Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:47:47.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ideational Struggles over Symmetrical Parenthood: the Norwegian Daddy Quota

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2012

ANNE LISE ELLINGSÆTER
ANNE LISE ELLINGSÆTER*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, PO Box 1096 Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The politics of parenthood is a major battleground in disputes about gender equality. In contemporary debates on parental leave reform, notions about ‘equal’ parenthood and parental ‘choice’ compete. Earmarked leave for fathers, the so-called ‘daddy quota’ – a hallmark of Nordic welfare states, is increasingly being discussed in other types of welfare state. Further increases in earmarked leave is thus of interest to the policy debate in other countries, too. This article examines the reception among political actors in Norway of a proposal in 2008 to divide the existing parental leave into three equal parts – one for the father, one for the mother and one shared at the discretion of both parents. Three rival ideational policy paradigms are identified: fathers’ right to care and mothers’ right to breastfeed compete among quota protagonists, while ‘choice’ is advocated by quota antagonists. So far, quota protagonists guided by the mothers’ rights paradigm have been the most successful, but persistent, ideational tensions are rendering future developments uncertain.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , October 2012 , pp. 695 - 714
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

Béland, D. (2005), ‘Ideas and social policy: an institutionalist perspective’, Social Policy and Administration, 39: 1, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béland, D. (2009), ‘Gender, ideational analysis, and social policy’, Social Politics, 16: 558–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béland, D. and Cox, R. H. (2011), ‘Introduction: ideas and politics’, in Béland, D. and Cox, R. H. (eds.), Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–20.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. 101–20.Google Scholar
Brighouse, H. and Wright, E. O. (2008), ‘Strong gender egalitarianism’, Politics and Society, 36: 3, 360–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. L. (1998), ‘Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy’, Theory and Society, 27: 3, 377–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. L. (2002), ‘Ideas, politics, and public policy’, American Review of Sociology, 28: 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crompton, R. (2009), ‘The normative and institutional embeddedness of parental employment: its impact on gender egalitarianism in parenthood and employment’, in Gornick, J. C. and Meyers, M. K. (eds.), Gender Equality. Transforming Family Divisions of Labour, New York: Verso, pp. 365–84.Google Scholar
Deven, F. and Moss, P. (2002), ‘Leave arrangements for parents: overview and future outlook’, Community, Work and Family, 5: 3, 237–55.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellingsæter, A. L. (2009), ‘Leave policy in the Nordic countries: a “recipe” for high employment/high fertility?’, Community, Work and Family, 12: 1, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellingsæter, A. L. (2010), ‘Feminist policies and feminist conflicts – daddy's care or mother's milk?’, in Scott, J., Crompton, R. and Lyonette, C. (eds.), Gender Inequalities in the 21st Century, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 257–74.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: 4, 543–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gornick, J. and Meyers, M. K. (2008), ‘Creating gender egalitarian societies: an agenda for social reform’, Politics and Society, 36: 3, 313–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grambo, A. C. and Myklebø, S. (2009), Moderne familier – tradisjonelle valg – en studie av mors og fars uttak av foreldrepermisjon, NAV-rapport 2/2009, Oslo: NAV.Google Scholar
Haas, L. and Rostgaard, T. (2011), ‘Fathers’ rights to paid parental leave in the Nordic countries: consequences for the gendered division of leave’, Community, Work and Family, 14: 2, 177–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagemann, G. (2007), ‘Maternalism and gender equality: tracing a norwegian model of welfare’, in Hagemann, G. (ed.), Reciprocity and Redistribution: Work And Welfare Reconsidered, Pisa: Pisa University Press, pp. 61–85.Google Scholar
Hall, P. (1993), ‘Policy paradigms, social learning and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain’, Comparative Politics, 25: 275–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P. and Taylor, R. C. R. (1996), ‘Political science and the three “New Institutionalisms”’, Political Studies, 44: 936–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenson, J. (2009), ‘Lost in translation: the social investment perspective and gender equality’, Social Politics, 16: 4, 446–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, R. C. (2002), ‘Ideas, institutions and political order: explaining political change’, American Political Science Review, 96: 4, 697–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, J. (2000), ‘Path dependence in historical sociology’, Theory and Society, 29: 507–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, J. and Thelen, K. (2010), Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mandel, H. and Seymonov, M. (2006), ‘A welfare state paradox: state intervention and women's employment opportunities in 22 countries’, American Journal of Sociology, 111: 6, 1910–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, P. and Deven, F. (2006), ‘Leave policies and research: a cross-national overview’, Marriage and Family Review, 39: 3/4, 255–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, P. and Kamerman, S. B. (2009), ‘Introduction’, in Kamerman, S. B. and Moss, P. (eds.), The Politics of Parental Leave Policies: Children, Parenting, Gender and the Labour Market, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
NOU (2008), Kjønn og lønn. Fakta, analyser og virkemidler, NOU 2008:6, Oslo: Statens forvaltningstjeneste.Google Scholar
Orloff, A. S. (2009), ‘Should feminist aim for gender symmetry? Why a dual-earner/dual-caregiver society is not every feminist's utopia’, in Gornick, J. C. and Meyers, M. K. (eds.), Gender Equality: Transforming Family Divisions of Labour, New York: Verso, pp. 129–57.Google Scholar
Orloff, A. S. and Palier, B. (2009), ‘The power of gender perspectives: feminist influence on policy paradigms, social science, and social politics’, Social Politics, 16, 405–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padamsee, T. J. (2009), ‘Culture in connection: re-contextualizing ideational processes in the analysis of policy development’, Social Politics, 16: 413–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, V. (2008), ‘Discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse’, Annual Review of Political Science, 11: 303–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steensland, B. (2006), ‘Cultural categories and the american welfare state: the case of guaranteed income policy’, American Journal of Sociology, 111: 5, 1273–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar