This study aims to explore whether individual gender-role attitudes moderate potential policy effects on planned childbearing. This is done by employing a typology of earner-carer and traditional-family support in multilevel analyses, pooling data from 2010 for 23 countries. It is expected that individuals preferring earner-carer arrangements react more positively to earner-carer support, while individuals preferring traditional-family arrangements react more positively to traditional-family support. The results show that gender-role attitudes moderate the effect of family policies on mothers’ and childless men’s planned childbearing. Gender-egalitarian mothers have stronger childbearing intentions with higher income replacement in earner-carer support. Contrary to expectations, gender-egalitarian childless men have stronger childbearing intentions with higher income replacement in traditional-family support. Moreover, the results show that both family policies and gender-role attitudes influence childbearing intentions independently, and that family policies play a role mainly for childless respondents.
AndringaW.NieuwenhuisR.van GervenM. (2015). Women’s working hours: The interplay between gender role attitudes, motherhood, and public childcare support in 23 European countries. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 35(9/10), 582–599.
2.
BäckmanO.FerrariniT. (2010). Combating child poverty? A multilevel assessment of family policy institutions and child poverty in 21 old and new welfare states. Journal of Social Policy, 39(2), 275–296.
3.
BillingsleyS.FerrariniT. (2014). Family policy and fertility intentions in 21 European countries. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(2), 428–445.
4.
BolzendahlC. (2011). Beyond the big picture: Gender influences on disaggregated and domain-specific measures of social spending, 1980–1999. Politics & Gender, 7(1), 35–70.
5.
BryanM. L.JenkinsS. P. (2016). Multilevel modelling of country effects: A cautionary tale. European Sociological Review, 32(1), 3–22.
6.
ChoiS.Yellow HorseA. J.YangT. C. (2018). Family policies and working women’s fertility intentions in South Korea. Asian Population Studies, 14(3), 251–270.
7.
CromptonR. (1999). Restructuring gender relations and employment: The decline of the male breadwinner. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
DuncanG.RaudenbushS. (1999). Assessing the effects of context in studies of child and youth development. Educational Psychologist, 34(1), 29–41.
9.
DuvanderA. Z.AnderssonG. (2006). Gender equality and fertility in Sweden. Marriage & Family Review, 39(1–2), 121–142.
10.
Esping-AndersenG. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
11.
European Social Survey. (2010). European Social Survey Round 5 Data, Data file edition 3.2. Bergen: Norwegian Social Science Data Services.
12.
European Social Survey. (2014). Weighting European Social Survey data. London: European Social Survey.
13.
FahlénS. (2013). Capabilities and childbearing intentions in Europe: The association between work–family reconciliation policies, economic uncertainties and women’s fertility plans. European Societies, 15(5), 639–662.
14.
FerrariniT. (2003). Parental leave institutions in eighteen post-war welfare states. Stockholm: Stockholm University, Swedish Institute for Social Research.
15.
FerrariniT.NelsonK.KorpiW.PalmeJ. (2013). Social citizenship rights and social insurance replacement rate validity: Pitfalls and possibilities. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(9), 1251–1266.
16.
GauthierA. H. (1999). Historical trends in state support for families in Europe (post-1945). Children and Youth Services Review, 21(11–12), 937–965.
17.
GauthierA. H. (2007). The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: A review of the literature. Population Research and Policy Review, 26(3), 323–346.
18.
GauthierA. H.HatziusJ. (1997). Family benefits and fertility: An econometric analysis. Population Studies, 51(3), 295–306.
19.
HayesA. F. (2006). A primer on multilevel modeling. Human Communication Research, 32(4), 385–410.
20.
HoemJ. M. (1993). Public policy as the fuel of fertility: Effects of a policy reform on the pace of childbearing in Sweden in the 1980s. Acta Sociologica, 36(1), 19–31.
21.
HoxJ. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
22.
KaufmanG. (2000). Do gender role attitudes matter?: Family formation and dissolution among traditional and egalitarian men and women. Journal of Family Issues, 21(1), 128–144.
23.
KorpiW. (2000). Faces of inequality: Gender, class, and patterns of inequalities in different types of welfare states. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 7(2), 127–191.
24.
KorpiW.FerrariniT.EnglundS. (2013). Women’s opportunities under different family policy constellations: Gender, class, and inequality tradeoffs in Western countries re-examined. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 20(1), 1–40.
25.
KorpiW.PalmeJ. (1998). The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare state institutions, inequality, and poverty in the Western countries. American Sociological Review, 63(5), 661–687.
26.
LaliveR.ZweimüllerJ. (2009). How does parental leave affect fertility and return to work? Evidence from two natural experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(3), 1363–1402.
27.
LappegårdT. (2010). Family policies and fertility in Norway: Politiques familiales et fécondité en Norvège. European Journal of Population/Revue Européenne de Démographie, 26(1), 99–116.
28.
LappegårdT.NeyerG.VignoliD. (2015). Three dimensions of the relationship between gender role attitudes and fertility intentions (SRRD 2015:9). Stockholm: Stockholm University, Department of Sociology, Demography Unit.
29.
LewisJ. (1992). Gender and the development of welfare regimes. Journal of European Social Policy, 2(3), 159–173.
30.
Luci-GreulichA.ThévenonO. (2013). The impact of family policies on fertility trends in developed countries. European Journal of Population, 29(4), 387–416.
31.
MandelH.SemyonovM. (2006). A welfare state paradox: State interventions and women’s employment opportunities in 22 countries. American Journal of Sociology, 111(6), 1910–1949.
MontanariI. (2000). From family wage to marriage subsidy and child benefits: Controversy and consensus in the development of family support. Journal of European Social Policy, 10(4), 307–333.
34.
NeyerG. (2005). Families policies in Western Europe. Fertility policies at the intersection of gender, employment, and care policies. Österreichische Zeitschrift Für Politikwissenschaft, 34(1), 91–102.
35.
NeyerG.AnderssonG. (2008). Consequences of family policies on childbearing behavior: Effects or artifacts?Population and Development Review, 34(4), 699–724.
36.
OrloffA. S. (1993). Gender and the social rights of citizenship: The comparative analysis of gender relations and welfare states. American Sociological Review, 58(3), 303–328.
37.
Pfau-EffingerB. (1998). Gender cultures and the gender arrangement—A theoretical framework for cross-national gender research. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 11(2), 147–166.
38.
PhilipovD.LiefbroerA. C.KlobasJ. E. (Eds.). (2015). Reproductive decision-making in a macro-micro perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.
39.
SchoenR.AstoneN. M.KimY. J.NathansonC. A.FieldsJ. M. (1999). Do fertility intentions affect fertility behavior?Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(3), 790–799.
WesolowskiK.FerrariniT. (2018). Family policies and fertility: Examining the link between family policy institutions and fertility rates in 33 countries 1995–2011. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 38(11/12), 1057–1070.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
