Exploring the association between gender equality in the family and fertility intentions: an explanation of the findings in low-fertility countries

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated a positive association between gender equality in the family and fertility measures. However, this association may vary when different features of gender equality in the family, such as the division of housework and childcare, are analyzed. Furthermore, it has been argued that individuals may have different perceptions regarding housework and childcare, which can further explain how the division of these activities is associated with fertility outcomes. We performed a microlevel investigation of the association between the division of housework and childcare and fertility intentions with the aim of identifying patterns (or their absence) in the association. We hypothesized that a more equitable division of tasks is associated with increased fertility intentions. We used data from the first round of the Generations and Gender Survey (GGS) in ten countries: Germany, Belgium, Austria, France, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Bulgaria, and Georgia. Our samples included individuals who were in heterosexual relationships and had one child. We employed binary logistic regression for analysis. Overall, our findings suggested that a more equitable division of housework was associated with an increased likelihood of intending to have a second child. Conversely, a less equitable division of childcare was associated with a decreased likelihood of intending to have a second child. Owing to the discussion of the diverse perceptions that individuals may hold regarding housework and childcare, this study contributes to the literature by proposing a theoretical explanation for the patterns observed in our results. The results align with those of previous studies indicating that childcare is generally viewed as enjoyable and rewarding, whereas housework tends to be negatively evaluated and linked to perceptions of unfairness and inequality. Consequently, a more equitable division of housework may reduce work‒family conflict and potentially be associated with increased fertility intentions. In contrast, if childcare is perceived as fulfilling, engaging in more childcare activities may lead to increased fairness rather than unfairness, leading to the association between less equal division of childcare and increased fertility intentions.

Introduction

Numerous theories have emerged to explain low fertility, each approaching the issue from different perspectives and areas of focus. The most relevant theories for studying the fertility intentions and behaviors of highly educated women with significant participation in the labor market, which is typical of advanced societies, are those emphasizing the combined effects of occupational work and household organization (Testa, 2014). Within this context, the literature identifying systems of gender (Mason, 1997) and gender equality (McDonald, 2000a, 2000b) provides the primary explanation for low fertility levels in high-income countries. Torr and Short (2004) argue that, particularly from the 1990s and 2000s, many studies aimed at understanding fertility transitions began to prioritize gender equality as a significant explanatory variable.

The theoretical debate lacks consistency regarding the association between gender equality and fertility in the early stages of the demographic transition, with limited empirical evidence indicating some connections between these variables. Theoretical and empirical studies have focused primarily on examining the association between gender equality and fertility in the later stages of the demographic transition, particularly when fertility declined from moderate or moderately low levels to very low levels in high-income countries during the second half of the twentieth century (Mcdonald, 2000a; Raybould & Sear, 2020).

Within this context, McDonald (2000a, 2000b) explores the differentiation between gender equality in individual-oriented institutions and gender equality in family-oriented institutions. Gender equality in individual-oriented institutions addresses issues related to the labor market and education. On the other hand, gender equality in family-oriented institutions is related to support structures and initiatives aimed at alleviating work‒family conflicts, particularly for women. On the basis of this distinction, McDonald (2000a, 2000b) noted that, in high-income countries, rapid advances in gender equality in individual-oriented institutions combined with persistent (and comparatively) low levels of gender equality in family-oriented institutions resulted in a decrease in fertility to levels below (or considerably below) replacement.

Goldscheider et al. (2015) analyzed how ongoing shifts in gender norms initially lead to women’s emancipation in the public sphere, marked by increased education, labor force participation, and earnings. These advancements in the public sphere constitute the first gender revolution, which, by heightening the conflict between men’s and women’s opportunity costs, delays partnership and marriage while also decreasing fertility. A second gender revolution, this time in the private sphere, may reverse the declining fertility trend. This second gender revolution is characterized by increased male participation in unpaid domestic work, which alleviates the burden on women and facilitates increased fertility intentions. The described context could lead to a U-shaped association between gender equality in the family and fertility (Esping-Andersen & Billari, 2015; Goldscheider et al., 2015; Han & Brinton, 2022; McDonald, 2000a, 2000b; Raybould & Sear, 2020).

Fertility intentions encompass the various potential obstacles encountered throughout the life course. These intentions represent a proactive “plan of action” to have a child (Miller et al., 2004), situated between the ideal number of children—also known as fertility ideals, which do not consider any obstacles—and actual childbearing (Bachrach & Morgan, 2013; Brinton & Lee, 2016; Miller, 2011; Philipov & Bernardi, 2011). Therefore, in high-income countries, where contraceptive use is widespread and fertility is highly planned, fertility intentions act as the most proximate determinant of fertility (Balbo et al., 2013; Bongaarts, 2001; Hayford, 2009; Philipov & Bernardi, 2011; Philipov et al., 2006; Schoen et al., 1999; Westoff & Ryder, 1977).

Bearing this in mind, and on the basis of previous theories (Esping-Andersen & Billari, 2015; Goldscheider et al., 2015; McDonald, 2000a, 2000b; Raybould & Sear, 2020), we aimed to investigate and compare the microlevel association between gender equality in the family and fertility intentions in low-fertility countries. We used data from the first round of the Generations and Gender Survey (GGS) in the following countries: Germany, Belgium, Austria, France, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Bulgaria, and Georgia. Additionally, on the basis of these previous theories and aligned with our objective, we hypothesized that gender equality in the family is positively associated with fertility intentions. To assess this hypothesis, we considered two measures of gender equality in the family: the division of housework and childcare. We employed binary logistic regression for analysis.

By conducting a within-country analysis (Puur et al., 2008; Torr & Short, 2004), this study identified patterns in the association between gender equality in the family and fertility intentions. Moreover, previous studies on this topic have rarely related differences in housework and childcare to the contrasting and diverse results reported in earlier studies, particularly at the microlevel. Therefore, on the basis of individuals’ varying perceptions of housework and childcare, this work further contributes to the literature by proposing a theoretical explanation for the patterns observed in our results.

Sect. "Gender equality and its relationships with fertility patterns and fertility intentions" presents the state-of-the-art theories that have been developed and continue to advance the debate on the relationship between gender equality in the family and fertility, as well as the contrasting and heterogeneous results reported in previous empirical investigations. Sect. "Measures of gender equality in the family and differences in individuals’ perceptions of housework and childcare" presents the measures of gender equality in the family used in this study—the division of housework and division of childcare—and explores the literature on differences in individuals’ perceptions of housework and childcare, which is proposed to (theoretically) explain the diverse empirical findings. Sect. "Data and methods" presents the data and methods, and Sect. "Results" presents the results. The last section discusses the overall findings, outlines the limitations of the analysis, and suggests a future research agenda.

Gender equality and its relationships with fertility patterns and fertility intentions

Gender equality plays a crucial role in shaping fertility patterns and intentions across different socioeconomic contexts. Chesnais (1996) highlighted that the disparity in fertility rates between Sweden and Italy as industrialized countries stems from the increased alignment between paid and unpaid work in Sweden, facilitated by robust public policies, whereas in Italy, women face challenges in reconciling these roles. This underscores the correlation between higher levels of gender equality and increased fertility in industrialized nations. Conversely, Chesnais (1996) argued that in low- and medium-income countries with high fertility rates, increased gender equality is linked to reduced fertility.

McDonald (2000a, 2000b) also asserted that enhancing gender equality is a fundamental requirement for both increasing fertility in high-income countries and decreasing it in low-income countries. The author addressed this apparent contradiction by proposing that gender equality should be analyzed in two distinct and separate institutions: individual-oriented institutions and family-oriented institutions. This division implies two main statements that guide his theory (McDonald, 2000a). The first statement asserts that in low- and medium-income countries, the transition from high to low levels of fertility is associated with increasing levels of gender equality in the family. As women gain more decision-making power and access to a wider range of choices, including the option to have fewer children, fertility rates tend to decline. However, as McDonald (2000a) emphasized, it is more plausible to investigate the association in later phases of the demographic transition, which are characterized by a sustained and continuous decrease in fertility to levels below replacement (Mcdonald, 2000a; Raybould & Sear, 2020): “I argue here that the emphasis on the period surrounding the onset of decline may be misplaced. More value may be obtained from studying why fertility continues to decline to low levels after it has commenced to fall. In other words, the scope for theoretical generalization is probably greater in study of the sustained fall of fertility than in study of the commencement of fertility decline” (McDonald, 2000a: 430).

McDonald’s (2000a) second statement asserts that in high-income countries, rapid developments in gender equality in individual-oriented institutions combined with the persistent (and comparatively) low levels of gender equality in family-oriented institutions have caused low fertility. Developments in family-oriented institutions are key to reducing women’s work‒family conflict and, consequently, increasing fertility. More recently, Goldscheider et al. (2015) further developed the theory proposed by McDonald (2000a). They posit that the discussion is not exactly about the institutional support that reduces work‒family conflict but rather about shifts in gender norms that lead to the increased involvement of men in unpaid domestic work. Although Goldscheider et al. (2015) do not dismiss the importance of extrafamilial support that (possibly) reduces parents’ (especially women’s) work‒family conflict, they consider the reversal in fertility levels to be fundamentally linked with the ongoing gender revolution, particularly with respect to the increasing involvement of men in household tasks (Esping-Andersen & Billari, 2015; Goldscheider et al., 2015; Raybould & Sear, 2020).

The rationale behind the discussion by Goldscheider et al. (2015) includes the postindustrial revolution era, which was marked by the separation of work life from domestic life. This led to the establishment of social norms favoring the male breadwinner–female homemaker model, which initially sustained higher fertility rates. Subsequently, women achieved higher levels of education and had greater participation in the labor market, constituting the first of the two gender revolutions: the increase in gender equality in the public sphere. These shifts in the public sphere have led to delayed unions and disruptions in family dynamics, heightening the dual burden of work (both paid and unpaid) for women and consequently decreasing fertility rates. The reversal of this declining trend may be possible through the second gender revolution, now in the private sphere, characterized by increased male participation in domestic tasks (Esping-Andersen & Billari, 2015; Goldscheider et al., 2015; Raybould & Sear, 2020).

Regarding the empirical findings concerning this association, evidence indicates a clear positive correlation at the macro level. Specifically, countries exhibiting higher rates of various measures of gender equality in the family also demonstrate higher fertility levels and increased fertility intentions (Arpino & Tavares, 2013; Arpino et al., 2015; Baizan et al., 2016; Brinton & Lee, 2016; Craig, 2006; Doepke & Kindermann, 2019; Frejka et al., 2018; Testa, 2007). However, the association at the micro level is not as clear as that at the macro level. While numerous studies have demonstrated a positive correlation (Aassve et al., 2015; Buber, 2002; Cooke, 2004; Fiori, 2011; Harknett et al., 2014; Kan & Hertog, 2017; Mencarini & Tanturri, 2004; Mills et al., 2008; Oláh, 2003; Puur et al., 2008; Riseni et al., 2011; Tazi-Preve et al., 2004), others have suggested an inverse relationship, wherein couples exhibiting less equitable unpaid household work or adhering to more traditional gender norms tend to have higher fertility or fertility intentions (Bernhardt & Goldscheider, 2006; Bernhardt et al., 2016; Holton et al., 2009; Mitchell & Gray, 2007; Spéder & Kapitány, 2009; Westoff & Higgins, 2009). Additionally, some studies have identified a U-shaped association. This suggests that families with lower and higher levels of gender equality exhibit higher fertility or fertility intentions than do those with intermediate levels (Andrade & Bould, 2012; Cavalli & Rosina, 2011; Luppi, 2016; Miettinen et al., 2011; Shreffler et al., 2010; Torr & Short, 2004).

Concerning the diverse outcomes observed at the micro level, discussions within the literature on the association between gender equality in the family and fertility or fertility intentions suggest that the utilization of varied datasets containing distinct variables, particularly those related to gender equality, may be the primary factor contributing to the emergence of diverse and contradictory empirical results (Miettinen et al., 2011; Raybould & Sear, 2020; Westoff & Higgins, 2009). Nonetheless, the discussion often remains limited to this point. In other words, when a positive association is found, explanations frequently mirror the theories endorsed by various scholars who primarily develop and continue to advance the state-of-the-art debate on gender equality and fertility (Esping-Andersen & Billari, 2015; Goldscheider et al., 2015; McDonald, 2000a, 2000b; Raybould & Sear, 2020). In contrast, when contradictory results arise, indicating a negative association (or a U-shaped association), the literature provides limited theoretical explanations beyond suggesting that these diverse findings at the micro level may be due to varying data and methods of measuring gender equality in the family. In this vein, we introduce an alternative and competing explanation, on the basis of the literature outlined in Sect. "Measures of gender equality in the family and differences in individuals’ perceptions of housework and childcare", to account for the contrasting and varied results found not only in earlier investigations but also in this study.

Measures of gender equality in the family and differences in individuals’ perceptions of housework and childcare

As gender equality is closely related to direct comparisons of different outcomes of women and men in distinct social spheres, such as the family domain (Dommermuth et al., 2017; McDonald, 2013), we used the actual and absolute division of housework and childcare between partners as measures of gender equality in the family. Furthermore, while some studies have used attitudinal and status-related variables (Miettinen et al., 2011; Puur et al., 2008), others have used behavioral variables, such as the actual division of unpaid domestic work (Oláh, 2003; Torr & Short, 2004), which is arguably the most frequent variable used in investigations focused on the association between gender equality in the family and fertility or fertility intentions (Raybould & Sear, 2020).

In this study, unpaid domestic work comprised two different types of activities, housework and childcare, each with unique implications and interpretations among individuals. Consequently, some scholars advocate separate treatment and analysis of these tasks (Coltrane, 2000; Koster et al., 2021; Neyer et al., 2013; Poortman & Van Der Lippe, 2009; Sullivan, 2013). First, there is an obvious difference in the nature of these two sets of tasks, with housework focused on, for example, cleaning the house, washing dishes, and preparing food. Childcare includes activities that directly involve children, such as dressing, helping with assignments, and providing general care, among others.

However, beyond this straightforward differentiation, parents often perceive childcare and housework differently. As previously described, investigations exploring the association between gender equality in the family and fertility intentions in low-fertility countries have seldom related differences in housework and childcare to contrasting and diverse empirical findings, particularly at the micro level. In this vein, we considered individuals’ varying perceptions of housework and childcare. Childcare is typically viewed as more enjoyable and rewarding than housework. This sentiment is largely due to the enduring and irreplaceable nature of parent‒child relationships. Furthermore, couples tend to invest more in childcare because of the inherent benefits it offers, including enhanced well-being and personal fulfillment. Consequently, childcare is generally less associated with feelings of unfairness or inequality than housework is, suggesting that unequal divisions in childcare are less likely to evoke such sentiments (Coltrane, 2000; Koster et al., 2021; Poortman & Van Der Lippe, 2009; Sullivan, 2013).

Conversely, housework tends to be viewed more negatively, largely owing to its solitary nature and the perceived lack of immediate gratification or tangible benefits for parents. As a result, housework is often considered tedious or dull (Coltrane, 2000; Koster et al., 2021; Sullivan, 2013). Notably, although both types of tasks (housework and childcare) require daily (or almost daily) performance, housework tends to be more repetitive and is more often acknowledged as a never-ending set of tasks, which ultimately reinforces the aforementioned negative assessment of housework by individuals. Childcare, on the other hand, changes significantly as children grow and develop (Koster et al., 2021; Poortman & Van Der Lippe, 2009; Sullivan, 2013).

Koster et al. (2021) further contributed to this discussion by highlighting the tendency of individuals to place more emphasis on negative aspects than positive ones. Consequently, activities typically perceived as negative, such as housework due to its lack of enjoyment or reward, can exert a significant influence on decision-making processes. As a result, individuals may scrutinize inequalities in housework more closely than they do those in childcare: “If people perceive childcare as enjoyable and rewarding, performing more childcare may increase perceived fairness instead of unfairness” (Koster et al., 2021: 6). Hence, it is conceivable that increased male involvement in housework, as opposed to childcare, could be more advantageous in mitigating feelings of inequality and work‒family conflict among women. Ultimately, this shift may have a more substantial influence on various decisions, including the intention to have another child (Fanelli & Profeta, 2021).

In light of the literature discussed and contextualization thus far, we explored the association between gender equality in the family and fertility intentions in low-fertility countries. Our hypothesis posits a positive association between gender equality in the family and fertility intentions. Additionally, our study contributes to the literature by identifying discernible patterns in the results, as well as by proposing a theoretical explanation for the patterns observed.

Data and methods

The GGS is a longitudinal survey that provides data on a wide range of topics, including unions and marriages, fertility, work, intergenerational relationships and gender roles (Gauthier et al., 2018). Given the comparative nature of the study (we needed to ensure that all variables were present in each country’s questionnaire), we conducted a thorough analysis of the homogeneity of the questionnaire on a country-by-country basis to select countries. After the questionnaires were analyzed, the final sample was composed of ten countries with fertility levels below replacement: Germany, Belgium, Austria, France, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Bulgaria, and Georgia. We used data from the first round (Wave 1) of the GGS (between 2004 and 2011), and our samples (for each country) included individuals who were in a heterosexual relationship and had one child.

The GGS collects data on who performs the following four housework activities in the household: vacuuming the house, preparing daily meals, washing dishes, and shopping for food. With respect to childcare, the survey collects data on who performs the following four tasks in the household: dressing and preparing the children, putting children to bed, taking care of children when they are sick, and playing with children. These eight questions (housework and childcare) have the following response options: always the woman, usually the woman, both the woman and man equally, usually the man, always the man, and someone else.

Two explanatory variables of gender equality in the family were created from these eight questions: the division of housework and the division of childcare. To create these variables, we used a strategy applied in previous research to compute scores for the possible responses (Dommermuth et al., 2017; Neyer et al., 2013).The response options were as follows: always the woman = 1; usually the woman = 2; both the woman and man equally = 3; usually the man = 4; and always the man = 5; the higher the score was, the higher the man’s participation was. While the questions had the same answer options, with a single value assigned for each, the options lacked insight into the time required to complete each activity. Ideally, we would have data indicating the time required for each task, enabling a more nuanced understanding of the demands on an individual. However, as we could not gauge task weights on the basis of the time spent performing the task, we assigned equal weights to all four tasks. Consequently, we assumed that each task required an equivalent amount of time for completion. Someone else was the sixth response option; this response was assigned a value of 0.1, a decimal value that disregards (cancels) this response option from the created index (the sum of scores). Our focus was solely on understanding the division of tasks between the man and woman in each couple.

Since a linear association between men’s participation and fertility intentions was not expected, we categorized the families on the basis of the index calculated from the sum of these scores (Dommermuth et al., 2017; Neyer et al., 2013). For both variables (division of housework and division of childcare), the observations for which the sum of the scores (index) indicated that the woman performed 100% or practically 100% of the domestic unpaid work were categorized as less equitable. In this study, the less equitable category corresponded to integer values ranging from 4 to 9 (this coding scheme aligned with that of a previous study by Dommermuth et al. (2017), where similar values were classified as “unequal; the woman does more”).

Conversely, in instances where there is an equitable division of tasks or where one member of the couple (either the woman or the man) undertakes slightly more responsibilities than the other, without imposing a significant burden on the woman, were categorized as more equitable. These responses corresponded to integer values of 10 or 11, where the woman assumed more tasks, but the man also contributed reasonably; a value of 12 indicated an equal sharing of responsibilities between partners; and values of 13 to 15 indicated that the man performed more tasks, but the woman still contributed reasonably (this is also similar to the categorization used in the previous study by Dommermuth et al. (2017), which focused primarily on Norway). Instances where the man performed significantly more tasks than the woman (for example, integer values from 16 to 20) were nearly nonexistent. Therefore, this very small number of observations was excluded from the dataset when applicable.

Regarding the dependent variable on fertility intentions, the GGS has a dichotomous response—Yes, intends to have a second child and No, does not intend to have a second child—for the question “Do you intend to have a/another child during the next three years?”. Thus, a binary logistic model was used for analysis. Investigating the association between gender equality in the family and the intention to have a second child is more advantageous than examining intentions regarding a first or third child. First, childless couples have not yet experienced the division of housework in a household environment with the presence of a child, nor have they experienced tasks related to childcare. Second, countries with low fertility typically adhere to the norm of two children per woman (Morgan, 2003; Raybould & Sear, 2020; Sobotka & Beaujouan, 2014). Furthermore, as Torr and Short (2004) noted, the focus on the second child reduces the complexities associated with postponing childbearing or having no children. These reasons underscore why researching the transition to a second child is more advantageous than and preferable to investigating the transition to a first or third child.

The final samples included only married or in-union individuals who lived in the same household as their partners (distinguishing between marriage and union was not feasible; hence, conjugal status was not used as a control variable), who reported having the biological ability to become parents and reported having only one child.¹ Only heterosexual individuals were considered in the analysis.

In addition to the dependent and explanatory variables, in the fully adjusted model for each country, we controlled for the following variables: satisfaction with the division of housework and satisfaction with the division of childcare (scores ranging from 0 to 10); respondent gender (female or male); age group of the woman (five-year age groups, from 20 to 44 years old)²; education level of the woman (complete or incomplete primary education, secondary education or higher education)³; education level of the man (complete or incomplete primary education, secondary education or higher education); occupational status of the woman (whether the woman was employed or not); occupational status of the man (whether the man was employed or not); and regular paid assistance for childcare (yes or no).

In the Results section, Table 1 provides a descriptive overview of all the variables included in the models for each country. Table 2 displays the results of the simplified models, which include both the main explanatory variables—the division of housework and division of childcare. Finally, Table 3 presents the fully adjusted models, in which we further controlled for the other aforementioned variables. The Hosmer–Lemeshow test (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 2000) indicated the goodness of fit of the fully adjusted models, and multicollinearity assessment revealed no bias.⁴

Table 1 Descriptive statistics by country and variable.

Table 2 Odds ratios and p values of the simplified models—Generations and Gender Survey (GGS). Source: Own elaboration. OR = odds ratio

Table 3 Odds ratios and p values of the fully adjusted models—Generations and Gender Survey (GGS) (part 1 and 2).

The findings are presented with continuous p values rather than asterisks denoting significance levels (for example, ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.1). It is recommended that the term “statistically significant” be avoided and the results be interpreted without using expressions that lead to definitive conclusions. Preferably, interpretations should prioritize acknowledging different levels of uncertainty⁵ (Amrhein et al., 2019; Bernardi et al., 2017; Bijak, 2019; Hoem, 2008; Wasserstein & Lazar, 2016). Furthermore, given the common use of small sample sizes in studies analyzing gender equality in the family and fertility intentions, emphasis should be given to identifying general patterns and narratives, whereas statistical significance should be considered to a lesser extent (Bernardi et al., 2017; Lappegård et al., 2021).⁶

After adjustment, we additionally used typology of families and calculated the predicted probabilities of women intending to have a second child in each country. We present each of the constructed family types alongside their corresponding predicted probabilities in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Source: Own elaboration

Predicted probabilities of the four types of families—Generations and Gender Survey (GGS).

Results

Descriptive results

Starting with the dependent variable, the intention to have a second child, among the ten countries, the percentage of individuals with the intention to have a second child varied from 41.5% (Germany) to 74.6% (Georgia). Concerning the explanatory variable, the division of housework, except Belgium, the country samples were mostly composed of individuals with less equitable division. In France, the proportions were approximately equal. A comparable analysis was performed for the explanatory variable, the division of childcare. Belgium and France stood out as the only two countries where the percentage of individuals with a more equitable division notably surpassed that of those with a less equitable division. In contrast, the proportions of individuals in these categories in Austria, Germany, and Poland were very similar. Georgia also stood out, with 81.8% and 87% of individuals having a less equitable division, respectively, of housework and childcare.

Regarding the control variables of satisfaction with the division of tasks, the average satisfaction score among women ranged from 7.1 in Russia to 8.6 in Romania for housework and from 7.3 in Russia to 8.9 in Austria for childcare. Among men, the satisfaction score ranged from 8.4 in Lithuania to 9.3 in Austria for both housework and childcare. Overall, men had, on average, higher satisfaction with the division in both types of tasks. With respect to the gender of the respondents, the proportions of women and men were very close across all the countries. Only in Lithuania and Georgia was there a slight male majority. With respect to the age of the women, the samples were mostly composed of women in the age groups of 25–29, 30–34, and 35–39 years. Despite this similarity, importantly, Eastern European mothers are comparatively younger than their Western counterparts. For example, Georgia, Russia, Lithuania, and Poland have the highest proportions of women in the 20–24-year age group. In contrast, Germany, Belgium, Austria, and France present higher percentages of women aged between 35 and 39 years. Given that our analysis encompassed in-union individuals who had one child, these disparities reflect differences in the mean ages at first childbirth and first union, which are typically higher in Western Europe than in Eastern Europe (OECD, 2022, 2024; Sobotka & Berghammer, 2021).

The next two control variables evaluated were the education levels of the woman and the man. Overall, the samples were mostly composed of individuals who had a secondary education. In terms of women’s education, the number of women with a higher education exceeded that of women with a secondary education in Belgium, France, and Russia. In terms of men’s education, higher education was more common than secondary education only in Belgium. The analysis of the samples according to the occupational status of the woman shows that, except in Georgia, there were more women employed than not employed. The percentage of employed women in these nine other countries ranged from 71.4% in Germany to 87.7% in Austria. With respect to the occupational status of the man, the proportion of employed men was higher than that of not employed. The lowest proportion of employed men was found in Georgia (66.7%), and the highest proportion was found in Lithuania (96.3%). Except in Georgia, the percentage of employed men exceeded 85% in all countries. The last control variable was the existence of regular paid assistance for childcare. Except in France, we observed a higher percentage of individuals who did not have paid help.

Results of the models

An analysis of the set of simplified models in Table 2 revealed a pattern in the results. First, with respect to the division of housework, except in Romania (OR = 1) and Georgia (OR < 1), a more equitable division was associated with a higher likelihood of intending to have a second child, thus corroborating our hypothesis. Among the eight countries for which the results corroborated our hypothesis (OR > 1), “statistical significance” was not attained in Germany and Austria. However, as previously discussed, it is also possible to interpret these coefficients (because the estimated points are those that best represent the data). Moreover, we were also interested in the general patterns and narratives. Additionally, the samples were considerably small (Amrhein et al., 2019; Bernardi et al., 2017; Bijak, 2019; Hoem, 2008; Wasserstein & Lazar, 2016). Belgium and France had the highest odds ratios.

Opposite results were found for the division of childcare. Except in Russia (OR = 1.128), a more equitable division was associated with a lower likelihood of intending to have a second child, hence, not supporting our hypothesis. Although “statistical significance” was observed in only three countries (Austria, Poland, and Georgia), there was consistency in the direction of the association; i.e., less equitable division was associated with higher fertility intentions. Hence, when both explanatory variables were analyzed together in the simplified models, we found a pattern in which our hypothesis was corroborated for housework but not for childcare.

Table 3 displays the fully adjusted models with the control variables. The results were very similar to those found for the simplified models. In six of the ten countries, it is possible to suggest that a more equitable division of housework was associated with a higher likelihood of intending to have a second child, thus corroborating our hypothesis. Among these six countries, France, Lithuania, Russia, and Bulgaria had low p values, which fell within the traditionally established limits (***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, or *p < 0.1). Belgium and Austria had comparatively higher p values and thus a higher degree of uncertainty. Nevertheless, these two countries had the same direction of association. In contrast to our hypothesis, odds ratios less than 1 were found for Romania and Georgia (in the simplified models, we found the same results for these two countries, as previously mentioned). In Poland, the odds ratio was virtually equal to 1, in addition to being accompanied by a very high p value and consequently increasing uncertainty. A result similar to that in Poland was also observed in Germany. Hence, when the simplified and fully adjusted models were analyzed, overall, the results suggested a positive association between the division of housework and fertility intentions, corroborating our hypothesis.

Concerning the division of childcare, the results of the fully adjusted models also resembled the results of the simplified models. Except in Russia and Romania, we found estimates that suggest that a more equitable division of childcare was associated with a lower likelihood of intending to have a second child. Among the eight countries where this pattern of association was found, Belgium and Poland had the lowest p values (below the traditional thresholds ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, or *p < 0.1). The other six countries (Germany, Austria, France, Lithuania, Bulgaria, and Georgia) had comparatively higher p values, denoting a higher degree of uncertainty, but similar to Belgium and Poland, their estimates showed the same direction of association. Thus, in contrast to our hypothesis, there is evidence to suggest a negative association between the division of childcare and fertility intentions.

Therefore, when we analyzed both explanatory variables via these different forms of model fitting (simplified and fully adjusted), we found estimates that supported our hypothesis for the division of housework but not for the division of childcare. Furthermore, using the coefficients found in the fully adjusted models, we calculated the predicted probabilities for a woman to intend to have a second child for four different family types in every country, and the results are shown in Fig. 1. The four family profiles were as follows: (1) families with a more equitable division of housework and a more equitable division of childcare; (2) families with a more equitable division of housework and a less equitable division of childcare; (3) families with a less equitable division of housework and a more equitable division of childcare; and (4) families with a less equitable division of housework and a less equitable division of childcare.

We fixed the same categories for every control variable, and the only difference between these four family types was the level of gender equality in both of the explanatory variables. The four family types considered female respondents, employed women, employed men, women with higher education, men with higher education, women between 30 and 34 years old, individuals with high satisfaction with housework and childcare (values equal to 8), and individuals with no regular paid help with childcare. While larger differences between groups were observed in certain countries, such as Belgium and France, smaller disparities were evident in others, such as Russia and Romania. The overall trend indicated that women who experience a more equitable division of housework and a less equitable division of childcare tend to have the highest predicted probabilities of intending to have a second child. This pattern held true in the majority of the ten countries studied, with exceptions observed only in Russia, Romania, and Georgia.

Finally, for the control variables, when the set of countries was analyzed, no clear pattern was found in the direction of the association between the intention to have a second child and the variables related to satisfaction with domestic labor division (housework and childcare). In most countries, there were indications that male respondents were more likely to intend to have a second child, even with high p values; therefore, higher levels of uncertainty were found in some countries, such as Germany, Austria, and France. The results for the variable of woman’s age showed that age groups younger than the reference category (40 to 44 years) were more likely to intend to have a second child, and the younger a woman was, the higher her fertility intentions were. The results regarding education indicated that a higher level of education was correlated with an increased likelihood of intending to have a second child (despite certain higher p values that increased uncertainty in the results). Notably, high odds ratios were found for Poland, Russia, and Romania in the higher education category for women (accompanied by low p values). With respect to the occupational status variables, there was no clear pattern of association with the dependent variable when analyzing the whole set of countries. Finally, there is evidence that having regularly paid help with childcare increases fertility intentions (although opposite results were found for Germany, Austria, and Poland).

Discussion and conclusion

This study investigated how gender equality in the family was associated (at the micro level) with fertility intentions in ten low-fertility countries. This study contributes to the literature by identifying potential patterns and exploring possible theoretical explanations behind these patterns. The literature underpinning this work indicates that in low-fertility countries, there is a positive association between gender equality in the family and fertility intentions (Esping-Andersen & Billari, 2015; Goldscheider et al., 2015; McDonald, 2000a, 2000b; Raybould & Sear, 2020). We used two main variables as measures of gender equality in the family. Concerning the division of housework, evidence from several models and countries suggests that this positive association does exist, and higher fertility intentions were observed in families with a more equitable division in our study, thus corroborating our hypothesis. The opposite pattern was found for the division of childcare; thus, there was a negative association.

As previously discussed, when empirical studies support the widely discussed positive association, the explanations tend to closely align with the state-of-the-art theories underpinning this work (Esping-Andersen & Billari, 2015; Goldscheider et al., 2015; McDonald, 2000a, 2000b; Raybould & Sear, 2020). Conversely, when contradictory results emerge, indicating a negative association (or a U-shaped association), the literature offers limited explanations. These diverse findings (particularly at the micro level) may be due to differences in the data and methods used to measure gender equality in the family or other variables, such as fertility intentions (Miettinen et al., 2011; Raybould & Sear, 2020; Westoff & Higgins, 2009). We aimed to transcend this nearly binary setting by delving into the nuanced distinctions between the division of housework and childcare, as discussed in Sect. "Measures of gender equality in the family and differences in individuals’ perceptions of housework and childcare". Given that this differentiation indeed offers valuable insights, our overarching goal was to provide an alternative explanation that could accommodate both the positive and negative associations observed in our results.

In Sect. "Measures of gender equality in the family and differences in individuals’ perceptions of housework and childcare", we extensively evaluated the literature to unravel the complexities underlying the perceptions and evaluations of housework and childcare within the family. Recognizing the varying perceptions and experiences associated with these domains, we aimed to provide a comprehensive framework that could reconcile the diverse findings observed in our study. Our intention was not merely to replicate existing explanations but to pave the way for a more inclusive and comprehensive discourse about the opposite results obtained in this study and, eventually, in other future empirical investigations across different contexts. In this vein, although our measures of gender equality in the family did not allow for a direct analysis of individuals’ perceptions and preferences, our findings align with previous research discussed in Sect. "Measures of gender equality in the family and differences in individuals’ perceptions of housework and childcare". This literature indicates that childcare is generally perceived as more enjoyable and rewarding, which tends to detach it from perceptions of unfairness and inequality. In contrast, housework is often negatively evaluated, thus linking it to such unfavorable perceptions (Coltrane, 2000; Koster et al., 2021; Neyer et al., 2013; Poortman & Van Der Lippe, 2009; Sullivan, 2013). Hence, it seems that housework poses an increased challenge to maintaining a work‒family balance than childcare does. Furthermore, considering that individuals tend to place more emphasis on negative aspects than positive ones (Koster et al., 2021), a more equitable division of housework is likely to be beneficial in reducing work‒family conflict and, consequently, may be associated with increased fertility intentions. Conversely, if people perceive childcare as enjoyable and rewarding, performing more childcare may increase perceived fairness instead of unfairness, which consequently associates a less equitable division of childcare with increased fertility intentions (Coltrane, 2000; Fanelli & Profeta, 2021; Koster et al., 2021; Neyer et al., 2013; Poortman & Van Der Lippe, 2009; Sullivan, 2013).

Moving forward, future research should aim to address several limitations inherent in our study. First, previous studies have shown that gender role attitudes could play a moderating role in the association between the actual distribution of household activities and fertility measures (Bernhardt & Goldscheider, 2008; Dommermuth et al., 2017; Kluwer et al., 2002). A conflict between expectations and reality could, for instance, lead to a decreased likelihood of childbearing. Alternatively, couples with a less equitable division of labor could be equally inclined to have another child as those with a more equitable division if their gender role attitudes converge (Bernhardt & Goldscheider, 2008). Alternatively, a third option arises where there is coherence among gender variables; for instance, a less equitable division of household tasks combined with less egalitarian gender role attitudes could increase fertility (Dommermuth et al., 2017). Given that we included ten countries to ensure comparable samples, we were unable to account for gender role attitudes. Incorporating such variables in cross-national studies could offer insights into how gender role attitudes moderate the association between gender equality in the family and fertility intentions.

Second, it is important to note the absence of direct measurements capturing individuals’ well-being and fulfillment levels associated with housework and childcare. These additional measurements could offer deeper insight into the connection between our results and the literature discussed in Sect. "Measures of gender equality in the family and differences in individuals’ perceptions of housework and childcare". Although we controlled for the variables of satisfaction with these household activities, which could serve as proxies for well-being and fulfillment, we found no clear pattern in the association between these variables and fertility intentions. Moreover, these satisfaction variables had high p values, indicating significant levels of uncertainty. Therefore, future studies could incorporate additional survey questions or supplementary measures to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the subjective experiences and psychological impacts linked to household responsibilities. Undertaking such efforts would not only contribute to bridging existing gaps in the literature but also further investigate this theoretical explanation (on the basis of the discussion in Sect. "Measures of gender equality in the family and differences in individuals’ perceptions of housework and childcare"), which we propose for the results of this study (Coltrane, 2000; Fanelli & Profeta, 2021; Koster et al., 2021; Poortman & Van Der Lippe, 2009; Sullivan, 2013).

Furthermore, our study had a limitation regarding the inability to quantify the time required for each housework and childcare task because of the structure of the survey questions. Although the questions had identical answer options, the development of these questions did not facilitate the assessment of time allocation for each activity. To address this constraint, future research could explore innovative methodologies or survey designs that allow for the estimation of time spent performing various domestic tasks. By incorporating time-use surveys or detailed activity logs, researchers can obtain more nuanced insights into the temporal demands and distribution of household responsibilities. This approach would enable a more accurate weighting of tasks on the basis of the time invested, thereby increasing the precision and validity of analyses examining the association between gender equality and fertility measures.

In addition to acknowledging the limitations inherent in our study, it is important to highlight our ambition to move beyond providing simpler explanations for the plurality of results observed at the micro level. Indeed, the literature often attributes contradictory and diverse empirical evidence to the use of different datasets with distinct variables, particularly those related to gender equality (Miettinen et al., 2011; Raybould & Sear, 2020; Westoff & Higgins, 2009)—as discussed in Sect. "Gender equality and its relationships with fertility patterns and fertility intentions"—nonetheless, we aimed to delve deeper into the underlying mechanisms possibly driving these variations. Rather than solely attributing disparate findings to methodological differences, we aimed to explore the interplay between gender equality in the family and fertility intentions from the perspective of the literature that discusses how the two types of unpaid domestic work can have different meanings among parents, who typically find childcare to be more enjoyable and rewarding than housework (Coltrane, 2000; Fanelli & Profeta, 2021; Koster et al., 2021; Poortman & Van Der Lippe, 2009; Sullivan, 2013). In doing so, we aimed to contribute to the ongoing theoretical and empirical framework surrounding gender equality, household dynamics, and fertility intentions, providing valuable insights that could inform future research endeavors and policy interventions in this domain.

Finally, it is pivotal to further examine the association between gender equality in the family and fertility via more recent data. Research has revealed evidence of decreasing cohort fertility in Nordic countries (Hellstrand et al., 2021), yet there is no indication of a widespread decrease in gender equality or a weakening of family policies in these nations (Rostgaard, 2014). This evidence challenges the traditionally positive association observed in previous research, which relied on data from the 2000s and early 2010s (Raybould & Sear, 2020). Notably, our study, which encompassed this timeframe, revealed higher fertility intentions among individuals with a more equal share of housework. Some studies suggest that economic uncertainty, alongside increasingly accepted cultural norms and practices such as delaying or reducing union formation, decreasing childbearing preferences (including an increase in the desire for childlessness), and changing lifestyle priorities could lead to fertility decline even in environments that support a balance between work and family life and promote gender equality (Comolli et al., 2020; Hellstrand et al., 2021; Jalovaara & Fasang, 2017; Rotkirch, 2020). Hence, future comparative studies that incorporate available data and provide alternative explanations for the recently observed fertility trends, including economic instability and shifting cultural norms, could strengthen the literature on the association between gender equality in the family and fertility intentions.