Women's work in the EC: Five career profiles

Kempeneers, Marianne; Lelièvre, Éva

doi:10.1007/bf01267902

Cited by 11 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results confirm the differences in women's employment "regimes" already identified in part by earlier studies (Kempeneers and Lelièvre, 1993;Rubery et al, 1996;Thévenon, 1999;Gornick et al, 1997;Thévenon, 2006) which highlight the diversity of adjustments in employment behaviour according to family situation. The similarities and differences observed between countries only partially coincide with the welfare state typologies identified in the early 1990s (Esping-Andersen, 1990).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Increased Women's Labour Force Participation in Europe: Progress in the Work-Life Balance or Polarization of Behaviours?

Thévenon¹

2009

Population (English Edition)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the increase in female labour force participation is a fairly widespread trend, there is still a considerable diversity of situations across Europe from north to south. To identify the factors that may explain these differences, Olivier Thévenon uses data from the European Labour Force Surveys (EU-LFS) carried out in 14 countries between 1992 and 2005. For comparable educational levels and family situations (e.g. number of children, age of youngest child, single-parent status), the labour market behaviours of European women (inactive, short or long part-time work, full-time work) are very diverse. This diversity reflects differences in government policies targeting working mothers (help with reconciling work and childcare, encouragement to leave the labour market or to work part-time, etc.). In some contexts, women choose to postpone childbirth or to remain childless in order to pursue a working career. The increase in women's labour force participation may thus entail a certain polarization of behaviours.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%