The Impact of Gender Role Attitudes on Women's Labor Market and Fertility Decisions:The Persistent Appeal of Housewifery

Nicole M. FortinDepartment of EconomicsUniversity of British Columbia

American Association of Population March 2007

2

Stylized Facts of Interest

After two decades on spectacular gains, in many OECD countries since the mid 1990s, progress in the gender earnings gap has more or

less stalled in Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, the United States and Sweden;

there are also been a stabilization in female labour force participation (FLP) in Canada, Finland, Norway, Sweden, the United States and the United Kingdom;

the fall in fertility rates that started in the 1960s with the massive entry of women in the labor market seems to have bottomed out in some high FLP countries, such as Belgium, France, Denmark, the United States.

3

Stylized Facts of Interest

The fact that this stabilization has occurred in many different countries under different economic conditions makes one suspicious that more than the usual economic factors (increases in women’s wages) may be at play.

When described in terms of changes across cohorts, the spectacular rise in female labor force participation coincides with the behavior of cohorts who gained access to reliable family planning (Pill, IUD, abortion) Goldin (2004), Goldin and Katz (2002) and Bailey

(2006) have provided compelling evidence that changes in female labour market outcomes of cohorts born from late 1940s on are due to innovation in contraception.

4

Changes in Labor Force Participation by Birth-Cohort

Source: Bailey (2006) for the United States

5

Motivation

There is then the possibility that we have simply exhausted the labor market effects of the “Pill” revolution

A difficulty however with the “Pill hypothesis” is that this contraceptive innovation happened at the same time as other changes, more importantly the “Women’s Liberation Movement”, which aimed to liberate women from domesticity and

open up labor market opportunities for women

Yet in recent years, “Feminism” has begun to carry negative connotations Housewifery (a la Martha Stewart) and “intensive

mothering” are on the rise

6

Motivation

The popular press (Belkin, 2003; Wallis, 2004; Story, 2005) has suggested the notion that women are increasingly “opting out” of employment when they have children.

Sociologists (Cotter, Hermsen and Vanneman, 2006) wonder whether we are witnessing “The End of the Gender Revolution” as an ideological movement.

Are women increasingly staying home and having more babies? If so, attitudes and values are at the origin of this trend?

7

Changes in Gender Attitudes by Cohorts

Source: Vanneman (2006)

8

Motivation

In Fortin (2005), I found a stabilization in attitudes towards traditional gender roles among recent cohorts across OECD countries.

There was suggestive evidence that perceptions of women’s role as homemakers could be implicated in the recent slowdown of the gender convergence in pay.

Here, I attempt to probe further the impact of the persistent appeal of housewifery on women’s employment status and their fertility decisions.

9

Motivation: Perspectives from Economic Theories

Recent economic theories (Akerlof and Kranton, 2000) have incorporated the role of identity in economic decisions.

Women entering the labor market may have partly embraced men’s identity as breadwinners.

But women may be uneasy about renouncing their traditional identity as mothers and homemakers and/or they may be facing an identity conflict, sometimes referred to as the “working mother’s guilt”.

As this identity conflict is exacerbated by the stresses of living in two-earner families and perhaps negative feedback from the labor market, the traditional model of the family where the woman’s

salient identity is based in the home and in motherhood may appeal to younger cohorts of women

10

Objective of the Paper

The main objective of the paper is to test the relative importance of traditional gender roles equalitarian views along with other sources of existential meaning

(what is important in life)as determinants of women’s employment status

and fertility (number of children) 1) using longitudinal data from a single cohort of US

women 2) using pooled (over time) cross-sectional data for

24 OECD countries

11

Preview of the Findings: Employment Status

Among the NLS72 cohort (birth cohort 1954-55), Traditional gender roles attitudes in 1979 are strongly

negatively correlated with employment status in 1986 Equalitarian views in 1979 are positively correlated

with employment status in 1986, but are not always statistically significant

Other values (usefulness to others and society) are almost as strongly correlated with employment status

Across OECD countries, Traditional gender role attitudes are negatively

correlated with women’s employment rates. more significantly so using lagged values

