How does working time flexibility affect gender-specific work intentions?

  • Isabelle Stadelmann-SteffenEmail author


In this chapter, I present findings from a conjoint experiment conducted in Switzerland and aimed at investigating the elasticity in the within-household division of paid and care work given varying policy contexts. Whereas in my previous research I have analysed similar questions mostly with respect to the role of family policies, in the present contribution I move a step closer to Klaus Armingeon’s research in what concerns the explanatory variable, namely the labour market. Thus, I ask how flexible work arrangements affect the genderspecific allocation of time on paid work and care work. The results indicate that women spend more time on the labour market and less on care work under flexible work conditions. However, this does not apply for women with traditional childcare preferences. Moreover, men only partly agree on women’s stronger labour market involvement. Finally, men with non-traditional childcare preferences indicate that they would invest half a day more in childcare duties if flexibility in working time and working place were available – without however reducing their labour market involvement. Overall, the findings illustrate that intended behaviour is very much embedded in dominant gender roles.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Albertsen, Karen, Guobjörg Linda Rafnsdóttir, Asbjörn Grimsmo, Kristinn Tómasson, and Kaisa Kauppinen. 2008. “Workhours and Worklife Balance.” Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, Supplement 2008 (5): 14–21.Google Scholar
  2. Armingeon, Klaus. 1994. Staat und Arbeitsbeziehungen: Ein Internationaler Vergleich. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  3. Armingeon, Klaus. 1999. “Politische Reaktionen Auf Steigende Arbeitslosigkeit.” In Nationaler Staat und Internationale Wirtschaft, edited by Andreas Busch and Thomas Plümper, 169–96. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  4. Armingeon, Klaus. 2007. “Active Labour Market Policy, International Organizations and Domestic Politics.” Journal of European Public Policy 14 (6): 905–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armingeon, Klaus, and Lucio Baccaro. 2012. “The Sorrows of Young Euro : The Sovereign Debt Crisis of Ireland and Southern Europe.” In Coping with Crisis : Government Reactions to the Great Recession, edited by Nancy Bermeo and Jonas Pontusson, 162–97. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  6. Brayfield, April, Marina A. Adler, and Ye Luo. 2001. “Patterns in Family Policy Preferences in the European Union.” Social Thought & Research 24 (1&2): 89–119.Google Scholar
  7. Bütler, Monika. 2007. “Arbeiten lohnt sich nicht - ein zweites Kind noch weniger. Zu den Auswirkungen einkommensabhängiger Tarife auf das (Arbeitsmarkt-)Verhalten der Frauen.” Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik 8 (1): 1–19.Google Scholar
  8. Ciccia, Rossella, and Inge Bleijenbergh. 2014. “After the Male Breadwinner Model?: Childcare Services and the Division of Labor in European Countries.” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society 21 (1): 50–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ciccia, Rossella, and Mieke Verloo. 2012. “Parental Leave Regulations and the Persistence of the Male Breadwinner Model: Using Fuzzy-Set Ideal Type Analysis to Assess Gender Equality in an Enlarged Europe.” Journal of European Social Policy 22 (5): 507–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Datta Gupta, Nabanita, Nina Smith, and Mette Verner. 2008. “Perspective Article: The Impact of Nordic Countries’ Family Friendly Policies on Employment, Wages, and Children.” Review of Economics of the Household 6 (1): 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eikhof, Doris Ruth. 2012. “A Double‐edged Sword: Twenty‐first Century Workplace Trends and Gender Equality.” Gender in Management: An International Journal 27 (1): 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flynn, Lindsay. 2017. “Childcare Markets and Maternal Employment: A Typology.” Journal of European Social Policy 27 (3): 260–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Formankova, Lenka, and Alena Křižkova. 2015. “Flexibility Trap – the Effects of Flexible Working on the Position of Female Professionals and Managers within a Corporate Environment.” Gender in Management 30 (3): 225–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fraser, Nancy. 1994. “After the Family Wage: Gender Equity and the Welfare State.” Political Theory 22 (4): 591–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gornick, Janet C., and Marcia K. Meyers. 2003. Families That Work Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  16. Hainmueller, Jens, Daniel J. Hopkins, and Teppei Yamamoto. 2014. “Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments.” Political Analysis 22 (1): 1–30.Google Scholar
  17. Hakim, Catherine. 2003a. “A New Approach to Explaining Fertility Patterns: Preference Theory.” Population and Development Review 29 (3): 349–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hakim, Catherine. 2003b. “Competing Family Models, Competing Social Policies.” Family Matters 64: 52–61.Google Scholar
  19. Hakim, Catherine. 2003c. Models of the Family, Fertility and Employment Patterns. Paper Presented to Euroconference on The Second Demographic Transition in Europe: The Implications of Family and Fertility Change for Individuals, Families and Society. Belgium.Google Scholar
  20. Häusermann, Silja and Christine Zollinger. 2014. “Familienpolitik.” In Handbuch der Schweizer Politik, edited by Peter Knoepfel, Yannis Papadopoulos, Pascal Sciarini, Adrian Vatter, and Silja Häusermann. Zürich: NZZ Libro.Google Scholar
  21. Hegewisch, Ariane, and Janet C. Gornick. 2011. “The Impact of Work-Familiy Policies on Women’s Employment: A Review of Research from OECD Countries.” Community, Work & Family 14 (2): 119–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kangas, Olli, and Tine Rostgaard. 2007. “Preferences or Institutions? Work-Family Life Opportunities in Seven European Countries.” Journal of European Social Policy 17 (3): 240–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leitner, Sigrid. 2003. “Varieties of Familialism: The Caring Function of the Family in Comparative Perspective.” European Societies 5 (4): 353–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewis, Jane. 2001. “The Decline of the Male Breadwinner Model: Implications for Work and Care.” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 8 (2): 152–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewis, Jane, Mary Campbell, and Carmen Huerta. 2008. “Patterns of Paid and Unpaid Work in Western Europe: Gender, Commodification, Preferences and the Implications for Policy.” Journal of European Social Policy 18 (1): 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lott, Yvonne. 2017. “Flexible Work Arrangements, Job Pressure and Work-to-Home Conflict for Women and Men in Germany.” Forschungsförderung Working Paper, Nr. 46. Düsseldorf: Hans Bö ckler Stiftung.Google Scholar
  27. Meyers, Marcia K., Janet C. Gornick, and Katherin E. Ross. 1999. “Public Childcare, Parental Leave, and Employment.” In Gender and Welfare State Regimes, edited by Diane Sainsbury, 177–146. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Munsch, Christin L. 2016. “Flexible Work, Flexible Penalties: The Effect of Gender, Childcare, and Type of Request on the Flexibility Bias.” Social Forces 94 (4): 1567–1591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nabe-Nielsen, Kirsten, Henrik Lund, Jeppe Z. Ajslev, Åse Marie Hansen, Karen Albertsen, Helge Hvid, and Anne Helene Garde. 2013. “How Do Employees Prioritise When They Schedule Their Own Shifts?” Ergonomics 56 (8): 1216–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Petitclerc, Amélie, Sylvana Côté, Orla Doyle, Margaret Burchinal, Catherine Herba, Henrik Daae Zachrisson, Michel Boivin, et al. 2017. “Who Uses Early Childhood Education and Care Services? Comparing Socioeconomic Selection across Five Western Policy Contexts.” International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy 11 (1): 3.Google Scholar
  31. Plantenga, Janneke, and Chantal Remery. 2010. “Flexible Working Time Arrangements and Gender Equality. A Comparative Review of 30 European Countries.” Luxembourg:
  32. Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle. 2008. “Women, Labour, and Public Policy: Female Labour Market Integration in OECD Countries. A Comparative Perspective.” Journal of Social Policy 37 (3): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle. 2011. “Dimensions of Family Policy and Female Labor Market Participation: Analyzing Group-Specific Policy Effects.” Governance 24 (2): 331–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle, and Dominique Oehrli. 2017. “Perceiving Reconciliation: Child Care Policies and Gendered Time Conflicts.” Gender & Society 31 (5): 597–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle, Dominique Oehrli, and Meret Lütolf. 2018. “Could Childcare Policies Shape Family Models? Empirical Evidence from a Conjoint-Analysis.” Paper Presented at the SPSA Annual Conference 2018, Geneva, January 5-6, 2018Google Scholar
  36. Vandello, Joseph A., Vanessa E. Hettinger, Jennifer K. Bosson, and Jasmine Siddiqi. 2013. “When Equal Isn’t Really Equal: The Masculine Dilemma of Seeking Work Flexibility.” Journal of Social Issues 69 (2): 303–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vuri, Daniela. 2016. “Do Childcare Policies Increase Maternal Employment?” IZA World of Labor.Google Scholar
  38. Wendt, Claus, Monika Mischke, and Michaela Pfeifer. 2011. Welfare States and Public Opinion. Perceptons of Healthcare Systems, Family Policy and Benefits for the Unemployed and Poor in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations