Inclusiveness of Parental-Leave Benefits in Twenty-One European Countries: Measuring Social and Gender Inequalities in Leave Eligibility

Abstract

This article analyzes eligibility for parental-leave benefits in twenty-one European countries. It distinguishes four ideal-type approaches to how leave-related benefits are granted (in-)dependent of parents’ labor market position: universal parenthood model, selective parenthood model, universal adult-worker model, and selective adult-worker model. An eligibility index is created to measure the inclusiveness of parental-leave benefits, alongside the degree of (de-)gendered entitlements. The importance of employment-based benefits and gender-sensitive policies increased between 2006 and 2017. Eligibility criteria remained stable, but due to labor market trends, such as increasing precariousness, fewer parents may fulfill the conditions for employment-based benefits.

Gender equality and parenting-related leaves in 21 former socialist countries

“…4 Eligibility may be conditioned by strict social security-insurance or employment-related criteria, citizenship, family type, etc. (see, for instance, McKay et al, 2016;Sainsbury, 2019;Dobrotić and Blum, 2019;Wong et al, 2019), influencing the leave take-up rates of different groups of parents within the country. 5 Brighouse and Wright (2008) recognize the need for a more nuanced elaboration of equalitypromoting leaves by distinguishing between a moderate and a radical version of equalitypromoting leaves, while arguing that these versions do not exist in any country.…”

“…The focus here is on the leave policy development patterns and main policy concerns embedded in the leave policy design from a gender perspective. Recent findings legitimately point also to the social (i.e., class, ethnicity, new immigrant status) inequalities inherent to the leave policy design, with eligibility criteria being an important condition for take-up of paid leave by different social groups within a country (e.g., McKay et al, 2016;Sainsbury, 2019;Dobrotić and Blum, 2019). However, 1) the analysis of both the gender and social inequality dimensions of leave policy design goes beyond the scope of any one article; and 2) the historical data on eligibility criteria and how these are translated into take-up rates in the EFSCs are not available and reliable.…”

“…Tables 1 and 3). Longer leaves introduced in the transition period in Croatia, Serbia and parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina, targeted families with three or more children (Dobrotić, 2018(Dobrotić, , 2019.…”

“…There is also a lack of involvement in a systematic discussion about the evolution and the development pattern of leave policies in these countries from a gender perspective. Recent works have begun to fill up this gap (Ciccia and Verloo, 2012;Dearing, 2016;Karu and Tremblay, 2018;Dobrotić and Blum, 2019); however, the empirical findings refer only to recent periods and the former socialist countries that are members of the European Union (EU). This article aims to contribute to these endeavors by providing a systematic, historical comparative analysis of parentingrelated leave policies' design and developments, as well as their implications for gender (in)equality in the EFSCs, including former Yugoslav and Soviet Union countries that were mostly absent from earlier comparative studies.…”

Reconceptualizing Parental Leave Benefits in COVID-19 Canada: From Employment Policy to Care and Social Protection Policy

“…14 When the Nordic countries extended leaves in the 1990s and 2000s, they did so by offering non-transferable and individual leaves for fathers (see Eydal and Rostgaard 2014 ). 15 In their study of 21 European countries, Dobrotić and Blum (2020 ) found that 15 of the 21 countries are embracing some version of a mixed system. 16 Other leave benefi ts offered by the federal government, with wage replacement rates of up to 55 percent of earnings to a maximum of $573/week, are the family caregiver benefi t for children, the family caregiver benefi t for adults, and the compassionate care benefi t for end-of-life care ( ESDC 2020 c).…”