Orloff and Laperriere Gender OHB of Welfare State, 2nd ed

GENDER ANN SHOLA ORLOFF and MARIE LAPERRIERE Department of Sociology, Northwestern University, Evanston IL 60208 USA; [email protected] and [email protected] To appear in Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State, second edition, edited by Daniel Beland, Stephan Leibfried, Kimberly Morgan, Herbert Obinger, Christopher Pierson INTRODUCTION CAN welfare states promote gender equality? Or are welfare states simply mechanisms for recreating masculine domination? These questions have long defined the way scholars examined the mutually constitutive relationship between systems of social provision and regulation and gender. Recent scholarship has embraced a more differentiated set of questions, spurred by developments in theories of intersectionality or complex inequality (e.g., Williams 2018a), understandings of transformation and stability in state institutions (e.g., Morgan and Orloff 2017, Leibfried et al 2015) and a wide range of changes in political economic, gendered, demographic, cultural, racial contexts. Scholars examine multiple logics, paradoxes, trade-offs and contradictions in the ways states shape gender relations, and how states in turn are shaped by gender, in the context of a broader set of relations of power, difference and inequality (e.g., Orloff 2017). 1 1 In this article, I focus on the gendered dimensions of the ‘welfare states’ of the rich capitalist democracies, in which state capacities have allowed for development of welfare institutions and key gendered issues pertain to integration in the formal capitalist economy. In the global South, civil society and the informal sector are more important than in the rich capitalist democracies (Beland and Mahon 2016, pp.36-41), and transnational influences have a different character -- subjection to the hegemony of the ‘great powers’ and the international organizations that enforce their preferences. The comparative study of gender and welfare states and other systems of social provision and regulation has been an extraordinarily generative site for investigating the creation and transformations of relations and institutions of power, difference and inequality. This area of scholarship has been favoured by the occurrence of two intellectual ‘big bangs’—gender studies, from the 1970s, and an increasingly gender-aware regime analysis, from the late 1980s. After 1990, it was powered by the engagement of the two constituencies created by these explosions of innovation and the partial integration of their respective insights in scholarship on gender, politics, policy. Taking a basically Marshallian understanding of ‘politics versus markets’, EspingAndersen (1990) promoted the concept of ‘decommodification’ to capture the potentially, and empirically variable, emancipatory political effects of welfare states for working classes – a framing that was reworked by gender scholars such as Hobson (1990), Jenson (1997), Knijn (1994), Lewis (1992), Mahon (2002), O’Connor (1993), Orloff (1993), Sainsbury (1996), Saraceno (1997), Shaver (1994), and Williams (1995) to query the possibility of using politics against masculine domination, while remaining alive to the ways (welfare) states contributed to stratification and regulation. Falsely universalizing (implicitly masculinist) analytic frames initially undergirded almost all comparative studies of welfare states, occluding the gendered underpinnings of systems of social provision, women’s situations, and the gendered dimensions of the ‘average production worker’. Yet something about Esping-Andersen’s (1990) analysis encouraged engagement between feminist and mainstream scholars of welfare states. Perhaps it was his foray into analysis of how changing ‘labour-market regimes’ and shifts from industries to services affected women’s employment, or his revitalization of an emancipatory yet still gender-blind concept of social citizenship rights. This took him squarely onto the intellectual terrain that had been tilled by feminists without acknowledging that work. This circumstance simultaneously provoked women scholars and stimulated their creative expansions of notions of social citizenship rights, reappropriations of the regime concept, and investigations of care services and shifting postindustrial employment patterns, leading to a revisioning of welfare states as core institutions of the gender order and gender as a fundamental structuring dimension of systems of social provision and regulation (e.g. O’Connor et al. 1999; Sainsbury 1996; Hook 2015; see Shaver’s 2018 Handbook of Gender and Social Policy for in-depth discussion of this literature and its contemporary extensions). By ‘feminist’ scholarship, we mean studies of gender that contest gendered hierarchies and investigate political paths toward gender equality and women’s emancipation, while taking critical stances on concepts such as ‘equality’ and ‘reconciliation’. ‘Mainstream’ scholarship refers to research that does not thematize gender and accepts masculinist premises about actors, politics, and work; this term should not be taken to imply that the work falling under this rubric is in other ways unified. There is now an in-between category of ‘gender-aware’ research which takes into account gender gaps, but ‘downplays [gender] equality in income, work and care… as other diagnostics either write gender equality out, rename women as “mothers,” or fold gender inequalities into a discursive frame of multiple and intersecting inequalities’ (Jenson 2015, p.1). Scholars of the welfare state and other systems of social provision and regulation have been deeply affected by the changing global political economy, with the decline of Keynesian welfare arrangements and, possibly, the emergence of ‘Schumpeterian workfare states’ (Jessop 1994), and the rise of neoliberalism, austerity, the attempted ‘dismantling’ of welfare states, and ‘new politics’ around welfare (see, e.g., Pierson 1994, 2001; Ferrera, Hemerijck and Rhodes 2000). In this new context, scholars forwarded arguments – to the EU and others – about the ways welfare could sustain productive economies, through ‘social investment’ policies which promote capabilities and activation, particularly among women (Esping-Andersen et al. 2002; Hay and Palier 2017; Hemerijck 2017; Morel, Palier and Palme 2012). Indeed, Esping-Andersen (2016, p.10) argues that family vitality – including marital stability, intensive attention to children’s development, and fertility in line with citizen preferences – and social welfare demand a ‘new gender egalitarian family equilibrium’, similar to what has emerged in Scandinavia, which ‘requires not only that social institutions (such as the labor market and the welfare state) become ‘women friendly’, but also that men adapt within partnerships—in particular by equally sharing domestic chores and child rearing’. It is not yet clear whether this new equilibrium will emerge across other rich capitalist democracies. Esping-Andersen (1999, 2009, 2016) and scholars working in the power resources tradition (e.g., Korpi (2000; Korpi et al 2013), Huber and Stephens (2000, 2010), Shalev (2008)) – apparently convinced by feminists’ argument for the significance of family, gender gaps and care, becoming ‘gender-aware’ if not feminist – have joined feminist scholars in developing concepts and empirical analyses of the significance of unpaid familial care work; the relations among family policies, women’s employment, fertility, care work, and women’s empowerment; and the partisan correlates of different family and gender policy models (on the ‘power of feminist perspectives’ in social policy and academic research, see Orloff and Palier 2009). Yet there has rarely been full ‘gender mainstreaming’, for even ‘gender-aware’ perspectives do not take up the deeper implications of feminist work, and have difficulties assimilating concepts of interdependency and gendered power; care as the basis of an ethical orientation and as relational, rather than simply barrier to labor force participation; intimate violence; and the regulatory power of gender categories themselves. Feminist scholarship, in contrast, confronts the whole edifice of gender hierarchy and masculine domination, as partly constituted by (welfare) states, now understood globally and as interconnected with other forms of inequality, that has secured women’s ‘compulsory altruism’ (Finch and Groves 1983), men’s privileges – albeit unevenly distributed depending on other positionalities -- vis-à-vis employment, housework, personal autonomy, control over valued resources, and persistent forms of domination such as violence against women. This difference in orientation can be illustrated with the ways that the concept of ‘defamilisation’ has been taken up. For mainstream, even gender-aware, scholars, defamilisation is meant to capture where care occurs and who provides it: the family and family members, usually mothers, or state, non-profits or market services and paid workers. This is relevant for women’s capacities for independence, but does not frontally engage with familial power relations. For feminists, the concept references gendered economic dependency and power, as in women’s ‘capacity to form and maintain autonomous households’ (Orloff 1993), or the possibility of maintaining a living without economic reliance on families and husbands (see, e.g., Lister 1994; McLaughlin and Glendinning 1994; see Lohmann and Zagel 2016 on the emergence and use of ‘defamilisation’; see Leitner 2003 and Keck and Saraceno 2013 on the related concept of ‘familialism’ and its variants). CONCEPTUALIZING GENDER FOR THE ANALYSIS OF WELFARE STATES AND OTHER SYSTEMS OF SOCIAL PROVISION AND REGULATION ‘Gender’ represents a key theoretical and conceptual innovation of feminist scholarship, including that focused on systems of social provision and regulation. Feminist scholars of welfare states have served as ambassadors of gender studies, which emerged in association with feminist social movements, and encompassed dazzling intellectual developments that moved across disciplines and challenged the masculinist assumptions that reigned in the academy as elsewhere. ‘Gender’ has been deployed, as Haraway (1991: 131) explained, ‘to contest the naturalization of sexual difference in multiple arenas of struggle. Feminist theory and practice around gender seek to explain and change … systems of sexual difference whereby “men” and “women” are socially constituted and positioned in relations of hierarchy’. Path-breaking work in the 1970s and 1980s established that systems of social provision and regulation contribute to that constituting and positioning, and that these systems are gendered to the core (for reviews, see Orloff 2009a; Shaver 2018). Feminists are raising questions about the androcentrism of many versions of ‘gender equality’, as consisting of making women more like men by eliminating ‘gender gaps’, without addressing the ways in which masculinities depend on the subordination and devaluation of the feminine and women. Gender is not simply an attribute of individuals but a social relationship, historically varying, and encompassing divisions of labour, relations of power and legitimate authority, emotional investments, and cultural valuations; it crosses individual subjectivities, institutions, culture, and language (see e.g. Connell 1987). Early feminist interventions around social provision – like most areas of feminist scholarship -- started from premises about the uniformity and fixity of the category of women (and men). The key difference was between women and men, with policies seen as reinforcing that binary division and politics reflecting women’s and men’s distinctive and competing interests. Both premises have been extensively critiqued, by both feminist theorists (see e.g. Zerilli 2005; Butler 1990) and social scientists and legal studies scholars (see, e.g., Cho et al 2013; Collins 2015; Crenshaw 1989; McCall 2005). Social policies and politics are now investigated in terms of the complex and oftencontradictory interconnections among gender and other relations of power, difference and inequality: ‘race’, ethnicity, sexuality, class, citizenship, and more, often understood with the concepts of ‘intersectionality’ (Williams 1995, 2018a) or ‘complex inequality’ (McCall and Orloff 2005). For example, social policies are shown to have different effects on well-educated and lesseducated women (see, e.g., Hook 2015; Mandel and Shalev 2009; Estevez-Abe 2009), migrant care workers and their employers (e.g., Parrenas 2000; Boris and Parrenas 2010; Williams 2018a), racialized or immigrant women and white or native-born women (e.g., Lewis 2000; Williams 1995; Roberts 1995; Reese 2005). Moreover, the position of men and fathers, of masculinities and fatherhood, is increasingly problematized, and the diversity of men’s positions vis-à-vis families, violence, care work and employment is investigated as object of social policy and law (e.g., Eydal and Rostgaard 2016; Haney 2018; Hobson 2002; Hook 2006; Hearn et al 2018). The notion of the fixity of gender categories has been replaced by more fluid conceptions of gender, reflected in the phrases ‘doing’ or performing gender (rather than ‘being’ a gender), a transformation from gender to gendering (West and Zimmerman 1987; Butler 1990, 2004). This allows for an investigation of the processes of gendering, regendering, or degendering in which welfare states are central influences and objects of influence. To achieve recognition that ‘gender matters’, feminists have had to engage in a multifaceted critique, including not only analytic concepts and theories specific to the study of social policy but also the social theories, methodologies, and epistemological presumptions underpinning this and other areas of political study (see e.g. Orloff 2005; Shaver 2018). Rather than developing a new totalizing theory, they seek to understand men’s and women’s diverse gendered dispositions, capacities, resources, goals, and modes of problem solving deployed in gendered political action. Conceptual innovations and reconceptualizations of foundational terms have been especially prominent in the comparative scholarship on welfare states, starting with gender, and including care, social reproduction, depletion, embodiment, body rights, autonomy, familism and defamilisation, citizenship, (in)dependence, political agency, capabilities, intersectionality and (in)equality. It is impossible to see—much less to describe and understand—the mutually constitutive relation between gender and welfare states without these conceptual and theoretical innovations. Feminists begin their critical project with the very definitions of social citizenship and the ‘welfare state’. Citizenship has long been understood in exclusively white masculine terms, linked to a particular conception of political subjects: as rational, autonomous, unburdened by care, impervious to invasions of bodily integrity (Lister 2003; Roberts 1999; Hobson et al 2002). If, as gender scholars contend, the need for care is inevitable, given humans’ vulnerability, their dependence in infancy and old age, and often in between, we must reassess conceptions of citizens and of political action (see, e.g., Fineman 2010). Some women gained social rights before enfranchised men conceded the suffrage, and rights related to women’s bodily self-determination are still contested. Women have also often differed from men in the kinds of citizenship rights they have demanded from welfare states; while working-class men may indeed aspire to ‘decommodification’—at least when unemployment is not the pre-eminent threat, many women have found that the right to formal, paid work may provide new resources and organizational capacities. Men’s citizenship rights have been linked historically to military service and paid employment. Women citizens and feminist scholars have tried to expand the notion of social and political participation that undergirds citizenship rights to include mothering and care work, whether or not it is paid (Knijn and Kremer 1997; Lister 2003). Drawing on the experiences of women’s political action and an understanding of interdependency as the basic human condition, new citizenship rights essential to emancipation, many linked to the welfare state, have been enunciated by gender scholars: for example, capacities to form autonomous households (Orloff 1993); rights to time to care, and to be cared for (Knijn and Kremer 1997), ‘body rights’ (Shaver 1994), reproductive rights understood as both substantive rights to procreate or to refrain from procreating (Luna and Luker 2013). Similarly, gender scholars question standard definitions of the welfare state. In industrial capitalist economies in which people depend on the wage, and most wage workers are men, systems of social provision and regulation responded to a particular social risk profile: loss of wages due to unemployment, illness, disability or retirement (the ‘old social risks’ [Taylor-Gooby 2004]). Masculinist paradigms therefore centred on pensions and social insurance, following a conception of politics as shaped by men’s class interests; women were seen principally as workers’ economic dependents and their interests understood as congruent with their husbands’. Gender analysts, having given up assumptions about class conflict as the ‘motor of history’, have a more pluralistic notion of which social policy institutions are ‘core’. Drawing on both feminist economics and feminist political theory, they stress the significance of embodiment and of relations of caring and economic dependency, and state activities such as family and employment law, family policies, reproductive rights, the reproduction of nations and ‘races’, housing, antiviolence policies, and the simultaneous regulation (and, at times, punishment) of those who receive benefits, even redistributive ones. Moreover, recent interventions foregrounding the ‘many hands’ of the state (Morgan and Orloff 2017) and the different vectors of state interventions – around policies bearing on women as a status group, religious doctrine, class, as Htun and Weldon (2018) would have it -- make clear that these diverse activities may instantiate multiple and contradictory logics. Modern (welfare) states, it would seem, are no longer uniformly patriarchal (Orloff 2017). Control of states, and particular units within states – by political parties and elected politicians, state officials and legal personnel -- is a key stake in gendered power struggles given states’ monopoly over the collective means of coercion and their potential role in regulating individual violence (or not), and states’ roles in constitution and regulation of gender and sexualities in political participation and citizenship rights (Connell 1987; Orloff 1993; O’Connor et al. 1999; Roseneil et al 2013; Bernstein et al 2016; Morgan and Orloff 2017, Htun and Weldon 2018). For the most part, this does not translate into simple political divides between men and women, but into different political coalitions containing both men and women, with distinctive stances vis-àvis family, gender relations, other relations of inequality (e.g., class, migration, religion, ‘race’), equality and the role of states and supranational organizations in relation to markets, polities, and the boundaries of citizenship (e.g., McCall and Orloff 2016). Innovative feminist analyses have revealed the role of women and men as political actors pursuing gendered goals vis-à-vis social policy (see, e.g., Skocpol 1992; Pedersen 1993; Koven and Michel 1993; Morgan 2006; Htun and Weldon 2018). Social policy concerns more than class, and varies by more than relative generosity or extent of decommodification. Instead, gender joins class, nation, ‘race’, religion, and other dimensions of power, difference, and inequality to shape social politics and policy in historically contingent and variable ways. For example, we see state officials’ stakes in the production and regulation of nations or ‘races’, citizens and soldiers; men’s concerns to gain or maintain family-supporting wages; women’s interests in combating poverty or discrimination linked to caregiving. Gendered actors may be identified with social movements— women’s equality movements, ‘maternalists’, or anti-feminist groups, or with political parties and state administrations, such as ‘femocrats’, women in specialized gender equality units. With the expansion of supranational organizations, feminist and other groups have made strategic and tactical use of openings—such as the mandate for gender mainstreaming—at different levels of governance to press their demands (see e.g. Walby 2004; Mahon 2015; Bedford and Rai 2010). WELFARE STATES AND SOCIAL POLITICS: GENDER, LABOUR, CARE Care is central to most feminist understandings of gender, social politics and welfare states. Care is work, predominantly done by women, not a ‘naturally’ feminine emanation of familial love; care is embedded in relationships characterized by interdependence, power, and conflict; it is a socially necessary but often unrecognized activity. Simultaneously, women’s responsibilities for care and unpaid domestic labour, help to underpin gender hierarchies and women’s exclusion from, or unequal inclusion in, politics and markets. As Williams (2018b) points out, there are ‘different but consanguine’ intellectual lineages for understanding these ‘activities of care and domestic work that contribute to human flourishing, repair and sustenance’. First, a focus on the activities and consequences of giving care itself, as the source of many of women’s disadvantages, but also of distinctive identifications, resources, and ethical commitments (see, e.g., England 2005; Daly and Lewis 2000); second, a socialist-feminist perspective linking ‘social reproduction’ to ‘production’ in capitalism and investigating household care practices in global context (see, e.g., Bedford and Rai 2010; Parrenas 2000; Laslett and Brenner 1989). Williams argues for drawing on both lineages, studying care ‘by making connections across the micro, meso and macro scales of analysis’, linking households, nation-states’ migration regimes and social policies, globallysituated political economies, transnational migration and ‘global care chains’. Understanding the social organization of care in this way forces us to think across conventional political and academic divides between economy and family, public and private, paid and unpaid work, emotion and commodity, culture and state social policy, state provision of services and indirect support for caring in households, local care practices and global networks of labor (Jenson 1997; Daly and Lewis 2000; England 2005; Williams 2018b). State systems of social provision and regulation offer different forms and levels of support to families – cash transfers, tax incentives and/or directly-provided services, and means by which individuals can combine paid and unpaid work such as parental leaves or part-time work. They recognize and resource some forms of caregiving and family organization while sanctioning others, which may additionally vary across social groups defined by class, ‘race’, or educational and skill level. Here, social policy complements the role of culture in shaping care practices (Kremer 2007; Pfau-Effinger 2005). Policies help to maintain strongly gender-differentiated family forms with women assuming responsibilities for care, or may encourage the ‘outsourcing’ of care responsibilities to market or state in order that mothers (and others with care responsibilities) are able to engage in employment outside the household. These policies may have heterogenous effects on different mothers based on skill or educational level (often taken as a proxy for class) and other positionalities (Hook and Pettit 2016; Boeckmann et al 2015). Women’s rising participation levels in paid work – product of economic necessity and demands for greater personal development -- have helped to change some aspects of the division of caring labour: earlier arrangements for care – women providing most of it unpaid in the private household, supported by men’s wages in the context of Keynesian welfare states -- have come undone. This has unfolded at the same time as we see aging populations, greater deferral of marriage and childbearing, higher rates of cohabitation, separation and divorce, greater precarity of employment – in short, phenomena which lead to increased caring demands. Moreover, women still, on average, more than men shape their employment behaviour around the requisites of caregiving and, to a lesser extent, domestic work, and do a disproportionate amount of this labour. Thus, gender analysts focus on welfare institutions that bear on the gender division of labour, especially child and elder care services and parental leaves. Many feminists are convinced that the only way to move toward gender equality is by changing men’s practices as well as offering care services outside the household, rather than simply reconciling women’s care responsibilities with paid work (see, e.g., Fraser 1994; Ellingsaeter and Leira 2006; Gornick and Meyers 2009). Options for part-time work and other aspects of labour market and employment organization such as quotas and anti-discrimination law are also relevant in affecting possibilities for ‘reconciliation’ and in encouraging women’s participation in paid work (Orloff 2006, 2017). Moreover, care needs – which have intensified with women’s work outside the household and demographic changes -have not been fully met by alternate arrangements, such as public child or elder care services, or men taking on substantial care work. In this context, we have seen emerging ‘crises of care’ or ‘depletion’ – inadequacies in the supply of care workers, and/or in the conditions of care workers and the quality of care (Williams 2018a; Fraser 2016; Rai et al 2014). For most of the post-World War II era, the dominant model supported by policy and almost all political tendencies, and critiqued by feminists, has been the heterosexual nuclear family with breadwinning man and his wife, who performed the domestic and care labour, even if she was also employed. Lewis (1992) memorably called this the ‘male breadwinner regime’. This arrangement is often called ‘traditional’ although its full realization—particularly with widespread housewifery even among the working classes—was limited to the ‘Golden Age’ between World War II and the early 1970s. States also sustained men’s advantaged position in labour markets, and welfare institutions did not ameliorate fully the economic and other vulnerabilities that attached to women’s caregiving in the context of heterosexual nuclear families dependent on men’s wages (see, e.g., Orloff 2017; Lundqvist 2011). Although this was the normative model, not all families had access to the resources and rights which made it possible; in particular, the position of single mothers varied considerably, by marital status or ‘race’ (see, e.g., Lewis 1997; Hobson 1993; Roberts 1995). The relatively higher poverty rates of lone mothers (even if employed) and elderly widows in most rich democracies across both the ‘breadwinner’ and later eras attests to the continuing vulnerability of caregivers if they find themselves without access to men’s incomes, even when they are employed. As Hobson (1990) pointed out in her ingenious application of Hirschmann’s ‘exit, voice, loyalty’ framework to women’s situation in marriage, the conditions of lone mothers—importantly shaped by social citizenship rights—affect married mothers as well, for they reflect something of what their ‘exit options’ would be; the better the situation for solo mothers, she argues, the more power partnered women have. Solo mothers have served as a ‘test case’ of the extent to which welfare states address women’s economic vulnerabilities; their poverty is alleviated—to a limited extent—only by generous welfare programmes (e.g. in the Netherlands prior to mid-1990s welfare reforms; Knijn 1994) or employment supported by care services (e.g. in France and Belgium), and in best-case scenarios, a combination of these (e.g. in the Nordic countries) (Christopher 2002; Kilkey and Bradshaw 1999; Huber et al 2009). Thus, where welfare is not generous and employment support is left to market sources, solo mothers’ relative poverty remains high (as in the ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ regimes [including Japan]). Indeed, the recent transformations in gendered welfare institutions toward supporting women’s employment, to be discussed below, are partly justified in terms of their poverty-reducing effects. The ‘breadwinner model’ may have had different strengths across countries (Lewis 1992), but all were embedded in Keynesian economic policies and welfare states addressing the economic insecurities of wage-earning men – and this political-economic context has shifted radically. Social policies aimed at the economic insecurities associated with the ‘old social risks’ were subject to cutbacks or recalibration (e.g., recommodification), while there were increasing demands to address ‘new social risks’ associated with less marital stability, needs to reconcile employment and care, more individuation of family members, the shift from manufacturing to a tertiary economy (post-industrialism), and thus relevant for women’s specific family and employment situations (Bonoli 2005; Taylor-Gooby 2004). And indeed, in striking contrast to other parts of the welfare state, there was expansion of a range of programs that may be grouped under the rubric of ‘family policy’ and partially overlapping with the new social risks – income support to families with children, family-related leave, early childhood education and care, all of which encourage maternal employment (Daly and Ferragina 2018). Ferragina (2019) contends that family policy expansion in different political contexts means that it takes on different characters – emancipatory or commodifying. Orloff (2017) argues that these shifts should be understood as processes of ‘destruction’ of institutions and policies organized around the logic of the breadwinner/caregiver household – which might take the form of sudden displacement or gradual institutional change, and ‘construction’ of the institutions and policies organized around the logic of maternal employment. New policies to support maternal employment are diverse, reflecting the imprint of the timing and sequence of destructive and constructive processes, political compromises, policy legacies and long-standing social, partisan and institutional differences. Lewis (2001) has called the new institutional logic the ‘adult worker model’, as both men and women are expected to be in paid employment. However, she and other gender scholars have been careful to point out the continuing gendered differences in patterns of participation in paid and unpaid work which are most marked for parents (Daly 2011; Lewis and Giullari 2005). Indeed, discrimination against women in employment has lessened considerably, while mothers continue to experience inequalities in employment, linked to caregiving responsibilities, to a far greater extent than childless women (Boeckmann et al 2015). Mothers’ participation rates are lower than fathers’, unless there are state- or market-provided care services and/or other means of ‘reconciling’ employment and family work. And even employed mothers work at part-time positions at far greater levels than men or childless women (with cross-national variation in overall levels of part-time work). Taking time out of paid employment, either through leaves or reducing work time, to do unpaid care and cleaning work in families—even when it does not add up to fulltime and lifelong housewifery—imposes costs on caregivers, notably lifelong lower incomes and pension entitlements, economic dependency, and vulnerability to poverty (England 2005; Hobson 1990; Joshi et al. 1999). In addition, mothers suffer a ‘motherhood wage penalty’ due to effects of motherhood on productivity and discrimination by employers against mothers in hiring and promotion (Budig et al 2012). But even when mothers’ participation rates equal fathers’, as in the Nordic countries, employment patterns differ, with women taking more parental leave, working reduced hours, and working in sex-segregated occupations (Ellingsaeter and Leira 2006; Misra et al. 2007; Pettit and Hook 2009; Hook and Pettit 2016). It matters a great deal how policies are set up vis-à-vis gendered divisions of labour. They may promote traditional and gender-differentiated arrangements, ‘one and a half earner’ or male breadwinner households, or may encourage more ‘symmetric’ arrangments between men and women, with both partners working full-time. Countries vary in terms of which model predominates, and some feature a polarized profile between dual-full-time earner, most often among the households of highly-skilled women, and male single-earner families, with fewer one and a half earner households (Lewis et al 2008; Hook 2015). There is wide agreement on the assessment of different countries’ profiles on this score. (Note that this discussion applies to couples, rather than single mothers.) Some – the Nordic countries stand out here – have policies which work to undermine traditional gendered divisions of labour in terms of participation in paid employment by encouraging mothers’ employment and work commitment through offering child care services, allowing for reduced work time by parents, and attaching paid leaves to prior employment. These countries exhibit consistently high levels of labor force participation among women, and most households are formed by partners working full time, even if women’s hours are slightly less than men’s. The Nordic countries, except Denmark, have also been notable for their efforts at incentivizing men’s care, particularly through ‘use it or lose it’ parental leave setasides (Eydal and Rostgaard 2016). Yet some incoherence has been introduced into most of the Nordics’ approaches through the adoption of ‘cash for care’ programs that allow parents -- mainly mothers -- to stay out of paid work for extended periods (Duvander and Ellingsaeter 2016); moreover, new tax incentives for employing domestic workers in Sweden to some extent undercut commitments to public services (Morel 2012). France and Belgium have significant policies setting them apart from other ‘conservative’ regimes (Misra et al 2007), especially their legacies of extensive professional care for young children and generous, longer parental leaves (Morgan 2006; Morel 2007). This seems to allow for choice between employment and stay-at-home care. Hook (2015) finds polarization in France, between dual full-time earner and single-male earner households, with a class gradient. The policies of most continental European countries and Japan are still congruent with traditional gendered divisions of labour, but these have been ‘modernized’ to allow more women to work for pay by accommodating women’s continuing (‘traditional’) responsibility for care work, as in ‘reconciliation’ measures like part-time work and long maternity leaves. This is the ‘one and a half worker’ model; labour force participation levels have increased, but do not reach the levels of the Nordics. And others still – the US, and the southern European countries -- do not do much to help families sustain women’s employment or care, implicitly relying on family households or the market. Here, there is a polarization among households, that ‘is driven, in part, by class. Dual fulltime is the norm for families with high maternal educational attainment and male sole earner is the norm for families with low attainment’ (Hook 2015). In these countries, labor force participation levels are quite mixed. The US, which had relatively high levels of women’s labour force participation around 1990, reflecting the availability of market services (Orloff 2006), has ‘fallen behind’ other OECD countries as the rates have stagnated, reflecting the lack of development of maternal-employment-supporting family policies (Blau and Kahn 2013). These arrangements are still evolving, however, as mothers’ employment and aging populations contribute both to demands for policy ‘modernization’ and for an increase in the supply of care workers, many of them migrants, sometimes incentivized by tax provisions, or by porous borders (Mahon et al 2012; Peng 2018; Michel and Peng 2017; Williams 2018a and 2018b; Gavanas 2010). As yet, the overall profile of these countries shows significant continuities, as migrant care workers are integrated into existing arrangements for providing care: for example, migrant care workers are brought into the family for elder care in southern Europe, and some East Asian countries (Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong) but into public elder care and cleaning services in the Nordic cases (with some increase of marketization supported by states), into private – both familial and market – services in North America and the UK. ‘Politics matters’ for the character and effects of these policies. Left partisan predominance is consistently associated with high-spending welfare states and large state sectors, public services, generous and decommodifying benefits linked to low rates of poverty for solo mothers and single elderly women, and relatively egalitarian income distributions. In countries dominated by social democratic parties, universal coverage, individual entitlement to benefits, and redistributive structures have been seen as helpful for many women (Sainsbury 1996; Huber and Stephens 2000). In the 1990s and early 2000s, many analysts focused on policy ‘regimes’, assuming that regime types were associated with different gender or family models (e.g., Esping-Andersen 2009). Feminist scholars, however, argued that either gendered models, such as ‘male breadwinner’ or ‘dual-earner’, varied independently of regime types (e.g., Lewis 1992) and partisan configurations, or that gendered dimensions varied within regime clusters (e.g., O’Connor et al 1999) – in other words, that class-based regime types and political configurations did not fully determine the gendered dimensions of systems of social provision and regulation. Regime analyses were important for understanding the topography of variation in welfare states, yet the typology-based analyses these have often spawned have probably reached the point of diminishing returns. Still, we might want to retain the regime concept, with a focus on the articulation of different policies, which provides more accurate pictures of the effects of systems of social provision (Orloff 2017). Korpi (2000) argues for disaggregating the regime concept—into driving forces, mediating institutions, and outcomes—to investigate specific components in a causal analysis. He links different ‘family policy models’ – supporting traditional families or dual-earner families, or failing to support either model (which he calls ‘market-based’ policy) -- with the predominance of different political parties in the post-war years (see also Korpi et al 2013). These models reflect ideals about care arrangements, family types (dual-earner or ‘traditional’), and preferred institutions for delivering support—states, families, or markets. Social democratic parties, sometimes helped along by affiliated women’s movements, have embraced the model of dualearner families, and women’s equality via employment (especially public jobs) and public care services (see also Huber and Stephens 2000; Lundqvist 2011). The dominance of secular and religious right parties, or liberal and conservative regimes, have different effects on gender relations. Religious parties have been the principal exponents of subsidiarity and ‘traditional’ gender ideology in the form of ‘familism’, which is compatible with state spending, but supports families in ways that reinforce gendered labour divisions – possibly in modified forms, as in ‘oneand-a-half earner’ models -- and block autonomy-enhancing provision. Secular right parties are concerned to restrict state spending and public services; though are not necessarily hostile to women’s employment, they are uninterested in offering alternatives to commodification and prefer incentives to women’s employment delivered through the tax system. Regulatory measures, such as anti-discrimination legislation, has been critical in the US and Canada for furthering women’s employment fortunes, but opposition to regulation is now part of the neoliberal mantra. Given that none of the rich democracies has unbroken single-party rule, incoherence can be introduced into their policy mixes by partisan alternation or coalition governments. For example, Ellingsaeter (2014, p.555) notes that in the Nordic countries, ‘In contrast to convergence and stability in regard to moderately long parental leave at high replacement rates and in the provision of universal publicly-funded childcare services, daddy quotas, i.e., earmarked leave for fathers, and cash-for-care benefits are contested and in flux…. the main source of instability…is party competition over values of ‘equal parenthood’ versus ‘parental choice’, largely following a left– right divide.’ There has been considerable debate about the gendered effects of different welfare state profiles, and advances in how we conceptualize and measure policies (see Hook and Ruppanner, this volume). Mandel and Semyonov (2006) identified a ‘welfare state paradox’, in which welldeveloped welfare states, as measured by a ‘welfare state intervention index’, increase women’s labour force participation but simultaneously hinder women’s advancement in employment (as indexed by wage gaps, occupational sex segregation, access to top positions, and so on). In contrast, less ‘developed’ welfare states were associated with better occupational outcomes for employed women. Thus, while generous welfare states benefit less advantaged women, less generous systems allow high-skilled, advantaged women to make headway in employment (see also Shalev 2008; Estevez-Abe 2009; Mandel and Shalev 2009). But later scholars have challenged this interpretation on several grounds. Defenders of the Nordic model argued that the ‘welfare state paradox’ formulation ignores the gender-equalizing effects of drawing most women into the workforce, the relatively good conditions of female-dominated public sector employment and relatively low gender wage gaps (Korpi et al 2013; Shalev 2008). Korpi et al (2013) adduce evidence that the Nordic systems are beneficial for less-advantaged women but not at a cost to highly-educated women. Pettit and Hook (2009) and Korpi et al (2013) contend that the ‘welfare state intervention index’, like generic discussions of ‘family policy’, mistakenly groups policies which actually vary in their impact. Korpi (2000; Korpi et al 2013) has argued that certain programs, a ‘traditionalfamily dimension’ in family policy, offer ‘general family support’ that implicitly undergirds traditional divisions of labour; others, ‘dual-earner’ and ‘dual carer dimensions’ of family policy, support more gender-egalitarian family care and work arrangements. Pettit and Hook (2009), in an influential intervention on ‘gendered trade-offs’, argue that policies encompass two dimensions, whether they promote labor market inclusion or exclusion and whether they discourage or promote equality among those in the labor force (in terms of wage gaps, occupational segregation, hours worked). They insist that only some programs are ‘work-facilitating’ for women -- principally extensive public support for non-familial care services and short, well-paid leaves conditioned on prior employment; others are ‘work-reducing’ by disincentivizing employment and negatively affecting women’s occupational opportunities through long leaves, ‘cash for care’ and part-time employment. They note that, to date, there have been ‘gendered trade-offs’ between those measures bringing women into labour force and measures affecting women’s fates once in paid employment; no country ranks highly on every measure of women’s employment equality. These diverse effects are well-illustrated by paid parental leaves and public support for child care. Paid leaves seem to have contradictory effects, depending on their length and level of benefit (see, e.g., Keck and Saraceno 2013); many argue that if short and well paid, they enhance women’s employment levels and prospects, but when long and less generous, they depress employment inclusion and equality (see Hook and Ruppanner, this volume). However, the availability of public childcare services has been shown to be significant for both levels and quality of mothers’ employment, and to be beneficial for both well-educated and less-educated mothers. Pettit and Hook (2009) argue that such services help women maintain continuous employment, thereby sustaining their human capital and lowering discrimination. The Nordic countries have defined the provision of care as a largely public responsibility – via provision of services and paid leaves for both fathers and mothers, linked to children’s well-being and gender equality, with both understood to imply mothers’ employment. In contrast, until very recently, the care of children has been understood to be the province of the family in the United Kingdom, most of the continental European countries, and Japan, while in North America, care is considered best left to private ‘choice’, reflecting politically dominant liberalism (O’Connor et al. 1999). In the United States, state provision has been all but ruled out (Morgan 2006), yet mothers with resources have been able to find private care services, albeit of uneven quality (Orloff 2006). The lack of development of public supports for maternal employment contributes to two significant outcomes: the polarization of household types by education level, with well-educated women more often in fulltime work and less-educated women withdrawing from paid employment for significant periods of time, and the overall stagnation of women’s labour force participation rates there (Blau and Kahn 2013). Elder-care has also been examined vis-á-vis the private/public rubric, but patterns differ somewhat from childcare; the Nordic countries are consistent in offering public services for both, the United States for neither, while other countries have a varying mix (Antonnen and Sipilä 1996). Care services and policies, in Europe