Advertisement

Life Course, Gender, and Participation in Voluntary Organizations in Italy

Original Paper

Abstract

This article investigates the gender differences in participation in voluntary organizations across the life course in Italy. It shows that three forms of engagement in voluntary organizations—donating money, attending meetings, and doing unpaid work—may depend on some stages of the life course—leaving the parental home, forming a union, and becoming a parent—as it is plausible that they may change personal resources and pose constraints or provide opportunities for involvement. Using the household survey “ISTAT Multipurpose Survey—Aspects of daily life”, the article finds that while leaving the parental home is positively associated with both men’s and women’s involvement, forming a union, and being a parent is detrimental for women’s involvement and not for men’s. This pattern indicates that gender roles may constrain more women’s than men’s probability of participation in voluntary organizations.

Keywords

Voluntary organizations Life course Life transitions Gender differences Italy 

Résumé

Cet article étudie les différences entre les sexes dans la participation aux organisations bénévoles au cours d’une vie en Italie. Il montre que les trois formes d’engagement dans les organismes bénévoles – dons d’argent, participation aux réunions et travail non rémunéré – peuvent dépendre de certaines étapes au cours de la vie – quitter le domicile parental, former un syndicat et devenir parent – car il est plausible qu’elles modifient les ressources personnelles et posent des contraintes ou offrent des occasions de participation. À l’aide de l’enquête sur les ménages « Enquête universelle : aspects de la vie quotidienne » , l’article conclut que si quitter le domicile parental est corrélé de manière positive à la fois à la participation des hommes et à celle des femmes, former un syndicat et être parent est préjudiciable à la participation des femmes et non à celle des hommes. Ce modèle indique que le rôle des sexes peut limiter davantage la probabilité des femmes que des hommes de participer aux organisations bénévoles.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag untersucht die Unterschiede zwischen den Geschlechtern in Italien hinsichtlich ihrer Mitwirkung in ehrenamtlichen Organisationen im Laufe ihres Lebens. Es zeigt sich, dass drei Formen des Engagements bei ehrenamtlichen Organisationen - Geldspenden, die Teilnahme an Versammlungen und die Verrichtung unbezahlter Arbeit - von bestimmten Lebensabschnitten abhängig sein können, z. B. der Auszug aus dem Elternhaus, das Eingehen einer Partnerschaft und eine Elternschaft, da sich dadurch verständlicherweise persönliche Ressourcen ändern können und diese Ereignisse die Möglichkeit sich zu engagieren entweder einschränken oder erhöhen. Unter Bezugnahme auf die Haushaltserhebung „ISTAT Mehrzweckbefragung - Aspekte des täglichen Lebens“ kommt man zu folgendem Ergebnis: Während sich der Auszug aus dem Elternhaus positv auf das Engagement von sowohl Männern als auch Frauen auswirkt, haben das Eingehen einer Partnerschaft und die Elternschaft einen nachteiligen Effekt für das Engagement von Frauen, nicht jedoch für das Engagement von Männern. Dieses Verhaltensmuster ist ein Zeichen dafür, dass die Geschlechterrollen die Wahrscheinlichkeit für ein Engagement in ehrenamtlichen Organisationen für Frauen mehr einschränkt als für Männer.

Resumen

El presente artículo investiga las diferencias de género en la participación en organizaciones voluntarias en el transcurso de la vida en Italia. Muestra que tres formas de compromiso en organizaciones voluntarias - la donación de dinero, la asistencia a reuniones y la realización de trabajo no remunerado - pueden depender de algunas etapas del curso de la vida - dejar el hogar parental, formar una unión y convertirse en padres - ya que es plausible que puedan cambiar los recursos personales y plantear restricciones o proporcionar oportunidades para implicarse. Utilizando la encuesta sobre hogares “Encuesta Multipropósitos ISTAT - Aspectos de la vida diaria”, el presente artículo encuentra que aunque dejar el hogar parental se asocia de manera positiva con la implicación tanto de hombres como de mujeres, formar una unión y ser padres va en detrimento de la implicación de las mujeres y no en la de los hombres. Este patrón indica que los roles de género pueden restringir la probabilidad de participación de las mujeres en mayor medida que en los hombres, en organizaciones voluntarias.

摘要

本论文考察了意大利的不同性别的人们一生中在参与自愿性组织方面存在的差异, 结果显示,自愿性组织的三种参与类型(捐款、参加会议和从事免费的工作)和生命的某些阶段有关(离开父母独立、结婚以及为人父母),这一点不无道理,他们由于在这几个阶段中,他们可能会在个人资源、遭受的限制或参与机会等方面发生变化。本文利用“ISTAT 多功能调查 - 日常生活的各个方面”这一家庭调查,发现离开父母和男女的参与呈正相关,而结婚和为人父母会影响女性的参与而不会影响男性的参与,这一发现说明, 性别在参与自愿性组织方面,对女性可能要大于其对男性的影响。

要約

本論文は、イタリア人が人生でボランティア団体に参加する際の男女の違いについて調査する。ボランティア団体における3つの活動には、寄付金、会合の参加、無償の業務活動があるが、これは人生の段階である親の家を出て、結婚して親になるという人生の段階に依存していて、人的資源の変化、制約の拡大、関与の機会を提供している。家計調査である「ISTAT多目的調査 - 日常生活の側面」を使用すると、親の家から離れている際、男女の積極的な参加、組織の形成、親になることは、男性ではなく女性の関与にとって妥当であるという結果が得られた。このパターンにおける男女の役割では、男性よりも女性の方がボランティア団体における参加の可能性が制約されることを示している。

ملخص

تبحث هذه المقالة الإختلافات بين الجنسين في المشاركة في المنظمات التطوعية عبر مسار الحياة في إيطاليا. فإنه يدل على أن ثلاثة أشكال من الإنخراط في المنظمات التطوعية - التبرع بالمال، حضور الإجتماعات والعمل بدون أجر - قد يعتمد على بعض مراحل دورة الحياة - مغادرة منزل الوالدين، الزواج وإنجاب الأولاد- كما هو من المعقول أنه قد تتغير الموارد الشخصية، تشكل القيود أو توفير فرص للمشاركة. بإستخدام إستطلاع الرأي الأسري “إستطلاع رأي متعدد الأغراض (ISTAT)- جوانب الحياة اليومية”، وجدت هذه المقالة أنه في حين ترك منزل الوالدين له علاقة إيجابية مع تشكيل كل من الرجل ومشاركة المرأة، الزواج و إنجاب الأطفال هو ضار لمشاركة المرأة وليس للرجال.هذا النمط يشير إلى أن أدوار الجنسين قد يحد المزيد من النساء من إحتمال المشاركة عن إحتمال مشاركة الرجال في المنظمات التطوعية.

References

  1. Aassve, A., Davia, M. A., Iacovou, M., & Mazzucco, S. (2007). Does leaving home make you poor? Evidence from 13 European countries. European Journal of Population, 23(3–4), 315–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aliaga, C. (2006). How is the time of women and men distributed in Europe? Statistics in Focus, 4, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Anxo, D., Mencarini, L., Pailè, A., Solaz, A., Tanturri, M. L., & Flood, L. (2011). Gender differences in time use over the life course in France, Italy, Sweden, and the US. Feminist Economics, 17(3), 159–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbagli, M., Castiglioni, M., & Dalla Zuanna, G. (2003). Fare famiglia in Italia. Un secolo di cambiamenti. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, G. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C., & Robinson, J. P. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79(1), 191–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Billari, F. C. (2004). Becoming an adult in Europe: A macro(/micro)-demographic perspective. Demographic Research, S3, 15–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blossfeld, H.-P., & Drobnic, S. (Eds.). (2011). Careers of couples in contemporary society: From male breadwinner to dual-earner families. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Buchmann, M. C., & Kriesi, I. (2011). Transition to adulthood in Europe. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 481–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Budig, M., & England, P. (2001). The wage penalty for motherhood. American Sociological Review, 66(2), 204–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 1208–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Curtis, J. E., Grabb, E., & Baer, D. E. (1992). Voluntary association membership in fifteen countries: A comparative analysis. American Sociological Review, 57(2), 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dekker, P., & Van Den Broek, A. (1998). Civil society in comparative perspective: Involvement in voluntary associations in North America and Western Europe. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9(1), 11–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Del Boca, D., Pasqua, S., & Pronzato, C. (2008). Motherhood and market work decisions in institutional context: a European perspective. Oxford Economic Papers, 61(Suppl. 1), i147–i171.Google Scholar
  17. Dotti Sani, G. M. (2012). La divisione del lavoro domestico e delle attività di cura nelle coppie italiane: un’analisi empirica. Stato e Mercato, 94(1), 161–193.Google Scholar
  18. Dotti Sani, G. M. (2014). Men’s employment hours and time on domestic chores in European countries. Journal of Family Issues, 35(8), 1023–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. EIGE. (2010). Gender Equality Index. Vilnius: European Institute for Gender Equality.Google Scholar
  20. Elder, L., & Greene, S. (2012). The politics of parenthood: causes and consequences of the politicization of the American families. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ferrera, M. (1996). The ‘Southern model’ of welfare in social Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 6(1), 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Flanagan, C. A., Finlay, A., Gallay, L., & Kim, T. (2012). Political incorporation and the protracted transition to adulthood: the need for new institutional inventions. Parliamentary Affairs, 65(1), 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flanagan, C. A., & Levine, P. (2010). Civic engagement and the transition to adulthood. The Future of Children, 20(10), 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gallagher, S. K., & Gerstel, N. (2001). Connections and constraints: the effects of children on caregiving. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garcia-Mainar, I., Molina, J. A., & Montuenga, V. M. (2011). Gender differences in childcare: time allocation in five European countries. Feminist Economics, 17(1), 119–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gauthier, A. H., & Furstenberg, F. J. (2002). The transition to adulthood: a time use perspective. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 580, 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2006). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gesthuizen, M., & Scheepers, P. (2012). Educational differences in volunteering in crossnational perspective: individual and contextual explanations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(1), 58–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gibb, S. J., Ferguson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Boden, J. M. (2014). The effects of parenthood on workforce participation and income for men and women. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 35(1), 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Glenn, N. D. (2005). Cohort analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Gupta, S. (1999). The effects of transitions in marital status on men’s performance of housework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(3), 700–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hakim, C. (2000). Work-lifestyle choices in the 21st century: Preference theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Helms, S., & McKenzie, T. (2014). Gender differences in formal and informal volunteering in Germany. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(4), 887–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hooghe, M. (2003). Why should we be bowling alone? Results from a Belgian survey on civic participation. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 14(1), 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. ISTAT. (2013). Il benessere equo e sostenibile in Italia. Roma: ISTAT.Google Scholar
  36. ISTAT. (2014). Attività gratuite a beneficio degli altri. Available at: http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/129115. Accessed 15 Nov 2014.
  37. Janoski, T., & Wilson, J. (1995). Pathways to Voluntarism: Family socialization and status transmission models. Social Forces, 74(1), 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jennings, M. K., & Stoker, L. (2004). Social trust and civic engagement across time and generations. Acta Politica, 39(4), 342–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kan, M. Y., Sullivan, O., & Gershuny, J. (2011). Gender convergence in domestic work: Discerning the effects of interactional and institutional barriers from large-scale data. Sociology, 45(2), 234–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Knoke, D., & Thomson, R. (1977). Voluntary association membership trends and the family life cycle. Social Forces, 56(1), 48–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Koslowski, A. (2011). Working fathers in Europe: Earning and caring. European Sociological Review, 27(2), 230–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. La Valle, D. (2006). La partecipazione alle associazioni in Italia. Tendenze generali e differenze regionali. Stato e Mercato, 77(3), 277–305.Google Scholar
  43. Lancee, B., & Radl, J. (2014). Volunteering over the life course. Social Forces, 93(2), 833–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lo Presti, A. (2013). The interactive effects of job resources and motivations to volunteer among a sample of Italian volunteers. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(4), 969–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Long, S. J. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Marini, M. M. (1984). The order of events in the transition to adulthood. Sociology of Education, 57(2), 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mazzucco, S., Mencarini, L., & Rettaroli, R. (2006). Similarities and differences between two cohorts of young adults in Italy: Results of a CATI Survey on transition to adulthood. Demographic Research, 15(5), 105–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mencarini, L., & Tanturri, M. L. (2004). Time use, family role-set and childbearing among Italian working women. Genus, 60(1), 111–137.Google Scholar
  49. Mitani, H. (2014). Influences of resources and subjective dispositions on formal and informal volunteering. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(4), 1022–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Musick, M., & Wilson, J. (2008). Volunteers: A social profile. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Naldini, M., & Saraceno, C. (2011). Conciliare famiglia e lavoro. Vecchi e nuovi patti tra sessi e generazioni. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  52. Nesbit, R. (2012). The influence of major life cycle events on volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 1153–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nomagouchi, K. M., & Milkie, M. A. (2003). Costs and rewards of children: The effects of becoming a parent on adults’ lives. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(2), 356–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. OECD. (2011). Labour force statistics. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  55. Oesterle, S., Kirkpatrick Johnson, M., & Mortimer, J. T. (2004). Volunteerism during the transition to adulthood: A life course perspective. Social Forces, 82(3), 1123–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Omoto, A. M., Snyder, M., & Martino, S. C. (2000). Volunteerism and the life course: Investigating age-related agendas for action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22(3), 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Paik, A., & Navarre-Jackson, L. (2011). Social networks, recruitment, and volunteering: Are social capital effects conditional on recruitment? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(3), 476–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Perks, T., & Haan, M. (2011). Youth religious involvement and adult community participation: Do levels of youth religious involvement matter? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Phillips, A. (1991). Engendering Democracy. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  60. Piper, G., & Schnepf, S. V. (2008). Gender differences in charitable giving in Great Britain. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(2), 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton Princeton: University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rasbash, J., & Browne, M. W. (2008). Non-hierarchical multilevel models. In J. De Leeuw & E. Meijer (Eds.), Handbook of multilevel analysis (pp. 301–334). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Reher, D. S. (1998). Family ties in Western Europe: persistent contrasts. Population and Development Review, 24(2), 203–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Romano, M. C., Mencarini, L., & Tanturri, M. L. (2012). Uso del tempo e ruoli di genere. Tra lavoro e famiglia nel ciclo di vita. Roma: ISTAT.Google Scholar
  66. Rotolo, T. (2000). A time to join, a time to quit: the influence of life cycle transitions on voluntary association membership. Social Forces, 78(3), 1133–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rotolo, T., & Wilson, J. (2004). What happened to the ‘long civic generation’? Explaining cohort differences in volunteerism. Social Forces, 82(3), 1091–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rotolo, T., Wilson, J., & Hughes, M. E. (2010). Homeownership and volunteering: an alternative approach to studying social inequality and civic engagement. Sociological Forum, 25(3), 570–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schlozman, K. L., Burns, N., & Verba, S. (1999). What happened at work today? A multistage model of gender, employment and political participation. Journal of Politics, 61(1), 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schofer, E., & Fourcade-Gourinchas, M. (2001). The structural contexts of civic engagement: voluntary association membership in comparative perspective. American Sociological Review, 66(6), 806–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Settersten, R. A., & Mayer, K. U. (1997). The measurement of age, age structuring, and the life course. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 233–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Smith, D. H. (1994). Determinants of voluntary association participation and volunteering: a literature review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23(3), 243–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Solera, C. (2009). Women in and out of paid work. Changes across generations in Italy and Britain. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  74. Stoker, L., & Jennings, M. K. (1995). Life-cycle transitions and political participation: the case of marriage. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 421–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sundeen, R. A. (1990). Family life course status and volunteer behavior: implications for the single parent. Sociological Perspectives, 33(4), 483–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sundström, A. (2013). Women’s local political representation within 30 European countries: A comparative dataset on regional figures. QoG Working Paper Series, Vol. 18, pp. 1–41. University of Gothenburg, The Quality of Government Institute.Google Scholar
  77. Taniguchi, H. (2006). Men’s and women’s volunteering: gender differences in the effects of employment and family characteristics. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Taniguchi, H. (2012). The determinants of formal and informal volunteering: Evidence from the American time use survey. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 930–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Taniguchi, H., & Thomas, L. (2011). The influences of religious attitudes on volunteering. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(2), 335–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Van der Lippe, T., de Ruijter, J., de Ruijter, E., & Raub, W. (2011). Persistent inequalities in time use between men and women: A detailed look at the influence of economic circumstances, policies, and culture. European Sociological Review, 27(2), 164–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Van Ingen, E. J. (2008). Social participation revisited: Disentangling and explaining period, life-cycle and cohort effects. Acta Sociologica, 51(2), 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Van Ingen, E. J., & Van der Meer, T. W. G. (2011). Welfare state expenditure and inequalities in voluntary association participation. Journal of European Social Policy, 21(4), 302–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Voorpostel, M., & Coffè, H. (2012). Transition in partnership and parental status, gender, and political and civic participation. European Sociological Review, 28(1), 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wilson, J. (2012). Volunteerism research: A review essay. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(2), 176–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1997). Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 694–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wuthnow, R. (1995). Learning to care: Elementary kindness in an age of indifference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Yang, Y., & Land, K. C. (2008). Age-period-cohort analysis of repeated cross-section surveys fixed or random effects? Sociological Methods & Research, 36(3), 297–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceLUISS “Guido Carli”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations