![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
Welfare state literature almost always positions France and Germany in the same category, that of conservative–corporative regimes. Family policies, in particular, have much in common: both are explicit and generous in terms of taxation system and family allowance schemes. However, France strongly differs from Germany with regard to childcare policy and public support to mothers’ employment. France, along with the Scandinavian countries, leads the European Union in public childcare provision. In Germany, despite recent changes, there are still considerable gaps, at least where children under three years of age are concerned and the ‘male breadwinner/female part-time carer’ model is being actively promoted. However, there is a growing discordance between the aspirations of young German women with regard to paid work and the norms and values that still govern childcare and caring time policies. Therefore, a host of institutional and cultural factors shape the level and terms of mothers’ labour force participation in both countries. The impact of motherhood has a stronger effect on employment patterns in Germany than in France. French mothers are more frequently employed on a full-time basis and at the same time have more children than their German counterparts.
Explicites et généreuses en termes de prestations financières, les politiques familiales en France et en Allemagne partagent bien des traits communs. Toutefois, en ce qui concerne la politique d'accueil de la petite enfance et les dispositifs en faveur des parents qui travaillent, la France se démarque nettement de sa voisine. En France, il est socialement légitime pour les mères de confier leur enfant à une personne rémunérée ou à une structure collective. En Allemagne de l'Ouest, o[ugrave] les lacunes dans le domaine de la prise en charge collective des enfants persistent malgré de récentes réformes, la majorité des couples sont encore réticents à l’égard d'une socialisation précoce du jeune enfant. Les politiques familiales et les normes et valeurs présidant à l’éducation du jeune enfant contribuent ainsi à modeler le degré et les modalités de participation des mères au marché du travail. En France, le taux d'emploi à temps plein des mères est nettement plus élevé qu'en Allemagne o[ugrave] la majorité des femmes qui ont de jeunes enfants travaillent à temps partiel. Dans ce pays, la discordance entre les nouvelles aspirations professionnelles des femmes et la persistance des normes éducatives traditionnelles se traduit par le maintien d'une fécondité inférieure à celle de la France .
Notes
1. According to Eurostat figures (SESPROS). However, according to OECD, the share of social expenditure devoted to family benefits is 9.9% for France and 7.0% for Germany (source: www.oecd.org/els/social/expenditure, 2004).
2. In Germany, Since January 2007, provided they have student or apprentice status, children up to the age of 25 who live with their parents give entitlement to family allowances. In France, the upper age limit is 20 (provided that their income does not exceed 55% of the SMIC, the minimum wage level).
3. However, a means-tested benefit is available to families with only one child aged under three years.
4. In Germany, however, married couples are offered the choice between joint or individual assessment, which is still not the case in France.
5. A married couple's income is added together, then divided by two and taxed separately.
6. The ‘quotient familial’ (family splitting) operates as follows: every household pays income tax on the basis of its total income divided by a number relating to its size (an ‘adult equivalent’ for the household). A progressive rate is applied to this income per adult equivalent. For the same income level, a family with three children will pay less than a family with only one child.
7. These differences in public childcare policies are witnessed in the share of expenditure on family benefits which is devoted to cash benefits: 52.8% in France compared to 59.7% in Germany which indicates that benefits in kind are much less important in Germany than in France (source: www.oecd.org/els/social/expenditure).
8. Data drawn from the ‘International Social Science Programme on Family and Changing Gender Roles’, 2002 Survey.
9. As far as changes in governance in expanding childcare provision are concerned, see Evers et al. (2005).
10. Three hundred and seven euros per month in 2003.
11. Labour market participation rates for women with children aged three to six increased from 38% in 1986 to 59% in 2000 (Engelbrech & Jungkunst, Citation2001).
12. Source: Eurostat, 2002.
13. The employment rate of this group of mothers would then decrease from 43 to only 26% (Bundesministerium, für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, 2005).
14. In this case defined as corresponding to at least 30 hours a week.
15. The two main fertility indicators are the total period fertility rate (TFR) and the completed fertility rate (CFR). TFR is the sum of the fertility rates by age for a given year and the completed fertility is the average number of children born to women belonging to the same generation once they have reached the end of their reproductive life. TFR may differ for long periods when fertility timing (or birth calendar) changes: for example, a delay in timing leads to a drop in the TFR even if the completed fertility of the generations is eventually not modified.
16. Source: Eurostat, European Council, 2005.
17. Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), an annual survey conducted by the OECD (2001) which ranks educational performance in a number of disciplines, for 32 countries worldwide. This programme has continued to expand and now includes 43 countries.
18. It is revealing that 56% of employed women aged 18–44 years would advise the part-time option and 25% the stay-at-home option to a mother with a preschool child (source: Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach, Citation2004).