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