Advertisement

Women’s Lifestyle Preferences in the 21st Century: Implications for Family Policy

Chapter

Abstract

Recent social and economic changes focused attention first on promoting women’s employment, and now on reversing declining fertility. Preference theory helps us to understand women’s choices between paid jobs and family work, and provides an empirical basis for social and family policy. It predicts continuing sex differences in lifestyle and life goals, and increasing diversity in life patterns for men and women. In contrast, feminism insists that all sex differences can and should be eliminated, so that diversity will vanish. Social scientists are now giving more attention, and weight, to (unpaid) reproductive work and household work, bringing them into the policy limelight. Policy-makers are also confirming the economic and social importance of population growth, and hence the necessity for active population policies. Judging by results, the two policies that appear to have the greatest potential for encouraging women to achieve their ideal family size are raising family allowances to reduce the cost of children, and the homecare allowance which pays one parent a salary for full-time childcare. Both have proved successful and effective in Europe. Overall, social policy must recognise female diversity, and support it with diversified policies that support all groups of women. To date, careerist women have been given greater support than family-centred women who tend to have the largest families.

Keywords

Parental Leave Fertility Decline Female Employment Population Policy Family Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aassve, A., & Lappegård, T. (2009). Childcare cash benefits and fertility timing in Norway. European Journal of Population, 25, 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, G.S. (1991). A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bertram, H., Rosler, W., & Ehlert, N. (2005). Nachhaltige Familienpolitik. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend.Google Scholar
  4. Boeri, T., Del Boca, D., & Pissarides, C. (Eds.) (2005). Women at Work: An Economic Perspective. A report for the Fondazione Rodolfo Debenedetti. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Browne, J. (Ed.) (2007). The Future of Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Burggraf, S. (1997). The Feminine Economy and Economic Man. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  7. Coleman, D., & Rowthorn, R. (2004). The economic effects of immigration into the United Kingdom. Population and Development Review, 30, 579–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corijn, M., & Hakim, C. (forthcoming). Lifestyle preferences in Belgium-Flanders.Google Scholar
  9. Crompton, R. (2007). Gender inequality and the gendered division of labour. In J. Browne (Ed.), The Future of Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Crompton, R., & Lyonette, C. (2005). The new gender essentialism – domestic and family ‘choices’ and their relation to attitudes. British Journal of Sociology, 56, 602–620.Google Scholar
  11. d’Addio, A., & d’Ercole, M. (2005). Trends and determinants of fertility rates: the role of policies. OECD Social Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 27. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Dey, I. (2006). Wearing out the work ethic: population ageing, fertility and work-life balance. Journal of Social Policy, 35, 671–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diprete, T.A., Morgan, S.P., Engelhardt, H., & Pacalova, H. (2003). Do cross-national differences in the costs of children generate cross-national differences in fertility rates? Population Research and Policy Review, 22, 439–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dixon, M., & Margo, J. (2006). Population Politics. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
  15. Ellingsæter, A.L. (2007). Old and new politics of time to care: three Norwegian reforms. Journal of European Social Policy, 17, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ermisch, J.F. (2003). An Economic Analysis of the Family. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission. (2002). Employment in Europe. Luxembourg: OOPEC.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission and European Foundation. (2003). Perceptions of living conditions in an enlarged Europe. EF/03/114/EN, Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.Google Scholar
  19. European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. (2005a). Social Agenda, No. 11.Google Scholar
  20. European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. (2005b). Confronting Demographic Change: A New Solidarity Between the Generations – Green Paper. Luxembourg: OOPEC.Google Scholar
  21. Fagnani, J. (1998). Recent changes in family policy in France: political trade-offs and economic constraints. In E. Drew, R. Emerek, & E. Mahon (Eds.), Women, Work and the Family in Europe (58–65). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischer, K. (2000). Uncertain aims and tacit negotiation: birth control practices in Britain, 1925–1950. Population and Development Review, 26, 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frejka, T., & Ross, J. (2001). Paths to subreplacement fertility: the empirical evidence. Population and Development Review, 27(Supplement), 213–254.Google Scholar
  24. Gauthier, A.H. (1996a). The measured and unmeasured effects of welfare benefits on families: implications for Europe’s demographic trends. In D. Coleman (Ed.), Europe’s Population in the 1990s (295–331). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gauthier, A.H. (1996b). The State and the Family. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gauthier, A.H. (2007). The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialised countries: a review of the literature. Population Research and Policy Review, 26, 323–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gauthier, A.H., & Hatzius, J. (1997). Family benefits and fertility: an econometric analysis. Population Studies, 51, 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gauthier, A.H., Smeeding, T.M., & Furstenberg, F.F. (2004). Are parents investing less time in children? Trends in selected industrialised countries. Population and Development Review, 30, 647–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grant, J., Hoorens, S., Sivadasan, S., van het Loo, M., DeVanzo, J., Hale, L., Gibson, S., & Butz, W. (2004). Low Fertility and Population Ageing: Causes, Consequences and Policy Options. Report to the European Commission. Cambridge: RAND.Google Scholar
