arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2604.13896

Gender, Unpaid Work, and Social Norms in Young Italian Families: Evidence from Couples Time Diaries

Abstract

Why do large gender inequalities in everyday life persist even as women strengthen their attachment to paid work? Existing evidence shows that women continue to do more unpaid work than men, but much of that evidence is based on individual diaries, says little about how inequality is jointly organized within couples, and rarely links daily time allocation to directly measured gender attitudes. This paper addresses that gap using the TIMES Observatory, an original survey of 1,928 co-resident couples with at least one child younger than 11 in Emilia-Romagna or Campania. The data combine matched partner diaries for one weekday and one weekend day with rich socio-economic information and direct measures of gender norms. We document three main findings. First, women do substantially more unpaid work and spend more time with children, while men do more paid work and enjoy more leisure without children. Second, these asymmetries remain sizeable even among dual full-time couples, implying that stronger female labor-market attachment does not by itself equalize daily life. Third, more traditional gender attitudes - especially among men - are descriptively associated with lower male participation in childcare and domestic work and with wider gaps in discretionary leisure. The analysis is descriptive rather than causal, but it shows that gender inequality within couples is visible not only in the amount of work performed, but also in the distribution of time that is genuinely discretionary.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C. Monfardini, E. Pisanelli. 2026-04-15. Gender, Unpaid Work, and Social Norms in Young Italian Families: Evidence from Couples Time Diaries. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.13896

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN