Changes in Family, Domestic, and Agricultural Joint Decision-Making among Rural Korean
Couples: A Longitudinal Study
Duk-Byeong ParkDepartment of Community Development, Kongju National University, Korea
and
Gary A. GorehamDepartment of Sociology and Anthropology, North Dakota State University
Rural Sociological Society annual meetingJuly 31-August 3, 2014
New Orleans, LA
South KoreaModernization. Industrialization.
Urbanization. Economic development.
• Post WW2 (1948). Kim Il-Sung established communist regime in the north; Syngman Rhee established capitalist regime in the south.
• Korean War (1950-1953).
• Rapid economic growth (1960s). Pres. Park Chung Hee.
• Democratic elections, freedom of press, more human rights (1987).
• Growing population: 47,470,970 (2000); 50,219,669 (2013).
• Declining rural population: high 19,300,260, 67.6% (1965); low 8,362,474, 16.8% (2011).
• Decreasing crude birth rate: 15.1 (2000); 8.4 (2012).
• Increasing GDP per capita: $17,990 (2004); $23,893 (2014, constant 2000 USD).
• Increase in female farmers: 47.8% (2000): 59.5% (2009) (MAF 2009).
Korean retail market, 1960s
Korean retail market, 2014
Photos: Ed Adams and Gary Goreham.
Building construction, 1960s
Building construction, 2014
Rice planting, 1960s
Rice planting, 2014
• South Korean gender-based division of family life tasks is changing.
• Rural families increasingly rely on wives’ labor to manage farms (Anthopoulou 2010; Bokemeier & Garkovich 1987; Damisa & Yohanna 2007).
• Rural women’s labor participation in farming doubled from 28% in 1970 to 52% in 2006 (Kang 2008).
• Rural women’s labor force participation and hourly earnings were higher than their husbands in 2005 (Statistics Korea 2005).
• Women farmers are more involved in decision-making; they expanded the areas in which they make decisions (Choi 2001).
Rural Couples’ Decision-Making
Research Questions
• How has the gender-based division of family life tasks changed in rural Korea over the past decade?
• How has joint decision-making changed for rural farm couples? For rural nonfarm couples?
• Do rural couples make decisions differently based on the type or dimension of family life?
Relative Resource Theory • Spouses with more socio-economic resources may
leverage those resources when delegating domestic work.
• The differential in resources between husbands and wives leads to inequality in family gender roles (Kamo 1988).
Gender Role Theory• Men and women engage in different work activities with
different perceived value.
• The work in which women engage, whether inside and outside the home, may be valued less than the work in which men engage (Deseran and Simpkins 1991).
H1: Both rural farm and nonfarm couples engage in increasing amounts of joint decision-making.
H2: The rate of increase in joint decision-making for rural farm couples is substantial; less so for nonfarm couples.
H2a: Increases in joint decision-making for farm couples are expected particularly in agricultural work and family life given the increase in wives’ on- and off-farm labor participation.
H3: Given the traditional nature of rural households, couples’ joint decision-making in domestic work has not increased significantly.
Research Methods
• “Survey on the Rural Living Indicators” conducted by the Rural Development Administration in Korea; longitudinal panel of rural couples; November 2000, 2005, and 2009.
• Cluster sampling: 10 households selected by stratified sampling from 187 community districts out of 12 enumeration districts. Sample of 1,870 rural households.
• N=1,409 (2000); 1,492 (2005); 1,564 (2009).
2000 2005 2009
Region Eup (town or village)Myen (remote rural village)
34.765.3
37.662.4
37.662.4
Farm/Nonfarm Farm householdsNonfarm households
68.032.0
77.222.8
73.426.6
Age Under 2930-3940-4950-59Over 60
12.919.119.828.919.3
7.918.820.128.824.4
4.916.321.727.529.7
Occupation AgricultureOther
49.051.0
74.026.0
61.039.0
Family type One personOne generationTwo generationThree or more generations
14.731.038.815.5
15.433.535.016.1
15.836.932.914.4
Demographic Profile of the Participants (in %; N=1,870)
12 indicators of joint-decision in 3 clustersAgricultural work variables:
1. Buying and selling land and house
2. Selling farm products
3. Money management
Family life variables:
4. Household expenses
5. Choosing TV channels
6. Managing children’s education
7. Caring for children
8. Deciding on donations
9. Associating with relatives
Domestic work variables:
10. Cooking and dishwashing
11. Laundry
12. Cleaning house
Scale:
1=fully husband
2=generally husband
3=together
4=generally wife
5=fully wife
Rural Farm and Nonfarm Couples’ Joint Decision-Making,Comparing 2000, 2005, and 2009
1=fully husband, 2=generally husband, 3=together, 4=generally wife, 5=fully wife
Agricultural Work Variable
Type of household Year N Mean SD F
Buying and selling land and house
Farm household
2000a 1,037 2.1 0.953
27.910***
2005b 1,150 2.32 0.862
2009b 1,141 2.38 0.867
Nonfarm household
2000a 341 2.35 0.904
2.179
2005a 246 2.48 0.817
2009a 315 2.48 0.908
Selling farm products
Farm household
2000a 1,018 2.36 1.024
24.877***
2005b 1,109 2.6 0.903
2009b 1,115 2.61 0.871
Nonfarm household
2000a 83 2.72 0.852
0.722
2005a 84 2.75 0.863
2009a 96 2.86 0.936
Money management
Farm household
2000a 1,034 1.47 0.736
3.552*
2005 ab 1,143 1.51 0.716
2009 b 1,138 1.55 0.746
Nonfarm household
2000a 365 1.87 0.843
0.576
2005 a 257 1.82 0.81
2009 a 314 1.8 0.812
Rural Couples’ Decision-making Scores for Agricultural Work, Comparing 2000, 2005, and 2009
*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05; a, b, c: Duncan post-hoc test
Rural Couples’ Decision-making Scores for Family Life, Comparing 2000, 2005, and 2009
Family Life Variable Type of household Year N Mean SD F
Household expense
Farm household
2000a 1,043 2.78 1.045
18.407***
2005b 1,152 2.97 0.883
2009b 1,137 3 0.853
Nonfarm household
2000a 368 3.12 1.038
0.198
2005a 255 3.17 0.869
2009a 312 3.15 0.898
Choosing TV channel
Farm household
2000a 1,043 2.7 1.026
9.942***
2005a 1,151 2.73 0.899
2009b 1,140 2.87 0.881
Nonfarm household
2000a 368 2.84 0.954
0.657
2005a 258 2.76 0.886
2009a 315 2.79 0.831
Managing children’s education
Farm household
2000a 1,000 2.87 0.858
8.672***
2005b 1,117 2.98 0.701
2009b 1,120 2.99 0.66
Nonfarm household
2000a 353 3.07 0.821
0.028
2005a 246 3.09 0.703
2009a 307 3.07 0.694
Family Life Variable Type of household Year N Mean SD F
Caring for children
Farm household
2000a 946 2.66 0.517
3.606*
2005b 1,044 2.6 0.517
2009 1,061 2.62 0.506
Nonfarm household
2000a 348 2.73 0.456
7.315**
2005a 242 2.59 0.517
2009a 286 2.61 0.53
Deciding donations
Farm household
2000a 1,049 2.21 0.951
56.783***
2005b 1,154 2.49 0.847
2009c 1,145 2.59 0.778
Nonfarm household
2000a 369 2.6 0.957
2.435
2005a 256 2.61 0.804
2009a 316 2.73 0.824
Associating with relatives
Farm household
2000a 1,032 1.73 0.601
25.867***
2005b 1,134 1.8 0.56
2009c 1,126 1.91 0.573
Nonfarm household
2000 367 1.9 0.63
3.174*
2005a 252 1.8 0.606
2009b 309 1.93 0.61
Domestic Work Variable Type of household Year N Mean SD F
Cooking and dishwashing
Farm household
2000a 1,029 2.94 0.272
0.987
2005a 1,141 2.92 0.309
2009a 1,138 2.93 0.28
Nonfarm household
2000a 370 2.92 0.283
1.561
2005a 257 2.88 0.365
2009a 311 2.88 0.358
Laundry work
Farm household
2000a 1,024 2.94 0.278
0.151
2005a 1,137 2.93 0.293
2009a 1,132 2.93 0.287
Nonfarm household
2000a 368 2.94 0.264
2.409
2005b 258 2.88 0.381
2009 311 2.91 0.338
Cleaning house
Farm household
2000a 1,017 2.84 0.404
6.857**
2005b 1,129 2.78 0.472
2009b 1,126 2.79 0.448
Nonfarm household
2000a 368 2.86 0.388
4.501*
2005a 257 2.76 0.47
2009a 304 2.77 0.487
Rural Couples’ Decision-making Scores for Domestic Work, Comparing 2000, 2005, and 2009
Summary
1. Following the process of modernization, a trend toward greater joint decision-making is occurring for rural couples.
2. Although increasingly made jointly, agricultural decisions are generally by husbands.
3. Farm couples are moving toward more joint agricultural and family life decisions.
4. Farm and nonfarm couples’ domestic work decisions continue to be made jointly.
1. Enhancing women’s power in joint decision can benefit the economic and social well-being of rural families.
2. Rural women’s participation in joint decision-making may empower them by improving their legal and economic status.
3. Educational programs for women and husbands may be necessary as family farming evolves. These programs could assist rural couples to share decision-making power in agriculture, family life, and domestic work.
4. Empowering rural women economically and politically will transform them from playing invisible, subordinate roles to leadership and active community members.
5. Rural women will be positioned to use their untapped abilities for local development to benefit their families and communities.
Implications
ReferencesAnthopoulou, T. 2010. “Rural women in local agrofood production: between entrepreneurial initiatives
and family strategies: a case study in Greece.” Journal of Rural Studies 26: 394-403.
Bokemeier, J. & L. Garkovich. 1987. “Assessing the influence of farm women’s self-identity on task allocation and decision making.” Rural Sociology 52(1): 13-36.
Choi, K. 2001. “Sex-role attitude, conjugal status level and status satisfaction of married women living in Korean rural area.” Journal of Korean Home Management Association 19(3): 53-72.
Damisa, M. & M. Yohanna. 2007. “Role of rural women in farm management decision making process: ordered Probit analysis.” World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 3(4): 543-546.
Deseran, F. & N. Simpkins. 1991. “Women’s off-farm work and gender stratification.” Journal of Rural Studies 7(1-2): 91-97.
Kamo, Y. 1988. “Determinants of household division of labor: resources, power, and ideology.” Journal of Family Issues 9(2): 177-200.
Kang, H. 2008. “Factors affect women farmers’ economic activities.” Journal of Rural Development 31(4): 69-81
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). 2009. Statistics on Women Farmers. Seoul, Korea.