For best experience please turn on javascript and use a modern browser!
You are using a browser that is no longer supported by Microsoft. Please upgrade your browser. The site may not present itself correctly if you continue browsing.
Caitlin Schmid’s Master thesis entitled “Who Cares for Equality? A comparative analysis of gender equality and intergenerational care policy in European welfare states” was awarded the 2017 ARC-GS MA Thesis Prize. Schmid has provided a summary of the thesis here below.

The aim of the research is to pinpoint policies and policy configurations undermining or advancing gender equality, specifically in the gendered division of wage and unpaid care labour, which may explain the variation of gender equality levels in European countries. The relevance of focussing on care policy is that unpaid care responsibilities, still predominantly preformed by women, determine the possible extent of engagement in the labour market to secure economic independence and pursue self-development. The impact of care responsibilities on the carer’s employment – and thereby economic independence and security – is especially critical for lower-income classes, as recourse to private service provisions is restricted by limited resources. Thus, the general claim is made, that when welfare states collectivise care responsibilities through universally offering families public services for the care of children and the elderly, gender equality will be higher across classes.

Before analysing countries’ policy landscapes, the thesis maps out the varying levels of gender equality across Europe. While multiple indices measuring gender equality outcomes in different European countries exist (such as the Gender Equality Index issued by the EU), the thesis identifies serious shortcomings in their conceptualisation and measurement, briefly outlined in the following. First, the indices do not conceptualise care as a form of labour, alongside wage labour. The thesis claims that conceptualising care as a form of labour is crucial since it allows it to be placed alongside wage labour, thus appreciating that gender equal access to and engagement in the labour market can only be achieved when an equal division of care labour exists. Further, it highlights this division as a structural problem, emphasising the welfare state’s central role in determining the organisation of (un)paid care labour and the conditions under which (in)formal care is performed. Second, a further critical flaw lies in the indices’ focus on childcare while excluding measures capturing the gendered division in eldercare. While the effects of childcare responsibilities on gender equality have rightfully received attention in policy debates, those of eldercare are often disregarded. Yet, research demonstrates that tending to eldercare responsibilities has a significant impact on the employment and income patterns of carers – again, predominantly women. In light of our ageing population, this dimension will only increase in importance for gender equality.

Departing from this background, a new index is developed, reflecting gender equality outcomes related to the reconciliation of wage and unpaid care labour. Alongside various indicators (such as gender wage gaps, gender gaps in risk of poverty and gender gaps in political representation, etc.), the proposed index incorporates measures reflecting the gender gap in unpaid child- and eldercare conceptualised alongside the division of wage labour. The index is applied to 20 European countries, from which five countries are selected on the basis of their differing gender equality scores: Austria was identified as the ‘Low Type’, the United Kingdom as the ‘Medium-Low Type’, Slovenia and Lithuania both as ‘Medium-High Type 1’ cases and, finally, Sweden as ‘Medium-High Type 2’.

Subsequently, data on the selected country’s intergenerational care policies is qualitatively analysed and used to test and refine formulated propositions on which policies or policy configurations are expected to lead to higher levels of gender equality across classes. However, the data suggests that the majority of propositions cannot be corroborated and that additional factors influence the level of gender equality in countries. The thesis thus briefly engages in a discussion of the potential origins of gender (in)equality in the respective countries, signifying the relevance of historic-institutional factors, which may have second-order effects on gender equality by influencing the class system.

In conclusion, this thesis offers a strongly substantiated theoretical discussion of the various aspects of gender equality. The developed index forms the most notable contribution and merits its acknowledgement as an excellent thesis in its own right. Aside from making a strong claim for recognising care as a form of labour and eldercare as a relevant aspect of gender equality, the thesis offers theoretical support for advocating class equality to increase gender equality.