Centre d'Etudes de Populations, de Pauvreté et de Politiques Socio-Economiques
International Networks for Studies in Technology, Environment, Alternatives and Development
IRISS Working Papers
IRISS Working Paper Series
IRISS-C/I
An Integrated Research
Infrastructure in the
Socio-economic Sciences
2007-05 May 2007
Attitudes to Family Policy Arrangements in Relation
to Attitudes to Family and division of Labour between
Genders
by
Marie Valentova
Centre d'Etudes de Populations, de Pauvreté et de Politiques Socio-Economiques
International Networks for Studies in Technology, Environment, Alternatives and Development
Attitudes to Family Policy Arrangements in Relation to Attitudes to Family and
division of Labour between Genders
Marie Valentova
CEPS/INSTEAD
Abstract The main aims of the paper are to analyse and compare attitudes of inhabitants of eleven European
countries toward the state family policy arrangements in the light of peoples attitudes regarding family and marriage,
and division of labour between men and women; and to identify which countries cluster together regarding such
attitudes. In particular we test whether respondents attitudes toward the above phenomena differ significantly
between EU-15 countries and new member states. The analysis is based on the data coming from two international
surveys: International policy acceptance study 2000-2003 (IPPAS) and International social survey program 2002
(ISSP).
Reference IRISS Working Paper 2007-05, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange, Luxembourg
URL http://ideas.repec.org/p/irs/iriswp/2007-05.html
The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views of
CEPS/INSTEAD. IRISS Working Papers are not subject to any review process. Errors and omissions are the sole
responsibility of the author(s).
(CEPS/INSTEAD internal doc. #07-07-0344-E)
1
ATTITUDES TO FAMILY POLICY ARRANGEMENTS IN RELATION TO
ATTITUDES TO FAMILY AND DIVISION OF LABOUR BETWEEN GENDERS
AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON
Abstract: The main aims of the paper are to analyse and compare attitudes of inhabitants of
eleven European countries toward the state family policy arrangements in the light of people’s
attitudes regarding family and marriage, and division of labour between men and women; and
to identify which countries cluster together regarding such attitudes. In particular we test
whether respondents’ attitudes toward the above phenomena differ significantly between EU-15
countries and new member states. The analysis is based on the data coming from two
international surveys: International policy acceptance study 2000-2003 (IPPAS) and
International social survey program 2002 (ISSP).
1. INTRODUCTION
Since the country specific information on values and attitudes helps us to understand the
similarities and differences regarding demographic and political behaviour (Fux 1996), in this
paper we review and compare people‟s attitudes toward family policy arrangements and
attitudes toward marriage and parenthood, and division of labour between genders. In addition,
we try to identify clusters of countries which are close to each other with respect to their
citizens‟ attitudes toward these three phenomena. We will be particularly interested in
examining whether there are some significant differences between the old and the new EU-15
members states. The analysis is conducted on 11 selected European countries representing both
the old EU-15 countries and the new member states. The data come from two independent
surveys: the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) from 2002 and from the International
Policy Acceptance Survey (IPPAS) from 2000-2003.
The main contribution of the article is it allows us to cluster surveyed countries on the
basis of the people‟s attitudes to three interlinked phenomena which have been up to now
treated separately. The analysis will include the new EU member states and thus will allow us
to test the hypothesis concerning prevailing differences between the new and old EU member
states.
The paper will be structured as follows. In the first chapter we conceptualize the main
dimensions of our comparison: family policy analysis, marriage and parenthood, and division of
labour between genders and we provide readers with a brief description of the institutional and
historical context of the examined phenomena in the analysed countries as well as links
between these phenomena. The next part of the paper is dedicated to methodological comments
and introduction of the used data sets. The fourth chapter presents the attitudes toward the
arrangements of family policy, marriage and parenthood, and division of labour between
genders. Here we compare countries with respect to the three issues individually. In the final
chapter we put all three research dimensions together and identify in which countries people
have similar attitudes. Then we test whether there are some identifiable differences between the
old and the new EU member states.
2. THEORETICAL CONTEXT
Scheme 1 : Conceptual scheme of the analysis
2
Comment: grey shading: context - objective domain – phenomena to which we examine people’s attitudes;
white shading: subjective domain – attitudes toward examined phenomena- the main subject of our analysis
Since the main aim of the paper is to conduct a comparative research regarding people„s
attitudes, we must firstly define compared phenomena. Rokeach (1968-1969:550) defines an
attitude “as an enduring organization of several beliefs focused on a specific object (physical or
social, concrete of abstract) or situation, predisponing one to respond in some preferential
manner“. Thus, an analysis of the attitudes should help researchers to uncover people‟s beliefs
regarding specific phenomena and deduce people‟s preferences. However, it is not possible to
conduct a comparitive analysis of attitudes in different countries without introducing the
dimensions of comparisons and the objective context in surveyed countries. We agree with
Groenman (1971) who states that in the social sciences all phenomena are context-bound. If we
compare different countries we realize that the analyzed phenomena (in our case attitudes
toward the three above specified dimensions) should be placed in a new context if we want to
understand them. If the voting behaviour of a nation is under study, one should interpret the
data in the context of the political system of that particular country.
If the phenomena we analyze and compare is of a subjective character such as attitudes,
we should not only describe different contexts and different social systems in different
countries, but we have to bear in mind that values and attitudes might be to a great extend a
product of the existing contexts and social systems/institutions. Inglehart et al (1998) speaks in
this context about the so called institutional determinism. The theory of institutional
determinism claims that a society„s institutions are among the factors that help to shape its
culture and consequently values and attitudes of its inhabitants. Similar ideas stand being the
concept of institutional nationalism (Forma, Kangas 1999: 161). The theory of institutional
nationalism suggests that people tend to perceive existing institutions as a reference point, they
have a tendency to take them for granted and interpret their world in the light of these
institutions. Thus it is very likely that people perceive the institutions they are familiar with as
better than those that are alien to them. Thus, while analysing attitudes toward family policies,
marriage and parenthood, and labour market division we should bear in mind that these
attitudes are context bound and might be to a great extend determined by systems within which
individuals operate.
2.1. WELFARE EFFORTS - FAMILY POLICY ARRANGEMENTS
If the main aim of our paper is to analyze attitudes of people toward family policy
arrangements, marriage and parenthood, and division of labour between sexes, firstly we must
Labour market Intervention of the welfare
state (social services, benefits
and labour market
regulations)
Marriage
and
parenthood
Individual attitudes
Attituded
to family
anželství ?
Att. to
interventions
of the welfare
state
opatřením
(rodinné pol.)
Attitudes to
labour
market
3
specify and conceptualize what we mean by these terms. In other words, how can we define the
phenomena to which we examine people‟s attitudes? Then we describe the objective structure
of social systems /institutional systems within which people operate and within which they
shape their attitudes. Understanding of the objective social/institutional context of the compared
countries will help us interpret the data regarding attitudes1
.
Welfare state policies play a rectifying role in social processes and may prevent
unwanted side effects of economic and demographic development. It may initiate social change
or it may slow it down. One of the accepted roles of the welfare states in now-a-days Europe is
to facilitate the reconciliation of family and professional life of individuals. Thus, family
policies not only support families with children but try to play active role in externalization of
traditional family duties and soften the negative impacts of motherhood/parenthood on the
labour market participation of mothers/parents.
The aim of family policy can be understood differently. In the narrow sense, it includes
only arrangements related to the presence of children in the household (Berger et al 2002). This
narrow interpretation of family policy is based on the idea that additional expenses of a
household related to having a child should be at least partially compensated by the state. It
includes for example child benefits, birth allowances/grants and transfers into schooling and
health system, tax relief and tax benefits for parents with children. This strict, more traditional
approach to family policy does not reflect upon the gender equality, female market participation
of women and reconciliation of family and family life. This is the main reason why the
understanding and definition of family policy has widened and has incorporated all of the above
mentioned aspects. The wider definition of family policy thus, includes all interventions of the
welfare state which directly or indirectly deal with family life of the individual and which
facilitates the reconciliation of family and professional life. Thus, on the top of all arrangements
which are included in the strictly defined family policy, the wider approach takes into account
arrangements related to the participation of parents in the labour market such us: maternity ,
parental and child care leave, possibility to work part-time, safe working environment for
mothers, benefits for people taking care for disabled members of the household. In our paper
we will focus on the wider definition of family policy efforts.
The family policy arrangements differ significantly with respect to their forms and
eligibility. Some of the arrangements are universal, other income related or based on declared
need. Some of them take forms of indirect support (mainly investment in publicly available
services) or direct help (financial or in kind). Some provisions are there to prevent poverty and
assure minimum income of individuals, others to compensate for costs and income losses
related to the presence of children in a household or to safeguard equal opportunities for parents
in the labour market. The structure, functions and magnitude of family welfare provisions vary
across countries, while each country tends to design and maintain its particular character of
family policy efforts.
We can find vast amount of studies and articles reviewing and comparing different
systems of family policy across Europe using various types of methods and data sources such
us for example: description of family policy measures (welfare efforts) (Kamerman and Kahn
1978), historical legacy analysis (Kaufmann 2002), micro analysis of the outcomes of family
policies on the life situation of children (Bradshaw et al 1993), or comparison of long-term
development of family policies leading to the definition of the family policy models (Gauthier
1996).
Given the purposes of this chapter which is to help us have some general overview of
the systems of family policies (family policies in the wider sense) in the EU-25 countries, we
1
Since we analyze the data concerning the attitudes towards family policy arrangements , family and parenthood,
and division of labour between gender in 2002 or around that year, the contextual information will refer to the
countries' situation in 2002.
4
decide to use the Beat Fux‟s (1996) classification of family policies as a base
theoretical/classifying framework. Since the amount of information is large and thus a
comparison of a larger number of countries becomes too complex, it is very useful to work with
regimes or systems that transcend individual countries. In this approach countries are attributed
certain basic features which they are expected to share with other countries. This way the
complexity of comparison is reduced. (Muffels et al 2002)
The main advantage of the Fux‟s classification of family policy models in Europe, on
the contrary to an exhaustive and detailed work of Gautier (1996), provides empirical evidence
regarding the clustering of the analysed countries and allows us to attribute more clearly
countries to the family policy models. Fux applies the principal component analysis on 9
European countries.
The following indicators have entered the analysis: standardize family allowance, index
of maternity leave benefits, duration of child care leave, percentage of children below age 3 in
publicly funded child care, percentage of children 3 years old till school age in publicly funded
child care, combined de-comodification, and the conservative, socialist and liberal regime
attributes. The author distinguishes three main family policy types: etatistic, familialistic and
individualistic one. As the title suggests, the etatistic regime relies strongly on the involvement
of the state in family matters. It tends to support discriminated living arrangements, different
forms and gender equality. It can be characterised by service type interventions, focus on
gender-equality issues and universalistic individual rights of partners and children than on the
traditional concept of family as a unit. The familialistic family policy type stresses the
importance of extensive economic support and financial arrangements for families; family is
seen as an important social institution and a mean of informal redistribution. Gender equality is
rather neglected and the welfare arrangements favour and facilitate the bread winner model.
The following features can be attributed to the individualist type: low level of both state
financial support as well as services provided by the state which is compensated by low
taxation, focused by non-intervention in private lives of individuals and a more residual,
problem oriented character of support. Sweden and Denmark are prototypes of the etatistic
regime. Post socialist countries can be partially assigned to this model as well. France,
Germany, Ireland and Italy are representatives of the familialistic regime. The individualistic
regime includes United Kingdom, Switzerland and the Netherlands. The Fux‟s classification
overlaps to a great extend with the welfare state regime classification of Esping-Andersen
(1990) which will be mentioned later.
2.2. FAMILY AND PARENTHOOD
Thanks to demographic, cultural and economic changes, the institution of family goes
through a dramatic development and it becomes more fragile and less durable. Post-modern
western societies can be characterised by below-replacement rate fertility, low level of
nuptuality, low level of union stability and growing pluralization of living arrangements.
(Kuijsten 2002) The changes can be observed only with respect to the structure of family
settings but as well with respect to the function of this institution. Traditional marriage, defined
as a long-lasting legal companionship of man, women and children, is being replaced by other
forms of cohabitation such as pre-marital cohabitation, unmarried cohabitation, distance
cohabitation. The divorce rates are continuously increasing. Partnerships are being less focused
on reproduction and child bearing, and the number of so called patch-work families is
increasing. Moreover, the number of childless couples or single parent families is growing
constantly. (Strohmeiner 2002)
According to Gustaffson et al (2002), one of the dominating strategies in now-a-days
Europe is the so called “postponement effect”. Partners postpone having kids till late age which
5
means that they have in general fewer children due to shorter reproductive period. The
postponement effect developed as a new reproductive strategy because of two main reasons.
Firstly because women tend to establish their job career and utilize obtained human capital.
Secondly, parents anticipate the cost of a child and prefer to work and cumulate financial
resources not to experience a financial, so called consumption smoothing.
The policy consequences of these changes are at hand, people living in non-traditional
family settings have different needs and solve different type of problems, which are very often
not met by traditional family policies. (Pfau-Effinge2004; Kaufman et al 2002) For the sake of
social justice and wellbeing of new groups of individuals in need, national welfare states have
to adjust to a more fluid character of families and partnership and focus more on individual
rights than on a traditional concept of family based on legally recognized marriage which is
based on traditional division of labour between men and women.
Despite the general divergent tendencies in Europe leading to weakening the position of
traditional marriage and parenthood, the differences across European countries remain
recognizable. If we have a look at the main demographic indicators we see that main
differences across countries can be found with respect to life birth outside marriage, fertility
rates and crude marriage age2
. Scandinavian countries, France, Great Britain, Estonia and
Slovenia are the most open to new forms of family life. The number of life births outside
marriage exceeds 40% in 2002. These numbers indicate that in these countries marriage is not a
necessary precondition of parenthood. On the other hand there are countries where the
percentage of outside marriage births are up to 10% such us for example in Cyprus, Greece and
Italy. With respect to the fertility rate, the post socialist countries such as the Czech Republic
(1.17), Slovenia (1.18), the Slovak Republic (1.21), Lithuania and Poland (1.24) score very low.
The strikingly low fertility figures in these countries can be explained by the transitional
pressures. At the cultural level people were confronted with new possibilities, life opportunities
and different life styles (Rabusic 2001). At the structural level, during the transformation
process the state has lowered the level of policy efforts directed to families (mainly in form of
services), problems in the housing sector, and threat of unemployment made the cost of children
too high for many young people. The post socialist countries are followed by Southern
European countries: Greece, Spain and Italy (fertility rates around 1.26). In these countries the
low fertility might be caused by high unemployment rates among young people and financial
difficulties with starting a new family. Alike in the post socialist countries, the bad situation
regarding available housing plays a role. At the top scores regarding reproductive behaviour
we find Ireland (1.97), the Netherlands (1.73), Denmark and Finland (both 1.72). As the
marriage behaviour is concerned, the highest crude marriage rate can be found in Cyprus (14.5).
Denmark is scoring relatively high as well (6.9). In Portugal, Greece, the Netherlands, Finland,
the Czech Republic, Ireland, Great Britain, Spain and Poland the crude marriage rate is between
5 and 6. The marriage rate varying between 4 and 5 can be found in Italy, Sweden, Germany,
Austria, Slovak Republic, Lithuania, Estonia and Hungary. In Belgium and Slovenia the
marriage rates did not exceed the level 4.
(http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=0,1136184,0_45572595&_dad=portal&_
schema=PORTAL)
2006) The average crude divorce rate, which represents the number of divorces per
1000 persons, varies between 0.7 in Italy and 3 in Belgium and Scandinavian countries.
(Eurostat 2005).
2
Life birth out of marriage is defined as a proportion of children born out of the legal marriage out of all children
born during 2002. Total fertility rate represents the mean number of children that would be born alive to a woman during her
lifetime if she were to pass through her childbearing years conforming to the fertility rates by age of a given year. Crude
marriage rate represents the number of marriages per 1000 persons.
6
There is a vast academic literature concerning the relationship between various types of
family policies and family forms (Fux 2002, Strohmeier 2002). It can be concluded that the
high incidence of unmarried cohabitation in the Scandinavian and post-social countries can be
to certain extend attributed to the family policies which support individual emancipation and
which are not targeted at family as a unit but more at an individual.
2.3. DIVISION OF LABOUR BETWEEN GENDERS
Working women is not a product of the present time. However, industrialization and
consequent urbanization can be seen as an important milestone in the perception of female
work. Industrialization and the related formalization of the labour market relations drew a clear
line between formal employment and household work where men occupied the sphere of paid
work and women, once married, were mainly in charge of domestic labour. This division of
tasks has been in operation since the 1960s. Esping-Andersen (2002:20) claims that
“everywhere the post-war contract was built on the realistic assumption that women, once
married, withdraw into housewifery”. This has changed dramatically during the last decades
when the above “social contract” was put under pressure. In the literature one can find many
explanations for this shift of division of labour between men and women, i.e.: changes in labour
market demand, changes in female labour supply and demographic changes.
With regard to factors related to labour demand, female employment was triggered by
the development of the service sector and an increasing number of white-collar jobs. (EspingAndersen
2002; Castels 1997, Hakim 2000). Increased flexibility of the labour market and in
particular the possibility to work part time made paid labour more accessible for women. This
way, women/mothers were enabled to reconcile family and career. (Hakim 2000) Female labour
market participation was also stimulated by a drop of the real salaries destabilizing the quality
of life in one-earner households. It is no longer possible to maintain a relative level of wellbeing
with only one bread winner income (Cook 2001).
Regarding the supply side changes, the increase of female employment depends on
women‟s human capital. Nowadays, women obtain the same level of education as men, which
improves their employability and labour market qualifications. Women who obtained higher
education are more eager to “capitalize” on their investment in the labour market. Demographic
changes such as the declining importance of traditional family and marriage have an impact on
female labour participation as well. In all European countries more and more people remain
single, divorce or cohabitate, which significantly undermines traditional division of labour
between genders. (Pfau-Effinger 2004) Erosion of traditional family found on legal
companionship of men and women makes women act as individual actors, rather than relying
on delegated social rights and the income of their spouses, thus they are more eager to join the
labour market and be financially independent.
Due to the above interrelated factors, the female employment rates in the European
countries have been continuously growing during the past decades (Cook 2001, ILO 2003).
Nevertheless, women‟s employment patterns are disrupted, to a greater or lesser extent, from
one country to another because of the presence of children in the household and by their age.
(Hantrais, Letablier 1996) Nowadays, the main problem for women in the labour market is not
that they are women but the fact that they can be or that they are mothers. The core issue of
analysis of female labour participation is thus a problem of conciliating paid labour and family.
Female labour market participation and labour market inactivity are two sides of the
same coin, inevitably interrelated. Whether women are or are not engaged in the labour market
depends heavily on gender division of labour in each particular country.
7
In the countries where the state does not pay enough of attention to the arrangement
facilitating access and re-entry of women in the labour market (possibility to work part time,
affordable and easily accessible child care and well designed parental leave) and to the problem
of reconciliation of work and family life women are more likely to face the dilemma: either to
choose for paid labour and reduce their reproductive behaviour or to have children and
withdraw from the labour market. There authors who claim that particular setting of welfare
state and in particular family policy arrangements have an impact on female labour
participation of women. For example, the joint taxation system favouring married couples
where one of the partners is inactive in the labour market due to family responsibilities
encourage a male-bread winner type of family settings and consequently female labour market
inactivity. On the contrary, service oriented family policy (affordable child care facilities),
flexible working arrangements and paid parental leave may support dual-earner family forms
and consequently higher female labour market participation rates (Esping-Andersen 2002,
Sainsbury 1996, Fux 2002).
According to the Eurostat data,
(http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=0,1136184,0_45572595&_dad=port
al&_schema=PORTAL) in the EU-25 countries employment rate of men is higher than
that one of women (71% to 54.7% in 2002). In all these countries it is women who are more
likely to work part-time than men (29.8% to 6.5% in 2002) while one of the main reasons for
working part time are family or child care responsibilities. Women are as well more likely to be
unemployed than their male counterparts (10% to 7.8% in 2002) for the EU-25). Male labour
market inactivity due to family care is almost a non-existing phenomena. Only less than 1% of
men in the EU-25 zone in the age category 25-54 withdrew from the labour market due to
family duties while 11.6% of women in the same age category identify family responsibilities
as the main reason for being outside the labour market.
If we have a closer look at the female participation in the labour market and if we compare the
figures for the EU-25 countries, we can see that the highest female employment rates can be
found in the Scandinavian countries, followed by the Netherlands and Great Britain (more than
65% in 2002). On the contrary, the lowest female employment rates are in Italy, Greece, Spain,
Poland, Hungary, Slovak Republic and Luxembourg (up to 52% in 2002). In Germany, France,
Ireland, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Lithuania, Slovenia and Estonia the female employment
reaches a moderate level (between 55 and 60% in 2002).
.http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=0,1136184,0_45572595&_dad=portal&_
schema=PORTAL)
A relatively longest professional career for women is found in the Scandinavian
countries and in Great Britain where the average time spend in paid labour is 25-32 years. On
the contrary, the shortest participation of women in paid employment can be found in Spain,
Italy, Greece, Luxembourg, Italy and Belgium, where women on average do not spend more
than 20 years in the labour market.
Another key indicator of position of division of labour between genders is the figures on
the female labour market inactivity due to family responsibilities. Malta, Luxembourg, Ireland,
Greece, Spain and Cyprus are top scorers with respect to the number of women who are out of
the labour market due to family responsibilities (18% or more of women in the age category 25-
54). On the contrary, the lowest figures of female inactivity due to family (around 5% of all
women aged 24-54 years) can be found in Denmark, Sweden, Slovenia, Lithuania, France and
Finland. (Harderson 2006)
3.1. WELFARE REGIMES – LINKING CONCEPT
8
From the previous text we can deduce that the three examined phenomena are
interrelated and numerous hypotheses regarding their association and causal relationships could
be found in the academic literature. However, the main aim of this paper is not to develop on
relationships between family policy, marriage and parenthood, and division of labour between
genders, but to see how similar or different the surveyed countries are with respect to attitudes
to these three dimensions. Since the amount of contextual information covering all three
dimensions in all surveyed countries is large and comparison of a larger number of countries in
this context becomes too complex, we classify the analysed countries into several regimes. In
this approach countries are attributed certain basic features which they are expected to share
with other countries. This way the complexity of comparison is reduced and one gets around the
problem of too much of information and fragmentation caused by treating the situation in each
country separately. (Muffels et al 2002)
The theories of welfare state regimes seem to be as good base for identifying similarities
and differences between countries with respect to their objective institutional setting within
which people operate and formulate their life strategies and attitudes. According to the classic
theory of welfare state regimes, Esping-Andersen (1990), a welfare state regime is the
distinctive configuration of market, state and family that a nation has adopted in the pursuit of
work and welfare. Looking at the quality of social rights and the extent to which these rights
liberate citizens from market forces (the possibility to be independent of participation in the
labour market thanks to functioning welfare state arrangements is known as
decommodification), the resulting pattern of stratification and the way in which the state,
market and family is interrelated, Esping-Andersen distinguishes three types of the welfare
regimes: liberal, corporatist and social democratic one. The liberal model can be briefly defined
as a system with underdeveloped universal benefits and social insurance schemes, strengthening
accent on work-conditional benefits, a rather low level of decommodification. Within the liberal
model private welfare provision is encouraged and public responsibilities are limited mainly to
acute market failures and targeted poverty prevention. Great Britain can be taken as the
representative of this model. The key components of the corporatist/conservative scheme are
the family and the rule of subsidiarity which is a concept base on idea that only if the family is
not able to absorb and cope with the social problems of its members the state takes over
responsibility and assist its citizens. Social rights depend on social class and occupational
status. Social security provisions are income dependent and transfer-bias. Labour market is
rather rigid, evolving in a two-tire system of well protected insider and rather vulnerable
outsides. Social security system is to a great extend based on the traditional bread winner model
of division labour between genders. Representatives of this regime are for example Austria,
Germany, Southern European countries, to a lesser extend France, Belgium and the Netherlands
(the last three mentioned countries exhibit some features drawing them apart from the idealtype
characteristics of the corporatist regime mainly with respect to female labour market
participation, family and work reconciliation policies and the tendency to individualize social
benefits and social rights)????. The social-democratic model, represented for example by the
Scandinavian countries, can be characterized by a very high level of decomodification,
universal social security provisions and high level of formal solidarity and redistribution. It
stresses the importance of activation labour market policies and service oriented social policy.
Esping-Andersen‟s typology initiated a great deal of discussion mainly questioning its
gender bias methodology (validity of the indicators on which different regimes are
distinguished, reliability of these measures, applicability of the typology in the changing
European context, gender biased approach etc.) However, this critique served as a base for new
analyses which its ambition was to improve or enlarge the original typology. Ferrera (1996) for
example enlarges the Esping-Andersen‟s typology by the fourth welfare state regime. He
claims that the so called Southern model that can be found in Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal
9
must be taken into account and treated separately. This model, has a very fragmented structure
consisting of various corporatist social insurance a social security arrangements, an
universalistic system of health care, and a special public-private mix of provides of social
provisions and social assistance. A family plays a very important role in this model. It absorbs
and deals with a lot of shortcomings of the official welfare state and is a sphere of social
redistribution of material as well as non-material goods. Structure and quality of the Southern
European welfare state model are significantly influenced by clientelistic relationships between
welfare providers and recipients.
In the literature dealing with welfare state typologies and regimes we can find
arguments supporting the idea of existence of a distinctive post socialist welfare state model.
For example Deacon (1993) argues that distinctive character of the welfare state in the post
socialist countries is due to a transitional process from the system based highly subsidized
prices on food, housing, transport and basic necessities, guaranteed employment, adequate
health and education provisions and small differentials between the wages of workers,
professionals and managers to a more market oriented regime. Deacon argues that in some time
it will be possible to interpret the welfare regime in these countries within the framework of the
Esping-Andersen‟s typology. Fenger (2005) suggests that conducting an empirical study
including EU-15, post socialist as well as some developing countries and using cluster analysis
based on indicators of governmental programmes, social situation and political participation to
asses the similarities and differences among surveyed countries, suggests that post socialist
countries differ from the rest of the countries. If we focus only on those post socialist countries
which entered the EU in 2004, we can see that this family of countries can be divided into two
main sub-clusters: the former Soviet republics and the Central European countries. The cluster
of the former Soviet republics is characterized by high level of female labour participation, a
rather extensive public sector, high economic growth and high inflation. Family of Central
European postsocialist countries seem to be a mix of corporatist and social-democratic welfare
regime as Esping-Andersen defines them.
With respect to family policy legacy in the post socialist countries, Sirovatka (2004)
states that since the full employment was a corner stone of the socialist ideology the socialist
order was designed in such a way that it supported the reconciliation of family and full
employments of both parents. Various types of child care services and education were free of
charge, housing was regulated and subsidised. However, the quality and availability of the
services and state interventions were not always matching demands. After the fall of socialist
regimes, the situation has changed dramatically. During the transformation process the post
socialist states have lowered the level of policy efforts directed to families. The most radical
financial cuts concerned child care services. The problems related to family life and
reconciliation of family and work were overruled by more urging social problems such us
unemployment and appearing and growing social inequalities.
4. ANALYSIS
4.1. Data and methodology
Comparative analysis will be conducted at two levels. In the first step of our analysis we
measure attitudes of citizens in 11 selected countries toward arrangements of family policies,
family and parenthood, and division of labour between genders separately. To measure attitudes
toward these general concepts we use batteries of questions available in the ISSP and IPPAS
survey. When possible and reasonable, we create sum indexes which aggregate average answers
of inhabitants to individual items of these thematic batteries. The indexes have been created on
10
the basis of the items which have been depolarized in the same direction and which passed the
test of reliability measures by the Crombach Alfa.3
In the second step we examine how the surveyed countries cluster themselves with
respect to attitudes of their citizens to family policy arrangements, family life and division of
labour between men and women. To meet this objective we apply cluster analysis to examine
the closeness of the analyzed countries with respect to all three dimensions together.
There are two main reasons why we decided to use cluster analysis. Since we analyze
concepts which are covered by two different surveys (analyses of attitudes toward family policy
arrangements and family and parenthood are based on the IPPAS data and attitudes toward
division of labour between genders on the data coming from the ISSP survey) we can not
directly test any type of association between three dimensions of the research at the micro data
level. Hence the need arises to aggregate the micro-level attitudes to all items covering the
three research dimensions at the country level and then apply the hierarchical cluster analysis to
aggregated data. In this case, cluster analysis seems to be an ideal procedure to examine and
detect latent structures in the data. Gough (2001: 165) states that: “a cluster measures the
distance between the cases on a combination of dimensions and uses this to identify groups of
cases within which there is a considerable homogeneity and between which there are clear
boundaries”. Hierarchical cluster analysis, which we apply in this paper, firstly identifies two
closest items and attributes them to the first cluster. Step by step other couples of items, couples
of clusters or couples consisting of a cluster and an item enter the analysis till the last item is
included. (www.statsoftinc.com/textbook/stcluan.html) While working with cluster analysis we
should bear in mind its explanatory limitations, cluster analysis provides information on the
structure of the data but it does not explain why individual items belong to clusters.
Surveys dealing with attitudes4
, such as ISSP and IPPAS, are based on data which show
how respondents subjectively perceive examined phenomena. While working with this type of
data one should reflect upon its evident short-comings. The subjective indication is based on the
assumption that all individuals are capable of rational self-reflection and that they are able
clearly verbalize their opinions and nuances. However, this assumption is very often violated
and people are very often asked about issues which they are not familiar with. One should as
well bear in mind that subjective indicators are not the best predictors of actual or future
behaviour (Cobb 2000). Regarding the IPPAS survey in particular, Stopnik (2001) states that
the family policy measures used in the survey are not well enough defined to be considered as a
reliable source of information for any serious policy-making and respondents are not well
enough informed about issues they are supposed to comment and to which they express their
opinion. It is very common as well that there is certain inconsistency in respondents between
their attitudes to general question referring to general principles and specific questions
(especially when welfare state efforts and their extend are at stake). When it comes to more
specific questions which are directly related to everyday life respondents expect a stronger
welfare state than when general questions are asked. (Sirovatka, Rabusic 1999; Mishra 1999)
Taking into account the above methodological shortcomings of attitude surveys, we are
fully aware that the outcomes of our analysis do not speak so much about real state of affairs
with respect to examined phenomena but should be more understood as an indicator of general
atmosphere among people living in surveyed countries.
3
Crombachova Alpha is a coefficient of releability (consistecy) which gives information on whether and how well
the batery of questions measures unidimensional latent construct. The lower the level of the coefficient, the more
likely it is that items represent the multidimendional constructs. Unidimensionality of index can be reached by
exluding items which lower the level of Alpha coefficient.
4
Rokeach (1968-1969:550) defines an attitude „as an enduring organization on several beliefs focused on a
specific object (physical or social, concrete of abstract) or situation, predisponing one to respond in some
preferential manner“.
11
The data used in the paper come from two international surveys: International Social
Survey Program) ISSP –Family and changing gender roles from 2002 and International
Population Policy Acceptance Survey from 2000-20035
. The ISSP survey 2002 was performed
in 40 countries. IPPAS was conducted in 13 countries.6
In this study we include only countries
which are covered by both mentioned surveys.
As stated earlier, the welfare setting varies significantly across countries both with
respect to structure and magnitude and create distinctive welfare and family policy systems.
Relying on the theoretical background presented at the beginning of the paper and taking into
account the concept of institutional nationalism, we expect that particular historical legacies,
institutional structures and different ways of evolution are reflected as well in attitudes and
approaches of surveyed populations. Thus, we hypothesise that respondents from the new EU
member states will differ in their attitudes from respondents from the old member states. We
anticipate that people in the post socialist countries will exhibit stronger reliance on family
policies provided by the state and due to economic hardship during the transitional period, they
will express stronger involvement of the state in family affairs. Given the long tradition of high
participation of women in the labour market and longstanding experience of people living in
these countries with the dual earner family model, we expect rather an open approach to the
engagement of women in paid labour. Regarding marriage and parenthood, we set the
hypothesis that the attitudes of respondents from the post socialist countries will be to a great
extend influenced by the fact that during the transitional period the reproductive behaviour
changed dramatically (unprecedented drop of fertility, postponement of family setting), etc..
We also hypothesise that there will be differences in attitudes between old member states that
belong to different families of welfare state and family policy legacies.
4.2. Attitudes toward family policy arrangements
In this chapter we examine the attitudes of people toward family policy arrangements,
more specifically on all provisions of family policy which are related to the presence of
children and to the reconciliation of family and professional life of parents. The data covering
this dimension come from the IPASS survey and show how respondents in different countries
answered the following question: “What do you think about social policy efforts facilitating
parenthood and care of children? Are you strongly in favour, neither in favour nor against,
strongly against?”
Even if the formulation of this question is a bit misleading and suggests that these
policies should be only now introduced while in reality they all already exist in most if the
analyzed countries, we decided to treat this question as an indicator of the respondents‟ support
to these type of arrangements.
Table1: What do you think about social policy efforts facilitating parenthood and care of children? Are you
strongly in favour, neither in favour nor against, strongly against?
5
The research was conducted as follows: Belgium 2003, the Czech Republic 2001, Germany 2003, Estonia 2003,
Cyprus 2002, Lithuania 2002, Hungary 2000-2001, The Netherlands 2002, Austria 2001, Poland 2001, Slovenia
2000, Finland 2002
6
The following figures inform us about non-weighted number of respondents in surveyed countries. ISSP:
West Germany N= 936, Easter Germany N=431, Austria N=2047, Hungary N=1023, The Netherlands N=1249,
the Czech Republic N= 1289, Slovenia N= 1093, Poland N=1252, Cyprus N=1004, Belgium (Flanders) N=1360,
Finland N=1353. IPPAS: Austria N=1995, Flanders N=3957, the Czech Republic N=1073, Estonia N=1681,
Finland N=3821, Germany N=4110, Hungary N=3057, Lithuania N=1400, the Netherlands N=1989, Poland
N=4597, Slovenia N=1550, Cyprus N=1163.
12
Improv
ement
of
parental
leave
Lower
income
tax for
people
with
depend
ent
childre
n
Better
day care
for
children
under 3
Better
day care
facilities
for
children
older
than 3
In
favour
of an
income-
depende
nt
allowan
ce for
families
with
children
In
favour
of
allowan
ce at the
birth of
each
child
Allowan
ce for
care-
taking
parents
Substant
ial rise
in child
allowan
ce
Child
care for
school-
going
children
Flexible
working
hours
More
opportu
nities
for part-
time
work
Substant
ial
decrease
in costs
of
educatio
n
Bett
er
hous
ing
for
fami
lies
with
chil
dren
Index of
family and
work
reconciliati
on – wider
definition
of family
policy
Index of
direct
financial
support
– strict
definitio
n of
family
policy 1
Index of
public
services
related
to
family
life –
strict
definitio
n 2
Austria 1.64 1.58 1.92 1.79 1.96 2.18 2.04 2.09 2.02 1.61 1.58 1.8
7
1.76 1.97 1.87
Belgium
(Flanders
)
2.27 1.87 2.06 2.12 2.16 2.12 2.12 1.92 1.80 1.98 2.05 2.05 1.98
Czech
republic
1.69 1.66 2.21 1.99 1.86 1.61 1.74 1.79 2.08 1.85 1.87 2.06 1.7
7
1.95 1.7 1.92
Estonia 1.49 1.54 2.28 1.81 2.17 1.60 1.77 1.42 2.83 1.63 1.70 1.35 1.96 1.58 1.35
Finland 2.04 1.97 2.25 2.09 2.15 2.36 1.92 2.22 2.08 1.87 1.94 2.60 2.3
3
2.04 2.12 2.47
Germany 1.80 1.71 1.82 1.68 1.78 2.04 1.82 1.98 1.86 1.64 1.62 1.95 1.8
9
1.74 1.88 1.92
Hungary 1.50 1.44 1.99 1.62 1.42 1.61 1.81 1.32 1.79 1.41 1.39 1.25 1.2
4
1.61 1.54 1.25
Lithuania 1.59 1.62 1.84 1.81 1.82 1.53 1.54 1.87 1.87 1.77 1.84 1.59 1.6
3
1.79 1.64 1.61
Netherlan
ds
2.13 2.22 2.23 2.31 2.83 2.50 2.35 2.58 2.11 2.00 2.12 2.6
3
2.21 2.48 2.36
Poland 1.58 1.69 1.82 1.88 1.47 1.53 1.64 2.14 1.95 1.94 1.92 1.56 1.6
2
1.85 1.75 1.59
Slovenia 1.60 1.79 1.72 1.77 1.80 1.63 1.85 1.76 1.94 2.00 1.85 1.65 1.5
9
1.81 1.74 1.62
Cyprus 1.45 1.33 1.59 1.58 1.59 1.57 2.08 1.65 1.63 1.53 1.60 1.47 1.6
5
1.56 1.66 1.56
Source: IPPAS 2000-2003
Note: values represent averages (1-strongly in favour, 2-in favour, 3-neither in favour, nor against, 4-against, 5strongly
against. The close the values to 1, the more strongly in favour of the mentioned arrangements
Respondents are in general in favour of all the mentioned interventions. Nevertheless, in
general the most positive attitudes to the above presented family policy arrangements exhibit
respondents in Hungary, Cyprus, Lithuania, Germany, Poland and Estonia. The least enthusiast
with regard to the listed arrangements are people in the Netherlands, Finland and Belgium.
After having a closer look at the individual arrangements and how their introduction or
improvement would resonate in surveyed countries we can conclude that the improvements
regarding parental leave are especially pleaded for in Cyprus, Estonia and Hungary. Lowering
income tax for people with dependent children resonates best in among respondents from
Cyprus, and Hungary. Improvement of child care for children under 3 is demanded by most
people in Cyprus, Slovenia and Germany. The most respondents from Cyprus, Germany and
Hungary would welcome improvements regarding the child care for children older that 3 years .
Income-dependent allowance for families with children resonates best among surveyed
individuals in Hungary, Poland and Cyprus. Allowance at the birth of each child is best
perceived by the Lithuanian, the Polish and the Cypriotes who support these arrangements the
most. Introduction of an allowance for care-taking parents is the most popular among
respondents in Lithuania and in the Czech Republic. The Hungarians, the Italians and the
Estonians are amongst those most demanding an increase in child benefits. The most
welcoming to Child care for school-going children are respondents in Cyprus, Germany and
Hungary. Flexible working hours are strongly supported in Hungary, Cyprus and Austria and
13
better possibilities to work part-time in Hungary, Germany and Austria. Substantial decrease in
costs of education would be strongly appreciated in Hungary, Estonia and Cyprus. The
Hungarians, The Slovenians and The Polish are in favour of better housing for families with
children.
While analyzing attitudes toward the arrangements of social policy we decided not to
create one overall sum index, but three sub indexes. The main reasoning behind this step is that
the listed arrangements serve different aims and represent different types of family policy.
Given the presented division between narrow and wide classification of family policy
arrangements, we create three indexes that summarize people‟s attitudes to the following
distinctive subgroups of family policy efforts: the first group contains arrangements facilitating
family and work reconciliation; the second one consists of arrangements providing direct
financial support for families with children; and the third group of policies is focusing on
services for families with children such as education and housing.
The index of attitudes toward family and work reconciliation policies contains items
such us: improvement of parental leave, better day care children under 3 years old , children
older that 3 and child care for school going children, flexible working hours and last but not
least more opportunities for part-time work. The index of financial support consists of the
following items: lower income tax for people with dependent children, allowance at the birth of
each child, allowance for care-taking parents, and rise in child allowance. The third index is
based on two items which represent welfare efforts in form of services such as decrease in cost
of education and better housing for families with children. If we compare the level of the three
indexes as they are presented in the last tree columns of the table above, we can see that most
people in post socialist countries are firstly pleading for indirect support to families in form of
lower costs of education and better housing for family with children, secondly for the financial
support to families with children and the least favourable family policies for them are those
concerning the reconciliation of family and work. On the contrary, respondents from the old EU
member states exhibit the strongest support for arrangements facilitating reconciliation of
family-work, followed by direct financial support and arrangements targeted at education and
housing.
Another way of obtaining an overview of how family policy efforts are appreciated in
surveyed countries and whether there are some countries which can be classified as “similar” or
“close” with respect to their citizens‟ attitudes, is by applying a cluster analysis. All 13 items
for 11 countries entered the cluster analysis (missing figure for some items in case of Belgium
and the Netherlands have been replaced by estimated value which represents the mean value for
the particular item calculated on the basis of values of each country).
From the outcomes of the cluster analysis we can deduce that Lithuania, Slovenia,
Poland and the Czech Republic, most of the post socialist countries in the sample stand very
close to each other with respect to their citizens‟ attitudes to the listed family policy
rangements. If one examines the data in detail, one can see that respondents in all these
countries support very strongly mainly the direct financial support to families with children
(namely, allowance for care-taking parents, allowance at the birth of each child, improvement
of the parental leave measure and housing for families with children.
Another cluster consists of Austria and Germany, the countries which traditionally
represent corporatist welfare state model. The third clearly identifiable cluster is composed of
two new accession countries, Hungary and Cyprus, which, generally speaking represent the
most demanding countries with respect to improvements and implementation of most of the
mentioned family policy efforts. The Netherlands and Finland create the fourth cluster however,
the closeness of these two is somewhat weaker than the former groups of countries. After
having a closer look at the data, the Dutch and the Finish seem to be the most satisfied with the
14
family policy efforts of their state thus, they do not express strong need for improvements and
changes. Estonia stand a bit aside of the above mentioned four clusters.
Scheme 2: Output of the cluster analysis concerning 13 arrangements of the family policy in surveyed
countries - dendrogram
0 5 10 15 20 25
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
Austria 
Germany  
Slovenia  
Lithuania   
Poland   
Czech Rep.   
Belgium   
Hungary 

Cyprus   
Estonia  
Netherlands

Finland 
Source: IPPAS 2000-2003
Interpretation: dendrogram provides a visual accounting of how closely related surveyed countries are. The more
characteristics in common, the closer they are related.
Footnote: The missing figures for Austria (1 missing figure), Estonia (1 missing figure), The Netherlands (1
missing figure) and Belgium (3 missing figures) have been replaced by figures corresponding to an average
values of attitudes expressed by respondents in all countries toward a particular item.
4.3. Attitudes toward Family and Parenthood
Another from the main tree dimensions of our research deals with family and its
functions. In this subchapter we analyze attitudes toward marriage and parenthood as it has
been surveyed by the ISSP survey in 2002. Seven questions asked during this survey measure
how traditional or liberal people are with respect to marriage and parenthood.
After the first glance, we can see that marriage is not seen as a necessary and only
possible way of living family life and respondents are in general convinced that no marriage is
better than a bad one. Divorce is widely accepted as the best solution when a couple can any
longer work out their marriage problems. Respondents are as well rather open to non-standard
ways of family life –cohabitation and pre-marital cohabitation. However, in the majority of
countries (with the exception of Slovenia and Flanders, two countries with the lowest
marriage rates in Europe) respondents think that people who want children ought to get
married. This indicates that marriage is still relatively strongly related to parenthood and that
children should be born into a traditionally understood family. This statement is supported by
the fact that respondents in Hungary, Slovenia, Cyprus and Finland also doubt that single
parents can raise a child as well as two parents.
Respondents in Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia and Cyprus see in marriage
the way to personal wellbeing and happiness. On the contrary, people in Flanders and in the
Netherlands are a bit more sceptical about this positive impact of the marriage.
Given the fact that there are many questions dealing with marriage and parenthood
matters and it is not very easy to have a clear overview of the situation, we decided to create an
index which aggregates fragmented pieces of information. The index has been created on the
basis of the items which have been re-polarized in the same direction (from the most
15
conservative to the least conservative) and which passed the test of reliability measures by the
Crombach Alfa. According to the test results, we decided not to include the following items in
the calculation of the sum index: Single parents can raise a child as well as two parents; a bad
marriage is better than no marriage at all.
Aggregated data show that the most traditional attitudes demonstrate respondents in
Cyprus (the value of the equals to 2,88). The average in this country did not reach the value of 3
which indicates support for traditionally formulated items. Relatively neutral seems to be
Poland, where the value of index oscillates around the value of 3. Respondents in the Czech
Republic, Lithuania and Hungary express slight liberal tendencies, however not really strong
ones. As more liberal we can consider respondents in Flanders (3,73), the Netherlands (3,70)
and Austria (3,62).
Table 2: To what extend to you agree or disagree with the following statements? Index of attitudes toward
marriage and parenthood.
Married
people are in
general
happier that
unmarried
Its better to
have a bad
marriage than
no marriage
People who
want children
ought to get
married
Single parent
can raise
child as well
as two
It is all right
for a couple
to live
together
without
intending to
get married
It is a good
idea for a
couple who
intend to get
married to
live together
first
Divorce is the
best solution
when a
couple can
not work out
their marriage
problems
Index of
attitudes to
marriage and
parenthood
West
Germany
3,00 4,43 2,72 3,00 2,10 2,14 2,18 3,46
East
Germany
2,76 4,43 2,87 2,72 2,24 2,05 2,01 3,45
Austria 2,92 4,44 2,91 2,76 2,03 1,94 1,87 3,62
Hungary 2,47 4,18 2,92 3,27 1,98 2,26 2,39 3,36
Lithuania 2,67 3,97 2,51 3,41 2,78 2,29 2,41 3,14
Netherlands 3,25 4,46 3,47 2,92 1,81 2,28 2,18 3,70
Czech
Republic
2,76 3,98 2,40 2,93 2,55 2,12 2,34 3,23
Slovenia 2,82 4,03 3,14 3,28 2,36 2,02 2,39 3,44
Poland 2,59 3,90 2,28 2,60 2,53 2,65 2,47 3,07
Cyprus 2,62 4,06 2,26 3,50 3,19 2,81 2,44 2,88
Belgium
(Flanders)
3,56 4,29 3,36 2,98 1,92 2,18 2,30 3,73
Finland 3,20 4,35 2,86 3,29 1,99 1,97 2,40 3,57
Source: ISSP 2002
Note: Values represent average (1- strongly agree,2 – agree, 3-neither agree nor disagree, 4- disagree, 5strongly
disagree). The closer the presented values to 1, the stronger agreement with the statements.
The lower the value of the index, the more conservative attitudes twardo marriage and parenthood.
4.4. Attitudes toward Division of Labour between genders
The third key dimension of this paper deals with the division of labour between men and
women. When we say division of labour we mean both paid and not paid, for both are equally
important for good understanding of the problem of family policy arrangements and family life.
The fact that the traditional division of labour which assigns paid labour to men and family and
child care to women has been heavily challenged during the past decades and there are many
questions to be answered: how is it possible to reconcile family and work life when more and
more women are joining the labour market? How do partners share unpaid household work and
child care? Which forms of female employment are seen as the best? Etc.
The issue of division of labour between partners, and in particular the problem of female
employment is covered by a battery of questions in the ISSP survey (for exact listing of the
items see the table below).
16
The simple analysis of the questions in the ISSP survey shows that in general people in
all examined countries think that a working mother can have as good relation with her children
as a mother who does not work. People as well agree that having a job is the best way fo a
woman to become independent. However, if we ask whether pre-school children or family life
suffer by the fact that women work we can see that, with the exception of respondents from
Finland, Eastern Germany and Cyprus, people admit that employment can harm family life.
Interestingly enough respondents in Hungary, The Czech Republic, Slovenia (countries where
women were fully engaged in paid labour during the period of socialism), and Flanders support
the statement that being a housewife is just as fulfilling as working for pay. Germans, Dutch,
Austrians and Lithuanians on the contrary, tend not to agree with this idea.
Table 3: To what extend to you agree or disagree with the following statements? Index of attitudes to
division of labour between men and women
A
working
mother
can
establish
as good
relationshi
p with her
children
as a non-
working
A pre-
school
child is
likely to
suffer if
his/her
mother
works
Family
life
suffers
when the
woman
has a fulltime
job
A job is
all right
but what
women
rally want
is a home
and
children
Being a
housewife
is jus as
fulfilling
as
working
for pay
Having a
job is the
best way
of a
woman to
become
independe
nt
Both
partners
should
contribute
to the
family
income
A man‟s
job is to
earn
money, a
women‟s
is to look
after
home and
children
Men
ought to
do a
larger
share of
household
work than
they do
now
Men
ought to
do a
larger
share of
child care
than they
do now
Index of
attitudes
to
employme
nt of
women
West
Germany
1,94 2,69 2,88 3,56 3,10 2,05 2,32 3,55 2,49 2,29 3,37
East
Germany
1,44 3,36 3,49 3,85 3,56 1,86 1,67 3,90 2,45 2,34 3,72
Austria 2,01 2,29 2,37 3,32 3,02 1,87 1,89 3,19 2,51 2,33 3,18
Hungary 2,16 2,22 2,55 2,25 2,49 2,78 1,82 2,81 2,46 2,38 2,91
Lithuania 2,45 2,48 2,62 2,74 3,04 2,25 2,00 2,61 2,54 2,31 3.04
Netherlan
ds
2,33 2,95 2,90 3,18 3,21 2,54 2,78 3,77 2,58 2,56 3,62
Czech 2,15 2,76 2,79 2,31 2,95 2,32 1,60 2,66 2,35 2,18 3,19
Slovenia 2,27 2,85 2,68 2,52 2,92 2,22 1,71 3,33 2,42 2,15 3,11
Poland 2,54 2,70 2,95 2,74 2,71 2,12 2,17 2,81 2,35 2,19 3,40
Cyprus 2,22 3,28 3,32 2,82 3,33 2,25 2,02 3,26 3,06 2,72 3,29
Belgium
(Flanders)
2,64 2,95 2,89 2,87 2,63 2,42 2,46 3,44 2,41 2,40 3,19
Finland 2,50 3,14 3,58 2,75 2,91 2,76 2,24 3,76 2,19 2,13 3,40
Source: ISSP 2002
Note: Values represent average (1- strongly agree,2 – agree, 3-neither agree nor disagree, 4- disagree, 5strongly
disagree). The closer the presented values to 1, the stronger agreement with the statements.
The lower the value of the index, the more conservative attitudes toward traditional divisions of labour between
genders
The opinion that both partners should contribute to the household budget dominate in all
surveyed countries, however it is very difficult to distinguish what is the reasoning behind this.
It may be either a result of gender emancipation or simply the financial need of dual-bread
winner system. If we look at the magnitude of the support of the equal contribution of men and
women to household budget it is evident that this idea resonates strongest in the Czech
Republic, Easter Germany, Slovenia and Hungary, which means mostly in the countries of the
ex-Eastern block where financial pressures on household indeed require both partners to work
to maintain certain level of well-being. Here we witness a paradox. In the Czech Republic and
Hungary people strongly support the idea of dual bread winner model but at the same time they
are relatively strongly in favour of the statement that a man‟s job is to earn money, a woman‟s
is to look after home and children. This paradox can be easily explained by the fact that in
17
those countries women had to join the labour market and there were not too many alternatives
to avoid it. Thus, being able to stay at home and engage themselves in housewifery is, “an idea”
which people do not have much of experience with and very often can not afford it.
To be able to compare countries better we created an index of attitudes towards division
of labour. The procedure was the same like in case of index of attitudes toward marriage and
parenthood. The test reliability suggested excluding the following statements: Having a job is
the best way for a woman to become independent; both partners should contribute to the family
budget.
Values of index in the surveyed countries indicate that in general European populations
tend to a more liberal approach of division of labour between genders, the most liberal attitudes
demonstrated respondents from East Germany, The Netherlands, Finland, Poland and West
Germany. A bit more reluctant but still relatively liberal are people from Austria, Belgium, the
Czech Republic, Slovenia and Lithuania. The most traditional seem to be the Hungarians.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this article was to present the attitudes of the inhabitants in selected
European Union countries toward various arrangements of family policy, marriage and
parenthood and division of labour between men and women. In this part of the paper we will
put all the pieces of the information together and identify clusters of countries which are similar
in the three examined dimensions, and we test the hypothesis whether attitudes of people from
post socialist countries differ from those of the old EU and where is the Czech Republic
position itself.
Eleven countries entered the cluster analysis, namely the Czech Republic, Slovenia,
Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Austria, Germany, Cyprus, Finland, Belgium and the Netherlands.
As mentioned earlier these countries represent various types of the welfare state
regimes/legacies.
The outcomes of the analysis show that Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and
Poland and to certain extend Hungary cluster themselves in the first distinctive cluster which
can be entitled as post socialist one. Another cluster consists of Austria and Germany. This
group can be labelled as a corporatist group. The third clearly distinguishable group contains
Finland, Belgium and The Netherlands, the countries with individualistic or post-corporatist
welfare regime. Cyprus, the last surveyed country stays apart from the all mentioned groups,
which is not really surprising when we look at its respondents rather extreme, mostly very
conservative, attitudes toward the majority of the surveyed items.
Scheme 3: Output of the cluster analysis for items concerning all three dimensions of the research
0 5 10 15 20 25
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
Lithuania 
Czech Rep.  
Poland  
Slovenia  
Hungary  
Austria 

Germany   
Cyprus 

Finland  
Belgium 

Netherlands 
18
Source: IPPAS 2000-2003 and ISSP 2002
Interpretation: dendrogram provides a visual accounting of how closely related survey countries are. The more
characteristics in common, the closer they are related.
Footnote: ISSP treats West and East Germany separately while IPPA provide data for unified Germany. In order to
be able to run cluster analysis for Germany we aggregated the data of West and East Germany and calculated
average value representing unified Germany.
In the following text we elaborate on possible explanations why people in the post
socialist countries express similar attitudes toward examined phenomena and what makes them
different from other surveyed countries. Respondents from the Czech Republic, Poland,
Slovenia, Hungary and Lithuania expect more family support from the welfare state than the
rest of the countries, while particular attention is paid to direct financial support to family with
children, improvements regarding parental leave and housing conditions for families with
children. This might be explained by the fact that after the fall of social regimes and during
transition period when planned economy was being into market economy, many countries had
to introduce severe retrenchments of traditionally rather generous socialist welfare provisions
and services. The problems of family and reconciliation of family and work were overruled by
more pressing problems of growing unemployment and social inequalities. Thus, the family
policy has not been a priority and did not attract enough of attention of the transitional
governments.
We can observe that respondents in the majority of the surveyed post socialist countries
are less liberal regarding the division of labour between genders than their counterparts from
old EU states. For example, only respondents from Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland
support the statement that a man‟s job is to earn money, a woman‟s is to look after home and
children. This is in contradiction with the fact that in the same countries people are in favour of
equal contribution of men and women to the family budget. This paradox can be explained by
the clash between “preferred and actual”. Respondents, mainly men, in the post socialist
countries are in favour of traditional division of labour but the real economic situation and the
socialist legacy does not make possible to put certain things in practice. Women in the post
socialist countries used to work and contribute to the household finances, the worsening
economic situation and growing unemployment after the collapse of socialist regimes made it
impossible to change this pattern. Thus, majority of the population has to join the labour
market no matter what their real preferences regarding the female labour participation are.
Mainly full-time engagement of women in the labour market is therefore considered as a norm.
On top of this, women are expected to take care of household and children. Given the fact that
the availability of the public services (nurseries and kindergartens) has worsened during the
transitional period, women find it a bit more difficult to reconcile family and professional life.
This might be as well a reason why the respondents in these countries plead for a possibility to
take care for household and children.
Even if the attitudes of respondents in post socialist countries toward marriage and
parenthood are rather liberal, they are still much milder than those of the EU 15 countries.
People in these countries are in favour of opinion that married people are in general happier
than non-married ones. In general, the institution of marriage has been seriously shaken by the
transition as well. In most of the post socialist countries the marriage rates and fertility dropped
significantly. The ISSP survey data show that the main obstacle for this behaviours are firstly
poor financial and material situation of young people and insecurity in the labour market (IPPS
data, own analysis). Thus, in theory people have rather high opinion about the institution of
marriage but in practice they can not afford it and postpone it till older age.
19
Despite the fact that we could not work with all EU-25 countries, our study presents
enough of evidence that new members states with a post socialist and transitional experience
differ from the old EU states with respect to their people‟s attitudes toward family policy
arrangements, marriage and parenthood, and division of labour between genders. From this we
may derive that the objective situation in a country is being reflected in its inhabitant‟s attitudes
and the other way around, that peoples‟ attitudes mirror the institutional setting in a country.
REFERENCES
Berger, F. et al (2002) The redistributive effects of family policy. CEPS/INSTEAD.
Luxembourg
Bradshaw, J., Ditch, J., Holmes, H., Whiteford P. (1993) Support for Children. A comparison of
arrangements in fifteen countries. Department of Social Security. Research Report No.21.
London: HMSO
Chaloupková, J., Šalamounová P. (2004) Postoje k manželství, rodičovství a k rolím v rodině
v České republice a v Evropě. Praha: Sociologický ústav Akademie věd České republiky.
Cobb, C.W. [2000] Measurement Tools and Measurement of Quality of Life. San Francisco
SA: Redefining Progress Report
Deacon, B (1993) Developments in East European social policy. In The new perspectives on
the welfare state in Europe, eds. Jones, C. London Routledge.
Deacon, B. (2000) Eastern Euroean welfare states: the impact of the politics of globalization.
Journal of European Social Policy Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 146-161.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Esping-Andersen, G. et al (2002) Why We Need a New Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford
University.
Fenger, H.J.M. (2005) Welfare Regimes in Central and Eastern Europe Incorporating postcommunist
countries in a welfare state typology. Paper for the NIG 2005 Conference Nijmegen.
Ferrera, M. (1996) The “Southern Model” of Welfare in Social Europe. Journal of European
Social Policy. Vol. 6, No. 1 (17-37)
EUROSTAT (2003) European Social Statistics. Social Protection. Expenditure and receits.
