Résultats de recherche

1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«[T]he question of whether married women and cohabiting women – those living in common-law relationships – exhibit different behavioural labour supply responses to shocks experienced by their male partner has received little attention so far. If cohabiting women respond to the job losses or wage changes experienced by their male partner to a lesser extent than married women, then cohabiting couples might face greater instability in family income than their married counterparts following a shock of a given magnitude.» (p. 2499) C’est pour combler le manque de connaissance dans ce domaine que les auteurs ont entrepris cette étude.

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
L’étude est basée sur les données du Recensement canadien de 2006.

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse statistique

3. Résumé

Les auteurs notent que «[g]iven the rapid rise in the prevalence of cohabitation, investigating whether married couples and cohabiting couples adjust differently to wage shocks is a prerequisite for a thorough understanding of how today’s families respond to changing economic parameters. The magnitude of women’s labour supply response to changes in their husband’s wages is critical to understand the degree to which changes in male earnings inequality translate into changes in family income inequality.» (p. 2512-2513) Les résultats montrent que «Quebec is probably a decade ahead of the rest of Canada in the progression of cohabitation in terms of prevalence and family functions (Le Bourdais et al., 2007). However, we find that cohabitating women in both Quebec and the rest of Canada are quite similar in that they are less responsive to male wages than married women.» (p. 2513) «[O]ur finding that negative shocks to male wages have quantitatively similar impacts for both married couples and their cohabiting counterparts suggests that policies, if any, designed to help families adjust to changes in the wage structure induced by technological changes and/or growing international trade need not be differentiated by couples’ form of union.» (p. 2513-2514)