ABSTRACT
In 2007, new parental leave legislation was implemented in Germany, aiming at fostering fathers’ participation in childcare. Ten years later, fathers’ take-up of parental leave is still limited, since only every third father uses leave, and even if they take some leave, they mostly take only their exclusive ‘partner months’. The study addresses the question why more fathers do not take (more) parental leave, with a particular focus on the influence of workplaces. It uses Qualitative Comparative Analyses (QCA) to examine the mechanisms of fathers’ rejection of (longer) parental leave, differentiated by work organizations. Analyses are based on qualitative interview material with 47 fathers in three organizations. Results reveal that whether or not fathers take leave is particularly explained by workplace cultures and family economy considerations following a traditional gendered division of labour. In contrast, fathers’ taking leave for longer periods (vs. shorter ones) is mostly explained by mothers’ wishes to return to work earlier. The results suggest that it is important to understand fathers’ leave decisions as the outcome of a set of workplace and family conditions which in their interplay are multi-layered and context-sensitive.
RESUMEN
En 2007 entró en vigor en Alemania una nueva legislación sobre la baja por paternidad con el fin de fomentar la participación de los padres en el cuidado de los hijos. Diez años más tarde, la utilización de la baja por paternidad sigue siendo limitada, ya que sólo uno de cada tres padres la utiliza y, aunque lo hagan, en la mayoría de los casos se limitan a sus “meses de pareja” exclusivos. El estudio aborda la cuestión de por qué un mayor número de padres no utilizan (más) la baja por paternidad, con especial atención a la influencia de los entornos de trabajo. El estudio aplica Análisis Comparativos Cualitativos (ACQ) para examinar los mecanismos de rechazo a la baja por paternidad por parte de los padres (más prolongada), diferenciados según los respectivos entornos de trabajo. Los análisis se basan en material de entrevistas cualitativas con 47 padres de tres organizaciones. Los resultados revelan que el hecho de que los padres utilicen o no la baja por paternidad se debe, en particular, a la cultura del entorno de trabajo y a consideraciones relativas a la economía familiar que se derivan de una división tradicional del trabajo basada en el género. Por el contrario, el hecho de que los padres opten por bajas durante períodos más largos (en comparación con los períodos más cortos) se explica principalmente por el deseo de las madres de volver antes a sus puestos de trabajo. Los resultados sugieren que es importante interpretar las decisión de los padres de acceder a la baja por paternidad como el resultado de un conjunto de condiciones laborales y familiares que, en su interdependencia, se deben a múltiples niveles y dependen del respectivo contexto.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Linda Haas, Philip Hwang and the anonymous reviewers for their very valuable comments and suggestions on previous versions of this paper. This research is based on data collected in the Research Project ‘Work Organizations and life conduct of fathers’ in the SFB 882.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Thordis Reimer is a Research Associate at Universität Hamburg, Germany, where she works at the chair of quantitative methods. Previously, she worked as a Research Assistant at the University of Hamburg and at the CRC research project ‘Work Organizations and Life Conduct of Fathers’ at Bielefeld University. Her main research interests include parental leave policies and the explanation of fathers’ engagement in terms of parental leave take-up and time for childcare. Her research includes also the explanation of women’s labour market participation with a particular focus on part-time employment.
Notes
1 Parents whose earnings have been under €1,240 per month receive the leave benefit at higher percentage rates.
2 Coverage of ∼FIL = 0.44.
3 Coverage of ∼1CH = 0.83; coverage of ∼SMC = 0.63.
4 For more information on results for the negative outcome, please contact the author.