Family policy in high-income countries: Five decades of development

Abstract

This article empirically traces trends in family policy in 23 high-income countries since the 1960s. A range of data on income supports for families with children, family-related leave and early childhood education and care are brought together and analysed. The results show that family policy has developed by layering, in terms of both content and time period. A 'foundational phase' is characterised by investment in cash and tax allowances for families and employment leave for mothers, while a 'consolidation phase' sees states adding to their family policy portfolio, especially through the diversification of familyrelated leave and augmentation of child-related care services, increasing their overall family policy expenditure and continuing to support families financially but with a preference to direct this through the tax system. There is no inexorable development path though, either within or across countries. A layering development pattern suggests that analysis of family policy over time needs to be oriented to examining both continuity and change and, as the conclusion makes clear, there are many fruitful lines of further research.

Content Analysis of Family Policy Instruments to Promote the Sustainable Development of Families in China from 1989–2019

“…After 2012, the Chinese government truly began to attach importance to the development of family policy. In contrast to the development of family policy and subsequent prosperity in Europe and the United States over the past 50 years [12,80], China's family policy is seriously lagging behind and has a long way to go.…”

“…Family policy is strongly dependent on the use of supply-side policy instruments but weakly dependent on the use of demand-side policy instruments, which is manifested in the government's tendency to support individuals with specific needs through direct transfers. This indicates that family policy is currently still in the "foundational phase", and development is extremely limited; that is, there is a "deficit intervention", and China is far from reaching the "consolidation phase" of family investment [12].…”

“…Bable (2008) suggests that the diversity of family policy models depends on the specific historical-cultural context and can distinguish different types of family policy according to the two key dimensions of "national policy on family-work relations" and "state-provided income benefits for families" [32]. In general, Western Europe can be divided into four models: Nordic, Mediterranean, liberal, and two different subtypes at the center of the continent exemplified by France and Belgium, and Germany and Austria [12]. For a long time, the classification model and comparative analysis of the family policies of these welfare countries have been strongly influenced by the work "Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism" written by Esping Anderson (1990) [33].…”

“…[13,43,50]. Although multiple dimensions of family policy are considered in the selection of variables [12], this analytical method tends to ignore the internal characteristics of the policy itself, and few studies have conducted an overall analysis at the policy level. Most importantly, the selection of indicators is easily limited by data availability [6,51], which has a negative impact on the scope and depth of the analysis.…”

“…As Lohmann and Zagel argue, policy-level analysis is important for the field of family policy [51]. The use of appropriate qualitative indicators can greatly improve the analysis of family policies [12]. To systematically describe the Chinese government's efforts to support the family, this paper proposes a new analytical framework for analyzing the promulgation of China's family policy that considers the content of the policy text and aims to capture policy characteristics at different levels by using a large number of broad indicators.…”