Coresident Extended Kin and Time Allocation Among Employed Mothers in Mexico

Abstract

The proportion of mothers living without male partners is growing fast in Mexico, and time is a valuable resource determining their quality of life. Using the 2002 Mexican Family Life Survey (N = 1,818), the author examined the effects of coresident extended household members on time allocation by employed mothers. Results indicate that female extended kin have greater influence than male kin on the time allocation of single mothers in Mexico. Female extended household members also play more important roles in making activity time available for single mothers than for mothers with partners. This study supports the hypothesis that household extension functions as a safety net for employed single mothers facing time and material constraints in Mexico.

Keywords

child care domestic labor extended family single mothers poverty time use well-being

Introduction

Recent U.S. literature on family and kinship concentrates more on the role of nonresident relatives than on extended family composition itself. This research trend is due primarily to decreasing family size caused by declining fertility rates, increased female labor force participation, and changing family values. Yet extended family arrangements are still common, with strong kinship networks in many less-developed countries (De Jong Gierveld, de Valk, & Blommesteijn, 2001; Fussell & Palloni, 2004). The Mexican Census shows that 25.7% of all family households in Mexico included at least one extended family member in 2000 (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática [INEGI], 2000). In less-developed countries, extended family arrangements are more common in single-parent households than in coupled households. According to Villarreal and Shin (2008), 47% of Mexican single mothers lived in households headed by someone else (typically their parents) in 1997, whereas Current Population Survey statistics indicate that only 22% of U.S. single mothers lived with relatives in 2000 (Fields & Casper, 2001). Studies suggest that the presence of extended family members may contribute to the well-being of single mothers by pooling income or providing housework and child care when single mothers suffer time poverty (Blau & Robins, 1989; Chant, 1991; González de la Rocha, 1994b; Heckman, 1974; Wartenberg, 1999; Willis, 1993).

Choice of time-management method by individuals indicates what they lack and how they make up for material shortages in their everyday lives. Many researchers regard time as the ultimate resource determining individual welfare level (Floro, 1995; Howorth, 2004; Juster & Stafford, 1985; Zuzanek, 2004). These studies on changing patterns of time use have informed theories pertaining to relationships among poverty, family life, and time. As real wages fall and social services remain relatively inaccessible, working women’s time and the intensity of their work both tend to increase to allow them to cope with their changed economic situations. The quality of leisure and other activities will be affected by women’s reorganization of work time. These females are more likely to be under the pressure of multiple tasks—such as work for income, child care, and domestic work—all of which influence family life and well-being.

Previous research has shown that material or time resources are distributed unequally within households (Apps, 2003; Bianchi, Milkie, Sayer, & Robinson, 2000; Robinson & Godbey, 1997; Shelton & Daphne, 1996; Thompson & Walker, 1991). These studies are focused mainly on the unequal workload between wife and husband within married-couple households and the shift in household production produced by women’s employment and family roles (Davis & Greenstein, 2004; Lavee & Katz, 2002; Shelton, 1992; South & Spitze, 1994). In contrast, relatively few studies have examined variations in time allocation by women across household type or by the living arrangements of single mothers (Douthitt, Zick, & McCullough, 1990; Folk, 1996; South & Spitze, 1994). Furthermore, comparisons of the effects of household composition on time allocation by mothers’ marital status (e.g., comparison between single mothers and mothers with male partners) have rarely been made. In addition, time-use research is scarce even in other cultures—especially Latin America, in spite of the ongoing time-use surveys in many countries there (Bardasi & Wodon, 2006; Gammage, 2010).

The purpose of this research is to examine working mothers’ time allocations for child care, domestic labor, and paid work, along with the role of coresident extended family members in Mexico. I use nationally representative data from the 2002 Mexican Family Life Survey (MxFLS) to address the following research questions: (a) How do coresident extended kin affect working mothers’ time allocation within households? (b) Do the gender and employment status of extended household members have an effect on the time-use patterns of working single mothers in Mexico?

Resource Distribution and Gender

Time is one of the important indicators of individual well-being, along with labor market outcomes such as wages and occupations (Blau, 1998; Fuchs, 1986). The household-production model assumes that people derive utility or satisfaction from household-produced goods, such as health, development, and the well-being of their household members (Becker, 1965). To produce these outcomes, people should purchase goods and services or contribute their time to relevant activities. According to this model, people have constraints on time as well as on financial resources used to purchase goods and services. Therefore, they distribute their financial resources and time to various market or nonmarket activities so as to maximize household utility.

Households, however, do not always act as collective entities or in well-coordinated ways to capitalize on utility. Furthermore, maximization of household utility does not always result in maximized individual satisfaction either (Folbre, 1988). Criticizing “unitary” household models that assume common preferences of household members represented by an aggregate utility function, some studies suggest that a gender-relation perspective should be incorporated into the economic theory by emphasizing bargaining power among household members (Agarwal, 1997; Kabeer, 1997; Malhotra & DeGraff, 1997). Alternatively, they create models considering various social and cultural factors (such as social norms, coexistence of self-interest and altruism, or institutional environment). In these factors, the role of a group should be regarded as a determinant in the bargaining process within households, which affects the ways by which resources are distributed (Agarwal, 1997; Roldán, 1987). In terms of time allocation, theories show that some household members may suffer higher stress levels than others because they often experience extended total work time resulting from the dual burdens of income earners and household workers. They may sacrifice their time for leisure or sleep for the well-being of other members.

Studies on time allocation among household members might be more important in less-developed countries than in developed countries for two reasons. First, research shows that time is a more vital source of productive and reproductive activities for households in less-developed countries because of limited access to basic infrastructure services. In most developed countries, well-developed markets and infrastructures for utilities, food preparation, and child care reduce the number of works undertaken by households. However, in many developing countries, children participate in productive activities, and households provide much of their own utilities and child care. They also seek multiple income-generating activities (Bardasi & Wodon, 2006; Fafchamps & Quisumbing, 1998; Ilahi, 2000; Ilahi & Grimard, 2000; Short, Chen, Entwisle, & Fengying, 2002). Second, gender relations and gender division of labor within households still remain quite traditional in less-developed countries. In much of Latin America, women assume the primary responsibility for reproductive activities. Traditionally, women are regarded as subordinate to men, portrayed as mothers and housewives mostly responsible for domestic duties—especially caring for children (Chant, 2002; Kanaiaupuni, 2000; González de la Rocha, 1994b; Trigueros, 1992). Chant (2002) points out that although typical gender roles have been weakened as more women entered the labor market during the past two decades, the increasing participation of women in the labor force resulted in intensified work in their homes, workplaces, and communities in the wake of cutbacks in state services and rising costs of basic goods.¹

In previous research about gender roles within households, findings are quite consistent: Wives (or female partners) spend considerably more time on housework and child care compared with husbands (or male partners), and extended family living arrangements are common in many developing countries. Thus, gender differences in resource distribution should be applied not only to householder couples but also to other household members. The division of household labor results from different constraints on time among household members, and household composition could yield differences in time allocation of mothers that are not explained by other socioeconomic factors (Douthitt et al., 1990; Gager, Cooney, & Call, 1999; Roldán, 1987). This idea suggests that there could be a more unequal distribution of household resources (such as time or material resources) among other female and male household members than among householders anchored in gendered norms. In her research on Mexico City, Roldán shows that although support from resident adult relatives for housework is fundamental in the work strategies of most women, the effectiveness of the support system depends on the gender of resident kin or whether they are from the wife’s or husband’s side of the family (Roldán, 1987). Her research suggests that male relatives, especially from the husband’s side, are hardly helpful in domestic tasks. Several studies about women’s household reproduction activities in Latin America have also found that mothers’ activities for paid work require other household members to replace part of their reproductive services, and disproportionately women (mothers, sisters, and aunts) and girls assume them (Gammage, 2010; Katz, 1995; Roldán, 1987). Similarly, a higher ratio of women to men in the home reduces the woman’s share of housework and paid labor in Ecuador (Newman, 2002).

Hypothesis 1: Time spent on domestic work and child care among employed mothers will decrease with female extended kin present but not with male extended kin.

Kinship Support and Working Mothers’ Time Allocation

Networks of kin often play an important role in supporting subsistence in female-headed households, safeguarding them from severe poverty and compensating for lack of income from a male partner. Households with extended kin in Latin America are found more often among single-mother households than couple households (Chant, 1997a, 1997b; De Vos, 1987; González de la Rocha, 1994a; Ono-Osaki, 1991; Wartenberg, 1999).

Coresident kin are the most likely ones to be involved with the informal care of children. Child care provided by extended kin (especially a mother’s parents) is more common in disadvantaged groups—lower income families, less-educated mothers, young mothers, or single-mothers (Baydar & Brooks-Gunn, 1998; Brayfield, Deich, & Hofferth, 1993; Scott, London, & Hurst, 2005; Vandell, McCartney, Owen, Booth, & Clarke-Stewart, 2003). This approach helps mothers save the cost of child care (Baydar & Brooks-Gunn, 1998). In particular, single mothers are more likely than partnered mothers to face time and mobility constraints in both the labor market and household-maintenance responsibilities such as child care and domestic work (Bianchi, Robinson, & Milkie, 2006; Buvinić & Gupta, 1997; Chant, 2003; Folk, 1996; Garfinkel & McLanahan, 1986; Gottschalk & Danziger, 1993; Lichter, 1997; Presser, 1989).

Several studies have shown that in Mexico, family and kinship networks have played an important role as a safety net for single mothers in recurrent economic crises during the 1980s and 1990s (Chant, 1991; González de la Rocha, 1994b). These networks share housework or child care for mothers who do not have an additional income earner because of absence of a male partner, thus allowing mothers to participate in the labor market. In her ethnographic study in Guadalajara, González de la Rocha (1994a) found female-headed households have an average of one additional extended family member. Instead of participating in the labor market and contributing financially to the household, these additional members enable mothers to work outside by sharing household chores, thereby providing the mother with more time for paid work. Safa also found that women with children in extended households often rotate in and out of employment for effective division of labor among household members in the Dominican Republic. Yet male extended kin (fathers or brothers) were willing to allow siblings or daughters to reside in their households in return for housework provided by those females (Safa, 1999).

Hypothesis 2: The effects of extended kin on an employed mother’s time will be greater for single mothers than for mothers with a partner present in the household.

Although there are abundant studies about the effects of household structure on women’s labor force participation in the United States, empirical examinations of the actual relationships among these factors in the Latin American context are scant. Previous studies show that mothers’ time allocation might be influenced by the characteristics of adults residing in their households. Tienda and Glass (1985) argue that the proportion of coresident female adults is positively related to a mother’s labor force participation, whereas the number of coresident adults decreases a single mother’s labor force participation rate, suggesting an increased domestic burden. Another subfamily including other preschoolers in the household is likely to increase a woman’s overall domestic duties and thus reduce the amount of time that she might set aside for paid employment (Rosenbaum & Gilbertson, 1995). Additional male in-law relatives living in the household might increase burdens for married (or cohabiting) mothers. Alternatively, some research suggests that any female extended kin such as mothers and mothers-in-law are important for mothers of young children (Short, Goldscheider, & Torr, 2006; Presser, 1989). Tienda and Glass (1985) suspect that employed extended kin and their earnings would increase the propensity for mothers to purchase day care services for children and actually facilitate mothers’ labor force participation.

In general, child care and domestic labor provided by other household members may have two different but related effects on a mother’s time. On one hand, it could reduce a mother’s stress caused by her housework responsibilities including child care, thus allowing her leisure or personal time. On the other hand, household labor provided by another household member might give the mother more time to use for earning income. Regarding the second effect, there is an ongoing debate about the relationship between extended kin and female labor force participation. Some studies suggest that extended family members increase a woman’s likelihood of working by providing her with low-cost child care (Blau & Robins, 1989; Heckman, 1974), whereas others find that the child care provided by extended kin does not affect women’s employment (Parish, Hao, & Hogan, 1991). However, research to assess the contributions of extended kin to mothers’ time should consider the sociodemographic characteristics of household members because time contribution depends on time availability, capability of making extra time, or expected gender role of these family members.

Hypothesis 3: Mother’s time spent on labor market activities for income will be greater as time for child care and domestic work by extended kin increases.

Method

This study uses data from the 2002 Mexican Family Life Survey (MxFLS1, Encuesta Nacioanl sobre Niveles de Vida de los Hogares). The MxFLS is designed by the Centro de Investigación y Docenicia Económicas and Universidad Iberoamericana, with the involvement of various research institutes including INEGI, Instituto Nacional de Estadística, and Geografía e Informática to coordinate field research. MxFLS1 provides very broad information about individuals, households, and communities, including measures of household economy. The MxFLS1 baseline is a probabilistic sample that is stratified, multistaged, and independent at each study dominion. Primary sampling units are selected with reference to representation at the national, urban–rural, and regional levels. Regional definitions are in accordance with the National Development Presidential Plan 2000-2006. The approximate sample size is 8,440 households with about 38,000 individuals and an overall response rate of 91% (Rubalcava & Teruel, 2007). This study uses a subsample of employed mothers between the 20 and 49 years living with at least one child younger than 18 years old, regardless of the presence of male partners in their households. As a result, 1,819 women (1,218 mothers with male partners and 601 single mothers) from 1,777 households are selected for this study. About 98% of the households (1,735 out of 1,777) in the sample have only one mother, whereas households including two mothers account for 2% of the total.² I consider the mothers living with their own subfamilies as separate cases.

To estimate the effects of household characteristics on time use among working mothers, I use regression models that control for state-level fixed effects with 16 state dummy variables. It is assumed that state-specific unobserved characteristics such as labor market structure or regional culture jointly influence the mother’s decisions about time allocation. Consequently, the errors for observations within states are likely to be correlated, since unobserved common group characteristics are transferred to the error term. Error variance is not constant because it depends on the error term at the state level as well as on the fixed covariates. Thus, the two assumptions of standard regressions are violated, and estimates are biased in OLS models. The fixed effects models allow for correlation between the fixed covariates and the state-level predictors (Allison, 2009) and, thus, reduce the bias of estimates by controlling for state-specific unobservables.

Dependent Variables

The main variable of interest is the amount of time spent weekly by a mother on child care, domestic work, personal activities, sleeping, and income-earning work. In MxFLS1, a respondent from each household estimates the amount of time all household members spent on each activity during the week prior to the interview date.³ Domestic work consists of preparing and cooking food, washing clothes or cleaning house, and collecting firewood or water. Time for care includes taking care of elders, sick people, or children, in addition to helping any household member study or do homework. The MxFLS1 does not distinguish a mother’s time for child care from time spent on care for sick or elderly people in the household. Thus, care time in this study does not exactly match with time spent on child care. To address this issue, I eliminate mothers older than 50 years whose adult household members (especially parents) are probably old enough to be in need of care so that I could better identify women who would spend their care time mostly on minor children. Leisure time is time spent participating in sports, cultural, or entertainment activities outside the household; watching TV; reading; or using the Internet. In the model for sleeping time, calculated separately from time for personal activities, I drop the cases reporting zero sleeping hours during the past week (n = 188). Time spent on paid work includes all income-related activities at all jobs, as well as travel time between home and workplace. I regard mother’s time for any specific activity as missing if she was involved in the activity during the past week but the amount of time spent on the activity is not reported. Since not all mothers who reported their time on one activity reported the other activities of interest, there are small differences in sample size across the regressions models. Also, because of missing values on two variables (log income and the years of education), there are small reductions in sample size (18 observations) in Model 2 and Model 3 compared with Model 1 in all regressions on time for each activity.

Independent Variables

This study examines the effects of extended household members residing within the household on time allocation of single mothers and mothers with male partners present. The hours for each activity are used as dependent variables, whereas characteristics of coresident extended household members and single mothers are employed as predictors. Regression models include two different sets of variables measuring characteristics of extended household members. The first measure captures gender of extended household members. I include dummy variables indicating presence of female and male extended family members separately. Second, I include a dummy variable indicating the presence of one or more employed extended family members regardless of their gender. I also estimate a modified model for mothers’ work time, which employs time spent on child care and domestic work by extended household members as predictors to examine type of family support relevant to mothers’ income-earning activities.

Extended household member⁴ is defined as a person who is neither a child nor a partner of a woman but rather another nonnuclear household member, such as a parent, sibling, or other relative living in the same household.⁵ To estimate the effects of extended family members separately by age and gender, I divide extended household members into four groups: young female, young male, adult female, and adult male extended household member. I also include a dummy variable indicating whether a mother invites members into her own household to extend it or is incorporated into someone else’s household. The variable is equal to 1 if a woman is a household head or spouse of a household head, and 0 if otherwise.

Single mother is used as a dummy variable. I define single mother as a woman living with at least one child younger than 18 years without the presence of the child’s biological father or the woman’s male partner, regardless of marital status. Mother with a partner present indicates a woman living with a child younger than 18 years and the woman’s male partner.

Mothers’ marital status needs careful attention. Dummy variables for currently married, cohabiting, divorced or separated, widowed, and never married are employed for the analyses of single mothers. Only currently married or cohabiting are included in the models for coupled mothers, because there are no cases of divorced or separated, widowed, or never married among mothers with male partners. Another point needs to be addressed here. To facilitate analyses, I include married or cohabiting mothers in the sample of single mothers when they do not currently live with their male partners in the same households. In these cases, I assume that the male partner is temporarily away from the family for a certain reason, or has emigrated to another city or country but returns home on a regular basis. It seems more logical for this study to include those mothers into the single-mother category because their current household composition and time arrangements would be more similar to those of single mothers than married mothers.

I use four age categories for children: (a) child from 1 to 6 years, (b) child from 7 to 14 years, (c) child from 15 to 17 years, and (d) child 18 years or older. Children in each age group may have different influences on a mother’s time use. For example, a mother should devote a significant amount of time to care for a preschool child younger than 6 years, and thus decrease her time for paid labor. Meanwhile, a female adolescent child may help with domestic work or take care of younger siblings, allowing her mother to go out for work or have more leisure time. Although adult children may also provide their mothers with domestic work or care for younger siblings, they could have the opposite effect on mothers’ time when they are employed and contribute to household income (Villarreal & Shin, 2008). Households located in communities with a population of at least 2,500 are considered urban households following the criteria defined by INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía). Variables for mother’s age and education are continuous. I control for household economic status using age-adjusted household income per capita, considering equivalent household size.⁶ Financial support from other extended kin outside the household is included as “family transfer” because financial transfers could be related to hours spent on activities by mothers. Each model also includes mothers’ work time as a control variable, except for the one in which work time is specified as a dependent variable.

Results

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics of mothers with partners present and single mothers between 20 and 49 years, living with at least one child younger than 18 years. Differences in time spent on child care, domestic work, sleeping, and income-earning activities between single mothers and married mothers are significant (p < .01), whereas average time spent on personal activities and sleeping are not. Time-use differences between two groups of women may be partly because of their employment status. Of single mothers, 56% are employed, whereas only 29% of married mothers are (see Table 1). Differences in time-use are almost identical among employed mothers except time for working. Clearly, factors other than women’s employment status generate the differences in time use.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Mothers With Partners Present and Single Mothers.

	All Mothers		Employed Mothers
	With Partner	Single	With Partner	Single
Percentage of employed mothers	28.6	56.3
Age (in years)	34.3	33.5	35.4	34.1
Education	7.1	7.1	8.0	7.7
Number residing in household	5.2	5.3	5.1	5.1
Monthly per capita income	1,199	881	1,715	1,053
Urban	60.9	61.4	70.6	69.7
Incorporated	8.4	46.9	5.6	45.8
Family transfer	120	234	121	273
Marital status
Never married	—	0.29	—	0.34
Married	0.83	0.25	0.81	0.13
Cohabit	0.17	0.05	0.19	0.04
Separated/divorced	—	0.33	—	0.40
Widowed	—	0.09	—	0.09
Hours spent on activities
Child care	26.3	21.9^‡	23.5	19.2^‡
Domestic work	28.2	20.0^‡	24.5	17.6^‡
Personal time	14.1	13.6	13.1	12.6
Sleeping	54.2	54.3	51.6	52.5
Work time	10.8	24.1^‡	37.6	42.9†
Children’s characteristics
Children younger than 7 years (%)	57.6	54.7	49.8	50.2
Children aged between 7 and 14 years (%)	70.6	62.7	74.4	61.1
Children between 15 and 17 years (%)	15.5	13.3	16.2	13.3
Adult children (18 years and older) (%)	21.7	16.8	22.2	16.8
Average no. of children younger than 7 years	0.84	0.72	0.71	0.62
Average no. of children aged between 7 and 14 years	0.17	0.14	0.17	0.14
Average no. of children aged between 15 and 17 years	1.21	1.03	1.24	1.00
Average no. of adult children	0.33	0.24	0.33	0.23
Characteristics of extended household members
Number of any extended household members	0.5	2.0	0.4	2.0
Number of adult extended household members	0.3	1.4	0.3	1.4
Households with extended household members (%)	21.8	60.6	20.4	60.6
Households with female adult extended household members (%)	14.4	51.5	13.4	52.4
Households with male adult extended household members (%)	11.1	40.4	8.8	38.9
N	4253	1067	1218	601
%	80.0	20.0	67.0	33.0

Note: Sample includes all mothers aged 20 to 49 years living with at least one child younger than 18 years. Average hours of sleeping time exclude those with 0 hours of sleep per week.

‡

Significant at .01 level in t test for group mean difference.

Table 1 also shows that extended kin networks are different for partnered and single mothers. Single mothers are more likely to have extended household members in their households. The proportion of single mothers living with any type of extended household member is 60%, compared with about 20% for employed mothers with male partners. On average, two extended household members live in a single-mother household, with 0.5 members in a coupled household. In addition, 93% of single-mother households include at least one female adult extended family member, whereas 82% of extended family households of partnered mothers include a female household member.

Table 2 illustrates how child care, domestic work, and work for income are distributed among household members of employed mothers. The proportion of time taken by a mother for child care decreases in extended households compared with nuclear ones in both single mothers and mothers with partners, indicating that extended household members may share child care with mothers or be involved in child care somehow. On the other hand, the average time for domestic work by mothers with partners and single mothers in nuclear households is significantly smaller than in extended households. Interestingly, single mothers living with extended family members spend significantly more time on work outside the home, whereas there is no significant difference in average time spent on paid work between married mothers in nuclear families and those in extended households—and no significant difference in overall work (child care + domestic + paid).

Table 2.

Time for Child Care, Domestic Work, and Work by Household Members in Households of Employed Mothers by Hours per Week.

