The Adult-worker-model Family and Gender Equality: Principles to Enable the Valuing and Sharing of Care

  • Jane Lewis
  • Susanna Giullari
Chapter
Part of the Social Policy in a Development Context book series (SPDC)

Abstract

There is now agreement in the literature that the male-breadwinner-model family, in which men took primary responsibility for earning and women for the unpaid work of care, has been substantially eroded (Crompton 1999; Lewis 2001a). There is also substantial agreement that the actual patterns of family formation and dissolution and labour-market participation have changed, but there has been, if anything, a more rapid shift still in normative ideas about the contributions that women especially should make to families, and in the goals of social and labour-market policies. There is of course substantial variation between countries in the degree of change in social trends, policy assumptions and policy development. But given the steady (and in some countries dramatic) rise in female labour-market participation together with large-scale family change, which has resulted in a rapid increase in lone-mother and single-person households, policy-makers may feel justified in making assumptions regarding increasing individualization, in the sense of increasing self-sufficiency. However, parttime employment for women is extremely common in most Northern and Western European countries, which alone is sufficient to undermine any such simple assumption. How care work is to be accommodated in this new model is also a major issue, but one that has often been subordinated to economic and labour-market concerns and hence has received only partial acknowledgement in policymaking.

Keywords

Gender Equality Parental Leave Capability Approach Unpaid Work Lone Mother 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Balbo, L. (1987) ‘Crazy Quilts: Rethinking the Welfare State Debate from a Woman’s Point of View’. In A. Showstack Sasson (ed.) Women and the State. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  2. Barlow, A. and S. Duncan (2000) ‘New Labour’s Communitarianism: Supporting Families and the “Rationality Mistake”, Part II’, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 22(2): 129–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basu, K. and L. F. Lopez-Calva (1999) ‘Functionings and Capabilities’. In K. Arrow, A. Sen and K. Suzumura (eds) Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science/North Holland.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, U. and E. Beck-Gernsheim (2002) Individualization. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, G. (1981) A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bojer, H. (2002) The Social Contract: Unpaid Child Care And Women’s Economic Capability. Paper presented at the VHI conference ‘Promoting Women’s Capabilities: Examining Nussabum’s Capabilities Approach’, Cambridge, 9–10 September.Google Scholar
  7. Bonvin, J. and N. Farvaque (2003) Towards a Capability-Friendly Social Policy: The Role of Local Implementation Agencies. Paper prepared for the VHI conference ‘Transforming Unjust Structures: Capabilities and Justice’, Cambridge, 26–27 June.Google Scholar
  8. Bradley, H. (1989) Men’s Work Women’s Work. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bradshaw, J., S. Kennedy, M. Kilkey, S. Hutton, A. Corden, T. Eardly, H. Holmes and J. Neale (1996) The Employment of Lone Parents. London: Family Policy Studies Centre.Google Scholar
  10. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (1993) Growth, Competitiveness and Employment — The Challenges and Ways Forward into the 21stCentury. Luxembourg: CEC.Google Scholar
  11. Crompton, R. (ed.) (1999) Restructuring Gender Relationships and Employment: The Decline of the Male Breadwinner. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Daly, M. (2001) ‘Alternative Ways of Compensating for Care in Western Europe’. In M. Daly (ed.), Care Work Security. Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
  13. Duncan, S. and R. Edwards (1999) Lone Mothers, Paid Work and Gendered Moral Rationalities. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Esping-Andersen, G., D. Gallie, A. Hemerijck and J. Myles (2001) A New Welfare Architecture for Europe? Report submitted to the Belgian Presidency of the European Union, Final Version.Google Scholar
  15. Esping-Andersen, G., D. Gallie, A. Hemerijck and J. Myles (2002) Why We Need a New Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission (EC) (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.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission (EC) (2000) Social Policy Agenda. COM (2000) 379 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission (EC) (2002a) Increasing Labour Force Participation and Promoting Active Ageing. COM (2002) 9 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
  19. European Commission (EC) (2002b) Taking Stock of Five Years of the European Employment Strategy. COM (2002) 416 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
  20. European Commission (EC) (2003) Scoreboard on Implementing the Social Policy Agenda. COM (2003) 57 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
  21. European Commission and Council of the European Union (2002) Joint Report on Employment, at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/employment_strategy/report_2002/jer2002_final_en.pdf/comm/employment_social/employment_strategy/report_2002/jer2002_final_en.pdf, accessed on 9 June 2005.Google Scholar
  22. Ferrera, M., A. Hemerijck and M. Rhodes (2000) The Future of Social Europe: Recasting Work and Welfare in the New Economy. Report for the Portuguese presidency of the European Union.Google Scholar
  23. Finch, J. and D. Groves (eds) (1983) A Labour of Love: Women, Work and Caring. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  24. Finch, J. and J. Mason (1993) Negotiating Family Responsibilities. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Folbre, N. (1995) ‘“Holding Hands at Midnight”: The Paradox of Caring Labour’. Feminist Economics, 1(1): 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Folbre, N. and J. Nelson (2000) ‘For Love or Money — Or Both?’ Journal of Economic Perspectives 14(4): 123–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fraser, N. (1997) Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the ‘Post-Socialist’ Condition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Gershuny, J. (2000) Changing Times: Work and Leisure in Post-industrial Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Gilligan, C. (1982) In a Different Voice. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Glendinning, C. and J. Millar (1987) Women and Poverty. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  31. Goodin, R. E. (2001) ‘Work and Welfare: Towards a Post-productivist Welfare Regime’. British Journal of Political Science, 31(1): 13–39.Google Scholar
  32. Gornick, J. C., M. K. Meyers and K. E. Ross (1997) ‘Supporting the Employment of Mothers: Policy Variation across Fourteen Welfare States’. Journal of European Social Policy, 7(1): 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hakim, C. (2000) Work-Lifestyle Choices in the Twenty-first Century: Preference Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hantrais, L. (ed.) (2000) Gendered Policies in Europe: Reconciling Employment and Family Life. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  35. Held, V. (1993) Feminist Morality: Transforming Culture, Society and Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Iversen, V. (2003) ‘Intra-Household Inequality: A Challenge for the Capability Approach?’ Feminist Economics, 9(2–3): 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jenson J. and M. Sineau (eds) (2001) Women’s Work, Childcare, and Welfare State Redesign. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kaufman, F-X. (2002) ‘Politics and Policies Towards the Family in Europe: A Framework and an Inquiry into their Differences and Convergences’. In F-X Kaufman, A. Kuilsten, H-J Schulze, K. P. Strohmeier (eds) Family Life and Family Policies in Europe, Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kittay, E. (1999) Love’s Labour: Essays on Women, Equality and Dependency. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Kleinman, M. (2002) A European Welfare State? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Land, H. (2002) ‘Spheres of Care in the UK: Separate and Equal’. Critical Social Policy, 22(1): 13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lewis, J. (1997) ‘Gender and Welfare Regimes: Further Thoughts’. Social Politics, 4: 160–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lewis, J. (2001a) ‘The Decline of the Male Breadwinner Model: The Implications for Work and Care’. Social Politics, 8(2): 152–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lewis, J. (2001b) The End of Marriage? Individualism and Intimate Relations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  45. Lewis, J. and B. Meredith (1987) Daughters who Care. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Lister, R. (1997) Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lister, R. (2003) Citizenship: FeministPerspectives. 2nd edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  48. Lödemel, I. and H. Trickey (eds) (2001) An Offer You Can’t Refuse: Workfare in International Perspective. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  49. McLaughlin, E. and C. Glendinning (1993) Paying forCare—Lessons from Europe. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  50. Mead, L. (1986) Beyond Entitlement: The Social Obligations of Citizenship. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  51. Millar, J. and A. Warman (1996) Family Obligations in Europe. London: Family Policy Studies Centre.Google Scholar
  52. Misra, J. and F. Akins (1998) ‘The Welfare State and Women: Structure, Agency, and Diversity’. Social Politics 5: 259–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Morris, J. (1993) Independent Lives. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nelson, J. A. (1996) Feminism, Objectivity and Economics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Noddings, N. (1984) Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  56. Nussbaum, M. (1999) Sex and Social Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Nussbaum, M. (2000) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nussbaum, M. (2003) ‘Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements: Sen and Social Justice’. Feminist Economics 9(2–3): 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nussbaum, M. and A. Sen (eds) (1993) The Quality of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Oakley, A. (1981) Subject Women. Oxford: Martin Robertson.Google Scholar
  61. O’Connor, J. (2003) ‘Measuring Progress in the European Social Model: Policy Coordination, Social Indicators and the Social Policy Agenda in the European Union’. Paper presented at the RC19 Conference, Toronto, August.Google Scholar
  62. Okin, S. M. (1989) Justice, Gender and the Family. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  63. Orloff, A. (2002) ‘Explaining US Welfare Reform: Power, Gender, Race and the US Policy Legacy’. Critical Social Policy, 22(1): 96–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Parsons, T. and R. F. Bales (1995) Family Socialization and Interaction Process. Glencoe, IL: Free Press (first published 1955).Google Scholar
  65. Peter, F. (2003) ‘Gender and the Foundations of Social Choice: The Role of Situated Agency’. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3) 13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Phillips, A. (1993) Democracy and Difference. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  67. Phillips, A. (2001) ‘Feminism and Liberalism Revisited: Has Martha Nussbaum Got It Right?’. Constellations, 8(2): 249–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Robeyns, I. (2000) ‘An Unworkable Idea or a Promising Alternative? Sen’s Capability Approach Re-examined’. Paper presented at the Workshop on Poverty, Social Capital and Development, St Edmunds College, 23 May.Google Scholar
  69. Robeyns, I. (2001) ‘Sen’s Capability Approach and Feminist Concerns’. Paper prepared for the conference on Sen’s Capability Approach, St Edmunds College, 5–7 June.Google Scholar
  70. Robeyns, I. (2003) ‘Sen’s Capability Approach and Gender Inequality: Selecting Relevant Capabilities’. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3): 61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ross, G. (2001) ‘Europe: An Actor without a Role’. In J. Jenson and M. Sineau (eds) Women’s Work, Childcare, and Welfare State Redesign. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  72. Rubery, J., M. Smith and C. Fagan (1998) ‘National Working-Time Regimes and Equal Opportunities’. Feminist Economics, 4(1): 71–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Scharpf, F. W. (2002) ‘The European Social Model: Coping with the Challenges of Diversity’. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(4): 645–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sen, A. (1985) ‘Well-Being, Agency and Freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984’, Journal of Philosophy, 82(4): 169–224.Google Scholar
  75. Sen, A. (1990) ‘Gender and Cooperative Conflicts’. In I. Tinker (ed.) Persistent Inequalities: Women and World Development. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Sen, A. (1992) Inequality Re-examined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Siim, B. (2000) Gender and Citizenship: Politics and Agency in France, Britain and Denmark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Silva, E. B. and C. Smart (1999) The New Family? London: Sage.Google Scholar
  80. Smart C. and B. Neale (1999) Family Fragments? Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  81. Supiot, A. (ed.) (1999) Au-dela de L’Emploi (Beyond Employment). Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  82. Tronto, J. (1993) Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for and Ethic of Care. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  83. Ungerson, C. (1997) ‘Social Politics and the Commodification of Care’. Social Politics, 4: 362–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Ungerson, C. (2000) ‘Thinking About the Production and Consumption of Long-Term Care in Britain: Does Gender Still Matter?’ Journal of Social Policy, 29(4): 623–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Vandenbroucke, F. (2001) ‘European Social Democracy and the Third Way: Convergence, Divisions, and Shared Questions’. In S. White (ed.) New Labour: The Progressive Future? Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  86. Williams, F. (2001) ‘In and Beyond New Labour: Towards a New Political Ethics of Care’. Critical Social Policy, 21(4): 467–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Williams, F., J. Popay and A. Oakley (1999) Welfare Research: A Critical Review. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  88. Young, I. M. (1989) ‘Polity and Group Difference: A Critique of the Ideal of Universal Citizenship’. Ethics, 99: 250–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Young, I. M. (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© UNRISD 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane Lewis
  • Susanna Giullari

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations