Quest
AA6666
Thenewrolesofmenandwomen.pdf
State-of-the-art report
The new roles of men and women and implications for families and societies
Livia Sz. Oláh, Rudolf Richter and Irena E. Kotowska
Changing families and sustainable societies:
Policy contexts and diversity over the life course and across generations
A project funded by European Union's Seventh Framework
Programme under grant agreement no. 320116
© Copyright is held by the authors.
11 (2014)
Acknowledgement: The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 320116 for
the research project FamiliesAndSocieties.
State-of-the-art report The new roles of men and women
and implications for families and societies*1
Livia Sz. Oláh¹, Rudolf Richter² and Irena E. Kotowska³
with extensive contribution from
Cornelia Schadler, Laura Bernardi, Katarina Boye, Marie Evertsson, Susanne Fahlén, Doris Hanappi, Valerie Heintz-Martin, Ursula Henz, Karin Jurczyk, Anna Matysiak, Cornelia Muresan, Allan Puur, Julia Selmaier, Marta Styrc, Maria Letizia Tanturri, Isabel Valarino, Jan van Bavel, Daniele Vignoli, Sabine Walper and Judit Takács
Abstract: This report presents the main research findings relevant to the research in Work Package 3: “The new roles of men and women and implications for families and societies”. It first depicts the development of family forms in Europe, with a focus on the de-standardization of the family life course and the interplay between the changes in family forms and in gender roles. It proceeds to describe the relationship between women’s and men’s new roles and family dynamics, and the implications of the changes in gender structures on the transition to parenthood. This is followed by two chapters which focus on the implications of these changes on intra-family organization, namely on changes in gender roles in doing family and on coping strategies of families under conditions of uncertainty and precariousness. Each chapter provides an overview over the main theoretical approaches, complemented by a review of the main empirical findings. Each chapter thus identifies the theoretical and empirical knowledge gaps and research needs essential for WP3. The report concludes with a summary of the research conducted in the work package and its relation to well-being in families. Keywords: family life course, gender roles, transitions, reconciliation of work and family, doing gender, doing family
Affiliation: 1. Department of Sociology, SPaDE, SUDA, Stockholm University 2. Department of Sociology, University of Vienna 3. Institute of Statistics and Demography, Warsaw School of Economics
* The authors are grateful to Gerda Neyer and Frances Goldscheider for invaluable suggestions and comments and to Nora Sánchez Gassen for excellent assistance
1
Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 2
2 De-standardization of the family life course ....................................................................... 2 2.1 Changes in family patterns ............................................................................................... 2 2.2 Gender roles in transition ............................................................................................... 10 2.3 The interplay between the increasing complexity of family forms, relationships and new gender roles .................................................................................................................. 16
3 Women’s new role and implications for men’s role and family dynamics .................... 17 3.1 Prevalent theoretical approaches .................................................................................... 17 3.2 Empirical findings and research gaps ............................................................................ 20
4 Gendered transition to parenthood: Defining mothers and fathers ............................... 24 4.1 Prevalent theoretical approaches .................................................................................... 24 4.2 Empirical findings and research gaps ............................................................................ 26
5 New gender roles in doing families .................................................................................... 29 5.1 Prevalent theoretical approaches .................................................................................... 29 5.2 Empirical findings and research gaps ............................................................................ 30
6 Coping strategies in family and work reconciliation under conditions of uncertainty and precariousness: Gender differences standardized ....................................................... 34
6.1 Prevalent theoretical approaches .................................................................................... 34 6.2. Empirical findings and research gaps ........................................................................... 35
7 Concluding thoughts ........................................................................................................... 37
References ............................................................................................................................... 40
2
1 Introduction
The major trends in family structures and their shifts over the past decades are well known:
Fertility rates have declined and childbearing occurs later and more often outside marriage;
marriage, too, has been postponed and is more often foregone, and couple relationships - both
marital and non-marital ones - have become more fragile. These changes have led to
increasingly complex family compositions and to a growing diversity of family forms and
relationships over the life course. The new family trends and patterns have been paralleled by
changes in gender roles, especially an expansion of the female role to include economic
provision for a family, and lately also transformation of the male role with more intense
involvement in family responsibilities, especially care for children. We recognize that the
family is a dynamic entity, with increasing complexity with respect to decision-making
processes regarding transitions over the family life course and organization of family life.
Indeed, the family cannot be described simply as a set of well-defined roles any more, it is
negotiated on a daily basis, constructed by interactions between partners at the micro-level
and influenced by macro structures in the political and economic sphere. Work and family
lives increasingly influence each other as both women and men engage in earning as well as
caring activities, often reinforced by employment instability and precariousness. Gender
relations and related values and attitudes have become more fluid, changing dynamically over
the life course in the context of blurring boundaries of family and work life. In this work
package we also aim to shed more light on the impact of different policy contexts on new
constructions of gender in doing family. In the report we present an overview of the main
research findings, as well as both theoretical and empirical advances, relevant to our research
in this work package.
2 De-standardization of the family life course
2.1 Changes in family patterns
Family patterns in Europe underwent extensive changes in the past fifty years. The early
1960s marked the end of the so-called “Golden Age of the Family” in Europe, with high
marriage and birth rates, an relatively young ages, few divorces and low prevalence of non-
traditional family forms. By the late 20th century, fertility rates declined well below the
replacement level of 2.1 children per woman on average, marriage and parenthood have been
delayed to more mature ages, new forms of couple relationships emerged while the propensity
3
to marry decreased, and family dissolution became quite frequent even among couples with
children (Frejka et al., 2008). People are increasingly refraining from long-term commitments
in respect of partnership formation and childbearing, which indicates a de-standardization of
the family life course (Jokinen & Kuronen, 2011) but may lead to a re-standardization of
family patterns in the long run (Huinink 2013). Yet, there is a considerable diversity in the
extent of and the pace at which these new patterns emerged across Europe (Neyer, 2013).
Acknowledging the importance of the social context for family dynamics as suggested in the
literature (see e.g. Hobson & Oláh, 2006; Frejka et al., 2008; Jokinen & Kuronen, 2011;
OECD, 2011), we display below the trends by welfare regime/policy configuration types
highlighting the details of changes in family patterns. We distinguish between the Dual-
Earner policy configuration type or Social Democratic welfare regime with extensive policy
provision facilitating work-life balance for both women and men ; the Liberal or Market-
Oriented regime with limited and usually means-tested state support to families and the
dominance of market-based solutions regarding welfare provision; the General Family
Support policy configuration type or Conservative welfare regime in which men’s primacy at
the labour market has not really been questioned while the range of state support to families
and to women to combine paid work and family responsibilities varies greatly across
countries; the Familialistic or Mediterranean welfare regime with nearly none or extremely
limited policy provision to families and pronounced gender role differentiation; and the
Transition Post-Socialist cluster which is also rather heterogeneous in terms of state support to
families and to women to combine labour market participation and family life (Esping-
Andersen, 1990; Korpi, 2000; Hobson & Oláh, 2006; Saraceno, 2008; Neyer, 2013).
The de-standardization of the family life course in Europe started with the decline in
childbearing (van de Kaa, 1987; Lesthaeghe, 2010). As shown in Figure 1, the baby boom of
the 1950s-early 1960s was followed by a dramatic decrease of fertility rates, reaching
historically unprecedented low levels in the 1990s. Period fertility rates declined below 2.05
children per woman (the level necessary for the simple reproduction of the population). This
occurred first in the Dual-Earner and the General Family Support clusters (in the early 1970s).
Countries of the Familialistic regime entered the low fertility path in the early 1980s, followed
by the Liberal regime and the Transition Post-Socialist cluster in the same decade. Fertility
rates continued to decline in all but the Dual-Earner and the Liberal regimes to and even
below the so-called critical level of low fertility, that is 1.5 children per woman on average,
4
known to accelerate population ageing if sustained for a longer period (McDonald, 2006). The
German-speaking countries in the General Family Support policy configuration type also have
shown very low levels of childbearing, more or less counterbalanced though by reasonably
high fertility rates in the other countries of that cluster. Fertility levels increased somewhat in
the early 21st century but the increase stopped and/or reversed in recent years, with
childbearing trends at or somewhat below the critical level in the majority of European
countries.
Figure 1. Period total fertility rates (average number of children per woman) in different welfare regimes / policy configuration types, 1960 – 2011.
Source: INED (2013) for the years 1960-2008; Eurostat (2013) for the years 2009-2011. Note: Means for each group. Countries are grouped as follows: Dual-Earner: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden; Liberal: United Kingdom, Ireland and Switzerland; General Family Support: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany [for the years 1960-1989 West Germany only], Luxembourg and the Netherlands; Familialistic: Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain; Transition Post-Socialist: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, East-Germany (1960-1989); Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
Period rates are, however, not seen as an optimal measure of fertility, being much influenced
by variations in timing and spacing of births (Sobotka & Lutz, 2010). Therefore, cohort
fertility or completed family size is considered to be more reliable. Figure 2 shows variation
in cohort fertility not only across countries but over female birth cohorts, that is, women born
in the mid-1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s (the latter based on predicted cohort
fertility). In all countries we find higher fertility levels for the older cohorts, reinforcing the
decline seen for period fertility rates. Focusing on women born in the second half of the 20th
century (the 1960s and 1970s), we notice that the picture is more diverse (Figure 2). For these
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
19 60
19 62
19 64
19 66
19 68
19 70
19 72
19 74
19 76
19 78
19 80
19 82
19 84
19 86
19 88
19 90
19 92
19 94
19 96
19 98
20 00
20 02
20 04
20 06
20 08
20 10
Dual-Earner Liberal General Family Support
Familialistic Transition Post-Socialist
5
two cohorts, fertility did not decline for countries of the Dual-Earner cluster, nor for France,
Belgium, or the UK, where even the youngest cohorts display fertility levels of about two
children per woman on average, unlike in other countries and clusters. We see completed
family sizes at or slightly above 1.5 for the 1965 and 1975 cohorts for Switzerland and the
German-speaking countries, and for the 1975 cohort for the Familialistic cluster, Bulgaria,
Poland and Romania, and only slightly higher levels for other countries in the Transition Post-
Socialist cluster. Taken together, Figures 1 and 2 thus indicate that the European policy
agenda should continue to be concerned about demographic sustainability given low fertility
(see also Oláh & Fahlén, 2013 for a more detailed discussion).
Figure 2. Total completed cohort fertility (average number of children per woman) of selected birth cohorts
Source: INED (2013) for cohorts: 1935-1965; Myrskylä et al. (2013) for cohort 1975. Note: For Belgium the cohort 1960 is displayed instead of 1965, for Lithuania the cohort 1940 is displayed instead of 1935; for Poland the cohorts 1950 and 1960 are displayed instead of 1955 and 1965.
The decline of period fertility rates has been accompanied by the ageing of fertility, that is, a
rising mean age at first birth, as seen in Figure 3. In the 1960s and 1970s, women in Europe
had their first child in their early to mid-twenties, with the youngest first-time mothers in the
Transition Post-Socialist cluster and the oldest ones in the Familialistic cluster. The
postponement of first birth started during the 1980s in all but the Transition Post-Socialist
policy configuration type where such trend emerged first in the early/mid-1990s. In the
beginning of the 21st century, motherhood is entered at around age thirty in Liberal regime
countries and at the late twenties in other clusters. However, as we have seen in Figures 1
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
De nm
ar k
Fi nl
an d
Ic el
an d
No rw
ay Sw
ed en
Sw itz
er la
nd Un
ite d
Ki ng
do m
Au st
ria Be
lg iu
m Fr
an ce
W es
t G er
m an
y Ea
st G
er m
an y
Ne th
er la
nd s
G re
ec e
Ita ly
Po rtu
ga l
Sp ai
n
Bu lg
ar ia
Cz ec
h Re
pu bl
ic Es
to ni
a Hu
ng ar
y Li
th ua
ni a
Po la
nd Ro
m an
ia Sl
ov ak
ia Sl
ov en
ia 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975
6
and 2, early entry into motherhood, as in the Transition Post-Socialist cluster, is not
necessarily accompanied by high fertility levels whereas a late start of childbearing may not
be a hindrance for achieving reasonably high fertility rates, as seen for the Dual-Earner and
the Liberal regimes.
Figure 3. Mean age at first birth in different welfare regimes / policy configuration types, 1960-2011.
Source: Council of Europe (2004) for the years 1960-2001; Eurostat (2013) for the years 2002-2011. Note: Means for each group. Countries are grouped as follows (years for missing data listed in brackets): Dual- Earner: Denmark (2006-2011), Finland (1960-1981), Iceland (1960-2001), Norway (1960-1985) and Sweden; Liberal: United Kingdom (1960-1989, 2011), Ireland (1960-2001) and Switzerland (1960-2001); General Family Support: Austria (1960-1983), Belgium (2010-2011), France (2007-2011), Germany [for the years 1960- 1989 the data refer to West Germany only], Luxembourg (1960-2001) and the Netherlands; Familialistic: Greece, Italy (1998-2011), Portugal (1960-1979) and Spain (1960-1973); Transition Post-Socialist: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia (1960-2001), Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania (1960-2001), Poland (1961-1964; 1966- 1969), Romania (1960-2001), Slovakia and Slovenia (1960-2001).
An important dimension of changes in fertility behaviour is the upsurge of extramarital
childbearing, in connection with new partnership patterns. Marriage nearly ceased to be the
dominant form of couple relationships in the Dual-Earner, the General Family Support and
the Liberal clusters by the late 1970s, as non-marital cohabitation has become increasingly
prevalent (Figure 4). The Familialistic regime joined the trend in the early 1980s, and the
Transition Post-Socialist cluster followed from the early 1990s. In these latter groups, the
decline in marriage rates was suggested to be strongly related to growing economic
uncertainty and housing shortages (Sardon, 1993; Philipov & Dorbritz, 2003).
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
19 60
19 62
19 64
19 66
19 68
19 70
19 72
19 74
19 76
19 78
19 80
19 82
19 84
19 86
19 88
19 90
19 92
19 94
19 96
19 98
20 00
20 02
20 04
20 06
20 08
20 10
Dual-Earner Liberal General Family Support
Familialistic Transition Post-Socialist
7
Figure 4. Crude marriage rates (number of marriages per 1000 inhabitants) in different welfare regimes / policy configuration types, 1960-2011.
Source: Eurostat (2013). Note: Means for each group. Countries are grouped as follows (years for missing data listed in brackets): Dual- Earner: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden; Liberal: United Kingdom (2011), Ireland and Switzerland; General Family Support: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany [for the years 1960-1989 the data refer to West Germany only], Luxembourg and the Netherlands; Familialistic: Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain; Transition Post-Socialist: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, East Germany [for the year 1960-1989], Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
Independent of the cause, marriage formation has been increasingly postponed from the early-
/mid-1980s in most regime types, and since the mid-1990s even in the Transition Post-
Socialist cluster. By the early 21st century, first marriage is entered by women at around age
thirty, but somewhat earlier in the Post-Socialist cluster as seen in Figure 5. Comparing the
trends with those in Figure 3, we notice that the mean age at first marriage has been above
that of first parenthood in the past two decades in the Dual-Earner policy configuration type
as couples entered marriage after the birth of their first or second child. A similar pattern has
emerged lately also in the Liberal and the General Family Support clusters.
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 8,0 9,0
10,0 19
60 19
62 19
64 19
66 19
68 19
70 19
72 19
74 19
76 19
78 19
80 19
82 19
84 19
86 19
88 19
90 19
92 19
94 19
96 19
98 20
00 20
02 20
04 20
06 20
08 20
10
Dual-Earner Liberal General Family Support
Familialistic Transition Post-Socialist
8
Figure 5. Mean age at first marriage for women in different welfare regimes / policy configuration types, 1960-2010.
Source: Council of Europe (2004) for the years 1960-2001; UNECE (2013) for the years 2002-2010. For Switzerland, Statinfo.biz (2013) for the years 1960-1969 and Swiss Statistics (2013) for the years 1970-2010. Note: Means for each group. Countries are grouped as follows (years for missing data listed in brackets): Dual- Earner: Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden; Liberal: United Kingdom (2010) and Switzerland; General Family Support: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany [for the years 1960-1989 the data refer to West Germany only], and the Netherlands (2004-2009); Familialistic: Greece (2009-2010), Italy (2010), Portugal and Spain; Transition Post-Socialist: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia.
As the propensity to marry declined, births have increasingly occurred in consensual
relationships. The proportion of out-of-wedlock births was around 10% or less in European
countries in the early 1960s, when marriage rates were still high (Figure 6). Their share has
increased rapidly in the Dual-Earner cluster since the 1970s, currently accounting for about
half of all births there. The other clusters displayed moderate levels of non-marital
childbearing up until the late 1980s. Since then, the share of such births has nearly doubled.
The Familialistic regime joined the increasing trend during the early 2000s. In recent years,
nearly one-third of births occurred out-of-wedlock even in these countries. However, we find
quite large variations across countries in the different clusters with respect to non-marital
childbearing, and the association with fertility levels is also far from clear-cut.
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34 19
60
19 62
19 64
19 66
19 68
19 70
19 72
19 74
19 76
19 78
19 80
19 82
19 84
19 86
19 88
19 90
19 92
19 94
19 96
19 98
20 00
20 02
20 04
20 06
20 08
20 10
Dual-Earner Liberal General Family Support
Familialistic Transition Post-Socialist
9
Figure 6. Extramarital births per 100 live births in different welfare regimes / policy configuration types, 1960-2011.
Source: INED (2013) for the years 1960-2008; Eurostat (2013) for the years 2009-2011, for the UK 2007-2011, for East and West Germany 2002-2011. Note: Means for each group. Countries are grouped as follows (years for missing data listed in brackets): Dual- Earner: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden; Liberal: United Kingdom, Ireland and Switzerland; General Family Support: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany [for the years 1960-1989 the data refer to West Germany only], Luxembourg and the Netherlands; Familialistic: Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain; Transition Post-Socialist: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, East Germany [for the year 1960-1989], Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania (1960-1969, 1971-1974, 1976-1979, 1981-1983), Slovakia and Slovenia.
In addition to influencing fertility, the new partnership patterns have had implications for
family stability. Couple relationships have become less stable over time as consensual unions,
which are more fragile than marriages, have spread and divorce rates increased (Figure 7).
The propensity to divorce doubled between the early 1960s and the late 1990s, and divorce
rates remained modest only in the Familialistic regime cluster, where it increased mainly
during the last decade. Declining relationship stability can also affect childbearing. On the one
hand, it can reduce fertility as the time people spend in couple relationships shortens, and as
women and men may choose to have fewer children because of the prospect of either having
to raise their children alone or of becoming separated from their children given high
separation and divorce rates (Lillard & Waite, 1993). On the other hand, high rates of family
dissolution can raise fertility rates as second and higher-order partnerships are increasingly
formed during the reproductive ages, and couples may opt for joint offspring even if having
children from previous relationships (Thomson et al., 2002). In any case, the high and/or
rising instability of partnerships contributes to the increasing diversity of family forms and
relationships. It is thus another important dimension in the de-standardization of the family
life course in Europe.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60 19
60
19 62
19 64
19 66
19 68
19 70
19 72
19 74
19 76
19 78
19 80
19 82
19 84
19 86
19 88
19 90
19 92
19 94
19 96
19 98
20 00
20 02
20 04
20 06
20 08
20 10
Dual-Earner Liberal General Family Support
Familialistic Transition Post-Socialist
10
Figure 7. Crude divorce rates (number of divorces per 1000 inhabitants) in different welfare regimes / policy configuration types, 1960-2011.
Source: Eurostat (2013). Note: Means for each group. Countries are grouped as follows (years for missing data listed in brackets): Dual- Earner: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden; Liberal: United Kingdom (2011) and Switzerland; General Family Support: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany [for the years 1960-1989 the data refer to West Germany only], Luxembourg (2011) and the Netherlands; Familialistic: Greece (2010-2011), Italy (1960-1970, 2011), Portugal and Spain (1960-1980); Transition Post-Socialist: Bulgaria (1960), Czech Republic, East Germany [for the year 1960-1989], Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
2.2 Gender roles in transition
The changes in family patterns outlined in the previous section, especially the decline of
fertility rates below or far below the replacement level, have been paralleled by a substantial
increase in female labour force participation over time (Bernhardt, 1993; Jokinen & Kuronen,
2011; OECD, 2011). In Central-East European countries (i.e. the Transition Post-Socialist
cluster), high female and maternal employment levels were common in the state-socialist
period. In Western Europe, the increase in female labour force participation and in mothers’
employment occurred first in the Nordic countries (i.e. the Dual-Earner cluster), where the
new family patterns also emerged first. These countries were also the first ones to experience
a change in women’s employment aspirations resulting in the new female work pattern
according to which women do not withdraw from the labour market upon marriage or
motherhood, but remain employed until reaching retirement age (Gornick & Meyers, 2003;
Hobson & Oláh, 2006). Countries of the Liberal and the General Family Support clusters
joined the trend during the late 1980s, followed by the Familialistic cluster in the mid-/late
1990s. Anomalously, the end of the state-socialist era brought a substantial decline in female
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0 19
60 19
62 19
64 19
66 19
68 19
70 19
72 19
74 19
76 19
78 19
80 19
82 19
84 19
86 19
88 19
90 19
92 19
94 19
96 19
98 20
00 20
02 20
04 20
06 20
08 20
10
Dual-Earner Liberal General Family Support
Familialistic Transition Post-Socialist
11
labour force participation in the Transition Post-Socialist cluster. This occurred as a result of
the dramatic economic restructuring and increased difficulties of work-family reconciliation,
due to cuts in family policy provisions, especially childcare for the very youngest (i.e.
children below age three). In any case, gender differences in labour market participation had
greatly diminished in Europe by the early 21st century, as seen in Figure 8. The gender gap is
rather small in the Dual-Earner cluster and quite limited in the Transition Post-Socialist
regimes. More recently, the gender gap has decreased greatly in the Liberal and the General
Family Support regimes. The largest gap appears for the Familialistic cluster, where gender
role differentiation has been most pronounced and traditional gender norms have had a strong
hold (Lewis, 2006; Plantenga et al., 2009).
Figure 8. Gender differences in labour market activity [women’s activity rate in proportion of men’s rate; ages 20-64 years] in different welfare regime /policy configuration types, 1992- 2012.
Source: Eurostat (2013). Note: Means for each group. Countries are grouped as follows (years for missing data listed in brackets): Dual- Earner: Denmark, Finland, Iceland (1992-2002), Norway (1992-1999) and Sweden; Liberal: United Kingdom, Ireland and Switzerland (1992-1995); General Family Support: Austria (1992-1993), Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands; Familialistic: Greece, Italy (1992), Portugal and Spain; Transition Post-Socialist: Bulgaria (1992-1998), Czech Republic (1992-1997), Estonia (1992-1997), Hungary (1992-1995), Latvia (1992-1997), Lithuania (1992-1997), Poland (1992-1996), Romania (1992-1996), Slovakia (1992-1997) and Slovenia (1992-1995).
Although the gender gap in employment had diminished greatly by the early 2000s, women
still earn on average 16% less than men and the difference is even larger among top earners,
about 21% (OECD, 2012). The female disadvantage is strongly related to their weaker
50,0 55,0 60,0 65,0 70,0 75,0 80,0 85,0 90,0 95,0
100,0
Dual-Earner Liberal General Family Support
Familialistic Transition Post-Socialist
12
position in the labour market as women have continued to bear a disproportionately large
share of family responsibilities in terms of household work and care, despite their increasing
involvement in paid work. As seen in Figure 9, part-time work is much more common among
women than men.
Figure 9. Part-time employment (per cent of total employment), in different welfare regimes / policy configuration types, 1992-2012.
Women
Men
Source: Eurostat (2013) Note: Means for each group. Countries are grouped as follows (years for missing data listed in brackets): Dual- Earner: Denmark, Finland, Iceland (1992-2002), Norway (1992-1999) and Sweden (1992); Liberal: United Kingdom, Ireland and Switzerland (1992-1995); General Family Support: Austria (1992-1993), Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands; Familialistic: Greece, Italy (1992), Portugal and Spain; Transition Post-Socialist: Bulgaria (1992-2000), Czech Republic (1992-1997), Estonia (1992-1997), Hungary (1992-1996), Latvia (1992-1997), Lithuania (1992-1999), Poland (1992-1996), Romania (1992-1996), Slovakia (1992-1997) and Slovenia (1992-1998).
0 5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Dual-Earner Liberal General Family Support
Familialistic Transition Post-Socialist
0
10
20
30
40
50
Dual-Earner Liberal General Family Support
Familialistic Transition Post-Socialist
13
Currently, about 45% of employed women work part-time in the Liberal and the General
Family Support clusters, and one-third in the Dual-Earner cluster, whereas only 10% in
Transition Post-Socialist countries and 20% of employed women in the Familialistic regime.
Given more rigid labour market structures in the latter policy configuration types, part-time
options are less likely to be available there. The share of part-time working men varies
between 5 and 15% across clusters.
Figure 10. Unemployment rates (ages 20-64 years), in different welfare regimes / policy configuration types, 1983-2012.
Women
Men
Source: Eurostat (2013) Note: Means for each group. Countries are grouped as follows (years for missing data listed in brackets): Dual- Earner (data missing 1983-1994, except for Denmark): Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden; Liberal: United Kingdom, Ireland and Switzerland (1983-1995); General Family Support: Austria (1983-1994), Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands; Familialistic: Greece, Italy, Portugal (1983- 1984) and Spain (1983-1984); Transition Post-Socialist: Bulgaria (1983-1999), Czech Republic (1983-1996), Estonia (1983-1996), Hungary (1983-1995), Latvia (1983-1997), Lithuania (1983-1997), Poland (1983-1996), Romania (1983-1996), Slovakia (1983-1997) and Slovenia (1983-1995).
0
5
10
15
20
25
19 83
19 84
19 85
19 86
19 87
19 88
19 89
19 90
19 91
19 92
19 93
19 94
19 95
19 96
19 97
19 98
19 99
20 00
20 01
20 02
20 03
20 04
20 05
20 06
20 07
20 08
20 09
20 10
20 11
20 12
Dual-Earner Liberal General Family Support
Familialistic Transition Post-Socialist
0
5
10
15
20
25
19 83
19 84
19 85
19 86
19 87
19 88
19 89
19 90
19 91
19 92
19 93
19 94
19 95
19 96
19 97
19 98
19 99
20 00
20 01
20 02
20 03
20 04
20 05
20 06
20 07
20 08
20 09
20 10
20 11
20 12
Dual-Earner Liberal General Family Support
Familialistic Transition Post-Socialist
14
Gender differences are more modest regarding unemployment levels, which vary between 5
and 20%, as seen in Figure 10, with the highest rates displayed in the Familialistic and the
Transition Post-Socialist clusters where economic problems have been pronounced since long
before the recent economic crisis. Unemployment levels are much higher among youth (not
shown here). This can hamper family building, especially among the less educated, both men
and women (Mills et al., 2005; Oláh & Fratczak, 2013).
As labour force activities have been increasingly incorporated into the female gender role,
women’s enrolment in higher education has also grown (Blossfeld, 1995). By the mid-1990s,
women’s educational attainment surpassed that of men in the main childbearing ages in all
regime clusters, and reached the same level as men in the broader working age population, as
seen in Figure 11. The new female educational advantage is most pronounced for the
Familialistic cluster, notwithstanding their lowest but rapidly increasing labour market
activity rates across regime types (Figure 8).
The new female gender role has thus increasingly incorporated dimensions of economic
independence and support responsibilities that until quite recently belonged to the male
domain, and promoted a more equal distribution of responsibilities for the economic provision
to a family. This transformation has not been accompanied, however, by new patterns in the
gender distribution of household- and care work, as the division of unpaid work among
women and men has changed relatively little in many countries (Bianchi et al., 2000; Anxo et
al., 2011; OECD 2012). Much of the decrease in the gender gap for unpaid work is due to
women investing less time in domestic duties, given their greater involvement in paid work,
than due to a substantial increase in men’s household- and/or care work contribution (Sayer et
al., 2004; Craig & Mullan, 2010; 2011).
Among younger cohorts however, more and more fathers seem to embrace the idea of active
parenting and are willing to engage in the care for their children (Seward et al., 2006a and
2006b; Hobson & Fahlén, 2009; Smith Koslowski, 2011). Their efforts have received
increasing policy support at both the national and European levels (Hobson, 2002; Moss,
2008, 2012), but employers’ and co-workers’ attitude may be a more important aspect for the
transformation of the male gender role (Brandt & Kvande, 2002; Haas & Hwang, 2009;
Behnke & Meuser, 2012). Also, mothers need to accept fathers as their equals when it comes
to parental care for children for the new male role getting established (Allen & Hawkins
15
1999). Until men’s contribution to domestic tasks and care work can match that of women in
paid work, the gender revolution remains incomplete (Esping-Andersen, 2009; Goldscheider
et al., 2010).
Figure 11. Gender difference in education (proportion of women with upper secondary and tertiary education in proportion to men with similar educational attainment) in different welfare regimes / policy configuration types, 1992-2012.
At ages 25-34 years
At ages 25-64 years
Source: Eurostat (2013) Note: Means for each group. Countries are grouped as follows (years for missing data listed in brackets): Dual- Earner: Denmark, Finland (1992-1994), Iceland (1992-1998), Norway (1992-1995) and Sweden (1992-1994); Liberal: United Kingdom, Ireland and Switzerland (1992-1995); General Family Support: Austria (1992-1994), Belgium, France (1992), Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (1992-1995); Familialistic: Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain; Transition Post-Socialist: Bulgaria (1992-1999), Czech Republic (1992-1997), Estonia (1992-1997), Hungary (1992-1996), Latvia (1992-1997), Lithuania (1992-1997), Poland (1992-1996), Romania (1992-1996), Slovakia (1992-1997) and Slovenia (1992-1995).
80 85 90 95
100 105 110 115 120
Dual-Earner Liberal General Family Support
Familialistic Transition Post-Socialist
80 85 90 95
100 105 110 115 120
19 92
19 93
19 94
19 95
19 96
19 97
19 98
19 99
20 00
20 01
20 02
20 03
20 04
20 05
20 06
20 07
20 08
20 09
20 10
20 11
20 12
Dual-Earner Liberal General Family Support
Familialistic Transition Post-Socialist
16
2.3 The interplay between the increasing complexity of family forms, relationships and
new gender roles
Contemporary scholarship of economics, demography and gender studies has since long
recognized that changes in family patterns and gender roles are interlinked. Given declining
birth rates and marriage rates, increasing instability of couple relationships and a nearly
simultaneous growth of female labour force participation, women’s increasing economic
independence has been seen as a main cause of family changes in economic theorizing, which
identified gender role specialization as one of its main paradigms (see Becker, 1991). In
sociology, it has been argued that ideational changes, such as the spread of individualism and
thereby greater emphasis on self-realization, together with changing aspirations for paid work,
are the main driving forces behind the postponement of family formation (both marriage and
childbearing) and the increasing fragility of couple relationships in modern societies. See,
particularly, the Second Demographic Transition theory (van de Kaa, 1996; Lesthaeghe,
2010). Less attention has been paid to other factors affecting men, even though the decline in
male wages and men’s labour force activity, together with growing labour market uncertainty,
have been recognized (Oppenheimer et al., 1997; Booth et al., 1999; Mills et al. 2005), and
the importance of risk aversion and of gender equity with respect to family patterns have been
pointed out (Beck, 1999; McDonald, 2000, 2006). The role of social context in the interplay
of gender and family changes has been addressed in the Capability approach, focusing on
gendered agency and capabilities to forming and maintaining stable relationships and having
and caring for children (Sen, 1993; Hobson & Oláh, 2006; Hobson, 2011).
In addition to theorizing about transitions over the family life course and their interlinkages
with gender role changes, another major topic of scholarly attention has been the organization
of family life. Studies of families and the division of work within them show that household
members do gender as they do housework and childcare (Fenstermaker Berk, 1985). Acts are
performative in the sense that they construct, corroborate and reconstruct identities in relation
to jointly agreed-upon definitions. The performativity makes it possible to create and maintain
an illusion of two essential and polar gender identities, at the same time enabling the
reconstructions of gender (Butler, 1990). The ‘doing gender’ approach emphasizes that we are
assessed and held accountable for on the basis of gender in nearly everything we do (West &
Zimmerman, 1987). This accountability, in turn, influences the social constructions of
husbands and wives, mothers and fathers. Rooted in the concept of doing gender, the ‘doing
17
family’ approach (Morgan, 1999; Smart, 2000; Nelson, 2006) takes into account the fact that
social habits are reproduced through everyday interactions. It argues that family life is not a
given per se but a social construction, as families embed their everyday family lives in
internal daily routines, practices and external social activities, interlinked with changes in
gender roles and family relationships.
Following upon the logic of the interplay between demographic changes and transformation
of gender roles, outlined above, we address in the following sections both transitions as well
as the organization of family life. These are interpreted in the context of the de-standardized
family life course and the growing complexity of family forms and relationships. In our
overview of research, we focus first on women’s new role and its implications for family
dynamics, considering both women and men as main actors. Next we turn to the topic of
gendered transition to parenthood, a borderline issue between family transitions and family
life organization. The latter aspect is more thoroughly addressed in the discussion of new
gender roles in doing families. Finally, we focus on coping strategies in family and work
reconciliation under conditions of uncertainty and precariousness, an issue of growing
importance for understanding transitions in family life. The report ends with a brief overview
on how the research gaps will be addressed in the course of this work package and with
concluding thoughts on well-being in families.
3 Women’s new role and implications for men’s role and family dynamics
3.1 Prevalent theoretical approaches
The transformation of female gender role and its linkages with changes in family patterns has
received substantial scholarly attention in the past decades. The most commonly used
approaches to address this relationship originated in the field of micro-economics, with the
New Home Economics (e.g. Becker, 1991), and in sociology and demography, the latter
focusing on the roles of social norms and ideational changes, with the Second Demographic
Transition theory (Lesthaeghe, 1983, 2010; van de Kaa, 1987, 1996) as a prominent example.
In addition, the on-going gender revolution in higher education, that is, that women are now
outnumbering men in European universities and that they are also graduating more
successfully (Lutz et al., 2008; Vincent-Lancrin, 2008), has inspired some new conceptual
developments in research on family formation (see Van Bavel, 2012).
18
Both in sociology and in economics, it has been argued that the preference structure of men
and women tends towards educational homogamy (“like marries like”) in the absence of
gender role specialization. Until relatively recently however, labour market and domestic
activities were more or less divided by gender, making gender-role specialization a basic
paradigm in micro-economics (see Becker, 1991). In a traditional marriage market, a good
education has been considered particularly important for men because their income and
occupational prestige largely determined the socio-economic status of the family. Therefore,
women have tended to prefer men with a high(er) level of educational attainment (Kalmijn,
1991; Kalmijn, 1994; Blossfeld & Timm, 2003; Blossfeld, 2009; Dykstra & Poortman, 2010).
Men have ambiguous preferences. On the one hand, they are prone to prefer spouses with a
similar level of education as they have. On the other hand, from the perspective of the
traditional division of labour, they prefer wives who assume the bulk of domestic tasks and
who would therefore not invest too much in their own career resources. Hence, women would
tend to marry upwards (hypergamy) in terms of education while men are expected to marry
downwards (hypogamy). This was confirmed by the empirical record (Kalmijn, 1991;
Kalmijn, 1998; Blossfeld & Timm, 2003; Schwartz & Mare, 2005; Blossfeld, 2009; Dykstra
& Poortman, 2010). Until recently, this marriage pattern was compatible with the gender-
specific distribution of the levels of education. There were more highly educated men than
highly educated women in the population. However, this has changed in recent decades. Also,
marriage has become a less prevalent family form, as new types of living arrangements,
especially non-marital cohabitation, have become established. The new gender imbalance in
educational attainment in recent cohorts of age to start a family is incompatible with the
traditional patterns (Van Bavel, 2012). Something will change, the question is: what?
Van Bavel (2012) suggested that the concept of marriage market and the related notion of
marriage squeeze should be extended in order to investigate the implications of the reversal of
the gender imbalance in education for union formation. The latter refers to the hypothesis that
marriage prospects are lower if the number of unmarried persons of the desired age, who
constitute the marriage market, is low. Given the increasing importance of non-marital
cohabitation and a growing proportion of children being born outside marriage (see Section
2.1), the concept and idea of the "marriage squeeze" should be broadened to include the
effects of age-specific sex ratio imbalances on the "mating market" rather than on the
marriage market only. Also, education should be added to the dimensions of age and sex (cf.
Lutz et al., 1998) to quantify the mating squeeze in a more meaningful way. The expansion of
19
higher education among women implies that women who want to find a male partner with the
same or a higher level of educational attainment would increasingly suffer an education-
specific mating squeeze. From the perspective of gender roles and the division of labour in the
male breadwinner-female homemaker family model, it has been argued that highly educated
women would be less prone to form a partnership because their education has given them the
human capital resources to be independent. Also, they may be considered less attractive for
(some) men because of being less inclined to abide by the role expectations for female
homemakers. This has been the classic rationale for expecting lower marriage rates for highly
educated women (Blossfeld, 2009). On similar vein, low-educated and less well-off men will
also be affected, having difficulties to find enough women with the same or lower level of
education than themselves, to form a family with (van Bavel, 2012).
Most research focusing on the relationship between educational attainment and fertility
considers the New Home Economics in some form or other as a starting point (Becker, 1991;
Cigno, 1994; Hotz et al., 1997). The micro-economic theory posits that as women receive
more education and gain access to better positions in the labour market, the costs of
childbearing may increase. This primarily relates to opportunity costs, in the form of foregone
earnings, slower human capital accumulation and depreciation of professional skills, because
raising children requires considerable parental and especially maternal time and may force
women to take time away from employment. The scale of opportunity costs is revealed by
studies on the motherhood wage penalty (Kühhirt & Ludwig, 2012; Gough & Noonan, 2013).
Assuming that education reflects income potential, the theory predicts that women with higher
education will have fewer children than less-educated women, as the former have more to lose
in terms of foregone earnings and career opportunities. In addition, it has been suggested that
higher educational attainment entails a stronger preference for the “quality“ of children that is
associated with an increased expenditure in children’s human capital, thereby further reducing
fertility among the highly educated (Willis, 1973; Gustafsson and Kalwij, 2006).
In the diffusionist perspective, highly educated women are often regarded as trendsetters with
regard to family formation and partner relations (Salvini & Vignoli, 2011). Research has
indicated that a stronger commitment to the labour market exposes women with higher
education to a stronger conflict between work and family life than their less educated
counterparts. For instance, the largest discrepancy between ideal and actual family size occurs
among the highly educated (Testa, 2012). If well-educated women are considered as
20
trendsetters, their childbearing behaviour is likely to influence fertility levels for the rest of
the society. Hence, their behaviour may be related to overall fertility levels, which indeed
seems to be the case. In countries where highly educated women have high progression ratios
to second births, total fertility tends to be relatively high, unlike in countries with low
progression to a second child among the more educated (Van Bavel &d Rózaňska-Putek,
2010). This implies that better knowledge of educational fertility differentials can improve our
understanding of the diversity in fertility regimes observed in contemporary Europe.
As for marital stability, the role of women’s social and economic independence has been of
interest for social scientists in response to growing female labour force participation and
increasing divorce levels. Economic models of marriage assume that women’s employment
destabilises marital unions because it endangers role specialisation within a couple (Becker,
Landes, & Michael, 1977). Recently, however, as women have been increasingly been present
in the labour market, the negative effect of women’s employment on marital stability is less
clear. It has been argued that in modern societies, decisions to remain married depend more
on the satisfaction with the quality of the union and that similarity of economic activities and
interests may improve the understanding between spouses (Jalovaara, 2002; Schoen et al.,
2002; Sigle-Rushton, 2010; Simpson & England, 1981). Moreover, the additional income
provided by a woman leads to higher living standards and thus should reduce marital strains
(Cherlin, 2000; Raz-Yurovich, 2012; Stevenson & Wolfers, 2007). Also, the change of the
gender norms leaves men who adhere to gendered work-family views with fewer possibilities
to find a partner who would be willing to specialise in household production (Sigle-Rushton,
2010).
3.2 Empirical findings and research gaps
Concerning family formation, most research confirms that men with higher socio-economic
status exhibit higher marriage rates than men with lower status, in line with theoretical
expectations (Jalovaara, 2012). Unexpected and remarkable, however, was the very recent
finding that university-educated men in the Netherlands are more likely to remain single than
men with less education (Dykstra & Poortman, 2010). Research results about the marriage
prospects of recent cohorts of women, differentiated by level of education, are even more
mixed. A number of studies do not find the expected negative effect of women's socio-
economic status on marriage rates (Dykstra & Poortman, 2010; Jalovaara, 2012). In the US,
21
the increased earning potential of more highly educated women is associated with later ages at
marriage, but not with lower marriage chances compared to the less educated (Goldstein &
Kenney, 2001; Isen & Stevenson, 2010). Overall, the recent literature about the educational
gradient in partnership formation has reported inconsistent and unexpected findings,
particularly for women. According to Van Bavel (2012) this may have to do with the fact that
the literature has insufficiently distinguished between two components underlying
cohabitation as well as marriage rates: the probability of ever making the transition on the one
hand and the timing of the transition on the other hand. Van Bavel also argues that the
reversal of gender inequality in education and the ensuing new education-specific mating
squeeze will probably have a different impact for women as compared to men. He offers a
number of specific hypotheses that have yet to be investigated (van Bavel, 2012).
It is well documented that contemporary fertility in Europe is characterised by sizeable
contrasts. Although the level of childlessness has been gradually increasing over the past
decades, analyses suggest that this is not the main driving force behind low fertility (Billari &
Kohler, 2004; Frejka & Sobotka, 2008). Fertility differences today are due to a large extent to
variation in second (and third) births. In this context, the relationship between second births
and women’s educational attainment has attracted considerable scholarly interest. Empirical
studies did not provide unequivocal support to predictions derived from micro-economic
theory. In line with them, a negative association seems to prevail between women’s
educational attainment and second birth intensities in Eastern Europe (Koycheva, 2006;
Rieck, 2006; Perelli-Harris, 2008; Muresan & Hoem, 2009; Gałęzewska, 2011; Billingsley,
2011). In contrast, elevated second birth intensities among highly educated women have been
found in all Nordic countries (Hoem & Hoem, 1989; Oláh, 2003; Vikat, 2004; Gerster et al.,
2007; Kravdal, 2007) and in several countries of Western Europe (Kreyenfeld & Zabel, 2005;
Köppen, 2006; Neels, 2006; Mathews & Sear, 2013). Similarly, recent studies of Estonia
(Klesment & Puur, 2010) and Hungary (Bartus et al., 2013) have indicated a positive gradient
in second birth risks for women with higher education, and a similar finding is reported for
younger generations in Italy (Kertzer et al., 2009).
In the existing studies, the observed educational gradient in fertility is commonly interpreted
as an outcome of contextual features that shape the opportunities and constraints people face
in their childbearing decisions, such as availability of public childcare, parental leave
programs, labour market flexibility and gender equity, as well as reduce the opportunity costs
22
of parity progression, particularly for highly educated women. The existing research has some
important limitations. Evidence for many countries is still missing, preventing a
comprehensive EU-wide account. Reported associations between education and childbearing
depend to an important extent on how and when educational characteristics and fertility are
measured (Hoem, 1996; Kravdal, 2004). Variation in target populations, time references,
methodological approaches, and statistical models limit the comparability of results across
various studies. Finally, the overwhelming majority of studies proceeds from a single-country
perspective or compares just a few countries. In such an analytical framework, the observed
educational differentials can be linked to the societal context only theoretically, at the level of
interpretation.
The importance of context has also been pointed out in most recent studies of women’s
increasing economic independence and marital stability (Cooke, 2006; Cooke & Gash, 2010;
Kaplan & Stier, 2010). Consequently, it is important to be aware of spatial and temporal
variations in the association between woman’s labour market participation and stability of
partnerships. Demographic and sociological studies have identified three context dimensions,
particularly relevant in such research. These are: i) gender roles, which define the extent to
which a deviation from the gendered division of work is feasible and socially accepted (Sayer
& Bianchi, 2000; Cooke, 2006; Evertsson & Nermo, 2007; Cooke & Gash, 2010); ii) the
economic situation of households, which determines the extent to which the material
aspirations of the couple are satisfied (Cherlin, 2000; Stevenson & Wolfers, 2007); and, iii)
the institutional context, which defines the extent to which the state supports women’s
economic independence from their partners, if at all (Orloff, 1993; Iversen, Rosenbluth, &
Soskice, 2005; Kaplan & Stier, 2010). Based on these dimensions, it is assumed that women’s
employment is more likely to threaten marital stability in country contexts which are
characterised by more traditional gender roles, where men’s earnings on average are sufficient
to satisfy a couple’s material aspirations, where the barriers to labour market entry for women
are particularly high, and where the state offers little support for working parents and for the
economically dependent spouse in case of divorce.
Empirical research has focused on testing the moderating role of the cultural and institutional
dimensions of the country context on the relationship between women’s economic resources
and marital stability. For example, by comparing seven European countries with similar levels
of economic development and different institutional and cultural settings, Kaplan and Stier
23
(2010) demonstrated that women’s economic resources tend to destabilise marriages in
countries with welfare policies promoting women’s dependence on the partner or the market,
while in more gender-neutral settings, i.e., in countries with policies promoting dual earning
and/or providing more generous welfare support to the economically disadvantaged spouse,
women’s contributions to the household budget tend to strengthen marriages. Similarly,
Cooke (2006) and Cooke and Gash (2010) demonstrated that the negative effects of women’s
employment on marital stability are most prevalent in Germany and less prevalent in the UK
and US. They attributed these findings to differences in the gendered division of labour
between the German-speaking and Anglo-Saxon countries.
An important shortcoming of existing research regarding transitions over the family life
course is the relatively limited attention paid to men, even though it has been argued that the
mechanisms concerning men are quite different from those concerning women (Forste, 2002;
Oppenheimer, 2000, 2003). In contrast to the rather unilateral focus on women both in
economic theories and in the Second Demographic Transition theory, Oppenheimer (2000,
2003) offered another important dimension for understanding the decline of marriage, by
bringing men back into the debate. She pointed out that in times with poor and uncertain
economic prospects, men who are unable to fulfil the role of the breadwinner will not be
attractive marriage partners and/or fathers. She also argued that employment uncertainty for
men impedes assortative mating and may therefore delay marriage (Oppenheimer, 1988). In
such times, cohabitation becomes a less binding living arrangement, more suitable to the
uncertain times (Mills et al., 2005). The effect of men’s economic resources on the timing of
marriage and parenthood has only been studied ina few West-European countries (Blossfeld
et al., 2005; Kalmijn, 2012), but rarely in Eastern Europe.
There is a huge literature examining fertility trends and their determinants in low-fertility
societies, but studies on men are rare (Balbo et al., 2013) even if there is a general acceptance
that the de-standardization of family life especially concerns men (Widmer & Ritschard,
2009). Existing research on men indicate that disadvantaged men have little chance to become
fathers and to have multiple children in stable unions (Lappegård & Rønsen, 2013) or as
single fathers (Guzzo & Hayford, 2010). Studies of men’s fertility in connection with their
current union status usually deal with delay in entering fatherhood (Dariotis et al., 2011;
Vignoli et al., 2012). Those addressing multiple parenthood (Schober & Scott, 2012) or men’s
completed fertility (Pailhe & Solaz, 2012) often ignore their partnership status, focusing
24
mainly on the effect of economic resources and employment, similar to studies of men’s
fertility intentions (Beets, 1997; Tolke & Diewald, 2003). Concerning the relationship
between men's gender attitudes and fertility across European countries, opposing results were
found. This may be partly attributed to the use of different datasets and different measures of
gender attitudes (Puur et al., 2008; Westoff & Higgins, 2009), but it also suggests a need for
further research and theorizing on the links between men's gender attitudes and fertility
(Goldscheider et al., 2010).
4 Gendered transition to parenthood: Defining mothers and fathers
4.1 Prevalent theoretical approaches
In the literature related to the gendered transition to parenthood, the ‘doing gender’ approach
has a prominent position. It is built on the notion that household members do gender as they
do housework and childcare (Fenstermaker Berk, 1985). Acts are performative as they
construct, corroborate and reconstruct identities in relation to jointly agreed-upon definitions.
The performativity makes it possible to create and maintain an illusion of two polar gender
identities, also enabling the reconstructions of gender (Butler, 1990). Doing gender means
engaging in behaviour at the risk of gender assessment (West & Zimmerman, 1987). In nearly
everything we do, we are assessed on the basis of gender. This in turn influences even the
social constructions of mothers and fathers.
The good mother is expected to be guided by the ethic of what is best for the child, while the
father has greater leeway in following individualistic moral imperatives (Ribbens McCarthy et
al., 2000). The construction of the good mother is coloured by ideals of intensive mothering
as described by, e.g., Hays (1996). Intensive mothering means being child-centred and
committed to spending considerable time, money and energy to benefit the child while
sacrificing one’s own individual needs.
This is not to say that fatherhood ideologies are unaffected by norms about what is best for the
child. In fact, it is no longer enough to be the rational, goal-oriented father who brings home
the bacon. Today, the good father needs to be ready to engage in childcare. Hegemonic
masculinity is changing and new fatherhood norms are emerging (Plantin, 2001; Hearn, 2002;
Johansson & Klinth, 2008; Miller, 2011b). However, norms about what constitutes a good
25
mother and a good father not only vary over time but also across social contexts. Being a
good father at work is often not the same as being a good father at home. Being a good father
in Germany is not the same as being a good father in Sweden. By assuming that men are made
into fathers, we acknowledge that “…fatherhood is bound up with institutions, embedded in
law and shaped by policy” (Hobson & Morgan, 2002, p. 9). The same goes for motherhood.
Thus, the study of gendered inequalities in the symbolic meaning of parenthood and its
consequences needs to take as its starting point the variation and fluidity of motherhood and
fatherhood ideologies.
In fact, the concept of the 'new father' became a crucial issue in the public and scientific
discourse on gender equality in family life (Lammi-Taskula, 2008; Merla, 2008; Doucet,
2009). However, although Europeans value equality highly and are in favour of increased
involvement of fathers in the care for children, the actual practice is lagging behind (Wall &
Arnold, 2008; Höfner et. al., 2011). Thus, the gendered division of labour in families prevails.
In Western societies, but less so in Sweden, the transition to parenthood is generally
associated with a re-traditionalization of gender positions (Merla, 2008; Dribe & Stanfors,
2009; Katz-Wise et al., 2010). Rosi Braidotti calls this phenomenon, when categories are
displaced and refixed at the same time, a 'schizoid double-pull’ (Braidotti, 2006, p. 49).
Contemporary societies contain both a certain degree of gender equality and an emphasis on
growing segregation between the sexes. Transgression and amplification of gender concepts
can be observed simultaneously. During the transition to parenthood we can discover such
schizoid double-pulls in general discourses about parenthood, family policies and actual
behaviour. There are increasing options to achieve equality between partners, e.g., to divide
family work in a non-traditional way. However, the transition to parenthood usually triggers a
reinforcement of traditional gender positions. Some couples intentionally adopt traditional
gender roles, whereas this re-traditionalization comes as a surprise for many (Deutsch et. al.,
2007; Höfner et. al., 2011; Biehle & Mickelson, 2012; Schadler, 2013).
In investigating the relationship between parental leave policies and gender equality, more
specifically how parental leave policies contribute to shape gender relations, the ‘gender
structure’ (Risman, 1998, 2004, 2011) appears a useful approach. The gender structure is
defined as a multidimensional system, which creates a differentiation between men and
women and organizes unequal social relations on the basis of that difference. It has
consequences on three levels: the institutional level (laws, rules and ideological discourses
26
distribute resources and constitute men and women differently), the interactional level (men
and women face different cultural norms within social interactions) and the individual level
(men and women develop and construct gendered identities and selves). At the institutional
level, scholars argue that parental leave schemes are based on ideological assumptions about
motherhood and fatherhood and that they contribute to define what is considered a normal or
good family organization (Hojgaard, 1997; Rostgaard, 2002). At the interactional level, leave
uptake by fathers is expected to increase fathers’ involvement with their children both in the
short and longer run. At the individual level, the focus is on the variety of experiences fathers
have related to their leave uptake and their solo care for the child, and its impact on their
fatherhood identity (Brandth & Kvande, 1998; Trellu, 2007; 2010; Höfner, Schadler &
Richter, 2011). In turn, leave uptake can be associated both with the challenge of hegemonic
masculinities as well as their reproduction. In order to negotiate the tension induced by the
challenge of gender norms, men have been found to develop different strategies and
discourses, which were often both transgressive and complicit with hegemonic definitions
(Merla, 2008).
4.2 Empirical findings and research gaps
In the literature, the topics that are addressed as consequences of the transition to parenthood
include changes in relationship quality, parents’ time use and division of labour and gendered
perceptions of parents’ roles. Findings in family and life course research indicate major
changes in women’s and men’s lives as they enter parenthood (Moller et al., 2008; Doss et.
al., 2009; Ahlborg et. al, 2009). Both parents have less time for leisure and personal interests
(Nomaguchi and Bianchi, 2004; Claxton and Perry-Jenkins, 2008) and they have more contact
with close kin and less with friends (Gameiro, et al., 2010; Kalmijn, 2012). With regard to the
division of labour, the transition to parenthood is a period where parents are likely to
experience a reinforcement of their gender. Mothers are more likely to take parental leave and
for much longer periods than fathers, which contributes to their acquiring main responsibility
for care and housework, while fathers tend to work longer hours after the birth of the first
child (Sanchez & Thomson, 1997; Evertsson & Nermo, 2004, 2007; Geist, 2009; Geist &
Cohen, 2011; Schober, 2013), but there are variations in these patterns (see e.g. Kaufman &
Uhlenberg, 2000; Dribe & Stanfors, 2009). Most often, however, even couples who practiced
a non-traditional division of labour before pregnancy show a more traditional gendered
division after the birth, usually attributed to traditional gender norms prevailing more or less
27
under the surface (Kuehirt, 2012). Ethnographic research on the transition to parenthood
suggests that parents seem dissatisfied with these developments as fathers complain about a
lack of closeness to the child, while mothers complain about the lack of leisure and stalled
career developments (Walzer, 1998; Höfner, 2003; LaRossa & Sinha, 2006; Fox, 2009;
Schadler, 2013). Also, research of the FamilyPlatform (FP7 project) identified a knowledge
gap concerning transition processes, pointing out the lack of qualitative panel data that can
enhance our understanding of the mechanisms related to the transition to parenthood (Stauber,
2011).
The literature showed that gendered labour processes that structure women’s and men’s lives
after the birth of the first child are decisive for gender inequality in the household and also
have long-term consequences for gender inequalities in the labour market (Ruhm, 1998;
Mandel & Semyonov, 2005; Krüger, 2009), unless such effects being mitigated by
comprehensive work-life balance policies at the state and/or workplace level (see Hobson et
al. 2011). Yet, whereas men gain career and wage benefits from being parents, women’s
careers are unaffected while their wages are negatively related to parenthood (Gash, 2009;
Smith Koslowski, 2011; Bygren and Gähler, 2012). Research points to the importance of
women’s family obligations as a main factor behind the gender wage gap, at least among
individuals in the upper part of the wage distribution and in middle- to highly qualified
occupations where the wage gap is particularly pronounced (Magnusson, 2010; Boye, Halldén
& Magnusson, forthcoming). Labour market absence due to parental leave is, however,
negatively related to men’s as well as women’s careers and wages and the association with
wages is stronger among men (Stafford & Sundström, 1996; Albrecht et al., 1999; Boye,
forthcoming). Hence mothers in general seem to suffer penalties in the labour market from
parenthood whereas fathers suffer only when their parenthood does in fact affect their labour
market participation. However, the influence of care-related career interruptions appears to
vary by institutional context for women, with negative consequences for the career of even
very short leaves in the US, where family leave is less institutionalized, but only for those
taking longer leaves (15 months or more) in Sweden, where parental leave is comparatively
long and provides substantial income replacement. Taking a care leave greatly destabilizes
women’s careers in Germany, where they can take a very long break (up to 3 years) partly due
to generous parental leave regulations but also due to significant tax reductions for married
men with dependents (Aisenbrey, Evertsson & Grunow, 2009).
28
Studies concerned with the link between leave policies and gender equality have also pointed
to the importance of this relationship in the constitution of fatherhood. The research showed
that the main obstacle to leaves that promote gender equality is its gendered use, as mothers
are the predominant leave recipients and those who use the biggest portion of parental leave
days (Bruning & Plantenga, 1999; Anxo et al., 2007). Fathers’ statutory leave uptake is
influenced most importantly by the leave design, such as whether it is transferable and
whether the access is universal or conditioned, the level of earnings compensation and
flexibility, together with additional incentives like extra days or tax rebates if the father uses a
certain portion of the leave (Moss, 2008; Ray, Gornick & Schmitt, 2008; Haas & Rostgaard,
2011). Workplace characteristics also affect men’s leave uptake. His position, sense of
entitlement, perception of the management’s receptiveness, the type, size and sector of
activity of the work organization; the extent of father friendliness in the corporate culture, the
attitude of co-workers and the existence of other company work-family balance policies were
found to influence leave uptake by men in several industrialized countries (Haas & Hwang,
1995, 2007, 2009; Hojgaard, 1997; S. Lewis, 1997; Brandth & Kvande, 2002; Haas et al.,
2002; Kirby & Krone, 2002; Anxo et al., 2007; Bygren & Duvander, 2006; Whitehouse et al.,
2007). Finally, individual and family variables such as being part of a younger cohort, being
married, having a first child, men’s egalitarian gender attitudes, partners’ willingness to share
leave, as well as men’s and women’s high level of education and income were shown to have
a positive association with men’s leave uptake (Hyde, Essex, & Horton, 1993; Haas et al.,
2002; Sundström & Duvander, 2002).
An increasing body of literature analyses the effects of men’s leave uptake on fathers’
involvement. Although all results are not consistent (Hosking et al., 2010; Kluve & Tamm,
2013), and authors are cautious about making causal interpretations, several studies show a
significant positive association between men’s leave uptake and their subsequent involvement
in childcare (see Tanaka & Waldfogel, 2007 for the UK; Duvander & Jans, 2008; Haas &
Hwang, 2008 for Sweden; Pleck, 1993; Seward et al. 2006a, 2006b; Nepomnyaschy &
Waldfogel, 2007 for the US; and Meil 2011 for a comparative analysis of 27 countries).
Results from qualitative research provided a better understanding of the patterns. In Norway,
the UK and France, leave policies were found to prompt some fathers to spend more time in
childcare than they would have if the leave opportunity had not existed, and to some extent to
“undo [this component of] gender” (Brandth & Kvande, 2002; Trellu, 2007, 2010; Miller,
2011b). However, authors also highlight the fact that there is some resistance to fully blurring
29
gendered parental roles. Men tend to perform traditionally male activities in the home, to
retain power over the tasks they decide to do (ignoring housework) and to develop masculine
forms of childcare (Brandth & Kvande, 1998; Trellu, 2007, 2010). Some men on leave did
“bring fatherhood” to work, but with limited effects on the workplace; managers and men
tried to limit the impact and visibility of leave uptake, instead endeavoring to reproduce male
work norms (Hojgaard, 1997; Murgia & Poggio, 2009). At the individual level, leave is more
likely to be positively experienced among the better educated men, those who have the
strongest ties to work during leave uptake, and when childcare is integrated as another facet of
masculinity (Brandth & Kvande, 1998; Trellu, 2007, 2010; Höfner et al., 2011).
This overview of the literature shows that parental leave policies, and related workplace
practices, may have a challenging potential for gender relations. To a certain extent, they can
prompt more gender egalitarian representations and practices of fatherhood.
5 New gender roles in doing families
5.1 Prevalent theoretical approaches
In the literature addressing reconciliation of work and family life, “blurring boundaries” is a
frequently applied concept (Gottschall & Voß, 2003). It is closely linked to de-traditionalizing
gender relations, that is, the changing meaning of paid work and its spilling over to private
life. This may further challenge gender relations, especially as increasingly uncertain
occupational biographies for men (Oppenheimer, 1997), seen in more precarious forms of
employment and in a decline of the male breadwinnership (Cranford, Vosko & Zukewich,
2003), may force more women to become breadwinners (Crompton, 1999; Maetzke & Ostner,
2010). This in turn challenges traditional distributions of power and money in intimate
relationships (see Wimbauer, 2003; Ruiner, Hirseland & Schneider, 2011; Lennon, Stewart &
Ledermann, 2012).
Increasing maternal employment also challenges the gendered division of childcare. Although
one would expect that increases in mothers’ employment lead to a more equal sharing of
childcare responsibilities between mothers and fathers (Bergmann, 2005), mothers still spend
much more time on these tasks than fathers do (Bianchi & Milkie, 2010; Sayer & Gornick,
2011), even though in recent decades fathers have become involved in care activities more
than ever before (Bianchi et al., 2000; Craig, Mullan & Blaxland, 2010). According to the
30
“doing gender” approach (West & Zimmermann, 1987), women and men can perceive the
problem of reconciliation between paid work and family responsibilities differently. For men,
work activities can be an instrument to exercise their role of “providers” in line with prevalent
social norms. For women, as social norms have traditionally ascribed the role of family carer
to them, time spent on paid work outside the family often conflicts with that spent for the
family at home. Other theories focus on the role of individual resources in the allocation of
time for childcare. According to the theory of “relative resources and bargaining power”
(Lundberg & Pollak, 1996; Lunderg & Rose, 1999), the higher the job position and the
professional success of an individual, and the higher his/her share of (household) income, the
greater is his/her bargaining power within the household with regard to unpaid domestic work
(Thomson 1990). Hence, roles are not solely predetermined by gender, but are also strongly
influenced by the relative earning power of each partner.
In increasingly prevalent non-traditional family forms, especially stepfamilies, family
management is an even more complex issue. The “doing family” approach, which is an
extension of the “doing gender” approach, is considered useful when studying such complex
family forms (Morgan, 1999; Smart, 2000; Nelson, 2006). Similarly to the ‘doing gender’
approach, the ‘doing family’ approach stresses that family life is socially constructed. It
focuses on how families embed their everyday family lives in internal daily routines such as
doing meals and (e.g. bed time) rituals, including activities and time with children,
housework, and external social activities such as work as well as unexpected events e.g.
illness of a child or frequent business trips (Jurczyk et al., 2009). It is assumed that the
organization of family life poses greater challenges for stepfamilies than for traditional
nuclear families since their family network (internally and externally) is much more complex.
For example, although former partners live separated they may still be linked together in
many ways; children whose parents live apart may move between the homes of the parents;
(step)grandparents may become essential in creating family, that is managing everyday family
life. Thus the increase of non-traditional family constellations calls for a closer exploration of
“doing family” in such multilocal family types (Schier & Proske, 2010).
5.2 Empirical findings and research gaps
Despite the growing tendency towards blurring boundaries in modern societies, we know
fairly little about its consequences for gender roles and gender practices in families, which
31
may interact with changing working conditions. There is some research in the U.S. which
looked at certain dimensions of flexibility and their impacts on families (Hochschild, 1997;
Presser, 2003). For Europe, the Globalife Project examined the consequences of globalization
on the life course of men and women (Mills et al., 2005). Literature on breadwinning women
in western societies is rather limited. The few quantitative studies on the topic usually have a
national focus (see Eggebeen & Knoester, 2001; Bloemen & Stancanelli, 2007 for France;
Kanji, 2013 for the UK; for the US see Brennan, Barnett & Gareis, 2001; Winkler, McBride
& Andrews, 2005). Qualitative studies from the US focus mostly on gender-identity in
relation to breadwinning women (Macmillan & Gartner, 1999; Medved, 2009; Meisenbach,
2010; Chesley, 2011).
Findings on the relationship between the work status of women and the division of household
work are somewhat mixed. Many studies suggest that women still do the bulk of housework
regardless their working arrangement (see Grunow et al., 2012; Zabel & Heintz-Martin, 2012;
Bianchi et al., 2000). There is no uniform evidence that full-time working women have a
more egalitarian division of household duties than part-time working women do (Wengler,
Trappe & Schmitt, 2008; Keddi & Zerle-Elsäßer, 2012), nor is there consistent evidence that
breadwinning women refuse to follow a traditional role segregation with regard to household
tasks (Klenner, Menke & Pfahl, 2012; Klammer, Neukirch & Weßler-Poßberg, 2012). So far,
there are still research gaps as to how they deal with the multiple burden of work and
household, family life and/or fertility decisions, in particular under conditions of new forms of
family life and multilocal families, and how they handle the every-day challenges in practice
(Knijn & Smit, 2009; Rijken & Knijn, 2009).
As women are more active in the labour market and are increasingly highly educated, their
expectations about fathering and fathers’ behaviour concerning the reconciliation of work and
family are changing. Studies on “new fathers” suggest that young families strive for an equal
(or more equal) division of labour (S. Lewis, 1997; Fthenakis, 1999; Bianchi et al., 2000;
Zulehner, 2003; Matzner, 2004; Zerle & Krok 2008; United Nations, 2011). Parental leave
uptake by fathers, flexible work practices and how they include care-giving in their
construction of masculinity have been studied by Brandth and Kvande (1998, 2001, 2002) and
by O´Brien, Brandt and Kvande (2007).
32
Empirical evidence of how mothers’ employment is associated with fathers’ time with
children is inconclusive (see studies reviewed by Craig, 2007; Pailhé & Solaz, 2008).
Similarly, there are mixed findings on the extent to which fathers’ own employment schedules
are associated with their time with children (Sayer, Bianchi & Robinson, 2004; Romano &
Bruzzese, 2007; Pailhé & Solaz, 2008). Conversely, in a recent comparative study Craig and
Mullan (2011) find that parent’s work arrangements and education relate only modestly to
shares of childcare, but this relationship depends on the context. Other European studies find
a higher degree of participation in childcare among more educated fathers with more children
and with a working partner (Di Giulio & Carrozza, 2003; Smith, 2004; Tanturri, 2006;
Tanturri & Mencarini, 2009).
The different theories typically used to explain gender imbalance and negotiations within the
couples seem not to be completely adequate to explain the division of childcare between
partners (Hofferth, 2001; Bittman, Craig & Folbre, 2004; Craig and Bittman, 2008). Unlike
housework, which is reduced as paid work hours increase, mothers maintain their childcare
time by cutting back on their own leisure, personal care, and sleep (Craig, 2007). This
suggests that employed mothers may actively limit fathers’ care through gate-keeping and
hampering their involvement with the children. Mothers might do this because they wish to
retain control of a domain they feel expert in, or they do not trust fathers to deliver as high a
standard of care as they themselves provide (Bianchi & Milkie, 2010; Craig & Mullan, 2011).
Father’s time with children may reflect parents’ different values, resources, and opportunities
(Coltrane, 2007). In addition, father’s time with children varies across countries according to
welfare regimes, family and employment policies and the tax and benefit system, as well as
social norms (Gornick & Meyers, 2009; Lewis, 2009; Anxo et al., 2011). Interesting examples
of comparative research in European countries can be found in Gauthier, Smeeding &
Furstenberg (2004), Sullivan et al. (2009), Anxo et al. (2011), Craig & Mullan (2011), Smith
Koslowski (2011); Hook & Wolfe (2012). Yet little research has examined cross-national
differences in how childcare is shared between partners within various types of households in
different welfare regimes and very few studies have explored in detail which type of childcare
fathers perform compared to mothers.
The complexity of everyday family life is even more pronounced in stepfamilies. The division
of housework in such families (Snoeckx, Dehertogh & Mortelmans, 2008), their socio-
demographic characteristics and their economic well-being are quite well documented
33
(Kreyenfeld & Martin, 2011). However, little research exists on how such families live their
lives (Daly, 2003; Rönkä & Pirjo, 2009). The subjective well-being of children in stepfamilies
is one indicator of fulfilled family life, because children are also an important part of the
construction of the family life and the “success” of stepfamilies could depend on them.
McDonald and DeMaris (2002) showed that stepchildren who have a strong relationship with
the non-resident biological parent are most likely to have a poor relationship to the stepfather,
if he strongly demands conformity. The relationship between the absent father and the child
depends on the contact with him and the age of the child at separation (e.g. Weiss, 1982;
Ainsworth, 1982; Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1994; Pasley & Moorefield, 2004). Stepfamily
research often focuses on child and/or adolescent outcomes such as emotional and
behavioural problems (Najman et al., 1997; Dunn et al., 1998; O’Connor et al., 2001) or
emotional well-being (Sweeny, 2007). An overview of empirical literature showed little
evidence that children in stepfamilies differ from children in other family types (Ganong &
Coleman, 1984; Amato & Keith, 1991; Amato, 1994).
A further important aspect is the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren, which
has not been studied broadly until recently (Uhlendorff, 2003). Since people are living to
older and older ages, multigenerational bonds are becoming increasingly important
(Bengston, 2001). A large body of studies has focused on the frequency of contact and the
relationship closeness between grandparents and grandchildren (e.g. Uhlenberg & Hammill,
1998) but not on specific interactions (Mueller et al., 2002). Within the context of stepfamilies
grandparents can have a stabilizing role during the separation process (Lussier et al., 2002). In
other cases, when a separated partner does not support further contact to the “ex” parents-in-
law, they might even lose contact to their grandchildren (Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1992).
Grandparents in turn can also become step-grandparents and the question how they deal with
such non-biological relatives might be an important research question. Studying grand
parenting in stepfamilies can be very complex as a variety of relationships might be of
interest, such as biological grandparenthood versus step-grandparenthood (Hagestad, 2006).
34
6 Coping strategies in family and work reconciliation under conditions of
uncertainty and precariousness: Gender differences standardized
6.1 Prevalent theoretical approaches
In the large body of literature on childbearing decisions and behaviour, variations in fertility
across and within countries have been increasingly seen as outcomes of coping strategies in
work and family reconciliation under economic uncertainty and precariousness (Balbo et al.,
2013). Micro-economic explanations consider reproductive decisions as part of a “utility
maximizing” strategy, influenced by the costs and benefits of children (Becker, 1991). The
model distinguishes between the income effect, indicating that those with higher incomes and
(usually) higher education are able to have more children, and the cost (or price) effect, also
known as opportunity cost, that implies higher cost of childbearing for the more educated in
terms of foregone earnings while caring for a child, which in turn suppresses their fertility.
Under conditions of gender-specific role division, the income effect has been seen prevalent
among men, whereas the cost effect appeared stronger among women (Oppenheimer, 1994;
Gustafsson, 2001; Rondinelli et al., 2008; Kalmijn, 2011). It has been pointed out though, that
the negative impact of female employment on fertility, given rising female wages, should be
more pronounced in countries that lack family policies designed to support successful
reconciliation of motherhood and paid work (Bernhardt, 1993; Rindfuss et al., 2003;
Engelhardt et al., 2004; Adsera, 2004, 2005; Mills et al., 2005; Del Boca & Wetzels, 2007;
Matysiak, 2011). Also, as labour force participation has become an increasingly common
aspect of the female role, the idea of gender role specialization has been increasingly
questioned and a shift to income pooling within couples has been suggested (Cherlin, 2000).
Economic uncertainties can further promote such a shift. Hence, while employment
uncertainties, associated with lower income and less predictable future prospects, are expected
to reduce couples’ willingness to enter parenthood or further extend a family (Adsera, 2005;
Kreyenfeld et al., 2012), the increasing income effect of women’s wages can limit and
perhaps counterbalance the negative impacts on fertility.
The theory of planned behaviour (TPB), from the field of social psychology, has also been
applied in the literature of reproductive decision-making. It can provide important insights
concerning the impact of uncertainty on family formation. As suggested by Ajzen (1991),
people integrate past experiences such as occupational uncertainty, family relations and living
conditions as major background factors into their reproductive decisions. These in turn can be
35
well approximated by the use of childbearing intentions, especially on short term, that is, to
have a child within 2-3 years (Schoen et. al, 1999; Morgan, 2001; Morgan & Rackin, 2010).
The intention-behaviour link is influenced by background factors, including economic
uncertainty, constraining realization of births intended (Philipov, 2009).
Sociological explanations are frequently drawn upon when addressing childbearing decisions.
One strand focuses on the value of children as a means of uncertainty reduction (Friedman et
al., 1994), based on which poor economic prospects may push people to seek other ways of
stability in life, such as having children. Another strand has focused on the idea of role
incompatibility, more specifically on occupational factors and their compatibility with family
life (Voydanoff, 1988; Bernardi, 2003; Bernardi et al., 2008). The work-family conflict and
gender literature emphasizes that different occupational conditions aid men and women in the
development of individual strategies to reconcile work and family (Hochschild & Manchunk,
1989; Bittman et al., 2003). The Capability Approach in turn has highlighted that a person’s
resources, including educational attainment and labour force attachment, can be considered as
an indicator of her well-being, shaping her capabilities and agency to achieve valued
functioning (Sen, 1993), such as having and caring for children even under prevailing
economic uncertainty (Hobson & Oláh, 2006).
6.2. Empirical findings and research gaps
The relationship between women’s labour market participation and fertility is complex, as
was pointed out in the discussion above and in the empirical literature. Existing empirical
evidence regarding economic security, in terms of employment and income, and fertility is far
from consistent, partly because of varying institutional contexts and the use of different
measures and methods. For instance, Adsera (2005; 2011) have found that a larger gender gap
in aggregated unemployment has been associated with a delay in the transition to motherhood
and to a further birth across Europe. Other studies have shown that women’s income is
positively associated with the transition to motherhood in Sweden, Denmark, Finland
(Andersson, 2000; Vikat, 2004; Andersson et al., 2009), but not in West Germany (Andersson
et al., 2009) or Norway (Kravdal, 2002). Vignoli et al. (2012) and Santarelli (2011) have
found that permanent employment of both partners in Italy is associated with higher fertility,
while less stable employment suppresses fertility. Yet Santarelli (2011) also showed that
working women in Italy have lower first birth rates than non-working women. De la Rica and
36
Iza (2005) have shown that women in Spain who hold a fixed-term contract delay entry into
motherhood compared to women with indefinite contracts. Kreyenfeld (2005; 2010) found no
clear indication that economic uncertainty leads to a postponement of parenthood in Germany,
yet she showed that highly educated women tend to postpone the transition to motherhood
when unemployed or if they perceive their economic situation as insecure. Pailhé and Solaz
(2012) have shown that male unemployment in France delays the transition to fatherhood, and
that periods of insecure employment delay the first birth for women.
Research regarding economic uncertainty and childbearing intentions is less comprehensive,
and rarely addresses men. Berninger et al. (2011), studying intentions in Germany, find a
direct effect of income and an indirect effect of job security satisfaction on childbearing
intentions, whereas for women no direct and only a weak indirect impact of precarious work
could be observed. A book by Oláh and Fratczak (2013) addresses the association between
insecure labour force attachment and childbearing intentions in five European countries with
different work-life balance policies. The findings indicate that childbearing choices are related
to perceived uncertainty and risk. However, the book relies on separate country studies using
somewhat different approaches, methods, and data. To more clearly understand the linkage
between the institutional context, economic uncertainty and childbearing intentions, more
cross-national comparative studies are needed which take into account variations in family
policies and prevailing gender norms. Taking this approach, Fahlén (2013) has shown how
employment status and education interact in regard to first child intentions across ten
European countries, and that perceived economic uncertainty (job and income insecurity) has
a negative impact on intentions to have a first and additional child. This association is most
salient among less educated women in countries with weaker work-family reconciliation
policies (Fahlén, 2013).
As for the effect of women’s wages on fertility, most studies showed a negative association
(see Heckman & Walker, 1990 on Sweden; Merrigan & St Pierre, 1996 on Canada; Blacklow,
2006 on Australia; Andersson et al., 2009 on West Germany). There are, however, exceptions
to this rule. For instance, Ronsen (2004) found no significant effect of women’s wages on
third births in Norway and Finland, while Tasiran (1995) established a positive effect of
women’s wages on first birth in Sweden and on first-third births in the US. The most recent
study conducted for Denmark and Germany provides some evidence for the shift towards
income pooling as the barriers to work and family reconciliation fade away (Andersson et al.,
37
2009). It shows that women’s wages exert a clearly negative impact on first and second birth
risks in Germany, while in Denmark these effects are positive.
One of the major impediments to the empirical research on the effects of women’s wages on
fertility has been the lack of data that would provide longitudinal information on women’s
wages and fertility. Due to these data shortcomings, empirical studies have tended to focus on
investigating the effect of women’s employment on fertility. Women’s participation in paid
work, in fact, usually provides the monetary basis which enables a person to set up a
household, ensures her own and her family’s livelihood and grants economic independence
and welfare protection over the life course (Neyer et al., 2013b). These studies in general
show that women’s paid work has a negative impact on childbearing, but the magnitude of
this effect is most pronounced in Southern European countries and insignificant in Nordic
countries (Matysiak & Vignoli, 2008). This finding is consistent with the one of Andersson et
al. (2009) suggesting a shift toward the income pooling with an improvement of the public
support for working parents and an increase in gender equality. An insignificant effect of
women’s employment on first birth was also established in numerous post-socialist countries
(see Kantorova, 2004 for Czech Republic; Kreyenfeld, 2004 for East Germany; Robert &
Bukodi, 2005 for Hungary; Matysiak, 2009 for Poland). This is surprising, given that the
collapse of state socialism led to the disappearance of public support for working parents, and
to an increase in work-family tensions (Saxonberg & Sirovatka, 2006; Glass & Fodor, 2007).
A possible explanation for this finding is that, consistent with the income pooling hypothesis,
women in Eastern Europe might already have been established as income providers as a result
of the longer periods of women’s integration in the labour market in Eastern than in Western
Europe. The latter effect might be additionally reinforced by aspirations to achieve Western
living standards, which may be difficult to satisfy with one salary only.
7 Concluding thoughts
The de-standardization (and possible re-standardization) of the family life course in Europe
(and elsewhere in the industrialized world), the significant knowledge gap on new forms of
family life, transitions between old and new family forms and within-family relations, and the
lack of explanations for the new patterns pose considerable challenges to policy-making. As
pointed out by the FamilyPlatform, much remains to be known of the multiple ways in which
women’s increasing educational and economic attainment and men’s declining economic
38
position in many European countries shape family lives, the decision-making processes about
work and family, parenthood, the use of time in families and the daily and biographical
practices of ‘doing family’ in old and new family forms in different policy contexts
(Uhlendorff et al. 2011). In WP3 in the FamiliesAndSocieties project, we will address the
research gaps discussed above.
We investigate the complex interplay between the new social roles of women and men and the
diversity of family life in contemporary Europe in terms of (a) family formation and
dissolution as well as parenthood, that is, transitions over the family life course, and (b) the
organisation of family life (reconciliation of work and care). Increasing diversity of family
forms is rooted in more diverse demographic behaviours, constitutive for the family life
course, and in a gender divide of paid and unpaid work at the household level, both strongly
related to changing gender roles. Besides in-depth studies on these processes, our focus is also
on the parent-to-child relationships within diverse family forms, evolving family patterns of
work and care, and strategies adopted to deal with insecure work conditions. Within this
complex frame of research it is possible to explore how these processes intervene with well-
being, on a macro-level (macro-level well-being - MBW), on the micro-level (subjective well-
being - SBW) and in addition how macro-level and subjective well-being are interconnected.
Macro-level well-being is operationalized as general socio-economic conditions, measured in
terms of, e.g., welfare regime, job security or gendered division of labour. Therefore, WP3
investigates the influence of (a) economic uncertainty/stress, (b) unequal division of labour by
gender, and (c) transformation of welfare regimes on the family related processes under
consideration. In particular, the following will be examined: (a) the influence of precarious
work conditions on fertility intentions, union formation, and family life, (b) the influence of
(socio-material) living conditions on gendered division of labour, and (c) the impact of policy
transformation and general political perspectives on family transitions.
To operationalize subjective well-being (SWB) in survey-based research one can apply three
concepts proposed by Zhou (2012): (a) the concept of revealed preference or decision utility,
which focuses on whether expectations and desires are met, (b) life satisfaction or (c)
happiness, which both focus on perception of satisfaction and/or happiness in process.
Making use of survey data (e.g., ESS, EU-SILC, GGS) WP3 investigates individual
expectations and desires towards gender roles at certain life course stages like becoming a
39
parent, doing stepfamilies, and balancing work and family life, incorporating aspects of
general life satisfaction and of satisfaction in connection with transitions to partnership and
parenthood, work, division of household work, and so forth. Perceived happiness and the
transformation of happiness in everyday processes can be observed within our qualitative
research on the transition to parenthood and stepfamily practices.
Interconnections between macro-level indicators and individual subjective well-being can be
measured (a) via comparative research on family dynamics within several welfare regimes
and socio-economic settings and (b) via individual resilience against conditions with the
potential to threaten well-being, e.g., economic stress during precarious work situations,
family dissolution or the transition to parenthood. Since research on families and gender roles
under WP3 refers to several countries, comparisons of possible impacts of economic
performance, working conditions, and family policies on subjective satisfaction or
expectations will be done.
The qualitative research in WP3 allows assessing complex conditions for activities and
practices that create well-being, decrease, or increase well-being. We aim to identify everyday
practices that boost stress or decrease satisfaction. In addition, we want to investigate how and
when wellbeing is meaningful to individuals. Being well off may have a different meaning
under different settings. We also aim to disentangle how everyday well-being is intermingled
with an overall life satisfaction. Short-term happiness may be not always related to long-term
satisfaction and wellbeing is maybe not expected in every situation. We seek to explore on a
more complex level how individuals build their expectations towards economic well-being,
relationship satisfaction or happiness and how those expectations influence people’s family
behaviours and lives. Concerning new roles of men and women, we try to trace how the
transformation or also the re-traditionalization of gendered positions affect hierarchies
between the sexes, the stability of relationships, the intensity of family ties or the creation of
new family forms. These processes are interlinked with the happiness or unhappiness of
individuals. By analyzing the development of family forms and essential transitions in the
family life course in different social, economic, and institutional contexts, and by
substantiating these processes through in-depth ethnographic research WP3 will be able to
depict and disentangle the processes of the production of well-being within family life course
of different social groups and across different European contexts.
40
References
Adsera, A. (2004). Changing fertility rates in developed countries: The impact of labour market institutions. Journal of Population Economics, 17(1), 17-43.
Adsera, A. (2005). Vanishing children: From high unemployment to low fertility in developed countries. American Economic Review, 95(2), 189-193.
Adsera, A. (2011). The interplay of employment uncertainty and education in explaining the second births in Europe. Demographic Research, 3(16), 513-544.
Ahlborg, T., Misvaer, N., & Moller, A. (2009). Perception of Marital Quality by Parents With Small Children A Follow-up Study When the Firstborn Is 4 Years Old. Journal of Family Nursing, 15(2), 237-263.
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1982). Attachment: Retrospect and Prospect. In C. M. Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The Place of Attachment in Human Behavior (pp. 3-30). New York: Basic.
Aisenbrey, S., Evertsson, M., & Grunow, D. (2009). Is there a Career Penalty for Mothers’ Time Out? A Comparison of Germany, Sweden and the United States. Social Forces, 88(2), 573-606.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Albrecht, J. W., Edin, P.-A., Sundström, M., & Vroman, S. B. (1999). Career Interruptions and Subsequent Earnings: A Reexamination Using Swedish Data. Journal of Human Resources, 34(2), 294-311.
Allen, S. M., & Hawkins, A. J. (1999). Maternal Gatekeeping. Mothers´ Beliefs and Behaviors That Inhibit Greater Father Involvement in Family Work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(1), 199-212.
Amato, P. (1994). The implications of research findings on children in stepfamilies. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Stepfamilies: Who benefits? Who does not? (pp. 81-87). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Amato, P., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and well-being of children. A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 26-46.
Andersson, G. (2000). The impact of labour-force participation on childbearing behavior: Pro- cyclical fertility in Sweden during the 1980s and the 1990s. European Journal of Population, 16, 293-333.
Andersson, G., Kreyenfeld, M., & Mika, T. (2009). Welfare State Context, Female Earnings and Childbearing in Denmark and Germany. Stockholm Research Reports in Demography 2009:13. Stockholm University.
Anxo, D., Fagan, C., Smith, M., Letablier, M.-T., & Perraudin, C. (2007). Parental leave in European companies. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
Anxo, D., Mencarini, L., Paihlé, A., Solaz, A., Tanturri, M. L., & Flood, L. (2011). Gender differences in time-use over the life-course. A comparative analysis of France, Italy, Sweden and the United States. Feminist economist, 17(3), 159-195.
Balbo, N., Billari, F.C., & Mills, M. (2013). Fertility in advanced societies: A review of research. European Journal of Population, 29(1), 1-38.
Bartus, T., Murinkó, L., Szalma, I., & Szel, B. (2013). The effect of education on second births in Hungary: A test of the time-squeeze, self-selection, and partner-effect hypothesis. Demographic Research, 28(1), 1-32.
41
Beck, U. (1999). World risk society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Becker, G. S. (1991). A Treatise on the Family. Enlarged edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press. Becker, G. S., Landes, E. M., & Michael, R. T. (1977). An economic analysis of marital
instability. Journal of Political Economy, 85(6), 1141-1188. Beets, G., Liefbroer, A.C., & De Jong Gierveld, J. (1997). Combining Employment and
Parenthood: A Longitudinal Study of Intentions of Dutch Young Adults. Population Research and Policy Review, 16(5), 457-474.
Behnke, C., & Meuser, M. (2012). “Look here mate! I´m taking parental leave for a year” – involved fatherhood and images of masculinity. In M. Oechsle, U. Mueller & S. Hess (Eds.) Faterhood in Late Modernity. Cultural Images, Social Pracices, Structural Frames. Opladen/Farmington Hills: Verlag Barbara Budrich.
Bengston, V. L. (2001). Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), 1-16.
Bergmann, B. (2005). The Economic Emergence of Women, 2nd edition. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Bernardi, L. (2003). Channels of social influence on reproduction. Population Research and Policy Review, 22(5), 427-555.
Bernardi, L., Klaerner, A., & von der Lippe, H. (2008). Job insecurity and the timing of parenthood: a comparison between Eastern and Western Germany. European Journal of Population, 24(3), 287-313.
Bernhardt, E. (1993). Fertility and employment. European Sociological Review, 9(1),25-42. Berninger, I., Weiß, B., & Wagner, B. (2011). On the links between employment, partnership
quality, and the intention to have a first child: The case of West Germany. Demographic Research, 24(24), 579-610.
Bianchi, S. (2000). Maternal employment and time with children; dramatic change or surprising continuity. Demography, 37(4), 401-414.
Bianchi, S., & Milkie, M. (2010). Work and Family Research in the First Decade of the 21st Century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 705-725.
Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C., & Robinson, J. P. (2000). Is Anyone Doing the Homework? Trends in the Gender Division of Household Labor. Social Forces, 79(1), 191-228.
Biehle, S. N., & Mickelson, K. D. (2012). First-Time Parents' Expectations About the Division of Childcare and Play. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(1), 36-45.
Billari, F. C., Kohler H.-P. (2004). Patterns of low and lowest-low fertility in Europe. Population Studies, 58(2), 161-176.
Billingsley, S. (2011). Second and third births in Armenia and Moldova: An economic perspective of recent behaviour and current preferences. European Journal of Population, 27(2), 125-155.
Bittman M., Craig L., & Folbre, N. (2004). “Packaging Care: What Happens When Parents Utilize Non-parental Child Care”. In: M. Bittman & N. Folbre, (Eds.), Family Time: The Social Organization of Care (pp. 133-51). London: Routledge.
Bittman, M., England, P., Sayer, L., Folbre, N., & Matheson, G. (2003). When Does Gender Trump Money? Bargaining and Time in Household Work. American Journal of Sociology, 109(1), 186-214.
42
Blacklow, P. (2006). Fertility Choices of Australian Couples. School of Economics and Finance. Discussion Paper 2006-07, University of Tasmania.
Bloemen, H.G., & Stancanelli, E.G.F. (2007). A model of female breadwinnership. Is she outeraning him? Online. www.eea-esem.com/EEA- ESEM/2007/prog/getpdf.asp?pid=1333&pdf=/files/papers/EEA- ESEM/2007/1333/breadmod-1.pdf [2013-03-04].
Blossfeld, H.-P. (Ed.). (1995). The New Role of Women: Family Formation in Modern Societies. Boulder, San Francisco, Oxford: Westview Press.
Blossfeld,, H-P., Klijzing,E., Mills, M. & Kurz, K. (Eds.) (2005). Globalization, uncertainty and youth in society. London: Routledge
Blossfeld, H.-P. (2009). Educational assortative marriage in comparative perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 513-530.
Blossfeld, H.-P., & Timm, A.. (2003). Whom Marries Whom? Educational Systems as Marriage Markets in Modern Societies. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Booth, A., Crouter, A. C., & Shanahan, M. J. (Eds.). (1999). Transitions to Adulthood in a Changing Economy: No Work, No Family, No Future? Westport, CT: Praeger. Boye, K. (forthcoming). Care more, earn less? The association between care leave for sick
children and wage growth among Swedish parents, Forthcoming as an IFAU Working paper.
Boye, K., Halldén, K., & Magnusson, C. (forthcoming). Könslönegapets utveckling: Betydelsen av yrkets kvalifikationsnivå och familjeansvar. In M. Evertsson & C. Magnusson (Eds.) Ojämlikhetens dimensioner. Stockholm: Liber.
Braidotti , R. (2006). Transpositions: On nomadic ethics. Cambridge (UK): Polity Press. Brandth, B., & Kvande, E. (1998). Masculinity and child care. The reconstruction of
fathering. The Sociological Review, 46(2), 293-314. Brandt, B., & Kvande, E. (2001). Flexible Work and Flexible Fathers. Work Employment
Society, 15(2), 215-267. Brandt, B., & Kvande, E. (2002). Reflexive Fathers. Negotiating Parental Leave and Working
Life. Gender, Work and Organization, 9(2), 186-203. Brennan, R. T., Barnett, R. C., & Gareis, K. C. (2001). When She Earns More Than He Does.
A Longitudinal Study of Dual-Earner Couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), 168-182.
Bruning, G., & Plantenga, J. (1999). Parental leave and equal opportunities: experiences in eight European countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 9(3), 195-209.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Bygren, M., & Duvander, A.-Z. (2006). Parents' Workplace Situation and Fathers' Parental Leave Use. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(2), 363-372.
Bygren, M., & Gähler, M. (2012). Family Formation and Men’s and Women’s Attainment of Workplace Authority. Social Forces, 90, 795-816.
Cherlin, A. (2000). Toward a new home socioeconomics of union formation. In L. J. Waite, C. Bachrach, M. Hindin, E. Thomson & A. Thornton (Eds.), The Ties that Bind - Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation (pp. 126-144). Hawthorne, New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Cherlin, A., & Furstenberg, F. F. (1994). Stepfamilies in the United States: A Reconsideration. Annual review of Sociology, 20, 359-381.
43
Cherlin, A., & Furstenberg, F. F. (1992). The New American Grandparent: A Place in the Family, A Life Apart. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chesley, N. (2011). Stay-at-Home Fathers and Breadwinning Mothers. Gender, Couple Dynamics, and social Change. Gender & Society, 25(5), 642-664.
Cigno, A. (1994). Economics of the family. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Claxton, A., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2008). No fun anymore: Leisure and marital quality across
the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(1): 28–43. Coltrane, S. (2007). Fatherhood, Gender and Work-Family Policies. In E. O. Wright (Ed.),
Real Utopias (pp. 385-410). Madison, WI: The Havens Center, University of Wisconsin- Madison.
Cooke, L. P. (2006). “Doing” gender in context: household bargaining and risk of divorce in Germany and the United States. [Proceedings Paper]. American Journal of Sociology, 112(2), 442-472.
Cooke, L. P., & Gash, V. (2010). Wives' part-time employment and marital stability in Great Britain, West Germany and the United States. Sociology, 44(6), 1091-1108.
Council of Europe. (2004). Recent Demographic Developments in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Craig, L. (2007). Contemporary Motherhood: The Impact of Children on Adult Time. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Craig, L., & Bittman, M. (2008). The Incremental Time Costs of Children: an analysis of children’s impact on adult time in Australia. Feminist Economics, 14(2), 59-88.
Craig, L., & Mullan, K. (2010). Parenthood, Gender and Work-Family Time in the United States, Australia, Italy, France and Denmark. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72 (October 2010), 1344-1361.
Craig, L., & Mullan, K. (2011). How Mothers and Fathers Share Childcare: A Cross-National Time-Use Comparison. American Sociological Review, 76(6), 834-861
Craig, L., Mullan, K., & Blaxland, M. (2010). Parenthood, Policy and Work-Family Time in Australia 1992–2006. Work, Employment and Society, 24(1), 1-19.
Cranford, C. J., Vosko, L. F., & Zukewich, N. (2003). The Gender of Precarious Employment in Canada. Industrial Relations, 58(3), 454-482.
Crompton, R. (Ed.) (1999). Restructuring Gender Relations and Employment. The Decline of the Male Breadwinner. Oxford University Press: New York.
Daly, K. (2003). Family Theory versus the Theories Families Live. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(4), 771-784.
Dariotis, J.K., Pleck, J.H., Astone, N.M., & Sonenstein, F.L. (2011). Pathways of Early Fatherhood, Marriage, and Employment: A Latent Class Growth Analysis. Demography, 48, 593-623.
De la Rica, S., & Iza, A. (2005). Career Planning in Spain: Do Fixed-term Contracts Delay Marriage and Parenthood? Review of Economics of the Household, 3(1), 49-73.
Del Boca, D., & Wetzels, C. (2007). Social Policies, Labour Markets and Motherhood: A Comparative Analysis of European Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deutsch, F. M., Kokot, A. P., & Binder, K. S. (2007). College women's plans for different types of egalitarian marriages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(4), 916-929.
Di Giulio, P., & Carrozza, S. (2003). “Il nuovo ruolo del padre”. In A. Pinnelli, F. Racioppi, and R. Rettaroli (Eds). Genere e Demografia. Bologna: Il Mulino.
44
Doss, B. D., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. A., & Markman, H. J. (2009). The Effect of the Transition to Parenthood on Relationship Quality: An 8-Year Prospective Study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 601-619.
Doucet, A. (2009). Dad and Baby in the First Year: Gendered Responsibilities and Embodiment. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 624, 78– 98.
Dribe, M., & Stanfors, M. (2009). Does Parenthood Strengthen a Traditional Household Division of Labor? Evidence From Sweden. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(1), 33- 45.
Dunn, J., Deater-Deckard, K., Pickering, K., O’Connor, T., Golding, J., & ALSPAC Study Team (1998). Children’s Adjustment and Prosocial Behaviour in Step-, Single-parent, and Non-stepfamily Settings: Findings from a Community Study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 1083-1095.
Duvander, A.-Z., & Jans, A.-C. (2008). Consequences of Fathers' Parental Leave Use: Evidence from Sweden. Working Paper Stockholm University Linnaeus Center on Social Policy and Family Dynamics in Europe, SPaDE, 2008:6. http://www.su.se/content/1/c6/05/37/88/WP6.pdf
Dykstra, P.A., & Poortman, A-R. (2010). Economic resources and remaining single: trends over time. European Sociological Review, 26(3), 277-290.
E.i.G.E. (2012). Reconciliation of Work and Family Life as a Condition of Equal Participation in the Labour Market- Report, Brussels: European Institute for Gender Equality.
Eggebeen, D. J., & Knoester, Ch. (2001). Does Fatherhood Matter for Men? Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2), 381-393.
Engelhardt, H., Kögel, T., & Prskawetz, A. (2004). Fertility and women’s employment reconsidered: A macro-level time-series analysis for developed countries, 1960-2000. Population Studies, 58(1), 109-120.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Policy Press.
Esping-Andersen, G. (2009). The Incomplete Revolution: Adapting to Women's New Roles. Cambridge: Policy Press.
Eurostat (2013) Eurostat, Population, database (accessed June 17, 2013) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/data/database
Evertsson, M., & Nermo, M. (2004). Dependence within Families and the Division of Labour: Comparing Sweden and the United States. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(5), 1272- 1286.
Evertsson M., & Nermo, M. (2007). Changing Resources and the Division of Housework: A Longitudinal Study of Swedish Couples. European Sociological Review, 23(4), 455-470.
Fahlén, S. (2013). Capabilities and childbearing intentions in Europe: The association between work-family reconciliation policies, economic uncertainties and women’s fertility plans. European Societies. Published online, 16 May, 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2013.798018
Fenstermaker Berk, S. 1985. The Gender Factory. The Apportionment of Work in American Households. New York: Plenum Press.
Forste, R. (2002). Where are All the Men? A Conceptual Analysis of the Role of Men in Family Formation. Journal of Family Issues, 23(5), 579-600.
45
Fox, B. (2009). When Couples Become Parents: The Creation of Gender in the Transition to Parenthood. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Frejka, T., & Sobotka, T. (2008). Overview Chapter 1: Fertility in Europe: Diverse, delayed and below replacement. Demographic Research, 19(3), 15-46.
Frejka, T., Sobotka, T., Hoem, J.M., & Toulemon, L. (Eds.). (2008). Childbearing Trends and Policies in Europe. Demographic Research, Special Collection 7, 1-1178.
Friedman, D., Hechter, M., & Kanazawa, S. (1994). A theory of the value of children. Demography, 31(3), 375-401.
Fthenakis, W. E. (1999). Engagierte Vaterschaft. Die sanfte Revolution in der Familie. LBS- Initiative Junge Familie. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Gałęzewska, P. (2011). Impact of educational attainment on the transition to the second child in post-socialist Poland. Paper presented to PAA meeting.
Gameiro, S., Boivin, J., Canavarro, M. C., Moura-Ramos, M., & Soares, I. (2010). Social Nesting: Changes in Social Network and Support Across the Transition to Parenthood in Couples That Conceived Spontaneously or Through Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(2), 175-187.
Ganong, L. H., & Coleman, M. (1984). The Effects of Remarriage on Children: A Review of the Empirical Literature. Family Relations, 33, 389-406.
Gash, V. (2009). Sacrificing their Careers for their Families? An analysis of the penalty to motherhood in Europe. Social Indicators Research, 93, 569-586.
Gauthier, A. H., Smeeding, T. M., & Furstenberg Jr, F. F. (2004). Are Parents Investing Less Time in Children? Trends in Selected Industrialized Countries. Population and Development Review, 30(4), 647-671.
Geist, C. (2009). One Germany, Two Worlds of Housework? Examining Employed Single and Partnered Women in the Decade after Unification. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 40(3), 425+.
Geist, C., & Cohen, P. N. (2011). Headed Toward Equality? Housework Change in Comparative Perspective. Journal of Marriage and family, 73(4), 832-844.
Gerster, M., Keiding, N., Knudsen, L.B., Strandberg-Larsen, K. (2007). Education and second birth rates in Denmark 1981–1994. Demographic Research, 17(8), 181-210.
Glass, C., & Fodor, E. (2007). From Public to Private Maternalism? Gender and Welfare in Poland and Hungary after 1989, Social Politics. International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 14(3), 323-350.
Goldscheider, F., Olah, L.S., & Puur, A. (2010). Reconciling studies of men's gender attitudes and fertility: Response to Westoff and Higgins. Demographic Research, 22(1), 189-197.
Goldstein, J.R., & Kenney, C.T. (2001). Marriage delayed or marriage forgone? New cohort forecasts of first marriage for U.S. women. American Sociological Review, 66(4), 506- 519.
Gornick, J. C., & Meyers, M. K. (2003). Families That Work: Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Gornick, J. C., & Meyers, M. K. (Eds.). (2009). Gender Equality: Transforming Family
Divisions of Labor (The Real Utopias Project), London: Verso. Gottschall, K., & Voß, G. (2003). Entgrenzung von Arbeit und Leben. Zum Wandel der
Beziehung von Erwerbstätigkeit und Privatsphäre im Alltag. München, Mering: Hampp. Gough, M., & Noonan, M. (2013). A review of the motherhood wage penalty in the United
States. Sociology Compass, 7(4), 328-342.
46
Grunow, D., Schulz, F., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2012). What determines change in the division of housework over the course of marriage? - Was bestimmt die Veränderungen in der häuslichen Arbeitsteilung im Verlauf einer Ehe? International Sociology. Journal of the international sociological association. Online first, 1-19.
Gustafsson, S. (2001). Optimal age at motherhood. Theoretical and empirical considerations on postponement of maternity in Europe. Journal of Population Economics, 14(2), 225- 247.
Gustafsson, S., & Kalwij, A. (Eds.). (2006). Education and postponement of maternity: Economic analyses for industrialized countries. Berlin: Springer.
Guzzo, K.B, & Hayford, S.R. (2010). Single Mothers, Single Fathers: Gender Differences in Fertility After a Nonmarital Birth. Journal of Family Issues, 31(7), 906-933.
Haas, L., & Hwang, P. C. (1995). Company Culture and Mens Usage of Family Leave Benefits in Sweden. Family Relations, 44(1), 28-36.
Haas, L., & Hwang, P. C. (2007). Gender and organizational culture - Correlates of companies' responsiveness to fathers in Sweden. Gender & Society, 21(1), 52-79.
Haas, L., & Hwang, P. C. (2008). The impact of taking parental leave on fathers' participation in childcare and relationships with children: Lessons from Sweden. Community, Work & Family, 11(1), 85-104.
Haas, L., & Hwang, P.C. (2009). Is Fatherhood Becoming More Visible at Work? Trends in Corporate Support for Fathers Taking Parental Leave in Sweden. Fathering, 7(3), 303- 321.
Haas, L., & Rostgaard, T. (2011). Fathers’ rights to paid parental leave in the Nordic countries: consequences for the gendered division of leave. Community, Work & Family, 14(2), 177-195.
Haas, L., Allard, K., & Hwang, P. C. (2002). The impact of organizational culture on men's use of parental leave in Sweden. Community, Work & Family, 5(3), 319-342.
Hagestad, G. O. (2006). Transfers between grandparents and grandchildren: The importance of taking a three-generations perspective. Journal of Family Research, 18(3), 315-332.
Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hearn, J. (2002). Men, fathers and the state: national and global relations. In B. Hobson (Ed.), Making Men into Fathers. Men, Masculinities and the Social Politics of Fatherhood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Heckman, J.J., & Walker, J. R. (1990). The Relationship between Wages and Income and the Timing of Births: Evidence from Swedish longitudinal data. Econometrica, 58(6), 1411- 1441.
Hobson, B. (Ed.). (2002). Making Men into Fathers. Men, Masculinities and the Social Politics of Fatherhood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hobson, B. (2011). The agency gap in work-life balance: Applying Sen’s capabilities framework within European contexts. Social Politics, 18(2), 147-167.
Hobson, B., & Fahlén, S. (2009). Competing scenarios for European fathers: Applying Sen’s capabilities and agency framework to work-family balance. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 624(1), 214-233.
Hobson, B., & Morgan, D. (2002). Introduction. In B. Hobson (Ed.), Making Men into Fathers. Men, Masculinities and the Social Politics of Fatherhood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47
Hobson, B., & Oláh, L. Sz. (2006). Birthstrikes? Agency and capabilities in the reconciliation of employment and family. Marriage and Family Review, 39(3-4), 197-227.
Hobson, B., Drobnic, S. & Fagan, C. (eds). (2011). Sen’s Capabilities and Agency Framework Applied to Work-Life Balance Across European Welfare States and Within Work Organizations. Social Politics: Special issue, 18(2)
Hochschild, A. R. (1997). The Time Bind. When Work becomes Home and Home becomes Work. New York: Holt Paperback.
Hochschild, A. R., & Manchung, A. (1989). The second shift: Working women and the revolution at home. New York: Viking.
Hoem, B. (1996). The social meaning of the age at second birth for third-birth fertility: A methodological note on the need to sometimes respecify an intermediate variable. Yearbook of Population Research in Finland, 33, 333-339.
Hoem, B., & Hoem, J. M. (1989). The impact of women's employment on second and third births in modern Sweden. Population Studies, 43(1), 47-67.
Hoem, J. M., & Mureşan, C. (2011). The Total Marital Fertility Rate and its Extensions. European Journal of Population, 27(3), 295-312.
Hoem, J. M., Jalovara, M., Mureşan, C. (2013). Recent fertility patterns of Finnish women by union status: A descriptive account. Demographic Research, 28(14), 409-420.
Hofferth, S. (2001). Women’s Employment and Care of Children in the United States. In T. Van der Lippe & L. Van Dijk (Eds.), Women’s Employment in a Comparative Perspective (pp. 151-74). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Höfner, C. (2003). Vaterschaft heute. Einstellungen, Bilder, Hoffnungen & Ängste. Wie junge Väter ihre neue Rolle erleben. Werdende Väter und ihre Partnerinnen. Unpublished
dissertation. Höfner, C., Schadler, C., & Richter, R. (2011). When Men Become Fathers: Men's Identity at
the Transition to Parenthood. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 42(5), 669-686, Special Issue: Family Diversity and Gender.
Hojgaard, L. (1997). Working Fathers - Caught in the Web of the Symbolic Order of Gender. Acta Sociologica, 40(3), 245-261.
Hook, J. L., & Wolfe, C. M. (2012). New Fathers? Residential Fathers’ Time with Children in Four Countries. Journal of Family Issues, 33(4), 415-450.
Hosking, A., Whitehouse, G., & Baxter, J. (2010). Duration of Leave and Resident Fathers' Involvement in Infant Care in Australia. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1301- 1316.
Hotz, V.J., Klerman, J.A., Willis, R. (1997). The economics of fertility in developed countries. In M. R. Rosenzweig & O. Stark (Eds.), Handbook of Population and Family Economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Huinink, J. (2013). De-standardization or changing life course patterns ? Transition to adulthood from a demographic perspective. In Neyer, G. et al. (Eds.), The Demography of Europe (pp. 99-118). Dordrecht : Springer.
Hyde, J. S., Essex, M. J., & Horton, F. (1993). Fathers and Parental Leave. Attitudes and Experiences. Journal of Family Issues, 14(4), 616-641.
INED (2013). Developed countries database. (accessed July 3, 2013) http://www.ined.fr/en/pop_figures/developed_countries_database/ .
48
Isen, A., & Stevenson, B. (2010). “Women's Education and Family Behaviour: Trends in Marriage, Divorce and Fertility”. In J. B. Shoven (Ed.), Demography and the Economy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Iversen, T., Rosenbluth, F., & Soskice, D. (2005). Divorce and the Gender Division of Labor in Comparative Perspective. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 12(2), 216-242.
Jalovaara, M. (2002). Socioeconomic differentials in divorce risk by duration of marriage. Demographic Research, 7(16), 537-564.
Jalovaara, M. (2012). Socio-economic resources and first-union formation in Finland, cohorts born 1969-81. Population Studies, 66(1), 69-85.
Johansson, T., & Klinth, R. (2008). Caring Fathers: The Ideology of Gender Equality and Masculine Positions. Men and Masculinities, 11, 42-62.
Jokinen, K. & Kuronen, M. (Eds.). (2011). Chapter 1: Research on Families and Family Policies in Europe: Major Trends. In U. Uhlendorff, M. Rupp & M. Euteneuer (Eds.), Wellbeing of Families in Future Europe. Challenges for Research and Policy. FamilyPlatform – Families in Europe Volume 1 (pp. 13-118). Lulu.com.
Jurczyk, K., Schier, M., Szymenderski, P., Lange, A., & Voß, G. G. (2009). Entgrenzte Arbeit – Entgrenzte Familie. Grenzmanagement im Alltag als neue Herausforderung. [Blurring boundaries between work and family]. Berlin: edition sigma.
Kalmijn, M. (1991). Status Homogamy in the United States. American Journal of Sociology 97(2), 496-523.
Kalmijn, M. (1994). Assortative Mating by Cultural and Economic Occupational Status. American Journal of Sociology, 100(2), 422-452.
Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy, Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395-421. Kalmijn, M. (2011). The Influence of Men's Income and Employment on Marriage and
Cohabitation: Testing Oppenheimer's Theory in Europe. European Journal of Population, 27(3), 269-293.
Kalmijn, M. (2012). Longitudinal analyses of the effects of age, marriage, and parenthood on social contacts and support. Advance in Life Cource Research, 17(4), 177-190.
Kanji, S. (2013). Do fathers work fewer paid hours when their female partner is the main or an equal earner? Work Employment Society, 27(2), 326-342.
Kantorová, V. (2004). Family life transitions of young women in a changing society: first union formation and birth of first child in the Czech Republic, 1970-1997. PhD Doctoral Dissertation, Charles University.
Kaplan, A., & Stier, H. (2010). Political Economy of Family Life: Welfare Regimes, Economic Resources and Divorce. Paper presented at the European Population Conference, Vienna.
Katz-Wise, S. L., Priess, H. A., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). Gender-Role Attitudes and Behavior Across the Transition to Parenthood. Developmental Psychology, 46(1).
Kaufman, G. & Uhlenberg, P. (2000). The influence of parenthood on the work effort of married men and women. Social Forces, 78)3): 931-949.
Keddi, B., & Zerle-Elsäßer, C. (2012). Erwerbskonstellationen von Paaren. Rahmung der familialen Lebensführung. In T. Rauschenbach, & W. Bien, Aufwachsen in Deutschland. AID.A – Der neue DJI-Survey (pp. 215-233). Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Juventa.
49
Kertzer, D.I., White, M.J., Bernardi, L., & Gabrielli, G. (2009). Italy’s path to very low fertility: The adequacy of economic and second demographic transition theories. European Journal of Population, 25(1), 89-115.
Kirby, E. L., & Krone, K. J. (2002). The Policy Exists But You Can't Really Use It: Communication and the Structuration of Work-Family Policies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30(1), 50-77.
Klammer, U., Neukirch, S., & Weßler-Poßberg, D. (2012). Wenn Mama das Geld verdient. Familienernährerinnen zwischen Prekarität and neuen Rollenbildern. Berlin: Forschung aus der Hans-Böckler-Stifung.
Klenner, Ch., Menke, K., & Pfahl, S. (2012). Flexible Familienernährerinnen. Moderne Geschlechterarrangements oder prekäre Konstellationen? Opladen, Berlin, Toronto: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Klesment, M., & Puur, A. (2010). Effects of education on second births before and after societal transition: Evidence from the Estonian GGS. Demographic Research, 22(28), 891-932.
Kluve, J., & Tamm, M. (2013). Parental leave regulations, mothers’ labor force attachment and fathers’ childcare involvement: evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Population Economics, 26(3), 983-1005.
Knijn, T., & Smit, A. (2009). Investing, facilitating or individualizing the reconciliation of work and family life. Three paradigms and ambivalent policies. Social Politics, 16(4), 484-518.
Köppen, K. (2006). Second births in western Germany and France. Demographic Research, 14(14), 295-330.
Korpi, W. (2000). Faces of inequality: Gender, class, and patterns of inequalities in different types of welfare states. Social Politics, 7(2), 127-191.
Koytcheva, E. (2006). Socio-demographic differences of fertility and union formation in Bulgaria before and after the start of the societal transition. Ph.D. dissertation. Rostock: University of Rostock.
Kravdal, Ø. (2002). The Impact of Individual and Aggregate Unemployment on Fertility in Norway. Demographic Research, 6(10), 263-294.
Kravdal, Ø. (2004). An illustration of the problems caused by incomplete education histories in fertility analyses. Demographic Research, 3(6), 135-154.
Kravdal, Ø. (2007). Effects of current education on second- and third-birth rates among Norwegian women and men born in 1964: Substantive interpretations and methodological issues. Demographic Research, 17(9), 211-246.
Kreyenfeld, M. (2004). Fertility decisions in the FRG and GDR: an analysis with data from the German Fertility and Family Survey. Demographic Research, 3, 275-318.
Kreyenfeld, M. (2005). Economic uncertainty and fertility postponement: Evidence from German panel data. MPIDR Working paper, WP 2005-034. Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.
Kreyenfeld, M. (2010). Uncertainties in Female Employment Careers and the Postponement of Parenthood in Germany. European Sociological Review, 26(3), 351-366.
Kreyenfeld, M., & Martin, V. (2011). Economic conditions of stepfamilies from a cross- sectional perspective. Journal of Family Research, 2, 128-153.
Kreyenfeld, M., & Zabel, C. (2005). Female education and the second child: Great Britain and Western Germany compared. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften / Schmollers Jahrbuch, 125(1), 145-156.
50
Kreyenfeld, M., Andersson, G., & Pailhé, A. (2012). Economic uncertainty and family dynamics in Europe: Introduction. Demographic Research, 27(28), 835-852.
Krüger, H. (2009). The Life-Course Regime: Ambiguities Between Relatedness and Individualization. In W. Heinz, J. Huinink & A. Weymann (Eds.): The Life Course Reader: Individuals and Societies Across Time. Frankfurt/Main: Campus.
Kühhirt, M. (2012). Childbirth and the Long-Term Division of Labour within Couples: How do Substitution, Bargaining Power, and Norms affect Parents' Time Allocation in West Germany? European Sociological Review, 28(5), 565-582.
Kühhirt, M., & Ludwig, V. (2012). Domestic work and the wage penalty for motherhood in West Germany. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 74(1), 186-200.
LaRossa, R., & Sinha, C. B. (2006). Constructing the Transition to Parenthood. Social Inquiry, 76, 433-457
Lammi-Taskula, J. (2008). Doing fatherhood: Understanding the gendered use of parental leave in Finland. Fathering, 6, 133-148.
Lappegård, T., & Rønsen, M. (2013). Socioeconomic Differences in Multipartner Fertility Among Norwegian Men. Demography, 50, 1135-1153.
Lennon, C. A., Stewart, A. L., & Ledermann, T. (2012). The role of power in intimate relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(1), 95-114.
Lesthaeghe, R. (1983). A century of demographic and cultural change in Western Europe: An exploration of underlying dimensions. Population and Development Review, 9(3), 411- 435.
Lesthaeghe, R. (2010). The unfolding story of the Second Demographic Transition. Population and Development Review, 36(2), 211-251. Lewis, J. (1997). Gender and Welfare Regimes. Further Thoughts. Social Politics, 4, 160-177. Lewis, J. (2006). Gender and welfare in modern Europe. Past and Present, Suppl 1 (The Art
of Survival: Gender and History in Europe, 1450-2000), 39-54. Lewis, J. (2009). Work–family Balance, Gender and Policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Lewis, S. (1997). “Family Friendly” Employment Policies: A Route to Changing
Organizational Culture or Playing About at the Margins? Gender, Work and Organization, 4(1), 13-23.
Lillard, L.A., & Waite, L.J. (1993). A joint model of marital childbearing and marital disruption. Demography, 30(4), 653-681. Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. (1996). Bargaining and distribution in marriage. Journal of
Economic Perspective, 10(4), 139-158. Lundberg, S. & Rose, E. (1999). The Determinants of Specialization within Marriage.
Working Papers UWEC-2005-07, University of Washington, Department of Economics. Lussier G., Deater-Deckard, K., Dunn, J., & Davies, L. (2002). Support across two
generations: Children’s closeness to grandparents following parental divorce and remarriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 363-376.
Lutz, W., Crespo Cuaresma, J., & Sanderson, W. (2008). The demography of educational attainment and economic growth. Science, 319(5866), 1047-1048.
Lutz, W., Goujon, A., & Doblhammer-Reiter, G. (1998). Demographic dimensions in forecasting: adding education to age and sex. Population and Development Review, 24 (Supplement), 42-58.
51
Macmillan, R., & Gartner, R. (1999). When she brings home the bacon. Labor-Force Participation and the Risk of Spousal Violence against Women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(4), 947-958.
Maetzke, M., & Osnter, I. (2010). Introduction. Change and continuity in recent family policies. Journal of Europan Social Policy, 20(5), 387-398.
Magnusson, C. (2010). Why Is There a Gender Wage Gap According to Occupational Prestige? An Analysis of the Gender Wage Gap by Occupational Prestige and Family Obligations in Sweden. Acta Sociologica, 53, 99-116.
Mandel, H., & Semyonov, M. (2005). Family Policies, Wage Structures, and Gender Gaps. Sources of Earnings Inequality in 20 Countries. American Sociological Review, 70, 949- 67.
Mathews, P., & Sear, R. (2013). Family and fertility: Kin influence on the progression to a second birth in the British Household Panel Study. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e56941, www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0056941
Matysiak, A. (2009). Employment first, then childbearing: women's strategy in post-socialist Poland. Population Studies, 63(3). 253-276.
Matysiak, A. (2011). Interdependencies Between Fertility and Women’s Labour Supply. Dordrecht: Springer.
Matysiak, A., & Vignoli, D. (2008). Fertility and women’s employment: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Population, 24(4), 363-384.
Matzner, M. (2004). Vaterschaft aus der Sicht von Vätern. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
McDonald, P. (2000). Gender equity, social institutions and the future of fertility. Journal of Population Research, 17(1), 1-16.
McDonald, P. (2006). Low Fertility and the State: The Efficacy of Policy. Population and Development Review, 32(3), 485-510.
McDonald, W. L., & DeMaris, A. (2002). Stepfather-Stepchild Relationship Quality. The Stepfathers’s Demand for conformity and the Biological Father’s Involvement. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 121-137.
Medved, C. E. (2009). Constructing Breadwinning-Mother Identities. Moral, Personal and political Positioning. Women´s Studies Quarterly, 37(3/4), 140-156.
Meil, G.. (2011). El uso de los permisos parentales por los hombres y su implicacion en el cuidado de los ninos en Europa. Revista Latina de Sociologia, 1, 61-97.
Meisenbach, R. J. (2010). The Female Breadwinner. Phenomenological Experience and Gendered Identity in Work/Family Spaces. Sex Roles, 62, 2-19.
Merla, L. (2008). Determinants, costs and meanings of Belgian stay-at-home fathers: An international comparison. Fathering, 6, 113-123.
Merrigan, P., & St.-Pierre, Y. (1998). An econometric and neoclassical analysis of the timing and spacing of births in Canada from 1950 to 1990. Journal of Population Economics, 11, 29-51.
Miller, T. (2011a). Making Sense of Fatherhood. Gender, caring and work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, T. (2011b). Falling back into Gender? Men's Narratives and Practices around First- time Fatherhood. Sociology, 45(6), 1094-1109.
52
Mills, M., Blossfeld, H.-P., & Klijzing, E. (2005). Becoming an adult in uncertain times: A 14-country comparison of the losers of globalization. In H.-P. Blossfeld, E. Klijzing, M. Mills & K. Kurz (Eds.), Globalization, uncertainty and youth in society (pp. 423-441). London: Routledge.
Moller, K., Hwang, C. P., & Wickberg, B. (2008). Couple relationship and transition to parenthood: Does workload at home matter? Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 26(1), 57-68.
Morgan, D. H. J. (1999). Risk and family practices: accounting for change and fluidity in family life. In E.B. Silva & C. Smart (Eds.), The new family? (pp.13-30). London: Thousand Oaks Sage Publications.
Morgan, P.S. (2001). Should Fertility Intentions Inform Fertility Forecasts? The Direction of Fertility in the United States. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau. www.copafs.org/reports/default.aspx [2011-07-29].
Morgan P. S., & Rackin, H. (2010). The Correspondence between fertility intentions and behavior in the United States. Population and Development Review, 36(1), 91-118.
Moss, P. (2008). Making parental leave parental: an overview of policies to increase fathers' use of leave. In P. Moss (Ed.), International Review of Leave Policies and Related Research 2008 (Vol. Employment Relations Research series no. 100, pp. 79-84). London: BERR Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform.
Moss, P. (2012). International Review of Leave Policies and Related Research 2012. www.leavenetwork.org/fileadmin/Leavenetwork/Annual_reviews/2012_annual_review_o ctober.pdf.
Mueller, M. M., Wilhelm, B., & Elder, G. H. Jr. (2002). Variations in Grandparenting. Research on Aging, 24(3), 360-388.
Mureşan, C., & Hoem, M. J. (2010). The negative educational gradients in Romanian fertility. Demographic-Research, 22(4), 95-114.
Murgia, A., & Poggio, B. (2009). Challenging Hegemonic Masculinities: Men's Stories on Gender Culture in Organizations. Organization, 16(3), 407-423.
Myrskylä, M., Goldstein, J.R., & Cheng, Y.-H.A. (2013). New Cohort Fertility Forecasts for the Developed World: Rises, Falls, and Reversals. Population and Development Review, 39(1), 31-56.
Najman, J. M. & Behrens, B. C., Andersen, M., Bor, W., O’Callahan, M., & Williams, G. M. (1997). Impact of Family Type and Family Quality on Child Behavior Problems: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 1357-1365.
Neels, K. (2006). Reproductive strategies in Belgian fertility: 1930-1990. Brussels and the Hague: NIDI-CBGS Publications No.38.
Nelson, M. (2006). Single Mothers “Do” Family. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 781- 795.
Nepomnyaschy, L., & Waldfogel, J. (2007). Paternity Leave and Fathers' Involvement with their Young Children. Community, Work & Family, 10(4), 427-453.
Neyer, G. (2013). Welfare states, family policies, and fertility in Europe. In Neyer, G. et al. (Eds.), The Demography of Europe (pp. 29-53). Dordrecht: Springer.
Neyer, G., Andersson, G., & Kulu, H. (2013a). The Demography of Europe: Introduction. In G. Neyer et al. (Eds.), The Demography of Europe (pp. 1-23). Dordrecht: Springer.
Neyer, G., Lappegard T., & Vignoli D. (2013b). Gender Equality and Fertility: Which Equality Matters? European Journal of Population, Online First Article.
53
Nomaguchi, K. M., & Bianchi, S. M. (2004). Exercise time: Gender differences in the effects of marriage, parenthood, and employment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 413–430.
O’Brien, M., Brandt, B., & Kvande, E. (2007). Fathers, Work and Family Life. Global perspectives and new insights. Community, Work and Family, 10(4), 375-386.
O’Connor, T., Dunn, J., Jennkins, J. M., Pickering, K., & Rasbash, J. (2001). Family settings and children’s adjustment: differential adjustment within and across families. British Journal of Psychiatry, 179, 110-115.
OECD. (2011). Doing Better for Families. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2012). Closing the Gender Gap. Paris: OECD Publishing. Oláh, L. Sz. (2003). Gendering fertility: Second births in Sweden and Hungary. Population
Research and Policy Review, 22(2), 171-200. Oláh, L. Sz., & Fahlén, S. (2013). Introduction: Aspirations and uncertainties. Childbearing
choices and work-life realities in Europe. In L.Sz. Oláh & E. Fratczak (Eds.), Childbearing, Women's Employment and Work-Life Balance Policies in Contemporary Europe (pp. 1-27). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Oláh, L. Sz., & Fratczak, E. (2013). Childbearing, Women's Employment and Work-Life Balance Policies in Contemporary Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988). A theory of marriage timing: Assortative mating under varying degrees of uncertainty. American Journal of Sociology, 94(3), 563-591.
Oppenheimer, V. K. (1994). Women’s rising employment and the future of the family in industrial societies. Population and Development Review, 20(2), 293-342.
Oppenheimer, V. K. (1997). Women's employment and the gain to marriage: The specialization and trading model. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 431-453.
Oppenheimer, V. K. (2000). The continuing importance of men’s economic position in marriage formation. In L. Waite, C. Bachrach, M. Hindin, E. Thomson, & A. Thornton (Eds.), Ties that bind: Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation (Chapter 14). Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter.
Oppenheimer, V. K. (2003). Cohabiting and marriage during young men’s career- development process. Demography, 40(1), 127-149.
Oppenheimer, V. K., Kalamijn, M., & Lim, N. (1997). Men´s Career Development and Marriage Timing during a Period of Rising Inequality. Demography, 34, 311-330.
Orloff, A. S. (1993). Gender and the social rights of citizenship: the comparative analysis of gender relations and welfare states. American Sociological Review, 58(3), 303-328.
Pailhé, A., & Solaz, A. (2008). Time with children: Do fathers and mothers replace each other when one parent is unemployed? European Journal of Population, 24(2), 211-236.
Pailhé, A., & Solaz, A. (2012). The influence of employment uncertainty on childbearing in France: A tempo or quantum effect? Demographic Research, 26(1), 1-40.
Pasley, B. K., & Moorefield B. S. (2004). Stepfamilies. Changes and Challenges. In M. Coleman & L.H. Ganong (Eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Families. Considering the Past, Contemplating the Future (pp. 317-330). United States: Sage Publications.
Perelli-Harris, B. (2008). Family formation in post-Soviet Ukraine: Changing effects of education in a period of rapid social change. Social Forces, 87(2), 1-28.
Philipov, D. (2009). The Effect of Competing Intentions and Behaviour on Short-Term Childbearing Intentions and Subsequent Childbearing. European Journal of Population, 25, 525-548.
54
Philipov, D., & Dorbritz, J. (2003). Demographic Consequences of Economic Transition in Countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Population Studies n°39, Council of Europe Publishing.
Plantin, L. (2001). Män, familjeliv och föräldraskap. Umeå: Boréa. Plantenga, J., Remery, C., Figueiredo, H., & Smith, M. (2009). Towards a European Union
Gender Equality Index. Journal of European Social Policy, 19(1), 19-33. Pleck, J. H. (1993). Are ‘Family-Supportive’ Employer Policies Relevant to Men? In J. C.
Hood (Ed.), Men, Work, and Family (pp. 217-237). Newbury Park: Sage. Presser, H. B. (2003). Working in a 24/7 Economy. Challenges for American Families. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation. Puur, A., Oláh, L. Sz., Tazi-Preve, M.I., and Dorbritz, J. (2008). Men’s childbearing desires
and views of the male role in Europe at the dawn of the 21st century. Demographic Research, 19(56), 1883-1912.
Ray, R., Gornick, J. C., & Schmitt, J. (2008). Parental Leave Policies in 21 Countries. Assessing Generosity and Gender Equality [Electronic Version]. Center for Economic and Policy Research. www.cepr.net/documents/publications/parental_2008_09.pdf
Raz-Yurovich, L. (2010). Men’s and women’s economic activity and first marriage: Jews in Israel, 1987-1995. Demographic Research, 22(29), 933-964.
Raz-Yurovich, L. (2012). Economic determinants of divorce among dual-earner couples: Jews in Israel. European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie, 1-27.
Ribbens McCarthy, J., Edwards, J. R., & Gillies, V. (2000). Moral Tales of the Child and the Adult: Narratives of contemporary family lives under changing circumstances. Sociology, 34, 785-803.
Rieck, D. (2006). Transition to second birth – the case of Russia. MPIDR WP 2006–036. Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.
Rijken, A., & Knijn, T. (2009). Couples’ decisions on having a first child. Comparing pathways to early and late parenthood. Demographic Research, 21(26) 765-802.
Rindfuss, R.R., Guzzo, G.B., & Morgan, S.P. (2003). The Changing Institutional Context of Low Fertility. Population Research and Policy Review, 22, 411-438.
Risman, B. J. (1998). Gender vertigo: American families in transition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a Social Structure: Theory Wrestling with Activism. Gender & Society, 18(4), 429-450.
Risman, B. J. (2011). Gender as Structure or Trump Card? Journal of Family Theory & Review, 3, 18-22.
Róbert, P., & Bukodi, E. E. (2005).The effects of the globalization process on the transition to adulthood in Hungary. In H.-P. Blossfeld, E. Klijzing, M. Mills & K. Kurz (Eds.), Globalization, Uncertainty and Youth in Society (pp. 176-214). London and New York: Routledge.
Romano, M.C., & Bruzzese, D. (2007). Fathers’ participation in the domestic activities of everyday life. Social Indicators Research, 84, 97-116.
Rondinelli, C., Aassve, A., & Billari, F. (2008). Women's wages and childbearing decisions: Evidence from Italy. Demographic Research, 22(19), 549-578.
Rönkä, A., & Pirjo, K. (2009). Everyday Family Life: Dimensions, Approaches, and Current Challenges. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 1, 87-102.
55
Rønsen, M. (2004). Fertility and Public Policies – Evidence from Norway and Finland. Demographic Research, 10,143-170.
Rønsen, M., & Skrede, K. (2010). Can public policies sustain fertility in the Nordic countries? Lessons from the past and questions for the future. Demographic Research, 22(13), 321- 346.
Rostgaard, T. (2002). Setting time aside for the father: Father’s leave in Scandinavia. Community, Work & Family, 5, 343-364.
Ruhm, C. J. (1998). The economic consequences of parental leave mandates: lessons from Europe. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(1), 285-317.
Ruiner, C., Hirseland, A., & Schneider, W. (2011). Money and the dynamics of intimate relationships. In R. Jallinoja & E. D. Widmer (Eds.). Families and kinship in contemporary Europe. Rules and practices of relatedness (pp. 147-162). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rupp, M., Beier, L., Dechant, A., & Haag, C. (2011). Research Agenda on Families and Family Wellbeing for Europe. In U. Uhlendoff, M. Rupp & M. Euteneuer (Eds.), Wellbeing of Families in Future Europe. Challenges for Research and Policy. Familyplatform – Families in Europe Volume 1. Lulu.com.
Salvini, S., Vignoli, D. (2011). Times change: Women’s and men’s marital disruption dynamics in Italy during a time of social transformations, 1970–2003. Demographic Research 24(5), 145-174.
Sanchez, L., & Thomson, E. (1997). Becoming Mothers and Fathers: Parenthood, Gender, and the Division of Labor. Gender and Society, 11, 747-772.
Santarelli, E. (2011). Economic resources and the first child in Italy: A focus on income and job stability. Demographic Research, 25(9), 311-336.
Saraceno, C. (Ed.). (2008). Families, Ageing and Social Policy: Intergenerational Solidarity in European Welfare States. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Sardon, J.-P. (1993). Women’s first marriage rates in Europe. Elements for a typology. Population: An English Selection, Vol. 5. Saxonberg, S., & Sirovatka, T. (2006). Failing family policy in post-communist Central Europe. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 8(2), 185-202. Sayer, L. C., & Bianchi, S. M. (2000). Women's economic independence and the probability
of divorce. A review and reexamination. Journal of Family Issues, 21(7), 906-943. Sayer, L. C., & Gornick, J. (2011). Cross-National Variation in the Influence of Employment
Hours on Child Care Time. European Sociological Review, 28(4), 421-442. Sayer, L. C., Bianchi, S. M., & Robinson, J. P. (2004). Are parents investing less in children?
Trends in mothers’ and fathers’ time with children. American Journal of Sociology, 10(1), 1-43.
Schadler, C. (2013). Vater, Mutter, Kind werden – eine posthumanistische Ethnographie der Schwangerschaft. Bielefeld: Transcript.
Schier, M., & Proske, A. (2010). One Child, Two Homes. How families succeed in reorganizing daily life after a separation. DJI-Bulletin, Special English edition, 16-18.
Schober, P. S. (2013). The Parenthood Effect on Gender Inequality: Explaining the Change in Paid and Domestic Work When British Couples Become Parents. European Sociological Review, 29, 74-85.
56
Schober, P., & Scott, J. (2012). Maternal employment and gender role attitudes: dissonance among British men and women in the transition to parenthood. Work, Employment and Society, 26(3), 514-530.
Schoen, R., Astone, N.M., Kim, Y.J., Nathanson, C.A., & Fields, J.M. (1999). Do Fertility Intentions Affect Fertility Behavior? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(3),790-799.
Schoen, R., Astone, N. M., Rothert, K., Standish, N. J., & Kim, Y. J. (2002). Women's employment, marital happiness, and divorce. Social Forces, 81(2), 643-662.
Schwartz, C. R., & Mare, R. D. (2005). Trends in educational assortative marriage from 1940 to 2003. Demography, 42(4), 621-646.
Sen, A. (1993) Capability and Well-Being. In M. C. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The Quality of Life (pp. 30-53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Seward, R. R., Yeatts, D. E., Amin, I., & Dewitt, A. (2006a). Employment Leave and Fathers' Involvement with Children: According to Mothers and Fathers. Men and Masculinities, 8(4), 405-427.
Seward, R. R., Yeatts, D. E., Zottarelli, L. K., & Fletcher, R. G. (2006b). Fathers taking parental leave and their involvement with children. An exploratory study. Community, Work and Family, 9(1), 1-9.
Sigle-Rushton, W. (2010). Men's Unpaid Work and Divorce: Reassessing Specialization and Trade in British Families. Feminist Economics, 16(2), 1-26.
Simpson, I. H., & England, P. (1981). Conjugal work roles and marital solidarity. Journal of Family Issues, 2(2), 180-204.
Smart, C. (2000). Divorce and changing family practices in a post-traditional society. Moral Decline or changes to moral practices? Family Matters, 56, 10-19.
Smith, A. (2004). Who Cares? European fathers and the time they spend looking after their children, University of Oxford Sociology Working Papers: 2004-05.
Smith Koslowski, A. (2011). Working Fathers in Europe: Earning and Caring. European Sociological Review, 27(2), 230-245.
Snoeckx, L., Dehertogh, B., & Mortelmans, D. (2008). The Distribution of Household Tasks in First Marriage Families and Stepfamilies across Europe. In J. Pryor (Ed.), The International Handbook of Stepfamilies (pp. 277-298). Hoboken: Wiley.
Sobotka, T., & Lutz, W. (2010). Misleading policy messages derived from the period TFR: Should we stop using it? Comparative Population Studies, 35(3), 637-664.
Stafford, F.P., & Sundström, M. (1996). Time out for childcare: Signalling and earnings rebound effects for men and women. Labour, 10, 609-629.
Statinfo.biz. (2013). Switzerland, mean age at first marriage, females (access July 3, 2013), http://statinfo.biz/HTML/M285F16252A2029L2.aspx
Stauber, B. (2011). Expert Report 1: Transitions into Parenthood: FAMILY PLATFORM www.familyplatform.eu/en/1-major-trends/reports/2b-transitions-into-parenthood [January 2012].
Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2007). Marriage and divorce: Changes and their driving forces. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 27-52.
Sullivan, O., Coltrane, S., McAnnally, L., & Altintas, E. (2009). Father-Friendly Policies and Time-Use Data in a Cross-National Context: Potential and Prospects for Future Research. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 624, 234-254.
57
Sundström, M., & Duvander, A.-Z. (2002). Gender Division of Childcare and the Sharing of Parental Leave among New Parents in Sweden. European Sociological Review, 18(4), 433-447.
Sweeney, M. M. (2007). Stepfather Families and the Emotional Well-being of Adolescents. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 48, 33-49.
Swiss Statistics. (2013). Statistical Encyclopedia (accessed July 2, 2013), http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/infothek/lexikon.html
Tanaka, S., & Waldfogel, J. (2007). Effects of parental leave and work hours on fathers involvement with their babies. Community, Work & Family, 10(4), 409-426.
Tanturri, M. L. (2006). Ruolo paterno e caratteristiche della coppia. In A. Rosina & L. L. Sabbadini (Eds.), Diventare padri in Italia. Fecondità e figli secondo un approccio di genere. Collana Argomenti n. 31. Roma: ISTAT.
Tanturri, M. L., & Mencarini, L. (2009). Fathers involvement in daily childcare activities in Italy: does a work-family reconciliation issue exist?, CHILD Working paper, 22/2009, www.child-centre.it/papers/child22_2009.pdf
Tasiran, A. C. (1995). Fertility dynamics: spacing and timing of births in in Sweden and the United States, In Contribution to the Economic Analysis Series No. 229, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Testa, M. R. (2012). Family sizes in Europe: Evidence from the 2011 Eurobarometer survey. European Demographic Research Papers No.2.
Thomson, E. (1990). Two into one: Structural models of couple behaviour. In C.W. Draper & A.C. Marcos (Eds.), Family variables: Conceptualisation, measurement and use. Newbury Park. CA: Sage.
Thomson, E., Hoem, J. M., Vikat, A., Prskawetz, A., Buber, I., Toulemon, L., Henz, U., Godecker, A. L., & Kantorova, V. (2002). Childbearing in stepfamilies: How parity matters. In E. Klijzing and M. Corijn (Eds), Dynamics of Fertility and Partnership in Europe: Insights and Lessons from Comparative Research. Volume II (pp. 87–99). New York, Geneva: United Nations.
Tolke, A., & Diewald, M. (2003). Insecurities in employment and occupational careers and their impact on the transition to fatherhood in western Germany. Demographic Research, 9(3), 41-68.
Trellu, H. (2007). Recompositions et résistances de la masculinité et de la féminité, de la paternité et de la maternité à l'épreuve du congé parental pris par les hommes en France. Recherches sociologiques et anthropologiques, XXXVIII(2), 123-141.
Trellu, H. (2010). Expériences de pères en congé parental d'éducation. Recompositions de la parentalité et du genre ? (Ph.D.), Université de Bretagne Occidentale.
Uhlenberg, P., & Hammill, B. G. (1998). Frequency of contact with grandchild sets: Six factors that make a difference. The Gerontologist, 38, 276-285.
Uhlendorff, H. (2003). Großeltern und Enkelkinder: Sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven und Forschungsergebnisse hinsichtlich einer selten untersuchten Beziehung [Grandparents and grandchildren: Perspectives of social science and empirical results towards a rarly examined relationsships]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 50, 111-128.
Uhlendorff, U., Rupp, M., & Euteneuer, M. (Eds.). (2011). Wellbeing of Families in Future Europe. Challenges for Research and Policy. FamilyPltaform – Families in Europe Volume 1. Lulu.com.
58
UNECE. (2013). Statistical Database (accessed July 4, 2013), http://w3.unece.org/pxweb/ United Nations. (2011). Men in Families and Family Policy in a Changing World. New York: Dept. of Economic and Social Affairs, UN.
Van Bavel, J. (2012). The reversal of gender inequality in education, union formation and fertility in Europe. Vienna Yearbook of population Research, 10, 127-154.
Van Bavel, J., & Rožanska-Putek, J. (2010). Second birth rates across Europe: interactions between women’s level of education and child care enrolment. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 8, 107-138.
Van de Kaa, D. J. (1987). Europe’s Second Demographic Transition. Population Bulletin, 42(1), 1-59.
Van de Kaa, D. J. (1996). Anchored Narratives: The Story and Findings of Half a Century of Research into the Determinants of Fertility. Population Studies, 50(3), 389-432. Vignoli, D., Drefahl, S., & De Santis, G. (2012). Whose job instability affects the likelihood
of becoming a parent in Italy? A tale of two partners. Demographic Research, 26(2), 41- 62.
Vikat, A. (2004). Women's labour force attachment and childbearing in Finland. Demographic Research, SC3(8), 177-212.
Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2008). The Reversal of Gender Inequalities in Higher Education: an On- going Trend. In OECD, Higher Education to 2030. Vol.1: Demography (pp. 265-298). Paris: OECD.
Voydanoff, P. (1988). Work role characteristics, family structure demands, and work/family conflict. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(3), 749-761.
Wall, G., & Arnold, S. (2007). How involved is involved fathering?: An exploration of the contemporary culture of fatherhood. Gender & Society, 21, 508-527.
Walzer, S. (1998). Thinking about the Baby: Gender and Transitions into Parenthood. Philadelphia: Temple Universty Press.
W.E.F. (2012). The Global Gender Gap Report 2012. The World Economic Forum. Weiss, R. (1982). Attachment in Adult Life. In C.M. Parkers & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.),
The Place of Attachment in Human Behavior (pp.171-184). New York: Basic. Wengler, A., Trappe, H., & Schmitt, Ch. (2008). Partnerschaftliche Arbeitsteilung und
Elternschaft. Analysen zur Aufteilung von Hausarbeit und Elternaufgaben auf Basis Generations and Gender Survey. Vol. 28. Wiesbaden: Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung.
West C., & Zimmerman, D.H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125-151. Westoff, C.F., & Higgins, J. (2009). Relationships between men’s gender attitudes and
fertility: Response to Puur et al.’s “Men’s childbearing desires and views of the male role in Europe at the dawn of the 21st century”. Reflexion. Demographic Research, 21(3), 65- 74.
Whitehouse, G., Diamond, C., & Baird, M. (2007). Fathers’ use of leave in Australia. Community, Work & Family, 10(4), 387-407.
Widmer , E. D., & Ritschard, G. (2009). The de-standardization of the life course: Are men and women equal? Advances in Life Course Research, 14, 28-39.
Willis, R. J. A. (1973). New approach to the economic theory of fertility behaviour. Journal of Political Economy, 81(2), 14-64.
Wimbauer, Ch. (2003). Geld und Liebe. Zur symbolischen Bedeutung von Geld in Paarbeziehungen. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag.
59
Winkler, A. E., McBride, T. D., & Andrews, C. (2005). Wives who outearn their husbands. A transitory or persistent phenomenon for couples? Demography, 42(3), 523-535.
Zabel, C., & Heintz-Martin, V. (2012). Does children's age impact the division of housework? A comparison of France, eastern and western Germany. European Societies, Online First.
Zerle, C., & Krok, I. (2008). Null Bock auf Familie? Der schwierige Weg junger Männer in die Vaterschaft. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann-Stiftung.
Zhou, H. O. (2012). A New Framework of Happiness Survey and Evaluation of National Wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 108(3), 491-507.
Zulehner, P. M. (Ed.) (2003). MannsBilder. Ein Jahrzehnt Männerentwicklung. Ostfildern: Schwabenverlag.
- WP11FrontpageD3.1NEW
- WP3_state_of_the_art_NEW
- 1 Introduction
- 2 De-standardization of the family life course
- 2.1 Changes in family patterns
- /
- /
- 2.2 Gender roles in transition
- /
- 2.3 The interplay between the increasing complexity of family forms, relationships and new gender roles
- 3 Women’s new role and implications for men’s role and family dynamics
- 3.1 Prevalent theoretical approaches
- 3.2 Empirical findings and research gaps
- 4 Gendered transition to parenthood: Defining mothers and fathers
- 4.1 Prevalent theoretical approaches
- 4.2 Empirical findings and research gaps
- 5 New gender roles in doing families
- 5.1 Prevalent theoretical approaches
- 5.2 Empirical findings and research gaps
- 6 Coping strategies in family and work reconciliation under conditions of uncertainty and precariousness: Gender differences standardized
- 6.1 Prevalent theoretical approaches
- 6.2. Empirical findings and research gaps
- 7 Concluding thoughts
- References
