1 / 11

Project 9 Core Publications

Project 9 Core Publications. EU Work/family balance and gender 1. Work/family reconciliation, equal opportunities and social policies: policy trajectories at the EU level and the meaning of gender equality [JnlEuropPubPol,2006,13,3]

morley
Télécharger la présentation

Project 9 Core Publications

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Project 9 Core Publications • EU Work/family balance and gender 1. Work/family reconciliation, equal opportunities and social policies: policy trajectories at the EU level and the meaning of gender equality[JnlEuropPubPol,2006,13,3] 2. Patterns of paid and unpaid work in western Europe[JnlEuropSocPol,2008,18,1] • UK Work/family balance and gender 1.Work/family balance policies in the UK: A new departure?[JnlSocPol,2007,36,3] 2. UK Work/family balance policies and gender equality, 1997-2005[SocialPolitics,Spring,2007] 3. What’s in a Name? ‘Work-life balance’ or ’ Work-Family balance’?[SocPolandAdmin,fc] 4. New Labour and the redistribution of time[PoliticalQuarterly,2006,77,2] 5. Labour’s policy on money for parents: combining care and paid work • UK Equalities structure and policy 1. Equality and diversity: a new approach to gender equality policy[IntntlJnlofLawinContext,2007,3,1] • Bringing it all together:Jane Lewis’s forthcoming book

  2. Equalities not at issue • Sex [called ‘Gender’ in some policy/statutory contexts] • Race/ethnicity • Disability • Sexual orientation • Transgender [in all cases assuming application of same/difference principles] BUT: agency/choice affect • Gender in terms of worker/caregiver [and ?religion when≠ethnicity - not discussed here. Income inequalities also pose problems of agency/choice]

  3. Some framing devices • Public good and private ‘utility’ • Inter-household and intra-household (gendered) • Life-course (longitudinal) dimension (gendered) • Work-family balance policy - Time for work and care - Services to support worker/carers - Money for care (complete or partial ‘earnings replacement’ for carework plus [arguably] compensation for cost/ opportunity cost of ‘public good’ element of caregiving) • State/employers/family

  4. The case to answer • Different views of how to achieve ‘Gender Equality’ • Conflicting interests within families - between parents (mothers) and children - between mothers and fathers (‘freeriding’) • Tensions between families with care responsibilities and families without (‘freeriding’) • Do women want ‘gender equality’? • Changing architecture of equalities debate and policy • ‘Gender’ and ‘sex’ in policy contexts

  5. 1.Time and care: the ‘rush hour’ Adult leisure time (hrs&mins/week) [Australia] Male Female Whole populat. 35.12 31.23 No children 42.47 39.31 With children 10-14 years 25.20 24.52 5-9 years 9.47 9.01 2-4 years 5.32 5.23 Under 2 7.43 2.38 [Does not show intra-hsehold inequality of paid/unpaid wk] Source: Bittman, M. and Wacjman, J., pp 173-193 in Folbre and Bittman (2004) 2.Money Women’s individual incomes as % of comparable men (UK) 1996-7 2004-5 Pensioners Single 82 93 Couple 32 37 Non-pensioners, no dependent children Single 90 92 Couple 52 59 With dependent children Couple 31 40 [Too few lone fathers for comparison with lone mothers; table does not show inter-hsehold] Source: Women and Equality Unit (2006) Individual Income Statistics Inequalities: time and money(IntER- and intrA-household and life-course)

  6. Percentage of women in the labour force1980-2006, aged 25-54 [ILO/KILM data]

  7. Participation rate: gap between men and women, 1990 and 2006

  8. Women in EU-25 aged 25-54, 2006: labour market inactivity • 23.5% of women (23.2 million) compared to 7% of men • 10.1% of women were inactive for ‘personal or family’ (P&F) reasons BUT… • 16.6 million were ‘not willing’ to work, of whom 7.4 million for P&F reasons, i.e. 7 in 10 of P&F inactive women were ‘not willing’ to work • Only 6.6 million were willing to work • Only 2.6 million of the ‘willing to work’ but ‘not seeking’ work were in the P&F category [some others might be though in different categories AND… • These 2.6 million were concentrated in particular countries • Women’s inactivity had fallen sharply as mothers’ employment rose Source: Hardarson, O. (2007) People outside the labour force: the downward trend continues, Statistics in Focus, Population and Social Conditions, 122/2007, Luxembourg: Eurostat.

  9. ‘Inactive’ people in UK, 2007: future paid work intentions • 2.1 million women but only 197,000 men (aged 16-64) because of ‘family and home’: 45% of all inactive women, 6% of all inactive men • Over 70% of all inactives said they would ‘definitely’ (46.5%) or ‘probably’ (25%) work in future (excluding students) • Of 46.5% ‘definites’, 74% inactive because pre-school child • Most of 46.5% ‘definites’ plan to work again within five years • 19.2% of ALL inactive women are long-term sick, 19.6% are students Source: Kent, K. (2007) ‘New LFS questions on economic inactivity’, Economic and Labour Market Review, 1, 12, pp 30-36. May-July 2007 data.

  10. Time-related underemployment, 2005Employed persons who wish to work more hours Thousands % of employment All men women All men women France 841 152 689 3.5 1.2 6.2 Germany 1,371 397 974 3.8 2.0 6.0 Italy 916 236 679 4.1 1.7 7.7 Spain 655 135 520 3.5 1.2 6.9 UK 441 172 269 1.6 1.2 2.1 United States 1,344 560 832 0.9 0.7 1.3 Source: International Labour Organisation, KILM 12

  11. ‘Equity’: Can ‘fairness, sharing, justice’ relieve tensions implicit in ‘equality’? Some possible implications…… • Lisbon Strategy (inter-household, life-course) • Flexible hours for paid work (inter-household, life-course) • Mothers and children (intra-household) • Mothers and fathers (intra-household) But…. What do we lose….? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Campbell, March 28 2008: Please do not cite without permission

More Related