The Role of Domestic Employment Policies in Shaping Precarious Work

Abstract

This article compares policy approaches regarding domestic employment in affluent countries and examines their impact on precarious work. Drawing on secondary literature and policy documents, this study identifies five policy approaches commonly applied in affluent countries to regulate and develop domestic employment: (1) affordable services; (2) simplifying use; (3) regulating employment; (4) regulating labour migration; and (5) no policy. The comparative analysis of different policy types shows that policy design is crucial in regulating employment conditions and the level of precariousness in paid domestic labour. Based on a literature review, three dimensions of precarious work are studied: (1) the nature of employment (formal/informal); (2) the employment relationship; and (3) the form of employment (temporary or permanent, part time or full time). I argue that the current policy measures in place may increase precariousness either directly by promoting, for example, informal and irregular work, or indirectly through households (offering incentives for households that weaken workers' positions). The analysis also identifies positive measures that contribute to creating more secure employment conditions in domestic work through formalizing the sector. While there are differences in the outcomes of the different policy types, the findings suggest that across welfare states, domestic employment policies are still mostly demand driven and sustain the traditional, special nature of domestic work – often at the workers' expense.

Welfare States and Labour Market Change: What is the Possible Relation?

“…We see under‐employment, people working for no remuneration in order to try to get a job (so‐called ‘interest jobs’), people working overtime without being paid, and people in other precarious work‐arrangements (Standing ). One can argue that there are three dimensions: formal/informal; employment relationship; and temporary or permanent, part‐time or full‐time work (for more, see Jokela ). This is part of the ongoing transformation of the labour market in welfare states in Europe and also the rest of the world.…”

What is precarious employment? A systematic review of definitions and operationalizations from quantitative and qualitative studies

“…Number of included studies according to study characteristics. One mixed method, one historical article tive observational studies(12,, while 18 were qualitative studies(64)(65)(66)(67)(68)(69)(70)(71)(72)(73)(74)(75)(76)(77)(78)(79)(80)(81). Only one article conducted a mixed-methods approach(83) and one was an historical article(82).…”

Beyond convergence: regulating domestic employment in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan

“…The convergence across countries in the employment of foreign domestic workers has contributed to a special arrangement that closely links migration with care regimes (Jokela, 2017;Williams, 2012), an arrangement Ochiai (2009) identified as a familistic welfare regime combined with liberalism. By reviewing domestic employment regulations in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, we find the former is not the cause of the latter; instead, it is the latter, the special arrangement, that contributes to the former, the employers' choice of foreign domestic workers as caregivers.…”

“…Past research indicates policy design has played a significant role in regulating domestic employment (Jokela, 2017;Morel, 2015). Two characteristics, which are caregiving and migration, have been identified in the policy design and state government has a room in structuring domestic employment regulation through the combination of these two (as Figure 1; Hsu, 2018).…”