Two-Tiered Romanian Family Policy and Inequality

Chapter

Abstract

By building on the argument that family policies are perhaps the most influential social policy instruments for the organisation of young children’s routine care, this chapter reviews the range of policy instruments geared towards families with young children in place between 2006 and 2015 in the Romanian context. Following a brief discussion of family policy change over the last five decades, the first section provides a concise demographic overview of Romanian families with young children. The chapter then moves on to critically present family policy provisions for families with children under age three, specifically cash benefits, paid leave provisions and early childhood education and care services, commenting on the direction of policy changes during the period studied. This is followed by a similarly structured discussion of provisions for families with children of preschool age. The chapter concludes that the assemblage of family policy instruments in Romania is marred by a host of institutional and structural inconsistencies and gaps, leading to selective social rights, patchy coverage and, consequently, multiple inequalities of access.

References

  1. Adascalitei, D. (2017). From austerity to austerity: The political economy of public pension reforms in Romania and Bulgaria. Social Policy & Administration, 51, 464–487.  https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bădescu, G., & Petre, N., Angi, D. (2014). Bunăstarea copilului din mediul rural. 2014 [The welfare of the child from the countryside. 2014]. Cluj-Napoca: World Vision Romania.Google Scholar
  3. Ban, C. (2015). Beyond anticommunism. East European Politics & Societies and Cultures, 29, 640–650.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325415599197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bilț, M., Chirea, V. G., Dumitriu, C., Ionescu, M., Lițoiu, N., Negreanu, M., Tacea, F. A., & Teșileanu, A. (2010). Structurile sistemelor de educație și formare din Europa. România [The structures of European education and training systems. Romania]. Brussels and Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  5. Cace, S. (2006). Politici de ocupare în Europa centrală și de est [Employment policy in Central and Eastern Europe]. Bucharest: Expert.Google Scholar
  6. Ciolan, L. (2004). Strategy and quality in education: Romania. In P. Radó (Ed.), Decentralization and the governance of education: The state of education systems in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Poland and Romania, LGI fellowship series (pp. 69–94). Budapest: Open Society Institute.Google Scholar
  7. Ciucu, C. (2010). Faza cu cresele. Optiuni pentru guvernantii fara idei [The issue of nurseries. Alternatives for decision-makers without ideas]. Contributors.ro.Google Scholar
  8. Daly, M., & Rake, K. (2003). Gender and the welfare state: Care, work and welfare in Europe and the USA. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  9. DCS. (1990). Anuarul statistic al Republicii Socialiste România [The statistical annuary of the Socialist republic of Romania]. Bucharest: Direcția Centrală de Statistică—DCS.Google Scholar
  10. de Neubourg, C., Bradshaw, J., Chzhen, Y., Main, G., Martorano, B., & Menchini, L. (2012). Child deprivation, multidimensional poverty and monetary poverty in Europe (UNICEF Innocenti Working Paper). Florence: UNICEF.Google Scholar
  11. Deacon, B. (2000). Eastern European welfare states: The impact of the politics of globalization. Journal of European Social Policy, 10, 146–161.  https://doi.org/10.1177/a012487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duvander, A.-Z., & Ellingsæter, A. L. (2016). Cash for childcare schemes in the Nordic welfare states: Diverse paths, diverse outcomes. European Societies, 18, 70–90.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2015.1124903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Einhorn, B. (1993). Cinderella goes to market: Citizenship, gender and women’s movements in East Central Europe. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  14. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  15. European Commission. (2016a). Education and Training Monitor 2016. Romania. Brussels and Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission. (2016b). Assessing the implementation of the EU framework for national Roma integration strategies and the council recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in the member states—2016 (Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions). Brussels and Luxembourg: European Commission. Google Scholar
  17. Ferge, Z. (2001). Welfare and “Ill-Fare” in Central-Eastern Europe. In R. Sykes, B. Palier, & P. Prior (Eds.), Globalization and European welfare states: Challenges and change (pp. 127–152). Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fraser, N. (1994). After the family wage. Political Theory, 22, 591–618.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591794022004003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gal, S., & Kligman, G. (2000). The politics of gender after socialism: A comparative-historical essay. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hacker, J. S. (2004). Privatizing risk without privatizing the welfare state: The hidden politics of social policy retrenchment in the United States. American Political Science Review, 98, 243–260.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055404001121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hărăguş, M. (2011). Naşterile în contexte diferite de cel marital [Births in contexts other than the marital one]. Calitatea Vieţii, XXII(4), 379–396. Google Scholar
  22. INS. (2008). Anuarul statistic al României [The statistical annuary of Romania]. Bucharest: Institutul Național de Statistică—INS.Google Scholar
  23. Kalleberg, A. L. (2011). Good jobs, bad jobs: The rise of polarized and precarious employment systems in the United States, 1970s–2000s. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  24. Kazepov, Y., Barberis, A., Kennett, P., & Lendvai-Bainton, N. (2017). The territorial dimension of social policies and the new role of cities. Handbook of European social policy (pp. 302–318). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kitchen, H., Fordham, E., Henderson, K., Looney, A., & Maghnouj, S. (2017). Studii OCDE privind evaluarea și examinarea în domeniul educației. România 2017 [OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in education: Romania 2017]. OECD & UNICEF Romania. Accessed on December 21 2017 at https://www.edu.ro/sites/default/files/Studiu_OECD.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kligman, G. (1992). The politics of reproduction in Ceausescu’s Romania: A case study in political culture. East European Politics and Societies, 6, 364–418.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325492006003010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kovács, B. (2015a). “The totality of caring”: Conceptualising childcare arrangements for empirical research. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 35, 699–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kovács, B. (2015b). Managing access to full-time public daycare and preschool services in Romania: Planfulness, cream-skimming and “interventions”. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 6, 6–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2014.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kovács, B. (2015c). Romanian families: Changes and continuities over recent decades. In Z. Rajkai (Ed.), Family and social change in socialist and postsocialist societies (pp. 250–299). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  30. Kovács, B., Polese, A., & Morris, J. (2017). Adjusting social welfare and social policy in Central and Eastern Europe: Growth, crisis and recession. In P. Kennett & N. Lendvai-Bainton (Eds.), Handbook of European social policy (pp. 194–217). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kremer, M. (2007). How welfare states care: Culture, gender and parenting in Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lendvai, N., & Stubbs, P. (2009). Assemblages, translation, and intermediaries in Southeast Europe: Rethinking transnationalism and social policy. European Societies, 11, 673–695.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14616690802475504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Letablier, M.-T., Luci, A., Math, A., & Thévenon, O. (2009). The costs of raising children and the effectiveness of policies to support parenthood in European countries: A literature review. Brussels: European Commission. Accessed on April 8 2010 at https://www.ined.fr/fichier/s_rubrique/19548/158bis.fr.pdf.
  34. Magyari-Vincze, E. (2006). Romanian gender regimes and women’s citizenship. In J. Lukić, J. Regulska, & D. Zaviršek (Eds.), Women and citizenship in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 21–37). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  35. Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection (2009a). Evoluții în domeniul asistenței sociale în anul 2008 [Evolutions in social assistance in 2008].Google Scholar
  36. Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection. (2009b). Studiu de impact asupra măsurilor promovate de OUG 148/2005 privind susținerea familiei în vederea creșterii copilului [Impact study regarding the measures promoted by Emergency Ordinance No. 148/2005 for the support of the family in raising children].Google Scholar
  37. Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection. (2010). Analiza influenței acordării principalelor transferuri sociale asupra sărăciei absolute în anul 2009 [Analysis of the influence of the main social transfers on absolute poverty in 2009]. Bucharest: Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection. Google Scholar
  38. Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Protection and Elderly Persons. (2012). Evoluții în domeniul asistenței sociale în anul 2011 [Evolutions in social assistance in 2011]. Bucharest: Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Protection and Elderly Persons.Google Scholar
  39. Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Protection and Elderly Persons. (2015). Setul național de indicatori de incluziune socială corespunzători anului 2014 [The national set of social inclusion indicators for 2014]. Bucharest: Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Protection and Elderly Persons.Google Scholar
