Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-8
To the Fifties and Back Again? A Comparative Analysis of Changes in Breadwinning Arrangements during the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Four European Countries
Over the past decades, opposite-sex couples have moved away from the traditional ‘male breadwinner model’ towards a more egalitarian division of paid work. However, lockdown measures and the closures of schools and childcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic may have challenged egalitarian divisions of paid work, pushing couples into traditional breadwinning arrangements. This study investigates whether opposite-sex couples experienced short- and medium-term relapses into traditional breadwinning arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic. Logistic regressions models, applied to harmonized data from four country-specific representative longitudinal studies fielded during the pandemic (Varhaiskasvatus (Finland), pairfam (Germany), LISS (the Netherlands), and the UKHLS (the UK)), are used to estimate the probability of shifting into traditional breadwinning arrangements among opposite-sex co-resident partners from different social strata. Results indicate a moderate re-traditionalization of breadwinning arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic that did not appear to deepen pre-existing social inequalities in couples’ division of paid work.
AlonTDoepkeMOlmstead-RumseyJ, et al (2020) This time it’s different: The role of women’s employment in a pandemic recession. Working paper 27660. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
2.
AltonjiJGBlomEMeghirC (2012) Heterogeneity in human capital investments: High school curriculum, college major, and careers. Annual Review of Economics4(1): 185–223.
3.
BeckerGS (1991) A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press.
4.
BerghammerCRiedererB (2024) Growing diversity in couples’ work patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic in Austria. Journal of Family Research36: 138–159.
5.
BlumSDobrotićI (2021) Childcare-policy responses in the COVID-19 pandemic: Unpacking cross-country variation. European Societies23(suppl 1): S545–S563.
6.
BreuningMFattoreCRamosJ, et al (2020) The great equalizer? Gender, parenting, and scholarly productivity during the global pandemic. PS: Political Science & Politics54(3): 427–431.
7.
BrinesJ (1994) Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. American Journal of Sociology100(3): 652–688.
8.
BriniESchererSVitaliA (2024) Gender and beyond: Employment patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. Population Research and Policy Review43(3): 1–23.
9.
CarlsonDPettsRPepinJ (2020) US couples’ divisions of housework and childcare during COVID-19 pandemic. SocAirXiv Papers10. DOI: 10.31235/osf.io/jy8fn.
10.
ChungHvan der HorstM (2018) Women’s employment patterns after childbirth and the perceived access to and use of flexitime and teleworking. Human Relations71(1): 47–72.
11.
CicciaRBleijenberghI (2014) After the male breadwinner model?: Childcare services and the division of labor in European countries. Social Politics21(1): 50–79.
12.
CollinsCLandivarLCRuppannerL, et al (2021) COVID-19 and the gender gap in work hours. Gender, Work & Organization28: 101–112.
13.
CromptonR (2006) Employment and the Family: The Reconfiguration of Work and Family Life in Contemporary Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
De WaalTPannekoekJScholtusS (2011) Handbook of Statistical Data Editing and Imputation. Wiley Handbooks in Survey Methodology, vol. 563. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
15.
DobrotićIBlumS (2023) ‘Sorry, we’re closed’: A fuzzy-set ideal-type analysis of pandemic childcare-policy responses in 28 European countries. European Journal of Politics and Gender6(2): 258–294.
16.
Dotti SaniGM (2018) The economic crisis and changes in work-family arrangements in six European countries. Journal of European Social Policy28(2): 177–193.
17.
Dotti SaniGMSchererS (2018) Maternal employment: Enabling factors in context. Work, Employment and Society32(1): 75–92.
GruenbergB (1980) The happy worker: An analysis of educational and occupational differences in determinants of job satisfaction. American Journal of Sociology86(2): 247–471.
20.
GuptaS (2007) Autonomy, dependence, or display? The relationship between married women’s earnings and housework. Journal of Marriage and Family69(2): 399–417.
21.
HaleTAngristNGoldszmidtR, et al (2021) A global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker). Nature Human Behavior5(4): 529–538.
22.
HeilmanMEOkimotoTG (2008) Motherhood: A potential source of bias in employment decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology93(1): 189–198.
23.
HippLBünningMMunnesS, et al (2020) Problems and pitfalls of retrospective survey questions in COVID-19 studies. Survey Research Methods14(2): 109–114.
24.
HookJL (2017) Incorporating “class” into work-family arrangements: Insights from and for Three Worlds. Journal of European Social Policy25(1): 14–31.
25.
HuininkJBrüderlJNauckB, et al (2011) Panel analysis of intimate relationships and family dynamics (pairfam): Conceptual framework and design. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung23(1): 77–101.
26.
HupkauCPetrongoloB (2020) Work, care and gender during the COVID-19 crisis. Fiscal Studies41(3): 623–651.
27.
JavornikJKurowskaA (2017) Work and care opportunities under different parental leave systems: Gender and class inequalities in Northern Europe. Social Policy & Administration51(4): 617–637.
28.
LewisJ (1992) Gender and the development of welfare regimes. Journal of European Social Policy2(3): 159–173.
29.
LewisJCampbellMHuertaC (2008) Patterns of paid and unpaid work in Western Europe: Gender, commodification, preferences and the implications for policy. Journal of European Social Policy18(1): 21–37.
30.
LytteltonTZangEMusickK (2023) Parents’ work arrangements and gendered time use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Marriage and Family85(2): 657–673.
31.
ManserMBrownM (1980) Marriage and household decision-making: A bargaining analysis. International Economic Review21(1): 31–44.
32.
ManzoLKCMinelloA (2020) Mothers, childcare duties, and remote working under COVID-19 lockdown in Italy: Cultivating communities of care. Dialogues in Human Geography10(2): 120–123.
33.
MesiäislehtoMElomäkiANärviJ, et al (2022) The gendered impacts of the Covid-19 crisis in Finland and the effectiveness of the policy responses. Discussion paper 2/2022. Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), Helsinki.
34.
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.
35.
OECD (2020) Job Retention Schemes during the COVID-19 Lockdown and Beyond. Paris: OECD. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/0853ba1d-en (last accessed 5 March 2025).
36.
OECD (2023) Labour Force Statistics. Available at: www.oecd.stats.org (accessed 14 June 2023).
37.
OECD (2024) OECD Family Database. SF1.1: Family size and household composition. Available at: www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm (accessed 5 September 2024).
38.
PavoliniEVan LanckerW (2018) The Matthew effect in childcare use: A matter of policies or preferences?Journal of European Public Policy25(6): 878–893.
39.
Pfau-EffingerB (2005) Welfare state policies and the developments of care arrangements. European Societies7(2): 321–347.
40.
Pfau-EffingerB (2012) Women’s employment in the institutional and cultural context. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy32: 530–543.
41.
QianYHuY (2021) Couples’ changing work patterns in the United Kingdom and the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gender, Work and Organization28(2): 535–553.
42.
QianYGlauberRYavorskyJE (2023) COVID-19 job loss and re-employment among partnered parents: Gender and educational variations. Journal of Marriage and Family85(5): 1138–1152.
43.
StovellCBesamuscaJ (2022) Full-time hours, part-time work: Questioning the sufficiency of working hours as a measure of employment status. Community, Work & Family25(1): 63–83.
44.
University of Essex, Institute for Social and Economic Research (2021) Understanding Society: COVID-19 Study, 2020–2021. [data collection]. 11th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 8644. DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-8644-11.
45.
University of Essex, Institute for Social and Economic Research (2022) Understanding Society: Waves 1–11, 2009–2020 and Harmonised BHPS: Waves 1–18, 1991–2009. [data collection]. 15th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 6614. DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-6614-18.
46.
Van WinkleZ (2020) Family policies and family life course complexity across 20th-century Europe. Journal of European Social Policy30(3): 320–338.
WielersRRavenD (2013) Part-time work and work norms in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review29(1): 105–113.
49.
YerkesM (2009) Part-time work in the Dutch welfare state: The ideal combination of work and care?Policy & Politics37(4): 535–552.
50.
YerkesMAJavornikJ (2019) Creating capabilities: Childcare policies in comparative perspective. Journal of European Social Policy29(4): 529–544.
51.
YerkesMAAndréSCBesamuscaJW, et al (2020) Intelligent lockdown, intelligent effects? Results from a survey on gender (in)equality in paid work, the division of childcare and household work, and quality of life among parents in the Netherlands during the Covid-19 lockdown. PLoS One15(11): e0242249.
52.
ZamberlanAGioachinFGrittiD (2021) Work less, help out more? The persistence of gender inequality in housework and childcare during UK COVID-19. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility73: 100583.
53.
ZamberlanAGioachinFGrittiD (2022) Gender inequality in domestic chores over ten months of the UK COVID-19 pandemic. Demographic Research46: 565–580.
54.
ZochG (2020) Public childcare provision and employment participation of East and West German mothers with different educational backgrounds. Journal of European Social Policy30(3): 370–395.
55.
ZochGHondralisI (2017) The expansion of low-cost, state-subsidized childcare availability and mothers’ return-to-work behaviour in East and West Germany. European Sociological Review33(5): 693–707.
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.
