• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

IZA Newsroom

IZA – Institute of Labor Economics

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Press Lounge
  • DE
  • EN
ResearchJune 11, 2024

Work arrangements matter for the child penalty

New study shows mothers can work more while maintaining parenting time when given more control over work schedules

© IZA, created with Midjourney

Newborns require significant time, often leading mothers to drastically reduce work hours. Can giving mothers more control over their work schedules mitigate this drop in labor supply and earnings (known as the “child penalty”)? And do fathers step up with childcare and housework when mothers work more?

A new IZA Discussion Paper by Ludovica Ciasullo and Martina Uccioli explores these questions. They analyze the impact of Australia’s 2009 Fair Work Act, which granted parents the right to request a change in work arrangements. Their findings? Specific work arrangements with greater control over work hours do reduce the child penalty for mothers. However, fathers did not contribute more to housework when mothers worked more.

Regular schedules more appealing than casual contracts

Before 2009, many Australian mothers opted for casual contracts (no guaranteed hours) to reduce work hours. The Fair Work Act allowed them to request reduced hours within their existing permanent contracts, maintaining a predictable schedule. This predictability was highly sought after: 70% fewer women transitioned from permanent to casual contracts after childbirth compared to before the legislation.

More hours worked, same time spent with children

The option to maintain permanent contracts led to increased work hours for mothers. In the most exposed group, the option to request this work arrangement led to an increase in labor supply by eight hours per week. This increase in work hours came at the expense of housework, but not of childcare: affected mothers spent similar amounts of time with their newborns compared to similar mothers before the legislation. This suggests mothers weren’t neglecting their children for work.

Earnings up, housework share unchanged

The law significantly impacted mothers’ labor supply and earnings. Mothers in the most exposed group increased their share of household income by eight percentage points. Yet, their relative contribution to housework and childcare remained unchanged. This suggests that relative earnings aren’t the only factor in how tasks are split within couples, highlighting the potential role of gender norms.

Featured Paper:

IZA Discussion Paper No. 16991 What Works for Working Couples? Work Arrangements, Maternal Labor Supply, and the Division of Home Production Ludovica Ciasullo, Martina Uccioli

Share this article

Share on X Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share via e-mail
  • child penalty
  • household division of labor
  • mothers
  • work arrangements
  • Ludovica Ciasullo
  • Martina Uccioli
Previous Post
Shuffle
Next Post

Reader Interactions

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • November 19, 2025

    Are economics students more influenced by source authority than argument substance?
  • November 5, 2025

    Firms overestimate local competitiveness, but still prefer to stay
  • September 29, 2025

    AI is changing higher education, but students aren’t using it how you’d expect

Related Content

  • February 15, 2024

    How the division of roles within the family shapes job satisfaction
  • January 17, 2018

    What drives the gender pay gap?
  • December 24, 2024

    Society underestimates men's support for couple equity
  • 
  • 
  • Archive
  • 
  • Research
  • 
  • Work arrangements matter for the child penalty

© 2013–2025 Deutsche Post STIFTUNGImprint | Privacy PolicyIZA