Discussion

The 3SLS models revealed a complex relationship between gender equality in the reproductive sector and development. As predicted, inequality in unpaid work has an interdependent relationship with gender equality in employment. Average amounts of female and male unpaid work are significant in the 3SLS models and instrumented OLS models, suggesting that greater gender equality in unpaid work leads to higher rates of child mortality. As this is counter-intuitive to our hypothesis, the result must be considered further. The negative (though non-significant) coefficient of the weighted population average amount of unpaid work suggests that more care work may lead to better child health outcomes (e.g., a lower under-five mortality rate), which is also evident from previous studies of the benefits of care work to infants (e.g., Berger, Hill, & Waldfogel, 2005; Tanaka, 2005). As women perform the majority of unpaid work in every country studied here, the effects of women’s unpaid work may indeed have a greater impact on the wellbeing of children. However, we would also expect the same from men’s unpaid work, which is not found in these models, including the sample of more developed countries used as a robustness check. An explanation for the positive (i.e., detrimental) effects of men’s unpaid work on child mortality may have more to do with the greatly skewed gender balance of unpaid work than the quality of the relatively

small average amounts of unpaid work performed by men. This theory is further supported by the significance of gender equality in unpaid work in the instrumented OLS’ equation, but non-significance of population average amount of work. Additionally, men’s unpaid work may replace other contributions that could benefit children’s health (for example, men’s participation in paid employment, which may yield greater returns for a household than women’s if payment or opportunity for employment is uneven between genders).

The significant two-way inverse relationship between gender equality in employment and unpaid work in Stage 2 and 3 of the 3SLS model was expected based on the conceptual model in Figure 2. Notably, our findings indicate that gender equality in employment and unpaid work affect one another, but that this does not occur as an even exchange across the two factors. This finding was consistent in our modeling of the OECD and MTUS database sample as well. Gender equality in unpaid work had a fairly small influence in Stage 3 of the 3SLS models (coefficients -0.10 and -0.11 in the 3SLS and 3SLS’ models, respectively), suggesting low levels of influence on gender equality in employment. In contrast, equality in employment had the largest influence on gender equality in unpaid work in the 3SLS models, excluding constant term coefficients, signifying strong impacts on the gendered division of unpaid work. This finding supports the previous conclusions of Seguino (2013) that economic equality supports greater bargaining power for women at the household level, and of Bittman et al. (2003), who suggest that equality in household work increases as pay becomes more equal between spouses.

As predicted, social protection and health spending showed significant influence on equality in unpaid work in the 3SLS models. This finding suggests that the public side of the reproductive sector is an important factor in promoting gender equality in the private side of the reproductive sector. This also supports the importance placed on the protection of social programs that serve largely female populations, particularly in times of need such as during times of austerity (e.g., Pearson & Elson, 2015). The general lack of significance of social protection and health spending in the models of OECD and MTUS database surveys suggests that this factor may be more significant in less developed countries, which would require further study to confirm.

The diversity of inequalities that can compound one another varies both within and between countries, and although some trends persist on a more global scale, the experiences of men and women are not universal. Fisher & Naidoo (2016), for example, find that household-level data on gender inequality reveals heterogeneity in wealth inequality within countries, which is not captured in national-scale statistics. While studying gender inequality at the national level leaves out important sub-national inequalities, this scale remains an important backdrop for study, particularly due to the political levers that exist at this level. Additionally, for issues such as government spending, sub-nationally disaggregated data is limited and likely to be incomparable between countries. For these reasons, we limit our analysis to the national scale.

Further modeling with subsets of countries by income group may yield additional insight into the role of development, but would likely require additional collection of survey data, particularly from poorer countries. Increased use of time-use survey may

continue to benefit women and others that partake in non-market work by drawing attention to the effort required to support others, such as through care work.

4.8. Conclusion

Our analysis of gender equality in the reproductive sector focuses largely on this sector’s relationship with economic development. The need for such a study is evident when observing the reality that average amounts of time spent doing unpaid work by women was higher than men in every country studied, regardless of economic development. While some convergence of average unpaid work is observable in countries with high economic development, the reasons for this remain understudied. However, our findings indicate that rather than focusing on reducing overall burdens of unpaid work for women and men, enhancing women’s economic bargaining power is a more effective strategy in promoting gender equality in the reproductive sector. Our finding that gender equality in employment and in unpaid work have positive effects on one another supports prior evidence that macroeconomic development and gender equality are deeply linked. However, as evidenced by the complex relationship of GDP per capita and gender equality in employment, infinite growth in any area of an economy is not guaranteed to result in egalitarianism.

In targeting gender equality in both paid and unpaid work through policy mechanisms, it may be beneficial to tackle both sides of the equation at once. Policies targeting enhanced economic bargaining power for women, such as support for women’s employment through affirmative action and similar programs, as suggested by Seguino, (2013), could serve as a strategy for directly increasing equality in employment and

indirectly increasing equality in unpaid work. Promoting changes to gender norms and expectations surrounding unpaid work, such as through the implementation of paternity leave policies, may also have positive effects on gender equality in employment, and in the long run, development.

Effects of social and health spending on equality in unpaid work and development in our models suggest that social spending may improve women’s wellbeing either through provisioning that either increases men’s time in unpaid work, decreases women’s time, or both. Further study is required to fully understand this relationship between the public and private sector of reproduction, but our finding indicates that public support for unpaid workers will have positive outcomes to gender equality in unpaid work, and indirectly, on development.

By targeting social support and bargaining power as means of achieving gender equality, the long-run and short-run effects of the reproductive sector on development may be better addressed. It is clear from our findings that increased participation in unpaid labor by men alone is not adequate to break down the gender norms and expectations that shape divisions of labor. A two-pronged approach toward gender equality in paid and unpaid labor, with adequate social support, may address this issue, with particular attention to the factors shaping men’s and women’s participation (or lack thereof) in employment and in the reproductive sector.

118

18