| Literature DB >> 33903783 |
Huamin Chai1,2, Rui Fu3, Peter C Coyte3.
Abstract
Middle-aged adults are commonly confronted with the burden of paid work and multiple caregiving roles. This paper examines the relationship between weekly hours of unpaid caregiving and hours of work using data from the baseline survey of the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study. The analysis was conducted on a nationally representative sample of 3645 working-age Chinese adults aged 45-60 years who were not farming and had a young grandchild and/or a parent/parent-in-law. For women and men separately, we combined the use of a Heckman selection procedure and instrumental variables to estimate the relationship between weekly caregiving hours and hours of work. A caregiving threshold was also identified for women and men separately to allow for the testing of a kink and/or a discontinuity in this relationship. We found that for women, their working hours were initially unrelated to hours of caregiving before the threshold of 72 caregiving hours per week; then, their working hours experienced an almost two-fold increase at the caregiving threshold before falling by 2.02 percent for each additional hour of caregiving beyond the threshold. For men, their hours of work fell by 2.74 percent for each hourly increment in caregiving. Although a caregiving threshold of 112 h was identified for men, there was insufficient evidence for a statistically significant kink or discontinuity in this relationship. These findings provide support for a range of fiscal and human resource policies that target employed family caregivers in order to advance their well-being while also maintaining their work productivity. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11205-021-02692-w.Entities:
Keywords: Employment; Family caregivers; Labour market outcomes; Unpaid caregiving
Year: 2021 PMID: 33903783 PMCID: PMC8059691 DOI: 10.1007/s11205-021-02692-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Soc Indic Res ISSN: 0303-8300
Descriptive statistics of the study sample stratified by unpaid caregiver status
| Characteristics | Women (n = 1417) | Men (n = 2228) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | Non-caregivers | Caregivers | All | Non-caregivers | Caregivers | |||
| Labour force participants | 648(46%) | 419(50%) | 229(39%) | *** | 1666(75%) | 1163(76%) | 503(72%) | * |
| Hours of work per week | 52.23 (20.83) | 53.19 (20.43) | 50.47 (21.48) | NS | 54.50 (19.92) | 55.89 (19.84) | 51.28 (19.76) | *** |
| Hours of unpaid caregiving per week | 17.80 (33.48) | – | 43.26 (40.30) | – | 10.69 (26.01) | – | 34.18 (36.89) | – |
| Age, years | 49.74 (3.25) | 49.35 (3.26) | 50.30 (3.18) | *** | 52.23 (4.68) | 52.06 (4.71) | 52.89 (4.58) | *** |
| * | NS | |||||||
| Married | 134(95%) | 797(96%) | 544(93%) | 2133(96%) | 1465(96%) | 668 (96%) | ||
| Unmarried | 76(5%) | 37(4%) | 39(7%) | 95(4%) | 66(4%) | 29(4%) | ||
| NS | ** | |||||||
| Illiterate or primary school | 671(47%) | 383(46%) | 288(49%) | 801(36%) | 554(36%) | 247(35%) | ||
| Middle school | 381(27%) | 236(28%) | 145(25%) | 777(35%) | 545(36%) | 232(33%) | ||
| High school | 311(22%) | 179(21%) | 132(23%) | 522(23%) | 357(23%) | 165(24%) | ||
| College or above | 54(4%) | 36(4) | 18(3%) | 128(6%) | 75(5%) | 53(8%) | ||
| Having work-limiting health conditions | 133(9%) | 85(10%) | 48(8%) | NS | 296(13%) | 197(13%) | 99(14%) | NS |
| Urban residence | 513(36%) | 315(38%) | 198(34%) | NS | 971(44%) | 697(46%) | 274(39%) | *** |
| Household size | 3.61 (1.47) | 3.39 (1.33) | 3.93 (1.62) | *** | 3.75 (1.61) | 3.61 (1.50) | 3.75 (1.61) | *** |
| Monthly spousal income | 1480.50 (2642.10) | 1559.41 (2920.82) | 1367.63 (2179.86) | NS | 447.20 (1341.91) | 486.12 (1483.94) | 361.71 (954.11) | * |
| Managerial position | 56(4%) | 32(4%) | 24(4%) | NS | 206(9%) | 131(9%) | 75(11%) | * |
| Working at the government or a state-owned institution, organization or firm | 150(11%) | 92(11%) | 58(10%) | NS | 404(18%) | 262(17%) | 142(18%) | * |
We reported the mean (standard deviation) for continuous variables and the count (proportion) for categorical variables. The means and proportions of continuous and categorical variables were compared using the t-test and the Chi-square test, respectively
*p value < 0.1, **p value < 0.05, ***p value < 0.01. NS, not significant (p value ≥ 0.1)
Results of the Heckman selection model predicting log-transformed weekly working hours
| Variables | Women | Men |
|---|---|---|
| (Caregiving threshold at 72-h per week) | (Caregiving threshold at 112-h per week) | |
| Caregiving hours before the threshold, per hour, CG | − 0.00108 | − 0.00274*** |
| (0.00237) | (0.000790) | |
| Discontinuity at the caregiving threshold, CG^ | 1.860** | 1.402 |
| (0.690) | (1.716) | |
| Interaction between threshold and caregiving, CG*CG^ | − 0.0191** | − 0.00713 |
| (0.00634) | (0.0126) | |
| Age, per one-year increase | 0.194 | − 0.00375 |
| (0.350) | (0.0843) | |
| Age-squared | − 0.221 | − 0.00170 |
| (0.355) | (0.0819) | |
| Currently married | − 0.196 | 0.141 |
| (0.157) | (0.0910) | |
| Middle school | − 0.0401 | − 0.0414 |
| (0.0742) | (0.0342) | |
| High school | 0.0222 | − 0.0722 |
| (0.0975) | (0.0430) | |
| College and above | 0.0268 | − 0.0380 |
| (0.255) | (0.0704) | |
| Having work-limiting health conditions | 0.236 | 0.0505 |
| (0.288) | (0.0907) | |
| Urban residence | 0.102 | 0.0302 |
| (0.0676) | (0.0388) | |
| Household size, per one-person in the household | 0.0196 | 0.0286** |
| (0.0239) | (0.00943) | |
| Monthly spousal income (log-transformed) | 0.00615 | 0.00273 |
| (0.0139) | (0.00595) | |
| Working at the government or a state-owned institution, organization or company | − 0.369*** | − 0.187*** |
| (0.0816) | (0.0375) | |
| Employed as a manager | 0.130 | − 0.0202 |
| (0.127) | (0.0469) | |
| Inverse Mills ratio | 0.0853 | 0.108 |
| (0.388) | (0.216) | |
| Constant | − 0.290 | 3.946 |
| (8.627) | (2.182) | |
| Joint significance test of the three caregiving variables (CG, CG^ and CG*CG^) | 4.452*** | 4.593*** |
| ( | ( | |
| Joint significance test of CG^ and CG*CG^ | 4.600** | 4.244** |
| ( | ( | |
| Observations | 648 | 1,666 |
| R-squared | 0.090 | 0.048 |
| F-statistic | 3.923 | 5.211 |
| log-likelihood | − 700.1 | − 1382 |
Standard errors are in parentheses
***p value < 0.01, **p value < 0.05, *p value < 0.1
Fig. 1The expected weekly working hours of Chinese women by hours of caregiving, conditional on being labour force participants. Note: The orange line indicates the caregiving threshold of 72 h per week. We used a blue solid line and a pair of grey dashed lines to represent the mean expected working hours and the 95% confidence intervals, respectively. The prediction was performed using the Heckman selection model without the instrumental variables while assuming all covariates were at the mean
Fig. 2The expected weekly working hours of Chinese men by hours of caregiving, conditional on being labour force participants. Note: The orange line indicates the caregiving threshold of 112 h per week. We used a blue solid line and a pair of grey dashed lines to represent the mean expected working hours and the 95% confidence intervals, respectively. The prediction was performed using the Heckman selection model without the instrumental variables while assuming all covariates were at the mean. Due to the large standard error associated with the caregiving effect at the 112-h threshold and immediately afterwards, the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was out of range