new the fatherhood report 2010-11cite.gov.pt/pt/destaques/complementosdestqs/fi-fifi... · 2011. 1....

The Fatherhood Report 2010-11The Fairness in Families Index

www.fatherhoodinstitute.org

An international index tomeasure egalitarian parenting inhigh income countries

December 2010


Introduction 4

About the Fairness in Families Index (FiFI) 6

FiFI INDICATOR ONE:

– Gender equality in parental leave 8

FiFI INDICATOR TWO:

– Gender pay gap 10

FiFI INDICATOR THREE:

– Men’s percentage share of the part-time workforce 12

FiFI INDICATOR FOUR:

– Proportion of women sitting in parliaments 14

FiFI INDICATOR FIVE:

– Women in management positions 16

FiFI INDICATOR SIX:

– Percentage of children living in lone parent households 18

FiFI INDICATOR SEVEN:

– Percentage of GDP spent on childcare and education for the under-fives 20

FiFI INDICATOR EIGHT:

– Men’s and women’s time spent on childcare 22

FiFI INDICATOR NINE:

– Men’s and women’s time spent on unpaid work 24

FiFI INDICATOR TEN:

– Maximum full-time equivalent paid leave for fathers 26

Summary of countries’ rankings 28

Fatherhood Institute FiFI Reference Group 29

Other Fatherhood Institute initiatives 30

About the Fatherhood Institute 32

3

Contents

The Fatherhood Report 2010-11: The Fairness in Families Index

4

The rise of the hands-on dadOne of the biggest changes in familybehaviour, now well-documented byacademic research, is the rise of thehands-on father. The roots for thischange can be traced back to theemergence of women as a force inthe labour market, with mothershaving less time to spend at homeand aspiring to greater sharing of thedomestic workload. But we shouldacknowledge that this change issomething broadly welcomed byfathers themselves. Many mentreasure the opportunity to have amore significant role in theirchildren’s upbringing.

This is not always an easy change tonegotiate. Our current rules onmaternity and paternity leave, forexample, are based on anassumption that the man’s role is towork to support the family, whilst themother’s place is at home. And bothwomen’s and men’s choices remainconstrained by the expectation thatmen should carry the mainresponsibility for breadwinning.

When a man does the laundry, orchanges a nappy, we still view him asengaging in an activity which is notentirely in keeping with hismasculinity. Caring and nurturingbehaviours are seen, by some atleast, as coming more naturally tomothers, and as requiring men to act‘outside of’ their natural inclinations.

As men demonstrate their capacity toprovide high quality parenting acrossthe range of skills required, ourunderstanding of what masculinity isall about is beginning tochange..Crucially, there is a large andwidely supported body of evidencewhich shows that when fathersprovide sensitive and competent careabove and beyond the role ofbreadwinner, we see many positiveoutcomes for their children including:

• fewer behaviour problems

• lower criminality and substance abuse

• higher educational /occupationalmobility relative to parents’employment

• capacity for empathy

• better peer relationships

• and higher self-esteem and life-satisfaction

Such benefits are also found whenparents separate, with substantial,positive father involvement one ofthe most powerful predictors ofpositive outcomes for children.

IntroductionThe Coalition Governmentcame to power with a strongcommitment to families andchildren, an aspiration tomake this the most familyfriendly country in Europe,and a pledge to supportshared parenting from theearliest stages of pregnancy.

But families are something ofa moving target in the UKand elsewhere. We areseeing huge andfundamental changes in theway that mothers and fatherscarry out their roles asparents - and more parentsthan ever are separatingbefore their children havegrown. Family policy needsto keep up with changes inthe ways that familiesoperate in the real world, or risk undermining today’s parents.

Rob WilliamsChief executive,

The Fatherhood Institute


Building fairer familiesWe know from the research thatparents who avoid a stark divisionbetween breadwinner and carer, andwho each contribute substantially toboth roles, are happier and more likelyto stay together for longer. We alsoknow that today’s young men andwomen aspire to a more shareddivision of caring and breadwinningroles than their parents did.

But how good are we at creating anenvironment in which hands-onfathering can flourish? This reportintroduces the Fairness in Families Index- the first attempt (not just in the UK,but anywhere in the world) to find out.

The index pulls together a broad rangeof indicators giving an insight into howfathers and mothers are sharing theirparenting in 21 upper incomecountries – and the contexts in whichthey make their choices.

There are some measures which wehave been obliged to miss out of theindex because of lack of comparabledata. Important among the omissionsis the reality of how many men actuallytake significant periods of parentalleave. This is difficult information tocollect in a robust way from each of thestudy countries. For the purposes ofthis study we are limited to examiningthe systems of leave which make itpossible for this to happen to varyingextents in different countries. Wewould like to look in more detail at thisand other questions in future versionsof the index.

Even with the acknowledged gaps inour dataset, the basket of indicators wehave been able to collect gives aconvincing account of the legal, policyand personal situations in the 21countries we looked at.

Governments might feel they have littlecontrol (or legitimacy) when trying tochange what happens inside families.But they do have significant power overthe framework within which families goabout their daily business. From taxand benefits to maternity and paternityleave, public services and equalitieslegislation – and through policy designand implementation across the health,housing, education and welfare sectors- governments have a huge influenceon fathers’ and mothers’ ability to shareearning and caring roles. Theconfiguration of multiple policy leverscan either pave the way for socialchange to continue, or create barriersto the changes that people want tomake in their own lives.

The Fairness in Families Index capturescountries’ attempts to establishframeworks which suit modern dayfamily aspirations. Some have set outearly and with a specific agenda.Sweden, top of the table, iscommitted to shared parenting, notjust because of what parents want butalso because it has a belief that shar edparenting is good for children andrelationships, coupled with a strongvision of gender equality. Othercountries seem to be more in themould of responding to what peopleappear to want, while some continue– intentionally or not – to deliverpolicies suited to traditional models offamily life.

How does the UK fare?The index suggests that the UK islagging behind most upper-incomecountries in establishing a frameworkfor parenting and earning to beshared. The Coalition’s commitmentto supporting shared parentingwould imply that the UK should bemoving up this FiFI league table overthe next few years.

The fact that we start this journey in18th place out of 21 shows that wehave a lot of work to do. But thegood news is, we know there arepolicy levers we can pull – to cr eate amore equitable parental leave system,close the gender pay gap anddevelop more father-inclusivechildren’s services – and there will bepolicy ideas to investigate fromcountries in the top half of the table.

Establishing a framework in the UKto support more egalitarian earningand caring will not be flying in theface of public opinion or personalaspiration – far from it. Study afterstudy has shown that the oldconcepts of man as breadwinner andwoman as home-maker are not at allwhat young couples aspire to – andenabling mums and dads to shareroles and focus more effectively onboth being great parents will be ofhuge benefit to children, especiallythose in more vulnerable families.

The Fatherhood Institute has donemuch over the last ten years to bringforward the evidence about howfathers impact on their children, andto advise policy makers andpractitioners on the best ways toensure that all children have thebenefit of a positive father or fatherfigure in their lives. A big part of ourwork is helping to remove thebarriers to fathers engaging withservices, finding flexibility at work,and having the the confidence tobecome a fully engaged parent. Welook ahead with optimism to thenext developments in the rise of thehands-on father.

Rob WilliamsChief executive, The Fatherhood Institute

5


6

To what extent are these aspirationsbeing met? And what aregovernments doing to support, orundermine, the struggles of this newgeneration of parents?

The Fatherhood Institute’s Fairness inFamilies Index (FiFI) has beenestablished to find out. This is thefirst time an index has beenconstructed to measure the extent towhich egalitarian parenting ispossible cross-nationally. The Indexconsists of a compilation of researchdata relating to 21 industrialisedcountries, summarising how wellthey are doing in promoting andsustaining greater equality in men’sand women’s division of labour athome and in the paid workforce.

We have selected a range ofmeasures – some assessing policydirection, some evaluating outcomes- which demonstrate at a glance howcountries are faring. The indicatorswe have compiled demonstratemen’s and women’s positions relativeto one another in the workplace andat home. We see the Index as anongoing project, and look forward toexpanding its scope, reach and depthin future years.

We have ranked our 21 countries onten indicators of gender equalitywhich affect fairness in families.These are:

● Gender equality in parental leave

● Gender pay gap

● Percentage of men in the part-timeworkforce

● Percentage of women sitting in parliament

● Percentage of women inmanagement positions

● Percentage of children in lone parent families

● Percentage of GDP spent on childcareand education of children under 5

● Ratio of men’s to women’s time spentcaring for children

● Ratio of men’s to women’s time spenton unpaid work

●Maximum FTE2 leave available for fathers

About the Fairness in Families Index (FiFI)Across the world mothers and fathers, womenand men, are expressing the desire to sharecare of their children, and providing for them,more equally1.

The Fairness in Families Index: overall ranking on 10 indicators of gender equality

Overall rank Country Average ranking across10 indicators

1 Sweden 4.00

2 Finland 4.90

3 Norway 5.00

4 Denmark 6.78

5 Portugal 7.44

6 Belgium 7.67

7 Greece 8.89

8 France 8.90

9 New Zealand 9.50

10 Italy 10.11

11 Netherlands 10.33

12 USA 10.44

13 Spain 10.50

14 Germany 10.80

15 Canada 11.50

16 Ireland 11.75

17 Australia 12.13

18 UK 12.20

19 Japan 13.25

20 Austria 14.43

21 Switzerland 15.71

UK RANKING: 18/21


7

By using OECD survey sources wehave ensured comparability of dataacross countries, and although thishas sometimes meant using olderdata than is available in individualcountries, it means that our scoresand rankings on FiFI are consistentand robust.

We calculated each country’s averageranking across the ten indicators toarrive at the overall rank order ofcountries on FiFI, moving from themost equal, Sweden (averageposition 4th across all indicators), atthe top of the Index to the leastequal, Switzerland (average positionbetween 15th and 16th across allindicators), at the bottom.

The Fairness in Families Index is notonly a useful tool for assessing wherewe in Britain stand in enabling menand women to choose ‘who doeswhat’, but also helps us identifysignificant areas in need ofimprovement and see where weshould be going next to make the UKthe most family-friendly country inEurope, as the Coalition governmenthas pledged that we are to become.The UK’s ranking, at 18 out of 21countries examined, suggests that wehave some way to go. The jour ney canbegin with the Fairness in FamiliesIndex opening up debate as to whatfairness could – or should – look like.

Why fairness in families mattersA growing body of evidence isshowing that more ‘egalitarian’partnerships (where the differentialbetween the amount of ‘cash’ and‘care’ that each parent contributes tothe household is relatively small) aremost satisfying to women and men,better for children and more stableover time3. The extent to which acountry adopts policies and producesoutcomes which are conducive to fairlyshared parenting, is therefore a majorfactor in the quality of family lives andthe health, happiness and achievementof today’s children.

These days the breadwinner/homemaker model of full-timeworking father with mother at homelooking after the children is a minorityfamily form. Couples are more likely tocomprise two parents working full-time, supported by an extensivechildcare infrastructure (as is commonin Scandinavian countries), or follow apattern of one partner – usually thefather – working full-time whilst theother – usually the mother – balancespart-time work with a majoritycontribution to childcare, anarrangement prevalent in theNetherlands and the UK4.

Why now?High income countries across theworld, as well as the European Unionitself, are wrestling with gender issuesin caring and earning – not least in thedesign of parental leave systems.Parental leave systems in individualcountries have the potential toinfluence earning and caring patternsfrom the start of children’s lives. Assuch, they are central to theassessment of fairness in families.Parents are entitled to an assortment ofmaternity, paternity and parental leave,and these entitlements are a keyelement in determining who cares andwho earns from the beginning of achild’s life. In the last five years manyhigh income countries have adaptedtheir systems of parental leave, oftenenhancing paternity leave entitlements,or allowing greater transferability ofleave between parents. In this country,Additional Paternity Leave will comeinto force in 2011, and the Coalitionhas pledged to develop a flexiblesystem of parental leave.

To what extent do different countriesencourage flexibility in division oflabour when children come along?How can we see patterns establishedearly in children’s lives playing out later,in more equal status of men andwomen at work and in more capacityfor fathers as well as mothers todevelop close caring relationships with

their, children such that both parentsparticipate substantially in family workand paid work? It is these questionswhich the Fairness in Families Indexwas designed to address, beginningwith gender equality in parental leave(on page 8).

Notes1. Gerson, K. (2010). The Unfinished Revolution.

Oxford: Oxford University Press; Duncan, S., &Phillips, M. (2008). New families? Tradition andchange in modern relationships. In British SocialAttitudes: the 24th Report. London: published bySage for NatCen; EHRC (2009) Working better:meeting the needs of families, workers andemployers in the 21st century. London: Equalities andHuman Rights Commission

2. FTE stands for full-time equivalent, whereby the payfor a duration of leave is calculated as the number ofdays/weeks the money would buy of average-wagedfull-time employment

3. For example: Craig & Sawriker (2006). in Work andFamily Balance: Transitions to High School.Unpublished Draft Final Report, Social Policy Resear chCentre, University of New South Wales. found fathersmore satisfied when they spent more time at home;and mothers more satisfied with housework share asthey moved into doing more paid work; a Swedishstudy found that high take up of par ental leave bySwedish fathers is linked to lower rates of separation/divorce, as is more equitable sharing, by a couple, ofearning and caring roles: Oláh, L. (2001). Policychanges and family stability: the Swedish case.International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family,15, 118-134.

Among cohabiting couples with newborns, bothparents’ beliefs that father-involvement is importantplus fathers’ actual involvement (measured in thisstudy by regular nappy changing) were found topredict relationship stability Hohmann-Marriott, B(2006). Father involvement and union dissolution inthe United Kingdom and United States. PennsylvaniaState University Paper presented at the FourthConference of the European Network for theSociological and Demographic Study of Divorce,Florence, Italy.

4. Although even in this model, fathers ar e, on average, far more involved at home than their own fathers were

Choosing an indicator:representing complexparental leave systemsParents’ leave entitlements vary acrosscountries in the extent to which theleave is distributed between mothersand fathers, and the extent to which itis transferable between them atdifferent times after childbirth. As weare interested in the relativeentitlements of men and women, itinitially made sense to look at thecomparison between maternity andpaternity leave provision in eachcountry. However, this strategy provedunsatisfactory as several countries (e.g.Germany and Italy) have no pater nityleave, although men do have parentalleave entitlements. When we use theterm ‘parental leave’ we are oftenusing it as an umbrella to covermaternity and paternity leave (grantedto women only or men only at or

immediately around the time of birthand in the case of women, to r ecoverphysically and breastfeed their infants)and parental leave (granted to eitheror both parents after the initial birthleaves have expired, and up to avariety of ages in childhood in dif ferentcountries). Some confusion ofterminology can arise because somecountries use ‘parental leave’ todescribe leave which can be used byeither parent - or be transferredbetween them - in the post-birthperiod. We will distinguish betweenleave types as necessary.

The structure of paid leave variesenormously between countries, interms of its duration; the proportionof wages paid; and the ceiling ofearnings up to which it is paid. Tocomplicate matters further, severalleave systems contain specificincentives, whereby additional weeksof leave are awarded if couples share

their entitlements in certain ways(notably if men take a given anumber of weeks leave, the couple isawarded additional parental leave).

This complex picture means thatcomparing countries succinctly is adaunting task. Fortunately, wediscovered that it had already beendone by Ray, Gornick and Schmitt(2010) who constructed the GenderEquality Index from analysis of parentalleave regimes in 21 developedcountries. The Gender Equality Indexlooks at the portion of leave awardedto fathers; the wage replacement ratefor fathers’ leave and any incentivesfor fathers to take leave. Eachcomponent of the index is scored, andthe figure below shows the results. InFiFI, the scores calculated by Ray et al(2010) are used as our indicator ofgender equality in parental leave.

Components of the indicator:accounting for complexitiesThe Gender Equality Index shows thatcountries can reach similar scores ongender equality in parental leave indifferent ways. Whilst Sweden standsout in first place in the Index(combining a generous portion ofleave for fathers, a good level of wagereplacement and additional parentalleave should fathers use theirentitlement) further down the Indexcountries bunch together with quitedifferent strategies leading to the samescore on overall equality ofentitlement. For example, Finlandscores weakly on leave reserved forfathers, but achieves a high score of12, due to the generosity of wagereplacement for parental leave (66%of salary), and built-in incentives toencourage men as well as women touse leave. Lower in the Index, the UKsupersedes Finland’s level of reservedleave for fathers, but the low pay andthe lack of incentives for men to takeit, keep us just below average on theIndex score.


8

FiFI INDICATOR ONE

Gender equality in parental leave

Source: Authors’ analysis Ray (2008), Ray et al (2008). Published in Ray , Gornick and Schmitt (2010). Who cares?: assessinggenerosity and gender equality in parental leave policy designs in 21 countries in Jour nal of European Social Policy, 0958-9287;Vol. 20(3): 196–216. Reproduced by kind permission of the authors.

Gender Equality Index

UK RANKING: 14/21


Many may be surprised to see Greecein the top four countries on thismeasure. This occurs because of thehigh level of wage replacement (57%),and the fact that the system allowsmen to take up to half of a couple’stotal leave entitlement. However, asRay, Gornick and Schmitt (2010) pointout, the Gender Equality Index doesnot reflect take-up. In our research toconstruct FiFI we confirmed that dataon take-up is generally very weakcross-nationally, so for the moment atleast it is appropriate to comparecountries according to entitlement.Another issue which we have notaccounted for on this indicator relatesto coverage (the percentage ofworkers who are employed inestablishments where they are coveredby parental leave policies): in Greece,for example, high rates of self-employment and casual working meanthat the proportion of fathers incovered establishments may be lowerthan elsewhere.

Sweden’s wealth of equal parentingprovision contrasts vividly withSwitzerland’s score of zero, calculatedon the basis that there is no statutorypaternity leave or parental leave at allin that country. Swiss mothers enjoy16 weeks of employer-protectedmaternity leave if they are in insuredemployment for at least five monthsof their pregnancy.

A major barrier to paternity andparental leave-taking by fathers is thelow level of wage replacement inmany countries. In the UK the level ofpay is set at below minimum wagelevels for 2 weeks paternity leavefollowing birth. Compared with theScandinavian countries which scorehighly on Ray, Gornick and Schmitt’s(2010) Gender Equality Index, andmore widely on our Fairness inFamilies Index, our leave system isneither generous nor egalitarian.Compared with many of ourEuropean counterparts we have beenslow to encourage men to take leaveand to make leave for fathersfinancially viable. British mothers, bycontrast, are entitled to a relativelylong period of maternity leave (up toone year), with part of it at a goodwage replacement rate. This meansthat the difference between men’sand women’s entitlements in the UKis particularly large, and thisdifferential in entitlement acts as amajor driver of genderedresponsibility in earning and caring.

Linking parental leave andwider gender equalitySeveral countries have recentlycreated more potential for egalitarianparenting through their leavesystems. Germany has moved from arelatively conservative, mother-centredleave system, to a scenario wherealthough there is no statutorypaternity leave, fathers and mothersreceive a ‘sharing bonus’ if he takesat least 2 months parental leave. TheGerman system allows parents totake leave together or separately andto take it full-time over one year, orpart-time over a longer period. Thisflexible approach opens up a widerange of choices in division of labourfor parents and incentivises take-upby fathers. Although not includedamongst our FiFI countries, it is worthmentioning the Icelandic experience,where an innovative approach toparental leave has apparently paiddividends in wider gender equity.Iceland reserves three months’ leavefor mothers and three for fathers,with a further three months to beused as suits – either his, hers ortheirs. This ‘parental leave’ can betaken in one block, or half-time, or inseveral blocks up until the child isaged three. Alongside a large increasein the proportion of men taking leave(88.5 men for every 100 women in2007; Icelandic men took about athird of all parental leave6) it isnotable that Iceland has some of thebest records in the world forsustaining breastfeeding; a highreturn-to-work rate for women andthe greatest narrowing of the genderpay gap in 20097. In 2009 the UK’sgender pay gap actually widened,whilst British men take much lessleave than Icelandic fathers. Thegender pay gap is our second FiFIindicator, and on page we 10 look athow important it is in setting patter nsfor who earns and who cares.

9

Notes5. This is the score on Ray, Gornick and Schmitt’s

(2010). Gender Equality Index. In Who car es?:assessing generosity and gender equality in parentalleave policy designs in 21 countries. Journal ofEuropean Social Policy, 0958-9287; Vol. 20(3):196–216.

6. Einarsdóttir, T. and Pétursdóttir, GM (2010). Iceland.Peter Moss (ed) International Review of Leave Policiesand Related Research 2010. Employment RelationsResearch Series 115. Published by the Department forBusiness, Innovation and Skills. Available to downloadat http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/employment-matters/docs/i/10-1157-international-review-leave-policies.pdf .

7. Even though 36% of Icelandic mothers have r eturnedto work by six months post partum, br eastfeedingrates at that point are 74% O’Brien, M. (2009).Fathers and work-family friendly policies: taking stockof the evidence. Presentation at Families in thebalance: reconciling paid work and parenthood.National Centre for Social Research: London 14October 2009. In 2009, Iceland outstripped the r estof the world (including Norway and the otherScandinavian countries) in reducing the gender pay-gap; while Britain’s gender pay-gap actually widened:Hausmann, R., Tyson, L.D., & Zahidi, S. (2009). TheGlobal Gender Gap Report 2009. Geneva,Switzerland: World Economic Forum


10

The gender pay gap is an importantfactor to bear in mind when lookingat the extent to which ear ning andcaring can be fairly shared in families.In light of women’s increasedparticipation in the workforce andthe passing of equal pay legislation inmany nations, it is salutary to seethat the narrowest gender pay gap(Belgium: 9.3% difference inearnings) is still approaching 10%.This gap between men’s andwomen’s earnings grows even largerif we look at evidence fromlongitudinal studies which measureearnings over time9.

At 33%, Japan’s gender pay gap ismarked – with the biggestmale/female differences occurringamongst the highest earners. Thisfinding goes against the intuitivethought that better-educated, morehighly paid women will be in mor eequal positions relative to men. Infact there is evidence that the trendof ‘inequality at the top’ occurs tosome extent throughout thedeveloped world. It is partlyexplained by minimum wagelegislation amongst the lowest paidworkers which narrows male/femaleearnings differentials for them.

FiFI INDICATOR TWO

Gender pay gapThe gender pay gap describes the differencebetween average male and female earnings.It can be measured a number of ways, andwe have chosen the OECD statistic, percentagedifference in full-time median earningsbetween women and men, to gave usmaximum cross-national coverage on ourindicator. ‘Full-time median earnings’ is theaverage (midpoint) annual salary level forfull-time employees.

Gender pay gap: percentage difference in FT median earnings between women and men8

No data for Norway, Austria or Italy

UK RANKING: 15/18


Even more important is the fact thatwomen work across a narrowerrange of sectors than men in mostcountries, and are less likely to be inthe highest-paid private sector jobs.The low standing of the UK on thisindicator is a product of genderedpatterns of employment acrosssectors. It may also be that ourrelatively high rates of part-timeemployment amongst women workto suppress full-time pay rates infemale-dominated employmentsectors (we explore the importanceof gendered take-up of part-timejobs more fully with FiFI indicator 3 –see page 12). Large gender pay gapslead to reinforcement of stereotypedroles (male breadwinner/femalehomemaker), especially whenaccompanied by parental leavesystems which are gendered andpoorly paid. When the mother’swage cannot replace the father’s, thismakes it more likely that couples willopt for mothers, rather than fathers,taking on the primary caring role infamilies. And this probably goessome way to explaining whywomen’s careers are still more likelyto be interrupted by parenthood thanthose of men.

A substantial gender pay gap isn’ tjust bad for women and families,impacting as it does on women’spension entitlement and careeradvancement, and on society’s returnon investment in women’s educationand training; it impacts also on menwho are forced - often unwillingly –into a primary breadwinner,secondary parenting role. Thesediffering impacts influence a couple’sability to negotiate from positions ofequal value and hence can influencerelationship satisfaction. Shouldcouples separate, the pattern is oftenset for even greater entrenchment ofprimary caring and primary earningalong gender lines.

The economic realities of the genderpay gap go against the widely-heldaspiration to share earning andcaring. This is another reason whywell-paid parental leave systems areso important in encouraging fairnessin families, and in facilitating choicein roles both outside and inside thehome. There is a link between men’stake-up of leave and women’semployment position: researchers inSweden have shown that for everyadditional month of leave taken by a father, the annual income of the mother of his children increasesby 7%10.

This Swedish evidence relating take-up of parental leave by men towomen’s rates of pay suggests that itwould be fruitful to improve theevidence base concerning take-up ofleave in other countries, to see if theSwedish experience is part of a widertrend. If so, encouraging take-up ofleave by men is a definite policy leverto press in order to enhance genderequality at work and in the home,throughout the developed world.

Of course, the relationship betweenthe gender pay gap and men’sentitlement to leave is not perfectlylinear. The lack of convincingcomparative data on take-up is animportant gap in our knowledge.And there are other factors at work:for instance, it is noticeable that themore equitable Nordic countries thatscored highly on our parental leaveindicator are only middle-of-the roadperformers in terms of the genderpay gap. This seems to be because ofquite highly gendered labourmarkets, where women’s highemployment rates are concentratedin public sector jobs with lower paythan the best of men’s opportunitiesin private and more technical job sectors.

Notes8. Source OECD Chart LMF1.5.A: Gender gap in median ear nings of full-time employees, 2006 or latest year

available Source: OECD Earnings database

Raw data: downloaded from OECD Family Databasehttp://www.oecd.org/document/4/0,3343,en_2649_34819_37836996_1_1_1_1,00.html as xcel spreadsheet43199347[1].xls. Last accessed 5th November 2010

9. For example Rose, Stephen J and Hartmann, Heidi I (2004). Still a Man’s Labor Market: the long-term earningsgap. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research.(available to download athttp://www.iwpr.org/pdf/C355.pdf) found that in the US, using a mor e inclusive 15-year time frame (1983-1998),and taking into account women’s lower work hours and their years with zer o earnings due to family care, thisstudy finds that women workers, in their prime earning years, make only 38 percent of what men earn’ (page 5)Last accessed 15th October 2010.

10. Johannson, E-A (2010). The effect of own and spousal parental leave on earnings. Working Paper 2010:4.Uppsala, Sweden: Institute of Labour Market Policy Evaluation.

11


12

FiFI INDICATOR THREE

Men’s percentage share of the part-time workforceWe decided to measure men’s participation in the part-timeworkforce in the Fairness in Families Index because it raisesinteresting questions about gender equality in balancing workand care. It is still the case that parenthood is more widelyassociated with a reduction in working hours or a departurefrom the workforce for women and men.

Men’s percentage share of part-time workforce11

UK RANKING: 13/21


13

Therefore charting gender differencesin overall working hours would tell uslittle beyond common knowledge.The figures above show that menmake up between roughly one fifthand just over one third of part-timeworkers in FiFI countries. This reflectsthe statistic that across all OECDcountries on average one in fouremployed women and one in tenemployed men work part-time.12

It is striking that the Nordic countries,with their relatively generous andflexible parental leave systems, haveamongst the highest rates of part-time employment for men. Menmake up 30%-40% of the part-timework force in Scandinavian countries,and while not all these men will befathers of young children, included inthis figure will be fathers using theirpaternity and parental leaveentitlements to balance work andfamily life.

In the US and Canada, it is possiblethat higher proportions of male part-time workers are an artefact of moreinvoluntary elements: the lack ofsocial service provision outside ofemployer-insured schemes; a lessregulated labour market and so on.However, the statistics showingAmerican women’s ability to attainmanagement positions (FiFI indicator5) and men’s performance of unpaidwork at home in the USA andCanada (FiFI indicator 9) show thesecountries faring well in terms ofmoving towards a fairer balancebetween men and women. Thereforethe possibility of more NorthAmerican men choosing to workfewer hours should not be entirelydiscounted – future FiFI research mayre-visit these issues.

The key to a fairer picture in terms oftake-up of part-time work is theextent to which women and men ar eable to move from part-time to full-time employment, and also theextent to which they face longer-term career penalties for opting towork part-time. It remains true thatmen are more likely to experiencepart-time working as transitional(moving back to full-timeemployment relatively quicklycompared to women, or taperinghours until retirement). In differentcountries, the penalties for women’slonger periods of part-time work vary(Fagan and Walarthy, 2007). OECDreports are unanimous that the UKshows signs of clearly gendered part-time working which results inpersistent gender inequalities in ourworkforce13. Indeed, amongst parentsof children aged up to 14 in 2007,other OECD data shows 55% ofBritish mothers working less than 30hours per week compared to only4.3% of fathers. In Finland, theequivalent figures stand at under10% of mothers and 2.9% of fathers– so the gender differential inworking practices is much less.Unfortunately these statistics are not available for the majority of FiFI countries.

Arguably, fairness in families couldbetter be secured in a future labourmarket where ‘family-sized jobs’were a more normative expectationfor all parents – fathers as well asmothers. In this model there wouldnot be the dichotomy of opportunitywhich frequently still persists whereparents choose between full-timeand part-time work, with the latterposing challenges to careerprogression. A more flexibleapproach to employment hoursacross the lifecourse, combined withmore flexible and long-termentitlements to parental leave, couldtransform the balance betweenmothers and fathers in the UK intheir capacity to earn and care, and enable both to maintain rich and substantial relationships withtheir children, while also providingfor them.

Notes11. http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode

=FTPTC_I Incidence of FTPT employment – commondefinition By sex (2009)

Data extracted 14 Sep 2010 09:44 UTC (GMT) fr omOECD.Stat Extracts.

12. OECD (2010). Position paper: How good is part-timework?. OECD: July 2010. Available to download athttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/16/45602882.pdfLast accessed 8th November, 2010.

13. Fagan and Walarthy (2007). The role andeffectiveness of time policies for reconciliation ofcare responsibilities. Paper for OECD Working Partyon Social Policy Seminar on Life risks, life course andsocial policy, June 2007, downloadable athttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/57/38674910.pdf

OECD (2002). Women and work: Who are they andhow are they faring. Employment Outlook 2002.Available to download athttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/36/7/17652667.pdf

Our data shows that there is verywide variation in the proportion ofwomen elected to parliament in FiFIcountries: from between one in eightand just under one in ten for thecountries at the bottom of the table,to approaching half in Sweden at thetop. OECD researchers point out thatwomen’s political power is notdependent on the wealth of theircountry: indeed the USA lagsconspicuously behind many lesswealthy countries in the extent towhich women have occupied senioroffice, and it is in lower and middleincome countries that we find someof the best records in terms of womenbecoming leaders of nations15.

One trend which does seem to havesome bearing on the proportion ofwomen in parliament is women’soverall employment rate16.

There does seem to be an associationbetween women working at all, andtheir propensity to be electedrepresentatives: so politicalrepresentation of women goesalongside their occupation of aneconomic role.This relationship isreflected in our FiFI table, where wesee the Nordic countries once againat the top, and where women’semployment rates stand at between69% and 75%. The gap betweenmen’s and women’s employmentrates is low in Scandinavia, standingbetween 4% and 8% for Sweden,Norway Finland and Denmark. Bycontrast, in Japan where only 9% ofparliamentarians were women in2005, the difference between menand women’s employment rates in2008 was over 20% and only 59.7%of women were working17.

Our figures have come from the mostrecent data compiled and availablethrough OECD, and in the time since2005 several countries have heldelections which led to theappointment of more women topositions of power. NotablySwitzerland has recently found itselfwith a majority of women sitting onthe Federal Council for the first timeever. Here in the UK we recentlyelected the highest proportion ofwomen MPs ever (22%)18 but theCoalition Cabinet has been criticisedfor being more dominated than inrecent years by white males.


14

Notes14. Raw data: downloaded from OECD Family Database

www.oecd.org/document/4/0,3343,en_2649_34819_37836996_1_1_1_1,00.html as excel spreadsheet 38181961(1).xls, , Last accessed13th September 2010

15. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/56/38172505.pdf OECD (2006).Brochure ‘Women and Men in OECD countries’, page 22 Women inparliament. Last accessed 10th August 2010.

16. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/56/38172505.pdf OECD (2006).Brochure ‘Women and Men in OECD countries’, page 22 Women inparliament. Last accessed 10th August 2010.

17. OECD Chart LMF1.6.C: Gender differences in full-time employmentrates, 2008 – figures for employment rates from xcel spreadsheet43199375[1].xls downloaded via OECD Family database.http://www.oecd.org/document/4/0,3343,en_2649_34819_37836996_1_1_1_1,00.html

Last accessed 5th November, 2010.

18. Source: House of Commons Information Of fice, Factsheet M4Members Series, Women in the House of Commons. Revised June2010. Available to download athttp://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/m04.pdf

FiFI INDICATOR FOUR

Proportion of women sitting in parliamentsWe have looked at the proportions of women in parliament in the countries onthe Index because it acts as a useful measure of women’s occupation of publicroles in society, and also their ability to influence decisions and policymaking.Where women are well-represented in a parliament, it is often the case thatissues related to fairness in families will come to the fore, given the history ofgender differentiation in employment and family roles, and the contemporarydesire for greater equality in those roles.

RANK 1: 45.3%

SWEDEN

RANK 7: 34.7%

BELGIUM

RANK 13: 21.3%

PORTUGAL

RANK 19: 12.2%

FRANCE


15

RANK 2: 37.9%

NORWAY

RANK 3: 37.5%

FINLAND

RANK 4: 36.9%

DENMARK

RANK 5: 36.7%

NETHERLANDS

RANK 6: 36.0%

SPAIN

RANK 8: 33.9%

AUSTRIA

RANK 9: 32.2%

NEW ZEALAND

RANK 10: 31.8%

GERMANY

RANK 11: 25.0%

SWITZERLAND

RANK 12: 24.7%

AUSTRALIA

RANK 14: 20.8%

CANADA

RANK 15: 19.7%

UNITED KINGDOM

RANK 16: 15.2%

UNITED STATES

RANK 17: 13.3%

IRELAND

RANK 18: 13%

GREECE

RANK 20: 11.5%

ITALY

RANK 21: 9.0%

JAPAN

UK RANKING: 15/21


16

OECD published figures on theproportion of women and men inmanagement positions in 2004. Thecountry coverage on this indicator isnot as full as we would have liked,and probably reflects the difficultiesin standardising information aboutlevels of seniority in employmentacross countries. This indicatormeasures people’s own perception oftheir role, and whether they identifyas managers - whether they do sovaries a lot cross-nationally. Forexample, under 1% of Spanishwomen and only 2.5% of Spanishmen report that they havemanagement responsibilities,whereas the USA tops the table, withone in eight women saying they holda management post (12.1%) and15.6% of men saying the same. It isinteresting to note that where thereis more detailed comparativeevidence concerning proportions ofmothers in management, differentpatterns may emerge: Swedishresearchers have shown thatalthough more American thanSwedish women are in management,a higher proportion of Swedishmothers are in managerial posts20.

Based on the raw percentages ofmen and women reporting amanagement role, we calculated theratio of women to men who saidthat they worked in management.This figure is the score for ourindicator: just over three-quarters asmany women as men describethemselves as managers in the USA,whilst in Denmark, at the bottom ofthe table, only one-third as manywomen (0.35) as men say that theyhave management responsibilities.We were interested in the ratiobecause it summarises how wellwomen are progressing in the paidworkforce relative to men withincountries, and allows us to take atface value the reports of men andwomen in identifying themselves asmanagers, without having to accountfor the cultural differences whichmake the raw numbers so varied.

It is interesting that the Scandinaviancountries, which present the mostequal picture in terms of employmentrates of men and women, fare worseon this indicator of in-workresponsibility. This may be anotherindication of the persistent gendersegregation in the Nordic countries’workforce: women tend to beemployed in a narrower range ofjobs than men, often in the publicrather than the private sector.

Ireland’s high performance on thisindicator may be associated with therapid growth of the female labourforce during the ‘Celtic T iger’ yearsof the 1980s and 1990s. The UK alsoranks quite highly in terms of womenin management positions relative tomen, and this provides someencouragement in terms of genderequality at work, given thedisadvantageousness of part-timeworking discussed under indicatornumber 4.

Overall it is clear that in all countrieswe still have some way to go befor ewomen’s likelihood of progression inthe workplace is the same as men’s.Even in the top scoring nation on thisindicator (the USA), women arebetween a quarter and a fifth lesslikely to be in management thanmen, and therefore have less controlover what they do at work and howthey work, both of which may beimportant factors influencing jobretention when they become parents.The figures also mean that men aredisproportionately in higher levelroles at work which often make highlevels of involved parenthood moredifficult as there has historically beenless flexibility and longer workinghours in more senior roles. Theextent to which women’s greaterequality at work in different countriesmay be balanced by greaterparticipation by men in unpaid workand in childrearing, or by aninfrastructure of affordable child careavailable to both working parents –or, indeed, both these things – is a question to be addressed more thoroughly in future versions of the Index.

FiFI INDICATOR FIVE

Women in management positionsAnother aspect of equality which is highly relevant to our Index is the extent towhich working women are reaching more senior levels in their employerorganisations. Women’s propensity to reach management position reflectstheir ability to sustain employment, to obtain advancement and to have somecontrol over workplace practices – all of which relate to their ability to balancework and family life, and hence to fairness in families. Ideally we would haveliked to compare figures relating to mothers and fathers in management roles,but this is difficult to achieve easily for a large number of countries, and isanother ambition for future roll-outs of the FiFI.

17

Notes19. Raw data: downloaded from OECD Family Database

http://www.oecd.org/document/4/0,3343,en_2649_34819_37836996_1_1_1_1,00.htmlas xcel spreadsheet 38181961(1).xls, , Last accessed 13th September 2010

20. Magnus Henrekson and Mikael Stenkula (2009) found that 43% of American managersare women, compared to 32% of Swedish managers. However, only half (51%) of theAmerican women managers are mothers, compared to 88% of the Swedish womenmanagers. So overall, 28% of management positions in Sweden are held by mothers, andonly 22% of American managers are mothers. See Magnus Henrekson and MikaelStenkula (2009) Why Are There So Few Female Top Executives in Egalitarian WelfareStates? FN Working Paper No. 786, 2009. Stockholm: Resear ch Institute of IndustrialEconomics.

RANK 1: 1 : 0.77

UNITED STATES

RANK 2: 1 : 0.76

IRELAND

RANK 3: 1 : 0.70

FRANCE

RANK 4: 1 : 0.57

PORTUGAL

RANK 5: 1 : 0.52

BELGIUM

RANK 5: 1 : 0.52

UNITED KINGDOM

RANK 7: 1 : 0.50

SWEDEN

RANK 8: 1 : 0.44

FINLAND

RANK 9: 1 : 0.43

NORWAY

RANK 10: 1 : 0.42

GREECE

RANK 11: 1 : 0.41

ITALY

RANK 12: 1 : 0.40

GERMANY

RANK 13: 1 : 0.38

NETHERLANDS

RANK 14: 1 : 0.36

SPAIN

RANK 15: 1 : 0.35

DENMARK

RATIO OF MEN TO WOMEN IN MANAGEMENT POSITIONS19


UK RANKING: 5/15


18

This means that substantially moremothers than fathers sufferdisproportionate parenting overloadand possibly poverty; andsubstantially more men than womenface the loss of quality relationshipswith their children. We have placedcountries with the lowest proportionsof children in lone parent householdsat the top of the table, as par entshave greater potential to shareearning and caring under one roofwhen in intact relationships.

There are of course many cultural,social and legal factors to bear inmind when comparing rates of loneparenthood across countries. In theMediterranean countries, with theirstrong religious heritage and family-oriented societies, we are less likelyto see parents split up than in theNordic, middle European and AngloSaxon countries, which are moresecular societies where divorce andbirths outside marriage have beenmore widely tolerated for longer.

FiFI INDICATOR SIX

Percentage of children living in lone parent householdsThere are a number of reasons why highrates of lone parenthood should be of interestto anyone looking at fairness in families. Non-residence with a child is the single greatestpredictor of low father or motherinvolvement22; and in many countries loneparenthood is associated with family poverty.Across the OECD only 15% of lone parenthouseholds are male-headed23 and onaverage in the EU, 14% of children live withtheir mother only, compared with only 2% ofchildren in father-only households.24

Percentage of children in lone parent households (OECD)21

UK RANKING: 17/18


19

Indeed, the Nordic countries fallmostly in the most negative half ofthe table on this measure, perhapspartly because of the prevalence ofcohabitation, which has higherbreakdown rates than formalmarriage, even where it is a majoritypractice. This is especially relevantbecause at least half of births occuroutside marriage in Scandinavia.

However, not all lone parenthood isthe same: a so-called lone parent canbe solely responsible for the childrenfor between 100% and 50% of thetime. Clearly where there are higherrates of shared parenting acrosshouseholds, there is greater fairnessin families. Shared parenting acrosshouseholds is likely to be moreprevalent in countries where sharedresidence agreements are morewidespread following divorce or separation.

In Sweden after their parents’separation, one child in three liveswith both their parents in a 30% -50% split. That’s three times thenumber in the UK, where only 11%of separated parents share the careof their children to that extent. Whatthis means is that although Swedenand the UK score close to each otherin percentages of lone parentfamilies, Swedish parents’ experienceis of far greater fairness in separatedfamilies. It is likely that the extensivepaternity and parental leave availableto men in Sweden translates not onlyto greater father-child involvementbefore separation but also afterwards– and indeed there is evidence thatSwedish fathers who have takenparental leave tend to see more of their children after separation and divorce25.

In the UK, where we have weakpaternal leave entitlements, and highrates of lone parenthood (withrelatively low levels of post-separation shared parenting) we alsohave a family justice system which iscurrently under review, at least inpart due to demand for moreegalitarian models of post-separationparenting. It is striking that in the UKfathers are participating more andmore in their children’s lives26, butthat post-separation the rates ofshared residence remain so low.

An important aspect of fairness infamilies is that men’s caring role isnot routinely overlooked post-separation, and that services considerfathers as sources of support formothers and children, whether theylive with their children full-time ornot. In future development of theIndex we would like to include anindicator on patterns of residence/how substantial shared residencearrangements are, after separationand divorce.

In the USA, where over a quarter ofchildren live in lone parenthouseholds we have to ask why ratesof relationship breakdown are sohigh for parents. Perhaps relativeprosperity and high employmentrates among women make thedecision to live across householdseasier financially for some groups.However the prevalence of loneparent households in America’s mostdisadvantaged communities, suggeststhat poverty remains a issue in familyfairness, working both to put womenresiding with their children at risk ofbearing childcare responsibilitiesdisproportionately and being trappedin poverty, and constraining non-resident fathers from being able toeasily fulfil a meaningful role in theirchildren’s lives.27

Notes21. OECD Family database

http://www.oecd.org/document/4/0,3343,en_2649_34819_37836996_1_1_1_1,00.html

OECD - Social Policy Division - Dir ectorate ofEmployment, Labour and Social Affairs DocumentSF1.2 Children in Families Table SF1.2A: Distributionof children aged 0-14 by household type, mostrecent year. Last updated 01/07/2010 Last accessed3rd November, 2010

22. Flouri, E. (2005). Fathering & Child Outcomes.Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.

23. OECD (2010). Gender Brief Version: March 2010,page 5. Available to download athttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/31/44720649.pdfLast accessed 5th November, 2010

24. OECD Family databasehttp://www.oecd.org/document/4/0,3343,en_2649_34819_37836996_1_1_1_1,00.html

Social Policy Division - Directorate of Employment,Labour and Social Affairs, Document SF1.3 Livingarrangements of children. Available to download athttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/5/41919559.pdfLast accessed 3rd November, 2010.

25. Duvander, Ann-Zofie and Ann-Christin Jans (2009).Consequences of Fathers’ Parental Leave Use:Evidence from Sweden’ Stockholm Research Reportsin Demography_2008:9. Stockholm: StockholmUniversity, Department of Sociology, DemographyUnit. Available to download athttp://www.suda.su.se/SRRD/SRRD_2008_9.pdf. Lastaccessed 5th November 2010.

26. Fisher, K., McCulloch, A. & Gershuny, J. (1999).British fathers and children. Working Paper.University of Essex: Institute for Social and EconomicResearch. – fathers spent 800% more time caringfor children in 1997 than in 1975.

27. Tamis-LeMonda and McFadden (2010) show that inAmerica’s most deprived communities, non-residentfathers’ own poverty limits their ability to contributeto children living elsewhere. Such fathers are oftenwell-motivated and do contribute to their children’slives - but this can be impair ed by worklessness orlong working hours in poorly paid jobs. Low levelsof education may make it harder for these fathersto negotiate co-parenting arrangements. See Tamis-LeMonda, Catherine S and Karen E McFadden(2010). Fathers from low-income backgrounds:myths and evidence in Lamb, Michael (ed) The roleof the father in child development, 5th edition,Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and sons. for a fulldiscussion of this topic.


20

State provision of such services is themost efficient way of ensuringaffordability of care and education,so this indicator demonstrates acommitment to supporting bothparents as earners. In future it maybe pertinent to explore the issue ofcoverage of publicly-funded childcarein different countries.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Nordiccountries are all in the top five onthis indicator. There is an explicitcommitment to gender equality inmuch of their policy formation, andfacilitating women’s employmentthrough childcare provision is a keypart of this.

Furthermore, there is an ethos inScandinavia that sees children’sparticipation in high-quality groupchildcare and education as beneficialto them and as a means of r educingsocial inequalities. It is also regardedas society’s – not just parents’ –responsibility to socialise childrenthrough such high-quality state-funded services – an ethos which ismore difficult to achieve in countrieswith diverse and less regulatedprivate provision. State-fundedservices in Scandinavia tend to beuniversally used, with the expectationthat non-working as well as workingmothers and fathers will take upplaces, at least part-time. In Swedenin particular there is incentivisation ofa family model where both parentswork full-time and use full-timesubsidised childcare places29.

France also scores highly on thisindicator, having preserved a highrate of publicly-funded childcare,arising from a long history ofgovernment intervention to maintainand/or increase birth rates andenable employees to balance workand family life. The UK sits at OECDaverage level on this indicator, with aproportion of GDP spend standing at0.6%. This is half the proportionspent in Denmark in this area, andillustrates the relatively highinvestment in young children through care and education in the Nordic states.

If we compare countries at the topand bottom of this table there doesagain appear to be a connection withwomen’s employment rates.Countries such as Portugal andGreece, which score well elsewhereon FiFI, invest less in children’sservices. Whilst Portugal has rates ofwomen’s employment of around theOECD average level, in Greecefemale employment rates are muchlower, with roughly half of womenworking. Employment rates willcontinue to be influenced byeducation and service provisionthroughout children’s lives: inGermany, for example, half-dayschooling is one reason for mothers’relatively low labour forceparticipation. A fair model forintegrating employment andchildcare in families requires thatboth fathers and mothers canmaintain employment andaccommodate the schedule of theirchildren’s schooling and/or make useof affordable support to do so.

In a recent article exploring gendergaps in employment throughoutEurope, Katrin Bennhold30 has arguedthat one of the most ef fectivestrategies for Southern Europe inovercoming the effects of recessionwould be to mobilise the untappedfemale workforce: closing the genderemployment gap would raise GDPsubstantially31. She cites evidencefrom Germany which suggests thatthe costs to government of publicchildcare are rendered neutral orbetter by the tax take of womenreturning to work as a result32. Ittherefore appears that there is astrong economic incentive forgovernments to support child welfareand gender equality throughsubsidised childcare and education.



Social Policy Division - Directorate of Employment, Labour andSocial Affairs, Document PF3.1 Public spending on childcare andeducation. Last updated 01/07/2010. Last accessed 5th November2010. Available to download athttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/27/37864512.pdf

Raw data downloaded from OECD family database as xcelspreadsheet 38954032[1].xls. Last accessed 14th September 2010.

29. Duvander Ann-Zofie and Ferrarini, Tommy (2010). ConflictingDirections? Outcomes and New Orientations of Sweden's FamilyPolicy. SPADE WP 2010:4, Stockholm University. Available todownload at:http://www.su.se/pub/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=12097&a=53788. Lastaccessed 19th November, 2010.

30. Bennhold, K (2010). The High Cost of Machismo, published in TheNew York Times: Articles selected in association with The Observer .Observer, Sunday 10.10.2010

31. Bennhold, K (2010). op.cit. cites evidence fr om Kevin Daly(economist, Goldman Sachs) that closing the gender employmentgap would raise GDP by 13% acr oss the Eurozone and up to 20%in Southern Europe

32. Bennhold, K (2010). op.cit., ‘a 2002 study by the GermanBundesbank found that public investment in childcar e on balanceincreased government revenues as more mothers returned to work’

FiFI INDICATOR SEVEN

Percentage of GDP spent on childcare and education for the under-fivesA government’s spend on services for young children is an important elementin support for egalitarian parenting. If men and women are to divide earningresponsibilities, there needs to be an infrastructure of care provision for childrenwhich can fit around parents’ working hours and ideally accommodate flexibleworking arrangements.


21

Percentage of GDP spent on childcare and education for the under-fives11

UK RANKING: 9/21


22

FiFI INDICATOR EIGHT

Men’s and women’s time spent on childcareSo far we have looked mainly at the public aspects of fairnessin families and the extent to which policies may underpinwomen’s capacity to earn and to sustain employment. InFairness in Families indicators 8 and 9 we address the crucialissue of how work in the home is divided between men andwomen, looking at the extent to which men are sharingchildcare responsibilities and other unpaid work with women.

Finland

52.8 minfor everywomans

hour


hour


hour

Italy

Ireland France

Norway

Denmark Sweden

No data for Australia,Canada,Japan, New Zealand,Switzerland and United States

Spain Greece Germany

United Kingdom Netherlands Austria

Ratio men’s: women’s average weekly hours spent caring for and educating children (OECD, 2007)33

45 minfor everywomans

hour

Portugal Belgium


hour


hour


hour


hour


hour


hour


hour


hour


hour


hour


hour

UK RANKING: 13/15


23

The data on childcare and houseworkcomes from time use surveys, andthere are often complexities inensuring comparability betweensurveys in different countries. Therewas no one dataset which containedcomparable evidence on childcare timefrom all our FiFI countries and so weused the best balance of consistencyand coverage easily available, theOECD data for 2007, which is notavailable for Switzerland or the non-European countries in our index.

It has been clear for some time thatmen’s involvement in childcare hasbeen increasing. UK research showsthat fathers today spend eight timesmore time with their children thanwas the case 30 years ago 34. If weare to achieve a truly equal pictur e interms of earning and caring amongstmothers and fathers, this increase isnot only desirable but required, inorder that women’s opportunitiesoutside the home are not hamperedby lack of help within it. And if menare to get the more equalpartnerships with women to whichthey aspire, and the closerrelationships with their children towhich they also aspire – and whichimprove outcomes for all the family –then more of their time should beinvested in childcare.

This indicator shows Finland, Swedenand Denmark clearly heading thetable, with fathers spending well over45 minutes with children, for everyhour spent by mothers. This contrastswith Austria at the bottom, wheremen spend just over 22 minutes oftime in childcare for each hour givenby mothers. This means that Austrianwomen still do nearly three times asmuch with their children as Austrianmen, who spend half as much timecaring as fathers in the threeScandinavian countries. Future FiFIresearch might also examine whyNorway’s performance in terms offathers’ caring for children appears tolag behind the other Scandinaviancountries – it may be that changes inparental leave legislation there morerecently will have an impact onfuture participation in childcare by men35.

It should be said that even in a gr oupof countries restricted to Europealone, there are clearly differentsocial and cultural factors bearing onthe time spent with children byparents, whether mothers or fathers.The absolute amount of time spentcaring for children varies immenselybetween countries. For example, innear equal Finland, fathers spend 15hours per week caring for childrencompared to women’s 17, while inAustria at the bottom of the tablemen spend 11 hours per weekcompared to women’s 29. Thatmeans that not only is the Austrianpicture less equal, but the totalaverage time spent caring forchildren by either parent is eighthours longer (40 hours per weekcompared to 32).

In the UK and Ireland, total childcaretime is longer still, standing at 54hours divided 19:35 between menand women in the UK, and 52 hoursdivided 20:32 between Irish fathersand mothers. However, therelationship between total time spentcaring for children and the equalityof division of labour between parentsis not linear: in Sweden men’s andwomen’s average weekly hours spenton childcare add together to 59hours, but the 26:33 ratio meansthat men are doing nearly 80% asmuch as women, compared to 54% in the UK.

These large differences in theamount of time spent with children,and the distribution of who doeswhat, warrant further investigation.We are still not at a stage wher e anycountry has reached a 50:50 split interms of the likelihood of childrenbeing cared for by their mothers andtheir fathers. It may be that byunderstanding better the differencesbetween countries, in terms of howtotal care time is influenced bychildcare options, employment trendsand cultural factors, we will gain abetter appreciation of what fairnessin families looks like, and how it is affected by public policy and social values.

Notes33. Raw data for caring for and educating children – downloaded as xcel

spreadsheet 43199651[1].xls Chart LMF 2.5 D via OECD family databasehttp://www.oecd.org/document/4/0,3343,en_2649_34819_37836996_1_1_1_1,00.html

34. Fisher, K., McCulloch, A. & Gershuny, J. (1999). British fathers and children.Working Paper. University of Essex: Institute for Social and EconomicResearch.

35. In 2009 Norway’s ‘Daddy Month’ (which had already increased to 6 workingweeks or 30 days) of parental leave was extended to 10 weeks. For mor einformation on how Norway’s leave compares to other Nordic countries seeAnn-Zofie Duvander (2009). Nordic mothers and fathers on leave: towar dsequal sharing in Erla Sigurðardóttir (ed) Parental leave, Care Policies andGender Equalities in the Nordic Countries Conference arranged by the NordicCouncil of Ministers21-22 October 2009, Reykjavik, Iceland. Available todownload at http://www.norden.org/en/publications/publications/2010-539.

Also Peter Moss (ed) (2010) Employment Relations Resear ch Series 115.Published by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. A vailable athttp://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/employment-matters/docs/i/10-1157-international-review-leave-policies.pdf – both sources note that Norwegianfathers’ leave is now moving in the dir ection of more individual entitlement,having been more dependent on mothers’ employment status than in theother Nordic countries.

24

FiFI INDICATOR NINE

Men’s and women’s time spent on unpaid workLike childcare, unpaid work in the home is an activity which hasbeen highly gendered in the past and which can impedewomen’s ability to work outside the home if there is littlecompensatory support from the men with whom they live.

Sweden


hour


hour


hour

Finland

Australia Belgium

Germany

United States New Zealand

Norway Canada

No data for Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland,Netherlands, Portugal and Switzerland

Figures calculated from Ratio of women’s tomen’s time spent on unpaid work over 24hours36

United Kingdom France Spain

Japan Italy

Men and women’s time spent on unpaid work


hour


hour


hour


hour


hour


hour


hour


hour


hour


hour


hour

UK RANKING: 10/14



25

The evidence presented here againcomes from OECD compilation oftime use surveys, this time pertainingto a different subset of countries inthe FiFI group. The definition ofunpaid work includes householdchores, shopping, cleaning, andrepair work and does not ‘doublecount’ childcare. Neither does unpaidwork here include care for the elderlyor disabled relatives – in future workwith the FiFI, given the historicallygendered nature of this work, and itsgrowing significance in ageingsocieties, we may endeavour toexplore this as well.

It is immediately noticeable that theoverall position in terms of fair ness infamilies is slightly less equal withrespect to housework than it is forchildcare. On average men arespending 57% of the time spent bywomen on unpaid work, comparedwith their spending 63% of the timethat women spend on childcare. Sowhilst strides have been made bothin terms of active fatherhood and inmen’s participation in the dailybusiness of householdmanagement/chores, both are still done more by women.

In some countries the differencebetween men’s relative time spent onchildcare and housework is verypronounced: it is striking that Italianmen perform three quarters as muchchildcare as women, but only justover a quarter as much unpaid workat home, which suggests that genderroles remain quite strongly definedwhen it comes to household chores,but that a family-centred culture hasperhaps reinforced the importance offatherhood. Furthermore, at 22%,Italian women’s time spent on unpaidwork per day is unusually high –perhaps indicating more time spenton food preparation or less use of labour-saving devices than in other countries.

Scandinavian countries again comeout on top in terms of a mor e equaldivision of unpaid household workbetween men and women – buteven here the proportion of men’stime devoted to chores compared towomen’s (under three quarters asmuch time) is less impressive thanthe comparative contribution of mento childcare, but quite impressivegiven the men’s greater time spent inpaid work. The evidence may also bereflecting generational differences inparticipation in domestic work, forwhilst time use data related tochildcare is limited to parents, dataon unpaid work is collected on alladult households.

This may mean that the evidencehere is underestimating thecontribution of today’s fathers tohousework. On the other hand,fatherhood is concentrated in theperiod of life when men are likely tobe working the longest hours, and sotheir out-of-work time may beprioritised towards their childrenrather than to domestic chores.Anecdotally at least, this is arecognisable picture.

With the exception of Japan andItaly, who appear as outliers at thebottom of the table with mendevoting only around 6% of theirtime to unpaid household work,unpaid household work accounts for9-11% of men’s time internationally,compared to a dominant pattern of14-17% for women. Until thesefigures move a little closer together,the traditional picture of womenspending more out-of-work time onunpaid work and less time than menin employment or leisure will bedifficult to erode completely - andchildren will continue to grow upseeing cleaning up as women’s work.



OECD - Social Policy Division - Dir ectorate ofEmployment, Labour and Social Affairs DocumentLMF2.5: Time use for work, care and other day-to-day activities. Data from most recent year available.Last updated 01/07/2010. Available to download athttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/50/43199641.pdfLast accessed 5th November 2010.


26

Using calculations by Ray, Gornickand Schmitt (2010) which show themaximum entitlement availablethrough both paternity and parentalleave for fathers in each country, wecan see in this map that the pictur e isa highly uneven one, with fivecountries granting no paid leavewhatsoever to fathers, and a hugerange of entitlement in the remainingcountries, from 0.4 weeks in the UKand the Netherlands (2 days of FTE 38

paid leave) to 40 weeks of FTE paidleave in Sweden. The UK actuallyprovides 2 weeks paid paternityleave, but the level of pay is wellbelow even minimum wage levels, sothe FTE is equivalent to only 2 daysat average full-time wages. Clearly,Sweden and Norway lead the field bysome distance in this respect, but it isinteresting to see that Germany andJapan, two countries whose policieshave until recently been traditional intheir approach to gender in families,appear quite high in this table. InJapan, during the first year of achild’s life there is 52 weeks ofparental leave which can be taken byeither parent, paid at 30% of wagereplacement. Again we mustacknowledge that these figures donot tell us about take-up rates ofleave by fathers in the dif ferentcountries, and improving ourknowledge in this respect is a keyissue for future versions of theFairness in Families Index.

As already outlined, the issue of theamount of paid leave available tofathers to care for babies andchildren is central to theencouragement of a greater balanceof earning and caring roles formothers and fathers. Throughout theitems on the Fairness in FamiliesIndex it has become clear thatneither gender equality in parentingnor in employment has beenattained, even in the mostprogressive countries of the Nordicregion of Europe. The truth remainsthat in the majority of families, menare higher earners than women,particularly after they becomefathers, and more likely to work inbetter-paid sectors of the labourmarket, whilst women tend to ear nless to start with – a situation thatoften becomes more pronouncedafter childbirth - when they alsoreconcile any paid work with greaterresponsibility for childcare. Againstthis background, unpaid leave forfathers is unlikely to change anyunfairness in families today.

But paid paternal leaves (i.e. paidpaternity or parental leaves) forfathers can make an enormousdifference: Ray Gornick and Schmitt(2010: 206) cite OECD evidenceshowing that in 2000 when Portugalhad no paid parental leave forfathers, 150 men took up any oftheir entitlement to unpaid leave; in2003 following a change in the lawto give new fathers two weeks ofpaid leave after birth, the number ofmen using their entitlement stood at27,000. This type of behaviourchange has occurred in manycountries where well-paid leave hasbeen reserved for fathers, with theScandinavian countries acting as earlyadopters of such policies and asleading examples of how suchpolicies can impact on familybehaviour. And it is not simply ofbenefit to men and women’s equalityfor such behaviour change to takeplace: all the evidence shows thatwhere men get involved early in theirchildren’s lives, they are more likely tostay involved throughout39. This paysmassive dividends, especially fordisadvantaged children, in improvedhealth, social and educationaloutcomes. It is for these reasons thatthe Fatherhood Institute campaignsfor more paid leave to be available toBritish fathers: not only would therebe more fairness in families, but thebenefits of involved fatherhoodwould be more available to all.

Notes37. Source: Ray Gornick and Schmitt (2010). Who cares? Assessing generosity and

gender quality in parental leave designs in 21 countries. Journal of European SocialPolicy 0958-9287; Vol 20(3): 196-216. See Table 3, page 206.

38. FTE stands for full-time equivalent, whereby the pay for a duration of leave iscalculated as the number of days/weeks the money would buy of average-wagedfull-time employment

39. Duvander, Ann-Zofie and Ann-Christin Jans (2009). Consequences of Fathers’Parental Leave Use: Evidence from Sweden’ Stockholm Research Reports inDemography_2008:9. Stockholm: Stockholm University, Department of Sociology,Demography Unit. Available to download athttp://www.suda.su.se/SRRD/SRRD_2008_9.pdf. Last accessed 5th November 2010.

FiFI INDICATOR TEN

Maximum full-time equivalent paid leave for fathersItem 10 on the Fairness in Families Index brings us full-circle, back to the issueof parental leave and gender with which we began. Here, having looked atindicators which examine women’s public activities and men’s contributions inthe private sphere of home, we return to a policy mechanism which has thepotential to tilt the balance in favour of egalitarian parenting: namely theamount of leave that fathers specifically can take to support mothers andchildren at birth and beyond.


27

RANK 5Canada

19.3 weeks

RANK 17USA

0 weeks

RANK 17Ireland

0 weeks

RANK 8Portugal

14 weeks

RANK 14Spain

2 weeks

RANK 12

France

5.8 weeks

RANK 17Australia

0 weeks

RANK 8New Zealand

14 weeks

RANK 17Austria

0 weeks

RANK 15UK

0.4 weeks

RANK 13Belgium

4.1 weeks

RANK 15Netherlands

0.4 weeks

RANK 3Germany

28 weeks

RANK 17Switzerland

0 weeks

RANK 11Italy

7.8 weeks

RANK 7Greece

17.1 weeks

RANK 2Norway

35 weeks

RANK 1Sweden

40 weeks

RANK 4Finland

21.3 weeks

RANK 6Japan

17.6 weeks

RANK 10Denmark

10.6 weeks

Maximum full-time equivalent paid leave for fathers in weeks37

UK RANKING: 15/21

1. Sweden 1 7 3 1 7 14 2 3 1 1

2. Finland 2 12 2 3 8 10 4 1 3 4

3. Norway 2 – 9 2 9 – 5 9 2 2

4. Denmark 12 3 1 4 15 13 1 2 – 10

5. Portugal 6 11 6 13 4 3 11 5 – 8

6. Belgium 5 1 19 7 5 – 5 6 8 13

7. Greece 2 4 6 18 10 1 21 11 – 7

8. France 6 5 17 19 3 6 2 8 11 12

9. New Zealand 18 2 11 9 – 15 7 – 6 8

10. Italy 6 – 15 20 11 2 8 4 14 11

11. Netherlands 12 8 12 5 13 4 10 14 – 15

12. United States 10 12 4 16 1 18 11 – 5 17

13. Spain 6 10 16 6 14 8 11 9 11 14

14. Germany 10 17 18 10 12 7 11 12 8 3

15. Canada 15 15 5 14 – 16 19 – 3 5

16. Ireland 15 6 14 17 2 – 16 7 – 17

17. Australia 20 8 10 12 – 12 11 – 7 17

18. United Kingdom 12 15 13 15 5 17 8 12 10 15

19. Japan 19 18 8 21 – 5 16 – 13 61

20. Austria 15 – 19 8 – 11 16 15 – 17

21. Switzerland 21 12 21 11 – 9 19 – – 17

Summary of countries’ rankings

FiFI

IND

ICA

TOR

TEN

FiFI

IND

ICA

TOR

NIN

E

FiFI

IND

ICA

TOR

EIG

HT

FiFI

IND

ICA

TOR

SEV

EN

FiFI

IND

ICA

TOR

SIX

FiFI

IND

ICA

TOR

FIV

E

FiFI

IND

ICA

TOR

FO

UR

FiFI

IND

ICA

TOR

TH

REE

FiFI

IND

ICA

TOR

TW

O

FiFI

IND

ICA

TOR

ON

E

OVERALL RANK

FiFI INDICATOR ONE: Gender equality in parental leaveFiFI INDICATOR TWO: Gender pay gapFiFI INDICATOR THREE: Men’s percentage share of the part-time workforceFiFI INDICATOR FOUR: Proportion of women sitting in parliamentsFiFI INDICATOR FIVE: Women in management positionsFiFI INDICATOR SIX: Percentage of children living in lone parent households

FiFI INDICATOR SEVEN: Percentage of GDP spent on childcare and educationfor the under-fives

FiFI INDICATOR EIGHT: Men’s and women’s time spent on childcareFiFI INDICATOR NINE: Men’s and women’s time spent on unpaid workFiFI INDICATOR TEN: Maximum full-time equivalent paid leave for fathers

28



29

Dr Gary BarkerSenior Technical Advisor on Gender,Violence and Rights, InternationalCentre for Research on Women

Dr Natasha CabreraHuman Development, University ofMaryland

Professor Cary Cooper CBEManagement School, Lancaster University

Dr. Ann-Zofie DuvanderDemography Unit. Department ofSociology, University of Stockholm;and National Social Insurance Agency

Duncan FisherFamily Info

Dr Richard FletcherFamily Action Centre,University of Newcastle (Australia)

Dr Eirini FlouriInstitute of Education, University of London

Professor Jonathan GershunyCentre for Time Use Research,University of Oxford

Professor Frances GoldscheiderMaryland Population ResearchCentre, University of Maryland

Professor Janet GornickDepartment of Political Science andSociology, City University of NewYork

Jerome De HenauDULBEA, Free University, Brussels

Dr. Ursula Henz Dept. of Sociology, London School ofEconomics, UK

Professor Sue HimmelweitFaculty of Social Sciences, OpenUniversity

Will HuttonColumnist, The Observer

Sarah JacksonChief Executive, Working Families

Professor Heather JoshiCentre for Longitudinal Studies,Institute of Education, University ofLondon

Professor Kathleen KiernanProfessor of Social Policy and SocialWork, University of York

Professor Elin Kvande Department of Sociology and PoliticalScience, Norwegian University ofScience and Technology

Professor Michael LambFaculty of Social and PoliticalSciences, University of Cambridge

Professor Donna S. LeroCentre for Families, Work andWellbeing, University of Guelph

Professor Jane MillarUniversity of Bath

Professor Peter MossInstitute of Education, University ofLondon

Professor Margaret O’BrienCentre for Research on the Child &Family, University of East Anglia

Dr Livia OIahDepartment of Sociology, StockholmUniversity

Dr Graeme RussellAequus Partners

Dr Wendy Sigle-RushtonLondon School of Economics

Kate SmithSurvey Manager (MCS) & ResearchFellow, Centre for LongitudinalStudies, Institute of Education,University of London

Fatherhood Institute FiFI Reference Group


30

The Dads Included campaign, led by the FatherhoodInstitute, aims to transform children’s, family and healthservices, including maternity services, pre-schools/nurseries and schools, into services whichsystematically engage with and support both fathers and mothers.

It is strongly supportive of the clear commitment by thenew coalition Government to encourage strong andstable father-child and parental relationships. There isconvincing research evidence that services whichsystematically engage with fathers and couples, andsupport both parents’ relationships with their children,are essential to the achievement of these goals.

Join the Dads Included online community atwww.dadsincluded.org.

Fathers’ Story Week, organised by the FatherhoodInstitute and Barnardo’s, is an annual event held inschools, nurseries and other learning settings, in theweek leading up to Father’s Day. It offers a fantasticopportunity to get dads and children working andspending time together, using free resources developedby the Fatherhood Institute and education professionals.

Find out more at www.fathersstoryweek.org.

Follow Fathers’ Story Week on Twitter @fathersstorywk

Other Fatherhood Institute initiatives

de

sig

n:b

oile

rho

use

.co

.uk Telephone

+44 (0) 845 6341328

Fax+44 (0) 845 6838679

[email protected]

Horsingtons YardTiverton PlaceLion StreetAbergavennyNP7 5PNUK

The Fatherhood Institute

Registered charity number 1075104

• collate and publish internationalresearch on fathers, fatherhoodand different approaches toengaging with fathers by publicservices and employers

• help shape national and localpolicies to ensure a father-inclusiveapproach to family policy

• inject research evidence on fathersand fatherhood into nationaldebates about parenting andparental roles

• lobby for changes in law, policyand practice to dismantle barriersto fathers’ care of infants andchildren.

We are the UK’s leading provider oftraining, consultancy andpublications on father-inclusivepractice, for public and third sectoragencies and employers.

Our training and consultancyWe offer a range of ‘off the shelf’and bespoke training courses formanagers, staff and volunteers in avariety of settings including children’scentres, maternity services, childprotection, schools and familylearning services, Connexions, childand adolescent mental healthservices, teenage pregnancy servicesand youth offending teams.

These include courses on how toengage with fathers of all ages andethnic/cultural backgrounds andsupport their relationships with theirchildren; how to deliver parentingservices which are inclusive offathers; and how to deliver Hit theGround Crawling – agroundbreaking antenatal trainingprogramme for expectant fathers,available in the UK only from theFatherhood Institute.

We also offer INSET training andmini-conferences for schools, to helpthem focus on engaging with fathersand mobilising them as a resource tosupport their children’s learning anddevelopment.

To further support professionals intheir work with fathers and families,we run Dads Included, an onlinecommunity for sharing expertise infather-inclusive practice.

We also have vast experience ofassisting local authorities and otheragencies to transform their servicesat a strategic level – helping them todevelop father-inclusive strategies,‘father-proofing’ their policies andinitiatives, devising and deliveringtraining strategies, and conductingaudits of services.

Our services for employersWe offer a suite of services forBritain’s employers, including:

Fathers@ – a web-based supportpackage designed to help fathersstay motivated at work, whilstdealing with the joys and challengesof parenthood

Workplace seminars – 60-90minute daytime/evening seminars formale-only or mixed audiences, aboutvarious aspects of 21st centuryfatherhood/family life

Hit the Ground Crawling! –informal sessions for expectant andnew dads (and mums)

Staying Connected – half-dayseminars designed to improve staffretention by helping separated dadsin the workforce stay connected totheir children.

For more details about all ourservices, visitwww.fatherhoodinstitute.org.

Follow the Fatherhood Institute onTwitter @fatherhoodinst

The Fatherhood Institute is the UK’s fatherhood think-tank. We are a registered charity (number 1075104) and we:

new the fatherhood report 2010-11cite.gov.pt/pt/destaques/complementosdestqs/fi-fifi... · 2011. 1....

Documents