Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Part I
- 1 The position of mothers in a comparative welfare state perspective
- 2 Making time for working parents: comparing public childcare provision
- 3 Parents' care and career: comparing parental leave policies
- 4 Support for market care: comparing child cash and tax benefits
- Part II
- Part III
- Index
- References
4 - Support for market care: comparing child cash and tax benefits
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Part I
- 1 The position of mothers in a comparative welfare state perspective
- 2 Making time for working parents: comparing public childcare provision
- 3 Parents' care and career: comparing parental leave policies
- 4 Support for market care: comparing child cash and tax benefits
- Part II
- Part III
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
Besides public childcare provision and maternity/paternity leave arrangements, a third way for the state to intervene in the childcare sphere is to grant benefits to families with young children. These could help them finance the cost of childcare purchased on the market or cover part of their child-related expenses. However, the problem with this support is the broad use that parents can make of it. On the one hand, financial support can help families buy care time on the market and thus allow both parents to work (e.g. Del Boca et al. 2003; Viitanen 2005). On the other hand, when benefits are not issued for the specific purpose of purchasing market care, they can and are used to pay for other needs (food, clothes, etc.). A possible effect, which is very important from the gender point of view, is that, if financial support is perceived as being too generous, it risks inducing mothers to quit the labour market (e.g. Lewis and Ostner 1994; Naz 2004). The effect of such support on the work/family balance is then less clear. In the following sections we will present indicators that measure purely financial generosity, knowing that it should be kept in mind that ‘general’ cash or tax benefits have an ambiguous effect.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Social Policies, Labour Markets and MotherhoodA Comparative Analysis of European Countries, pp. 107 - 152Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2008
References
Administration des contributions directes 2004. Mémento fiscal, Luxembourg. (www.impotsdirects.public.lu/legislation/memento/memento04.pdf)
Agencia Tributaria 2004. ‘Impuesto sobre la Renta de las Personas Fisicas’, Preguntas Frecuentes(www.aeat.es/).
1999. ‘The distribution of income in the UK and OECD countries in the twentieth century’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy 15: 56–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradbury, B., S. P. Jenkins and J. Micklewright 2000. ‘Child poverty dynamics in seven nations’, mimeo, June, 40 pp.
Bradshaw, J. and N. Finch 2002. ‘A comparison of child benefit packages in 22 countries’, Research Report no. 174, University of York (www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rrep174.asp)
Del Boca, D., M. Locatelli and D. Vuri 2003. ‘Childcare choices by Italian households’, University of Turin and University of Florence, CHILD Working Paper.
Jepsen, M., D. Meulders, O. Plasman and P. Vanhuynegem 1997. Individualisation of the Social and Fiscal Rights and the Equal Opportunities Between Women and Men, Final report, DULBEA-ETE, Edition du DULBEA, January, LXXV, 322 pp.
Lehmann, P. and C. Wirtz 2004. ‘Household formation in the EU: lone parents’, Statistics in Focus, no. 5 /2004, Eurostat, European Communities.
1998. ‘Etat et familles: Politiques publiques comparées en Europe’, in Collectif: L'Etat à l’épreuve du social, Paris: Editions Syllespse, pp. 139–51.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. and I. Ostner 1994. ‘Gender and the evolution of European social policies’, Universität Bremen, Zentrum für Sozialpolitik (Centre for Social Policy Research), ZeS-Arbeitspapier Nr. 4/94.
and 1993. ‘Separate spheres bargaining and the marriage market’, Journal of Political Economy 101, 988–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1996. ‘Bargaining and distribution in marriage’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 10, 139–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 1997. ‘Do husbands and wives pool their resources? Evidence from U.K. child benefit’, Journal of Human Resources 32, (3), 463–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2003. ‘Child poverty in English-speaking countries’, Innocenti Working Paper, no. 24, 40 pp.Google Scholar
Ministère des Finances 2004a. Mémento fiscal, Brussels.
Ministère des Finances 2004b. ‘Calcul de l'impôt’, Fiche descriptive no. 1084(www.fisc.gouv.fr/deploiement/p1/fichedescriptive_1084/fichedescriptive_1084.pdf)
MISSOC 2003. (http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/missoc2003/missoc_89_fr.htm)
2004. ‘The impact of cash-benefit reform on parents’ labour force participation’, Journal of Population Economics 17, (2), 369–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD 2004. Taxing Wages 2002–2003 2003 Edition, Source OECD Taxation, 2004, no. 1, i–446.
and 1998. ‘What's mine is yours? The influence of male and female incomes on patterns of household expenditure’, Economica, 65 (230), 599–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNICEF 2000. ‘A league table of child poverty in rich nations’, Innocenti Report Card, no. 1, June, Florence.
2005. ‘Cost of childcare and female employment in the UK’, Labour 19, (S1), 149–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.