Drawing on both gender regime theory and social reproduction theory, this article compares the socioeconomic and gendered organization of social reproduction in the United States and the United Kingdom from 1973 to 2013. Integrating data from the Luxembourg Income Study, the Multinational Time-Use Study, and additional sources, we examine how men and women of different socioeconomic groups contribute to social reproduction through household production, paid work, and government social benefits. Our results demonstrate that household social reproduction has not been universally refamilialized, marketized, or desocialized in either country. While there is some evidence of degendering, questions remain about its feminist implications.
{"title":"A Comparison of the Socioeconomic and Gendered Organization of Social Reproduction in the United States and the United Kingdom, 1973–2013","authors":"Katherine A. Moos, Pilar Gonalons-Pons","doi":"10.1093/sp/jxae007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxae007","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Drawing on both gender regime theory and social reproduction theory, this article compares the socioeconomic and gendered organization of social reproduction in the United States and the United Kingdom from 1973 to 2013. Integrating data from the Luxembourg Income Study, the Multinational Time-Use Study, and additional sources, we examine how men and women of different socioeconomic groups contribute to social reproduction through household production, paid work, and government social benefits. Our results demonstrate that household social reproduction has not been universally refamilialized, marketized, or desocialized in either country. While there is some evidence of degendering, questions remain about its feminist implications.","PeriodicalId":517187,"journal":{"name":"Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society","volume":" 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141677255","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Existing literature on the politics of work–family reconciliation policies focuses primarily on women and their policy preferences as the main driver of recent policy expansions. But what do we know about male preferences? This article explores this question in an innovative way by integrating insights from economic and sociological studies of division of labor and bargaining within the household. It investigates the link between women’s relative resources within the household and their male partners’ preferences for different types of reconciliation policies. Drawing on regression analysis of nineteen OECD countries using the International Social Survey Program data (Family and Changing Gender Roles IV), we find that: (1) men in dual-earner households, men in college-educated educational homogamy, and men in educational hypogamy (the woman is better educated) are more likely to support reconciliation policies; and (2) women’s earnings and education have different effects on men’s preferences.
{"title":"Do Men Care about Childcare? Women’s Relative Resources and Men’s Preferences for Work–Family Reconciliation Policies","authors":"Margarita Estévez-Abe, Tae Hyun Lim","doi":"10.1093/sp/jxae002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxae002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Existing literature on the politics of work–family reconciliation policies focuses primarily on women and their policy preferences as the main driver of recent policy expansions. But what do we know about male preferences? This article explores this question in an innovative way by integrating insights from economic and sociological studies of division of labor and bargaining within the household. It investigates the link between women’s relative resources within the household and their male partners’ preferences for different types of reconciliation policies. Drawing on regression analysis of nineteen OECD countries using the International Social Survey Program data (Family and Changing Gender Roles IV), we find that: (1) men in dual-earner households, men in college-educated educational homogamy, and men in educational hypogamy (the woman is better educated) are more likely to support reconciliation policies; and (2) women’s earnings and education have different effects on men’s preferences.","PeriodicalId":517187,"journal":{"name":"Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140421308","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The growth of atypical work has created a divide between insiders, with safe jobs, and outsiders, in fixed-term, part-time, and/or precarious work situations. Due to higher economic risk, outsiders support compensating social policies more than insiders. However, the same consistency has not been found in the attitudes of part-time outsiders. Consequently, this article suggests an expansion from the work-nexus to the care-nexus of welfare when examining these outsiders’ political behavior. Findings from a structural equation framework using Norwegian data (N = 2,254) from 2022 show that part-time outsiders experience higher risk of partner dependency, making them more likely to support optional familialism in family policy. As part-time work is strongly feminized, these findings have important implications for gender equality in the private and public spheres. Additionally, the results call for future research on insider/outsider dynamics to take both the work-nexus and care-nexus of the welfare state into account.
{"title":"Rethinking Part-Time Outsiders’ Risks and Welfare Attitudes","authors":"Anna Helgøy","doi":"10.1093/sp/jxae001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxae001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The growth of atypical work has created a divide between insiders, with safe jobs, and outsiders, in fixed-term, part-time, and/or precarious work situations. Due to higher economic risk, outsiders support compensating social policies more than insiders. However, the same consistency has not been found in the attitudes of part-time outsiders. Consequently, this article suggests an expansion from the work-nexus to the care-nexus of welfare when examining these outsiders’ political behavior. Findings from a structural equation framework using Norwegian data (N = 2,254) from 2022 show that part-time outsiders experience higher risk of partner dependency, making them more likely to support optional familialism in family policy. As part-time work is strongly feminized, these findings have important implications for gender equality in the private and public spheres. Additionally, the results call for future research on insider/outsider dynamics to take both the work-nexus and care-nexus of the welfare state into account.","PeriodicalId":517187,"journal":{"name":"Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society","volume":"60 1-2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139895910","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Combining high birth rates with gender equality and women’s reproductive choice is often put forward as a Nordic success story. We analyze Norwegian governmental commission reports delivered 1984–2017, tracing how fertility issues are approached in policy-making under shifting demographic conditions. We focus on four key topics—pro-natalism, individual versus societal level effects of policies, socioeconomic differences in fertility, and immigration. We see little or no attention given to the fact that policy effects may vary by class background or preferences. Relatively high fertility is considered positive, but pro-natalist intent is downplayed or absent, even when fertility is falling. We connect these findings to the distinctive Nordic dual earner/care-giver model, a historical legacy of “unintentional” pro-natalism, and features of the commission system. We call for more interchange between demography and institutionalist scholarship and argue that questions of macro-level fertility effects of family policies could be better handled in a more explicit debate.
{"title":"What About Fertility? The Unintentional Pro-natalism of a Nordic Country","authors":"R. Hart, Cathrine Holst","doi":"10.1093/sp/jxad033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxad033","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Combining high birth rates with gender equality and women’s reproductive choice is often put forward as a Nordic success story. We analyze Norwegian governmental commission reports delivered 1984–2017, tracing how fertility issues are approached in policy-making under shifting demographic conditions. We focus on four key topics—pro-natalism, individual versus societal level effects of policies, socioeconomic differences in fertility, and immigration. We see little or no attention given to the fact that policy effects may vary by class background or preferences. Relatively high fertility is considered positive, but pro-natalist intent is downplayed or absent, even when fertility is falling. We connect these findings to the distinctive Nordic dual earner/care-giver model, a historical legacy of “unintentional” pro-natalism, and features of the commission system. We call for more interchange between demography and institutionalist scholarship and argue that questions of macro-level fertility effects of family policies could be better handled in a more explicit debate.","PeriodicalId":517187,"journal":{"name":"Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society","volume":"73 1-3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140514850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：