Search

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No Project 101060410 and Innovate UK, the UK’s Innovation Agency.

The rEUsilience project is concerned with labour market changes and how these changes affect the ability of families to balance income security and care. We consider families as agents who respond to these challenges to cushion potentially negative impacts. In the project, we try to understand what are the conditions that support family resilience. The specific questions for the rEUsilience project are: What challenges and difficulties are created or exacerbated for families by labour markets in the ‘new world of work’ and how do families try to overcome these? How do social policies contribute to familial resilience especially in terms of the extent to which they are inclusive, flexible and complementary? The concept of resilience is increasingly used in EU and national policy making. Yet, empirical foundation for monitoring social policies and their ability to strengthen family resilience is currently lacking. This deliverable builds a groundwork for development of tools for monitoring family resilience in the context of social policy. The first step we take is a construction of family profiles and analyse them on the distribution of risks, resources, and socio-economic outcomes., This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No Project 101060410 and Innovate UK, the UK’s Innovation Agency.

Traditionally considered to be family policy laggards, continental European countries have witnessed significant changes in parenting leave policies in recent years. In this chapter, we compare the modernisation of parenting leave policies across Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands. We analyse the extent to which these three continental European countries shifted away from male breadwinner-focused parenting leave policies between 2005 and 2020 and how these modernisation trajectories frame what is expected of parents in their leave-taking behaviour. Our analysis shows similarities and differences, as well as stasis and change across all three countries. In the final section of the chapter, we consider these developments in light of dominant gender cultures and the expectations of mothers and fathers. We suggest further research is needed on this grouping of countries to sufficiently explain the relationship between these gender attitudes and parenting leave modernisation trajectories.

Previous studies suggest the relative importance of the impact of childcare policies on mental health in parents. There have also been studies showing that welfare states have differing policy packages, consisting of a mixture of familizing and individualizing policy measures. This study builds on and extends this knowledge by carrying out a European comparison of the association between mental well health and family policies. We use Lohmann and Zagel’s familizing and individualizing policy indices to describe family policies. Our main interest is differences in mental health depending on the country, household, and individual-level characteristics. Therefore, we apply a multilevel model to 26 countries included in the 2013 wave of the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions survey (N = 141,648). The analysis found that, in general, parents of children under 13 have better mental health than other adults. We found individualizing policy measures to be positively related to mental health in parents, while familizing policies had a negative relationship. No evidence was found for the combined presence of individualizing and familizing policies making a difference to mental health in parents. These results suggest that welfare states could help parents by promoting individualizing policies to make parenthood a less stressful experience.

In order to investigate and compare welfare states or specific welfare programmes, scientists, opinion‐makers and politicians rely on indicators. As many of the concepts or objects studied are somewhat abstract, these indicators can often only be approximations. In comparative welfare‐state research, scholars have suggested several approximating indicators to quantitatively measure and compare the generosity of public welfare provision, with a special focus on cash benefits. These indicators include social spending, social rights and benefit receipt. We present these indicators systematically, and critically discuss how suitable they are for comparing the generosity of parenting leave policies in developed welfare states. Subsequently, we illustrate how the operationalisation of leave generosity by means of different indicators can lead to different rankings, interpretations and qualifications of countries. Hence, indicator choices have to be considered carefully and suitably justified, depending on the actual research interest.

In order to investigate and compare welfare states or specific welfare programmes, scientists, opinion‐makers and politicians rely on indicators. As many of the concepts or objects studied are somewhat abstract, these indicators can often only be approximations. In comparative welfare‐state research, scholars have suggested several approximating indicators to quantitatively measure and compare the generosity of public welfare provision, with a special focus on cash benefits. These indicators include social spending, social rights and benefit receipt. We present these indicators systematically, and critically discuss how suitable they are for comparing the generosity of parenting leave policies in developed welfare states. Subsequently, we illustrate how the operationalisation of leave generosity by means of different indicators can lead to different rankings, interpretations and qualifications of countries. Hence, indicator choices have to be considered carefully and suitably justified, depending on the actual research interest.

In order to investigate and compare welfare states or specific welfare programmes, scientists, opinion‐makers and politicians rely on indicators. As many of the concepts or objects studied are somewhat abstract, these indicators can often only be approximations. In comparative welfare‐state research, scholars have suggested several approximating indicators to quantitatively measure and compare the generosity of public welfare provision, with a special focus on cash benefits. These indicators include social spending, social rights and benefit receipt. We present these indicators systematically, and critically discuss how suitable they are for comparing the generosity of parenting leave policies in developed welfare states. Subsequently, we illustrate how the operationalisation of leave generosity by means of different indicators can lead to different rankings, interpretations and qualifications of countries. Hence, indicator choices have to be considered carefully and suitably justified, depending on the actual research interest.

In order to investigate and compare welfare states or specific welfare programmes, scientists, opinion‐makers and politicians rely on indicators. As many of the concepts or objects studied are somewhat abstract, these indicators can often only be approximations. In comparative welfare‐state research, scholars have suggested several approximating indicators to quantitatively measure and compare the generosity of public welfare provision, with a special focus on cash benefits. These indicators include social spending, social rights and benefit receipt. We present these indicators systematically, and critically discuss how suitable they are for comparing the generosity of parenting leave policies in developed welfare states. Subsequently, we illustrate how the operationalisation of leave generosity by means of different indicators can lead to different rankings, interpretations and qualifications of countries. Hence, indicator choices have to be considered carefully and suitably justified, depending on the actual research interest.

In order to investigate and compare welfare states or specific welfare programmes, scientists, opinion‐makers and politicians rely on indicators. As many of the concepts or objects studied are somewhat abstract, these indicators can often only be approximations. In comparative welfare‐state research, scholars have suggested several approximating indicators to quantitatively measure and compare the generosity of public welfare provision, with a special focus on cash benefits. These indicators include social spending, social rights and benefit receipt. We present these indicators systematically, and critically discuss how suitable they are for comparing the generosity of parenting leave policies in developed welfare states. Subsequently, we illustrate how the operationalisation of leave generosity by means of different indicators can lead to different rankings, interpretations and qualifications of countries. Hence, indicator choices have to be considered carefully and suitably justified, depending on the actual research interest.

In order to investigate and compare welfare states or specific welfare programmes, scientists, opinion‐makers and politicians rely on indicators. As many of the concepts or objects studied are somewhat abstract, these indicators can often only be approximations. In comparative welfare‐state research, scholars have suggested several approximating indicators to quantitatively measure and compare the generosity of public welfare provision, with a special focus on cash benefits. These indicators include social spending, social rights and benefit receipt. We present these indicators systematically, and critically discuss how suitable they are for comparing the generosity of parenting leave policies in developed welfare states. Subsequently, we illustrate how the operationalisation of leave generosity by means of different indicators can lead to different rankings, interpretations and qualifications of countries. Hence, indicator choices have to be considered carefully and suitably justified, depending on the actual research interest.

In order to investigate and compare welfare states or specific welfare programmes, scientists, opinion‐makers and politicians rely on indicators. As many of the concepts or objects studied are somewhat abstract, these indicators can often only be approximations. In comparative welfare‐state research, scholars have suggested several approximating indicators to quantitatively measure and compare the generosity of public welfare provision, with a special focus on cash benefits. These indicators include social spending, social rights and benefit receipt. We present these indicators systematically, and critically discuss how suitable they are for comparing the generosity of parenting leave policies in developed welfare states. Subsequently, we illustrate how the operationalisation of leave generosity by means of different indicators can lead to different rankings, interpretations and qualifications of countries. Hence, indicator choices have to be considered carefully and suitably justified, depending on the actual research interest.

In order to investigate and compare welfare states or specific welfare programmes, scientists, opinion‐makers and politicians rely on indicators. As many of the concepts or objects studied are somewhat abstract, these indicators can often only be approximations. In comparative welfare‐state research, scholars have suggested several approximating indicators to quantitatively measure and compare the generosity of public welfare provision, with a special focus on cash benefits. These indicators include social spending, social rights and benefit receipt. We present these indicators systematically, and critically discuss how suitable they are for comparing the generosity of parenting leave policies in developed welfare states. Subsequently, we illustrate how the operationalisation of leave generosity by means of different indicators can lead to different rankings, interpretations and qualifications of countries. Hence, indicator choices have to be considered carefully and suitably justified, depending on the actual research interest.

This Liber Amicorum is a tribute to the manifold contributions Wim van Oorschot made to the field of Social Policy. At the occasion of Wim’s retirement, 45 colleagues eagerly accepted the challenge to write a chapter explaining how Wim influenced their way of thinking and working.

Despite the increase in number of studies that examine the cross-national variation in the policy configuration that allow a better work-family integration, very few look beyond the national levels. It is also crucial to examine occupational level welfare since companies may restrict or expand the existing national level regulations, defining the “final availability” workers actual have towards various arrangements. In addition, companies may provide various additional arrangements through occupational policies which are not set out in the national level agreements that are crucial in addressing reconciliation needs of workers. This chapter examines what types of arrangements are provided at the company level to address work-family demands of workers. It further provides a synthesis of studies that examine both national level contexts and individual level characteristics that explain who gets access to company level family-friendly policies, which is linked to the possible outcomes of these policies.

In order to investigate and compare welfare states or specific welfare programmes, scientists, opinion‐makers and politicians rely on indicators. As many of the concepts or objects studied are somewhat abstract, these indicators can often only be approximations. In comparative welfare‐state research, scholars have suggested several approximating indicators to quantitatively measure and compare the generosity of public welfare provision, with a special focus on cash benefits. These indicators include social spending, social rights and benefit receipt. We present these indicators systematically, and critically discuss how suitable they are for comparing the generosity of parenting leave policies in developed welfare states. Subsequently, we illustrate how the operationalisation of leave generosity by means of different indicators can lead to different rankings, interpretations and qualifications of countries. Hence, indicator choices have to be considered carefully and suitably justified, depending on the actual research interest.

This chapter argues for the importance of developing theoretically grounded family policy indicators, with emphasis on childcare/ECEC indicators. The chapter critically introduces the conceptual frameworks underpinning the most prevalent currents in comparative research, and then presents the most prominent empirical approaches utilized in existing studies. Next, it maps the availability of comparative data on the most widely used indicators and discusses the main sources from which this data originates. The final section concludes by pointing toward some challenges for the current research agenda, along with some tentative solutions. In particular, we argue for the need to engage in a research agenda that integrates family policies, including social care services, as essential components of social citizenship.

This chapter argues for the importance of developing theoretically grounded family policy indicators, with emphasis on childcare/ECEC indicators. The chapter critically introduces the conceptual frameworks underpinning the most prevalent currents in comparative research, and then presents the most prominent empirical approaches utilized in existing studies. Next, it maps the availability of comparative data on the most widely used indicators and discusses the main sources from which this data originates. The final section concludes by pointing toward some challenges for the current research agenda, along with some tentative solutions. In particular, we argue for the need to engage in a research agenda that integrates family policies, including social care services, as essential components of social citizenship.

This chapter argues for the importance of developing theoretically grounded family policy indicators, with emphasis on childcare/ECEC indicators. The chapter critically introduces the conceptual frameworks underpinning the most prevalent currents in comparative research, and then presents the most prominent empirical approaches utilized in existing studies. Next, it maps the availability of comparative data on the most widely used indicators and discusses the main sources from which this data originates. The final section concludes by pointing toward some challenges for the current research agenda, along with some tentative solutions. In particular, we argue for the need to engage in a research agenda that integrates family policies, including social care services, as essential components of social citizenship.

This chapter argues for the importance of developing theoretically grounded family policy indicators, with emphasis on childcare/ECEC indicators. The chapter critically introduces the conceptual frameworks underpinning the most prevalent currents in comparative research, and then presents the most prominent empirical approaches utilized in existing studies. Next, it maps the availability of comparative data on the most widely used indicators and discusses the main sources from which this data originates. The final section concludes by pointing toward some challenges for the current research agenda, along with some tentative solutions. In particular, we argue for the need to engage in a research agenda that integrates family policies, including social care services, as essential components of social citizenship.

Although employment growth is propagated as being crucial to reduce poverty across EU and OECD countries, the actual impact of employment growth on poverty rates is still unclear. This study presents novel estimates of the association between macro-level trends in women’s employment and trends in poverty, across 15 OECD countries from 1971 to 2013. It does so based on over 2 million household-level observations from the LIS Database, using Kitagawa–Blinder–Oaxaca (KBO) decompositions. The results indicate that an increase of 10% points in women’s employment rate was associated with a reduction of about 1% point of poverty across these countries. In part, this reduction compensated for developments in men’s employment that were associated with higher poverty. However, in the Nordic countries no such poverty association was found, as in these countries women’s employment rates were very high and stable throughout the observation period. In countries that initially showed marked increases in women’s employment, such as the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Canada, and the United States, the initial increases in women’s employment rates were typically followed by a period in which these trends levelled off. Hence, our findings first and foremost suggest that improving gender equality in employment is associated with lower poverty risks. Yet, the results also suggest that the potential of following an employment strategy to (further) reduce poverty in OECD countries has, to a large extent, been depleted.

info:eu-repo/semantics/published

This study investigates the extent to and mechanisms through which Matthew effects create persistent status hierarchies. We propose a model that highlights the role of cumulative status bias in the feedback loop that leads from initial status allocation to status confirmation. We investigate the formalized process of repeated status allocation in annual elections to the National Basketball Association (NBA) All-Star game. Using detailed records on player performances allows us to isolate the Matthew effect from actual productivity differences to show that a previous All-Star nomination improves the chances to be re-nominated. We demonstrate that this Matthew effect is partly explained by improved productivity after an All-Star nomination, but voters’ evaluations are also directly biased by a player’s prior status. Multiple previous nominations further improve a player’s chances, confirming the importance of cumulative status bias. The resulting status-biased persistence of achieved status implies ever greater decoupling of productivity and status, undermining the meritocratic allocation of status and resources even more than the existing literature acknowledges.