Couple work pattern and work intensity

Figure 2.9 shows the relationship between work intensity and couple work pattern in 2004 and 2010. The area covered by the chart represents all adults aged less than 60 living in couple households in 2004 and 2010.

There is a clear association between work intensity and the couple work pattern. A one-to-one relationship does not occur between the two, however. This is because couple work pattern is based on the current economic activity of the couple whereas work intensity is based on work measured over a year. In addition, the work intensity indicator takes account of the work status of other adults of working age in the

household, besides the couple.

The dual full-time earner pattern is associated with very high work intensity. There are some high (rather than very high) work intensity households in this group as well. This may be because one of the partners was not at work for the full year or because there are other non-working adults in the household. The male working full-time and female working part-time is associated with high work intensity. The male working full-time and the female not at work is associated with medium work intensity.

Neither partner at work is associated with very low work intensity. Low work intensity is both the smallest category and the one that is most mixed in terms of the couple work patterns associated with it.

The most striking change between 2004 and 2010 is the rise in the percentage of couple households where neither partner works. It was this increase that was

responsible for most of the rise in the prevalence of very low work intensity in couple households. At the same time, there was a striking fall in the prevalence of traditional male breadwinner households where the male works full-time and the female is not at work. Despite this drop, the number of couple households with medium work intensity did not change appreciably, because of the increasing prevalence of

relying on female full-time work (with the male not working or working part-time) and, to a lesser extent, couple households relying on part-time work of one or both

partners.

Figure 2.9 Couple work pattern and work intensity, 2004 and 2010

Source: SILC 2004 and SILC 2010, analysis by authors. Base = adults under age 60 living with a partner, where there is at least one person of working age in the household.

Although the prevalence of medium work intensity households did not change very much between 2004 and 2010, as we saw earlier in Figure 2.1, the combination of male and female work in medium work-intensity couple households changed

significantly. This is shown in Figure 2.10 which breaks down couple households of medium work intensity by the couple work pattern in 2004, 2007 and 2010. In 2004, 83 per cent of these couple households fit the traditional male breadwinner model (male working full-time, female not at work). Already by 2007, before the start of the recession, this had fallen to 77 per cent reflecting an increase in female labour force

Neither at work Male FT, female not working Both FT 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Female FT, Male PT/ not working PT only (1 or both) 2004 Neither at work Male FT, female not working Both FT 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Female FT, Male PT/ not working

PT only (1 or both)

participation during the years of economic growth. By 2010, the percentage had fallen to 67 per cent.

At the same time, couple households where the female partner worked full-time and the male partner either did not work or worked part-time had increased from six per cent in 2004 to 16 per cent in 2010 of medium work intensity households. This change could be due to either an increase in the percentage of couples where the female worked full-time or a fall in the percentage where the male worked full-time. As we saw in Figure 2.6, above, the major change in the period was the drop in male full-time working. The percentage relying on part-time work of one or both partners increased from three to seven per cent in the same period.

Figure 2.10 Couple work pattern in households of medium work intensity, 2004, 2007 and 2010

Source: SILC 2004, 2007 and 2010, analysis by authors. Base = adults under age 60 living with a partner, where there is at least one person of working age in the household.

This shows that medium work intensity can be arrived at by very different combinations of paid and unpaid work within couple households. The apparent stability in the percentage of medium work intensity households masked quite substantial change within these households in female and male work patterns.

83% 77% 67% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2004 2007 2010 Both FT Male FT, female PT

Male FT, female not working

Female FT, Male PT/ not working

PT only (1 or both)

2.5 Summary

In this chapter, we focused on change between 2004 and 2010 in the work intensity indicator and in the work pattern in couple households. ‘Work intensity’ measures the proportion of possible working time spent at work by working-age members of a household. Most of the change in work intensity occurred between 2007 and 2010. With the onset of the recession in 2008, there was a sharp fall in ‘very high work intensity’ (over 80 per cent of potential time spent at work) and a sharp rise in very low work intensity (less than 20 per cent of potential time spent at work). The biggest driver of these changes was the rise in unemployment.

The recession was characterised by a larger fall in male than in female employment, particularly in the construction sector. As a result, in couple households we saw a significant fall in the male breadwinner work pattern. At the same time, there was a substantial increase in the percentage of couples where neither works (from nine per cent to 15 per cent). This pattern, where neither partner is at work, is more common in the manual and lower service and sales social class: almost one quarter of

couples where neither partner works are in this social class. There was less change in the pattern where both partners work full-time, declining slightly from 29 per cent in 2004 to 26 per cent in 2010. This pattern is strongly associated with the

professional/managerial and large employer social class – over one third of couples where both partners work full-time are in this social class.

While the analysis of the work pattern in couple households was useful in pointing to changes in the labour supply and unemployment rate of men and women since the onset of the recession, it is not as useful as the indicator of very low work intensity. This is because it is limited to couple households so that it does not cover the situation of single adults or lone parents (28 per cent of adults aged 18 to 59). In addition, while the household division of labour between men and women is

interesting from the perspective of family dynamics, labour market activation policy seeks to promote the employment of both men and women rather than one or the other.

We noted that the work intensity indicator, as it is specified by the European

Commission, also had some limitations. In particular it does not cover adults aged 60 to 65. This group would not yet be entitled to the Irish state pension which means that, from the perspective of Irish policy, they are still considered to be of working age. However, it covers virtually all children and there is nothing, in principle, to

prevent the construction of a work intensity indicator that includes adults up to the age of 65. We retained the EU definition here for comparability with the statistics produced by Eurostat for other countries.

Placing the changes in work intensity in context, we noted that while the VLWI rate increased very markedly after the onset of the recession, there was an even sharper increase in the unemployment rate and in the numbers receiving social welfare payments for jobseekers. This suggests that with the onset of the recession unemployment was becoming less concentrated at the household level. We shall return to this issue in Chapter 5 where we examine whether there were changes in the profile of VLWI households between 2004 and 2010.

In the next chapter, we draw on statistics at the European level to examine how the VLWI rate in Ireland compares to that in other European countries.