JANE LEWIS
Gender and Welfare Regimes:
Further Thoughts
Abstract
This article reviews the feminist critique ofGosta Esping-Andersen's
typology of welfare regimes and revisits my earlier (1992) analysis
of gender and welfare regimes together with criticisms of that work.
I briefly discuss some methodological issues and attempt to justify
my own choice of variables and of an explanatory model derived
from empirical historical work. I pay particular attention to critiques
that insist on the use of caring regimes as a basis for gender-centered
typologies, not least because the two main questions for feminists
concerning the provision of unpaid work remain (i) how to value
it, and (ii) how to share it more equally between men and women.
I argue that women's relationship to paid work, unpaid work and to
welfare makes the search for gender-centered measures complicated.
Postwar writing on welfare states made very little mention of
women. Richard Titmuss's (1963) classic essay on the division of
social welfare stressed the importance of occupational and fiscal welfare
in addition to that provided by the state, but omitted analysis of
provision by the voluntary sector and the family, both vital providers
of welfare and both historically dominated by women providers. Similarly,
Titmuss's typology of welfare states focused on the relationship
between welfare policies and capitalism, with social class as the chosen
variable for analysis. Neither gender nor race played any explicit part
Social Politics Summer 1997
C 1997 by Oxford University Press
Gender and Welfare Regimes: Further Thoughts ˇ 161
in the analysis. Titmuss's preoccupations were in fact quite similar to
those of Gesta Esping-Andersen (1990) some thirty years later. Indeed,
Esping-Andersen acknowledges Titmuss's contribution and the way
in which he moved away from a simple measure of public expenditure,
looking instead at the content of welfare states, including conditions
of eligibility, the quality of benefits, whether benefits were targeted or
universal, and employment. Titmuss's typology of residual, industrial
achievement performance and institutional, redistributive welfare
state bears a strong resemblance to Esping-Andersen's liberal corporatist
and social democratic regimes.
Esping-Andersen's construction of his "three worlds welfare capitalism"
is stimulating and thought provoking but like earlier analyses
largely ignores women. This paper first reviews the way in which
feminists have both criticized and sought to develop Esping-Andersen's
typology. It then goes on to raise some methodological issues
arising from comparative work on welfare regimes and suggests that
in regard to gender, we may need to do more work on how to approach
the gendering of welfare regimes before we can successfully merge
this work with more mainstream analyses. I revisit my earlier (1992)
analysis of gender and welfare regimes together with criticisms of that
work. I discuss the way in which the approach I adopted was not
gender-centered in the sense of deciding which measures best captured
the position of women in welfare states and then subjecting these to
investigation. Rather, my aims centered on uncovering the gendered
debates and assumptions within particular welfare regimes, using a
small selection of variables to capture the latter. I finish by discussing
some of the possibilities for an analysis of more gender-centered vari-
ables.
The Feminist Critique of Esping-Andersen's Typology
Feminist analysis of social policy has stressed the extent to which
gender is important both as a variable in the analysis of policies,
particularly in respect to their outcomes, and as an explanatory tool
in understanding social policies and welfare regimes. Historically, access
to income and resources of all kinds--for example, education--
has been gendered as have been the concepts that are crucial to the
study of social policy: need, inequality, dependence, and citizenship.
Furthermore, since the 1970s feminist analysis has revealed the gendered
assumptions regarding the roles and behavior of men and
women in society upon which social policies have been based. For
example, Elizabeth Wilson's (1977) pioneering account showed how
the British postwar settlement was premised on the idea that adult
men would be fully employed, that women would be primarily home-
162 ˇ Lewis
makers and caregivers, and that marriages would be stable. The most
significant postwar social trends have been the vast increases in married
women's labor market participation, in the divorce rate, and in the
extramarital birthrate. These trends signal the importance of gender in
the analysis of welfare.
Esping-Andersen set out to consider the relationship between work
and welfare, where work is defined as paid work and welfare as
policies that permit, encourage, or discourage the decommodification
of labor. This construct missed the importance of unpaid work and
the fact that primarily women in families have played a huge part in
doing this unpaid work. Indeed, as both Ann Oakley (1986) and Jon
Eivind Kolberg (1991) have noted, the family has historically been
the largest provider of welfare and its importance in this regard shows
no sign of decline (pace the analysis of functional sociologists in the
1950s). The crucial relationship, therefore, becomes that between paid
work, unpaid work, and welfare (Taylor-Gooby 1991). This set of
relationships is gendered, because while it is possible to argue that the
gender divisions in paid work have substantially diminished because
greater numbers of women have entered the labor market (although
not necessarily in respect of pay, status, and hours worked), all the
evidence suggests that the division of unpaid work has changed little
(Morris 1990; Anderson, Bechofer, and Gershuny 1994).
Thus a concept such as decommodification has a gendered meaning.
As Langan and Ostner (1991) pointed out in the first thorough feminist
critique of Esping-Andersen's work, although decommodification
in The Three Worlds is seen as a necessary prerequisite for workers'
political mobilization, the worker Esping-Andersen has in mind is
male and his mobilization may actually depend as much on unpaid
female household labor as on social welfare policies. Decommmodification
for women is likely to result in their carrying out unpaid
caregiving work; in other words, to use the term of the New Right
in Britain and the United States, "welfare dependency" on the part
of adult women is actually likely to result in the greater independence
of another person, young or old. It can also be that policies intended to
promote decommodification are gendered, with, for example, women
taking a disproportionate amount of parental leave and men a disproportionate
amount of educational leave, as in the case of Denmark.
Such patterns will likely exacerbate gender inequalities.
Similarly, as Barbara Hobson (1994) has pointed out, commodification
may have a different set of meanings for women than for men.
It can be argued that paid work has served to weaken the dependence
of women on men, has strengthened their bargaining power within
the family, and has played a crucial role in allowing them to exit from
marriage. However, it is possible to overstate the emancipatory effects
Gender and Welfare Regimes: Further Thoughts ˇ 163
of the increase in female labor market participation (e.g., Kolberg
1991). Inge Persson and Christina Jonung (1993) in Sweden and
Catherine Hakim (1993) in Britain have shown that there has been
very little change in terms of the number of women working fulltime,
indeed, in Britain the percentage of full-time women workers is
less in the 1990s than it was in the 1950s. Certainly Esping-Andersen's
typology does not predict women's employment rates in the different
countries. For example, lone mothers' participation rates are high in
the "liberal" welfare regime of the United States as well as in social
democratic Sweden, albeit that some of the reasons for participation
in the two countries are entirely different: In Sweden, state provision
for the care of children in terms of child care and parental leave makes
paid employment much easier to contemplate; in the United States,
lack of adequate support in the form of cash or child care effectively
pushes lone mothers into the workforce (see especially Hobson 1994).
As Irene Bruegel (1983) demonstrated over a decade ago, the unequal,
gendered division of unpaid work constitutes a set of constraints
that play a major part (alongside workplace-based discrimination) in
determining women's labor force participation. Notwithstanding the
dearly held beliefs of neoclassicist economists, women do not freely
choose whether and how much to work (Folbre 1994).
Decommodification was central to Esping-Andersen's analysis, but
feminists (especially Orloff 1993) have also taken issue with his other
two main dimensions: state/market relations and stratification. The
first of these ignores the family, which in addition to being a major
provider of welfare also warrants consideration as an independent
variable. The effect of family change (which in itself has been disproportionately
due to women's initiatives, for example in seeking divorce)
on the core areas of social policy is all too often ignored.
However, inclusion of "the family" will not in and of itself assure a
gender-based analysis. Feminist research on the division of resources
within households and on the nature of female poverty has insisted
on the importance of the tensions between individual, family, and
household in terms of both the assumptions on which policies are
based and their policy outcomes (Glendinning and Millar 1987; Brannen
and Wilson 1987).
Similarly, stratification has a gender as well as a class (and a race)
dimension. Whereas men receive state benefits largely as a result of
their labor market position, women may qualify in their own right
as workers, but the rules of eligibility may be considerably tighter for
women than for men, as is the case in the United Kingdom; or they
may be entitled as wives and widows to derived benefits; or in some
instances they may claim as mothers. And whereas men (together
with their wives and widows) usually qualify in the first instance
164 ˇ Lewis
for insurance-based benefits, women as mothers almost always draw
assistance-based benefits. American feminist analysis has suggested
that insurance-based benefits are first-class benefits, whereas assistance-based
benefits are second class (Nelson 1990), and has thus
posited the existence of a two-tiered, gendered, income maintenance
system. This fits the situation in the United States, but matters are
more complicated in a country such as Australia where assistancebased
benefits are the predominant form, or in the United Kingdom,
where they are nationally determined, noncategorical and where more
men than women end up claiming them. Thus, lone mothers who
draw benefits do rather better in Britain than they do under the social
assistance regimes of either the United States or Germany (Kremer
1995; Millar 1994). In Italy, additional complications arise from the
fact that disability pensions became de facto social assistance benefits
in the 1950s and 1960s and guaranteed a minimum pension to women
as well as men. In other words, the boundary between social insurance
and social assistance was substantially blurred (Trifiletti 1995). Esping-Andersen's
work did not consider social assistance benefits, but
these are of disproportionate importance to women and may be more
or less generous and more or less punitive (Paugan, Prelis, and Evans
1995).
One of the explicit aims of Esping-Andersen's (and others') typologies
has been the drawing up of performance "league tables", but this
is much more problematic with respect to women's position in welfare
states. As we have seen, the effects of decommodification and of
commodification are not unequivocal in the case of women. Early
feminist analysis stressed the patriarchal and oppressive nature of the
modern welfare state. Scandinavian feminists in particular stressed
the way in which women had become the employees of the welfare
state on a huge scale, but found themselves for the most part doing
the same kinds of jobs that they had traditionally done at home: for
example, child care. These jobs remained low paid and low status in
the public sector, hence the charge that state patriarchy had replaced
private patriarchy (e.g., Siim 1987). In Britain, it was also stressed
that many of the assumptions of the social security system were tradi-
tional.1
Thus, if a woman drawing benefits cohabited with a man, it
was assumed that he would be supporting her, and her benefit was
withdrawn. This early feminist analysis attacked the family as the
main site of female oppression and also attacked the welfare state for
upholding traditional ideas about the roles of men and women within
the family (e.g., Wilson 1977). In reaction to these interpretations,
others have insisted on the emancipatory effect of modern welfare
regimes, particularly with respect to the opportunities they present
for paid employment (e.g., Kolberg 1991).
Gender and Welfare Regimes: Further Thoughts  1 65
However, it is not easy to reach any simple conclusions as to the
effects of social welfare policies on women. This is in large part
because women stand in a more complicated relation to the welfare
state--as paid and unpaid providers of welfare and as clients--than
do men. The effects of social welfare policies have in fact often been
Januslike. Thus social security programs have permitted the transformation
of the traditional family form and the formation of autonomous
households by lone mothers, while also enforcing traditional
assumptions about men's obligation to maintain in the form of a
cohabitation or "man-in-the-house" rule.
Methodological Issues
There are in fact many ways of constructing typologies of welfare
states, or as Esping-Andersen prefers, welfare regimes, and all are
open to criticism. The feminist critique of Esping-Andersen's typology
has been only one strand of criticism, although a particularly powerful
one. Stephan Leibfried (1991) has argued for the addition of a fourth
"world" in the form of the "Latin Rim"; Ramesh Mishra (1993) has
objected to the lumping together of the "market liberal" United States
with "welfare liberal" Canada and Britain, pointing out that the latter
differ especially in terms of the social services that they provide (see
also Sainsbury 1991). Deborah Mitchell (1991) has undertaken an
analysis of redistributive outcomes and has questioned the validity of
Esping-Andersen's classification based on inputs. But as Bradshaw et
al. (1993, 257) have argued, "It is difficult to discern from the results
of such micro social data [as Mitchelľs] what it is about the primary
distribution of income or the tax and benefit system that produces
the outcomes observed." Bradshaw et al. have proposed a further
typology that is differently based again. They looked at the ways
in which a "child benefit package" helped model families in fifteen
countries. The package consisted of all social security benefits, child
support (maintenance) arrangements where they were guaranteed,
benefits for lone parents and equivalent help in kind (such as food
stamps), fiscal arrangements and benefits that mitigate the impact of
housing costs or reduce the costs of health care, and schooling and
preschool child care. Such a typology may capture more in relation
to gender than that of Esping-Andersen. Analyses of the position of
lone mothers have shown that they tend to do better in countries
where provisions for children generally are more generous (Kahn and
Kamerman 1983; Millar 1994). On the basis of Bradshaw et al.'s
analysis, the country groupings established by Esping-Andersen
changed dramatically: for example, the United Kingdom moved up
166 ˇ Lewis
to become a "middling" country, whereas the Netherlands moved
down from the most generous to the least generous group.
From this it seems that in any case it might not be possible to capture
all aspects of differentiation in a single typology for the obvious
methodological reasons and for the possibly less obvious reason that
the measures will inevitably reflect what is considered to be the most
important issue at stake. For Esping-Andersen the most important
issue was the relationship between employment and welfare: how far
people were permitted to decommodify their labor. As we have seen,
feminist analysis has showed that this question could only effectively
be asked of men and that the measures used captured mainly men's
behavior. It may be that we have to start from somewhere else in
order to get at women's position in welfare regimes.
In addition to her proposals for revising and extending EspingAndersen's
existing dimensions of qualitative variation, Orloff (1993)
has proposed to add two new dimensions that she feels will serve to
capture the effects of state social provision on gender relations: access
to paid work and capacity to form and maintain an autonomous
household. Julia O'Connor (1993) has also proposed personal autonomy
as a key measure of insulation from personal and/or public
dependence. However, it is not clear that such additions are fully
sufficient to gender welfare regimes, even though they may be very
valuable in making Esping-Andersen's analysis more gender sensitive.
As both O'Connor and Orloff recognize, it will be necessary to consider
the right to personhood and control over reproduction. But the
emphasis of both authors is on access to an income. Orloff (1993)
wrote of welding "the concepts of decommodification and access to
an independent income (outside of marriage) into a unitary concept of
individual independence, or better yet, a concept of self-determination
within webs of interdependence . . . " (320). Although this is womancentered,
the focus on paid work is problematic. It is in fact something
that is already there in Esping Andersen's work and which has been
taken further by Walter Korpi (1994, 9), when he comments that
"the main basis for power differentiation within the family has come
to be related to differences in labor market participation." However,
given the gendered division of unpaid work, paid work is unlikely to
prove an adequate means of achieving financial autonomy for women.
It may therefore be that in the first instance it is necessary to elaborate
a gender-centered analysis of welfare regimes before we attempt the
extremely difficult, but extremely necessary, task of merging mainstream
and feminist analyses.
This was certainly my thinking when I developed my own typology
of welfare regimes published in 1992. This was, as I said at the time,
an "exploratory charting exercise." I set out to examine women's
Gender and Welfare Regimes: Further Thoughts ˇ 167
position in the labor market, in the social security and tax systems,
and with respect to child care in three countries: Sweden, France, and
the United Kingdom. (Subsequently, in cooperation with Ilona Ostner,
Germany was added.) The aim, however crude, was to obtain some
measures of paid work, unpaid work, and welfare. The first major
fault of such a scheme must be its failure to take on board the many
other aspects of "welfare" that are crucial to women in regard to
freedom from violence, control over reproduction, access to transport,
etc. Nevertheless, I would still suggest that the relationship between
paid work, unpaid work, and welfare is sufficiently central to warrant
closer examination and further elaboration.
My focus was also on inputs, but the explanatory model that I used
was derived from empirical historical work. My choice of variables in
the form of labor market position, social security and tax position,
and provision of child care was determined by historical research on
the position of women in welfare states, which showed the extent to
which it was assumed by policy makers that women would be dependent
on male breadwinners. Although the perfect male breadwinner
model never existed, which is to say that women (particularly workingclass
women) have always engaged in paid labor, when the foundations
of modern social provision were laid in Western countries the
boundary between the public world of paid work and political participation
and the private domain of the family was strongly drawn.
The importance of contextualizing comparative research on welfare
states has been widely acknowledged but is very difficult. EspingAndersen
has commented:
It is analytically difficult to confront detailed historiography with
a table of regression coefficients. The former paints a dense
portrait of how myriads of events impinged upon social policy
formation; the latter seeks economy of explanation, and reduces
reality to a minimum of variables. From the former, it is difficult
to generalize beyond any particular case, in the latter, we have
no history. (1990, 106)
Esping-Andersen's way out represents something of a compromise.
While he is concerned historically with locating the developments he
talks about, he hypothesizes rather than empirically establishes the
motors of modern welfare regimes. Thus he says that three factors--
class mobilization, class political coalition, and the historical legacy
of regime institutionalization--are important in the development of
welfare regimes. The exposition is then deductive. Frank Castles has
acknowledged similar difficulties:
The suspicion that we may frequently be asking the wrong question
derives from a number of sources. At a gut level, it stems
168 ˇ Lewis
from the natural tendency of even the most committed practitioner
of the comparative method to reaggregate and make
judgements concerning what he or she has so carefully disaggregated
for the sake of scientific analysis. . . . History reveals the
one sense in which it is meaningful to say that the sum is more
than its parts: the sense in which human action is embedded in
its particular context. (1989, 7, 12)
The truth of this is illustrated by Bradshaw et al.'s study of child
benefit packages. This study compares outcomes for children, but as
soon as the authors seek explanations for differences, they reach for
inputs in the sense of how the policies have been structured in the
different countries. To do this properly would involve an extraordinary
amount of empirical historical work (in the manner of Baldwin
1990) and thus Bradshaw's team also hypothesized the importance
of particular variables to an explanation of differences. The results
are not altogether satisfactory. The demographic variable did not turn
out to prove significant, and yet we know that pronatalism has driven
French family policy and that the provision of particular family benefits
has been absolutely central to the French welfare regime in a way
that it has not been in Britain, for example. Historically, French
social security has secured more by way of horizontal redistribution--
between families with and without children--than vertical redistribution
between the social classes (Dawson 1979). Probably only historical
material would serve to illuminate the importance of the demographic
variable. There is yet another important point to be made
here about the larger comparative project. If family benefits have been
the centerpiece of French social provision and yet were not included
in the construction of Esping-Andersen's typology, what price France's
position in his typology? A similar point can be made about gender.
If it can be established that gender was a significant motor in the
establishment of modern welfare regimes, then this too raises a question
mark over the typology.
Gender-Centered Measures in the Analysis
of Welfare Regimes
In terms of the gendered welfare regimes that I constructed, the
interesting question becomes when, how, and to what extent countries
moved away from the male breadwinner model. I have suggested
that in France a modified male breadwinner model emerged whereby
women's claims as wives and mothers on the one hand, and as paid
workers on the other, were recognized in parallel. Sweden and Den-
Gender and Welfare Regimes: Further Thoughts ˇ 169
mark, but not Norway (Leira 1992), moved furthest away from the
male breadwinner model, pulling women into paid employment by
the introduction of separate taxation and parental leaves, and by
increasing child care provision, to the point where the dual-breadwinner
family is the norm. In countries such as Britain, Germany, and
Ireland, the policy logic of the male breadwinner model has remained
strong, and a firm dividing line between public and private responsibility
for caring work is drawn. Women may make claims to derived
benefits as wives and widows, and as workers or as mothers (in the
absence of a male breadwinner), but not as both. However, the model
requires further elaboration to determine, for example, at what point,
how, and where male breadwinner countries chose first to bolster the
male obligation to maintain female dependency, and second to penalize
women as workers or to encourage them to undertake full-time
motherhood.
One strand of criticism of this work has focused on the small
number of countries studied. Further differences occur among countries
that may be categorized as operating strong male breadwinner
models if more examples are taken. These are particularly striking in
terms of outcome, even if the policy logic is comparable. For example,
the Netherlands has historically undertaken to replace all male income
with the result that the position of women and children is significantly
better than in Britain (Bussemaker and Kersbergen 1994). More important
still in respect to outcomes is the way in which differences
between women in two and one-parent families open up. Thus the
United Kingdom is closer to France and Sweden in its treatment of
two-parent families and much more generous than the United States
in its treatment of lone-mother families. It should also be noted that,
although modern welfare policies have been developed at the national
level and it is reasonable to take the nation-state as the unit of comparison,
as Duncan (1995) has recently argued, regional differences within
countries are nevertheless acute. Certainly this is true of developments
in social assistance, which in many Western countries remains a matter
of local discretion.
Another criticism of my work has focused on its omissions and in
particular on its lack of adequate attention to what may be called
"caring regimes"; in other words, policies that have constituted women's
unpaid work (especially Sainsbury 1994, but also Knijn 1995).
The extent to which, and how, different countries have moved away
from the male breadwinner model represents the "is" of welfare policies
in historical terms in that it is empirically based. But it is also
important to think more in terms of what constitutes welfare for
women and about ways of examining this. Such an approach would
170 ˇ Lewis
result in a more genuinely gender-centered analysis in terms of the
measures used and in a sense would more closely parallel EspingAndersen's
strategy. He clearly believes that decommodification is a
"good thing" for male workers and therefore seeks to measure it. In
regard to women, the issue of caregiving and unpaid work looms
particularly large, which may justify putting it center stage. However,
it would probably be a mistake to elevate social provision for caring
and for caregivers into a measure of "woman-friendliness." The whole
history of feminism shows that it is problematic to advocate policies
that seek to recognize female "difference" with respect to the disproportionate
amount of caregiving work they do as opposed to policies
that seek rather to achieve equality with men, usually in respect of
paid employment (Scott 1988; Bacchi 1990; Lister 1995). Indeed, it
was possible for Sir William Beveridge to argue sincerely that his
proposals to insure women via their husbands constituted an appropriate
recognition of their valuable caregiving work (Lewis 1983). The
problem is that, however well meaning, such policies also entrenched
women's economic dependence on men. Nor is this debate dead:
Contributions to the first issue of Social Politics, for example, showed
Trudie Knijn (1994) arguing for the right to claim income from caregiving,
whereas Bettina Cass (1994) warned that this would enshrine
caregiving as women's work.
Gender-centered measures of welfare regimes (as opposed to what
the gendered assumptions underpinning those regimes have been) run
the risk of also becoming measures of what is good or bad for
women--the "league table" problem again. This must be avoided
because the whole thrust of feminist analysis has been to demonstrate
the complex position of women in relation to welfare, and this is
unlikely to be captured in any single measure. Indeed, as the complexity
of capturing the dimensions of welfare regimes is realized and the
many exceptions to any model are revealed, so diversity rather than
pattern becomes more apparent. Nevertheless, I think it is important to
address the issue of developing gender-centered measures, particularly
around caregiving.
There are two main questions for feminists concerning the provision
of unpaid work: how to value it and how to share it more equally
between men and women. Any comparative study of welfare regimes
that took these questions as an organizing framework would likely
be short, because no country has succeeded in valuing unpaid work
and in no country has the gendered division of unpaid work shifted
substantially. However, all welfare regimes have a "caring regime"
even if, as in strong male breadwinner countries, it has historically
been implicit. It is certainly possible to ask how caring for dependents
has been undertaken. Indeed, caring regimes have become much more
Gender and Welfare Regimes: Further Thoughts ˇ 1 71
explicit over the last two decades and it is important to elaborate
these.
Feminists insisted first on the importance of analyzing the unpaid
work of housework (Oakley 1974) and then starting in the mid-1980s
caregiving for children and dependent adults (see especially Finch and
Groves 1983; Ungerson 1987 and 1990, Lewis and Meredith 1987).
In Britain, surveys by the Equal Opportunities Council indicated how
widespread caring for adults was, and by the end of the 1980s the
General Household Survey included questions on caregiving. In terms
of the nature of the work, Hilary Graham (1983) pointed out that
women usually both cared for people (tended them) and cared about
them (emotional work). Building on Carol Gilligan's work published
in 1982, feminist theorists have framed an ethic of care, in which
the preservation of relationships and the avoidance of harm takes
precedence over the rights and rules associated with an ethic of justice,
and in which the focus of concern is to find an equilibrium between
connectedness and empathy on the one hand, and the autonomous
self on the other (Tronto 1989 and 1993). Gilligan suggested that
women were more likely to adhere to an ethic of care and men to an
ethic of justice, but most feminist theorists would wish to argue for
a synthesis of both (e.g., Lister, forthcoming). For our purposes in
studying welfare regimes, the important point is that caregiving work
has been theorized, its extent has been measured, and its nature explored.
Indeed, as Hilary Land (1995) has argued, given the demographic
trends and the difficulties of unpaid work in a climate of
uncertainty about paid jobs and about the future of state provision,
caregiving poses the most acute social policy challenges for the future.
Many of the current dimensions of caring regimes have only
emerged relatively recently and research has shown the disadvantages
and well as the advantages attaching to them. As McLaughlin and
Glendinning (1994) have pointed out, two ways of valuing caring
have emerged in the last two decades: payment by the state for care
and individual rights under the social security system to caregiving
benefits. Pay rates in the case of the former tend to be extremely
low and employment conditions poor or nonexistent (Evers, Pijl, and
Ungerson 1994; Glendinning and McLaughlin 1993). The latter are
potentially radical, involving as they do the recognition of claims
based on caring. However, the basis of such benefits may not in fact
be so clear cut. For example, the British invalid care allowance was
introduced in recognition of the impact of caregiving on paid work,
whereby it was therefore as a compensation for income foregone
rather than as a wage for caring. The eligibility criteria for the benefit
are also linked to the receipt or nonreceipt of other benefits by the
person being cared for, which, as Lister (1995) has pointed out, also
172 ˇ Lewis
means that it is not an independent citizenship benefit. This might be
expected in a country in which the male breadwinner logic is still
influential.
In the case of children, the individual right to parental leave is
well established in a number of European countries, particularly in
Scandinavia. But Heather Joshi's work has measured the costs of
taking breaks from the labor market in income foregone due to reduced
income during the break, missed or delayed promotion and
possible downgrading on return, and possible return to part-time
rather than full-time work (Joshi and Davies 1992). In addition,
women have paid a price because of the high degree of sexual segregation
in Scandinavian labor markets (Lewis and Astrom 1992).
In terms of the provision of care, there are four main possibilities:
the state, the market, men, and women. State provision for adults
and for children is much more developed in some countries than
others (Phillips and Moss 1989; Jamieson 1990); for children the
European "league tables" are especially well known. As some countries
(primarily the United Kingdom, but similar developments are
beginning in Finland) move toward the introduction of "quasi-markets"--in
which the state continues to provide finance but expects
the private and the voluntary sector to provide--more fees for service
may be exacted from users (see Lewis and Glennerster 1996 on British
developments with respect to care for elderly people). Recent research
has revealed that a significant number of men care for adults, probably
more than contribute significant amounts of care for children. In
Britain one in four women aged 45-64 is a caregiver and one in six
men, usually for a spouse, but women tend to devote more time to
caring and to provide more intensive care.
The evidence we have on caregiving suggests that it is not possible
to divorce the study of unpaid work and caring regimes from the
position of women in relation to paid work. This becomes especially
clear in the case of lone mothers, whose difficulties revolve around
the necessity of providing cash and care. The possible sources of care
available to lone mothers are reduced by the absence of the father,
and therefore the possible sources of income in Northern European
countries are threefold: the state, the labor market, and the father (in
Southern Europe, charity continues to play an important role). Lone
mothers have historically posed a difficult question for the male breadwinner
model: In the absence of a breadwinner, is the mother to be
treated primarily as a mother or as a breadwinner (Lewis 1986)? The
answer earlier in the century was as a mother, in part due to the effect
of maternalist campaigns.2
But in the United States and to some extent
in Britain and the Netherlands (where social assistance payments have
Gender and Welfare Regimes: Further Thoughts ˇ 173
been relatively generous), the pendulum has begun to swing toward
treating them as breadwinners.
To study further the relationship between paid work, unpaid work,
and welfare in the rapidly changing configurations of welfare regimes,
we perhaps need a new map based on the possible sources of cash
and care and how and why they are combined for different groups
of the population. (While we are interested primarily in differences
between men and women, it is important to examine the differences
between women: for example, between married and lone mothers and
between black and white women.) It may be that we want to think
more about measures that are clear statements of the "ought" with
respect to women, in the manner of decommodification with respect
to men. For example, in the case of single mothers it could be argued
that their position as sole caregivers requires the right to package
income (from the state, wages, and fathers), rather than the alternative
of either paid work or welfare that many states have offered.
Thus, McLaughlin and Glendinning (1994) have suggested that we
might think about defamilialization rather than decommodification,
not in the sense of simple individualization, which has often been
harnessed to the aim of getting women into the labor market (Luckhaus
1994), but rather in the sense of the terms and conditions on
which people engage in their families. This would clearly encompass
how far men and women were to be helped to reconcile paid and
unpaid employment, and it leaves room for the idea that the right
not to care (Land and Rose 1985) might be as important as the right
to care. (It is, after all, part of the ethic of care that it should be
voluntary.) It is also a formulation that encourages the study of the
workings of private as well as public law. This is very important when
custody arrangements for children on divorce are undergoing rapid
change and the role of fathers in providing care as well as cash is
becoming an active policy issue for both the political Left and Right
in many countries. The concept of defamilialization promises to bring
the focus back to the constituent concerns of a gender-centered approach.
Furthermore, it is possible to construe the concept such that
the vexed question of what is "good" for women is avoided; it is not
assumed (as is the case with decommodification) that defamilialization
is necessarily desirable. The aim of social policy must be to promote
choice. This is recognized in the concept of decommodification as
applied to men: the extent to which they are permitted not to engage
in paid work. The problem is that women's complicated relationship
to paid work, unpaid work, and welfare means that we have to
consider their right not to engage in paid work (decommodification)
and by extension their right to do unpaid work, and also their right
174 ˇ Lewis
to do paid work and by extension their right to not to engage in
unpaid work. This makes the search for gender-centered measures a
much more complicated business.
NOTES
1.1 use the term social security in the European rather than the American
sense.
2. On maternalism, see Bock and Thane (1991); Koven and Michel (1993);
and Skocpol (1992).
REFERENCES
Anderson, M., F. Bechofer, and J. Gershuny, eds. 1994. The Social and
Political Economy of the Household. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bacchi, C. 1990. Same Difference. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Baldwin, P. 1990. The Politics of Social Solidarity. Class Bases in the European
Welfare State, 1875-1975. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Bock, G., and P. Thane, eds. 1991. Maternity and Gender Policies. Women
and the Rise of the European Welfare States 1880-1950. London:
Routledge.
