2 results
six - Supports and constraints for parents: a gendered cross-national perspective
- Edited by Ann Nilsen, Universitetet i Bergen, Norway, Julia Brannen, University College London, Suzan Lewis, Middlesex University
-
- Book:
- Transitions to Parenthood in Europe
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 01 September 2022
- Print publication:
- 18 April 2012, pp 89-106
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
This chapter considers the range of resources available for working parents in different national contexts. We draw on material from countries with different levels of public and private support, working hours and childcare, to provide a systematic overview and some cross-national comparisons of types and sources of constraint and support for working parents. Unlike Chapters Four and Five and the following chapter, the analysis is not based on the case studies of individual parents. Rather we conceptualise differences across countries with reference to the structural characteristics that provide support or constraints – the resources that can be drawn on to make working parenthood possible. Thus we analyse what the national contexts are ‘cases of ‘, where support for working parents is concerned. We have categorised sources and levels of support (see Table 6.1). We have also distinguished between three main types of support within these levels – regulatory, practical and relational (support from relationships within a workplace). Countries are first examined and categorised according to some of the key categories and comparators which were relevant to our research questions (see Tables 6.2 and 6.3) and which is in line with our multilayered case study approach (see Chapter Three), notably, formal state supports, organisational supports (policies, culture, managers and colleagues), childcare support, support from partners and wider family support. All of these are considered below, and we explore the links to gendered and cultural assumptions.
A cross-national comparative perspective delineates the social structural context of people's lives – in this study, public policy provision, workplace support and community and family support available. Whether this is identified by respondents as being of value to them in their everyday lives is, however, another matter. We therefore also take into account the kinds of support and constraints respondents take as given or fail to mention – what goes unsaid or is not viewed as important or relevant, and what is seen as an entitlement in each country.
Formal support from the state in the form of regulations and laws
Formal state support is greater in the Scandinavian and Eastern European countries than elsewhere. Employers in these countries are bound by regulations laid down by the state to implement lengthy paid parental leave, and in Sweden and Norway in this study, to provide flexible working hours during the period of breastfeeding.
eight - Work–family policies in a contradictory culture: a Dutch financial sector corporation
- Edited by Suzan Lewis, Middlesex University, Julia Brannen, University College London, Ann Nilsen, Universitetet i Bergen
-
- Book:
- Work, Families and Organisations in Transition
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 16 July 2022
- Print publication:
- 22 July 2009, pp 113-128
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
In the Netherlands, support for ‘work–family balance’ is a responsibility shared between government, employers and working parents. The idea of shared responsibility is expressed in the Act on Childcare, which came into force in January 2005 and is based on the notion of tripartite funding split between the government, employers and parents. Parents pay the costs in advance, then receive an allowance from the government based on their income and on the cost of care used. Employers also contribute to the cost of childcare by paying their employees an allowance. The employers’ contributions were voluntary until 2007, but have now become obligatory. With respect to leave arrangements (see Chapter One, Table 1.1), the government expects the social partners (that is, the employers’ associations and trades unions) to extend this legal entitlement by offering additional support under collective agreements. Most Dutch employers nowadays offer at least one work–life policy that supplements the statutory provisions (Remery et al, 2002; van der Lippe, 2004). Employers in the Netherlands are generally not inclined to be frontrunners or champions with respect to work– family policies. Instead, they adapt to changing circumstances, and not primarily because they believe that setting up work–family arrangements is the best thing to do in terms of business or strategic planning. In fact, for many companies, employee satisfaction is the primary reason for introducing such provisions (for example, Remery et al, 2003).
There is some doubt as to whether work–family policies are being incorporated into company strategic thinking and, if they are not, whether they can produce any real changes within organisations. There is evidence that many employees are not taking advantage of existing policies in the Netherlands (SCP, 2004; den Dulk and de Ruijter, 2005), similar to the situation elsewhere in Europe (Haas and Hwang, 1995; Lewis, 2001) and beyond (Grover and Crooker, 1995; Hochschild, 1997; Lobel and Googins, 1999; Thompson et al, 1999; Williams, 2000; Anderson et al, 2002; Eaton, 2003). Formal policies are therefore no guarantee that work–family facilities will be used. Practical or financial reasons and an unsupportive culture in the workplace may deter people from using such policies.
![](/core/cambridge-core/public/images/lazy-loader.gif)