Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Part I
- 1 The position of mothers in a comparative welfare state perspective
- 2 Making time for working parents: comparing public childcare provision
- 3 Parents' care and career: comparing parental leave policies
- 4 Support for market care: comparing child cash and tax benefits
- Part II
- Part III
- Index
- References
1 - The position of mothers in a comparative welfare state perspective
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Part I
- 1 The position of mothers in a comparative welfare state perspective
- 2 Making time for working parents: comparing public childcare provision
- 3 Parents' care and career: comparing parental leave policies
- 4 Support for market care: comparing child cash and tax benefits
- Part II
- Part III
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
In most European countries welfare states developed after World War II. Until 1960 most countries developing a welfare state were led by the idea that families would be provided for by their male heads, and therefore the design of social security schemes was based on a household-with-breadwinner perspective. Since the 1970s, however, labour force participation rates for women have risen in some European countries, especially in the 1980s and 1990s. In addition, mothers increasingly have combined paid work and motherhood, even when children were still very young. Today, women's greater investment in education has resulted in their having equal levels of initial training. Although there are differences in men's participation rates across countries, the differences in women's participation rates are more significant, especially after children are born into the family. Women with a similar level of education behave differently in terms of both the age at which they choose to give birth to children and their labour force participation after childbirth. Moreover, the types of jobs women have vary considerably across welfare states.
In order to understand welfare states and the difference between welfare states across Europe, social scientists began to classify countries according to various welfare criteria. Typologies can be used for different purposes and can focus on variables related to causes, institutions and/or outcomes. The most influential attempt to create a welfare state typology has been that of Esping-Andersen (1990).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Social Policies, Labour Markets and MotherhoodA Comparative Analysis of European Countries, pp. 3 - 27Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2008
References
Adema, W. 2005. ‘Babies and bosses’, OECD Observer, no. 248, March.
, , , and 1996. Net Public Social Expenditure, Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers no 39, Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2001. ‘Welfare states, solidarity and justice principles: does the type really matter?’, Acta Sociologica 44, 283–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2002. ‘Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report’, Journal of European Social Policy 12; 2: 137–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1997. ‘Classifying welfare states: a two-dimension approach’, Journal of Social Policy 26 (3), 351–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1988. ‘Bargaining structure, corporatism and macroeconomic performance’, Economic Policy 6, 16–61.Google Scholar
Castles, F. G. and D. Mitchell 1993. ‘Worlds of welfare and families of nations’, in (ed.), Families of Nations: Patterns of Public Policy in Western Democracies, Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Del Boca, D. 2000. ‘Participation and fertility behaviour of Italian women: the role of market rigidities’, CHILD Working Paper 10.
Del Boca, D. and S. Pasqua 2002. ‘Labour market participation of mothers in Italy: facts, studies and public policies’, CHILD Working Paper 04.
and 2003. Women's Work, the Family and Social Policy: Focus on Italy in a European Perspective, New York: Peter Langs Publishing, 216pp.Google Scholar
Del Boca, D., M. Locatelli and S. Pasqua 2000. ‘Employment decisions of married women: evidence and explanations’, CHILD Working Paper 8.
Del Boca, D., M. Locatelli and D. Vuri 2003. ‘Childcare choices by Italian households’, CHILD Working Paper 30.
Ebbinghaus, B. 1998. ‘European labour relations and welfare state regimes: a comparative analysis of their “elective affinities”’, Background Paper for Cluster 3: ‘The Welfare State and Industrial Relations Systems, Conference on ‘Varieties of Welfare Capitalism in Europe, North America and Japan’, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne, 11–13 June.
1999. Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1997. ‘General introduction’, in Mire Florence Conference, Comparing Social Welfare Systems in Southern Europe, vol. III, Paris: Mire, 13–24.Google Scholar
Forssén, Katja and Mia Hakovirta 2000. ‘Family policy, work incentives and employment of mothers: findings from the Luxembourg Income Study’, Paper presented at The Year 2000 International Research Conference on Social Security (‘Social Security in the Global Village’), organised by the Finnish member organisations of the International Social Security Association (ISSA) and held in Helsinki, Finland, 25–27 September.
, and 1997. ‘Supporting the employment of mothers: policy variation across fourteen welfare states’, Journal of European Social Policy 7 (1), 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafsson, S. 1994. ‘Childcare and types of welfare states’, in (ed.), Gendering Welfare States, London: Thousand Oaks, 45–61.Google Scholar
1996. ‘The South European welfare model: the Greek welfare state in search of an identity’, Journal of European Social Policy 6 (1), 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knijn, T. 1991. ‘Citizenship, care and gender in the Dutch welfare state’, Paper presented at the European Feminist Research Conference ‘Women in a Changing Europe’, University of Aalborg, 18–22 August.
and 1997. ‘Gender and the caring dimension of welfare states: toward inclusive citizenship’, Social Politics 5 (3), 328–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1989. ‘Power, politics, and state autonomy in the development of social citizenship: social rights during sickness in eighteen OECD countries since 1930’, American Sociological Review 54 (3), 309–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000. ‘Faces of inequality: gender, class, and patterns of inequalities in different types of welfare states’, Social Politics7, 127–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korpi, W. and J. Palme 1998. The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality and Poverty in the Western Countries, February.
Leibfried, S. 1992. ‘Towards a European welfare state: on integrating poverty regimes into the European Community’, in and (eds.), Social Policy in a Changing Europe, Frankfurt am Main and Boulder, CO: Campus Verlag/Westview Press, 245–79.Google Scholar
1989. Models of Motherhood: Welfare State Policies and Everyday Practices: The Scandinavian Experience. Oslo: Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
Letablier, M.-T. 1998. Comparing Family Policies in Europe. Periodic Progress Report No 1 of the Thematic Network: ‘Working and Mothering: Social Practices and Social Policies’, TSER Programme of the European Commission, Area III: Research into Social Integration and Social Exclusion in Europe, 1st TSER Seminar held in Lund, 26–28 November.
Lewis, J. and I. Ostner 1994. ‘Gender and the evolution of European social policies’, Universität Bremen, Zentrum für Sozialpolitik (Centre for Social Policy Research), ZeS-Arbeitspapier nr. 4/94.
Lumen, J., J. Le Cacheux and D. Meulders 2000. Policy Digest.
and 1996. ‘Social transfers: spending patterns, institutional arrangements and policy responses’, OECD Economic Studies, no. 27.Google Scholar
Orloff, Ann Shola 2001. ‘Gender equality, women's employment: cross-national patterns of policy and politics’, Paper prepared for the meeting of the International Sociological Association Research Committee 19, Poverty, Social Welfare and Social Policy ‘Old and New Social Inequalities: What challenges for Welfare States?’, University of Oviedo, Spain, 6–9 September.
Pateman, C. 1989. ‘Feminist critiques of the public/private dichotomy’, in (ed.), The Disorder of Women, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 118–40.Google Scholar
Pfau-Effinger, B. 2000. ‘Changing welfare states and labour markets in the context of European gender arrangements’, Centre for Comparative Welfare State Studies, Aalborg University, Denmark, COST A13 Action ‘Changing Labour Markets, Welfare Policies and Citizenship’, Gender Group Working Paper.(www.socsci.auc.dk/cost/gender/workingpapers.html)
Stryker, R. and S. R. Eliason 2002. ‘The welfare state, gendered labor markets and political orientations in France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Denmark and Britain 1977–1994’, Paper presented at the Gender Studies Program, October.
Trifiletti, R. 1998. Comments on Comparing Family Policies in Europe. Periodic Progress Report No 1 of the Thematic Network: ‘Working and Mothering: Social Practices and Social Policies’, TSER Programme of the European Commission, Area III: Research into Social Integration and Social Exclusion in Europe, 1st TSER Seminar held in Lund, 26–28 November.
Walby, S. 2001. ‘From gendered welfare state to gender regimes: national differences, convergence, or re-structuring?’, Paper presented to Gender and Society Group, Stockholm University, January.
Wetzels, Cecile and Aslan Zorlu 2003. ‘Wage effects of motherhood: a double selection approach’, Paper presented to the conference ‘Family, Employment and Welfare Issues in Europe: The Quantitative Approach’, 18–20 February, Brussels. Presented to the 17th meeting of the European Society of Population Economics (13–15 June, New York State University, New York).
, and 2003. ‘Getting by with a little help from your family: toward a policy-relevant model of the household’, Feminist Economics 9 (1), 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1999. ‘Culture and gender in household economics: the case of Jamaican child support payments’, Feminist Economics 5 (2), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3
- Cited by