ABSTRACT
Within the European Employment Strategy benchmarking and learning from good practices are main mechanisms to improve national performance. This is also the case for WLB strategies which are reinforced because of economic reasons to increase employment and population growth. The paper asks for the main criteria for public policies to promote WLB and whether or under which conditions such policies are transferable between the successful Nordic countries and the less successful conservative countries like Austria and Germany. Denmark and Finland are used as ‘good practice’ examples. The analysis shows that childcare leave regulations are an important instrument to encourage mothers for continuous working careers. But the consequences of these regulations concerning employment turn out to be quite different, even in measures with similar orientation. What we can learn from the Nordic countries is that the consistency of welfare state regulations and institutions are an important precondition for a successful WLB. This calls for an interplay of different fields and means that the imbalance of family and work and family reconciliation can hardly be solved by flexible working contracts or longer parental leave possibilities.
Introduction
Work–life balance (WLB), i.e., the effort to combine different requirements and needs in life, also becomes an economic factor, since experiences in the central and southern European countries have shown that a higher integration of women will result in lower birth rates as long as it does not become easier to reconcile work and family life.1 In addition to older workers, women – and mothers in particular – carry great potential with regard to the increase of employment and consequently the competitiveness of European economy. Women's integration in the labour market therefore has to go hand in hand with a promotion of demographic development, so as to secure the employment potential in the long term and prevent the overall population from becoming too old.
In fact, it seems as if these economic arguments for a work–life balance had a greater effect than similar demands to ease women's difficulties in combining their jobs with family duties, which had already been voiced much earlier under the normative aspect of gender equity. Yet in spite of an extension of measures that could solve this problem the level of success in this respect varies greatly among the different countries.2 The need to take action in response to similar concerns (e.g., financing problems in the welfare states, increasing proportion of elderly people in the population), as well as harmonisation in the EU with regard to aging societies, have recently made the question whether successful policies can be transferred from one country to another more and more relevant.
In the following, we will try to find out if and under what circumstances measures that improve the compatibility of employment and family duties can be transferred from the successful Nordic countries to conservative welfare states like Germany and Austria. Two ‘good practice’ examples, namely Denmark and Finland, were examined for that purpose, whereby the main focus was on the questions whether and to what extent the measures in the Nordic countries, which clearly support a feasible balance of family and work, could also be applied in conservative welfare states.3 Denmark and Finland were selected because they both have above-average female employment rates and rather high birth rates (cf. the overview in the annex). Besides, each of these two countries has chosen a different path towards the integration of women: in Denmark, part-time jobs were for a long time the primary form of employment for women with children, whereas in Finland their integration was from the very beginning based on full-time employment.
Since mothers show the greatest potential for employment participation, the analysis mainly focuses on reconciliation policies, and especially on regulations pertaining to the care-intensive earlier years of child development, i.e., on maternity protection, childcare leaves, and institutional childcare options.4 The ways in which the transition between employment and care is handled and supported by social regulations does not only affect employment participation and/or the duration of unemployment spells, but also the number and timing of births. If it is difficult or impossible to reconcile jobs and childcare, women often find themselves in a situation where they are forced to choose either one or the other. And those who attempt to combine them are likely to be faced with considerable discrimination.5 In order to meet both goals – an increase of employment participation and stable demographic development – it is thus necessary to have socio-political and working conditions that will facilitate the work–life balance for both women and men.
2 International comparison and transferability of successful WLB models
The Open Method of Coordination, which represents the basic principle of the common European employment and social policy, is aimed at international comparison and political learning from best practice examples. Benchmarking becomes an important political tool to make policies and their results comparable and to identify ‘good practices’ that other countries ought to use as a guideline. Compared to other policy fields (particularly financial policy) employment policy is rather a process-oriented procedure, by means of which the member states are persuaded to take initiative and apply the necessary strategies to improve employment (cf. Maier 2002: 168).
The Open Method of Coordination is a concept that is explicitly guided by best practice examples. Joint reports and standardized monitoring of the economic and social development of the EU member states (e.g., Joint Employment Report, description of the social situation in Europe, Employment Observatory) open up new possibilities for comparative, empirical analysis. By improving the benchmarking method, i.e., the process of learning from the best, it has become easier to compare different employment and equal opportunity policies. And in this context the emphasis on system processes, basic conditions, and historical development has also grown more and more important.
Nevertheless, it is still not clear how and to what extent national or regional ‘good practices’ can be transferred to other areas and/or how much such efforts would be curbed by the specific framework conditions. The limits and possibilities of ‘learning from the best’ are mainly discussed in connection with women's employment integration and equal opportunities, since cultural influences play a major role in the attempt to explain the country-specific differences in employment participation as well as in the basic institutional settings in each country. Rubery and Fagan (1998: 136) explicitly point out that the mere transfer of policies to another national, regional, and sectoral context may be somewhat problematic:
Therefore whether or not the experience of “best practice” policies from one country can be readily transferred to another is again an issue which must be addressed cautiously. These problems of transferability apply both to the intended outcomes of policies (…) and to the mechanisms for promoting policies’.
Due to the complex influence of economic, political, social, and cultural factors, the transferability of measures and policies from one type of welfare state to another is therefore called into question (e.g., Cattero 1999; Pfau-Effinger 1999; Offe 2000). Comparative welfare state research is still a rather young research field, but it has clearly been further developed and gained significance in connection with women's employment integration during the last few years. While at the beginning the main focus was on descriptive country comparisons (cf. e.g., Schunter-Kleemann 1992), it has subsequently shifted to the explanation of country-specific differences. At the beginning of the 1990s, Esping-Andersen (1990) developed an approach in comparative welfare state research that primarily aimed to find out whether and to what extent different types of welfare state policies caused different kinds of social inequality.6 Yet this approach has met with some criticism, especially from a gender perspective, since it systematically neglects the field of unpaid care work, which is still predominantly carried out by women.7 Lewis (1992) and Lewis and Ostner (1994), on the other hand, have placed great emphasis in their comparative, historical welfare state analysis on the relationship of dependence between the (male) breadwinner and the (female) caregiver. The countries are categorized according to the different forms of the breadwinner model, whereby a concrete differentiation is made between strong, modified, and weak models.8
Pfau-Effinger (1999), however, believes that these approaches in comparative welfare state research are rather insufficient with regard to their empirical implementation, as they do not pay enough attention to the policy processes behind them and also ignore cultural aspects when analysing the influence of welfare state policies on individual behaviour. Pfau-Effinger (2000) argues that in international comparisons gender-specific differences in the distribution of labour and consequently the uneven presence of the genders on the labour market can only be explained by the mutual relationship between cultural norms, institutional arrangements, and social actors that either legitimise or de-legitimise them. Based on the division of labour between the genders, and taking account of both gainful employment and care work,9 she has defined five gender arrangements, whose significance varies in different countries.
As to the gendered division of labour in the welfare states, however, the resulting country groups in each category do indeed largely match Esping-Andersen's typologisation. This means that the structural characteristics and paths he has identified appear to have a certain effect on the gender arrangements in welfare states (Behning and Serrano Pascual 2001). The countries compared in this particular analysis, for instance, clearly belong to two different types of welfare states: Denmark and Finland represent the Nordic regime (Esping-Andersen 1990) or the dual breadwinner model (Lewis and Ostner 1994; Pfau-Effinger 2000), whereas Germany and Austria represent the continental regime (Esping-Andersen 1990) and are dominated by the male breadwinner model (Lewis and Ostner 1994) and/or, according to Pfau-Effinger (2000), a modified male breadwinner model (male breadwinner/female part-time-employed and homemaker).
3 Evaluation criteria for the basic conditions of WLB in the welfare state
The term ‘work–life balance’ implies an aim that goes beyond the mere reconciliation of family life and employment and is rather geared towards a ‘balanced’ relationship between these different areas. Yet balancing job and family duties do not necessarily mean that time resources or participation are equally divided in both systems, as the following models will show:
Parallel model of work and family: In this model, the different spheres of work and family duties need to be balanced anew every single day. How the available time is distributed between job and family depends on the amount of care work, on the support provided by the partner or by other persons and institutions, and on the extent and specific type of employment.
The one after the other model of work and family: For a certain amount of time the focus is (exclusively) placed on one area, as for instance in the traditional three-phase model, in which the woman gives up her job temporarily to take care of the children and returns to the labour market again after an extended care period. This biographical balance requires specific regulations, which ease or prevent the disadvantages resulting from a temporary career interruption and/or from decreased working hours (cf. Schmid 2002).
The extent to which it is manageable to obtain a satisfactory balance, i.e., a balanced relationship where neither of the two areas (unintendedly) takes precedence over the other, depends on several factors: Empirical findings have shown that the socio-political arrangement pertaining to the transition between job and family duties play a major role in this context and decide whether and to what degree mothers are gainfully employed and whether a work–life balance is in fact possible.10 How such transitions are handled, however, does not just affect women's employment integration, but the role of women in the working world and the social norms and values connected to that also have an indirect effect on women's income, their employment prospects, and on the distribution of unpaid labour within the family.
The latter, i.e., the division of unpaid work within the family, represents the second crucial factor. As long as the increasing employment participation of women does not go hand in hand with a re-distribution of unpaid labour, and especially care work, the pressure will always be unevenly distributed. Women will continue to be faced with greater challenges and limitations in the working world (cf. in detail Fraser 1997), despite the fact that they may appear to have equal opportunities on the labour market. Consequently, it is still women who are most affected by and confronted with the problem of reconciling work and family life.
Whether and how an appropriate balance can be obtained is, thirdly, dependent on the forseeability of the tasks and the possible arrangement of time in the two areas. This applies to both the flexibility of working hours and the amount of support offered with regard to family duties. Flexible working time models, which give the workers a certain degree of autonomy, and a satisfactory range of (flexible) institutional childcare options could thus clearly ease the pressures of family work.
To answer the question whether or how a successful WLB is promoted by different welfare state systems and/or models for the division of labour, we will at first describe the relevant policy mix in each of the four countries and analyse the consequences in each case for women's employment and gender equity. For that purpose, we have asked the following key questions:
Do the respective regulations promote a balanced share of both genders in family work and gainful employment?
How do career interruptions and/or reduced working hours affect the lifetime income and the quality of work?
To what extent do the existing regulations contribute to an increased integration of men in unpaid labour?
Does the government offer support with regard to family work?
Are the incentives to make use of the existing arrangements for the transition between work and family life different for women and men and/or for different groups of women?
What do these transitions actually look like in Denmark and Finland and/or in Germany and Austria, and what consequences do they entail with regard to women's employment and equal opportunities?
4 Reconciliation policies in Denmark and Finland
An important characteristic in both Nordic countries is – as it was already mentioned in the beginning – that women's employment participation lies far above the EU average and birth rates are high as well. Based on these two indicators, one can assume that these countries do indeed offer feasible ways to combine work and family life.
In Finland, women's employment integration clearly increased immediately after World War II. In view of the large reparation payments to Russia and the resulting industrialisation, various efforts were made to raise employment rates and, particularly, to make better use of women's employment potential. Women have been working in full-time jobs from the very beginning, and the first attempts to develop a care infrastructure were already made in the 1960s. Denmark, on the other hand, was dominated by the traditional housewife model until the 1960s, which means that women left gainful employment for an extended period of time as soon as they started having a family. Yet when the demand for workers increased in the 1960s, mothers began to be deliberately included in the employment process. Initially, the integration of women primarily took place by means of part-time work, and a larger variety of state-run care facilities and new tax reforms were intended to make being a housewife less financially attractive. During the last few years, women have mainly been working full-time, which is also favoured by the generally shorter working hours.11
Right after birth, Danish and Finnish parents are given the opportunity to leave their jobs for approximately one year to take care of the child. During this comparatively short period of time (one year) they are entitled to income-based benefits. The first few months after birth are reserved for the mother. During that time, fathers may take parental leave of two weeks (Denmark) or 18 working days (Finland), although most of the leave can in principle be shared by the parents. After these leaves (with income-based financial support), Finnish parents are entitled to an additional leave if they choose to take care of their children themselves rather than handing them over to institutional childcare. Parents who make use of this opportunity receive a flat-rate allowance of €252 per month for the duration of the leave.12
After this, they have the right to return to their prior job, which is indeed possible thanks to the well-developed childcare infrastructure. It appears that in the Nordic countries the time of re-entry into the labour market depends on the availability of an acceptable (or accepted) childcare option. Parents frequently take a temporary leave until a suitable place becomes available. Due to the individual legal right to institutional childcare, however, these ‘waiting times’ are usually rather short.13
One factor that eases the return to gainful employment is the fact that outside childcare (i.e., by persons other than the parents) for children aged one year and older is considered to be socially acceptable and – especially in Denmark – even preferable to parental care because of the high quality standards. Well-regulated childcare options also make it much easier for companies to employ women with children. Yet besides that, a successful re-entry into employment also depends on the development of the labour market, as in Finland, for example, the recession at the beginning of the 1990s had a rather negative effect on women's labour market prospects and employment conditions.
In both Denmark and Finland, mothers now usually go back to work in a full-time job, and the leave period thus only appears to bear minor disadvantages for them in the long term. This means that the chances on the labour market for women with children and women without children are nearly the same (e.g., with regard to career opportunities, fields of activity, working hours). A Danish study, for instance, shows that childcare-related careers breaks hardly have a negative effect on women's lifetime incomes (cf. Datta Gupta and Smith 2000).
But in spite of the large percentage of women's employment participation, the two Nordic countries have not been able to achieve the corresponding re-distribution of unpaid labour among the genders. Only rarely do parents actually make use of the possibility to share childcare leaves, mostly because the household would be faced with greater losses of income if the father stayed home instead of the mother. Even though in Denmark and Finland men participate more in housework and family duties than in other EU member states, it is still mostly women who are responsible for unpaid labour. All in all, this means that women are forced to invest a lot more time (full-time job and care work).
5 Reconciliation policies in Germany and Austria
During the last few years and decades, women's employment participation has also increased in Germany (especially in West Germany)14 and in Austria, although in comparison with Denmark and Finland it is much more dependent on the family situation. Until the birth of the first child, gainfully employed women are considered to be a matter of fact and one can find hardly any gender differences in employment participation. After the birth of their first child, women usually leave their jobs for several years. The leave regulations in both countries provide for such an extended period of time (in Austria: 30 months, or 36 months if the father also chooses to stay home for at least six months; in Germany: until the child's third birthday). Prior incomes are only fully compensated for the duration of the maternity protection period (eight weeks before and eight weeks after birth15). After that, parents in Austria receive a monthly allowance of €436, regardless of the income they had in their former job or of the current family income. In Germany, after six months, the monthly childcare payment is based on the family income.16 Although in theory it is possible to arrange the leave periods quite flexibly, it carries very little practical significance due to the complicated regulations regarding additional incomes and the unwillingness of many companies to implement flexible working time models in favour of people with care duties. Besides that, neither in Germany nor in Austria are there any leaves explicitly reserved for the father (e.g., during the maternal protection period).
The insufficient childcare infrastructure in Austria and Germany makes it harder to return to gainful employment, since there are not enough satisfactory childcare options, especially for children under three years but also not for older children with flexible opening hours that can easily be reconciled with their parents’ working schedules. This is mainly due to the fact that childcare is primarily seen as a pedagogic instrument rather than a tool to combine work and family life. Thus the right to outside care, which is granted to all children aged three years or older in Germany, for instance, also guarantees merely a part-time provision of childcare.17
Mothers frequently compensate for these shortages in institutional care by taking up only a part-time job when they go back to work. Consequently, part-time employment appears to be a feasible option for women with children, but in many cases this choice also decreases their chances of professional advancement and leads to a reduction of income, which in turn may have negative effects on future transfer payments and pensions.18 In addition to that, there are a number of socio-political regulations that enforce the traditional family model with a male breadwinner and a female caregiver, who may – at the most – earn some additional income (Table 1). The tax system, among other things, is based on this model, and it also carries great significance in family and social policies.19 The respective regulations often include entitlements for women, which are dependent on their husband's employment situation. They offer a major monetary incentive for households to have one parent staying at home for an extended period of time and exclusively concentrating on family work. Why this is usually the woman cannot just be explained by the existing social norms and values but also by the fact that men usually earn more (in Austria, women's incomes are still about one third below men's incomes).
| . | Denmark . | Finland . | Germany . | Austria . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women's employment rates* | 71.7% | 66.2% | 58.8% | 63.1% |
| Proportion of women without children working in part-time jobs** | 18.5% | 7.5% | 24.0% | 17.4% |
| Proportion of women with children working in part-time jobs** | 16.2% | 13.6% | 60.2% | 43.7% |
| Ø number of children per woman*** | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| Eligibility for parental leave | ||||
| Mother | 4 weeks before the estimated birth date, 2 weeks after (for all mothers) +12 weeks maternity leave | Maternity allowance (105 days = 17.5 weeks), 6-10 weeks before birth, the rest after. | 8 weeks before and 8 weeks after birth (full compensation of prior income), 12 weeks after birth in case of multiple births or delivery by caesarean section | 8 weeks before and 8 weeks after birth (full compensation of prior income), 12 weeks after birth in case of multiple births or delivery by caesarean section |
| Father | 2 weeks | 18 days, during maternity protection period | – | – |
| Share | 32 weeks | 158 days parental allowance = 26.3 weeks | Parental leave up to 3 years, parental allowance for 2 years, unless income is higher than a certain predefined level | Childcare leave – until the child's 3rd birthday if taken by both parents (otherwise 2.5 years), unless income is higher than 14,600 € per year |
| Total | 52 weeks, depending on income (80%) | 33.7 weeks, depending on income (66%) | 16 weeks, depending on income; 2 years 300 € and/or 1 year 450 € per month | 16 weeks, depending on income; 3 years 436 € per month (if taken by both parents) |
| Additional leaves | No more | Possibility to take a leave until the child's 3rd birthday, with the right to return to former workplace, allowance of 252 € per month + additional payments (e.g., for families with more than one child) | – | – |
| Childcare | Widely available, childcare for children over 1 year is guaranteed in most cases | Provision of childcare services in public and private facilities | New states: well-developed network old states: not sufficient, often just part-time childcare, not enough facilities for children under 3 years | Adequate supply of public childcare facilities for children over 3 years, parents with smaller children mostly have to use private childcare services, large regional differences |
| All-day, high-quality childcare | All-day childcare, large variety | West: childcare is seen as a pedagogic tool (part-time), East: childcare is seen as a tool to facilitate the work–life balance (full-time) | Childcare is seen as a pedagogic tool | |
| Subsidies for household-related services | Yes | No | Promotion of mini-/midi-jobs in private households | Childcare expenses are tax-deductible |
| Conditions on the labour market | Open jobs generally short working hours | Labour market problems due to recession long working hours | Lack of qualified part-time jobs | Lack of qualified part-time jobs |
| Financial incentives for a traditional allocation of roles | Exist at a formal level, but no practical relevance | No more | Mostly tax credits | Some tax credits, eligibility for childcare benefits, etc. |
| . | Denmark . | Finland . | Germany . | Austria . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women's employment rates* | 71.7% | 66.2% | 58.8% | 63.1% |
| Proportion of women without children working in part-time jobs** | 18.5% | 7.5% | 24.0% | 17.4% |
| Proportion of women with children working in part-time jobs** | 16.2% | 13.6% | 60.2% | 43.7% |
| Ø number of children per woman*** | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| Eligibility for parental leave | ||||
| Mother | 4 weeks before the estimated birth date, 2 weeks after (for all mothers) +12 weeks maternity leave | Maternity allowance (105 days = 17.5 weeks), 6-10 weeks before birth, the rest after. | 8 weeks before and 8 weeks after birth (full compensation of prior income), 12 weeks after birth in case of multiple births or delivery by caesarean section | 8 weeks before and 8 weeks after birth (full compensation of prior income), 12 weeks after birth in case of multiple births or delivery by caesarean section |
| Father | 2 weeks | 18 days, during maternity protection period | – | – |
| Share | 32 weeks | 158 days parental allowance = 26.3 weeks | Parental leave up to 3 years, parental allowance for 2 years, unless income is higher than a certain predefined level | Childcare leave – until the child's 3rd birthday if taken by both parents (otherwise 2.5 years), unless income is higher than 14,600 € per year |
| Total | 52 weeks, depending on income (80%) | 33.7 weeks, depending on income (66%) | 16 weeks, depending on income; 2 years 300 € and/or 1 year 450 € per month | 16 weeks, depending on income; 3 years 436 € per month (if taken by both parents) |
| Additional leaves | No more | Possibility to take a leave until the child's 3rd birthday, with the right to return to former workplace, allowance of 252 € per month + additional payments (e.g., for families with more than one child) | – | – |
| Childcare | Widely available, childcare for children over 1 year is guaranteed in most cases | Provision of childcare services in public and private facilities | New states: well-developed network old states: not sufficient, often just part-time childcare, not enough facilities for children under 3 years | Adequate supply of public childcare facilities for children over 3 years, parents with smaller children mostly have to use private childcare services, large regional differences |
| All-day, high-quality childcare | All-day childcare, large variety | West: childcare is seen as a pedagogic tool (part-time), East: childcare is seen as a tool to facilitate the work–life balance (full-time) | Childcare is seen as a pedagogic tool | |
| Subsidies for household-related services | Yes | No | Promotion of mini-/midi-jobs in private households | Childcare expenses are tax-deductible |
| Conditions on the labour market | Open jobs generally short working hours | Labour market problems due to recession long working hours | Lack of qualified part-time jobs | Lack of qualified part-time jobs |
| Financial incentives for a traditional allocation of roles | Exist at a formal level, but no practical relevance | No more | Mostly tax credits | Some tax credits, eligibility for childcare benefits, etc. |
Both Germany and Austria have to some extent tried to encourage women to return to the labour market sooner, e.g., by establishing the legal right to part-time work during the parental leave period20 (in both countries) or by reforming the educational law (Erziehungsgesetz) (in Germany). A specific regulation concerning additional income, which was introduced in connection with the new childcare allowance in Austria, was also meant to serve as an incentive for women to be gainfully employed and still receive childcare allowance as long their gross income is no higher than €14,600 per year. If they earn more than that, they will no longer be entitled to this allowance.21 So far, however, evaluations regarding childcare allowance in Austria have shown that its introduction has rather increased the incentives to leave the job for longer periods of time, while the regulation pertaining to additional incomes has hardly had any effect at all.22 This means that, all in all, the new regulations have prolonged the time women spend away from their jobs.
6 Different effects of leave regulations
Comparing maternal protection and leave regulations in the Nordic countries with those in Austria and Germany, one will find that the length of time set aside for childcare is quite generous in the conservative welfare states. Both Austria and Germany have extended their leave regulations, and the duration of maternal protection and the subsequent paid parental leave is longer than in Finland and Denmark. However, the extent of financial security provided to parents is different, and they also get less support for childcare.
While in Germany and Austria the stay-at-home parent gets the full income for only eight weeks after birth, followed by an allowance which is usually below subsistence level and not income-based, mothers and fathers in Denmark and Finland are entitled to 90 and 80 per cent, respectively, of their prior incomes for about one year. After that, Danish parents (at least theoretically) and especially Finnish parents have the possibility to stay away from their jobs and continue to take care of their children themselves. But basically there are enough appropriate childcare options available for children aged one or older. In Germany and Austria, on the other hand, childcare is only guaranteed for older children (aged three years or more), although the quality of the facilities is not satisfactory in some cases. Institutional childcare for children under three years is still in extremely short supply.
In spite of the possibilities to return to one's former job after parental leave, which exist in theory in all four countries, women in Germany and Austria are still faced with great difficulties, which are largely due to the long leave periods and the shortcomings of institutional childcare (e.g., lack of care options in the afternoon or during vacation time for older children).
The main disadvantages resulting from these long career interruptions and/or from working only part-time are the subsequent differences between men's and women's incomes. Yet even though women in Denmark and Finland still have not fully reached the male income level, the gap is clearly much smaller than in Germany and Austria.23 And because they earn less, women are also more likely to get fewer social benefits in case of unemployment or sickness, and lower pensions.
Compared to that, the differences concerning the distribution of unpaid labour are much less pronounced: in none of the four countries is housework divided equally among the partners, although time budget studies have shown that Danish and Finnish men participate more in housework and childcare duties than in most other EU member states. It should be noted, though, that in the Nordic countries housework is generally handled in a more pragmatic and effortless manner than in Germany or Austria.24
All in all, the differences between women's employment integration in Finland and Denmark on the one hand, and Germany and Austria on the other hand, are best explained by the different effect of leave regulations on different groups of women. In Germany and Austria, the relation between (non-income-based) childcare allowances and the largest possible income considering the rather high cost of childcare make it seem more rational from an economic point of view for women with lower qualifications to leave their jobs temporarily and take care of the children themselves. This, however, does not apply to women with higher qualifications: for them – provided that they choose to have children at all – outside care can by all means be a more economic alternative. Such differences between highly qualified women and women with lower skills can be observed both in employment participation and in the number of children they have.25
Thus, the main difference between the Nordic countries and conservative states lies not primarily in the definition or content of the respective leave regulations, but rather in how they are implemented, i.e., how much time is reserved for childcare and how the subsequent transition to the labour market is handled. While in Denmark and Finland parental leaves usually last one to one and a half years, Austrian parents tend to use up the entire leave period of three years (or at least the full length of time that can be consumed by one parent) and only rarely choose a more flexible alternative. After that, they frequently go back to work in a part-time job, which is still deemed to be a marginalized form of employment. The main reasons for that are the insufficient care infrastructure and the ambivalent idea of motherhood that many political measures are based on. There is no consistent image of women and/or working mothers in politics, but rather a large number of contradictions and inconsistencies that ultimately force women to make their own decisions and come up with individual solutions in the effort to combine work and family life. Various attempts to solve this problem, e.g., by active labour market policy, have been doomed to failure due to the existing framework conditions. The alternative role of housewife and mother, which is still promoted in the respective socio-political regulations, also provides an opportunity to escape the pressures of the labour market for a certain amount of time and to postpone having to look for a job. So far, neither the state nor the economy (companies) have made any serious efforts to resolve this dilemma (e.g., by investing in childcare infrastructure, training measures for returners, or skilled part-time jobs).
7 Conclusions
The presented analysis of reconciliation policies in the Nordic countries and in the conservative states shows that such policies can indeed have a positive influence on the development of women's employment integration and on birth rates. But the key requirement in this connection is that the respective policy mix is also consistent with other policy areas. The main characteristic of the Nordic policy mix is the goal to obtain the highest possible employment rates (for men and women), and all other subordinate policy fields are guided by this objective. This was initially based on economic reasons, which means that the competitiveness and financiability of the welfare state took priority, but soon after that these issues also became a starting point for the development of equal opportunity policies.
In the Nordic countries, women's employment integration is not just seen as an accepted necessity but rather as a matter of fact and a goal that is widely welcomed in society. The specific content and implementation of the reconciliation policies in these countries, especially the well-developed care infrastructure, make it possible for women to combine gainful employment and family duties in their everyday lives. Since employment mainly comprises full-time jobs, both in Denmark and Finland, and parents only stay home for a short period of time after birth, women and men are in most cases treated equally on the labour market. In other words, women find it easier to take part in both areas of life, although they still bear more pressure than men in the effort to obtain a work–life balance.
Compared to that, the policy mix in the conservative countries is characterized by the fact that the respective goals tend to be rather ambivalent, which eventually forces women to decide on one of the two areas or otherwise be faced with massive disadvantages on the labour market. Unlike the Nordic countries, the conservative welfare states do not have a generally accepted political objective or any corresponding political measures to promote the integration of women and mothers into gainful employment. On the contrary, women are confronted with contradictory signals from various policy fields, which either encourage employment participation (e.g., by raising the limit for the allowed additional income during paternity leave) or push them to take up mostly atypical or part-time work that will most likely have a negative effect on their prospective careers and on their lifetime income. Family policy is still guided by a family model in which men are the breadwinners and women are primarily seen as caretakers.
The analysis of the regulations pertaining to the transition between family and gainful employment has shown that due to basic socio-economic conditions the consequences of these regulations turn out to be quite different, even in measures with similar orientation. Transferring individual measures and/or gender-specific working time models to and from other welfare states may therefore not have the desired positive effect and could even increase the disadvantages of women. In order to transfer good practices from one context to another, it is necessary to take due account of the key conditions (economic development, distribution of labour within the family) and of the set-up and content of the policy mix as a whole. But what we can learn from the Nordic countries is that the consistency of welfare state regulations and institutions, as well as the incentives and restrictions explicitly or implicitly contained therein, are an important precondition for a successful work–life balance. Ambivalences within the respective policy mix, on the other hand, clearly need to be reduced. It is of course possible that the desired socio-political path is obstructed by country-specific barriers, which are based on controversial cultural or economic ideas. But policies also indirectly influence the behaviour of enterprises and families, since actors and their actions are ultimately shaped by the existing framework conditions. This means that a modification of the basic conditions can eventually lead to a change of the prevailing norms and values. Therefore, the specific set-up of the basic socio-political conditions certainly has a knock-on effect, which – especially if it is integrated into a consistent picture as a whole – can be an important instrument of control.
If the countries are assessed according to the extent to which they have managed to obtain a work–life balance in the sense of equal opportunities and participation of both genders in various areas of life, the Nordic countries have clearly been more successful than Germany and Austria: Women in Finland and Denmark do indeed find it easier to reconcile work and family life. But these countries likewise offer very little incentive for men to engage more extensively in care and family work. In order to reach a true balance between gainful employment and unpaid labour, men will have to be further motivated to share in these duties, and parents who leave their jobs to take care of a child will need to have better legal protection. Compared to the Nordic countries, the possibilities to combine work and family, to return to one's job after taking a parental leave, and to choose freely between gainful employment and family work are still rather limited in Germany and Austria.
To give women and men a realistic chance to be good parents and have a job at the same time, family policy would have to be ‘symmetrical’ (cf. Badelt 1993) and provide both parents with a real opportunity to decide if they would like to take part in or switch between these two areas. This calls for an interplay of different fields, i.e., for a consistent policy mix, which will create appropriate conditions for an equal and mutual compatibility of family life and employment. Hence, the debate on work–life balance cannot – such as is often the case in conservative welfare states – be resolved merely by referring to the existing possibilities of flexible working contracts. Even though the increasing flexibilisation of the labour market has made it easier for many women to find a way to reconcile work and family in their everyday lives, the companies’ need for more flexibilisation and the time-related requirements of women with childcare duties (e.g., school hours, opening hours of childcare facilities) do not necessarily always coincide. Furthermore it may be assumed that due to the power imbalance between the two negotiating parties the compatibility issue will usually take second place. Only if the demands for working conditions that would enable a work–life balance are backed by economic motives (e.g., shortage of workers) can the respective companies be expected to make any efforts in this area. Otherwise it is up to the state to provide for the basic conditions that will make it possible to reconcile job and family life. This requires the state's commitment to promoting female employment and alleviating care-related discrimination. In doing so, the state provides the kind of support that is neither given by the husband or partner nor by the employer. This commitment is, on the one hand, mirrored in the public provision of childcare facilities, but also – like in the Nordic countries – in the fact that the state, as an employer in the public sector, creates conditions for its employees that are more favourable to a successful reconciliation of work and family duties (e.g., by means of flexible working time models, extended leaves, sabbaticals, etc.).
Footnotes
Cf. OECD (2003a).
Analyses pertaining to the implementation and effectiveness of labour market measures within the context of the National Action Plans can be found in the Joint Employment Reports of the EU: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/employment_strategy/employ_en.htm), the annual reports of the Commission regarding gender equity for women and men in the European Union: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/equ_opp/report_en.html), as well as reports by the Expert Group on Gender and Employment of the European Commission: (http://www2.umist.ac.uk/management/ewerc/egge/egge.htm).
The following description derives from the results of the study ‘Learning from the Best’ Interdependencies of Women's Employment Participation and Birth Rates – A Country Comparison (‘Lernen von den Besten’ Interdependenzen von Frauenerwerbsbeteiligung und Geburtenzahlen im Ländervergleich), which was funded by the German Hans Böckler Foundation and the Austrian Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Culture. The study is based on expert interviews conducted in Denmark and Finland, literature research, and analyses of statistical data from OECD and EUROSTAT for each of the four countries examined (cf. Wroblewski and Leitner 2004).
This emphasis on the time immediately after birth seems necessary in this line of questioning. However, this certainly does not mean that regulations that go beyond that (e.g., leave regulations for the care of sick children, supervision and care of school-age children in the afternoon and during vacation time, school entry phase, etc.) are less important for a work–life balance.
Cf. Daly (2000); OECD (2003).
There are three different ideo-typical (idealtypische) welfare state models: The liberal regime, which is characterized by means-tested benefits (bedarfsgeprüfte Fürsorgeleistungen) and a strong market orientation (USA, Canada, Australia), the conservative regime, which has an extensive socio-political system but ultimately aims to uphold market-related differences in status (Germany and Austria), and the social democratic regime, which is characterized by its strong potential for redistribution (Scandinavian countries). Later on, this typology was extended to include the Mediterranean model (southern European countries) (cf. Daly 1996).
Duncan (1998) has refined this typologisation by further dividing the strong breadwinner model into a very strong and a strong breadwinner model.
Here, a differentiation is made between the family economic model, in which a family enterprise is mutually led by women and men, the male breadwinner/female caretaker model, the male breadwinner/female part-time caretaker model, the dual breadwinner/dual caretaker model, and the dual breadwinner public care model.
Since 1990, the core working hours in Denmark have been 37 hours per week.
Child home care allowance; in addition to this basic allowance families with more children and socially disadvantaged families may also get benefits from the respective municipalities (as of 2003).
If there are no acceptable childcare options available, thus making it impossible for one parent to be gainfully employed, he/she is entitled to get compensation for the lack of income. In Helsinki, for instance, it is enough if parents report their need for outside childcare only about three weeks before they plan to go back to work.
This overview of reconciliation policies does not show in detail the differences between the former East and West Germany, thus concealing e.g., the differences between women's employment orientations, or the respective availability of institutional childcare. For more information on the differences between East and West Germany, see e.g., Ludwig et al. (2002); Klammer et al. (2000); Wroblewski and Leitner (2004).
Or 12 weeks after birth in case of multiple birth or delivery by caesarean section.
In Germany, parents are entitled to a child care payment of € 300 per month for 24 months or € 450 per month for 12 months. The child-raising allowance/child benefit/childcare allowance (Erziehungsgeld) is dependent on income and is reduced or discontinued if earnings are higher than the prescribed limit.
There is no legal right to institutional childcare in Austria.
Since part-time work continues to represent a mostly female and marginal form of employment, the transition to a part-time job often goes hand in hand with a change of workplace, company, or profession, and part-time workers are frequently excluded from informal flows of information, professional training measures, or career opportunities.
For example in Austria: the regulations concerning additional incomes during parental leave, tax credits for sole earners and sole providers, non-contributory inclusion of the caregiver in the employed partner's insurance; in Germany: the joint taxation of spouses’ incomes (‘Ehegattensplitting’), tax credits (cf. Dingeldey 2000; Mairhuber 2000).
For more information on parents’ right to part-time employment in Germany, see Holst and Schupp (2000).
According to the legal regulations, the received childcare allowance would have to be paid back in this case. This sanction, however, has not yet been enforced in practice.
Cf. Lutz (2004).
In Denmark, women's average income per hour comes to 89 per cent of men's average earnings, in Finland it is 87 per cent, in Austria 80 per cent, and in Germany 74 per cent (Source: ECHP 1996).
Cf. the analyses based on the Working Conditions Survey of the European Foundation in Wroblewski and Leitner (2004).
The employment rate of women with an education level below Secondary II (unter dem Sekundarbereich II) amounts to 50 per cent in Germany and 49 per cent in Austria. Compared to that, the employment rate of women with a degree or diploma in tertiary education (mit Abschlüssen im Tertiärbereich) is as high as 81 per cent in Germany and 83 per cent in Austria (cf. OECD 2003b).
References
Andrea Leitner studied Economics and Sociology at the University of Graz and the University of Vienna. She works as Researcher at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Vienna in the scientific centre equi – employment – qualification – innovation. Her research interests include gender studies, labour market and education as well as the combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods in social science. Recent publications: Leitner, A. (2004) ‘Overcoming barriers to equal pay in Austria: ambivalent experiences with gender mainstreaming’, in L. Manusson et al. (eds) (2003) Equal Pay and Gender Mainstreaming in the European Employment Strategy. Brüssel, pp. 279–309. Leitner, A. and Wroblewski, A. (forthcoming) ‘What can conservative welfare states learn from the Nordic experience?’.
Angela Wroblewski received her PhD in Sociology at the University of Vienna. She works as Researcher at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Vienna and as a university lecturer at the University of Vienna and the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration. Her research interests include evaluation research, labour market and education as well as the combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods in social science. Recent publications: Wroblewski, A. (2004) ‘More activation – more chances for the unemployed? Changes in Austria's active labour market policy after accessing the European Union’, European Journal of Social Security 6(1): 60–82. Ludwig-Mayerhofer, W. and Wroblewski, A. (2004) ‘Eppur si muove? Activation policies in Austria and Germany’, European Societies 6(4): 485–509.