Childbearing intentions and parents’ capability to achieve work-life balance: Comparing Sweden and Hungary Susanne Fahlén (Dept. of Sociology, Stockholm University)

Outline of the presentation 1) Description of the two institutional contexts 2) Childbearing intentions in Sweden and Hungary 3) Parents capability to achieve work-life balance

1) Two Institutional Contexts: Sweden and Hungary Similarities: – Dual-earner family model – Daycare services – Parental leave benefits – Proportion of women in the labour market Female employment: % of population. Women aged years. Source: OECD, 2008

Source: SCB and Hungarian Central Statistical Office 2008 Part-time=less than 30 hours/week. Source: OECD 2008 Country differences… % of women working part time Total fertility rate

Security: Work and economy Employment security: Proportion with an insecure employment situation. (ESS 2004/2005) Economic situation: Proportion having difficulties living on present household income. (ESS 2004/2005)

2) Childbearing intentions Question: Is job insecurity associated with uncertainty of having a(nother) child? - Difference between Hungary and Sweden? - Difference between men and women? - Difference between childless and one-child parents?

Data and Method Data: European Social Survey 2004/2005 Analysis technique: Logistic regression. – Separate country analysis. Subsample: Total n=838 – (age 20-45, with max. one child). Dependent variable: “Do you plan to have a child within the next three years?” Control variables: – Age, Age of youngest child (if any), co-residential partnership, education, perceived economic situation. Explanatory variable: Job security.

Why intention and not preference? Childbearing preference: – Ideal family size (general or personal). – Indicate context-specific social norm. – Reveals one’s desires irrespective of the person’s life situation (A “perfect world” without any constraints) Childbearing intention: – Usually operationalised as in this study. – Capture possibilities and constraints related to a person’s life situation and resources. – Intentions = a rather valid predictor of future fertility behaviour.

Result: Probability of uncertainty of having a(nother) child (per cent) year old men and women in co-residential partnership, living comfortable/coping on present household income.

3) Work-life balance in Stockholm and Budapest The “Capability survey”: – A comparative study of parents in Stockholm and Budapest Focus of the study: – Tensions: between work and family life between aspirations and constraints between time and money – Rights and the capability to exercise those rights

Stockholm and Budapest Samples Selection criterion: Parent in a couple with one child under 7, having a work during past year. Sample: 50 men and 50 women in each city. Age range: years. Stratified: firm size/sector, and educational level

Main research questions: What kinds of means and resources would enable parents to have a better work-life balance? What do they want to change? What are the obstacles? At their workplace: What are parents able to claim in terms of flexibility, right to say no to extra hours? What are their sense of risk and security in terms of mistreatment at their workplace? Here are some of the findings…

Flexibility Gender and work sector difference: – Men have less flexibility than women, especially in the public sector – Stockholm: Women in private sector less flexibility than women in public sector – Budapest: For some low skilled men this was unthinkable: Example : “Obviously, one must support his/her family so working is a must. You have no choice. Well, I wouldn’t mind to leave earlier sometimes. However, we don’t have a say in this matter.” (26 y.o. father of one, basic education, construction worker)

Rights to say no to extra hours Family reasons are nearly always a justified motive. Stockholm: Many parents were not even asked if they have small children. Budapest: The one’s less able to say no: – Highly qualified working for private companies Intense working time regimes and expected commitment to the firm. “There is no such thing as overwork – there are only tasks to be completed” – Fathers with larger families and/or a partner with lower education They need the money. “I could refuse but I won’t, extra money is always good news”

Unfair treatment Budapest: Permanent demand of long working hours Gender-normative expectations – Family/childcare = “woman-mainly” tasks – Fathers’ WLB-claims = unusual and unrealistic “They [other colleagues] thought that he was not telling the truth when he said that he needed time off for his family” (41 y.o. sales representative, public sector) Stockholm: Discriminatory treatment as a result of parental leave. Implicit mistreatment: “There’s a lot of talk behind the back. Partly it’s been suggested that some people think that you’re lying if you’re home with sick children. […] An employer cannot treat some differently because of their family circumstances, that’s against the law. But behind the back talk goes on” (28 y.o. working in a public warehouse)

What could lead to a better WLB?

Budapest: MONEY and TIME Stockholm: TIME

Stockholm: Preserving the standard of living “We’ve chosen to have the car that we do, we’ve chosen to live here and do what we do and go on the holidays that we do. That money has to come from somewhere. That’s the way it is” (33 y.o. father of two, high education, project manager in the private sector) Budapest: Economic pressures + time poverty = poor capabilities for a WLB “There is no choice: both of us must work in order to cover our living costs” (35 y.o. father of three, medium education working as a courier) “Someone from the family has to work a daily hours in order to make ends meet. But then the family cannot be together” (34 y.o. mother of three, basic education, a tobacconist in the private sector)

Some sources of entitlement Sweden: The legislation is much implemented and embedded in peoples senses High union density and high rates of collective bargaining coverage Example: Legal right to reduce working hours. Hungary: Weak knowledge about laws protecting parents from unfair treatment Low union density and low rates of collective bargaining coverage Example: No statutory right to reduce hours

Thank you for your attention!