Who brings home the bacon? The influence of context on partners' contributions to the household income

Abstract

Background: Female-breadwinner families represent a relatively new phenomenon in Europe. Little is known about the determinants of this couple type, which sensibly diverts from the traditional economic superiority of men within the household.

Objective: This paper studies the contextual correlates of partners’ contribution to the household income, distinguishing between female-breadwinner, male-breadwinner, and equal-income couples. In particular, it focuses on the role of male unemployment rate and the prevalence of gender-egalitarian attitudes as possible explanations for the emergence of female-breadwinner and equal-income couples across European regions and countries.

Methods: Using data from the fifth round (2010/2011) of the European Social Survey, integrated with data from the Eurostat database, we model the categorical variable identifying the couple type (male-breadwinner, female-breadwinner, or equal-income couple) by using a multilevel multinomial logistic regression model where individuals are nested within regions and countries.

Results: The prevalence of female-breadwinner, male-breadwinner, and equal-income couples varies considerably across European countries as well as within countries. The prevalence of female-breadwinner couples is positively associated with male unemployment, while it is not influenced by the diffusion of gender-egalitarian attitudes. However, the diffusion of gender-egalitarian attitudes matters for explaining the variation in the prevalence of equal-income couples across Europe.

Contribution: We add to the literature on partners’ contributions to household income by analysing the spatial distribution and the contextual correlates of female-breadwinner, male-breadwinner, and equal-income couples across European countries and regions.<br/

Full text

DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH
VOLUME 35, ARTICLE 41, PAGES 1213
−
1244
PUBLISHED 26 OCTOBER 2016
http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol35/41/
DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2016.35.41
Research Article
Who brings home the bacon? The influence of
context on partners’ contributions to the
household income
Agnese Vitali
Bruno Arpino
This publication is part of the Special Collection on “Finding Work-Life
Balance: History, Determinants, and Consequences of New Bread-Winning
Models in the Industrialized World,” organized by Guest Editors Trude
Lappegård, Fran Goldscheider, and Eva Bernhardt.
©2016 Agnese Vitali & Bruno Arpino.
This open-access work is published under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution NonCommercial License 2.0 Germany, which permits use,
reproduction & distribution in any medium for non-commercial purposes,
provided the original author(s) and source are given credit.
See http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/de/

Contents
1
Introduction
1214
2
Background and hypotheses
1215
2.1
Characteristics of female-breadwinner couples
1215
2.2
The role of attitudes towards gender equality
1216
2.3
The role of male unemployment
1217
3
Data and method
1219
3.1
European Social Survey
1219
3.2
Variables used in the regression model
1219
3.3
The multinomial multilevel model
1223
4
Results
1224
4.1
Regression results
1224
4.2
Predicted probabilities
1226
4.2.1
The contextual correlates of male-breadwinner couples
1227
4.2.2
The contextual correlates of female-breadwinner couples
1229
4.2.3
The contextual correlates of equal-income couples
1232
5
Conclusions
1235
6
Acknowledgements
1237
References
1239
Appendix
1244

Demographic Research: Volume 35, Article 41
Research Article
http://www.demographic-research.org 1213
Who brings home the bacon? The influence of context on partners’
contributions to the household income
Agnese Vitali1
Bruno Arpino2
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Female-breadwinner families represent a relatively new phenomenon in Europe. Little
is known about the determinants of this couple type, which sensibly diverts from the
traditional economic superiority of men within the household.
OBJECTIVE
This paper studies the contextual correlates of partners’ contribution to the household
income, distinguishing between female-breadwinner, male-breadwinner, and equal-
income couples. In particular, it focuses on the role of male unemployment rate and the
prevalence of gender-egalitarian attitudes as possible explanations for the emergence of
female-breadwinner and equal-income couples across European regions and countries.
METHOD
Using data from the fifth round (2010/2011) of the European Social Survey, integrated
with data from the Eurostat database, we model the categorical variable identifying the
couple type (male-breadwinner, female-breadwinner, or equal-income couple) by using
a multilevel multinomial logistic regression model where individuals are nested within
regions and countries.
RESULTS
The prevalence of female-breadwinner, male-breadwinner, and equal-income couples
varies considerably across European countries as well as within countries. The
prevalence of female-breadwinner couples is positively associated with male
unemployment, while it is not influenced by the diffusion of gender-egalitarian
attitudes. However, the diffusion of gender-egalitarian attitudes matters for explaining
the variation in the prevalence of equal-income couples across Europe.
1 University of Southampton and ESRC Centre for Population Change, UK. E-Mail: a.vitali@soton.ac.uk.
2 Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain.

Vitali & Arpino: The influence of context on partners’ contributions to the household income
1214 http://www.demographic-research.org
CONTRIBUTION
We add to the literature on partners’ contributions to household income by analysing
the spatial distribution and the contextual correlates of female-breadwinner, male-
breadwinner, and equal-income couples across European countries and regions.
1. Introduction
In the context of the declining male-breadwinner–female-homemaker-model of the
family and the increasing number of dual-income couples, breadwinning women
represent a significant proportion of couples in the developed world today (Winkler,
McBride, and Andrews 2005; Wang, Parker, and Taylor 2013; Wooden and Hahn 2014;
Vitali and Mendola 2014; Klesment and Van Bavel 2015).3
Yet, despite the increasing prevalence of female-breadwinner couples, and despite
the fact that this couple type significantly diverges from the traditional male-
breadwinner model which has characterized families in the developed world for most of
the 20th century (Becker 1981; Esping-Andersen 2009; Ruggles 2015), little is known
about its determinants.
In this paper we contribute to filling a gap in the literature, by studying the
contextual correlates of partners’ contributions to the household income, with particular
emphasis on female-breadwinner couples. Specifically, we study the probability of
belonging to a female-breadwinner couple, i.e., a couple where the woman is the sole or
the main income provider, in comparison to two other couple types: the traditional
male-breadwinner model, i.e., couples where the man is the sole or the main income
provider, and equal-income couples, i.e., couples where both partners provide roughly
an equal share of the household income. We focus on the influence of the context of
region of residence in explaining observed cross-country and within-country differences
in the prevalence of female-breadwinner, male-breadwinner, and equal-income couples
in Europe.
We develop and test two main hypotheses regarding the contextual drivers of the
prevalence of female-breadwinner couples. Inspired by scholars who have used both
cultural and structural interpretations to explain family change (e.g., Lesthaeghe and
Neidert 2006; Esping-Andersen 2009; Gerson 2010; Cherlin 2016), we study the
3 For simplicity, we will use the term ‘female-breadwinner couples’ to identify families where the woman is
the sole income provider as well as those where both partners are income providers but the woman
contributes the largest share of their household income. We acknowledge that the ‘pure’ female-breadwinner
model evokes a specialization of gender roles opposite to that observed in the Beckerian family model, i.e.,
with the woman as the sole income provider (Warren 2007).

Demographic Research: Volume 35, Article 41
http://www.demographic-research.org 1215
emergence of female-breadwinner couples as a by-product of the spread of new gender-
egalitarian attitudes in combination with economic structural or institutional barriers
which hamper men’s employment and earnings.
Our approach follows Drago, Black, and Wooden (2005), who first theorized the
existence of the two heterogeneous drivers of female-breadwinner families, i.e.,
economic reasons and genuine choice driven by an ideology of gender equality, and
identified such a typology for Australia. The first contribution of this paper is to provide
an empirical test of the hypotheses developed in Drago, Black, and Wooden (2005)
using a regression approach applied to micro-level data from the European Social
Survey for 24 European countries plus Russia and Israel, referring to the years
2010/2011. The second contribution of the paper is to document the existence of
subnational differences in the way in which partners contribute to household income
across Europe.
Our results show that male unemployment rate significantly correlates with the
probability of observing female-breadwinner families. Hence we find support for the
hypothesis that economic necessity is an important driver of the economic supremacy of
women over men, at least during a period of economic recession such as 2010/2011.
Gender-egalitarian attitudes, however, do not show any statistically significant
association with the probability of observing female-breadwinner families. On the other
hand, gender-egalitarian attitudes are positively and significantly associated with the
probability of observing equal-income families. The prevalence of male-breadwinner
families is associated with both low male unemployment rate and low gender-
egalitarian attitudes.
2. Background and hypotheses
2.1 Characteristics of female-breadwinner couples
Existing studies have described the sociodemographic characteristics of female-
breadwinner couples. These studies find that the woman’s contribution to the household
income is associated with her education and labour force participation (Raley,
Mattingly, and Bianchi 2006), with the educational differentials (Vitali and Mendola
2014; Klesment and Van Bavel 2015) and age differentials between partners (Bloemen
and Stancanelli 2013), and family size (Bianchi, Casper, and Peltola 1999). Previous
studies have shown that female-breadwinner couples can represent a permanent or a
temporary arrangement (Winkler, McBride, and Andrews 2005). Temporary female-
breadwinner couples have considerably less net household worth than male-
breadwinner couples, while permanent female-breadwinner couples have more (Drago,

Vitali & Arpino: The influence of context on partners’ contributions to the household income
1216 http://www.demographic-research.org
Black, and Wooden 2005). In a study of female breadwinners in Australia, Drago,
Black, and Wooden (2005) theorize that female-breadwinner couples do not represent a
homogeneous group of women and men. Drago and colleagues identify a typology of
female-breadwinner couples which distinguishes whether becoming a female
breadwinner is the result of economic necessity, driven by the man’s unemployment or
underemployment status, or whether it is a genuine choice, driven by the woman’s
career ambitions and her higher earning potential with respect to the male partner.
2.2 The role of attitudes towards gender equality
The diffusion of female-breadwinner (and equal-income) couples can be thought of as
part of a gradual process of the diffusion of new ideas and behaviours of gender
equality that have spread across people and places, eroding the superiority of men as
income providers for their families. Historically, women were employed in paid work
for economic necessity, and it is not until the 1970s that women started to pursue
careers in the labour market (Hakim 2000; Goldin 2006).
The difference between female-breadwinner and dual-income couples is that in the
former the woman’s contribution to the household income is central, whereas in the
latter case it can be equal, secondary, or marginal compared to the man’s share
(Oppenheimer 1994; Esping-Andersen 2009; Blossfeld and Drobnic 2001).
If the woman has higher income potential than the man, we might envisage that
female-breadwinner couples exist as the result of a utility-maximization process that
justifies the specialization of gender roles. The female-breadwinner couple sensibly
diverges from the normative male-breadwinner model of the family and hence it can
only be conceived in contexts characterized by gender-egalitarian attitudes in the
private sphere of the family (McDonald 2013). ‘Gender flexibility’ in sharing
breadwinning and caring responsibility (Gerson 2010) can be thought of as a
precondition for this deviation from the traditional arrangement to become acceptable.
Previous research has demonstrated the existence of a link between couples’
income arrangement and gender-egalitarian attitudes at the individual and contextual
levels. Baxter and Kane (1995) show that women’s economic dependency is associated
with less gender-egalitarian attitudes. Cha and Thébaud (2009) show that men in
female-breadwinner (and equal-income) couples tend to be more gender-egalitarian
than men in other couple types. The role of gender-egalitarian attitudes has also been
studied with regard to a series of outcomes related to couples’ relative incomes. One
example is the couples’ division of housework. A general result in the literature is that
the man’s housework hours increase with the woman’s contribution to the household
income, while the woman’s housework hours decline (Bianchi et al. 2000). Despite this

Demographic Research: Volume 35, Article 41
http://www.demographic-research.org 1217
result, breadwinning women are found to contribute more housework than men
(Tichenor 2005; Schneider 2011; Aassve, Fuochi, and Mencarini 2014). The
institutional context is an important moderator of the association between housework
and personal contribution to household income (Breen and Cooke 2005). Egalitarian
societies, such as the Nordic countries and France, facilitate outsourcing of family
activities such as childcare and care for the elderly, while these tasks are a prerogative
of women in settings characterized by low gender equality in the private sphere, such as
the Southern European countries (McDonald 2013; Esping-Andersen and Billari 2015).
Another example is the risk of union dissolution, which is higher for female-
breadwinner couples than for other couple types in contexts where the traditional
gendered division of labour is reinforced by institutional arrangements (Cooke 2006),
such as in Germany. On the contrary, in the US (Schwartz and Han 2014) and in more
gender-egalitarian societies such as Denmark (Esping-Andersen and Holm 2014), the
risk of union dissolution is not influenced by the woman’s economic advantage.
Hence, we may envisage that the diffusion of female-breadwinner (and equal-
income) couples is the product of the diffusion of gender-egalitarian attitudes.
Therefore our first hypothesis is that the prevalence of female-breadwinner and equal-
income couples will be higher in those contexts which are closer to completing the
gender revolution in the two-part framework developed by Goldscheider, Bernhardt,
and Lappegård (2015), or reaching the Pareto-optimal equilibrium of the gender
egalitarian family model in Esping-Andersen and Billari’s (2015) multiple equilibria
framework. We expect that male-breadwinner couples will be low in those areas where
gender-egalitarian attitudes are more widespread.
2.3 The role of male unemployment
Equally plausibly, we may envisage that the observed prevalence of female-
breadwinner (and equal-income) couples is the result of structural barriers that constrain
women’s and men’s preferences concerning their labour market participation and
earning potential.
From the 1970s the rate of enrolment of women in higher education and female
labour force participation started to increase substantially, at the same time as men’s
salaries and job prospects started to deteriorate, especially among the lower-educated
(Wilson 1987; Oppenheimer 1994; Bernhardt, Morris, and Handcock 1995; Blossfeld et
al. 2006). Sironi and Furstenberg (2012) show that the share of young American men
who were able to support a family in the 2010s was considerably lower than in the
1970s. As a result of globalization, modernization, and underlying changes in the labour
market, women’s labour force participation and earnings have increased relative to

Vitali & Arpino: The influence of context on partners’ contributions to the household income
1218 http://www.demographic-research.org
men’s (Goldin 2006; Esping-Andersen 2009; Ruggles 2015). Also, among the younger
cohorts, women have outpaced men in higher education (Van Bavel 2012). We may
therefore envisage that the existence of female-breadwinner couples is linked to the
relative economic advantage of women compared to their partners.
We focus on male unemployment rate as a measure of difficult labour market
circumstances for men. The role of male unemployment as a driver of changing patterns
of couples’ relative incomes is particularly timely, given that during the 2008 economic
crisis many European countries witnessed declining real earnings and increased
unemployment rates particularly for men. The explanation for this trend is that men, on
average, suffered from higher unemployment and underemployment more than women
due to the gender distribution across different industries that were unevenly affected by
the business cycle (Hoyne, Miller, and Schaller 2012; Cho and Newhouse 2012;
Harkness 2013). The number of female-breadwinner families increased during the 2008
economic crisis, especially in those countries particularly hard hit by the recession such
as Greece and Spain (Vitali and Mendola 2014; Klesment and Van Bavel 2015; Cory
and Stirling 2015). Some authors have argued that the increase in the prevalence of
female-breadwinner couples is directly linked to the rise in male unemployment (Smith
2009; Harkness and Evans 2011; Bettio et al. 2012).
Therefore, our second hypothesis is that female-breadwinner families will be more
prevalent in those regions where male unemployment rates are higher. For male-
breadwinner families we expect the opposite relation to hold.
Regarding the correlation between male unemployment and the likelihood of
observing equal-income families, we expect two opposing mechanisms to be at play.
On the one hand, high unemployment for men may decrease the likelihood of equal-
income couples in favour of female breadwinners, because an increased number of men
lose their jobs and hence stop contributing to the household income, making women the
sole or main income provider for their families. On the other hand, increased
unemployment in the male-dominated sectors may imply increased economic
uncertainty in such sectors. Hence, those men who remain employed may face lower
wages than before the economic crisis, leading to a decrease in their contribution to the
household income. Men who used to be the main income provider for their families
may now contribute less to their household income and may reach the point where their
contribution equals that of the woman. In that case, high unemployment for men may
decrease the likelihood of male-breadwinner couples in favour of equal-income
couples.

Demographic Research: Volume 35, Article 41
http://www.demographic-research.org 1219
3. Data and method
3.1 European Social Survey
We use data from the fifth round of the European Social Survey (ESS-5)4 collected in
2010/2011. ESS-5 contains a question on the respondent’s relative contribution to the
household income, which allows identifying the main income provider within a couple.
This question was asked also in ESS-2 (2004/2005); however, earlier ESS surveys did
not allow for the identification of NUTS regions, which are crucial for the analyses
carried out in the present study.
The ESS is representative of European populations aged 15 or older. We restricted
our sample to individuals who are currently coresiding with a heterosexual spouse or
partner (with or without children), with both partners aged between 25 and 54 years
(prime earning age), and with none of the partners being disabled, in education, military
service, retired, or ‘other’. ESS is not a household survey, but respondents who are in a
partnership are asked to provide information on their partner’s main characteristics. For
this reason, the sample includes both female and male respondents and the couple is
considered the unit of analysis.
The final sample is constituted of 12,822 respondents, nested into 192 regions and
26 countries. In order to identify regions we refer to the NUTS2 statistical
classification, with a few exceptions. For Germany and the UK, for which the
information on NUTS2 is not available in the ESS, we refer to the NUTS1 statistical
classification. Cyprus and Israel do not have NUTS: hence they are treated as a single
region. For three countries, Russia, Ukraine, and Estonia, although information on the
NUTS2 or other regional classifications is available in the ESS, the information on
regional male unemployment is not available. As a result, these countries are treated as
a single region.5
3.2 Variables used in the regression model
As the dependent variable we use the nominal variable indicating whether each
respondent belongs to a male breadwinner, female-breadwinner, or equal-income
couple, based on a self-reported measure of their contribution to the household income
(“Around how large a portion of the household income do you provide yourself?”). We
define the couple as male-breadwinner when the female (male) respondent answered
4 Data and documentation can be freely downloaded from http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org.
5 We have considered a different model specification where individuals are clustered within NUTS-1 rather
than NUTS-2 regions. Results from this model (not shown) are very similar to those presented here.

Vitali & Arpino: The influence of context on partners’ contributions to the household income
1220 http://www.demographic-research.org
“none”, “very small” or “under a half” (“over a half”, “very large”, or “all”); as female-
breadwinner when the female (male) respondent answered “over a half”, “very large” or
“all” (“none”, “very small” or “under a half”); and as equal-income when the
respondent answered “about half”.
Our choice of explanatory variables follows the discussion presented in the
background section. The main explanatory variables of interest are those measuring the
contextual influences of male unemployment rate and gender-egalitarian attitudes in the
region of residence. We use the regional male unemployment rate (for ages 25 and
above) gathered from the Eurostat Regional Database and, when not available in this
database (for Israel, Russia, and Ukraine), from the Database of Labour Statistics of the
International Labour Organization.6 Following Arpino and Tavares (2013) and Arpino,
Esping-Andersen, and Pessin (2015), we construct an indicator of gender equality from
the ESS survey question that states, “When jobs are scarce, men should have more right
to a job than women”. The question offers five possible answers, from “agree strongly”
to “disagree strongly”. We dichotomize this variable to take value 1 if the answer is
“disagree” or “disagree strongly” and 0 otherwise. The gender equality indicator is
constructed by averaging the dichotomous individual variable by region. When
computing the regional average, we consider respondents of any age. As an alternative,
we considered averaging the original 5-point variable. The results (not shown) were
qualitatively similar to those presented here.
The regression model also includes a set of individual-level control variables:
gender of respondent (male=ref.), age of respondent (linear and quadratic term),
woman’s educational attainment (low=ref.; medium; high), education differential
between partners (women achieved lower education level=ref.; partners achieved same
education level; woman achieved higher education level), number of children in the
household, couple resides in urban area (rural=ref.). The number of children in the
household may be endogenous with respect to our outcome variable. As suggested by
Aassve, Arpino and Billari (2013), when the interest lies in assessing the effect of
contextual variables one should avoid controlling for variables that are themselves
likely to be affected by the context. Therefore, as a robustness check, we also ran the
models without controlling for number of children. Since the results were very similar
to those obtained when including this variable, we opted for showing estimates of the
full model. The choice of individual-level variables is based on previous studies, which
have demonstrated that male respondents tend to underreport earning less than their
female partners, and that female breadwinners are likely to be childless, highly
educated, and more educated than their partners (see, e.g., Raley, Mattingly, and
6 The ESS survey was carried out between 2010 and 2011 (2011 and 2012 in Ireland). For each country, we
assign the male unemployment rate measured in the year when the majority of respondents participated in the
ESS survey. Data for Israel and Russia refer to the total male unemployment rate for all ages.

Demographic Research: Volume 35, Article 41
http://www.demographic-research.org 1221
Bianchi 2006 and Vitali and Mendola 2014 and the literature cited therein). We also
control for age of respondent and for whether the couple resides in an urban/rural area,
to account for the fact that female-breadwinner couples, as a ‘new’ family type, are
likely to originate and spread among the younger age groups of the population and in
urban settings (Vitali, Aassve, and Lappegård 2015). Finally, we also included female
labour force participation at the regional level as a control variable.
Figures 1 and 2, respectively, show the values of the male unemployment rate and
the gender equality index across the ESS regions. While some countries are
characterised by a homogenous level of male unemployment (e.g., homogeneously high
in Spain and Ireland, homogeneously low in Norway), other countries are characterized
by regional variability in male unemployment (e.g., France). The male unemployment
rate ranges between 2% in the Dutch region of Zeeland, the Swiss region of
Zentralschweiz, and the Norwegian region of Agder and Rogaland, to above 25% in the
Spanish regions of Andalucía and Canarias. The map in Figure 1 reflects the fact that
the economies of the Southern and Eastern European countries and Ireland were
especially hard hit by the 2008 economic crisis.
Similarly, a regional pattern is also observed in the prevalence of gender-
egalitarian attitudes. The Scandinavian countries homogeneously show the highest
values of the gender equality index (above 84%), together with some regions of the
Netherlands and Belgium. The highest value of the gender equality index in the sample
is equal to 100% and is found in the Swedish region of Norrbottens län, the Danish
region of Sjæland, the French regions of Picardie and Limousin, the Dutch regions of
Groningen and Drenthe, the German province of Bremen, and the Spanish region of
Comunidad Foral de Navarra. Southern and Eastern European countries (with the
exception of Spain) homogeneously show low and medium-low values (below 70%).
The lowest values of the gender equality index in the sample are found in the Spanish
region of Ciudad Autónoma de Melilla (0%), in the Greek region of Sterea Ellada, and
in the Hungarian region of Borsod-Abauj-Zemplen (both 13%). Spain, France,
Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands show a considerable degree of within-country
heterogeneity in gender equality.7
7 The gender equality index in France ranges between a low of 40% in the province of Bourgogne to a high of
100% in the provinces of Picardie and Limousin; in Spain between 0% in the Ciudad Autónoma de Melilla to
100% in the Comunidad Foral de Navarra; in Germany between 57% in Hamburg and 100% in Bremen; in
the Netherlands from 60% in Zeeland to 100% in Groningen and Drenthe.

Vitali & Arpino: The influence of context on partners’ contributions to the household income
1222 http://www.demographic-research.org
Figure 1: Regional male unemployment rate (2010‒2011), quartiles
Note: Regional male unemployment rate refers to males aged 25 and above (total male unemployment for Israel and Russia). Data
source: Eurostat Regional Database (Database of Labour Statistics of the International Labour Organization for Israel, Russia, and
Ukraine). The male unemployment rate refers to the year when all or the majority of ESS respondents were surveyed. It refers to
2010 for Germany, UK, Estonia, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Slovenia,
and Slovakia. It refers to 2011 for the remaining countries.

Demographic Research: Volume 35, Article 41
http://www.demographic-research.org 1223
Figure 2: Regional gender equality index, quartiles
Note: The regional gender equality index measures the regional percentage of ESS respondents of any age agreeing or strongly
agreeing with the statement “when jobs are scarce, men should have more right to a job than women”.
3.3 The multinomial multilevel model
The nominal nature of our dependent variable, i.e., the couple type, calls for using a
multinomial regression model. Our dataset is characterised by a hierarchical structure
with individuals nested into regions and countries. Therefore, a multilevel multinomial
regression model is needed to take into account the fact that observations are not
independent within regions and countries. We estimate a 3-level model with random
effects at the regional and country levels. This modelling approach allows us to
highlight the existing spatial heterogeneity in the prevalence of female-breadwinner
couples and equal-income couples as opposed to male-breadwinner couples (ref.) across
and within European countries. Also, this modelling approach allows assessing to what
extent the prevalence of the three different couple types is associated with gender
equality and/or male unemployment.

Vitali & Arpino: The influence of context on partners’ contributions to the household income
1224 http://www.demographic-research.org
4. Results
4.1 Regression results
Table 1 reports the estimates from the three-level multinomial logistic regression
model. The estimates reported in the two columns refer, respectively, to the effects of
being in a female-breadwinner and in an equal-income couple as compared to a male-
breadwinner couple.
The sign and significance of the individual-level variables are in line with previous
findings (see, e.g., Raley, Mattingly, and Bianchi 2006; Bloemen and Stancanelli 2013;
Vitali and Mendola 2014; Klesment and Van Bavel 2015). On average, male
respondents are less likely than female respondents to report being in an equal-income
or female-breadwinner couple (as opposed to a male-breadwinner couple). The
probability of being in an equal-income or female-breadwinner couple increases with
age and decreases with the number of children. Both equal-income and female-
breadwinner couple types are more likely than the male-breadwinner arrangement when
the woman is older and when she is equally or more educated than her partner. The
probability of being in an equal-income couple rather than a male-breadwinner couple
increases with the woman’s educational attainment. There is a U-shape relationship
between the woman’s education and the probability of belonging to a female-
breadwinner couple: both high-educated and low-educated women show a higher
probability of belonging to a female-breadwinner couple (as opposed to a male-
breadwinner couple) compared to women with a medium level of education.
Regarding the regional-level variables, we find a positive and significant
association between regional unemployment rate and the probability of being in a
female-breadwinner or equal-income couple. As the male unemployment rate in the
region of residence increases, the probability that the respondent belongs to an equal-
income or female-breadwinner couple also increases.
We also find a positive and significant association between the prevalence of
gender-egalitarian values in a region and the probability of being in an equal-income
versus a male-breadwinner couple. We do not find any association between the
regional-level gender equality index and the prevalence of female-breadwinner couples.
Finally, the variable measuring female labour force participation in the region of
residence is not significantly associated with the couple type, once the other variables
are controlled for.
We conclude that the regional context is important when explaining partners’
contributions to the household income.

Demographic Research: Volume 35, Article 41
http://www.demographic-research.org 1225
Table 1: Coefficient estimates from the three-level multinomial logistic
regression model predicting the couple type (reference: male-
breadwinner couple)
Female breadwinner Equal income
Gender of respondent (ref. Male) ‒0.485*** ‒0.329***
(0.056)
(0.046)
Age
0.078*
0.087**
(0.039)
(0.033)
Age2
‒0.001
‒0.001**
(0.000)
(0.000)
Age difference between partners (ref. Man older)
Equal age 0.057 0.065
(0.057) (0.047)
Woman older 0.305** 0.166
(0.103) (0.089)
Woman’s education (ref. Low)
Medium
‒0.222*
0.159*
(0.089)
(0.077)
High
0.203*
0.532***
(0.090)
(0.079)
Education difference between partners (ref. Man more educated)
Equally educated 0.278*** 0.349***
(0.077) (0.062)
Woman more educated 0.811*** 0.572***
(0.082) (0.068)
Number of children in household
‒0.242***
‒0.275***
(0.030)
(0.025)
Living in urban area (ref. rural)
0.210***
‒0.021
(0.059)
(0.048)
Regional male unemployment rate
0.040***
0.030**
(0.011)
(0.011)
Regional gender equality index 0.001 0.011***
(0.003) (0.002)
Regional female labour force participation 0.001 ‒0.002
(0.009) (0.008)
Constant
‒3.906***
‒3.714***
(0.921)
(0.800)
Random effects
Variance of country effect 0.106
(0.036)
0.026
(0.013)
Variance of region effect
N. 12,822
p-value: *** <0.001; **<0.01; * <0.05.

Vitali & Arpino: The influence of context on partners’ contributions to the household income
1226 http://www.demographic-research.org
4.2 Predicted probabilities
To better interpretate the results, we complement the estimation table with two types of
graphical representation. Predicted probabilities allow us to show variability in couples’
income arrangements, adjusting for individual-level variables. In computing the
predicted probabilities, all control variables are set to the observed values, while
country- and region-random effects are set at the mean value (i.e., zero). For each
outcome category (male-breadwinner couple, female-breadwinner couple, equal-income
couple) we calculate average regional predicted probabilities and plot their distributions
using choropleth maps. We divide their ranges into four equal groups, using quartiles.
The resulting intervals can be interpreted as groups of regions with low, medium-low,
medium-high, and high prevalence of each couple type. The advantage of using
predicted probabilities rather than observed values is that the former allows adjusting
for individual-level characteristics and obtaining a smoothed representation of the
outcome. Observed proportions may be unreliable, especially in regions with very small
sample sizes, whereas regional-specific predictions from a random effects model
‘borrow strengths’ from other regions.
The first graphical representation (Figures 3, 5, and 7) presents a scatterplot of the
two regional-level explanatory variables of interest: the regional gender equality index
(x-axis) versus the regional male unemployment rate (y-axis). The dots in the
scatterplot represent the 192 ESS regions and are organized into four groups
representing the quartiles of the distribution of the predicted probability of observing a
given couple type. For each combination of regional male unemployment and gender
equality, we can identify whether the predicted probability of observing a given couple
type in that region is low, medium-low, medium-high, or high. This graph allows
evaluating the relative contribution of the two main contextual explanatory variables to
explaining the prevalence of a specific couple type across regions.
The second graphical representation (Figures 4, 6, and 8) presents a choropleth
map showing the average predicted probabilities of observing a given couple type
across the 192 ESS regions. As for the first type of graphical representation, the
predicted probabilities are divided into four groups according to the distribution’s
quartiles. These maps make it possible to visually assess which regions and countries
have a high prevalence of male-breadwinner, female-breadwinner, and equal-income
couples, and whether the average predicted probabilities of observing the three couple
types vary across regions within countries.

Demographic Research: Volume 35, Article 41
http://www.demographic-research.org 1227
4.2.1 The contextual correlates of male-breadwinner couples
Figure 3 shows that the average predicted probability of male-breadwinner couples
varies with both regional male unemployment and gender equality. The association with
gender equality is particularly strong: as gender equality increases, the predicted
probability of observing male-breadwinner couples declines. All regions characterized
by a low predicted probability of male-breadwinner couples are also characterized by
medium-high levels of gender equality. The association with regional male
unemployment is instead weaker. Regions characterized by low male unemployment
show a high predicted probability of observing male-breadwinner couples (bottom-left
corner), and regions characterized by high male unemployment show a low prevalence
of male-breadwinner families (top-right corner). Instead, for medium-low and medium-
high levels of male unemployment the predicted probability of observing male-
breadwinner couples assumes all possible values in its range.
The map in Figure 4 shows that the predicted probabilities of observing male-
breadwinner couples differ markedly across European regions. The map allows
identifying the regions characterized by a high prevalence of male-breadwinner
couples. These areas are mainly concentrated in the Southern and Eastern European
countries. Cyprus, Israel, Ukraine, and several Hungarian, Polish, Czech, Slovak,
Greek, and Portuguese regions show a high or medium-high predicted probability of
observing male-breadwinner couples. Other regions showing a high predicted
probability of male-breadwinner couples are found in Switzerland, Germany, and
Belgium. Norwegian regions show a medium-low-to-medium-high predicted
probability of observing male-breadwinner couples, with the exception of the Oslo area.
The predicted probabilities of observing male-breadwinner couples are especially low
in Finland, Estonia, Ireland, East Germany, Scotland, Northern England, and most
regions of Spain and Denmark.
In some countries we find only limited within-country variability in the probability
of male-breadwinner couples. This is the case in the Scandinavian countries, Czech
Republic, Hungary, Switzerland, and Ireland. In other countries, however, we do find a
high degree of variability. For example, in Germany the predicted probability of
observing male-breadwinner couples is in the top 25% of the sample distribution (top
quartile) in the Western regions of Bayern, Saarland, and Niedersachsen, while it is in
the bottom 25% of the sample distribution (bottom quartile) in all the Eastern regions
and in Bremen and Schleswig-Holstein. Similar within-country differences exist in
France, the UK, Poland, and Greece.8
8 The predicted probability of observing male-breadwinner couples in France is lowest in the regions of
Picardie, Limousin, and Provence-Alpes-Cote D’Azur and highest in Basse-Normandie and Franche-Comte;
in the UK it is lowest in Scotland, the North East, London, and Yorkshire and The Humber, and highest in the

Vitali & Arpino: The influence of context on partners’ contributions to the household income
1228 http://www.demographic-research.org
Figure 3: Average regional predicted probability of observing male-
breadwinner couples across ESS regions, by regional male
unemployment and regional gender equality
Note: The average predicted probability of observing a low (44‒59%), medium-low (60‒64%), medium-high (65‒66.5%) and high
(66.6‒78%) prevalence of male-breadwinner couples in each ESS region is obtained by estimating a three-level multinomial logistic
regression model predicting the couple type (male-breadwinner, female-breadwinner and equal-income couple). The four groups of
predicted probabilities refer to the four quartiles.
East of England; in Poland it is lowest in Opolskie, Pomorskie, and Dolnoslaskie and highest in
Wielkopolskie, Malopolskie, Kujawsko-Pomorskie, and Podkarpackie; in Greece it is lowest in Dytiki
Makedonia and highest in Notio Aigaio, Thessalia, Sterea Ellada, Peloponnisos, Dytiki Ellada, Kriti, and
Ionia Nisia.

Demographic Research: Volume 35, Article 41
http://www.demographic-research.org 1229
Figure 4: Map of average predicted probabilities of observing male-
breadwinner couples across ESS regions
Note: See note in Figure 3.
4.2.2 The contextual correlates of female-breadwinner couples
Consistent with the estimates in Table 1, Figure 5 shows that the prevalence of female-
breadwinner couples varies considerably with the regional male unemployment rate,
whereas it is independent of gender equality. The group that shows the lowest values of
the predicted probability of female-breadwinner couples is found in the bottom part of
Figure 5. This group is characterised by low levels of male unemployment rate, while
gender equality assumes all possible values in the observed range. The group that shows
the highest values of the predicted probability of female-breadwinner couples is found
in the top part of the figure. This group is characterized by high levels of male
unemployment rate but also by high levels of gender equality.
The map in Figure 6 shows that the highest predicted probabilities of observing
female-breadwinner couples are found in Southern and Eastern Europe and Ireland.

Vitali & Arpino: The influence of context on partners’ contributions to the household income
1230 http://www.demographic-research.org
Spanish regions lead the ranking: The predicted probability of observing female-
breadwinner couples is 23% in Canarias, 20% in Andalucía, and between 18% and 19%
in Comunidad Valenciana, Illes Balears, Murcia, and Extremadura. High values of the
predicted probability of female-breadwinner couples are also found in Estonia (18%),
Brussels, the Greek region of Attiki, and the Portuguese region of Lisbon (all equal to
17%), the French region of Provence-Alpes-Cote D’Azur (16%), Berlin (17%) and
Sachsen-Anhalt in Germany (15%), Scotland (16%), and the English regions of
London, West Midlands, and Yorkshire (all equal to 15%).
The pattern of female-breadwinner couples observed in Figure 5 matches the
pattern of male unemployment rate observed in Figure 1. In fact, all regions
characterized by a high predicted probability of female-breadwinner couples are also
characterized by a high or a medium-high level of male unemployment, with only a few
exceptions, i.e., London, Russia, and Ukraine, where the male unemployment rate is
medium-low. This result reinforces the finding that the variation in the prevalence of
female-breadwinner couples across regions can be explained by variation in the male
unemployment rate.
Figure 6 also shows that the within-country variability in the prevalence of female-
breadwinner couples is high in some countries while low or absent in others. For
example, all the Swiss regions homogeneously show low predicted probabilities of
observing female-breadwinner couples, while the predicted probabilities are
homogeneously high-to-medium-high in Spain, Greece, and Bulgaria, low-to-medium-
low in the Netherlands, and medium in the Scandinavian countries, with the exception
of Norway. Norwegian regions show a lower prevalence of female-breadwinner couples
than the other Nordic countries, except for the Oslo area. Germany, again, stands out as
a country showing a high degree of internal variability: the predicted probability of
observing female-breadwinner couples is among the highest in the sample in the
Eastern regions of Berlin and Sachsen-Anhalt and among the lowest in the Western
regions of Bayern, Saarland and Hessen, Baden-Württemberg, and Niedersachsen.
Other countries showing internal variation in the prevalence of female-breadwinner
couples are Poland, Spain, the UK, and France.9
Figure 6 also shows that some regions in a given country are more similar to
regions in a different (often neighbouring) country than to other regions in the same
9 The predicted probability of observing female-breadwinner couples in Poland is lowest in the region of
Kujawsko-Pomorskie and highest in Pomorskie, Podlaskie, Zachodniopomorskie, Lubuskie, and
Dolnoslaskie; in France it is lowest in Franche-Comte, Basse Normandie, Rhone-Alpes, Lorraine,
Champagne-Ardenne, and Limousin and highest in Provence-Alpes-Cote D'Azur; in the UK it is lowest in the
East of England and highest in Yorkshire and the Humber, West Midlands, London, and Scotland; in Belgium
it is lowest in most regions with the exception of Liege, Hainaut, and the Brussels region; in Spain it is lowest
in the Comunidad Foral de Navarra, medium-high in Melilla and Aragon, and high in the remaining 15
regions.

Demographic Research: Volume 35, Article 41
http://www.demographic-research.org 1231
country. In several cases we find clusters of regions that cross country borders; e.g.,
between Finland and Sweden, East Germany and Poland, and France and Spain.
Figure 5: Average regional predicted probability of observing female-
breadwinner couples, by regional male unemployment and regional
gender equality
Note: The average predicted probability of observing a low (9‒12.1%), medium-low (12.2‒13.4%), medium-high (13.5‒14%), and
high (15‒23%) prevalence of female-breadwinner couples in each ESS region is obtained by estimating a three-level multinomial
logistic regression model predicting the couple type (male-breadwinner, female-breadwinner and equal-income couple). The four
groups of predicted probabilities refer to the four quartiles.

Vitali & Arpino: The influence of context on partners’ contributions to the household income
1232 http://www.demographic-research.org
Figure 6: Map of average predicted probabilities of observing female-
breadwinner couples
Note: See note in Figure 5.
4.2.3 The contextual correlates of equal-income couples
Figure 7 shows the average predicted probability of observing equal-income couples.
This probability varies strongly with the level of gender equality, while it is weakly
influenced by the level of male unemployment rate in the region.

Demographic Research: Volume 35, Article 41
http://www.demographic-research.org 1233
Figure 7: Average regional predicted probability of observing equal-income
couples, by regional male unemployment and regional gender
equality
Note: The average predicted probability of observing a low (8‒20%), medium-low (21.1‒23%), medium-high (24‒27%) and high
(28‒34%) prevalence of equal-income couples in each ESS region is obtained by estimating a three-level multinomial logistic
regression model predicting the couple type (male-breadwinner, female-breadwinner and equal-income couple). The four groups of
predicted probabilities refer to the four quartiles.
Figure 8 shows that equal-income couples are especially widespread in the
Scandinavian countries, Ireland, Estonia, East Germany, and parts of Spain, France, and
the UK. The French regions of Limousin and Picardie lead the ranking (34%), followed
by the German region of Bremen (33%) and the Spanish regions of Canarias, Murcia,
Madrid, Asturias, and Castilla y Leon (between 31% and 33%). The prevalence of
equal-income couples is limited in Eastern Europe, Greece, Cyprus, and Israel. The
pattern of equal-income couples observed in Figure 8 matches the pattern of gender
equality observed in Figure 2. All regions characterized by a high predicted probability
of equal-income couples are also characterized by a high or a medium-high level in the

Vitali & Arpino: The influence of context on partners’ contributions to the household income
1234 http://www.demographic-research.org
gender equality index, the only exception being Estonia, which scores medium-low in
terms of gender equality but high in terms of prevalence of equal-income couples.
Finally, some countries show a homogeneous prevalence of equal-income couples
across regions, i.e., high in Denmark, Finland, and Ireland, high-to-medium-high in
Sweden, medium-high in Slovenia, low in Hungary, and low-to-medium-low in Czech
Republic, Bulgaria, and Slovakia. Other countries are characterized by great internal
variability.10
Figure 8: Map of average predicted probabilities of observing equal-income
couples
Note: See note in Figure 7.
10 The predicted probability of observing equal-income couples in Germany is lowest in the Bayern region
and highest in the regions of Sachsen, Thüringen, Sachsen-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein, Brandenburg, Berlin,
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and Bremen; in Poland it is lowest in Podkarpackie, Lubuskie, Wielkopolskie,
Malopolskie, and Swietokrzyskie and highest in Opolskie (29%); in Greece it is lowest in the majority of
regions, medium-low in Voreio Aigaio, Attiki, and Anatoliki Makedonia and Thraki, and highest in Dytiki
Makedonia (28%); in France it is lowest in Franche-Comte and highest in Auvergne, Picardie, and Limousin.

Demographic Research: Volume 35, Article 41
http://www.demographic-research.org 1235
5. Conclusions
This paper analyses the spatial distribution of partners’ contribution to household
income in Europe and investigates the contextual correlates of female-breadwinner,
male-breadwinner, and equal-income couples across European countries and regions.
We developed and tested two hypotheses for explaining the varying prevalence of
female-breadwinner, male-breadwinner, and equal-income couples across European
regions. First, we expected female-breadwinner and equal-income couples to be driven
by gender equality and hence to be especially widespread in those regions characterized
by a high prevalence of gender-egalitarian attitudes. Second, we expected female-
breadwinner and equal-income couples to be driven by economic necessity and hence to
be especially widespread in those regions characterized by high male unemployment.
Our results show that the prevalence of female-breadwinner couples in Europe is
associated with male unemployment and not with the diffusion of gender-egalitarian
attitudes. The higher the male unemployment rate in the region of residence, the higher
the likelihood of observing a high prevalence of female-breadwinner couples in the
region. We found female-breadwinner families to be especially widespread in countries
and regions showing a high male unemployment rate, such as Spain, Ireland, Eastern-
European countries, parts of Greece, and the UK.
Our results do not support the hypothesis that a higher prevalence of female-
breadwinner couples is more likely in those contexts where gender equality is higher.
Among the forty-eight regions showing the highest prevalence of female-breadwinner
couples in the sample (i.e., the top quartile), only nine are characterized by high levels
of gender equality. Instead, thirty-two of these regions are characterized by high levels
of male unemployment. Hence, we conclude that gender equality fails to explain the
prevalence of female-breadwinner couples.
Instead, we found that gender-egalitarian attitudes encourage equality among
partners in terms of their contribution to household income. In other words, equal-
income couples are more likely to be observed in those regions that score high in terms
of gender equality; i.e., in Scandinavian countries, Ireland, Estonia, East Germany, parts
of Spain, France, and the UK. Results show that the prevalence of equal-income
couples is only marginally associated with regional male unemployment rate.
Under perfect gender equality between partners, we would expect to find a high
prevalence of equal-income couples and a similar prevalence of female- and male-
breadwinner couples. Previous research has shown a decline in the male-breadwinner–
female-homemaker model and an increase in dual-income couples during past decades.
Yet our results show that, throughout Europe, couples where the man is the main
income provider are still very widespread: much more widespread than couples where
the woman is the main income provider. Also, in the Scandinavian countries (in

Vitali & Arpino: The influence of context on partners’ contributions to the household income
1236 http://www.demographic-research.org
particular Norway) we find that men are the main income providers in more than one-
in-two couples, even though these countries rank high in terms of gender equality and
female labour force participation.
Finally, we have shown that the prevalence of the three couple types varies not
only across European countries but also across regions within countries. Our three-level
analysis allows for the identification of regions characterized by high prevalence of one
specific couple type, which would be impossible to discern in a country-level analysis.
This is the case, for example, for Eastern Germany, which is characterized by a high
prevalence of female-breadwinner and equal-income couples, in stark contrast to the
rest of the country where such couple types are much less widespread.
The results in this paper suggest that the rise in female-breadwinner couples
observed during the economic crisis is mainly attributable to the business cycle and is
driven by economic necessity rather than genuine choice. The economic revolution,
which, according to Ruggles (2015), was responsible for demographic changes in
family composition, divorce, and marriage, appears to also provide an explanation for
the observed prevalence of female-breadwinner couples. In other words, changes in the
labour market which have affected men’s and women’s economic prospects provide a
better explanation of the observed pattern of women’s economic superiority with
respect to their partners than the diffusion of gender-egalitarian attitudes. Our results
are in line with research by Gerson (2010), which shows that young generations of
women and men expect to achieve gender equality in work and care; however,
institutional obstacles such as demanding workplaces and unavailable or unaffordable
childcare hold them back. Similarly, Cherlin (2016) suggests that the new “gender-
egalitarian equilibrium” described by Esping-Andersen and Billari (2015) and
Goldscheider, Bernhardt, and Lappegård (2015) may not be accessible to all, but may
be an option open only to the highly educated strata of the population, which are less
likely to be exposed to economic difficulty.
It should be noted that our data refer to 2010‒2011, a period of economic recession
in Europe. Hence we could question whether the weak association between gender-
egalitarian attitudes and the prevalence of female-breadwinner couples that we have
documented is specific to the period analysed. In other words, it may be that during the
recession the effect of male unemployment dominates and blurs the effect of gender-
egalitarian attitudes. Similarly, we could ask whether the prevalence of female-
breadwinner couples will decline once the economic conditions for men have improved,
and if a new spatial distribution of the three couple types will emerge after the
economic crisis. We know from previous research that female-breadwinner couples
driven by economic necessity tend to be only a temporary arrangement, whereas they
tend to be a permanent arrangement when driven by gender-egalitarian attitudes

Demographic Research: Volume 35, Article 41
http://www.demographic-research.org 1237
(Drago, Black, and Wooden 2005). Our data did not allow us to incorporate information
on the persistency of the income arrangement over time.
Our study has other limitations. First, we did not separate women who are the sole
income provider from women who are the main earner. Using household-level income
data, Klesment and Van Bavel (2015) and Bertrand, Kamenica, and Pan (2015) show
heterogeneity among the category of female breadwinners in terms of what percentage
of household income they provide. While we find no correlation between gender-
egalitarian attitudes and the prevalence of female-breadwinner couples, we cannot rule
out the possibility that gender-egalitarian attitudes may be correlated with the
prevalence of a subgroup of female breadwinners, e.g., those who are the sole income
provider in the household or those who contribute just above 50% of their total
household income. The European Social Survey data and its sample size do not make it
possible to answer these questions, which we leave to future research.
We also acknowledge the limitations of a study on partners’ contribution to
household income based on social survey data. In particular, the measure used to
capture the partners’ contribution to household income is self-reported and may be
biased depending on the gender of the respondent (see e.g., Singh, Kalliath, and
Kalliath 2010). The cross-national nature of the data presents further limitations. First,
the data does not allow taking into account that the couples’ income arrangements may
change over time. Second, we are unable to account for selection into partnership and
partnership stability and duration, despite the fact that such processes may influence
couples’ income arrangements and be influenced by contextual gender-egalitarian
attitudes. Previous research has shown that in contexts characterized by a low
prevalence of gender-egalitarian attitudes, such as Southern Europe or Germany, high-
educated gender-egalitarian women are less likely to be partnered when compared to
lower-educated women (Sevilla-Sanz 2010; Kalmijn 2013), and female-breadwinner
couples face a higher risk of union dissolution than other couple types (Cooke 2006).
By contrast, high-educated women have the highest chances of being in a union in
gender-egalitarian Northern European countries (Kalmijn 2013) and the risk of union
dissolution does not vary across couple types (Esping-Andersen and Holm 2014).
Future studies can address these issues by using longitudinal data.
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank participants in the session ‘Consequences of Domestic
Gender Equality’ at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the Population Association of
America, in the 2016 Workshop on ‘Female-Breadwinner Families in Europe’, and in
the Social Science Seminar at UCL Institute of Education, along with two anonymous

Vitali & Arpino: The influence of context on partners’ contributions to the household income
1238 http://www.demographic-research.org
reviewers for their valuable comments. The authors would also like to thank the
European Social Survey Support Team and Juan Galeano for their valuable help with
shapefiles. Agnese Vitali gratefully acknowledges the support received by the UK
Economic and Social Research Council under the Future Research Leaders scheme
grant number ES/N00082X/1.

Demographic Research: Volume 35, Article 41
http://www.demographic-research.org 1239
References
Aassve, A., Arpino, B., and Billari, F.C. (2013). Age norms on leaving home:
Multilevel evidence from the European Social Survey. Environment and
Planning A 45(2): 383–401. doi:10.1068/a4563.
Aassve, A., Fuochi, G., and Mencarini, L. (2014). Desperate housework: Relative
resources, time availability, economic dependency, and gender ideology across
Europe. Journal of Family Issues 35(8): 1000–1022. doi:10.1177/0192513X
14522248.
Arpino, B. and Tavares, L.P. (2013). Fertility and values in Italy and Spain: A look at
regional differences within the European context. Population Review 52(1): 62–
86.
Arpino, B., Esping-Andersen, G., and Pessin, L. (2015). Changes in gender role
attitudes and fertility: A macro-level analysis. European Sociological Review
31(3): 370–382. doi:10.1093/esr/jcv002.
Baxter, J. and Kane, E.W. (1995). Dependence and independence: A cross-national
analysis of gender inequality and gender attitudes. Gender & Society 9(2): 193–
215. doi:10.1177/089124395009002004.
Becker, G.S. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bernhardt, A., Morris, M., and Handcock, M.S. (1995). Women’s gains or men’s losses?
A closer look at the shrinking gender gap in earnings. American Journal of
Sociology 101(2): 302–328. doi:10.1086/230726.
Bertrand, M., Kamenica, E., and Pan, J. (2015). Gender identity and relative income
within households. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 130(2): 571–614.
doi:10.1093/qje/qjv001.
Bettio, F., Corsi, M., D’Ippoliti, C., Lyberaki, A., Lodovici, M.S., and Verashchagina,
A. (2012). The impact of the economic crisis on the situation of women and men
and on gender equality policies. Brussels: European Commission.
Bianchi, S.M., Casper, L.M., and Peltola, P.K. (1999). A cross-national look at married
women’s earnings dependency. Gender Issues 17(3): 3–33. doi:10.1007/s12147-
999-0001-0.
Bianchi, S.M., Milkie, M.A., Sayer, L.C., and Robinson, J.P. (2000). Is anyone doing
the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces
79(1): 191–228. doi:10.1093/sf/79.1.191.

Vitali & Arpino: The influence of context on partners’ contributions to the household income
1240 http://www.demographic-research.org
Bloemen, H.G. and Stancanelli, E.G. (2013). Toyboys or supergirls? An analysis of
partners’ employment outcomes when she outearns him. Review of Economics of
the Household 13(3): 501–530. doi:10.1007/s11150-013-9212-y.
Blossfeld, H.P. and Drobnic, S. (2001). Careers of couples in contemporary societies:
From male breadwinner to dual breadwinner families. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Blossfeld, H.P., Klijzing, E., Mills, M., and Kurz, K. (eds.) (2006). Globalization,
uncertainty and youth in society: The losers in a globalizing world. London:
Routledge.
Breen, R. and Cooke, L.P. (2005). The persistence of the gendered division of domestic
labour. European Sociological Review 21(1): 43–57. doi:10.1093/esr/jci003.
Cha, Y. and Thébaud, S. (2009). Labor markets, breadwinning, and beliefs how
economic context shapes men’s gender ideology. Gender & Society 23(2): 215–
243. doi:10.1177/0891243208330448.
Cherlin, A.J. (2016). A happy ending to a half‐century of family change? Population
and Development Review 42(1): 121–129. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2016.0011
1.x.
Cho, Y. and Newhouse, D. (2012). How did the great recession affect different types of
workers? Evidence from 17 middle-income countries. World Development 41:
31–50. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.06.003.
Cooke, L.P. (2006). ‘Doing’ gender in context: Household bargaining and risk of
divorce in Germany and the United States. American Journal of Sociology
112(2): 442–472. doi:10.1086/506417.
Cory, G. and Stirling, A. (2015). Who’s breadwinning in Europe? A comparative
analysis of maternal breadwinning in Great Britain and Germany. London:
Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). http://www.ippr.org/publications/
whos-breadwinning-in-europe.
Drago, R., Black, D., and Wooden, M. (2005). Female breadwinner families: Their
existence, persistence and sources. Journal of Sociology 41(4): 343–362.
doi:10.1177/1440783305058465.
Esping-Andersen, G. (2009). The incomplete revolution: Adapting to women’s new
roles. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Demographic Research: Volume 35, Article 41
http://www.demographic-research.org 1241
Esping-Andersen, G. and Billari, F.C. (2015). Re-theorizing family demographics.
Population and Development Review 41(1): 1–31. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.20
15.00024.x.
Esping-Andersen, G. and Holm, A. (2014). Gendered income dominance and partner
instability. Paper presented at the European Population Conference, Budapest.
Gerson, K. (2010). The unfinished revolution: How a new generation is reshaping
family, work, and gender in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goldin, C. (2006). The quiet revolution that transformed women’s employment,
education, and family. American Economic Review 96(2): 1–21. doi:10.1257/0
00282806777212350.
Goldscheider, F., Bernhardt, E., and Lappegård, T. (2015). The gender revolution: A
framework for understanding changing family and demographic behavior.
Population and Development Review 41(2): 207–239. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.
2015.00045.x.
Hakim, C. (2000). Work-lifestyle choices in the 21st century: Preference theory. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Harkness, S. (2013). Women, families and the ‘Great Recession’ in the UK. In: Ramia,
G., Farnsworth, K., and Irving, Z. (eds). Social policy review 25: Analysis and
debate in social policy. Bristol: Policy Press. doi:10.1332/policypress/9781447
312741.003.0015.
Harkness, S. and Evans, M. (2011). The employment effects of recession on couples in
the UK: Women’s and household employment prospects and partners’ job loss.
Journal of Social Policy 40(4): 675–693. doi:10.1017/S0047279411000201.
Hoynes, H., Miller, D.L., and Schaller, J. (2012). Who suffers during recessions? The
Journal of Economic Perspectives 26(3): 27–47. doi:10.3386/w17951.
Kalmijn, M. (2013). The educational gradient in marriage: A comparison of 25
European countries. Demography 50(4): 1499–1520. doi:10.1007/s13524-013-
0229-x.
Klesment, M. and Van Bavel, J. (2015). The reversal of the gender gap in education and
female breadwinners in Europe. Stockholm: Families and Societies, Stockholm
University (Families and Societies working paper 26).
Lesthaeghe, R.J. and Neidert, L. (2006). The second demographic transition in the
United States: Exception or textbook example? Population and Development
Review 32(4): 669‒698. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2006.00146.x.

Vitali & Arpino: The influence of context on partners’ contributions to the household income
1242 http://www.demographic-research.org
McDonald, P. (2013). Societal foundations for explaining fertility: Gender equality.
Demographic Research 28(34): 981–994. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2013.28.34.
Oppenheimer, V.K. (1994). Women’s rising employment and the future of the family in
industrial societies. Population and Development Review 20(2): 293–342.
doi:10.2307/2137521.
Raley, S.B., Mattingly, M.J., and Bianchi, S.M. (2006). How dual are dual-income
couples? Documenting change from 1970 to 2001. Journal of Marriage and
Family 68(1): 11–28. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00230.x.
Ruggles, S. (2015). Patriarchy, power, and pay: The transformation of American
families, 1800–2015. Demography 52(6): 1797–1823. doi:10.1007/s13524-015-
0440-z.
Schneider, D. (2011). Market earnings and household work: New tests of gender
performance theory. Journal of Marriage and Family 73(4): 845–860.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00851.x.
Schwartz, C.R. and Han, H. (2014). The reversal of the gender gap in education and
trends in marital dissolution. American Sociological Review 79(4): 605–629.
doi:10.1177/0003122414539682.
Sevilla-Sanz, A. (2010). Household division of labor and cross-country differences in
household formation rates. Journal of Population Economics 23(1): 225–249.
doi:10.1007/s00148-009-0254-7.
Singh, V., Kalliath, T., and Kalliath, P. (2010). Dual-income marital dyads and
mutually discrepant economic versus personal information: An exploratory
investigation. Psychological Studies 55(3): 263–269. doi:10.1007/s12646-010-
0029-y.
Sironi, M. and Furstenberg, F.F. (2012). Trends in the economic independence of
young adults in the United States: 1973‒2007. Population and Development
Review 38(4): 609‒630. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2012.00529.x.
Smith, K. (2009). Increased reliance on wives as breadwinners during the first year of
the recession. Durham: The Carsey Institute, University of New Hampshire
(Issue brief no. 9).
Tichenor, V. (2005). Maintaining men’s dominance: Negotiating identity and power
when she earns more. Sex Roles 53(3‒4): 191–205. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-
5678-2.

Demographic Research: Volume 35, Article 41
http://www.demographic-research.org 1243
Van Bavel, J. (2012). The reversal of gender inequality in education, union formation
and fertility in Europe. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 10: 127‒154.
Vitali, A. and Mendola, D. (2014). The emergence of women as main earners in
Europe. Southhampton: ESRC Centre for Population Change (Working paper
56).
Vitali, A., Aassve, A., and Lappegård, T. (2015). Diffusion of childbearing within
cohabitation. Demography 52(2): 355–377. doi:10.1007/s13524-015-0380-7.
Wang, W., Parker, K., and Taylor, P. (2013). Breadwinner moms. Washington, D.C.:
Pew Research Center. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/29/breadwinner-
moms.
Warren, T. (2007). Conceptualizing breadwinning work. Work, Employment & Society
21(2): 317–336. doi:10.1177/0950017007076642.
Wilson, W.J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and
public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Winkler, A.E., McBride, T.D., and Andrews, C. (2005). Wives who outearn their
husbands: A transitory or persistent phenomenon for couples? Demography
42(3): 523–535. doi:10.1353/dem.2005.0028.
Wooden, M. and Hahn, M. (2014). Female breadwinner families. Families, Incomes
and Jobs 9(57): 57–60.

Vitali & Arpino: The influence of context on partners’ contributions to the household income
1244 http://www.demographic-research.org
Appendix
Table A-1: Percentage distribution of couple types by country
Male
Breadwinner
Equal
Income
Female
Breadwinner N.
Cyprus 61.57% 16.08% 22.35% 547
Bulgaria 60.42% 18.43% 21.15% 305
Slovenia
39.02% 41.64% 19.34% 485
Israel
61.02% 20.62% 18.36% 642
Poland 63.64% 19.26% 17.10% 425
Estonia 61.99% 21.27% 16.74% 442
Ireland 62.90% 21.02% 16.08% 375
Greece
67.22% 17.16% 15.62% 406
Hungary
60.79% 23.74% 15.46% 437
Croatia 57.43% 28.38% 14.19% 461
UK 70.05% 16.43% 13.53% 549
Russia 68.24% 18.38% 13.38% 495
Denmark
57.64% 29.06% 13.30% 446
Sweden
55.73% 32.00% 12.27% 620
Portugal 62.39% 25.36% 12.25% 786
Spain 66.34% 21.58% 12.09% 402
Slovakia 60.69% 27.24% 12.08% 463
Ukraine
67.80% 20.19% 12.01% 437
Norway
60.76% 27.47% 11.77% 426
France 53.79% 35.17% 11.04% 372
Czech Republic 77.47% 12.34% 10.19% 473
Belgium 58.56% 31.75% 9.69% 324
Netherlands
77.77% 12.79% 9.44% 625
Germany
75.59% 15.26% 9.15% 562
Finland 60.48% 30.45% 9.07% 754
Switzerland 76.20% 14.87% 8.92% 563
Total 66.74% 20.74% 12.51% 12,822
Note: Countries are in descending order according to the percentage of female-breadwinner couples.