Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T05:58:21.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Defamilisation measures and women's labour force participation – a comparative study of twelve countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2020

Ruby C.M. Chau ,
Sam W.K. Yu ,
Liam Foster  and
Maggie K.W. Lau
Ruby C.M. Chau*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociological Studies, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Sam W.K. Yu
Affiliation:
Department of Social Work, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Liam Foster
Affiliation:
Department of Sociological Studies, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Maggie K.W. Lau
Affiliation:
Asia-Pacific Institute of Ageing Studies, Lingnan University, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong
*
*Corresponding author. Email: c.chau@sheffield.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the relevance of two interpretations of defamilisation (“freedom of the family” and “freedom of women from the family”) to the search for effective measures for strengthening women's participation in the paid labour market. Based on these two interpretations, two types of defamilisation measures (care-focused and women's economic) are identified. Two defamilisation indices are developed respectively covering twelve countries. The importance of the two types of defamilisation measures in assisting women to access employment are discussed from two angles. The input angle refers to the extent to which countries are committed to the provision of these defamilisation measures. The output angle is about the relationship between these defamilisation measures and the degree of women's participation in the paid labour market. Through conducting these analytical tasks, this paper also contributes to the examination of the relationship between types of welfare regimes and the provision of defamilisation measures.

Keywords

comparative welfare studycare-focused defamilisationdefamilisation indiceswelfare regimeswomen's economic defamilisationwomen labour participation
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , February 2017 , pp. 73 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bambra, C. (2004). The worlds of welfare: Illusory and gender blind. Social Policy and Society, 3(3), 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bambra, C. (2005). Cash versus services: “worlds of welfare” and the decommodification of cash benefits and health care services. Journal of Social Policy, 34(2), 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bambra, C. (2007). Defamilisation and welfare state regimes: A cluster analysis. International Journal of Social Welfare, 16, 326–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, F., & Daly, M. (2014). Poverty through a gender lens: Evidence and policy review on gender and poverty. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Castles, F. G., & Mitchell, D. (1993). Worlds of welfare and families of nations. In Castles, F. G. (Ed.), Families of nations: Patterns of public policy in western democracies (pp. 93–128). Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Chau, R., Foster, L., & Yu, S. (2016) Defamilisation and familisation measures – can they reduce the adverse effects of pro-market pension reforms on women in Hong Kong and the UK? Critical Social Policy, 36(2), 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chzhen, Y. (2010). Gender differences in earnings and occupational attainment in Europe (Doctoral Thesis). University of York, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, UK.Google Scholar
Daly, M. (2011). What adult worker model? A critical look at recent social policy reform in Europe from a gender and family perspective. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 18(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. London: Polity.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundation of postindustrial economies. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, L. (2010). Towards a new political economy of pensions? The implications for women. Critical Social Policy, 30(1), 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Javornik, J. (2014). Measuring state de-familialism: Contesting post-socialist exceptionalism. Journal of European Social Policy, 24(3), 240–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kangas, O. (1994). The politics of social security: On regressions, qualitative comparsions and cluster analysis. In Janoski, T., Hicks, A. (Eds.), The comparative political economy of the welfare state (pp. 346–364). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karim, S. A., Eikemo, T. A., & Bambra, C. (2010). Welfare state regimes and population health: Integrating the East Asian welfare states. Health Policy, 94(1), 45–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kasza, G. (2002). The illusion of welfare regimes. Journal of Social Policy, 31(2), 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korpi, W. (2000). Faces of inequality: Gender, class and patterns of inequalities in different types of welfare state. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 7(2), 127–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korpi, W. (2010). Class and gender inequalities in different types of welfare states: The social citizenship indicator program. International Journal of Social Welfare, 19(S1), S14–S24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroger, T. (2011). Defamilisation, dedomestication and care policy: Comparing childcare service provisions of welfare states. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 31(7/8), 424–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitner, S. (2003). Varieties of familialism: The caring function of the family in comparative perspective. European Societies, 5(4), 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitner, S. (2005). Conservative familialism reconsidered: The case of Belgium. Acta Politica, 40, 419–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lister, R. (1994). ‘She has other duties’: Women, citizenship and social security. In Baldwin, S. & Falkingham, J. (Eds.), Social security and social change: New challenges to the beveridge model (pp. 31–44). New York and London: Harvester.Google Scholar
Lohmann, H., & Zagel, H. (2016). Family policy in comparative perspective: The concepts and measurement of familization and defamilization. Journal of European Social Policy, 26(1), 48–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, E. and Glendinning, C. (1994). Paying for care in Europe: Is there a feminist approach? In Hantrais, L. & Mangen, S. (Eds.), Family policy and the welfare of women (pp. 52–59). Loughborough: University of Loughborough.Google Scholar
Michon, P. (2008). Familisation and defamilisation policy in 22 European countries. Poznan University of Economics Review, 8(1), 34–54.Google Scholar
Nyberg, A. (2002). Gender, (de)commodification, economic (in)dependence and autonomous households: The case of Sweden. Critical Social Policy, 22(1), 72–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD. (2011). OECD encouraging quality in early childhood education and care. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from http://www.oecd.org/education/school/49322823.pdfGoogle Scholar
OECD. (2014). OECD family database. Retrieved February 20, 2014, from www.oecd.org/els/social/family/databaseGoogle Scholar
OECD. (2016). OECD employment statistics database. Retrieved November, 26, 2016, from http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=64196Google Scholar
Orloff, A. (1993). Gender and social rights of citizenship: The comparative analysis of gender relations and welfare sates. American Sociological Review, 58(3), 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pankratz, C. (2009). Cross-national comparisons of family policies: The relevance of national approaches to social welfare. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 40(3), 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, D. (2007). Closing the gender gap in retirement income: What difference will recent UK pension reforms make? Journal of Social Policy, 36(4), 561–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pylkkanen, E. and Smith, N. (2003). Career interruptions due to parental leave: A comparative study of Denmark and Sweden. (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Social, Employment and Migration Working Paper). Retrieved December 8, 2016, from http://www.oecd.org/social/family/2502336.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sainsbury, D. (1999). Gender, policy regimes and politics. In Sainsbury, D. (Ed.), Gender and welfare state regimes (pp. 245–276). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saraceno, C., & Keck, W. (2010). Can we identify intergenerational policy regimes in Europe? European Societies, 12(5), 675–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thévenon, O. (2013). Drivers of female labour force participation in the OECD (OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 145). Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
United Nations. (2010). The world's women 2010: Trends and statistics. Retrieved February 10, 2014, from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/Worldswomen/WW2010pub.htmGoogle Scholar
Van der Lippe, T., de Ruijter, J., de Ruitjter, E., & Raub, W. (2011). Persistent inequalities in time use between men and women: A detailed look at the influence of economic circumstances, policies and culture. European Sociological Review, 27(2), 164–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, A., & Wong, C. K. (2005). Introduction: East asian welfare regimes. In Walker, A. & Wong, C. K. (Eds.), East Asian welfare regimes in transition (pp. 3–20). Hong Kong: The Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar