SDG 5 aims to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. Browse books and journal articles relating to this SDG below and find out more on the UN Sustainable Development Goals website.
In this chapter, we will look in more detail at the Universal Model and Partnership Model of providing childcare. We will seek to answer three main questions:
-
1.
What is it about these models of childcare that leads to better gender equality?
- a) How do the different elements work?
- b) What are the ideas, institutions and actors that make it work?
- c) What could make these models of childcare not work to improve gender equality?
-
2.
What aspects of these models of childcare could be transferred to other national contexts?
- a) What do we know about policy transfer? Which policies are likely to fail or succeed in different contexts, and why?
- b) Which elements of these models of childcare could be successfully transferred and lead to improved gender equality?
- c) What could make it likely that transferring these models of childcare would fail to deliver improved gender equality?
- 3. Which model, and which aspects of that model, should policymakers invest in to stand the greatest chance of improving gender equality?
In this chapter, we will begin to examine the links between gender equality, childcare, and long-term care policy. We will explain:
why we have chosen to focus on these policy areas in examining how to achieve gender equality; and
why it is useful to carry out comparative research in this area.
We will also describe our methodology, explain our data analysis and show that our findings are robust and, therefore, useful to develop policy in various contexts.
The rest of this book is divided into six chapters, and each is intended to stand alone. Readers can choose to read chapters individually:
In Chapter Two we describe the features of the Universal Model of care policy, drawing on case study examples of Denmark, Iceland and Sweden. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of that model, and discuss which elements of that model led to its success in promoting and supporting gender equality. We also look at which features of the model might be amenable to transfer to other policy contexts.
In Chapter Three we describe the features of the Partnership Model of care policy, based on evidence from Germany and the Netherlands. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of that model, and discuss which elements of that model led to its success in promoting and supporting gender equality. We also look at which features of the model might be amenable to transfer to other policy contexts.
In this chapter, we will look in more detail at the Universal and Partnership Models of providing long-term care. We will seek to answer three main questions:
-
1.
What is it about these models of long-term care policy that leads to better gender equality?
- a. How do the different elements work?
- b. What are the ideas, institutions, and actors that make it work?
- c. What could make these models not work to improve gender equality?
-
2.
What aspects of these models could be transferred to other national contexts?
- a. What do we know about policy transfer? Which policies are likely to fail or succeed in different contexts, and why?
- b. Which elements of these models could be successfully transferred and lead to improved gender equality?
- c. What could make it likely that transferring these models would fail to deliver improved gender equality?
- 3. Which model, and which aspects of that model, should policymakers invest in to stand the greatest chance of improving gender equality?
Countries that fall into a Partnership Model do see gender equality as an important policy driver but it is not necessarily the main, or even most important, factor underpinning the development of childcare and long-term care policies. They have developed welfare states, but do not view the state as being necessarily the only or main provider of services. The state is seen more as a driver of policy: setting a legislative framework and in some cases providing funding and services, but doing so in partnership with the market, with communities and families, and with individuals. There is a greater role played by municipal authorities than in the Universal Model, and thus sometimes a greater variation in the availability and quality of services. However, the state does play a strong regulatory role, and individuals do have important rights to access services.
There are two case study examples discussed in this chapter, namely, Germany and the Netherlands. As stated previously we did not use pre-existing welfare state models for sampling but carried this out inductively based on the nature of care policies and gender equality outcomes.
The Nordic states are commonly held up as an example of universal state provision of services leading to high levels of gender equality. This is slightly misleading: there is no one ‘Nordic model’ of welfare, and even those states with high levels of state control over welfare, childcare and long-term care services have introduced forms of market and individual involvement in the provision of services. Nevertheless, the three case study examples discussed in this chapter, namely, Denmark, Iceland and Sweden all share common features that make them examples of ‘good practice’ in this field: they all have gender equality at the heart of their constitutional framework and policy values; they all score highly on the Gender Equality Index; they all adopt a universal ‘social rights’ approach to the provision of services; and they all have high levels of state involvement in the provision of (or commissioning of) childcare and long-term care services.
What are the key issues and problems regarding care policy and gender equality from the perspective of policymakers and practitioners? We need to understand this in order to ascertain which, if any, of the policies and models discussed in this book will solve them and lead to better gender equality outcomes. We also need to understand which policies – and which features of the policies – would be amenable to transferring into a different context.
In this chapter we examine the evidence from the interviews and focus groups which we held with key stakeholders working in childcare and long-term care policy and practice. We begin by outlining the methods used and data obtained that we draw on in this chapter. We then discuss the Universal Model and Partnership Model of care policy and discuss whether elements of these models could solve the issues raised by the stakeholders. We then conclude the chapter by returning to Fraser’s (1997) framework for gender equity, and how the different models measure up in the light of what we have learned about the policies, context, transferability and the key issues identified by stakeholders.
EPDF and EPUB available Open Access under CC-BY-NC licence. Drawing on comparative research from five countries, What Works in Improving Gender Equality provides an accessible analysis of what gender equality means and how we can achieve it by adapting best practices in care policies from other countries.
Realistic policy solutions are reached by examining the contexts in which childcare and longterm care policies are developed, and what difficulties might need to be overcome in applying the lessons from different international models.
In the course of our discussion about different models of childcare and long-term care services, it has become apparent that it is not just gender equality that underpins the design and delivery of these services. Other considerations, such as political and normative attitudes to services, benefits to other stakeholders, such as children and service users, wider economic and social issues and existing governance and policy structures have an impact both on which services are developed, and the outcomes they have in terms of gender equality.
In this chapter, we will, therefore, return to our initial question and ask, which models (and within the different models, which types of services) are likely to give us the best gender equality outcomes for women, and why? We will use Fraser’s (1997) framework of the seven principles which should underpin progress towards a ‘universal caregiver’ model of society
This chapter examines the nature and scope of caregiving practices within families to better understand how families can be constructed during maternal imprisonment. It discusses three distinct characteristics that were observed within families. First, the joint interviews and caregivers' descriptions show the meaning, nature, and value of collective caregiving practices within the families, facilitating nuanced insights into the families' shared responses to the mothers' imprisonments. Second, the findings indicate that during a mother's imprisonment, it is maternal kin who take on caregiving responsibilities. Third, one explanation for female relatives assuming the bulk of care may be the smaller uptake of care from the children's fathers. The chapter then considers the positionality of the children's fathers, as well as father–children relationships, from the perspectives of caregivers.
This chapter highlights the key findings from the study and proposes some recommendations. Throughout this book, the lived experiences of relatives and friends (caregiving kin) looking after the children of female prisoners have been examined. Their honest accounts of their everyday lives during maternal imprisonment have contributed new insights which the chapter reviews. Importantly, listening to caregivers has developed a conceptual understanding of the ways in which the ‘family sentence’ is served from a ‘disenfranchised social status’. Ultimately, it is crucial to incorporate the perspectives of caregivers into policy and practice in order to facilitate a greater inclusion and response to the challenges they experience.
