Employment Trade-Offs under Different Family Policy Constellations

Abstract

This article examines how employees consolidate the spheres of work and family in three countries with different family policy constellations: Sweden, Germany and Great Britain. The analyses are based on data from the International Social Survey Programme, 2015. Building on family policy typologies, the study demonstrates how gender and family and employment demands interact with the institutional setting regarding how people make employment trade-offs. The results show that (1) employees in Sweden make the fewest employment trade-offs, (2) family demands exert a gendered effect on employment trade-offs in Germany and (3) employment demands have both similar and distinct gender effects across countries. The article contributes to the literature by showing how individual characteristics interact with family policy constellations. The findings provide little support for a welfare-state paradox regarding family demands but some support with regard to employment demands.

Keywords

employment trade-offs family policy gender welfare regimes work–family conflict

Introduction

Understanding how women and men reconcile the work–family domain is crucial for gender equality. Public policies shape how women participate in the labour market and have beneficial effects on female labour market participation, gender equality and such like (e.g. Dotti Sani and Scherer, 2018; Gangl and Ziefle, 2015). Policies that make it easier to combine work and family life have the potential to increase labour market participation and gender equality. However, the welfare-state paradox suggests that generous work–family policies can unintentionally exert adverse effects on labour market outcomes for women (Evertsson, 2013; Mandel and Semyonov, 2006; Pettit and Hook, 2005). Because these policies allow for long leaves of absence, they may harm women’s opportunities, particularly in entering elite positions (Mandel and Semyonov, 2006; Pettit and Hook, 2005). This article addresses the relationship between social policies and employee behaviour. It examines how family and employment demands are associated with women’s and men’s employment trade-offs under distinct family policy constellations.

The comparative literature on social policies and gender equality is extensive. One main topic is how to categorize countries into policy constellations or regimes, based on structural, institutional, political and cultural aspects (e.g. Esping-Andersen, 1990; Korpi et al., 2013; Pfau-Effinger et al., 2009). Furthermore, cross-country comparisons have addressed how national policies affect mothers’ employment (e.g. Abendroth and Den Dulk, 2011; Dotti Sani and Scherer, 2018; Matysiak and Steinmetz, 2008) and how parents feel about balancing work and family (e.g. Cousins and Tang, 2004; Crompton and Lyonette, 2006; Ruppanner, 2013). In general, the comparative literature on social policies has mainly focused on aspects related to family, thus putting less emphasis on employment relations. Moreover, scanning back issues of Work, Employment and Society from 2005 to 2019, for example, only 11 articles take a cross-national approach to studying family and work relations. The majority of these are restricted to women, and only two studies address gender gaps – in working hours (Landivar, 2015) and wages (Triventi, 2013). Thus, this study advances the understanding of gender inequality in employee behaviour. The article compares three countries representing different family policy typologies to understand how gender and family and employment demands interact to shape people’s trade-offs with regard to work and family spheres.

Employment trade-offs capture employee behaviour. ‘Trade-offs are the compromises, sacrifices, adjustments, or accommodations that people make in their job and/or their personal life to attain their objectives or fulfil responsibilities’ (Mennino and Brayfield, 2002: 226–227). This article examines two kinds of employment trade-offs. The first measures the trade-offs employees make by giving up job opportunities. This trade-off is relevant for future possibilities regarding career and pay. The second measures whether employees have remained in unsatisfying jobs, which may be detrimental to overall job satisfaction and well-being. These two types of employment trade-offs may correspond, though not necessarily. A person may give up job opportunities and remain in a job he or she likes, or a person may give up job opportunities and remain in a job he or she dislikes.

The article addresses two main questions: (1) To what extent do employment trade-offs differ between countries? (2) To what extent does gender interact with family and employment demands in distinct institutional contexts? The three countries are categorized as earner-carer (Sweden), traditional-family (Germany), and market-oriented (Great Britain)¹ (Korpi et al., 2013). Although there is variation within policy constellations as well as changes over time, these countries fall under distinct typologies. Sweden serves as an example of a ‘benchmark of best practices’, with policies reconciling work and family (Cousins and Tang, 2004), and is regarded as a front-runner on gender equality (Neilson and Stanfors, 2014). It represents a clear contrast to Great Britain, in which work–family arrangements are organized in the market (Abendroth and Den Dulk, 2011). Although changes have occurred in Germany and Great Britain, the male-breadwinner role remains strong in Germany (Berger, 2013), and gender equilibrium has not yet been reached in British families (Connolly et al., 2016). Thus, these countries provide a fruitful basis for comparing how gender and family and employment demands play out in different institutional settings.

This article makes two main contributions. First, employment trade-offs capture how women and men evaluate the sacrifices they have made with regard to career and job opportunities. Whereas research on perceived work–family balance mainly examines people’s feelings about conflicts in their current jobs, applying items such as ‘feel too tired’ and ‘difficult to fulfil family responsibilities’ (e.g. Crompton and Lyonette, 2006; Ruppanner, 2013), employment trade-offs capture how people regard the overall job opportunities in relation to the family. As one of the main purposes of family policies is to promote labour market participation of women, it is crucial to understand how people perceive their overall job opportunities. Thus, the study adds to the literature by including an aspect of employee behaviour, which has received little attention so far.

Second, this article addresses the paradox on how social policies are related to employee behaviour. Literature exploring the welfare-state paradox of social policies has mainly focused on female employment in various occupations or according to socio-economic status (Korpi et al., 2013; Mandel and Semyonov, 2006; Pettit and Hook, 2005) and has not emphasized specific employment demands. As women and men often have different ways of dealing with family and work demands, knowing more about how these demands are related to employee behaviour is critical. The current analysis shows that in the earner-carer constellation of Sweden, employees make fewer trade-offs than in the other countries. Within-country comparison shows the greatest gender differences in the traditional-family constellation of Germany, particularly regarding family demands. Overall, there is little evidence of the welfare-state paradox with regard to family demands; however, employment demands reveal a gendered pattern in Sweden on professional occupations.

Employment trade-offs in an institutional setting: Conceptual framework

People may be guided to make employment trade-offs by three interrelated spheres: the family policy constellation, the family setting and the work setting. Figure 1 illustrates these three spheres and the dynamics for employment trade-offs. Family policies set the boundaries on how long employees may take leave from work and the extent of pay compensation, access to childcare, and so on. The constellation of these family policies influences the available options for people as family members and employees.

Figure 1.

Dynamics in employment trade-offs.

Work–family policies, including work arrangements provided by employers, are interrelated with the institutional context (e.g. Den Dulk, 2001). Countries’ structural and institutional features are associated with workers’ control over working time in the workplace (Lyness et al., 2012) and national gender equality is linked to organizational work–family support (i.e. flexible work arrangements) (Lyness and Kropf, 2005). Furthermore, generous welfare arrangements (e.g. long parental leave) allow parents to take leaves of absence, which has implications for employers, such as the need for temporary workers (Olsen and Kalleberg, 2004). Thus, the institutional, family and work spheres are interrelated and influence employee behaviour. The following sections discuss how the family policy constellations are interrelated with family (children in the household) and employment demands (supervisory position, professional occupation and long working hours) and may influence trade-offs between and within countries.

Institutional context: Family policy typologies

Employee behaviour is embedded in the political, institutional and cultural context. The topic has been approached in different theoretical traditions. Welfare regime theories emphasize how the institutional setting shapes people’s lives and opportunities (e.g. Esping-Andersen, 1990; Korpi, 2006). Esping-Andersen’s (1990) influential work focused originally on institutional and political aspects, whereas his later work included the family (e.g. Esping-Andersen, 2011). Social policies regarding family are the main focus in Korpi et al.’s (2013) development of the family constellation. Emphasizing cultural aspects, Pfau-Effinger (2005) shows how parenting models and norms develop. Furthermore, feminist welfare state research has developed a typology of gender regimes that support different work/care arrangements. Gender has come to be acknowledged as central to social policy and the welfare state (Shaver, 2019). Overall, the interrelations among social policy, family and gender are well established.

Employee behaviour is also of major interest in research on cross-country employment relations. Employment regime theory emphasizes how the organization of work is embedded in the institutional and societal setting (e.g. Gallie, 2007). Overlaps exist between the literature on social policy and that on employment relations. Both traditions have a common foundation in power-resource frameworks (e.g. Gallie, 2007; Korpi, 2006). The literature on employment relations has particularly focused on job quality, of which work–family balance constitutes one aspect (Gallie, 2007). Despite these lines of literature emphasizing different factors, the three countries Sweden, Germany and Great Britain all represent distinct typologies within welfare regime theory (e.g. Esping-Andersen, 1990), family policy constellations (e.g. Boje and Ejrnæs, 2012; Korpi et al., 2013) and employment regime theory (e.g. Gallie, 2007).

Because the current study takes a particular interest in how social policy may shape the reconciliation between work and family, it relies on family typologies. Welfare states are structured around family models, which reflect different expectations of the roles of mothers and fathers (Shaver, 2019). Two dominant models are the ‘male-breadwinner model’, characterized by the husband having the primary responsibility for economic support, and the ‘dual-earner family model’, which reflects policy aspirations to gender equality (Shaver, 2019). Germany and Great Britain have a strong male-breadwinner system, whereas in Sweden dual-earner households are the rule (Boje and Ejrnæs, 2012). There are, however, variations within typologies. Sweden is an example of a gender equality-oriented model, whereas other Nordic countries, such as Norway and Finland, are classified as a more parental choice model (Boje and Ejrnæs, 2012). In addition, Sweden has liberalized its labour market more than the other Nordic countries (Rasmussen et al., 2019). Germany is traditionally categorized as a conservative welfare state (Berger, 2013; Hook and Wolfe, 2013), and the role of the family is central (Korpi et al., 2013). In Germany, the male-breadwinner model remains relatively strong (Berger, 2013), though there are differences between the former East and West Germany. Whereas the West mainly relies on the male-breadwinner model, dual earners are more dominant and childcare facilities more extensive in the East (Mätzke, 2019). In Great Britain, the full-time, dual-earner model is growing, with a tendency towards greater gender equality. However, employment patterns remain strongly associated with maternal education and family size (Connolly et al., 2016).

Korpi et al. (2013) develop and examine family-relevant policies in terms of inclusion and inequality among working women. They identified three policy constellations (see Figure 1), based on the following dimensions: the traditional-family dimension (e.g. child allowance, part-time public day care, home care allowance); the dual-earner dimension (e.g. public day care services, full-time public day care, earnings-related parental insurance); and the dual-carer dimension (e.g. weeks of paid leave, weeks of paid leave for fathers). Applied to the settings in this article, Sweden is an example of a dual-earner, dual-carer country (labelled earner-carer) characterized by high values on both dimensions. Great Britain scores low on all dimensions and is categorized as market-oriented. Last, Germany is a country that puts high values on the traditional-family dimension and low values on both dual-earner and dual-carer support.

These three family constellations are likely to produce country differences in the level of employment trade-offs people make. Overall, work–family policies, such as parental leave and childcare, aim to help parents combine work and family life. It might be assumed that in countries characterized by the earner-carer constellation (Sweden), employees would need to make fewer trade-offs in terms of job opportunities and remaining in unsatisfying jobs. By contrast, in market-oriented (Great Britain) and traditional-family constellations, employees would need to make more trade-offs. For example, part-time work, which is one way to adapt to work–family balance, is more prevalent in Germany and Great Britain than in Sweden (Roeters and Craig, 2014). Consequently, these arrangements might be expected to ease employment trade-offs. Thus, the clearest differences would seem to be between Sweden on the one hand and Germany and Great Britain on the other hand.

H1: Employees in Sweden will make fewer employment trade-offs than employees in Germany and Great Britain.

Family demands

Gender and family demands may interact with the institutional context in terms of how people make employment trade-offs in the three countries. Although the need for employment trade-offs may arise from many family-related issues, having children is one of the main sources of inter-role conflict between work and family. The division of labour between men and women differs in these countries depending on the nature of the support (e.g. childcare, parental leave, work–family policies) and gender equality in policies.

The effect of gender on employment trade-offs may differ among countries. According to Korpi et al.’s (2013) family typology, it might be expected that the smallest gender gap is in Sweden. The earner-carer model suggests greater gender equality with regard to family demands. By contrast, in market-oriented and traditional-family typologies, in which the male-breadwinner model is more pronounced, there may be greater specializations in work tasks between women and men. In both Germany and Great Britain, full-time employment is more common for mothers when their children get older (Dotti Sani and Scherer, 2018). There are also still strong gender patterns of time use in Germany (Neilson and Stanfors, 2014). In Great Britain, there is a strong belief in individual choice and the importance of the labour market, which leaves the family to make its own (constrained) choices (Hook and Wolfe, 2013). In 2011, Great Britain passed the Additional Paternity Leave policy; however, less than 1% of eligible fathers took advantage of this policy in its first year (Kaufman, 2018).

In summary, gender and family demands may have distinct effects within the three studied countries. Family demands are likely to have a stronger impact on women’s employment trade-offs than men’s in the traditional-family constellation of Germany. In market-oriented Great Britain, women are more likely than men to make trade-offs. Finally, in Sweden, the gender equality policies and dual-earner, dual-carer model likely results in family demands having a gender-neutral pattern. Thus:

H2: Family demands will be more strongly associated with employment trade-offs for women than for men in Germany and Great Britain and have similar effects for women and men in Sweden.

Employment demands

Jobs vary in how much time and effort they require of workers. Employment and work demands include aspects such as supervisory position, occupation and working hours (e.g. Mennino and Brayfield, 2002; Scherer and Steiber, 2007). Employees in higher occupational groups tend to experience greater work stress (Scherer and Steiber, 2007). Demanding jobs may lead to greater work–family conflict, and research reports that women are more sensitive to such demands (Ruppanner, 2013). However, these jobs may facilitate greater commitment because they provide more aspects of good job qualities, such as autonomy and interesting and meaningful work. The opportunity costs in these jobs are higher, which may lead people to be less willing to make employment trade-offs (Mennino and Brayfield, 2002). Thus, employees in jobs characterized by a supervisory position, professional occupation and long working hours may be less likely to have given up job opportunities and remained in unsatisfying jobs.

It is not obvious how employment demands may influence women’s and men’s trade-offs in different countries. On the one hand, with social policies geared to gender equality, one would expect women and men to make similar trade-offs. Thus, a work–family constellation that facilitates gender equality will spill over to the workplace (e.g. Lyness and Kropf, 2005), with women and men sharing similar demands.

On the other hand, the welfare-state paradox suggests that social policies reinforce gender stereotyping, which may particularly harm women’s opportunities in higher occupations. Although Nordic countries have promoted female participation in the labour market, some studies show that the rates of women in elite positions are low (Mandel and Semyonov, 2006). Thus, family policies may contribute to gender inequality because they facilitate work interruptions, and generous family policies may increase gendered division of labour (Mandel and Semyonov, 2006). For example, family leave experience reduces the chances of upward mobility for young women in Sweden, whereas there is no effect for women in Western Germany, where many mothers drop out of the labour force altogether (Evertsson et al., 2016). In addition, some counterintuitive findings support the notion that work–family conflict is greater for mothers and fathers in Sweden than in other European countries (Cousins and Tang, 2004). Therefore, the welfare-state paradox suggests a greater difference by gender in highly demanding employment states such as Sweden. Thus, women in demanding jobs (e.g. supervisory position, professional occupation, long working hours) in earner-carer constellations may make more employment trade-offs than men.

H3: Employment demands will be more strongly associated with employment trade-offs for women than for men in Sweden and will be gender neutral in Germany and Great Britain.

Institutional features: Sweden, Germany and Great Britain

The three countries represent different family typologies that may facilitate the employment trade-offs. Table 1 presents some of the key institutional features on gender equality and social protection. As the table shows, Sweden scores the highest on the gender equality index and Germany the lowest, which is the only country of the three scoring below the European Union average (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2018). Female participation rates are high in all three countries, and the proportion of part-time work is also substantial.

Table 1.

Institutional features on gender, family policies and social protection.

	Gender equality index^a	Female participation rate^b	Proportion of part-time work among women^b	Parental leave length^c	Parental leave: no. of months well paid (> 66% of earnings)^d	Share of children (1–3 years) cared for by formal arrangements^b	Employment protection legislation^e	Unemployment insurance replacement rates^f
Sweden	82.6	79%	33%	70 weeks	13 months	63%	3.0	58%
Germany	65.5	73%	48%	62 weeks	12 months	25%	1.0	42%
Great Britain	71.5	71%	40%	42 weeks	0	30%	2.8	13%

Sources: ^aEuropean Institute for Gender Equality (2018); ^bEurostat (2019); ^cCastro-García and Pazos-Moran (2016); ^dEuropean Platform for Investing in Children (2018); ^eOECD (2013); ^fEsser et al. (2013).

Parental leave differs in terms of whether certain parts are restricted to the father or mother. After Iceland, Sweden scores highest on this index (Castro-García and Pazos-Moran, 2016). In addition, parental leave differs in terms of whether it can be transferable between the mother and father. In European countries, only 20% of fathers took their non-transferable equivalent leave; men are most likely to take leave if it is non-transferable and pay is well compensated (Castro-García and Pazos-Moran, 2016).

In all three countries, employees have the right to take parental leave for a substantial number of months: 70 weeks in Sweden, 62 in Germany and 42 in Great Britain (Castro-García and Pazos-Moran, 2016). However, the level of compensation varies greatly. Great Britain stands out with no months of well-paid compensation (defined as 66% of previous earnings) (European Platform for Investing in Children, 2018).

Sweden has been a pioneer with respect to parental leave. However, changes in policy direction have occurred in the other two countries. In Germany, the parental leave reform of 2007 created a new incentive for men to take parental leave by introducing ‘daddy months’ – two months of leave exclusively reserved for fathers (Bünning, 2015). Furthermore, the share of children in formal arrangements varies greatly. In Sweden, 63% of children (1–3 years) are in formal childcare arrangements, which is higher than in Germany (25%) and in Great Britain (30%).

Overall, work–family policies in terms of length of parental leave and general labour market participation are similar in the three countries. However, the leave policies and opportunities they offer differ in both character (gender neutrality) and level of support (low pay). Last, the social protection these countries offer varies. Despite the liberalization in Sweden, employment protection on individual dismissals remains strict (OECD, 2013). Thus, employers face more obstacles in Sweden than in the other two countries. The unemployment benefits are also substantially higher in Sweden and Germany than in Great Britain.

Methods and data

The data came from the International Social Survey Programme’s (ISSP; 2015) Work Orientations IV (https://www.gesis.org/issp), including available measures of the three countries. For analysis, the sub-sample included only full- or part-time employees aged 18–65 years, yielding 2921 respondents. The ISSP data were collected at the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2016. Response rates were 39.3% (Sweden), 33.9% (Germany)² and 42.3% (Great Britain) (Study Monitoring Report, 2017). Previous research on related topics has used the ISSP to examine how people feel about conflicts between work and family (Crompton and Lyonette, 2006; Ruppanner, 2013).

Data collection was conducted by self-completion (by mail) in Sweden and mixed method (face-to-face interviews by an interviewer and a self-completion questionnaire) in Germany and Great Britain. In Great Britain, the ISSP was fielded as part of the 2015 British Social Attitudes survey (for more details, see Study Monitoring Report, 2017).

Dependent variables

Employment trade-offs were measured with two questions: (1) ‘Have you ever given up or would you give up job opportunities for the benefit of family life?’; (2) ‘Have you ever remained or would you remain in a job that was not satisfying for you for the benefit of your family life?’ The answers were ‘Yes, I have done so and probably would do so again’/‘Yes, I have done so but would probably not do so again’ and ‘No, I have not done so but probably would do so’/‘No, I have not done so and probably would not do so’. The questions were coded as two dummy variables indicating yes (1) or no (0); not distinguishing between the answers indicating an evaluation of the future. The correlation between the two questions was low (0.261), and thus they were treated separately in the analyses.

Independent variables

Family demands were measured by whether the respondents had children in the household (1) or not (0). Children included toddlers and youths between school age and 17 years of age. Measures distinguishing between the ages of children were also tested.

Employment demands were measured with three dimensions: having a supervisory position, professional occupation and long working hours. Supervisory position was measured by whether the employee supervised others (1) or not (0). Occupational group was based on International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) codes and consisted of three main groups:³ (1) senior officials, managers, legislators, professionals, technicians and associate professional legislators (ISCO 1–3) (labelled professional occupations); (2) clerks and service, shop and market sales workers (reference category) (ISCO 4–5); and (3) craft and related trade workers, plant/machine operators and workers in elementary occupations (ISCO 6–9). Working hours were measured by the number of hours worked per week (centred).

Control over working hours/schedule followed was measured as follows: ‘What best describes the working hours conditions?’ This was coded as a dummy variable: ‘entirely free to decide’/‘decide within certain limits’ (1) or fixed time (0). Age was constructed into five groups: 18–25, 26–35, 36–45 (reference category), 46–55 and 56–65 years. Education was indicated by the years of full-time education completed (centred). Finally, control for industry (private = 1, public = 0) was included.

Table 2 provides descriptive statistics on all the variables and indicates that multi-correlation is not a problem. As the table shows, 40% of respondents reported that they have given up job opportunities, while 41% have remained in unsatisfying jobs. By country, the proportions of employees giving up job opportunities were 33% in Sweden, 42% in Germany and 43% in Great Britain, while those for the alternative, remaining in an unsatisfying job, were 38% in Sweden, 31% in Germany and 52% in Great Britain (numbers not presented in table).

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics (all variables).

	Mean	SD	Correlations
			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
1. Give up job opportunities	0.40	0.49
2. Remain in unsatisfying job	0.41	0.49	0.26**
3. Woman	0.56	0.50	0.12**	0.02
4. Children	0.37	0.48	0.14**	0.07**	0.07**
5. Supervisor	0.36	0.48	0.07**	0.00	–0.14**	0.01
6. Professional	0.49	0.50	0.03	–0.10**	0.04*	0.08**	0.24**
7. Service	0.29	0.46	0.03	0.09**	0.23**	–0.01	–0.16**	–0.64**
8. Craft	0.21	0.41	–0.07**	0.03	–0.30**	–0.09**	–0.12**	–0.51**	–0.33**
9. Weekly working hours	38.16	11.13	–0.10**	–0.02	–0.37**	–0.08**	0.28**	0.16**	–0.25**	0.07**
10. Education years	14.03	8.25	–0.04⁺	–0.06**	0.00	0.03⁺	–0.01	0.14**	–0.07**	–0.10**	0.04⁺
11. Control work hours	0.54	0.50	0.03	–0.08**	–0.03	0.04⁺	0.11**	0.34**	–0.18**	–0.22**	0.10**	0.06**
12. Age < 25	0.08	0.27	–0.14**	–0.13**	–0.04*	–0.07**	–0.09**	–0.11**	0.08**	0.05*	–0.01	0.20**	–0.11**
13. Age 25–35	0.08	0.27	–0.08**	–0.04*	0.04*	0.10**	0.00	0.05*	–0.01	–0.04*	0.05*	0.06**	–0.04⁺	–0.15**
14. Age 36–45	0.20	0.40	0.08**	0.06**	0.02	0.32**	0.01	0.08**	–0.05*	–0.05**	–0.01	0.00	0.05*	–0.15**	–0.26**
15. Age 46–55	0.28	0.45	0.04*	0.03⁺	–0.02	0.00	0.05**	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.00	–0.07**	0.04⁺	–0.18**	–0.31**	–0.32**
16. Age 56–65	0.23	0.42	0.05*	0.02	–0.01	–0.36**	–0.01	–0.06**	0.01	0.06**	–0.03	–0.11**	0.01	–0.16**	–0.27**	–0.29**	–0.34**
17. Public	0.35	0.48	0.01	0.00	0.17**	0.05**	–0.03⁺	0.17**	0.00	–0.20**	–0.06**	0.04*	–0.01	–0.09**	–0.03⁺	0.02	0.02	0.04*

Notes: **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, ⁺p < 0.1.

Models

A binary logit model estimated the antecedents of employment trade-offs. The next section presents the results for give up job opportunities (1) or not (0) and those for remain in an unsatisfying job (1) or not (0).

Results

Table 3 presents the multivariate analysis of country differences. For the first indicator of employment trade-offs (give up job opportunities), the difference is only significant between Sweden and Great Britain; respondents in Sweden make fewer employment trade-offs. For the second indicator (remain in an unsatisfying job), respondents in Sweden are less likely to make this trade-off than those in Germany and Great Britain. These results provide support for H1. Furthermore, gender has no effect in the pooled sample of countries. Family demands are positively associated with employment trade-offs, as expected, while employment demands (supervisory position, professional occupation and long working hours) have few effects. Among the control variables, younger people tend to make fewer employment trade-offs, as expected.

Table 3.

Determinants of employment trade-offs (logistic regression).

	Give up job opportunities		Remain in unsatisfying job
	b	se	b	se
Country (Great Britain)
Sweden	–0.356**	0.137	–0.702**	0.132
Germany	0.125	0.115	–0.965**	0.116
Gender and family demands
Woman (man)	0.319**	0.115	–0.019	0.114
Children (no children)	0.711**	0.112	0.362**	0.111
Employment demands
Supervisor (not supervisor)	0.359**	0.112	–0.109	0.114
Professional (service)	0.126	0.159	–0.265⁺	0.157
Craft	–0.086	0.165	0.201	0.159
Weekly working hours	–0.017**	0.005	0.005	0.005
Controls
Education years	–0.006	0.017	–0.009	0.016
Control work hours (no control)	0.034	0.109	–0.255*	0.108
Age < 25 (age 36–45)	–1.361**	0.279	–1.471**	0.255
Age 26–35	–0.569**	0.152	–0.501**	0.150
Age 46–55	0.128	0.133	0.021	0.133
Age 56–65	0.295⁺	0.169	–0.117	0.168
Public (private)	–0.119	0.109	–0.093	0.109
Intercept	–2.605**	0.334	0.492**	0.183
Nagelkerke R²	0.116		0.120
N	1947		1914

Notes: Continuous variables are centred: education years and weekly working hours. For the dummy-variables, reference categories are presented in parentheses. **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, ⁺p < 0.1.

Table 4 reports the results from the logit model of determinants of giving up job opportunities, for the three countries separately. H2 suggests a gendered effect in Germany and Great Britain, such that family demands will be more strongly associated with employment trade-offs for women than for men.

Table 4.

Determinants of the employment trade-off ‘give up job opportunities’ by country (logistic regression).

	Sweden				Germany				Great Britain
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 1		Model 2		Model 1		Model 2
	b	se	b	se	b	se	b	se	b	se	b	se
Woman (man)	0.018	0.231	0.490	0.504	0.568**	0.188	0.775*	0.354	0.305	0.196	–0.302	0.336
Family demands
Children (no children)	0.807**	0.248	1.289**	0.345	0.561**	0.179	0.072	0.249	0.792 **	0.185	0.874 **	0.274
Woman × children			–0.814⁺	0.417			0.912**	0.341			–0.122	0.351
Employment demands
Supervisor (not supervisor)	0.671**	0.257	0.415	0.348	0.475 **	0.170	0.817 **	0.256	0.037	0.193	–0.118	0.294
Woman × supervisor			0.633	0.523			–0.605⁺	0.347			0.229	0.391
Professional (service)	0.229	0.303	0.258	0.464	0.390⁺	0.216	0.534⁺	0.324	0.151	0.218	–0.538	0.348
Woman × professional			0.166	0.511			–0.214	0.364			1.031*	0.411
Craft	0.556	0.371	0.521	0.434	0.220	0.257	0.291	0.284	–0.220	0.274	–0.577⁺	0.303
Weekly working hours	–0.022	0.015	0.038	0.025	–0.009	0.008	0.014	0.012	–0.016*	0.008	0.000	0.013
Woman × weekly working hours			–0.100**	0.032			–0.033*	0.016			–0.029⁺	0.017
Controls
Education years	0.032	0.036	0.020	0.036	–0.008	0.024	–0.004	0.024	–0.030	0.033	–0.027	0.034
Control work hours (no control)	–0.250	0.243	–0.262	0.249	0.100	0.172	0.035	0.177	0.095	0.177	0.124	0.179
Public (private)	–0.218	0.219	–0.206	0.223	–0.180	0.181	–0.148	0.187	0.109	0.182	0.106	0.184
Age < 25 (age 36–45)	–2.085⁺	1.084	–2.347 *	1.132	–1.575 **	0.449	–1.432 **	0.454	–0.902*	0.397	–0.917 *	0.400
Age 26–35	–1.113 **	0.330	–1.061 **	0.338	–0.422⁺	0.252	–0.375	0.257	–0.418⁺	0.248	–0.430⁺	0.250
Age 46–55	–0.201	0.268	–0.181	0.272	0.156	0.219	0.242	0.228	0.371	0.226	0.405⁺	0.229
Age 56–65	–0.056	0.345	–0.033	0.349	0.235	0.282	0.320	0.287	0.604*	0.284	0.596*	0.287
Intercept	–0.999*	0.422	–1.488**	0.545	–1.291**	0.321	–1.603**	0.382	–1.219**	0.292	–0.840*	0.339
Nagelkerke R²	0.131		0.164		0.128		0.159		0.123		0.134
N	513		513		743		743		691		691

Notes: see Table 3 note. **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, ⁺p < 0.1.

Model 1 in Table 4 presents the main effect of all variables, and model 2 adds interaction effects of gender and family and employment demands. Model 1 shows that in Germany, women give up job opportunities more often than men, and model 2 shows that the effect of children is stronger for women (there is no significant effect for men), as expected (H2). Furthermore, model 1 shows that in Sweden, having children is positively associated with the likelihood of giving up job opportunities (b = 0.8) and that there is no gender effect, as expected (H2). When the interaction effects of gender are added to model 2, the effect shows that women with children give up job opportunities to a lesser extent than men with children (p < 0.1). In Great Britain, models 1 and 2 in Table 4 show that there are no gender effects of having children – having children is associated with giving up job opportunities for both women and men; thus, H2 is not supported for Great Britain.

Furthermore, for employment demands, model 2 in Table 4 shows few effects for Sweden. For Germany, model 2 shows that employment demands (supervisory position and professional occupation) are positively associated with giving up job opportunities and that the effect of being a supervisor is somewhat stronger for men than for women (negative supervisor × woman interaction, p < 0.1). By contrast, in Great Britain, women in professional jobs give up job opportunities more often than men. In all three countries, working hours are negatively associated with giving up job opportunities, but only for women (only p < 0.1 in Great Britain). These results provide weak support for H3, as gender mainly has the same effect in all countries.

Table 5 reports the results from the logit model of determinants of the other employment trade-off, remaining in an unsatisfying job, for the three countries. For Germany, Table 5 reveals a gendered pattern with regard to family demands. Model 1 and model 2 show that women remain in unsatisfying jobs more often than men, and there is a consistent effect of family demands. The interaction effect shows that the effect of children is reduced for women (p < 0.1), though the general gender effect shows that women remain in unsatisfying jobs more often. For Sweden, model 1 shows no effect of gender or family demands, suggesting a gender-neutral pattern. For Great Britain, Table 5 shows few gender effects of family demands. Model 1 shows that having children is associated with remaining in an unsatisfying job; however, this disappears when controlling for the interaction effects in model 2. Overall, these results provide support for H2, with the contrast between Sweden (gender neutral) and Germany (gendered) being the greatest.

Table 5.

Determinants of the employment trade-off ‘remain in unsatisfying job’ by country (logistic regression).

	Sweden				Germany				Great Britain
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 1		Model 2		Model 1		Model 2
	b	se	b	se	b	se	b	se	b	se	b	se
Woman (man)	0.009	0.219	–1.053*	0.445	0.155	0.199	0.739*	0.351	–0.222	0.188	–0.457	0.315
Family demands
Children (no children)	0.263	0.229	0.158	0.330	0.381*	0.191	0.684**	0.258	0.458*	0.179	0.217	0.259
Woman × children			0.141	0.396			–0.631⁺	0.357			0.456	0.344
Employment demands
Supervisor (not supervisor)	–0.202	0.265	–0.565	0.367	0.230	0.181	0.170	0.266	–0.405 *	0.185	–0.696*	0.272
Woman × supervisor			0.840	0.537			0.106	0.364			0.569	0.372
Professional (service)	–0.544*	0.273	–1.437**	0.437	–0.230	0.227	0.189	0.342	–0.676**	0.214	–0.486	0.329
Woman × professional			1.273**	0.482			–0.614	0.384			–0.323	0.387
Craft	–0.187	0.338	–0.788⁺	0.411	0.039	0.268	0.224	0.291	–0.470⁺	0.261	–0.435	0.286
Weekly working hours	0.003	0.014	0.015	0.023	–0.004	0.008	0.005	0.014	0.018*	0.008	0.020	0.012
Woman × weekly working hours			–0.029	0.029			–0.015	0.017			–0.002	0.016
Controls
Education years	0.068*	0.033	0.061⁺	0.034	–0.002	0.026	–0.008	0.026	–0.102**	0.032	–0.104**	0.032
Control work hours (no control)	–0.301	0.223	–0.322	0.226	–0.284	0.186	–0.311	0.191	–0.188	0.173	–0.194	0.174
Public (private)	–0.112	0.207	–0.111	0.210	–0.217	0.195	–0.174	0.198	0.095	0.180	0.087	0.181
Age < 25 (age 36–45)	–1.709*	0.819	–1.902*	0.857	–1.546 **	0.513	–1.555**	0.517	–1.400**	0.345	–1.377 **	0.348
Age 26–35	–0.848**	0.305	–0.803 *	0.310	–0.083	0.270	–0.080	0.273	–0.558*	0.236	–0.582 *	0.238
Age 46–55	–0.230	0.257	–0.179	0.261	0.299	0.234	0.197	0.240	–0.066	0.225	–0.038	0.226
Age 56–65	–0.145	0.321	–0.135	0.325	0.190	0.304	0.100	0.308	–0.468⁺	0.278	–0.462⁺	0.279
Intercept	0.245	0.389	1.020*	0.498	–0.886**	0.338	–1.245**	0.390	0.982**	0.280	1.092**	0.329
Nagelkerke R²	0.066		0.094		0.070		0.083		0.130		0.138
N	502		502		712		712		698		698

Notes: see Table 3 note. **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, ⁺p < 0.1.

Furthermore, for employment demands, Table 5 shows no effects of demands on remaining in an unsatisfying job in Germany. Model 2 reveals a gendered pattern for Sweden on professional occupations. For men in professional occupations, the probability of remaining in an unsatisfying job is 0.40, while for a woman in the same job it is 0.45, indicating that trade-offs increase for women in these positions. For Great Britain, model 1 shows that employment demands (supervisory position, professional occupation and long working hours) are negatively associated with remaining in unsatisfying jobs, as expected, and there are no interaction effects of gender (model 2). Thus, the analyses show a somewhat more gendered pattern in Sweden than Germany and Great Britain, which provides some support for H3 (welfare-state paradox).

Overall, the results show support for a gendered pattern of family demands in Germany but few gender differences in Sweden and Great Britain. This finding confirms H2 and reveals little evidence of a welfare-state paradox; rather, it is an indication of an untraditional pattern in Sweden, as family demands are associated with giving up job opportunities more for men than for women (only p < 0.1).

For employment demands, the most consistent effect is working hours, which have the same effects in all countries – that is, women who work longer hours give up job opportunities less often. In line with the welfare-state paradox, the expectation was a more gendered effect of employment demands in Sweden. This was supported for one dimension of employment demands (professional occupation).

Discussion and conclusions

This article examines how people make employment trade-offs regarding work and family spheres in Sweden, Germany and Great Britain. Building on family policy constellations, the article addresses how the institutional setting interacts with gender and family and employment demands in three countries. Whereas family-friendly policies may help people find suitable combinations of work and family, these policies may also have unintended consequences, potentially reinforcing gender differences and thereby producing what is known as the welfare-state paradox. The focus on employment trade-offs helps capture people’s employment behaviour regarding consolidating work and family lives. By including family and employment demands in three distinct family constellations, this study shows how the institutional setting interacts with individual characteristics and, in doing so, provides three main findings.

First, people in Sweden tend to make fewer employment trade-offs than people in Great Britain and Germany. For the aspect remain in an unsatisfying job, the difference between the earner-carer constellation of Sweden and the market-oriented and traditional-family constellations of Great Britain and Germany, respectively, is quite clear. For the aspect give up job opportunities, employees in Sweden make fewer trade-offs than those in Great Britain, whereas there is no difference between Sweden and Germany. This finding is mainly in line with previous research showing that work–family conflict is lesser in countries characterized by gender equality and generous welfare arrangements (e.g. Abendroth and Den Dulk, 2011; Crompton and Lyonette, 2006; Ruppanner, 2013). In other words, generous benefits may allow people to combine work and family, enabling them to make fewer employment trade-offs.

Second, family demands (having young children in the household) have different effects on employment trade-offs in the three countries. The main difference is between Germany on the one hand and Sweden and Great Britain on the other hand. In Germany, women are more likely to give up job opportunities and remain in unsatisfying jobs, and family demands are more likely to be associated with women giving up job opportunities more than men. In Great Britain, the study finds no difference between men and women: having children in the household is associated with giving up job opportunities and remaining in unsatisfying jobs for both genders. One explanation may be that, due to low pay compensation, the trade-offs become substantial for both women and men. In Sweden, there is a weak interaction effect (p < 0.1) of gender and children: men with children in the household are more likely to give up job opportunities than men without children, which contradicts the welfare-state paradox that gender policies are more negative for women. By contrast, this may signal a ‘progressive’ pattern, in which family demands are associated with employment trade-offs for men more than women, indicating that gender equality ideology may be more pronounced in Sweden (Molander et al., 2019). Overall, the findings support a gendered effect of family demands in Germany. The traditional-family model shows the clearest support for women having children making more trade-offs than men. Family demands have largely the same effect for women and men in Sweden and Great Britain, though the level of employment trade-offs is higher in Great Britain.

Third, employment demands have some effects on employment trade-offs. Given higher opportunity costs in higher occupations, the expectation was that these employees would make fewer trade-offs. This is true mainly for the aspect remaining in an unsatisfying job, and there are some gendered effects. Holding a supervisory position is negatively associated with remaining in an unsatisfying job (Great Britain). Women in professional jobs in Sweden are more likely to remain in an unsatisfying job than men, whereas in Great Britain this is the case for both women and men. This finding indicates a welfare-state paradox – women make more trade-offs than men in countries with extensive work–family policies (e.g. Mandel and Semyonov, 2006). Notably, working hours are negatively associated with giving up job opportunities for women in all three countries. Women who work more hours are less likely to give up job opportunities, while the number of working hours has no effect for men. This finding may reflect that full-time work signals career orientation more strongly for women than men.

Regarding limitations, cross-sectional studies face the common problem of limited ability to assess causality. Social policy and institutional features contextualized these countries; however, it is not possible to make strong links between specific policies and employee behaviour. In addition, the questions on employment trade-offs refer to the past. The employees may have changed jobs since having children, which is not possible to capture with these data. Thus, there is a risk of underestimating the impact of family demands. Finally, it is not possible to distinguish between different household types (e.g. single-parent households), as this information is not available in the data for Great Britain.

This article provides two main contributions. First, this study shows empirically how employment trade-offs follow family constellations. Employment trade-offs illustrate how people evaluate their sacrifices with regard to career and job opportunities. As social policies capture work–family arrangements from a life-long perspective, not just feelings about a current job, this adds to extant literature by showing that social policies are linked to the trade-offs in employment.

Second, the article contributes theoretically by addressing within-country differences on how gender interacts with family and employment demands. The welfare-state paradox mainly addresses this by accounting for female participation in occupations based on socio-economic status (e.g. Korpi et al., 2013). By including employment demands, the study shows how gender interacts in different ways in these countries. The findings reveal that family demands have gender-neutral effects in Sweden, whereas there are some gendered effects of employment demands. Further research should aim to combine family policies with information on workplaces and employment relations.

The findings from this study have important implications for social policies in achieving gender equality. Overall, the findings mainly reveal beneficial effects on gender equality deriving from the earner-carer constellation. Under this constellation, women and men make fewer and more similar employment trade-offs when having children in the household. This implies that policies geared to gender equality may ease employment trade-offs. However, the gendered effects of employment demands imply that social policies play out differently for women and men. This calls for the need to bring employers closer in the planning of work–family balance for both women and men. Making employers and employees establish expectations with regard to careers, and keeping work within reasonable bounds when having children, is crucial for both women and men. This may help both reduce the potential negative effects of leaves of absence, as well as level out the gender differences. Overall, to achieve gender equality, further research needs to explore the dynamics of social policy, family and work relations.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This research was part of the research programme FOCUS (Future-Oriented Corporate Solutions) at the Norwegian School of Economics (NHH). The author especially thanks Arne L Kalleberg for his valuable comments on this work, as well as participants at the seminar at NHH and the Nordic Working Life Conference in Oslo. The author also thanks three anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Karen M Olsen

Notes

Karen M Olsen is Professor in Human Resource Management at the Norwegian School of Economics (NHH). Her research interests include employment relations, non-standard work arrangements, job quality and sickness absence. She has published in journals such as Human Resource Management, Human Resource Management Journal, European Sociological Review, and Social Science and Medicine.

References

Abendroth

A-K

Den Dulk

(2011) Support for the work-life balance in Europe: the impact of state, workplace and family support on work-life balance satisfaction. Work, Employment and Society 25(2): 234–256.

Berger

(2013) Happy working mothers? Investigating the effect of maternal employment on life satisfaction. Economica 80: 23–43.

Boje

Ejrnæs

(2012) Policy and practice: the relationship between family policy regime and women’s labour market participation in Europe. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 32(9): 589–605.

Bünning

(2015) What happens after the ‘daddy months’? Fathers’ involvement in paid work, childcare, and housework after taking parental leave in Germany. European Sociological Review 31(6): 738–748.

Castro-García

Pazos-Moran

(2016) Parental leave policy and gender equality in Europe. Feminist Economics 22(3): 51–73.

