Helping mothers to combine paid and unpaid work–or fighting unemployment? the ambiguities of french family policy

Abstract

The 'Family Law' passed by the French Parliament in July 1994 introduced important changes in family policy. Because the number of publicly subsidised childcare places is still v e y limited, and to encourage families to create employment (6y employing childcare workers), the government has chosen to encourage the development o j a variety of childcare provisions by increasing the financial incentives payable to parents employing a private nanny or child-minder. The same rationale of reducing unemployment has also prompted the decision to extend existing child rearing benefit to jamilies having a second child. This measure has been vey successful in encouraging women to retire from the labour market. The high cost of these changes has been shared by Social Security and the State. However, the changes have contributed to the increased polarisation between higher and lower wages families, with highly qualified mothers, who can afford childcare costs, remaining in paid employment ajer giving birth, and lower qualijied mothers leaving the labour market.KEY WORDS Childcare; family policy; maternal employment; unemployment RI%UM& En France, la loi Famille votie en 1994 a introduit d'importants changements dans la politique familiale. Alors que la nombre de places en criches est encore tris insujfisant, pour encourager les familles a crier des eniplois, le gouvernement a choisi de priviligier le dkveloppement des modes de garde individuels en augmentant les prestations jinanciires accordies aux parents qui emploient soit une assistante maternelle soit une employke a leur domicile pour garder leurs enfants. L a m2me logique-lutter contre le chbmage-a prisidi a la dicision d'itendre l'allocation parentale d'iducation aux familles ayant un deuxiime ergant. Du fait de la digradation du marchi de E'emploi fkminin, cette prestation remporte un grand succis. Ces dispositif, coateux a la fois pour la Securiti sociale et I'Etat, ont renforci l'inigal accis des familles aux dtffirents modes de garde en fonction de leurs revenus et accentui la polarisationrecoupant en partie les clivages sociaux-entre les mires qui poursuivent une carriire et se maintiennent dans l'emploi apris leur materniti et celles qui se retirent durablement du marchi du travail apris une naissance. L 'emprise croissante des politiques de l'emploi sur la politique familiale s'est donc, en partie, traduite par une 'instrumentalisation' de 1'oBe de travail des jemmes.

Responses of French Family and Employment Policy to the Unemployment Crises: Impacts on the Gendering of Paid and Unpaid Work

“…However, a number of commentators suspect that this was one of the covert aims of the policy principally in view of the fact that it developed in the 1990s when unemployment was particularly high (Afsa, 1998;Fagnani, 1998aFagnani, , 1998bJenson & Sineau, 1995;Morgan, 2003). The principal problem with benefits of this kind in terms of gender divisions of paid and unpaid labour is that they are overwhelmingly claimed by women, despite being offered to either parent.…”

“…However, according to some commentators, in the 1980s and 1990s the development of this model was curtailed by the unemployment crisis and the attempts of the French state to resolve it through both its employment and family policy, a situation which has been labelled a 'rendez-vous manqué' with true gender equality in paid and unpaid work (Fagnani, 1998a;Jenson & Sineau, 1995;White, 2004, p. 264). In other words, and borrowing Hochschild's (1989) concept, it could be argued that the revolution in gender relations begun in the 1970s in France 'stalled' in this period.…”

The complexity of family policy reform: The case of Norway

“…France is a particularly interesting case, epitomizing an ambiguous family policy model. Fagnani (1998) discusses three different cashfor-care regulations introduced in France, showing that such benefits may have contradictory aims: two of the benefits stimulate mothers' employment, while the third measure discourages it. Also interesting to note is that not family-work reconciliation, but labour market concerns, notably unemployment reduction, is the (not acknowledged) rationale behind some of these measures.…”

Begrenzte Wahl – Gelegenheitsstrukturen und Erwerbsmuster in Paarhaushalten im europäischen Vergleich

“…hier stellt der Staat betreuungseinrichtungen zur Verfügung, welche beiden elternteilen die Möglichkeit eröffnen, erwerbstätig zu sein, während gleichzeitig jedoch auch finanzielle Anreize für private Kinderbetreuung gesetzt wurden (lohnersatz für betreuungsarbeit). es besteht mithin ein in sich widersprüchliches Anreizsystem (Fagnani 1998 Über relativ eng definierte sozialpolitische Rahmenbedingungen für Müttererwerbs-tätigkeit hinausgehend, zeigt die vergleichende Wohlfahrtsstaats-und Arbeitsmarktforschung auch die maßgebliche Prägung der erwerbsbeteiligung von Frauen und Männern durch breiter definierte sozialstaatliche Rahmenbedingungen (z. B. Lohnniveau, Steuerund Transfersysteme) sowie durch Arbeitsmarktstrukturen (z. b. beschäftigungsstruktur, Arbeitslosigkeitsrisiken, Verfügbarkeit von Teilzeitarbeit, beschäftigungsrate im dienstleistungssektor) und verweist auf die multikausale Beeinflussung familialer Erwerbsmuster (z. b. daly 2000;dingeldey 2002;haas et al 2006;Van ham u. büchel 2006).…”