Parental Leave in Iceland Bringing the Fathers in

Developments in the Wake of New Legislation in 2000

Ingólfur V. Gíslason

Parental Leave in Iceland. Bringing the Fathers InISBN 978-9979-9793-1-9Parental Leave in Iceland. Bringing the Fathers InISBN 978-9979-9793-2-6

Printed: Ásprent, Akureyri 2007

3

The Icelandic Act on Maternity/Paternity andParental Leave underwent significant changes inthe year 2000. The leave was extended from sixmonths to nine, parents who were active in thelabor market were paid 80% of their averagesalaries during the leave and the payments wereto come from a specific fund, financed throughan insurance levy. The leave was furthermoredistributed so that fathers were given threemonths’ leave, mothers three months and theparents were given three months to share as they

wished. The Act has been well received bysociety and around 90% of fathers takeadvantage of their right, using on average 97days while mothers use an average of 180 days.It is therefore likely that more fathers than everare active in the caring for young children. It isalso indicated that the Act has leveled the statusof men and women in the labor market inIceland. Furthermore, fertility has increased inthe wake of these changes and now stands at 2.1children per woman.

Abstract

4

A special leave for women from paid employ-ment because of pregnancy, birth or the caringof children has quite a long history in Scandin-avia. The first legislation dates back as far as theend of the 19th and early 20th centuries in Nor-way, Sweden and Denmark. The first laws onlyreferred to the protection of mother and childand did not touch on the subject of payments orjob protection. Little by little, this began tochange and Sweden was the first to prohibitwomen’s termination from paid employmentdue to pregnancy or maternity leave. Paymentsto women on maternity leave emerged inScandinavia in the years 1946-1964 (Fríða RósValdimarsdóttir 2005, 4–7).

Changes in legislation and regulation regard-ing maternity/paternity leave are closely inter-linked to the changes in the social status ofwomen and men which occurred in the 20th cen-tury. While the main idea about the position ofwomen and men, based in the social division oflabor that married women, mothers in partic-ular, should devote themselves to the caring forhome and family and that men were obliged to“provide” for their families, remained, there wasno perceived need for a general maternity/pat-ernity leave. It was fine for women to participatein the labor market until they got married, but atthat time or at least no later than at the time ofconception, they should withdraw from thelabor market. The word “provide” here is putinto quotation marks because the division of

labor of course was not such that one party wasproviding for the other. The tasks that womentook care of inside the home enabled the labormarket to absorb men’s lives to such a greatextent as was the case.

An example of this kind of thinking in Icelandcan be found in a book published in Reykjavik inthe mid-1960s. “The woman may have workedoutside of the home before her marriage, had agood salary and gotten used to having somemoney to spend. Now she leaves her fine posit-ion and becomes the director of the home. Theman works outside the home and earns the mon-ey. The money he earns must now be enough forboth of them, and the whole family as it grows.”(Hannes Jónsson 1965, 87).

The thinking behind maternity leave and thechanges that have been made to it are based onthe following:

a) The need to protect mother and child. Amother’s situation must be such that neith-er she nor the child are placed in danger,either at work or at home (e.g. because ofpoverty).

b) The importance of maintaining the fertilityrate and preferably so that it is not lowerthan that needed to naturally maintain thenation, that is about 2.1 children perwoman.

c) As we progress into the 20th century, it be-came more important that women partic-ipate in paid employment. Women are now

I. Introduction

better educated than men so it is poor hum-an resource management if women are runout of the labor market or marginalized be-cause of childbirth.

d) Closely related to item c), is the fact thatwomen have been discriminated against inthe labor market as regards pay and promo-tion. The discrimination has been based on,among other things, the idea that their hav-ing children will make them less valuableemployees than men. Therefore, it hasbeen important to try and make maternityleave structured so that this discriminationis not enhanced, that is that women are en-abled to do both; have children andparticipate in paid employment. In an extensive survey about the gender paygap, conducted in Iceland in 1994, this atti-tude towards women was clearly indicatedin some managers’ answers. No managerbelieved that having children under the ageof six would negatively impact a man’s op-portunities for career advancement, but27% believed that it would negatively imp-act women’s career opportunities (Guð-björg Andrea Jónsdóttir 1995, 75). Thesame survey suggests that these attitudesare so generally accepted that they are notconsidered discriminatory: “A woman, whohandles hiring in a private firm, stated thatmen and women had perfectly equal op-portunities for advancement within thefirm, but also stated that of course it wasinopportune for women to drop out of thelabor market for 6-8 months. So she pushedaside applications from women who hadyoung children at home. All the respond-ents in this firm agreed that women withyoung children were less likely to be hiredand that it was sensible not to hire them(Guðbjörg Andrea Jónsdóttir 1995, 59).

e) It has long since been clear that the mosteffective way to reduce the negative impactof such ideas about women in the labormarket is to increase the responsibility ofmen in the caring work of the family. Thatwould serve both to make them an equallyunstable labor force as women are believedto be, and to level out the family respons-ibilities over time. Additionally, it is believ-ed that the pedagogical effect of childrenobserving both parents participating incaring and chores around the housecontributes to increased gender equality inthe longer term. It has also been indicatedthat men in cohabitation who grew up in atwo-parent family where the mother wasworking outside of the home are moreactive around the home than other men(Gupta 2006). Finally, one must mentionthat numerous studies in Iceland and abroadindicate that many men feel that they do nothave an opportunity to enjoy the kind offamily life that they would like. In thatregard, 40.7% of men surveyed in 1988 saidthat they would like to reduce the timespent in paid employment, and 31.7% saidit was because they wanted to tend more totheir children and home (Stefán Ólafsson1990, 62–63). Active participation in thecaring of young children is likely to deliverthem additional possibilities for such a life.

This short description of the ideas behindmaternity/paternity leave is also a chronologicaloverview of the changes in maternity/paternityleave in Scandinavia. The most recent changesin all of the countries, except for Denmark, aimto increase the number of men taking paternityleave. The following is a review of the currentstatus in Iceland after the implementation of theAct on Maternity/Paternity and Parental Leave(no. 95/2000), but the Act was a radical step inthe direction of increasing the share of fathers inthe caring for their children.

5

6

The first instance of financial support in relationto birth is believed to be in laws about socialinsurance from 1938. Art. 30 of the law reads:“Health management organizations are permitt-ed to approve assistance more wide-ranging thanstated herein, included full medical assistance,medical treatment from doctors other than theinsurance doctor, support for childbirth...“ (Lögum alþýðutryggingar 1938, 23–24). It is unclearwhether any of the health managementorganizations adopted such rules, but it must beconsidered fairly unlikely.

It is not until the laws on general insurance ispassed in 1946 that a policy is adopted to comp-ensate working mothers for the loss of incomecaused by the birth of a child. The legal text is avery clear example of the relations between thesexes sometimes referred to as the “housewives’code” (Hirdman 1990) which in short states thatmen’s main role is to provide financially forwomen and children, but the women’s main roleis being a mother and housewife. Art. 34 of thelaw stated: “At the birth of each child, the moth-er has a right to a payment of 80.00 ISK,whether she works outside of the home or not.Mothers, who work outside of the home, shallbe paid 140.00 ISK per month for up to threemonths total before and after the birth, assum-ing that they do not work or get paid for workduring that time. A married woman can only getpaid according to this article if her husband isunable to provide for the home and family. …

Mothers, who do not work outside of the homeget, in addition to the 80.00 ISK mentioned inpar. 1, up to 120.00 ISK to cover any expensesincurred because of the birth.” (Stjórnartíðindi1946, 112).

It should also be mentioned that the birthgrant is believed to have been used to pay for abirth in a hospital or maternity ward, and is notactually a paid maternity leave (Stefán Ólafsson1999, 115). It also does not include any clauseson the mother’s right to return to her previousjob, the father’s role as provider is confirmed andthe law, of course, only refers to mothers.

The next legislation appeared in law no.38/1954 on the rights and duties of government-al employees, which gave women in publicservice the right to be paid during a 90 daysabsence from work after childbirth. This gavewomen in the public sector a much better stand-ing than women in the private sector, and thatsituation remains to this day.

This law was altered twice before the revolut-ion in the year 2000. In 1987, women in publicservice had their leave extended incrementally tosix months and payments were also adjusted sothat the mother kept the average pay of the lastsix months for three months, and then her fixedsalary for three additional months. Additionally,the mother was allowed to extend her leave tonine months, at a reduced rate. In 1989 theperiod referred to for payments was lengthenedto 12 months and the mother allowed to length-

II. Steps towards the Leave

en the leave to 12 months against a relative re-duction in payments.

The public labor market first underwentchanges in 1975 when law no. 56/1975 wasapproved as an amendment to law no. 57/1973on unemployment benefits. This amendmentbrought in the following clause: “Nonetheless,women who have been unable to work due tochildbirth shall receive unemployment benefitsfor a total of 90 days” (Stjórnartíðindi 1975, 112).No clause is added to protect against terminat-ion or guarantee the right to return to her job.

Before this legislation was approved, therewere some clauses on maternity leave in somecollective agreements (Elín Pálsdóttir Flygen-ring 1985, 42).

A great deal of societal changes and discuss-ions had taken place at this point. Women’slabor market participation had increased from35.8% in 1940 to 60% by 1975, the proportionof women among those who completed univers-ity entrance exams had gone from 26.3% in1940/1941 to 49.5% in 1974/1975 and amonggraduates from the University of Iceland womenhad gone from being 7.2% in 1950/1951-1954/1955 to 32.7% in 1975/1976-1979/1980(Hagskinna, 216, 858, 859). Intensive discussiontook place about the status of women and men,the women’s liberation movement was influent-ial and society in general was bustling withactivity (Herdís Helgadóttir 1996).

On June 20-21 in 1975 a committee on theUnited Nations’ Year of the Woman held aconference at Hotel Loftleidir. The results ofworking group 19, which addressed the“campaign for gender equality”, stated a longterm goal as follows: “It is essential that fathersget a 1-2 week leave from work when a child isborn. Women cannot be expected to tend to anewborn child, and perhaps more children, aweek after giving birth. They need longer rest.Additionally, it is very important to strengthenthe relationship between father and child andthat the relationship is established as early aspossible” (Skýrsla Kvennaársnefndar, 44).

As far as I can see, this is the first time fathersare publicly associated with paternity leave. Thelogic is interesting. On the one hand, the im-

portance of the relationship between father andchild is stated, and on the other hand the needfor the father’s assistance in the home while themother recuperates after giving birth isverbalized. The leveling of women’s and men’sstatus in the workplace or the home has not yetentered the equation as real support for theargument.

Five years after this idea was first aired,Althingi approved laws no. 97/1980 on matern-ity/paternity leave. According to these laws, aparent whose legal domicile was in Iceland hadthe right to three months’ maternity/paternityleave and the payments were moved from un-employment insurance to social insurance. Itwas made illegal to terminate a pregnantwoman’s employment “unless valid and pressingreasons are given” (Art. 1) and the same wasstated for any parent on maternity/paternityleave. This marks the notable change that theright to return to one’s previous employment isrecognized. Another change is included in thatfathers get a certain right to paternity leave sothat if the mother so chose, the father could takethe last month of the leave. Payments werebased on the extent of the mother’s participationin the labor market, although they were notbased on income but were flat for all those whohad worked a given number of daytime hours inthe last twelve months before the taking of theleave. Two thirds of the amount for a differentnumber of daytime work and one third of theamount for those not active in the labor marketor had worked 515 hours or less. Additionally, aclause was included that allowed parents tonegotiate a longer leave with their employer,although the amount of payment would notchange.

Maternity/paternity leave in the public labormarket was lengthened incrementally from threemonths to six with laws no. 57/1987. All formerclauses stating that the mother decides on thesharing of the leave were nullified at this time;the only reference in the legislation is that theright belongs to the “parents.”

An additional law approved during the sameparliamentary session was law no. 59/1987,which amended the law on social insurance.

7

This law covered payments during maternity/-paternity leave and introduced their divisioninto birth grant and birth per diem. The grantreferred to a fixed amount, unrelated to labormarket participation, and was payable only tomothers throughout the duration of the matern-ity leave. Union members who maintained theirfull salaries during the maternity leave wereexcluded from the grant. The birth per diem wastied to labor market participation, so those whohad worked a minimum of 1,032 daytime hoursin the last twelve months before resuming theleave were paid full per diem, while those whohad worked 516-1,031 daytime hours were paidhalf of the per diem. The status of fathers andmothers was further addressed as follows: “Nowthe mother has received the birth per diem for atleast one month after the birth, and the father isthen entitled to receive the birth per diem in-stead of the mother, if she so wishes, as he doesnot continue to work for pay during the leave.Parents can share the maternity/paternity leave,for example take the leave at the same time inpart or in whole” (Stjórnartíðindi 1987). The ruletherefore remains that the father’s right to pay-ments while on leave is based on the mother’sbehavior and her wishes. These laws remained inessence valid up until the changes in 2000.

It was clear in the 1980s that Icelandiclegislation on maternity/paternity leave wasquite insufficient. The variation in rights de-pending on whether they worked in the publicor private sector created significant problems.The rights were considerably less than in theother Scandinavian countries and it was believedthat since women alone left the labor market be-cause of childbirth this hindered their advance-ment, and that fathers were losing out by notspending much time inside the home in the firstmonths after the birth of a child. Also, the pay-ments were generally quite low and families’ lossof income was considerable if the mother hadbeen working in the private sector. This clearlymeant that fathers had to work more in order tomaintain the family’s income after the birth of achild. Additionally, there were no specific child-care resources available from the end of thematernity/paternity leave until the daycare cent-

ers were able to take children in. Many womenwould therefore leave the labor market duringthis time, or return only for a part-time job (seefor example Lilja Mósesdóttir & Davíð ÞórBjörgvinsson 1998).

A study among the parents of children bornin 1997 showed that only 57% of mothers hadgone back to paid employment 13 months aftergiving birth. If a mother did not have anotherchild, her labor market participation had return-ed to a similar level as it had been five monthsbefore giving birth when the child turned twoyears old. The average work hours of fathers, onthe hand, generally increased (Guðný BjörkEydal 2004, 327–328).

Governments and other parties to the labormarket were well aware of these problems and atleast two public committees were appointed toseek solutions. The first was appointed in 1989and the latter in November of 1995. Twelvepeople served on the committees, primarily re-presentatives of parties to the labor market, butalso the chair of the Gender Equality Council.The Minister of Health terminated the commit-tee within one year, as it appeared that it was soseverely divided on the issue that no conclusionwould be reached (Morgunblaðið 24. October1996).

The Icelandic Federation of Labor (ASÍ) wasvery active in the formulation of family policyduring this time, and among other things hosteda conference in May of 1998 where ASI’s policyon a rights system for parents in the labor marketwas presented. Among the demands put forthwas a 52 weeks long maternity/paternity andparental leave, a certain share would be tied tothe father, a certain share to the mother and thena share to be divided at choice. Full salary wouldbe maintained during the leave and a flexiblepolicy introduced (Vinnan 6. tbl. June 1998).

Other labor unions were also active in thisfield and put forth demands which focused onsimilar issues; lengthening the leave, tying ashare of it to the father, a share to the motherand then a share to divide between them, pay-ments linked to salary, and flexibility. It shouldalso be mentioned that employers’ associationshad publicly addressed the possibility of changes

8

9

that would, among other things, entail the link-ing of salaries to payments during leave(Morgunblaðið 19. May 1999).

Another thing that indicates how demandingan issue this was considered, is that before theelections in 1999 all the parties which had re-presentatives in parliament had changes in thematernity/paternity leave on their agendas.Furthermore, all mentioned increasing theoptions of fathers in that context. Before that,members of the Women’s Alliance had presentednumerous proposals for maternity/paternityleave (Guðný Björk Eydal 2000, 443).

According to numbers from the State SocialSecurity Institute (SSSI) not many men tookpaternity leave in the years 1993-1998. Between 8and 17 fathers annually received some paymentsfrom SSSI because of paternity leave during theseyears. That is about 0.3% of the number ofmothers who received payments (Staðtölur al-mannatrygginga 2001, 43). This does not entail alack of interest or participation on the behalf offathers in relation to a birth. A qualitative studyconducted at the time shows that all the fathersinterviewed, apart from one, had taken some leavefrom paid employment because of the birth. Thetime varied a great deal, from 2-3 days to a monthbut 2-3 weeks seemed quite common. None of thefathers had, however, taken advantage of paymentsfrom the SSSI but rather, had taken unpaid leaveor used accumulated summer vacation time(Ingólfur V. Gíslason 1997, 25–26).

It also indicates how apparent the need forchange had become that some firms had startedpaying salaries during maternity/paternity leave.A study into the situation of parents who hadtheir first child during 1997 showed that 19% ofthe mothers and 9% of the fathers were paid asalary during their leave, aside from the leavedictated by law, that is their employer paid someform of salary during the leave. (Guðný BjörkEydal 2004, 331).

Some unions had made arrangements fortheir members on maternity/paternity leave, forexample the Confederation of Icelandic Bankand Finance Employees and the Association ofIcelandic Journalists. Furthermore, VR TradeUnion paid women on maternity leave benefitsfrom the union’s sick leave funds.

At the end of the 1990s some municipalitiesstarted giving men in their employ two weeks ofpaid salary when they became fathers and thestep was taken to full when Althingi, on Dec-ember 19, 1997, amended the legislation onmaternity/paternity leave. With the amend-ment, all Icelandic fathers gained the right to atwo week long paternity leave, which could betaken at any time during the first eight weeksafter the birth or the arrival of the child at home.As for the mothers, fathers’ right to paymentdepended on whether they worked in the publicor private sector.

10

On April 28, 2000 then Minister of SocialAffairs, Mr. Páll Pétursson, introduced a propos-al for a new law on maternity/paternity and par-ental leave. The proposal was presented so latein the parliamentary session that an exceptionwas needed to have it paneled, and such an exc-eption was granted with pleasure.

According to the objectives of the law (Art.2), it was supposed to guarantee the child timewith both father and mother, and to enable bothmen and women to participate fully in bothfamily life and employment. It is nonethelessclear from discussions in parliament and in soci-ety, that further hopes were attached to thesechanges. The Minister of Social Affairs ment-ioned that he hoped this would have the addedimpact on reducing the gender pay gap, and thechair of the Left-Green Party had similarexpectations.

The legislative proposal was accompanied bya review from the Ministry of Financial Affair’sBudget Department. The review stated, onexpected costs: “The expected total costs of theproposal, because of people in the labor market,is about 2 billion ISK in 2001, for 2002 it isexpected to be 2.5 billion ISK. And in 2003 thetotal expected cost is expected to 3 billion ISK.It is expected that by then the right to parentalleave [sic] will be fully utilized and that themother will take advantage of the sharedmonths. Some reservations must be stated, how-ever, to this estimate as it is uncertain to what an

extent fathers will take advantage of theirrights…”

It soon became apparent that this estimatewould not be realized. The actual estimate was2,756 million ISK in 2001, 4,547 million ISK in2002 and 5,580 million ISK in 2003. (Staðtöluralmannatrygginga 2003). A reason has not beenobtained for the underestimate of the cost, butmost likely the participation of fathers wassignificantly underestimated. The estimatedadditional cost of 500 million ISK for eachmonth added to the fathers’ rights indicated this,but the actual added cost became 1.8 billion ISKwhen the second month was added for fathersand a further billion for the third month.Additionally, discussions in parliament in 2004,when changes to the Act were discussed, make itclear that members of parliament believed thatthis was the reason for the underestimate(Alþingistíðindi 2004).

The proposal had great support in Althingi.Discussions lasted for a total of less than fourhours and when it came to the final vote nomember of parliament objected, although oneabstained.

a) The main points of the ActThe main points of the Act were as follows:

1. The leave was extended incrementally fromsix months to nine

2. A sharing was introduced between theparents so that three months were tied to

III. Legislative Changes in the Year 2000

the father, three to the mother and threemonths were for the parents to divide atwill. The months tied to the father wereadded incrementally, so that they had onemonth in 2001, two in 2002 and three as of2003. The months tied to either parentwere made non-transferable unless eithermother or father passed away before she orhe had fully utilized his or her leave. Theremaining leave would then be transferredto the surviving parent.

3. The taking of the leave could be spreadover 18 months following the birth of achild. The remaining leave would then bevoid.

4. A certain amount of flexibility was introd-uced to the system so that an employeecould make an arrangement with his/heremployer to divide the leave into a numberof shorter intervals and/or take leave alongwith working a part-time job. If an agre-ement could not be reached, the employeecould always take the leave in full.

5. A specific fund was set up to finance thepayments for maternity/paternity leave.The fund was financed with a part of theemployers’ insurance levy.

6. Those active in the labor market were paid80% of their average total salary during theleave. The average was taken from twelveconsecutive months, up until two monthsbefore the beginning of the maternity/-paternity leave. The payments had a certainfloor, in the sense that if 80% of the salarywas less than a certain amount, the pay-ments were raised. On the other hand, therewas no roof on the payments; no matterhow high the salary, the payments duringthe leave would be 80% of the amount.

7. Those outside of the labor market, orworking less than 25% had the right to abirth grant in the same way as parents onmaternity/paternity leave.

8. A specific parental leave was introduced,where each parent is granted a thirteenweek leave to tend to their child, up until itreaches the age of eight. This is only aleave, no payments accompany it.

9. Pregnancy protection was specifically treat-ed in the new Act, and employers wereobligated to alter the work conditions orhours of a pregnant woman, a new motheror a breastfeeding woman, if her safety andhealth could be at risk. Such changes maynot be lead to lower wages.

10. A hiring contract between an employee andemployer remains unchanged during mat-ernity/paternity and parental leave and anemployee can not be terminated duringsuch leave. The same applies for pregnantwomen.

11. Finally, it must be mentioned that matern-ity/paternity leave is considered a part of anemployee’s time with the employer whenevaluating work-related rights. Raises andsick leave based on time with employer, forexample, are calculated in the same way asif an employee had been tending to his/herregular work.

These changes were revolutionary in manyways. First, the extension of the leave is con-siderable. Second, this marks the first time thatmaternity/paternity leave is divided into threeparts in such a way. Third, it is rather unusual inIceland for benefits to be linked to salary in sucha way. Iceland has, rather, been different thanthe other Scandinavian countries in that benefitshave not been related to previous income levels(Stefán Ólafsson 1999). Fourth, the financing ofthe benefits was arranged without anybodyexperiencing added costs. A part of an insurancelevy, already paid by employers now went to theMaternity/Paternity Leave Fund, whereas it hadpreviously been allocated to the unemploymentinsurance fund. A win-win situation had there-fore been created; everybody was better off afterthe change than before.

Finally, one of the objectives of the legislat-ion bears mentioning, but that is the attempt tolevel employees’ rights to maternity/paternityleave, regardless of whether they worked in thepublic or private sector. The difference is far lessnow than before the implementation of the Act,but was not completely eliminated. One of thefactors contributing to that is the existence of afamily and support fund for public employees

11

and the accumulation of rights to vacation payduring maternity/paternity leave.

In regard to the prior instance, the publicemployees’ unions (BHM, BSRB and KI)negotiated the establishment of a special Familyand Support Fund, used to pay women in publicservice the difference of the 80% payment fromthe Maternity/Paternity Leave Fund and theirfull salary. Men in public service do not receivesuch payments. At the end of 2006, the Com-plaints Committee on Equal Status found thatthe Fund’s refusal to pay fathers was against theGender Equality Act and asked the Fund not todiscriminate on the grounds of sex (http://www.rettarheimild.is/Felagsmala/KaerunefndJafnrettismala/2006/12/18/nr/2384). One cantherefore expect that this part of the Fund’soperation will undergo some changes, but therights of public employees appear to remainbetter than those of employees in the privatesector in this regard.

As for the latter, it was debated whether theMaternity/Paternity Leave Fund should payaccumulated vacation. The Maternity/Paternityand Parental Leave Complaints Committeefound that it should not do so, causing ASI to filea lawsuit in order to reverse that opinion. Thecase was lost at the Reykjavik District Court(Case no. E-1795/2004). On the other hand,public employees’ unions have negotiated sothat their members accumulate the right tovacation pay while on maternity/paternity leave.

b) Legislative changes in 2004On April 5, 2004 then Minister of Social Affairs,Mr. Árni Magnússon, proposed changes to thematernity/paternity leave act. The main purposeof the changes was said to be “to strengthen thematernity/paternity leave system, ensure itsstatus and limit somewhat the payments fromthe Maternity/Paternity Leave Fund” (Alþingis-tíðindi 2003-04, 5193). The reason for theproposed changes was that the Maternity/-Paternity Leave Fund was going bankrupt as itssource of income was insufficient. The main rea-son for that is believed to be that more fathersthan expected took advantage of their right tothe leave, as previously stated.

The arrangements proposed, according tothe proposal, entailed on the one hand increasedrevenues for the fund and decreased expenses onthe other. The former was done by raising furth-er the proportion of the insurance levy going tothe fund. The latter was more complex and en-tailed three main things.

First, a roof was placed on payments from thefund so that maximum payments were limited to480,000 ISK per month. Individuals, whosemonthly salary was more than 600,000, wouldtherefore not be paid 80% of their salaries. Thiswas not really expected to impact the financialstatus of the fund, as in the year before thechange was proposed, that is in 2003, only 195parents had had monthly salaries higher thanthat amount.

Second, payments would now be based onthe average salary from a period of 24 monthsrather than twelve, and third, data from theMaternity/Paternity Leave Fund and the taxauthorities would be compared to prevent abuseand ensure that payments correspond to actualloss of income. To make this comparison easier,it was further decided that the 24 months wouldrefer to the calendar year, rather than the 24months prior to the birth of the child. This canentail significant variation in payments, depend-ing on what time of the year the child is born.

These changes had little impact on the basisof the system. There was some debate in parlia-ment as to what negative impact the roof mighthave, as managers might no longer choose toavail themselves of their right to maternity/-paternity leave, and this would influence theirstaff so that they also would use less of theirleave. It is too soon to tell whether theseconcerns were justified.

It does seem clear, however, that the legislat-ive change can negatively impact both parents’financial status and fertility. This is primarily be-cause of the lengthening of the time used tocalculate average salary. If a couple has anotherchild within 24 months of the birth of a previouschild, they will receive only 80% of 80%, whichmakes the loss of income quite considerable.This is therefore likely to contribute to furtherspacing of births, and taking into account the

12

13

higher age of first-time mothers already (26.3years in 2005), one can expect that fewer childr-en will be born than if births are spread over ashorter time. Additionally, one of the possibleeffects may be that fathers are less likely to takeadvantage of paternity leave or will be forced toincrease their paid labor.

These negative side effects of the 2004changes were actually an issue that emerged in asurvey conducted by Capacent Gallup (BryndísJónsdóttir, forthcoming) on the experiences ofparents on maternity/paternity leave. The surv-ey asked respondents whether they believed thatthe current laws on maternity/paternity and

parental leave will make it more or less likelythat they will have children. A great majority, or68.5%, believed that there would be no impact,but 16.5% believed that the impact would benegative. Out of that group, considerable more(22%) were women. Of those who believed theimpact would be negative, 30.2% said that thetwo year reference period for the calculation ofaverage wages was unjust and too long. This wasbelieved to be a punishment for people whospaced their children tightly. This was the thirdmost common reason given, after a too shortmaternity/paternity leave (43.9%) and that theloss of income is too significant (36.5%).

14

The following will review a number of factorscontributing to the uptake of maternity/patern-ity and parental leave in Iceland after the chang-es in legislation in 2000, and an attempt will bedone to estimate to what an extent these changeshad the intended results. As previously stated,several factors contributed to the legislativechanges. Two of the main objectives are ment-ioned in the Act itself; giving the child time withboth parents and enabling both parents toparticipate fully in home life and employment.Additionally, discussions in parliament raisedhopes that the law would also contribute to aleveling out of women’s and men’s status on thelabor market by reducing the gender pay gap,along with other things. This section willattempt to evaluate these factors on the basis ofthe available research and data.

Four kinds of data are used here. First, gener-al statistics from the Maternity/Paternity LeaveFund. This includes the number of applicationsfrom men and women, whether the leave is tak-en in a consecutive period or spread over time,the number of people taking more or less thantheir allotted time, the average number of days,the average amount of pay or grant, and theaverage age of applicants.

Secondly, answers from the Maternity/-Paternity Leave Fund to several questions areused, but some of these questions resulted infurther data processing by the Fund. LárusBollason then processed the answers.

Third, use is made of four surveys by a priv-ate company (Gallup 2000; Gallup 2003; Gallup2003a; Bryndís Jónsdóttir, forthcoming). Thefirst three are regular phone surveys conductedon a random sample drawn from the nationalregistry. The survey that Capacent Gallup didfor Bryndís Jónsdóttir (forthcoming), on theother hand, is telephone and net-based surveyamong those who had received payments fromthe Maternity/Paternity Leave Fund in the years2001-2004. The reply rate was 54.4%.

Fourth, some smaller surveys are used, prim-arily of qualitative nature (Mackeviciute (ed.)2005; Gyða Margrét Pétursdóttir 2004; IngólfurV. Gíslason 2005; Laufey Ýr Hákonardóttir &Ólöf Jónsdóttir 2004; Þorgerður Einarsdóttir &Gyða Margrét Pétursdóttir 2004a & 2004b).

a. Time spent with parentsSignificant results seem to have been obtainedon the objective of the law, to ensure that thechild gets to spend time with both parents. Thechange is probably more significant with regardsto fathers than mothers, as the objective wasclearly to influence primarily fathers’ possibilit-ies.

A Nordic study surveyed the main items inlaws and regulations on maternity/paternityleave, which must be in existence if fathers are toavail themselves of the possibility of leave. Theseare: 1. Independent right to leave, including theright to payments. 2. Non-transferable time tied

IV. Uptake and Effects

15

to the father. 3. Flexibility in the uptake of theleave. 4. Good possibilities for taking leave afterthe child has reached the age of six months. 5.High payments, while on leave (Carlsen 1998,26). These rules were followed when the Ic-elandic law was set, and the result certainlyseems to be quite good. Probably, there havenever been more Icelandic fathers active in car-ing for their young children than are today. Thiscan be seen simply from the numbers fromMaternity/Paternity Leave Fund on the uptakeof leave.

There are most likely some instances ofabuse, that is that the leave is used for thingsother than time spent with child and family.There is no doubt, however, that most people

use the leave for what it is intended. The surveydone by Capacent Gallup for Bryndís Jónsdóttir(forthcoming) indicated that 4.6% of parentshad done some paid assignments during matern-ity/paternity leave, and there was no differencebetween men and women in this regard.

It seems safe to expect that all mothers applyfor some payments from the Maternity/PaternityLeave Fund, so that issue is not specificallyaddressed here. What is interesting, however, ison the one hand, the uptake of fathers and theinterplay between uptake of fathers and mothers.

Table IV.1 shows some elements of uptake ofmaternity/paternity leave, as it appears in appli-cations to and payments from the Maternity/-Paternity Leave Fund.

Table IV.1 Some numbers on the uptake of maternity/paternity leave

2001 2002 2003 2004

Men’s applications1 82.4% 83.6% 86.6% 89.8%

Average number of days for men2 39 68 97 96

Average number of days for women3 186 187 183 182

Number of men using more than minimum right4 484 or 14.5% 472 or 13.9% 584 or 16.1% 657 or 17.1%

Number of women using more than minimum right5 3.819 or 94.2% 3.798 or 93.4% 3.811 or 90.9% 3.883 or 90.5%

Number of men under minimum right161 or 5.1%342 or 10.1%516 or 14.2% 689 or 17.9%

Number of women under minimum right 36 or 0.9% 31 or 0.8% 42 or 1.0% 48 or 1.1%

1 That is, men’s applications as a percentage of women’s applications2 This refers only to those who receive payments while on leave, not grant recipients3 This refers only to those who receive payments while on leave, not grant recipients4 That is what proportion of men use more than their specific right, one month in 2001, two months in2002 and three months in 20035 Three months

16

There are a lot of interesting things here. First,the high rate of uptake by fathers bears mention-ing. The proportion of fathers utilizing theirleave in whole or in part is very high already inthe first year, or 82.4% and has kept growing upto a current rate of around 90%. In the sameway, the average number of days fathers are tak-ing is growing and it is clearly linked to the non-transferable right of fathers. When this is com-pared to the other Scandinavian countries, it be-comes apparent that the proportion of fathersusing their right to paternity leave is the highestin Iceland, as is the proportion of days taken (seefor example Fríða Rós Valdimarsdóttir 2005, 26-29).

It must also be kept in mind that not all

fathers have a real choice of using their right topaternity leave. If the parents are not cohabitat-ing when the child is born, the father’s possibil-ity of uptake depends on the mother’s attitudetowards it. According to numbers fromStatistics Iceland, the parents were notcohabiting in 15.8% of births in 2003 and16.4% in 2004. Undoubtedly, some parentshave begun cohabiting shortly thereafter but insome instances the mother will not want thefather to take paternity leave. According toinformation from the Maternity/PaternityLeave Fund, the father took paternity leave in12% of the cases where parents were notcohabiting. This is clearly somewhat linked toage, as is shown in table IV.2

Table IV.2 Number and proportion of men in 2004 that did not live with the mother but nonetheless tookpaternity leave.

It must be considered likely that the high perc-entage among those under twenty years of agereflects the fact that these are really couples thatis the child’s parents intend to live together.

As opposed to the fathers, table IV.1 demon-strates that very limited changes have been tothe mothers’ uptake of maternity leave in thesefour years. From the beginning, they take theirthree non-transferable months and the threejoint months, or a little more than 180 days onaverage. This is perfectly comparable to what isknown from other countries. The joint time be-

comes the mother’s time and it does not appearto matter how long this time is (Bekkengen1996; Brandth & Kvande 1989, 2001, 2003;Leira 2000; Olsen 2000).

This is only an average number of days, andas can be seen in table IV.1 above, the propor-tion of men using more than their minimumright has grown during this time. It is currentlyaround 17%. The changes are, however, fargreater in the group using less than its minimumright. These changes are clearly influenced bythe length of the non-transferable right, in that

17

when fathers had only one month a little morethan 5% did not use it all, around 10% did notuse the whole time when it was two months, andthe number hit 14.2% when the right had beenextended to three months. The percentagecontinues to grow throughout 2004, duringwhich it reaches 17.1%. Analysis of numbersfrom the Maternity/Paternity Leave Fund givesno indication that this is a specific group of fath-ers. Residence does not appear to play a role, nordoes age and the group’s average salary is in linewith the average of the income of all fathers tak-ing paternity leave. One must therefore con-clude that this is the result of numerous indi-vidual reasons.

Far more can be said about the group of fath-ers using some of the shared time. First, oneshould mention that many reasons can bebrought to fore to explain why there aren’t moremen who take advantage of the shared time.

First, traditional views have an impact. Ic-elandic society is saturated with the idea that thecaring for children is primarily the responsibilityof mothers, while fathers are most useful inproviding for their families financially. This canbe seen, for example, by the fact that there are atleast four public statues in Reykjavik celebratingthe relationship between mother and child, butnone that reflects the same kind of bond be-tween father and child. It also remains so thatsome parishes of the state church open theirdoors, not for “parents’ mornings” but “moth-ers’ mornings”, although they are getting feweras the years pass. Gallup surveys also haveindicated that a significant proportion of the Ic-elandic nation believes that women are morecapable of raising children than men. In a surveyconducted by Gallup in 2003, 26.8% stated theythought the woman was more qualified. Thegroup consisted of a larger number of men thanwomen (Gallup 2003).

Second, there is the physical rehabilitation ofthe mother. Pregnancy and birth is a trial for

every woman’s body and she needs time to re-cover. In a book most or all expectant parentsreceive during pregnancy it is stated that themother can assume that her body will not beback to its previous shape until a full half yearafter the birth (Meðganga, fæðing, ungbarnið, 97).

Third, there is the breastfeeding. The WorldHealth Organization recommends that babiesare fed only on breast milk for first six months oftheir lives, and Icelandic women receive thatmessage throughout pregnancy (Meðganga, fæð-ing, ungbarnið, pg. 90). It can certainly be arr-anged that the baby gets breastfed while themother is working. The father can bring thebaby to the mother’s place of work when it istime to feed it, or the mother’s work can allowfor her to go home when needed. It is probablymore convenient, however, that the motherremains at home while the baby is breastfeeding,or at least while the breast milk is the onlysource of food for the baby.

Fourth, it still remains so that men’s salariesare generally higher than women’s, so the loss ofincome for the family is more when the father ison leave than when the mother takes it.

Fifth, one can mention placement in thelabor market. Women are more likely than mento work in the public sector and job security isgenerally more there than in the private sector.Therefore, it may be easier for a woman in thepublic sector to request maternity leave than it isfor a man in the private sector.

Sixth, and final, it can be considered that em-ployers generally tend to think of men as irre-placeable in the workplace rather than women.This issue will be further addressed below (seefurther on those six issues in Ingólfur V. Gísla-son 2005).

Analysis of numerical data from the Matern-ity/Paternity Leave Fund gives more detailed in-formation on the identity of men who use someor all of the shared time.

18

It is clear that fathers who use the shared time tosome or full extent have incomes considerablyhigher than the average. This is true for all partsof the country and all of the years the law hasbeen in effect. Since couples cannot be compar-ed, this conclusion must, however, be interpret-ed with some reservations.

It could be so that there are a number of dist-inct groups, but one possibility is that both part-ies of the couple have high salaries and work injobs where they cannot be absent for a long peri-od of time. This may result in them dividing theshared time between themselves, working part-time and taking leave part-time. Swedish studieshave shown that fathers who take a relativelylong leave have higher salaries than men onaverage, and have a high level of education. Welleducated mothers with high salaries also have apositive impact on Swedish fathers’ uptake ofpaternity leave (Nyman & Petterson 2002;Sundström & Duvander 2002).

Ingólfur V. Gíslason (2005) interviewed ninefathers who had taken paternity leave beyondthe three non-transferable months, as well as thespouses of four of these fathers. The main con-clusions were that the woman’s status in thelabor market was the primary factor contribut-ing to their unusually long paternity leave. If thewoman ran her own business or was highly plac-ed in a firm or institution so that she consideredit difficult or impossible to be absent from workfor a number of months, negotiating opportun-ities emerged, which were otherwise absent. It iswell known from other research that themother’s strong connection to the labor marketand high level of education is one of the mainfactors contributing to fathers’ role in caring fortheir children (Bekkengen 1996; Brandth &Kvande 2003; Þorgerður Einarsdóttir 1998).

Fathers, who use only their non-transferableright, have lower incomes than the average, ascan be seen in table IV.4.

Table IV.3 Income of fathers who used the shared leave as a proportion of income of all fathers receivingpayments from the Maternity/Paternity Leave Fund.

19

Table IV.1 indicated that the average number ofdays taken by mothers is around six months’worth of maternity leave. Not all mothers, how-

ever, take the full six months, and table IV.5shows the income and residence of women tak-ing less than six months.

Table IV. 4 Income in 2004 of fathers who only use their non-transferable right (90 days) as a proportionof all fathers receiving payments from the Maternity/Paternity Leave Fund.

Table IV. 5 Income of mothers who did not use six months of leave as a proportion of income of allmothers receiving payments from the Maternity/Paternity Leave Fund.

20

Overall, these women have lower income thanwomen on average, although some variation canbe observed by years and residence.

Numbers from the Maternity/PaternityLeave Fund indicate that the pay gap betweenmothers and fathers, as it appears in the Fund’spayments, grows smaller the further we get intothe 18 months parents have to use their leave.This might be interpreted so that lower paidfathers use their leave later, resulting in this imp-act on the numbers. This may also indicate thatthe loss of income for low-income families is sosignificant that employment and employmentopportunities for the father is a significant factorin his uptake of paternity leave. This factor alsoappeared in the survey conducted by Capacent

Gallup for Bryndís Jónsdóttir (forthcoming),where 45.3% of fathers, who did not use all oftheir paternity leave, said it was because of theloss of income. It is not self-evident that theseare low-income workers, but it does appear thatthey are at least in part. Swedish research haveshown that, in Sweden, fathers who have looseties to the labor market, are unemployed, recipi-ents of social services or poorly paid, generallydo not take paternity leave (Nyman & Petters-son, 2002).

Another interesting factor turns to the divis-ion of the leave, that is, whether parents take allof the leave at once or spread it out over time insome way. Table IV. 6 demonstrates thisdevelopment.

Table IV. 6 Proportion of parents who split their maternity/paternity leave.

2001 2002 2003 2004

Men’s split leave 54.8% 78.8% 82.1% 85.0%

Women’s split leave 29.0% 36.2% 40.5% 46.1%

Most fathers, or 85%, spread their leave out tosome extent in 2004. Actually, 55% of fathersspread the leave out already in the first year. Un-fortunately, no data exists on how it is spreadout. However, it is likely that often fathers stayat home with their families the first weeks afterthe birth, then go back to work and use the restof the leave at some later point, either with themother or after she has returned to the labormarket. Such a division appears in a number ofqualitative studies (Mackeviciute (ed.) 2005;Ingólfur V. Gíslason 2005) as well as in a Capa-cent Gallup (Bryndís Jónsdóttir, forthcoming)survey done among those who had taken advant-age of the leave.

The result is similar for mothers, in thatthere are now more splitting their leave up insome way; the percentage has grown from 29%in the first year to 46.1% in 2004. Again, there isno data available on how they are splitting theleave up, but it does not seem unreasonable toassume that parents are mixing leave and paid

labor in some way. They may, for example, be on50% leave and working half-time.

It is possible that this factor is in some wayrelated to economic status and/or the educationof parents. It is not unlikely that it is amongcouples with university degrees where the leaveis fully utilized and the father spends some timehome alone with the child or children. The logicbehind that idea is that it is more likely for uni-versity educated mothers to have jobs they wishto return to quickly, and further, that these jobsare of such a nature that the employer or manag-er wishes for the employee to return quicklybecause of her expert knowledge.

Numbers from the Maternity/PaternityLeave Fund indicate that individuals splittingtheir leave generally have a higher level ofincome than those who do not. This is true forboth men and women, but the trend is strongerfor women. Table IV.7 demonstrates this for theyear 2004.

21

The qualitative study named above (Ingólfur V.Gíslason 2005) indicated that the mother’s statusin the labor market was a key factor in explainingwhy the father takes (a part of) the shared port-ion of the leave.

However, a survey done by Capacent Gallup(Bryndís Jónsdóttir, forthcoming) shows adifferent picture. When asked how many weeksof the shared right to maternity/paternity leaverespondents had used, 61% of fathers said theyhadn’t used any, which means that 39% had usedsome of it. This is contradictory to general datafrom the Maternity/Paternity Leave Fund,which shows that only 15-17% of fathers hadtaken some of the shared time. But when the re-sponses to the Capacent survey are analyzedfurther, it appears that around 70% of universityeducated fathers used none of the shared time,but only 54% of those who had completed onlyelementary school or less.

It also gives a certain idea about that status of

fathers and mothers, how the data from theMaternity/Paternity Leave Fund changes fromthe initial numbers to the final numbers. Thefinal numbers for a given year are not availableuntil 18 months after it ends, since this is thetime period parents have to fully utilize theirright to maternity/paternity leave. Up until thattime, however, it is possible to get preliminarydata, and they are widely available. An examplecan be taken from data which appear in articlesand reports, relying on preliminary numbers.Table IV.8 demonstrates the changes for the year2003. The first numbers appear in the finalreport of the EU-financed project Culture,Custom and Caring (Þorgerður Einarsdóttir incollaboration with Gyða Margrét Pétursdóttir2004), which relied on preliminary numbers forJanuary-October of that year, then as theyappeared in an article in the book Vems valfrihet?(Ingólfur V. Gíslason 2004), and then the finalnumbers for the year.

Table IV. 7 Income of men and women who split their leave in 2004 as a proportion of the income of allmen and women taking maternity/paternity leave.

22

In comparing these numbers, we can see fourthings happening. More fathers are taking someleave, the average number of days fathers takeincreases, fewer fathers are below the minimumright and more are splitting the leave. Themothers, however, undergo minimal changes,except in terms of splitting the leave. Thisclearly indicates that the uptake of leave is farmore flexible for fathers than mothers; for themothers it is clear from the beginning how theywill use their leave and limited changes occur.Many fathers are, on the other hand, sort of aback up and their uptake of the leave depends onmore factors than it does for the mothers. GyðaMargrét Pétursdóttir (2004, 87-90) uses theterms “rescue squad” and “SWAT team” todescribe the uptake of paternity leave, particip-ation in chores around the house and caring forchildren for fathers she interviewed. Similarviews appear here as did in a different qualitativestudy done ten years earlier (Ingólfur V. Gísla-son 1997, pg. 26-27) that is that so long as every-thing is going smoothly in the home and withthe family, the father’s contribution elsewhere ismore valuable. They will, however, jump in ifsomething goes wrong (pg. 88). It must,nonetheless, be emphasized that this flexibilitydoes not apply to all fathers, but there is a cleardifference between mothers and fathers in thisregard.

Finally, it must be stated that very little isknown about how the parental leave is used, asthere is no formal registration of its uptake. Inthe Capacent Gallup (Bryndís Jónsdóttir, forth-coming) survey, only about one third (34.7%) ofrespondents knew about their right to parentalleave. One quarter of these (25.5% or 181 indi-viduals) had availed themselves of the leave. Itseems clear that these rights need to be in-troduced to parents.

b. Coordination of work and family lifeLimited information is available to evaluate thelaws’ contribution to enable women and men toparticipate fully in work and family responsi-bilities. It can be assumed that the status ofwomen and men in the labor market has beenleveled somewhat due to the law. Two cluescontribute to such an interpretation.

The first is the well known story about thefinancial difficulties of the Reykjavik Area FireDepartment in 2001. According to reports inMorgunblaðið, the Fire Department’s manage-ment had to apply for additional funding in Julyof 2001, since so many firefighters were schedul-ed for paternity leave that the others would haveto work extra shifts. Significant media discussionfollowed in the wake of these reports, statingthat this was a new issue for a predominantlymale workplace and this had not been foreseen

Table IV. 8 Changes in the leave numbers for 2003.

Culture, Custom Final numbersand Caring Vems valfrihet? for 2003

Men’s applications 76.0% 86.6%

Average number of days for men 83 87 97

Average number of days for women 182 182 183

Number of men over minimum right 13.3% 347 or 13.3% 584 or 16.1%

Number of women over minimum right 90.9% 3.128 or 90.9% 3.811 or 90.9%

Number of men under minimum right 32.4% 954 or 28.2% 516 or 14.2%

Number of women under minimum right 0.9% 41 or 1.0% 42 or 1.0%

Split leave for men 71.6% 75.5% 86.3%

Split leave for women 40% 40.1% 54.3%

in the financial plans for the year (see Morgun-blaðið, July 12, 14, and 15, 2001). Predominantlyfemale workplaces have of course always had toplan for maternity leave, and now male dominat-ed workplaces must consider childbirth in theirplanning as well.

The other issue is somewhat more disturb-ing, but according to the annual report from theVR – trade union for 2003-2004 (Ársskýrsla VR2003–2004 pg. 10), there has been a consider-able increase in instances of parents being (illeg-ally) terminated while on maternity/paternityleave. The media coverage revealed that while itwas still more common that women wereterminated during maternity leave, there was amarked increase in the number of fathers whoreported termination during paternity leave.This also seemed to be confirmed in the Capac-ent Gallup survey (Bryndís Jónsdóttir, forth-coming). A great majority of the respondentshad returned to the same job they had prior totheir maternity/paternity leave. Of those whodid not, 10% (51 individuals) had been terminat-ed. Of the women who did not return to thesame job as they had before, 9% were terminat-ed, but 14% of the men. The conclusion one candraw from this seems to be that an injustice thatpreviously was directed only towards women, isnow more equally distributed between men andwomen.

Societal attitudes towards the laws can havesome impact on uptake of leave and whether thelaws have their intended consequences. Thisapplies to both public attitudes and the attitudesof directors and managers in firms andinstitutions. A Gallup survey conducted inMarch of 2003 revealed that 85% of Icelandershave a positive attitude towards men using their3-6 months right to paternity leave. Theproportion of positive respondents was consid-erably less among employers, or 73.7% (Gallup2003). In a different Gallup survey, 63% ofemployers said it was very or rather difficult formen in their businesses to take maternity leaveup to six months, but 27% thought it was diffi-cult for women in the workplace to take matern-ity leave of the same length (Gallup 2003a). It istherefore likely that it is easier for mothers than

fathers to take an extended maternity/paternityleave.

Also, it is one of the conclusions of a qualit-ative study conducted by Gyða Margrét Péturs-dóttir (2004) that the supervisors of many (butnot all) of the fathers interviewed are opposed tothe laws on maternity/paternity and parentalleave (that is, the fathers share of it), while theyalso communicate a certain regret that they didnot have the same opportunities to spend timewith their own children. Pétursdóttir’s estimateis that the supervisors she interviewed believethat the biological qualities which make womencapable of carrying children make them lessvaluable in the workplace (pg. 67 and 70-77).

One study has focused specifically on manag-ers and their attitudes towards paternity leave(Laufey Ýr Hákonardóttir & Ólöf Jónsdóttir2004). 330 managers in 35 firms received aquestionnaire and the response rate was 62.4%.The results indicate, among other things, thatmanagers were generally on the border of posit-ive and neutral attitudes towards the paternityleave. Managers aged 30-39 have the most posit-ive attitudes towards paternity leave, while those50 years or older are the most negative. Manag-ers, who have children three years old or young-er, are more positive towards paternity leavethan those who have older children, and thosewho have experienced paternity leave are morepositive towards it than others. There was nonotable difference in the attitudes of managersdepending on where in the hierarchy they areplaced.

The Capacent Gallup survey from 2006(Bryndís Jónsdóttir, forthcoming) suggests thatemployers in general are not negative towardstheir employees taking maternity/paternityleave. 80.8% of respondents state their employ-er’s attitude was very positive (58.2%) or ratherpositive (22.6%). 7.7% have felt some negativeor very negative (1.7%) attitudes. There isnoticeable difference between women and menhere, in that 86.4% of women felt a very or rath-er positive attitude towards their maternityleave, whereas 73.1% of men felt a positive attit-ude towards their paternity leave. Similarly,10.9% of men had felt very or rather negative

23

attitudes, but 4.8% of women. It is thereforevery clear, that men meet more negative attitud-es from their employers than do women. Thenegativity appears to be particularly noticeableamong tradesmen and specialized laborers andmachinists. The negativity is also greater in priv-ate firms than in public institutions and wherethe supervisor is male rather than female. Thesame pattern shows up when it comes to co-workers’ attitudes towards maternity/paternityleave. Only 1.4% of women felt a very or negat-ive attitude from co-workers, whereas 3.2% ofmen did.

It seems possible to draw the conclusion fromthese surveys that taking maternity/paternityleave is an accepted fact in Icelandic society,even though it is more acceptable for womenthan men to take it. Few men, however, exper-ience resistance or negativity when it comes totaking paternity leave, whether it is from co-workers, the immediate environment or em-ployers. But, at the same time, it seems to bemore difficult for men to use some of the sharedtime, that the positive attitude is limited to theirnon-transferable right and if it were shorter orlonger, the attitudes would vary correspond-ingly.

The Capacent Gallup survey (Bryndís Jóns-dóttir, forthcoming) also asked whether the re-spondents felt that their job security wasthreatened by their taking maternity/paternityleave. 87.5% felt it was minimally threatened ornot at all, but considerably more women thanmen felt that it was threatened. 15% of womenfelt it was somewhat or severely threatened, but10% of men said the same. Here it seems sign-ificant, on the one hand, that men’s use ofpaternity leave is clearly more flexible thanwomen’s, and that women take a much longerleave than men do. Mostly, it was project manag-ers, division heads and middle managers who felttheir job security was threatened.

Finally, it bears mentioning that according tothe oft-mentioned Capacent Gallup survey(Bryndís Jónsdóttir, forthcoming), 14.1% of par-ents’ employers have paid the difference betwe-en their salary and the payments received fromthe Maternity/Paternity Leave Fund. What dist-

orts this picture is the fact that women in thepublic sector get the difference paid from theFamily and support fund for public servants. Butif we look only to parents working in the privatesector, 13% have received this kind of compens-ation from their employers. At least one union,the Confederation of Icelandic Bank and Fin-ance Employees, has negotiated these paymentsfrom their employers, but clearly a considerablegroup of people are getting such payments with-out having negotiated them. Women receivesuch payments more than men do (16% and11%), but it is likely that the payments to wom-en in the public sector distorts that picture. Suchcompensation is also more common for thoseliving in Reykjavik than elsewhere (17%, 14% inthe neighboring municipalities and 11% inother municipalities), and is more common forthose with university degrees than others.

It should not come as a big surprise that theattitudes of employers and managers towardsfathers’ paternity leave are a bit more negativethan that of others. They are, of course, thepeople who need to keep the business going, andthe departure of an employee, be it for matern-ity/paternity leave or other reasons, is a disrupt-ion. Actually, it is rather a surprise that the att-itudes are not more negative than they appear tobe. Most likely it comes from the distribution ofthe leave, that is the fact that three months of theleave are non-transferable from the man. If par-ents were “free” to choose, one could expect thatemployers and managers would insist more oft-en that the mother would use the leave.

Some foreign studies indicate that men whotake advantage of their opportunities for patern-ity leave are penalized more than women whenit comes to salary advancement. This is believedto be attributable to a so-called “signaling eff-ect,” that is, that men who take paternity leaveindicate that they are not as loyal to the firm asare men who do not use paternity leave. Furth-ermore, this demonstrates that the men arebelieved to have more of a choice than womendo, so they are demonstrating a lack of loyalty bytaking paternity leave (Stafford & Sundström1996; Edin, Sundström & Vroman 1998;Albrecht et al. 1999). These results furthermore

24

25

indicate what was expected of men. One canclaim that the discrimination is not based on thefact that men necessarily spend more time thanwomen at work, but rather it is assumed thatmen can prioritize their work more than women,when the need arises. One can here refer to thesurveys mentioned above, which indicate thatemployers rather believe that it is more difficultfor men than women to take an extendedmaternity/paternity leave.

As has been mentioned previously, Icelandiccouples’ adjustment to childbirth has often en-tailed the fathers increasing their paid laborwhile the mothers decrease theirs. No directmeasurements are available to illustrate whetherthis has changed, but Guðný Björk Eydal has re-peated a previously mentioned study conductedamong the parents of children born in 1997(Guðný Björk Eydal 2004) and now amongparents having their first child in 2003. It is ex-pected that the results will be available in thesecond half of 2007, and that a book on the finalconclusions will be published in 2008.

It also bears mentioning that Gyða MargrétPétursdóttir (2004) found, in her study, that allsix mothers interviewed had in some wayaltered their work hours after childbirth, andalways in the way that they cut down (pg. 52).In the same way, all but one father had increas-ed their paid labor in the wake of childbirth(pg. 54). This, therefore, continues a 20th cent-ury pattern as regards the impact of births onparents’ labor market participation. HelgaGottfreðsdóttir’s (2005) study indicates thatmany expectant fathers in Iceland had increas-ed their paid labor in order to better providefor their family.

But while this in some ways continues a prev-ious pattern, it is clear that changes are underway. Primarily, it is of course a change for thefathers to leave the labor market and take pat-ernity leave. Secondly, this clearly entailschanges in attitudes and behavior, to someextent. This shows up, for example, in the int-eresting conclusions of Helga Gottfreðsdóttir’s(2005, 132) study among expectant fathers: ”Thediscussion among young men today is in a waysimilar to that of women, namely, that now they,

as well as their partner, have to be competent tomeet varied demands in many areas of responsi-bility”.

Changes take time and the parents who arenow making decisions about the division ofmaternity/paternity leave and other labor are ofcourse shaped by their society, which is verytraditional in its attitudes towards these things.It was also one of the conclusions of the EU-project Culture, Custom and Caring (ÞorgerðurEinarsdóttir in collaboration with Gyða MargrétPétursdóttir 2004) that the Icelandic parentsinterviewed are in many ways very traditional inthe way they divide their labor. The women are(or will be) primarily mothers, so that role takespriority over their status in the labor market.The men are in the role of a provider, so the roleof a father becomes secondary, although all ofthe fathers tend to that role as well.

The results of other qualitative studies give asomewhat mixed image. The men tend not toexperience it as a “threat” to their masculinity toactively care for a baby or run the home. Most ofthe fathers interviewed describe their experienc-es as positive and state that on the whole, theyhave received positive feedback on their uptakeof paternity leave from the environment. Theirviews can be described in the words of one part-icipant in the project Modern Men in EnlargedEurope:

“It really did not influence me or my decis-ion that caring for children or child rearinghas traditionally been the domain of women.Not that it hindered me in any way from tak-ing the leave, not at all. You just lose out onso much in life if you hang on to old prej-udices and ideas. And I also felt everybodyreacted positively to it. It was not a problemin regard to my colleagues or supervisors andI really did not feel frowned up on. Whyshould I be? Is there something unnaturalabout a father caring for his child?”(Aleksejunaité & Mackeviciute (eds.) 2005.Also Mackeviciute (ed.) 2005, 23-26).

In the instances where parents share the leavein such a way that the father uses more than hisnon-transferable three months, reactions to-

26

wards the women have often been more mixedthan towards the men, and the women haveheard criticisms to the effect that a good motherwould not do this, that is not use (at least) all thetime the maternity/paternity leave act gives heran opportunity to use. Here one might say thatthe “discipline” is greater when it comes to themothers than the fathers, as regards changingroles – the fathers get praised but the mothersare scorned and talked about behind their backs.Similar conclusions, that women who “allow”the father to use a part of the leave are criticized,are found in a recent Danish study (Olsen 2000).This says a lot about how society’s cultureobjects to the change in roles in this area andunderscores the societal image of women asprimarily mothers. One example will be provid-ed, from a mother who was asked about people’sreactions to her and her husband’s division of thematernity/paternity leave (Ingólfur V. Gíslason2005, 297):

Well, primarily, they were surprised. A lot ofpeople asked, “Well, wait, how are you goingto split it?” and, yes, there were a lot of com-ments on how short a time I was spending athome. I almost always got the criticismabout it, what kind of a mother I was, really,and well… but on the other hand he got a lotof praise for being a great man and of coursethat was a bit difficult for me. It had gottenquite severe, really.

Yet the fact that such a split can take placedoes, however, indicate that some significantchanges are taking place. Furthermore, oneseems to be able to see a general trend in societytowards an accepted, or more visible, role formen as fathers. There are significantly fewer“mothers’ mornings” among church parishes,having been replaced by “parents’ mornings”.And a report from Stykkishólmur (a small townin Iceland) in the newspaper Morgunblaðið onFebruary 10, 2004 stated that: “It is now com-mon to see the father pushing the stroller alongthe town’s walking paths, even in the middle ofthe day on a weekday. Something that wasn’tseen a few years ago, but times change and so dothe dads.”

There are numerous instances to indicatethat overall society is developing so that men’sand women’s status in the labor market andwithin the home is becoming more equal. Itwas certainly a development that had startedlong before the arrival of the legislation, but itis likely that the law pushed the developmentalong even further. Other issues obviously hav-ing an impact are the revolution in women’seducation and the socialization of child rearing(increased possibilities for public day care and afull day’s program in elementary schools, toname a few).

Some examples of this leveling can be seen ina salary survey done by Capacent Gallup in2006, which was a repeat of a survey done in1994 and published a year later under the nameLaunamyndun og kynbundinn launamunur (Guð-björg Andrea Jónsdóttir 1995). In an overview ofthe latter survey’s main conclusions, it states,among other things that: “Family and maritalcircumstances had significant impact on thepeople’s interest in management positions orpromotions in the 1994 survey, in such a waythat childbirth would decrease women’s interestin them but increase men’s interest. This haschanged completely, and marital status andchildbirth no longer influences people’s interestin promotions and there is no differencebetween men’s and women’s interest, whenmarital status and childbirth has been factoredin” (Capacent Gallup 2006, 10).

Another issue, which could be referred to insupport of that claim that the responsibilities ofwomen and men in parenting are leveling out isthe great increase in joint custody arrangementsafter the option was presented in Icelandic law in1992. In the first years about 20% of parentstook advantage of this option after divorce butby 2005 the proportion had risen to 72.8%. Thedevelopment of those terminating cohabitationwas quite similar, where 74% took advantage ofthe joint custody arrangements in 2005(www.hagstofa.is). This clearly suggests that thecooperation between parents in regards to theiroffspring has increased during these years (seealso Sigrún Júlísdóttir & Nanna K. Sigurðar-dóttir 2000). In 2006 the change was done to the

27

legislation on children that custody is automati-cally joint, regardless of the parents’ terminatingtheir marriage or cohabitation, unless otherwisedecided (Lög um breytingu á nokkrum lögum ásviði sifjaréttar). The legislature therefore took acertain step to push this development in parentalcooperation even further.

c. The gender pay gapNo direct research has been done into the

possible impact of the law on the gender paygap. Payments from the Maternity/PaternityLeave Fund indicate some changes in the differ-ence in salary among those applying for pay-ments, as indicated in table IV.9.

Table IV.9 The gender pay gap as it appears in the Maternity/Paternity Leave Fund’s payments.

2001 2002 2003 2004

Mothers’ and fathers’ pay gap6 58.2% 60.4% 62.5% 64.0%

6 Women’s salaries as a percentage of men’s salaries

In these four years, the difference has shrunk byalmost 6%, which of course does not indicate towhat extent the laws have contributed to that. Itmust be kept in mind that the reasons for thegender pay gap are varied and it is problematicto insulate any one factor. But this is somewhatof a different development than various surveyshave shown recently, suggesting little or nochanges (Capacent Gallup 2006; Launakönnunársins 2006). This of course indicates total salar-ies, without considering any possible explanat-ory variables, such as work hours or education. Ifwe look at tax payments, a very similar change isseen, because according to those number the dif-ference between men’s and women’s labor in-come decreases by 5.8% from 2000 to 2005, andactually a bit more if we only consider the agegroups when people mainly have children.Looking at the age group 31-35, the gender paygap is reduced by 7.2%, for 26-30 year olds itgoes down by 6.6% but only 4.7% among 21-25year olds (based on information from StatisticsIceland).

In 1999, women’s labor income was 54.2% ofmen’s income from paid labor but in 2005 thatpercentage was up to 61.1%, so the gap has beenclosing considerably. On the other hand, therehas been very little change over the last threeyears. Women’s percentage of men’s pay hasgone from 60.9% in 2003 to 61.1% in 2005.The picture of stagnation appears again, and in

fact a slight reduction appeared between 2003and 2004.

Slowly but surely more couples are appearingwhere the woman earns more than the man. In1999, this was true of 16% of families but in2005 it applied to 20.1%. It is also interestingthat while there has been a steady closing of thegender pay gap among married men and women(and here we refer to both those formally marr-ied and couples who cohabit), the gap betweenunmarried men and women has actually grownin these two years. Overall, the gap betweenboth groups has been getting smaller over thesesix years. Among married couples, women had45.3% of men’s employment income in 1999,but by 2005 this percentage had gone up to52.9%. Among unmarried people, women’s em-ployment income was 73.5% of men’s in 1999,but 78.3% in 2005. The gap is therefore closingfaster among married people than among theunmarried, and the gap has increased among un-married people in the last two years, since in2003, the unmarried women’s percentage of un-married men’s employment income had reached80.8%, it was 79.2% in 2004 and then 78.3%. Itcould therefore be hypothesized that family re-sponsibilities are no longer having such a differ-ent effect on men’s and women’s employment in-come, as was suggested in the previously ment-ioned Capacent Gallup salary survey (2006).This is, however, based on a weak foundation

28

and this possible contributing factor of thelegislation calls for a specific investigation.

d. FertilityThe legislation appears to have contributed toadded fertility among Icelandic women. Al-though that issue was not raised during discuss-ions of the proposed law in 2000, it was broughtup when the amendment was proposed in 2004,

so it is clear that members of parliament felt thelaws had contributed to the added fertility (Al-þingistíðindi 2004, www.althingi.is).

Fertility in 20th century Iceland has fluctuat-ed quite a bit. It reached its peak in 1960, wheneach woman had an average of 4.27 childrenduring her lifetime. The last decades have alsoseen some fluctuation, as is evidenced in tableIV.10.

Table IV. 10 Icelandic women’s fertility 1980-2005.

Women’s fertility decreases rapidly in the firstyears of the 1980s, reaching a new low in 1985and 1986, when women’s fertility is only 1.93children. It increases considerably until 1990when it starts to drop again, reaching the samelow in 2002, that is, 1.93 children per woman.Since then, fertility has been increasing and itreached 2.05 children in 2005. This means thatIceland is, along with Turkey, the only countryin Europe where natural population growth issufficient to sustain the population (Key figureson Europe 2006, 43).

The reasons for decreased fertility in in-dustrialized societies are numerous. It has beenpointed out that with the emergence of the wel-fare society, the significance of having children

to provide for the parents in their old age isconsiderably less than it used to be. The reduct-ion in child mortality also reduces the need tohave many children. Last, but not least, the adv-ancement in birth control and increased toler-ance for abortions has provided people, mostlywomen, with far more options when it comes tochildbirth. Most of these factors have, however,been around for a long time and cannot explainthe developments in recent decades. Threeclosely interlinked explanations will be pres-ented here:

1. The revolution in the education and labormarket participation of women has positivelyimpacted their self-perception and ideas aboutthe future, making these far more tied to the

29

labor market than they used to be. This meansthat the countries which have the poorest sup-port system for families with children cannot ex-pect considerable fertility rates. This idea ties inwell with the status in Europe, where fertilityrates are considerably lower in countries wherethe welfare system is weak and more traditionalideas on the status and role of women and menare dominant (Esping-Andersen 2002, Uunk etal. 2005). On the other hand, fertility rates arerather high in the Nordic countries, andwomen’s labor market participation is higherthere than it is elsewhere in Europe.

When Europeans are asked about how manychildren they want to have, it seems Europewould not be facing the current population decl-ine if their wishes came true (Esping-Andersen2002; Duvander, Ann-Zofie, Ferrarini, Tommy& Sara Thalberg, 1995). But since Europe as awhole is far from the fertility rates its inhabitantsseem to desire, we are not only facing a fertilityproblem but also what may be termed a welfareproblem, since society does not enable people tofulfill their wishes.

It can therefore be said that in societies,where women are forced to choose betweenchildbirth and labor market participation, moreand more are choosing the labor market. Thebetter options women have to pursue both, themore will choose to do both.

2. The financial security of the family has aconsiderable impact on decisions about child-birth and it is important that the arrival of achild does not entail considerable financial dam-ages for the family. To prevent that, we need asystem which both, guarantees parents benefitslinked to salary during maternity/paternity leaveand protects them from termination so thatmothers and fathers do not need to fear the lossof a job because of pregnancy or birth. Long-itudinal studies establish a clear link betweenmaternity/paternity leave and fertility, especiallywhen the leave entails benefits based on salary(Ferrarini 2003; Rönsen 1999; Winegarden &Bracy 1995).

3. Recent research indicates that for coupleswho split work inside and outside the homefairly evenly, especially if this involves the caring

for a child, it is more likely that more childrenare born into the relationship (Buber 2002; Duv-ander & Andersson 2004; Oláh 2001, 2003). It isnot certain, however, that the division of labor isreally even, but rather that the mother is satisf-ied with the father’s participation in the caringwork (Buber 2002). A study in Sweden andHungary indicated that the likelihood of asecond child is considerably higher in relation-ships which are free from the constraints of trad-itional ideas of the division of labor amongwomen and men. The same study indicates thatthe chances of divorce are about 30% less forSwedish couples where the father has taken pat-ernity leave than with couples where the fatherdoes not take the leave. This is particularly truewhen the mother has higher education (Oláh2001).

To summarize, this suggests that an effectivewelfare system and support for families, genderequality and fathers’ participation in the raisingand caring for children, family life and choresaround the house are key factors if governmentswish to increase fertility.

The upwards trend in Icelandic women’sfertility in 1987 may therefore be attributed tothe changes which occurred in the laws on mat-ernity/paternity leave at the time, extending theleave, among other things, from three months tosix. In a similar manner, the increase which hasoccurred since 2002 results from the greatlyimproved status of parents after the changes inthe parental leave act of 2000, and possiblyprimarily from the link between salary and bene-fits. It seems unlikely that the added partici-pation of fathers is already having an impact inthis area.

It seems likely that the upwards trend in2000 can be explained by the fact that somecouples wanted to have a child in the millenni-um year, just as it appears that many coupleswanted to be married in that particular year.There were 1560 weddings in Iceland in 1999,1777 in 2000, and a much lower 1484 in 2001.It is not unlikely, either, that many coupleslimited the number of children until the newlaw was in full effect, explaining the drop infertility in 2001 and 2002.

30

The Nordic countries are in lead positions in theworld when it comes to women’s labor marketparticipation, gender equality and competitive-ness. It is not difficult to argue that these factorsare closely linked and that the main cause is thestrong welfare system and the societal emphasison women’s and men’s equal possibilities in allareas of life. More and more women in Europeare university educated and desire a career in theworkplace. If society is structured so that a care-er and childbirth do not go together, it is clearthat one will be pushed aside, creating an oppos-ition between the objective of women’s labormarket participation and childbirth. It is alsoclear that people who experience discriminationare not as productive as are people who feel thatthey are valued for everything they have tocontribute. Gender discrimination thereforelimits people’s hardihood, prevents the utilizat-ion of human resources and reduces com-petitiveness.

The step taken by the Icelandic Althing in2000, by adopting the Act on Maternity/Patern-ity and Parental Leave entailed a radical attemptto change the possibilities of women and men inlife. The Act aims to do both, level the status ofwomen and men in the labor market and withinthe family, aside from attempting to make it eas-ier to have children. It is less than four yearssince the law became fully effective, and it maybe unlikely that great or measurable impact onthe status of women and men in Icelandic soci-

ety can be determined, aside from the fact thatthe laws are an addition to societal changeswhich have been in process for a long time, mak-ing the lifestyle of men and women more similarover time. A few things may nonetheless bementioned about the laws’ effect:

1. The changes were very well received insociety and fathers have made use of their op-portunities to a much greater extent than was ex-pected. Fathers’ participation in caring for theiryoung children is certainly much more commonthan it was before.

2. Attitudes towards the status and opport-unities of men and women as regards home andfamily life have undoubtedly changed. It is,nonetheless, clear that society’s ideas about therole of women as mothers and the role of men asproviders are strong in Icelandic society and area certain hindrance to changes. Overall, thedevelopments, however, seem to be towards theacknowledgment that fathers can be just as goodparents as mothers, and that mothers can sharethe maternity/paternity leave with fathers with-out being bad mothers.

3. Clues exist which suggest that the law hashad a leveling impact on the status of men andwomen in the labor market. These clues are,however, neither clear nor decisive. It mightappear that the effects are to some extent limitedto class and more significant among those hold-ing university degrees and belonging to the upp-er classes. A part of the explanation for the un-

V. Discussion

31

clear effects on women’s and men’s status in thelabor market is probably the gap between theend of maternity/paternity leave and the timewhen a child gets into day care. Far more moth-ers than fathers adjust their labor marketparticipation to this issue, so childbirth has inthat regard a more significant impact on womenthan men. It is unlikely that this will changeuntil this gap has been bridged in some way, andprobably not unless this is done by extending thematernity/paternity leave.

4. The laws have had a positive impact on Ic-elandic women’s fertility. It is most likely the ext-ension of the leave and the linking of benefits to

salary which has caused this. In the long run,there is reason to believe that the increasedparticipation of fathers in family life willstrengthen this impact. On the other hand, thegap mentioned above between the leave andchildcare may have a reverse impact, as maysome of the amendments made to the law in2004, which have a negative impact on thepossibility of spacing children tightly.

Generally speaking the laws on maternity/-paternity leave have had a positive impact on Ic-elandic society and have contributed to increas-ing and leveling the possibilities of men andwomen.

32

Albrecht, James W., Per-Anders Edin,Marianne Sundström, Susan B. Vroman (1999):“Career Interruptions and SubsequentEarnings: A Reexamination Using SwedishData.” The Journal of Human Resources,XXXIV, 2

Aleksejunaité, Virginija & Mackeviciute, Indré(ed.) (2005): Men do it! Stories of Fathers onParental Leave. Vilnius. Centre for EqualityAdvancement

Alþingistíðindi 2000 and 2004. www.althingi.is

Álitsgerðir kærunefndar jafnréttismála: Árin 1993og 1994. Reykjavík. Skrifstofa jafnréttismála

Ársskýrsla Skrifstofu jafnréttismála 1995.Reykjavík. Skrifstofa jafnréttismála 1996.

Ársskýrsla VR 2003–2004. Reykjavík.Verzlunarmannafélag Reykjavíkur.

Brandth, Berit & Elin Kvande (1989): “Likebarn deler best.” Nytt om kvinneforskning, 13, 3.

Brandth, Berit & Elin Kvande (2001): “Flexiblework and flexible fathers.” Work, Employmentand Society, 15, 2.

Brandth, Berit & Elin Kvande (2003): Fleksiblefedre. Oslo. Universitetsforlaget

Bryndís Jónsdóttir (forthcoming): MA-thesis atthe University of Iceland on the experience ofparents on maternity/paternity leave.

Buber, Isabella (2002): The influence of thedistribution of household and childrearing tasksbetween men and women on childbearing intentionsin Austria. MPIDR Working Paper WP2002–2004. Rostock. Kax Planck institute forDemographic Research.

Capacent Gallup (2006): Launamyndun ogkynbundinn launamunur.(http://felagsmalaraduneyti.is/media/acrobat-skjol/Launamunur_og_kynbundinn_launamunur_2006.pdf).

Carlsen, Sören (1998): Men on Parental Leave –how men use parental leave in the Nordic countries.TemaNord 1998:569. Nordic Council ofMinisters. Copenhagen.

Duvander, Ann-Zofie & Gunnar Andersson(2004): Leder delad föräldrapenning till fler barn?Stockholm. Riksförsäkringsverket.

Duvander, Ann-Zofie, Ferrarini, Tommy &Sara Thalberg (2005): Swedish parental leave andgender equality. Achievements and reformchallenges in a European perspective. Stockholm.Institutet för Framtidsstudier, Arbetsrapport2005:11.

Bibliography

Edin, Per-Anders, Marianne Sundström &Susan B. Vroman (1999): “Career interruptionsand subsequent earnings: a reexamination usingSwedish data.” Journal of Human Resources, 34,294–311.

Ekberg, John, Rickard Eriksson og GuidoFriebel (2004): Sharing Responsibility? Short- andlong-term effects of Sweden’s “Daddy-month”reform. Working Paper 3/2004. Stockholm.Swedish Institute for Social Research.

Elín Pálsdóttir Flygenring (1985): “Lög ogréttarheimildir er varða konur“. In JónínaMargrét Guðnadóttir (ed.): Konur hvað nú?Reykjavík. ’85-nefndin, samstarfsnefnd í lokkvennaáratugar S.Þ. og Jafnréttisráð.

Esping-Andersen, Gösta (2002): Why We Needa New Welfare State. Oxford. University Press.

Ferrarini, Tommy (2003): Parental LeaveInstitutions in Eighteen Post-War Welfare States.Stockholm. Swedish Institute for SocialResearch.

Fríða Rós Valdimarsdóttir (2005): Nordicexperiences with parental leave and its impact onequality between women and men. Akureyri.Jafnréttisstofa.

Gallup (2000): Aukin lífsgæði með sveigjanleika.http://www.hgj.is/Vidhorfskannanir/VidhorfskannanirGallup/nr/56

Gallup (2003): http://www.hgj.is/Vidhorfskannanir/VidhorfskannanirGallup/nr/93 og 109.

Gallup (2003a): Jafnrétti. Viðhorfsrannsókn.

Guðbjörg Andrea Jónsdóttir (1995).Launamyndun og kynbundinn launamunur.Reykjavík. Skrifstofa jafnréttismála &Félagsvísindastofnun.

Guðný Björk Eydal (2000): “Fæðingarorlof ogdagvist: Íslensk fjölskyldustefna í 50 ár.” In

Friðrik H. Jónsson & Ingjaldur Hannibalsson(eds.): Rannsóknir í félagsvísindum III. Reykjavík.Félagsvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.

Guðný Björk Eydal (2004): “Hvernig samhæfaíslenskar barnafjölskyldur atvinnuþátttöku ogumönnun ungra barna?” In Úlfar Hauksson(ed.): Rannsóknir í félagsvísindum V. Reykjavík.Félagsvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.Háskólaútgáfan.

Gupta, Sanjiv (2006): “The Consequences ofMaternal Employment during Men’sChildhood for Their Adult HouseworkPerformance.” Gender & Society vol. 20 no. 1February 60–86.

Gyða Margrét Pétursdóttir (2004): “Ég ertilbúin að gefa svo mikið.” Sjálfræði, karllæg viðmiðog mótsagnir í lífi útivinnandi mæðra og orðræðumum ólíkt eðli, getu og hlutverk. Unpublished MA-thesis. Háskóli Íslands. Félagsvísindadeild.

Hagskinna. Sögulegar hagtölur um Ísland. (1997)Reykjavík. Hagstofa Íslands.

Hannes Jónsson (1965): Samskipti karls og konu.Reykjavík. Félagsmálastofnunin.

Helga Gottfreðsdóttir (2005): “Prospectivefirst-time fathers and their views on fatherhoodin the context of the new policy on parentalleave in Iceland.” Birth Issues, Vol 14, no. 4128–134.

Herdís Helgadóttir (1996): Vaknaðu kona!Barátta rauðsokka frá þeirra eigin sjónarhóli.Reykjavík. Bókaútgáfan Skjaldborg.

Hirdman, Yvonne (1990): Genussystemet.Maktutredningen. Slutrapport. SOU 1990:44.Stockholm.

Iðja, félag verksmiðjufólks (1998): Aukinn rétturfyrir íslenskt launafólk. Fræðslurit um réttindi semfylgja EES samningnum. Reykjavík. Iðja, félagsverksmiðjufólks.

33

Ingólfur V. Gíslason (1996): “TillögurKarlanefndar Jafnréttisráðs um fæðingarorlof.”Uppeldi 3. tbl.

Ingólfur V. Gíslason (2004): “Isländskrevolution.” In Ulrika Lorentzi (ed.): Vemsvalfrihet? Debattbok för en deladföräldraförsäkring. Stockholm. Agora.

Ingólfur V. Gíslason (2005): “Feður sem takalengra fæðingarorlof.” In Úlfar Hauksson (ed.):Rannsóknir í félagsvísindum VI. Reykjavík.Félagsvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.

Key figures on Europe. Statistical Pocketbook(2006). Luxembourg. Office for OfficialPublications of the European Communities.

Laufey Ýr Hákonardóttir & Ólöf Jónsdóttir(2004). Feðraorlof: Viðhorf stjórnenda ámismunandi stjórnunarstigum. Unpublished B.S.-thesis. Háskólinn í Reykjavík. Viðskiptadeild.

Launakönnun ársins 2006. Reykjavík. VR

Leira, Arnlaug (2000): “Combining work andfamily: Nordic policy reforms in the 1990s”. ÍT. P. Boje & A. Leira (eds.): Gender, WelfareState and the Market. London: Routledge.

Lilja Mósesdóttir & Davíð Þór Björgvinsson(1998): Reconciling Work and Family Life inIceland. Reykjavík. Félags- og hagvísindastofnunÍslands

Lög um alþýðutryggingar (1938). Reykjavík.Tryggingarstofnun ríkisins.

Mackeviciute, Indré (ed.) (2005): Fathers onParental Leave. Vilnius. Centre for EqualityAdvancement

Meðganga, fæðing, ungbarnið (1997). Reykjavík.SCA.

Moss, Peter & Fred Deven (eds.) (1999):Parental Leave: Progress or Pitfall? Brussel. NIDICBGS Publications.

Nyman, H. & Petterson, J. (2002): Speladepappamånaden någon roll? – Pappornas uttag avföräldrapenning. RFV Analyserar, 2002:14Stockholm. Riksförsäkringsverket.

Oláh, Livia Sz (2001): Gendering FamilyDynamics: The Case of Sweden and Hungary.Stockholm. Stockholm University.

Oláh, Livia Sz. (2003): “Gendering fertility:Second births in Sweden and Hungary.”Population Research and Policy Review, 22, 2.

Olsen, Bente Marianne (2000): Nye fædre påorlov – en analyse af de kønsmæssige aspekter vedforældreorlovsordninger. Copenhagen.Københavns universitet.

Rönsen, Marit (1999): “Assessing the impact ofparental leave: effects on fertility and femaleemployment.” In Moss, Peter & Fred Deven(eds.).

Sigrún Júlíusdóttir (1997): “Fjölskyldulíf:Tryggðarbönd, kvaðir og réttlæti. Erindi umfjölskyldudyg(g)ðir og hlutverkfjölskyldustefnu“. In Jón Á. Kalmannsson,Magnús D. Baldursson & SigríðurÞorgeirsdóttir (eds.): Fjölskyldan og réttlætið:Ráðstefnurit. Reykjavík: Háskóli ÍslandsSiðfræðistofnun & Háskólaútgáfan.

Sigrún Júlíusdóttur & Nanna K. Sigurðardóttir(2000): Áfram foreldrar. Rannsókn umsameiginlega forsjá og velferð barna við skilnaðforeldra. Reykjavík. Háskólaútgáfan.

Sigursteinn Másson (1997): “Nýkynslóðabylting.” Heimsmynd nr. 1., 1. tbl., 1.árg.

Skýrsla Kvennaársnefndar (1977). Reykjavík.Forsætisráðuneytið.

Stafford, Frank P. & Marianne Sundström(1996): “Time Out for Childcare: Signallingand Earnings Rebound Effects for Men andWomen.” Labour 10(3), 609–629.

34

35

Staðtölur almannatrygginga 1998, 1999, 2000,2001 & 2003. Reykjavík. Tryggingastofnunríkisins.

Stefán Ólafsson (1990): Lífskjör og lífshættir áÍslandi. Reykjavík. Félagsvísindastofnun HáskólaÍslands. Hagstofa Íslands.

Stefán Ólafsson (1999): Íslenska leiðin.Reykjavík. Tryggingastofnun ríkisins,Háskólaútgáfan.

Stjórnartíðindi 1946, 1954, 1975, 1987.

Sundström, M. og Duvander, A. (2002):“Gender division of child care and the sharingof parental leave among new parents inSweden.” European Sociological Review,18:433–447.

Uunk, Wilfred, Matthijs Kalmijn and RuudMuffels (2005): “The Impact of YoungChildren on Women’s Labour Supply: AReassessment of Institutional Effects inEurope.” Acta Sociologica. Vol 48(1) mars.

Winegarden, C.R. and Bracy, M. (1995):“Demographic Consequences of Maternal-Leave Programs in Industrial Countries:Evidence from Fixed-Effect Models.” SouthernEconomic Journal, vol. 61(4):1020–35.

Þorgerður Einarsdóttir (1998): Gegnum súrt ogsætt. Um íslenska karla í fæðingarorlofi. Reykjavík.Jafnréttisnefnd Reykjavíkur.

Þorgerður Einarsdóttir in cooperation withGyða Margrét Pétursdóttir (2004): Culture,Custom and Caring: Men’s and Women’sPossibilities to Parental Leave. Akureyri. Centrefor Gender Equality. Centre for Women’s andGender Studies.

Þorgerður Einarsdóttir & Gyða MargrétPétursdóttir (2004): “”Þetta liggur einhvernvegin betur fyrir henni.” Feður, börn ogfæðingarorlof á Íslandi og í Noregi.” In ÚlfarHauksson (ed.): Rannsóknir í félagsvísindum V.Reykjavík. Félagsvísindastofnun HáskólaÍslands. Háskólaútgáfan.

Centre for Gender Equality Borgum /Nordurslod 600 AkureyriTel: (+354) 460 6200 Fax: (+354) 460 6201www.gender.is jafnretti@jafnretti.is

Ministry of Social AffairsHafnarhusid /Tryggvagata150 ReykjavikTel: (+354) 545 8100 Fax: (+354) 552 4804www.felagsmalaraduneyti.is postur@fel.stjr.is