The unequal benefits of activation: an analysis of the social distribution of family policy among families with young children

Abstract

In the last few decades, measures to reconcile work and family life have risen in mutual interaction with a rising rate of dual earnership. However, dual earnership has (to date) been adopted in a socially uneven way in most European societies. Therefore, one may wonder whether the activation measures have brought about a loss of vertical redistribution in welfare states. We address this question by focusing on the interaction of three measures of family policy and their overall distributional effect in Europe, with the Belgian region of Flanders as the case in point. We develop a fine-grained analysis to reveal the budgetary impact of the variation in use and generosity, and find that today in Flanders the redistributive effect of child benefits is largely undone by subsidized childcare and parental leave benefits. If parents’ employment is to be generalized, this case study suggests that more attention is required regarding the universal use of reconciliation measures.

Family policies and single parent poverty in 18 OECD countries, 1978–2008

“…Regarding this so-called Matthew effect (Merton, 1968;Ghysels & Van Lancker, 2011;Van Lancker, 2014), our findings suggest that family policies either have similar effects in reducing poverty among single-and two-parent households; and such policies can also decrease the poverty of single-relative to two-parent households thereby reducing the inequality between household types. Secondly, our findings are relevant to the debate whether social policies should be targeted to specific social groups, or be universal to all (Korpi & Palme, 1998).…”

“…The rationale is that those with more resources will be better able to access the opportunities provided by social policies and that the accumulation of various resources multiplies their effectiveness, in the context of our argument, to avoid poverty. Studies have shown that family policy arrangements are, indeed, most effective among households who already have a strong connection to the labor market (Pettit and Hook 2009;Ghysels & Van Lancker 2011, Nieuwenhuis, 2014Van Lancker, 2014).…”

“…Korpi, Ferrarini & Englund, 2013;Pettit & Hook, 2009;Ghysels & Van Lancker, 2011); however, it lacks attention to the differences among various household structures (Cantillon, Ghysels, Mussche & Van Dam, 2001). We contribute an explicit focus on household structure and examine the differences in poverty risk between single-and two-parent household.…”

The European World of Temporary Employment

“…The Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) have taken the Anglo-Saxon route including a strong emphasis on labour market deregulation without investing much in inclusive labour market policies, and a focus on meanstesting and targeting in the social security system consequently leading to low levels of decommodification and social spending. Similar to the liberal countries, they report rather high female employment rates despite the absence of extensive dual earner policies (Ghysels and Van Lancker 2011).…”

Solidarity and Reciprocity in the Social Investment State: What Can be Learned from the Case of Flemish School Allowances and Truancy?

“…In general terms, policy changes in OECD countries have included the following ingredients, although actual implementation differs greatly between welfare states: (1) an all-encompassing focus on work, e.g. by implementing career break schemes, the expansion of parental leave schemes and pre-school services such as child care (Ghysels and Van Lancker, 2011;Esping-Andersen et al, 2002); and (4) investment in human capital, e.g. by making minimum benefits in social security and social assistance schemes less generous and strengthening their link with work histories, imposing greater selectivity such as an increased dependence on activation programmes, stricter eligibility requirements such as the acceptance of 'suitable jobs', and by shifting responsibilities to other actors such as private bodies and local governments (Cantillon, 2011;Weishaupt, 2011;Van Mechelen et al, 2010;Kazepov, 2010; Van der Veen, 2009); (3) family policy as a productive factor, e.g.…”