work days. However, the fraction reporting no time on housework ranges from 2% to 32%,
again with higher fractions reporting no such activity on work days when they are more
constrained for time. This finding confirms our supposition that an analysis of leisure time
will be less subject to bias from corner solutions than an analysis of housework time.
In our analysis of intrahousehold time allocations, a key explanatory variable is
relative power (θ ) within the household. We report results based on own share of couple’s
education (Own∕(Own + Partner’s) years of education). Share-based measures are more
common in the literature, in part because they correspond more closely to the notion of θ
being bounded between zero and one.6 Results using a simple difference in education
measure were very similar and are reported as one of our sensitivity tests.
The set of control variables used in this analysis includes demographic, household,
seasonal, and locality-based measures. The marital status of the couple, the education of the
respondent, and a quadratic in his/her age are included for both samples. We further
incorporate dummy variables to identify African American, Asian, and Hispanic respondents
in the United States and immigrants in Denmark. As household size is likely to influence
time use, we control in both countries for the number of other adults present and for the
number of children of various ages. Those aged 15-17, aged 10-14, and aged 0-2 are
identified with comparable dummy variables in both countries. We employ somewhat
different indicators for children between the ages of 3 and 9. Since children begin school full-
time at age 6 in the US and at age 7 in Denmark, we control for the presence of children age
3-5 and 6-9 in the US and 3-6 and 7-9 in Denmark. Activities also vary by day of week and
time of year. A dummy variable is included to identify weekends and holidays in each
country as time use on these days may differ even if the respondent is not working in the
17