Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:05:24.152Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nordic Earner–Carer Models – Why Stability and Instability?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2014

ANNE LISE ELLINGSÆTER
ANNE LISE ELLINGSÆTER*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway email: a.l.ellingsater@sosgeo.uio.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Earner–carer policy models aiming at the engagement of mothers and fathers in both paid and unpaid work are a hallmark of the Nordic welfare states. But they have not become uncontested policy equilibriums. Examining family policy development through the theoretical lenses of party competition and incremental change helps uncover underlying tensions and ongoing struggles. In contrast to convergence and stability in regard to moderately long parental leave at high replacement rates and in the provision of universal publicly-funded childcare services, daddy quotas, i.e., earmarked leave for fathers, and cash-for-care benefits are contested and in flux. Policy stability is associated with layering of policy elements that satisfy multiple policy rationales, elements that are also vital in working parents’ organisation of everyday life. By contrast, the main source of instability, including policy displacement, is party competition over values of ‘equal parenthood’ versus ‘parental choice’, largely following a left–right divide.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , July 2014 , pp. 555 - 574
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrahamson, P. (2010), ‘Continuity and consensus: governing families in Denmark’, Journal of European Social Policy, 20: 5, 399–409.Google Scholar
Bergqvist, C. and Nyberg, A. (2002), ‘Welfare state restructuring and child care in Sweden’, in Michel, S. and Mahon, R. (eds.), Child Care Policy at the Crossroads, New York: Routledge, pp. 288–307.Google Scholar
Borchorst, A. (2002), ‘Danish child care policy: continuity rather than radical change’, in Michel, M. and Mahon, R. (eds.), Child Care Policy at the Crossroads, New York: Routledge, pp. 267–285.Google Scholar
Borchorst, A. (2003), Køn, magt og beslutninger: Politiske forhandlinger om barselorlov 1901–2002, Århus: Magtutredningen, Århus Universitet.Google Scholar
Borchorst, A. (2006), ‘The public–private split rearticulated: abolishment of the Danish daddy leave’, in Ellingsæter, A. L. and Leira, A. (eds.), Politicising Parenthood in Scandinavia, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 101–120.Google Scholar
Chronholm, A. (2009), ‘Individualisation or free choice in the parental leave?’, in Kamerman, S. B. and Moss, P. (eds.), The Politics of Parental Leave Policies: Children, Parenting, Gender and the Labour Market, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 227–242.Google Scholar
Ellingsæter, A. L. (2003), ‘The complexity of family policy reform’, European Societies, 5: 419–443.Google Scholar
Ellingsæter, A. L. (2007), ‘“Old” and “new” politics of time to care: three Norwegian reforms’, Journal of European Social Policy, 17: 1, 49–60.Google Scholar
Ellingsæter, A. L. (2009), ‘Leave policy in the Nordic welfare states: a “recipe” for high employment/high fertility?’, Community, Work and Family, 12: 1–19.Google Scholar
Ellingsæter, A. L. (2012a), ‘Ideational struggles over symmetrical parenthood: the Norwegian daddy quota’, Journal of Social Policy, 41: 695–714.Google Scholar
Ellingsæter, A. L. (2012b), Cash for childcare: Experiences from Finland, Norway and Sweden, Berlin: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.Google Scholar
Ellingsæter, A. L. and Leira, A. (eds.) (2006), Politicising Parenthood in Scandinavia, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Eydal, G. B. and Rostgaard, T. (2011a), ‘Gender equality revisited – changes in Nordic childcare policies in the 2000s’, Social Policy and Administration, 45: 2, 161–179.Google Scholar
Eydal, G. B. and Rostgaard, T. (2011b), ‘Day care schemes and cash-for- care at home’, in Gíslason, I. V. and Eydal, G. B. (eds.), Parental Leave, Childcare and Gender Equality in the Nordic Countries, Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers, pp. 65–107.Google Scholar
Fleckenstein, T. (2011), ‘The politics of ideas in welfare state transformation: Christian democracy and the reform of family policy in Germany’, Social Politics, 18: 543–571.Google Scholar
Fleckenstein, T. and Lee, S. C. (2012), ‘The politics of postindustrial social policy: family policy reforms in Britain, Germany, South Korea and Sweden’, Comparative Political Studies, published online before publication doi: 10.1177/0010414012451564.Google Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. (2009), ‘The Norwegian cash-for-care reform: changing behaviour and stable attitudes’, Nordic Early Childhood Education Research, 2: 17–25.Google Scholar
Häusermann, S., Picot, G. and Geering, D. (2013), ‘Review article: rethinking party politics and the welfare state – recent advances in the literature’, British Journal of Political Science, 43: 221–240.Google Scholar
Hiilamo, H. and Kangas, O. (2009), ‘Trap for women or freedom to choose? The struggle over cash for child care schemes in Finland and Sweden’, Journal of Social Policy, 38: 457–475.Google Scholar
Huber, E. and Stephens, J. D. (2000), ‘Partisan governance, women's employment, and the social democratic service state’, American Sociological Review, 65: 323–342.Google Scholar
Knijn, T. and Smit, A. (2009), ‘Investing, facilitating, or individualizing the reconciliation of work and family life: three paradigms and ambivalent policies’, Social Politics, 16: 484–518.Google Scholar
Korpi, W. (2006), ‘Power resources and employer-centered approaches in explanations of welfare states and varieties of capitalism: protagonists, consenters and antagonists’, World Politics, 58: 167–206.Google Scholar
Lammi-Taskula, J. and Takala, P. (2009), ‘Finland: negotiating tripartite compromises’, in Kamerman, S. B. and Moss, P. (eds.), The Politics of Parental Leave Policies: Children, Parenting, Gender and the Labour Market, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 87–102.Google Scholar
Leira, A. (1992), Welfare States and Working Mothers: The Scandinavian Experience, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. (2008), ‘Childcare policies and the politics of choice’, The Political Quarterly, 79: 499–507.Google Scholar
Mahon, R., Anttonen, A., Bergqvist, C., Brennan, D. and Hobson, B. (2012), ‘Convergent care regimes? Childcare arrangements in Australia, Canada, Finland and Sweden’, Journal of European Social Policy, 22: 419–431.Google Scholar
Mahoney, J. (2000), ‘Path dependence in historical sociology’, Theory and Society, 29: 507–548.Google Scholar
Mahoney, J. and Thelen, K. (2010), ‘A theory of gradual institutional change’, in Mahoney, J. and Thelen, K. (eds.), Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1–37.Google Scholar
Mätzke, M. and Ostner, I. (2010a), ‘Introduction: change and continuity in recent family policies’, Journal of European Social Policy, 20: 387–398.Google Scholar
Mätzke, M. and Ostner, I. (2010b), ‘Postscript: ideas and agents in time’, Journal of European Social Policy, 20: 469–76.Google Scholar
Morgan, K. J. (2013), ‘Path shifting of the welfare state: electoral competition and the expansion of work–family policies in Western Europe’, World Politics, 65: 73–115.Google Scholar
Nordic Council of Ministers (2012), Nordic Countries in Figures 2012, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Nyberg, A. (2010), ‘Cash for childcare schemes in Sweden: history, political contradictions and recent developments’, in Sipilä, J., Repo, K. and Rissanen, T. (eds.), Cash-for-Childcare: The Consequences for Caring Mothers, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 65–88.Google Scholar
Parrukoski, S. and Lammi-Taskula, J. (2012) Parental Leave Policies and the Economic Crisis in the Nordic Countries, Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare.Google Scholar
Rantalaiho, M. (2009), Kvoter, valgfrihet, fleksibilitet. Indre spenninger i den nordiske familiepolitikken, Oslo: Nordisk institut för kunskap om kön.Google Scholar
Rantalaiho, M. (2010), ‘Rationales for cash-for-childcare: the Nordic case’, in Sipilä, J., Repo, K. and Rissanen, Y. (eds.), Cash-for-Childcare: The Consequences for Caring Mothers, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 109–142.Google Scholar
Repo, K. (2010), ‘Finnish child home care allowance – users’ perspectives and perceptions’, in Sipilä, J., Repo, K. and Rissanen, T. (eds.), Cash-for-Childcare: The Consequences for Caring Mothers, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 89–108.Google Scholar
Salmi, M. (2006), ‘Parental choice and the passion for equality in Finland’, in Ellingsæter, A. L. and Leira, A. (eds.), Politicising Parenthood in Scandinavia, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 145–168.Google Scholar
Salmi, M. and Lammi-Taskula, J. (2013), ‘Finland country note’, in Moss, P. (ed.), International Review of Leave Policies and Research 2013, available at http://www.leavenetwork.org/lp_and_r_reports (accessed 13 March 2014).Google Scholar
Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2010), ‘Socio-economic change, party competition and intra-party conflict: the family policy of the grand coalition’, German Politics, 19: 416–428.Google Scholar
Seeleib-Kaiser, M., van Dyk, S. and Roggenkamp, M. (2005) ‘What do parties want? An analysis of programmatical social policy aims in Austria, Germany and the Netherlands’, European Journal of Social Security, 7: 115–137.Google Scholar
Statistiska Centralbyrån (2012), Nyttjande av kommunalt vårdnadsbidrag, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Thévenon, O. (2011), ‘Family policies in OECD countries: a comparative analysis’, Population and Development Review, 37: 1, 57–87.Google Scholar