Daughter vs. daughter‐in‐law: Kinship roles and women's time use in India

Motivation Women's labour force participation in India remains low despite improvements in education and economic conditions. Household organization and kinship relations may shape women's opportunities for paid work by influencing how unpaid work is allocated among women within the same family. Purpose This study examines whether women's participation and time allocation differ according to their kinship position within Indian joint households. In particular, it compares daughters‐in‐law with unmarried daughters of comparable age and educational attainment residing in the same household. Approach and Methods We use nationally representative data from India's Periodic Labour Force Survey and Time Use Survey. Using household fixed effects and controlling for age and education, we compare daughters‐in‐law and unmarried daughters within the same household. Additional comparisons involving married daughters, mothers‐in‐law, narrower age groups, and households with and without children assess alternative explanations for the observed differences. Findings Daughters‐in‐law are less likely to participate in paid employment and substantially more likely to undertake domestic work than unmarried daughters. Time‐use estimates show that daughters‐in‐law spend about 245 additional minutes per day in home production, including domestic chores and caregiving, while spending less time in paid employment, learning, socializing, leisure, and self‐care. They also spend more time on religious activities. These patterns remain across several alternative samples and comparisons and are consistent with an important role for kinship position and household hierarchy in women's time allocation. Policy Implications Policies seeking to increase women's participation in paid work may need to address household‐ and community‐level norms, bargaining constraints, and expectations surrounding unpaid work alongside conventional interventions focused on skills, employment opportunities, and childcare. Because the analysis is descriptive, these implications should be interpreted as suggestive rather than causal.