Promoting fairness? Exploring the gendered impacts of the benefit cap and the two-child limit

Abstract

The benefit cap and the two-child limit were both introduced with the aim of promoting fairness. However, women are disproportionately affected by both of these polices. This article presents new empirical evidence that demonstrates the gendered impacts of the benefit cap and the two-child limit on mothers. It shows that the benefit cap and the two-child limit ignore the gendered reasons for women’s disproportionate subjection to the policies, devalue unpaid care, fail to recognise gendered barriers to paid work and ultimately, harm women in a wide range of ways, particularly by further entrenching them in poverty.

What policy functions are reflected in the distribution of financial support for parents by child age and birth order? An analysis of 28 European countries

“…While we are unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the apparent neglect of low‐income households with younger children in most countries in our sample, we believe that our finding that parity bias is less commonly observed in LI households makes an important contribution to the debate on the dissociation between need and support for large families in some contemporary welfare states. A notable example of this trend is the United Kingdom, where child benefits for low‐income households, which constitute the most generous form of financial support for parents in the country, are limited to the first two children (Andersen et al, 2022; Reader et al, 2022). This is strongly reflected in our results, as the UK's parity bias is the fifth highest (most later‐oriented) one in the sample for the middle‐income category and the fourth most negative one (most earlier‐oriented) for the low‐income category in the cumulative model.…”

The two‐child limit and fertility decision making: When policy narratives and lived experiences collide

“…This constitutes a particularly punitive consequence, especially given the qualitative evidence presented here which shows that many people are not aware of the two‐child limit at the point of conception. Furthermore, conception is never a child's choice, yet this policy has considerably detrimental impacts on the everyday lives of children affected by it (Andersen et al, 2022). These impacts are likely to have ramifications across the life course for affected children given the links between household income and children's physical health, social, behavioural and emotional development, cognitive development, and school achievement (Cooper & Stewart, 2017).…”

“…1.3 million children live in households affected by the two‐child limit, which causes considerable and lasting harm (cf. Andersen et al, 2022; Church of England, CPAG, Benefit Changes and Larger Families, 2022). It is vital to recognise and document the material harm that the two‐child limit causes:

[Daughter] was in size four shoes and she had her feet measured the other day and she's a six, so for the last 2 months she's been wearing shoes that are two sizes too small, but I could not do anything about it…it's not even Clarks shoes she's getting, it's ASDA's, you know, cheap and cheerful. Rachel , eight children

All of 'em get affected really because like if I want to go anywhere like I've got to like save some money, because it's not cheap taking 'em out, and like I cannot just go on a day out like when I used to have two kids like I could just go on a day out like, cos I'd have the money there…when I want to go on the day out I've got to save from like my last benefit money as well as the one coming, cos it's really expensive to take four of 'em out.

…”