{"title":"创业家庭中的父权制寻租:美国黑人和白人夫妇的企业所有权和家务负担考察","authors":"Sarah F. Small","doi":"10.1080/13545701.2023.2250811","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThis article studies the relationship between unpaid housework and business ownership in the United States. To examine this empirically, it uses Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) data from 1985 to 2019 to document patterns in household production among business-owning households, with a special focus on Black and White opposite-sex couples in the United States. Descriptive evidence suggests that in married White couples, husbands face lower housework hours when owning a business compared to those who do not. However, this result does not hold for Black men. In fact, among Black couples, results suggest positive associations between wives’ business ownership and their housework hours. These results suggest the presence of patriarchal social norms allows White entrepreneurial men to extract rents: White men’s entrepreneurship may be propped up by their unique ability to recede from domestic responsibilities, a notion consistent with theories on patriarchal rent seeking.HIGHLIGHTSAmong US couples, less time spent on housework may provide advantages for entrepreneurs.White businesses-owning husbands are afforded reduced housework relative to peers.This phenomenon is unique among White men.Black businesses-owning wives do more housework than non-entrepreneuring peers.Industry selection does not explain away this trend among Black women.Race and gender hierarchies allow White men more resources in entrepreneurship.Small-business policymakers should work to alleviate inequities in unpaid work.KEYWORDS: Entrepreneurshipfeminist economicshousehold bargaininghouseworkpatriarchal rent seekingracial inequalityJEL Codes: L26B54D13 ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and Dr. Elissa Braunstein for their guidance on earlier versions of this work, as well as the audience members at the 2021 International Association for Feminist Economics Conference and the Western States Graduate Student Workshop where this paper was presented.Notes1 The term intersectionality refers to the critical insight that race, class, gender, and other social categories “operate not as unitary, mutually exclusive entities, but as reciprocally constructing phenomena that in turn shape complex social inequalities” (Hill Collins Citation2015: 2). Experts in intersectional theory suggest that researchers “must analyze each structural inequality separately, as well as simultaneously” (Bowleg Citation2008: 319).2 Business ownership can lead to tensions around fair allocations of labor in the home. Sharon Danes and Erin Morgan (Citation2004) find that business-owning husbands and wives report conflicts related to work-family life balance and unfair distributions of resources (that is, money, time, energy) between family and business systems.3 Social reproduction theorists examine the relationship between patriarchy and capitalism and offers a distinct perspective that considers housework as reproductive labor: part of what creates and sustains workers (Fraser Citation2017).4 Additionally, within Black US couples, there is a long history of role sharing and fluidity in work that can be traced to the slavery era (Sayer and Fine Citation2011).5 PSID does not include information on whether one or more of the household members is transgender and only began explicitly identifying same-sex couples in 2015. I also use American Time Use Data in subsequent robustness checks.6 Businesses include both incorporated and unincorporated businesses. Unfortunately, PSID does not include information on whether or not a business is run out of the home, though these data would be very useful for this analysis.7 Hausmann tests indicate that fixed effects models are appropriate for both Models 1 and 2.8 Bootstrapped standard errors (rather than clustered) or standard errors clustered at the state level do not meaningfully change regression results.9 Married couples who are subsequently separated or divorced are removed from the sample. Analyses of the interactions between housework, entrepreneurship, and marital stability are worth pursuing in future research but are beyond the scope of this study, which aims to focus on behavior within the marriage contract.10 While PSID goes back to 1969, I drop data before 1985 in this study because this is when the survey began using a consistent measure for race. Since 1985, PSID respondents have been able to indicate more than one race.11 In these data, the sample sizes of mixed-race couples are very small: 82 percent of unmarried Black men in an opposite-sex couple are partnered with a Black woman, and 91 percent of unmarried White men in an opposite-sex couple are partnered with a White woman. Among opposite-sex married couples, 93 percent of Black men are married to a Black woman, and 97 percent of White men are married to a White woman.12 PSID asked whether a household received help (paid or unpaid) with housework from outside the family unit only during the years 1968 to 1972. This analysis, which span 1985 to 2019, therefore does not include direct analyses of housework outsourced to paid laborers.13 This model is constructed similarly to the event study model from Betsy Stevenson and Justin Wolfers (Citation2006).14 Appendix 3 shows these figures when the independent variables of interest are time before and during wives’ business ownership (as opposed to husbands’, shown here). I do not present them here because they are not statistically significant results.15 While time-use data in ATUS have a large proportion of zeros for time spent on specific types of activity, previous research using time-diary data finds OLS models yield unbiased estimates, but estimates from tobit and two-part models are often bias (Stewart Citation2013). Felix Muchomba and Neeraj Kaushal (Citation2022) explain that this may be because the zeros in time-use data arise not from censoring but from a short reference period (for example, just one day in the case of ATUS).Additional informationNotes on contributorsSarah F. SmallSarah F. Small is Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Utah. Her research interests include intrahousehold bargaining, care markets, the occupational crowding hypothesis, history of feminist economic thought, and feminist methodology. She earned her PhD from Colorado State University and held a postdoc at the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University.","PeriodicalId":47715,"journal":{"name":"Feminist Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patriarchal Rent Seeking in Entrepreneurial Households: An Examination of Business Ownership and Housework Burdens in Black and White US Couples\",\"authors\":\"Sarah F. Small\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13545701.2023.2250811\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AbstractThis article studies the relationship between unpaid housework and business ownership in the United States. To examine this empirically, it uses Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) data from 1985 to 2019 to document patterns in household production among business-owning households, with a special focus on Black and White opposite-sex couples in the United States. Descriptive evidence suggests that in married White couples, husbands face lower housework hours when owning a business compared to those who do not. However, this result does not hold for Black men. In fact, among Black couples, results suggest positive associations between wives’ business ownership and their housework hours. These results suggest the presence of patriarchal social norms allows White entrepreneurial men to extract rents: White men’s entrepreneurship may be propped up by their unique ability to recede from domestic responsibilities, a notion consistent with theories on patriarchal rent seeking.HIGHLIGHTSAmong US couples, less time spent on housework may provide advantages for entrepreneurs.White businesses-owning husbands are afforded reduced housework relative to peers.This phenomenon is unique among White men.Black businesses-owning wives do more housework than non-entrepreneuring peers.Industry selection does not explain away this trend among Black women.Race and gender hierarchies allow White men more resources in entrepreneurship.Small-business policymakers should work to alleviate inequities in unpaid work.KEYWORDS: Entrepreneurshipfeminist economicshousehold bargaininghouseworkpatriarchal rent seekingracial inequalityJEL Codes: L26B54D13 ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and Dr. Elissa Braunstein for their guidance on earlier versions of this work, as well as the audience members at the 2021 International Association for Feminist Economics Conference and the Western States Graduate Student Workshop where this paper was presented.Notes1 The term intersectionality refers to the critical insight that race, class, gender, and other social categories “operate not as unitary, mutually exclusive entities, but as reciprocally constructing phenomena that in turn shape complex social inequalities” (Hill Collins Citation2015: 2). Experts in intersectional theory suggest that researchers “must analyze each structural inequality separately, as well as simultaneously” (Bowleg Citation2008: 319).2 Business ownership can lead to tensions around fair allocations of labor in the home. Sharon Danes and Erin Morgan (Citation2004) find that business-owning husbands and wives report conflicts related to work-family life balance and unfair distributions of resources (that is, money, time, energy) between family and business systems.3 Social reproduction theorists examine the relationship between patriarchy and capitalism and offers a distinct perspective that considers housework as reproductive labor: part of what creates and sustains workers (Fraser Citation2017).4 Additionally, within Black US couples, there is a long history of role sharing and fluidity in work that can be traced to the slavery era (Sayer and Fine Citation2011).5 PSID does not include information on whether one or more of the household members is transgender and only began explicitly identifying same-sex couples in 2015. I also use American Time Use Data in subsequent robustness checks.6 Businesses include both incorporated and unincorporated businesses. Unfortunately, PSID does not include information on whether or not a business is run out of the home, though these data would be very useful for this analysis.7 Hausmann tests indicate that fixed effects models are appropriate for both Models 1 and 2.8 Bootstrapped standard errors (rather than clustered) or standard errors clustered at the state level do not meaningfully change regression results.9 Married couples who are subsequently separated or divorced are removed from the sample. Analyses of the interactions between housework, entrepreneurship, and marital stability are worth pursuing in future research but are beyond the scope of this study, which aims to focus on behavior within the marriage contract.10 While PSID goes back to 1969, I drop data before 1985 in this study because this is when the survey began using a consistent measure for race. Since 1985, PSID respondents have been able to indicate more than one race.11 In these data, the sample sizes of mixed-race couples are very small: 82 percent of unmarried Black men in an opposite-sex couple are partnered with a Black woman, and 91 percent of unmarried White men in an opposite-sex couple are partnered with a White woman. Among opposite-sex married couples, 93 percent of Black men are married to a Black woman, and 97 percent of White men are married to a White woman.12 PSID asked whether a household received help (paid or unpaid) with housework from outside the family unit only during the years 1968 to 1972. This analysis, which span 1985 to 2019, therefore does not include direct analyses of housework outsourced to paid laborers.13 This model is constructed similarly to the event study model from Betsy Stevenson and Justin Wolfers (Citation2006).14 Appendix 3 shows these figures when the independent variables of interest are time before and during wives’ business ownership (as opposed to husbands’, shown here). I do not present them here because they are not statistically significant results.15 While time-use data in ATUS have a large proportion of zeros for time spent on specific types of activity, previous research using time-diary data finds OLS models yield unbiased estimates, but estimates from tobit and two-part models are often bias (Stewart Citation2013). Felix Muchomba and Neeraj Kaushal (Citation2022) explain that this may be because the zeros in time-use data arise not from censoring but from a short reference period (for example, just one day in the case of ATUS).Additional informationNotes on contributorsSarah F. SmallSarah F. Small is Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Utah. Her research interests include intrahousehold bargaining, care markets, the occupational crowding hypothesis, history of feminist economic thought, and feminist methodology. She earned her PhD from Colorado State University and held a postdoc at the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47715,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Feminist Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Feminist Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2023.2250811\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Feminist Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2023.2250811","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
因此,这项分析的时间跨度为1985年至2019年,不包括对外包给有偿劳动者的家务劳动的直接分析该模型的构建类似于Betsy Stevenson和Justin Wolfers (Citation2006)的事件研究模型附录3显示了当自变量为妻子拥有企业之前和期间(与丈夫相反,如图所示)时的这些数据。我没有在这里展示它们,因为它们不是统计上显著的结果虽然ATUS中的时间使用数据在特定类型的活动上花费的时间中有很大比例的零,但先前使用时间日记数据的研究发现OLS模型产生无偏估计,但来自tobit和两部分模型的估计通常是有偏差的(Stewart Citation2013)。Felix Muchomba和Neeraj Kaushal (Citation2022)解释说,这可能是因为时间使用数据中的零不是来自审查,而是来自较短的参考周期(例如,在ATUS的情况下,只有一天)。本文作者sarah F. Small是犹他大学的经济学助理教授。她的研究兴趣包括家庭内部讨价还价、护理市场、职业拥挤假说、女性主义经济思想史和女性主义方法论。她在科罗拉多州立大学获得博士学位,并在罗格斯大学妇女与工作中心获得博士后学位。
Patriarchal Rent Seeking in Entrepreneurial Households: An Examination of Business Ownership and Housework Burdens in Black and White US Couples
AbstractThis article studies the relationship between unpaid housework and business ownership in the United States. To examine this empirically, it uses Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) data from 1985 to 2019 to document patterns in household production among business-owning households, with a special focus on Black and White opposite-sex couples in the United States. Descriptive evidence suggests that in married White couples, husbands face lower housework hours when owning a business compared to those who do not. However, this result does not hold for Black men. In fact, among Black couples, results suggest positive associations between wives’ business ownership and their housework hours. These results suggest the presence of patriarchal social norms allows White entrepreneurial men to extract rents: White men’s entrepreneurship may be propped up by their unique ability to recede from domestic responsibilities, a notion consistent with theories on patriarchal rent seeking.HIGHLIGHTSAmong US couples, less time spent on housework may provide advantages for entrepreneurs.White businesses-owning husbands are afforded reduced housework relative to peers.This phenomenon is unique among White men.Black businesses-owning wives do more housework than non-entrepreneuring peers.Industry selection does not explain away this trend among Black women.Race and gender hierarchies allow White men more resources in entrepreneurship.Small-business policymakers should work to alleviate inequities in unpaid work.KEYWORDS: Entrepreneurshipfeminist economicshousehold bargaininghouseworkpatriarchal rent seekingracial inequalityJEL Codes: L26B54D13 ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and Dr. Elissa Braunstein for their guidance on earlier versions of this work, as well as the audience members at the 2021 International Association for Feminist Economics Conference and the Western States Graduate Student Workshop where this paper was presented.Notes1 The term intersectionality refers to the critical insight that race, class, gender, and other social categories “operate not as unitary, mutually exclusive entities, but as reciprocally constructing phenomena that in turn shape complex social inequalities” (Hill Collins Citation2015: 2). Experts in intersectional theory suggest that researchers “must analyze each structural inequality separately, as well as simultaneously” (Bowleg Citation2008: 319).2 Business ownership can lead to tensions around fair allocations of labor in the home. Sharon Danes and Erin Morgan (Citation2004) find that business-owning husbands and wives report conflicts related to work-family life balance and unfair distributions of resources (that is, money, time, energy) between family and business systems.3 Social reproduction theorists examine the relationship between patriarchy and capitalism and offers a distinct perspective that considers housework as reproductive labor: part of what creates and sustains workers (Fraser Citation2017).4 Additionally, within Black US couples, there is a long history of role sharing and fluidity in work that can be traced to the slavery era (Sayer and Fine Citation2011).5 PSID does not include information on whether one or more of the household members is transgender and only began explicitly identifying same-sex couples in 2015. I also use American Time Use Data in subsequent robustness checks.6 Businesses include both incorporated and unincorporated businesses. Unfortunately, PSID does not include information on whether or not a business is run out of the home, though these data would be very useful for this analysis.7 Hausmann tests indicate that fixed effects models are appropriate for both Models 1 and 2.8 Bootstrapped standard errors (rather than clustered) or standard errors clustered at the state level do not meaningfully change regression results.9 Married couples who are subsequently separated or divorced are removed from the sample. Analyses of the interactions between housework, entrepreneurship, and marital stability are worth pursuing in future research but are beyond the scope of this study, which aims to focus on behavior within the marriage contract.10 While PSID goes back to 1969, I drop data before 1985 in this study because this is when the survey began using a consistent measure for race. Since 1985, PSID respondents have been able to indicate more than one race.11 In these data, the sample sizes of mixed-race couples are very small: 82 percent of unmarried Black men in an opposite-sex couple are partnered with a Black woman, and 91 percent of unmarried White men in an opposite-sex couple are partnered with a White woman. Among opposite-sex married couples, 93 percent of Black men are married to a Black woman, and 97 percent of White men are married to a White woman.12 PSID asked whether a household received help (paid or unpaid) with housework from outside the family unit only during the years 1968 to 1972. This analysis, which span 1985 to 2019, therefore does not include direct analyses of housework outsourced to paid laborers.13 This model is constructed similarly to the event study model from Betsy Stevenson and Justin Wolfers (Citation2006).14 Appendix 3 shows these figures when the independent variables of interest are time before and during wives’ business ownership (as opposed to husbands’, shown here). I do not present them here because they are not statistically significant results.15 While time-use data in ATUS have a large proportion of zeros for time spent on specific types of activity, previous research using time-diary data finds OLS models yield unbiased estimates, but estimates from tobit and two-part models are often bias (Stewart Citation2013). Felix Muchomba and Neeraj Kaushal (Citation2022) explain that this may be because the zeros in time-use data arise not from censoring but from a short reference period (for example, just one day in the case of ATUS).Additional informationNotes on contributorsSarah F. SmallSarah F. Small is Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Utah. Her research interests include intrahousehold bargaining, care markets, the occupational crowding hypothesis, history of feminist economic thought, and feminist methodology. She earned her PhD from Colorado State University and held a postdoc at the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University.
期刊介绍:
Feminist Economics is a peer-reviewed journal that provides an open forum for dialogue and debate about feminist economic perspectives. By opening new areas of economic inquiry, welcoming diverse voices, and encouraging critical exchanges, the journal enlarges and enriches economic discourse. The goal of Feminist Economics is not just to develop more illuminating theories but to improve the conditions of living for all children, women, and men. Feminist Economics: -Advances feminist inquiry into economic issues affecting the lives of children, women, and men -Examines the relationship between gender and power in the economy and the construction and legitimization of economic knowledge -Extends feminist theoretical, historical, and methodological contributions to economics and the economy -Offers feminist insights into the underlying constructs of the economics discipline and into the historical, political, and cultural context of economic knowledge -Provides a feminist rethinking of theory and policy in diverse fields, including those not directly related to gender -Stimulates discussions among diverse scholars worldwide and from a broad spectrum of intellectual traditions, welcoming cross-disciplinary and cross-country perspectives, especially from countries in the South