government policy and workplace initiatives as gender roles and stereotypes seem deeply entrenched in society
Professor Martin Binder
Professor of Socio-Economics at Bundeswehr University Munich -
Completely agree Government policy could certainly contribute to greater gender equality in paid work, but this is more difficult in the case of unpaid work. The problem lies in tradition and religion when these maintain a division of roles unfavourable to women. One possibility of intervention is to prepare public places where to organise services for women (such as educational services, supports for their children, individual and collective leisure activities) that favour their empowerment.
Professor Maurizio Pugno
Full Professor of Economics, University of Cassino -
Completely agree Of course. Many public policies can be implemented to strengthen equality and task-sharing within households (work flexibility, longer paternity leave, etc.), but they must also act on gender norms (from a young age) to truly change behaviors.
Professor Sarah Flèche
CNRS Research Fellow, University of Paris 1-Panthéon Sorbonne -
Agree Government and private sector policies can change the gender split of work (whether paid or unpaid) to a limited extent by forcing inefficiencies upon people and groups, but in the long run i expect most such policies to collapse under the weight of their own lack of economic or social justification. Two means by which why such policies may have some degree of lasting effects are (1) quotas/mandates that enforce a particular ideologically preferred split of work (e.g., x% minimum of a country's parliament being women, or a requirement for fathers to take parental leave in an equivalent amount to mothers) - because such mandates, if they survive long enough, may over time adjust social norms to an extent (as long as the inefficiencies thereby created are not too large); and (2) policies that correct information problems, such as addressing misperceptions about STEM jobs on the part of women (if the new information provided is truly more accurate than what was previously held to be true by those women).
Professor Gigi Foster
Associate Professor and Undergraduate Coordinator, School of Economics, UNSW Business School -
Completely agree Social norms are the driving force of gender inequality and is the main driver of current inequalities, at least in the western world. Governments therefore can contribute to greater gender equality by developing policies that shape gender norms. For example Farré et al () explore the introduction of the paternity leave in Spain to show that these policy, which promoted exposure to counter-stereotypical behaviors early in life, changed children views towards more egalitarian attitudes, such as mothers and fathers being equally engaged in the labor market and in the home. LÃdia Farré, Christina Felfe, Libertad González and Patrick Schneider, 2021. Changing Gender Norms across Generations? Evidence from a Paternity Leave Reform. BSE Working Paper, 1310.
Professor Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell
Professor of Economics, IAE-CSIC -
Agree No comment
Professor Ronnie Schob
Professor, School of Business and Economics, Freie Universitat Berlin -
Completely agree Yes, of course, they can - for example, equal pay and pay transparency, incentives to take equal time off after childbirth, education to promote selection into similar occupations, etc. Many of these initiatives can also be made mandatory, and enforced - it is just a question of how far one wants to go.
Professor Christian Krekel
Assistant Professor in Behavioural Science, London School of Economics -
Agree Government policies and workplace initiatives can play a crucial role in fostering gender equality in both unpaid and paid work. But **not** by focusing on statistics! Government policies can support workplace initiatives that increase awareness about unconscious bias and creating an equitable workplace culture.
Professor Daniela Andrén
Senior Lecturer, Örebro University School of Business -
Completely agree Of course. There are many ways government may help to gender equality. For example: (a) Equal salary ranges for all people (not matter their gender) when they make the same job. (b) Equal cost of health system (for example, in Chile, until so recently, women pay more than men only because they are women). (c) Parenting leave similar for both partners not matter their gender (d) Similar obligations in terms or child care for both partners (for example, in Chile, it is very often that the mother live with the children. Parents can visit only if they want). (e) Retirement age should be equal for both partners no matter their gender (in Chile, for example, women retires at 60 while men at 70). (f) Etc.
Professor Wenceslao Unanue
Assistant Professor, Business School, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez
Our panellists showed no clear consensus for the first statement but the majority of respondents agreed with it: thirteen agreed or completely agreed, four neither agreed nor disagreed, and three of the twenty disagreed or completely disagreed. In contrast, there was no disagreement with the second statement - all our panellists either agreed (ten) or completely agreed (ten).
For the first statement, 13 of our 20 respondents completely agreed (3) or agreed (10), while 4 were neutral, 2 disagreed and 1 completely disagreed.
Most panellists pointed out that greater equality within households and the labour market is socially and politically desirable. Wenceslao Unanue referred to self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) to describe that from a theoretical point of view greater equality in both domains should lead to higher levels of well-being because equality positively affects the three basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness that are key predictors of subjective well-being (Diener, 1984).
However, the well-being outcomes resulting from increased equality in both domains may depend on personal preferences which are shaped by social and cultural factors (Arthur Grimes, Mark Wooden), such as the expectations and social norms held by both spouses (whether traditional or not) and the norms of the country/community in which they live (Sarah Flèche). John Helliwell pointed out that couples should have an agreed pattern of contributions to household well-being, which will reflect their tastes and abilities.
Some of the panel members identified clear positive well-being outcomes resulting from increased equality in paid and unpaid labour for both partners due to how the improved mutual trust that results from sharing work brings couples together and improves relationship quality (Tony Beatton), and how the sharing of responsibilities itself is a powerful source of well-being (John Helliwell).
Some of the panellists observed that increased gender equality within a household could lead to mixed well-being outcomes for men and women: While the well-being of female partners might be positively affected due to improved labour market opportunities, increased leisure time and diminished stress levels, men's well-being might be negatively affected once they contribute more to household chores and childcare (e.g., through reduced labour market opportunities/wages, less leisure time, and increased stress) (Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell). On the other hand, men's well-being could also be positively affected due to reduced social pressure to perform in the labour market, more time to enjoy with children, and positive spill-over effects from their partner's increased well-being (Ferrer-i-Carbonell).
It was also noted that the answer to this question may depend on to what extent partners compare themselves to each other, especially if inequality can be attributed to the partner's actions (or, rather, inaction) in the home or work domain (Christian Krekel).
Several panellists referred to the importance of context and to what extent women's gains in employment are balanced by improvements in the division of unpaid work. For example, Kelsey O'Connor pointed out that if gender equality increases in the workplace but not at home, women may take on additional responsibilities and feel worse off as a result. In addition, as gender gaps slowly diminish, men lose in relative terms, which paired with technological change, globalisation, and loss aversion, can create a class of men that feels particularly disadvantaged. This could exacerbate disengagement, substance abuse, and suicide, which is already higher for men. Aspirations may also increase for women faster than circumstances. He concludes that greater gender equality may cause some short-term problems, but will ultimately lead to a better society (O'Connor).
The importance of context was also pointed out by Arthur Grimes who described the influence of culture. Evidence from the World Values Survey (Qasim & Grimes, 2022) indicates that across all countries covered in the survey, "housewives" have higher life satisfaction, ceteris paribus, than other occupational groups, suggesting that there is also a selection effect to take into account; i.e. some people may prefer an uneven split of housework balanced by an offsetting uneven split of paid work.
Similarly, Mark Wooden pointed to a study by Li, Zuckerman & Diener (2021), which, using cross-national data from both the Gallup World Poll and The World Values Study, found that gender equality elicits different psychological reactions in conservative and liberal societies. In liberal societies, gender inequality was negatively related to SWB measures whereas in conservative societies there was no significant relationship. An even stronger finding was previously reported by Tesch-Römer et al. (2008), who found that in countries where participants rejected gender inequality, the gap between male and female life satisfaction widened as relative female economic activity increased. Given this evidence, greater gender equality in work roles (both paid and unpaid) may lead to improved well-being of both partners where there is broad acceptance of gender equality principles (Wooden). But even in societies where gender equality is accepted, it is still not clear that equality in work roles within households will necessarily mean higher well-being levels for both partners. This is reflected in the persistence of gender differences in preferred working hours: on average more women than men prefer part-time working hours, while more men than women prefer long work hours (Wooden). This finding likely reflects that childcare and household tasks are still largely seen as the responsibility of women who then try to combine work and home management through part-time work.
Conal Smith pointed out that among developed countries there is significant cross-country variation in the gender gap in subjective well-being both for evaluative measures and measures of affect (OECD, 2011). In a small majority of countries, mean life satisfaction is higher for women, but for measures of affect, mean affect is higher for men across the majority of countries. Although this relationship is clearly mediated by a range of different factors - including expectations and cultural norms in responding - there is a clear pattern where countries with better gender equality have higher well-being for women and higher well-being overall (Conal Smith).
Paul Frijters cited several studies to argue that in some contexts, or for some couples, gendered roles with respect to income, employment and household production may make for happier partners. For instance, a 2013 article concluded that what Dutch women wanted (on average) was a part-time job in a relationship with gendered roles (rather than having the same life as their partner) (Booth & Ours, 2012). Similarly, a 2020 study on German, British, and American couples found that women who overtook their men became less happy (Flèche et al., 2020), whilst divorce rates and women's career progression are still strongly related (Folke & Rickne, 2020). Again, we may conclude that the societal context and personal preferences matter. According to Gigi Foster, a split of work according to comparative advantage and preferences, rather than stiffly down an ideologically-derived 50-50 line, would logically provide more efficiency and hence higher quality of life within the household.
Of the three researchers who disagreed with this statement, one preferred to not share their views. Ruut Veenhoven, who also disagreed with this statement, argued that full-time housewives appear to be quite happy and often happier than working married wives, which, in his view, illustrates that the things we deem ideal do not always make us happy.
For the second statement, 10 completely agreed with the statement and 10 agreed.
All panellists agreed that government policy and workplace initiatives can contribute to greater gender equality in both unpaid and paid work by shaping incentives and influencing social norms.
Martin Binder noted that achieving greater equality would require more than government policy and workplace initiatives as gender roles and stereotypes seem deeply entrenched in society. Helliwell pointed out that international comparisons of subjective well-being reveal that countries with more equality of opportunity report higher average levels of happiness.
Policies that were mentioned by our panellists address employment opportunities and outcomes directly (i.e., through gender quotas, work hour directives, equal pay legislation) and also more indirectly through their potential long-term effects on social norms (i.e., parent leave legislation). These include:
- Equal pay and pay transparency (Krekel, Wooden)
- Equal access to parental leave and incentives to take equal time off after childbirth (Beatton, Krekel)
- Education to increase career opportunities for women (Krekel, O'Connor, Tov, Pugno)
- Policies that correct information problems, such as addressing misperceptions about STEM jobs on the part of women
- Publicly funded child care (Wooden, Grimes, Pugno)
- Workplace initiatives that increase awareness about unconscious bias and help create an equitable workplace culture (Daniela Andrén)
- Temporary affirmative action to increase the percentage of women in leadership positions (O'Connor)
- Quotas/mandates that enforce a particular ideologically preferred split of work (e.g., x% minimum of a country's parliament being women) (Foster)
- Regulation of work hours (Grimes)
- Work flexibility (Flèche)
For example, Jan-Emmanuel De Neve explained that mandatory and equally split parental leave policies between genders have reduced gender pay gaps in Scandinavia. Ferrer-i-Carbonell pointed to research by Farré et al. (2023) which investigated the introduction of paternity leave in Spain to show that early exposure to counter-stereotypical behaviours changed children's views towards more egalitarian attitudes concerning mothers' and fathers' engagement in the labour market and in the home.
However, change is often slow and the success of policies might only be appreciated in the long term. As Mark Wooden pointed out, even countries that have been most aggressive in pursuing a gender equality policy (e.g., Scandinavian countries) still have gender gaps in employment rates, hours worked, and hourly pay.
Arthur Grimes suggested that governments can do little directly to affect the allocation of activities at home and that social factors are likely to dominate government edicts, such as work hour regulation. In contrast, William Tov argued that policies can address inequalities in unpaid work, but primarily by reducing the amount of unpaid work that one partner has to do. For example, by providing subsidies or tax breaks to help families pay for childcare or domestic workers. Others pointed out the benefits of publicly funded childcare (e.g., Wooden, Grimes).
Some of the policies suggested by our panellists address Claudia Goldin's observation that gender inequalities in the workplace often only crystallise after childbirth when gender inequalities in unpaid work increase. Although most of the policies suggested here focus on what governments can do to reduce gender inequalities, it should also be pointed out that employers have a strong incentive to retain women in the workplace after childbirth. However, in many societies “ideal worker” norms (Kanji, 2023) reward those, often men, who seem to be more dedicated to their jobs by working long hours and always being available - something that is incompatible with childcare, which disproportionally falls to women. Employers can actively counter long work-hour cultures by discouraging work outside of normal work hours and basing promotion decisions on other measures of work performance.
References
Booth, A. L., & Ours, J. C. (2012). Part-time jobs: what women want? Journal of Population Economics, 26(1), 263-283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-012-0417-9
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575.
Farré, L., Felfe, C., Gonzalez, L., & Schneider, P. (2023). IZA DP No. 16341. Changing gender norms across generations: Evidence from a paternity leave reform. IZA - Institute of Labor Economics. https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/16341
Flèche, S., Lepinteur, A., & Powdthavee, N. (2020). Gender norms, fairness and relative working hours within households. Labour Economics, 65, 101866. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LABECO.2020.101866
Folke, O., & Rickne, J. (2020). All the single ladies: Job promotions and the durability of marriage. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 12(1), 260-287. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20180435
Goldin, C. (2021). Career and family: Women's century-long journey toward equity. Princeton University Press.
Kanji, S. (2023). When employers reward “ideal” workers, gender equality suffers. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/when-employers-reward-ideal-workers-gender-equality-suffers-204472
Li, C., Zuckerman, M., & Diener, E. (2021). Culture moderates the relation between gender inequality and well-being. Https://Doi.Org/10.1177/0956797620972492, 32(6), 823-835. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620972492
OECD. (2011). Cooking, caring, building and repairing: Unpaid work around the world. Society at a Glance 2011. www.oecd.org/els/social/indicators/SAG
Qasim, M., & Grimes, A. (2022). Sustainability and wellbeing: The dynamic relationship between subjective wellbeing and sustainability indicators. Environment and Development Economics, 27(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/S1355770X20000509
Tesch-Römer, C., Motel-Klingebiel, A., & Tomasik, M. J. (2008). Gender differences in subjective well-being: Comparing societies with respect to gender equality. Social Indicators Research, 85(2), 329-349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9133-3