Skip Navigation



Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society Advance Access published online on November 13, 2009
Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, doi:10.1093/sp/jxp020
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
16/4/484    most recent
jxp020v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Knijn, T.
Right arrow Articles by Smit, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Investing, Facilitating, or Individualizing the Reconciliation of Work and Family Life: Three Paradigms and Ambivalent Policies1

Trudie Knijn and Arnoud Smit

Correspondence: E-mail: G.C.M.Knijn{at}uu.nl

After decades of promoting work–family reconciliation with the aim of advancing gender equality, European Union (EU) discourses around work and family have been reframed. This article distinguishes three currently paramount discourses: The social investment approach, the transitional labor market model, and the individual life-course model. Respectively, they propose investing in, facilitating, and individualizing the new social risks, including the resolution of tensions in the relationship between work and family life. Each has particular assumptions about risk-sharing, public and private responsibility, and the position of the individual vis-à-vis the state and the community. These paradigms have been analyzed in relation to EU policies on the reconciliation of work and family life. We find some traces of these paradigms in the Lisbon agreements, its amendments, and in the National Action Plans that are regularly submitted by the member-states. We conclude that the gender-equality agenda has been subordinated to the focus on creating competitive knowledge-based economies in the EU. Social investment is the most prominent of the three paradigms in this new agenda, yet because it is mixed up with elements from the other paradigms, current policy agendas lack coherence.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 SOC POLHome page
D. Beland
Gender, Ideational Analysis, and Social Policy
Soc. Pol., December 1, 2009; 16(4): 558 - 581.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 SOC POLHome page
T. J. Padamsee
Culture in Connection: Re-Contextualizing Ideational Processes in the Analysis of Policy Development
Soc. Pol., December 1, 2009; 16(4): 413 - 445.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 SOC POLHome page
A. S. Orloff and B. Palier
The Power of Gender Perspectives: Feminist Influence on Policy Paradigms, Social Science, and Social Politics
Soc. Pol., December 1, 2009; 16(4): 405 - 412.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 SOC POLHome page
R. Stryker and P. Wald
Redefining Compassion to Reform Welfare: How Supporters of 1990s US Federal Welfare Reform Aimed for the Moral High Ground
Soc. Pol., December 1, 2009; 16(4): 519 - 557.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.