and East Asia especially, have been changing rapidly in the 2000s, with the expansion of elder- and childcare services, payments for informal care, and expansions of paid leaves (see, e.g., Peng 2018; Williams 2018a and 2018b; Mahon 2002; Farris and Marchetti 2017; Brennan et al 2012). With rising levels of women’s, especially mothers’, employment, ‘crises of care’ or ‘depletion’ have emerged, as demands for care among aging populations, people with disabilities, and small children outstrip the supply of familial caregivers (Williams 2018a; Rai et al 2014). Allowing for (paid) workers to have time to care is one response, and finding new supplies of care workers is another, to which some states have responded by encouraging immigration or migration from rural to urban areas within states. These developments have interacted in complex ways with moves toward the marketization of care services, encouraged by new tax incentives. Care migration, especially among women, is a significant development in arrangements for care. ‘Global care chains’ bring (predominantly) women from less-developed areas to richer areas to supply care; many of these are mothers leaving behind their own children and other kin to be cared for, often by women (relations, usually) from even-poorer regions (see, e.g., Parrenas 2005; Lutz 2008). While ‘care deficits’ in richer areas of the globe are filled, new deficits among children and others in the sending countries have emerged, and migrant care workers face further difficulties with migration and citizenship regulation (Williams 2018b). Significant empirical and normative debate concerns the use of immigrant labour for tasks once carried out largely by housewives, focusing on whether such arrangements are inherently exploitative or can be made into ‘good jobs’ (see, e.g., Meagher 2006; Bowman and Cole 2009: Gavanas 2010). Moreover, gendered care, employment and migration arrangements have implications for the quality and quantity of care (Morgan 2005; Williams 2018a and 2018b). Which models or ideals of gender, family, and care will be promoted by social policies in the future? Mothers’ employment is quite widely accepted, but cultural and political attitudes about the gendered division of labour and care still differ across different groups of women and men (Kremer 2007; Pfau-Effinger 2005; Orloff 2009b). These care values inform partisan as well as individual orientations to maternal employment and family policies, which play out across different political-economic contexts. Demand for greater levels of ‘social investment’ and citizen ‘choice’ with respect to services and care arrangements has emerged, forwarded across welfare states by ‘third way’ and ‘recalibrative’ projects, and connected in complicated ways with increasing social diversity (Pierson 2001; Ferrera, Hemerijck, and Rhodes 2000; Hemerijck 2017). Where ‘choices’ but not public services are on offer, it is usually mothers rather than fathers who have opted to stay at home for a period of time, and this reflects a class gradient. As is the pattern across most western countries, well-educated women pursue life patterns that converge most with those of men of their own class, while less-educated women tend to make greater accommodation to care and diverge more from men with similar educational levels unless social policy supports egalitarian models (Esping-Andersen 2016; Hook 2015). Feminists are divided on how to respond: keep pushing for greater involvement of fathers in care, even if it means less time for mothers who may want it? Or support women’s and men’s options to decide, but attempt to make the choices about at-home care versus employment more ‘real’ by insisting that cash for care policies be accompanied by guaranteed rights to spots in child care centers? An emphasis on ‘choice’ might allow for pluralism among heterogeneous populations as to which models of care and gender they prefer. In these cases, the extent of marketization and public subsidization determines whether choices are realizable, and how care quality and gender equality will fare (Orloff 2009b; Brennan et al 2012). Some women’s care sector jobs are professionalized, or at least unionized and relatively well-paid, but others are classic ‘bad jobs’, expressing ‘racial’ and ethnic hierarchies (Glenn 1992; Lutz 2008; Williams 2018a). How ongoing trends toward marketization and privatization, in the context of greater flows of migrant labor and reactions against it, will play out is, of course, a matter of which political forces manage to gain hold in this era of great political uncertainty and upheaval. Women’s presence in politics has revolutionized policy. In the early twentieth century, ‘maternalists’ entered politics on the basis of ‘difference’, made claims to citizenship based on their capacities to mother, and idealized a maternalist state that could care for its citizens, especially mothers and their children (Skocpol 1992; Koven and Michel 1993). Today, women’s movements for gender equality press for policies to support women’s employment, particularly anti-discrimination and affirmative action, parental leave, and childcare services (O’Connor et al. 1999, ch.3), and higher proportions of women ‘holding key positions in governmental and political organizations’ positively influence social spending and the adoption of equality policies (Bolzendahl 2009). But these developments occur against a backdrop of deep changes in economic, social, political and cultural contexts, indexed by neo-liberalism, post-industrialism and individualization, which press upon us both mandates and incentives for commodification and ‘choice’. Yet there is resistance, both normative and practical, to achieving the realization of ‘employment for all’ based entirely on the commodification of care (Lewis and Giullari 2005). Some strands of feminism embrace a formalistic choice relying solely on private resources, but others, particularly those that link to social-democratic or labour forces, stress the need for substantive public support for women’s freedom. The broader shifts in the political economy – more precarity, less well-paid industrial work, more pressures on family caregivers, political turns to neo-liberalism – do not lead only to demands for greater social policy development. Anti-feminist groups promote ideals of ‘traditional’ gender institutions in marriage, sexuality, and reproduction. And even as full-time housewifery declines, and runs afoul of neoliberal mandates for women’s activation or instrumentalist concerns with declining fertility, certain formulations of anti-feminist politics may thrive, as rightwing populists or social conservatives draw energy from nostalgic longings for the days when women’s care could be supported by breadwinners in well-paid industrial jobs. When women’s groups and voting blocs are divided, for example between socialist/secular and Catholic orientations, or anti-feminist movements are well-mobilized, the adoption of policies seen as promoting or supporting women’s employment and public care provision, key planks of women’s equality movements’ programmes, has been blocked. Still, many tenets of legal and substantive gender equality already have been institutionalized in social policies. Moreover, we see the emergence of new forms of feminist mobilization, linked to the continuing dilemmas of care and paid employment, economic and political participation, and freedom from violence and harassment, and aimed at restructuring systems of social provision and regulation. The promise of welfare institutions that promote feminist objectives may yet be more fully redeemed. The transformation of mainstream scholarship by the full integration of gender analysis is necessary to understand the ongoing development of welfare states, as gender has been at the centre of transformations of welfare states, families, and capitalist economies. Gendered insights— particularly around power and politics—radicalize and transform the comparative study of welfare states, a necessary component of projects to ensure that systems of social provision promote equality and care—in other words, welfare, broadly understood. References ANTONNEN, ANNELI, and SIPILÄ, JORMA, 1996. European social care services: Is it possible to identify models? Journal of European Social Policy, 6 (2): 87–100. BEDFORD, KATE, AND RAI, SHIRIN M., 2010. Feminists theorize international political economy. Signs, 36 (1): 1-18. BÉLAND, DANIEL, AND MAHON, RIANNE, 2016. Advanced introduction to social policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. BERNSTEIN, MARY, NAPLES, NANCY A., AND HARVEY, BRENNA, 2016. The Meaning of marriage to SAME-sex families: Formal partnership, parenthood, gender, and the welfare state in international perspective. Social Politics, 23 (1): 3–39. BLAU, FRANCINE AND KAHN, L.M., 2013. Female labor supply: Why is the United States falling behind? American Economic Review, 103(3): 251-56. BOECKMANN, I., MISRA, J. AND BUDIG, M.J., 2015. Cultural and institutional factors shaping mothers' employment and working hours in postindustrial countries. Social Forces, 93(4): 1301-1333. BOLZENDAHL, CATHERINE, 2009. Making the implicit explicit: Gender influences on social spending in twelve industrialized democracies, 1980–99. Social Politics, 16 (1): 40–81. BONOLI, GIULIANO, 2005. The politics of the New Social Policies. Providing coverage against new social risks in mature welfare states. Policy & Politics, 33 (3): 431–49 (reprint in Leibfried and Mau 2008a: vol. 1, 497–516). BORIS, EILEEN, AND PARREÑAS, RHACEL SALAZAR, EDS., 2010. Intimate labors: Cultures, technologies, and the politics of care. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. BOWMAN, JOHN R., AND COLE, ALYSON M., 2009. Do working mothers oppress other women? The Swedish ‘maid debate’ and the welfare state politics of gender equality. Signs, 35 (1): 157-184. BRENNAN, DEBORAH, CASS, BETTINA, HIMMELWEIT, SUSAN AND SZEBEHELY, MARTA, 2012. "The marketisation of care: Rationales and consequences in Nordic and liberal care regimes." Journal of European Social Policy, 22 (4):377-391. BUDIG, MICHELLE J., MISRA, JOYA, AND BOECKMANN, IRENE, 2012. The motherhood penalty in cross-national perspective: The importance of work–family policies and cultural attitudes. Social Politics, 19 (2): 163-93. BUTLER, JUDITH, 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge. _____, 2004. Undoing Gender. London: Routledge. CHO, SUMI, CRENSHAW, KIMBERLÉ, AND MCCALL, LESLIE, 2013. Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs, 38 (4): 785-810. CHRISTOPHER, KAREN, 2002. Welfare state regimes and mothers’ poverty. Social Politics, 9 (1): 60–86. COLLINS, PATRICIA HILL, 2015. Intersectionality's definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology, 41: 1-20. CONNELL, RAEWYN, 1987. Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. CRENSHAW, KIMBERLE, 1989. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1: 139-167. DALY, MARY, AND FERRAGINA, EMANUELE, 2018. Family policy in high-income countries: Five decades of development. Journal of European Social Policy, 28 (3): 255-70. DALY, MARY, and LEWIS, JANE, 2000. The concept of social care and the analysis of contemporary welfare states. British Journal of Sociology, 51 (2): 281–98. ELLINGSÆTER, ANNE LISE, 2014. Nordic earner–career models: Why stability and instability? Journal of Social Policy, 43 (3): 555-74. ELLINGSÆTER, ANNE LISE, AND LEIRA, ARNLAUG LEIRA (eds.), 2006. Politicising Parenthood in Scandinavia: Gender Relations in Welfare States. Bristol: Policy Press. ENGLAND, PAULA, 2005. Emerging theories of care work. Annual Review of Sociology, 31: 381– 99. ESPING-ANDERSEN, GØSTA, 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge & Princeton, NJ: Polity & Princeton University Press (chapters 1–3 reprinted in Leibfried and Mau 2008a: vol. 2, 3–77). _____ 1999. Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press (chapter 6 reprinted in Leibfried and Mau 2008a: vol. 2, 485–506). _____2009. Incomplete revolution: Adapting welfare states to women's new roles. Polity. _____2016. Families in the Twenty-First Century. Stockholm: SNS Förlag. ESPING-ANDERSEN, GØSTA, GALLIE, DUNCAN, HEMERIJCK, ANTON, and MYLES, JOHN, 2002. Why we Need a New Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ESTÉVEZ-ABE, MARGARITA, 2009. Gender, inequality, and capitalism: The ‘varieties of capitalism’ and women. Social Politics, 16 (2): 182-91. EYDAL, GUÐNÝ BJÖRK, AND ROSTGAARD, TINE (eds.), 2016. Fatherhood in the Nordic Welfare States: Comparing Care Policies and Practice. Bristol: Policy Press. FARRIS, SARA R. AND MARCHETTI, SABRINA, 2017. From the Commodification to the Corporatization of Care: European Perspectives and Debates, Social Politics 24 (2):109–131 FERRAGINA, EMANUELE, 2019. The political economy of family policy expansion: Fostering neoliberal capitalism or promoting gender equality supporting social reproduction? Review of International Political Economy 26(6): 1238-1265. FERRERA, MAURIZIO, HEMERIJCK, ANTON, and RHODES, MARTIN, 2000. The Future of Social Europe: Recasting Work and Welfare in the New Economy. Report Prepared for the Portuguese Presidency of the EU. Oeiras: Celta Editora. FINCH, JANET AND DULCIE GROVES (eds), 1983. A Labour of Love: Women, Work, and Caring. London: Routledge. FINEMAN, MARTHA ALBERTSON, 2010. The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition, in Transcending the Boundaries of Law, ed. Martha Albertson Fineman, New York: Routledge, 177-91. FRASER, NANCY, 1994. After the family wage: Gender equity and the welfare state. Political Theory, 22 (4): 591–618 (also in a 1997 version in Leibfried and Mau 2008a: vol. 3, 41–63). GAVANAS, ANNA, 2010. Who Cleans the Welfare State?: Migration, Informalization, Social Exclusion and Domestic Services in Stockholm. Stockholm: Institute for Futures Studies. GORNICK, JANET, and MEYERS, MARCIA K., (eds.), 2009. Gender Equality: Transforming Family Divisions of Labor. London: Verso. GLENN, EVELYN N., 1992. From servitude to service work: Historical continuities in the racial division of paid reproductive labor. Signs, 18 (1): 1–43. HANEY, LYNNE A., 2018. Incarcerated fatherhood: The entanglements of child support debt and mass imprisonment. American Journal of Sociology, 124(1), pp.1-48. HARAWAY, DONNA J., 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. London: Routledge. HEARN, JEFF, PRINGLE, KEITH, AND BALKMAR, D., 2018. Men, masculinities and social policy. In Handbook on Gender and Social Policy, Sheila Shaver, ed. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. HEMERIJCK, ANTON, ED. 2017, The Uses of Social Investment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. HOBSON, BARBARA, 1990. No exit, no voice: Women’s economic dependency and the welfare state. Acta sociologica, 33 (3): 235–50. _____, (ED.), 2002. Making Men into Fathers: Men, Masculinities, and the Social Politics of Fatherhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HOBSON, BARBARA, LEWIS, JANE, AND SIIM, BIRTE (EDS.), 2002. Contested Concepts in Gender and Social Politics, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. HOOK, JENNIFER, 2006. Care in context: Men's unpaid work in 20 countries, 1965–2003. American sociological review, 71 (4): 639-660. _____, 2015. Incorporating ‘class’ into work–family arrangements: Insights from and for Three Worlds. Journal of European Social Policy, 25 (1): 14-31. HOOK, JENNIFER L., AND PETTIT, BECKY, 2016. Reproducing occupational inequality: Motherhood and occupational segregation. Social Politics, 23 (3): 329-62. HTUN, MALA AND LAUREL WELDON, 2018. The logics of gender justice: state action on women's rights around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HUBER, EVELYNE, and STEPHENS, JOHN D., 2000. Partisan governance, women’s employment, and the Social Democratic service state. American Sociological Review, 65 (3): 323–42. _____, 2010. Development and Crisis of the Welfare State: Parties and Policies in Global Markets. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. HUBER, EVELYNE, STEPHENS, JOHN D., BRADLEY, DAVID, MOLLER, STEPHANIE, AND NIELSEN, FRANÇOIS, 2009. The politics of women's economic independence. Social Politics, 16 (1): 1– 39. JENSON, JANE, 1997. Who cares? Gender and welfare regimes. Social Politics, 4 (2): 182-87. _____, 2015. The fading goal of gender equality: Three policy directions that underpin the resilience of gendered socio-economic inequalities. Social Politics, 22 (4): 539-60. JESSOP, BOB, 1994. The transition to Post-Fordism and the Schumpeterian workfare state, in Towards a Post-Fordist Welfare State?, ed. Roger Burrows and Brian Loader, London: Routledge, 13–37. KECK, WOLFGANG AND SARACENO, CHIARA. 2013. The impact of different social-policy frameworks on social inequalities among women in the European Union: The labour-market participation of mothers. Social Politics, 20(3), pp.297-328. KILKEY, MAJELLA, and BRADSHAW, JONATHAN R. (eds.), 1999. Lone Mothers, Economic WellBeing and Policies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. KNIJN, TRUDIE, 1994. Fish without bikes: Revision of the Dutch welfare state and its consequences for the (in) dependence of single mothers. Social Politics 1 (1): 83-105. KNIJN, TRUDIE, and KREMER, MONIQUE, 1997. Gender and the caring dimension of welfare states: Towards inclusive citizenship. Social Politics, 4 (3): 328–61 KORPI, WALTER, 2000. Faces of inequality: Gender, class, and patterns of inequalities in different types of welfare states. Social Politics, 7 (2): 127–91. KORPI, WALTER, FERRARINI, TOMMY, AND ENGLUND, STEFAN, 2013. Women's opportunities under different family policy constellations: Gender, class, and inequality tradeoffs in western countries re-examined. Social Politics, 20 (1): 1-40. KOVEN, SETH, and MICHEL, SONYA, EDS.1993. Mothers of a New World: Maternalist Politics and the Origins of Welfare States. London: Routledge. LASLETT, BARBARA, AND BRENNER, JOHANNA, 1989. Gender and social reproduction: Historical perspectives. Annual Review of Sociology, 15 (1): 381-404. LEIBFRIED, STEPHAN, EVELYNE HUBER, MATTHEW LANGE, JONAH D. LEVY, FRANK NULLMEIER, AND JOHN D. STEPHENS, EDS. The Oxford handbook of transformations of the state. Oxford University Press, USA, 2015. LEITNER, SIGRID, 2003. Varieties of familialism: The caring function of the family in comparative perspective. European Societies, 5 (4): 353–75. LEWIS, GAIL, 2000. 'Race', Gender, Social Welfare: Encounters in a Postcolonial Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. LEWIS, JANE, 1992. Gender and the development of welfare regimes. Journal of European Social Policy, 2 (3): 159–73. _____ 2001. The decline of the male breadwinner model: Implications for work and care. Social Politics, 8 (2): 152–69. LEWIS, JANE, MARY, CAMPBELL, AND HUERTA, CARMEN, 2008. Patterns of paid and unpaid work in western Europe: Gender, commodification, preferences and the implications for policy. Journal of European Social Policy, 18 (1): 21–37. LISTER, RUTH, 1994. ‘She has other duties’: Women, citizenship and social security, in Social Security and Social Change: New Challenges to the Beveridge Model, ed. Sally Baldwin and Jane Falkingham, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 31–44. _____ 2003. Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives (Second Edition). London: Palgrave Macmillan. LOHMANN, HENNING, AND ZAGEL, HANNAH, 2016. Family policy in comparative PERSPECTIVE: The concepts and measurement of familization and defamilization. Journal of European Social Policy, 26 (1): 48-65. LUTZ, HELMA (ed.), 2008. Migration and Domestic Work: A European Perspective on a Global Theme. Aldershot: Ashgate. LUNA, ZAKIYA, AND LUKER, KRISTIN, 2013. Reproductive justice. Annual Review of Sociology, 9:327-52. LUNDQVIST, ASA. 2011. Family policy paradoxes: gender equality and labour market regulation in Sweden, 1930-2010. Policy Press. MANDEL, HADAS, and SEMYONOV, MOSHE, 2006. A welfare state paradox: State interventions and women’s employment opportunities in 22 countries. American Journal of Sociology, 111 (6): 1910–49. MANDEL, HADAS, AND SHALEV, MICHAEL, 2009. Gender, class, and varieties of capitalism. Social Politics, 16 (2): 161-81. MCCALL, LESLIE, 2005. The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30 (3): 1771-1800. MCCALL, LESLIE AND ORLOFF, ANN SHOLA, 2005. Gender, class and capitalism. Social Politics, 12: 159-69. MCLAUGHLIN, EITHNE, AND GLENDINNING, CAROLINE, 1994. Paying for care in Europe: Is there a feminist approach, in Family Policy and The Welfare of Women, ed. Linda Hantrais and Stephen P. Mangen, Leicestershire, UK: European Research Center, Loughborough University of Technology. MAHON, RIANNE, 2002. Child care: Toward what kind of ‘Social Europe’? Social Politics, 9 (3): 343–79. _____, 2015. Articulating a feminist agenda within the OECD: The working party on the role of women in the economy. Social Politics, 22 (4): 585–609. MAHON, RIANNE, ANTTONEN, ANNELI, BERGQVIST, CHRISTINA, BRENNAN, DEBORAH, AND HOBSON, BARBARA, 2012. Convergent care regimes? Childcare arrangements in Australia, Canada, Finland and Sweden. Journal of European Social Policy, 22 (4): 419–31. MEAGHER, GABRIELLE, 2006. What can we expect from paid careers? Politics & Society, 34 (1):33-54. MISRA, JOYA, BUDIG, MICHELLE J., and MOLLER, STEPHANIE, 2007. Reconciliation policies and the effects of motherhood on employment, earnings and poverty. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 9 (2): 135–55. MOREL, NATHALIE, 2007. From subsidiarity to ‘free choice’: Child-and elder-care policy reforms in France, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. Social Policy & Administration, 41 (6): 618-37. MOREL, NATHALIE, BRUNO PALIER, AND JOAKIM PALME, 2012. Towards a social investment state? Ideas, policies and challenges. Bristol: Policy Press. MORGAN, KIMBERLY J., 2005. The ‘production’ of child care: How labor markets shape social policy and vice versa. Social Politics, 12 (2): 243–63. _____ 2006. Working Mothers and the Welfare State: Religion and the Politics of Work-Family Policies in Western Europe and the United States. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. MORGAN, KIMBERLY, AND ORLOFF, ANN (eds.), 2017. The Many Hands of the State: Theorizing Political Authority and Social Control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’CONNOR, JULIA S., 1993. Gender, class and citizenship in the comparative analysis of welfare state regimes: Theoretical and methodological issues. The British Journal of Sociology, 44 (3): 501–18. O’CONNOR, JULIA S., ORLOFF, ANN SHOLA, and SHAVER, SHELIA, 1999. States, Markets, Families: Gender, Liberalism, and Social Policy in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ORLOFF, ANN SHOLA, 1993. Gender and the social rights of citizenship: The comparative analysis of state policies and gender relations. American Sociological Review, 58 (3): 303–28 (reprint in Leibfried and Mau 2008a: vol. 3, 495–522). _____ 2005. Social provision and regulation: Theories of states, social policies and modernity, in Remaking Modernity: Politics, History, and Sociology, ed. Adams, Julia, Clemens, Elisabeth, and Orloff, Ann Shola, eds. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 190-224. _____ 2006. From maternalism to ‘Employment for All’: State policies to promote women’s employment across the affluent democracies, in The State after Statism: New State Activities in the Age of Liberalisation, ed. Jonah D. Levy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 230–68. _____2009A. Gendering the comparative analysis of welfare states: An unfinished agenda. Sociological Theory 27, no. 3 (2009): 317-343. _____2009B. Should feminists aim for gender symmetry? Why a dual-earner/ dual-caregiver society is not every feminist’s utopia, in Gender Equality: Transforming Family Divisions of Labor, ed. Janet Gornick, Marcia K. Meyers, and Erik Olin Wright (Real Utopia Project, 6), New York: Verso, 129–60. _____2017. Gendered states made and remade, in The Many Hands of the State: Theorizing Political Authority and Social Control, eds. Kimberly Morgan and Ann Orloff, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ORLOFF, ANN SHOLA, AND PALIER, BRUNO, 2009. The power of gender perspectives: Feminist influence on policy paradigms, social science, and social politics. Social Politics, 16: 405412. PALIER, BRUNO, AND HAY, COLIN, 2017. The reconfiguration of the welfare state in Europe, in Reconfiguring European States in Crisis, ed. Desmond King and Patrick Le Galès, Oxford: Oxford University Press. PARREÑAS, RHACEL SALAZAR, 2000. Migrant Filipina domestic workers and the international division of reproductive labor. Gender & Society, 14 (4): 560-80. _____, 2005. Children of Global Migration: Transnational Families and Gendered Woes. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. PEDERSEN, SUSAN, 1993. Family, Dependence, and the Origins of the Welfare State: Britain and France, 1914–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. PENG, ITO, 2018. Shaping and reshaping care and migration in East and Southeast Asia. Critical Sociology, 44(7-8):1117-1132. PETTIT, BECKY AND HOOK, JENNIFER, 2009. Gendered Tradeoffs: Women, family, and workplace inequality in twenty-one countries. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. PFAU-EFFINGER, BIRGIT, 2005. Culture and welfare state policies: Reflections on a complex interrelation. Journal of Social Policy, 34 (1): 3-20. PIERSON, PAUL, 1994. Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. _____ (ed.), 2001a. The New Politics of the Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. RAI, SHIRIN M., HOSKYNS, CATHERINE, AND THOMAS, DANIA, 2014. Depletion: The cost of social reproduction. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 16 (1): 86-105. ROBERTS, DOROTHY E., 1995. Race, gender, and the value of mothers' work. Social Politics, 2(2): 195-207. _____, 1999. Killing the black body: Race, reproduction, and the meaning of liberty. New York: Vintage. ROSENEIL, SASHA, CROWHURST, ISABEL, HELLESUND, TONE, SANTOS, ANA CRISTINA, AND STOILOVA, MARIYA, 2013. Changing landscapes of heteronormativity: The regulation and normalization of same-sex sexualities in Europe. Social Politics, 20 (2): 165–99. SAINSBURY, DIANE, 1996. Gender, Equality, and Welfare States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SARACENO, CHIARA, 1997. Family change, family policies and the restructuring of welfare, in Family, Market and Community: Equity and Efficiency in Social Policy, ed. Patrick Hennessy and Mark Pearson, Paris: OECD, 63–80. SHALEV, MICHAEL, 2008. Class divisions among women. Politics & Society, 36 (3): 403–20. SHAVER, SHEILA, 1994. Body rights, social rights and the liberal welfare state. Critical Social Policy, 13 (9): 66–93. _____ (ed.), 2018. Handbook on Gender and Social Policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. SKOCPOL, THEDA, 1992. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. TAYLOR-GOOBY, PETER, (ed.), 2004. New Risks, New Welfare: The Transformation of the European Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. WALBY, SYLVIA, 2004. The European Union and gender equality: Emergent varieties of gender regimes. Social Politics, 11 (1): 4–29. WEST, CANDACE, and ZIMMERMAN, DON H., 1987. Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1 (2): 125– 51. WILLIAMS, FIONA, 1995. Race/ethnicity, gender, and class in welfare states: A framework for comparative analysis. Social Politics, 2 (2): 127–59. _____, 2018a. Intersectionality, gender and social policy, in Handbook on Gender and Social Policy, ed. Sheila Shaver, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. _____ 2018b. Care: Intersections of scales, inequalities and crises. Current Sociology, 66 (4): 547-61. ZERILLI, LINDA M. G., 2005. Feminism and the Abyss of Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.