This article was downloaded by: ["Queen's University Libraries, Kingston"]On: 12 September 2013, At: 08:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Review of Sociology:Revue Internationale de SociologiePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cirs20

A social policy model for thereconciliation of employment andfamily life from a gender equalityperspectiveConstanza Tobíoa & Juan Antonio Fernández Cordónb

a Carlos III University of Madrid, Madrid, Spainb CSIC – Institute of Demography, Madrid, SpainPublished online: 12 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: Constanza Tobío & Juan Antonio Fernández Cordón (2013) A social policymodel for the reconciliation of employment and family life from a gender equality perspective,International Review of Sociology: Revue Internationale de Sociologie, 23:2, 379-400, DOI:10.1080/03906701.2013.804298

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2013.804298

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 0

8:45

12

Sept

embe

r 20

13

A social policy model for the reconciliation of employment and familylife from a gender equality perspective1

Constanza Tobıoa* and Juan Antonio Fernandez Cordonb

aCarlos III University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain; bCSIC � Institute of Demography, Madrid,Spain

(Received July 2011; final version received September 2011)

The issue of family�employment reconciliation has rapidly evolved from beingignored to a certain deja vu perception in public debate, as a result of its mediasuccess during the last decade. This is even more the case in Spain, where it wasonly in the late 1990s, when a law was passed to regulate and extend parental andother leave for workers with close relatives in need of care, that reconciliationpolicies began to be generally discussed and considered. In a context of quickpopulation aging as a consequence of low fertility, concern on labor force supplyin the middle term is high on the agenda. Women are increasingly considered to benecessary both as workers and mothers (of future workers), thus raising awarenessof the importance of social policies to make their double presence in both worldspossible. There is now general agreement from the right to the left on the urgencyto develop family�employment policies. But what is not generally addressed is theimpact of such policies on gender equality, a dimension which tends to be eitherignored or taken for granted. Not all reconciliation measures have the same effectson the women and men relationship. Some of them push forward equality,whereas others go backwards. Efficiency in making job and family responsibilitiescompatible does not always go hand in hand with increasing equality. The paperpresents a theoretical model for the reconciliation of work and family life from agender equality perspective. The three main kinds of instruments available insocial policy � services, leave, and cash � are examined in four different cases: careof under-threes, care of sick children, coordination of work and school schedules,and care of children during school holidays. Each case is looked at considering itseffects on social and gender equality, as well as child welfare. The model includesas active agents of the system the State (promotes and regulates), families andindividuals (those directly implicated), and the market as labor market, on the onehand, and supplier of private services, on the other.

Keywords: social policy; gender equality; reconciliation of work and family life

Introduction

The problem of reconciling work and the family is high on the political agenda of

many countries. In the European Union, a general social consensus exists concerning

the need to implement ways of helping families, and specially women, to cope with

*Corresponding author. Email: ctobio@polsoc.uc3m.esPrevious versions of this article were presented at the 8th European Sociological AssociationConference on ‘Conflict, Citizenship and Civil Society’, Glasgow, Scotland, 3�6 September2007 and at the United Nations Expert Group Meeting on ‘Family policy in a changing world:Promoting social protection and intergenerational solidarity’ Doha, Qatar, 14�16 April 2009.

International Review of Sociology*Revue Internationale de Sociologie, 2013

Vol. 23, No. 2, 379�400, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2013.804298

# 2013 University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 0

8:45

12

Sept

embe

r 20

13

their employment obligations and the time-consuming tasks of caring for the young

generations and the elderly and keeping the house running (European Commission

2005).

This social consensus does not extend itself to the contents of policies themselves

and the mix of the three main available resources: services, parental leave, and cash

transfers (including tax benefits). Some groups have a strong preference for parental

leave and money transfers (Leipert and Opielka 1999), while others focus more on

the availability of affordable services, like childcare facilities (Fagnani 1998, Leira

2002), for instance. In some cases, these differences are reflected in the programs of

political parties running for election.

There are strong and visible reasons for the growing necessity of reconciliation

policies, and the demographic and social perspectives indicate that this will continue

in the future, in spite of the current economic crisis. All countries around the world

have engaged in a process of demographic transition characterized by a sharp

increase in life expectancy followed by a decline of fertility. The starting time and the

pace of this general process have varied among countries. In some European

countries it started as far back as the middle of the eighteenth century (United

Kingdom, France) or the beginning of twentieth century (Southern countries) and

ended by the middle of twentieth century. In developing countries the process started

later, and in many of them the decline of fertility has just begun. Each country has

followed a specific path within the general frame, but all of them have followed or are

expected to follow the same direction and face the same problems in the future. This

is important because we believe that the demographic transitions made possible the

most important social change of the twentieth century: the change in women’s

condition and, in particular, their growing presence in the labor market. This ‘gender

transition’ has happened in most of the developed countries and will, most probably,

spread to the whole world. As any other social change process, the gender transition

will not be an automatic one and will include historical and cultural specificities of

each country, but, again, we believe that all countries will follow an evolution of

increasing social presence of women, including their access to the labor market.

The gender transition is at the root of changes in the family, once based on the

male breadwinner model and now increasingly dominated by the two working

parents model (Lewis 1992, 2001). Changes in the family include an increase of union

break-up and the rise of other family forms like lone parent families, consensual

unions, and recomposed families. On the other hand, there is a tendency to

household size reduction, a consequence of reduced fertility and increasing

residential autonomy of relatives, although it has been shown that family ties remain

strong in family networks where intense communication and exchange of services are

taking place (Fernandez Cordon and Tobıo 2007, Saraceno 2008).

The emerging family model differs drastically from the old one, bringing new

benefits for people but demanding important social adaptations. Our society was

organized, and still is in many ways, around a form of family based on highly

differentiated gender roles, and many aspects of our daily life reflect this fact. The

dominant worker model was a male worker highly committed to the working place,

thanks to a wife at home dealing with the caring of young children and elderly

persons and with the basic needs of life. No social provisions were necessary for very

young children, whose care fell on the mother at home, nor for the elderly. Even

380 C. Tobıo and J.A. Fernandez Cordon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 0

8:45

12

Sept

embe

r 20

13

today, time schedules are often still based on the expected availability at all hours of

the housewife, in particular school hours.

Reconciling work and the family is thus not a matter of helping families or

women but a central issue for society to adapt to the new situation of women and thenew family model. For the increasing number of families where there is a working

mother, coping with two competing activities means drawing from existing resources,

which are mainly of three types: (1) facilities by employers, (2) public policies, and (3)

family and personal strategies. In most European countries, the role of employers is

fairly limited or even non-existent, and the few exceptions refer to large companies

like banks and hospitals and also large industrial undertakings (European Commis-

sion 2005). It seems difficult to imagine that society will adapt itself to the new

situation without involving the employers and, in more general terms, questioningthe working model. In fact, one objective of public policy could be to encourage and

support employers offering facilities to working mothers and fathers. As for family or

personal strategies, they could be considered, in general, as a residual category based

on the lack of other resources, as it appears, for instance, in surveys conducted in

Spain, a country with a low level of facilities for the caring of children below three

years of age (Tobıo 2001, 2005). In this paper we will only deal with resources

generated by public policies, but it is necessary to bear in mind that they are not the

only means for facing the reconciliation problem and also that, in presentcircumstances, lacks and inadequacies of public policies would put the burden on

the family network and on the working mother herself, whose caring capacity, as we

shall see, tends to decrease. When the strain between family and work increases,

consequences are negative � both for employers, of women giving up employment,

and for family and society, of women delaying or giving up maternity.

Care needs and caring capacity

As the demographic transition is spreading through all countries, population aging

becomes a generalized future prospect. In most of the European Union member

countries, population aging is a present fact that will intensify in the future. In 2010,

the proportion aged 65 years or over represented 17.4% of the total population in

EU27 member countries and is expected to reach 28.6% by 2050. In the same group

of countries, the proportion aged 80 years and over represented 4.6% of the total

population in 2010 and could reach 11% in 2050, more than doubling its share. The

number of persons over 80 years old, an age group where we find the highestdependency rates, will grow from 23.3 million in 2010 to 56.6 million in 2050,

according to European Commission population projections (Eurostat web 2011).1

At the same time, the working age population (15�64 years) will soon start

declining, going from the present 335.8 million to 299.0 million in 2050. Thus, the old

age dependency rate2 for EU27 countries is likely to rise from 25.9% to 50.2% in

2050.

Developed countries will soon be facing a drastic deterioration of the balance

between elderly caring needs and their caring capacities as an effect of demographictrends, and this path is likely to be followed, at varying times in the future, by all

countries. According to the same population projections, no compensation effect is

expected as the young age dependency rate will remain almost constant in the future,

slightly growing from 23.3% in 2010 to 25.1% in 2050, in EU27 countries.

International Review of Sociology*Revue Internationale de Sociologie 381

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 0

8:45

12

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Social changes related to the gender transition will have opposing effects in

society’s capacity to deal with an aging population. Employment increases allowed

by women’s entry into the labor market will improve the situation of the pay-as-you-

go-based public pension systems, at least for the years to come, before women have

acquired full rights to pension benefits. On the other hand, women in employment

will not be able to assume a growing burden of old age dependants. Old age

dependency is one of the main problems that demographically mature countries will

have to face in the near future, and this will progressively reach all existing countries.

At present the burden falls on family networks and particularly on women, although,

recently, specific public policies are being implemented, aimed at assisting relatives in

taking care of their elderly parents and at allowing elderly persons to remain at their

home for as long as possible (Tobıo 2010). On the other hand, some reconciliation

policies include care of elderly dependants among the reasons for benefits, as is, for

instance, the case in Spain. We believe, though, that old age dependency must be

considered as a specific problem, separate from the childcare problem, for a number

of reasons, among which are the increasing residential autonomy of the elderly, the

fact that persons and families with old age dependants are different from those with

childcare obligations, and that there is an extended consensus to accept old age

dependency as a society problem which demands public policies and public spending

(Martin 2001). For these reasons, this paper will only deal with childcare, for which

the relation between public and family obligations is less clear and less shared among

the population, while the situation calls for immediate action in almost all countries.

The importance of a sound reconciliation policy is stressed by the fact that in an

increasing number of European countries the traditional inverse relationship between

women’s activity rate and fertility has become a positive one, i.e. countries with

higher fertility rates in the EU are those with the highest female activity rate. This

reflects the fact that in countries with sufficient facilities for combining working and

childcaring women are able both to stay in the labor market and to have children.

Low fertility, a problem now in some European countries, could thus be directly

related to difficulties in reconciling work and the family, lacking adequate policy

measures.

Working for the labor market and caring for children are competing tasks,

especially, but not only, when small children are involved, because working mothers

with children of school age are confronted with specific and compelling problems

which are less well perceived than those related to the care of very young children.

Reconciling work and the family does not consist in responding to a general and

abstract problem but in solving a number of specific problems of non-compatibility

that working parents have to deal with. The first condition for a suitable policy is to

implement measures that address real problems and, before all, those most urgent

and difficult to solve by the parents themselves. It is thus necessary to analyze

situations that families with two working parents, or lone parent families, are less

able to face without some external help. Our research in Spain (Fernandez Cordon

and Tobıo 1999), the results of which can easily be extended to other European

countries, has led to identifying four main situations where attending work and

childcare proves to be particularly difficult: the care of children below three years of

age, the care of children of all ages when ill, coordinating working and school time

schedules, and dealing with holiday periods (Fernandez Cordon and Tobıo 2005).

382 C. Tobıo and J.A. Fernandez Cordon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 0

8:45

12

Sept

embe

r 20

13

The first problem faced by working parents is a general one and concerns the care

of small children below three years of age. In a majority of countries the formal

school system does not enroll children below three or even below six. The period

following the maternal leave (an average of 18 weeks, of which 13 are paid leave, inthe OECD countries, according to OECD Database) is the critical one, as parental

leaves are limited and childcare services scarce.

Working mothers consider their children’s illness as one of the most important

drawback for work and care compatibility.3 Currently, non-serious child illness often

appears suddenly and thus puts the parents in a situation of stress, obliged to find

external care without notice or compelled to stay at home. The situation is

particularly difficult for parents with small children or working full time. In some

countries (like Spain and other Southern countries of Europe) grandparents play aprominent role in coping with the situation, but it is quite usual that the mother,

alternating in some cases with the father, would stay at home and miss a few hours, a

whole day, or more of her outside work.

Another difficult problem for working parents is the inconsistency between

working and school hours which affects a considerable number of working mothers

and fathers either in the morning, at the time of entering school, or in the afternoon.

The task of taking the children to school, usually assumed by the mother when she is

available, or the father, may be passed to grandparents, when they are available, or toa paid person. In some cases, children below 12 go to school and back by themselves.

School holidays are another type of inconsistency between school and work time

schedules, because they are more frequent and extend for longer periods than work

holidays. In Spain, grandparents are the most usual resource in this situation, either

by sending the children to the grandparents or having them coming to stay with their

grandchildren. When grandparents are not available, the most common solution is

for each parent to take a different holiday period, thus preventing the family from

spending their vacation together. In other cases a carer is hired, or parents take theirchildren to the place where they work. When there is no other alternative, children

under 12 sometimes stay alone at home while their parents are working.

Varying views on policies for reconciling work and the family in Europe

There are three main instruments for a direct policy aiming at reconciling work and

the family: parental leave, public services, and monetary allowances to cover care

expenses. Each of these instruments is related to different approaches of the work

and family relation, conveys differences in the objectives assigned to public policies,

and has a different impact on gender equity.

Parental leave

Parental leave can be considered as a suspension of the normally accepted priority of

production over the reproduction process, traditionally left to the family. It is a

means of revising the asymmetrical relationship between the sphere of employmentand the family and stresses the social importance of giving birth and caring for

children. Parental leave, when opposed to monetary allowances, implies the

acceptance of a generalized participation in the production process, both of men

and women, inasmuch as it protects the right to return to the job and related rights

International Review of Sociology*Revue Internationale de Sociologie 383

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 0

8:45

12

Sept

embe

r 20

13

(social security, unemployment benefits, etc.) and, in some countries and circum-

stances, may be paid. In countries where parental leave is not paid (except for the 16

weeks’ maternity leave), only the right to return to the job applies. The economic cost

and the time dedicated to childcare (as well as other dependants) fall on the family,which in fact means on women. By assuming the continuity of women’s participation

in the labor force and putting the burden of care on the family, the State is thus

asking for an extra contribution which, in some countries, is distributed among the

family network, especially among grandparents. It is a situation that cannot be

maintained indefinitely.

We can find five types of parental leave in the European countries:

Maternity leave

It is one of the most homogeneous measures in Europe, due to the existence of an EU

directive, which imposes a minimum level on all member countries. Its aim is to

support the mother and the child immediately before and after the birth. All

countries guarantee at least 14 paid weeks, and many of them allow two or three

more weeks (16 in Spain, 18 in France and Denmark, and 28 in Estonia). While these

are paid weeks, the ‘rate of allowance’ (defined by OECD in relation to full-time

equivalent payment) does not equal 100% in all countries (it is 38% in Ireland and76% in Italy, for instance). Outside the EU, some OECD countries show very low

levels of maternity leave (a total of 12 weeks, none of them paid, in the US; 6 in New

Zealand; 8.4 in Japan), showing the positive impact of the EU policy in the matter.

Parental childcare leave

This type of leave is intended for the care of small children at home by the mother

or the father. While all countries in the EU provide some parental leave, diversityamong countries is greater than for maternity leave: 14 weeks in Ireland, 15 in Greece

and the Netherlands, approximately 160 weeks in Finland, France, Germany,

Hungary, and Spain, and 214 weeks in the Czech Republic. But the most significant

difference is whether the leave is paid or not. It is paid at 100% in, for instance,

Finland, France, and Hungary, at least during one year (Jaumotte 2003, pp. 62�63),

while it is unpaid in other countries, like Spain, where only some of the benefits

carried by the job are protected and only for part of the period. We find two common

features throughout the countries: the right to return to the job after the period ofleave and the explicit provision that the leave may be taken by either the mother or

the father. Despite this explicit possibility, aimed at reinforcing gender equity, the

fact is that leave is taken by an overwhelming majority of women (Moss and Deven

2000, Data Annex 1). Only in Sweden is there a significant proportion of men using

parental leave but still far from the proportion of women.

Paternity leave

Leave directed to fathers only (on the basis of ‘use it or lose it’) arises from the fact

that allowing both parents individually to benefit from parental leave will be an

incentive for fathers to be actively engaged in childcare. Nordic countries have

started in the 1990s to offer this kind of leave, paid at 100%, which was a great

384 C. Tobıo and J.A. Fernandez Cordon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 0

8:45

12

Sept

embe

r 20

13

success among fathers with proportions from 60% to 80% of them taken it, even

when the proportion of men using the optional parental leave was below 5% (Leira

2002, European Commission 2005). Other countries, like France and the UK and

more recently Spain, have established two weeks’ paid paternity leave.

Reduction of time worked

This type of leave has been regulated by an EU directive on part-time work and in

countries with a high proportion of part-time jobs. In some countries, like the UK,

the right to apply for part-time work is recognized for all workers. In Germany there

is an effective right for the worker after six months in firms of more than 15

employees. In the Netherlands, a country with the highest rate of female part-time

work, there is a right to adjust the working hours to the needs of the employee, under

certain conditions. In Sweden all employees have a right to reduce their working time

which adds to the possibility of parental leave on a part-time basis (Murray 2004). In

other countries, like Spain, reconciliation policies include the right to a reduction in

the number of working hours, with a proportional reduction in income, during the

first years of the life of the child.

