According to Seiz (1995), the assumed unitary nature of the household may lead to misinterpretations and therefore has led to the rise of alternative approaches, who challenge the main assumption that women decide to take responsibility for household labour out of free choice and rational motivation, but instead as an outcome of social constraints, as the household represents an arena of conflict and contest, where power relations exist (Seiz, 1995). This implies that the neoclassical approach ignores the social structures, such as gender contracts in their explanation for the gendered division of tlabour and the related decision on time allocation by men and women (Fagan, 2001). Similarly, Sayer et al (2009) claim that Becker’s economic approach focuses mainly on the aspect of efficiency and uses gender as an analytical category to reveal its impact on comparative advantages. In spite of these limitations Becker’s (1965) time allocation model, is a useful theory to understand the time allocation regimes in modern market societies, but is not able to explain the source of the gendered division of labour and the resulting differences in time allocation patterns. However, based on Becker’s theory it may be assumed that educational attainment, relative income and the presence of children represent a pivotal element to analyse the gendered differences in time use. For the purpose of this paper Becker’s time allocation theory is relevant, as it assumed that if women devote more time to paid work, which is in fact represented by the increasing female labour market participation than men should devote more time to unpaid household work. However, a resource based approach may not sufficient to examine the gendered division of work
According to Seiz (1995), the assumed unitary nature of the household may lead to misinterpretations and therefore has led to the rise of alternative approaches, who challenge the main assumption that women decide to take responsibility for household labour out of free choice and rational motivation, but instead as an outcome of social constraints, as the household represents an arena of conflict and contest, where power relations exist (Seiz, 1995). This implies that the neoclassical approach ignores the social structures, such as gender contracts in their explanation for the gendered division of tlabour and the related decision on time allocation by men and women (Fagan, 2001). Similarly, Sayer et al (2009) claim that Becker’s economic approach focuses mainly on the aspect of efficiency and uses gender as an analytical category to reveal its impact on comparative advantages. In spite of these limitations Becker’s (1965) time allocation model, is a useful theory to understand the time allocation regimes in modern market societies, but is not able to explain the source of the gendered division of labour and the resulting differences in time allocation patterns. However, based on Becker’s theory it may be assumed that educational attainment, relative income and the presence of children represent a pivotal element to analyse the gendered differences in time use. For the purpose of this paper Becker’s time allocation theory is relevant, as it assumed that if women devote more time to paid work, which is in fact represented by the increasing female labour market participation than men should devote more time to unpaid household work. However, a resource based approach may not sufficient to examine the gendered division of work