  40. Morgan, K. J., & Zippel, K. (2003). Paid to care: The origins and effects of care leave policies in Western Europe. Social Politics, 10, 49–85.  https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxg004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moskoff, W. (1980). Pronatalist policies in Romania. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 28, 597.  https://doi.org/10.1086/451199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nunberg, B. (1999). The state after communism: Administrative transitions in Central and Eastern Europe. Washington, DC: World Bank Regional and Sectoral Studies, World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. OECD. 2016. OECD Family Database—PF3.2: Enrolment in childcare and pre-school. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  44. Open Society Institute. (2007). Equal access to quality education for Roma: Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Serbia (Vol. 1) (Monitoring report). Budapest: Open Society Institute.Google Scholar
  45. Parlevliet, J., & Xenogiani, T. (2008). Report on informal employment in Romania (OECD Development Centre Working Papers no. 4–83, 271). Paris, France: OECD. Accessed on April 12 2013 at https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/241073811260.pdf?expires=1524129381&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=4DF4E109A4415EE0E9EE99D1A15BC190.
  46. Pfau-Effinger, B. (2005). Welfare state policies and the development of care arrangements. European Societies, 7, 321–347.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14616690500083592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Popescu, R. (2015). The evolution of the financial support for family in Romania after the economic crisis. Journal of Community Positive Practices, 15, 93–119.Google Scholar
  48. Postelnicu, V. (2017). Proiectul de lege care prevedea crearea a 500 de creșe la nivel național, respins de deputați; PSD nu a mai susținut inițiativa [Parliament deputies reject the draft law providing for the creation of 500 creches nation-wide; the Social Democratic Party stopped supporting the draft law]. Libertatea online.Google Scholar
  49. Potârcă, G., Mills, M., & Lesnard, L. (2013). Family formation trajectories in Romania, the Russian Federation and France: Towards the second demographic transition? European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie, 29, 69–101.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-012-9279-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Saxonberg, S. (2013). From defamilialization to degenderization: Toward a new welfare typology. Social Policy & Administration, 47, 26–49.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2012.00836.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saxonberg, S. (2014). Gendering family policies in post-communist Europe: A historical-institutional analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sotiropoulos, D. A., & Pop, L. (2007). Bulgaria and Romania. In B. Deacon & P. Stubbs (Eds.), Social policy and international interventions in South East Europe (pp. 62–84). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  53. Stativă, E., & Anghelescu, C. (2004). Studiul Național asupra Educației Timpurii în Creșe—2002 [National study regarding early education in nurseries—2002]. Bucharest: UNICEF with Centrul pentru Educație și dezvoltare Profesională and IOMC.Google Scholar
  54. Szelewa, D., & Polakowski, M. P. (2008). Who cares? Changing patterns of childcare in Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 18, 115–131.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928707087589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Szikra, D., & Tomka, B. (2009). Social policy in East Central Europe: Major trends in the twentieth century. In A. Cerami & P. Vanhuysse (Eds.), Post-communist welfare pathways: Theorising social policy transformations in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 17–34). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Titmuss, R. (2006). Universalism versus selection. In C. Pierson & F. G. Castles (Eds.), The welfare state reader (pp. 40–47). Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  57. Ulrich, C. (2009). Dezvoltarea Procesului de Formulare a Politicilor Publice la nivelul Administrației Publice Centrale—Studiu pilot [The development of the policy formulation process at central administration level—pilot study] (Unpublished report). WYG International, Bucharest.Google Scholar
  58. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. (2012). Measuring child poverty: New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries (No. Innocenti Report Card 10). Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.Google Scholar
  59. Verdery, K. (1994). From parent-state to family patriarchs: Gender and nation in contemporary Eastern Europe. East European Politics & Societies, 8, 225–255.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325494008002002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Voicu, N., & Baba, L. (2009). Raport cu privire la situația educației incluzive din România [Report on the state of inclusive education in Romania]. Romania: Centrul Educația 2000+ and Fundația de Abilitare Speranța.Google Scholar
  61. Williams, C. C., & Horodnic, I. A. (2017). Under-declaring work, falsely declaring work: Under-declared employment in the European Union. Brussels: European Commission. Accessed on December 16 2017 at http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=18376&langId=en.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations