Policy Generosity, Employer Heterogeneity, and Women’s Employment Opportunities: The Welfare State Paradox Reexamined

2018 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 508-535 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eunmi Mun ◽  
Jiwook Jung

Scholars of comparative family policy research have raised concerns about potential negative outcomes of generous family policies, an issue known as the “welfare state paradox.” They suspect that such policies will make employers reluctant to hire or promote women into high-authority jobs, because women are more likely than men to use those policies and take time off. Few studies, however, have directly tested this employer-side mechanism. In this article, we argue that due to employer heterogeneity, as well as different modes of policy intervention such as mandate-based and incentive-based approaches, generous family policies may not always lead to employer discrimination. Adopting a quasi-experimental research design that classifies employers based on their differential receptivity to family policy changes, we compare their hiring and promotion of women before and after two major family policy reforms in Japan, one in 1992 and another in 2005. Our analysis using panel data of large Japanese firms finds little evidence of policy-induced discrimination against women. Instead, we find that employers who voluntarily provided generous leave benefits prior to government mandates or incentives actually hired and promoted more women after the legal changes, and employers who provided generous benefits in response to government incentives also increased opportunities for women.

1996 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Walker ◽  
Chack-Kie Wong

This article employs case studies of China and Hong Kong to question the western ethnocentric construction of the welfare state that predominates in comparative social policy research. The authors argue that welfare regimes, and particularly the “welfare state,” have been constructed as capitalist-democratic projects and that this has the damaging effect of excluding from analyses not only several advanced capitalist societies in the Asian-Pacific area but also the world's most populous country. If welfare state regimes can only coexist with western political democracies, then China and Hong Kong are excluded automatically. A similar result occurs if the traditional social administration approach is adopted whereby a “welfare state” is defined in terms only of direct state provision. The authors argue that such assumptions are untenable if state welfare is to be analyzed as a universal phenomenon. Instead of being trapped within an ethnocentric welfare statism, what social policy requires is a global political economy perspective that facilitates comparisons of the meaning of welfare and the state's role in producing it north, south, east and west.


2016 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 535-558 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mónica Brito Vieira ◽  
Filipe Carreira da Silva ◽  
Cícero Roberto Pereira

Do attitudes towards the welfare state change in response to economic crises? Addressing this question is sometimes difficult because of the lack of longitudinal data. This article deals with this empirical challenge using survey data from the 2008 European Social Survey and from our own follow-up survey of Spring 2013 to track welfare attitudes at the brink and at the peak of the socio-economic crisis in one of the hardest hit countries: Portugal. The literature on social policy preferences predicts an increased polarisation in opinions towards the welfare state between different groups within society – in particular between labour market insiders and outsiders. However, the prediction has scarcely been tested empirically. A notoriously dualised country, Portugal provides a critical setting in which to test this hypothesis. The results show attitudinal change, and this varies according to labour market vulnerability. However, we observe no polarisation and advance alternative explanations for why this is so.


Author(s):  
Jana Javornik ◽  
Mara A. Yerkes

AbstractComparative family policy research has advanced significantly in recent years. The growing availability of more and better data have improved our understanding of cross-national similarities and differences in family policies, as well as how they shape the lives of different families. Despite these advancements, comparative family policy research continues to face difficulties. The multifaceted nature of family policies makes cross-country comparisons complex. Conceptualizing our theoretical understanding of which policy aspects matter and why as well as operationalizing them into measurable indicators, often remains problematic for comparative analyses. Using examples of British and Swedish policies on childcare, a policy area particularly prone to conceptual challenges, we discuss the difficulties involved in conceptualizing family policies in comparative research. We argue that taking a capabilities approach provides a useful way forward in the field and show how such a conceptual framework allows us to more meaningfully analyze both work-family policies and their outcomes.


Author(s):  
Wim Van Lancker ◽  
Rense Nieuwenhuis

AbstractBased on the multilevel perspective on family policy research brought together in this handbook, this chapter highlights five major societal challenges for the future outlook and outcomes of family policies, and reflects on what the handbook teaches us about how to effectively address these challenges, as well as what there is yet to learn. The challenges pertain to the (1) levels of policy implementation, and in particular globalization and decentralization, (2) austerity and marketization, (3) economic inequality, (4) changing family relations, and (5) welfare states adapting to women’s empowered roles. The chapter concludes by examining what lessons were learned, and are yet to learn, regarding the capacity of family policies to cope with shocks of various kinds and to support families during extraordinary times.


1983 ◽  
Vol 64 (8) ◽  
pp. 459-465 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shirley L. Zimmerman

The welfare state, undergoing a major restructuring, is forming alliances with families for the provision of services to family members. How can this be reconciled with the simultaneous weakening of the state's commitment to family economic security—once its primary objective?


2011 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 168-170

Per Skedinger of Research Institute of Industrial Economics reviews “Reforming the Welfare State: Recovery and Beyond in Sweden” edited by Richard B. Freeman, Birgitta Swedenborg, and Robert Topel. The EconLit Abstract of the reviewed work begins, “Nine papers examine Sweden's recovery from crisis and the role that the country's welfare state institutions and policy reforms played in that recovery. Papers discuss searching for optimal inequality-incentives; policies affecting work patterns and labor income for women; wage determination and employment….”


2021 ◽  

Social jurisdiction is an essential institution of the German social constitutional state. It is here that social rights are realised and the welfare state can be experienced. At the same time, the social courts with their upstream and downstream divisions are places where social conflicts are fought out. As such, they have not yet been the subject of comprehensive research. This volume is a contribution to interdisciplinary social policy research and brings together different perspectives on the legal and judicial forms of action of the welfare state. They were the subject of a conference of the FIS-funded junior research group "Social Jurisdiction and the Development of Social Law and Social Policy in the Federal Republic of Germany". With contributions by Katie Baldschun, Minou Banafsche, Michael Beyerlein, Alice Dillbahner, Gesine Fuchs, Thomas Frank, Stefan Greß, Christian Grube, Andreas Hänlein, Armin Höland, Christian Jesberger, Lukas Kiepe, Martin Kilimann, Tanja Klenk, Sabine Knickrehm, Simone Kreher, Romina-Victoria Köller, Tanja Pritzlaff-Scheele, Stephan Rixen, Simon Roesen, Gül Savran, Wolfgang Schroeder, Solveig Sternjakob, Berthold Vogel, Felix Welti and Katharina Weyrich.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document