  30. Hakim, C. (1995). Five feminist myths about women’s employment. British Journal of Sociology, 46, 429–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hakim, C. (2000). Work-Lifestyle Choices in the 21st Century: Preference Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hakim, C. (2003a). Models of the Family in Modern Societies: Ideals and Realities. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  33. Hakim, C. (2003b). A new approach to explaining fertility patterns: preference theory. Population and Development Review, 29, 349–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hakim, C. (2003c). Childlessness in Europe. Report to the Economic and Social Research Council. London: London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  35. Hakim, C. (2004). Key Issues in Women’s Work: Female Diversity and the Polarisation of Women’s Employment. London: Glasshouse Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hakim, C. (2006). Women, careers, and work-life preferences. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 34, 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hakim, C. (2007a). Dancing with the devil? Essentialism and other feminist heresies. British Journal of Sociology, 58(1), 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hakim, C. (2007b). The politics of female diversity in the 21st century. In J. Browne (Ed.), The Future of Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hakim, C. (2010). How can social policy and fiscal policy recognise unpaid family work? Renewal, 18(2), 23–33.Google Scholar
  40. Hakim, C., Bradley, K., Price, E., & Mitchell, L. (2008). Little Britons: Financing Childcare Choice. London: Policy Exchange.Google Scholar
  41. Heitlinger, A. (1991). Pronatalism and women’s equality policies. European Journal of Population, 7, 343–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hoem, J.M. (2005). Why does Sweden have such high fertility? Demographic Research, 13, 559–572. (http://www.demographic-research.org)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Houston, D. (Ed.) (2005). Work-Life Balance in the Twenty-First Century. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  44. Huang, Q., El-Khouri, B.M., Johansson, G., Lindroth, S., & Sverke, M. (2007). Women’s career patterns: a study of Swedish women born in the 1950s. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(3), 387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ilmakunnas, S. (1997). Public policy and childcare choice. In I. Persson & C. Jonung (Eds.), The Economics of the Family and Family Policies (178–193). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Jones, R.K., & Brayfield, A. (1997). Life’s greatest joy? European attitudes toward the centrality of children. Social Forces, 75(4), 1239–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Keyfitz, N. (1987). The family that does not reproduce itself. Population and Development Review, 12(Supplement), 139–154.Google Scholar
  48. Lanquetin, M.-T., Laufer, J., & Letablier, M.-T. (2000). From equality to reconciliation in France? In L. Hantrais (Ed.), Gendered Policies in Europe: Reconciling Employment and Family Life (68–88). Houndmills: Macmillan and New York, NY: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  49. Lappegård, T. (2010). Family Policies and Fertility in Norway. European Journal of Population, 26, 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Manne, A. (2005). Motherhood: How Should We Care for Our Children? Crows Nest NSW: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  51. Murray, C. (2006). In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute Press.Google Scholar
  52. OECD. (2006). Women at work. In: Employment Outlook. Paris: OECD, 61–125.Google Scholar
  53. Pezzini, S. (2005). The effect of women’s rights on women’s welfare: evidence from a natural experiment. Economic Journal, 115, C208–C227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Philipov, D. (2005). Comparative Report on Gender Roles and Relations and Summary Policy Implications Regarding Gender Roles. DIALOG/IPPAS Report Nos 16/17. Vienna, Austria: Vienna Institute of Demography of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  55. Presser, H.B. (2001). Comment: a gender perspective for understanding low fertility in post-transitional societies. Population and Development Review, 27(Supplement), 177–183.Google Scholar
  56. Preston, S.H. (1986). Changing values and falling birth rates. Population and Development Review, 12(Supplement), 196–200.Google Scholar
  57. Rabusic, L., & Manea, B.-E. (2008). Hakim’s preference theory in the Czech context. Czech Demography, 48(2), 46–55.Google Scholar
  58. Randall, C. (2005). Middle class mothers will be paid to start baby boom. Daily Telegraph, 20 September 2005.Google Scholar
  59. Schiewe, K. (2000). Equal opportunities policies and the management of care in Germany. In L. Hantrais (Ed.), Gendered Policies in Europe: Reconciling Employment and Family Life (89–107). Houndmills: Macmillan and New York, NY: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  60. Schone, P. (2004). Labour supply effects of a cash-for-care subsidy. Journal of Population Economics, 17, 703–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thomas, J.J. (1992). Informal Economic Activity. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  62. Tsui, A.O. (2001). Population policies, family planning programs and fertility: the record. Population and Development Review, 27(Supplement), 184–204.Google Scholar
  63. United Nations. (1996). Levels and Trends of Contraceptive Use as Assessed in 1994. ST/ESA/SER.A/146. New York, NY: United Nations.Google Scholar
  64. United Nations. (2004). World population policies. New York, NY: United Nations (available at http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2003/)
  65. Vikat, A. (2004). Women’s labour force attachment and childbearing in Finland. Demographic Research, 3(8), 175–212. Special Collection. (http://www.demographic-research.org)Google Scholar
  66. Vitali, A., Billari, F.C., Prskawetz, A., & Testa, M.R. (2007). Preference theory and low fertility: a comparative perspective. European Demographic Research Paper 2007/2. Vienna, Austria: Vienna Institute of Demography of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  67. Waldfogel, J. (1993). Women Working for Less: A Longitudinal Analysis of the Family Gap. STICERD Working Paper No. WSP/93. London: London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  68. Watson, J. (2005). Sex equality fit for the 21st century. Speech on the 30th anniversary of the Equal Opportunities Commission.Google Scholar
  69. Wolf, A. (2006). Working girls. Prospect, April, 28–33.Google Scholar
  70. Women and Work Commission. (2006). Shaping a Fairer Future. London: Department for Trade and Industry.Google Scholar
  71. Yamaguchi, K. (2007). The relationship between female labour force participation and total fertility rate among OECD countries: two roles of work-family balance. Paper presented to CGP-SSRC seminar on Fertility Decline and Work-Family Balance: Japan, the USA and other OECD countries, held in Tokyo, May 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sociology DepartmentLondon School of EconomicsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations