12 Politics and Policies towards the Family in Europe: A Framework and an Inquiry into their Differences and Convergences FRANZ-XAVER KAUFMANN University of Bielefeld, Germany This chapter focuses on the difference and the relationship between politics and policies towards the family. In politics political rhetorics matter, and they differ more strongly than the established policies among the European nations. A twofold distinction between implicit and explicit and between symbolic and effective politics towards the family is introduced and language provided for analysing more in depth the national differences. These differ in the dimensions of motives, of modes of policy intervention, and of evaluation. The current approach to evaluate family policies focuses on policy output, this is the perspective of the politician or the administrator. If one wishes to understand how family policy matters one has to take the perspective of the addressees, however. Problems linked to this approach are discussed by reanalysing aspects of some chapters of this book. The second part of this chapter focuses on the role of national diversity for European integration. Four families of nations' are distinguished which differ clearly as to the motives for political action towards family issues as well as to the corresponding scope of political action and its impact. To this day competence on family matters is lacking on the European level. However spillovers from the principle of gender equality and children's rights are to be expected. This could enhance the influence of the Scandinavian type of implicit family policy on other nations and might also promote modernizing effects on family relationships. 420 Franz-Xaver Kaufmann The judgment on family policy is yes and no. On the one hand, it is yes, problems of families are identifiable if not solvable. On the other side it is no, ... The facts about families are not well enough known to make policy (Gilbert Steiner) Introduction There has been always an intimate merger among family and politics in traditional societies. Kinship was one of the most powerful ties in traditional societies, and modernization deprived kinship first of its political and subsequently also of its familial influence. To speak of family policy presupposes the shift towards the modern arrangement of differentiated if not separated spheres of the polity, the economy, the family. Following their classics, sociology conceives modernization essentially as a process of growing differentiation between domains specializing in specific forms of interaction. Besides the institutional differentiation of legitimate power, markets, and intimate relationships one observes also the cultural differentiation between religion, arts, and science, and a growing importance of the individual. It is evident that these fundamental transformations of society led to consequential problems. One of the major reactions to these problems was the development of social policy and the emergence of the welfare state (Kaufmann, 2000). State responsibility for family concerns developed hesitantly and later than most of the other areas of social policy (Gauthier, 1996). To this day, many European countries exhibit no explicit family policy, and outside of Europe an explicit policy to support families is almost totally lacking. In the countries that do maintain a certain family policy tradition, ideal models and implemented policy measures in part diverge. Recently, however, increased political activity aimed at improving the socio-economic situation of families and children has been evident in numerous European countries. The Politics and Policies towards the Family in Europe 421 European Commission is also making efforts to establish at the European level discourse on family policy, by addressing family and population issues. Family policy seems to be an area gaining importance at the national as well as on the European level, at least in western Europe. In contrast, for economic reasons, former eastern Bloc countries experience a dismantling of their comprehensive system of welfare policies by which families were also supported. This concluding chapter aims to take a comprehensive view on politics and policies towards the family both on the national and on the European level. Actually, there is not yet a family policy on the European level; there is only an attempt to structure the field by a comparative description of national policies and by programmatic declarations. As will be shown in this study there are substantial differences between member states of the EU in their attitudes towards family issues both on the level of political discourse and on the level of implemented policies. It is important to bring these differences to the forefront in order to understand and to overcome the difficulties for establishing a family policy on the European level. This field under study is still poorly structured, however, for a long time it has received almost no attention by the social sciences. It is only in the last two decades that substantial research has been made, and the project presented in these two volumes was one of several attempts in the 1990s to overcome national limitations in the conceptualization and study of family issues and policies. Comparisons that go beyond questionable juxtapositions of statistical indicators or other selected information need a generalized framework that allows for a classification of national differences. Therefore, we begin with (1) some general considerations on the conceptualization of family related policies, (2) we then summarize empirical research on family policies in Europe, with special reference to the contributions of this volume and to the working of family policies. Finally, we inquire (3) into similarities and differences between national politics and policies towards the family and ask (4) about their consequences in the perspective of European integration. 422 Franz-Xaver Kaufmann 12.1. Analytical Dimensions of Family Policy 12.1.1. Family Change, Family Law, and Family Policies In order to attain a comprehensive perspective which incorporates differing national traditions and political motives, a few social scientific considerations regarding families in Europe may first be in order.1 Since the beginning of the modern age there have been characteristic changes in modernizing countries which led to the establishment of the so-called nuclear family, i.e. a common household being shared solely by the married parents and their dependent children, remaining only loosely coupled to kinship (Goode, 1970). As the 20th century proceeded this family type superseded in Europe older forms, such as the agrarian and artisanal households with servants linking trade and reproduction, the three-generation households, and the wretched forms of living in the lowest strata. Especially in the years following the Second World War, a homogeneity of family structure was reached that compared to earlier times was unknown. Almost the entire population entered marriage, there were low divorce rates, low rates of births to illegitimate children, and a modest number of children - though sufficient to reproduce the population. Thus 'the family', i.e. the nuclear family, appeared as a self-evident part of society, as the centre of the private sphere independent of the State and outside of the economy, as it was conceived first in Hegel's philosophy of law (Hegel, 1967:§ 157/158). This homogenization of the family sector grew out of societal changes at large such as liberalization, industrialization, and urbanization, among others. They led to the predominance of a standard form of relatively stable dependent employment for men, while the pattern of integration for women into the labour force remained contingent on market conditions and different national patterns. Thus the family was considered a self-evident element of the social 1 In view of the confinements of this contribution the focus is on issues of family policy but not on issues of the sociology of the family. For the perspective of this author to these latter aspects cf. Kaufmann (1990/1995). Politics and Policies towards the Family in Europe 423 order, as the 'natural' basis of human society. Similar images were prevailing in the now leading nation of the world: In the mythology of American politics, the family is not a political topic. The liberal roots of American political thought, the legacy of republican individualism, and the Victorian ideal of separate spheres combine to keep the traditional image of the family antithetical to politics: the family is safe, gentle, and nonconflictual in contrast to the uncertain, rough, and competitive civic realm. According to this logic, families are construed to be private, and hence there is no family policy (Nelson, 1985:351). In recent decades, all European countries have experienced considerable, although not uniform, change in the family sector.2 There is a prevalent drop in the birthrate to levels, in most countries, substantially below reproduction. Furthermore, one can point to a characteristic growing disinclination towards marriage and an increasing social recognition of alternative forms of partnership and parenthood outside of wedlock. Finally, the rate of divorce has risen rapidly. The explanation of the manifestations varies from country to country. Of course, such descriptions are based on macro-statistical data which are only symptomatic of a variety of actual changes on the micro level of living arrangements.3 None the less they shape political concerns and not seldom also the proposed political measures. Thus issues concerning the family have been brought into the political agenda in many countries. However, it is often not the family, but, for example population issues, the gender question, or the welfare of children that have become paramount in political discourse. Changes in family law are both consequence and reinforcement of such trends. In the 1970s and 1980s nearly all European countries experienced substantial changes in their legal rules concerning the family, i.e. marriage and its effects on gender relations, divorce, parenthood, and children's rights, not to forget the relationship between the rights of legitimate and illegitimate children as well as of See Kuijsten, in this volume, Chapter 2. 3 See Strohmeier, in this volume, Chapter 10. 424 Franz-Xaver Kaufmann children whose parents had divorced. Legal reforms in almost all countries follow convergent lines of deregulating the traditional dominance of the father and giving more rights to women, and more recently also to children.4 Whereas the growing equality of husband and wife amounts to a deregulation of the familial sphere, the growing insistence on children's rights contributes to re-regulation. It may be said that in most countries marriage loses its institutional character, whereas parenthood becomes more institutionalized. (Kaufmann, 1990:89-109). Social change depends not only on the legal framework but also on the increase of options available to both sexes, especially to women. Though the emergence of family policies is intertwined with these processes of legal and social change, no general pattern can be ascertained as to the relationship between these three developments. For a sociological perspective it is important (though seldom done) to include the dimension of family law in dealing with both family change and family policy. There is a widespread discontent on the lack of conceptualization in the literature about family policy. This failure has various origins. Firstly, most people writing on issues of family policy have primarily political and not scientific concerns. Even scientific discourse about family policy5 remains mostly separated from the mainstreams of social science. However, the intricacies of the subject also contribute to that situation. The issue of family policy is intimately linked to basic assumptions about the role of the family in society, i.e. to questions of social order which are often contested among different political ideologies (cf. Commaille, 1996). Moreover, the images of what the family is or should be are also divergent and changing. As a consequence, it is by no means obvious what the focus and the limits of family policy should be. Certainly, many policies in all countries affect the character and the life situation of existing families and hinder the development of other forms, but most of them are not directed intentionally to these effects but 4 See Glendon (1989); Therborn (1993); Walter (1997); and Vlaardingerbroek, in this volume, Chapter 4. 5 Seminal: Myrdal (1934); Myrdal (1945); Wingen (1964); Wynn (1970). Fux, (1994) gives a helpful synthesis. Politics and Policies towards the Family in Europe 425 are aimed to solve other problems, e.g. problems of public order, of property rights, of the labour market, or of social security. Beneficial or adversal effects on families are mostly by-products rather than intended consequences of certain policies. Finally there remains high contingency between the public declarations on aims and the factual consequences of many policies. The consequence of this crowd of intersecting factors has been succinctly formulated by Gilbert Steiner (1981:214): The judgment on family policy is yes and no. On the one hand, it is yes, problems of families are identifiable, if not solvable. Family dysfunction leaves helpless and unloved people dependent on public programs to save them from disaster. Some of those programs are clearly in need of improvement. Family policy is simply a description of a bundle of government programs, and hence inevitable. On the other hand, it is no, its inventors have not described their invention nor have they shown a working model. Conferences and seminars have not helped clarify the concept. The facts about families are not well enough known to make policy. This was written two decades ago and in the context of the United States. Could the advance of research in the meantime and the less heterogenous context of European populations now make for a better prospect? Many contributions to this volume aim at filling the gap between nice words and inconsiderate deeds, not only by contributing information, but also by developing more general arguments about family policy. In this concluding chapter the concept will be tackled directly. The concept of family policy is above all an issue of public debate, and not yet a coherent set of policies, let alone a coherent institutional complex. In this section we propose the distinction of (1) political motives for policies affecting the family, (2) official legitimizations for policies affecting the family, (3) measures or instruments of public intervention affecting the family, and (4) the impact of such interventions, as perceived by scientific observers taking the perspective of the addressed households. By making these distinctions the aim is to contribute to some clarity which is often lacking in the political approaches towards family policy. 426 Franz-Xaver Kaufinann 12.1.2. Motives for Family Policy The term 'family rhetorics' introduced by Luscher (1985, 1989) is best suited to refer to the public debates on family issues. Family rhetorics are distinct to each country and influenced by both cultural traditions and existing institutional arrangements.6 Together they normally express the diagnosis of a problem and the proposals to solve it. In these two elements, a third is always implicit, namely, normative assumptions, which may be shaped by tradition or by the dynamics of a social movement. By sorting out these normative aspects and linking them to certain definitions of a situation, we call them the motives for the ensuing claims. A typology of arguments motivating political interventions affecting the family is presented below (without claiming any completeness). 1. The institutional motive: this form of argumentation regards the institution of the family to exist as a value of itself; family policy is legitimized by the value of the family and the need to preserve it. This argument is often linked to a traditional if not pre-modern view of the family, including the breadwinner-homemaker model. Another reasoning emphasizes the natural and hence basically unchangeable character of family matters. But the institutional argument may also be proposed in the context of highly modernized structures, emphasizing the lack of cultural support to familial bonds (e.g. Popenoe, 1988). 2. The natalist motive: here the argumentation for political measures centres on the importance of demographic reproduction and focuses on the insufficiency of the birthrates, whereas the standard of a sufficient birthrate is at least zero growth. It is often, though not necessarily, linked to arguments of national pride, but it may also draw upon some of the subsequent arguments. If taken in isolation it may be concerned more about populations than about 6 See Gauthier (1996); Hantrais and Letablier (1996); condensated examples of family rhetorics can be found in the different forms of social reporting on the family by most European countries, see Bien and Rathgeber (2000), and especially Rothenbacher (2000). Politics and Policies towards the Family in Europe 427 family issues and also include, e.g. measures against abortion and birth control (cf. Glass, 1940; Gauthier, 1996). 3. The eugenic motive: this motive has been repeatedly discussed in the first half of the 20th century and was explicitly introduced in the context of family policies by the Myrdals (1934). Though it has been deeply questioned by the racist population policy in Nazist Germany it has still some influence, especially in Sweden. The advance in genetics may also give new appeal to this motive. 4. The economic motive: this stresses the family's macroeco-nomic role with respect to preserve and qualify the stock of human capital through childrearing, housework, caretaking of family members, etc. (Schultz, 1981). Of primary importance is guaranteeing the productive qualities of the next generation; of course, quantitative and hence consumptive considerations are implied here too: a declining population is presumed to affect economic growth negatively (Reddaway, 1946). 5. The societal motive: this line of argumentation is similar to that of the preceding human capital approach though it encompasses a broader spectrum of issues concerning the role of the family in society at large. It emphasizes the significance of the family as a constitutive element for the reproduction of society which comes under pressure as a consequence of modernization (Com-maille, 1987; Kaufmann, 1990). It points to built-in 'structural neglect' vis-ä-vis the family in modern societies where the assumption of parental responsibility is taken for granted despite the cleavage between the private costs and the public utility of child-rearing (e.g. Bundesministerium für Familie und Senioren, 1994). 6. The socio-political motive: this focuses on need and equality and underscores the economic disadvantages related to taking on family responsibilities (e.g. parental, caretaking of family members). Political measures are deemed necessary to compensate immediate costs incurred thereby and also opportunity costs resulting from the restrictions of parents, especially the mother, in the labour market. Even more pressing are arguments of children's and family's poverty (Vadakin, 1968; Wynn, 1970; Ringen, 1997). 428 Franz-Xaver Kaufmann 7. The women's issues motive: on the one hand, this points out that the economic and social disadvantages of living in family are solely faced by women, and that even social policies often work against the interests of women; on the other hand, it argues for the equality of men and women with respect to participation in the labour market as well as to assuming familial responsibilities (Bock &Thane, 1991; Lewis, 1993; O'Connor et al, 1999). 8. The children's welfare motive: this focuses principally on the well-being of children and, consistently, appeals to government to provide the necessary framework for public provision of children's needs including the relationship between familial and extra-familial institutional providers of socialization (Zigler et al, 1983; Schulze, 2000). This motive may be linked with both conservative and progressive ideas about the family. The above lines of argument partly converge and partly diverge in relation to their policy implications. Various clusters of these arguments can be observed at different places and times whereby basic political attitudes often act as an organizing principle. In this respect a tension particularly exists between the 'conservative' or 'patriarchical', familial-institutional argumentation, on the one side, and the mostly 'emancipatory' argumentation favouring women and/or children on the other. The natalist argument is compatible with either arguing the need for an economic policy or for social policy; but a tension exists between the last two lines of argumentation: from an economic point of view measures of policy are only desirable to the extent that they strengthen the formation of human capital, whereas the central principles of social policy are based on need and equality. There results however in practice by all means areas of convergence. Both are open to be combined with eugenic considerations though this link is seldom established in Europe. The societal argumentation encompasses most of the aforementioned lines of argumentation, considering them as functionally complementary and their opposition as a consequence of divergent cultural norms and political priorities. From the perspective of a Politics and Policies towards the Family in Europe 429 politically constituted society7 the raising of subsequent generations which fit not only in quantity but also in quality (motives, knowledge, capacities) to meet the demand of different partial systems and their organizations (enterprises, public services, the military, political parties, associations, churches, etc.) is a basic functional prerequisite. Families in combination with the educational services are the main institutions to perform that function. Neither immigration nor forms of exclusive extrafamilial socialization can substitute more than marginally for the function of the families. This central function is linked primarily to parenthood, not to marriage, though the reliability of the parental bond seems to be essential for children's welfare. Changes in family structures do not impair necessarily its functions, as conservative thinkers pretended. Rather, there is some evidence that today nations with modernized family structures fare better in that respect.8 12.1.3. Implicit and Explicit Family Policy The preceding lines of argument present reasons why governmental policies should be made that influence family issues. This, however, is not the whole discourse about family policy. From a political perspective another discourse is primordial, i.e. the question of whether government should intervene at all in family matters. Here three principal points of view may be distinguished: 1. The welfare state position: this postulates a basic and explicit governmental responsibility for the protection and the support of Until recently society in this sense was evidently to be equated with the nation state. Consequently a 'population' was defined by national boundaries, and basic political solidarity and collective economic interest were shared on this level too. Processes of Europeanization and globalization weaken actually the frame of reference of the nation state. It depends on the further developments of the EU to what extent it will become a new 'societal' framework. Our arguments in this section are mainly analytic and therefore applicable to both frames of reference. See Kunzler, Chapter 8, and Helth, Chapter 9, in this volume. 430 Franz-Xaver Kaufmann the family: government's intervention is limited here only by the availability of means and their efficacy. 2. The position of minimal state intervention: it views the family as constituting a private sphere in which the state has just as little authority to intervene as it does in the economy. However, this 'liberal' position remains indifferent towards the specific weaknesses of children and their parents (O'Neill, 1994). 3. The position of selective state responsibility: it allows state intervention solely for cases of socially weak families or of families burdened with problems (e.g. lone-parenthood, disabled children, unemployment, weakened childrearing capacity of the parents), whereby the motives for supporting families may be either help and/or social control. These points of view are based on more general attitudes towards, and assessments about, the relationship between individuals, the State, and society. With the exception of France, family policy never reached a central place in social politics. Thus it is easy to understand why the motives for policies affecting the family differ widely among nations and political movements. Indeed, all of the aforementioned motives for governmental activity can be related to the family, but this relation is only self-evident within the context of the familial-institutional argumentation. This illustrates a problem characteristic of international comparisons of family policy: family policy can be either explicit or merely implicit or not exist at all.9 In the broadest sense, family policy is everything that governments do that affect families, directly or indirectly. It connotes choice with respect to the pursuit and attainment of collectively agreed-upon goals and values in addressing the problems of families in relation to society. The primary goal of family policy is individual and family well-being. The importance of well-being lies in its meaning for individual and family functioning, for social relations and integration, and for citizenship in a democracy. Thus a goal in and of itself, individual and family 9 The distinction between explicit and implicit family policy has been introduced by Kamerman and Kahn (1978). It is questioned by Barbier (1990:158-159), but without giving a better concept. Politics and Policies towards the Family in Europe 431 well-being also is instrumental to the achievement of other societal goals and values (Zimmerman, 1992:153). This extensive definition of family policy is not consistent. If 'family policy is everything that governments do that affect families, directly or indirectly', also those effects are to be included which affect families negatively. It is in this sense that Urie Bronfenbrenner (1986) spoke about 'America's hidden family policy: ... all too often such actions operate against rather than for the basic interests and needs of families and children, in part because the decision-makers may not be aware of the full consequence of their actions in the realm of family life.' However, Zimmerman restricts the term to policies which affect families in an apparent positive sense. From the perspective of the scientific observer policy decisions often affect families in an adverse sense as a by-product or side effect, because they treat individuals as equal without considering their family obligations. This is a characteristic form of structural neglect towards the family. For the sake of clarity, it is nevertheless advisable to restrict the term 'family policy' to positive intentions and/or outcomes and impacts of political measures towards the family. To include also adverse consequences of policies for families one could use the broader term family related policies. Family policy is to be considered as explicit under two conditions: a certain degree of institutional autonomy and a political discourse focusing on family issues. Institutional autonomy means a noticeable differentiation of administrative authority in which the jurisdiction of family-related concerns is concentrated, i.e. a specific ministry or at least a subunit of a ministry specializing in family matters. Institutional autonomy depends moreover upon the emergence of a policy network on family issues, e.g. associations focusing on family interests, or research institutes, and spokesmen taking an interest in family policy. The second condition refers to family rhetoric: family policy is explicit in so far as political measures are legitimized by family issues and not for example by issues of women, children, or by poverty. Therefore I do not agree with those who claim that there is no difference between family policy and population policy. Although 432 Franz-Xaver Kaufmann Politics and Policies towards the Family in Europe 433 some of the motives for family policy (e.g. the natalist and the economic) may be used in political rhetoric about population as well, the basic definition of the problem and the scope of instruments remains different in both cases. Population policy concerns structure and growth of population, natalist family policy is at best one strategy in that context, another being for example migration policy. Most motives for family policy do not intend a natalist effect either. There is some evidence, however, that concerns about declining natality is the strongest motive for politicians to take action on matters of family policy (Gauthier, 1996). Also, family policy is not to be equated to women or children policy, although it may be a substantial overlap in terms of instruments and outcomes. Strictly speaking such 'uni-dimensional' policies are a construction, either from the part of the political actors, or from the part of scientists. One can speak of implicit family policy where there is a considerable range of political measures which from the perspective of a scientific observer can be interpreted as being effective towards relieving or solving family-related problems, though the measures are not legitimized by political discourse as family policy. In lieu of the measures being justified on grounds of a family policy, they are founded for example in social policy in general or also in population, women's, or children's issues, but they may occasionally also happen for completely different reasons, e.g. tax reform. Consequently, administrative authority is then defined by these issues and not by those of the family.10 There are also countries whose policies give no or only rudimentary indication of addressing family-related concerns. In this case, 10 This distinction of explicit and implicit family policies is not identical to that of Kamerman and Kahn (1997:6). The distinction drawn there depends only on the perspective of the scientific observer, who decides, which 'policies are deliberately designed to achieve specific objectives regarding individuals in their family roles or the family unit as a whole' (ibid.). Our distinction focuses more on aspects of politics and not of policies. As to the classification of instruments from a 'family policy perspective' the consequences and difficulties of both definitions are similar, since many political measures are designed simultaneously for different purposes, and moreover may have unanticipated consequences for individuals in their role as family members. neither explicit nor implicit family policy can be referred to. The number of industrialized countries in which the institutionalization of measures providing public help for families or their members has not been established at all has recently declined, the United States being the most prominent case among them." Finally family policy is an area of politics where public declarations of political intentions often exceed by far the real effort to produce the declared effects. Following Edelman (1967) we can speak here about a symbolic use of politics. In sum we can distinguish four configurations of politics towards the family, as described in Table 12.1. The countries mentioned as examples are those whose politics towards the family are described in more detail in section 3 of this chapter. Table 12.1. Types of politics towards the family Explicit family policy Implicit family policy Symbolic use Family as a declared political Tacit cultural assumptions of politics value, poor implementation, e.g. about the family and their Germany political impact, e.g. Britain Effective Implemented policies focusing Other implemented policies politics on 'family' issues, e.g. France affecting favourably the _______family, e.g. Sweden_ 12.1.4. Instruments and Modes of Policy Intervention To become more than sheer words family policy has to be implemented by certain measures which affect the life situation of (if not all, at least certain categories of) individuals in their status as members of a family. From an analytic point of view this is a rather precise definition, but it is by no means easy to classify all concrete measures of policy by this criterion. Again, our intention in this section is to draw distinctions in order to get clear arguments. The phrase 'measures affecting the life situation' may be interpreted from the perspective of the policymaker or from that of the " As to the ambivalent effects of American social policy towards children see Currie(1995). 434 Franz-Xaver Kaufmann individuals being in a certain life situation. Policymakers define policy by their intentions associated with certain measures of policy; the addressees, on the other side, experience a policy measure by its impact on their life situation. The scientific observer is the person who is able to see this difference which is not current among those concerned with the operation of certain policies (Kaufmann, 1987). In the rational case, of course, the difference can be neglected: the intentions of policymakers ('the aims of policy') are realized through a certain programme which becomes implemented in the form of 'measures' or 'instruments' which produce the intended 'outcome' that may be transformed in individual 'impact'.12 This corresponds to the initial 'simple impact model' of Strohmeier (in this volume, Figure 10.1), but as described there, this is a highly simplified and idealized perspective. In reality even well-implemented and sustained policies produce only mediated, rather contingent, effects. From a generalizing conceptual perspective, it seems appropriate to classify implemented policies affecting the family as a particular-kind of social policy, i.e. as a set of political interventions explicitly aiming at or implicitly operating to improve the life situation of individuals in the context of their family rights and obligations.13 To give an overview of the main instruments of family policy they will be ordered along the four main dimensions of human assets constituting the life situation of individuals, i.e. rights, economic resources, accessible opportunities, and personal capacities.14 Policies using instruments targeted to one of these dimensions meet different difficulties and conditions of success (cf. Kaufmann, 1982). Therefore four modes of policy intervention can be distinguished: 12 Similar models of a 'policy cycle' can be found e.g. in May (1978). 13 Note that this perspective does not cover the institutional motive of family policy which was very influential at the onset of family policy e.g. in France and Germany. 14 For a more pragmatic listing of instruments see Kamerman and Kahn (1997: 7-8). Politics and Policies towards the Family in Europe 435 (a) Status policy (legal intervention): the legal status of persons and their ensuing rights and obligations define their position in society. Therefore measures affecting the legal status of persons in terms of their role in the family are an important form of family policy. Such laws may either address the structure of family relationships (e.g. regulation of marriage, divorce and parenthood, children's rights, inheritance), or they oblige third parties to respect the circumstances of parenthood (e.g. norms protecting mothers in the workplace, exemption of lone fathers from military service, rights to parental leave and family credits in the tax law or in the pension system, rights of parents within the public school system). Whereas most states regulate family relationships, much less is done to acknowledge the specific obligations of parents outside the family. Western legal systems are based on liberalism and individualism. Under conditions of competition the equality of an individual's legal status often results in social inequalities. One major source of economic and social inequality actually results from the difference if individuals rear children or not. If such inequalities are deemed to be reduced, the conferral of specific rights for parents seems to be an appropriate measure. (b) Policies that bear upon the economic situation of the family household (economic intervention): these primarily regard the tax laws as well as the monetary benefits of social security and of anti-poverty programmes, including child or family allowances. The predominant concern in most countries relates to the issue of universality or selectivity of cash benefits. In the background, however, the labour market and employment policies especially for women are also pertinent: the economic situation of a family is basically different if there are one or two incomes. Alternative proposals to pay a 'mothers'-wage' out of public budgets or from contributory schemes have not yet met with governmental support. Moreover, feminist as well as economic motives argue for strategies to help parents to combine activities in the family and in the workplace. (c) Policies that have an impact on the opportunities for families and children (ecological intervention): this type of intervention on the environment of households concerns mainly environmental 436 Franz-Xaver Kaufmann planning, town planning (e.g. for recreation areas and children's safety) and housing policies, and also the availability of social services: day-care centres which provide full-time or part-time care for infants and children up to the age of 2 or 3, kindergartens and other services for pre-school children, youth and women's clubs, nursing services, and of course opportunities for schooling, their availability and proximity make for substantial differences in the quality of life of families. Educational prospects of the children as well as the working opportunities of both parents depend on the availability of for example appropriate housing and services. (d) Policies that promote or restore capacities of individuals (personal intervention): these are concerned chiefly with the facilities of the educational and the health system as well as with facilities providing counselling for partners and parents, and other similar services.15 Professional help is needed in many circumstances of modern societies. It is costly and its quality needs continuous improvement. There is a delicate question of to what extent political authorities should intervene to finance and to improve the quality of professional services and their distributive outcomes, these services being often ambivalent between 'help' and 'social control'. The measures mentioned under (c) and (d) can only be controlled in a very limited way on the level of central government, and typically show considerable regional differences, also within each specific country. Often the responsibilities are delegated to the regional or local authorities. In this case, the political and administrative structure of a country plays a substantial role. For this reason these measures are very difficult to compare on an international level. 15 The term 'personal intervention' has been chosen with reference to the British term 'Personal Social Services', both categories are overlapping but not identical. The specific difference of our term concerns the level of desired impact which concerns neither rights, nor resources, nor opportunities but the improvement or restoration of individual or personal capacities. Politics and Policies towards the Family in Europe 437 12.1.5. Impact of Policy Intervention Seen from the perspective of policymaking or of administration the observable result of a policy is policy output, i.e. laws implemented, resources distributed, services delivered, or dwellings constructed. Sometimes (although not often), politicians and administrators think of a further step of policymaking, namely policy outcome. In this case, they are interested in ensuring the effects of their policymaking are as they intended them. Desired policy outcome ('aims' or 'goals' for policies) is normally defined with respect to the motives of political intervention. In the case of family policies, favourite goals are defined in terms of family stability or of the acknowledgement of parenting, of increased fertility, of economic or of gender equality, and of children's welfare. These effects may be measured on various levels of observation, for example by modelling effects, by checking official statistics, by analysing characteristic cases, or by evaluation research. Evaluation of outcomes happens everywhere but rather seldom in a systematic disciplined way. From a sociological perspective the evaluation of any social policy must include the level of individual life situations and their assessment by the addressees or clients.*6 At least in a democratic society the normative criterion of policy success is with those who are addressed by any political measure. In order to distinguish the perspective of policymakers from that of the addressees we propose the difference between outcome and impact. 'Impact' means the outcome of social policies from the perspective of the addressees. This does not mean that the subjective opinion as it can be gathered by interviews should be the last sentence about the success of policies, this subjective assessment is only one (and perhaps not the most important) aspect of impact. Impact is not a category of the addressees, but of the scientific observer, who observes policy outcomes from the perspective of the addressees. Household panels or the measuring of the distributive effects resulting from the utilization of services may be better sources for impact research 16 An extensive discussion of this issue by Strohmeier is to be found in Chapter 10 of this volume. 438 Franz-Xaver Kaufmann than opinion research. Moreover the impact perspective may be extended beyond the immediate outcome of particular policies and include the behavioural reactions of the addressees, may they be desired or unintended. Therefore, the difference in perspective cannot be ascertained by discussing the outcome of a single measure only. It is rather obvious that the life situation or quality of life of individuals and families results from the combined impact of rights, economic resources, available opportunities, and disposable capacities. Seen from the perspective of (prospective) parents it is not this or that public measure which counts but the impact of the whole policy set. From the perspective of the policymakers, by contrast, every measure needs to be debated and financed separately. It is the task of social science to relate these two perspectives. It then becomes understandable that, despite 'substantial efforts' from the side of government, the intentions of policymakers are often not met. This does not mean that the instruments of intervention used are necessarily unsuitable or useless. Their impact depends often on additional conditions which are not met by several environments or capacities of families. Thus the impact of family policies - may they be explicit or implicit - is highly selective and favours or hinders specific forms of families. In order to understand family policy as an academic and practical subject the inquiry into these cumulative effects is of high interest. 12.2. Comparing Family Policies in Europe Measures in a polity which are relevant to families are seldom conceived in terms of one leading political concept. They develop as time proceeds under different political regimes and in different historical and economic contexts. It is the task of theoretical inquiry to develop conceptual instruments suitable to integrate the observable diversity into a common perspective. This was the aim of our first section. We have now to look at the results of empirical inquiry for finding out the best methods of comparing what may be subsumed under the headings of family policies. For the sake of this book we Politics and Policies towards the Family in Europe 439 limit ourselves to European countries, excluding the former socialist countries. Their experience with socialist family and population policies is now only of historical interest, and the actual process of transformation does not yet allow to draw conclusions about what finally their family policies will be. In the perspective of European integration our main interest is in common features and differences as to the development of family policies in the member states. As far as European integration is in progress different national problems and their institutional solutions will lose their autonomy and get in crossing contact. It is therefore important to know more about their similarities and differences. However, our interest goes beyond such comparisons. We are also asking if and how family policy matters. 12.2.1. The State of the Art In view of the fact that in most countries family policy is at a rather rudimentary or implicit stage, it is not surprising that international comparative studies on these topics are both seldom and recent. Initial studies were by demographers, who tried to explain differences in fertility levels by differences of national legislation under the headline of population policy (Kirk et al, 1975; Hohn & Schubnell, 1986). These studies had a clear problem, namely means to increase fertility, though the explanatory framework remained rudimentary.17 Comparative description of population policies was published first by Glass (1940) and Berelson (1974). Mcintosh (1983) inquired into the attitudes of elites towards the population problem in France, Germany, and Sweden. Well co-ordinated research on attitudes towards population policies originated with the 'European Comparative Survey on Population Policy Acceptance' (Moors & Palomba, 1995/1998; Dorbritz & Fux, 1997). However, the result of demographic research on the impact of policies remained inconclusive. There is some evidence that policies aiming 17 The main reasons are given by Fux in the introduction to Chapter 11, in this volume. 440 Franz-Xaver Kaufinann at the improvement of fertility had only weak and limited temporary effects, and that national contexts play an important role for both attitudes and policy impact (Kamaras et al, 1998). The latter mentioned project also brought evidence that it is a too wide-meshed approach to correlate policies with overall indicators of fertility if one wishes to establish explanatory links for policy impact: 'Our study suggests that a direct effect may well be possible, depending on the adequacy of the measures in relation to the individual family situation' (Palomba, 1998:265). This means, however, that the problem shifts from population policy to family policy and from demography to sociology of the family and of social policy. Comparative descriptions of measures in the framework of family policy were presented first by Kamerman and Kahn (1978) as well as by Schulte, Bradshaw et al. (1982). Kamerman and Kahn remained for long the most productive researchers in that field (Kamerman & Kahn, 1981; Kahn & Kamerman, 1983; Kamerman et al, 1983; Kahn & Kamerman, 1988; Kamerman & Kahn, 1991, 1997). They normally united a group of national rapporteurs on specific topics and wrote their summaries primarily for a US audience. This strategy is also practised for an European audience within the European Observatory on National Family Policies, an initiative of the Commission of the European Communities. The Observatory was located first in Leuven (Dumon, 1990, 1992; 1994a,b), then in York (Ditch et al, 1996a,b, 1997a,b, 1998a,b) and operates now in Vienna (European Observatory on Family Matters, 1999).18 Its publications are based on annual reports by national correspondents in the EC (respectively EU) countries and often succeed in consolidating national reports with crucial comparative studies. The fact that the reports of the Observatory concern a period of one or two years only makes them the most detailed source available, but this mode of annual reporting causes actual developments to be more accentuated than the country-spe- 18 However, the actual operation of the Observatory seems to be restricted by consequence of fiscal decisions by the European Commission, see Dienel (1999:127). Politics and Policies towards the Family in Europe 441 cific features of the policy.19 A similar method has been used by Millar and Warman (1996). To understand national family policies in a comparative framework the German study by Neubauer et al. (1993) offers the best co-ordinated and comprehensive approach, hitherto.20 The study by 'Gesellschaft für sozialvertägliche Innovation und Technologie' (1991) and the recent study by Dingeldey (2000) complement this work by focusing on tax and social security systems. The aforementioned studies cover EC member countries and largely confine themselves to describing the political measures in a more or less comparative perspective; Neubauer and Dumon also point at the structure of the agencies of programmes which benefit families, and at the debate on family policy. These studies give essentially complex descriptions of the national systems without asking about their impact for the development of the family sector.21 They thus help to give family policy an institutional aspect beyond mere rhetoric. They are complemented by two important comparative studies on the long-term development of family policies in Europe (Bahle, 1995; Gauthier, 1996). A good summarizing overview is given by Hantrais and Letablier, (1996). An important step towards a comprehensive view of family policy and towards impact analysis was made by Bradshaw et al (1993, 1993a), who were modelling the compound outcome of various policies with respect to the life situation of children ('child benefit package'), by focusing on different models of family structure and levels of living. The novelty of this study was to analyse the out- " The most ambitious project of collecting data about national family policies has been initiated by Peter Flora at the Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung since 1992; see Bahle (1995); Bahle and Maucher (1998); a first volume of results is Kamerman and Kahn (1997). 20 This inquiry has been reanalysed by Kaufmann (1993) and Wingen (1996) in the perspective of European integration. 21 An exception is Dingeldey (2000) where the impact of different institutional arrangements on the earning behaviour of families is explored. The project which is announced by Willemsen and Frinking (1995:290-291) is aiming at comparable results. 442 Franz-Xaver Kaufmann come of family policies not on the macro-level of overall expenditure but on the micro-level of the income package of typified households.22 The study gives an impression of the difficulties to measure such compound micro-effects and how to draw conclusions for policy change. A substantial complement to economic and sociological studies on family policies are studies in family law and of its change under the pressures of the emergence of new values and new forms of private life (Glendon, 1977,1989). This is the aspect of status policies, which is normally not considered seriously in economic and sociological studies. Eekelaar (1984) gives an impressive account of the interaction between family law and social policy, although this is limited to the Anglo-Saxon context. An interesting comparative study on the relationship between changes in family law and political images of the family in twenty European countries has been published by Walter (1997). A summarizing overview on coordinated original research of the last decade is given in Table 12.2. The focus of this research has been mainly on politics and policies towards the family. However, one may go another step forward. If the concept of family policy is to be taken seriously, it means not only a field of political discourse or a more or less institutionalized area of policy measures, but has to be considered also as a field of intervention to solve or at least to affect related problems of families. 22 The comparative analysis of income packaging of households has been introduced already by Rainwater et al. (1986). These authors used microdatafiles from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Sweden, the measurement operated therefore on the impact side of the real household; this procedure cannot establish direct links to public policies, however. Bradshaw et al. (1993) choose therefore an analytic approach by calculating hypothetical cumulative outcomes of a wide range of policies for about 30 different types of households; the inconvenience of this method is that 'it produces a description of the way the system should work rather than does work' (Bradshaw et al, 1993a:258). o Z Z X X X SF X 0. NL X X LUX oa M c/3 < DjDw Q S. < D ■—j c •2 a s I CS CS H XX X jo 0. 3 * = a E ,a T3 2 IS ii. E ~ O M E m o H. X B > X u X u qa Q OA X W u o z u X u CO <_) x x x x xxx xxx > t3 "3 «2 c 1 » O "> OS a. ,p _ 5. « rt1 , Oi. !3 E I 1 = 1 I § as g-fi 5 £ aö 1^ oo h CO OO On On On On _ _^ ^ ^ ^ w. w > u» un on on on On O G *P 3 o o a. g E § -3 a I (2 (2 < as nO P> on on »n On On £ 2 a 2 l/l t> _c- t3 W) O 2 .5 05 D3 Q E E r- «J C •g "3 £ 5 w £ ■o v o C c I M cd cd .£3 a 3 S z ■a o ■> > o c 1) <£ tu Ö •a tu T3 X tD 444 Franz-Xaver Kaufmann To be sure, this is not the perspective of politicians who are more interested in the impact of their declarations on public opinion than in the impact of their policies on the life situation of families. From the perspective of the sociological observer, however, the focal issue of family policy consists in the relationship between the political framework of policies and the social framework of private forms of living. Is there any relationship ascertainable between the character of political measures and the observable patterns of private living? Can any evidence be provided that family policy matters for family life and for the functions families perform in society? This was the aim of our project as we have shown in the introduction to this volume. It was a basic intuition of the project that this would be feasible by means of international comparisons. 12.2.2. How does Family Policy Matter? There is a peculiar observation which has not yet received much attention in literature on population or family policy, which is that there exists a strong positive correlation between the rank of members of the EC (respectively EU) as to their fertility level on the one side, and as to the fraction of the whole social budget which is devoted to issues of mothers and children, on the other side (see Table 12.3). Similarly there is a strong negative correlation between the level of fertility and the fraction of social expenditure for old age. This correlation has been tested earlier for 1981/83 and 1987/89 and it has proved so far as being remarkably stable, or in the case of old age expenditure growing, despite the extension of membership in the EU and changes in the ranking of particular countries (see Table 12.4). e4 I tu .a C CN — o\ O w '5 !U -a bß P 2 D-" X •a u a a as cj M 2 O "o h n on a» h — — ^ es n N "n in 0\ »n rs tN ^ in cN cS tN cS rS 1 ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö N vo O I1 -<^0 N in n h o (Niri^Tt—« 0\ n oo as oo ^ in \o o o v c\ r—< oo o oo n -1 cn on ^ oo inoo(N(Nn(N-in h on es >o c\ q o < ON tJ* On CN *-~* N£) ^■r-inotr^m^-ro r- r-- cn o o vo (NoJooo\oö rtMJO(Nro\O^ON VO'OON'OOOCSON^f nh-inoJn^ONin odcNnrn^tin^d - o t v oi >n —i o m —< ------ OS ; c» CN co 00 co ts oo en >n ov on —' tj-' cs — (N (S M -1 (N m ^lOoomcN^nfNm G — — ccj a! O V) CN m O CN • -^t- in r- r~ m r~- m \o c^ oooooor-i/")^ ! -a, E w -HP 3 S cj .2 c o 2 § ffl .2 cd ^- ■a c P 'S p E? « o 5 — ■fi - « Ö 2j> _2 "o u 2 as c O c •ä cs ca — < 03 Q £ £ U O O Ä £ Jj Z <£ c«