Childbearing and attitudes towards gender norms

Does childbearing make us more conservative?
Childbearing and attitudes in labor market
Lucas van der Velde
Warsaw School of Economics
FAME| GRAPE
2021 ASSA Annual Meeting

Introduction
Motivation
Gender wage gaps are impacted by beliefs on gender roles
(Steinhauer 2018, Charles et al. 2018, Kleven, Landais, Posch, Steinhauer and Zweim¨uller 2019)
Children penalty plays an important role in explaining GWG
(Polachek 1981, Kleven, Landais and Søgaard 2019, Cukrowska-Torzewska and Matysiak 2020)

Introduction
Motivation
But beliefs are not stable
Evolution of beliefs around childbirth
(Borrell-Porta et al. 2019, Kuziemko et al. 2018, Berrington et al. 2008, Cunningham 2008)
Cognitive dissonance
(Kranton 2016)

Introduction
Motivation
But beliefs are not stable
Evolution of beliefs around childbirth
(Borrell-Porta et al. 2019, Kuziemko et al. 2018, Berrington et al. 2008, Cunningham 2008)
Cognitive dissonance
(Kranton 2016)
Shortcomings of the literature
Focus on a single country (mostly US or UK)
Emphasize changes for a men or women, rarely both

Introduction
How does this paper ﬁt in the literature?
Main hypothesis
Birth as an information shock (Kuziemko et al. 2018)

Introduction
Main hypothesis
Birth as an information shock (Kuziemko et al. 2018)
Childbirth
Unanticipated
diﬃculties in WLB
Cognitive
dissonance
↑ traditional
attitudes

Introduction
Main hypothesis
Childbirth
Unanticipated
diﬃculties in WLB
Cognitive
dissonance
↑ traditional
attitudes
The procedure
Estimate the relation between birth of ﬁrst child and attitudes
Explore heterogeneity across countries & demographics groups

Data and Methods
Gender and generations survey
a.k.a. Gender and generations programme
Eﬀort coordinated by UNECE & the NIDI
Data collected by national administrators
Survey instrument adapted to national circumstances
Survey years: between 2002 & 2014; 2 waves per country, 3-5 years
between waves
Country coverage :
Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary,
Lithuania, Poland, and Russia

Data and Methods
Sample desciption
Study focuses on respondents who
1 Appear in 2 waves
2 Are childless in wave 1
3 Are between 20 and 35 years old in wave 1

Data and Methods
Sample desciption
1 Appear in 2 waves
How binding are these conditions?
All In wave 2 & in 20-35 & Childless
N 112 784 89 675 18 875 11 468

Data and Methods
Sample desciption
1 Appear in 2 waves
How binding are these conditions?
All In wave 2 & in 20-35 & Childless
N 112 784 89 675 18 875 11 468
# countries: 10 → Average N per country = 1147
Conditions by country Go

Data and Methods
Agreement with traditional gender norms
I measure agreement in two domains:
Role of the family
Women in labor market

Data and Methods
Role of the family
1 Women require a child to be fulfilled
2 Men require a child to be fulfilled
3 Pre-school children suffer if their mother works

Data and Methods
Role of the family
4 When jobs are scarce, men have more right than women
5 If women earns more than husband, it is not good for the relationship
6 Being a housewife is just as fulﬁlling as a paid job
7 When jobs are scarce, people with children have more right to work
than childless

Data and Methods
Role of the family
1 Women require a child to be fulfilled †
3 Pre-school children suffer if their mother works † ‡
4 When jobs are scarce, men have more right than women †
6 Being a housewife is just as fulfilling as a paid job †
than childless
†
Seguino (2007), Steinhauer (2018), ‡
Berrington et al. (2008), Schober and Scott (2012),
Perales et al. (2019), Charles et al. (2018)

Data and Methods
Method: Diﬀ-in-diﬀ estimation
I estimate LPMs of the form
P(agreesy )i,t = α+β1Parentsi +β2Afteri,t+β3Aftert×Parentsi +γ Xi,1+ i,t
(1)

Data and Methods
(1)
where
P(agreesy )i,t → respondent (strongly) agrees with a norm
Parentsi indicates whether i would-be (W1) or is (W2) a parent
Afteri indicates survey wave → after childbirth for parents
Xi,1 other covariates measured at the time of ﬁrst survey (or FE)

Data and Methods
(1)
where
β3 → Coeﬃcient of interest
→ Causal eﬀect of childbirth on attitudes
→ I expect β3 > 0 for women

Data and Methods
Threats to identiﬁcation
Self-selection into motherhood
Pre-trends

Data and Methods
1 Inclusion of FE for unobserved time-invariant characteristics
2 Reweighting the sample → diﬀerences in X’s between groups
(Smith and Todd 2005, Imai and Ratkovic 2013)
→ Needed? Yes Go
Pre-trends

Data and Methods
Pre-trends
1 Childless group: diﬀerence in means between waves

Data and Methods
Pre-trends
1 Childless group: diﬀerence in means between waves
2 Parents group. I estimate
P(agrees|parent)i,t = α+θ1Aftert +θ2f (t)+θ3Aftert ×f (t)+γ2Xi,1 +υi,t
If θ2 are signiﬁcant → Evidence against null of no pre-trends for parents

Results
Do parents change their answers: Mothers
Before After Comparisons of proportions N
Parent Y N Y N (1v2) (3v4) (1v3) (2v4)
Outcome (1) (2) (3) (4)
1 0.567 0.507 0.607 0.499 ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗ 6158
2 0.485 0.424 0.507 0.419 ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ 6144
3 0.465 0.459 0.455 0.427 ∗∗ 4720
4 0.168 0.150 0.194 0.149 ∗∗∗ 4582
5 0.170 0.188 0.156 0.169 ∗ 4974
6 0.542 0.475 0.543 0.456 ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ 4928
7 0.429 0.395 0.471 0.364 ∗∗∗ ∗∗ ∗ 4582
List of outcomes Go
Parents are diﬀerent before, & more so after
Little evidence of change (bef. v after) in both groups

Results
Do parents change their answers: Fathers
Before After Comparisons of proportions N
Parent Y N Y N (1v2) (3v4) (1v3) (2v4)
Outcome (1) (2) (3) (4)
1 0.641 0.537 0.651 0.534 ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ 8056
2 0.612 0.504 0.642 0.494 ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ 8128
3 0.581 0.533 0.609 0.511 ∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗ 6006
4 0.411 0.338 0.383 0.313 ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗ 5974
5 0.205 0.193 0.176 0.183 6552
6 0.529 0.501 0.560 0.494 ∗∗∗ 6542
7 0.561 0.505 0.571 0.464 ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ 5980
List of outcomes Go
Diﬀerences between parents and non-parents are more pronounced
Little evidence of change (bef. v after) in both groups

Results
Diﬀ-in-diﬀ results: Women and family life

Results
Outcome (1): Women require a child to be fulﬁlled
Women Men
DiD DiD+FE DiD + FE DiD DiD+FE DiD + FE
+PSM +PSM
β1 0.063 *** 0.065 ***
(0.02) (0.02)
β2 0.023 -0.023 * -0.030 * -0.004 -0.001 -0.016
(0.01) (0.01) (0.02) (0.02) (0.01) (0.02)
β3 0.050 *** 0.051 *** 0.057 *** 0.016 0.014 0.030
(0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02)

Results
Outcome (2): Men require a child to be fulﬁlled
Women Men
+PSM +PSM
β1 0.061 *** 0.065 ***
(0.02) (0.02)
β2 0.016 -0.020 -0.034 * -0.011 -0.023 -0.024
(0.01) (0.01) (0.02) (0.02) (0.01) (0.02)
β3 0.029 0.029 0.038 * 0.042 ** 0.040 ** 0.055 **
(0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02)

Results
Outcome (3): Pre-school child suﬀer if mother works
Women Men
+PSM +PSM
β1 -0.004 0.045 **
(0.02) (0.02)
β2 -0.054 ** -0.062 ** -0.073 ** -0.049 * -0.041 * -0.106 ***
(0.03) (0.03) (0.04) (0.03) (0.02) (0.03)
β3 0.026 0.026 0.029 0.046 * 0.052 ** 0.070 **
(0.02) (0.02) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03)

Results
Summary
Women (appear to) priorize family over career → Outcome (1) , (2)
Children also gains importance for men → Outcome (2)
Men appear to embrace more traditional gender roles
→ Outcome (3)
→ ‘Mighty’ girl eﬀect ? (Borrell-Porta et al. 2019)

Results
Diﬀ-in-diﬀ results: Women and work realm

Results
Outcome (4): When jobs are scarce men should have priority
Women Men
+PSM +PSM
β1 0.008 0.036 **
(0.01) (0.02)
β2 -0.027 -0.026 -0.082 *** -0.034 -0.044 ** -0.068 ***
(0.02) (0.02) (0.03) (0.02) (0.02) (0.03)
β3 0.031 * 0.030 * 0.046 ** 0.007 0.003 0.025
(0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02)

Results
Outcome (5): If women earn more, the relationship suﬀers
Women Men
+PSM +PSM
β1 -0.018 0.009
(0.02) (0.02)
β2 -0.061 *** -0.060 *** -0.038 -0.028 -0.031 -0.011
(0.02) (0.02) (0.03) (0.02) (0.02) (0.03)
β3 0.005 0.005 -0.008 -0.024 -0.021 -0.032
(0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02)

Results
Outcome (6): Being a housemaker is just as fulﬁlling as working for pay
Women Men
+PSM +PSM
β1 0.051 ** 0.002
(0.02) (0.02)
β2 -0.015 -0.033 -0.005 -0.023 -0.023 -0.057
(0.03) (0.03) (0.04) (0.03) (0.02) (0.04)
β3 0.028 0.028 0.017 0.039 0.041 0.043
(0.02) (0.02) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03)

Results
Outcome (7): When jobs are scarce, parents have priority over childless
Women Men
+PSM +PSM
β1 0.040 ** 0.045 **
(0.02) (0.02)
β2 -0.028 -0.055 ** -0.093 ** -0.046 * -0.064 *** -0.093 ***
(0.03) (0.02) (0.04) (0.02) (0.02) (0.03)
β3 0.079 *** 0.079 *** 0.074 *** 0.062 ** 0.054 ** 0.061 **
(0.02) (0.02) (0.03) (0.02) (0.02) (0.03)

Results
Summary
No evidence on men changing their attitude in gender norms
(Outcomes 4-7)
Women appear to become more conservative in
→ Access to jobs (4)
→ But not in earnings nor household chores
Parents have a ‘corporativist’ view of employment
→ Similar eﬀects across genders
→ What do they tell about gender inequality?

Results
Diff-in-diff results: no pre-trends analysis
P(agrees|parent)i,t = α+θ1Aftert +θ2f (t)+θ3Aftert ×f (t)+γ2Xi,1 +υi,t
Women Men
Linear Quad Cubic Linear Quad Cubic
Women & family life
Women need a child 0.618 1.454 0.995 1.292 3.986∗∗ 3.564∗∗
Men need a child 1.638 1.977 1.401 2.539 1.740 1.549
Child suffers 0.184 0.764 0.639 0.036 2.175 1.701
Women & work realm
Job priority: men 0.041 1.161 1.211 0.302 0.193 0.137
Woman earns more 0.165 0.126 0.087 0.166 0.102 0.304
Being a housemaker 0.016 2.881∗ 1.876 0.055 0.289 0.199
Job priority: Parent 0.452 3.163∗∗ 2.128∗ 1.194 2.459∗ 1.646
Alternative specifications More

Results
Heterogeneity analysis: by country groupings
Central and Eastern European vs Western European countries
By availability of formal care
By division of household chores
Skip

Results
In CEE countries more marked change in opinions
Eﬀects vary by country, very large in Lithuania, smaller in Poland.
Estimates are not precisely estimated (N < 1000 in most cases)
WE countries are not all same (German speaking vs France)
See table
Skip

Results
GGS reports whether children receive institutionalized care
Estimate the share of households that use any form of care
Low formal care → ↑ more traditional norms
See table
Skip

Results
GGS reports division of HH chores in 7 domains
Estimate the share of households tasks done mostly or only by
women
High share of tasks done by women
↑ increase in traditional roles for both
Strongest for child suﬀers ....
See table
Skip

Results
Heterogeneity analysis: by respondents characteristics
By age at ﬁrst birth
By education status
By labor market status
By partnership status
Skip

Results
Below vs above median age at ﬁrst birth
↑ ”Need to have children to be fulﬁlled” for older cohorts
↑ ”Job priority for parents” for younger cohorts
∼ change in job priority for men ... but p-values>.15
See table
By education status
Skip

Results
By education status
Completed tertiary in ﬁrst wave vs. not completed
↑ change in job priority for men for less educated women
p-values∼.15
↑ ”child suﬀers if mother works” among men with tertiary
See table
Skip

Results
By education status
Employed respondents vs. non-employed
↑ Need for a child among employed respondents
↑ ”child suﬀers if mother works” among employed men
↑ ”job priority for women” among non-employed women ... but
p-values>.15
See table
Skip

Results
By education status
Respondents living with a cohabiting partner vs. partner not in
household
↑ Results stronger in non-partnered households
↑ ”Child suﬀers ...” among partnered men.
Is marriage driving change? No
See table
Skip

Results
Attitudes unrelated to childbirth
Women Men
Homosexual couples -0.009 -0.012
(0.02) (0.02)
People can be trusted -0.014 -0.009
(0.03) (0.03)
People take adv. 0.008 0.026
(0.04) (0.03)
Divorce with children 0.013 0.003
(0.02) (0.02)
Single mothers -0.031 -0.023
(0.02) (0.03)

Concluding remarks
Concluding remarks
Results expand literature on child gap by looking at how other
outcomes are affected
Attitudes towards traditional gender norms change after childbirth
→ agreement that children are required to be fulfilled
→ agreement that children suffer if mother works (men)
→ Men priority if jobs are scarce (women)
Evidence of cross-country heterogeneity in these answers
→ agreement stronger in CEE
→ agreement stronger if lack of formal care / help
Individual heterogeneity
Disadvantaged groups →↑ agree with job priority for men
Advantaged groups →↑ agree with satisfaction of having a child

Concluding remarks
Questions (?)

Concluding remarks
Questions (?)
Thank you for your attention
w: grape.org.pl
t: grape org
f: grape.org
e: lvandervelde@grape.org.pl

References
Berrington, A., Hu, Y., Smith, P. W. F. and Sturgis, P.: 2008, A graphical chain
model for reciprocal relationships between women’s gender role attitudes and labour
force participation, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in
Society) 171(1), 89–108.
URL:
https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2007.00510.x
Borrell-Porta, M., Costa-Font, J. and Philipp, J.: 2019, The ‘mighty girl’ effect: does
parenting daughters alter attitudes towards gender norms?, Oxford Economic
Papers 71(1), 25–46.
URL: https://academic.oup.com/oep/article/71/1/25/5237459
Charles, K. K., Guryan, J. and Pan, J.: 2018, The effects of sexism on american
women: The role of norms vs. discrimination, Technical report.
Cukrowska-Torzewska, E. and Matysiak, A.: 2020, The motherhood wage penalty: A
meta-analysis, Social Science Research 88-89, 102416.
Cunningham, M.: 2008, Changing Attitudes toward the Male Breadwinner, Female
Homemaker Family Model: Influences of Women’s Employment and Education over
the Lifecourse, Social Forces 87(1), 299–323.
URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20430858
Imai, K. and Ratkovic, M.: 2013, Covariate balancing propensity score, Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 76(1), 243–263.
Kleven, H., Landais, C., Posch, J., Steinhauer, A. and Zweimüller, J.: 2019, Child
penalties across countries: Evidence and explanations, Working Paper 25524,
National Bureau of Economic Research.

Appendix
Kleven, H., Landais, C. and Søgaard, J. E.: 2019, Children and gender inequality:
Evidence from denmark, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics
11(4), 181–209.
Kranton, R. E.: 2016, Identity economics 2016: Where do social distinctions and
norms come from?, American Economic Review 106(5), 405–09.
Kuziemko, I., Pan, J., Shen, J. and Washington, E.: 2018, The mommy effect: Do
women anticipate the employment effects of motherhood?, Technical report.
Perales, F., Lersch, P. M. and Baxter, J.: 2019, Birth cohort, ageing and gender
ideology: Lessons from British panel data, Social Science Research 79, 85–100.
URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X18304472
Polachek, S.: 1981, Occupational self-selection: A human capital approach to sex
differences in occupational structure, The Review of Economics and Statistics
63(1), 60–69.
Schober, P. and Scott, J.: 2012, Maternal employment and gender role attitudes:
dissonance among British men and women in the transition to parenthood:, Work,
Employment and Society .
URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0950017012438577
Seguino, S.: 2007, PlusÇa change? evidence on global trends in gender norms and
stereotypes, Feminist Economics 13(2), 1–28.
Smith, J. A. and Todd, P. E.: 2005, Does matching overcome LaLonde’s critique of
nonexperimental estimators?, Journal of Econometrics 125(1-2), 305–353.
Steinhauer, A.: 2018, Working Moms, Childlessness, and Female Identity, CEPR
Discussion Papers 12929, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

Appendix
Sample selection by country
Country All In wave 2 & in 20’s & Childless
Austria 5000 3918 1468 1042
Bulgaria 12858 9363 2316 1255
Czechia 10006 9723 2211 1507
France 10079 8643 1562 1097
Georgia 10000 9845 2136 1216
Germany 10017 3977 556 370
Hungary 13540 10641 2510 1653
Lithuania 10036 9877 2003 1236
Poland 19987 12952 1949 1091
Russia 11261 10736 2164 1001
Total 112784 89675 18875 11468
Back

Appendix
Are parents and non-parents diﬀerent? Yes
Wave 1 Wave 2
Parents No Yes No Yes
Demographics
Female 0.43 0.53 0.43 0.53
Age 25.56 26.72 28.91 30.14
Married 0.06 0.31 0.14 0.67
Education
Primary 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
Secondary 0.64 0.59 0.47 0.50
Tertiary 0.28 0.33 0.45 0.42
Labor Market Status
WE or SE 0.60 0.76 0.66 0.69
Family workers 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.17
Unemployed 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.08
Inactive 0.25 0.10 0.10 0.06
Back to threats

Appendix
Role of the family
4 When jobs are scarce, men have more right than women
6 Being a housewife is just as fulﬁlling as a paid job
than childless
Back to diﬀerences
Pre-trends

Appendix
More on pre-trends
What is the right threshold for pre-period?
Women Men
Linear Quad Cubic Linear Quad Cubic
Discontinuity 6 months before birth
Outcome 1 0.000 0.643 0.581 0.582 0.384 0.285
Outcome 2 0.273 1.058 1.277 0.088 0.100 0.080
Outcome 3 0.014 0.513 0.403 1.406 1.318 1.012
Outcome 4 0.048 1.474 1.407 0.179 0.152 0.152
Outcome 5 0.087 0.049 0.065 0.423 0.212 0.808
Outcome 6 2.214 1.822 1.432 2.013 1.582 3.731∗∗
Outcome 7 0.058 2.512∗
1.831 0.581 2.664∗
2.156∗
Discontinuity 12 months before birth
Outcome 1 0.220 0.472 0.827 1.115 0.573 0.416
Outcome 2 0.356 0.207 0.350 0.005 0.254 0.183
Outcome 3 0.233 0.473 0.364 2.687 1.391 0.969
Outcome 4 0.013 3.350∗∗
2.237∗
0.010 0.008 0.024
Outcome 5 0.507 1.110 0.739 0.157 0.325 1.013
Outcome 6 3.084∗
1.837 1.853 0.208 0.696 1.249
Outcome 7 0.558 1.967 1.598 0.303 0.831 0.754

Appendix
Even more on pre-trends0.05.1.15.2
Density/Pr(agree|time)
−36 −24 −12 0
Months to childbirth
(−12 = 1 year before)
When jobs are scarce, men have priority
Signiﬁcant diﬀerences appear to be driven by very early observations
Sample composition issues
Pre-trends

Appendix
Heterogeneity: Working in the ﬁrst wave
Women Men
Y N Y N
Women & family life
Woman needs a child ... 0.052 ** 0.030 0.022 -0.001
(0.02) (0.33) (0.34) (0.98)
Man needs a child ... 0.032 -0.001 0.062 *** -0.020
(0.17) (0.99) (0.01) (0.63)
Child suﬀers ... -0.002 0.066 0.067 ** 0.021
(0.93) (0.12) (0.03) (0.67)
Women & work realm
Job priority: men 0.015 0.045 0.005 -0.028
(0.43) (0.19) (0.85) (0.53)
Woman earns more ... -0.016 0.040 -0.008 -0.048
(0.47) (0.22) (0.72) (0.29)
Being a housemaker ... 0.019 0.043 0.002 0.117 **
(0.51) (0.33) (0.93) (0.03)
Job priority: parents 0.071 ** 0.078 * 0.050 * 0.044
(0.02) (0.05) (0.09) (0.36)
Notes: DiD estimates with individual FE. SE clustered at the individual level. ***, **, * denote
pvalues < 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1.

