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.
Goal 5: Gender Equality
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
We routinely judge how well children are doing in their lives by how they spend their time, yet we know remarkably little about it.
This rigorous review of four decades of data provides the clearest insights yet into the way children use their time. With analysis of changes in the time spent on family, education, culture and technology, as well as children’s own views on their habits, it provides a fascinating perspective on behaviour, wellbeing, social change and more.
This is an indispensable companion to the work of policy makers, academics and researchers, and anyone interested in the daily lives of children.
This concluding chapter surveys the key findings and issues raised in the previous chapters. This study of a child's day provides the most extensive picture currently available in the UK, and elsewhere in the world, into how children's time use has changed over the past several decades. It identifies areas of expected change as well as other areas of surprising stability. It reveals how change and stability in children's time use blend together to comprise a child's day, uncovering also the multi-layered contexts of a child's day. Aspects of children's time use, and how this may have changed, will no doubt continue to surface in public debate in connection with their well-being. While welcoming this, it is necessary to always question and seek to understand how supposed changes actually fit within a child's day, the types of days where these changes are concentrated, among whom, and to seek out evidence on how such changes relate to other activities and the social contexts of daily life.
