for women in single partner earner households. On work days, the sign of the effect is
inconsistent across samples. Thus, we continue to see a stronger positive association between
this measure of power and leisure time in the US than in Denmark.
The relation between power and housework time is no clearer when the samples are
more narrowly defined by employment status. There are numerous instances in which the
relation is estimated to be positive rather than negative and it is only statistically significant
for men in dual earner households on non-work days in Denmark.
In addition to testing for differential effects by couples’ employment status, we also
test for differential effects by the presence of children. The results from Table 2 indicated that
children have a significant association with leisure time. They also have a significant
(positive) effect on housework time. However the presence of children may also alter each
partner’s threat point. In the US, it is the presence of children that typically makes low
income individuals/households eligible for income support. In the Danish system, family
income support is universal and largely independent of household income, employment status,
and family structure. In both countries women are the usual recipients of child-oriented aid.
Less educated women with lower earnings power are likely to find such income support
particularly attractive. Thus welfare may provide an alternative threat point to mothers,
reducing the association between power and leisure time. Focusing on non-work days where
we found significant results before, the point estimates do indicate that power has a larger
impact on leisure time for women without children than for women with children. In
Denmark this relation is statistically significant. In the US it is not, indeed it is the power
relation for childless women that is significant. Overall the separate analysis by presence of
children yields at best mixed results.
22