Microsoft Word Socialized Choices 31-12 pod docx

Socialized Choices - Labour Market Behaviour of Dutch Mothers  
78 
participation was needed for the sustainability of the social welfare state, the 
Dutch government used various measures to promote the increase in employment 
rates of women, and the simultaneous contribution of men to the unpaid tasks at 
home (Grünell 2001; Kremer, 2007; Sanders and Beekes, 1993). In the same 
period, various social arrangements and regulations in the Netherlands started to 
foster part-time work (Kremer, 2007; Visser and Hemerijck, 1997). Through 
collective agreements between employer organisations and labour unions, many 
branches started to offer family-friendly arrangements which benefitted part-time 
workers (Tijdens, 2006). And, since the Working Hours Adjustment Act of 2000, 
an employer can only refuse a request of an employee for a part-time contract if 
he can prove that this would jeopardise the company’s interests (Plantenga, 2002; 
Van Doorne-Huiskes and Schippers, 2010).  
Nonetheless, as opposed to the promotion of part-time work, Dutch 
institutional care arrangements, such as parental leave systems, tax contributions, 
the schedule of Dutch primary schools, and the quality, costs and availability of 
childcare, were not designed to facilitate full-time work for both parents (Kremer, 
2007; Plantenga, 2002). There is still a lack of explicit public care policy in the 
Netherlands (Platenga, 2002, 2008); likewise, tax contributions to childcare have 
been recently decreased (Budget Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, 
2012). 
Subsequently, the political efforts have not been able to break through the 
daily practices of families, at least not on a large scale (Kremer, 2007; Merens et 
al. 2011; Van Wel and Knijn, 2001). In 2010, 18 per cent of Dutch couples both 
worked similar hours, 43 per cent lived the one-and-a-half-breadwinner scenario, 
24 per cent followed the traditional breadwinner model, while 15 per cent 
pursued atypical models (Merens et al., 2011). Compared to other European 
countries, relatively few Dutch couples agree with the idea that both partners 
should contribute to the household income (Haas et al., 2006). 63 per cent of 
Dutch people consider working two days or less as ideal for mothers with 
children younger than four years old, and only 10 per cent endorse the ideal of 
such mother working 4 to 5 days per week (Merens et al., 2011, p.130). For 
fathers of young children, almost all Dutch people consider working 4 or 5 days 
as ideal. In international comparative studies, Dutch men come out fairly well in 
their contribution to domestic tasks (Wiesmann  et al., 2010, p.342). However, 
their contributions to the running of the household and upbringing show little 
progress since 1995 (Bucx, 2011, p.118).  In 2005, mothers spent more than 24 
hours a week on household tasks, and fathers only 9.4 hours (Bucx, 2011, p.112). 
This inequality in the division of household tasks remains rather unquestioned. 
The majority (55 per cent) of Dutch parents never, or less than once a year, 
discuss their division of unpaid tasks (Merens et al., 2011, p.142).  
The above concise overview of Dutch structural and cultural features sheds 
light on why Dutch mothers are predominantly in part-time work. However, 
national characteristics have not led to one homogenous labour market pattern 

---

Chapter 3 - A qualitative typology of Dutch mothers’ employment narratives 
79 
among women with children; on the contrary, a varied pattern is visible. This 
study aims to achieve a better understanding of this variety. 
3.3 
Studies of factors of mothers’ labour participation 
Most studies explaining the heterogeneous labour market activity among women 
focus on external structural and cultural factors that shape their behaviour, such 
as the constraints and opportunities offered by limited or more generous welfare 
states regarding their childcare services and financial (tax) provisions towards 
parenting (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Mandel, 2009), as well as those on societies’ 
normative (gender) standards and culture, such as the definition of appropriate 
childcare and the valuation of unpaid work, which people use as an orientation for 
their behaviour (Aboim, 2010; Daly and Lewis, 2000; Hummelsheim and 
Hirschle, 2010; Kremer, 2007; Pfau-Effinger, 2006;). How the quality and 
availability of flexible employment opportunities with family-friendly 
arrangements plays a role in people choosing different employment options has 
also been examined (Charles and Harris, 2007; Haas et al., 2006; Reynolds, 
2003). However, macro approaches cannot explain the variation of mothers’ 
labour participation within one country. Meso-level approaches can explain why 
there is still a pattern of gender segregation within sectors and occupations 
(Merens et al., 2012). Nonetheless within these sectors there is also a large 
variation in the hours worked by women.  
Micro-economic theories usually stem from the standard neoclassical 
economic assumption that the number of hours a person wants to work is the 
outcome of a rational choice between income and leisure (Becker, 1965), and 
argue that if the earning capacity of husband and wife differs, a specialisation in 
either paid or domestic work is the most efficient balance.  This theory has been 
re-assessed by various other theories, such as the collective model, which holds 
that a household consists of several individuals with their own personal 
preferences, and those decisions within a family lead to Pareto-efficient 
allocations (Garcia-Mainar et al., 2011). In addition, the resource bargaining 
theory posits that domestic work is unpleasant and that partners will bring their 
resources to the bargaining table in order to “buy themselves out” of domestic 
work (Wiesmann et al., 2010, p.343).  
Various empirical studies have shown that weighing up the costs and benefits 
between partners plays a role in women’s labour market choices (Cloïn, 2010; 
Kan, 2007; Risman et al., 1999; Stähli et al., 2009; Van Wel and Knijn, 2007). 
However this role is limited, and individual preferences and personal attitudes 
towards work and gender play a role as well (Beets et al., 1997; Bolzendahl and 
Myers, 2004; Hakim, 2000; Hoffnung, 2004; Hooghiemstra, 2000; Marks and 
Houston, 2002a, 200b; Portegijs et al., 2008b; Risman et al., 1999).   
This study builds further on the vast body of research concerning the 
relationship between employment patterns and personal choices, preferences and 
attitudes. Most studies on the relationship between preference, attitudes and 

---