Skip to main content
Log in

Mobility decisions within couples

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We analyze couples mode choice, focusing on the interdependence of spouses’ decisions. We set up a discrete collective (cooperative) model in which spouses with competing objectives reach a Pareto optimal decision, and we apply it to Paris region. We estimate the determinants of the bargaining power (spouses’ age, nationality, type of job contract, tenure status and number of children) using this collective model. To control for the endogeneity of car ownership, we finally model the joint choice of car ownership and mode. Econometric estimations show that spouses’ values of time driving alone and together are significantly different.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The job location is not available for the remaining 95% of the census sample. However, this 5% is selected so as to be representative of the whole sample.

  2. In METROPOLIS, the travel time depends on the time of the day. In the current analysis, we have no information about spouses’ departure times, so that we rely on an ”expected” travel time computed as the log-sum of the logit departure time choice model used.

References

  • Abraham, J. E., & Hunt, J. D. (1997). Specification and estimation of nested logit model of home, workplaces, and commuter mode choices by multiple-worker households. Transportation Research Record, 1606, 17–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anas, A., & Moses, L. N. (1979). Mode choice, transport structure and urban land use. Journal of Urban Economics, 6(2), 228–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, S., de Palma, A., & Thisse, J.-F. (1992). Discrete choice theory of product differentiation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhat, C. R., & Pendyala, R. M. (2005). Modeling intra-household interactions and group decision-making. Transportation, 32, 443–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhat, C. R., Goulias, K. G., Pendyala, R. M., Paleti, R., Sidharthan, R., Schmitt, L., et al. (2013). A household-level activity pattern generation model with an application for Southern California. Transportation, 40(5), 1063–1086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. (1991). A treatise on the family. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, M. E., & Lerman, S. R. (1985). Discrete choice analysis: Theory and application to travel demand. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browning, M., Chiappori, P.-A., & Weiss, Y. (2014). Economics of the family. Cambridge books. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiappori, P. A. (1988). Rational household labor supply. Econometrica, 56(1), 63–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiappori, P. A. (1992). Collective labor supply and welfare. Journal of Political Economy, 100(3), 437–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiappori, P. A., de Palma, A., Inoa, I., & Picard, N. (2014). Residential location choice and household decision. Mimeo: University of Cergy-Pontoise.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Donnea, F. X. (1971). The determinants of transport mode choice in Dutch cities. Rotterdam: Rotterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Palma, A., Inoa, I., & Picard, N. (2014). Discrete choice decision-making with multiple decision makers within the household. In S. Hess & A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of choice modelling (pp. 363–382). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Palma, A., Lindsey, R., & Picard, N. (2015). Trip-timing decisions and congestion with household scheduling preferences. Economics of Transportation, 4(1–2), 118–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Palma, A., & Marchal, F. (2002). Real cases applications of the fully dynamic METROPOLIS tool-box: An advocacy for large-scale mesoscopic transportation systems. Networks and Spatial Economics, 2(4), 347–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Palma, A., Picard, N., & Dantan, S. (2016). Stackelberg mode choice within couples. Mimeo: University of Cergy-Pontoise.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donni, O., & Moreau, N. (2007). Collective labor supply: A single-equation model and some evidence from French data. Journal of Human Resources, 42, 214–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Transport Forum. (2015). Automated and autonomous driving: Regulation under uncertainty. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

  • Kato, H., & Matsumoto, M. (2009). Intrahousehold interaction in a nuclear family: A utility maximizing approach. Transportation Research Part B, 43(2), 191–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerman, S. R. (1977). Location, housing, automobile ownership, and mode to work: A joint choice model. Transportation Research Record, 610, 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. A. (1993). Separate spheres bargaining and the marriage market. Journal of Political Economy, 101(6), 988–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1984). Econometric analysis of qualitative response models. Handbook of econometrics (Vol. II, Chapter 24). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, (2001). Economic choices, nobel lecture, December 2000. American Economic Review, 91(3), 351–378.

  • McFadden, D., & Train, K. (2000). Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15(5), 447–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McElroy, M., & Horney, M. (1981). Nash-bargained decisions: Toward a generalization of the theory of demand. International Economic Review, 22, 333–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moses, L., & Williamson, H. (1963). Value of time, choice of mode, and the subsidy issue in urban transportation. Journal of Political Economy, 71, 247–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picard, N., de Palma, A., & Inoa, I. (2015). Intra-household decision models of residential and job location. In M. Bierlaire, A. de Palma, R. Hurtubia, & P. Waddell (Eds.), Integrated transport and land use modeling for sustainable cities. Lausanne: EPFL Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Picard, N., de Palma, A. & Dantan, S., (2015b). Modelling mode choice within couples. Working Paper, Elitisme no. 201507

  • Picard, N., de Palma, A., & Dantan, S. (2013). Intra-household discrete choice models of mode choice and residential location. International Journal of Transport Economics, 40(3), 419–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinet, E. (2014). L’évaluation socioéconomique des investissements publics. Commissariat général à la stratégie et à la prospective

  • Stancanelli, E. & Van Soest, A. (2012). Joint leisure before and after retirement: A double regression discontinuity approach. Documents de travail du Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne 2012.85. ISSN: 1955-611X. 2012. \(<\)halshs-00768901\(>\).

  • Train, K., & McFadden, D. (1978). The goods/leisure tradeoff and disaggregate work trip mode choice models. Transportation Research, 12, 349–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen, F. (2002a). Collective household models: Principles and main results. Journal of Economic Surveys, 16(4), 533–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen, F. (2002b). Where does the unitary model go wrong? Simulating tax reforms by means of unitary and collective labour supply models. The case for Belgium, In Laisney, F. (Eds.), Welfare analysis of fiscal and social security reforms in Europe: Does the representation of family decision processes matter? In: Final report on EU-project VS/2000/0778.

  • Vickrey, W. S. (1969). Congestion theory and transport investment. American Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings), 59, 251–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Timmermans, H., & Borgers, A. (2005). A model of household task allocation and time use. Transportation Research Part B, 39(1), 81–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Moshe Ben-Akiva and the two referees for their comments and suggestion on this paper. We would also like to thank the participants of the “Applied Micro and Development Workshop”, Thema, University of Cergy-Pontoise and ESSEC, 2013, of the symposium “Advances in Family Economics and Applications to Developing countries”, EconomiX, University Paris Ouest Nanterre, 2013, of ITEA, Khumo-Nectar conference, 2015, and of the workshop on “Advance Discrete Choice Model” in the honor of Daniel McFadden, University of Cergy-Pontoise, 2015. We also benefitted from the comments of Pierre-André Chiappori, Olivier Donni, Charlie Holt, Daniel McFadden and Moshe Ben-Akiva. This research has been conducted as part of the project Labex MME-DII (ANR11-LBX-0023-01) as well as the ANR ELITISME project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathalie Picard.

Appendix: Estimates of alternatives to the nested collective model

Appendix: Estimates of alternatives to the nested collective model

In the model with independent decision, each spouse G is assumed to prefer mode j with probability: \(P_{iG} (j)=\frac{\exp \left( {V_{iG}^j } \right) }{\sum \nolimits _{k\in \left\{ {B, C} \right\} } {\exp \left( {V_{iG}^k } \right) } }, j\in \left\{ {B, C} \right\} \) and to prefer one car to zero car with probability:

\(P_{iG}^{\text {Car}} =\frac{\exp \left( {V_{iG}^{\text {Car}} +\mu ^{\text {Car}}I_{iG}^{\text {Car}} } \right) }{\exp \left( {\mu ^{\text {noCar}}I_{iG}^{\text {noCar}} } \right) +\exp \left( {V_{iG}^{\text {Car}} +\mu ^{\text {Car}}I_{iG}^{\text {Car}} } \right) }\)

where \(V_{iG}^{\text {Car}} \) designs the deterministic utility of owning at least one car (the deterministic utility of owning no car is normalized at zero) for spouse G and the inclusive value \(I_{iG}^{\text {Car}} (I_i^{\text {noCar}} )\) corresponds to the maximum utility that spouse G can obtain from mode choice when owning at least one car (no car) (Tables 8, 9):

$$\begin{aligned} I_i^{\text {Car}}= & {} \log \left[ {\exp \left( {V_{iG}^B } \right) +\exp \left( {V_{iG}^C } \right) } \right] ,\\ I_i^{\text {noCar}}= & {} \log \left[ {\exp \left( {V_{iG}^B } \right) } \right] =V_{iG}^B . \end{aligned}$$

When both spouses wants a car, two car are bought with probability \(\alpha \). So the probability that the household i has 2 cars is given by the product \(\alpha \times P_{iF}^{\text {Car}} \times P_{iM}^{\text {Car}} \). Consequently, the probability of choosing mode (\(j,j')\) and having 2 cars is:

$$\begin{aligned} {P}_i \left( {j,j^{\prime },2 \text {car}} \right) =\alpha \times P_i^{\text {Car}} \times P_{iM}^{\text {Car}} \times P_{iF} (j)\times P_{iM} (j^{\prime }) , j,j^{\prime }\in \left\{ {B,C} \right\} \end{aligned}$$

Only one car is bought when both spouses wants one and buy a common one (with probability \(\left( {1-\alpha } \right) \times P_{iF}^{\text {Car}} \times P_{iM}^{\text {Car}} )\) or when only one spouse wants a car (with probability \(P_{iF}^{\text {Car}} \times \left( {1-P_{iM}^{\text {Car}} } \right) +\left( {1-P_{iF}^{\text {Car}} } \right) \times P_{iM}^{\text {Car}} )\). In this latter case, the spouse who chooses to have a car has the choice between both travel modes, while the other spouse is assumed to take public transport. Therefore, the probability of choosing mode \((j,j')\) and having 1 car is given by the following equations:

$$\begin{aligned} P_i \left( {B,B,1 \text {car}} \right)&=P_{iF}^{\text {Car}} \times \left( {1-P_{iM}^{\text {Car}} } \right) \times P_{iF} (B)+\left( {1-P_{iF}^{\text {Car}} } \right) \times P_{iM}^{\text {Car}} \\&\quad \times P_{iM} (B)+\left( {1-\alpha } \right) \times P_{iF}^{\text {Car}} \times P_{iM}^{\text {Car}} \times {P}_{iF} (B)\times P_{iM} (B), \\ P_i \left( {C,C,1 \text {car}} \right)&=P_{iF}^{\text {Car}} \times \left( {1-P_{iM}^{\text {Car}} } \right) \times P_{iF} (C)+\left( {1-P_{iF}^{\text {Car}} } \right) \times P_{iM}^{\text {Car}} \\&\quad \times P_{iM} (C)+\left( {1-\alpha } \right) \times P_{iF}^{\text {Car}} \times P_{iM}^{\text {Car}} \times P_{iF} (C)\times P_{iM} (C), \\ P_i \left( {B,C,1 \text {car}} \right)&=\left( {1-P_{iF}^{\text {Car}} } \right) \times P_{iM}^{\text {Car}} \times P_{iM} (C)+\left( {1-\alpha } \right) \\&\quad \times P_{iF}^{\text {Car}} \times P_{iM}^{\text {Car}} \times P_{iF} (B)\times P_{iM} (C) \\ P_i \left( {C,B,1 \text {car}} \right)&=P_{iF}^{\text {Car}} \times \left( {1-P_{iM}^{\text {Car}} } \right) \times P_{iF} (C)+\left( {1-\alpha } \right) \\&\quad \times P_{iF}^{\text {Car}} \times P_{iM}^{\text {Car}} \times P_{iF} (C)\times P_{iM} (B) \end{aligned}$$

When neither spouses want a car, the couple has no car and the couple mode choice is given by: \(P_i \left( {B,B,0 \text {car}} \right) =\left( {1-P_{iF}^{\text {Car}} } \right) \times \left( {1-P_{iM}^{\text {Car}} } \right) \).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Picard, N., Dantan, S. & de Palma, A. Mobility decisions within couples. Theory Decis 84, 149–180 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-017-9648-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-017-9648-2

Keywords

Navigation