Shopping 3.5 4.3 -1.4 Meal preparation 23.6 20.0 2.2* * Clothes care 9.2 9.0 0.2 Child care 11.1 7.7 2.0* *
Other domestic work 8.5 8.3 0.3
Market work 17.0 16.4 03
Work for wages 6.5 6.3 0.1
Crop production 2.0 2.4 -0.5
Animal husbandry 2.6 2.1 1.0
Other market work 5.9 5.6 0.3
Personal care 95.1 102.4 -13* Total 168.0 168.0 Number of cases 377 140 B. Non-employed women Domestic work 51.5 573 -1.1 Shopping 3.2 4.9 -2.0* * Meal preparation 21.1 20.4 -0.1 Clothes care 9.4 10.2 -0.5 Child care 10.1 10.5 -0.2
Other domestic work 7.7 11.3 -2.1* *
Market work a a
Work for wages a a
Crop production a 0.0
Animal husbandry a a
Other market work 0.0 0.0
Personal care 116.4 110.7 1.1
Total 168.0 168.0
Number of cases 135 47
Table 3.8 (cont'd.)
Mean number of hours (per week) that women devoted to activities by employment status and household structure, Laguna, Philippines,
1975
Household structure Employment status/ ---
Activity Nuclear Extended t-value
Employed women Domestic work 58.3 45.2 3.2* " Shopping 3.6 4.0 -0.4 Meal preparation 25.0 19.9 2.4** Clothes care 9.0 8.4 0.5 Child care 11.7 6.3 2.6**
Other domestic work 9.0 6.7 2.0*
M arket work 26.5 24.7 0.6
Work for wages 10.1 9.5 0.2
Crop production 3.1 3.6 -0.4
Animal husbandry 4.1 3.2 1.2
Other market work 9.3 8.4 0.4
Personal care 83.2 98.1 2.9***
Total 168.0 168.0
Number of cases 242 93
Source: Laguna data set, 1975
Notes: Mean number of hours for personal care was computed by deducting home and market activities from 168 (24 hours x 7 days)
Non-employed included women who worked in the market for less than an hour during the week preceding the survey
Total number of hours may not add to 168 due to rounding. a = less than 0.05
The t-test was used to determine the significance of differences in the number of hours devoted to activities by women and household structure. The significant differences in the time non-employed women devoted to market work and its component activities were not included because of the very small number of hours devoted to market activities.
♦♦♦Statistically significant at a = 0.01 ♦♦Statistically significant at a = 0.05 ♦Statistically significant at a = 0.10
This result is presumably due to the presence of other household members. The difference between this and the findings of Robinson and Ardales may be explained by the nature of the extended households in the study area. In the current study, other household members included in-laws, married children, grandchildren, nephews, and nieces, while in Robinson's (1972) and Ardales' (1981) studies, other household members were mostly paid domestic helpers. Only two households included in the Laguna study had paid domestic helpers. Other household members in the current study worked either as unpaid labourers on the family farm or in the family-operated business, or for pay at the same time as they helped in housework (Table 3.9).
Again, the time saved by the employed in doing household tasks in extended households was solely transferred to increased hours of leisure, sleep and personal hygiene. On average, employed women from extended households spent 15 hours per week more than women belonging to nuclear households on personal activities.
Table 3.9 Composition of extended households, Laguna, Philippines, 1975
(percentage) Other Household Members All Non-employed women Employed women Relatives3 78 79 77 Fathers- and 20 18 22 women-in law Others^ 2 4 1 Total 100 100 100 Number of cases 220 84 136
Source: Laguna data tape, 1975.
Notes: a daughters- and sons-in-law, grandchildren, nieces and nephews b non-relatives and servants
3.5.2 Resource base and time allocation
Ownership of land was hypothesized to increase productivity, thus make it more advantageous for women to work longer hours in the market and devote less time to domestic activities. However, the ownership of land did not affect the amount of time allocated to domestic work of non-employed women and had a conflicting effect on employed women (Table 3.10).
The number of hours devoted to market work of employed women was significantly less for women from landed households compared with those from landless households. On average, employed women from landed households devoted five hours less to market work than women from landless households. Women from landowning families may not have had to work such long hours to earn a living since they had their farms to rely on. Moreover, landed households had other productive assets, such as tractors and carabao which could be rented out. By contrast, women from landless households had to work longer because the earnings of their husbands, in addition to perhaps not being sufficient, could not be relied upon because their husbands were engaged in farm and construction work and other jobs which were not secure. As a result, the time for market work of landless women had to come from leisure and other personal activities. This pattern reflects landless women's disadvantaged position compared to landed women who had their farms to rely on for their subsistence. It is also possible that much of the time that women spent on farming activities may not have been treated as farm work by women from landed households.
Another possibility is that there was a greater opportunity for landless women to engage in market work. However, this is unlikely because landed women more than landless women had an opportunity to increase their market activities. Landed women could use their land as collateral in obtaining loans to start a business, planting vegetables along rice paddies to sell and even increasing their crop
increase their share in the produce. But there were no differences in the number of hours devoted to crop production and other market work of employed landless and landed women.
As expected, work for wages contributed most to the market work of landless women. Without access to land, women had to work as wage earners to help their husbands in meeting the economic needs of the family.
The conflicting effect of their resource base on women's domestic and market work is also found in other studies (Wallace et al., 1987; Caldwell et al., 1980; Res, 1985; Hart, 1980). The study in Bangladesh showed that women from landless households had more time for home activities than any other class of women, as well as more time for market production activities (Wallace et al., 1987: 118-119). Wallace et al. suggested that the poorest women were married to the poorest of the rural men and the efforts of both were needed to earn a subsistence living. However, in another Bangladeshi study, rural families with access to land and urban families with their own businesses spent the longest number of hours on both domestic and market work (Caldwell et al., 1980: 45).
Res' (1980: 23-24) findings in her study of Ilongo women in the Philippines supported Caldwell et al.’s observations. The number of hours spent on domestic and market activities was highest among women belonging to households with more than two hectares of land; this was due to the fact that women from these households did not have children aged five years or younger and thus had more time for other economic activities. Hart's (1980: 203) Indonesian study also revealed a strong direct relationship between class status and the absolute amount of time spent by women in housework. Women belonging to landless and near landless households spent the least time on housework and the most on market activities compared to those from landed households.
Table 3.10 Mean number of hours (per week) that women devoted to activities by employment status and resource base, Laguna, Philippines, 1975
Employment status/ Activity
Resource base
Landless Landed t-value
A. All women