Data 1991-2000. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
Eurostat (2005) Eurostat Year Book. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities
Population and social conditions (1.10.2006)
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=0,1136184,0_45572595&_dad=port
al&_schema=PORTAL
20
Forma, Kangas, O.L. [1999] Need, Citizenship of Merit. In: Swalfors, S., Taylor-Gooby, P.
[1999] The End of the Welfare State? London: Routledge, 161-189.
Fux, B. (1996) Which models of the Family are encouraged or discouraged by different family
policies? In: Kaufman, F.X. et al. (2002) Family Life and Family policies in Europe. Volume 2.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 363-409
Groenman, S. (1971) „Forward“. In : Values and the Active Community, the Free Press, New
York. XV
Harderson, O. (2006) People outside the labour force: Declining inactivity rates. Statistics in
Focus. Population and Social Conditions. Luxembourg: Eurostat.
Inglehart, R., Masanez, M., Moreno, A. (1998) Human Value and Beliefs. A Cross-Cultural
Sourcebook. Michigan: University of Michigen.
Kamerman, Kahn (1978) …..
Kujsten, A. (2002) Variety and Change in the Forms of Private Life in the 1980s. In: Kaufman,
F.X. et al. (2002) Family Life and Family policies in Europe Volume 2. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kaufmann, F.X. et al. (2002) Family Life and Family policies in Europe. Volume 2. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Mishra, R. (1999) Globalization and the Welfare State. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing
Limited.
Morkrzycky, E. (1979) On the Adequacy of Comparative Methodology. In: Berting et al.
Problems in International comparative research in the Social Science. Pergamon Press: Oxford.
Muffels, R. Wilthagen, T., van den Heuvel, N. (Marz 2002) Labour Market Trajectories and
Employment Regimes: Evidence on the Flexibility –Security Nexus in Transitional Labour
Markets. FSI 02-204. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin fur Sozialforschung. ISSN Nr.1011-9523
Sirovátka, T., Rabušic, L. [1999] Český sociální stát a jeho legitimita. Sociologický časopis
Vol. 35, No. 3, pp.397-421.
Strohmeier, K.P. (2002) Family Policy – How does it work? In: Kaufmann, F.X. et al. Family
Life and Family policies in Europe. Volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
OECD (2002) Empoyment outlook. OECD
Pfau-Effinger, B. (2004) Development of Culture, Welfare States and Women‟s Employment in
Europe. Hamburg: Ashgate Publishers
Rabušic, L. (2001) Value Change and Demographic Behaviour in the Czech Republic. Czech
Sociological Review. Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.99-122
21
Rokeach M. (1968-1969) The Role of Values in Public Opinium Research. The Public Opinium
Quarterly Vol.32, No.4, pp. 547-559
Ruhm, C.J. (1998) The Economic Consequences of Parantal Leave Mandates: Lessons from
Europe. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 113, No.1, pp. 285-317
Rys, V. (2001) Transition countries of central Europe entering the Europan Union: Some social
protection issues. Intenation Social Security Review Vol.54 No.2-3, pp. 1777-189
Sirovátka, T. (2004) Rodinné chování a rodinná politika v období transformace. In: Sirovátka ,
T. (ed.) Sociální exkluze a sociální inkluze menšin a marginalizovaných skupin. Brno: MU a
Georgetown.
Stropnik, N. (2001) Reliability of a policy acceptance and attitude stuvey for formulating
family and population policy. ISUSSP XXIV General Population Conference. Salvador, Brazil
www.statsoftinc.com/textbook/stcluan.html (15.09.2004)
Centre d'Etudes de Populations, de Pauvreté et de Politiques Socio-Economiques
International Networks for Studies in Technology, Environment, Alternatives and Development
IRISS Working Papers
The IRISS Working Paper Series has been created in 1999 to ensure a timely dissemination of the research outcome
from the IRISS-C/I programme. They are meant to stimulate discussion and feedback. The working papers are
contributed both by CEPS/INSTEAD resident staff, research associates and visiting researchers.
The fifteen most recent papers
Valentova M., ‘Attitudes to Family Policy Arrangements in Relation to Attitudes to Family and division of Labour
between Genders’, IRISS WP 2007-05, May 2007.
Valentova M., Krizova I. & Katrnak T., ‘Occupational Gender Segregation in the light of the Segregation in Education:
A Cross-National Comparison’, IRISS WP 2007-04, April 2007.
Mussard S. & Terraza M., ‘Décompositions des mesures dinégalité : le cas des coefficients de Gini et d’entropie’,
IRISS WP 2007-03, April 2007.
Mussard S., ‘Between-Group Pigou-Dalton Transfers’, IRISS WP 2007-02, March 2007.
Van Kerm P., ‘Extreme incomes and the estimation of poverty and inequality indicators from EU-SILC’, IRISS WP
2007-01, February 2007.
Fusco A., ‘Les mesures monétaires et directes de la pauvreté sont-elles substituables ? Investigations sur base de
la courbe du ROC’, IRISS WP 2006-13, December 2006.
Sirovatka T. & Valentova M., ‘The Legitimacy of Redistribution: the Czech Republic in International Comparison’,
IRISS WP 2006-12, November 2006.
Voicu M., Voicu B. & Strapcova K., ‘Housework and gender inequality across Europe’, IRISS WP 2006-11, November
2006.
Makdissi P. & Mussard S., ‘Between-Group Transfers and Poverty-Reducing Tax Reforms’, IRISS WP 2006-10,
October 2006.
Makdissi P. & Mussard S., ‘Decomposition of s-Concentration Curves’, IRISS WP 2006-09, October 2006.
Mussard S. & Philippe B., ‘Okun’s Law, Creation of Money and the Decomposition of the Rate of Unemployment’,
IRISS WP 2006-08, October 2006.
Williams D., ‘The Economic Returns to Multiple Language Usage in Western Europe’, IRISS WP 2006-07, October
2006.
Chiappero-Martinetti E. & Civardi M., ‘Measuring poverty within and between population subgroups’, IRISS WP
2006-06, October 2006.
Mussard S. & Philippe B., ‘De la relation épargne/investissement à l’évolution du taux de chômage’, IRISS WP
2006-05, September 2006.
Tanova C., ‘Using Job Embeddedness Factors to Explain Voluntary Turnover in Five European Countries’, IRISS
WP 2006-04, July 2006.
Electronic versions
Electronic versions of all IRISS Working Papers are available for download at
http://www.ceps.lu/iriss/wps.cfm
Centre d'Etudes de Populations, de Pauvreté et de Politiques Socio-Economiques
International Networks for Studies in Technology, Environment, Alternatives and Development
IRISS-C/I is a visiting researchers programme at CEPS/INSTEAD, a socio-economic policy and research centre
based in Luxembourg. It finances and organises short visits of researchers willing to undertake empirical research
in economics and other social sciences using the archive of micro-data available at the Centre.
What is offered?
In 1998, CEPS/INSTEAD has been identified by the European Commission as one of the few Large Scale Facilities
in the social sciences, and, since then, offers researchers (both junior and senior) the opportunity to spend time
carrying out their own research using the local research facilities. This programme is currently sponsored by the
European Community’s 6th Framework Programme. Grants cover travel expenses and on-site accommodation. The
expected duration of visits is in the range of 2 to 12 weeks.
Topics
The major resource offered to visitors is access to a series of internationally comparable longitudinal surveys on living
conditions at the household and individual level. The anonymised micro-data provide information on wages and
income, health, education, employment and professional activities, accommodation, social relations,... Comparable
micro-data are available for EU countries, Central European countries, as well as the USA. These data offer opportunities
to carry out research in fields such as survey and panel data methodology, income distribution and welfare,
income and poverty dynamics, multi-dimensional indicators of poverty and deprivation, gender, ethnic and social
inequality, unemployment and labour supply behaviour, education and training, social protection and redistributive
policies, fertility and family structures, new information technologies in households and firms, ...
Who may apply?
All individuals (doctoral students as well as experienced academics) conducting research in an institution within the
EU-25 or an FP6 Associated State. IRISS-C/I can be meeting place for groups of researchers working on a joint
project. We therefore encourage joint proposals by two or more researchers.
For more detailed information and application form, please consult our website: http://www.ceps.lu/iriss or contact
us at
IRISS-C/I, CEPS/INSTEAD
BP 48, L-4501 Differdange, G.-D. Luxembourg
Tel: +352 585855 610; Fax: +352 585588
E-mail: iriss@ceps.lu