Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T05:09:08.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Defamilisation and familisation risks, adult worker models, and pro-employment/decommodification measures for women: the case of Hong Kong

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2020

Sam Wai-Kam Yu*
Department of Social Work, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong
Chui-Man Ruby Chau
School of Sociology and Social Policy, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
Stefan Kühner
Department of Sociology and Social Policy, Lingnan University, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong
CONTACT Sam Wai-Kam Yu


This paper is concerned with the research areas of defamilisation/familisation and adult worker models. It particularly focuses on demonstrating how the study of government pro-employment and decommodification measures for reducing defamilisation and familisation risks faced by women contributes to the examination of the adult worker models. It presents three analytical tasks. The first is to categorise the adult worker models into four types (market-focused, supported, choice-focused and collective consumption) based on different combinations of the pro-employment and decommodification measures. The second is to explore the relative desirability of these four types in enhancing women's well-being. Based on the case example of Hong Kong, the third is to examine issues concerning the application of the adult worker models in the analysis of how the government responds to defamilisation and familisation risks.

Research Article
Copyright © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Addati, L. (2015). Extending maternity protection to all women: Trends, challenges and opportunities. International Social Security Review, 68(1), 6993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annesley, C. (2007). Women's political agency and welfare reform: Engendering the adult worker model. Parliamentary Affairs, 60(3), 452466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bambra, C. (2007). Defamilisation and welfare state regimes: A cluster analysis. International Journal of Social Welfare, 16(4), 326338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Census and Statistics Department. (2016). Quarterly report on general household survey. Retrieved from Scholar
Census and Statistics Department. (2017). Women and men in Hong Kong – key statistics. Retrieved from Scholar
Chau, R. C. M., Foster, L., & Yu, S. W. K. (2017). Defamilisation and leave policies – a comparative study of 14 East Asian and non-East Asian countries. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 10(3), 318333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission on Poverty. (2016). Hong Kong poverty situation report 2016. Retrieved from Scholar
Crompton, R. (1999). Restructuring gender relations and employment: The decline of the male breadwinner. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Daly, M. (2011). What adult worker model? A critical look at recent social policy reform in Europe from a gender and family perspective. Social Politics, 18(1), 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elderly Commission. (2017). Elderly services programme plan. Hong Kong: Government Logistics Department.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. London: Polity.Google Scholar
Giullari, S., & Lewis, J. (2006). The adult worker model family, gender equality and care: The search for new policy principles and the possibilities and problems of a capabilities approach. Economy and Society, 34(1), 76104.Google Scholar
Gornick, J. C., & Meyers, M. K. (2001, June). Building a dual-earner/dual-carer society: What can government do? Paper presented at the Sixth Women's Policy Research Conference, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hass, L., & Hwang, C. P. (2008). The impact of taking parental leave on fathers’ participation in childcare and relationships with children: Lessons from Sweden, community. Work and Family, 11(1), 85104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong Kong SAR Government (HKSAR). (2014). Population policy: Thoughts for Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Central Government Offices.Google Scholar
Hudson, J., & Kühner, S. (2009). Towards productive welfare? A comparative analysis of 23 OECD countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 19(1), 3446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Network on Leave Policies and Research. (2017). .Country reports. In S. Blum, A. Koslowski, & P. Moss (Eds.), International review of leave policies and research 2017. Leave Policies & Research Network, UK Retrieved from Scholar
Keck, W., & Saraceno, C. (2012). Multilinks database on intergenerational policy indicators. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 132, 453461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilkey, M., & Merla, L. (2014). Situating transnational families’ care-giving arrangements: The role of institutional contexts. Global Networks, 14(2), 210229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroger, T. (2011). Defamilisation, dedomestication and care policy: Comparing childcare service provisions of welfare states. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 31(7/8), 424440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ku, Y. W., & Finer, C. J. (2007). Developments in East Asian welfare studies. Social Policy and Administration, 41(2), 115131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurowska, A. (2018). (De)familialization and (de)genderization – competing or complementary perspectives in comparative policy analysis? Social Policy and Administration, 52(1), 2949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lam, C. (2017). Policy address: We connect for hope and happiness. Retrieved from Scholar
Leira, A. (2002). Working parents and the welfare state: Family change and policy reform in Scandinavia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leitner, S. (2003). Varieties of familialism: The caring function of the family in comparative perspective. European Societies, 5(4), 353375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, L. C. (2014). The 2014 Policy Address. Retrieved from Scholar
Leung, L. C., & Chan, K. W. (2012). A family-friendly policy for Hong Kong: Lessons from three international experiences. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 32(1/2), 8295.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. (2001). The decline of the male breadwinner model: The implications for work and care. Social Politics, 8(2), 152169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, J., & Giullari, S. (2005). The adult worker model family, gender equality and care: The search for new policy principles and the possibilities and problems of a capabilities approach. Economy and Society, 34(1), 76104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lister, R. (1994). She has other duties’: Women, citizenship and social security. In Baldwin, S., & Falkingham, J. (Eds.), Social security and social change: New challenges to the Beveridge model (pp. 3144). New York: Harvester.Google Scholar
Lister, R. (1997). Citizenship: Feminist perspectives. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohmann, H., & Zagel, H. (2016). Family policy in comparative perspective: The concepts and measurement of familization and defamilization. Journal of European Social Policy, 26(1), 4865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, T., & Kim, A. B. (2017). 2017 index of economic freedom. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.Google Scholar
Nyberg, A. (2002). Gender, (de)commodification, economic (in)dependence and autonomous households: The case of Sweden. Critical Social Policy, 22(1), 7295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orloff, A. (1993). Gender and the social rights of citizenship: The comparative analysis of gender relations and welfare states. American Sociological Review, 58, 303328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orloff, J. (2009). Gendering the comparative analysis of welfare states: An unfinished agenda. Sociological Theory, 27(3), 317343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau-Effinger, B. (2005). Welfare state policies and the development of care arrangement. European Societies, 7(2), 321347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, M., & Barrientos, A. (2011). An audit of the welfare modelling business. Social Policy and Administration, 45(1), 6984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, D., Hudson, J., Kühner, S., Frey, V., & Patana, P. (2015). Comparing the effects of cash benefits and in-kind childcare services on family outcomes (OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Paper). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Saraceno, C. (2015). A critical look to the social investment approach from a gender perspective. Social Politics, 22(2), 257269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxonberg, S. (2013). From defamilisation to degenderization: Toward a new welfare typology. Social Policy and Administration, 47(1), 2649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shi, S. J., & Mok, K. H. (2012). Pension privatisation in greater China: Institutional patterns and policy outcomes. International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(S1), S30S45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siu, A. (2002). Hong Kong mandatory provident fund. Cato Journal, 22(2), 317332.Google Scholar
Social Welfare Advisory Committee. (2010). Long-term social welfare planning in Hong Kong consultation paper. Retrieved from Scholar
Sung, S., & Pascall, G. (2014). Introduction: Gender and welfare states in East Asia. In Sung, S., & Pascall, G. (Eds.), Gender and welfare state in East Asia: Confucianism or gender equality? (pp. 128). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations. (2017). World Population Prospects 2017. Retrieved from Scholar
Women's Commission. (2015). Survey on the time use patterns and women's employment. Retrieved from Scholar
Yu, S., Foster, L., Chau, R., & Lee, A. (2017). An investigation of defamilization/familization measures to assist women to save pension income and strengthen the adult worker model – The case of Hong Kong. Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 11, 234243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar