If childcare was more affordable would women do less of it, or are they so keen to secure the best for their children would they still maximise hours? Across Europe, women with money to spend on outsourcing do not spend less time on childcare

“Women’s Work”: Welfare State Spending and the Gendered and Classed Dimensions of Unpaid Care. Naomi Lightman, Anthony Kevins. Gender & Society, August 16, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912432211038695

Abstract: This study is the first to explicitly assess the connections between welfare state spending and the gendered and classed dimensions of unpaid care work across 29 European nations. Our research uses multi-level model analysis of European Quality of Life Survey data, examining childcare and housework burdens for people living with at least one child under the age of 18. Two key findings emerge: First, by disaggregating different types of unpaid care work, we find that childcare provision is more gendered than classed—reflecting trends toward “intensive mothering”. Housework and cooking, on the contrary, demonstrate both gender and class effects, likely because they are more readily outsourced by wealthier individuals to the paid care sector. Second, while overall social expenditure has no effect on hours spent on childcare and housework, results suggest that family policy may shape the relationship between gender, income, and housework (but not childcare). Specifically, family policy expenditure is associated with a considerably smaller gender gap vis-à-vis the time dedicated to housework: This effect is present across the income spectrum, but is particularly substantial in the case of lower income women.

Keywords: care work, inequality, gender, social policy, comparative/cross-national

Discussion and Conclusion

In this article, we examined how gender, class, and national social expenditure (both overall and specifically on family policy) may shape the time individuals spend on unpaid childcare and housework. Building on existing large-scale and cross-national studies analyzing unpaid care (e.g., Altintas and Sullivan 2016; Esping-Andersen and Schmitt 2020; Hook 2010), we used England’s (2005) Devaluation Framework to assess the gendered and classed dimensions of unpaid care, as well as the role welfare states might play in diminishing care inequalities.

Our analysis relied on multi-level models using the 2007–2008 and 2016–2017 waves of the European Quality of Life Survey. Examining respondents living with at least one child below the age of 18 years across 29 European nations, two major findings emerged. First, we demonstrated the importance of disaggregating different types of unpaid care work, supporting prior arguments that not all unpaid care work is perceived equally. In the case of childcare provision, we found that the divides were more gendered than classed. This result supports scholarship about “intensive mothering” (e.g., England and Srivastava 2013; Schneider and Hastings 2017), which suggests that although time spent on childcare has been increasing among all parents, it has increased disproportionately for mothers within higher income households, since it serves as an important means of class reproduction (Ennis 2014; Lareau 1987). Our findings thus reinforce prior research suggesting that after-work-hours childcare is not being readily outsourced among highly educated and high-income mothers (even though many could easily afford to do so). This is typically attributed to shifting perceptions about the needs of children, cultural orientations toward mothering, and growing demands to provide children with a competitive advantage (Altintas and Sullivan 2016; Dotti Sani and Treas 2016; Nelson 2010). As Faircloth (2014) notes, this has led to mothers taking on a “God-like” role, and investing ever more time, energy, and material resources to ensure that the future opportunities of their offspring are maximized.

Conversely, in the case of housework and cooking, we found that time use varied according to both gender and household income—likely because such tasks are often considered “mundane” and are more readily outsourced to the paid care sector by wealthier women, through services such as housekeeping, dry cleaning, and prepared meals (Coltrane 2000; Dotti Sani and Treas 2016; Williams 2001). We thus found substantive differences in the time spent on indirect forms of care work, with low-income women spending the most time on these activities. This finding provides strong support for the need to disaggregate measures of unpaid care work when examining intersectional dynamics.

A major contribution of our analysis is that we provide pertinent nuance regarding the role of social policy vis-à-vis the interplay between gender, class, and unpaid care work across countries. Overall, social expenditure was found to have no clear relationship to hours spent on childcare or housework. However, when the focus was narrowed to analyze the effects of social policies specifically targeted on families (i.e., child allowances and credits, childcare supports, parental leave supports, and single-parent payments), we found a clear structuring effect on the relationship between gender, income, and housework (but not childcare). Notably, greater family policy expenditure was associated with a considerably smaller gap between the time women and men dedicated to housework; but while this relationship was present at all income levels, it was strongest at the lower end of the income spectrum—suggesting both a gendered and classed dynamic.

We attribute this finding to several factors. On one hand, family policy expenditure often results in more cash-in-hand for families, but likely does not provide enough additional funds to pay for substantive amounts of childcare for lower income households. On the other hand, cultural and social expectations surrounding childrearing may discourage many mothers from reducing time spent on childcare—but there is likely less concern about using any increased funds to reduce “menial” burdens tied to cleaning, cooking, or laundry. In this scenario, cash benefits can make a more substantial difference in the ability to outsource or reduce time spent on housework, especially for low-income women.

Taken together, our findings thus provide evidence of the role family policy expenditure can play in addressing gendered inequities in unpaid care work for all women—but especially those at the lower end of the income spectrum. In turn, these intersectional dynamics provide a powerful argument against welfare state retrenchment and suggest that investing in family policy can have meaningful impacts on reducing inequalities in unpaid care, particularly for lower income mothers.

There are nevertheless several limitations to our study, which in turn point out valuable avenues for future research. First, the data and methodological approach used here only allow us to highlight correlations; we are thus unable to say anything about the potential causal relationships and mechanisms that might lie behind our findings. Second, it is unlikely that we have revealed the full effects of family policy expenditure. Research suggests that family policies can increase women’s labor market attachment, thereby potentially shrinking the gender care gap by reducing the amount of time women can dedicate to unpaid care work (Ferragina 2020); yet these (mediated) effects are necessarily ignored in our models, since employment status and hours worked are considered to be key control variables (see, for example, Esping-Andersen and Schmitt 2020). As a consequence, we are likely missing a portion of family policy expenditure’s total effect on unpaid care work. Third, and notwithstanding our attempt to factor unobserved cross-country variation into our analysis, it may well be the case that cultural differences, for example, play an important role driving patterns of unpaid care work. Indeed, this point seems especially crucial given research suggesting that policies that are not aligned with cultural norms may only marginally affect the gendered division of unpaid care (Nakazato 2019). Fourth, because our analysis is limited to parents, the results cannot be extended to housework in general, as trends within childless households may differ substantively. Finally, our focus on disaggregated social expenditure is limited to a relatively broad group of programs—namely, family policy expenditure. Future work investigating specific types of family policies would therefore be especially valuable for further disentangling the relationships identified in this study.

To conclude, we note that our findings take on particularly acute significance in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has fostered increased attention to unpaid care work. Early research suggests that this health emergency has amplified overall unpaid caring burdens within households, due to factors such as remote working conditions, a lack of childcare, increased home schooling, and heightened risks to aging populations (Oleschuk 2020). Although the precise gendered and classed dynamics of this heightened care burden are yet to be determined, emerging evidence suggests that it is women who are disproportionately undertaking this increase in labor, spurring suggestions that “the coronavirus is a disaster for feminism” (Lewis 2020). The findings in this study suggest that reinvesting in social policies that target families may be one concrete way to address this growth in unpaid care work, serving as an important step in post-pandemic recovery efforts. This, in turn, invites future research on the intersectional dynamics of unpaid care work, with particular attention to the caring burdens of Indigenous and racialized women, as a means toward reimagining a more equitable use of “human infrastructure” in the social organization of unpaid care.