Teresa Makar

April 18, 2014

POL S 335
Motivating question: How do we understand the economic division of labor? What are the costs,
and who bears them? How should we evaluate the costs and benefits?
In the words of Mr. Cleaver, the father in the popular 1950s and 60s American sitcom
Leave it to Beaver, a womans place is in the home (Dubner, 2014). Although today such a
statement would be considered politically incorrect at best and misogynistic at worst, there is
much evidence that suggests that American society still retains the view that men and women
inherently have separate places. Our society promotes the role of women as homemakers and
caregivers and compels men to take the role of primary breadwinner. Our social values lead to
the persistence of a gendered division of labor in which women are encouraged to invest their
talent in the home instead of pursuing careers, while men are expected to serve as the primary
source of income. I argue that the division of labor is largely a product of a societys production
mode and that the gendered division of labor in the post-industrial model is a remnant of past
models. In the American post-industrial model, women still pay the brunt of the costs associated
with the endurance of a gendered division of labor, which I argue are fewer opportunities for
work outside the home compared to men, lower wages, and a lower sense of happiness and wellbeing.
A societys economic production mode is key in shaping the demand for labor for both
sexes and thus in developing gendered labor divisions. A societys movement from one
production model to another alters the demand for female and male labor and restructures the
division of labor. David Ricardo argues that societies should specialize in the aspect of
production in which they possess the comparative advantage (Clayton, April 3). This economic
model can be applied to individuals in the same way: Men and women should thus specialize in
the task in which they possess the comparative advantage. According to Iverson and Rosenbluth,
the gendered division of labor that we understand today began with the rise of agrarian societies.
In the agrarian model, labor-intensive farming created a demand for physical strength. Men hold
the comparative advantage in physical brawn due to their larger stature. Women are generally
physically weaker than men and therefore have high opportunity costs for labor-intensive farm
work, but low opportunity costs for household labor. It follows that a womans comparative
advantage is in the home in the agrarian model. Men and women can trade (childcare in

Teresa Makar 2

exchange for agricultural goods) or combine their labor through marriage in order to maximize
efficiency and produce greater overall welfare for the society (Iverson and Rosenbluth, 2010).
The transition from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy reduced the division
of labor as demand for female labor outside the home rose. The labor market no longer placed a
premium on physical strength, because machinery allowed women to perform much of the same
work as men. Mens lack of comparative advantage in many industrial jobs meant that the most
efficient labor model for society was not necessarily one that encouraged men and women to
specialize in separate areas of labor. The decrease in demand for physical brawn allowed women
to enter the labor force in greater numbers. However, many obstacles still remained in this
production model, which allowed the gendered division of labor to persist. In jobs in which
employees performed specialized tasks, it benefited the employer if workers remained long
enough to become highly skilled. Many industries desired that employees remain working the
same job for years or even for life. Women were far more likely to take several years off or to
quit entirely in order to raise children. Employers viewed it as a financially smart decision to
hire men over women as men were more likely to provide high returns on employers initial
investments. Moreover, the demand for womens labor in the home did not decrease
substantiallywomen who worked outside the home were expected to perform the same
cooking, cleaning, and child care as full time homemakers. If a woman sought to work outside
the home, she was often forced to work two jobs in reality: her paid job outside the home and
her job as a homemaker. The role of social expectations and norms in perpetuating this behavior
is enormous and is one of the main reasons why gendered division of labor persists even today
(Iverson and Rosenbluth, 2010).
America has transitioned into a post-industrialized economy; the provision of services
has replaced most factory jobs. Men hold no comparative advantage over women in most service
jobs; therefore, the shift in production model has further increased the demand for female labor.
Service jobs are also more likely to place emphasis on general skills, instead of specific skills.
This bolsters the ability of women to take time off from work without harming their careers. In
addition, employers are less likely to expect that employees remain working the same job their
entire lives. Women no longer represent bad investments to employers. Ricardos specialization
of labor need not apply. Yet, according to the World Bank, the female labor force participation in
the United States in 2012 was still only 57% (World Bank.org). Many jobs are still

Teresa Makar 3

predominately male; women are vastly underrepresented as heads of states and elected officials,
in executive positions, and in higher end jobs (Slaughter, 2012). Women work disproportionally
in low paying and low-skill positions, and tend towards working in certain industries, including
retail, hospitality, and food service (Iverson and Rosenbluth, 2010). Although female labor force
participation has been growing over the last several decades, working outside the home is still
considered more characteristic of men than of women, and women seem to be working in highly
gendered sectors. Why does gendered division of labor persist today? There are two opposing
arguments for the endurance of this labor division: First, that division of labor within the home
maximizes economic efficiency, and second, that socialization is simply slow in changing gender
norms that support a division of labor.
Gary Beckers classic economic model views the household as an economic unit that
seeks to maximize the overall household utility through the division of labor. According to
Becker, a household is most efficient and therefore experiences the highest utility when the
woman specializes completely in household specific skills and the man invests completely in his
marketable skills. Becker argues that a woman should remain at home until her children are
grown. Beckers model makes sense from an economic perspectiveif women have fewer job
opportunities outside the home and fewer opportunities for well-paying jobs than men, then men
hold the comparative advantage in working outside the home. However, Beckers model fails to
present any solution to the relatively lower demand for female labor outside the home. He
ignores the prospect of reducing the opportunity costs for women to join the labor market, which
could potentially shift the balance in the household division of labor, no longer making it the
most economically efficient outcome for the woman to remain in the home (Clayton, April 8).
Another reason for the persistence in the gendered division of labor is that social norms
take time to change. It takes time to rewrite school curricula and textbooks that portray men and
women as fulfilling separate roles as breadwinners and homemakers. Public policy that allows
discrimination against women often takes years to reverse. Socialization also happens largely on
a subconscious level. Parents may be teaching their children that women and men should have
equal opportunity in the work place, but children viewing the gendered behaviors of adults may
internalize those behaviors unintentionally. Without realizing it, parents may prepare their
daughters to enter the marriage market instead of the labor market. Social values evolve over
time, and because the United States has not been a post-industrial state for very long, it may take

Teresa Makar 4

time before social norms develop to reflect greater gender equality. In the meantime, it may be
uncomfortable for women. In fact, women are bearing the brunt of the costs associated with this
gendered division of labor.
Some of the major costs imposed on women through this gendered division of labor are a
lower availability of jobs, lower wages, and decreased sense of happiness and well-being. The
persistence of the social norm that women belong in the home reduces the demand for female
labor on the job market. Employers also factor into their hiring decisions the likelihood that a
woman will take time off or quit in order to raise her children. Although job discrimination
based on sex is not legal, it still occurs widely. When demand for female labor is low, women
have less bargaining power in negotiating their wages. According to the United States Census
Bureau, women still make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes (US Census Bureau, 2012). In
some states, that statistic is as low as 64 cents per dollar (Casserly, 2013). Women also have had
difficulty breaking through the glass ceiling in reaching higher level corporate jobs. Only 20
fortunate 500 companies have female CEOs (Howard, 2012). Women are also underrepresented
in high level political positions. Among 190 heads of states, only 17 are women (Clayton, April
1). The gendered division of labor reduces womens opportunities for work outside the home
and reduces the prospect that women will achieve the same pay as their male counterparts. It
also creates the expectation that a career woman work two jobs: her job outside the home, and
her job within the home. Gender norms reinforce the idea that a woman should cook and clean,
as well as acting as the primary caregiver in raising children and taking care of the elderly.
Women who work outside the home are faced with the daunting task of handling two jobs at
once, which can lead to stress and fatigue. Women are also frustrated with the difficulty in
achieving recognition for their work and rising above the glass ceiling. While men report
experiencing increasing levels of happiness over the past several decades, women report
diminishing levels of happiness and well-being (Dubner, 2014). They are paying the lions share
of the costs associated with the gendered division of labor, and they are simply not satisfied with
the results.
It is worth noting that another reason for the persistence of gendered division of labor is
that some women genuinely want to be stay-at-home mothers and homemakers. They may hold
religious beliefs that lead them to forgo working outside the home. They may simply want the
opportunity to spend more time with their children. Whatever the reason, there always remain

Teresa Makar 5

some women who will stay home not for lack of opportunity, but because they prefer to.
However, this should not detract from the pursuit of equality in the workplace and the reversal of
gendered norms that disadvantage women who do seek jobs outside the home.
Despite the rise in womens opportunities due to the switch from an agrarian production
model to an industrial production model and from an industrial model to the post-industrial
model, we are still far from eliminating the gendered division of labor. However, it would be
unreasonable to expect that gender norms and unfair expectations of women improve overnight.
In order to correct the harm done to women, we must make an effort to reshape public policy and
school curricula. With time, new gender norms will be established that encourage the value of
having women in the workplace. I am confident that with time and proactive behavior, we can
discard unfair gender divisions and truly begin to treat men and women as equals.

Teresa Makar 6

Bibliography
Casserly, Meghan. The Geography of the Gender Pay Gap: Womens Earnings by State.
Forbes. September 19, 2013. Web. http://www.forbes.com
Clayton, Amanda. The Political Economy of Gender. April 1, 2014, April 3, 2014, and April 8,
2014 Lecture.
Dubner, Stephen. Why Marry? Freakonomics, February 13, 2014. Web.
http://freakonomics.com.
Howard, Caroline. The New Class of Female CEOs. Forbes. August 22, 2012. Web.
http://www.forbes.come
Iverson, Torben and Frances Rosenbluth. Women, Work, and Politics: The Political Economy of
Gender Inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010. Print.
Paxton, Pamela and Melanie Hughes. Women, Politics, and Power: A Global Perspective.
Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2014. Print.
Slaughter, Anne Marie. Why Women Still Cant Have it All. The Atlantic, June 13 2012.
Web. http://www.theatlantic.com
United States Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United
States: 2012. Web. http://www.census.gov
The World Bank, Labor force participation rate, female (% of female population ages 15+).
Web. http://data.worldbank.org