BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Michoń Piotr (Poznań University of Economics, Poland)
Tytuł
Familisation and defamilisation policy in 22 European countries
Źródło
The Poznań University of Economics Review, 2008, vol. 8, nr 1, s. 34-54, tab., bibliogr. 32 poz.
Słowa kluczowe
Polityka rodzinna, Dzieci, Państwo opiekuńcze, Urlop wychowawczy
Family policy, Children, Welfare state, Parental leave
Abstrakt
High employment and activation rates have come to be hallmark of the European Union strategy. To support the economic growth and limit the negative consequences of aging societies Member States have to attract more people into employment. Breaking down the barriers to labour market entry and re-entry, especially for women who take on family responsibilities, has become some kind of signum temporis. But the problem we face is not only how to encourage women to enter the labour market but how to reconcile a number of objectives: achieving gender equity, raising fertility, lowering unemployment, increasing labour market activity, improving the well-being of children. The paper compares state policy towards working families in 22 European OECD countries and their potential consequences for women's labour market activity. It develops and uses a welfare state typology based on the theoretical concept of familisation and defamilisation. After the widely recognised Esping-Andersen's typology of welfare-state has been criticised mostly by feminist authors, scholars all over the world are looking for alternative criteria to identify models which are "gender sensitive" i.e. reflect the gender differences due to caring responsibilities. The debate led to introduce a theoretical concept of (de) familisation which concentrates on the extent to which public policy supports family in its caring function. The paper focuses on the caring function of a modern family and its consequences for women labour market activity. We identify models of state policy based on three criteria: defamilisation of care, familisation of care and defamilisation of cost of the children. The former two were used by other authors but their methods of measuring are questioned in this paper. 'Defamilisation of cost of children' measures the taxes, tools and family benefits which remain unnoticed by many authors. The typology allows the identification of variations of state policies and thus a classification of 22 European countries investigated here. (original abstract)
Dostępne w
Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie
Biblioteka Szkoły Głównej Handlowej w Warszawie
Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach
Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu
Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu
Pełny tekst
Pokaż
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. Arts W. & Gelissen J. (2002), Three World of Welfare Capitalism or More? Journal of European Social Policy, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 137-158.
  2. Bambra C. (2004), The Worlds of Welfare: Illusory and Gender Blind? Social Policy and Society, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 201-211.
  3. Bernhardt E.M. (2000), Female Careers between Employment and Children, paper presented at a conference "Low fertility, families and public policies",Seville 15-16 September.
  4. Bjonberg U. (2002), Ideology and Choice between Work and Care; Swedish Familypolicy for Working Parents, Critical Social Policy, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 33-52.
  5. Bonoli G.(1997), Classifying Welfare States; A Two-dimensions Approach, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 351-372.
  6. Brunning P. & Plantega J. (1999), Parental Leave and Equal Opportunities; Experiences in Eight European Countries, Journal of European Social Policy, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 195-209.
  7. Cass B. (1994), Citizenship, Work, and Welfare: The Dilemma for Australian Women, Social Politics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 106- 123.
  8. Commission of the European Communities (2003), Report from the Commission on the Implementation of Council Directive 96/34/ec of 3rd june 1996 on the Framework Agreement on Parental Leave Concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, Brussels.
  9. Devisscher S. (2004), Parental Insurance and Childcare, Belgium. Peer Review 19-20 April http://www.almp.org/pdf/sweden04/belSWE04.pdf.
  10. European Commission (2005), Reconciliation of Work and Private Life: a Comparative Review of Thirty European Countries, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
  11. Fagnani J. (1999), Parental Leave in France, P. Moss, F. Deven (ed), in: Parental Leave: Progress or Pitfall? The Hague/Brussels, NIDI/CBGS Publications, Vol. 35, pp. 69-83.
  12. Gauthier A.H.(1996), The State and the Family, a Comparative Analysis of Family Policies in Industrialized Countries, Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York.
  13. Haas L. & Hwang P. (1999), Parental Leave in Sweden, Moss, P. and Deven, F. (ed), in: Parental Leave: Progress or Pitfall? Research and Policy Issues in Europe, NIDI/CBGS Publications, The Hague/Brussels, pp. 45-68.
  14. Hakim C. (2001), Work-lifestyle Choices in the 21st Century, Preference Theory, Oxford University Press.
  15. Kreimer M. (2004), Parental Insurance and Childcare, Austria, Peer Review 19-20 April, http://www.almp.org/pdf/sweden04/autSWE04.pdf.
  16. ILO (2005a), Maternity Protection Convention, 1919, ILOLEX, http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C003.
  17. ILO (2005b), Maternity Protection Convention no 103, 1952, ILOLEX, http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C103.
  18. ILO (2005c), Maternity Protection Convention no 103, 1952, ILOLEX, http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C183.
  19. Kasza G.J. (2002), The Illusion of Welfare Regimes, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 271-287.
  20. Leitner S. (2003), Varieties of Familialism, the Caring Function of the Family in Comparative Perspective, European Societies, 5 (4), pp. 353-375.
  21. Maier F. (2004), Parental Insurance and Childcare, Germany, Peer Review 19-20 April, http://www.almp.org/pdf/sweden04/gerSWE04.pdf.
  22. Michoń P. (2008), Praca matek w polityce krajów Unii Europejskiej, Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej w Poznaniu, Poznań.
  23. Montanari I. (2000), From Family Wage to Marriage Subsidy and Child Benefits: Controversy and Consensus in the Development of Family Support, Journal of European Social Policy, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 307-333.
  24. Moss P. and O'Brien M. (2006), International Review of Leave Policies and Related Research 2006, Employment Relations Research Series No. 57, Department Of Trade And Industry, London.
  25. OECD (2001), Employment Outlook, OECD, Paris.
  26. OECD (2005), Taxing Wages, Special Feature: Broadening the Definition of the Average Worker, OECD, Paris.
  27. O'Donoghue C., Sutherland H. (1999), Accounting for the Family in European Income Tax Systems, Cambridge Journal of Economics, No. 23, pp. 565-598.
  28. Orloff A.S. (1993), Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: the Comparative Analysis of Gender Relations and Welfare States, American Sociological Review 58, pp. 303-328.
  29. Orloff A.S. (2006), From Maternalism to "Employment for All": State Policies to Promote Women's Employment across the Affluent Democracies, J.D. Levy (ed), in: The State after Statism New State Activities in the Age of Liberalization, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 230-270.
  30. Plantenga J. and Siegel M. (2004), European Childcare Strategies, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, downloadable at http://www.childcareinachangingworld.nl/position_paper.html.
  31. Sevenhuijsen S. (2000), Caring in a Third Way: the Relation Between Obligation, Responsibility and Care in the Third Way Discourse, Critical Social Policy, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 5-37.
  32. Whiteford P. (1995), The Use of Replacement Rates in International Comparisons of Benefit Systems, International Social Security Review, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 3-30.
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
1643-5877
Język
eng
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu