Erosion of the boundaries between formal and informal work in Europe

ESPAnet/RECWOWESecond joint Doctoral Workshop University of Hamburg, October 5-6, 2007

Birgit Pfau-Effinger, University of Hamburg

central questions

How can the development of care work be analysed? Which factors contribute to explaining the development

towards new forms of care work?

COST A13 Action Programme of the EU and European Science Foundation: ‚Change of Labour Markets, Welfare States and Citizenship‘, Coordinator of Working Group on ‚Social Care‘

Coordinator of research project in the 5th EU Framework Programme Formal and Informal Work in Europe (FIWE)‚A Comparative Analysis of their Changing Relationship and their Impact on Social Integration‘, with research teams in six countries: Finland, Denmark, Germany, UK, Poland, Spain

Research project of the German Research Foundation (DFG) ‚Local policies towards long-term care in a comparative perspective‘

research basis

main assumptions

Change of care work is a multi-dimensional process; it is based on change in different dimensions which take place relatively independent from each other.

Different new forms of care work have been established in European societies.

As a consequence of such processes, the boundaries between private and public, informal and formal care work, unpaid and paid care work have blurred.

Cultural differences, differences in welfare state policies, and socio-economical change, and their interplay, contribute substantially to cross-national differences in the role of new forms of care work.

structure of the presentation

1. Problems of the ‚old‘, dual concept of care work 2. Towards a multi-dimensional approach to analyses of

the development of care work 3. Factors that are promoting the development towards

the different new forms of care work 3. Cross-national differences in relation to the new forms

of care work and their explanation4. Conclusions

1. Problems of the ‚old‘, dual concept of care work

the ‚old‘, dual concept of care work

A thinking in dual terms predominates in feminist thinking with regard to the concept of care, in terms of the comparison of public and private, of unpaid family work and paid gainful employment.

This is linked with a dual approach towards the separation of public and private in sociological theory and political sciences (Parsons, Habermas, Locke).

In this regard, formal and informal care work are often construed as opposites.

In feminist thinking, the formalised forms of care are often characterised as modern and family-friendly, because they relieve women from care work at home, while the informal care of children and the elderly tends to be linked to backwardness and social marginalisation of those who practise it (see also Cousins 1998).

problems of the concept

The clear embedding of care work in one of the two spheres of family and gainful employment tends to hinder the recognition of changes that concern the informal care work itself.

These have taken place precisely in an area between the two spheres.

Change has led to an erosion of the boundaries between formal and informal care work.

new concepts for analyses of family policies and care

formalisation (Theobald 2005) de-familisation (Esping-Andersen 1996; Lister 1998) commodification (Ungerson 2005; Ostner/Knijn 2005).

problems They do not really overcome the restrictions of the old

dichotomy. They do not clearly distinguish between different

dimensions of the development of care work. These approaches are more adequate for analyses of

policies towards care work than for exact analyses of change that takes place in care work itself.

2. Towards a multi-dimensional approach to analyses of the development of care work

analytical framework: five dimensions of change of care work

Change in the type of workers by which care work is provided care can be provided by family members, by paid employees in the family or outside the family,

Change in the societal sphere in which care work is provided shift from care work within the family to other societal spheres outside the family

(state, non-profit-sector, market) Change in the degree of formality of care work

Informal care work is not regulated

semi-formal care is regulated on the basis of welfare state schemes for family care providers (maternity leave, parental leave, childcare allowance, long-term care insurance) (Pfau-Effinger 2005; Geissler/Pfau-Effinger 2005)Formal care work is regulated on the basis of the employment of the care workers

Change in the degree and type of payment

The pay of care work can have different sources, market based wages or financial transfer in the context of welfare state programmes (Ungerson 2005).

Change in the gender composition of care work

five main trends in relation to these dimensions

type of worker: Increase in professional and non-professional employees outside the family, and hired employees within the family

societal sphere: Outsourcing of care work, mainly to state organisations, otherwise non-profit organisations, moderately to market enterprises (Pfau-Effinger et al. 2008)

degree of formality: Increase in formal forms of care work (Anttonen/Sipilä 2005; Theobald 2005, OECD 2002) and semi-formal forms

pay: Increase in different forms of paid care work, either by forms of decommodification of parents or providers of long-term care, or direct pay to caring family members, to employees within or outside the family (Ungerson 2005),

gender composition: moderate increase in the contribution of men to family based care work (Blossfeld/Drobnic 2002).

Table 1: trend towards (mainly) three new forms of care work 1990s until 2006

unpaid   paid  

formal   Formalised care work in gainful employment outside (and inside) the family 

 Semi-formal family care work on the basis of welfare state programmes- with increase in share of fathers  Informal, paid care work by employees (‚undeclared work‘) in the family household   

Informal Historical starting point in West European Societies: Informal unpaid family care   

 

  

 

three main new forms of care work

formal care work in gainful employment in organisations/institutions outside the family, such as state/municipal sector, the non-profit sector and the market (Anttonen/Sipilä 2005; Theobald 2005, OECD 2002, Häußermann/Siebel 1996)

Semi-formal care work in the family household, in part by fathers

informal, paid care work by employees (‚undeclared work‘) in the family household

3. Factors that are promoting the development towards the different new forms of care work

Graph 1: Explanation of the structures of care work in the context of the societal ‚arrangement

of work and family‘

Structures of care work

Social actors (collective/individual)

-- conflicts-Negotiation

-behaviour

cultural system - welfare culture

- cultural family models...,-traditions of ‚servant‘ culture

Social system

Central Institutions

-welfare state -Family

--labour market t- market/economy

Supranational influences like globalisation, supranational policies, EU -Integration etc.

Socio-economicalsstructures

-social inequality -dividion of labour-Power relations

reproduction or change basis: ideas, interests

Interests

Ideas

An arrangement is negotiated, it can be contradictory and contested and subject of change.

Pfau-Effinger 2004

Culture = constructions of sense to which people orient in their behaviour, it includes values, models and stocks of knowledge (Neidhard 1992; Lepsius 1990; Archer 1995)

Factors contributing to high share offormalised care work in gainful employment

Cultural factors

gender equality as popular value

relatively low appreciation of family care (Pfau-Effinger 2004)

welfare state policies

extended social rights to receive care (Knijn/Kremer 1997)

comprehensive publicly financed sector of social services

socio-economical structures individualisaton (Beck 2000; Beck-Gernsheim 2001)

high female labor force participationtrend towards service society

factors contributing to high share of semi-formal care work in the family household

cultural factors relatively high appreciation of family care

new model of family care by parents as specific life phases of self-fulfillment embedded in an otherwise employment oriented job history

welfare state policies

extended social rights to give care, together with pay for care (Knijn/Kremer 1997)to some parts, but less relevant: insufficient public provision of childcarein part: reduction of costs for care as policy aim

socio-economic factors moderate role of mass unemployment (contested issue: see Haataja 2005)

EU policiesguideline for parental leave

Factors contributing to high share of informal, paid care work by employees (‚undeclared work‘) in the family household

cultural change relatively high cultural appreciation of ‚family childhood‘cultural tradition/acceptance of ‚servant‘ employment in the household

welfare state policieslimited degree of de-commodification of the unemployedbarriers to formal employment of migrants gaps in state support allowing career/family conflicts to be resolved

socio-economical structuressize and degree of affluence of middle classesmass unemploymentincrease of global mobility of the labour force

4. Cross-national differences in relation to the new forms of care work and their explanation

Table 2: Employment rates of mothers with children aged under 6 (OECD 2001)

country Share of mothers with children under 6

Finland 58,8

Sweden 77,8

Norway 72,8

UK 55,8

France 56,2

Netherlands 60,7

Germany 51,1

Spain 41,8

Problem: missing data

Missing cross-national data about the share of the population who are doing childcare in full-time, part-time;

Missing possibility to differentiate between parents who provide informal unpaid and semi-formal paid family care;

Missing information about relationship of ‚principle‘ public supply of public childcare on the basis of socal rights, and real take-up rates;

Missing differentiation in data about undeclared work in private households between cleaing and care;

Attitude are often outdated, they do not differentiate in an adequate way.

Table 3: Cross-national differences in relation to new forms of care work in childcare

New forms of care work European societies

Formal care work high medium Low

Denmark, Finland, France, E.GermanyW.Germany, Austria, Norway, U.K.Spain

Semi-formal care work high medium low

W.Germany, AustriaNorwayDenmark, Finland, Spain, U.K.

Undeclared work for care high medium low

SpainW. Germany, Austria, U.K., France, Denmark, Finland, E.Germany

Main assumptions

The role of each of the new forms of care work can to a substantial degree be explained by the interplay of the dominant cultural family model/s with the respective welfare regime.

cultural family models are to a substantial degree relevant with respect to the degree to which care work is provided within the family.

The welfare regime type (Esping-Andersen 1990, 1999) is more relevant with respect to the forms in which care work is provided within the family and without the family.

definitions

culture: constructions of sense to which people orient in their behaviour, it includes values, models and stocks of knowledge (Neidhard 1992; Lepsius 1990; Archer 1995)

cultural family models: basic ideas in a society which are related to the family, the organisation of care work in society, the gender division of labour and the relationship of the family with the employment system

Table 4: Degree of appreciation of family based care in different cultural models of the family

Family model Degree of appreciation of family care

Traditional family models (until middle of 20th Century)

family economy model relatively low

male breadwinner/female housewife model

relatively high

Family models of post industrial society (since 1980s/1990s)

male breadwinner/female part-time carer model

relatively high

dual part-time breadwinner/dual part-time carer model

relatively high

dual breadwinner/external care model

relatively low

dual breadwinner/extended family care model

relatively high

Cultural values related to family care in population

conservativeWelfare regime

Social democraticWelfareregime

liberalWelfareregime

mediterrean welfare regime

Family models with relatively high appreciation of family care

- formal care work: medium- semi-formal care work: high - undeclared work: medium(GE-W., AU, NL) 

- formal care work: high- semi-formal care work: high- undeclared work: very low(NO) 

- formal care work: low- semi-formal care work: low- undeclared work: medium(UK)

- formal care work: very low- semi-formal care work: low- undeclared work: high(ES)

Family models with relatively low appreciation of family care

- formal care work: high- semi-formal care work: low to medium-- undeclared work: low -(GE-E, France)

- formal care work: high- semi-formal care work: low to medium- undeclared work: very low(DK, FI) 

Table 5: New forms of care work in the context of the interaction of cultural values and welfare regimes (Esping-Andersen) in different arrangements of work and family

4. Conclusions

The boundaries between informal, unpaid care work in the private sector on one hand, formal paid care work in the public sector on the other are eroding.

Theoretical concepts which are based on a dichotomous thinking are not adequate to analysing such change.

A multi-dimensional approach is useful for adequate analyses of the development of the structures of care work.

It turns out that the introduction of pay for care work is not closely linked with a specific form of care work; instead, pay can be connected with informal, semi-formal and formal care work, within and outside the family.

The role of each new form of care work can be explained in the context of the arrangement of work and family in a society, which is based on the interaction of cultural, institutional, and socio-economic factors.

end

Table: Employment rates of mothers with children aged under 6 (OECD 2001)

country share

Finland 58,8

Sweden 77,8

Norway 72,8

UK 55,8

France 56,2

Netherlands 60,7

Germany 51,1

Spain 41,8

formalised care work in gainful employment in the context of work-family arrangements in Europe

Welfare regime Dominant cultural family model

Conservative Social democratic

liberal mediterrean Post socialist

Male breadwinner/female part-time care provider model

Medium (W.Germany)

low-medium (Great Britain)

Dual breadwinner/external care provider model

High (East Germany, France)

High (Denmark, Finland)

Dual part-time breadwinner/dual part-time care provider model

High (Norway)

Dual breadwinner/extended family care model

Low (Spain)

Low (Poland)

Semi-formal family care work

Welfare regime Dominant cultural family model

Conservative Social democratic

liberal mediterrean Post socialist

Male breadwinner/female part-time care provider model

high (W.Germany)

low (Great Britain)

Dual breadwinner/external care provider model

medium (East Germany, France)

Medium (Finland) low (Denmark

Dual part-time breadwinner/dual part-time care provider model

medium (Norway)

Dual breadwinner/extended family care model

low (Spain)

low (Poland)

formalised care work in gainful employment in the context of work-family arrangements in Europe

Welfare regime Dominant cultural family model

Conservative Social democratic

liberal mediterrean Post socialist

Male breadwinner/female part-time care provider model

Medium (W.Germany)

low-medium (Great Britain)

Dual breadwinner/external care provider model

High (East Germany, France)

High (Denmark, Finland)

Dual part-time breadwinner/dual part-time care provider model

High (Norway)

Dual breadwinner/extended family care model

Low (Spain)

Low (Poland)

Informal employment (‚undeclared work‘) for care in the private household in the context of work-family arrangements in Europe

Welfare regime Dominant cultural family model

Conservative Social democratic

liberal mediterrean Post socialist

Male breadwinner/female part-time care provider model

medium (W.Germany)

medium (Great Britain)

Dual breadwinner/external care provider model

low (East Germany, France)

very low (Denmark, Finland)

Dual part-time breadwinner/dual part-time care provider model

very low (Norway)

Dual breadwinner/extended family care model

high (Spain)

medium (Poland)

3. Factors that are driving the development towards the different new forms of care work

the central dimensions of the gender culture include values and models in relation to...

the main sphere/s of work of women and men the societal appreciation of each of these sphere the degree of dependence/autonomy in the relationship

of spouses the adequate sphere for the upbringing of children

(family, or external childcare provision)

Family economy model Dual

breadwinner/external care provider

model

Housewife model of the male

breadwinnerMarriage

Male breadwinner/part-time

Care providerModel

Dual breadwinner/Dual carer model

Two different typical paths of work-family arrangements: the impact of history

- tensions and contradictions at the system level - within the cultural system or the social system

- tensions and contradictions between the cultural and social system

- conflicts at the socio-cultural level, that means in the relations between social actors

basis of change- tensions, contradictions, conflicts(Lockwood 1964; Archer 1996)