European Journal of Population

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 189–210 | Cite as

Use It or Save It? Migration Background and Parental Leave Uptake in Sweden

Article

Abstract

Sweden is a welfare state with a family policy that strongly emphasizes equality without distinction by place of birth or gender. In this study, we investigate the differences in uptake of parental leave between native and immigrant mothers, and the connection to labour-market attachment. Sweden represents a unique case study, not only because of the strong effort to combine work and family for all women and men, the high level of fertility and the large presence of immigrants in the country; it also enables a detailed and sophisticated analysis based on the high-quality data derived from its population registers. We find that immigrant mothers use more parental leave benefit the first year after their child’s birth, but then fewer in the second year compared with native mothers. The differences diminish when labour-market activity is controlled for. Additionally, after a time in Sweden, immigrant mothers use leave more similarly to how native mothers do.

Keywords

Parental leave Sweden Integration Immigrants 

References

  1. Albrecht, J. W., Edin, P.-A., Sundström, M., & Vroman, S. B. (1999). Career interruptions and subsequent earnings: A reexamination using Swedish data. Journal of Human Resources, 43, 294–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson, G. (2000). The impact of labor-force participation on childbearing behaviour: Pro-cyclical fertility in Sweden during the 1980s and the 1990s. European Journal of Population, 16(4), 293–333. doi:10.1023/A:1006454909642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson, G. (2004). Childbearing after migration: Fertility patterns of foreign-born women in Sweden. International Migration Review, 38, 747–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson, G., Hoem, J., & Duvander, A. (2006). Social differentials in speed-premium effects in childbearing in Sweden. Demographic Research, 14, 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersson, G., & Scott, K. (2005). Labour-market status and first-time parenthood: The experience of immigrant women in Sweden, 1981–1997. Population Studies, 59, 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andersson, G., & Scott, K. (2007). Childbearing dynamics of couples in a universalistic welfare state: The role of labor-market status, country of origin, and gender. Demographic Research, 17, 897–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Behtoui, A., & Neergaard, A. (2010). Social capital and wage disadvantages among immigrant workers. Work Employment Society, 24, 761–779. doi:10.1177/0950017010380640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bevelander, P. (2000). Immigrant employment integration and structural change in Sweden, 1970–1995. Södertälje: Almqvist and Wiksell International.Google Scholar
  9. Bevelander, P., & Groeneveld, S. (2010). How many hours do you have to work to be integrated? Full-time and part-time employment of the native and ethnic minority women in the Netherlands. International Migration, 50, 117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bevelander, P., & Skyt Nielsen, H. (2001). Declining employment success of immigrant males in Sweden: Observed or unobserved characteristics? Journal of Population Economics, 14(3), 455–471. doi:10.1007/s001480000036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blossfeld, H.-P., Klijzing, E., Mills, M., & Kurz, K. (Eds.). (2005). Globalization, uncertainty and youth in society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Borjas, G. J. (1992). Ethnic capital and intergenerational mobility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 123–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boyd, M. (1984). At a disadvantage: The occupational attainment of foreign-born women in Canada. International Migration Review, 18, 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brandén, M. (2014). Gender migration patterns within a sex segregated labor market. Stockholm: Stockholm University Demography Unit—Dissertation Series 10Google Scholar
  15. Bygren, M., & Duvander, A. (2006). Parents’ workplace situation and fathers’ parental-leave use. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68, 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clark, K., & Drinkwater, S. (2002). Enclaves, neighbourhood effects and employment outcomes: Ethnic minorities in England and Wales. Journal of Population Economics, 13, 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Corijn, M., & Klijzing, E. (Eds.). (2001). Transitions to adulthood in Europe. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Dribe, M., & Lundh, C. (2011). Cultural dissimilarity and intermarriage. A longitudinal study of immigrants in Sweden 1990-2005. International Migration Review, 45(2), 297–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duvander, A. (2010). Immigrants’ use of parental leave in Sweden. In L. B. Knudsen & A. Linhardt-Olsen (Eds.), Our demographic future—a challenge. On the need for demographic analyses (pp. 203–224). Aalborg: Scandinavian Population Studies.Google Scholar
  20. Duvander, A., & Eklund, S. (2006). Utrikesfödda och svenskfödda föräldrars föräldrapenninganvändande. In P. de los Reyes (Ed.), Om välfärdens gränser och det villkorade medborgarskapet. SOU 2006:37 (pp. 33–68). Stockholm: Fritzes.Google Scholar
  21. Duvander, A., & Johansson, M. (2012). What are the effects of reforms promoting fathers’ parental-leave use? Journal of European Social Policy, 22(3), 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duvander, A., & Olsson, S. (2001). När har vi råd att skaffa barn? RFV Analyserar 2001:8. Stockholm: National Social Insurance Board.Google Scholar
  23. Edin, P. A., LaLonde, R. J., & Åslund, O. (2000). Emigration of immigrants and measures of immigrant assimilation: Evidence from Sweden. Swedish Economic Policy Review, 7, 163–204.Google Scholar
  24. Ellingsaeter, L. (2009). Leave policy in the Nordic welfare states: A ‘recipe’ for high employment/high fertility? Community, Work & Family, 12(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Evertsson, M., & Duvander, A. (2010). Parental leave - possibility or trap? Does family leave length effect Swedish women’s labour market opportunities? European Sociological Review, 27(4), 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ferrarini, T., & Duvander, A. (2010). Earner-carer model at the cross-roads: Reforms and outcomes of Sweden’s family policy in comparative perspective. International Journal of Health Services, 40(3), 373–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Government. (2014). Budgetproposition 2014, prop 2013/14:1. See http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/22/37/09/57378fb7.pdf.
  28. Government Commission. (2012). Benefit and trap. Parental benefit claims by recently arrived immigrants. Government commission [SOU] 2012:9. Stockholm: Fritzes.Google Scholar
  29. Hagström, M. (2009). Country Report Sweden, PROMINSTAT. Malmö: Malmö University.Google Scholar
  30. Helgertz, J. (2010). Thou shalt not pass? Examining the existence of an immigrant glass ceiling in Sweden, 1970-1990. Demographic Research, 24, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley-Interscience.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Klein, J. P., & Moeschberger, M. L. (2003). Survival analysis: Techniques for censored and truncated data (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Le Grand, C., & Szulkin, R. (2002). Permanent disadvantage or gradual integration: Explaining the immigrant-native earnings gap in Sweden. Labour, 16, 37–64. doi:10.1111/1467-9914.00186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Le, A. T., & Miller, P. W. (2010). Glass ceiling and double disadvantage effects: Women in the US labour market. Applied Economics, 42, 603–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lundström, K. E., & Andersson, G. (2012). Labor market status, migrant status, and first childbearing in Sweden. Demographic Research, 27(25), 719–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Magnusson, C. (2010). Mind the gap. Essays on explanations of gender wage inequality. Swedish Institute for Social Research Dissertation Series 78. Stockholm: Swedish Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  37. Milewski, N. (2007). First child of immigrant workers and their descendants in West Germany: Interrelations of events, disruption, or adaptation? Demographic Research, 17(29), 859–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mussino, E., & Strozza, S. (2012). The fertility of foreign immigrants after their arrival: The Italian case. Demographic Research, 26(4), 99–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. National Social Insurance Board. (2003a). Mamma vet bäst. En kunskapsmätning om föräldrapenning och föräldraledighet. RFV Analyserar 2003:19, Stockholm: National Social Insurance Board.Google Scholar
  40. National Social Insurance Board. (2003b). Gravida kvinnors situation. RFV Analyserar 2003:7. Stockholm: National Social Insurance Board.Google Scholar
  41. Ohlsson-Wijk, S. (2011). Sweden’s marriage revival: An analysis of the new-millennium switch from long-term decline to increasing popularity. Population Studies, 65(2), 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oláh, L. S., & Bernhardt, E. (2008). Sweden: Combining childbearing and gender equality. Demographic Research, 19, 1105–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Parrado, E. (2011). How high is Hispanic/Mexican fertility in the United States? Immigration and tempo considerations. Demography, 48(3), 1059–1080.Google Scholar
  44. Pedraza, S. (1991). Women and migration: The social consequences of gender. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 303–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Persson, L. (2001). Arbetsmarknadsstatus och fruktsamhet. Påverkar anknytningen till arbetsmarknaden kvinnors och mäns barnafödande? Demografiska rapporter 2001: 2. Stockholm: Statistics Sweden.Google Scholar
  46. Persson, L., & Hoem, J. M. (2014). Immigrant fertility in Sweden, 2000-2011: A descriptive note. Demographic Research, 30, 887–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rajiman, R., & Semyonov, M. (1997). Gender, ethnicity, and immigration. Double disadvantage and triple disadvantage among recent immigrant women in the Israeli labor market. Gender & Society, 11(1), 108–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rebhun, U. (2008). A double disadvantage? Immigration, gender, and employment status in Israel. European Journal of Population, 24, 87–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rønsen, M., & Sundström, M. (2002). Family policy and after-birth employment among new mothers—A comparison of Finland, Norway and Sweden. European Journal of Population, 18, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosholm, M., Roed, M., & Schøne, P. (2006). Are new work practices and new technologies biased against immigrant workers?. No: IZA Discussion Papers. 2135.Google Scholar
  51. Scott, K. (1999). The immigrant experience: Changing employment and income patterns in Sweden 1970-1993. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Statistics Sweden. (2008). Integration. A description of today’s Sweden. Integration Rapport 1. Stockholm: Statistics Sweden.Google Scholar
  53. Statistics Sweden. (2009). Integration—utrikes födda på arbetsmarknaden. Integration: Rapport 2. Stockholm: Statistics Sweden.Google Scholar
  54. Statistics Sweden. (2010a). Integration—en beskrivning av läget i Sverige. Integration: Rapport 6. Stockholm: Statistics Sweden.Google Scholar
  55. Statistics Sweden. (2010b). Betydelsen av tid i Sverige för fruktsamheten. Bakgrundsmaterial för Demografi, Barn och Familj 2012:1. Stockholm: Statistics Sweden.Google Scholar
  56. Statistics Sweden. (2013). Statistisk årsbok. Stockholm: Statistics Sweden.Google Scholar
  57. Sundström, M., & Duvander, A. (2002). Gender division of child care and the sharing of parental leave among new parents in Sweden. European Sociological Review, 18(4), 433–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Swedish Social Insurance Agency. (2005). Social insurance in Sweden 2005. Stockholm: Swedish Social Insurance Agency.Google Scholar
  59. Swedish Social Insurance Agency. (2014). Social insurance in figures 2014. Stockholm: Swedish Social Insurance Agency.Google Scholar
  60. Tang, J. (1997). The career attainment of Caucasian and Asian engineers. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(3), 467–496. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1993.tb00122.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vikman, U. (2013). Paid parental leave to immigrants: An obstacle to labor market entrance? Working paper 2013:4, Uppsala: Institute for evaluation of labour market and education policy.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Demography Unit, Department of SociologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations