1 / 37

Determinants of Father-Child Time Allocation Dmitri M. Medvedovski Bethel University

Determinants of Father-Child Time Allocation Dmitri M. Medvedovski Bethel University Kirk C. Allison University of Minnesota. This research explores associations between father-child time allocation, paternal background, and non-market & market activities .

triage
Télécharger la présentation

Determinants of Father-Child Time Allocation Dmitri M. Medvedovski Bethel University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Determinants of Father-Child Time Allocation Dmitri M. Medvedovski Bethel University Kirk C. Allison University of Minnesota

  2. This research explores associations between father-child time allocation, paternal background, and non-market &market activities. • The more fathers positively and intentionally engage their children’s lives the healthier their socialization process will be. • Not only ‘quality’ but time quantityis relevant for modeling and communicating values and skills to maximize a child's development and capabilites. (Quantity is a dosed dimension of quality.)

  3. Background • Father-child allocation deficits contribute to negative behavioral outcomes in children, notwithstanding that many mothers do exceptional work parenting their children (Goncy and van Dulman, 2010). • US estimates of father absence as a primary factor in • 63% of youth suicides, • 90% of homeless or runaway children, • 85% of children exhibiting behavioral disorders • 71% of national high school dropouts (Bureau of the Census, Center for Disease Control, & National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools, 2007).

  4. Modeling Context • Parental allocations for children can be considered an investment of human capital: monetary and temporal. • Parents maximizing utility subject to a budget constraint must trade-off between their own consumption and investment in their children including the cost of time allocated • Amount of investment will be positively related to the rate of return, time allocation and other factors. When children grow up the rewards of children will depend on that investment (Goldberger, 1989).

  5. Modeling Context • Household production models conceive the family in part as a productive organization producing nonmarket commodities with purchased goods and the time of household members (Willis, 1987). • Becker and Tomes hypothesis (1986): Exogenous increases in potential benefits for children (independent of parents’ expenditures) cause parents to substitute towards their own consumption away from investment in children.

  6. Modeling Context • Families seen as maximizing utility (with functional arguments of quantity and quality of children along with other goods) are subject to a production function for child quality, a budget constraint and a time constraint. (Hanushek, 1992) • Dual income arrangements require many families to make intrafamilial parental-time trade offs between work and interaction with children. • Many studies have investigated time allocation decisions of mothers; little investigation has taken place regarding time allocation of fathers.

  7. This research . . . • Explores how a mother’s working hours relate to a father’s time allocation for children and measures the relationship between parents’ working hours outside of home as substitutable components to sustain family welfare • Explores whether total family income as a child is at home impacts father-child time allocation • Explores the relationship between wage rate, income and a father’s time allocation

  8. This research . . . • Investigates the impact of the father’s education on father-child time allocation • Tests the relationship between a father’s time allocation and age of the father and of the child

  9. Data and Methods • National Center for Fathering survey (1995) • Random U.S.-wide: phone, in-person, & mail survey • New York oversampling of minority population (book & meal post-survey incentives) • 2000 questionnaires, 1650 returned (82.5%) • Inclusion criteria was children at home: => 1135 of 1650 (69% of completed) • Education level was somewhat higher than population mean; 43.4% reported own father absent

  10. Sample Characteristics of the Respondents • (1,135 fathers meeting criteria of 1,651completedquestionnaires)

  11. OLS Regression Models • Model 1 Father/Child time allocation model • Model 2 Maternal working hours outside home (check for a substitution or complement effect with paternal working hours) • Model 3 Sociodemographiccharacteristics and working hours of mother & father relative to total family income ( each run on full data and by income strata: <40K, 40+-80K, 80+-200K, 200+-800K )

  12. OLS Regression Models Y1t = father-child time allocation Y2t = father’s work hours Y3t= mother’s work hours Z1t = family income Z2t = college education Z3t = high school education Z4t = age of father Z5t = number of father’s siblings X1t = number of children in family X2t = one child living at home X3t = two children living at home X4t= three or more children living at home

  13. OLS Regression Models

  14. Results Note: †p .10, *p .05, **p  .01, and ***p .001 (with the raw beta preceding the standardized beta)

  15. Model F1 - Father-Child Time Allocation (Income Bands) • Father’s Age-0.132** -.111 • Mothers Working Hours 0.117*** .202 • Children < 12 vs. 18+ 3.820** .169 • Income Efficiency = $/(M+F hrs) 1.224*** .154 • Income < 40K Base • Income 40K-<80K -1.584** -.079 • Income 80K-<200K -2.497** -.087 • Income 200K-800K -7.633**, -.093 • Note progressive neg. relationship of income and father’s time with children; but positive for income efficiency

  16. Model F2 - Father-Child Time Allocation (Total Income) • Father’s Age-0.136** -.115 • Mothers Working Hours 0.116*** .200 • Children < 12 vs. 18+ 3.892** .169 • Father College vs. High School -1.263* .-060 • Household Inc. Efficiency ($/hrs) 1.195*** .150 • Total Income (continuous) -0.017† -.088 • Note Father’s College Degree emerges as strong negative predictor vs. High School while income remains negative

  17. Model F3 - Father-Child Time Allocation (<$40K) • Father’s AgeNS • Mothers Working Hours 0.132*** .194 • Total Number of Children -0.970† -.101 • Children < 12 vs. 18+ 5.833* .215 • Number of Father’s Siblings 0.433* .094 • Father College vs. High School NS • Household Inc. Efficiency ($/hrs) NS • Total Income (continuous in band) NS • Note: Children < 12 strengthens with total number negatively associated, and father’s siblings positive (socialization or inclusive network?)

  18. Model F4 - Father-Child Time Allocation ($40-<$80K) • Father’s Age-.126* .110 • Mothers Working Hours 0.120*** .227 • Total Number of Children NS • Children < 12 vs. 18+ 2.837* .161 • Number of Father’s Siblings NS • Father College vs. High School NS • Household Inc. Efficiency ($/hrs) NS • Total Income (continuous in band) -0.017 † -.088 • Note: Children < 12 & mothers working hours continue consistent positive relationship, but total income in band a negative relationship. (Father’s age reemerges neg.)

  19. Model F5 - Father-Child Time Allocation ($80K-<$200) • Father’s Age-.272* .213 • Mothers Working Hours 0.088* .166 • 1 Child at Home 4.511* .228 • 2 Children at Home -3.672* -.202 • 3 Children at Home -3.609* -.193 • Total Number of Children 2.155* .277 • Children < 12 vs. 18+ NS • Total Income (continuous in band) NS • Note: Income, age and children’s age rise together: here children < 12 are now nonsignificant. 1 child home is strongly + but 2 or 3 negative. Yet total # of children is positive: emptying nest compensation?

  20. Model F6 - Father-Child Time Allocation ($200K-<$800K) • Father’s AgeNS • Mothers Working Hours 0.489* .861 • 1 Child at Home NS • 2 Children at Home 16.925* .607 • 3 Children at Home NS • Total Number of Children NS • Children < 12 vs. 18+ NS • Total Income (continuous in band) NS • Note: Mothers outside work contiues to be positively associated. 2 children now extraordinarily positive (caution: few data points in this range).

  21. Father-Child Time Allocation AssociationsTendencies Summary Negatively Associated • Father’s age • Income (banded) • Total income • Higher education • # of Children (<40K) Positively Associated • Mother’s mkt work hrs • Fam. Income efficiency • Children • 1 Child at home • # of Children (200-800K) • # of Father’s siblings

  22. Model M1 - Mothers Outside Work Hrs (Income Bands) • Fathers Working Hours / Week -0.283*** -.161 • 1 Child at home -3.891** -.103 • Total # of Children -1.758*** -.115 • Children < 12 vs. 18+ 5.156** -.130 • Father College Degree -2.981* -.081 • Income < 40K Base • Income 40K-<80K 6.727*** .194 • Income 80K-<200K 9.174*** .185 • Income 200K-800K 44.068*** .306 • House Inc. Efficiency = $/(M+F Hrs) -6.446*** -.464 • Note signs reverse of Father-Child model: 1 Child home, Children < 12, Income Efficiency (now -); Income (now +)

  23. Model M2 - Mothers Outside Work Hrs (Total Income) • Fathers Working Hours / Week -0.436*** -.928 • 1 Child at home -3.530** -.094 • Total # of Children -1.682*** -.110 • Children < 12 vs. 18+ 5.211** -.131 • Father College Degree -3.462*** -.095 • Father’s Father absent (death, aband) 3.139* .050 • House Inc. Efficiency -12.888*** -.928 • Total Family Income 0.266*** .804 • Note: With continuous income variable neg. coefficient on household efficiency doubles (M/F wage gradient). Father’s father absence as strong predictor.

  24. Model M3 - Mothers Outside Work Hrs (<$40K) • Fathers Working Hours / Week -0.404*** -.226 • 1 Child at home NS • Total # of Children -1.625*** -.114 • Children < 12 vs. 18+ 8.750** -.220 • # Father’s Siblings 0.552* .081 • Father College Degree NS • House Inc. Efficiency -22.101*** -.517 • Total Family Income 0.474*** .225 • Note: Lowest income strata ~ Father’s Sibling # now significant, Father College NS, Children<12 (+) and Income Efficiency (-) stronger

  25. Model M4 - Mothers Outside Work Hrs ($40K-<$80K) • Fathers Working Hours / Week -1.04*** -.476 • 2 Children at home -1.285 † -.036 • Total # of Children NS • Children < 12 vs. 18+ NS Children 12-18 2.146 † .042 • # Father’s Siblings NS • Father’s College Degree -1.962* -.051 • House Inc. Efficiency -54.78*** -1.039 • Total Family Income 0.983*** .618 • Note: Father’s College again significant with higher income strata (-); Income Efficiency higher (-)

  26. Model M5- Mothers Outside Work Hrs ($80K-<$200) • Fathers Working Hours / Week -0.669*** -.405 • Total # of Children NS • Children < 12 vs. 18+ NS Children 12-18 NS • Father’s Father absent (death, aband) 5.721* .098 • Father’s College Degree -8.088** -.167 • House Inc. Efficiency -14.71*** -.957 • Total Family Income 0.234*** .441 • Note: Father’s College highest magnitude in this strata; also strong coefficient on absence of Father’s Father with income efficiency continuing to show strong wage gradient.

  27. Model M6 - Mothers Outside Work Hrs ($200K-<$800K) • No Significant Coefficients • (sparse data in this strata)

  28. Mothers Outside Work Hours(save highest income strata null model) Negatively Associated • Father’s working hours • Father’s college degree • Children < 12 (full,<40K) • # Children (full, <40K) • 1 Child at home (full) • Income Efficiency Positively Associated • Income strata (progr.) • Total family income • Father’s father absent due to death, abandonment or other

  29. Model for Total Family Income • Includes Father’s Age • Includes bothFather & Mother’s Working Hours • Indicators for Children at home (1,2,3) and <12, 12-18 • Total # of Children • # Father’s Siblings • Indicators for post-High School and College vs. HS • Indicators for absence of Father’s father

  30. Model I1 – Total Family Income (All Data) • Father’s Age0.630** .107 • Fathers Working Hours NS • Mothers Working Hours NS • # Father’s Siblings -1.183† -.050 • Children < 12 15.560* .131 • Children 12-18 19.905** .129 • Father’s College Degree 15.664*** .142 • Note: Small children, esp. teens, drive income seeking, +college degree effect & secular trend ~ age. Father’s siblings (-) previously ~ + child & maternal work time

  31. Model I2 – Total Family Income (<40K) • Father’s AgeNS • # Father’s Siblings NS • 1 Child at home -1.737 † .104 • 2 Children at home 2.818** .179 • Father Post High School (Associates) 2.008* .099 Father College 3.623*** .231 • Fathers father absent (death, aband.) -4.607 .161 • Note: Father post-HS education (associates/trade) & College + effect, but strong negative intergenerational absent father effect (death, abandonment) in strata. Signs flip between 1 & 2 children.

  32. Model I3 – Total Family Income ($40K-<$80K) • Father’s Age0.183* .138 • Fathers Working Hours 0.098 † .075 • Mothers Working Hours 0.089** .141 • 1 Child at home NS • 2 Children at home NS • Father Post High School (Associates) NS Father College 3.175* .131 • Fathers father absent (death, aband.) NS • Note: Age, working hours (both) and higher education

  33. Model I4 – Total Family Income ($80K-<$200K) • Father’s AgeNS • Fathers Working Hours NS • Mothers Working Hours -0.260* -.138 • Total # of Children 5.846** .211 • Children < 12 19.890† .297 Children 12-18 16.579† .210 • Fathers father absent (death, aband.) NS • Note: Negative coefficient on mothers’ outside work hours on income implies net negative substitution effect on fathers’. Large positive coefficients on # and presence of children across ages in this college-conscious strata

  34. Model I5 – Total Family Income ($200-$800) • Intercept NS • Fathers Working Hours -8.794† -1.208 • Fathers Father absent (Death, aband) -491.322† -1.295 • Note: Sparse data and weak significance (negative coefficient on father’s working hours: indicative of non-wage income?). Absent father datum at low end of (upper) income band.

  35. Total Family Income Tendencies Summary Negatively Associated • # of Fathers Siblings (Full) • 1 Child at Home (<40K) • Father’s Father absent by death, abandonment (<40K, 200K-800K) Ambiguous • Mother Work Hrs(40K-<80K +, 80K-<200K -) • Father Work Hrs (40K-<80K +, 200K-800K -) Positively Associated • Fathers Age (Full, 40K-<80K) • 2 Children at Home (<40K) • Children < 12,12-18, total (Full, 80K-200K) • Fathers Post-HS Ed (<40K) • Fathers College(Full, <40K, 40K-<80K)

  36. Our results suggests that quantity of a father’s interactive time allocation for his children correlates with market activities, income utility, and working hours with a ‘paradoxical’ effect associated with paternal education and an incomplete substitution effect with a working spouse. • An economic approach to father-child time allocation is a useful tool for analyzing father-child relationships and can provide a basis for developing both an analysis of the research and recommendations to enhance positive family relationships.

More Related