Although France and Germany are commonly classified as Bismarckian welfare regimes, they differ significantly in terms of family policy. For a long time, social and family policy in (West) Germany was focused on the male-breadwinner model of married couples. This was based on the expectation that women, in particular married women with children, would withdraw from the labour market permanently, or at least temporarily. Whereas care by mothers was massively subsidized by state family policy, the expansion of the childcare infrastructure was neglected and progressed only very slowly compared to the situation in many other countries of Europe. France, on the contrary, is one of the European countries where childcare services are particularly widespread, giving mothers the option to combine paid work and motherhood. Nevertheless, significant changes are happening in both countries. Concern over the demographic trends and low birth rates (in particular in Germany) have refocused attention on family policy in recent years. In Germany, it has now become a key field of debate and policy, and new actors have appeared on the scene. This article proposes to compare the latest developments in both countries, highlighting the contribution of enterprises and social partners to work-life balance, re-analysing the different types of familialism characterizing both countries.

This article extends the analysis of flexicurity to take account of the life-course perspective; in the international flexicurity debate such an approach has so far not been systematically taken. The article focuses on the question of what options will be needed for time allocation in different phases of life and over the whole life of an individual, and what financial resources could be combined to finance those phases. The first section discusses methodological and conceptual issues related to flexicurity and the life course. In the second section, longitudinal data from Germany is presented to illustrate some of the relevant patterns of, and changes within, life courses. The third and main section deals with policy implications. Four crucial objectives of a flexicurity policy based on a life-course approach are identified, and a range of options to improve flexibility and security over the lifetime are discussed. These options include measures to increase time sovereignty, subsidised part-time schemes for care and lifelong learning, the use of accumulated pension savings to finance other activities during the course of working life, and the role of minimum provision in social security schemes. ❖❖❖ Sommaire Cet article élargit l'analyse de la flexicurité pour tenir compte de la perspective du cycle de vie; dans les débats sur la flexicurité au niveau international, une telle approche n'a jusqu'ici pas été systématiquement adoptée. Dans cet article, l'auteur se penche sur la question de savoir quelles options seront nécessaires pour l'allocation du temps dans les différentes phases de la vie et au cours de toute la vie d'un individu, et quelles ressources financières pourraient être combinées pour financer ces phases. La première partie examine les questions méthodologiques et conceptuelles liées à la flexicurité et au cycle de vie. La deuxième partie présente des données longitudinales provenant d'Allemagne en vue d'illustrer certains modèles pertinents de cycles de vie, ainsi que les changements qui s'y produisent. La troisième et principale partie de l'article traite des conséquences sur le plan politique. L'article identifie quatre objectifsclé de politique en matière de flexicurité basée sur une approche du cycle de vie et analyse une série d'options visant à améliorer la flexibilité et la sécurité tout au long de la vie. Ces options incluent des mesures pour augmenter la maîtrise de la souveraineté du temps, les systèmes de travail à temps partiel subventionnés pour faire face aux responsabilités familiales et l'apprentissage tout au long de la vie, l'utilisation de l'épargne accumulée pour financer d'autres activités pendant le cours de la vie active, et le rôle des dispositions minimales dans les systèmes de sécurité sociale.

Although France and Germany are commonly classified as Bismarckian welfare regimes, they differ significantly in terms of family policy. For a long time, social and family policy in (West) Germany was focused on the male-breadwinner model of married couples. This was based on the expectation that women, in particular married women with children, would withdraw from the labour market permanently, or at least temporarily. Whereas care by mothers was massively subsidized by state family policy, the expansion of the childcare infrastructure was neglected and progressed only very slowly compared to the situation in many other countries of Europe. France, on the contrary, is one of the European countries where childcare services are particularly widespread, giving mothers the option to combine paid work and motherhood. Nevertheless, significant changes are happening in both countries. Concern over the demographic trends and low birth rates (in particular in Germany) have refocused attention on family policy in recent years. In Germany, it has now become a key field of debate and policy, and new actors have appeared on the scene. This article proposes to compare the latest developments in both countries, highlighting the contribution of enterprises and social partners to work-life balance, re-analysing the different types of familialism characterizing both countries.

No abstract

No abstract