Abstract
Paid parental leave policies in both Australia and Japan fit within Dobrotić and Blum’s (2020) classification of a selective employment-based entitlement model, thus offering an extension of that category beyond Europe and illustrating the wide variation possible within it. In this article we develop indices for comparing employment-based parental leave policies on three dimensions of social equality: inclusion, gender equality and redistribution. This combination offers an extension of classificatory schemes for parental leave policies and a broader basis for comparative analysis. We compare Australia and Japan on these indices and present a qualitative exploration of the origins and implications of their similarities and differences. The analysis draws attention to tensions between the three indices, illustrating intersecting and conflicting influences on the potential for paid parental leave entitlements to contribute to the amelioration of social inequalities. Overall, the comparison highlights drivers of difference within employment-based entitlement systems and underlines the need for complementary measures to advance egalitarian outcomes.
Subject
Sociology and Political Science,Social Psychology
Reference45 articles.
1. Baird, M., & O’Brien, M. (2015). Dynamics of parental leave in Anglophone countries: The paradox of state expansion in liberal welfare regimes. Community, Work & Family, 18(2), 198–217.
2. Blofield, M., & Martínez Franzoni, J. M. (2015). Maternalism, co-responsibility, and social equity: A typology of work–family policies. Social Politics, 22(1), 38–59.
3. Boling, P. (2015). The politics of work-family policies: Comparing Japan, France, Germany, and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Brinton, M., & Mun, H. (2016). Between state and family: Managers’ implementation and evaluation of parental leave policies in Japan. Socio-Economic Review, 14(2), 257–281.
5. Castles, F. (1989). Social protection by other means: Australia’s strategy of coping with external vulnerability. In F. Castles (Ed.), The comparative history of public policy (pp. 16–37). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献