Anti-equalitarian attitudes are also quite significantly negatively correlated with women’s employment rates

12

Preview of the Findings: Fertility

Among the NLS72 cohort (birth cohort 1954-55), Traditional gender role attitudes and the

importance of people/family composite are very strongly associated with higher fertility

Equalitarian views and the importance of money/work are negatively associated with the fertility, but are not robust to the inclusion of controls

Across OECD countries, Traditional gender role attitudes (either as an

identity story or as social norms) have a significant positive impact on fertility

Anti-equalitarian views are not significant

13

Preview of the Findings: Summary

Traditional gender roles attitudes, either as indicators of salient identities or as social norms, continue to play a dominant role in women’s labor market and fertility decisions.

Equalitarian views have relatively little explanatory power, especially once educational attainment is controlled for.

To the extent, that there is indeed an “opting-out” phenomena, it may come more from the persistent appeal of housewifery than from a sag in equalitarian views

14

Data – United States

To capture pre-market characteristics and circumvents problems associated with ex-post rationalization, I appeal to a 14-year educational longitudinal survey

The National Longitudinal Studies of the High School Class of 1972 (NLS72) was by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. Participants were seniors in high school (18 year

olds) in the spring of 1972. Follow-up surveys were conducted in 1973, 1974, 1976, 1979, and finally 1986.

I use employment status and observed number of children in 1986 when most respondents were 32 year olds.

15

NLS-72:Questions on Gender Role Attitudes

How do you feel about the following statements? Not Employed Employed Difference“Agree strongly” or “agree” with gender role attitudes in 1979 in 1986 in 1986

FT196A a. A working mother of pre-school children can be just as good 0.532 0.676 -0.144 a mother as the woman who doesn’t work

FT196B b. It is usually better for everyone involved if the man is the acheiver 0.319 0.289 0.030 outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family

FT196C c. Young men should be encouraged to take jobs that are usuall 0.336 0.392 -0.056 filled by women (nursing, secretarial, work. etc.)

FT196D d. Most women are just not interested in having big and important jobs 0.152 0.129 0.023FT196E e. Many qualified women can’t get good jobs; men with the same skills 0.560 0.614 -0.054

have much less trouble FT196F f. Most women are happiest when they are making a home and caring 0.288 0.207 0.081

for childrenFT196G g. High schools counselors should urge young women to train for 0.454 0.512 -0.058

jobs which are now held mainly by menFT196H h. It is more important for a wife to help her husband than to have a 0.286 0.191 0.095

career herselfFT196I i. Schools teach women to want the less important jobs 0.241 0.280 -0.039FT196J j. Men should be given first chance at most jobs because they have the 0.379 0.285 0.094

primary responsibility for providing for a family

16

NLS-72:Questions on Work Values

17

NLS-72:Questions on Values

18

NLS-72:Composite Gender Role Attitudes and Values

Answers to questions on gender role attitudes and values are averaged into composites with the “alpha” procedure used by psychologists

Table 2. Average gender role and value composites by employment status

Not Employed Employed Difference Cronach'sin 1986 in 1986 alpha

Tradional gender roles 0.287 0.205 0.082 0.617

Equalitarian views 0.425 0.495 -0.070 0.618

Money/success very important 0.319 0.352 -0.033 0.585

People/family very important 0.333 0.346 -0.013 0.650

19

Empirical Strategy – Longitudinal Data:The Issue of Causality

A difficult question is the issue of causality.

Are the women’s employment and family decisions based on pre-market attitudes, or are these attitudes subsequent rationalizations to previous labor market and family choices?

This difficulty is addressed by using attitudes and values observed five years (at or before age 25) before the employment status and the number of children is observed (around age 32)

20

Empirical Strategy – Longitudinal Data: Individual Level Regressions

Assuming linear preferences, the individual estimating equation takes the form

Yit = α0 + αgGit-5 + αjJit-5 + αxXit + εit

where Yit is the outcome of interest

where Git-5 and Jit-5are gender role attitudes and

work values observed 5 years earlier where Xiti individual characteristics such as

education, marital status, The models are estimated by OLS, with a Probit

Model for employment status and with a Poisson Model for number of children

21

Table 4. Determinants of Women’s Employment Status in 1986

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Attitudes and valuesTraditional roles -0.231 *** -0.196 *** -0.148 *** -0.215 *** -0.178 *** -0.131 ***

(-10.31) -(8.78) -(6.47) (-7.95) (-6.71) -(4.99)Equilitarian views 0.081 *** 0.074 *** 0.037 ** 0.081 ** 0.074 ** 0.035

(4.50) (4.11) (2.02) (2.23) (2.08) (1.04)Money/work very important 0.167 *** 0.108 *** 0.046 0.164 ** 0.099 * 0.038

(4.70) (3.00) (1.28) (2.99) (1.91) (0.73)People/family very important 0.041 0.091 *** 0.126 *** 0.037 0.090 ** 0.125 ***

(1.35) (2.97) (4.06) (0.87) (2.20) (3.15)Married -0.188 *** -0.033 ** -0.184 *** -0.053 **

-(15.61) -(2.19) -(8.48) -(2.27)Time since first birth 0.012 *** 0.012 ***

(7.59) (4.00)Number of children -0.113 *** -0.113 ***

-(15.89) -(9.09)Spouse's income 0.013 0.013 (0.17) (0.35)Other income -0.422 *** -0.422 ***

-(5.45) -(4.85)

0.140 0.025 0.060 0.121No. observations 6724 6724 6724 6724 6724 6724

Note: Education includes in columns (2), (3), (5) and (6). t-statistics in parentheses for the linear probability model (LPM), z-statistics in parentheses for the probit model.***, ** and * indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively.

Linear Probability Model Probit Average Marginal Effects

Adjusted-R square 0.030 0.067

22

Empirical Results – Longitudinal Data : Women’s employment rates in the US

Equalitarian views (in 1979) are positively correlated with women’s employment status (in 1986), but quite weakly.

Traditional gender role attitudes are negatively correlated with women’s employment status. Their effect is 5 times as large as the effect of

equalitarian views

The composite on the importance of helping others, being useful to society, etc. is also significantly positively correlated with employment status.

Other important correlates include the number of children, own other income, educational attainment from college and beyond.

23

Table 5. Determinants of the Number of Children at Age 32 (1986)in the United States

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Attitudes and valuesTraditional roles 0.787 *** 0.549 *** 0.518 *** 0.485 *** 0.325 *** 0.309 ***

(14.09) (10.66) (9.58) (11.08) (8.44) (7.62)Equilitarian views -0.193 *** -0.101 *** -0.138 *** -0.148 ** -0.083 -0.103

-(4.29) -(2.45) (2.02) -(2.12) -(1.22) -(1.43)Money/work very important -0.777 *** -0.325 *** -0.215 *** -0.536 *** -0.208 ** -0.135

-(8.78) -(3.93) -(2.50) -(5.07) -(2.25) -(1.37)People/family very important 0.993 *** 0.589 *** 0.592 *** 0.674 *** 0.389 *** 0.393 ***

(13.16) (8.32) (8.07) (7.96) (6.00) (6.07)Married 0.906 *** 0.727 *** 0.762 *** 0.650 ***

(32.61) (21.30) (14.93) (10.80)Employed -0.404 *** -0.190 ***

-(9.51) -(6.69)Spouse's income -0.246 -0.189 -(1.29) -(1.29)Other income 0.852 *** 0.566 ***

(4.64) (4.66)

0.073 0.237 0.259 Log pseudolikelihood No. observations 6670 6670 6021 6670 6670 6021

Note: Education included in columns (2), (3), (5) and (6). t-statistics in parentheses for the linear regression, z-statistics in parentheses for the poisson model.***, ** and * indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively.

Adjusted-R square-2151094.7 -2151094.7 -1817366.9

Linear Regression Coefficients Poisson Regression Coefficients

24

Empirical Results – Longitudinal Data : Women’s Fertility at age 32 in the US

Traditional gender role attitudes and the importance of people/family composite are very strongly associated with higher fertility, even after controlling for education, marital status, employment status and other sources of income

By contrast, equalitarian views and the importance of money/work are negatively associated with the number of children at age 32, but their statistically significance is not robust to the inclusion of controls

25

Data – Cross-Country

The paper uses three waves of the World Value Surveys (WVS): the 1990-93 and 1995-97 waves (ICPSR 2970), and 1999-2001 wave (ICPSR 3975), which also includes answers to the European Value Survey (EVS).

Here, because I am interested in post female mobilization trends I limit my analysis to 24 OECD societies/countries.

Data on total fertility rates for these countries for periods corresponding roughly to the ones of the WVS were available from the OECD.

26

WORLD VALUE SURVEYS:Questions on Gender Role Attitudes

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? 1990-1997

1999-2001

Agree Neither Disagree DK

V128 V78 When jobs are scarce, men should have more right to a job than women

1 2 3 4

V129 When jobs are scarce, people should be forced to retire early

1 2 3 4

V130 V79 When jobs are scarce, employers should give priority to [BRITISH] people over immigrants

1 2 3 4

For each of the following statements I read out, can you tell me how much you agree with each. Do you agree strongly, agree, disagree, or disagree strongly? 1990-1997

1999-2001

Agree strongly

Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

DK

V113 One of my main goals in life has been to make my parents proud

1 2 3 4 9

V114 I make a lot of effort to live up to what my friends expect

1 2 3 4 9

V98 V115 A working mother can establish just as warm and secure a relationship with her children as a mother who does not work

1 2 3 4 9

V99 V116 Being a housewife is just as fulfilling as working for pay

1 2 3 4 9

V100 V117 Both the husband and wife should contribute to household income

1 2 3 4 9

V101 V118 On the whole, men make better political leaders than women do

1 2 3 4 9

V103 V119 A university education is more important for a boy than for a girl

1 2 3 4 9

27

Cross-Country Descriptive StatisticsTable 3. Average Gender Role Attitudes and Work Values Across Birth Cohorts

Women Men

1936 1946 1956 1936 1946 1956<1935 -1945 -1955 -1965 <1935 -1945 -1955 -1965

Scarce jobs shouldgo to men first 0.36 0.32 0.23 0.20 0.15 0.38 0.32 0.26 0.23 0.21Working mom warmwith kidsBeing a housewifefulfillingBoth shouldcontribute income¹

Number of childrenActual 2.91 2.60 2.30 2.00 1.11 2.77 2.48 2.25 1.86 0.76

Ideal 2.76 2.63 2.54 2.49 2.39 2.67 2.55 2.51 2.44 2.42

Birth Cohort: >1965 >1965

Gender Role Attitudes:

0.66 0.75 0.80 0.79 0.80 0.59 0.67 0.71 0.73

0.69 0.65 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.72 0.67

0.82 0.82 0.75

0.71

0.79 0.80 0.81 0.77 0.76 0.74 0.78

0.63 0.61 0.63

28

Empirical Strategy – Cross-Country: The Issue of Causality

Do individual preferences dictate labor market and family choices or are individual choices are conditioned by country-specific social norms and institutions?

At the country-level, reverse causality is a problematic issue.

Are women’s employment rates lower in some countries because “the man as main breadwinner” is the norm and “scare jobs are given to men first,”

or have women’s low employment rates in some countries resulted in men being the sole provider for most families and thus getting priority for jobs?

29

Empirical Strategy – Cross-Country: The Issue of Causality

Across countries, this issue is addressed by using lagged attitudes to check for reverse

causality

using country-specific average male attitudes, which are less likely suffer from endogeneity problems.

robust standard errors clustered by country are used to adjust for differences in the variance of individual heterogeneity by country.

including a measure of child care support used by

Jaunotte (2003) (country fixed-effects saturates the model.)

30

Empirical Strategy – Cross-Country: Country-level Regressions

At the country level, I consider average outcomes of interest

E[Y]ct = α0 + αg E[G]ct + αx E[X]ct + Fc + t + εct

where E[Y]ct is the average outcome of interest

where E[G]ct are average female or male gender role attitudes

where E[X]ct average characteristics such as

education where Fc denote some country-specific family

policy, and t is a time trend where robust standard errors are clustered by

country

31

Table 6. Determinants of Women’s Employment Rates Across Countries

l

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Averages by country Women’s Men's Women’s Women’sGender role attitudes: Lagged Scarce jobs should go -0.727 -0.515 -0.613 -0.697to men first (-3.20) (-2.31) (-2.94) (-2.91)Being a housewife -0.248 -0.249 -0.532 -0.191fulfilling (-2.10) (-1.69) (-3.71) (-1.13)

Total fertility rate 0.209 0.154 0.159 0.138 0.106 0.083(2.44) (1.44) (1.46) (2.12) (1.87) (1.22)

Log of public expenditures 0.120 0.057on child care (4.52) (1.61)Women’s Education (primary omitted) Secondary 0.088 0.130 0.134 0.412 0.184 0.235

(0.61) (0.84) (0.83) (2.63) (1.05) (1.25) Upper secondary 0.330 0.448 0.480 0.851 0.447 0.518

(1.53) (2.25) (2.15) (5.19) (2.19) (2.69) Tertiary 0.139 -0.010 0.018 0.465 0.228 0.148

(0.94) (-0.09) (0.14) (3.51) (1.72) (1.09)Time 0.005 -0.005 -0.001 0.004 0.005 -0.018

(1.35) (-2.01) (-0.59) (0.45) (1.71) -(2.67)

0.704 0.595 0.593No. observations 46 46 46 25 46 46No. countries 24 24 24 20 24 24

0.505Adjusted-R square 0.332 0.568

32

Empirical Results – Cross-Country: Women’s Employment Rates

Traditional gender role attitudes are negatively correlated with women’s employment rates. more significantly so using lagged values

Anti-equalitarian views are also quite significantly negatively correlated with women’s employment rates

Effect of men’s attitudes are very significant, but less so than women’s attitudes

The effect of log expenditures on child care is cut by half when attitudes are included, supporting Algan and Cahuc (2004)’s claim that the effect of policy variables may be over-estimated when values given rise to them are not controlled for.

33

Empirical Results – Cross-Country: Fertility Rates

The cross-sectional relationship between total fertility rates and women’s employment rates was negative in the 1970s and up to the early 1980s, but became positive in the late 1980s (Ahn and Mira, 2002).

The emergence of high and persistent unemployment rates has been suggested as an explanation for the reversal in the relationship (Adsera, 2005).

In the presence of high unemployment and unstable contracts, women postpone childbearing to increase lifetime income through early skill acquisition and minimize unemployment risk.

34

Total Fertility Rates across Countries

FR UK

DEWIT

NL DKBE

ES

IE US

CAJP

HUNO

SEIS

FI

PTAT

DEWES

US

JP

AS NOSE

FI

FR

UK

IT

NL DKBE

ES

US

CAJP HU

SE

IS

FI

PL

CZ

PT

SKGR

FRFR

UKUK

DEW

DEWIT

IT

NLNL DK

DKBE BE

ESES ES

IE USUS US

CACAJP

JPJP

HU

HU

ASNONO

SE

SESE

IS

IS

FIFIFI

PL

CZ

PTPTAT

SKGR

11.

52

2.5

11.

52

2.5

.4 .6 .8 1 .4 .6 .8 1

1990 1995

1999 Total

Total Fertility Rates Fitted values

Women's Employment Rates

Graphs by year

35

Table 7. Determinants of Total Fertility Rates Across Countries

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Women's Employment 0.827 0.680 0.666 Rates (3.29) (2.36) (2.26)

Averages by country Women’s Men's Women’s Men'sGender role attitudes:Scarce jobs should go -1.188 -1.149 -0.569 -0.684to men first (-3.04) (-3.29) (-1.38) (-1.88)Being a housewife 0.791 0.777 0.877 0.860fulfilling (3.04) (2.46) (3.81) (3.02)

Women’s Education (primary omitted) Secondary 0.384 0.220 0.284 0.245 0.109 0.164

(1.35) (0.77) (0.93) (0.99) (0.48) (0.71) Upper secondary -0.367 -0.754 -0.716 -0.576 -0.979 -0.960

(-1.12) (-2.25) (-1.97) (-2.14) -(4.55) -(4.14) Tertiary 1.097 0.600 0.579 0.792 0.544 0.506

(3.48) (2.16) (1.79) (2.71) (2.24) (1.93)Time -0.014 -0.020 -0.022 -0.015 -0.014 -0.018

(-1.67) (-2.32) (-2.79) (-2.23) (-1.98) -(2.67)

Adjusted-R square 0.374 0.568 0.545 0.482 0.626 0.593No. observations 46 46 46 46 46 46No. countries 24 24 24 24 24 24

36

Empirical Results – Cross-Country: Fertility Rates

“Being a housewife fulfilling” has a significant positive impact on fertility

This effect is similar when Women’s attitudes are included (identity story) Men’s attitudes are included (social norms story)

Combined with the positive effect of women’s employment rates on fertility indicates that “balancing work and family” is a central concern in fertility decisions.

Anti-equalitarian views are not significant.

37

Summary

Traditional gender roles attitudes, either as indicators of salient identities or as social norms, continue to play a dominant role in women’s labor market and fertility decisions.

Equalitarian views have relatively little explanatory power, especially once educational attainment is controlled for.

38

Conclusion

While anti-equalitarian views may present obstacles for women in the labor market, equalitarian views do not appear to have strong push effects beyond that educational attainment

Traditional gender roles exert a persistent negative effect on women participation in the labor market and a positive effect on fertility

To the extent, that there is indeed an “opting-out” phenomena, it may come more from the persistent appeal of housewifery than from a sag in equalitarian views

39

AppendixTable A1. Questions on Important Values and Associated Variables

How important is each Money People Money People Money People Money People Money Peopleof the following to you Year (Age) in selecting a job or career?a. Making a lot of money BQ24A

BQ24C to others or useful to societyh. The chance to be a leader BQ24H i. Opportunities to work with BQ24I people rather than things

in your life?a. Being successful in work BQ20A FQ20A SQ148A TQ151A c. Having lots of money BQ20C FQ20C SQ148C TQ151C FT197Cg. Being able to give children BQ20G FQ20G SQ148G TQ151G better opportunitiesh. Living close to parents BQ20H FQ20H SQ148H TQ151H and relatives

Note: Respondents were asked to circle one of “Not important”, “Somewhat important” and “Very important” as answers to the above questions. Responses were coded as one if the answer was “very important”, zero otherwise. Valid responses to question F1S67G were “Strongly Agree”, “Agree”, “Disagree” and “Disagree strongly” as answers. “Strongly agree” was deemed similar to “very important” and coded as 1, zero otherwise.

1979 (25)

c. Opportunities to be helpful

FT197A

1972 (18) 1973 (19) 1974 (20) 1976 (22)

40

AppendixTable A2. Women’s Employment Rates and Total Fertility Ratesby Country

WVS Country AcronymCountry No.

WVS OECD (OECD Social Indicators)

1990- 1995- 1999- 20001993 1997 2001 (25-54) 1990 1995 2000

17 Australia AS ─ 69.8 ─ 66.8 1.91 1.85 1.7542 Austria AT 57.3 ─ 73.9 73.5 1.45 1.40 1.347 Belgium BE 49.2 ─ 60.1 67.8 1.62 1.55 1.66

12 Canada CA 65.7 ─ 69.8 74 1.71 1.62 1.5333 Czech Republic CZ 90.4 ─ 78.7 73.7 1.89 1.28 1.146 Denmark DK 79.6 ─ 86.7 80.5 1.67 1.80 1.77

23 Finland FI 82.2 64 75.1 77.6 1.78 1.81 1.731 France FR 53.9 ─ 61.8 69.6 1.78 1.70 1.88

87 Greece GR ─ ─ 71.4 52.6 1.39 1.32 1.2916 Hungary HU 78.2 ─ 65.8 61.7 1.84 1.57 1.3221 Iceland IS 74.8 ─ 79.9 87.4 2.30 2.08 2.089 Ireland IE 49.8 ─ 57.6 53.1 2.11 1.83 1.894 Italy IT 51.6 ─ 62.3 50.7 1.33 1.18 1.23

13 Japan JP 57.7 65.8 60.4 62.7 1.54 1.42 1.365 Netherlands NL 53.1 ─ 69.6 70.9 1.62 1.53 1.72

18 Norway NO 84 86.8 ─ 81.5 1.93 1.87 1.8525 Poland PL 78.7 45 ─ 72 2.04 1.61 1.3441 Portugal PT 67.8 ─ 57.6 73.9 1.57 1.40 1.5585 Slovakia SK 95.6 ─ 77.6 64.8 2.09 1.52 1.298 Spain ES 37.5 35 44.5 50.6 1.36 1.18 1.24

19 Sweden SE 87.9 84.6 87 81.7 2.13 1.73 1.5426 Switzerland CH 55.9 69.9 ─ 76.8 1.59 1.48 1.5011 United States US 71.9 68.1 75.4 74.1 2.08 2.02 2.062 United Kingdom UK 70.1 ─ 66.3 73.1 1.80 1.70 1.653 West Germany DEW 61.7 66.6 ─ 71.1 1.45 1.25 1.38

Unweighted Average 65.6 61.1 69.8 1.76 1.59 1.56

Total Fertility RateWomen’s Employment Rates (18-64 year olds)

41

AppendixTable A3. Average (over time) Gender Role Attitudes by Country

Country Scarce Working House- Both Scarce Working House- Both

jobs mom wife income jobs mom wife income

Australia 0.2 0.77 0.67 0.63 0.22 0.65 0.68 0.65Austria 0.31 0.57 0.59 ─ 0.34 0.47 0.59 ─Belgium 0.29 0.8 0.58 0.75 0.26 0.75 0.67 0.63Canada 0.14 0.8 0.73 0.75 0.12 0.72 0.75 0.75Czech Republic 0.32 0.75 0.49 0.93 0.37 0.64 0.56 0.9Denmark 0.06 0.87 0.53 0.67 0.04 0.85 0.53 0.66Finland 0.09 0.97 0.67 0.76 0.13 0.92 0.69 0.73France 0.26 0.78 0.56 0.78 0.25 0.78 0.58 0.79Greece 0.15 0.8 0.35 0.9 0.29 0.7 0.54 0.85Hungary 0.28 0.78 0.6 0.89 0.29 0.71 0.69 0.87Iceland 0.04 0.91 0.64 0.65 0.05 0.81 0.68 0.58Ireland 0.2 0.7 0.67 ─ 0.22 0.63 0.69 ─Italy 0.3 0.71 0.47 0.84 0.31 0.62 0.56 0.77Japan 0.26 0.95 0.85 0.61 0.3 0.89 0.87 0.53Netherlands 0.15 0.83 0.49 0.43 0.13 0.74 0.52 0.33

Norway 0.1 0.8 0.54 0.79 0.13 0.64 0.56 0.79Poland 0.36 0.6 0.49 0.91 0.41 0.49 0.63 0.9Portugal 0.28 0.78 0.44 0.92 0.3 0.7 0.51 0.86Slovakia 0.36 0.73 0.5 0.89 0.42 0.64 0.56 0.89Spain 0.22 0.74 0.55 0.92 0.22 0.73 0.59 0.88Sweden 0.05 0.86 0.57 0.9 0.04 0.71 0.59 0.89Switzerland 0.1 ─ ─ ─ 0.14 ─ ─ ─United States 0.12 0.83 0.76 0.72 0.15 0.73 0.76 0.78United Kingdom 0.19 0.78 0.59 0.66 0.24 0.71 0.54 0.67West Germany 0.18 0.67 0.43 0.77 0.25 0.49 0.48 0.76

Women MenGender Role Attitudes Gender Role Attitudes