Revisiting Global Welfare Regimes: Gender, (In)formal Employment and Care

Abstract

Gender critiques of comparative welfare state research have so far predominantly focused on OECD countries but less so in countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America. Existing comparative social policy research in these regions often cites the importance of informal networks and family for social protection but less attention is paid into gender relations and their importance for the social reproduction of these welfare regimes. The article comparatively analyses gender differences in the sphere of production (captured by the gender gap in formal and informal employment) and social reproduction (captured by time spent on unpaid domestic work). The article identifies regional patterns and explores implications for women’s ability to access welfare and the labour market. Additionally, it shows that informal activities (employment, domestic work) are extensive among many African, Asian, Latin American, but also specific OECD, welfare regimes. The article contributes first by incorporating gender in the analysis of global welfare regime and second by highlighting the importance of informal relationships for the analysis of welfare regimes.

The forms of decommodification and (de)familisation measures during COVID‐19: What is the impact on female's welfare?

“…Meanwhile, in the case of the PKH, we find, instead of improving the bargaining position of women, the programme legitimises their subordinate position in the family, resulting in higher time spent on unpaid care responsibility. This argument is consistent with evidence showing that women spent 72.4% more time on unpaid household chores rather than man (SMERU, 2017; see also Roumpakis, 2020).…”

“…Women domestication through unpaid domestic chores and care work is more intensified along with the policies of isolation and Work From Home (WFH). Evidence by Roumpakis ( 2020 ) pointing out Indonesia belongs to group countries with the highest disproportionate proportion of unpaid care work, largely is carried out by women with a percentage of 72.4% (SMERU, 2017 ). The workload of educating children, serving husbands and taking care of housing needs are examples of ‘domestic work construction’ that women are obliged to do, while on other hands, they also do jobs to earn income, either act as a supporting system for their husbands or even as a substitute.…”

The complementary roles between clientelism and familism in social policy development

“…Familial ethics have been considered the cultural underpinnings that contributed to EA development success and have shaped the historical path of contemporary welfare regimes (Roumpakis, 2020). Jones (1993) in her influential work, entitled The Pacific Challenge: Confucian welfare states , she explored how familial ethics inspired by Confucian teaching are used by the government in these countries as an effective moral politics in legitimizing the deficiency of social protection, while pushing family and community to internalize most social risks by pooling resources across generations.…”

“…Meanwhile, family resilience goals can be seen from the Prosperous Family Program ( Program Keluarga Harapan —PKH). It is a conditional cash transfer program aiming to reinforce the financial immunity of family so that they can run household‐related activity which includes social risk internalization (Roumpakis, 2020).…”

Gender, welfare state regimes and social policy beyond advanced capitalism: Pathways to decommodification in middle‐income countries

“…Therefore, decommodification measures should include all three components to be truly emancipatory. Extant research sees the reconciliation between the sphere of production and social reproduction as a decommodification pathway (Roumpakis, 2020). However, it does not address how women's vulnerability to violence with homes and workplaces undermines their access to work-related welfare provisions.…”