The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was the culmination of 8 years of conflict and compromise. Whether this legislation was caused by socioeconomic change, interest group pressure, or party politics is the question current research has addressed. Although socioeconomic change exerted pressures on citizens, that pressure could not be translated into policy enactment without the mobilization of interest groups and politicians in an effective issue network. By examining closely three dimensions of the FMLA—the duration, scope, and remuneration—it is possible to specify causes of successful policy enactment. The breadth of the coalition fighting for the for the FMLA, and their ideological cohesiveness, presented a powerful front to legislators who were being pressured by business and Republican leaders to fight the bill. Even within a hostile political climate, interest group cohesion and strategic alliances allowed policy attainment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bystydzienski, J. M. (Ed.). (1992). Women transforming politics: Worldwide strategies for empowerment. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
CQ Weekly Report 46 (1988, December 24). Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., p. 3,572.
5.
CQ Weekly Report 47 (1989, February 4). Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., p. 243.
6.
Castles, F. (1982). The impact of parties: Politics and policies in democratic capitalist states. London: Sage.
7.
Christopherson, S. (1989). The service economy and the transformation of work. In R. M. Schwartz & J. Richlin-Klonsky (Eds.), Women at work (pp. 70-77). Los Angeles: Institute of Industrial Relations and the Center for the Study of Women, University of California.
8.
Conover, P. , & Gray, V. (1983). Feminism and the new right: Conflict over the American family. New York: Praeger Special Studies.
9.
Dahlerup, D. (1986). The new women's movement: Feminism and political power in Europe and the USA. Modern Politics Series, 12, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
10.
Esping-Anderson, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1987: Joint H.R. hearings before the Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations and the Subcommittee on Labor Standards , 100th Cong., 1st sess. (1987).
12.
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1989, H.R. 770: Hearings before the Committee on Education and Labor; Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations , 101st Cong., 1st sess. (1989, February 7).
13.
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1989: Senate hearings before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources; Subcommittee on Children, Family, Drugs and Alcoholism , 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (1989, 2 February).
14.
Gelb, J. (1989). Feminism and politics: A comparative perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
15.
Gelb, J. , & Palley, M. (1987). Women and public policies (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
Gordon, L. (Ed.). (1990). Women, the state, and welfare. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
17.
Hagen, E. , & Jenson, J. (1988). Paradoxes and promises: Work and politics in the postwar years. In J. Jenson, E. Hagen, & C. Reddy (Eds.), Feminization of the labour force: Paradoxes and promises. Oxford: Polity Press.
18.
Hartmann, S. M. (1989). From margin to mainstream: American women and politics since 1960. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
19.
Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In A. King (Ed.), The new American political system. (pp. 87-124). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
20.
Huckle, P. (1988). The womb factor: Policy on pregnancy and the employment of women. In E. Boneparth & E. Stoper (Eds.), Women, power and policy: Toward the year 2000 (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon Press.
21.
Jacquette, J. (1994). The women's movement in Latin America: Feminism and the transition to democracy (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
22.
Katzenstein, M. F. , & Mueller, C. M. (Eds.). (1987). The women's movements of the United States and Western Europe: Consciousness, political opportunity, and public policy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
23.
Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Boston: Little Brown.
24.
Klein, E. (1984). Gender politics: From consciousness to mass politics. Boston: Harvard University Press.
25.
Kutscher, R. E. , & Personick, V. A. (1986). Deindustrialization and the shift to services. Monthly Labor Review, 109, 3-13.
26.
Lovenduski, J. , & Norris, P. (Eds.). (1993). Gender and party politics. London: Sage.
27.
Lovenduski, J. , & Randall, V. (Eds.). (1993). Contemporary feminist politics: Women and power in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28.
Mansbridge, J. J. (1986). Why we lost the ERA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), Department of Economics and Statistics . (1992). Labour force statistics: 1969-89. Paris: Author.
30.
Ripley, R. B. , & Franklin, G. A. (1984). Congress, the bureaucracy, and public policy (4th ed.). Chicago: Dorsey Press.
31.
Sainsbury, D. (Ed.). (1994). Gendering welfare states. London: Sage.
32.
Sapiro, V. (1986). The new women's movement, politics, and policy in the Reagan era. In D. Dahlerup (Ed.), The new women's movement: Feminism and political power in Europe and the USA (pp. 122-139). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
33.
Schroeder, P. (1989). Champion of the great American family. New York: Random House.
34.
Sinclair, B. (1988). The distribution of committee positions in the U.S. Senate: Explaining institutional change. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 276-315.
35.
Spalter-Roth, R. , & Schreiber, R. (1995). Outsider issues and insider tactics: Strategic tensions in the women's policy network during the 1980s. In M. M. Ferree & P. Y. Martin (Eds.), Feminist organization: Harvest of the new women's movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
36.
Stetson, D. M. (1991). Women's rights in the USA: Policy debates and gender roles. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
37.
Thomas, S. (1994). How women legislate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38.
Urquhart, M. (1984). The employment shift to services: Where did it come from?Monthly Labor Review, 107, 15-22.
39.
U.S. Bureau of the Census . (1991, 1990). Statistical Abstracts of the United States (112th, 111th, 101st eds.) Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
40.
U.S. Congress, House . (1987). The Family and Medical Leave Act. H.R. 925/S.249 briefing paper. Washington, DC, 3 February.
41.
U.S. Congress , House Report, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. On The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1991, before the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. (1991, June 27).
42.
U.S. Congress , Senate Report, 102nd Cong., 1st Sess. Granting Employees Family and Temporary Medical Leave under Certain Circumstances. Report before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources (1991, May).
43.
Wilensky, H. (1981). Leftism, Catholicism and democratic corporatism. In P. Flora & A. Heidenheimer (Eds.), The development of welfare states in Europe and America. London: Transaction Books.
44.
Women's Legal Defense Fund. Summary of The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1991. Washington, DC: Author.
