IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/woemps/v38y2024i3p766-786.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Equality Hurdle: Resolving the Welfare State Paradox

Author

Listed:
  • Erling Barth

    (Institute for Social Research, Norway)

  • Liza Reisel

    (Institute for Social Research, Norway)

  • Kjersti Misje Østbakken

    (Institute for Social Research, Norway)

Abstract

This article revisits a central tenet of the welfare state paradox, also known as the inclusion-equality trade-off. Using large-scale survey data for 31 European countries and the United States, collected over a recent 15-year period, the article re-investigates the relationship between female labour force participation and gender segregation. Emphasising the transitional role played by the monetisation of domestic tasks, the study identifies a ‘gender equality hurdle’ that countries with the highest levels of female labour force participation have already passed. The results show that occupational gender segregation is currently lower in countries with high female labour force participation, regardless of public sector size. However, the findings also indicate that high relative levels of public spending on health, education and care are particularly conducive to desegregation. Hence, rather than being paradoxical, more equality in participation begets more equality in the labour market, as well as in gendered tasks in society overall.

Suggested Citation

  • Erling Barth & Liza Reisel & Kjersti Misje Østbakken, 2024. "The Equality Hurdle: Resolving the Welfare State Paradox," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 38(3), pages 766-786, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:woemps:v:38:y:2024:i:3:p:766-786
    DOI: 10.1177/09500170231155293
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09500170231155293
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/09500170231155293?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. Cristiano Perugini & Jelena Žarković Rakić & Marko Vladisavljević, 2019. "Austerity and gender inequalities in Europe in times of crisis," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 43(3), pages 733-767.
    2. Paula England & Lori Reid & Barbara Kilbourne, 1996. "The effect of the sex composition of jobs on starting wages in an organization: Findings from the NLSY," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 33(4), pages 511-521, November.
    3. Nabanita Datta Gupta & Nina Smith & Mette Verner, 2008. "PERSPECTIVE ARTICLE: The impact of Nordic countries’ family friendly policies on employment, wages, and children," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 65-89, March.
    4. Helen Kowalewska, 2021. "Bringing Women on Board? Family Policies, Quotas and Gender Diversity in Top Jobs," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 35(4), pages 735-752, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Simisola Johnson, 2022. "Women deserve better: A discussion on COVID‐19 and the gendered organization in the new economy," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 639-649, March.
    2. Geyer, Johannes & Haan, Peter & Wrohlich, Katharina, 2015. "The effects of family policy on maternal labor supply: Combining evidence from a structural model and a quasi-experimental approach," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 84-98.
    3. Julia Bredtmann & Nina Smith, 2018. "Inequalities in Educational Outcomes: How Important Is the Family?," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 80(6), pages 1117-1144, December.
    4. Aleksandra Anić & Gorana Krstić, 2019. "What Lies Behind The Gender Wage Gap In Serbia?," Economic Annals, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Belgrade, vol. 64(223), pages 137-170, October –.
    5. Andersen, Signe Hald & Özcan, Berkay, 2021. "The effects of unemployment on fertility," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 109007, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Noam Tarshish, 2021. "Do ‘child‐friendly’ countries contribute to child satisfaction? A comparative study of OECD countries," International Journal of Social Welfare, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 72-83, January.
    7. Alois Guger & Silvia Rocha-Akis, 2016. "Umverteilung durch den Staat in Österreich," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 89(5), pages 329-345, May.
    8. Helmut Mahringer & Christine Zulehner, 2015. "Child-care costs and mothers’ employment rates: an empirical analysis for Austria," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 837-870, December.
    9. S. C. Noah Uhrig & Nicole Watson, 2020. "The Impact of Measurement Error on Wage Decompositions: Evidence From the British Household Panel Survey and the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 49(1), pages 43-78, February.
    10. Radeef Chundakkadan & Rajesh Raj Natarajan & Subash Sasidharan, 2022. "Small firms amidst COVID‐19: Financial constraints and role of government support," Economic Notes, Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA, vol. 51(3), November.
    11. Kunze, Astrid & Liu, Xingfei, 2019. "Universal Childcare for the Youngest and the Maternal Labour Supply," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 3/2019, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    12. Yusuf Emre Akgunduz & Janneke Plantenga, 2013. "Labour market effects of parental leave in Europe," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 37(4), pages 845-862.
    13. Lionel Wilner, 2016. "Worker-firm matching and the parenthood pay gap: Evidence from linked employer-employee data," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 29(4), pages 991-1023, October.
    14. Charles L. Baum II & Christopher J. Ruhm, 2016. "The Effects of Paid Family Leave in California on Labor Market Outcomes," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(2), pages 333-356, April.
    15. Guyonne Kalb, 2018. "Paid Parental Leave and Female Labour Supply: AÂ Review," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 94(304), pages 80-100, March.
    16. Philip Rees & Nicole Gaag & Joop Beer & Frank Heins, 2012. "European Regional Populations: Current Trends, Future Pathways, and Policy Options [Population des Régions Européennes: Tendances Actuelles, Développements Futurs et Options Politiques]," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 28(4), pages 385-416, November.
    17. Tibor Paul Hanappi & Sandra Müllbacher, 2016. "Tax incentives and family labor supply in Austria," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 961-987, December.
    18. Hirvonen, Lalaina, 2009. "The Effect of Children on Earnings Using Exogenous Variation in Family Size: Swedish Evidence," Working Paper Series 2/2009, Stockholm University, Swedish Institute for Social Research.
    19. Yeon Jeong Son, 2018. "Do childbirth grants increase the fertility rate? Policy impacts in South Korea," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 713-735, September.
    20. Eva Festl & Hedwig Lutz & Margit Schratzenstaller, 2010. "Mögliche Ansätze zur Unterstützung von Familien," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 38701, July.

    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:sae:woemps:v:38:y:2024:i:3:p:766-786. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/ .

    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.