IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/lawfam/v38y2024i1pebae004..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Child support and income inequalities: a cross-continental comparison from welfare design to judicial implementation

Author

Listed:
  • Emilie Biland

Abstract

This article analyses why and how child support policy contributes to income inequalities as well as to cross-national variation. It uses an in-depth comparison between France and Quebec (Canada) and drives on a multi-method empirical design to assess how this policy has been designed within each welfare state regime from the 1970s to the 2020s and how family lawyers and lower court judges implement it. It shows that national conceptions of solidarity and justice differ, along with the differences between those two legal systems, leading to cross-national variations regarding child support policy. In Quebec, the neo-liberal wave and the powerful feminist movement have converged to ensure that fathers are made to face up to their financial responsibilities towards their children, which has positive effects on the wealthiest and middle-class families. In contrast, in France, the feminist movement has been less influential while the long-standing family policy has favoured state protection towards lone mothers. As a result, the financial risks involved in separation are (partially) compensated by a state system of redistribution, rather than by private remedies, which lead the French system to be more effective for lower-class families. As a result, national context still matters a lot in the part institutional arrangements and professional practices play in income inequalities after parental separations.

Suggested Citation

  • Emilie Biland, 2024. "Child support and income inequalities: a cross-continental comparison from welfare design to judicial implementation," International Journal of Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(1), pages 1-004..
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:lawfam:v:38:y:2024:i:1:p:ebae004.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/lawfam/ebae004
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:oup:lawfam:v:38:y:2024:i:1:p:ebae004.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/lawfam .

    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.