Abstract
The study uses administrative data from Luxembourg to investigate fathers’ decisions to use parental leave. We focus on two measures of opportunity cost: the difference between the parental leave benefit and the salary of the father and the mean salary growth for a period of 6 months for each father. The first measure captures the direct opportunity cost, while the second is a proxy for foregone promotion opportunities. We use Cox proportional hazards model for the analysis. The results suggest a negative relationship between foregone income and taking parental leave. Surprisingly, salary growth appears to be positively related to the hazard of taking parental leave. Coefficients of control variables are in line with previous findings: fathers are more likely to use parental leave if they work in larger organization and for the first child.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
As the data for this study are for the period 2000–2008, the described policy framework refers to the same period. Updated information on the parental leave framework of Luxembourg and other countries is available on the website of the International Network on Leave Policies and Research.
Eligibility for parental leave is based on working (not necessarily residing) in Luxembourg for more than 20 h per week for a minimum of 2 years for the same employer.
The duration of the leave is fixed and cannot be reduced or increased. All the months must be used in one block of time.
Adoption leave and postnatal maternity leave last for 2 months. In case of breastfeeding, postnatal maternity leave could be extended to 3 months.
The amounts are halved for the part-time case.
Luxembourg introduced parental leave relatively late in the EU under the requirements of Council Directive (96/34/EC). At that time, Luxembourg, alongside Ireland and the UK, was among the few countries in the EU 15 that had still no parental leave measures and where the Directive resulted in a substantial change of the national legislation (Hall 1998). Hall (1998) reports that prior to 1998, women employed in the private sector could take a year off for the reasons of raising a young child. However, they were not guaranteed re-employment, but merely a priority in case suitable positions were available. In the public sector, female employees could take up to two years of parental leave and request unpaid leave or reduced working hours until their children reach the age of 15. However, their return to work was based on the availability of suitable vacancies.
Figures from the report are available until 2017, however in 2017 there is a rapid increase in number of users due to the change of rules.
About 40% in 2002 (OECD 2003).
Eligibility criteria are having worked for more than 20-h per month for a minimum of one year with the same employer.
Eligibility for social security provisions, such as parental leave in the EU, is based on the country of work and not the country of residence or nationality.
Since 2008, Luxembourg does not distinguish between white and blue-collar work any more (Association des Banques et Banquiers Luxembourg 2009). However, as the analysis refers to the time period before 2008, the variable has been recorded and could be included in the analysis.
References
Albrecht, J. W., Edin, P.-A., Sundström, M., & Vroman, S. B. (1999). Career interruptions and subsequent earnings: A reexamination using Swedish data. The Journal of Human Resources, 34(2), 294–311.
Anxo, D., Fagan, C., Smith, M., Letablier, M.-T., & Perraudin, C. (2007). Parental leave in European companies. Dublin: European foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions. Retrieved from http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2006/87/en/1/ef0687en.pdf.
Association des Banques et Banquiers Luxembourg. (2009). Single statute. Retrieved May 28, 2014, from http://www.abbl.lu/node/92.
Baumgarten, D., Wehner, N., Maihofer, A., & Schwiter, K. (2016). Wenn Vater, dann will ich Teilzeit arbeiten. Die Verknüpfung von Berufs- und Familienvorstellungen bei 30-jährigen Männern. GENDER, 4, 76–91.
Belgian Presidency. (2010). The gender pay gap in the member states of the European Union: Quantitative and qualitative indicators. Retrieved from http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2016516%202010%20ADD%202.
Brosius, J., & Ray, J.-C. (2012). Wage Differentials Between Natives and Cross-border Workers Within and Across Establishments (Paper Presented at 26th Annual Conference of The European Association for Population Economics). Retrieved from https://espe.conference-services.net/resources/321/2907/pdf/ESPE2012_0353_paper.pdf.
Butler, A. B., & Skattebo, A. (2004). What is acceptable for women may not be for men: The effect of family conflicts with work on job-performance ratings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4), 553–564.
Bygren, M., & Duvander, A.-Z. (2006). Parents’ workplace situation and fathers’ parental leave use. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(2), 363–372.
Cox, D. (1972). Regression models and life-tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 34(2), 187–220.
Craig, L., & Mullan, K. (2010). Parenthood, gender and work-family time in the United States, Australia, Italy, France, and Denmark. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1344–1361.
Davarzani, N., & Parsian, A. (2011). Statistical inference for discrete middle-censored data. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 141(4), 1455–1462.
De Henau, J., Meulders, D., & O’Dorchai, S. (2007). Parents’ care and career: Comparing parental leave policies. In D. Del Boca & C. Wetzels (Eds.), Social policies, labour markets and motherhood. A comparative analysis of European countries. (pp. 63–106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dribe, M., & Stanfors, M. (2009). Does parenthood strengthen a traditional household division of labor? Evidence from Sweden. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 33–45.
Duvander, A.-Z., Haas, L., & Hwang, C. P. (2017). Sweden Country Note. In S. Blum, A. Koslowski & P. Moss (Eds.), International Review of Leave Policies and Research 2017. Retrieved from http://www.leavenetwork.org/lp_and_r_reports/.
Duvander, A.-Z., & Johansson, M. (2012). What are the effects of reforms promoting fathers’ parental leave use? Journal of European Social Policy, 22(3), 319–330.
Ekberg, J., Eriksson, R., & Friebel, G. (2013). Parental leave—A policy evaluation of the Swedish “Daddy-Month” reform. Journal of Public Economics, 97, 131–143.
Escot, L., Andrés-Fernández-Cornejo, J., & Poza, C. (2014). Fathers’ use of childbirth leave in Spain. The effects of the 13-day paternity leave. Population Research and Policy Review, 33, 419–453.
Esping-Andersen, G. (2003). Why we need a new welfare state. New York: Oxford University Press.
Eurofound. (2015). Promoting uptake of parental and paternity leave among fathers in the European Union. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef1508en.pdf.
European Parliament. (2015). Maternity, paternity and parental leave: Data related to duration and compensation rates in the European Union. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/509999/IPOL_STU(2015)509999_EN.pdf.
European Union. (1996). Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC. Official Journal of the European Communities, L(145), 4–9.
Fagan, C., & Norman, H. (2016). Which fathers are involved in caring for pre-school age children in the United Kingdom? A longitudinal analysis of the influence of work hours in employment on shared childcare arrangments in couple households. In I. Crespi & E. Ruspini (Eds.), Balancing work and family in a changing society: The fathers’ perspective. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Fox, J. (2002). Cox proportional-hazards regression for survival data. Appendix to an R and S-PLUS companion to applied regression. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/doc/contrib/Fox-Companion/appendix-cox-regression.pdf.
Geisler, E., & Kreyenfeld, M. (2011). Against all odds: Fathers’ use of parental leave in Germany. Journal of European Social Policy, 21(1), 88–99.
Geisler, E., & Kreyenfeld, M. (2012). How policy matters: Germany’s parental leave benefit reform and fathers’ behavior 1999–2009 (MPIDR Working Paper 2012-021). Retrieved from http://www.demogr.mpg.de/en/projects_publications/publications_1904/mpidr_working_papers/how_policy_matters_germanys_parental_leave_benefit_reform_and_fathers_behavior_1999_2009_4644.htm.
Greenfield, P. (2016). Millennial men want parental equality—will anyone let them have it? The Guardian.
Haas, L., Allard, K., & Hwang, P. (2002). The impact of organizational culture on men’s use of parental leave in Sweden. Community, Work & Family, 5(3), 319–342.
Hall, M. (1998). The EU parental leave agreement and directive: Implications for national law and practice. Retrieved from http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/1998/01/study/tn9801201s.htm.
Hantrais, L. (1997). Exploring relationships between social policy and changing family forms within the European Union. European Journal of Population = Revue Européenne de Démographie 13(4), 339–379.
Hofferth, S. L., & Curtin, S. C. (2006). Parental leave statutes and maternal return to work after childbirth in the United States. Work and Occupations, 33(1), 73–105.
Iyer, S. K., Jammalamadaka, S. R., & Kundu, D. (2008). Analysis of middle-censored data with exponential lifetime distributions. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 138(11), 3550–3560.
Jacobs, E. (2016). Shared parental leave: The fathers bringing up baby. Financial Times.
Joesch, J. (1994). Children and the timing of women’s paid work after childbirth: A further specification of the relationship. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56(2), 429–440.
Joesch, J. (1997). Paid leave and the timing of women’s employment before and after birth. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59(4), 1008–1021.
Jones, M. P. (1996). Indicator and stratification methods for missing explanatory variables in multiple linear regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91(433), 222–230.
Klerman, J. A., & Leibowitz, A. (1997). Labor supply effects of state maternity leave legislation. In F. D. Blau & G. Ehrenberg, Ronald (Eds.), Gender and family issues in the workplace (pp. 65–86). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
Kluve, J., & Tamm, M. (2012). Parental leave regulations, mothers’ labor force attachment and fathers’ childcare involvement: Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Population Economics, 26(3), 983–1005.
Lappegård, T. (2008). Changing the gender balance in caring: Fatherhood and the division of parental leave in Norway. Population Research and Policy Review, 27(2), 139–159.
Lappegård, T. (2012). Couples’ parental leave practices: The role of the workplace situation. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 33(3), 298–305.
Lapuerta, I., Baizán, P., & González, M. J. (2010). Individual and institutional constraints: An analysis of parental leave use and duration in Spain. Population Research and Policy Review, 30(2), 185–210.
Lindström, E.-A. (2012). Gender bias in parental leave: Evidence from Sweden. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 34(2), 235–248.
Margherita, A., O’Dorchai, S., & Bosch, J. (2009). Reconciliation between work, private and family life in the European Union. Luxembourg: Eurostat Statistical Books. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2785/30167.
Meulders, D., & O’Dorchai, S. (2004). The role of welfare state typologies in analysing motherhood. European Review of Labour and Research, 10(1), 16–33.
Mills, M. (2011). Introducing survival and event history analysis. London: SAGE Publications.
Mills, M., & Begall, K. (2010). Preferences for the sex-composition of children in Europe: A multilevel examination of its effect on progression to a third child. Population Studies, 64(1), 77–95.
Mincer, J., & Polachek, S. W. (1974). Family investments in human capital: Earnings of women. Journal of Political Economy, 82(2), 76–108.
Ministère de la Famille de l’Intégration et à la Grande Région. (2018). Rapport d’activité 2017. Retrieved May 04, 2018, from https://gouvernement.lu/fr/publications/rapport-activite/minist-famille-integration-grande-region/rapports-activite-famille-2017.html.
Nerb, G., Hitzelsberger, F., Woidich, A., Pommer, S., Hemmer, S., & Heczko, P. (2009). Scientific report on the mobility of cross-border workers within the EU-27/EEA/EFTA countries. Report Commissioned by the European Commission, DG Employment and Social Affairs, Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=2488&langId=en.
Nielsen, H. S. (2009). Causes and consequences of a father’s child leave: Evidence from a reform of leave schemes (IZA Discussion Paper No. 4267). Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp4267.pdf.
OECD. (2003). OECD economic surveys: Luxembourg 2003. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2011). OECD territorial reviews: Switzerland 2011. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Ondrich, J., Spiess, K., & Yang, Q. (1996). Barefoot and in a German kitchen: Federal parental leave and benefit policy and the return to work after childbirth in Germany. Journal of Population Economics, 9, 247–266.
Ondrich, J., Spiess, K., Yang, Q., & Wagner, G. (2003). The liberalization of maternity leave policy and the return to work after childbirth in Germany. Review of Economics of the Household, 1, 77–110.
Plantenga, J., & Remery, C. (2005). Reconciliation of Work and Private Life: A Comparative Review of Thirty European Countries. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=2488&langId=en.
R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
RAND Corporation. (2014). Use of childcare in the EU member states and progress towards the Barcelona Targets (Report for the European Commission). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/documents/140502_gender_equality_workforce_ssr1_en.pdf.
Sanchez, L., & Thomson, E. (1997). Becoming mothers and fathers: Parenthood, gender, and the division of labor. Gender and Society, 11(6), 747–772.
Scambor, E., Wojnicka, K., & Bergmann, N. (Eds.) (2012). The role of men in gender equality—European strategies & insights. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Schoenfeld, D. (1982). Partial residuals for the proportional hazards regression model. Biometrika, 69(1), 239–241.
Smith, N., & Pylkkänen, E. (2004). The impact of family-friendly policies in Denmark and Sweden on mothers’ career interruptions due to childbirth (IZA Discussion Paper No. 1050). Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp1050.pdf.
Sundström, M., & Duvander, A.-Z. (2002). Gender division of childcare and the sharing of parental leave among new parents in Sweden. European Sociological Review, 18(4), 433–447.
Therneau, T. (2014). A package for survival analysis in S. R package version 2.37-7, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival.
UCLA Statistical Consulting Group. (2013). Supplemental notes to applied survival analysis. Retrieved from http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ado/analysis/. Accessed September, 20, 2013.
Valentova, M. (2006). Labour market inactivity due to family care in Luxembourg. Equal Opportunities International, 25(5), 389–406.
Valentova, M. (2011). Anticipated parental leave take up in Luxembourg. Social Policy and Society, 10(02), 123–138.
Valentova, M. (2013). Age and sex differences in gender role attitudes in Luxembourg between 1999 and 2008. Work, Employment & Society, 27(4), 639–657.
Weng, Q., & Mcelroy, J. C. (2012). Organizational career growth, affective occupational commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 256–265.
Weng, Q., Mcelroy, J. C., Morrow, P. C., & Liu, R. (2010). The relationship between career growth and organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 391–400.
Whitehouse, G., Diamond, C., & Baird, M. (2007). Fathers’ use of leave in Australia. Community, Work & Family, 10(4), 387–407.
Yavorsky, J. E., Dush, C. M. K., & Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J. (2015). The production of inequality: The gender division of labor across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(3), 662–679.
Zhelyazkova, N., Loutsch, M., & Valentova, M. (2017). Luxembourg country note. In S. Blum, A. Koslowski & P. Moss (Eds.), 13th International review of leave policies and related research 2017 (pp. 263–270). International Network on Leave Policies and Research, Retrieved from 13 International Review of Leave Policies and Related Research 2017.
Zhelyazkova, N., & Ritschard, G. (2017). Parental leave within the broader employment trajectory: What can we learn from administrative records? Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 36(7), 607–627.
Acknowledgements
This research project has been funded by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg. This paper is based on a PhD dissertation completed at Maastricht University/UNU-MERIT. Valuable feedback for improving this paper has been provided by Joan Muysken at Maastricht University. Isabelle Debourges at IGSS Luxembourg has provided important advice on the data analysis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1: Distribution of Covariates
Variable | Count | % | Events | Events % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Salary opportunity cost | ||||
Negative | 15,693 | 0.05 | 96 | 0.12 |
< 500 € | 43,103 | 0.15 | 199 | 0.26 |
500–1000 € | 44,575 | 0.15 | 124 | 0.16 |
1000–1500 € | 35,145 | 0.12 | 69 | 0.09 |
1500–2000 € (reference) | 27,185 | 0.09 | 60 | 0.08 |
2000–5000 € | 90,063 | 0.30 | 165 | 0.21 |
5000+ € | 40,306 | 0.14 | 56 | 0.07 |
Missing | 500 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Salary growth in past 6 months | ||||
[0, 0.989] (reference) | 59,130 | 0.20 | 150 | 0.20 |
(0.989, 0.998] | 59,130 | 0.20 | 175 | 0.23 |
(0.998,1] | 59,278 | 0.20 | 160 | 0.21 |
(1,1.02] | 58,982 | 0.20 | 147 | 0.19 |
(1.02,5.59] | 59,130 | 0.20 | 136 | 0.18 |
Missing | 920 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Monthly working hours | ||||
173 (reference) | 134,30 | 0.45 | 285 | 0.37 |
< 173 | 63,571 | 0.21 | 279 | 0.36 |
173+ | 98,069 | 0.33 | 205 | 0.27 |
Missing | 500 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Size enterprize | ||||
Medium (50–200) (reference) | 55,886 | 0.19 | 64 | 0.08 |
Small (< 50) or not applicable | 59,025 | 0.20 | 69 | 0.09 |
Large (200–1000) | 75,381 | 0.25 | 100 | 0.13 |
Very large (1000+) | 63,567 | 0.21 | 497 | 0.65 |
Missing | 42,711 | 0.14 | 39 | 0.05 |
Nationality | ||||
Luxembourg (reference) | 92,465 | 0.31 | 303 | 0.39 |
France | 72,459 | 0.24 | 156 | 0.20 |
Portugal | 38,117 | 0.13 | 84 | 0.11 |
Belgium | 41,575 | 0.14 | 95 | 0.12 |
Germany | 19,626 | 0.07 | 24 | 0.03 |
Other | 32,320 | 0.11 | 107 | 0.14 |
Missing | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Child sex | ||||
Female (reference) | 139,351 | 0.47 | 376 | 0.49 |
Male | 157,219 | 0.53 | 393 | 0.51 |
Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Multiple births | ||||
0 | 290,615 | 0.98 | 754 | 0.98 |
1 | 5955 | 0.02 | 15 | 0.02 |
Birth order | ||||
First (reference) | 136,181 | 0.46 | 414 | 0.54 |
Second | 102,160 | 0.34 | 251 | 0.33 |
Third+ | 58,041 | 0.20 | 101 | 0.13 |
Missing | 188 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
Age | ||||
Mean | 35.93 | – | 34.31 | – |
SD | 5.4 | – | 5.23 | – |
Min | 19 | – | 20 | – |
Max | 65 | – | 62 | – |
Missing | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(Other) children under five | ||||
1 (reference) | 174,582 | 0.59 | 451 | 0.59 |
2 | 76,709 | 0.26 | 262 | 0.34 |
3+ | 6064 | 0.02 | 26 | 0.03 |
Missing | 39,215 | 0.13 | 30 | 0.04 |
Marital status | ||||
Not married | 37,474 | 0.13 | 80 | 0.10 |
Married | 219,881 | 0.74 | 659 | 0.86 |
Missing | 39,215 | 0.13 | 30 | 0.04 |
Appendix B: Cox Proportional Hazards Model Without Time Interactions
Coef | Haz. rate | SE | z | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Salary opportunity cost: negative | 0.97 | 2.65 | 0.18 | 5.49 | *** |
Salary opportunity cost: < 500 € | 1.67 | 5.30 | 0.16 | 10.55 | *** |
Salary opportunity cost: 500–1000 € | 1.02 | 2.77 | 0.16 | 6.26 | *** |
Salary opportunity cost: 1000–1500 € | 0.19 | 1.21 | 0.18 | 1.07 | |
Salary opportunity cost: 1500–2000 € (reference) | |||||
Salary opportunity cost: 2000–5000 € | − 0.30 | 0.74 | 0.15 | − 1.96 | . |
Salary opportunity cost: 5000+ € | − 0.70 | 0.50 | 0.19 | − 3.64 | *** |
Salary growth in past 6 months: (0, 0.989] | − 0.02 | 0.98 | 0.12 | − 0.14 | |
Salary growth in past 6 months: (0.989, 0.998] | 0.19 | 1.21 | 0.11 | 1.70 | . |
Salary growth in past 6 months: (0.998,1] (reference) | |||||
Salary growth in past 6 months: (1, 1.02] | 0.03 | 1.03 | 0.12 | 0.29 | |
Salary growth in past 6 months: (1.02, 5.59] | 0.28 | 1.33 | 0.12 | 2.34 | * |
Monthly working hours: < 173 | 0.45 | 1.57 | 0.10 | 4.70 | *** |
Monthly working hours: 173 (reference) | |||||
Monthly working hours: 173+ | 0.26 | 1.30 | 0.10 | 2.54 | * |
Size enterprize: small (< 50) or not applicable | 0.23 | 1.25 | 0.17 | 1.30 | |
Size enterprize: medium (50–200) (reference) | |||||
Size enterprize: large (200–1000) | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.16 | 0.02 | |
Size enterprize: very large 1000+) | 2.49 | 12.10 | 0.14 | 17.66 | *** |
Size enterprize: missing | 0.83 | 2.29 | 0.36 | 2.32 | * |
Nationality: Luxembourg (reference) | |||||
Nationality: France | − 0.07 | 0.93 | 0.11 | − 0.65 | |
Nationality: Portugal | − 0.40 | 0.67 | 0.14 | − 2.86 | *** |
Nationality: Belgium | 0.02 | 1.02 | 0.12 | 0.15 | |
Nationality: Germany | − 0.14 | 0.87 | 0.22 | − 0.64 | |
Nationality: other | − 0.03 | 0.97 | 0.12 | − 0.25 | |
Age | 0.15 | 1.16 | 0.07 | 2.23 | * |
Age squared | − 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | − 2.31 | * |
Child sex: male | − 0.08 | 0.92 | 0.07 | − 1.13 | |
Multiple births | − 0.07 | 0.93 | 0.26 | − 0.27 | |
Birth order: first (reference) | |||||
Birth order: second | − 0.39 | 0.68 | 0.09 | − 4.46 | *** |
Birth order: third+ | − 0.80 | 0.45 | 0.12 | − 6.70 | *** |
Children under five: 1 (reference) | |||||
Children under five: 2 | 0.37 | 1.45 | 0.08 | 4.44 | *** |
Children under five: 3+ | 0.73 | 2.08 | 0.21 | 3.50 | *** |
Children under five: missing | − 0.81 | 0.44 | 0.41 | − 2.00 | . |
Marital status: missing Coefficient not estimated due to perfect collinearity with missing category for the variable Children under five | |||||
Marital status: married | 0.27 | 1.31 | 0.13 | 2.14 | * |
Likelihood ratio test = 1168 on 31 df, p < 0.001 | |||||
n = 295468, number of events = 765, 1102 observations deleted due to missingness | |||||
Appendix 3: Testing the Proportional Hazard Assumption
Rho | χ 2 | Sig | |
|---|---|---|---|
Salary opportunity cost: negative | 0.01 | 0.18 | |
Salary opportunity cost: < 500 € | 0.01 | 0.11 | |
Salary opportunity cost: 500–1000 € | 0.03 | 0.61 | |
Salary opportunity cost: 1000–1500 € | − 0.01 | 0.09 | |
Salary opportunity cost: 2000–5000 € | 0.01 | 0.05 | |
Salary opportunity cost: 5000+ € | 0.02 | 0.45 | |
Salary growth in past 6 months: (0.989, 0.998] | 0.02 | 0.41 | |
Salary growth in past 6 months: (0.998, 1] | − 0.02 | 0.28 | |
Salary growth in past 6 months: (1, 1.02] | − 0.04 | 1.49 | |
Salary growth in past 6 months: (1.02, 5.59] | − 0.08 | 4.32 | * |
Monthly working hours: < 173 | − 0.03 | 0.91 | |
Monthly working hours: 173+ | − 0.05 | 2.39 | |
Size enterprize: small (< 50) or not applicable | − 0.02 | 0.38 | |
Size enterprize: large (200–1000) | − 0.01 | 0.12 | |
Size enterprize: very large (1000+) | 0.02 | 0.51 | |
Size enterprize: missing | 0.01 | 0.05 | |
Nationality: France | − 0.06 | 2.80 | . |
Nationality: Portugal | 0.12 | 11.53 | *** |
Nationality: Belgium | − 0.00 | 0.00 | |
Nationality: Germany | 0.04 | 1.06 | |
Nationality: other | 0.15 | 18.02 | *** |
Age | − 0.01 | 0.12 | |
Age squared | 0.01 | 0.07 | |
Child sex: male | 0.03 | 0.94 | |
Multiple births | 0.03 | 0.64 | |
Birth order: second | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
Birth order: third+ | 0.01 | 0.08 | |
Children under five: 2 | − 0.08 | 4.47 | * |
Children under five: 3+ | − 0.05 | 1.56 | |
Children under five: missing | 0.11 | 9.33 | *** |
Marital status: missing Coefficient not estimated due to perfect collinearity with missing category for the variable Children under five | |||
Marital status: married | 0.05 | 1.85 | |
Global | 102.59 | *** | |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhelyazkova, N., Ritschard, G. Parental Leave Take-Up of Fathers in Luxembourg. Popul Res Policy Rev 37, 769–793 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-018-9470-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-018-9470-8