What and whom are family policies for? Unpacking the meaning of citizens’ support for family policy across Europe

Tatjana Rakar, Heejung Chung, Katharina Zimmermann, Mi Ah Schoyen, Maša Filipovič Hrast
{"title":"What and whom are family policies for? Unpacking the meaning of citizens’ support for family policy across Europe","authors":"Tatjana Rakar, Heejung Chung, Katharina Zimmermann, Mi Ah Schoyen, Maša Filipovič Hrast","doi":"10.1017/ics.2021.16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The paper provides a comparative investigation into public attitudes to family policies. It shows that citizens’ support for family policies is diverse across different welfare regimes with respect to four countries belonging to distinct regimes: the United Kingdom, Germany, Norway and Slovenia. Using qualitative data, we unpack the ways individuals view the need for family policies, the rationale they use to explain their support for family policies and for imposing restrictions on access to family policies – ie. why, for whom and under which conditions. We find that social rights narratives are common in Norway; a social investment logic is prevalent in Germany and Slovenia; while in the United Kingdom, the dominant view is closer to the work-central individualised responsibility narrative of neoliberalism. In addition, we find differences across regimes in which family policies should target. In the United Kingdom and Germany, the focus is much more on providing support to activate parents, while in Norway and partly Slovenia, the focus is on providing well-being for children. The findings show that despite some convergence in family policies across Europe in recent times, we still find clear diversity in what and for whom family policies are for, its rationale largely embedded in the larger institutional normative structures of the welfare state. The results not only contribute to the literature on the relationship between public attitudes and welfare institutions, but also point towards shifting ideas about the role of family policies in the context of societal change.","PeriodicalId":38249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ics.2021.16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The paper provides a comparative investigation into public attitudes to family policies. It shows that citizens’ support for family policies is diverse across different welfare regimes with respect to four countries belonging to distinct regimes: the United Kingdom, Germany, Norway and Slovenia. Using qualitative data, we unpack the ways individuals view the need for family policies, the rationale they use to explain their support for family policies and for imposing restrictions on access to family policies – ie. why, for whom and under which conditions. We find that social rights narratives are common in Norway; a social investment logic is prevalent in Germany and Slovenia; while in the United Kingdom, the dominant view is closer to the work-central individualised responsibility narrative of neoliberalism. In addition, we find differences across regimes in which family policies should target. In the United Kingdom and Germany, the focus is much more on providing support to activate parents, while in Norway and partly Slovenia, the focus is on providing well-being for children. The findings show that despite some convergence in family policies across Europe in recent times, we still find clear diversity in what and for whom family policies are for, its rationale largely embedded in the larger institutional normative structures of the welfare state. The results not only contribute to the literature on the relationship between public attitudes and welfare institutions, but also point towards shifting ideas about the role of family policies in the context of societal change.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
家庭政策是为什么和谁制定的?解读欧洲公民支持家庭政策的意义
摘要本文对公众对家庭政策的态度进行了比较调查。研究表明,在属于不同制度的四个国家,即联合王国、德国、挪威和斯洛文尼亚,不同福利制度的公民对家庭政策的支持是不同的。利用定性数据,我们揭示了个人对家庭政策需求的看法,以及他们用来解释他们支持家庭政策和对获得家庭政策施加限制的理由,即为什么、为谁以及在什么条件下。我们发现,社会权利叙事在挪威很常见;社会投资逻辑在德国和斯洛文尼亚很普遍;而在英国,主流观点更接近于新自由主义的以工作为中心的个人责任叙事。此外,我们发现家庭政策应针对的制度之间存在差异。在英国和德国,重点更多地放在为激活父母提供支持上,而在挪威和部分斯洛文尼亚,重点是为儿童提供福祉。研究结果表明,尽管近年来欧洲各地的家庭政策有所趋同,但我们仍然发现,家庭政策的目的和对象存在明显的多样性,其基本原理在很大程度上植根于福利国家更大的制度规范结构中。研究结果不仅有助于研究公众态度与福利机构之间关系的文献,而且也表明在社会变革的背景下,关于家庭政策作用的观念发生了转变。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy
Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Social policy in Africa: Risks, protection, and dynamics The challenge of youth unemployment in Nigeria International charitable connections: Variation in the countries of operation of overseas charities Scales of ideational policy influence: A multi-level, actor-centric, and institutionalist perspective on the role of ideas in African social policy The state role in civilising childcare – comparing policy intentions with childcare in Brazil and Denmark
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1