Women‘s employment in the context of culture and work-family arrangements in a comparative perspective

Birgit Pfau-Effinger, University of Hamburg

Employment patterns in Germany, the Netherlands and Finland, 2003 (Source:OECD 2006; Luxembourg: Eurostat 2005)

Germany Netherlands

Finland

Men‘s employment 1994 2005

74 7571 79

6169

Women‘s employment 1994 2005

55 5360 65

5967

part-time work of women (% of all employed women) 1994 2005

28,0 54,539,4 60,9

11,514,8

Part-time work of women with children (% of all employed women)

35,1 54,7 7,8

Structures of households with children 0-15 years old in Germany and Finland (Source:OECD 2006; European Social Survey 2005)

Germany Netherlands

Finland

Male full-time/female full-time 19,1 6,3 59,6

Male full-time/female long part-time (20-34 hours)

17,4 27,5 8,7

Male full-time/female short part-time (under 20 hours)

15,6 27,7 1,6

Male sole earner (including materinity/parental leave)

33,7 23,3 20,9

central question

How can cross-national differences in the behaviour of women between family and employment be explained?

common argument in comparative social policy research

Welfare state policies determine the behaviour of women between labour market and family (labour force participation, part-time work, informal family care).

Cross-national differences in the behaviour of women between work and family can therefore be explained by differences in the type of welfare state (for ex. Siim 2000; Lewis 1998)

challenging this argument

Many European welfare states have established generous rights for children to public childcare provision (like also Finland and Netherlands).

Take up rates however are very different. The real structures of supply of public childcare reflect a mixture of family policies and behaviour of families (take up rates).

The degree to which the welfare state provides public childcare among other things also reflects cultural attitudes in the population towards childcare.

Attitudes towards childcare and mother‘s employment (ISSP 2002)

  A pre-school child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works (strongly agree/agree)

Women should stay at home when they have children under school age

     

     

Poland 55,0 56,5

West Germany 55.8 52,0

     

Spain 52.2 37,0

France 42.4 43,7

Netherlands 39.8 28,6

Great Britain 37.1 56,2

Finland 36,1 39,8

East Germany 32.7 14,8

Denmark 32.4 23,3

     

basic assumption concerning the explanation of women‘s behavior between family and employment

Cultural differences, besides institutional differences, contribute substantially to the explanation of cross-national differences in the behaviour of women between family and employment.

Cultural differences also interact with welfare state policies, even if there can be tensions and contradictions.

Women act in the context of cultural values and models towards the family, welfare state policies and other institutions, like labor markets.

Explanation of women‘s behavior in the context of the work-family arrangement

Women‘s behavior between family and employment

Social actors (collective/individual)

-- conflicts-Negotiation -behaviour

cultural system - welfare culture

- gender/family culture...,

Social system

Central Institutions

-welfare state -Family

--labour market t- market/economy

Supranational influences like globalisation, supranational policies, EU -Integration etc.

Social structures-social inequality -dividion of labour-Power relations

reproduction or change basis: ideas, interests

Interests

Ideas

culture

defined as constructions of sense to which people orient in their behaviour, it includes values and models, briefly: ideas (Neidhard 1992; Lepsius 1990; Archer 1995)

Defining ‚culture‘ and ‚family culture‘

family culture

the family culture comprises the basic ideas in a society which are related to the family, the gender division of labout and the work-family relationship

the family culture connects family and waged work in different ways in different societies (and in part also in different classes/regions/ethnic groups).

The central dimensions of the family culture include

values and models in relation to...

the division of labor within the family the adequate sphere for the upbringing of children

(family, or external childcare provision) the main sphere/s of work of women and men the

societal esteem for each of these sphere the degree of dependence/autonomy in the relationship

of spouses

the main family models of the 20th and 21rst Century in West Europe

the family economy model

the housewife model of the male breadwinner

family

the male breadwinner/female part-time carer

model

the dual breadwinner/outside care model

the dual breadwinner/dual carer model

main relevant elements of the work-family arrangement for the explanation of the differences

the dominant family model(s)

the welfare regime: policies relating to the relationship of the citizen towards the welfare state (Esping-Andersen 1990, 1999)

The interaction of family model and welfare regime

Conservative Welfare regime

Social Democratic Welfare regime

Liberal Welfare regime

Type 1: Strong esteem of family childcare in family model

West Germany

Norway Netherlands

U.K.

Type 2: Lower esteem of family childcare in dominant family model

East Germany France

Sweden Denmark Finland

The current differences in the dominant family model can to a substantial degree be explained by the degree to which the housewife model of the male breadwinner family was relevant in the earlier stage of development (1950s and 1960s).

The cultural differences which existed at that stage (1950s and 1960s) can particularly also be explained by the role of the urban bourgeoisie in the history of the respective society.

Histocial explanation why a specific family model is dominant

Family economy model Dual

breadwinner/external care provider

model

Housewife model of the male

breadwinnerMarriage

Male breadwinner/part-time

Care providerModel

Dual breadwinner/Dual carer model

Two different typical paths of family-work arrangements: the impact of history

Historical explanation model for the cultural differences in the 1950s/1960s

  Germany (West) 

Netherlands Finland

Housewife model of the male breadwinner family as dominant practice

1950s until beginning of 1970s 

17th Century until the beginning of 1970s  

Never

Housewife model of the male breadwinner family as dominant cultural model 

Start of 20th Century until beginning of 1970s   

17. Century until the beginning of 1970s

Never

Important explanatory factor

     

The importance of the urban bourgeoisie in transition to modern society

Social, political and culturally important role since later 19th Century

Cultural, social and political dominance since 17th Century

Cultural, social and political dominance of the class of farmers until (late) transition to industrial and service society (1960s, 1970s)

conclusion

Cross-national differences in women‘s behavior between family and employment

The relationship of culture, welfare state policies and individual behaviour can be conceptualised as a complex, multi level relationship which is embedded in the specific context of a society and can change in contradictory ways.

The introduction of culture can contribute to an increase in the explanatory power of concepts to explain cross-national differences in the behaviour of individuals between family and employment.

Cultural differences contribute substantially to the explanation of cross-national differences in the behaviour of women and men between family and work.

Thank you very much for your attention!