Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:59:12.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What and whom are family policies for? Unpacking the meaning of citizens’ support for family policy across Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2022

Tatjana Rakar Open the ORCID record for Tatjana Rakar [Opens in a new window] ,
Heejung Chung Open the ORCID record for Heejung Chung [Opens in a new window] ,
Katharina Zimmermann Open the ORCID record for Katharina Zimmermann [Opens in a new window] ,
Mi Ah Schoyen Open the ORCID record for Mi Ah Schoyen [Opens in a new window]  and
Maša Filipovič Hrast Open the ORCID record for Maša Filipovič Hrast [Opens in a new window]
Tatjana Rakar*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Heejung Chung
Affiliation:
School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
Katharina Zimmermann
Affiliation:
Department of Socioeconomics, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Mi Ah Schoyen
Affiliation:
NOVA Norwegian Social Research, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway
Maša Filipovič Hrast
Affiliation:
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper provides a comparative investigation into public attitudes to family policies. It shows that citizens’ support for family policies is diverse across different welfare regimes with respect to four countries belonging to distinct regimes: the United Kingdom, Germany, Norway and Slovenia. Using qualitative data, we unpack the ways individuals view the need for family policies, the rationale they use to explain their support for family policies and for imposing restrictions on access to family policies – ie. why, for whom and under which conditions. We find that social rights narratives are common in Norway; a social investment logic is prevalent in Germany and Slovenia; while in the United Kingdom, the dominant view is closer to the work-central individualised responsibility narrative of neoliberalism. In addition, we find differences across regimes in which family policies should target. In the United Kingdom and Germany, the focus is much more on providing support to activate parents, while in Norway and partly Slovenia, the focus is on providing well-being for children. The findings show that despite some convergence in family policies across Europe in recent times, we still find clear diversity in what and for whom family policies are for, its rationale largely embedded in the larger institutional normative structures of the welfare state. The results not only contribute to the literature on the relationship between public attitudes and welfare institutions, but also point towards shifting ideas about the role of family policies in the context of societal change.

Keywords

Welfare attitudesfamily policywelfare regimesconditionality
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Social Policy Association

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

Adema, W., Clarke, C., & Thévenon, O. (2020). Family policies and family outcomes in OECD countries. In Nieuwenhuis, R. & Van Lancker, W. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of family policy (pp. 193–217). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahn, S., & Kim, S. (2014). Dynamic cleavages of “welfare rights and duties” in public attitude towards old-age pensions: A comparative study. European Societies, 16(1), 90–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumberg, B., Bell, K., & Gaffney, D. (2012). Benefits stigma in Britain. Retrieved from Turn2Us website: https://www.turn2us.org.uk/About-Us/Research-and-Insights/Benefits-Stigma-in-Britain.Google Scholar
Bothfeld, S., & Rouault, S. (2015). Families facing the crisis: Is social investment a sustainable social policy strategy? Social Politics, 22(1), 60–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantillon, B. (2011). The paradox of the social investment state: Growth, employment and poverty in the Lisbon era. Journal of European Social Policy, 21(5), 432–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantillon, B., & Van Lancker, W. (2013). Three shortcomings of the social investment perspective. Social Policy and Society, 12(4), 553–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, H., Hrast, M. F., & Rakar, T. (2018). The provision of care: Whose responsibility and why? In Taylor-Gooby, P. & Leruth, B. (Eds.), Attitudes, aspirations and welfare: Social policy directions in uncertain times (pp. 183–214). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, H., & Meuleman, B. (2017). European parents’ attitudes towards public childcare provision: The role of current provisions, interests and ideologies. European Societies, 19(1), 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, H., Taylor‐Gooby, P., & Leruth, B. (2018). Political legitimacy and welfare state futures: Introduction. Social Policy & Administration, 52(4), 835–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clasen, J., & Clegg, D. (2007). Levels and levers of conditionality: Measuring change within welfare states. In Clasen, J. & Siegel, N. (Eds.), Investigating welfare state change: The “dependent variable problem” in comparative analysis (pp. 166–197). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, M. (2019). Children and their rights and entitlements in EU welfare states. Journal of Social Policy, 49(2), 343–360. Published online 27 May 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, M., & Ferragina, E. (2018). Family policy in high-income countries: Five decades of development. Journal of European Social Policy, 28(3), 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrotić, I., & Blum, S. (2019a). A social right? Access to leave and its relation to parents’ labour market position. In Moss, P., Duvander, A.-Z., & Koslowski, A. (Eds.), Parental leave and beyond (pp. 261–282). Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrotić, I., & Blum, S. (2019b). Inclusiveness of parental-leave benefits in twenty-one European countries: Measuring social and gender inequalities in leave eligibility. Social Politics, 27(3), 588–614. Published online 25 June 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellingsæter, A. L., & Gulbrandsen, L. (2007). Closing the childcare gap: The interaction of childcare provision and mothers’ agency in Norway. Journal of Social Policy, 36(4), 649–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Eurostat. (2019). Education and training statistics. Retrieved from Eurostat website: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database.Google Scholar
Ferragina, E., & Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2015). Determinants of a silent (r)evolution: Understanding the expansion of family policy in rich OECD countries. Social Politics, 22(1), 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filipovič Hrast, M., & Rakar, T. (2020). Restructuring the Slovenian welfare system: Between economic pressures and future challenges. In Blum, S., Kuhlmann, J., & Schubert, K. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of European welfare systems (2nd ed., pp. 483–501). Abingdon–New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Frazer, H., & Marlier, E. (2017). Progress across Europe in the implementation of the 2013 EU Recommendation on “Investing in children: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage”. A study of national policies. European Social Policy Network (ESPN), Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Garritzmann, J., & Schwander, H. (2021). Gender and attitudes toward welfare state reform. Are women really social investment promotors? Journal of European Social Policy, 31(3), 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, A. H. (2010). The impact of the economic crisis on family policies in the European Union. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Goerres, A., & Tepe, M. (2010). Age‐based self‐interest, intergenerational solidarity and the welfare state: A comparative analysis of older people’s attitudes towards public childcare in 12 OECD countries. European Journal of Political Research, 49(6), 818–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goerres, A., & Tepe, M. (2012). Doing it for the kids? The determinants of attitudes towards public childcare in unified Germany. Journal of Social Policy, 41(2), 349–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemerijck, A. (2017). The uses of social investment. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Javornik, J. (2020). Eastern Europe. In Ellison, N. & Haux, T. (Eds.), Handbook on society and social policy (pp. 166–181). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Jenson, J. (2009). Lost in translation: The social investment perspective and gender equality. Social Politics, 16(4), 446–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenson, J., & Saint-Martin, D. (2006). Building blocks for a new social architecture: The LEGOTM paradigm of an active society. Policy & Politics, 34(3), 429–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanjuo Mrčela, A., & Černigoj Sadar, N. (2011). Social policies related to parenthood and capabilities of Slovenian parents. Social Politics, 18(2), 199–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koostra, A., & Roosma, F. (2018). Changing public support for welfare sanctioning in Britain and the Netherlands: A persuasion experiment. Social Policy & Administration, 52(4), 847–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korpi, W., Ferrarini, T., & Englund, S. (2013). Women’s opportunities under different family policy constellations: Gender, class, and inequality tradeoffs in western countries re-examined. Social Politics, 20(1), 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvist, J. (2007). Exploring diversity: Measuring welfare state change with fuzzy-set methodology. In Clasen, J. & Siegel, N. (Eds.), Investigating welfare state change: The “dependent variable problem” in comparative analysis (pp. 198–214). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Larsen, C. A. (2008). The institutional logic of welfare attitudes: How welfare regimes influence public support. Comparative Political Studies, 41(2), 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lister, R. (2003). Investing in citizen-workers of the future: Transformations in citizenship and the state under new labour. Social Policy & Administration, 37(5), 427–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lüth, L. (2021). Activating the family – Social rights in times of social investment (Working paper prepared for the European Sociological Association (ESA) Conference 2021.Google Scholar
Mahon, R., Anttonen, A., Bergqvist, C., Brennan, D., & Hobson, B. (2012). Convergent care regimes? Childcare arrangements in Australia, Canada, Finland and Sweden. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(4), 419–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class: And other essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mau, S. (2003). The moral economy of welfare states: Britain and Germany compared. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ministry of Education and Science in Sweden (1999). Early childhood education and care policy in Sweden. In Report for the OECD. Stockholm.(pp.1–84). Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/education/school/2479039.pdf.Google Scholar
Morel, N., Palier, B., & Palme, J. (Eds.). (2012). Towards a social investment welfare state? Ideas, policies and challenges. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2020). Welfare state futures: Our children’s Europe, 2015 [data collection]. UK Data Service. SN: 8496. http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-8496-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P., & Leruth, B. (Eds.). (2018). Attitudes, aspirations and welfare: Social policy directions in uncertain times. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P., Leruth, B., & Chung, H. (Eds.). (2017). After austerity: Welfare state transformation in Europe after the great recession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P., Leruth, B., & Chung, H. (2019). Identifying attitudes to welfare through deliberative forums: The emergence of reluctant individualism. Policy & Politics, 47(1), 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toikko, T., & Rantanen, T. (2017). How does the welfare state model influence social political attitudes? An analysis of citizens’ concrete and abstract attitudes toward poverty. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 33(3), 201–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valarino, I., Duvander, A.-Z., Haas, L., & Neyer, G. (2018). Exploring leave policy preferences: A comparison of Austria, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. Social Politics, 25(1), 118–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Veen, R., & Groot, L. (2006). Post-productivism and welfare states: A comparative analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 36(4), 593–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Kersbergen, K., Vis, B., & Hemerijck, A. (2014). The Great Recession and welfare state reform: Is retrenchment really the only game left in town? Social Policy & Administration, 48(7), 883–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oorschot, W., & Roosma, F. (2017). The social legitimacy of targeted welfare and welfare deservingness. In Van Oorschot, W., Roosma, F., & Meuleman, B. (Eds.), The social legitimacy of targeted welfare: Attitudes to welfare deservingness (pp. 3–36). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Windebank, J. (2017). Change in work-family reconciliation policy in France and the UK since 2008: The influence of economic crisis and austerity. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 33(1), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, K., Chung, H., & Heuer, J.-O. (2018). Labour market challenges and the role of social investment. In Taylor-Gooby, P. & Leruth, B. (Eds.), Attitudes, aspirations and welfare: Social policy directions in uncertain times (pp. 243–272). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Rakar et al. supplementary material

Rakar et al. supplementary material

Download Rakar et al. supplementary material(File)
File 24.2 KB