Housework task hierarchies in 32 countries

European Sociological Review

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 780-791

  Tai, Tsui O ^a   Treas, Judith ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84882341221     PISSN: 02667215     EISSN: 14682672     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/esr/jcs057     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Aboim, S. (2010). Gender cultures and the division of labor in contemporary Europe: a cross-national perspective. European Sociological Review, 58, 171-196.
2. Baxter, J., Hewitt, B. and Haynes, M. (2008). Life course transitions and housework: marriage, parenthood, and time on housework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 259-272.
3. Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2004). Families in a runaway world. In Jacqueline, S., Treas, J. and Richards, M. (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Families. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 498-514.
4. Becker, G. (1981). A Treatise on Family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
5. Berk, S. (1985). The Gender Factory: The Apportionment of Work in American Households. New York: Plenum.
6. Bianchi, S. M. et al. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79, 191-228.
7. Bittman, M. et al. (2003). When does gender trump money? Bargaining and time in household work. American Journal of Sociology, 109, 35-46.
8. Blair, S. L. and Lichter, D. T. (1991). Measuring the division of household labor: gender segregation of housework among American couples. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 91-113.
9. Bonoli, J. (1997). Classifying welfare states: a two-dimension approach. Journal of Social Policy, 26, 351-372.
10. Brines, J. (1993). The exchange value of housework. Rationality and Society, 5, 302-340.
11. Buhlmann, F., Elcheroth, G. and Tettamanti, M. (2009). The division of labor among European couples: the effects of life course and welfare policy on value-practice configurations. European Sociological Review, 26, 49-66.
12. Charles, M. and Cech, E. (2010). Beliefs about maternal employment. In Treas, J. and Drobnič, S. (Eds.), Dividing the Domestic: Men, Women, and Household Work in Cross-National Perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 147-174.
13. Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 848-861.
14. Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor: modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1208-1233.
15. Cooke, L. P. (2006). Policy, preferences, and patriarchy: the division of domestic labor in East Germany, West Germany, and the United States. Social Politics, 13, 117-143.
16. Davis, S. N. and Greenstein, T. N. (2009). Gender ideology: components, predictors, and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 87-105.
17. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
18. Evertsson, M. (2006). The reproduction of gender: housework and attitudes toward gender inequality at home among Swedish boys and girls. British Journal of Sociology, 57, 513-536.
19. Evertsson, M. and Nermo, M. (2007). Changing resources and the division of housework: a longitudinal study of Swedish couples. European Sociological Review, 23, 455-470.
20. Ferrera, M. (1996). The ''Southern Model'' of welfare in social Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 6, 12-37.
21. Fuwa, M. (2004). Macro-level gender inequality and the division of household labor in 22 countries. American Sociological Review, 69, 751-767.
22. Geist, C. (2005). The welfare state and the home: regime differences in the domestic division of labor. European Sociological Review, 21, 23-41.
23. Gershuny, J. (2000). Changing Times: Work and Leisure in Postindustial Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Giddens, A. (1992). The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
25. Gupta, S. (2007). Autonomy, dependence, or display? The relationship between married women's earnings and housework. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 69, 399-417.
26. Hook, J. L. (2010). Gender inequality in the welfare state: sex segregation in housework, 1965-2003. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 1480-1523.
27. International Labor Organization (2009). LABORSTADatabase of Labor Statistics. Available from: [accessed 15 November 2009].
28. Knudsen, K. and Waerness, K. (2008). National context and spouse's housework in 34 countries. European Sociological Review, 24, 97-113.
29. Korpi, W. and Palme, J. (1998). The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: welfare state, institution, inequality, and poverty in the Western Countries. American Sociological Review, 63, 661-687.
30. Lachance-Grzela, M. and Bouchard, G. (2010). Why do women do the lion's share of housework? A decade of research. Sex Roles, 63, 767-780.
31. Lewis, J. (1992). Gender and the development of welfare regimes. Journal of European Social Policy, 2, 159-173.
32. Mokken, R. J. (1971). A Theory and Procedure of Scale Analysis with Applications in Political Research. New York: De Gruyter.
33. Raudenbush, S. W. and Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
34. Ruppanner, L. E. (2008). Fairness and housework: a cross-national comparison. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 39, 509-526.
35. Ruppanner, L. E. (2010). Cross-national reports of housework: an investigation of the gender empowerment measure. Social Science Research, 39, 963-975.
36. Sanchez, L. and Thomson, E. (1997). Becoming mothers and fathers; Parenthood, gender and the division of labor. Gender and Society, 11, 747-762.
37. Sayer, L. (2010). Trends in housework. In Treas, J. and Drobnič, S. (Eds.), Dividing the Domestic: Men, Women, and Household Work in Cross-National Perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 19-38.
38. Schulz, F. and Grunau, D. (2011). Comparing diary and survey estimates on time use. European Sociological Review. Advance Access published on April 22, 2011, doi:10.1093/esr/jcr030.
39. Spitze, G. and Loscocco, K. A. (2000). The labor of sisyphus? Women's and men's reactions to housework. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 1087-1100.
40. Thompson, L. (1991). Family work: women's sense of fairness. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 181-196.
41. Treas, J. (2010). Why study housework?. In Treas, J. and Drobnič, S. (Eds.), Dividing the Domestic: Men, Women, and Household Work in Cross-National Perspective Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 3-18.
42. Treas, J. (2011). Revisiting the Bott thesis on kin networks and marriage. Social Science Research, 40, 716-726.
43. Treas, J. and de Ruijter, E. (2008). Earnings and expenditures on household services in married and cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 796-805.
44. Treas, J. and Drobnič, S. (Eds.), (2010). Dividing the Domestic: Men, Women, and Household Work in Cross-National Perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
45. Treas, J. and Widmer, E. (2000). Married women's employment over the life course: attitudes in cross-national perspective. Social Forces, 79, 1409-1436.
46. Twiggs, J. E., McQuillan, J. and Ferree, M. M. (1999). Meaning and measurement: reconceptualizing measures of the division of household labor. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 712-724.
47. United Nations (2002). Human Development Report 2002: Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented World. Available from: [accessed 20 January 2011].
48. van Schuur, W. H. (2003). Mokken scale analysis: between the Guttman scale and parametric item response theory. Political Analysis, 11, 139-163.
49. Walby, S. (2004). The European Union and gender equality: emergent varieties of gender regime. Social Politics, 11, 4-29.
50. West, C. and Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125-151.
51. Yodanis, C. (2010). The institution of marriage. In Treas, J. and Drobnič, S. (Eds.), Dividing the Domestic: Men, Women, and Household Work in Cross-National Perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 175-191.