Also possibly obscuring the results may be differential relations by employment status
or household composition. The baseline specification reported in Table 2 controls for own
work status on the diary day but not for own labor force participation or for the employment
status of the partner. The effect of our power measure which is based on education may differ
depending on each partners’ employment status. For example, a partner with higher earnings
power (higher education) who is not employed may not have as much power as a partner with
higher earnings power who is employed. Already, we observed that the impact of power on
leisure time seemed to be centered on non-work days. We distinguish here between dual
earner, single self-earner, and single partner-earner households, continuing to distinguish
between work and non-work days (though there are necessarily no work days for respondents
in single partner-earner households). Results for the leisure time equations are presented first,
then those for the housework time equations. Sample sizes are reported below. Results are
presented only for samples of more than 100 persons. Small sample sizes pose a particular
problem for the Danish sample.
Results controlling for employment status from the US continue to show a positive
association between power and leisure time, with only one of ten estimated coefficients
slightly negative and that one being statistically insignificant. Interestingly, the relation is
particularly significant for women who rely on their husbands for income, belying our
expectations that a power measure based on education may not be as important for such
individuals. The relation is also large for men who rely on their wives’ income in the US,
though not statistically significant. Instead it is US men who are sole earners who are able to
enjoy more leisure on work days. In the Danish samples, power and leisure time remain
positively associated for all individuals on non-work days but the relation is significant only
21