Bradshaw, J., J. Ditch, H. Holmes, and P. Whiteford. 1993. "A Comparative
Study of Child Support in Fifteen Countries." Journal of European Social
Policy 3, no. 4: 255-71. .
Brannen, J., and G. Wilson. 1987. Give and Take in Families: Studies in
Resource Distribution. London: Tavistock.
Bruegel, I. 1983. "Women's Employment, Legislation and the Labor-Market."
Pp. 130-69 in Women's Welfare, Women's Rights, ed. J. Lewis.
London: Croom Helm.
Bussemaker, J., and Kees van Kersbergen. 1994. "Gender and Welfare States:
Some Theoretical Reflections." Pp. 8-25 in Gendering Welfare States, ed.
D. Sainsbury. London: Sage.
Cass, B. 1994. "Citizenship, Work and Welfare: the Dilemma for Australian
Women." Social Politics 1, no. 1: 106-24.
Castles, F. G. 1989. "Introduction: Puzzles of Political Economy." Pp. 1-15
in The Comparative History of Public Policy, ed. F. G. Castles. Cambridge,
England: Polity.
Dawson, P. E. 1979. "Family Benefits and Income Redistribution in France
and the UK, 1891-1971," Ph.D. thesis, York University.
Duncan, S. 1995. "Theorizing European Gender Systems." Journal of European
Social Policy 5, no. 4: 263-84.
Esping-Andersen, G. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge,
England: Polity Press.
Evers, A., M. Pijl, and C. Ungerson. 1994. Payments for Care: A Comparative
Overview. Aldershot, England: Avebury.
Finch, J., and D. Groves. 1983. Labour and Love: Women, Work and Caring.
London: Routledge.
Gender and Welfare Regimes: Further Thoughts ˇ 1 75
Folbre, N. 1994. Who Pays for the Kids? Gender and the Structures of
Constraint. London: Routledge.
Gilligan, C. 1982. In a Different Voice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Glendinning, C, and E. McLaughlin. 1993. Paying for Care: Lessons from
Europe. Social Security Advisory Committee Research Paper no. 5. London:
HMSO.
Glendinning, C, and J. Millar, eds. 1987. Women and Poverty in Britain.
Brighton, England: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.
Graham, H. 1983. "Caring: A Labour of Love." Pp. 13-30 in Labour and
Love: Women, Work and Caring, ed. J. Finch and D. Groves. London:
Routledge.
Hakim, C. 1993. "Notes and Issues: The Myth of Rising Female Employment."
Work, Employment and Society 7, no. 1: 97-120.
Hobson, B. 1994. "Solo Mothers, Social Policy Regimes and the Logics of
Gender." Pp. 170-87 in Gendering Welfare States, ed. D. Sainsbury. London:
Sage.
Jamieson, A. 1990. "Care of Older People in the European Community." In
Caring in the Welfare-State in the 1990s, ed. L. Hantrais et al. Birmingham,
England: Aston University.
Joshi, H., and H. Davies. 1992. "Child Care and Mothers' Lifetime Earnings:
Some European Contrasts." CEPR Discussion paper no. 600. London:
Centre for Economic Policy Research.
Kahn, A. J., and S.B. Kamerman. 1983. Income Transfers for Families with
Children. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Knijn, T. 1994. "Fish Without Bikes: Revision of the Dutch Welfare State
and its Consequences of the (In)dependence of Single Mothers." Social
Politics 1, no. 1: 83-106.
. 1995. "Care and Gendered Citizenship: Towards a Comparative
Conceptual Framework," paper presented at the "Women and Public
Policy Conference." Rotterdam.
Kremer, M. 1995. "Gendered Interpretations of Citizenship," paper presented
at the ESA conference. Budapest, August 1995.
Kolberg, J. E. 1991. "The Gender Dimension of the Welfare State." International
Journal of Sociology 21, no. 2: 119--48.
Korpi, W. 1994. "Class, Gender, and Power in the Development of Social
Citizenship," paper presented at the World Congress of Sociology. Bielefeld,
Germany, July 1994.
Koven, S., and S. Michel eds. 1993. Mothers of a New World. Maternalist
Politics and the Origins of Welfare States. London: Routledge.
Land, H. 1995. "Rewarding Care: A Challenge for Welfare States," paper
presented at the SPA conference. Australia.
, and H. Rose. 1985. "Compulsory Altruism for Some or an Altruistic
Society for All?" Pp. 74-96 in In Defence of Welfare, ed. P. Bean, J.
Ferris, and D. Whynes. London: Tavistock.
Langan, M., and I. Ostner. 1991. "Gender and Welfare: Towards a Comparative
Framework." In Towards a European Welfare State, ed. G. Room.
Bristol: SAUS.
176 ˇ Lewis
Leibfried, S. 1991. "Towards a European Welfare State? On the Integration
Potentials of Poverty Regimes in the EC." Working Paper. Bremen: Bremen
University Centre for Social Policy.
Leka, A. 1992. 'Welfare States and Working Mothers. The Scandinavian
Experience. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, J. ed. 1983. Women's Welfare, Women's Rights. London: Croom
Helm.
. 1986. "Lone Parent Families: Politics and Economics." Journal of
Social Policy 18: 595-600.
-. 1992. "Gender and the Development of Welfare Regimes." Journal
of European Social Policy 2, no. 3: 159-73.
-, and G. Astrom. 1992. "Equality, Difference and State Welfare: The
Case of Labour Market and Family Policies in Sweden." Feminist Studies
18, no. 1: 59-87.
-, and H. Glennerster. 1996. Implementing the New Community Care.
Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
-, and B. Meredith. 1987. Daughters Who Care. Daughters Caring for
Mothers at Home. London: Routledge.
Lister, R. 1995. "Dilemmas in Engendering Citizenship." Economy and Society
24, no. 1:1-40.
. Forthcoming. Women and Citizenship. London: Macmillan.
Luckhaus, L. 1994. "Individualisation of Social Security Benefits." In Equality
of Treatment between Men and Women in Social Security, ed. C.
McCrudden. London: Butterworth.
McLaughlin, E., and C. Glendinning. 1994. "Paying for Care in Europe: Is
There a Feminist Approach?" Pp. 52-69 in Family Policy and the Welfare
of Women, ed. L. Hantrais and S. Mangen. CrossNational Research Papers,
University of Loughborough.
Millar, J. 1994. "Poor Mothers and Absent Fathers: Support for Lone Parents
in Comparative Perspective," Plenary Address to the "Social Policy Association"
conference. University of Liverpool, July 1994.
Mishra, R. 1993. "Typologies of the Welfare State and Comparative Analysis:
The 'Liberaľ Welfare State," paper presented at the conference "Comparative
Research on Welfare States in Transition." Oxford, England, September
1993.
Mitchell, D. 1991. Comparing Income Transfer Systems: Is Australia the
Poor Relation? Walferdange: Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper
no. 56.
Morris, L. 1990. The Workings of the Household. A US-UK Comparison.
Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Nelson, B. 1990. "The Origins of the Two-Channel Welfare State: Workmen's
Compensation and Mothers' Aid." Pp. 123--51 in Women, the State and
Welfare, ed. L. Gordon. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Oakley, A. 1974. The Sociology of Housework. Oxford, England: Martin
Robertson.
. 1986. "Social Welfare and the Position of Women." Richard Titmuss
Memorial Lecture, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
O'Connor, J. 1993. "Gender, Class and Citizenship in the Comparative
Gender and Welfare Regimes: Further Thoughts ˇ 1 77
Analysis of Welfare Regimes: Theoretical and Methodological Issues."
British Journal of Sociology 44, no. 3: 501-18.
Orloff, A. 1993. "Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship State Policies
and Gender Relations in Comparative Research." American Sociological
Review 58, no. 3: 303-28.
Paugan, S., J.A. Prelis, and M. Evans. 1995. "Chunnel Vision: Poverty and
Social Exclusion and the Debate on Social Welfare in France and Britain."
London: LSE, STICERD, WSP/115.
Persson, I., and C. Jonung. 1993. "Women's Employment: Current Developments."
Work, Employment and Society 7, no. 2: 259-74.
Phillips, A., and P. Moss. 1989. Who Cares for Europe's Children? The Short
Report of the European Childcare Network. Brussels: EC.
Sainsbury, D. 1991. "Analysing Welfare State Variations: The Merits and
Limitations of Models Based on the Residual and Institutional Distinction."
Scandinavian Political Studies 14, no. 1: 1-30.
. 1994. "Women's and Men's Social Rights: Gendering Dimensions of
Welfare States." Pp. 150-69 in Gendering Welfare States, ed. D. Sainsbury.
London: Sage.
Scott, J. W. 1988. "Deconstructing Equality Versus Difference: or, the Uses
of Poststructuralist Theory for Feminism." Feminist Studies 14, no. 1:
33-50.
Siim, B. 1987. "The Scandinavian Welfare States--Towards Sexual Equality
or a New Kind of Male Domination?" Acta Sociologies 30, no. 3/4:
255-70.
Skocpol, T. 1992. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of
Social Policy in the United States. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
Taylor-Gooby, P. 1991. "Welfare State Regimes and Welfare Citizenship."
journal of European Social Policy 1, no. 2: 93-105.
Titmuss, R. M. 1963. Essays on the Welfare State. London: Allen and Unwin.
Trifiletti, R. 1995. "The Gendered 'Rationalization' of Italian Social Policies
in the Nineties," paper presented at the ESA conference. Budapest, August
1995.
Tronto, J. 1989. "Women and Caring: What Can Feminists Learn About
Morality from Caring?" Pp. 172-87 in Gender, Body, Knowledge, ed. A.
Jaggar and S. Bordo. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
. 1993. "Beyond Gender Difference to a Theory of Care." Pp. 240-57
in An Ethic of Care: Feminist and Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. M.
Larrabee. London: Routledge.
Ungerson, C. 1987. Policy Is Personal: Sex and Gender and Informal Care.
London: Tavistock.
, ed. 1990. Gender and Caring. Brighton, England: Harvester/Wheat-
sheaf.
Wilson, E. 1977. Women and the Welfare State. London: Tavistock.