IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/brjirl/v47y2009i4p741-764.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Political Economy of Occupational Family Policies: Comparing Workplaces in Britain and Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Seeleib‐Kaiser
  • Timo Fleckenstein

Abstract

With a shift in the political debate to more market‐driven social policy approaches during the past decade, politicians in a number of European countries have argued that employers should take on greater responsibilities in the provision of social policy. But why should employers get involved? After reviewing the relevant literature on firm‐level social policy, we analyse the conditions and causal pathways that lead to their provision. Our findings show that (i) the skill structure and level of the workforce are important conditions for firm‐level engagement; (ii) employers have usually been the ‘protagonists’; (iii) the role of unions has been more limited — in Germany they can largely be characterized as ‘consenters’, whereas in Britain, their impact is negligible; (iv) in accordance with the specific systems of industrial relations, the design in Germany very much follows the concept of social partnership; in Britain the design is usually based on unilateral management decisions; and (v) based on these conditions and causal pathways, ‘enclave social policy’ is the likely result of the expansionary policy development, although in Germany, these policies have the potential of becoming an element of ‘industrial citizenship’.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Seeleib‐Kaiser & Timo Fleckenstein, 2009. "The Political Economy of Occupational Family Policies: Comparing Workplaces in Britain and Germany," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 47(4), pages 741-764, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:brjirl:v:47:y:2009:i:4:p:741-764
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00741.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00741.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00741.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John W. Budd & Karen Mumford, 2004. "Trade Unions and Family-Friendly Policies in Britain," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 57(2), pages 204-222, January.
    2. Budd, John W. & Mumford, Karen A., 2005. "Family-Friendly Work Practices in Britain: Availability and Perceived Accessibility," IZA Discussion Papers 1662, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. John M. Evans, 2001. "Firms' Contribution to the Reconciliation between Work and Family Life," OECD Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers 48, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anne‐Sophie Bruno & Nathalie Greenan & Jeremy Tanguy, 2021. "Does the Gender Mix Influence Collective Bargaining on Gender Equality? Evidence from France," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(4), pages 479-520, October.
    2. Giuseppe Croce, 2015. "Tax-benefits policies jointly run by the social partners:Labour market implications of the Bipartite Sectoral Funds," Working Papers in Public Economics 173, University of Rome La Sapienza, Department of Economics and Law.
    3. Egidio Riva & Roberto Rizza, 2021. "Who receives occupational welfare? The importance of skills across Europe’s diverse industrial relations regimes," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 27(1), pages 97-112, February.
    4. Wagemann, Claudius & Buche, Jonas & Siewert, Markus B., 2016. "QCA and business research: Work in progress or a consolidated agenda?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 2531-2540.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gillian Whitehouse & elinda Hewitt & Bill Martin & Marian Baird, 2013. "Employer-paid Maternity Leave in Australia - A comparison of Uptake and Duration in 2005 and 2010," Australian Journal of Labour Economics (AJLE), Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC), Curtin Business School, vol. 16(3), pages 311-327.
    2. Ariane Ollier-Malaterre, 2009. "Organizational Work-Life initiatives: Context matters," Post-Print hal-00565488, HAL.
    3. John W. Budd, 2010. "Does Employee Ignorance Undermine Shared Capitalism?," NBER Chapters, in: Shared Capitalism at Work: Employee Ownership, Profit and Gain Sharing, and Broad-based Stock Options, pages 291-316, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Fang, Tony & Lee, Byron & Timming, Andrew R. & Fan, Di, 2019. "The Effects of Work-Life Benefits on Employment Outcomes in Canada: A Multivariate Analysis," IZA Discussion Papers 12322, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Heywood, John S. & Siebert, W. Stanley & Wei, Xiangdong, 2005. "High Performance Workplaces and Family Friendly Practices: Promises Made and Promises Kept," IZA Discussion Papers 1812, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Ali Fakih, 2014. "Availability of Family-Friendly Work Practices and Implicit Wage Costs: New Evidence from Canada," CIRANO Working Papers 2014s-33, CIRANO.
    7. Salomé Goñi-Legaz & Andrea Ollo-López, 2015. "Factors that Determine the Use of Flexible Work Arrangement Practices in Spain," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 463-476, September.
    8. Kato, Takao & Kodama, Naomi, 2015. "Work-Life Balance Practices, Performance-Related Pay, and Gender Equality in the Workplace: Evidence from Japan," IZA Discussion Papers 9379, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Alex Bryson & P Willman, 2007. "Union Organization in Great Britain," CEP Discussion Papers dp0774, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    10. Berg, Peter & Kossek, Ellen Ernst & Baird, Marian & Block, Richard N., 2013. "Collective bargaining and public policy: Pathways to work-family policy adoption in Australia and the United States," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 495-504.
    11. Ariane Pailhé & Anne Solaz, 2019. "Is there a wage cost for employees in family‐friendly workplaces? The effect of different employer policies," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 688-721, June.
    12. Pierre-Carl Michaud & Konstantinos Tatsiramos, 2005. "Employment Dynamics of Married Women in Europe," Working Papers WR-273, RAND Corporation.
    13. John M. Evans & Samantha Callan, 2003. "Firms’ Contribution to the Reconciliation between Work and Family," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 1(4), pages 08-12, October.
    14. Mario Ferreras-Listán & Coral I. Hunt-Gómez & Pilar Moreno-Crespo & Olga Moreno-Fernández, 2021. "School–Family Relations: An Educational Challenge in Times of COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-13, October.
    15. Tay K. McNamara & Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes & Melissa Brown & Christina Matz-Costa, 2012. "Access to and Utilization of Flexible Work Options," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 936-965, October.
    16. KATO Takao & KODAMA Naomi, 2016. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Gender Diversity in the Workplace: Evidence from Japan," Discussion papers 16063, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    17. Parera-Nicolau, Antonia & Mumford, Karen A., 2005. "Labour Supply and Childcare for British Mothers in Two-Parent Families: A Structural Approach," IZA Discussion Papers 1908, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Mike Rigby & Fiona O'Brien-Smith, 2010. "Trade union interventions in work-life balance," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 24(2), pages 203-220, June.
    19. Uwe Jirjahn & Jens Mohrenweiser, 2021. "Works councils and organizational gender policies in Germany," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 59(4), pages 1020-1048, December.
    20. Mahmoud Abubaker & Mousa Luobbad & Ismael Qasem & Chris Adam-Bagley, 2022. "Work–Life-Balance Policies for Women and Men in an Islamic Culture: A Culture-Centred and Religious Research Perspective," Businesses, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-20, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:brjirl:v:47:y:2009:i:4:p:741-764. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.