Connolly

Aldrich

O’Brien

, et al (2016) Britain’s slow movement to a gender egalitarian equilibrium: parents and employment in the UK 2001–13. Work, Employment and Society 30(5): 838–857.

Cousins

Tang

(2004) Working time and work and family conflict in the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. Work, Employment and Society 18(3): 531–549.

Crompton

Lyonette

(2006) Work-life ‘balance’ in Europe. Acta Sociologica 49(4): 379–393.

Den Dulk

(2001) Work-family arrangements in organizations: an international comparison. In: Van der Lippe

Van Dijk

(eds) Women’s Employment in a Comparative Perspective. New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 9–84.

10.

Dotti Sani

Scherer

(2018) Maternal employment: enabling factors in context. Work, Employment and Society 32(1): 175–192.

11.

Esping-Andersen

(1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

12.

Esping-Andersen

(2011) The importance of children and families in welfare states. In: Beets

Schippers

te Velde

(eds) The Future of Motherhood in Western Societies: Late Fertility and Its Consequences. Cham: Springer, 125–148.

13.

Esser

Ferrarini

Nelson

, et al (2013) Unemployment Benefits in EU Member States. Brussels: European Commission.

14.

European Institute for Gender Equality (2018) Available at: https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index (accessed 7 December 2018).

15.

European Platform for Investing in Children (2018) Paternity and Parental Leave Policies across the European Union. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

16.

Eurostat (2019) Women in the labour market. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/european-semester_thematic-factsheet_labour-force-participation-women_en_0.pdf (accessed 10 August 2019).

17.

Evertsson

(2013) The importance of work: changing work commitment following the transition to motherhood. Acta Sociologica 56(2): 139–153.

18.

Evertsson

Grunow

Aisenbrey

(2016) Work interruptions and young women’s career prospects in Germany, Sweden and the US. Work, Employment and Society 30(2): 291–308.

19.

Gallie

(ed.) (2007) Employment Regimes and the Quality of Work. London: Oxford University Press.

20.

Gangl

Ziefle

(2015) The making of a good woman: extended parental leave entitlements and mothers’ work commitment in Germany. American Journal of Sociology 121(2): 511–563.

21.

Hook

Wolfe

(2013) Parental involvement and work schedules: time with children in the United States, Germany, Norway and the United Kingdom. European Sociological Review 29(3): 411–425.

22.

ISSP (2015) International Social Survey Programme. Available from www.gesis.org/issp

23.

Kaufman

(2018) Barriers to equality: why British fathers do not use parental leave. Community, Work and Family 21(3): 310–325.

24.

Korpi

(2006) Power resources and employer-centered approaches in explanations of welfare states and varieties of capitalism – protagonists, consenters, and antagonists. World Politics 58(2): 167–206.

25.

Korpi

Ferrarini

Englund

(2013) Women’s opportunities under different family policy constellations: gender, class, and inequality tradeoffs in western countries re-examined. Social Politics 20(1): 1–40.

26.

Landivar

(2015) The gender gap in employment hours: do work-hour regulations matter? Work, Employment and Society 29(4): 550–570.

27.

Lyness

Kropf

(2005) The relationships of national gender equality and organizational support with work-family balance: a study of European managers. Human Relations 58(1): 33–60.

28.

Lyness

Gornick

Stone

, et al (2012) It’s all about control: worker control over schedule and hours in cross-national context. American Sociological Review 77(6): 1023–1049.

29.

Mandel

Semyonov

(2006) A welfare state paradox: state interventions and women’s employment opportunities in 22 countries. American Journal of Sociology 111(6): 1910–1949.

30.

Matysiak

Steinmetz

(2008) Finding Their Way? Female Employment Patterns in West Germany, East Germany, and Poland. European Sociological Review 24(3): 331–345.

31.

Mätzke

(2019) Comparative perspectives on childcare expansion in Germany: explaining the persistent east‒west divide. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 21(1): 47–64.

32.

Mennino

Brayfield

(2002) Job-family trade-offs – the multidimensional effects of gender. Work and Occupations 29(2): 226–256.

33.

Molander

Kleppe

Östberg

(2019) Hero shots: involved fathers conquering new discursive territory in consumer culture. Consumption Markets & Culture 22(4): 430–453.

34.

Neilson

Stanfors

(2014) It’s about time! Gender, parenthood, and household divisions of labor under different welfare regimes. Journal of Family Issues 35(8): 1066–1088.

35.

OECD (2013) Protecting Jobs, Enhancing Flexibility: A New Look at Employment Protection Legislation (Employment Outlook). Paris: OECD.

36.

Olsen

Kalleberg

(2004) Non-standard work in two different employment regimes: Norway and the United States. Work, Employment and Society 18(2): 321–348.

37.

Pettit

Hook

(2005) The structure of women’s employment in comparative perspective. Social Forces 84(2): 779–801.

38.

Pfau-Effinger

(2005) Welfare state policies and the development of care arrangements. European Societies 7(2): 321–347.

39.

Pfau-Effinger

Falquer

Jensen

(2009) Formal and Informal Work: The Hidden Work Regime in Europe. New York: Routledge.

40.

Rasmussen

Nätti

Larsen

, et al (2019) Nonstandard employment in the Nordics – toward precarious work? Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies 9(S6): 114689.

41.

Roeters

Craig

(2014) Part-time work, women’s work–life conflict, and job satisfaction: a cross-national comparison of Australia, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 55(3): 185–203.

42.

Ruppanner

(2013) Conflict between work and family: an investigation of four policy measures. Social Indicators Research 110(1): 327–347.

43.

Scherer

Steiber

(2007) Work and family in conflict? The impact of work demands on family life. In: Gallie

(ed.) Employment Regimes and the Quality of Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 137–178.

44.

Shaver

(2019) Introduction to the Handbook on Gender and Social Policy. In: Shaver

(ed.) Handbook on Gender and Social Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1–18.

45.

Study Monitoring Report (2017) Country reports on ISSP. Available at: https://www.gesis.org/issp/modules/issp-modules-by-topic/work-orientations/2015/ (accessed 6 April 2018).

46.

Triventi

(2013) The gender wage gap and its institutional context: a comparative analysis of European graduates. Work, Employment and Society 27(4): 563–580.