Data annex 1. Proportion of employed parents, with a child under the age of 1, on leave.4

Women on maternity or parental leave Men on parental leave

Slovenia 87.2 1.4

Czech Rep 82.3 0.0

Austria 79.6 0.3

Slovakia 78.2 0.2

Finland 75.9 4.2

Hungary 72.1 0.0

Bulgaria 70.1 0.5

Germany 64.7 0.8

Latvia 60.6 0.0

Romania 53.0 6.2

Luxembourg 45.8 1.7

Poland 41.4 0.1

Lithuania 40.7 1.0

Italy 39.0 0.2

France 35.5 1.1

Spain 27.5 0.1

Portugal 27.3 0.7

Estonia 27.2 0.0

Cyprus 27.0 0.0

Netherlands 24.0 0.0

Belgium 21.7 1.1

Greece 19.6 0.0

Malta 2.9 0.0

United Kingdom 0.6 0.7

Source: OECD Family database (based on European Labour Force Survey, 2006) in http://www.oecd.org/document/4/0,3746,en_2649_34819_37836996_1_1_1_1,00.html (consulted on 13 September 2011)

International Review of Sociology*Revue Internationale de Sociologie 385

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 0

8:45

12

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Leave for urgent family matters

After the EU directive on parental leave, many European countries have enforced the

possibility of leave to attend exceptional family circumstances related to the care of

children. This type of leave existed already in Sweden, where fully paid leave was

possible for exceptional events related to the care of children below 12, covering not

only illness but also regular medical surveillance or school meetings, up to 120 days

per year. Very limited leave exists in other countries, like the UK, where regulationprovides only a ‘reasonable amount of time during working periods’ of unpaid leave

to attend exceptional events concerning the employee’s children. Germany or the

Netherlands provide 10 fully paid days of leave per year for urgent family matters

(Fernandez Cordon and Tobıo 2005).

Childcare services

Childcare services for children of preschool age may alternatively be considered as a

need for parents who are both engaged in the labor market, or a right of children to

adequate care. Enrollment rates of children under six vary considerably betweenearly education services, aimed at children aged 3�5 years, and childcare services for

children aged 0�2 years. The OECD average is 77.3% for early education and 30.1%

for childcare. There are also important differences among countries and not a clear

correlation between enrollment rates in each type of services, which could show a

certain preference for family childcare at the youngest ages. Early education (3�5

years) tends to be included in the general school system, the focus being on

education rather than care, with a reference goal of 100% enrollment, a situation

which is practically attained in countries like France, Belgium, Spain, and Italy,while others are close (Iceland, Norway, New Zealand, for instance) (OECD web

2011; Data Annex 2). Enrollment is considerably lower in the case of under-threes.

The highest rate is found in Denmark (65.7%) and the Netherlands, and Iceland and

Norway are well above average (over 50%). Some countries show high or very high

enrollment rates in early education services, while the rate for childcare services is

well below average, like Hungary (87.8% and 8.8%, respectively), the Czech Republic

(79.7% and 2.2%), and Germany (92.7% and 17.8%, respectively). Other countries

show more balanced enrollment rates, at a high level, like the Netherlands (67.1%and 55.9%), or at a rather low level, like Greece (46.6% and 15.7%) and Poland

(47.3% and 7.9%, respectively), evidencing, in these cases, more a lack of resources

that might overestimate the apparent preference for family care. The figures in our

Data Annex 2 evidence that care of small children (under three) still relies heavily on

the family in many countries, which is why working mothers perceive their care as

one of the most difficult situations they have to face. Preschool services may be

publicly funded or private, and, if public, they may be directly run by a public

administration or by private bodies. The public�private mix varies also considerablyamong countries.

Cash allowances for childcare

Cash allowances have played a growing role as a way of supporting reconciliation of

work and the family since the 1990s and have given rise to an important social and

386 C. Tobıo and J.A. Fernandez Cordon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 0

8:45

12

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Data annex 2. Enrollment rates in formal care for the under-3s and preschool from 3 to

5 years.

Under 3 years 3�5 years

France 99.9 42.0

Belgium 99.4 48.4

Spain 98.5 37.5

Italy 97.4 29.2

Iceland 95.9 55.0

Norway 94.5 51.3

New Zealand 94.1 37.9

Malta 93.5 6.8

Germany 92.7 17.8

United Kingdom 92.7 40.8

Denmark 91.5 65.7

Sweden 91.1 46.7

Japan 90.0 28.3

Estonia 89.0 17.5

Hungary 87.1 8.8

Israel 86.8 23.0

Luxembourg 85.9 38.6

Mexico 82.8 35.8

Latvia 80.6 16.1

Korea 79.8 37.7

Czech Republic 79.7 2.2

Portugal 79.2 47.4

Austria 77.6 12.1

Slovenia 77.5 33.8

Finland 74.2 28.6

Slovak Republic 73.5 3.0

Cyprus 73.4 32.7

Romania 72.5 14.3

Bulgaria 70.7 14.6

Netherlands 67.1 55.9

Lithuania 65.5 13.7

Chile 62.6 29.8

Canada 56.8 24.0

Ireland 56.4 30.8

United States 55.7 31.4

Switzerland 47.5 �Poland 47.3 7.9

Greece 46.6 15.7

Turkey 23.8 �Australia 4.6 29.0

OECD average 77.3 30.1

EU 27 average 81.8 28.2

Source: OECD Family database www.oecd.org/els/social/family/database(consulted on 13 September 2011)

International Review of Sociology*Revue Internationale de Sociologie 387

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 0

8:45

12

Sept

embe

r 20

13

political debate. The rationale for this type of public action is twofold. First, it allows

parents freely to choose the care modality given to their children and, second, it can

be taken as a form of housewife remuneration and evidence a preference for childcare

by the mother. In certain cases, like in France for instance, this type of measure

(called ‘Allocation Parentale d’Education’) implies that the woman remains out of

the labor market during the duration of the allowance (Fagnani 1998). Cash

allowances may also be seen as a way of supporting the offering of private childcare

services with public funds. Another controversial issue is that cash allowances do not

guarantee that the effective use of the money received will really benefit the child (see

Data Annex 3 for the situation of OECD countries, OECD web 2011).

Criteria for choice

Reconciling work and the family refers only to the general objective of rendering

compatible the pursuit of labor force participation of women and men and

attendance to care and other family obligations, which are time-consuming. We

have seen that this general objective should be disaggregated into ways of coping

with specific situations that are perceived by parents as particularly difficult to deal

with. On the other hand, we are faced with a choice of policy instruments which help

in the reconciliation but can have very different effects on certain key aspects of

social life. The idea is to examine each of the available policy measures in relation to

their suitability and efficiency and also in relation to their effects on three important

topics: child welfare, social equality, and gender equity. By introducing child welfare

as a criterion one can give priority to policy instruments that guarantee and allow the

verification that children are adequately cared for and that available resources are

actually devoted to children. Measures aimed at reconciliation may have a major

impact on social redistribution, but they could also have a negative impact if policy is

based on instruments not accessible to all or if there is a social bias in the access.

Special care should be taken with the effects of reconciliation measures on gender

equity. Policy measures should be expected to increase gender equity inside the

family and at the workplace. Those instruments that may slow down or even reverse

existing trends of reduction of labor exclusion or discrimination, in the case of

women, or family involvement, in the case of men, should be considered less

adequate than others that increase gender equity.

A model of policy choice results from the combination of the above five criteria

applied to three main instruments, bearing in mind the solution of the most

important problems for reconciliation of work and the family (Fernandez Cordon

and Tobıo 2005)

(1) Suitability: to what extent does this policy instrument help solving the

problem?

(2) Efficiency: to what extent is there an optimum use of economic resources? Thiscriterion has two related dimensions: comparing, in terms of cost-benefits,

each type of instrument in response to each type of problem and using a

unique instrument for each detected situation, thus avoiding duplication

(3) Children welfare: does the measure really reach the children as ultimate

objective?

388 C. Tobıo and J.A. Fernandez Cordon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 0

8:45

12

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Data annex 3. Table PF3.1 Family Cash Benefits,1 2007.

Maximum benefit

for one child aged

1�3

Benefit amount per additional

child varies with 2 Upper age

limit for

Country US$ % of AW Age of child

Number of

children

children

(student) Income-tested Observations

Australia 3613 8 �/� � from 4th 20 (24) Family earned income Family Tax Benefit (FTB) part A to

help families with cost of raising

children. Can be paid as a benefit or as

a tax allowance

2901 6 � 0 15 (18) Earned income of

secondary earner in a

couple

FTB part B to provide extra help for

families with one main income.

Family-based payment which can be

paid as a benefit or as a tax

Austria 2150 4 � � 19 (27) No For low-income families there is an

extra supplement for each additional

child from the 3rd

836 2 0 0 Non-wastable tax credit

Belgium 1739 3 �/� �/� 17 (24) No For unemployed, family benefits are

increased as from 7th month of

unemployment

Canada 1194 3 0 � from 3rd 17 Family taxable income Canada child tax benefit (non-

wastable tax credit)

1851 5 0 � Family taxable income National Child Benefit (NCB)

supplement for low-income families

Cyprus3,4 274 2 0 0 17 (23) No �Czech Republic 417 3 � 0 14 (25) Family income relative to

minimum living standard

Three income levels used to define

level of benefit: increased, basic, or

reduced

Denmark 2306 4 � 0 17 No �

Intern

atio

na

lR

eviewo

fS

ocio

log

y*R

evue

Intern

atio

na

led

eS

ocio

log

ie3

89D

ownl

oade

d by

["Q

ueen

's U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es, K

ings

ton"

] at

08:

45 1

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Data annex 3 (Continued )

Maximum benefit

for one child aged

1�3

Benefit amount per additional

child varies with 2 Upper age

limit for

Country US$ % of AW Age of child

Number of

children

children

(student) Income-tested Observations

Estonia 474 3 0 � from 3rd 15 (18) No �Finland 1643 3 0 � 16 No Fixed rate of increase for each

additional child

France 979 2 � � 20 No Family allowance: zero benefit for first

child. For 2 children (under age 11)

the amount per child would be USD

979 (2% of AW)

Germany 2530 4 0 � from 4th 18 (25) No Kindergeld is a non-wastable tax credit

in the form of a monthly tax refund

(deducted from Social Assistance if no

tax liability)

2300 4 Yes Supplementary child allowance

(Kinderzuschlag) is paid to parents to

prevent them from having to apply for

unemployment benefit II/social

welfare benefits only because of the

maintenance of their children

Greece 135 0 0 �/� 17 (21) No Employment condition: 50 days of

work prior to the claim. In addition,

the employer usually grants 5% of

gross earnings to each worker for each

child. The employer benefits are

taxable

39

0C

.T

ob

ıoa

nd

J.A.

Fern

an

dez

Co

rdo

n

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 0

8:45

12

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Data annex 3 (Continued )

Maximum benefit

for one child aged

1�3

Benefit amount per additional

child varies with 2 Upper age

limit for

Country US$ % of AW Age of child

Number of

children

children

(student) Income-tested Observations

Hungary 765 7 0 � 18 (23) No After 1 July 2006, the family support

system has changed: the amounts of

the family allowance are almost

doubled, the regular child protection

support dissolved into the family

allowance

Iceland 3153 5 � � 17 Basic allowance is reduced

by a percentage of income

above limit. Supplement is

not means-tested

Basic allowance has an income limit of

USD 44 496 for a couple. Reduction is

2%, 5%, and 7% for 1, 2, and 3

children, respectively. There is a

supplement for children aged under 7

Ireland 2628 6 0 � from 3rd 15 (18) No �Italy5 1495 5 0 � 17 Household taxable income Benefit is paid by employers and is

only granted if at least 70% of

household taxable income in

employment income (or earnings

replacement benefits including

unemployment benefits and

employment pension). Benefits are

reduced in proportion to days not

worked

Japan 510 1 �/� � from 3rd 12 Gross income less

employment income tax

deduction

Amount per child doubles as from 3rd

child

Korea � � � � � � �Latvia 433 2 0 � 15 (19) No �

Intern

atio

na

lR

eviewo

fS

ocio

log

y*R

evue

Intern

atio

na

led

eS

ocio

log

ie3

91D

ownl

oade

d by

["Q

ueen

's U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es, K

ings

ton"

] at

08:

45 1

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Data annex 3 (Continued )

Maximum benefit

for one child aged

1�3

Benefit amount per additional

child varies with 2 Upper age

limit for

Country US$ % of AW Age of child

Number of

children

children

(student) Income-tested Observations

Lithuania 331 3 � from 3rd 12 (23) No For families with at least 3 children the

age limit is 18, or less than 24 if in

education. Higher rates for children

less than 3

Luxembourg 3846 6 � � 17 (26) No Maximum amount by age is reached

at age 12

Malta6 844 9 0 � 15 (20) Household income minus

social security

contributions

The allowance paid is calculated on a

percentage on the difference between

household income limit, USD 32,306

(154% of AW), and the income

declared. The percentage increases

with number of children

Netherlands 1488 3 � 0 17 No Under the previous system (which still

applies for children born before 1

January 1995) the amount per child

increased with the number of children

New Zealand 3133 10 � � 18 Family earned income Family Support Tax Credit (includes

Child Tax. Credit available for families

not receiving benefits)

Norway 1987 3 0 0 17 No �Poland 278 2 � 0 17 (20) Gross income per

household member relative

to net income per capita

Supplementary benefits available

39

2C

.T

ob

ıoa

nd

J.A.

Fern

an

dez

Co

rdo

n

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 0

8:45

12

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Data annex 3 (Continued )

Maximum benefit

for one child aged

1�3

Benefit amount per additional

child varies with 2 Upper age

limit for

Country US$ % of AW Age of child

Number of

children

children

(student) Income-tested Observations

Portugal 536 2 �/� 16 (24) Income relative to

minimum wage

Higher benefits for children aged

under 1. Benefits also vary relative to

family income (six levels). Regarding

first income level households, benefit

amount is doubled in September for

schooling expenses for children

between 6 and 16

Slovak

Republic

1898 3 0 0 15 (25) No The child allowance is provided at a

uniform amount

Slovenia 263 8 0 � 17 (25) Gross family income Child benefit is defined as percentage

from the average monthly wage of all

employees (A-O, ISIC Rev. 3.1)

Spain 398 1 0 0 17 Gross family income Benefit is means-tested on a one-to-

one basis on gross family income

exceeding USD 12,770 (43% of AW)

per year (increasing with 15% for

every dependent child from the

second)

Sweden 1865 4 0 � 16 (20) No �Switzerland

(Zurich)

1950 3 � 0 15 (24) No Amounts are fixed at the level of the

cantons and paid by the employer.

Benefits are taxable but not subject to

social contributions

Turkey � � � � � � �

Intern

atio

na

lR

eviewo

fS

ocio

log

y*R

evue

Intern

atio

na

led

eS

ocio

log

ie3

93D

ownl

oade

d by

["Q

ueen

's U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es, K

ings

ton"

] at

08:

45 1

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Data annex 3 (Continued )

Maximum benefit

for one child aged

1�3

Benefit amount per additional

child varies with 2 Upper age

limit for

Country US$ % of AW Age of child

Number of

children

children

(student) Income-tested Observations

United

Kingdom

1883 3 0 � 15 (18) No Fixed rate from 2nd child

1090 3 0 � Gross family income Families with children can claim Child

Tax Credit if their income is no more

than USD 116,410. The tax credit is

‘non-wastable’.1 Higher rates are paid

for disabled children

United States 5

(Michigan)

1056 3 0 � � Yes Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF): benefit is not based

on number of children but on family

size at the time of application; it does

not increase thereafter. The benefit

amounts and durations vary by State

Notes: 1 Family benefits including non-wastable tax credits. All benefit amounts are shown on an annualized basis. Indicates that no information is available or notapplicable. In general family benefits are not taxable unless otherwise indicated.2 ‘� ’: increases, ‘ � ’: decreases, ‘0’: remains the same, ‘�/ � ’: increases or decreases (some countries give higher rates to the youngest and oldest age groups).3 Footnote by Turkey: The information in this document with reference to ‘Cyprus’ relates to the southern part of the island. There is no single authority representing bothTurkish and Greek Cypriot people on the island. Turkey recognizes the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is foundwithin the context of United Nations, Turkey shall preserve its position concerning the ‘Cyprus issue’.4 Footnote by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Commission: The Republic of Cyprus is recognized by all members of the UnitedNations with the exception of Turkey. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.5 Benefit amount for the first child is calculated as the difference in benefit between a three-member and a two-member household.6 Benefit amount for a household with no declared income. Benefit amount as 6% (1 child percentage) of household income limit LM 10,270. Source: OECD Tax-BenefitModes.

39

4C

.T

ob

ıoa

nd

J.A.

Fern

an

dez

Co

rdo

n

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 0

8:45

12

Sept

embe

r 20

13

(4) Social equality: to what extent does the measure contribute to redistributing

resources or at least avoiding inequalities?

(5) Gender equity: does the measure enhance equality between men and women in

the workplace and in the family?

The methodology proposed is synthesized in Figure 1.

Results are summarized in Table 1 (from 1.1. to 1.4) for the four specific problems

detected in the Spanish case as the main difficulties faced by working mothers in

attending simultaneously to their double responsibility. For each of the four

situations the effects of the three possible resources (services, leave, and cash) on

the criteria considered (suitability, efficiency, child welfare, social equality, and

gender equity) are examined and evaluated. Effects can be high or low, ascertainable

or non-ascertainable, variable or generalized. Estimations are based on empirical

data from primary and secondary sources related to the case of Spain, which is

presented as an example of a methodology that can be applied to other countries.

