Doctor Tony Beatton
Visiting Fellow, Queensland University of Technology (QUT)

improves mutual trust sharing work brings couples together

Professor Jan-Emmanuel De Neve
Associate Professor of Economics and Strategy, University of Oxford

Prefer not to share views publicly on this topic.

Professor John Helliwell
Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of British Columbia

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 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

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.

Doctor Kelsey J O'Connor
Researcher in the Economics of Well-being

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.

Professor Arthur Grimes
Chair of Wellbeing and Public Policy, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington

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.

Doctor Conal Smith
Principal, Kōtātā Insight

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.

Professor Ruut Veenhoven
Professor of Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam

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 Paul Frijters
Professorial Research Fellow, CEP Wellbeing Programme, London School of Economics

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 William Tov
Associate Professor of Psychology at Singapore Management University

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 Eugenio Proto
Alec Cairncross Professor of Applied Economics and Econometrics, University of Glasgow, Adam Smith Business School

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 Martin Binder
Professor of Socio-Economics at Bundeswehr University Munich

-

Professor Maurizio Pugno
Full Professor of Economics, University of Cassino

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 Sarah Flèche
CNRS Research Fellow, University of Paris 1-Panthéon Sorbonne

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 Gigi Foster
Professor, School of Economics, UNSW School of Economics

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 Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell
Professor of Economics, IAE-CSIC

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 Ronnie Schob
Professor, School of Business and Economics, Freie Universitat Berlin

No comment

Professor Christian Krekel
Assistant Professor in Behavioural Science, London School of Economics

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 Daniela Andrén
Senior Lecturer, Örebro University School of Business

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 Wenceslao Unanue
Associate Professor, Business School, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez

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.

Doctor Tony Beatton
Visiting Fellow, Queensland University of Technology (QUT)

yes, maternity leave for both females and males

Professor Jan-Emmanuel De Neve
Associate Professor of Economics and Strategy, University of Oxford

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 John Helliwell
Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of British Columbia

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 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

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.

Doctor Kelsey J O'Connor
Researcher in the Economics of Well-being

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.

Professor Arthur Grimes
Chair of Wellbeing and Public Policy, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington

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.

Doctor Conal Smith
Principal, Kōtātā Insight

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.

Professor Ruut Veenhoven
Professor of Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam

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 Paul Frijters
Professorial Research Fellow, CEP Wellbeing Programme, London School of Economics

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 William Tov
Associate Professor of Psychology at Singapore Management University

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 Eugenio Proto
Alec Cairncross Professor of Applied Economics and Econometrics, University of Glasgow, Adam Smith Business School

These kind of policies are difficult to implement in practice, but overall it is possible to think of good way to do that.

Professor Martin Binder
Professor of Socio-Economics at Bundeswehr University Munich

Yes but this requires so much more than government policy and workplace initiatives as gender roles and stereotypes seem deeply entrenched in society

Professor Maurizio Pugno
Full Professor of Economics, University of Cassino

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 Sarah Flèche
CNRS Research Fellow, University of Paris 1-Panthéon Sorbonne

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 Gigi Foster
Professor, School of Economics, UNSW School of Economics

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 Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell
Professor of Economics, IAE-CSIC

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.

Lídia 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 Ronnie Schob
Professor, School of Business and Economics, Freie Universitat Berlin

No comment

Professor Christian Krekel
Assistant Professor in Behavioural Science, London School of Economics

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 Daniela Andrén
Senior Lecturer, Örebro University School of Business

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 Wenceslao Unanue
Associate Professor, Business School, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez

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.