Appendix
Heterogeneity: Completed tert. studies in the ﬁrst wave
Women Men
Y N Y N
Women & family life
Woman needs a child ... 0.084 *** 0.020 0.021 0.016
(0.00) (0.39) (0.58) (0.50)
Man needs a child ... 0.041 0.009 0.010 0.057 **
(0.16) (0.72) (0.80) (0.01)
Child suﬀers ... 0.035 0.004 0.127 *** 0.018
(0.33) (0.90) (0.01) (0.57)
Women & work realm
Job priority: men 0.001 0.038 0.047 -0.017
(0.96) (0.10) (0.22) (0.53)
Woman earns more ... 0.023 -0.010 0.007 -0.034
(0.40) (0.68) (0.85) (0.16)
Being a housemaker ... -0.001 0.041 0.065 0.024
(0.98) (0.19) (0.19) (0.42)
Job priority: parents 0.076 ** 0.082 *** 0.004 0.080 ***
(0.04) (0.01) (0.92) (0.01)
pvalues < 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1.

Appendix
Heterogeneity: below median age at ﬁrst birth
Women Men
Y N Y N
Women & family life
Woman needs a child ... 0.022 0.064 ** -0.031 0.050 *
(0.36) (0.03) (0.36) (0.07)
Man needs a child ... -0.031 0.072 ** 0.028 0.066 **
(0.25) (0.02) (0.40) (0.01)
Child suﬀers ... 0.023 0.007 0.065 0.037
(0.47) (0.85) (0.11) (0.30)
Women & work realm
Job priority: men 0.027 0.020 -0.037 0.021
(0.25) (0.43) (0.30) (0.48)
Woman earns more ... 0.002 -0.022 -0.052 0.001
(0.95) (0.44) (0.10) (0.98)
Being a housemaker ... 0.027 0.015 0.084 ** 0.015
(0.44) (0.70) (0.04) (0.68)
Job priority: parents 0.087 *** 0.057 0.100 ** 0.020
(0.01) (0.11) (0.01) (0.54)
pvalues < 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1.

Appendix
Heterogeneity: has cohabiting partner in the ﬁrst wave
Women Men
Y N Y N
Women & family life
Woman needs a child ... 0.019 0.076 *** -0.015 0.064 **
(0.47) (0.00) (0.64) (0.02)
Man needs a child ... 0.031 0.045 -0.012 0.102 ***
(0.30) (0.11) (0.72) (0.00)
Child suﬀers ... 0.004 0.063 * 0.132 *** 0.027
(0.92) (0.06) (0.00) (0.46)
Women & work realm
Job priority: men 0.019 0.052 * 0.012 0.011
(0.44) (0.05) (0.73) (0.73)
Woman earns more ... -0.014 0.004 -0.048 0.001
(0.61) (0.87) (0.12) (0.98)
Being a housemaker ... 0.009 0.045 0.056 0.046
(0.81) (0.19) (0.20) (0.21)
Job priority: parents 0.065 * 0.071 * 0.041 0.061 *
(0.07) (0.05) (0.30) (0.09)
pvalues < 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1.

Appendix
Heterogeneity: wants to have a child in ﬁrst wave
Women Men
Y N Y N
Women & family life
Woman needs a child ... 0.028 0.005 0.078 0.026
(0.55) (0.92) (0.11) (0.61)
Man needs a child ... -0.003 -0.023 0.074 0.032
(0.95) (0.58) (0.13) (0.54)
Child suﬀers ... 0.027 -0.022 0.104 * 0.026
(0.64) (0.63) (0.07) (0.67)
Women & work realm
Job priority: men 0.010 -0.005 0.015 0.004
(0.81) (0.85) (0.77) (0.92)
Woman earns more ... -0.015 -0.018 -0.050 -0.033
(0.73) (0.62) (0.28) (0.31)
Being a housemaker ... 0.067 0.054 0.048 0.031
(0.26) (0.29) (0.44) (0.58)
Job priority: parents 0.096 0.119 ** 0.011 0.086
(0.11) (0.01) (0.85) (0.15)
pvalues < 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1.

Appendix
Heterogeneity: CEE vs Western countries
Women Men
Y N Y N
Women & family life
Woman needs a child ... 0.065 *** 0.013 0.028 -0.027
(0.00) (0.67) (0.21) (0.51)
Man needs a child ... 0.035 0.001 0.050 ** 0.015
(0.15) (0.97) (0.03) (0.71)
Child suﬀers ... 0.058 * -0.032 0.097 *** -0.059
(0.07) (0.32) (0.00) (0.20)
Women & work realm
Job priority: men 0.039 0.007 0.008 -0.023
(0.14) (0.66) (0.78) (0.44)
Woman earns more ... 0.007 -0.003 -0.014 -0.045 *
(0.80) (0.91) (0.59) (0.06)
Being a housemaker ... 0.044 -0.005 0.052 * -0.007
(0.16) (0.89) (0.09) (0.89)
Job priority: parents 0.088 *** 0.071 ** 0.055 * 0.044
(0.01) (0.04) (0.07) (0.31)
pvalues < 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1. CEE: Bulgaria, Czechia, Georgia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Russia.
Non-CEE: Austria, Germany, France.
Back

Appendix
Diff-in-diff results: Access to formal care
Women Men
Below Above Below Above
Women & family life
Woman needs a child ... 0.077 *** 0.029 0.051 * -0.020
(0.01) (0.17) (0.07) (0.46)
Man needs a child ... 0.076 ** -0.013 0.067 ** 0.019
(0.01) (0.59) (0.02) (0.48)
Child suffers ... 0.056 -0.013 0.107 *** -0.037
(0.11) (0.66) (0.00) (0.36)
Women & work realm
Job priority: men 0.039 0.007 0.008 -0.023
(0.14) (0.66) (0.78) (0.44)
Woman earns more ... -0.012 0.019 -0.018 -0.030
(0.68) (0.41) (0.52) (0.23)
Being a housemaker ... 0.044 0.005 0.061 * -0.009
(0.20) (0.88) (0.06) (0.83)
Job priority: parents 0.088 *** 0.071 ** 0.055 * 0.044
(0.01) (0.04) (0.07) (0.31)
Notes: DiD estimates with individual FE. Below and Above indicate countries’ position relative to
median . SE clustered at the individual level. ***, **, * denote pvalues < 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1.
P-values in parentheses.
Back

Appendix
Diff-in-diff results: Female share of household chores
Women Men
Above Below Above Below
Women & family life
Woman needs a child ... 0.062 *** 0.039 0.023 0.004
(0.01) (0.13) (0.34) (0.91)
Man needs a child ... 0.028 0.023 0.028 0.064 *
(0.33) (0.37) (0.24) (0.06)
Child suffers ... 0.069 * -0.007 0.091 *** 0.007
(0.08) (0.81) (0.01) (0.85)
Women & work realm
Job priority: men 0.050 0.017 0.023 -0.021
(0.21) (0.31) (0.54) (0.45)
Woman earns more ... 0.049 -0.025 -0.010 -0.035 *
(0.14) (0.25) (0.77) (0.08)
Being a housemaker ... 0.070 * 0.000 0.065 * 0.006
(0.08) (0.99) (0.08) (0.86)
Job priority: parents 0.096 ** 0.075 *** 0.061 * 0.044
(0.03) (0.01) (0.10) (0.20)
Notes: DiD estimates with individual FE. Below and Above indicate countries’ position relative
to median. SE clustered at the individual level. ***, **, * denote pvalues < 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1.
P-values in parentheses.
Back

Childbearing and attitudes towards gender norms

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Childbearing and attitudes towards gender norms

Similar to Childbearing and attitudes towards gender norms (20)

More from GRAPE

More from GRAPE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Childbearing and attitudes towards gender norms