Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The impact of pThe impact of parentsarents´employment´employment
on gender inequalities on gender inequalities in the Czech Republic in the Czech Republic
after 1989after 1989 * *
Hana MaříkováHana MaříkováInstitute of Sociology, Institute of Sociology,
CAS, v.v.i. PrahaCAS, v.v.i. Praha
Changes after 1989 Changes after 1989 inin the the CRCR
• CR – the country with a very low fertility rate
• Decrease in female employment• Debates on fertility + female
employment (debates on welfare state + gender regime)
Graph 1: Fertility rate in the CRGraph 1: Fertility rate in the CR
1
1,1
1,2
1,3
1,4
1,5
1,6
1,7
1,8
1,9
2
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total fertility rate in CR
Graph 2: An average age of mothers in Graph 2: An average age of mothers in the 1st childbirth, in all childbirthsthe 1st childbirth, in all childbirths
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
P
Female employment and its Female employment and its context in the CRcontext in the CR
• Before and after 1989: 46 % of women in the 80s, 44.3 % in 1990
• Changes in social policies – family policy and employment policy affected W´s + M´s lifes and work paths as parents (the right to care preferred to right to work in the W´s case)
Table 1: Table 1: The number of nurseries in the The number of nurseries in the
Czech Republic since 1988Czech Republic since 1988 Year Number of
facilities Total enrolment capacity
1988 1 367 55 955
1989 1 313 52 646
1990 1 043 39 829
1999 67 1 913
2010 46 1 452
Source: ÚZIS (Institute of Health Information and Statistics) 2000 a 2011
Graph 3: Femele employment rate Graph 3: Femele employment rate in the Visegrad countriesin the Visegrad countries
Female employment rate in Visegrad (age group 25 - 54)
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
CZ HU PL SK
Graph 4: Graph 4: Employment impact of Employment impact of parenthood - femaleparenthood - female
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
CZ HU PL SK
Graph 5: Graph 5: Employment impact of Employment impact of parenthood - maleparenthood - male
Employment impact of parenthood - male
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
CZ HU PL SK
What about men – fathers in What about men – fathers in the CR?the CR?
• Until 1990 (parental) allowance for fathers only in specific life situations (Act No. 110/1984 Sb.)
• October 1990: „parental allowance“ was introduced (e.g. also for all fathers)
• 2001: parental leave (in the Labour Code)
GraphGraph 6: 6: Absolute number of men on Absolute number of men on the parental leave the parental leave (or at home to take (or at home to take
care) care) in a given year (in a given year (in in thousands)thousands)
3,3
2,7
1,11
0,9
1,4
0,8
2,12
0,9
1,3
0,7
1,31,1
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
GraphGraph 7: 7: Women on parental leave as Women on parental leave as percentage of the total number of percentage of the total number of parents on the parental leave in a parents on the parental leave in a
given yeargiven year
98,3 98,6 98 99,4 99,4 99,2 99,5 98,8 98,9 99,5 99,3 99,6 99,1 99,2
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
CCauses of low representation of auses of low representation of men on parental leavemen on parental leave
Institutional level:• Until 2008: a parental allowance =
one fixed sum• After 2008: 3 fixed sums• Absence of a parental quota• Absence of paternal (daddy) leave• Lack of support on the company level
GraphGraph 8: 8: Uptake of parental leave by Norwegian Uptake of parental leave by Norwegian fathers (of those who were entitled to the leave) fathers (of those who were entitled to the leave)
between 1988 and 1998between 1988 and 1998 (in %) (in %)
• Source: Brandt and Kvande 1995.
0,6 1 1,7 2 2,3 4,1
45
5761
7580
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Impact of motherhood on Impact of motherhood on female workfemale work
• Lower career chances• Lower income• Higher unemployment rate (see next
slide)• Lower pensions (women´s average
pension in the long term = 0.81 % of men´s average pension)
Graph 9: Female uGraph 9: Female unemployment by nemployment by ageage (in %) (in %)
Female unemployment by age (in %)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44
1995 2000 2005
Table 2: Gender pay gap in the average Table 2: Gender pay gap in the average gross hourly wage by age (women compared gross hourly wage by age (women compared
to men in 2004 and 2010)to men in 2004 and 2010)
Age cohort Gender pay gap in 2004
Gender pay gap in 2010
20-24 0.90 0.89
25-29 0.87 0.91
30-34 0.70 0.78
35-39 0.66 0.68
40-44 0.70 0.68
45-49 0.73 0.71Source: Struktura mezd 2004 and 2010 (2004 and 2010 Wage Structure).
Inequalities in the private sphereInequalities in the private sphere
• Unequal distribution of the domestic work and child care
• In 63.5 % families with children up to 10 – traditional division of labour and care (Parents 2005)
• Family as an inhibitor for women in the LM
• Family as a stimulator for men
ConclusionConclusion• Reinforcing familialistic tendency in the Czech
family policy / male breadwinner – female carer model - low fertility rate - low employment rate of mothers - lower chances on the LM for mothers - increase in gender inequalities in the sphere of paid work + unpaid work (in the private sphere)
Questions:For whom is this model adventageous?Is not finally time to change it?
