Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic and government containment measures to reduce the spread of the Sars-Cov2 virus created concerns in most industrialized countries that women and men would be impacted differently in paid work [1,2], unpaid work (e.g., childcare) [3], and wellbeing [4], thereby exacerbating existing gender inequalities (i.e., structural inequalities between men and women based on the uneven distribution of resources and burdens in combination with the structural undervaluation of women’s position in society).

Although national labour markets were differentially affected by the pandemic across countries [5,6] and the consequences for workers (e.g., job loss, work hours reduction, loss of wages) varied dependent on government policies such as job retention and unemployment schemes [7,8], women were more likely than men to be affected by pandemic-induced changes to paid work during the first year of the pandemic [9,10]. For example, women were more likely than men to work on location given their overrepresentation in many, but certainly not all, essential occupations [11]. Overall, although women were generally hit harder by the economic consequences of COVID-19 [1], for some, their overrepresentation in essential occupations counterbalanced job losses experienced by workers in non-essential occupations [12].

The pandemic also differentially affected men and women in relation to household divisions of childcare. Some fathers increased their participation in childcare tasks, leading to smaller inequalities between mothers and fathers at the start of the pandemic, for example in the US, Canada, Germany and the Netherlands [13–17]. Other studies suggested the pandemic had a significantly more negative impact on women than men, for example because some women took up a larger share of childcare and home schooling tasks, were more likely to change the days or times they worked to accommodate childcare, or because despite fathers’ increased involvement, mothers continued to do more childcare [e.g., 15–20].

The pandemic also led to a significant decline in wellbeing during the initial stages, particularly for mothers [e.g., 21,22]. Some studies suggest mothers’ wellbeing decreased more than fathers’ due to increased childcare responsibilities or changed working conditions [e.g., 21]. Work-life balance, which can be seen as a form of wellbeing, also decreased more for women than for men at the start of the pandemic [e.g., 23], although effects differ across countries. For example, in a study comparing tertiary educated women in Finland and the Netherlands, part-time work appeared to protect wellbeing. Finnish mothers reported significantly lower work-life balance than Dutch mothers during the first lockdown, with part-time work being more widely available in the Netherlands [22]. Similar results have been found in Germany, where part-time work led to improved life satisfaction among women, but only during the first lockdown [24].

The empirical evidence from the first months of the pandemic provided essential insights into differential effects of the pandemic for men and women in paid work, childcare, and wellbeing. Yet this same evidence is challenged by the use of cross-sectional convenience samples in many countries and the limited analyses on these developments in later phases of the pandemic. The few studies available on later phases seems to suggest that the increase in inequalities is likely dependent on pandemic phases and on the country context, given variation in which containment measures were in force [14,25–27]. In the UK, for example, changes towards more gender equal divisions of housework all but disappeared among couples with children once lockdown measures were lifted [25]. Similarly, in the Netherlands, within the first year of the pandemic, as containment measures relaxed, the initial increase of fathers’ relative share in childcare declined [26,27].

Our aim is to provide an empirical contribution by studying the full two years of the pandemic, thereby disentangling the short- and middle-term effects of the pandemic on gender inequality in three key areas: work, childcare, and wellbeing. These three axes of gender inequality (in paid work, unpaid work (e.g., childcare), and wellbeing) were some of the most persistent prior to the pandemic in industrialized countries [28–31] and were expected to be impacted greatly by pandemic containment measures [e.g., 32,33].

At the start of the pandemic, we established that gender inequalities among parents with co-resident minor children were evident in only certain areas of paid work, childcare and wellbeing during the first lockdown in the Netherlands [15]. Using six waves of representative, probability-based longitudinal panel data from the Netherlands (with a total of seven time points, including retrospective pre-pandemic data), we now empirically assess differences between men and women with and without co-resident minor children within two-person, different-sex households between April 2020 (the first Dutch lockdown) and April 2022. We focus on work location as an important aspect of paid work during the pandemic, the relative division of childcare between mothers and fathers, and self-perceived work-life balance (as a measure of wellbeing). We research the extent to which men and women differ in work location, the relative division of childcare, and work-life balance at different stages of the pandemic and assess if and how gender inequalities in these three domains developed throughout the pandemic in the Netherlands.

The potential for sensemaking and the Dutch context

The now expansive pandemic literature on gender inequalities, together with extant pre-pandemic literature on gender inequalities in paid work, unpaid work (e.g., childcare), and wellbeing, suggest multiple theoretical mechanisms offer potential explanations for understanding gender inequalities in work location, the relative division of childcare, and work-life balance during the pandemic (for a detailed overview, see [77]). Some of the most commonly applied mechanisms include time availability (i.e., that men and women divide care tasks based on the time available alongside paid work), resources perspectives (i.e., that differences between men and women in paid or unpaid work reflect differences in bargaining positions based on absolute (own) or relative (the partner’s) resources, such as income and education), and the ‘doing gender’ perspective (i.e., that women and men’s behaviour reflects varying ways of reaffirming or countering societal expectations of men and women).

Although such perspectives offer useful insights for studying specific relationships (e.g., gender differences in paid work hours, or the relative distribution of housework), our focus here is broader. We therefore draw on the sociological idea of sensemaking, that is, the process by which people derive meaning from collective experiences [34]. In this manner, people can ‘make sense’ or give structure to the unknown [35], especially during crisis situations in which normal rules and procedures no longer apply or are no longer in place [36].

The initial lockdown and uncertainty people faced at the beginning of the pandemic could be seen as a ‘cosmological episode’ [34] in which workers and employers were unsure about how to respond to the situation. This uncertainty creates potential for changes in patterns of work location and childcare and, related to this, changes in work-life balance. From a sensemaking perspective, the largest uncertainties arose at the beginning of the pandemic and at the start of new lockdowns. At these stages, we would expect the largest changes in inequalities around work location, the relative division of childcare, and perceived work-life balance. Hence, we expect the greatest opportunity for a decline or risk for an increase in gender inequalities in work location, relative division of childcare and work-life balance to be during the first and subsequent lockdowns in the Netherlands. In the long run, however, as people make sense out of this pandemic situation and find new routines for themselves and their approach to work and family, we expect gender inequalities to return to pre-pandemic levels.

How men and women make sense of the uncertainty faced during the pandemic and what this means for patterns of gender inequality, can be further shaped by intersections with other social categories. Extant pre-pandemic studies highlight, for example, the relationship between utilizing flexible work arrangements, such as working from home, and parental gender roles (i.e., societal expectations of mothers and fathers; [37]), suggesting intersections between parenthood and gender. In more traditional societies, where women are expected to take on greater caregiving roles, women are more likely to use time gained from working from home to care more, whereas men are more likely to experience an increase in leisure time [38], thus suggesting potentially different drivers of gendered experiences of work-life balance among people with and without co-resident minor children. Pandemic-based literature also suggests that gendered differences in work, childcare, and wellbeing are potentially stratified by educational level (e.g., the fact that tertiary educated workers were more likely to work from home; [15]) as well as occupation, particularly in relation to whether occupations were categorized as ‘essential’ [e.g., 39,40]. We therefore explore the phase-specific nature of gender differences and whether gender inequalities in work, childcare, and wellbeing, experienced throughout the pandemic, are moderated by parenthood, working in essential occupations, or education differences.

As suggested above, the potential for changes between pre-pandemic gendered patterns in work, childcare, and wellbeing deriving from the need to make sense of the pandemic situation were likely greatest at the start of the pandemic and any further lockdowns. Thus, the potential for sensemaking depends on the pandemic context and government containment measures. The Netherlands entered an initial lockdown in mid-March 2020 (see S1 Fig for a timeline of relevant pandemic measures in the Netherlands). Containment measures were focused on optimizing public health outcomes, while simultaneously keeping the economy functioning and reducing the impact on society [15]. Compared to other countries, containment measures were relatively mild at this stage [41].

A containment measure with potentially broad ramifications for gender inequality was the mandate to work from home. From 12 March to early September 2020, employees were urgently requested to work from home where possible. Exceptions were made only for essential occupations, a distinction categorized by the government. Initially, essential occupations included health care (including youth care and social support), formal childcare, public transport, the food chain (e.g. supermarkets), transport industry, waste/garbage collection and processing, media and communication, education, emergency services, and necessary government processes. Women were overrepresented in many of these occupations, particularly in the education and care sectors [42]. The Dutch government adopted quite generous policies to protect workers during the pandemic, allowing employers to maintain wage payments and avoid lay-offs, mostly in sectors where little or no work was possible (e.g., restaurants and catering). Measures were also taken to protect the self-employed. In part due to these measures, workers in the Netherlands were relatively less likely to face severe reductions of working hours than workers in other countries [6,43].

A key measure with the potential to shape gender inequality among parents was the full closure of schools and childcare centres [44]. This was a national measure, with no regional or local differences. Primary schools were completely closed through mid-May 2020, and did not completely re-open until June 8^th (school ends annually in mid- to late-July). Limited school and childcare services were available to parents in essential occupations [44], yet use of such services was limited during this first lockdown. As a result, the large majority of children (88%) was home-schooled during the first lockdown [15]. When schools reopened, many children still could not fully attend schools and day care centres coping with staff shortages due to COVID-19 infections and quarantine rules [15]. In addition, the use of grandparent care, which is an important alternative to formal childcare for Dutch parents [45], was strongly discouraged to prevent infection among the older population.

Despite an initial relaxation of measures throughout the summer of 2020, following an increase in infections containment measures were once again enacted from September 2020 onwards [46], culminating in a second lockdown from mid-December 2020-early February 2021. In advance of the lockdown, people were advised to stay at home (including for work purposes) as much as possible from 4 November 2020 onwards. Schools and childcare centres were closed from 14 December onwards. Primary schools did not reopen until early February; secondary schools followed early March. Limited emergency school and childcare services were by now in high demand but difficult to obtain [47]. This second lockdown was more restrictive than the first one and included an evening curfew, in place until late April 2021. A third and final lockdown took place between December 2021-January 2022, with a work-from-home mandate already taking effect on 12 November 2021. Schools and childcare centres closed mid-December and re-opened relatively quickly in January 2022. The final containment measures were lifted in March 2022, just prior to the final data collection for our study.

Materials and methods

Sample

The initial scope of the CoGIS-NL study at wave 1 (fielded April 2020) included all LISS panel members in a household with at least one member in paid employment and at least one co-resident minor child (i.e., under the age of 18). These initial sampling criteria were broadened at wave 2 (June 2020; fielded July 2020) to include similar individuals without co-resident minor children. Therefore, an additional sample of respondents was included at wave 2. Sampling criteria for this additional sample were all LISS panel members in a household with at least one member in paid employment, within two standard deviations of the average age of respondents from the initial sample in wave 1 (resulting in respondents aged 28 to 57 years old). In short, wave 1 data included only respondents with co-resident minor children; data from waves 2–6 included respondents both with and without co-resident minor children. Response rates across the waves ranged from 70% to 79%. The sample at each wave ranged from 852 to 1239 respondents, dependent on the wave being studied (see Table 1 for an overview of sample statistics and fieldwork data for all waves). Study data were matched with individual-level data from two core LISS modules: “Family and Household” (collected annually in September) and “Work and Schooling” (collected annually in April). Data collection during the first wave coincided with the first lockdown in April 2020; subsequent waves were collected in July 2020 (with retrospective data from June), September 2020, November 2020, November 2021 and April 2022 (see S1 Fig for a timeline of data collection in relation to pandemic measures).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Sample statistics for each wave, including response rates.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302633.t001

The final analytical sample for our analyses (see final column, Table 1) was reached following the exclusion of respondents who were unemployed or did not live with a partner (see S1 Table). Unemployed respondents were excluded here given the focus on work location and work-life balance. Although in some country contexts, like the US, women were disproportionately affected by pandemic-related unemployment compared to men, this was much less the case in the Netherlands [48,49]. Few unemployed respondents in our sample were unemployed due to the pandemic (between 0% and 4%; measured waves 1 through 4). Respondents without a partner were excluded given our focus on the relative division of childcare. We further excluded respondents with missing values on the covariates. Finally, respondents without co-resident minor children were excluded from the analyses on the relative division of childcare. The final analytical sample at each wave ranged from 645 to 819 respondents. See S1 Table in the supplemental file for detailed information about missing values by wave. Additionally, for an overview of descriptive statistics for all variables of interest, see S2 Table.

Results

Drivers of pandemic-based gender inequality

We tested three potential moderators of the relationship between gender and the outcomes of work location and work-life balance: parenthood, having an essential occupation, and education. For the relative division of childcare, we tested having an essential occupation and education as potential moderators. The full results of these interaction models are presented in S6–S13 Tables.

In relation to work location, gender differences appear to primarily be driven by working in an essential occupation. Amongst workers without an essential occupation, men were significantly less likely (11 p.p.) than women to work fully from home (see Fig 1). This difference remained throughout the pandemic, except for September 2020, when many workplaces (temporarily) re-opened. We also see that the gender difference in who worked on location due to the nature of the work was moderated by having an essential occupation (see Fig 2). By the middle of the first lockdown, men with an essential occupation were 13 p.p. less likely than women with an essential occupation to work on location due to the nature of the work. Education also appears to be driving some of the gender differences in work location. Men with primary or secondary education are less likely to work fully from home and more likely to work hybrid compared to women with primary or secondary education at various stages throughout the pandemic. These same men are also more likely to work on location due to the nature of the work (see S8 Table). Gender differences in work location are largely unrelated to whether or not respondents had co-resident minor children (see S6 Table).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Men working fully from home compared to women, in non-essential occupations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302633.g001

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. Men working on location due to the nature of the work compared to women, by essential occupation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302633.g002

In relation to the relative division of childcare, we also see that gender differences are moderated by having an essential occupation or not (see S9 Table). Compared to mothers in essential occupations, fathers in essential occupations were significantly less likely to report doing less childcare from the middle of the first lockdown throughout the third and final lockdown (see Fig 3). Fathers not working in an essential occupation were also less likely to report doing less childcare compared to mothers not working in an essential occupation at the beginning of each lockdown. Gender differences in who did more or less in the relative division of childcare throughout the pandemic are also moderated by education (see S10 Table). Although fathers without tertiary education initially did more childcare at the start of the first lockdown than mothers without tertiary education (11 p.p.), this finding was no longer significant by June 2020. Indeed, by the second and third lockdowns, fathers without tertiary education were more likely than mothers without tertiary education to report doing the same amount of childcare as prior to the pandemic. For vocationally educated fathers in particular, this result remained significant until the end of the pandemic in April 2022. They were more likely than mothers with vocational education to report doing the same amount of childcare as before. In contrast, fathers with a tertiary level of education were more likely than tertiary educated mothers to report doing more childcare compared to before the pandemic in the later phase of the pandemic. The decline in parents’ relative share of childcare is also moderated by education: Fathers without tertiary education are less likely than mothers without tertiary education to report doing less childcare by the end of the first lockdown, an association which remains for vocationally educated fathers throughout the second and third lockdowns (see Fig 4 and S10 Table).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 3. Fathers doing less childcare (compared to mothers), by essential occupation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302633.g003

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 4. Fathers without tertiary education doing less or same amount of childcare (compared to mothers without tertiary education).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302633.g004

In line with the absence of significant effects in the multivariate models without moderators, few discernible patterns are visible in relation to gender differences in work-life balance in relation to parenthood (see S11 Table), having an essential occupation (see S12 Table) or education (see S13 Table). The gender difference found in the middle of the first lockdown and the start of the second lockdown is primarily related to parenthood. In the middle of the first lockdown, men with (11 p.p.) and without co-resident minor children (17 p.p.) were both more likely to report that work-life balance was easy compared to women with and without co-resident minor children respectively. By the start of the second lockdown, only men without co-resident minor children found it easier (19 p.p.) than women without co-resident minor children to combine work and care. Additionally, men with co-resident minor children were less likely to say that work-life balance was difficult at the start of the second lockdown (4 p.p.) compared to women with co-resident minor children and again by the end of the pandemic (5 p.p.).

The findings from our robustness checks confirmed the role parenthood plays in the association between gender and work-life balance. The analysis of perceived work-life balance for the sub-sample of respondents with co-resident minor children suggests that amongst parents, gender differences were evident in who found it easy or difficult to combine work and care at various phases throughout the pandemic (see S32–S37 Tables). Fathers were between 6–7 p.p. less likely than mothers to report finding the combination of work and care difficult at the start of the first and second lockdowns. By the end of the pandemic, fathers were 9 p.p. less likely than mothers to report difficulty combining work and care. Fathers were also more likely than mothers to report that combining work and care was easy in the middle of the first lockdown (13 p.p.) and again by the time the pandemic ended (April 2022; 11 p.p.).

Discussion

Given concerns at the start of the pandemic that government containment measures to reduce the spread of the Sars-Cov2 virus would impact women and men differently, thereby exacerbating existing inequalities in paid work [1,2], unpaid work (e.g., childcare) [3], and wellbeing [4], an investigation into the development of potential differences across multiple stages of the pandemic is warranted. A key finding of this study is that the COVID-19 pandemic is not associated with a unilateral worsening of existing inequalities between men and women in the Netherlands. We also find evidence that differences between men and women were often phase-specific, suggesting gendered patterns of sensemaking throughout the pandemic.

In relation to work location, despite general government measures requiring employees to work from home (both in the spring of 2020 and again in the fall/winter of 2021; see timeline in S1 Fig), men were less likely than women to work fully from home at the start of each lockdown. Moreover, as offices reopened, men were more likely than women to work on location even if the work did not require them to do so, whereas women were more likely than men to have to work on location due to the nature of the work. These findings confirm studies on the initial phases of the pandemic that women were more likely than men to be affected by pandemic-induced changes to paid work [9,10,63]. They also suggest that men’s sensemaking revolved more around maintaining a presence at the workplace. Women’s sensemaking, in contrast, appears to have been more centred on working fully from home unless they were working in essential occupations, much of which had to be done on-site. These findings raise concerns about the longer-term impact of these developments [e.g., 66]. For example, women potentially faced higher risks of infection because they more often had to work on location due to the nature of the work [e.g., 67]. At the same time, men who chose to work on location could benefit from improved career development, if they are perceived to have greater work commitment than women [68]. From a policy perspective, the findings point to potential varied interpretations of and/or adherence to government containment measures [69,70], which could be accounted for when developing containment measures for future pandemics.

In the relative division of childcare, our finding that the pandemic differentially affected men and women in relation to divisions of childcare continues to nuance the growing evidence base on this topic [13–15,18–20]. The relative division of childcare between mothers and fathers was and remains unequal in the Netherlands [71,72]. However, two years after the start of the pandemic, a proportion of fathers continues to report doing relatively more childcare than before, a finding which is in line with US research on the first year of the pandemic [16] but contrasts findings in other countries, like Germany, where fathers’ increase in relative childcare was temporary [73]. Mothers also remain more likely than fathers to report doing less childcare than prior to the pandemic. We cannot rule out that these findings reflect the differential starting point for mothers and fathers, which makes it more likely that fathers will move upwards and mothers downwards in their relative division of childcare (e.g., a plateau or ceiling effect). However, it could be that our findings reflect gendered patterns of sensemaking in the Netherlands, as identity is closely linked to sensemaking processes [74]. Government containment measures impacted parents greatly, with the closure of childcare centres and schools requiring parents to increase the time spent on childcare and schooling when working from home [75,76]. Gendered sensemaking could be reflected in how some fathers responded to containment measures, in particular working from home mandates, as these appear to have created opportunities to notice the need for childcare and to increase their involvement in it [e.g., 20]. However, fathers in some countries returned to their pre-pandemic gendered divisions of childcare as the pandemic continued [e.g., 73]. Within the Netherlands, differences were also found within groups of parents. Tertiary educated mothers and fathers are more likely to share childcare relatively equally than parents without tertiary education [77]. The finding that the interaction between gender and education in the relative division of childcare was driven by differences between primary/secondary educated mothers and fathers, and later by differences between tertiary educated mothers and fathers could suggest that changes in the relative division of childcare primarily strengthen a process that was already occurring. Namely, the group still doing more childcare than prior to the pandemic by April 2022 (tertiary educated fathers compared to tertiary educated mothers), was already more likely to have a relatively equal division of childcare pre-pandemic [72,78]. From a sensemaking perspective, this finding fits with underlying traditional gender roles in the Netherlands in which mothers are seen as better caregivers than fathers, with men taking on a primary breadwinner role [72,77,79]. Investing in these roles as mother/carer and father/provider might have increased sensemaking for non-tertiary educated mothers and fathers, especially during the lockdowns.

The relative absence of differences between men and women in the perceived ease or difficulty in combining work and care throughout the pandemic is notable. Studies on the initial stages of the pandemic suggest that overall wellbeing declined, particularly for mothers [e.g., 21,22]. In relation to work-life balance, however, which is one aspect of wellbeing, our findings demonstrated only nuanced differences, with men at times more likely to report finding it (very) easy to combine work and care and women more likely to report finding it neither easy or difficult. These subtle differences could be a reflection of construct bias, insofar that women and men may have differing understandings of ‘easy’ in relation to combining work and care. On the other hand, these findings might support the idea that experiences of wellbeing in general and work-life balance in particular often differ across countries [80,81]. Our robustness check on the sub-sample of parents does suggest that within this group, however, important gender differences exist. Compared to mothers, fathers reported fewer difficulties combining work and care at the start of the first and second lockdowns and by the end of the pandemic. Fathers also reported greater ease than mothers in combining work and care in the middle of the first lockdown and at the end of the pandemic. The findings from the robustness check are therefore in line with existing studies on wellbeing, that show a larger decline in wellbeing particularly for mothers [e.g., 21,22].

Conclusion

Our conclusions are threefold. First, differences between men and women are not unequivocally evident in all domains during the pandemic: Our findings suggest gender differences were primarily found in work location and the relative division of childcare. In relation to work-life balance, differences between men and women in the extent to which they found it easy or difficult to combine paid work with care responsibilities were nuanced and inconsistent throughout the pandemic, and primarily visible between mothers and fathers. Second, the analyses show that many gender differences are phase-specific, suggesting potential differences in how women and men made sense of the upheaval of the pandemic in relation to work and care. Third, essential occupation and education were both drivers of many of these phase-specific gender differences. Taken together, these findings suggest that inequalities between men and women in paid work, unpaid work (e.g., childcare), and wellbeing have neither been alleviated by nor unilaterally worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic and that attention is needed for the drivers of these differences as well their phase-specific nature.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank former CoGIS-NL project members Debby Beckers, Bryn Hummel, Sabine Geurts, and Peter Kruyen as well as two anonymous reviewers for their detailed and useful feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript.