A Study on the Fairness of Housework Division in Chinese Households Based on the Entropy Weight Method: Empirical Analysis from the 2022 CFPS Data
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64051/jhn.v1i2.53Keywords:
Housework Division, Fairness, Entropy Weight MethodAbstract
Using data from the 2022 China Family Panel Studies (CFPS), this study selects 11,375 dual-spouse households as the research sample and constructs a comprehensive housework division index via the entropy weight method. The index integrates four dimensions: participation subject, time allocation, content type, and fairness perception, aiming to explore the fairness level of housework division and group differences in Chinese households. The results show that the overall fairness of housework division in Chinese households is relatively low: the mean value of the index (after 10,000-fold linear expansion) is 0.0632, showing a significant right-skewed distribution, with most households concentrated in the "low-fairness" range and only a few achieving relatively balanced division. Significant group differences exist: rural households have a slightly higher housework division index (0.0659) than urban households (0.0608); male respondents have a higher index (0.0660) than female respondents (0.0603); and the high-education group has a significantly lower index (0.0501) than the low-education group (0.0653). The fairness of housework division is jointly influenced by structural factors and perceptual factors, with an obvious "concept-action gap": 74.02% of respondents perceive housework division as "fair", but the low index level indicates this perception mostly stems from normative adaptation rather than objective balance. This study provides empirical evidence for optimizing family labor allocation and promoting gender equality.
References
[1] Bianchi S.M., Cohen P N, Raley S, Nomaguchi K. Inequality in parental investment in child-rearing: Expenditures, time, and health [M]. Neckerman K. Social Inequality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004: 189-219.
[2] Gershuny J., Bittman M, Brice J. Exit, voice, and suffering: Do couples adapt to changing employment patterns?[J]. Journal of Marriage and Family, 2005, 67 (3): 656-665.
[3] Cooke L.P. The gendered division of labor and family outcomes in Germany [J]. Journal of Marriage and Family, 2004, 66 (4): 1246-1259.
[4] Sleebos J. Low fertility rates in OECD countries: Facts and policy responses [R]. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, 2003, No.15.
[5] Esping-Andersen G., Boertien D, Bonke J, Gracia P. Couple specialization in multiple equilibria [J]. European Sociological Review, 2013, 29 (6): 1280-1294.
[6] Bittman M., England P, Sayer L, Folbre N, Matheson G. When does gender trump money? Bargaining and time in household work [J]. American Journal of Sociology, 2003, 109 (1): 186-214.
[7] Fuwa M. Macro-level gender inequality and the division of household labor in 22 countries [J]. American Sociological Review, 2004, 69 (6): 751-767.
[8] Becker G.S. A treatise on the family [M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981.
[9] Brines J. Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home [J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1994, 100 (3): 652-688.
[10] Geist C. The welfare state and the home: Regime differences in the domestic division of labour [J]. European Sociological Review, 2005, 21 (1): 23-41.
[11] Hook J.L. Care contexts and men's unpaid work: A cross-national study of 20 countries [J]. Journal of Marriage and Family, 2006, 68 (3): 657-672.
[12] Cao X., Qian Z. Division of household labor in urban China: Couples’ education pairing and co-residence with parents[J]. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 2024, 92: 100941.
