Although work-life ‘balance’ is an EU policy priority, within Europe there are considerable variations in the nature and extent of supports that national governments have offered to dual-earner families. In general, the Nordic welfare states offer the highest level of supports, although other countries, such as France, have historically offered extensive childcare supports to working mothers. We examine national variations in reported levels of work-life conflict, drawing upon questions fielded in the 2002 Family module International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) surveys for Britain, France, Finland, Norway and Portugal. We find evidence of a ‘societal effect’ in the cases of Finland and Norway, in that significantly lower levels of work-life conflict are reported in these countries even after a range of factors have been controlled for. However, support for childcare in France does not appear to have had a similar impact. Further explorations of the data reveal that the domestic division of labour is relatively traditional in France, and that this is associated with higher levels of work-life conflict.

This article draws on a repeat of a 1994 survey, carried out in 2002, in three contrasting countries: Britain, Norway and the Czech Republic.The 1994 survey demonstrated that there was a significant association between more 'liberal' gender role attitudes and a less traditional division of domestic labour in all three countries. In 2002, this association was no longer significant for Britain and Norway. Gender role attitudes had become less traditional in all three countries, although women's attitudes had changed more than men's. There had been little change in the gendered allocation of household tasks, suggesting a slowing down of the increase of men's involvement in domestic work. It is suggested that work intensification may be making increased participation in domestic work by men more difficult. Although national governments are becoming more aware and supportive of the problems of work-life 'balance', an increase in competitiveness and intensification at workplaces may be working against more 'positive' policy supports.

This paper critically examines two strands within contemporary gender essentialism--that is, the argument that men and women are fundamentally different and that it is this 'difference' that explains the continuing social and material differences between the sexes. The first strand we examine is Hakim's 'preference theory', which has argued that persisting sex differences in employment patterns are an outcome of the 'choices' made by different 'types' of women. We next examine the claims of populist conservative feminism, that has argued that women (and men) in partnerships will be happier if they adopt a gender role traditionalism in the domestic sphere. Our empirical findings suggest that neither of these theoretical explanations are supported by our data, which is derived from the samples of six countries participating in the International Social Survey Programme Family 2002 module.

This article examines gendered career paths in two feminizing and highly qualified professions. Quantitative data show that in medicine the profession is internally segregated by sex, as women tend to opt for the family friendly but clinically inferior specialty of general practice. In accountancy internal segregation by sex is considerably less evident but women fail to rise through organizational hierarchies. Qualitative interviews with qualified doctors and accountants suggest that sex discrimination is to some extent still an issue but that the major factor underlying these different gendered career trajectories is that women still retain the major responsibility for domestic work and caring. They also suggest that doctors have been able to exercise more control over their working hours than accountants and that even when accountants work part-time, they work longer hours than contracted. Part-time work is also seen as seriously careerlimiting. In our conclusions, we briefly examine the gender equality implications of these contrasting self-regulated and market-driven adaptations to occupational feminization.

This paper reports an analysis of the relative influence of work-related, carerelated and personal factors on carer outcomes among 204 working female carers. To examine the importance of personal factors, the 'Motivations in Elder Care Scale ' (MECS) and the 'Relationships in Elder Care Scale' (RECS) were developed. In a qualitative pilot study, interviews with working-age carers were drawn on to form the items for inclusion. The MECS included items for external pressures to care, e.g. guilt, the older person's expectation of care, and perceived disapproval of others, and for internal desires to adopt the caring role, e.g. carer's resistance to other forms of care, living up to one's principles and caring nature. Psychometric tests revealed that two subscales had greater reliability, the EXMECS (extrinsic motivations to care) and the INMECS (intrinsic motivations). The RECS included both positive items, e.g. respect, admiration for the older person, and lack of generational differences, and negative relationship items, e.g. struggle for power, and older person's resistance to caring efforts, and had good reliability. Measures of carer stress and carer satisfaction were included as outcome variables. Multiple regression analyses showed that the RECS and the MECS were the most significant predictors of carer outcomes. Greater extrinsic motivations to care and poorer quality of the relationship with the older person were the most significant predictors of carer stress. Better relationship quality and greater intrinsic motivations to care were the most significant predictors of carer satisfaction.KEY WORDS -motivations, quality of relationship, older person caring, carer stress, carer satisfaction.

One of the most pressing issues contributing to the persistence of gender inequality is the gendered division of domestic labour. Despite their entry into paid employment, women still carry out more domestic work than men, limiting their ability to act on an equal footing within the workplace. This qualitative research adds to the ongoing debate concerning the reasons for the persistence of the gendered nature of domestic work, by comparing working women who earn more, those who earn around the same and those who earn less than their male partners, as well as examining women's absolute incomes. On average, men whose partners earn more than they do carry out more housework than other men, although women in these partnerships still do more. However, these women actively contest their male partner's lack of input, simultaneously 'doing' and 'undoing' gender. The article also identifies class differences in the 'sharing' of domestic work.

Drawing on British data from the 2002 International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) module on 'Family and Changing Gender Roles', this paper is an exploratory attempt to assess the extent to which newly emerging 'individualised' patterns of money management in intimate relationships, are coming to be associated with shifts towards greater equality between partners, in terms of who has the final say over large expenditure decisions, and the implications this has for overall satisfaction with the relationship and happiness with life in general. Our findings show that while in general, keeping money partly separate was associated with a relatively high level of male control, which was more visible to female respondents than male control in other systems, a minority of (sometimes) higher earning, cohabiting women with partly separate finances, were able to make autonomous decisions about spending, possibly by using their own personal spending money. However, the analysis also indicates that when either men or women made autonomous decisions about spending, both male and female respondents were less satisfied with family life, as well as with life in general, than those who made joint decisions.

The relative importance of economic and other motives for employers to provide support for work–life balance (WLB) is debated within different literatures. However, discourses of WLB can be sensitive to changing economic contexts. This article draws on in-depth interviews with senior human resources professionals in British public sector organizations to examine shifting discourses of WLB in an austerity context. Three main discourses were identified: WLB practices as organizationally embedded amid financial pressures; WLB practices as a strategy for managing financial pressures; and WLB as a personal responsibility. Despite a discourse of mutual benefits to employee and employer underpinning all three discourses, there is a distinct shift towards greater emphasis on economic rather than institutional interests of employers during austerity, accompanied by discursive processes of fixing, stretching, shrinking and bending understandings of WLB. The reconstructed meaning of WLB raises concerns about its continued relevance to its original espoused purpose.