In this article, we study attitudes towards the gendered division of paid and unpaid work from a comparative perspective. Based on the notion that political institutions are important in structuring individuals’ orientations, five countries with different family policy arrangements are included in the analysis: Denmark, Finland, Germany, Poland and Sweden. Previous comparative attitude research has a strong bias towards public opinion about women’s employment, while research on attitudes towards men’s participation in care work is rare. Drawing on data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) 2012, we use latent class analysis to explore public opinion about: (a) how parents should divide the responsibilities of economic provision and unpaid work; and (b) whether and how parents should divide paid parental leave between them. The strongest support for a traditional organization of work and care is found in Poland, while the strongest support for an equal sharing of work and care responsibilities is found in Sweden. Among the Nordic countries, results differ. While those holding non-traditional ideals in Denmark and Finland emphasize the importance of full-time work for both parents, non-traditional Swedes instead emphasize that both parents should cut back their work hours and thereby share the responsibility for earning and caring in the family.
AassveAFuochiGMencariniL (2014) Desperate housework: Relative resources, time, availability, economic dependency, and gender ideology across Europe. Journal of Family Issues35(8): 1000–1022.
2.
ApparalaMLReifmanAMunschJ (2003) Cross-national comparison of attitudes toward fathers’ and mothers’ participation in household tasks and childcare. Sex Roles48(5/6): 189–203.
3.
BaxterJKaneEW (1995) Dependence and independence: A cross-national analysis of gender inequality and gender attitudes. Gender and Society9(2): 193–215.
4.
BergqvistC (1999) Norden – en modell eller flera? In: BergqvistC. (eds) Likestilte Demokratier? Kjønn og Politikk i Norden. Oslo: Universitetsförlaget, pp.3–13.
5.
BernhardtEGoldscheiderF (2006) Gender equality, parenthood attitudes, and first births in Sweden. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research19–39.
6.
BernhardtENoackTLyngstadTH (2008) Shared housework in Norway and Sweden: Advancing the gender revolution. Journal of European Social Policy18(3): 275–288.
7.
BrooksCManzaJ (2007) Why Welfare States Persist: The Importance of Public Opinion in Democracies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
CromptonRBrockmannMLyonetteC (2005) Attitudes, women’s employment and the domestic division of labour: A cross-national analysis in two waves. Work Employment and Society19(2): 213–233.
9.
DalyM (2005) Changing family life in Europe: Significance for state and society. European Societies7(3): 379–398.
10.
DalyMRakeK (2003) Gender and the Welfare State: Care, Work and Welfare in Europe and the USA. Cambridge: Polity Press.
11.
EllingsæterAL (1998) Dual breadwinner societies: Provider models in the Scandinavian welfare states. Acta Sociologica41(1): 59–73.
12.
EllingsæterAL (2003) The complexity of family policy reform: The case of Norway. European Societies5(4): 419–443.
13.
EllingsæterALLeiraA (2006) Politicising Parenthood in Scandinavia. Bristol: Polity Press.
14.
EvertssonM (2014) Gender ideology and the sharing of housework and child care in Sweden. Journal of Family Issues35(7): 927–949.
15.
GoldscheiderFBernhardtELappegårdT (2014a) Studies of Men’s Involvement in the Family—Part 1: Introduction. Journal of Family Issues35(7): 879–890.
16.
GoldscheiderFBernhardtELappegårdT (2014b) Studies of Men’s Involvement in the Family—Part 2: Introduction. Journal of Family Issues35(8): 995–999.
17.
GornickJCMeyersMK (2008) Creating gender-egalitarian societies: An agenda for reform. Politics & Society36(3): 313–349.
18.
HellevikO (2009) Linear versus logistic regression when the dependent variable is a dichotomy. Quality and Quantity43(1): 59–74.
19.
HookJL (2006) Care in context: Men’s unpaid work in 20 countries, 1965–2003. American Sociological Review71(4): 639–660.
20.
ILO (2014a) International Labour Organization. Working Conditions Laws Database. Available at: www.ilo.org/dyn/travail(accessed 14 February 2014).
21.
ILO (2014b) International Labour Organization. Database on Labour Statistics. Geneva: ILO. Available at: laborsta.ilo.org(accessed 31 October 2015).
22.
ISSP (2012) International social survey programme: Family and changing gender roles IV – ISSP 2012. GESIS Technical Report, Cologne, ZA5900 Data File Version 2.0.0. DOI: 10.4232/1.12022.
23.
JavornikJ (2010) Exploring maternal employment in post-socialist countries. Understanding the implications of childcare policies. PhD Thesis, University of Southampton, UK.
24.
KnudsenKWærnessK (2001) National context, individual characteristics and attitudes on mothers’ employment: A comparative analysis of Great Britain, Sweden and Norway. Acta Sociologica44(1): 67–79.
25.
KonietzkaDKreyenfeldM (2002) Women’s employment and non-marital childbearing: A comparison between East and West Germany in the 1990’s. Population (English edition)57(2): 331–357.
26.
KorpiW (2000) Faces of inequality: Gender, class and patterns of inequalities in different types of welfare states. Social Politics7(2): 127–191.
27.
KorpiWPalmeJ (1998) The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare state institutions, inequality and poverty in the Western countries. American Sociological Review63(5): 661–687.
28.
KorpiWFerrarriniTEnglundS (2013) Women’s opportunities under different family policy constellations: Gender, class, and inequality tradeoffs in Western countries re-examined. Social Politics20(1): 1–40.
29.
KunovichRMKunovichS (2008) Gender dependence and attitudes toward the distribution of household labour: A comparative and multilevel analysis. International Journal of Comparative Sociology49(6): 395–427.
30.
LeviM (1990) A logic of institutional change. In: Schweers CookKLeviM (eds) The Limits of Rationality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp.402–418.
31.
LewisJ (2009) Work-Family Balance, Gender and Policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
32.
MagidsonJVermuntJK (2001) Latent class factor and cluster models, bi-plots, and related graphical displays. Sociological Methodology31: 223–264.
33.
MatysiakASteinmetzS (2008) Finding their way? Female employment patterns in West Germany, East Germany, and Poland. European Sociological Review24(3): 331–345.
34.
McCutcheonAL (1987) Latent class analysis (Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 07-064). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
35.
MettlerSSossJ (2004) The consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship: Bridging policy studies and mass politics. Perspectives on Politics2: 55–73.
36.
MoodC (2010) Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review26(1): 67–82.
37.
OECD (2007) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Babies and Bosses – Reconciling Work and Family Life: A Synthesis of Findings for OECD Countries. Paris: OECD.
38.
OECD (2014) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Family Database. Available at: www.oecd.org/social/family/database(accessed 26 February 2014).
39.
ÖunI (2012) Conflict and concord in work and family. Family policies and individual’s subjective experiences. Dissertation no. 70, Department of Sociology, Umeå University, Sweden.
40.
RobilaM (2012) Family policies in Eastern Europe: A focus on parental leave. Journal of Child and Family Studies21(1): 32–41.
41.
SainsburyD (ed.) (1999) Gender and Welfare State Regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42.
SaxonbergSSirovatkaT (2006) Failing family policy in postcommunist Central Europe. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis8: 185–202.
43.
SjöbergO (2004) The role of family policy institutions in explaining gender role attitudes: A comparative multi-level analysis of thirteen industrialized countries. Journal of European Social Policy14(2): 107–123.
44.
SossJSchramS (2007) A public transformed? Welfare reform as policy feedback. American Political Science Review101(1): 111–127.
45.
SundströmE (1999) Should mothers work? Age and attitudes in Germany, Italy and Sweden. International Journal of Social Welfare8(3): 193–205.
46.
SvallforsS (2007) Introductory chapter. In: SvallforsS (ed.) The Political Sociology of the Welfare State: Institutions, Social Cleavages and Orientations. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp.1–29.
47.
ThévenonO (2011) Family policies in the OECD countries: A comparative analysis. Population and Development Review37(1): 57–87.
48.
WilenskyHL (2002) Rich Economies: Political Economy, Public Policy, and Performance. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
