Additional sensitivity checks were performed to test whether any possible correlation of non-labour income with the error terms of the time-use equations affects the outcomes of the model. Since non-labour income is the difference between total household income and the sum of the earnings of the spouses, possible measurement error in earnings may affect non-labour income as well. Re-estimating the model without non-labour income provides a first check. If measurement error in non-labour income is important, it will also affect the parameter estimates of the other variables, and in particular the wage elacticities of the time uses. We have re-estimated the model for our base variant (week diaries only, conventional definition of housework time). The resulting elasticities are shown in Table C in the Appendix.15 We conclude that there are no large differences in the estimated elasticities when including (Table 10) or excluding (Table C) non-labour income. The most affected are the elasticities of the housework time of the husband, which are smaller when non-labour income is dropped from the model. However, on the basis of the confidence intervals for the different estimates of the elasticities, the elasticities are well within each other’s confidence intervals.
Next to this, we have instrumented non-labour income. To avoid the weak instru-ments problem, we have done first stage regressions to select predictors for non-labour income. We use than a dummy for the presence of ‘housing and financial rents’ and ‘other revenues’ as a source of household income; and a dummy variable indicating whether the household has positive non-labour income.16 Next, we have added this equation for non-labour income to the system of Equations 11, 12, and 13, and we estimated this extended system simultaneously.17 The joint system allows for correlation between the
15 A full set of estimates is available from the authors upon request.
16 This dummy indicator is much less sensitive to possible measurement error in earnings than the the continuous measure of non-labour income. Without this indicator, the R2 of the regression for non-labour income did not exceed 0.05, which makes it virtually impossible to instrument non-labour income, as with such a lowR2 the non-labour income strongly correlates with its residual. Including the indicator for positive non-labour income increases theR2 to 0.27.
17The equation for non-labour income is purely meant as a statistical, ‘instrumental’, equation. We do not interpret it as a ‘structural’ equation, representing the formation of non-labour income. The latter is a topic beyond the scope of this static time allocation framework. We included the aforementioned
errors of the equation for non-labour income and the errors of the time-use equations, the employment equations, and the wage equations. We did a likelihood ratio rest to test the null hypothesis that the (ten) correlation coefficients are (jointly) equal to zero. In particular, we are interested in the sign and significance of the correlations between the errors of the equation for non-labour income and the time-use equations: non-zero corre-lations would suggest that measurement error in non-labour income may bias the results.
The value of the likelihood ratio test statistic is 31.4. The critical value for a chi-squared test statistic with 10 degrees of freedom is 18.3. Thus, the null hypothesis that the entire vector of correlation coefficients between the errors of the equation for non-labour income and the errors of the rest of the system is equal to zero is rejected. However, inspection of the separate correlation coefficients shows that only two correlation coefficients have t-values larger than 2. These are the correlations between the equation for non-labour income and the employment equations. For the remaining, only the correlation between non-labour income and the paid work equation for women is significant at the 10 per cent level, according to its t-value. Six of the correlation coefficients show a t-value that is smaller than one. We next re-estimated the model, restricting the seven insignificant correlation coefficients to zero, and leaving unrestricted the correlations between the er-rors of the equation for non-labour income, the employment equations and the equation for paid work of women. The likelihood ratio test statistic for testing whether these 3 correlation coefficients are (jointly) equal to zero takes the value 25.9, which leads to a clear rejection at the 5 percent level (the critical value is 7.8). The likelihood ratio test statistic for testing the validity of setting the remaining 7 correlation coefficients equal to zero, takes the value 5.5. The critical value for this test at the 5 per cent level is 14.1, so here the null hypothesis is not rejected. The correlations between the errors of non-labour income and employment (and paid work of the wife) are positive, indicating that there are unobservable factors that go together with both a higher employment probability and a higher non-labour income.18 For this final specification, we compute indicators for non-labour income, the logarithm of the age of the husband and its square, and the number of children. Other regressors were not significant at the 5 percent level in the first stage regression, and have not been included to avoid the weak instruments problem.
18 Thus, the results show that only the coefficients of non-labour income in the employment equa-tions are biased if non-labour income is not instrumented. Without instrumenting, the coefficient of
the wage and income elasticities of the time-use equations (see Table D). The results for the elasticities are hardly different from those of our preferred specification reported in Table 10. The largest (relative) difference is found for the elasticities of paid work of the wife with respect to non-labour income: this elasticity gets somewhat smaller (i.e. more negative). However, the two different values of the elasticities would still be included in each other’s 5 percent’s confidence interval based on their standard errors.
non-labour income in the employment equation measures both a ‘true’ causal effect of non-labour in-come on employment, which must be negative, and an offsetting positive correlation in unobservables.
Incorporating correlation of non-labour income with the error term of the employment equation gives a smaller (i.e. more negative) coefficient of non-labour income in the employment equation, whereas the positive effect in unobservables is captured by a positive estimate of the correlation coefficient.
Table 1: Theoretical effects of wages and non-labour income on spouses’ time allocation Husband’s wage rate Wife’s wage rate Non-labour income
Husband, Wife Husband, Wife Husband ,Wife Substitution effects:
Paid Work (t1) + , - - , +
Housework (t2) - ,? ?,
-Childcare time (t3) - ,? ?,
-Income effects:
Paid Work (t1) - , - - , - ,
-Housework (t2) 0 , 0 0 , 0 0 , 0
Child time (t3) + , + + , + + , +
Total effects:
Paid Work (t1) ? , - - , ? ,
-Housework (t2) - ,? ?, - 0 , 0
Childcare time (t3) ? ,? ?, ? + , +
These effects are discussed in Section 2 of the paper.
Table 2: Sample descriptives
Variable Full Sample Excluding
weekend diaries
N =1473 N =1080
Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev
W Age 37.80 7.46 37.84 7.53
H Age 40.26 7.74 40.27 7.86
W Compulsory education 0.11 0.31 0.11 0.31
W Lower Secondary 0.28 0.45 0.28 0.45
W Upper Secondary 0.15 0.35 0.15 0.36
W University short degree 0.12 0.32 0.12 0.32 W University degree and higher 0.09 0.29 0.10 0.29
H Compulsory education 0.07 0.26 0.07 0.26
H Lower Secondary 0.38 0.48 0.38 0.48
H Upper Secondary 0.09 0.29 0.08 0.28
H University short degree 0.10 0.30 0.11 0.31 H University degree and higher 0.12 0.33 0.12 0.33 W High-skilled occupation 0.08 0.27 0.08 0.28 W Intermediary occupation 0.18 0.39 0.18 0.38
W Low-Skill occupation 0.55 0.50 0.54 0.50
W Unskilled occupation 0.09 0.28 0.09 0.29
W occupational skill n. a. 0.10 0.30 0.10 0.31 H High-skilled occupation 0.19 0.39 0.20 0.40 H Intermediary occupation 0.24 0.43 0.23 0.42
H Low-Skill occupation 0.45 0.50 0.45 0.50
H Unskilled occupation 0.11 0.31 0.12 0.32
Married 0.82 0.38 0.83 0.37
No. of children 1.93 1.00 1.91 0.98
Children, age<3 0.26 0.47 0.26 0.47
Ile de France 0.19 0.39 0.20 0.40
Paris 0.02 0.14 0.02 0.15
W French nationality 0.93 0.26 0.93 0.25
H French nationality 0.92 0.27 0.93 0.26
Table 2: Sample descriptives (continued)
Variable Full Sample Excluding
weekend diaries
N =1473 N =1080
Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev
W Employed 0.62 0.48 0.62 0.48
H Employed 0.91 0.29 0.90 0.29
W Hours of work per week 18.78 17.52 18.45 17.42
H Hours of work per week 33.66 13.20 33.59 13.24
W Hours of work per week, diary 13.12 18.07 16.77 19.03 H Hours of work per week, diary 25.35 21.31 32.76 18.81 W Household work, minutes, diary 233.58 131.94 227.99 134.51 H Household work, minutes, diary 60.94 80.32 50.18 73.07 W Household work broad, diary 253.22 143.41 246.13 146.88 H Household work broad, diary 123.00 141.61 104.12 134.95 W Childcare, primary activity, diary 83.62 95.43 89.43 98.96 H Childcare, primary activity, diary 28.83 53.35 26.32 46.96
W hourly wage, Euros 8.43 5.35 8.53 5.61
H hourly wage, Euros 10.0 5.70 10.01 5.55
Household non-labour income, monthly 484.39 697.91 496.39 721.24 Regional unemployment rate 11.35 2.41
These are unweighted sample statistics.
The diary paid work activity is actually recorded in minutes per day, but we have transformed it here in hours per week, to compare it to the standard usual hours from the individual questionnaire.
In the econometric analysis, hours per day were entered as the dependent variable.
Wage rates are averaged over positive values only.
Wages and non-labour income are in Euros.
Table 3: Distribution of spouses’ time allocation Percentiles Sample
N =1473
Percentiles Paid work Childcare Housework Housework broad
Wives 1% 0 0 0 0
Table 4: Distribution of spouses’ time allocation Percentiles Excluding weekend diaries
N =1078
Percentiles Paid work Childcare Housework Housework broad
Wives 1% 0 0 0 0
Table 5: Share of husband’s time allocation in each couple’s total time in the activity
Percentiles Sample
N =1473
Husband’s Share of time Paid work Childcare Housework Housework (broad)
1% 0 0 0 0
5% 11.11 0 0 0
10% 50 0 0 0
25% 67.14 0 0 6.25
50% 100 12.5 13.04 26.83
75% 100 40.82 33.33 46.48
90% 100 75 51.03 61.54
95% 100 100 63.64 73.53
99% 100 100 100 100
Observations 1033 1084 1470 1471
These ratios of husband’s time over couples’ time are computed
only for couples where at least one of the two spouses participates in the activity.
Table 6: Share of husband’s time allocation in each couple’s total time in the activity Percentiles Excluding weekend diaries
N =1078
Husband’s Share of time Paid work Childcare Housework Housework (broad)
1% 0 0 0 0
5% 0 0 0 0
10% 41.54 0 0 0
25% 50.52 0 6.2 2.78
50% 66.05 10 10 22.65
75% 100 38.46 31.25 42.97
90% 100 72.73 50 62.5
95% 100 100 66.66 75
99% 100 100 100 100
Observations 923 817 1076 1076
These ratios of husband’s time over couples’ time are computed
only for couples where at least one of the two spouses participates in the activity.
Table 7: Estimates of time-use equations Only weekday diaries,N = 1080
Husbands Wives
Variable Paid House Child Paid House Child
Log wage rate 2.92** -0.92** -0.65* -1.09 -0.05 -0.07
husband (1.01) (0.41) (0.38) (0.69) (0.24) (0.23)
Log wage rate -0.05 0.74** 0.63** 8.07** -3.06** -0.67
wife (0.66) (0.24) (0.23) (2.07) (0.69) (0.47)
Intercept -71.54* -19.72 -44.19** -155.73** 25.38 -50.79**
(43.36) (17.68) (15.82) (38.91) (16.84) (11.83)
Log age 38.11 11.00 25.20** 75.75** -9.22 33.16**
(23.80) (9.71) (8.73) (21.46) (9.26) (6.73) Log age squared -5.56 -1.43 -3.65** -10.76** 1.73 -5.11**
(3.24) (1.32) (1.19) (3.00) (1.29) (0.95)
Compulsory ed. -0.78 0.54** 0.54** 0.99 0.09 0.01
(0.71) (0.26) (0.26) (0.87) (0.29) (0.25)
Low secondary 0.04 0.20 0.40** -0.15 0.20 0.40**
(0.43) (0.18) (0.17) (0.79) (0.27) (0.20) Upper secondary -0.47 0.25 0.53** -1.16 0.29 1.00**
(0.71) (0.30) (0.25) (1.04) (0.38) (0.25)
Univers. short -0.56 0.23 0.51 -0.91 0.72 0.69*
(0.87) (0.38) (0.32) (1.59) (0.54) (0.39) Univers. and higher -0.83 0.57 1.05** -3.02 1.38* 1.17**
(1.06) (0.43) (0.37) (2.20) (0.75) (0.50)
Married 0.56 -0.18 -0.16 -0.41 0.52** -0.09
(0.40) (0.17) (0.17) (0.56) (0.22) (0.16) French national 1.52** -0.11 0.21 2.55** -0.41 0.11 (0.61) (0.26) (0.25) (1.01) (0.29) (0.28) Children, age<3 -0.06 0.08 0.63** -1.66** -0.12 1.29**
(0.44) (0.18) (0.16) (0.62) (0.23) (0.16) No. of children 0.22 -0.03 0.09 -1.54** 0.35** 0.52**
(0.17) (0.07) (0.07) (0.27) (0.07) (0.06)
Ile de France 0.23 -0.05 0.16 0.49 -0.46** 0.08
(0.46) (0.16) (0.15) (0.57) (0.19) (0.15) Non-labour income -0.25** 0.04** 0.03** -0.17** 0.02 0.03**
(0.04) (0.01) (0.01) (0.05) (0.02) (0.01)
Rural -0.27 0.18 0.04 -0.82 0.13 0.00
(0.41) (0.16) (0.15) (0.55) (0.18) (0.16) Non-labour income is measured in French Francs and divided by 1000.
Table 8: Estimates of the employment and wage equations Only weekday diaries,N = 1080
Employment Wage
equations equations
Variable Husbands Wives Husbands Wives
Intercept -11.10 -36.18** 2.55 3.00
(23.87) (8.14) (2.16) (2.43)
Log age 7.67 20.10** 0.11 -0.31
(13.04) (4.55) (1.19) (1.34)
Log age squared -1.15 -2.76** 0.05 0.12
(1.77) (0.63) (0.16) (0.18) Compulsory ed. 0.48 0.55** 0.13** 0.14**
(0.41) (0.17) (0.03) (0.03)
Low secondary 0.30 0.34** 0.11** 0.19**
(0.23) (0.14) (0.02) (0.03) Upper secondary 0.73* 0.26 0.12** 0.29**
(0.39) (0.17) (0.03) (0.03)
Univers. short 0.47 0.32 0.25** 0.44**
(0.41) (0.22) (0.03) (0.04) Univers. and higher 0.60 0.18 0.34** 0.58**
(0.46) (0.31) (0.03) (0.04)
Married 0.19 0.01
(0.24) (0.14) French national 0.34 0.50**
(0.28) (0.21) Children, age<3 -0.30 -0.26 (0.23) (0.15)
Table 9. Estimates of the covariance matrix: standard deviations and correlation coefficients Only weekday diaries,N = 1080
Paid House Child Paid House Child Empl. Empl. Wage Wage
work work time work work time men wom. rate rate
husb. husb. husb. wife wife wife husb. wife
Paid wk husb. 4.42**
House wk husb. -0.50** 1.66**
Child tm husb. -0.20** 0.20** 1.39**
Paid wk wife 0.18** 0.01 0.16** 5.94**
House wk wife -0.09** 0.00 -0.09** -0.75** 2.15**
Child tm wife. 0.09** -0.05 0.13** -0.38** 0.18** 1.62**
Empl. husb. 0.69** -0.18** -0.16* 0.17* -0.10 0.05 1.00
Empl. wife 0.07 0.14** 0.07 0.83** -0.53** -0.29** 0.24** 1.00
Wage rt husb. -0.18** 0.15** 0.08 -0.07 0.10** 0.03 0.02 -0.06 0.24**
Wage rt wife -0.05 -0.02 -0.10* -0.32** 0.33** 0.10 -0.03 0.00 0.26** 0.24**
Table 10: Elasticities
Elasticity of: Wage Wage Non-labour
husband wife income
Paid work:
Paid work husband 0.41** -0.01 -0.10**
(0.14) (0.09) (0.02)
Paid work wife -0.07 1.40** -0.08**
(0.12) (0.30) (0.02) Total paid work time, for both spouses 0.25** 0.47** -0.10**
(0.10) (0.14) (0.01) Total housework time, for both spouses -0.18** -0.51** 0.03*
(0.07) (0.13) (0.01) Childcare time:
Childcare time husband -0.52 0.57** 0.08*
(0.34) (0.21) (0.05)
Childcare time wife -0.07 -0.31 0.04**
(0.10) (0.21) (0.02) Total childcare time, for both spouses -0.17 -0.11 0.05**
(0.12) (0.18) (0.02)
Table 11: Estimates of the time-use equations
Only weekday diaries,N = 1080, other definition of housework
Husbands Wives
Variable Paid Housewk Child Paid Housewk Child
Log wage rate 2.86** -1.93** -0.65* -1.13** -0.03 -0.06
husband (1.02) (0.60) (0.38) (0.69) (0.26) (0.22)
Log wage rate -0.03 0.52 0.61** 7.67** -3.20** -0.64
wife (0.68) (0.40) (0.23) (2.02) (0.72) (0.47)
Intercept -70.97 -18.16 -43.24** -155.34** 27.55 -50.09**
(43.45) (27.96) (15.92) (36.42) (17.81) (12.15)
Log age 37.94 11.26 24.71** 76.67** -10.26 32.65**
(23.92) (15.27) (8.80) (20.15) (9.83) (6.91) Log age squared -5.55* -1.23 -3.58** -10.91 1.91 -5.04**
(3.25) (2.07) (1.20) (2.81) (1.36) (0.97)
Compulsory Ed. -0.73 0.53 0.55** 1.07 -0.05 0.02
(0.72) (0.42) (0.25) (0.85) (0.32) (0.25)
Low secondary -0.01 0.53** 0.40** -0.24 0.19 0.42**
(0.44) (0.27) (0.16) (0.78) (0.30) (0.20)
Upper secondary -0.58 0.65 0.52** -1.19 0.30 1.00**
(0.73) (0.44) (0.25) (1.03) (0.41) (0.26)
University, short -0.61 0.70 0.51 -0.69 0.73 0.69*
(0.89) (0.54) (0.32) (1.52) (0.57) (0.38) Univers. and higher -0.84 0.88 1.07** -2.72 1.44* 1.13**
(1.08) (0.66) (0.37) (2.13) (0.79) (0.50)
Married 0.58 0.05 -0.17 -0.40 0.58** -0.09
(0.41) (0.25) (0.17) (0.56) (0.24) (0.16)
French national 1.50** 0.40 0.21 2.35** -0.44 0.13
(0.63) (0.38) (0.25) (1.00) (0.34) (0.28) Children, age<3 -0.05 0.08 0.63** -1.58** -0.20 1.29**
(0.45) (0.30) (0.16) (0.62) (0.26) (0.16) No. of children 0.23 -0.17 0.09 -1.53** 0.34** 0.52**
(0.17) (0.11) (0.07) (0.26) (0.08) (0.06)
Ile de France 0.29 -0.61** 0.16 0.51 -0.59** 0.07
(0.47) (0.27) (0.15) (0.57) (0.22) (0.15) Non-labour income -0.24** 0.06** 0.03** -0.18** 0.03 0.03**
(0.04) (0.02) (0.01) (0.05) (0.02) (0.01)
Rural -0.27 0.13 0.04 -0.93* 0.15 -0.01
(0.41) (0.25) (0.15) (0.54) (0.20) (0.15) Non-labour income is measured in French Francs and divided by 1000.
Table 12: Estimates of the employment and wage equations Only weekday diaries,N = 1080, other definition of housework
Employment Wage
equations equations
Variable Husbands Wives Husbands Wives
Intercept -12.82 -34.89** 0.66 2.39
(23.49) (8.24) (2.23) (2.43)
Log age 8.68 19.49** 1.14 0.02
(12.81) (4.62) (1.22) (1.34) Log age-squared -1.29 -2.68** -0.09 0.07 (1.74) (0.64) (0.17) (0.18) Compulsory Ed. 0.41 0.55** 0.13** 0.14**
(0.43) (0.18) (0.03) (0.03)
Low secondary 0.26 0.30** 0.11** 0.20**
(0.22) (0.14) (0.02) (0.03) Upper secondary 0.72* 0.23 0.13** 0.29**
(0.37) (0.17) (0.03) (0.03) University, short 0.38 0.33 0.25** 0.44**
(0.41) (0.22) (0.03) (0.04) Univers. and higher 0.58 0.23 0.34** 0.58**
(0.48) (0.30) (0.03) (0.04)
Married 0.15 0.03
(0.23) (0.14) French nationality 0.36 0.48**
(0.29) (0.22) Children, age<3 -0.32 -0.29*
(0.23) (0.15)
Table 13. Estimates of the covariance matrix: standard deviations and correlation coefficients Only weekday diaries,N = 1080, other definition of housework
Paid House Child Paid House Child Empl. Empl. Wage Wage
work work time work work time men wom. rate rate
husb. husb. husb. wife wife wife husb. wife
Paid wk husb. 4.45**
House wk husb. -0.66** 2.61**
Child tm husb. -0.20** 0.10** 1.38**
Paid wk wife 0.18** -0.07* 0.16** 5.86**
House wk wife -0.10** 0.11** -0.11** -0.77** 2.34**
Child tm wife. 0.10** -0.09** 0.12** -0.37** 0.15** 1.61**
Empl. husb. 0.68** -0.25** -0.15* 0.18** -0.14 0.06 1.00
Empl. wife 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.83** -0.57** -0.28** 0.24 1.00
Wage rt husb. -0.17** 0.20** 0.08 -0.06 0.09** 0.03 0.02 -0.05 0.24**
Wage rt wife -0.05 0.05 -0.10* -0.31** 0.32** 0.10 -0.04 0.01 0.26** 0.24**
Table 14: Elasticities: Only weekday diaries, other definition of housework
Elasticity of: Wage Wage Non-labour
husband wife income
Paid work:
Paid work husband 0.40** -0.004 -0.10**
(0.14) (0.10) (0.02)
Paid work wife -0.08 1.34** -0.08**
(0.13) (0.30) (0.03) Total paid work time, for both spouses 0.24** 0.45** -0.10**
(0.11) (0.14) (0.02) Total housework time, for both spouses -0.27** -0.43** 0.04**
(0.08) (0.12) (0.02) Childcare time:
Childcare time husband -0.53 0.55** 0.08
(0.33) (0.22) (0.06)
Childcare time wife -0.06 -0.29 0.04**
(0.10) (0.21) (0.02) Total childcare time, for both spouses -0.17 -0.10 0.05**
(0.11) (0.18) (0.02)
Table A: Elasticities: including weekend diaries
Elasticity of: Wage Wage Non-labour
husband wife income
Paid work:
Paid work husband 0.34** 0.10 -0.10**
(0.14) (0.09) (0.01)
Paid work wife -0.05 1.21** -0.08**
(0.12) (0.28) (0.02) Total paid work time, for both spouses 0.21** 0.47** -0.09**
(0.10) (0.12) (0.01) Housework time:
Housework husband -0.42** 0.42** 0.07*
(0.20) (0.12) (0.04)
Housework wife -0.14** -0.56** 0.01
(0.05) (0.12) (0.01) Total housework time, for both spouses -0.20** -0.35** 0.02*
(0.06) (0.10) (0.01) Childcare time:
Childcare time husband -0.34 0.58** 0.07*
(0.26) (0.20) (0.04)
Childcare time wife -0.01 -0.09 0.03*
(0.09) (0.17) (0.02) Total childcare time, for both spouses -0.10 0.09 0.04**
(0.10) (0.14) (0.02)
Table B: Elasticities: other definition of housework, including weekend diaries
Elasticity of: Wage Wage Non-labour
husband wife income
Paid work:
Paid work husband 0.31** 0.10 -0.10**
(0.13) (0.09) (0.01)
Paid work wife -0.06 1.15** -0.08**
(0.12) (0.28) (0.03)
Total paid work time, for both spouses 0.19* 0.46** -0.09**
(0.10) (0.12) (0.01)
Housework time:
Housework husband -0.53** 0.17 0.05**
(0.16) (0.11) (0.02)
Housework wife -0.12** -0.50** 0.02
(0.05) (0.11) (0.01)
Total housework time, for both spouses -0.26** -0.28** 0.03**
(0.07) (0.09) (0.01)
Childcare time:
Childcare time husband -0.31 0.56** 0.07*
(0.27) (0.16) (0.04)
Childcare time wife -0.01 -0.10 0.03*
(0.09) (0.17) (0.02)
Total childcare time, for both spouses -0.09 0.08 0.04**
(0.10) (0.14) (0.02)
Table C: Elasticities: dropping non-labour income from the model Week diaries only
Elasticity of: Wage Wage
husband wife
Paid work:
Paid work husband 0.46** -0.01
(0.15) (0.10)
Paid work wife -0.10 1.51**
(0.13) (0.32)
Total paid work time, for both spouses 0.29** 0.44**
(0.11) (0.15)
Housework time:
Housework husband -0.45* 0.38**
(0.24) (0.15)
Housework wife -0.08 -0.69**
(0.06) (0.17)
Total housework time, for both spouses -0.17** -0.43**
(0.07) (0.13)
Childcare time:
Childcare time husband -0.51 0.55**
(0.35) (0.21)
Childcare time wife -0.07 -0.31
(0.10) (0.21)
Total childcare time, for both spouses -0.18 -0.10
(0.12) (0.18)
Table D: Elasticities
Allowing for correlation between non-labour income and the errors of the system Week diaries only
Elasticity of: Wage Wage Non-labour
husband wife income
Paid work:
Paid work husband 0.42** -0.004 -0.10**
(0.14) (0.09) (0.02)
Paid work wife -0.07 1.38** -0.11**
(0.13) (0.31) (0.03)
Total paid work time, for both spouses 0.25** 0.47** -0.10**
(0.10) (0.14) (0.01)
Housework time:
Housework husband -0.56** 0.49** 0.08**
(0.27) (0.16) (0.03)
Housework wife -0.09 -0.75** 0.01
(0.06) (0.16) (0.02)
Total housework time, for both spouses -0.18** -0.51** 0.03*
(0.07) (0.14) (0.01)
Childcare time:
Childcare time husband -0.52 0.57** 0.08
(0.34) (0.21) (0.06)
Childcare time wife -0.06 -0.31 0.04**
(0.10) (0.21) (0.02)
Total childcare time, for both spouses -0.17 -0.11 0.05**
(0.11) (0.18) (0.02)