Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Promoting parental leaves for foreign-born fathers - what role does the policy play?

Tervola, Duvander & Mussino: Promoting parental leaves for foreign-born fathers - what role does the policy play? Presentation at TITA Annual Research Meeting, Turku 15.-16.9.2016.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Promoting parental leaves for foreign-born fathers - what role does the policy play?

  1. 1. Promoting parental leaves for foreign-born fathers - what role does the policy play? Jussi Tervola, Kela (Social Insurance Institution of Finland) Ann-Zofie Duvander, SUDA (Stockholm University Demography Unit) Eleonora Mussino, SUDA (Stockholm University Demography Unit) Tackling Inequalities in Time of Austerity
  2. 2.  Nordic countries encourage fathers to participate in childcare through parental benefits  Mothers’ employment, gender equality, new fatherhood  Lower take-up rates are reported for fathers with foreign-born background (Duvander 2010). Why?  More insecure attachment to the labour market?  Lack of awareness?  Coming from culture with more traditional gender roles? 2 Background
  3. 3. What is the role of policy in immigrant fathers’ take-up? Evidence from cross-country comparison (Fin and Swe) 3 Research question
  4. 4.  Immigrants are a rapidly increasing group in Nordic countries and elsewhere  The gender gap in employment and earnings is wider among immigrants than natives Motivation -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% Nationals Foreign citizens EU-citizens Non-EU citizens Gender gap in employment Sweden Finland Source: Eurostat 2015
  5. 5.  We compare Finland and Sweden because  Both provide family benefits for fathers but with crucial policy differences  Somewhat similar context: immigrant groups and labor markets  Availability of extensive register data  Possibility to distinguish policy effect from other factors, e.g. spouse’s origin, employment, wages, time in country 5 Specification
  6. 6.  Micro-level  Household economics and rational optimization (classic economic perspective)  Gender perceptions (sociological perspective)  Awareness of the parental benefit system  Meso-level  Workplace attitudes  Macro-level  Cultural gender perceptions  Institutional information provision  Policies 6 The determinants of father participation in childcare
  7. 7. 7 The parental leave systems 1/2 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2016 2014 2012 2010 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 Monthsfrombirth Finnish system Minimum benefit / home care allowance Father quota Condition to father quota Shared Daddy days simult. with mother Mother quota 2016 2014 2012 2010 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 Swedish system
  8. 8.  Swedish system is more flexible  Possibility to extend the benefit period by using it part-time or postpone until child is 8 yrs (12 yrs since 2014).  In Finland, the father has to use the quota directly after mother. Since 2007 father has possibility to postpone it until child is 1,5yrs. Since 2013 until 2yrs old.  In Finland home care allowance after parental leave is a norm  Central reason for fathers to not use parental benefits (Lammi-Taskula 2009)  Sweden has had its own rarely used HCA offered by some municipalities (abolished in 2016)  Residence-based eligibility in both countries 8 Parental benefit systems 2/2
  9. 9.  Finland  Pre-90’s, immigration was marginal  Since the 90’s, increasing flows from neighboring Russia and Estonia, and refugees from Somalia, Iraq, Yugoslavia  2009: 6% of men aged 15-44yrs born abroad  Sweden  During 70’s labour migrants from Finland, since 80’s labour migrants from more diverse origins, and lately more from Eastern Europe  Since 80’s refugee migration from Iraq, Iran, Yugoslavia, Somalia, lately from Syria  2009: 17% of men aged 15-44yrs born abroad 9 Immigration to Fin and Swe
  10. 10. 10 Examined ”common groups” Distributions of fathers by migration year 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Turkey Swe Fin 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Former Yugoslavia Swe Fin 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Horn of Africa Swe Fin 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Iraq Swe Fin
  11. 11.  Fathers’ take-up (0/1) of 1. The daddy days (while mother is also at home) 2. Individual leave (quota or gender-neutral leave)  Father’s first child  Children born in Swe/Fin during 1999-2009  Parents cohabit during the birth year and the next one 11 Study variable and population
  12. 12. 12 Data n of first births distribution, % Swe Fin Swe Fin Natives 354 606 145 533 85.6 95.5 Former Yugoslavia 9 076 441 2.2 0.3 Horn of Africa 1 789 229 0.4 0.2 Iraq 7 256 382 1.8 0.3 Turkey 3 279 400 0.8 0.3 Western 13 689 1 456 3.3 1.0 Other 24 464 3 970 5.9 2.6  Finland: 60 % sample of first births  Sweden: Total population
  13. 13. 13 Take-up rates by child’s birth year % of fathers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 Daddy days 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 Individual leave Sweden / natives Sweden / immigrants Finland / natives Finland / immigrants
  14. 14. 14 The models Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Base Employment Full Imm status indicator x x x Accurate country of birth Imm status of spouse x Years since migration Birth month x x x Birth year x x x Father's employment x x Mother's employment x x Father's wage level x Father's share of income x Father's age x
  15. 15. 15 Relative gaps to natives all immigrants -80% -40% 0% 40% 80% Base Model Control for employment Full model Daddy days Base Model Control for employment Full model Individual leave Fin Swe
  16. 16. 16 Relative gap by group Controlled model -80% -40% 0% 40% 80% Daddy days Western Other Individual leave Fin Swe
  17. 17.  The immigrant fathers’ take-up seems to follow natives’ take-up with a certain gap  Implies the dominant role of policies  For individual leave, the gap is wider in Fin than in Swe  The explanation lies likely in the lack of ”true quota” and flexibility in Finnish system until 2013.  For daddy days, the gap is similar in both countries  The policy is also quite similar, some difference in eligibility criteria 17 The conclusions
  18. 18.  The role of awareness and information provision?  Differences in provision of information by the institutions?  More extensive co-patriate networks in Sweden?  The comparability of the groups?  Socio-economic, cultural 18 Critical review

×