Defamilization typology re-examined: Re-measuring the economic independence of women in welfare states

Abstract

Defamilization typologies are a product of the feminist critique of the modelling of welfare states. A growing literature has employed the notion of defamilization and incorporated the gender dimension into the comparative examination of welfare state regimes. The purpose of this study is to further refine the defamilization typology by addressing the existing limitations and providing better operationalization. Based on previous work, this study uses cluster analysis to classify the same countries, but uses different measures and more up-to-date data. The article begins with a conceptual delineation of defamilization to reveal its important aspects in order to achieve better operationalization. A cluster analysis is then conducted, with preliminary efforts to validate the cluster solution. The findings suggest a fourfold typology according to the varying degree of defamilization. Implications for future research will also be discussed.

Keywords

Defamilization economic independence gender inequality welfare state typology welfare states

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aldenderfer

M.S.

Blashfield

R.K.

(1984) Cluster Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Russell Sage Publications.

Bambra

(2004) ‘The Worlds of Welfare: Illusory and Gender Blind?’, Social Policy and Society 3(3): 201–12.

Bambra

(2006) ‘Decommodification and the Worlds of Welfare Revisited’, Journal of European Social Policy 16(1): 73–80.

Bambra

(2007) ‘Defamilisation and Welfare State Regimes: A Cluster Analysis’, International Journal of Social Welfare 16(4): 326–38.

Baxter

Hewitt

Western

(2005) ‘Post-Familial Families and the Domestic Division of Labour’, Journal of Comparative Family Studies 36(4): 583–600.

Becker

G.S.

(1991) A Treatise on the Family (Enlarged Edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bianchi

S.M.

Subaiya

Kahn

J.R.

(1999) ‘The Gender Gap in the Economic Well-Being of Nonresident Fathers and Custodial Mothers’, Demography 36(2): 195–203.

Bittman

Hill

Thomson

(2007) ‘The Impact of Caring on Informal Carers’ Employment, Income and Earnings: A Longitudinal Approach’, Australian Journal of Social Issues 42(2): 255–72.

Blashfield

R.K.

Aldenderfer

M.S.

(1988) ‘The Methods and Problems of Cluster Analysis’, in Nesselroade

J.R.

Cattell

R.B.

(eds) Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology, pp. 447–73. New York: Plenum Press.

10.

Chodorow

(1978) The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

11.

Craig

Mullan

(2010) ‘Parenthood, Gender and Work-Family Time in the United States, Australia, Italy, France, and Denmark’, Journal of Marriage and Family 72(5): 1344–61.

12.

Daly

(1994) ‘Comparing Welfare States: Towards a Gender Friendly Approach’, in Sainsbury

(ed.) Gendering Welfare States, pp. 101–17. London: Sage.

13.

Esping-Andersen

(1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. London: Polity.

14.

Esping-Andersen

(1999) Social Foundations of Post-Industrial Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

15.

Ettner

S.L.

(1995) ‘The Impact of “Parent Care” on Female Labor Supply Decisions’, Demography 32(1): 63–80.

16.

European Commission (2008) Gender Mainstreaming of Employment Policies: A Comparative Review of 30 European Countries. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

17.

Everitt

B.S.

(2009) Multivariable Modelling and Multivariate Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

18.

Fawcett

Papadopoulos

T.N.

(1997) ‘Social Exclusion, Social Citizenship and Decommodification: An Evaluation of the Adequacy of Support for the Unemployed in the European Union’, West European Politics 20: 1–30.

19.

Gordon

A.D.

(1999) Classification. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

20.

Hair

J.F.

Black

Babin

Anderson

R.E.

Tatham

R.L.

(1998) Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson – Prentice Hall.

21.

Hochschild

A.R.

(1989) The Second Shift. New York: Avon Books.

22.

Johnson

R.W.

Lo Sasso

A.T.

(2000) The Trade-off between Hours of Paid Employment and Time Assistance to Elderly Parents at Midlife. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

23.

Kohlberg

(1966) ‘A Cognitive-Developmental Analysis of Children’s Sex-Role Concepts and Attitudes’, in Maccoby

E.E.

(ed.) The Development of Sex Differences, pp. 82–172. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

24.

Korpi

(2000) ‘Faces of Inequality: Gender, Class and Patterns of Inequalities in Different Types of Welfare States’, Social Politics 7: 127–91.

25.

Kröger

(2011) ‘Defamilisation, Dedomestication and Care Policy’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 31(7/8): 424–40.

26.

Langan

Ostner

(1991) ‘Gender and Welfare: Towards a Comparative Framework’, in Room

(ed.) Towards a European Welfare State, pp. 127–50. Bristol: SAUS.

27.

Leitner

(2003) ‘Varieties of Familialism: The Caring Function of the Family in Comparative Perspective’, European Societies 5(4): 353–75.

28.

León

(2009) ‘Gender Equality and the European Employment Strategy: The Work/Family Balance Debate’, Social Policy and Society 8(2): 197–209.

29.

Lewis

(1992) ‘Gender and the Development of Welfare Regimes’, Journal of European Social Policy 2: 195–211.

30.

Lister

(1994) ‘She Has Other Duties: Women, Citizenship and Social Security’, in Baldwin

Falkingham

(eds) Social Security and Social Change: New Challenges, pp. 31–44. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

31.

Lister

(1997) Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives. London: Macmillan.

32.

Michoń

(2008) ‘Familisation and Defamilisation Policy in 22 European Countries’, Poznań University of Economics Review 8(1): 34–54.

33.

Milligan

G.W.

(1980) ‘An Examination of the Effect of Six Types of Error Perturbation on Fifteen Clustering Algorithms’, Psychometrika 45(3): 325–42.

34.

Milligan

G.W.

Cooper

M.C.

(1987) ‘Methodology Review: Clustering Methods’, Applied Psychological Measurement 11(4): 329–54.

35.

OECD (2012a) OECD Employment Database. Paris: OECD.

36.

OECD (2012b) OECD Family Database. Paris: OECD.

37.

OECD (2012c) OECD Social Expenditure Database. Paris: OECD.

38.

Orloff

(1993) ‘Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: The Comparative Analysis of Gender Relations and Welfare States’, American Sociological Review 58(3): 303–28.

39.

Pitruzzello

(1999) Decommodification and the Worlds of Welfare Capitalism: A Cluster Analysis. Florence: European University Institute.

40.

Pylkkänen

Smith

(2003) ‘Career Interruptions Due to Parental Leave: A Comparative Study of Denmark and Sweden’, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 1, DELSA/ELSA/WD/SEM(2003)1, 13 March. Paris: OECD.

41.

Rønsen

Sundström

(2002) ‘Family Policy and after-Birth Employment among New Mothers: A Comparison of Finland, Norway and Sweden’, European Journal of Population 18: 121–52.

42.

Sainsbury

(1994) Gendering Welfare States. London: Sage.

43.

Sainsbury

(1996) Gender, Equality and Welfare States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

44.

Sainsbury

(1999) ‘Gender and Social-Democratic Welfare States’, in Sainsbury

(ed.) Gender and Welfare State Regimes, pp. 75–117. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

45.

Walker

(1983) ‘Care for Elderly People: A Conflict between Women and the State’, in Finch

Groves

(eds) A Labour of Love: Women, Work and Caring, pp. 106–28. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.