Replication Do-File for: The Missed Opportunity for Men? Partnered and Employed Individuals’ Involvement with Housework during the COVID-19 Lockdown in the UK
收藏doi.org2021-04-26 更新2025-03-26 收录
下载链接:
http://doi.org/10.17632/chkbgtc9h5.1
下载链接
链接失效反馈官方服务:
资源简介:
Given the outbreak of the coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), pandemic during March 2020, lockdown measures taken by governments have forced many families, especially those who have children, to re-arrange domestic and market work division. In this study, I investigate the factors associated with partnered and employed individuals’ involvement with housework during the COVID-19 lockdown in the United Kingdom. Drawing evidence from the first wave of the Covid-19 Survey from the Five National Longitudinal Studies dataset with using OLS regressions, this study found that daily working hours, socioeconomic status, and partner’s key worker status are important indicators of daily time spent on housework. Furthermore, interaction analysis showed that women living with a key worker partner not only did more housework than women whose partner was working in a regular job, but they also did more housework than men living with a key worker partner during the lockdown. Policy implications of regulating maximum daily working hours and key worker status are discussed in the context of re-arranging paid and unpaid work between couples during the first lockdown in the United Kingdom.
Citation: Sönmez, I ̇brahim. 2021. A Missed Opportunity for Men? Partnered and Employed Individuals’ Involvement with Housework during the COVID-19 Lockdown in the UK. SocialSciences10: 135. https:// doi.org/10.3390/socsci10040135
鉴于2020年3月新冠病毒(SARS-CoV-2,COVID-19)大流行的爆发,各国政府实施的封锁措施迫使众多家庭,尤其是有子女的家庭,不得不重新调整家务和市场的劳动分工。本研究旨在探讨在英国疫情期间,已婚或就业个体参与家务劳动的相关因素。通过运用普通最小二乘法回归分析,本研究从五项全国性纵向研究数据集的Covid-19调查第一波数据中汲取证据,发现每日工作时间、社会经济地位以及伴侣的关键工作者身份是衡量每日家务劳动时间的重要指标。此外,交互分析表明,与从事常规工作的伴侣相比,与关键工作者伴侣共同生活的女性不仅承担的家务劳动更多,而且在封锁期间,与与关键工作者伴侣共同生活的男性相比,她们承担的家务劳动也更为繁重。在讨论英国首次封锁期间夫妻间有偿与无偿工作重新分配的政策含义时,对调节每日最大工作时间及关键工作者身份的调控策略进行了探讨。
提供机构:
doi.org