According to our example, services fare better in general and can be considered a

social policy resource which responds better to the requirements of our model. This,

though, does not mean that it is the only kind of policy to include in a coherent

model. On the one hand, there is one specific kind of care, that of children’s illnesses,

for which services are not the best answer in terms of suitability and efficiency, as well

as child welfare, even if its effects on gender and social equality are positive. This can

be explained because it is extremely difficult to organize a service which will provide,

when needed, institutional care for children who suddenly get ill and cannot attend

their creche or school. It is not easy to foresee demand which probably fluctuates

considerably during the year, making the resources needed quite unpredictable. In

addition, it does not seem the best solution to take a child outside of home when sick

nor does it seem feasible to organize a formal service of carers at home. In this case,

short parental leave (even counted in hours) specifically aimed at this need seems the

best kind of answer, and in fact this does exist in several countries.

OBJECTIVES

Effective reconciliation*

Universal access

PROBLEMS ADDRESSED

Children<3

Work and school schedules

Children’s illnesses

Holidays

DIAGNOSIS

PROPOSAL

CRITERIA

Suitability, efficiency, children welfare, social equality, gender equity

INSTRUMENTS

Services, leave, cash

AGENTS

State, market, family

Figure 1. A methodology for social policy models: main elements.

*Effective reconciliation means that both work and family obligations can be attended

simultaneously, without inducing parents to make a choice between them.

International Review of Sociology*Revue Internationale de Sociologie 395

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 0

8:45

12

Sept

embe

r 20

13

On the other hand, there are often competing solutions. For example, the

coordination of work and school schedules can be addressed adequately through

services or leave. In the first case, they are based on early opening of schools so that

parents can drop off their kids before they go to work. Children can have breakfast

or play before the regular activities of the teaching center begin. In the second case,

parents are allowed to begin their work later so that they have time to take their

children to school. Both reconciliation measures are considered to be equally suitable

and efficient, as well as positive for the welfare of children and social equality. There

might only be a slight difference in gender equality as mothers might more often be

those who take up flexibility in the job, a measure that might not be positive for

promotion in the workplace. As both ways are similar in terms of the effects to be

expected, both might be included in a social policy model as alternatives to be chosen

by policy-makers or by parents.

The next step is the proposal of a set of measures which fulfill the criteria presented

in Table 1, adding up to a coherent social policy model. The proposal, presented in

Table 2, focuses on services as they are the kind of resource which best fulfills the

criteria presented, but includes as well parents’ work leave either as a main or a

Table 1. Evaluation of social policy instruments according to proposed model.

1. Care of small children under 3 years. Instruments and criteria

Effects

Instruments Suitability of the

measure

Economic

efficiency

Gender

equity

Social

equality

Children

welfare

Parental leave High High Negative Negative Positive

Childcare services High High Positive Positive Positive

Cash allowances Not

ascertainable

Not

ascertainable

Variable Variable Not

ascertainable

2. Coordinating school and work time schedules. Instruments and criteria

Effects

Parental leave High High Medium Positive Positive

Childcare services High High Positive Positive Positive

Cash allowances Medium Low Variable Variable Variable

3. Care of children when ill. Instruments and criteria

Parental leave High High Medium Positive Positive

Childcare services Low Low Positive Positive Medium

Cash allowances Low Low Variable Variable Not

ascertainable

4. Care of children during school holidays. Instruments and criteria

Parental leave High Low Negative. Medium Medium

Childcare services High High Positive Positive Positive

Cash allowances Not

ascertainable

Not

ascertainable

Variable Variable Not

ascertainable

396 C. Tobıo and J.A. Fernandez Cordon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 0

8:45

12

Sept

embe

r 20

13

complementary resource, thus introducing a certain flexibility in the model. Direct

services have three main advantages. In the first place, they allow for control on the use

of resources, thus making sure that they are allocated to the purpose of childcare. In

the second place, they are the kind of policies that score best in terms of gender

equality as they support real equal opportunities for men and women in employment.

In the third place, services also score high in social equality because they attenuate

differences between mothers who can afford to liberate themselves from care and

those who cannot. In addition, childcare services can be looked at from the children’s

perspective as their right to be cared for, regardless of their social or family situation.

Parental leave, especially if long, often has negative effects on gender equality, as

mentioned before. It is usually the mothers who for a certain number of complex

reasons are the ones to abandon temporarily their labor activity, a decision which

becomes an obstacle for future involvement or career development. The exception is

Table 2. A proposal for a coherent policy aimed at reconciling work and the family.

Type of measure Objective Features

Childcare services

Public creches Daily care of children under 3

years

To all families with two working

parents and lone parent families

Early opening and late

closing of schools with

activities for children

Coordination of working hours

and school hours for working

parents

Services offered by school

centers

Centers combining

leisure and educational

activities

Coordination of working hours

and school hours for working

parents and receiving children

during school holidays

Services offered by a variety of

agents: schools, municipalities,

NGOs, etc.

Parental leave

Maternity leave Mother and child recovery after

birth

Based on regulation by

corresponding EU directive

Childcare parental leave Direct care of children by

mother or father

Based on regulation by

corresponding EU directive.

Aiming progressively at full

remuneration between 3 and 6

months.

Paternity leave Direct care of children by father A maximum of 2 months, paid

and ‘take it or lose it’

Parental leave for illness

of children

Care of children under 12 when

ill

Maximum of 6�12 days per year,

fully paid

Flexibility of work time

schedule

Allows parents a better

coordination between work and

family obligations

To be agreed between employees

and employers

Cash allowances

Direct cash allowance

for working mothers

Helping families to cope with

economic burden of children

Limited to cases where no public

creche is available and to

mothers not on parental leave

International Review of Sociology*Revue Internationale de Sociologie 397

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 0

8:45

12

Sept

embe

r 20

13

paternity leave, just for fathers on a ‘take it or lose it’ basis, which seeks to involve

fathers in care of their children and help them benefit from their right to give care.

In the proposal, paternity leave is included well beyond the current two weeks up

to two months with full wage compensation. Short leave for sick children is alsoincluded as the best way to respond to this specific need both in terms of child

welfare and efficiency. It is acknowledged that paternity leave does play a role in the

reconciliation of work and family responsibilities and is considered to be one more

possible option for parents. Progressive remuneration for medium length periods is

proposed on the condition of not having a place in a public creche.

Monetary allowances to families only have a marginal place in the model

proposed. The current benefit received by working mothers is left, as well as fiscal

deductions for private creches when a place in public creches is not available or paidparental leave has not been used.

Table 2 synthesizes the social policy model for the Spanish case as an example of

the methodology proposed.

Conclusion

Reconciling work and the family is a problem associated with gender transition and

the emergence of a new standard for families now including two working parents (ora lone working parent). It is now a fact in European countries that in a huge majority

of families with young children both parents are present in the labor market.

Compared to the widespread presence of this new family model, one may say that

reconciliation policies are not only scarce but often confusing and lacking efficiency.

It would seem useful, at this moment, to design a coherent policy, by clarifying and

optimizing the available policy instruments. For this it is necessary to establish clear

objectives and selection criteria.

The suitability and economic efficiency of the projected policy measures arealmost preliminary conditions for their enforcement. But, as the different policy

instruments have varying effects on fundamental issues of social life, it is worth

analyzing, in each case, their impact on child welfare, on social equality, and on

gender equity.

In the matter of reconciliation some forms of political action may lead to a

hidden, and not necessary wanted, return to the previous model of gender

differentiation. Not only for equity reasons would it be necessary to avoid such

actions but also for the benefit of social and economic productivity which call forencouraging employment of the now highly qualified women in developed countries

and increasingly in all other countries. A side consequence could also be that only

non-qualified women would be affected, a clear social inequality.

The debate opposing the provision of direct services versus cash allowances for

parents to buy these services is undoubtedly connected to the general spread of

neoliberal economic thought in recent years. The apparent freedom given to parents

by cash allowances, allowing them to look for market solutions, might not fulfill a

criterion of economic efficiency and furthermore does not guarantee that all themoney will go to the child, especially in low-income families. The current financial

and economic crisis may well change the way of considering this debate.

We have seen that some policy instruments are better adapted than others to

specific problems that parents have to solve and that among those equally suitable

398 C. Tobıo and J.A. Fernandez Cordon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 0

8:45

12

Sept

embe

r 20

13

some are preferable for their impact on social equality or gender equity. But none of

them represents by itself a self-sufficient way of solving all problems. It seems that the

best policy response to the problem of reconciling work and the family is a

combination of different instruments. It is only desirable that such combination be

the result of sound social and economic analysis.

Notes

1. Extracted from Eurostat Database on 13 September 2011.2. Calculated by dividing the population aged 65 years over (old age dependency rate) or the

population aged 0�14 (young age dependency rate) by the working age population (15�64years old), expressed in percent.

3. These are consistent results from various surveys in Spain which may be consideredapplicable to other similar countries (Tobıo 2005).

4. Data concern parents on statutory maternity, paternity, or parental leave and/orcontractual employer-provided leave.

Notes on contributors

Constanza Tobıo is Professor of Sociology at Carlos III University of Madrid. She haspublished extensively on gender equality, social policy and on working mothers.

Juan Antonio Fernandez Cordon is senior researcher in Demography and Economics. He hasbeen a member of the Spanish Economic and Social Council and has published extensively onthe demographic aspects of social and gender equality.

References

European Commission, 2005. Reconciliation of work and private life. Luxembourg: Office forOfficial Publications of the European Communities.

Eurostat, (web). 2011. Eurostat Database. Population. Available from: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/data/database

Fagnani, J., 1998. Helping mothers to combine paid and unpaid work- or fightingunemployment? The ambiguities of French family policy. Community, work and family, 1(3), 297�311.

Fernandez Cordon, J.A. and Tobıo, C., 1999. Las familias monoparentales en Espana. Madrid:Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales. 49.

Fernandez Cordon, J.A. and Tobıo, C., 1999. Lone parent families in Spain. Revista Espanolade Investigaciones Sociologicas, 83, 143�180.

Fernandez Cordon, J.A. and Tobıo, C., 2005. Conciliar las responsabilidades familiares ylaborales: polıticas y practicas sociales. Documento de Trabajo 79. Madrid: FundacionAlternativas.

Fernandez Cordon, J.A. and Tobıo, C., dirs., 2007. Andalucıa, dependencia y solidaridad en lasredes familiars. Sevilla: Instituto de Estadıstica de Andalucıa.

Jaumotte, F., 2003. Labour force participation of women: empirical evidence on the role ofpolicy and other determinants in OECD countries. OECD economic studies, 37 (2).

Leipert, C. and Opielka, M., 1999. Child-care salary 2000: a way to up-grade child-care work.Bonn: Institute for social Ecology.

Leira, A., 2002. Working parents and the welfare state. Family change and policy reform inScandinavia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lewis, J., 1992. Gender and the development of welfare state regimes. Journal of Europeansocial policy, 2 (3), 159�173.

Lewis, J., 2001. The end of marriage? Individualism and intimate relations. Cheltenham: EdwardElgar.

International Review of Sociology*Revue Internationale de Sociologie 399

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 0

8:45

12

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Martin, C., 2001. Les politiques de prise en charge des personnes agees dependantes. Travail,Genre et Societes, 6, 83�103.

Moss, P. and Deven, F., eds., 2000. Parental leave: progress or pitfall? Brussels: NIDI/CBGS.Murray, J., 2004. International legal trends in the reconciliation of work and family life. Research

Report. Melbourne: La Trobe University.OECD (web). 2011. OECD Family Database. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/els/social/

family/databaseSaraceno, C., ed., 2008. Families, ageing and social policy. Intergenerational Solidarity in

European Welfare States: Edward Elgar.Tobıo, C., 2001. Working and mothering. Women’s strategies in Spain. European societies, 3

(3), 339�371.Tobıo, C., 2005. Madres que trabajan. Dilemas y estrategias. Madrid: Catedra.Tobıo, C., 2010. El cuidado de las personas. Un reto para el siglo XXI. Barcelona: Coleccion de

Estudios Sociales 28, Fundacion La Caixa.

400 C. Tobıo and J.A. Fernandez Cordon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 0

8:45

12

Sept

embe

r 20

13