This article was downloaded by: [Texas State University - San Marcos]On: 19 April 2013, At: 01:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

European SocietiesPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reus20

WELFARE STATE POLICIES ANDTHE DEVELOPMENT OF CAREARRANGEMENTSBirgit Pfau-Effingera Institute for Sociology, University of Hamburg,Hamburg, Germanyb Institute for Sociology, University of Hamburg,Allende-Platz 1, 20146, Hamburg, Germany E-mail:Version of record first published: 01 Sep 2006.

To cite this article: Birgit Pfau-Effinger (2005): WELFARE STATE POLICIES AND THEDEVELOPMENT OF CARE ARRANGEMENTS, European Societies, 7:2, 321-347

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616690500083592

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

WELFARE STATE POLICIES AND THEDEVELOPMENT OF CAREARRANGEMENTS

Birgit Pfau-Ef fingerInstitute for Sociology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

ABSTRACT: In many European welfare states in the last decades, the state

provision of social care services has increased, in part even in spite of

retrenchment policies in other areas of state welfare policies. Informal

childcare has, however, survived everywhere in Europe, until today a

substantial proportion of care is provided informally in the family. The degree

to which informal care has been formalised, and the social rights and state

provision in relation to formal and informal care, differ substantially in

comparison of European societies. In comparative social policy analyses, theexplanatory framework is often based on a kind of evolutionary approach.

According to this argument, the degree of formalisation of informal care is

determined by the degree to which welfare states support gender equality

and the labour market integration of women. It is argued here that such

explanatory framework is not sufficient. It is not taken into consideration

that informal care has itself been modernised: and that the promotion of

informal family care does not necessarily contradict ideas about gender

equality. Within Western Europe, with respect to the role of informal care, atleast two different development paths can be distinguished. Differences with

respect to the underlying family values contribute considerably to the

explanation of such differences. The quality of social rights in relation to

informal care, on the other hand, varies according to the welfare regime and

the underlying welfare values.

Key words: informal care; comparative social policy analyses; family values;

development paths; care arrangements; childcare

1. Introduction

In a considerable number of European societies in the decades after World

War II, the task of childcare and elderly care were mainly organised as

informal care outside the employment system, mainly provided by female

DOI: 10.1080/14616690500083592 321

European Societies7(2) 2005: 321�/347

– 2005Taylor & Francis

Group LtdISSN

1461-6696 print1469-8307 online

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

caregivers inside family. This was often connected with marginalisation ofwomen in relation to formal employment and the social security system.

This has changed in part until the end of the twentieth century. Womenhave been integrated into European labour markets to a higher degree andin part in more equal positions, even though everywhere more or less avertical segregation of labour markets exists in favour of men. At the sametime the tasks of care for children and elderly people have been to aconsiderable part formalised by transfers from the family to otherinstitutions like the public sector, the non-profit sector or the markets.As an employment sector, the social service sector is one of the mostprospering economical sectors in many European countries (OECD 2001).European welfare states had an important impact on these changes. Inmany European countries in the last decades, the state provision of socialcare services has increased, in part even in spite of retrenchment policiesin other areas of welfare state policies; though the public provision ofsocial care services is often still a contested policy area.

Informal care has however survived everywhere in Europe. Until todaya substantial proportion of care is provided informally in the family. Withrespect to the degree to which informal work has been formalised, thereare considerable differences between European societies (for example,Rostgaard 2003; Anttonen and Sipila 2005; Daune-Richard 2005). Suchdifferences are often attributed to differences in relation to welfare stateswhat concerns their efforts to support women’s labour force participationand gender equality. However, the approaches of international comparativeresearch in policies of welfare states towards informal care show, in myopinion, specific limitations on the theoretical level. It is not adequatelytaken into consideration that informal care itself has been modernised, andthat the promotion of informal family care does not necessarily contradictto ideas about gender equality.

In this article, I will use a cross-national analysis of 8 Europeancountries to show how the development of care policies of different welfarestates is embedded in different development paths of cultural values inrelation to informal care. I argue that, in those countries in which informalcare still today plays a substantial role and is supported by welfare statepolicies, this is not necessarily caused by a traditional and backwardoriented welfare state policy which hinders the formalisation of social care.Instead, in a specific development path, the care policies of the welfarestates reflect that informal care plays an important role also in themodernised cultural concept of the family and of gender equality. In suchcases it is no longer seen as an element of the housewife model of thefamily but more as temporary stage in an otherwise employment centredlife course of parents. In these cases the development of new social rightswhich are connected to informal care, besides social rights connected to

322

EUROPEAN SOCIETIES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

public care provision, are of substantial importance for a ‘progressive’care policy.

Part 2 is a critical discussion of current theoretical approaches to aninternational comparison of care policies of welfare states. Part 3 presents atheoretical framework which permits the change in these policies to beanalysed and explained in a cultural context. Against this background Part4 analyses the changes in policy towards informal care of several Europeanwelfare states in the 1980s and 90s, which changes, I shall argue,proceeded along two clearly differing lines or paths. Part 4 offers somebrief conclusions.

2. Theoretical Approaches to a Comparative Analysis of Care Policies ofEuropean Welfare States

An important impetus for international comparative analysis of welfarestate policies was given by works of the Scandinavian author Esping-Andersen (1990, 1999). His analysis focussed on how varying types ofwelfare state policy result in different forms of social inequality, and onthat basis he distinguished between the social-democratic, the conservativeand the liberal types of welfare regime. In this, he drew connectionsbetween assumptions about how welfare states influence the structure ofsocial inequality among groups of employed people, with assumptionsabout their impact on the family. How he connects the two aspects isbriefly sketched as follows. The quality of the social rights formed on thebasis of differing cultural ideals in each case, is determinant for the socialstructuring in the relations between different social groups of employedpeople.1 In the social-democratic welfare regime social rights, based oncultural principles of egalitarianism and solidarity, are correspondinglyuniversally posited and of high quality. Its policies tend to try to achievethe levelling of social hierarchies. The liberal welfare regime incomparison is based on neo-liberal ideas about individual responsibilityand a largely laissez-faire state policy towards markets; consequently socialrights are comparatively low quality, which tends to cause socio-structuralpolarisation among groups of the employed. Finally, the conservativewelfare regime tries with its policies to reproduce the existing hierarchical

1. The concept of ‘social rights’ comes from the theory by T. H. Marshall (1992) about

the historical development of citizenship. In it, the history of modern societies is seen

as a process, in the course of which people were able to extend their basic rights.

Feminist researchers used Marshall’s theory in part as a foil to articulate inequalities

and injustices in the rights of women and men which result from the special situation

of women in many countries, i.e. that they are mainly responsible for caring tasks (see

also, especially, Siim 2000; Lister 2003).

323

Care Arrangements PFAU-EFFINGER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

structure of social inequality among groups of the employed; here, socialrights are of medium quality and essentially limited to employed people.These differences, Esping-Andersen (1990, 1999) argues, go hand in handwith specific differences in the way in which the state intervenes in thelabour-market and in the family, and also, especially, with respect to theextent in which it promotes the formalisation of care. Thus in the social-democratic welfare regime women tend to be fully integrated intoemployed activity, on the basis of a strongly developed state social servicesector and a comprehensive formalisation of informal care. Conservativewelfare regimes promote, rather than the participation of women inemployment, unpaid informal care in the family instead, based onfinancial transfers; liberal welfare states tend to produce high levels ofwomen’s employment, made possible by childcare services offered on themarket and accessible practically only to the middle classes.

Esping-Andersen’s approach contains important starting points for theexplanation of the differences in care policies of welfare states, and todaystill forms a central theoretical framework for international comparativesocial-policy research. Its assumptions however, about the way in whichthe regime types and care policies of welfare states are related, have shownthemselves to be problematic. For care policies are no longer adequatelydescribed by Esping-Andersen’s concept which he has outlined more inhis works (1990, 1999). Care policies did never and actually do not varysystematically with the type of welfare regime, and partially theirdifferences relate in another way to the regime types. For exampleNorway, whose welfare state Esping-Andersen classified as social-demo-cratic, for a long time was characterised by relatively low levels of women’semployment (Ellingsaeter 1999; Leira 1992, 2002). Conversely, Franceshows a traditionally high state support of women’s employment by thewelfare state (Daune-Richard 1998), though its welfare state is charac-terised as a ‘conservative welfare regime’, and correspondingly, theemployment level for women should be rather low. Moreover, in Germany,after substantial change of family structures, the welfare state also hasextended public childcare provision to a substantial degree. Therefore, thecare policies are no longer adequately described by Esping-Andersen’sdescription of a ‘conservative’ welfare regime (Pfau-Effinger 2004a).

In feminist social policy analyses, various approaches have beendeveloped which have classified welfare states according to their carepolicies. What should be particularly mentioned here is the approach ofJane Lewis in which she differentiated between weak, moderate and strongmale breadwinner states (i.e. Lewis 1992, 1999; Lewis and Ostner 1994).Also, changes in the social policies towards ‘care’ have been analysed(for example, Siim 2000; Lewis 2002; Rostgaard 2002; Meyer 2004).However, less effort has been placed to develop an explanatory framework

324

EUROPEAN SOCIETIES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

for cross-national analyses. Often, in the cross-national research on care

policies, a kind of evolutionary approach is prevailing according state

policies towards the formalisation of informal care is a dependent variable

of state policies towards gender equality and labour force integration of

women. The main argument is that the more efforts are put in the

promotion of gender equality by the welfare state, the higher is the degree

of formalisation of care. According to this type of argument, a relatively

high proportion of informal care in a country indicates a more ‘traditional’

welfare state which is lagging behind the more advanced ‘women-friendly’

welfare states which substantially support the integration of women into

employment by a high provision of public, formalised care (for example,

Siim 2000). In as far as approaches to this have been elaborated, mainly

the strength of the Women’s Movement as an important factor (e.g.,

Mosesdottir 1999; Siim 2000).However, this explanatory framework is not sufficient. It does not take

account the fact that informal care is not on the way to die out but has

itself been modernised.2 Informal care is no longer connected with the

housewife model of the family and the social exclusion of the housewife

from the labour market. Instead, it is more often part of a temporary life

stage in a life course, which is otherwise characterised by integration into

waged work. The forms in which it is provided here have also changed,

however. New patterns of social care have been established by new

combinations of waged work with informal care in the family during the

life course, like part-time work and periods of parental leave. Moreover,

also within the family in part new forms of the gender division of care

responsibilities have developed. In general, a new type of home-caring

parent has emerged, treating home-care as a transitional stage of the life

course, with new patterns of sequential or actual combinations of formal

employment and informal care. These patterns are also supported by

welfare states. In part, also the social rights of parents who care at home

were extended (Knijn and Kremer 1997; Geissler and Pfau-Effinger

2005). Parental leave schemes were for example introduced which are often

connected with childcare allowances and social security, and which created

new options for caring parents during the leave to keep their work contract

and which guarantee the right to labour market integration after the end of

the leave (Knijn and Kremer 1997).Though the results were sometimes also contradictory, for in most

countries women still are the main providers of informal care, men were

not to an equal degree integrated into the family as carers. Accordingly, a

2. A further insufficiency is found in the assumptions about the way welfare state policy

affects the social actions of women (see Duncan 1998; Bang et al . 2000).

325

Care Arrangements PFAU-EFFINGER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

gender segregation of labour markets in favour of men has survived inmany countries (Rubery et al . 2001).

It is possible to distinguish very roughly at least two differentdevelopment paths of care arrangements in Western European countriesin which informal care plays a differing role, also in the cultural conceptsin relation to gender equality. The first is based on a �/ traditionally �/

relatively modest role of informal care in the dominant family models,whereas the second is based on a �/ traditionally �/ relatively highimportance which is attributed to informal family care and on amodernisation of the dominant family model where in the modernisedversion elements of the ‘home caring society’ have survived and informalfamily care is still given an important role, even in cultural concepts ofgender equality.

3. Comparison of Care Policies in the Context of European Societies

I propose broadening the theoretical framework for the internationalcomparative study of welfare state policy towards care, on the premise thatwelfare state policy stands in a particular mutual relationship to thecultural and structural dimensions, to other institutions, and to the actionsof the social actors in the given ‘care arrangement’ (see Pfau-Effinger2004a,b).

The theoretical approach of the ‘care arrangement’

The theoretical approach of the ‘care arrangement’ is here briefly sketchedas follows. The care arrangement is an interrelation between the culturalvalues about care, the relevant sense-constructions in a given societysurrounding informal and formal care, and the way institutions like thewelfare state, the family, the labour market and the non-profit sector aswell as social structures frame informal and formal care (see Figure 1).

It is presumed that in every modern society there is at least one suchcare arrangement, based on the given dominating values and culturalimages surrounding formal and informal care, and with time it is eitherreproduced or changed by the relevant social actors through the process ofongoing conflict, discourse, negotiation and compromise. The influence ofcultural values appears on various societal levels: in the social structuresand societal institutions, in public discourse between the collectiveactors as well as among individuals, in their orientations and values. Inemphasizing the mutual relations between cultural, institutional andstructural levels and the actions of the social actors, I am referring totheoretical premises of Max Weber, David Lockwood (1964) and Margaret

326

EUROPEAN SOCIETIES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

Archer (1995), in which the conceptualisation of these interrelations

is considered the basis for analysing social change. The respectivecare arrangement, and its history, overlaps in specific ways with the

gender arrangement (Pfau-Effinger 1999, 2004a) and the welfare regime(Esping-Andersen 1990, 1999) of the specific society.

A care arrangement can be firmly established and coherent in the longterm if its cultural foundations are anchored as norms on the level of

societal institutions, and form the basis of the social actors’ behaviour. Itcan of course happen, as a result of general processes of social and cultural

change, that the degree of cultural and social integration of the carearrangement declines, and then the possibilities for social or cultural

change in the arrangement increase. A transformation occurs mainly whencontradictions in the arrangement are seized upon by certain social actors

who try to bring about change. The care arrangement can in that casebecome the object of conflict and negotiation processes over innovativecultural models or new institutional arrangements. A particular driving

force in the care arrangement transformation of the second half of thetwentieth century was the role of the Women’s Movement and women’s

organisations, who made social care a central issue of gender equality,and demanded for a higher degree of public provision of childcare.

Also relevant was change in the social practices of large groups ofunorganised women, the ‘primary actors’ after Margaret Archer (1995;

Pfau-Effinger 2004a).New arrangements after transformation are not necessarily based on

completely new models, values and institutional requirements, but ratherstill contain elements of the old models and institutions. Usually the

transformation proceeds therefore generally ‘path-dependent’, where bothhistorical continuities and breaks with tradition determine the further

progress of the change. This is because the social actors in the process arestill behaving under the effect of the structures and models they havebetrayed. The direction of the transformation is thus not predetermined,

but since generally elements of continuity are at work, not free either(Pfau-Effinger 2005).

The welfare state plays a key role in the propagation of the carearrangement in modern Western European societies. Its policies stand in

specific mutual relationships to other central institutions of society whichare relevant for the degree to which social care is formalised, such as the

labour market and family, as well as to the cultural values with respect tocare. The relationships can be orderly, contradictory, or asynchronous

in character.Welfare policies towards care within a care arrangement are mainly

based on two types of values:

327

Care Arrangements PFAU-EFFINGER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

�/ family values: cultural values and notions with respect to the structure

of the family and the gender division of labour,�/ welfare values: cultural values and notions with respect to the main

sphere for the provision of welfare in society.

Family values �/ cultural values in relation to differing dimensions of the

family �/ are connected in specific ways and form specific ‘family models’

(Pfau-Effinger 1999, 2004a). Within such family models values about what

is a ‘good’ or ‘adequate’ childhood are combined with values in relation to

the adequate division of labour within the family and between family and

the employment system. They thus imply suppositions about how the

family with its caring tasks should function with other societal institutions.

They can be characterised by the central cultural ideas about the role of thefamily via other societal institutions for the provision of care. To which

degree is the family seen as mainly responsible for providing care, and who

in the family? And how is this linked with values in relation to the gender

division of labour and gender hierarchy or gender equality? It is possible

that one specific family model is dominant in a society, or that different

family models co-exist.3

international and supranational level

cultural values and models- values/models in relation to family,

gender and care- welfare values- ...

collective/primaryActors

share offormal andinformalchildcare

welfare-statepolicies towards

formal and informalchildcare

social system

• welfare stateinstitutions

• other centralinstitutionsof society(like labourmarket, family,market, non-profit sector)

social structures- social inequality

(class, gender,ethnicity, regionetc.)

- power relations- division of labour

Figure 1. Welfare state policies towards childcare in the framework of the carearrangement.

3. Also, the ideas about childcare and elderly care may differ in important respects.

328

EUROPEAN SOCIETIES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

In former publications I have developed a classification of different

cultural models about the family and the way it is related with gender and

care (Pfau-Effinger 1998, 1999, 2004a). Accordingly, the following family

models can be distinguished in the development in Western Europe,

which were significant for the development of care policy in the last

decades since the middle of the twentieth century.

. the family economy model , which was and is mainly spread in agrarian

and craft families in which care was not well developed as a specific

task, allocated to specific persons and needing specific skills,. the housewife model of the male breadwinner family in which care was

seen as the specific task of the housewife which did not need specific

skills but was seen as based on quasi natural skills,. the male breadwinner/female part-time carer model which is based on

the idea that the family, and particularly women inside the

family, should share the task of caring with other institutions

outside the family like the welfare state, the market or the non-profit

sector,. the dual breadwinner/external model which is based on the assumption

that care should mainly be provided by institutions outside the family,

like the welfare state, the market or the non-profit sector,. the dual breadwinner/dual carer model , which is based on the

assumption that women and men who equally share the tasks of

caring inside the family should share this with other institutions

outside the family like the welfare state, the market or the non-profit

sector.

Policies of welfare states towards formal and informal care, and their paths

of development can, I would argue, be comparatively analysed and typed

on the basis of the given cultural values in relation to the family and care

upon which they rest. It should be noted that the ways in which welfare

state policies are interrelated with such cultural ideas can differ in the

time-space context, and the relation can be orderly or display discrepan-

cies and delays. The way, in which new cultural models, having developed

at a given time in the population, are dealt with at the governmental level,

is strongly influenced by the conflict and negotiation processes taking

place in the arena of the social actors.The differences between the main cultural values about the family and

care to which the given welfare state policy ultimately refers is an

important basis for explaining why these policies vary on the international

scale. Welfare values on the other hand are relevant for the question of

which institution is seen as mainly responsible if care is provided outside

329

Care Arrangements PFAU-EFFINGER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

the family, and they are also related to the degree of generosity of welfarestate provision and social rights.

4. Comparative Analysis of Welfare State Policies in a Cultural Context on theBasis of Eight Country Studies

In the following the theoretical framework outlined above will be used toanalyse processes of policy transformation in European welfare states inthe 1980s and 1990s. Eight countries will be considered on the basis ofcomparative case studies: Sweden, Finland, Norway, France, The Nether-lands, Great Britain and Western Germany,4,5 My central thesis is thatcultural differences are an important factor understanding the varyingpaths of development of care policy.6 Care policy can be explained in thecontext of the developmental path of the cultural basis of the family on theone hand, and of the cultural basis of the given welfare regime on theother. In this the idea of Esping-Andersen (1990) is taken up, after whichthe welfare regimes can be understood as different types of welfare statearrangements based in each case on the specific cultural foundations ofsocial integration. This proposal is in some respects a further developmentof an approach which was developed by Duncan (1998) and which theauthor called the ‘genderfare-model’. In his model, the author pairs thegiven welfare states with family-models by using the results of empiricalcross-national research.7

First, the evolution during the latter half of the twentieth century of thecultural basis of care arrangements with respect to the family values ineach of the countries studied will be examined.

4. For a comparison of the differing development paths of the care arrangements in East

and West Germany see Pfau-Effinger and Geissler 2002.

5. Because the change in cultural orientation of women and men concerning

employment could be only insufficiently demonstrated on the basis of previously

existing, internationally comparative attitude questionnaires, in the following I shall

present the cultural context essentially using country-specific case studies, consisting

of country-specific data and questionnaire results, as well as a secondary analysis of

empirical studies.

6. Beyond the interrelation between welfare state gender policy and the family, its

relation to other societal institutions such as the labour market and the educational

system will be largely overlooked in the present analysis.

7. Simon S. Duncan has developed the ‘genderfare-model’ approach in order to use it

for cross-national as well as for cross-regional comparison. Since welfare state policies

are being focussed upon, the question of inner cultural differentiation, on the basis for

example of region or social milieu, will be considered here only to the extent that a

clearly recognizable influence on welfare state policies at the general societal level can

be ascribed to them.

330

EUROPEAN SOCIETIES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

4.1. Change in the cultural basis of the care arrangement

The care arrangements of the countries studied changed during the post-war period along two differing cultural paths of development in relation tofamily values.

The first path of development: Modernisation of the male breadwinner model ofthe family

The first path of development is characterised by a fundamental culturaltransformation, and exhibits a relatively high degree of dynamic change. Itappears in Great Britain, Norway, The Netherlands and WesternGermany, where long into the post war period the housewife-modelof the male breadwinner family maintained strong cultural predomi-nance.8

This latter model is based on the premise of a fundamental separationof the ‘public’ and ‘private’ spheres, and a corollary location for bothgenders: the husband’s proper work is in the ‘public’ sphere, while thehousewife is responsible for the private household and childcare; herfinancial security exists on the basis of the husband’s income. This modelalso is linked with the cultural construction of ‘childhood’, after whichchildren need special care and comprehensive individual tutelage of themother in the private household.

In the above countries a process continuing from the 1980s to the endof the 1990s considerably weakened the central position of the traditionalfamily model as the cultural basis for the care arrangement. Thistransformation, which generally had already begun in the 1960s, wasinitiated principally when a fundamental contradiction at the culturallevel had come to a head: essentially, the contradiction between thecultural construct of autonomous and equal citizens of modern industrialsocieties on the one hand, and the cultural construct of the inequalityand dependence of the housewife-model on the other. Besides this, therewere also alternative family models available on the cultural level; thesehad filtered down from the new, international feminist discourse into thefeminist discussion taking place at the respective national level.Particularly significant was that these contradictions were seized uponby newly forming feminist movements (Pfau-Effinger 2004a). The oldfamily economy model as dominant cultural image was increasingly

8. For Great Britain see: Fox Harding 1996, Dasko 2000; Norway: Leira 1992,

Ellingsaeter 1999; the Netherlands: Pott-Buter 1993, Plantenga 1996, Knijn 1994,

Western Germany: Sommerkorn 1988, Pfau-Effinger and Geissler 1992; Pfau-

Effinger 2004a.

331

Care Arrangements PFAU-EFFINGER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

replaced by the ‘male breadwinner/female part-time carer model’ of the

family.9 This model rests essentially on the vision of full integration of

women and men into paid economic activity. In it, however, it is

expected that women, as mothers, may interrupt their gainful activity for

a few years, after which they combine employment and responsibility for

childcare through part-time work, until their children are no longer

considered to require particular care. As for example findings of a

representative attitude survey which was conducted by the Institut fur

Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung 2001 show, also at the beginning of

the twenty-first century the most popular cultural model of the family in

West Germany is based on the marriage of a male breadwinner and a

female part-time carer (Engelbrech and Jungkunst 2001). About two-

thirds of all respondents opted for this model. The housewife model

with one partner full-time employed, the other not employed was

supported by about 14 per cent, whereas only a rather small group opted

for one of the family models which are based on an equal share of

women and men in waged work (7 per cent for both partners full-time, 7

per cent for both partners half-time, see Engelbrech and Jungkunst

2001)This change went further still in The Netherlands and Norway, where

an egalitarian ‘dual breadwinner/dual carer model’ became established

and increasingly gained importance. In this model it is considered

desirable that both parents be employed part-time and share a part of

the childcare between themselves, while entrusting the other part to an

institution outside the family.10 The findings of a representative survey

(conducted in 1999 and 2002) by the SCP (Social een Cultureel

Planbuereau 2002) for example are very illuminating concerning the

actual development of the cultural basis of the care arrangement in The

Netherlands. Adults with partners and mothers with children aged

between 9 and 12 were asked which forms of labour force participation

they prefer to themselves and their partners. In general it is obvious that

the majority of women (63 per cent) and men (68 per cent) preferred an

egalitarian model. The most popular one was the ‘half-and-half bread-

winner’ model where both partners work part-time.

9. For Western Germany see Geissler and Oechsle 1996, Pfau-Effinger 2004a; for

Great Britain see Crompton 1998, Fox Harding 1996, Dasko 2000, Daune-Richard

1998. Even if this model in these countries today has the greatest significance, that

does not preclude that still other family models exist and influence behavior.

10. For the Netherlands see: Pott-Buter 1993, Plantenga 1996, 2003, Knijn 1994, 1999,

Moree 1992, van Oorschot 2001, Voet 1998; for Norway see: Leira 1992, 2002;

Ellingsaeter 1999, Waerness 1999.

332

EUROPEAN SOCIETIES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

The new cultural models for family and gender relations arecharacterised in all four countries by the expectation that the mothershould be employed, but also by the idea that the ‘private’ childhoodshould still play an important role in family life.

As an effect of these transformations in the care arrangements in thesecountries, the structures of the gender division of labour have also changedconsiderably. The employment activity of mothers has broadened greatly,usually taking place as a sequence of employment interruptions and part-time work (Fagan et al . 1999). The countries in this group are amongthose in which the percentage of women who work part-time for familyreasons at the end of the 1990s was highest in a EU comparison (for TheNetherlands 37 per cent, Great Britain and Germany each 24 per cent).It is characteristic of part-time work in these countries that in general ithas the extent of half-day employment, or just somewhat less, in terms oftime. Correspondingly in these countries the amount of care, which takesplace at home, was near the top in European comparison in the late 1990s(European Commission 1998: 12).

The changed value-orientations in The Netherlands and Norway, wherethe cultural construct of ‘fatherhood’ was part of the general transforma-tion, have up to now been put into actual social practice by far morewomen than men; at that level therefore the tendency of the malebreadwinner/female part-time carer model of the family is still dominant,although in The Netherlands in the meantime an increasing number offathers of small children work part-time (Plantenga 2003).

The cultural change in the care arrangement was interrelated withgeneral processes of cultural change; this has led to a positive reassessmentof the value of individual autonomy (Beck 1992). Thus the new carearrangement model based on a ‘modernized breadwinner model’ has somedefinitely contradictory aspects, e.g., the financial dependence taken on bya woman who cares for her own children, collides with the high culturalesteem enjoyed by autonomous financial security. This is a possible pointof departure for further cultural change.

Second path of development: the dual breadwinner family model

In societies where the care arrangement in recent years has changed alongthe second path of development �/ that is, in France, Denmark, Swedenand Finland �/ the ‘dual breadwinner/external childcare model’ is actuallydominant and was already predominant by the beginning of the periodstudied.11 The model posits that, as a principle, all women as well as men

11. The common features can be explained by similarities in historical development,

such the role of the urban bourgeoisie in history. For a socio-historical explanatory

model of the author see Pfau-Effinger 2004b.

333

Care Arrangements PFAU-EFFINGER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

can be full-time employed, and that childcare is essentially the

responsibility of institutions outside of the family. In the above countries

the state is seen as primarily responsible for organizing access to these

services.12 Today this model is the framework for the social practice of

women and men and the structure of the gender division of labour in these

countries. These countries traditionally already had above-average full-

time employment levels for women (OECD 2000), and the number of

women who work only part-time for family reasons is generally low (in

Denmark 6 per cent, France 7 per cent at the end of the 1990s (European

Commission 1998: 12). Although the number of part-time working

mothers in Sweden was clearly greater, the part-time jobs here usually

have a high number of hours and tend to resemble full-time positions with

somewhat fewer hours (Daune-Richard 1998, 2005).Differences also exist among these countries with respect to the extent

of the egalitarian character of the new family model. In France the

dominant model assigns the responsibility for informal care work

unilaterally to the woman (Hantrais 1996; Daune-Richard 1998, 2005;

Fagnani and Letablier 2005).13 The Finnish, Swedish and Danish family

models by contrast result from an egalitarian cultural image of the family,

after which couples should equally divide family responsibilities �/ even if

structures relating to the gender division of labour in families are partially

still far from this ideal (Anttonen 1997; Gordon and Kauppinen 1997;

Daune-Richard 1998; Eydal 2005; Lewis 1998; Siim 2000). According to a

representative attitude survey by the Statistical Office of Finland 1998 for

example, it is a self-evident fact from the perspective of most Finns that

‘married women have the full right to work whatever their family

situation’, 91 percent of Finnish women and 88 per cent of men agreed

with this statement. The male breadwinner role of men, which is still

rather common in West Germany for example, in contrast, is not very

popular: the great majority of women (74 per cent) do not support this

role model, whereas the proportion of men who object to this model is not

nearly as high (60 percent) (Melkas 2002: 11).

12. For France see: Hantrais 1996, Daune-Richard 1998, Martin 2001; Veil 1997; for

Denmark see: Borchorst 1994, Jensen 1996, Siim 2000; for Sweden see: Anttonen

1997, Hirdman 1994, Szebehely 1999, Daune-Richard 1998, Veil 1997; for Finland

see: Anttonen 1997, Gordon and Kauppinen 1997; Julkunen 1999, Julkunen/Natti

2002.

13. Part-time work, in the sense of a definite reduction in the work- week, has hardly any

significance in this model. In France in the 1990’s women’s part-time work was

indeed on the rise, but this occurred mainly upon the initiative of employers, and

part-time work is often not freely chosen by women themselves (see Daune-Richard

1998).

334

EUROPEAN SOCIETIES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

The change in the cultural foundations of the care arrangement was inthese countries clearly less apparent than in those, which followed the firstpath of development. In general one can say that where this model by theearly 1980s had begun to be established as a more or less egalitarian model,as in Finland, Denmark and Sweden, the egalitarian ideals have in themeantime become permanent practice. In France it was apparently aboveall women who developed the stronger egalitarian ideals, especially withregard to the household division of labour. These ideals are howevereven today still contested in French society; apparently also amongdifferent social groups there are marked differences of opinion aboutwhether it be desirable to enhance the societal standing of motherhood, or,encourage the partner-based division of family tasks (Daune-Richard1998; Veil 1997, 2000).

To conclude: West-European care arrangements have by and largechanged along two different cultural paths, and these differ fundamentallyaccording to the cultural situation found in different countries after theSecond World War. Important cultural differences exist today surroundingthe value of informal family childcare by the mother or both parents andquestion of whether mothers should work part or full-time.

4.2. The transformation of welfare state care policies

To understand the evolution of welfare state policies towards informalcare, it is fundamentally important to analyse them within the context ofthe particular path of development of the respective care arrangement andthe underlying family values on one hand, in the context of differingwelfare regimes and the underlying welfare values on the other.

First path of development: care policies in the context of the culturalmodernisation of the male breadwinner model

Traditionally welfare states whose policies rested on the housewife modelof the male breadwinner model incorporated men as individual citizensand employees who could pay into their social insurance system. Marriedwomen by contrast were included only as family members, i.e. as wivesand mothers.

The welfare states of societies where development can be characterisedas ‘modernisation of the male breadwinner family model’ were confrontedwith specific new demands by cultural and structural changes in the familyand gender division of labour of the last two decades of the twentiethcentury. A number of socio-political measures enacted by these welfarestates in the last 15 years can be seen as attempts to adjust to the new

335

Care Arrangements PFAU-EFFINGER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

challenges �/ although some are thoroughly contradictory to that end. Andalong this path of development, the policies of the different welfare statesalso vary, being dependent on the given welfare regime and its culturalfoundations.

The British welfare state is organised after the liberal welfare regimetype; the responsibility for childcare is considered essentially a privatematter within the family, and public childcare services have hardly beendeveloped (Daycare Trust 1999; Siim 2005). As Jane Lewis has argued,the policies of the British welfare state are based on the (unrealistic)assumption that all adults follow the pattern of life-long full-timeemployment according to the ‘adult worker model’ (Lewis 2003). Theinsufficient provision of public, affordable childcare began to be publiclydiscussed as a social problem in the latter 1990s (Daycare Trust 1999).The European Commission has strongly supported the demand for theexpansion of state childcare facilities there, and meanwhile the Blairgovernment has undertaken a moderate broadening of the services on offer(Meyer and Pfau-Effinger 2005). Nevertheless, Great Britain is stillamong EU members with a particularly low level of state support forchildcare (Lewis 2002; Daune-Richard 2005). Job leave possibilities forparents who take over childcare are limited to the relatively short period ofmaternal leave, only partly paid, and not accessible to all women (Daune-Richard 1998). Therefore essentially only the financial dependency of themale breadwinner can enable mothers to practice the ‘male breadwinner/female part-time carer model’. In light of such a state policy, the ideal ofrealizing compatibility between family tasks and employment for womenis especially problematic and rife with contradiction (Dingeldey 2000;Lewis 2002).

In the ‘conservative’ West German welfare state by comparison, haltingattempts at a transformation of care policies are visible: employment ofwomen is generally promoted, and the public provision of childcare wassubstantially expanded (Esch and Stober-Blossey 2002). Also, at the end ofthe 1990s social security for part-time work was improved by fullyincluding all employment types within social security insurance coverage.Also, in the middle 1990s an individual social right to kindergarten forchildren between three and six years was introduced, even though only aspart-time care, as long as parents did not apply for full-time care.Regulations for parents’ leave, existing since the middle 1980s, made itpossible for parents who take leave for childcare �/ as a rule, women �/ tokeep their earlier jobs. Forms of payment for home childcare by parentswere also introduced. However, the low amounts of children’s benefitallowances and the fact that they are paid only to low-income familiesassured that the principle of financial dependence of mother-carers upontheir ‘male breadwinners’ was not fundamentally changed. Finally, time

336

EUROPEAN SOCIETIES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

spent on child care is, though to a limited extent, to be taken into thecalculation basis for pension claims (Meyer and Pfau-Effinger 2005; Veil2003). An important element in re-structuring individual social security isthe new parental leave law in power since 2001, which allows thepossibility of combining parental leave with part-time work of up to30 hours. Nevertheless the German welfare state still largely reckons withthe predominance of informal family childcare as a main source ofchildcare provision, particularly for children under three years. Policy isstill based more on income-transfers to families than on an extensive offerof social care services, and more still on the material and social security ofmothers in the framework of the male breadwinner model, than onindividual social rights of those who care for their children at home(Geissler 1997; Ostner 1999; Dingeldey 2000). Because of discontinuitiesand contradictions in cultural and political developments, West Germanwomen up until now have been often unable, or only incompletely andwith risks to their social security, to put the new gender-cultural modelsinto social practice.

The greatest progress in restructuring family policy in the directionof individualised, egalitarian dual breadwinner models with partner-shared childcare show the two welfare states of the social-democratictype after Esping-Andersen, i.e. The Netherlands and Norway, even ifthese countries reacted only with considerable delay to the culturaltransformation (Plantenga 1996; Ellingsaeter 1999; Waerness 1999; Leira2001).14

In these countries the number of public childcare facilities was stillparticularly low until the middle 1980s (Leira 1992; Bussemaker 1998;Voet 1998). Both states began however extensive development of socialcare services in the second half of the 1980s in spite of financial crises(above all caused by the labour market), and were at the end of twentiethcentury among the European countries with the most developed childcareinfrastructure (European Commission 1998). This policy can be assessedas the response to cultural change and to the great general increase inemployment, and contributed to a further increase in women’s employ-ment. Furthermore the possibilities for parents’ part-time work werepromoted extensively; in both countries this was related to change in thepatterns of job-hours of both parents and was an explicit part of a policy ofequality (Plantenga 1996; Ellingsaeter 1999), while in Germany part-timework was mainly considered to be a possible solution to women’s problems

14. This description of the Dutch welfare state as a social democratic welfare state is not

however undisputed. Some authors like Bussemaker and Kersbergen (1994) have

argued that it exhibits, besides social-democratic, liberal and conservative features. It

seems therefore adequate to talk about a ‘mixed’ welfare regime.

337

Care Arrangements PFAU-EFFINGER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

to balance employment and family responsibilities (Pfau-Effinger 2004a).Because the social security systems of the first two countries includea universal minimum retirement pension, the interruption of employmentand part-time employment there has much less serious consequences forthe individual’s social security than in Germany, where the typicallyfemale employment history still always carries the risk of old-age poverty(Veil 1997).

The expansion of part-time employment in these welfare statesoccurred in the context of change in the institutional structuressurrounding parenthood. This meant that in principle there was alsoa departure from the male norm of the full-time, lifelong employmentcareer. The measures taken by the Norwegian welfare state to thisend were especially far-reaching: the most important instrumentswere promotion of flexible periods for parenting and introduction of aparental leave scheme in which a nearly full replacement income waspaid. This leave can also be combined with part-time work. Thatmeant that home caring parents usually receive financial transfers bythe state below the subsistence level. Besides this a special leave for fathers�/ non-transferable to mothers �/ was also introduced. Of course thefact that labour-market structures in the areas of the private eco-nomy dominated by men, as before, are geared to normal employmentrelationships, caused the realisation of the gender equality model toremain �/ in social practice �/ in its beginning stages (Ellingsaeter 1999;Leira 2001).

In general it can be said that in the conservative West German welfareregime as well as in the social-democratic welfare states of Norway andThe Netherlands, a restructuring of family policy was being carried out.In all cases the housewife model with its edifice of dependencies, as thefocal point for policy, was gradually replaced through greater promotion ofequality in gender relations and the enhancement of individual autonomyfor women. There were however clear differences among countries in theextent of the change. In the conservative welfare regime of West Germany,the unpaid care of mothers is still an important basis for the production ofwelfare, and as before requires a great deal of financial dependency in themarriage. In the ‘mixed’ welfare regime of the Dutch welfare state incontrast there were far-seeing attempts to encourage the symmetry inthe share of employment and informal family childcare of parents.A departure from marriage as the fundamental unit of societal integrationand existential security was here however much less promoted than inNorway, where social rights stem from the individual, and individual socialsecurity is a central aim of welfare state policy (Alestalo and Kuhnle 1991;Leira 2001).

338

EUROPEAN SOCIETIES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

Second path of development: Restructuring family policy on the basis of thedual breadwinner model and state childcare

In the development of welfare state policy in the countries whose carearrangements have changed by the second path, there was increasingly thetendency �/ even if welfare states generally were in crisis �/ that demandsfor women’s equality were recognised and supported by the promotion ofthe expansion of the public childcare provision.

According to regime type of welfare state policy, social rights arevaryingly constructed as family-oriented, or individual. In France, whichEsping-Andersen (1990, 1999) classifies as a conservative welfare regime,the family is seen as the main unit to which social rights primarily refer(Daune-Richard 1998; Veil 1997, 2000; Siim 2000), while in the threesocial-democratic regimes of Sweden, Finland and Denmark, social rightsare established as individual rights (Siim 2000). But at the same timeFrench family policy since 1977 provides parents with generous, universaland not need-based childcare payments, and thus exhibits social-demo-cratic features. The payments, paid at the birth of a second and everyfollowing child, make it possible for mothers to stay at home or work part-time until a child reaches age three, as a basic income is assured. Howeverthis possibility is taken advantage of by only few women, even by thosewho have two children, although only about one-half of children underthree are in public childcare. For continuation of employment has becomea self-evident cultural pattern, even after the birth of a second child andlonger (Daune-Richard 2005; Maruani 2000; Fagnani and Letablier 2005).France also had a tradition of extensive state childcare, which since the1970s has been in further expansion. The evolution of state care policiesduring the 1980s, especially after the election of Mitterand, was marked bya shift towards promoting gender equality (Martin et al . 1999). Since thenhowever the emphasis of French state family policy is still rather onpromoting natality and motherhood, than on the real achievement ofequality in the family. It seems however that the idea of the egalitariandivision of labour in the family apparently has not been supported by amajority of the population until recently (Daune-Richard 1998, 2005).

Welfare states with a social-democratic orientation had introduced anextensive system of public childcare facilities mainly in the 1960s. This canbe seen as a reaction to the cultural transformation and the demands ofwomen to integration into the employment system in transition toindustrial society, in as far as they were articulated in a political setting(Siim 2000). In Sweden also by the 1970s an exemplary parental leavescheme model had been established, which offered parents generous andflexible leave options and a replacement income for the greater part oftheir leave period (Pfau-Effinger and Geissler 1992). In Sweden and

339

Care Arrangements PFAU-EFFINGER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

Finland the goal of full employment integration of women was achieved inthe 1980s, and thereafter, even in the labour-market crisis of the 1990s,never fundamentally threatened. Besides that, on the level of educationalpolicy at that time, an expansion of university programmes was under-taken, in which in the intervening years women have participated to aclearly greater extent than men (Nordic Council of Ministers 1996;Koistinen 1999; Daune-Richard and Mahon 1997). Even in the crisisperiod of the welfare state, social rights with regard to childcare and accessto public childcare facilities were, in general, still being extended (Siim2000). In Sweden for example, after the restructuring of the childcareinfrastructure there was a decrease in the amount of unpaid care in thefamily, as well as in the (already low) amount of privately paidand unregulated market-sector childcare work, while participation instate-sponsored schemes increased. Szebehely (1999: 278) has calledthese trends the ‘formalization, collectivisation and de-marketization ofchild care’.

Conversely in Finland in the course of the 1990s, i.e. during the crisis ofthe welfare state, there was a limited expansion in the market-accessedoffer of childcare. According to Simonen and Kovalainen (1998) thisresulted however not primarily from a change in state welfare policybut rather from the initiative of formerly publicly employed womenkindergarten teachers who, unsatisfied with conditions in the public sector,themselves founded their own kindergartens and childcare networks.

5. Conclusions

Welfare state policies towards care are embedded into different moder-nisation paths of Western European care arrangements, which differsubstantially in relation to the share of informal family childcare. Thesedifferences reflect on one hand differences in the traditions in relation tocultural values of the family, the way these have developed and the role ofcare in the cultural concepts of gender equality. On the other hand, theyare based on differing cultural traditions what concerns the values inrelation to sphere in which welfare should be provided as far as it takesplace outside the family, and relation to the comprehensiveness and qualityof social rights. According to the argument in this article, in thosecountries in which informal care still at the beginning of the twenty-firstcentury plays a substantial role, this is not necessarily caused by atraditional and backward oriented welfare state policy which hinders theformalisation of social care. Instead, in several countries which follow thisspecific development path, the care policies of the welfare states to asubstantial degree reflect that informal care plays an important role also in

340

EUROPEAN SOCIETIES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

the modernised cultural concept of the family and of gender equality. Inthese cases the development of new social rights, which are connected toinformal care, besides social rights connected to public care provision,are of substantial importance for a ‘progressive’ care policy. They arebest developed in the ‘social democratic’ welfare regime of theNordic countries.

References

Alestalo, M. and Kuhnle, S. (1991) ‘The Scandinavian route: Economic,social, and political developments in Denmark, Finland, Norway andSweden’, in R. Erikson et al. (eds), The Scandinavian Model. WelfareStates and Welfare Research , Armonk/London: Sharpe.

Anttonen, A. (1997) ‘The welfare state and social citizenship’, in K.Kauppinen and T. Gordon (eds), Unresolved Dilemmas. Women, Workand the Family in the United States, Europe and the Former Soviet Union ,Aldershot: Ashgate.

Anttonen, A. (2002) ‘Universalism and social policy: A Nordic-feministrevaluation’, NORA: Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies 10 (3): 71�/80.

Anttonen, A. and Sipila, J. (2005) ‘Comparative approaches to social care:Diversity in care production modes’, in B. Pfau-Effinger and B. Geissler(eds), Care Arrangements and Social Integration in Europe. Bristol: PolicyPress (forthcoming)

Archer, M. S. (1995) Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach ,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bang, H., Jensen, P. and Pfau-Effinger, B. (2000) ‘Gender and Euro-pean welfare states: Context, structure and agency’, in S. S. Duncan andB. Pfau-Effinger (eds), Gender, Economy and Culture in the EuropeanUnion , London/New York: Routledge.

Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London, NewYork: Sage.

Borchost, A. (1994) ‘Welfare state regimes, womens’s interests and theEC’, in D. Sainsbury (ed.), Gendering Welfare Sates, London: Sage.

Bussemaker, J. (1998) ‘Gender and the separation of spheres in twentiethcentury Dutch society: Pillarisation, welfare state formation andindividualisation’, in J. Bussemaker and R. Voet (eds), Gender,Participation and Citizenship in The Netherlands, Aldershot: Ashgate.

Bussemaker, J. and van Kersbergen, K. (1994) ‘Gender and welfare states:Some theoretical reflections’, in D. Sainsbury (ed.), Gendering WelfareStates, London: Sage.

Crompton, R. (1998) ‘The equality agenda, employment, and welfare’, inB. Geissler, F. Maier and B. Pfau-Effinger (eds), FrauenArbeitsMarkt.

341

Care Arrangements PFAU-EFFINGER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

Der Beitrag der Frauenforschung zur soziookonomischen Theorieentwick-lung, Berlin: Sigma.

Daly, M. and Lewis, J. (1998) ‘Introduction: Conceptualising social care in

the context of welfare state restructuring’, in J. Lewis (ed.), Gender,Social Care and Welfare State Restructuring in Europe, Aldershot:

Ashgate.Daune-Richard, A. M. (1998) ‘How does the ‘‘societal effect’’ shape the

use of part-time work in France, the UK and Sweden?’, in C. Fagan and

O ’ Reilly J. (eds), Part-time Prospects, London: Routledge.Daune-Richard, A. (2005) ‘Women’s work between family and welfare

state: part-time work and childcare in France and Sweden’, in B. Pfau-

Effinger and B. Geissler (eds), Care Arrangements and Social Integrationin Europe. Bristol: Policy Press (forthcoming)

Daune-Richard, A. M. and Mahon, E. (1998) ‘Suede: le modele egalitaire

en danger’, in J. Jenson and M. Sineau (eds), Qui Doit Garder le JeuneEnfant? , Paris: L.G.D.J.

Daycare Trust (1999) Childcare Changes Lifes, London: Daycare Trust.Dingeldey, I. (2000) ‘Einkommensteuersysteme und familiale Er-

werbsmuster im europaischen Vergleich’, in I. Dingeldey (ed.),

Erwerbstatigkeit und Familie in Steuer- und Sozialversicherungssystemen.Begunstigungen und Belastungen verschiedener familialer Erwerbsmuster imLandervergleich , Opladen: Leske�/Budrich.

Duncan, S. S. (1998) ‘Innovation’, The European Journal of Social Sciences,ed. S. S. Duncan, 11 (2): 263�/84.

Ellingsaeter, A. (1999) ‘Dual breadwinners between state and market’, in

R. Crompton (ed.), Restructuring Gender Relations and Employment. TheDecline of the Male Breadwinner, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Engelbrech, G. and Jungkunst, M. (2001) Erwerbsbeteiligung von Frauen:Wie bringt man Beruf und Kinder unter einen Hut?, Nurnberg: Institut

fur Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung, IAB-Kurzbericht, 7.Esch, K. and Stober-Blossey, S. (2002) Kinderbetreuung: Ganztags fur alle?�/ Differenzierte Arbeitszeiten erfordern flexible Angebote. IAT-Report

2002-09, Institut fur Arbeit und Technik, Gelsenkirchen.Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism ,

Cambridge: Polity Press.Esping-Andersen, G. (1999) Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies,

Oxford: Oxford University Press.European Commission (1998) Care in Europe. Joint Report of the ‘Gender

and Employment and the ‘Gender and Law’ Groups of Experts, Brussel:

European Commission.Eydal, G. B. (2005) ‘Child care policies of the Nordic welfare states. Equal

rights of mothers and fathers to parental leave in Iceland’, in B. Pfau-

342

EUROPEAN SOCIETIES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

Effinger and B. Geissler (eds), Care Arrangements and Social Integrationin Europe. Bristol: Policy Press (forthcoming)

Fagan, C., Rubery, J. and Smith, M. (1999) Women’s Employment inEurope. Trends and Prospects, London/New York: Routledge.

Fagnani, J. and Letablier, M. T. (2005) ‘Social rights and careresponsibility in the French welfare state’, in B. Pfau-Effinger andB. Geissler (eds), Care Arrangements and Social Integration in Europe.Bristol:, Policy Press (forthcoming)

Fox Harding, L. (1996) Family, State and Social Policy, London:Macmillan.

Geissler, B. (1997) ‘Netz oder Sieb? Generationenkonflikt und Ges-chlechterkonflikt in der aktuellen Krise des Sozialstaats’, Kritische Justiz1 (30): 1�/14.

Geissler, B. and Oechsle, M. (1996) Lebensplanung junger Frauen. Diewiderspruchliche Modernisierung weiblicher Lebenslaufe, Weinheim:Deutscher Studien-Verlag.

Gordon, T. and Kauppinen, K. (1997) ‘Introduction: Dual roles andbeyond’, in T. Gordon and K. Kauppinen (eds), Unresolved Dilemmas.Women, Work and the Family in the United States, Europe and the formerSoviet Union , Aldershot: Ashgate.

Hantrais, L. (1996) ‘France squaring the welfare triangle’, in P. Taylor-Gooby and V. George (eds), European Welfare Policy. Squaring theCircle, London: Macmillan.

Hantrais, L. and Letablier, M.-T. (1996) Families and Family Policies inEurope, London: Longman.

Hirdman, Y. (1994) Women. From Possibility to Problem? Research Report3. Stockholm: Arbetslivcentrum.

Hobson, B. (1996) ‘Frauenbewegung fur Staatsburgerrechte �/ Das Beis-piel Schweden’, Feministische Studien 2 (14): 18�/34.

Hoecker, B. (1998) Handbuch Politische Partizipation von Frauen in Europa ,Opladen: Leske�/Budrich.

Jensen, P. H. (1996) Komparative Velfaerdssystemer. Kvinders reproduktions-strategier mellem familien, velfaerdsstaten og arbejdsmarkedet . Kopenha-gen: Nyt fra Samfundsvidenskaberne.

Jenson, J. and Sineau, M. (1998) Qui doit garder le jeune enfant? Modesdaccuiel et travail des meres dans l’Europe en crise, Paris: L G. D.J.Librairie Generale de Droit et de Jurisprudence.

Julkunen, R. (1999) ‘Sukupuoli, tyo, hyvinvointivaltion, Teoksessa’, in P.Lipponen and P. Setala (eds), Suomalainen nainen , Otava: Keuruu, pp.79�/100.

Julkunen, R. and Natti, J. (1999) The Modernization of Working Times.Flexibility and Work Sharing in Finland , Jyvaskyla, SoPhi, University ofJyvaskyla.

343

Care Arrangements PFAU-EFFINGER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

Kaufmann, F.-X. (1995) Zukunft der Familie im Vereinten Deutschland.Schriftenreihe des Bundeskanzleramtes Bd. 16 , Munchen: Beck.

Knijn, T. (1994) ‘Social dilemmas in images of motherhood in TheNetherlands’, The European Journal of Women’s Studies 1: 183�/206.

Knijn, T. (1998) ‘Social care in The Netherlands’, in J. Lewis (ed.),Gender, Social Care and Welfare State Restructuring in Europe, Aldershot:Ashgate.

Knijn, T. and Kremer, M. (1997) ‘Gender and the caring dimension ofwelfare states: Toward inclusive citizenship’, Social Politics 5: 328�/61.

Koistinen, P. (1999) ‘The lessons from the labour market policiesof Finland and Sweden’, in J. Christiansen, A. Kovalainen andP. Koistinen (eds), Working Europe �/ Reshaping European Employment

Systems, Aldershot: Ashgate.Land, H. and Lewis, J. (1998) ‘Gender, care and the changing role of the

state in the UK’, in J. Lewis (ed.), Gender, Social Care and Welfare StateRestructuring in Europe, Aldershot: Ashgate.

Langan, M. and Ostner, I. (1991) ‘Geschlechterpolitik im Wohlfahrts-staat’, Kritische Justiz 3 (24): 302�/17.

Leira, A. (1992) Models of Motherhood. Welfare State Policy andScandinavian Experiences of Everyday Practices, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Leira, A. (2002) Working Parents and the Welfare State: Family Change andPolicy Reform in Scandinavia , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lewis, J. (1992) ‘Gender and the development of welfare regimes’, Journalof European Social Policy 2: 159�/73.

Lewis, J. (ed.) (1998) Gender, Social Care and Welfare State Restructuring inEurope. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Lewis, J. (2002) ‘Gender and welfare state change’, European Societies 4(4): 331�/357.

Lewis, J. (2003) ‘Erwerbstatigkeit versus Betreuungsarbeit’, in U.Gerhard, T. Knijn and A. Weckwert (eds), Erwerbstatige Mutter. EinEuropaischer Vergleich , Munchen: C.H. Beck, pp. 29�/52.

Lewis, J. and Ostner, I. (1994) Gender and the Evolution of European SocialPolicy. Working Paper 4 of the Centre for Social Policy Research,University of Bremen.

Lister, R. (2003) Citizenship. Feminist Perspectives (2nd edition), Basing-stoke: Palgrave.

Lockwood, D. (1969) ‘Soziale Integration und Systemintegration’, in W.Zapf (ed.), Theorien des sozialen Wandels, Koln/Berlin: Kiepenheuer &Witsch.

Marshall, T. (1950) ‘Citizenship and social class’, Reprint in T. H.Marshall and T. Bottomore (eds) (1992) Citizenship and Social Class.London: Pluto Press.

344

EUROPEAN SOCIETIES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

Martin, C., Math, A. and Renaudat, E. (1998) ‘Caring for very young

children and dependent elderly people in France: Towards a commo-

dification of social care?’, in J. Lewis (ed.), Gender, Social Care andWelfare State Restructuring in Europe, Aldershot: Ashgate.

Maruani, M. (2000) Travail et Emploi des Femme, Paris: La Decouverte.Melkas, T. (2002) The Gender Barometer 2001, Helsinki, The Council for

Equality and Statistics Finland.Meyer, T. (1998) ‘Retrenchment, reproduction, modernization. Pension

politics and the decline of the German breadwinner model’, EuropeanJournal of Social Policy 8: 212�/27.

Meyer, B. and Pfau-Effinger, B. (2004) Gender in the Discourse on Old

Age �/ Old Age in the Discourse on Gender; paper presented at the

meeting of the ISA Research Committee RC11 ‘Sociology of Ageing’ on

‘Ageing Societies and Ageing Sociology: Diversity and Change in a

Globalised World’ at the University of Surrey, Roehampton, UK,

September 7�/9, 2004.Moree, M. (1992) Mijn Kinderen Hebben Er Niets Van Gemerkt.

Buitenshuis werkende moeders tussen 1950 en nu, Utrecht, Ivan ‘Arkel.Mosesdottir, L. (2000) The Interplay between Gender, Markets and the State

in Sweden, Germany and the United States, Aldershot: Ashgate.Nordic Council of Ministers (1996) Women and Men in the Nordic

Countries. Facts and Figures 1994. Kopenhagen.OECD (2000) Employment Outlook , Paris: OECD.van Oorschot, W. (2001) Flexicurity for Dutch workers. Trends, policies

and outcomes, paper presented at the EU COST Action 13 meeting,

Ljubljana University, 8�/10 June.Orloff, A. S. (1993) ‘Gender and social rights of citizenship’, American

Journal of Sociology 3 (58): 303�/28.Ostner, I. (1998) ‘The politics of care policies in Germany’, in J. Lewis

(ed.), Gender, Social Care and Welfare State Restructuring in Europe,

Aldershot: Ashgate.Outshoorn, J. (1998) ‘Ruthering the ‘‘cause’’: Femocrat strategies in

national government’, in J. Bussemaker and R. Voet (eds), Gender,Participation and Citizenship in The Netherlands, Aldershot: Ashgate.

Pedersen, S. (1993) ‘Catholicism, feminism, and the politics of the family

during the late third republic’, in S. Koven and S. Michel (eds), Mothersof the World. Maternalist Politics and the Origins of the Welfare State,

New York/London: Routledge.Pfau-Effinger, B. (1998) ‘Gender cultures and the gender arrangement �/ a

theoretical framework for cross-national comparisons on gender’, in TheSpatiality of Gender, Special Issue of Innovation , ed. by S. S. Duncan,

The European Journal of Social Sciences, 11 (2): 47�/166.

345

Care Arrangements PFAU-EFFINGER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

Pfau-Effinger, B. (1999) ‘Change of family policies in the socio-culturalcontext of European societies’, Comparative Social Research 18: 135�/69.

Pfau-Effinger, B. (2001) ‘Wandel wohlfahrtsstaatlicher Geschlechterpoli-tiken im soziokulturellen Kontext’, Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie undSozialpsychologie 41: 488�/511.

Pfau-Effinger, B. (2004a) Development of Culture, Welfare States andWomen’s Employment in Europe, Aldershot: Ashgate.

Pfau-Effinger, Birgit (2004b) ‘Historical paths of the male breadwinnerfamily model �/ explanation for cross-national differences’, BritishJournal of Sociology 55 (3): 177�/99.

Pfau-Effinger, B. (2005) ‘Culture and welfare state policies: Reflections ona complex interrelation’, Journal of Social Policy 34 (1): 1�/18.

Pfau-Effinger, B. and Geissler, B. (1992) ‘Institutionelle und sozio-kulturelle Kontextbedingungen der Entscheidung verheirateter Frauenfur Teilzeitarbeit. Ein Beitrag zu einer Soziologie des Erwerbsverhal-ten’, Mitteilungen aus der Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung 25: 358�/70.

Pfau-Effinger, B. and Geissler, B. (2002) ‘Cultural change and familypolicies in East and West Germany’, in A. Carling, S. S. Duncan and R.Edwards (eds), Analysing Families: Morality and Rationality in Policyand Practice, London, New York: Routledge.

Pfau-Effinger, B. and Geissler, B. (2005) ‘Change of European carearrangements,’ in B. Pfau-Effinger and B. Geissler (eds), CareArrangements and Social Integration in Europe. Bristol: Policy Press(forthcoming).

Pierson, P. (1994) Dismantling the Welfare State, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Plantenga, J. (1996) ‘For women only? The rise of part-time work in TheNetherlands’, Social Politics 3: 57�/71.

Pott-Buter, H. (1993) ‘Facts and fairy tales about female labor’, Familyand Fertility. A Seven-Country Comparison 1850�/1950, Amsterdam:Amsterdam University Press.

Rostgaard, T. (2002) ‘Caring for Children and Older People in Europe �/ aComparison of European Policies and Practices’, Policy Studies 23 (1):51�/68.

Sainsbury, D. (ed.) (1994) Gendering Welfare States. London: Sage.Saraceno, C. (1997) ‘Family change, family policies and the restructuring

of welfare’, in OECD (ed.), Family, Market and Community. Equity andEfficiency in Social Policy. Paris: OECD.

Siim, B. (1999) ‘Towards a gender sensitive framework for citizenship’, inJ. Bussemaker (ed.), Citizenship and Transition of European WelfareStates, London/New York: Routledge.

Siim, B. (2000) Gender and Citizenship. Politics and Agency in France,Britain and Denmark , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

346

EUROPEAN SOCIETIES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13

Simonen, L. and Kovalainen, A. (1998) ‘Paradoxes of social carerestructuring: The Finnish case’, in J. Lewis (ed.), Gender, SocialCare and Welfare State Restructuring in Europe, Aldershot: Ashgate.

Sineau, M. (1992) ‘Pouvoir, modernite et monopole masculin de lapolitique: le cas francais’, Nouvelle Questions Feministes 1: 36�/61.

Social een Cultureel Planbureau, Central Bureau voor de Statistiek (2002)Emancipatiemonitor 2002, Den Haag.

Szebehely, M. (1998) ‘Changing divisions of carework: Caring for childrenand frail elderly people in Sweden’, in J. Lewis (ed.), Gender, Social Careand Welfare State Restructuring in Europe, Aldershot: Ashgate.

van der Veen, R., Trommel, W. and de Vroom, B. (2000) ‘Institutionalchange of welfare states’, in H. Wagenaar (ed.), Government Institutions:Effects, Changes and Normative Foundations, Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Veil, M. (1997) ‘Zwischen Wunsch und Wirklichkeit: Frauen imSozialstaat. Ein Landervergleich zwischen Frankreich, Schweden undDeutschland’, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte B52/97: 29�/38.

Voet, R. (1998) ‘Citizenship and female participation’, in J. Bussemakerand R. Voet (eds), Gender, Participation and Citizenship in The Nether-lands, Aldershot: Ashgate.

Waerness, K. (1998) ‘The changing ‘welfare mix’ in childcare and care forthe frail elderly in Norway’, in J. Lewis (ed.), Gender, Social Care andWelfare State Restructuring in Europe, Aldershot: Ashgate.

Birgit Pfau-Effinger is Professor of Sociology and Director of the Centre

‘Globalisation and Governance’ at the Department of Social Sciences,

University of Hamburg. She has published widely in the fields of

comparative welfare state analyses, comparative labour market analyses,sociology, and gender research, and sociology of transformation. Her

recent books include Gender, Economy and Culture in the European Union

(ed., 2000, with S. S. Duncan; Development of Culture, Welfare State and

Women’s Employment in Europe (2004). She has recently published in the

Journal of Social Policy and the British Journal of Sociology.

Address for correspondence: Birgit Pfau-Effinger, Institute for Sociology,University of Hamburg, Allende-Platz 1, 20146 Hamburg, Germany.

E-mail: pfau-effinger@sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de

347

Care Arrangements PFAU-EFFINGER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:57

19

Apr

il 20

13