CROSS-NATIONAL COMPARATIVE RESEARCH

Sonja DrobničUniversity of Hamburg

Doctoral Workshop “Development of Work and Welfare Reform in European

Societies”Hamburg, October 5-6, 2007

RECW WE RECONCILING WORK AND WELFARE IN EUROPE

RECW WE RECONCILING WORK AND WELFARE IN EUROPE

Outline of Presentation:

• Opposing views on feasibility and goals of comparative research

• Approaches to selecting indicators

• Types of cross-national research

• An example of cross-national comparison: findings and questions raised

What type of Knowlege?

• - universal, general principles

• - principles that take a particular form in time and space

Comparative Analysis• -- difficult to think of any analysis in social

sciences that is not comparative

• „Comparative sociology is not a particular branch of sociology; it is sociology itself, in so far as it ceases to be purely descriptive and aspires to account for facts“ (Durkheim 1949 [1891])

• “Comparative analysis has come to mean the description and explanation of similarities and differences (mainly differences) of conditions or outcomes among large-scale social units, usually regions, nations, societies and cultures” (Smelser2003)

Extreme Approaches to Comparative Analysis

• Smelser 2003:

• Radical Positivism: takes the Durkheimian assumption that there are real social facts that have objective manifestations or indices

(e.g. income and wealth, political participation, educational level)

• Radical relativism: variations in contexts destroy both the reliability and validity of common comparative measures.

• Most social scientists have come to endorse the view that the best methodological strategy in comparative study is to rely on multiple kinds of data and methods -quantitative and qualitative, hard and soft, objective and subjective.

• Cross-national comparative research is valuable, even indispensable, for establishing the generality of findings and the validity of interpretations derived from single-nation studies.

Approaches to Selecting Indicators

• A. Searching for Equivalent Measures

• B. Harmonization of Indices: Identical Questions, Variables, Indices

A. Equivalent Measures• Smelser (2003): Strategy to do proper

comparative analysis is to systematize the context of comparisons with respect to:

- selecting comparative indices (measurement; searching for equivalent measures)

- explaining comparative similarities and differences

“The paradox is that equivalence of indices is best achieved by seeking different indices for the same phenomenon in different settings.”

B. Harmonization

• Simple: e.g. years of schooling

• Complex (functional equivalence):

– input harmonization (before data collection)

– output harmonization (after data are collected)

Examples: ISCO code, ISCED code (educational level according to CASMIN educational classification), Income measures...

• Example ISCED:• 1a Inadequately completed general education• 1b Completed general elementary education• 1c Basic vocational qualification or general

elementary education and vocational qualification• 2a Intermediate vocational qualification or

intermediate general qualification and vocational qualification

• 2b Intermediate general qualification• 2c Full maturity certificates• 3a Lower tertiary education• 3b Higher tertiary education

• 1b: Completed (compulsory) elementary education, corresponding to the ”social minimum” of education that individuals are expected to have obtained in a society. This level of education is mostly of a generalnature and generally can be obtained by following without selective procedures the least demanding courses of education up until the legally fixed age of compulsory schooling.

(Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik & Warner 2006)

(Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik & Warner 2006)

(Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik & Warner 2006)

(Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik & Warner 2006)

Types of Cross-National Research (Melvin Kohn 1987)

• 1. Nation is object of study

• 2. Nation is unit of analysis

• 3. Studies that are transnational in character

• 4. Nation is context of study

From Nation to Regime

• A recent development in the past decade: introduction of „regimes“ as capturinginstitutional characteristics of varioussocieties,

e.g. Welfare State Regime, Gender Regime, Mobility Regime, Care Regime...

