‘A Gendered Crisis’
Explaining the gendered impact of the crisis within the
context of different welfare and gender regimes in The
United Kingdom, Denmark and Germany
Leiden University
Political Science International Relations and Organizations
Bachelor thesis Inequality in Political Perspective
Bachelor Group 9
Name: Banoe Abdullah
Supervisor: Dr. B.K.S. van Coppenolle
Student number: 1430785
Date: 12 June 2017
Words: 7377
Introduction
Exactly 10 years ago, in 2007, the global financial crisis erupted in the United States and rapidly spread to Europe with devastating effects. The economic downturn strongly hit the European labour markets and employment rates have dropped in almost whole Europe. While it is possible to measure the implications of the crisis through a variation of indicators such as (un)employment rates, inactivity rates, working hours etc., this does not sufficiently capture the real loss of employment opportunities. This particularly applies for women’s economic activities and labour market positions, as women are often stuck in between the public and private sphere regarding their care responsibilities. Moreover, women often participate in non-standard work, such as part-time or temporary employment, and as a result are excluded from the social security system. One can expect that during economic
downturns, women are affected most because of their vulnerable and unequal position
compared to men. Therefore, the crisis had also a gender dimension that cannot be neglected.
The starting point of my analysis is that gender differences in vulnerability to economic downturns evolve from existing differences in women’s position, relative to that of men, regarding the welfare system, care work, prevailing norms on gender roles, and the job structure. It is expected that, when we account for these differences, women’s position will vary by different gender policy regimes. Therefore, I will argue that the gendered impact of the economic crisis is nation-specific and depends on different ways in which male and female employment has developed within its socio-economic context. I have chosen to include three countries in my analysis: Germany, Denmark and The United Kingdom. These countries all differ in terms of their welfare state and gender regime, therefore, we can expect that the economic crisis had a differing gendered impact in these countries. The crisis serves as the underlying context in my thesis as acute financial crises are theorized to magnify the institutional effects that welfare systems can have on gendered outcomes (Kushi and Mcmanus, 2016, 3-4).
Therefore, the main question in my thesis is: How and why did the 2008 global economic crisis have a different impact on female labour participation in Spain, Denmark and the United Kingdom, within the context of different welfare and gender regimes?
To examine this, I will implement a comprehensive, broad analysis considering both changes in employment levels, social policy reforms in response to the crisis as well as prevailing cultural norms on gender roles. My aim is to consider the gender dimension in our analysis, which is influenced by Sainsbury’s gender policy model. In the first part, the care dimension of the three countries will be presented to assess whether any divisions between gender roles prevail. Moreover, perceptions of women’s and men’s roles in society in the three countries will be compared. In this way, I will examine whether these perceptions adhere to the prevailing gender policy regimes. In the second part, changes in the labour market outcomes of both genders in the three countries will be compared. This will provide us a general picture of the commitment to women’s participation in relation to men’s. In the third part of the analysis I will compare the policy reforms implemented by the countries in response to the crisis. By including this last indication, I aim to show that the conditions under which women participate in the labour market are shaped by the country’s gender policy regime.
Theoretical framework
Esping-Andersen’s typology of welfare-state regimes
There is a well-established literature within comparative political research that aims to explain differences in social outcomes, within and across countries, via distinct types of welfare state regimes (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Pierson, 1996; Häusermann and Palier, 2008, Van
Kersbergen, 2013). According to this approach, different welfare states play a crucial role in shaping several dimensions of social outcomes. First, the specific historical development and institutional characteristics of welfare states determine the strategies adopted by national governments in their responses to socio-economic challenges. For instance, the ageing of the population or the 1973 oil crisis (Scharpf and Schmidt, 2000, 4-5). Second, welfare states are influential in shaping domestic debates, political preferences and policy choices (Kushi and McManus, 4, 2016). And lastly, in their role as legislators, welfare states influence
agreements concerning access to social protection provisions, for instance unemployment benefits and active labour market policies (Kushi and McManus, 4, 2016). We can therefore expect that, during an economic crisis, these different welfare state arrangements play an important role in defining national outcomes and shaping policies regarding unemployment protections and labour market access across gender.
To put the abovementioned dimensions in a context and identify the differences between the three cases in my thesis, I will use Esping-Andersen’s typology of welfare regimes. However, before discussing the general idea of his model, it is important to define what a ‘welfare state’ is. According to the Oxford dictionary (2017) ‘welfare’ is defined as a “statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need”. Based on this assumption, Greve defines a ‘welfare state’ as: “a social system or state in which socialist principles have been put into effect with the purpose of ensuring the welfare of all who live in it, e.g. by paying unemployment benefits, old age pensions etc. and by providing other social services” (Greve, 2013, 12). Esping-Andersen suggests a broader definition: “a welfare state regime is the distinctive configuration of market, state, and family that a nation has adopted in the pursuit of work and welfare” (Sainsbury, 1999, 17).
For Esping-Andersen, three dimensions of welfare regimes are significant for comparing them. These are:
“The extent of decommodification of labour – that is, the degree to which individuals, or families, can uphold a socially acceptable standard of living independent of market participation (i.e. without paid employment” (Cochrane, Clarke & Gewirtz, 2001, 13).
“the extent of stratification – that is, the degree to which the welfare state
differentiates between social groups (for example on the basis of occupational status)” (Cochrane, Clarke & Gewirtz, 2001, 13).
And “the way in which state, market, and family are interrelated” (Sainsbury, 1999, 17).
By conducting a comparative policy analysis of different countries, it is possible to develop typologies as a framework for exploring specific cases and group countries in clusters
regarding their welfare state arrangements. Esping-Andersen used this method to identify the three regimes of welfare capitalism – continental, liberal and social democratic – around which most welfare states could be clustered (Cochrane, Clarke & Gewirtz, 2001, 10). The continental welfare regime is characterized by ‘corporatist’ arrangements which
translates into the state welfare being used to maintain and reinforce existing class and status divisions (Cochrane, Clarke & Gewirtz, 2001, 10). In this way, social and political stability is ensured and loyalty to the state is preserved. Furthermore, these welfare regimes tend to be highly influenced by the Church and hence strongly committed to the maintenance of the traditional “family-hood” (Esping-Andersen, 1990, 27). The state only intervenes when the family itself is incapable of resolving its own problems. The entry of married women to the labour market is often discouraged as their role is to stay at home and care for the children and elderly. Therefore, “benefits tend to encourage motherhood, while collective forms of childcare provision are underdeveloped” (Cochrane, Clarke & Gewirtz, 2001, 10). Examples of such regimes are Germany, Austria, France and Italy.
The liberal welfare regime is mainly characterized by its emphasis on market based social insurance and welfare distribution based on means-tested assistance. The state provides modest benefits to the lowest incomes which are dependent on the state. The motivation
assumes that higher levels of benefit will reduce incentives to work” Cochrane, Clarke & Gewirtz, 2001, 11). This regime, therefore, is highly defined by the strong, liberal work ethic and ideology. Market solutions are the key to many problems and the role of the state is as limited as possible. The liberal welfare regime is represented by the Anglo-American countries such as The United Kingdom, United States and Australia.
The social democratic welfare regime is, in contrast to the other regimes, characterized by principles of ‘universalism’ and ‘equality’ Cochrane, Clarke & Gewirtz, 2001, 11). According to Esping-Andersen, this regime type promotes an equality of the highest standards,
irrespective of class and status, rather than equality of minimal needs as pursued in other welfare regimes (Esping-Andersen, 1990, 27). It therefore crowds out the market and, consequently, creates universal solidarity whereby everyone feels obliged to pay and
contribute to the welfare state (Esping-Andersen, 1990, 27. Full employment, therefore, is a central element in this regime. The care dimension of this regime type differs strongly with the other types since the state takes over many aspects of the traditional family
responsibilities, effectively supporting individual independence. This particularly applies to women who are participating in the labour market. This type is mainly represented by the Scandinavian countries.
It should be noted, however, that these are ideal types and that none of the regimes could be found in a pure form. Moreover, welfare regimes are not static entities and experience continuous development and changing pressures. For instance, countries can face regime change because of elections. Although the UK is characterized as a liberal welfare regime with relatively low levels of social expenditure compared to social democratic and
conservative models, the introduction of universal healthcare or social policy reforms under
the New Labour government are transforming the regime towards a more ‘hybridised’ model (Rafferty, 2014, 337). Nevertheless, this model provides a useful theoretical framework since it does not solely focus on income distribution or redistribution, but also pays attention to the underlying causes of the distributional consequences within societies. Moreover, it offers a starting-point from which the significance of differences can be explored more fully. In this way, it provides as a springboard to our second model.
Sainsbury’s gender policy regimes
A main problem of Esping-Andersen’s model is the absence of gender. According to Orloff, “it fails to acknowledge the extent to which women’s social position is shaped by being in a ‘non-commodified’ setting: the domestic or family economy” (Cochrane, Clarke & Gewirtz, 2001, 15). The theory exclusively applies to workers and neglects individuals outside the labour force, specifically women with relation to their household. Dominelli argues that it is necessary to move away from approaches that distinguish between the public and private spheres, since ‘treating these worlds as unconnected to each other enables non-feminist
theories to ignore the contribution the domestic economy makes to sustaining and reproducing public welfare relationships’ (Dominelli, 1991, 9). In response to these criticisms, feminist scholars, among them Sainsbury, devised the categorisation of welfare regimes to include a more comprehensive gender dimension.
In her policy regime model, Sainsbury shifts the analysis from behaviour to policies, effectively making it possible to apply a comparative perspective based on national policy constructions. Sainsbury (1999) defines a gender policy regime as ‘a given organization of gender relations associated with a specific policy logic’. An important aspect of the
organization of gender relations are principles and norms that prescribe the tasks, obligations, and rights of the two sexes. She distinguishes gender policy regimes based on ideologies that describe actual or preferred relations between women and men, principles of entitlements, and policy constructions (Sainsbury, 1999, 77). Her analysis of welfare states is based on two contrasting ideal types: the male-breadwinner model and the individual/dual-earner (separate gender roles) model (Sainsbury, 1999, 3).
According to this model, differences between welfare states can be analysed by the extent to which they depart from the typical male breadwinner model. The male breadwinner model is characterized by a strict division of labour among the sexes, whereby the prevailing norm prescribes men as the provider of financial support and women as the provider of informal care. The differences between welfare states are structured by three key parameters
‘The extent and status of women’s presence in the labour market’
‘The extent to which entitlements of benefits, fiscal welfare and services is prescribed on an individual or a familial basis, the latter almost inevitably strengthening women’s economic independence’
‘The extent to which informal care is socialized in the form of support payments for informal care and/or by provision of social care services’
The idea is that each model leads to different ways of ‘organising paid work, social benefits, tax systems, child care, parental leave, and working-time flexibility’ (Leschke and Jepsen, 488). Based on this framework, Sainsbury suggests that the meagre earnings and high dependency of mothers in the UK, Netherlands and Germany can be classified as strong adherents to the male-breadwinner form (Sainsbury, 1999, 252). France, Denmark, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, and Finland, in contrast, form ‘the cluster of countries with the most ambitious childcare provision and policies to support mothers’ employment policies’ and therefore can be classified as the individual model where separate gender roles are prevailing (Sainsbury, 1999, 246).
Including this model in our analysis shows that certain gender relations cut across the three-welfare state-regimes, because ‘the state-family nexus is different from the links between the state and the market’ (Sundstrom, 2003, 23). Furthermore, neither the family nor the economy can be seen as ‘autonomous spheres of society’ because they are essentially interrelated (Smith & Villa, 2014, 90). Mainstream research, consequently, fails to bring care and provision of services into the domain of comparative welfare state research as these are crucial for female labour market outcomes. Hence, considering the dynamics of “changing gender norms and reforms in the labour market and comparing this with the position of women in paid and unpaid work” can help us to identify whether and to what extent the crisis and the subsequent policy reforms are confirming institutional characteristics of the welfare state regimes (Leschke and Jepsen, 2014, 487).
My aim is to find out whether the outcomes of the crisis and the subsequent policy reforms adhere to the ‘classic’ welfare state regime model, or rather to the ‘gendered’ model by Sainsbury. My research question is: have the crisis and the subsequent policy reforms
confirmed existing patterns of welfare regimes in three European countries – the United Kingdom, Germany and Denmark –in terms of female employment?
The expectation is that the gendered outcomes of the crisis and the subsequent policy reforms can partially be explained by the ‘classic’ welfare regime model. They can, on the other hand, be fully explained by the gender policy model by Sainsbury. I expect that when we consider the gender dimension in our analysis, the impact that the crisis outcomes and the policy responses have on the countries, will vary according to their prevailing gender policy models (i.e. male breadwinner or individual/dual-earner model). For instance, in Germany and the UK the dominant model that prevails is the male-breadwinner model. Therefore, one might expect that the crisis will lead to higher female unemployment rates relatively to male unemployment rates since they may be viewed as secondary earners and therefore have smaller chances to keep their jobs. Moreover, one might expect that the policy responses in these countries would be less favourable to women and thereby reinforce the prevailing gender regime. In Denmark, on the other hand, we would expect a greater impact on their labour-market situation because of their relatively higher presence in the labour market compared to women in the other countries. Within this context, we would also expect a stronger emphasis on a gendered approach by the Danish government regarding policy measures, which could reinforce the prevailing gender policy regime (dual-earner model).
Methodology
As my aim is to find out whether there is a coherence between the different types of welfare state regimes and female employment outcomes, policy reforms and societal attitudes, I will implement a comparative case study as the research design. Since my research is based on a small sample size (n=3), I will not conduct statistical tests in this thesis but combine theories with empirical data. I will, therefore, mainly analyse relevant literature such as books, journals and public documents supplemented by data from the Wold Bank, Eurostat and the European Social Survey. The focus of my research design is to compare between different types of welfare state regimes and examine whether the outcomes of the crisis adhere to Sainsbury’s gender policy regime. To compare between the countries, I have chosen the Most Similar System Design. The countries share several similarities. First, they are all highly industrialized Western countries. Secondly, they are all located in the Northern region of Europe. Thirdly, their GDP growth during the crisis continued a similar trend, as shown in figure 2. And lastly, they all share a history of the similar religious background: Christianity.
I have chosen for the UK, Denmark and Germany because they all represent important
differences in institutional settings, that largely influence women’s employment possibilities. The selected countries, therefore, represent different types of welfare states according to Esping-Andersen’s typology. They also represent three specific national and cultural contexts in which the relation between gender and employment opportunities produces varying
dynamics for policy change, social norms on gender roles, and employment outcomes. As such, the selected countries also represent different types of gender regimes. There are several reasons why I have chosen for a comprehensive, broad analysis. First, using “full-time” (un)employment solely – is problematic. To capture the full effect of the crisis it is necessary that we make us of additional indicators such as the division of paid and unpaid work and part-time employment. Secondly, women do not participate in the labour market on an equal footing as men, for they are more affected by vulnerable working patterns such as informal work, temporary and part-time employment. And lastly, women are often disadvantaged regarding their access to social security services and benefits and are underrepresented in economic and political decision-making (Leschke & Jepsen, 5).
Analysis
One crucial dimension I will include in my analysis is the prevailing cultural norms on gender roles in the UK, Germany and Denmark. According to Sundstrom, this dimension should be considered since values and behaviours among individuals or groups in different welfare states are not only guided by restrictions in national welfare policies, but also by ‘cultural expressions’ (Sundstrom, 2003, 27). She suggests that nation-specific cultural patterns ‘anticipate and co-vary’ with welfare policy design which, in turn, creates and permanently institutionalizes a ‘normative acceptance of prescribed gender roles’ (Sundstrom, 2003, 27). As a result, people are limited in their ability to choose and are guided by these roles. This applies particularly for the role of women in the labour market and in their households. Lim (2002) argues that, indeed, social institutions are not gender neutral and tend to perpetuate cultural norms (Kushi & McManus, 2016, 10). This is, for example, reflected in norms on the division of paid and unpaid labour within the household, which often limits employment options for women as they are expected to take up care responsibilities. According to Kushi and Mcmanus, the degree of this limitation depends on existing socio-cultural institutions, including norms embedded within state welfare systems’ (Kushi & McManus, 2016, 10). For instance, in welfare regimes that offer long parental leave to mothers and have limited childcare provision, women are expected to take primary
responsibility in the household and for childcare. In the UK, ‘care leave is hardly developed, as it is expected that care dilemmas are resolved privately’ (Knijn and Kremer, 1997, 339). Moreover, maternity leave covers relatively long period of 52 week (OECD 2016),
demonstrating ‘highly gendered approach’ since only mothers can take up this leave (Knijn and Kremer, 1997, 339). Knijn and Kremer argue that the organization of care in the UK perpetuates a strong division between citizens, men and women, and workers and caregivers since the British welfare state neither recognizes nor values the fundamental interdependence of citizens nor contributes to the harmonization of paid work and care (Knijn and Kremer, 1997, 348). In Germany, female employment and care are regarded as private matters, creating ‘different conditions for women depending on their care responsibilities, job
opportunities and individual qualifications’ (Sundstrom, 2003, 40). For women in low-wage occupations, the costs for care services may even exceed the gains from being in employment (Sundstrom, 2003, 40).
In Social-democratic countries, in contrast, public childcare and paternal leave are often provided, resulting in a ‘more egalitarian normative roles promoted by the governments’ (Kushi & Mcmanus, 2016, 20). In their study on the organization of care in the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands, Knijn and Kremer suggest that the Danish welfare state has come closest to gender equality, because of its focus on care as an integral part of citizenship (Knijn and Kremer, 1997, 330). The provision of care is the responsibility of the state and is defined as a universal right. Because of extensive care services, ‘much paid employment in care work for women has been created’ (Knijn and Kremer, 1997, 346). Care in Denmark is viewed as work, and paid as such, liberating women from the duty of care responsibilities (Knijn and Kremer, 1997, 346). Consequently, women in Denmark control relatively more individual and financial independence relatively to women in Germany and the United Kingdom.
The empirical cross-national comparison of the care dimension of the British, Danish, and German welfare state shows, indeed, that there are significant differences in the division of paid and unpaid work, as shown in table 1.
Table 1. Average minutes per day spent in paid, unpaid and total work, by sex
Time spent in unpaid work (minutes per day)
Time spent in paid work (minutes per day)
Time spent in total work (minutes per day)
M F M F M F
Germany 163.8 268.8 281.6 180.9 445.4 449.7
United Kingdom 140.6 257.8 297.2 196.6 437.9 454.4
Denmark 186.1 242.8 260.1 194.6 446.2 437.2
Source: OECD (2017), based on national time-use surveys. Extracted on: 20-05-2017
Whereas in Denmark the difference between men and women in the time they spent in unpaid work is 56.7 minutes, this is almost twice as much in Germany (105 minutes) and more than the double in the UK (113.4 minutes). Furthermore, in terms of the difference between men and women in the time spent in paid word, the UK and Germany score almost the same (100,6 and 100,7 minutes). In Denmark, this difference is relatively smaller (65,5 minutes). The comparison between the three countries regarding their cultural norms on gender roles and the gender division of paid and unpaid care shows us that these regimes fit well within
Sainsbury’s gender sensitive typology, discussed in the theoretical framework. Germany and the UK, indeed, adhere to the male-breadwinner logic whereas Denmark can be linked to the individual/dual-earner model. Including the cultural and care dimension illustrates that the classic welfare typology does not sufficiently capture the importance of these dimensions, while they are crucial for women’s access to the labour market. In what follows I will turn to prevailing cultural norms of the three countries within the context of the 2008 economic crisis.
According to, the choices that individual make as economic agents derive by a given set of ‘structurally determined roles, responsibilities and expectations’ (McKay et al, 2013, 116). And the combined effect of these cultural norms on gender roles ‘is that men and women occupy different positions in both the paid and unpaid sectors of the economy’ (McKay et al, 2013, 116). Rubery and Rafferty argue that gender relations and gender labour market
characteristics are socially constructed. Therefore, the gendered impact of the crisis will differ across countries as there are differences in women’s relative position in the labour market linked to varying degrees of their commitment to work and ‘varying social norms and household arrangements’ (Rubery & Rafferty, 2013, 415).
It is expected that in times of economic downturn, traditional norms on gender roles will amplify social inequalities, such as further limiting women’s access to employment. Figure 1 illustrates this point, as in Germany and the UK around 40 and 50 percent believe that men should have more right to a job than women in times of job scarcity.
Source: European Social Survey (2017). Derived from: http://nesstar.ess.nsd.uib.no/webview/.
The figure also indicates that when jobs became scarce in Denmark and the UK, the belief that men should have more priority regarding the available jobs seems to be reinforced. This belief cannot be observed, however, in Germany where employment expanded over the crisis years (Leschke & Jepsen, 2014, 491). Although we should interpret the figure with caution due to the modest changes and short-time-span in which they were measured, there seems to be an indication that the crisis appears to have revived more traditional views on gender roles (Leschke & Jepsen, 2014, 491). Accordingly, these views ‘could eventually influence and shape the politics, policies, and institutions’ that shape the gender policy regime (Leschke and Jepsen, 491).
In the following two chapters, we will turn to the two other dimensions that form our analysis, namely the comparative labour-market outcomes of men and women, and policy responses to the crisis. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% DE DK UK
Figure 1. Men should have more right to a job than women when jobs are
scarce: agree and strongly agree.
Labour market outcomes
According to Seguino, the impact of the crisis on women will differ from the impact on men because of several reasons. First, men are better positioned to weather the crisis since they have higher-paying jobs and more financial assets. Second, their jobs are more likely to offer benefits and are usually covered by unemployment insurance. Women, in contrast, have often lower-paying jobs, partially because they tend to work more often on a part-time or temporary basis and, therefore, are generally not covered by social safety nets (Seguino, 2010, 1850). Leschke and Jepsen argue that women are also severely underrepresented in economic and political decision-making, placing them on an unequal footing compared to men (Leschke and Jepsen, 2011, 5). It is therefore expected that women’s vulnerable position will be particularly visible in the outcomes of the 2008 global economic crisis.
To assess this, I will examine the outcomes of the crisis in three different stages identified by Perivier: the recession itself which started in the begin of 2008 (i.e., the fall in GDP); the relative recovery which started between 2009 and 2010, and then the austerity measures aimed at fiscal consolidation which started around 2011 (Perivier, 2014, 42). The first stage is, as illustrated in figure 2, characterized by a drastic fall in GDP growth rates in all the three countries. According to Perivier, ‘this was the most severe recession of the post-war period’, whereby between 2008 and 2009, economic activity fell by 8% in Denmark, 6,2% in
Germany and 6,3% in the UK (Perivier, 2014, 45). The second stage is characterized by a relatively recovery of GDP, which was particularly concentrated in the sectors which were hit the most during the crisis (Perivier, 2014, 45). The last stage is characterized by fiscal
consolidation and public spending cuts, which is expected to be in women’s disadvantage since austerity measures cause cuts in public spending (Perivier, 2014, 45). I will discuss this stage more thoroughly in the third part of my thesis.
Figure 2. Real GDP growth rate – volume Percentage change on previous years
Source: Eurostat (2017). Extracted on: 20-05-2017
In Europe, ‘men and women were affected differently by the rise in unemployment which followed the crisis’ (Annesley & Scheele, 2011, 342). The dynamics of employment growth during recession has been gendered in all the three countries, as shown in figure 3 and 4. Eurostat - Tables, Graphs and Maps Interface (TGM)
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Source: Eurostat (2017). Extracted on: 20-05-2017
Although both sexes started off at an approximately equal position before the crisis, this changed dramatically throughout the rest of the stages. In the first stage, the growth of female employment was less affected by the crisis than male employment, leading to the gender gap in terms of employment being narrowed (Perivier, 2014, Eydoux, 2014). According to Perivier, this narrowing gap ‘did not occur due to a higher employment rate of women, but mainly through the decline of the male employment rates’. (Perivier, 2014, 48) This effect was then reversed in the second phase (in 2009) as male employment growth recovered faster than female employment growth. The third and last phase has affected female employment growth more intensively due to their concentration in the public sector, where austerity
measures were adopted to reduce debt and deficits. This can be demonstrated by the relatively downwards trend of the female employment growth in figure 3.
The gendered effect of the crisis is essentially explained by the sectoral segregation based on gender (Perivier, Eydoux, Smith and Villa, Bettio and Verashchagina). Gender segregation is defined by Eydoux as:
‘The concentration of women’s jobs in a few labour market segments of specific economic sectors (services, the public sector) or occupations (secretarial work, caring occupations, etc.). It also refers to the over-representation of women in atypical forms of work (part-time, temporary employment, marginal jobs, etc.)’ (Eydoux, 2014, 156)
Gender segregation is particularly important in explaining the nature and timing of employment effects during the economic downturn since these effects depend on whether more jobs are lost in female- or male-dominated industries (Villa & Smith 2014, Seguino 2010, Bettio and Verashchagina 2013). According to this view, male-dominated sectors were particularly badly affected during the first period of the crisis in terms of job destruction. This can be explained by the more steeply rise of men’s unemployment rates during this period, as shown in table 2. In this way, gender segregation might have protected women since they are generally less present in these sectors (Perivier, 2014). We do have to keep in mind, however, that women started out from an unequal position regarding employment levels, working time and earnings – ‘which has important implications for their entitlements to social welfare’ (Leschke and Jepsen, 2014, 495).
Table 2. Absolute changes in main employment indicators, 2008Q2-2012Q Employment rate Inactivity rate Unemployme nt rate Part-time rate Actual weekly working hours M F M F M F M F M F Denmark -7.0 -3.6 2.8 0.3 5.3 4.2 1.9 1.2 -0.9 -0.3 Germany 2.0 4.1 -0.3 -2.3 -2.1 -2.8 0.5 -0.6 -1.2 -0.3 United Kingdom -2.4 -1.2 0.1 -0.6 2.8 2.6 2.3 1.3 -0.7 -0.2
As the crisis continued, however, the female-dominated sectors proved to be less protected by gender segregation as unemployment among women increased more steeply while male unemployment was facing recovery (Lesche and Jepsen, 2014, 493).
The outcomes in Denmark, ‘the country confirming most closely to the dual-earner model’, show us the most evident deterioration for women regarding employment, inactivity and unemployment rates (Lesche & Jepsen, 2014, 495). Although the same is true for men, their rates are less pronounced. However, they too have suffered from the crisis as shown in the inactivity rates in table 2. According to Perivier, the Danish female employment rate should have decreased more slowly than it did. This is mainly explained by the austerity (third) phase that has led to ‘a degradation in employment in female dominated sectors, whereas a relative “recovery” (or smaller decline) in male dominated sectors is observed’ (Perivier, 2014, 78). Gender segregation, therefore, accounts for much of the employment rates in Denmark. The same pattern seems to apply for the UK, as men were affected the most during the initial recession period, especially in male-dominated construction and manufacturing sectors (Karamessini & Rubery, 2014, 21). When we disaggregate by gender, however, we see a reversible trend after the initial recession period. According to Annesley and Scheele, men’s unemployment rate fell between 2010 and 2011 from 9.1 to 7 percent, whereas women’s unemployment rate rose from 6.7 to 7 percent. Accordingly, ‘the number of male claimants of Job Seeker’s Allowance fell for fourteen consecutive months to March 2011, while the
number of female claimants rose for nine months in a row’ (Annesley & Scheele, 2011, 343). Several explanations can be given for this adverse trend for women: job cuts in the public sector, a smaller increase in retail vacancies compared with manufacturing and a new obligation on lone parents to seek employment once their child is 5 rather than 7’ (Annesley & Scheele, 2011, 334). Therefore, it appears that in the context of the crisis, the male-breadwinner model is affecting British women more than ever.
Germany seems to be an exceptional case. The downturn in employment was less marked in Germany, where the employment growth remained positive and proved more resistant compared to Denmark and the UK. However, Eydoux suggests that when we examine this from a gender perspective, it becomes clear that this relatively good performance owes much to the dynamics of women’s employment situation (Eydoux, 2014, 157-158). The so-called
German “employment miracle” during and after the crisis is mainly because of a sharp increase in part-time employment, particularly for women. While the number of employees increased by almost 4 million since 1994, the volume of working hours in 2012 is almost at the same level as in 1994 (Weinkopf, 2014, 192). More working women does not necessary lead to the improvement of their labour market situation, especially not when they are working on part-time basis. According to Weinkopf, almost halve of the women in Germany is employed part-time, while this is the case for only 15% of men (Weinkopf, 2014, 192). Moreover, women account for almost two thirds of all marginal part-time jobs with monthly earnings up to €450 (Weinkopf, 2014, 192). As a result, a substantial amount of German female employees has low quality jobs, particularly in terms of working time and hourly pay, and are excluded from the social security system (Weinkopf, 2014, 204-210).
Policy reforms
In assessing the effects of the economic crisis on female employment, it is important not only to look at direct, short-term outcomes such as (un)employment rates, but also to take account of the long-term effects. Many of the wider effects on women are not immediately visible while they have long-term consequences for their labour market position. Austerity measures intended to promote economic recovery, such as public spending cuts, have especially negative effects on women’s incomes, access to public services and employment
opportunities (McKay et al., 203, 110). This is mainly because women are often the main users of public services, and the public sector usually is a main source of employment for women (Leschke & Jepsen, 2011, 5). Therefore, to fully understand the effect of the crisis on women’s employment, it is essential that we also take account for the policy measures
adopted by the UK, Germany and Denmark in response to the crisis.
The variation of labour market impact across the EU countries as the result of the economic downturn show that institutions matter, especially in times of crisis management (Leschke & Jepsen, 2012, 291). This is visible in the significant variation in statistics across European countries. Whereas the GDP fell by 20 percent and unemployment rose by 10 percent in the Baltic states, in Germany the GDP contracted by 6 percent and “its unemployment rate remained stable” and even grew (Leschke & Jepsen, 2012, 291). A determining factor explaining this variation is the immediate response of the member states, depending on their
response to the downturn was the launch of a massive and coordinated EU policy action, the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) (Smith & Villa, 2014, 86). The cornerstone of this common policy action were stimulus packages amounting to 2% of GDP over 2009-2010, implemented at the national level (Smith & Villa, 2014, 86). The overall result of these
packages proved successful in challenging the first crisis setbacks, illustrated in figure trend in the rising trend from 2009 on. There seems to be a general agreement that without
stimulating the economy and expanding social security, “the economic and social situation would have deteriorated even more than it did” (Leschke & Jepsen, 2012, 291). According to Leschke and Jepsen, stimuli as a percentage of GDP were highest in Germany, followed by the UK and Denmark (Leschke & Jepsen, 2014, 496). Overall, the stimulus packages were targeted at sectors that had been affected the most by the recession and in which men were overrepresented, such as construction and manufacturing (Perivier, 2014, 74).
By the end 2010, most EU countries reversed their stimulus packages and had instead adopted austerity measures such as “spending cuts, increases in taxation and structural reforms”, to reduce spending and increase revenues (Leschke & Jepsen, 2012, 293). The intensity of public and social expenditure cuts varied considerably across states, leading to differing results as shown in table 3.
Table 3. Evolution of total public expenditure and social expenditure 2010–2014 according to Stability and Convergence Programmes 2011 (as a percentage of GDP)
2010 2014 2010-2014 (p.p.) 2010-2014 (%) Total public expenditure Denmark 56.8 54.1 -2.7 -4.8 Germany 46.6 53.5 -3.1 -6.7 United Kingdom 47.4 42.0 -5.4 -11.4 Social expenditure Denmark 18.9 18.2 -0.7 -3.7 Germany 26.2 24.5 -1.7 -6.5
United Kingdom 13.4 12.3 -1.1 -8.2 Source: Leschke and Jepsen, 2014: 499.
While Denmark has the highest total public expenditure, it has also the smallest cuts in total public expenditure as well as social expenditure. The UK has relatively the smallest public and social expenditure, which can be linked to the typical liberal welfare state with little state intervention. The crisis seems to have reinforce this as the UK has also the highest cuts in both expenditures. Therefore, it can be suggested that high cuts in social protection
expenditure are not necessary confined to countries with high social and public expenditures. On the contrary, the results seem to indicate a revival of the male-breadwinner model within the context of the crisis in the UK and Germany.
Whereas the stimuli packages tended to be more targeted to male-dominated sectors, austerity policies primarily affect women since they are more concentrated in public sector
employment and are more dependent on social security services (Eydoux 2014, Annesley & Scheele 2011, Leschke and Jepsen 2014). The term ‘austerity’ is defined by the Oxford dictionary as ‘difficult economic conditions created by government measures to reduce public expenditure’. According to Perivier, ‘in most countries, austerity policies have been
implemented with a gender blind manner’ (Perivier, 2014, 74). Especially the unequal, segregated structure of the labour market will be detrimental to women. The austerity phase disadvantages women’s employment through two different channels. First, the public and service sector is dominated by female employment, therefore, cuts in public spending results in job loss which effectively worsens working conditions of employees because of more work pressure to compensate for the loss of employment (Perivier, 2014, 75). Secondly, the social and public sectors are the main providers of social services and benefits such as parental leave, childcare, and elderly care, and therefore play a crucial role in women’s work-life reconciliation. This will more likely affect women as they are the main users of these services and benefits and consequently constrain them in their ‘work-life balances’ (Perivier, 2014, 75).
The UK announced 490,000 public sector cuts in 2010 (almost 10 percent of public sector employment), however, this number has been revised ‘up to 900,00 job loss between 2011 and 2018’ (Perivier, 2014, 79). Therefore, the initial protection of women’s employment in the first crisis period has been greatly reduced because of the austerity plans, which started in
2010 (Perivier, 2014, 79). In Denmark, the fiscal consolidation plan introduced in 2010 contained cuts in spending of 2% of GDP between 2010 and 2015. These plans contained mainly of cuts and savings to be made in the public sector (Perivier, 2014, 80). While the German labour market was relatively less affected by the crisis, employment in the areas of health and social work has decreased by 100,000, ‘and 84% of this loss has been experienced by women’ (Perivier, 2014, 81).
Overall, policy measures in both Germany and the UK are strongly focused on social welfare reforms with, ‘approximately one-third and more than one-fifth of total expenditure cuts in this area’ (Leschke & Jepsen, 2014, 499). This indicates that the prevailing gender relations in terms of employment opportunities in these countries are reinforced by these measures and progress towards a dual-earner model is neglected. Thus, the impact of policy measures in response to the crisis is shaped by gender segregation in the labour market, as well as the policy and welfare environment. The extent to which women are regarded as ‘legitimate economic actors’ varies among the prevailing gender policy regimes (Smith & Villa, 2014, 90).
Conclusion
The purpose of my thesis was to examine whether the outcomes of the 2008 global economic crisis can be explained by existing gender and welfare regimes. Based on the findings, in terms of prevailing norms on gender roles, labour market outcomes, and policy reforms, the gendered outcomes of the crisis are indeed shaped by the policy and welfare environment.
While Esping-Andersen’s typology of welfare state regimes might explain the historical and socio-economic national contexts of the UK, Denmark and Germany, it does not fully capture the dynamics between women’s position in the labour market and their position in the
domestic or family economy. It is therefore useful to adapt a comprehensive approach that does not neglect this other role. Sainsbury’s framework provided an effective model to apply a more ‘gendered’ approach. Including her framework in our analysis showed that
certain gender relations cut across the three welfare state-regimes, because the state-family nexus is different from the links between the state and the market. In Esping-Andersen’s model, Germany and the UK can be identified as two completely different welfare states. However, when the gender dimension is included, both countries can be identified as the male-breadwinner model because of strict division of gender roles. Denmark, on the other hand, can be identified as the individual/dual-earner model, where there is no division of specific gender roles.
The comparison of the care dimension of the British, Danish, and German welfare state showed, indeed, that the countries fit well within Sainsbury’s gender sensitive typology. Moreover, an analysis of perceptions in times of job scarcity shows that existing beliefs on the division of gender roles adhere to the prevailing gender regimes in the three countries. There even seems to be a revival of more traditional views on gender roles in times of job scarcity. In terms of labour market outcomes, the crisis has been gendered in all the three countries and this can be primarily explained by the labour market structure and gender segregation.
Because of gender segregation, male-dominated sectors were particularly badly affected during the first period of the crisis in terms of job destruction, while female-dominated sectors
As the crisis continued, however, the female-dominated sectors proved to be less protected by gender segregation. Gender segregation accounts for much of the employment rates in
Denmark and the UK. Germany seems to be an exceptional case as the German labour market proved to be more stable during the crisis. However, when we examine this from a gender perspective, it becomes clear that this relatively good performance owes much to the increase of female part-time employment. As a result, a substantial amount of German female
employees has poor working conditions and is excluded from the social security system. In terms of policy reforms, the stimulus packages proved to challenge the first crisis setbacks. These packages were mainly targeted in male-dominated sectors. By the end 2010, most EU countries reversed their stimulus packages and had instead adopted austerity measures. This change of policy particularly affected women, as these reforms were often targeted at female-dominated sectors. The results of an analysis of public and social expenditure cuts in the three countries seem to indicate a revival of the male-breadwinner in the UK and Germany, while in Denmark the cuts proved to be more modest. I will conclude by phrasing a statement by Diane Elson, that perfectly sums up the outcome of my thesis:
“These crises are gendered, in the sense that they have arisen out of gendered economic processes, in which women were virtually absent, from key sites of decision making in the financial sector; and in which neither private nor public finance was equitably distributed, and failed adequately to address the requirements of women as producers and as carers. The impact of these crises is gendered, too” (Diane Elson 2010: 202).
Literature
Annesley, C. & Scheele, A. (2011). Gender, Capitalism and Economic Crisis: Impact and Responses, Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 19(3), 335-347.
Bettio F., M. Corsi, C. D’Ippoliti, A. Lyberaki, M. Samek Lodovici and A. Verashchagina, 2013. “The Impact of the Economic Crisis on the Situation of Women and Men and on Gender Equality Policies.” External report commissioned by and presented to the EU
Directorate- General for Justice, Unit D1 “Equality between Women and Men”, Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/document/ index_en.htm
Cochrane, A. Clarke, J & Gewirtz, S. (2001). Comparing Welfare States. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Dominelli, L. (1991). Women Across Continents: Feminist Comparative Social Policy. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Eydoux, A. (2014). Women during Recessions in France and Germany. The Gender Biases of Public Policies. Revue de l’OFCE, 2(133), 153-188.
Ginsburg, N. (2004). Structured Diversity: a Framework for Critically Comparing Welfare States? In Kennett, P. (ed.), A Handbook of Comparative Social Policy. Northampton, VT: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Greve, B. (2013). The Routledge Handbook of the Welfare State. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
Häusermann, S. and Palier, B. (2008) The politics of employment-friendly welfare reforms in post- industrial economies. Socio-Economic Review 6(3): 559–586.
Karamessini, M. & Rubery, J. (2014). The Challenge of Austerity for Equality. A
consideration of eight European countries in the crisis. Revue de l’OFCE, 2(133), 15-39.
Knijn, T. & Kremer, M. (1997). Gender and the Caring Dimension of Welfare States: Toward Inclusive Citizenship. Social Policies, 328-361.
Kushi, S. & McManus, I. P. (2016). Gender, crisis and the welfare state: Female labor market outcomes across OECD countries. Comparative European Politics, 1-30.
Leschke, J & Jepsen, M. (2011). The economic crisis – challenge or opportunity for gender equality in social policy outcomes? A comparison of Denmark, Germany and the UK, Working Paper 2011.04, Brussels, ETUI.
Leschke, J. & Jepsen, M. (2012). Introduction: Crisis, policy responses and widening inequalities in the EU. International Labour Review, 151(4), 289-312.
Leschke, J. & Jepsen, M. (2014). Is the Economic Crisis Challenging the Prevailing Gender Regime? A Comparison of Denmark, Germany, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom. Social Politics, 21(4), 485-508.
McKay, A., Campbell, J., Thomson, E. & Ross, S. (2013). Economic Recession and Recovery in the UK: What's Gender Got to Do with It? Feminist Economics, 19(3), 108-123.
Perivier, H. (2014). Men and women during the economic crisis. Employment trends in eight European countries. Revue de l’OFCE, 2(133),41-84.
Pierson, P. (1996) The new politics of the welfare state. World Politics, 48(2), 143–179.
Rafferty, A. (2014). Gender Equality and the Impact of Recession and Austerity in the UK. Revue de l’OFCE, 2(133), 335-361.
Rubery, J. & Rafferty, A. (2013). Women and recession revisited. Work, Employment and Society, 27(3), 414-432.
Sainsbury, D. (1999). Gender and Welfare State Regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scharpf, F. W. & Schmidt, V. A. (2000). Welfare and Work in the Open Economy Volume II: Diverse Responses to Common Challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Seguino, S. (2010). The global economic crisis, its gender and ethnic implications, and policy responses, Gender & Development, 18(2), 179-199.
Smith, M & Villa, P. (2014). The Long Tail of the Great Recession. Foregone Employment and Foregone Policies. Revue de l’OFCE, 2(133), 85-119.
Sundstrom, E. (2003), ‘Gender regimes, family policies and attitudes to female employment: a comparison of Germany, Italy and Sweden’, retrieved 20.05.17 from http://publications. uu.se/umu/fulltext/nbn_se_umu_diva-185.pdf.
Van Kersbergen, K., & Vis, B. (2013). Comparative Welfare State Politics: Development, Opportunities and Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weinkopf, C. (2014). Women’s Employment in Germany. Robust in Crisis but Vulnerable in Job Quality, Revue de l’OFCE, 2(133), 189-214.
