Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 September 2008
A country's family policy reflects, either directly or indirectly, the attitude of government, parliament and society to the family as an institution. The way in which a government deals with families, whether it gives them financial support, and why and how it does so, reveals the objectives of its family policy, and also ultimately its population policy.
1 This is also the general tone of sociological works. The subject is so overloaded with ideological ballast that there has ‘never been … a thorough discussion of the future of the German population’. Schmid, Josef, Bevölkerungsveränderungen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Eine Revolution auf leisen Sohlen Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1984), 111.Google Scholar
2 Cf. Akrami-Göhren, Jutta, Die Familienpolitik im Rahmen der Sozialpolitik mit besonderer Berück-sichtigung der Vorstellungen und der praktischen Tätigkeit der CDU, (thereafter Akrami-Göhren, Familien-politik (PhD thesis, Bonn University 1974), 28–32.Google Scholar
3 On these aspects cf. Grieswelle, Detlef, ‘Diskurs über Bevölkerungsfragen und Familienpolitik’, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte. Beilage zur Wochenzeitung Das Parlament, Vol. 18 (1989), 27.Google Scholar
4 ibid.
5 Deutschland im Wiederaufbau, German Government report 1953, 311.
6 In a speech to the World Congress of Family Organisations in Stuttgart in 1954, quoted from: Deutschland im Wiederaufbau, 1954, 341.
7 Bundestag official publication 7/3340, 10/3/1975, quoted from Leenen, Wolf-Rainer, ‘Bevölker-ungsentwicklung und Bevölkerungspolitik in beiden deutschen Staaten’, Deutschland-Archiv, Vol. 10 (1977), 616f.Google Scholar
8 In the third report on the family (1979) several authors detected signs of a transition to population policy, but this never came about. cf. Herlth, Alois and Kaufmann, Franz-Xaver, ‘Zur Einführung: Familiale Probleme und sozialpolitische Intervention’, in Kaufmann, Franz-Xaver, ed., Staatliche Sozialpolitik und Familie (Munich/Vienna: Oldenbourg, 1982), 16.Google Scholar
9 Kaelble, Hartmut, Nachbarn am Rhein. Entfremdung und Annäherung der französischen und deutschen Gesellschaft seit 1880 (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1991), 215.Google Scholar
10 ibid., 217
11 cf. Schultheis, Franz, Sozialgeschichte der französischen Familienpolitik (thereafter Schultheis, Sozialgeschichte) (Frankfurt am M.: Campus-Verlag, 1988).Google Scholar
12 This was estabilshed by one of the first studies, in 1866, on child mortality in France, quoted from Schultheis, , Sozialgeschichte, 157.Google Scholar
13 ibid., 343.
14 ibid., 339.
15 Bremme, Gabriele, Freiheit und soziale Sicherheit. Motive und Prinzipien sozialer Sicherung dargestellt an England und Frankreich (thereafter Bremme, Freiheit) (Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke, 1961), 191.Google Scholar
16 Gebauer, Siegfried, Familie und Staat. Handbuch zur Familienpolitik in Europa (thereafter Gebauer, Familie) (Heidelberg/Berlin: Impuls-Verlag Heinz Moos, 1961), 40.Google Scholar
17 Cf. the explanation in a memorandum by the Federal Labour Minister ‘Probleme der Kinderbeihilfen (Familienausgleichskassen)’, Stuttgart 1952, Bundesarchiv Koblenz (henceforth BA) B153–759, and a study by the German Family Ministry in 1955, quoted from Bünger, Emil Fritz, Familienpolitik in Deutschland. Neue Erkenntnisse über den Einfluβ des sog. ‘Gieβkannenprinzips’ auf die Wirksamkeit sozialpolitischer Maβnahmen (thereafter Bünger, Familienpolitik) (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1970), 29f.Google Scholar
18 Zöllner, Detlev, ‘Landesbericht Deutschland’, in Köhler, Peter A. and Zacher, Hans F., eds, Ein Jahrhundert Sozialversicherung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Frankreich, Groβbritannien, Österreich und der Schweiz (thereafter Köhler and Zacher, Jahrhundert) (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1981), 147.Google Scholar
19 On maternity law in the post-war period, Moeller, Robert G., Protecting Motherhood. Women and the Family in the Politics of Postwar Germany (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993).Google Scholar
20 Thus Wuermeling in the presentation of his political programme, published in Zentral-Informationsdienst, No. 8, 12/11/1954, BA B153/829–2.
21 Cf. for example Hockerts, Hans Günter, ‘Integration der Gesellschaft: Gründungskrise und Sozialpolitik in der Frühen Bundesrepublik’, Zeitschrift für Sozialreform, Vol. 32 (1986), 30fGoogle Scholar; von Berlepsch, Hans-Jörg, ‘“Sozialistische Sozialpolitik”? Zur sozialpolitischen Konzeption und Strategie der SPD in den Jahren 1949 bis 1966’, in Tenfelde, Klaus, ed., Arbeiter im 20. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1991), 469.Google Scholar
22 Le Play, F., La Réforme Sociale en France (Paris: 1864).Google Scholar
23 Schultheis, , Sozialgeschichte, 115–53.Google Scholar
24 cf. Bremme, , Freiheit, 179f.Google Scholar
25 ibid., 182.
26 On these measures see ibid., 184, and Schultheis, , Sozialgeschichte, 344–52.Google Scholar
27 Bremme, , Freiheit, 186.Google Scholar
28 Ritter, Gerhard A., Der Sozialstaat. Entstehung und Entwicklung im internationalen Vergleich (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1989), 152.Google Scholar Cf. here also, ibid., 145–8, a description of the Beveridge Plan, which influenced the French plan for flat-rate social insurance. See also, in detail, Bremme, , Freiheit, 39–67.Google Scholar
29 Cf. ibid. and Hockerts, Hans Günter, ‘Die Entwicklung vom Zweiten Weltkrieg bis zur Gegenwart’, in Köhler and Zacher, Jahrhundert, 147f.Google Scholar
30 See the table in Bremme, , Freiheit, 188.Google Scholar
31 Although there was a clear intention to discourage mothers from going out to work, Karen Offen points out that families with working mothers also profited considerably from all maternity provisions. Karen Offen, ‘Body Politics. Women, Work and the Politics of Motherhood in France, 1920–1950’, in Bock, Gisela and Thane, Pat, eds, Maternity and Gender Policies: Women and the Rise of European Welfare States 1880s–1950s (London/New York: Routledge, 1991) 138–59.Google Scholar
32 This was a fairly lengthy presentation by the UIOF (Union Internationale des Organisations Familiaux), formulated in conjunction with the French authorities, which was given to the Deutscher Familienverband in 1960. It had been requested because Blank, the labour minister at that time, had criticised the French system of family subsidies. According to a letter from the French family association to Herr Gebauer in the Family Ministry, Blank was of the opinion that French subsidies were so high that they discouraged fathers from working. Both documents in BA B153/829–1.
33 Cf. Sozialer Fortschritt, 3rd year 1954, 52f.
34 Gebauer, , Familie, 57.Google Scholar
35 Bremme, , Freiheit, 192.Google Scholar
36 Niehuss, Merith, Familie, Frau und Gesellschaft. Studien zur Strukturgeschichte der Familie in Deutschland 1945–1960 (thereafter Niehuss, Familie, Frau und Gesellschaft) (forthcoming).Google Scholar
37 Letter from Ministerialrat Ludwig in the Family Ministry to the chairman of the Deutscher Familienverband, 10/8/1956, BA B153/829–1.
38 Sozialer Fortschritt, 3rd year, 1954, 213.
39 Cf. the statistics in Gebauer, , Familie, 51.Google Scholar For children up to the age of six there was DM25 in 1953 and from 1959 onwards DM30, up to the age of 14, DM30 and then DM35, and up to the age of 18, or 25 if still in education, DM35 and then DM40.
40 Bünger, , Familienpolitik, 21.Google Scholar
41 Willeke, Franz-Ulrich and Onken, Ralph, Allgemeiner Familienlastenausgleich in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Eine empirische Analyse zu drei Jahrzehnten monetärer Familienpolitik (thereafter Willeke and Onken, Familienlastenausgleich) (Frankfurt: Campus-Verlag, 1990), 84.Google Scholar For some incomprehensible reason the authors have omitted from the table of tax-free allowances the basic allowances for the wage-earner and the spouse (419).
42 Sources: ‘Gegenüberstellung der familienpolitischen Ausgangspositionen im Jahre 1953 mit den heute erreichten’, Ms., BA B153/829–1; Bünger, , Familienpolitik, 20Google Scholar; ‘Deutschland im Wiederaufbau’, 1955, 402.
43 Source: ‘Gegenüberstellung’.
44 Gebauer, Familie, 53.
45 For example, Wuermeling in his report ‘Gegenüberstellung’, and elsewhere; also Gebauer, , Familie, 53.Google Scholar
46 cf. Adams, Hans, ‘Entwicklung der steuerlichen und wirtschaftlichen Belastung der Familie’, in Pro Familia. Festschrift des Deutschen Familienverbandes, n.d. (1955), BA B153/828–1, 55–57.Google Scholar
47 Reich-Hilweg, Ines, Männer und Frauen sind gleichberechtigt (Frankfurt am M.: Europ. Verlaganstalt, 1979).Google Scholar
48 cf. Joosten, Astrid, Die Frau, das ‘segenspendende Herz der Familie’. Familienpolitik als Frauenpolitik in der ‘Ära Adenauer’ (thereafter Joosten, Die Frau) (Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus-Verlag, 1990), 59.Google Scholar
49 cf. Abers, Willi, ‘Familie und Einkommensteuer. Ein internationaler Vergleich’, Sozialer Fortschritt, Vol. 8–9 (1954)Google Scholar, also published in Pro Familia, 58–63.
50 Response by the Family Minister to a question in the Bundestag on 29/4/54, published in Deutscher Familienverband, Informationen der Bundesgeschäftsstelle, 26 May 1954, Frankfurt am M., BA B106/9370.
51 Cf. extracts from the explanation of this verdict in Informationen für die Frau (1957), issue 5, 9; cf. also Joosten, , Die Frau, 59.Google Scholar
52 Hentschel, Volker, Geschichte der deutschen Sozialpolitik (1880–1980). Soziale Sicherung und kollektives Arbeitsrecht (Frankfurt am M.: Suhrkamp, 1983), 202.Google Scholar
53 Pechstein, Johannes and Pechstein, Matthias, ‘Familiengerechtigkeit als “Verfassungsauftrag”. Antrag des Bundesverfassungsgerichts an den Deutschen Bundestag’ (thereafter Pechstein and Pechstein, ‘Familiengerechtigkeit’), Sozialpädiatrie in Praxis und Klinik, no. 10, 14th year (1992), 741.Google Scholar
54 Cf. the demands of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Bevölkerungswissenschaft at the Marburg Conference in March 1954: ‘Generally speaking, the idea that one income can provide for and educate two children must be contested …’, Sozialer Fortschritt (1954), 88.
55 A public-sector salary was sufficient to bring up four children ‘in a style appropriate to the job’. If there were more children than this, additional benefits would be needed. Quoted from the Süddeutsche Zeitung, 8/6/1990.
56 In the Federal Republic the average monthly net loss was still DM623 per month in 1961. Bünger, , Familienpolitik, 59.Google Scholar
57 All quotations from the Family Minister–s report in ‘Deutschland im Wiederaufbau’, 1954, 343.
58 Willeke and Onken, Familienlastenausgleich. For twelve representative income groups, among them a variety of family situations (single people, couples without children, families with from one to four children), but always with only one earner, the authors calculated the real effects of increases in wages and income, tax legislation and child benefits. However, they did not publish the bulk of the statistics, but presented them in the form of graphics, so that it has not been possible to give exact figures in the following section.
59 ibid., 125.
60 ibid., 85.
61 ibid., 108.
62 Bünger, , Familienpolitik, 16.Google Scholar
63 According to Akrami-Göhren, , Familienpolitik, 295.Google Scholar
64 In Zentral-Informationsdienst, No. 8, 12/11/1954, BA B153/829–2.
65 Oeter, Ferdinand, ‘Familiengerechte Sozialpolitik’, Sozialer Fortschritt (1952), 288.Google Scholar
66 Süddeutsche Zeitung, 19/10/1954.
67 Quoted from Akrami-Göhren, , Familienpolitik, 137.Google Scholar
68 Süddeutsche Zeitung, 19/10/1954.
69 This is a study by the authorities in Luxembourg for the area of coal and steel in the then six countries of the European Community. Apart from wage levels, family subsidies and the effects of the tax legislation of 1959 were taken into account; for technical reasons welfare contributions could not be considered. Source: Gebauer, , Familie, 63.Google Scholar
70 This amounts to a normative assessment of how income is, on average, consumed. The assumption is that in the case of couples, expenses do not double when they marry, but that the second adult – in these examples always the housewife – initiates certain savings. This applies variously to children, depending on their ages. For a new and basically differentiated calculation of equivalence figures cf. Triebel, Armin, ‘Vergleichbar machen, ohne gleichzumachen. Äquivalenzzahlen in der ökonomischen Konsumforschung’, in Pierenkemper, Toni, ed., Zur Ökonomik des privaten Haushalts. Haushaltsrechnungen als Quelle historischer Wirtschafts- und Sozialforschung (Frankfurt am M.: Campus-Verlag, 1991), 98–141.Google Scholar
71 Results of an investigation by a study commission of the International Union of Family Organisations (UIOF), quoted from Gebauer, , Familie, 99.Google Scholar
72 Pechstein, and Pechstein, , ‘Familiengerechtigkeit’, 736.Google Scholar
73 From the Constitutional Court's judgement on the ‘Erziehungszeitenbeschluß’ of 7/7/1992, quoted from ibid. Cf. also quotations from the explanation in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, 8/7/1992.
74 Cf. for more detail Niehuss, Familie, Frau und Gesellschaft.
