Work—family policy strategies reflect gendered assumptions about the roles of men and women within families and therefore may lead to significantly different outcomes, particularly for families headed by single mothers. The authors argue that welfare states have adopted strategies based on different assumptions about women's and men's roles in society, which then affect women's chances of living in poverty cross-nationally. The authors examine how various strategies are associated with poverty rates across groups of women and also examine more directly the effects of specific work—family policies on poverty rates. They find that while family benefits and child care for young children unequivocally lower poverty rates, particularly for families headed by a single mother, long parental leaves have more ambivalent effects. The findings suggest that it is critical to examine the gendered assumptions underlying work—family policies rather than viewing all work—family policies as the same.
Bergmann, Barbara R.1998. Watch out for “family friendly” policies. Dollars & Sense215:10-11.
2.
———. 2001. What would we gain by subsidizing childcare? In Squaring up: Policy strategies to raise women's incomes in the United States , edited by Mary C. King, 46-62. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
3.
Brady, D.2003. Rethinking the sociological measurement of poverty. Social Forces81 (3): 715-52.
4.
Bussemaker, J., and K. van Kersbergen .1999. Contemporary social—capitalist welfare states and gender inequality. In Gender and welfare state regimes, edited by D. Sainsbury.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5.
Casper, L.M., S.S. McLanahan, and I. Garfinkel.1994. The gender—poverty gap: What we can learn from other countries. American Sociological Review59:594-605.
6.
Christopher, K.2002a. Caregiving, welfare states, and mothers' poverty. In Child care and inequality: Rethinking carework for children and youth, edited by D. Kurz, F. M. Cancian, A. S. London, R. Revier, and M. Tuominen.New York: Routledge.
7.
———. 2002b. Single motherhood, employment, or social assistance: Why are U.S. women poorer than women in other affluent nations?Journal of Poverty6 (2): 1-23.
8.
———. 2002c. Welfare state regimes and mothers' poverty. Social Politics9 (1): 60-86.
9.
Christopher, K., P. England, T.M. Smeeding, and K.R. Phillips.2002. The gender gap in poverty in modern nations: Single motherhood, the market, and the state. Sociological Perspectives45 (3): 219-42.
10.
Ekberg, J., R. Eriksson, and G. Friebel.2005. Parental leave—A policy evaluation of the Swedish “daddy-month” reform. IZA discussion paper no. 1617. SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=728444.
11.
Ellingsaeter, AnneLise.1999. Dual breadwinners between state and market. In Restructuring gender relations and employment: The decline of the male bread-winner , edited by R. Crompton, 40-59. New York: Oxford University Press.
12.
Esping-Andersen, G.1999. Social foundations of postindustrial economies. New York: Oxford.
13.
Fraser, Nancy.1994. After the family wage: Gender equity and the welfare state . Political Theory22 (4): 591-618.
14.
Gornick, J., and M. Meyers.2003. Families that work: Policies for reconciling parenthood and employment. New York: Russell Sage.
15.
Hantrais, Linda.2000. Gendered policies in Europe. New York : St. Martin's.
16.
Hobson, B.1994. Solo mothers, social policy regimes, and the logics of gender. In Gendering welfare states, edited by D. Sainsbury.London: Sage.
17.
———. 2002. Making men into fathers: Men, masculinities, and the social politics of fatherhood. New York: Cambridge.
18.
Huber, E., C. Ragin, J.D. Stephens, D. Brady, and J. Beckfield.2004. Comparative welfare states data set . Northwestern University, University of North Carolina, Duke University, and Indiana University.
19.
International Labour Organization. Various years. The cost of social security. Geneva, Switzerland: Mannheim.
20.
Jaumotte, Florence.2003. Female labour force participation: Past trends and main determinants in OECD countries. Economics Department Working Papers No. 376. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
21.
Jenson, Jane, and Mariette Sineau, eds. 2001. Who cares? Women's work, childcare, and welfare state redesign. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
22.
Kilkey, M., and J. Bradshaw.1999. Lone mothers, economic well-being, and policies. In Gender and welfare state regimes, edited by D. Sainsbury.Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press.
23.
Korpi, W., and J. Palme.1998. The paradoxes of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare state institutions, inequality, and poverty in the Western countries. American Sociological Review63:661-87.
24.
Krysik, J., and A. Nichols-Casebolt .1997. The economic well-being of never-and ever-married single mother families: A cross-national comparison . Journal of Social Service Review23 (1): 19-40.
25.
Laufer, Jacqueline.2003. Equal opportunity policy in France: Symbolic support and a mixed record. Review of Policy Research20 (3): 423-42.
26.
Leitner, S.2003. Varieties of familialism: The caring function of the family in comparative perspective. European Societies5:353-75.
27.
Mandel, H., and M. Semyonov.2005. Family policies, wage structures, and gender gaps: Sources of earnings inequality in 20 countries. American Sociological Review70:949-67.
28.
———. 2006. A welfare state paradox: State interventions and women's employment opportunities in 22 countries. American Journal of Sociology111:1910-49.
29.
Mazur, A.G.2003. Drawing comparative lessons from France and Germany. Review of Policy Research20 (3): 491-523.
30.
McLanahan, S., L.M. Casper, and A. Sorensen.1995. Women's roles and women's poverty. In Gender and family change in industrialized countries, edited by K. O. Mason and A.-M. Jensen.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
31.
McLanahan, S., and I. Garfinkel.1995. Single-mother families and social policy: Lessons for the United States from Canada, France, and Sweden. In Poverty, inequality, and the future of social policy, edited by K. McFate, R. Lawson, and W. J. Wilson . New York: Russell Sage.
32.
Michel, Sonya, and Rianne Mahon, eds. 2002. Child care policy at the cross-roads: Gender and welfare state restructuring. New York: Routledge.
33.
Millar, J.1996. Mothers, workers, and wives: Comparing policy approaches to supporting lone mothers. In Good enough mothering? Feminist perspectives on lone mothering, edited by E. B. Silva.London: Routledge.
34.
Misra, J., M.J. Budig, and S. Moller.2007. Reconciliation policies and the effects of motherhood on employment, earnings, and poverty. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis9 (2): 135-55.
35.
Moller, S., D. Bradley, E. Huber, F. Nielsen, and J.D. Stephens.2003. Determinants of relative poverty in advanced capitalist democracies. American Sociological Review68:22-51.
36.
Morgan, K.2004. The politics of mothers' employment: France in comparative perspective. World Politics55:259-89.
37.
———. 2005. The production of child care: How labor markets shape social policy and vice versa. Social Politics12:243-63.
38.
Morgan, Kimberly J., and Kathrin Zippel.2003. Paid to care: The origins and effects of care leave policies in Western Europe. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society10 (1): 49-85.
39.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.1995. Income distribution in OECD countries: Evidence from the Luxembourg Income Study. Social policy studies no. 18. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
40.
———. 2004. Social expenditure database. Paris : Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development .
41.
Orloff, A.S.1993. Gender and the social rights of citizenship. American Sociological Review58:303-28.
42.
Pettit, B., and J. Hook.2005. The structure of women's employment in comparative perspective. Social Forces84 (2): 779.
43.
Raudenbush, Stephen W., and Anthony S. Bryk .2002. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA : Sage.
44.
Rogers, W.H.1993. Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata TechicalBulletin13:19-23.
45.
Sainsbury, Diane.1999. Gender, equality, and welfare states. New York: Cambridge.
46.
Seeleib-Kaiser, Martin.2004. Germany: Still a conservative welfare state?Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Europeanists, Chicago . http://www.europanet.org/conference2004/papers/J2_SeeleibKaiser.pdf (accessed January 12, 2005).
47.
Stryker, Robin, Scott Eliason, and Eric Tranby.2006. The welfare state, family policies, and women's labor market participation: Combining fuzzy set and statistical methods to assess causal relations and estimate causal effects. Paper presented at the Method and Substance in Macro-comparative Analysis conference, Amsterdam, April.
48.
Wiepking, P., and I. Maas.2005. Gender differences in poverty: A cross-national study. European Sociological Review21 (3): 187-200.
49.
Williams, R.L.2000. A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data. Biometrics56:645-64.