	Mothers With Partners		Single Mothers
	Nuclear	Extended	Nuclear	Extended
Time for child care
Mother	23.35	24.35	18.31	19.92
Spouse	4.39	3.63	N/A	N/A
Extended members	N/A	12.84	N/A	22.45
Children	1.89	2.45	4.00	1.71^†
Total child care	29.63	43.27^‡	22.31	44.08^‡
Time for domestic work
Mother	25.12	21.64^‡	22.17	14.1^‡
Spouse	2.99	2.67	N/A	N/A
Extended members	N/A	20.87	N/A	29.14
Children	4.16	3.78	6.11	1.92^‡
Total domestic work	32.27	48.96^‡	28.28	45.16^‡
Time for work
Mother	37.27	39.36	38.80	46^‡
Spouse	42.48	39.38	N/A	N/A
Extended members	N/A	31.77	N/A	60.45
Children	9.99	11.89	8.25	4.31^‡
Total work time	89.74	122.4^‡	47.05	110.76^‡
N	970	248	237	364

Note: Group comparisons are between nuclear versus extended households for married and single mothers.

‡

Significant at .01 level. ^†Significant at .05 level in t test for group mean difference.

Employed mothers with partners present have greater amounts of time per week for overall work than do single mothers, both among nuclear (85.7 vs. 79.3) and extended households (84.4 vs. 80.0). Such differences are statistically significant (p < .05).

Table 3 reports the influence of different types of extended household members on women’s caregiving time. I run the regressions using a pooled sample, including both single and partnered mothers, to test for interaction effects between four types of extended household members with single mother. In Model 3, the interaction coefficient for female extended members and single mothers is statistically significant (p < .05), suggesting the presence of female adult extended kin reduces single mothers’ time spent on child care the most. The presence of male or young extended members does not have any significant effect on a single mother’s time. To examine the effects of female adult extended members on mothers’ child care time by mother’s status, I run regression models separately for single mothers and mothers with partner using the same variables except marital status. Different categories of marital status are applied to each model because mothers with partner present include only cohabiting mothers and married mothers by definition. All never-married, divorced or separated, or widowed mothers are assigned to the single-mother sample, which also includes married or cohabiting mothers whose partners are not present in the households (e.g., temporary migration).

Table 3.

Regression Results: Time Devoted to Child Care by Mothers.

	Pooled Sample						Separate Samples
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Single Mothers		With Partner
Variables	β	(SE)	β	(SE)	β	(SE)	β	SE	β	SE
Age			−1.74*	(0.793)	−1.71*	(0.794)	−1.49	(1.239)	−1.69	(1.075)
Age²			1.75	(1.093)	1.70	(1.095)	1.54	(1.765)	1.59	(1.455)
Education			0.36**	(0.137)	0.36**	(0.137)	0.36⁺	(0.212)	0.36*	(0.175)
Single mother			1.35	(2.219)	3.23	(2.328)
Young female ext. member	−3.39⁺	(1.826)	−1.02	(1.777)	−0.11	(3.214)	−1.76	(2.085)	0.11	(3.229)
Young male ext. member	−1.39	(1.985)	−0.99	(2.049)	−0.18	(3.668)	−1.71	(2.412)	−0.48	(3.667)
Adult female ext. member	1.30	(1.662)	0.46	(1.926)	3.47	(2.505)	−6.49*	(2.835)	3.35	(2.509)
Adult male ext. member	−0.80	(1.727)	−2.48	(1.722)	−3.16	(2.717)	−2.82	(2.284)	−3.36	(2.703)
Incorporated into a household			−1.65	(2.464)	−0.73	(4.080)	2.12	(3.208)	−1.07	(4.090)
Single mother * Female ext. member					−9.32*	(3.741)
Single mother * Male ext. member					0.40	(3.490)
Single mother * Young female ext. member					−1.34	(3.776)
Single mother * Young male ext. member					−1.42	(4.369)
Single mother * Incorporated					2.83	(5.058)
Log family transfer			0.24	(0.144)	0.23	(0.143)	0.22	(0.220)	0.22	(0.190)
Log income			0.73**	(0.249)	0.77**	(0.251)	1.36**	(0.477)	0.58⁺	(0.296)
Urban			3.95**	(1.176)	4.09**	(1.175)	2.19	(1.836)	4.98**	(1.516)
Cohabitation			−0.50	(2.870)	−1.88	(2.930)	−5.36	(3.728)	−1.74	(1.743)
Married			1.53	(2.705)	0.18	(2.772)	0.98	(3.271)
Divorced or separated			−4.28*	(2.111)	−5.43*	(2.129)	−6.24**	(2.260)
Widowed			−2.03	(2.742)	−3.52	(2.834)	−4.49	(2.937)
Work time			−0.14**	(0.027)	−0.14**	(0.027)	−0.13**	(0.046)	−0.16**	(0.033)
No. of children younger than 7 years			8.02**	(0.855)	8.04**	(0.856)	8.38**	(1.634)	7.95**	(1.018)
No. of children aged 7 to 14 years			2.06**	(0.581)	2.02**	(0.584)	1.17	(0.967)	2.49**	(0.741)
No. of children aged 15 to 17 years			−2.37⁺	(1.221)	−2.44*	(1.217)	−1.55	(2.118)	−2.85⁺	(1.514)
No. of children aged 18 years and older			−2.87**	(0.788)	−2.96**	(0.783)	−3.25*	(1.473)	−2.80**	(0.948)
Constant	22.40**	(0.714)	50.99**	(14.650)	51.09**	(14.592)	46.25*	(21.543)	52.95**	(19.537)
Observations	1,758		1,740		1,740		584		1,156
R ²	0.0025		0.2324		0.2363		0.2443		0.2394

Note: Robust errors in parentheses; 16 regional dummies (state) included but not shown.

p < .01. *p < .05. ⁺p < .1.

Single mothers living with a female adult extended member spend less time on child care compared with those living without female kin in their households, but having a female adult extended household member does not significantly affect time spent on child care by mothers with partners. Controlling for mothers’ demographic characteristics, children’s characteristics, household income, and mothers’ working hours, single mothers living with female adult extended members spend about 6.5 hours less on child care per week than do single mothers without these members. Having a male adult extended family member, on the other hand, does not have a significant influence on time for child care, either for single or married mothers. Neither a male nor a female young extended member has a significant influence on mother’s time for child care.

As expected, the presence of a young child younger than 6 years increases a mother’s time for child care, whereas an adult child decreases the amount of time for child care spent by an employed mother, implying that older children may share their mothers’ child care responsibility. Interestingly, the number of children aged 7 to 14 years has different effects on mothers’ time depending on whether a mother is single or not. Although those children do not affect mothers’ time for care in single-mother households, they do increase mothers’ time spent on care in households of mothers with partners.

The effects of an extended household member on mothers’ time for domestic work are not gender-neutral either. As reported in Table 4, having a female adult extended household member significantly reduces a mother’s time spent on domestic labor. Net of individual and household characteristics (Model 2), the presence of a female adult extended member decreases the time spent on domestic work of all mothers by about 3 hours, compared with women without such members in the household—a statistically significant difference (p < .01). However, the effects do not depend on a partner’s presence, as shown by the insignificant interaction coefficient in Model 3. Both male adult extended family member and young household members have no significant effect on either single mothers or mothers with partners.

Table 4.

Regression Results: Time Devoted to Domestic Work by Mothers.

	Pooled Sample						Separate Samples
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Single Mothers		With Partner
Variables	β	(SE)	β	(SE)	β	(SE)	β	SE	β	SE
Age			0.96*	(0.396)	0.95*	(0.397)	1.00	(0.625)	0.66	(0.538)
Age²			−1.40*	(0.568)	−1.40*	(0.568)	−1.31	(0.925)	−1.07	(0.757)
Education			−0.43**	(0.087)	−0.42**	(0.087)	−0.51**	(0.142)	−0.39**	(0.111)
Single mother			−2.62⁺	(1.375)	−2.15	(1.429)
Young female ext. member	−0.66	(1.172)	−1.10	(1.121)	−2.12	(2.015)	−0.84	(1.377)	−2.17	(2.028)
Young male ext. member	0.66	(1.258)	0.84	(1.187)	2.38	(2.158)	−0.43	(1.333)	2.39	(2.145)
Adult female ext. member	−6.52**	(0.996)	−3.14**	(1.189)	−3.12*	(1.515)	−3.83⁺	(1.971)	−2.96⁺	(1.526)
Adult male ext. member	−3.33**	(1.036)	−1.02	(1.018)	−0.46	(1.624)	−1.43	(1.328)	−0.28	(1.625)
Incorporated into a household			−2.00	(1.435)	−1.19	(2.191)	−1.49	(2.102)	−1.57	(2.225)
Single mother * Female ext. member					−0.33	(2.422)
Single mother * Male ext. member					−1.10	(2.110)
Single mother * Young female ext.					1.60	(2.373)
Single mother * Young male ext.					−2.58	(2.552)
Single mother * Incorporated					−0.80	(2.908)
Log family transfer			0.17⁺	(0.093)	0.17⁺	(0.093)	0.15	(0.150)	0.17	(0.120)
Log income			−0.02	(0.157)	−0.01	(0.158)	−0.14	(0.295)	−0.07	(0.195)
Urban			−2.39**	(0.764)	−2.42**	(0.769)	−3.97**	(1.282)	−1.95*	(0.977)
Cohabitation			0.73	(1.806)	0.43	(1.846)	2.67	(3.705)	−1.21	(1.143)
Married			1.74	(1.586)	1.43	(1.607)	2.51	(1.626)
Divorced or separated			−0.08	(1.201)	−0.37	(1.196)	−0.03	(1.279)
Widowed			4.19⁺	(2.347)	3.81	(2.388)	3.83	(2.401)
Work time			−0.09**	(0.017)	−0.09**	(0.017)	−0.04	(0.032)	−0.11**	(0.020)
No. of children younger than 7 years			1.17*	(0.540)	1.17*	(0.539)	0.06	(0.891)	1.50*	(0.639)
No. of children aged 7 to 14 years			1.08**	(0.380)	1.10**	(0.381)	0.53	(0.626)	2.54*	(0.478)
No. of children aged 15 to 17 years			−0.76	(0.925)	−0.73	(0.927)	−2.81⁺	(1.621)	0.32	(1.145)
No. of children aged 18 years and older			2.05**	(0.618)	2.05**	(0.619)	1.31	(1.294)	2.08**	(0.714)
Constant	24.60**	(0.404)	15.95*	(7.235)	16.16*	(7.259)	15.30	(11.198)	20.74*	(9.587)
Observations	1,802		1,784		1,784		592		1,192
R ²	0.0676		0.1718		0.1730		0.2115		0.1134

Note: Robust errors in parentheses; 16 regional dummies (state) included but not shown.

p < .01. *p < .05. ⁺p < .1.

In contrast to the case of child care, having an adult child increases the time for domestic work for mothers with partners, but does not affect the time for single mothers. This finding is consistent with the argument that an increase in the number of household members implies greater domestic responsibilities for a woman (Tienda & Glass, 1985). However, the effects of school-year children vary by mothers’ status. For each child between 7 and 14 years that a mother with partner has, she spends 2.5 hours more on domestic work. Yet an increase in number of such children has no significant effect on single mothers’ time for domestic work. Also, an additional adolescent child (aged 15-17 years) decreases mothers’ time for domestic work by 3 hours only in the households of single mothers, implying that school-year children in single-mother households require different roles from those in the households of a partnered mother.

To examine Hypothesis 3 about mothers’ time spent on labor market activities, I use two specifications considering the activities of extended household members. First, I run the same models from the prior regressions for care time and domestic work. To test for gender effect of extended household members, I use the same controls except work time. Second, I fit the models for mothers’ work time, including the hours of child care and domestic work done by all extended family members in the household, to test which types of time support provided by extended family members are related to employed mothers’ working time.

Table 5 presents the effects of extended kin on working time of employed mothers. Female extended household members are positively related, whereas male extended household members are negatively related, to a single mother’s working time, yet none of the variables is significant. Meanwhile, the amount of time spent on child care by extended kin is positively related to work time for both types of mothers (Table 6). As each hour of time for child care by extended household members increases, the mother’s work time also increases by 0.1 hours. Domestic work by an extended member has no significant effect on a mother’s employed work time, indicating that domestic work time can be more flexible for working mothers. In other words, working mothers tend to spend more time in paid work when there are extended household members who take on partial responsibility for child care, but they are not likely to increase or decrease their work time as a result of domestic labor provided by someone else. A comparison of tables reveals that a mother’s work time is more relevant to the actual amount of time provided by extended household members than is their presence itself in the households.

Table 5.

Regression Results: Time Devoted to Income-Earning Activities by Mothers (1).

	Pooled Sample						Separate Sample
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Single		With Partner
Variables	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE
Age			−0.70⁺	(0.380)	−0.69⁺	(0.382)	−0.32	(0.562)	−0.99⁺	(0.520)
Age²			0.72	(0.525)	0.70	(0.528)	0.23	(0.794)	1.08	(0.713)
Education			0.55**	(0.069)	0.55**	(0.069)	0.57**	(0.115)	0.54**	(0.087)
Single mother			1.56	(1.127)	1.25	(1.199)
Young female ext. member	−0.45	(0.972)	−0.49	(0.950)	−1.50	(1.447)	0.33	(1.285)	−1.84	(1.449)
Young male ext. member	−1.22	(0.991)	−0.87	(0.988)	−0.44	(1.502)	−1.27	(1.327)	−0.60	(1.502)
Adult female ext. member	0.34	(0.784)	−0.14	(0.872)	−0.14	(1.071)	0.23	(1.565)	−0.19	(1.073)
Adult male ext. member	0.21	(0.853)	−0.54	(0.886)	−1.11	(1.213)	−0.15	(1.323)	−0.97	(1.221)
Incorporated into a household			0.16	(1.136)	0.26	(1.669)	0.23	(1.724)	0.14	(1.692)
Single mother * Female ext. member					0.22	(1.874)
Single mother * Male ext. member					1.12	(1.752)
Single mother * Young female ext.					1.69	(1.914)
Single mother * Young male ext.					−0.69	(1.986)
Single mother * Incorporated					−0.48	(2.340)
Log family transfer			0.00	(0.071)	0.00	(0.072)	0.06	(0.113)	−0.03	(0.093)
Log income			0.28*	(0.132)	0.27*	(0.133)	0.41	(0.331)	0.25⁺	(0.141)
Urban			1.54**	(0.555)	1.54**	(0.555)	1.73⁺	(0.971)	1.57*	(0.678)
Cohabitation			1.80	(1.525)	1.90	(1.564)	1.60	(2.550)	0.94	(0.808)
Married			0.95	(1.429)	1.04	(1.466)	0.97	(1.639)
Divorced or separated			−0.95	(1.112)	−0.83	(1.155)	−0.68	(1.183)
Widowed			−0.88	(1.849)	−0.77	(1.900)	−0.15	(2.009)
Work time			−0.05**	(0.013)	−0.05**	(0.013)	−0.06*	(0.024)	−0.05**	(0.015)
No. of children younger than 7 years			−0.68⁺	(0.367)	−0.68⁺	(0.367)	0.14	(0.705)	−0.86*	(0.434)
No. of children aged 7 to 14 years			−0.64*	(0.270)	−0.64*	(0.271)	−0.06	(0.447)	−0.83*	(0.350)
No. of children aged 15 to 17 years			0.20	(0.621)	0.22	(0.625)	−0.23	(1.010)	0.55	(0.779)
No. of children aged 18 years and older			0.39	(0.416)	0.39	(0.417)	−0.01	(0.804)	0.38	(0.493)
Constant	12.96**	(0.314)	22.65**	(7.333)	22.47**	(7.366)	17.18	(11.278)	28.67**	(9.527)
Observations	1,799		1,781		1,781		590		1,191
R ²	0.0012		0.1178		0.1185		0.1368		0.1283

Note: Robust errors in parentheses; 16 regional dummies (state) included but not shown.

p < .01. *p < .05. ⁺p < .1.

Table 6.

Regression Results: Time Devoted to Income-Earning Activities by Mothers (2).

	Pooled Sample						Separate Sample
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Single		With Partner
Variables	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE
Age			0.45	(0.722)	0.45	(0.720)	0.41	(1.122)	0.64	(0.946)
Age²			−0.79	(1.020)	−0.79	(1.018)	−0.79	(1.593)	−1.06	(1.334)
Education			−0.20	(0.133)	−0.20	(0.133)	−0.31	(0.234)	−0.14	(0.160)
Single mother			2.21⁺	(1.263)	2.35	(1.432)
Hrs. of domestic work by ext. members	0.07*	(0.032)	−0.04	(0.039)	−0.02	(0.059)	−0.05	(0.053)	−0.02	(0.060)
Hrs. of child care by ext. members	0.11**	(0.033)	0.09**	(0.033)	0.14*	(0.067)	0.08*	(0.039)	0.14*	(0.069)
Urban			3.31**	(1.192)	3.30**	(1.194)	6.69**	(2.057)	1.76	(1.502)
No. of children younger than 7 years			−2.38**	(0.775)	−2.36**	(0.775)	−2.58⁺	(1.544)	−2.22*	(0.915)
Single mother * Ext. domestic					−0.04	(0.078)
Single mother * Ext. child care					−0.06	(0.076)
Log family transfer			−0.23	(0.138)	−0.23	(0.139)	−0.34	(0.223)	−0.19	(0.179)
Log income			0.55*	(0.261)	0.56*	(0.262)	1.32**	(0.504)	0.29	(0.300)
Incorporated into a household			6.70**	(1.948)	5.11	(3.110)	7.76**	(2.588)	4.59	(3.158)
Single incorporated					2.85	(3.858)
No. of children aged 7 to 14 years			−0.49	(0.571)	−0.48	(0.572)	−1.09	(0.955)	−0.19	(0.714)
No. of children aged 15 to 17 years			−0.93	(1.399)	−0.95	(1.399)	4.13⁺	(2.422)	−3.00⁺	(1.716)
No. of children aged 18 years and older			0.41	(0.958)	0.39	(0.960)	0.39	(1.675)	0.40	(1.150)
Constant	38.19**	(0.560)	30.80*	(12.741)	30.62*	(12.711)	27.66	(20.380)	29.31⁺	(16.564)
Observations	1,819		1,801		1,801		597		1,204
R ²	0.0163		0.0492		0.0499		0.0969		0.0289

Note: Robust errors in parentheses; 16regional dummies (state) included but not shown.

p < .01. *p < .05. ⁺p < .1.

Tables 5 and 6 also show findings worth noting on the effect of young children. Having one additional young child younger than 7 years decreases the working time of mothers living with male partners, whereas the working time of single mothers is not associated with the number of young children. One possible interpretation is that it is easier for mothers with another main-income earner (usually a male partner) than for single mothers to reduce their working hours to spend more time on child care when there are young children in the family, regardless of the presence of other household members. Two other forms of kinship support employed in this study —incorporated and family transfers—have some effects on mothers’ work time. Net of the time for child care and domestic work by extended household members, single mothers work 8 hours more when they are incorporated into someone else’s household than do single-mother heads (Table 6). Yet family transfer does not affect mothers’ work time. The regression results for household composition on time spent for personal activities and sleeping are not reported here. Unexpectedly, the presence of female extended family members does not increase time for personal activities for either single mothers or mothers living with partners.

To examine the employment effects of extended kin further, I report together the regression results for care time, domestic work, and work time, using an indicator variable of employed extended household members as a predictor. Table 7 shows the effects of the employment status of extended household members on mothers’ time allocations. The employment of an extended household member significantly changes how much time coupled mothers devote to child care, whereas it does not affect single mothers’ care time. Employment of a household member indicates an increased contribution to total household income by that member, which in turn reduces the need for a mother’s income contribution when a young child is present. Therefore, employed mothers might not decrease child care time for time spent on paid work.

Table 7.

Regression Results: Time Devoted to Activities by Mothers

	Care			Domestic			Work
	Total	Single	Coupled	Total	Single	Coupled	Total	Single	Coupled
Single mother	2.12 (2.263)			−2.31⁺ (1.398)			−5.45* (2.353)
Employed extended member	11.05⁺ (6.367)	2.82 (2.566)	11.14⁺ (6.239)	7.46* (3.689)	−0.57 (1.413)	7.44* (3.720)	2.84 (5.040)	−4.04⁺ (2.411)	3.00 (5.041)
Being incorporated	−3.01 (3.292)	−6.57** (2.327)	−3.76 (3.321)	−5.47** (1.698)	−5.52** (1.520)	−5.55** (1.746)	5.82* (2.774)	9.21** (2.289)	5.56⁺ (2.868)
Employed ext. * Single mother	−9.05 (6.839)			−8.75* (3.929)			−6.44 (5.544)
Incorporated * Single mother	−2.81 (3.833)			0.07 (2.117)			3.41 (3.406)

Note: Robust errors in parentheses; 16 regional dummies (state) included but not shown.

p < .01. *p < .05. ⁺p < .1.

The presence of employed kin has a similar effect on the amount of time mothers spend on domestic work in general. The interaction coefficient for employed extended family members and single mothers is statistically significant (p < .05), suggesting that the presence of employed kin affects household workload differently depending on the mother’s status. Partnered mothers living with employed adult extended household members spend about 7 hours more on housework than those without such members, whereas single mothers’ time for domestic work does not increase in the presence of employed household members. Meanwhile, employed extended household members affect working time for single mothers only marginally (p < .1).

Conclusions

Do coresident family members influence women’s time allocations in Mexico? The results of this study suggest that they do, but the nature of the relationship between women’s time and the presence of extended kin in the household varies by the gender and employment status of the extended household member, as well as by whether the woman is a single mother or not. First, single mothers benefit from coresiding with female extended family members in terms of their time for child care and domestic work, whereas the presence of male coresident kin has no significant effect on a single mother’s time allocation in these areas (Hypotheses 1 and 2). Female extended household members, however, play a relatively less-important role in the time allocation of mothers with partner present (Hypothesis 2). Second, although the results suggest that the presence of extended household members is not directly associated with greater paid work time for single mothers, child care hours provided by extended kin increase the time for income-earning activities spent by both single mothers and their coupled counterparts. Domestic labor provided by these members, though, does not increase the amount of time mothers spend on paid work (Hypothesis 3). In sum, the analyses show that male and female extended household members have different effects on the use of time by their single-mother kin and that the effects on time of having female extended kin are greater for single mothers than for married mothers in three activities—child care, domestic work, and paid employment.

These findings offer important gender-equity implications. Although extended family arrangements may contribute to the well-being of single mothers, it is only female extended kin to whom the workload or time burden is transferred—not extended kin in general, as some literature suggests (Gammage, 2010; Roldán, 1987). Also, having male partners in the household is costly for mothers regardless of the presence of extended family members, since these mothers spend more time on both care and domestic work without substantially reducing the number of hours they spend in paid employment.

Although family composition and female poverty in Mexico and Latin America has been one of the central interests of Latin American scholars in this field, investigations have been heavily oriented toward ethnographic research. The findings of this study are meaningful in family literature on Mexico because they show which household member, what types of activities, and how these members and activities help mothers within households. This study also supports previous research by providing evidence based on a national household survey.

Few studies have examined why coresident extended family members affect the time allocation of single mothers but not mothers with male partners present. Based on the results of this research, I could suggest two possible explanations for the difference. First, the relationship of coresident extended family members to single mothers is not the same for partnered mothers. For example, in most patriarchal societies such as Mexico, extended family members in a single mother’s household are more likely to have direct relationships with the single mother (such as her parents, siblings, or close kin), but extended family members in a coupled mother’s household are more likely to be in-laws. As prior studies suggest, a single mother’s extended family arrangements might be strategic, because direct kin are more inclined to help their single-parent kin than are other relatives (Roldán, 1987). Second, even if extended family members help coupled households, the activities of extended members might have more influence on the time of the mother’s male partner than on the time of the mother. Descriptive statistics shown in Table 2 imply that the average time for child care by a male partner is less in extended households than in nuclear households.

Another important point is that child care and domestic work provided by extended kin have different effects on a mother’s time spent in paid employment. This situation might be because of mothers attributing different meanings to each form of household support. Child care, unlike domestic work, requires a caregiver to spend a significant amount of time, and it must be provided continuously. In contrast, domestic work could be put on hold until a mother or someone else is available to do it. Thus, it might not have any significant effect on a mother’s decision about her work time.

In sum, this study has important implications for the role of family networks. Household extension is a safety net for employed single mothers facing both time and material constraints and may contribute to the welfare of single mothers in Mexico. The decline of family size and extended families because of a decrease in fertility and an increase in single-parent households since the 1970s should be a warning sign about the need for social protection for single mothers based on kinship networks (Roberts, 2005). As many researchers note, shrinking family size implies that “others” in the household who would assume the task of child care will be increasingly scarce (Presser, 1989).

In contrast to networks in rural areas or traditional societies, urban family or kinship networks are not stable in Mexico. The profound transformation of the Mexican economy and labor market structure has resulted in either repetitive unemployment (or underemployment) or unstable work for family members. The high cost of child care may be a barrier to purchasing the service among low-income mothers. Kinship networks as a social mechanism have their limits and instabilities (Villarreal & Shin, 2008), as they constitute only one of three components of the welfare triangle: state, market, and family (Esping-Anderson, 1999). In addition, neoliberal reforms by the Mexican government since the 1980s have changed the roles of state, employment patterns, and labor market structures and thus affected family life situations such as marriage patterns.

The Mexican government has launched various social-protection programs for vulnerable people in poverty since the late 1990s. Although Progresa/Oportunidades, a well-known flagship cash-transfer program, has been evaluated as successfully contributing to the reduction of poverty in Mexico by enhancing children’s education, nutrition, and health, impacts of the program were not gender neutral. Researchers argue that the program placed more burdens on mothers as the principal managers of their families’ needs, although the program enhanced women’s empowerment to some extent (Molyneux, 2006, 2007; Skoufias, 2001). In other words, women’s well-being was not seriously considered in the program because “mothers are treated as having responsibilities rather than needs and rights” (Molyneux, 2007, p. 30). Molyneux (2006) points out that the design of the program lacks consideration of mothers’ needs for economic autonomy or security because training for the job market and child care provisions for those women were rarely provided through the program.

In this context, the demographic trend experienced by U.S. society—increasing numbers of young and never-married single mothers—suggests that more and more Mexican single mothers would suffer from poverty in the absence of social protection provided by the family if Mexico follows a demographic trend similar to that of the United States in the future. From this point of view, the present study suggests that Mexico should play active roles in both government and society to provide basic welfare services (such as child care) and construct effective labor market mechanisms.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Bryan Roberts and Andres Villarreal for advice, as well as Marcus Britton, Noelle Chesley, and Myungho Paik for helpful comments. I am also very grateful to the anonymous reviewers and the editor of the Journal of Family Issues.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Agarwal

(1997). “Bargaining” and gender relations: Within and beyond the household. Feminist Economics, 3, 1-57.

Allison

(2009). Fixed effects regression models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Apps

(2003, March). Gender, time use and models of the household (IZA Discussion Paper No. DP No. 796). Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor.

Bardasi

Wodon

(2006). Measuring time poverty and analyzing its determinants: Concepts and application to Guinea. Economics Bulletin, 10, 1-7.

Baydar

Brooks-Gunn

(1998). Profiles of grandmothers who help care for their grandchildren in the United States. Family Relations, 47, 385-393.

Becker

(1965). A theory of the allocation of time. Economic Journal, 75, 493-517.

Bianchi

Milkie

M. A.

Sayer

L. C.

Robinson

J. P.

(2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79, 191-228.

Bianchi

Robinson

J. P.

Milkie

M. A.

(2006). Changing rhythms of American family life. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Blau

F. D.

(1998). Trends in the well-being of American women, 1970-1995. Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 112-165.

10.

Blau

D. M.

Robins

P. K.

(1989). Fertility, employment, and childcare costs. Demography, 26, 287-300.

11.

Brayfield

A. A.

Deich

S. G.

Hofferth

S. L.

(1993). Caring for children in low-income families: A substudy of the National Child Care Survey, 1990. A National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) study. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

12.

Buvinić

Gupta

G. R.

(1997). Female-headed households and female-maintained families: Are they worth targeting to reduce poverty in developing countries? Economic Development and Cultural Change, 45, 259-280.

13.

Chant

(1991). Women and survival in Mexican cities: Perspectives on gender, labour markets, and low-income households. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.

14.

Chant

(1997a). Women-headed households: Diversity and dynamics in the developing world. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

15.

Chant

(1997b). Women-headed households: Poorest of the poor? Perspectives from Mexico, Costa Rica and the Philippines. IDS Bulletin, 28(3), 26-48.

16.

Chant

(2002). Researching gender, families, and households in Latin America: From the 20th into the 21st century. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 21, 545-575.

17.

Chant

(with Craske

). (2003). Gender in Latin America. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

18.

Davis

S. N.

Greenstein

T. N.

(2004). Cross-national variations in the division of household labor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1260-1271.

19.

Deaton

Zaidi

(2002). Guidelines for constructing consumption aggregates for welfare analysis (World Bank Living Standards Measurement Study Working Paper No. 135). Washington, DC: World Bank.

20.

de Jong Gierveld

de Valk

Blommesteijin

(2001). Living arrangements of older persons and family support in more developed countries (United Nations Population Bulletin, Special Issue Nos. 42/43). New York, NY: United Nations.

21.

De Vos

. (1987). Latin American households in comparative perspective. Population Studies, 41, 501-517.

22.

Douthitt

R. A.

Zick

C. D.

McCullough

(1990). The role of economic and demographic factors in explaining time-use of single and married mothers. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 11, 23-51.

23.

Esping-Anderson

(1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

24.

Fafchamps

Quisumbing

(1998). Social roles, human capital, and the intrahousehold division of labor: Evidence from Pakistan. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

25.

Fields

Casper

L. M.

(2001). America’s families and living arrangements: 2000 (Current Population Report Series P20-537). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

26.

Floro

M. S.

(1995). Women’s well-being, poverty, and work intensity. Feminist Economics, 1(3), 1-25.

27.

Folbre

(1988). The black four of hearts: Toward a new paradigm of household economics. In Bruce

Dwyer

(Eds.), A home divided: Women and income in the third world. (pp. 248-264). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

28.

Folk

K. F.

(1996). Single mothers in various living arrangements: Differences in economic and time resources. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 55, 277-292.

29.

Fuchs

V. R.

(1986). His and hers: Gender differences in work and income, 1959-1979. Journal of Labor Economics, 4, S245-S272.

30.

Fussell

Palloni

(2004). Persistent marriage regimes in changing times. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1201-1213.

31.

Gager

C. T.

Cooney

T. M.

Call

K. T.

(1999). The effects of family characteristics and time use on teenagers’ household labor. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 982-994.

32.

Gammage

(2010). Time pressed and time poor: Unpaid household work in Guatemala. Feminist Economics, 16, 79-112.

33.

Garfinkel

McLanahan

S. S.

(1986). Single mothers and their children: A new American dilemma. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

34.

González de la Rocha

(1994a). Household headship and occupational position in Mexico. In Kennedy

González de la Rocha

(Eds.), Poverty and well-being in the household: Case studies of the developing world (pp. 1-24). San Diego: Center for Iberian and Latin American Studies, University of California San Diego.

35.

González de la Rocha

(1994b). The resources of poverty: Women and survival in a Mexican city. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

36.

Gottschalk

Danziger

(1993). Family structure, family size, and family income: Accounting for changes in the economic well-being of children, 1968-1986. In Danziger

Gottschalk

(Eds.), Uneven tides: Rising inequality in America (pp. 169-193). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

37.

Heckman

J. J.

(1974). Effects of child-care programs on women’s work effort. Journal of Political Economy, 82(Suppl.), 136-163.

38.

Howorth

J. T.

(2004). Work, leisure and well-being. In Haworth

J. T.

Veal

A. J.

(Eds.), Work and leisure (pp. 168-183). New York, NY: Routledge.

39.

Ilahi

(2000, June). The intra-household allocation of time and tasks: What have I learnt from the empirical literature? (Policy Research Report on Gender and Development Working Paper Series No. 13). Washington, DC: World Bank Development Research Group/Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network.

40.

Ilahi

Grimard

(2000). Public infrastructure and private costs: Water supply and time allocation of women in rural Pakistan. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 49, 45-75.

41.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. (2000). Estados Unidos Mexicanos. XII Censo General de Población y Vivienda 2000: Tabulados de la Muestra Censal. Aguascalientes, Mexico: Author. National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics, 2000, Mexico - XII General Population and Housing Census 2000: Tables of the Census Sample

42.

Juster

F. T.

Stafford

F. P.

(1985). Introduction and overview. In Juster

F. T.

Stafford

F. P.

(Eds.), Time, goods, and well-being (pp. 1-18). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

43.

Kabeer

(1997). Women, wages, and intrahousehold power relations in urban Bangladesh. Development and Change, 28, 261-302.

44.

Kanaiaupuni

S. M.

(2000). Reframing the migration question: An analysis of men, women, and gender in Mexico. Social Forces, 78, 1311-1348.

45.

Katz

E. G.

(1995). Gender and trade within the household: Observations from rural Guatemala. World Development, 23, 327-342.

46.

Lavee

Katz

(2002). Division of labor, perceived fairness, and marital quality: The effect of gender ideology. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 27-39.

47.

Lichter

(1997). Poverty and inequality among children. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 121-145.

48.

Malhotra

DeGraff

D. S.

(1997). Entry versus success in the labor force: Young women’s employment in Sri Lanka. World Development, 25, 379-394.

49.

Molyneux

(2006). Mothers at the service of the new poverty agenda: Progresa/Opertunidades, Mexico’s conditional transfer program. Social Policy & Administration, 40, 425-449.

50.

Molyneux

(2007, May). Change and continuity in social protection in Latin America. Mothers at the service of the state? (Working Paper No. 1). Geneva, Switzerland: UN Research Institute for Social Development, Gender Development Programme.

51.

Newman

(2002). Gender, time use, and change: The impact of the cut flower industry in Ecuador. World Bank Economic Review, 16, 375-396.

52.

Ono-Osaki

(1991). Female headed households in developing countries: By choice or by circumstances. In Demographic and Health Surveys World Conference Proceedings. Columbia, MD: IRD/Macro International.

53.

Parish

W. L.

Hao

Hogan

D. P.

(1991). Family support networks, welfare, and work among young mothers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 203-215.

54.

Presser

H. B.

(1989). Can I make time for children? The economy, work schedules, and child care. Population Association of America, 1989 presidential address. Demography, 4, 523-543.

55.

Roberts

R. B.

(2005). Citizenship, rights, and social policy. In Wood

C. H.

Roberts

B. R.

(Eds.), Rethinking development in Latin America (pp. 137-158). University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

56.

Robinson

J. P.

Godbey

(1997). Time for life: The surprising ways Americans use their time (2nd ed.). University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

57.

Roldán

(1987). Class, gender, and household exchanges. In Benería

Roldán

(Eds.), The crossroads of class and gender: Industrial homework, subcontracting, and household dynamics in Mexico City (pp. 109-136). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

58.

Rosenbaum

Gilbertson

(1995). Mothers’ labor force participation in New York City: A reappraisal of the influence of household extension. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 243-249.

59.

Rubalcava

Teruel

(2007). The Mexican Family Life Survey: First wave. Retrieved from www.mxfls.uia.mx

60.

Safa

H. I.

(1999). Women coping with crisis: Social consequences of export-led industrialization in the Dominican Republic (North-South Agenda Paper No. 36). Miami, FL: North-South Center, University of Miami.

61.

Scott

E. K.

London

A. S.

Hurst

(2005). Instability in patchworks of child care when moving from welfare to work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 370-386.

62.

Shelton

B. A.

(1992). Women, men and time: Gender differences in paid work, household and leisure. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.

63.

Shelton

B. A.

Daphne

(1996). The division of household labor. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 299-322.

64.

Short

S. E.

Chen

Entwisle

Fengying

(2002). Maternal work and child care in China: A multi-method analysis. Population and Development Review, 28, 32-57.

65.

Short

S. E.

Goldscheider

F. K.

Torr

B. M.

(2006). Less help for mother: The decline in coresidential female support for the mothers of young children, 1880-2000. Demography, 43, 617-629.

66.

Skoufias

(2001). PROGRESA and its impacts on the human capital and welfare of households in rural Mexico: A synthesis of the results of an evaluation by IFPRI. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

67.

South

S. J.

Spitze

(1994). Housework in marital and nonmarital households. American Sociological Review, 59, 327-347.

68.

Thompson

Walker

(1991). Gender in families: Women and men in marriage, work, and parenthood. In Booth

(Ed.), Contemporary families: Looking forward, looking backward (pp. 76-102). Minneapolis, MN: National Council on Family Relations.

69.

Tienda

Glass

(1985). Household structure and labor force participation of Black, Hispanic, and White mothers. Demography, 22, 381-394.

70.

Trigueros

(1992). Unidades domésticas y papel de la mujer en un poblado rural en el que se practica la migración a Estados Unidos. In Salles

Elsie

(Eds.), La Investigación sobre la mujer: Informes en sus primeras versiones (Serie documentos de investigaci6n no. 2). Mexico City, Mexico: Colegio de Mexico. Domestic units and the role of women in a rural village that migration to the U.S. is performed. In Salles

Elsie

(Eds.), Research on woman, reports in its first versions (Research paper series no.2)

71.

Vandell

D. L.

McCartney

Owen

M. T.

Booth

Clarke-Stewart

(2003). Variations in child care by grandparents during the first three years. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 375-381.

72.

Villarreal

Shin

(2008). Unraveling the economic paradox of female-headed households in Mexico: The role of family networks. Sociological Quarterly, 49, 565-595.

73.

Wartenberg

. (1999). Vulnerabilidad y jefatura en los hogares urbanos colombianos. In González de la Rocha

(Ed.), Divergencias del modelo tradicional: Hogares de jefatura femenina en América Latina (pp. 77-96). México City, Mexico: CIESAS. Vulnerability and female headship in urban Colombian households. Deviation from traditional model: Households headed by women in Latin America

74.

Willis

(1993). Women’s work and social network use in Oaxaca City, Mexico. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 12, 65-82.

75.

Zuzanek

(2004). Work, leisure, time-pressure and stress. In Haworth

J. T.

Veal

A. J.

(Eds.), Work and leisure (pp. 123-44). New York, NY: Routledge.