Perceived Risk of Losing Current Job in the Next 6 Months

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Bulgaria

Finland

Germany

UK

Hungary

Netherlands

Sw eden

Portugal

% very likely/quite likely

Examples (Beham and Drobnič 2007):

Difficulties to Fulfill Family Responsibilities Because of the Amount of Time Spent on the Job

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

Bulgaria

Finland

German

y UK

Hungar

y

Netherl

ands

Sweden

Portugal

% never % several times a month % several times a w eek

Subjective State of Health

0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 40,0 45,0 50,0

Bulgaria

Finland

Germany

UK

Hungary

Netherlands

Sweden

Portugal

% excellent/very good

• Example: Household Arrangements under Welfare State Regimes: Employment and Housework in USA, Germany, and Finland(Drobnič and Treas 2007)

• Gendered division between paid work (employment) and unpaid work in couple household

• Gendered division of housework: amount and tasks

Levels of Inquiry• Individual level: person’s characteristics and

behavior

• Interpersonal level: couple’s characteristics and interdependencies, household members

• Societal, structural level: institutions, policies, „welfare state regimes“ (private sphere of the household nests within sociopolitical institutions)

• Micro-level behavior of couples within the macro-level context

Theoretical Approaches to the Division of Work in Couples:

• Relative Resources Framework– Human capital model based on neo-classical “new

household economics”– Resource-bargaining model (special case:

economic dependency model)

• Gender Ideology / Gender Roles (“doing gender”)

• Time Availability

Impact of Nation / Institutions / WelfareRegime on Housework

• Time availability: shifting women‘s time from housework to paid work

• Support for gender equity attitudes and gender ideology

• Modification of the impact of individual and couple-level characteristics

• Create demand for household labor!

Data

• 2002 International Social Survey Program (ISSP) Family & Changing Gendel Roles Module III

• (West) Germany, USA, Finland

Data

• 2002 International Social Survey Program (ISSP) Family & Changing Gendel Roles Module III

• (West) Germany, USA, Finland

• Sample Size:

GER USA FIN

Wives 237 292 386

Husbands 249 232 319

Work Hours Women

Men

Variables

GER USA FIN GER USA FIN

Weekly hours of housework

21.4

13.4

13.2

6.9

8.5

6.8

Partner’s hours of housework

7.2

5.5

5.9

21.8

14.9

12.8

Within - couple

gap in hours (woman – man)

14.2

7.8

7.3

14.9

6.4

6.0

Weekly empl.

hours 14.9

20.7

22.0

31.5

36.2

25.4

Partner’s weekly empl. hours

31.1

32.4

27.4

16.3

19.5

22.1

Average Weeky Hours of Paid Work and Housework in (W) Germany, USA and Finland (Couple Households)

Average Weekly Hours of Paid and Unpaid Work in West Germany, USA, and Finland

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Men Women Men Women Men Women

Germany USA Finland

Unpaid Work

Paid Work

Determinants of housework hours for women

++School children+Pre-school children+Age

+Wife has higher incomeAttitudes: female empl.

–Attitudes: gender roles+++Partner´s housework hrs.

+Partner´s empl. hours–––Own employment hours

FINUSAGER

Determinants of housework hours for men

+Husband is retired

School children–Married

Pre-school children–Age

+Wife has higher income

+Attitudes: female empl.Attitudes: gender roles

+++Partner´s housework hrs.Partner´s empl. hours

––Own employment hoursFINUSAGER

Gap in housework hours (wife – husband), reported by women

–Attitudes: female empl.

+School children+Pre-school children

AgeWife has higher income

+Husband is retired

+–Attitudes: gender roles++Partner´s empl. hours–––Wife´s empl. hours

FINUSAGER

Findings: Similarities + Differences

• Persistent gender inequalities in housework

• Striking differences among countries in the level of housework done by women

• Some processes determine the division of labor similarly across countries, but also important variations

• Variations beyond individual and household-level determinants consistent with the welfare-state regime explanations

• Key element: time availability

• But also structural factors play role in increasing demand for household labor in conservative welfare state regimes

• Subtle patterns of interdependencies: responsiveness on partner‘s working hours, increasing housework if women have higher income

• But: strong beliefs in gender equity and refusal of traditional gender roles has a significant effect in Germany

• Attitudes in other regimes have surprisingly little effect

• Men‘s housework is not a substitute for women‘s work

Open Questions

• Is there a convergence in the gendered division of household labor? If so, what drives this convergence?

• What part of country-to-country differences are due to national cultures and what part to national policies? How can we tell the difference?

• Do subtle cultural factors bias reporting? If so, how do we start to understand them?

• Paradoxically, family-friendly corporate and state policies can make it easier for working women to do a larger share of housework. What are the costs and benefits of various approaches to incorporating women into the labor force?

• How do couples themselves evaluate their division of housework? (Question of fairness)

• …..