Gender Equality and Work-Life Balance: Exploring Factors and Freedom of Choice

1. Свободата да избираш като измерение на неравенството между половете Проф. д.с.н. Румяна Стоилова, д-р Петя Илиева-Тричкова, ИИОЗ при БАН, БСА ЕВРОПЕЙСКО СОЦИАЛНО ИЗСЛЕДВАНЕ ЗА БЪЛГАРИЯ (ESS-ERIC) 14 май 2019 г. Малка конферентна зала, УНСС

2. Theoretical focus (1) Capability approach framework (Sen 1992, 2009; Nussbaum 2000). At the heart of this approach are the freedoms and the opportunities that people have to choose a life they have reason to value. Gender has been a key dimension in the capabilities paradigm in Sen’s and Nussbaum’s interpretations of the capability approach. As Sen puts it, “variations related to sex, age, genetic endowments, and many other features, give us very divergent powers to build freedom in our lives even when we have the same bundle of primary goods” (Sen 1992: 85-86). Based on the capability approach, one may see gender as an important factor which may constrain or enable individual agency, and through this, shape the capability sets of men and women in given settings. Sen’s ideas have inspired the UNDP to develop various gender sensitive human development indices, including the Gender Empowerment Index and Gender Inequality Index. 2

3. Theoretical focus (2) Capability approach in sociology  the potential of this approach has been recently used in the field of sociology in analyses of WLB from a gender perspective (e.g. Hobson 2014, 2017).  Under WLB Hobson (2017: 11) understands the balance between parenting and employment, trying to develop a sociological model and "to illustrate how Sen’s multidimensional approach can be adapted and applied to empirical research".  One of the advantages highlighted in these studies is that Sen’s capability approach opens up the “black box of choice”, what and how we choose, which is salient in the debates in gender research. It does so by the emphasis on the embeddedness of agency within institutional/normative settings, and the recognition of both the potential/opportunities for agency freedoms and the constraints standing in the way (agency inequalities), where norms play a crucial role in circumscribing agency freedoms.  Following this body of literature, in our paper we conceive WLB as a functioning, understood through the capability approach lens as a valued achievement and try to find the factors which influence it at micro (individual) and at macro level (welfare regimes). 3

4. Work-life balance (WLB) Work-life balance (WLB) is perceived as an important component of job quality (Drobnič 2011; Gallie 2007; Leschke, Watt & Finn 2012) and as a critical determinant of people’s broader well-being (OECD 2015). Recently, WLB has been taken an increasingly prominent place on the EU’s political agenda as the European Commission (2017) launched a special initiative to support WLB for working parents and carers which promotes gender balanced take-up of family-related leaves and flexible working arrangements. Given this, the issue of WLB requires more research attention, so that we can better understand its causes and consequences for young men and women 4

5. Further arguments for WLB importance Eurofound’s latest report (2017) explains the raising of the attention to the issue of work-life balance with three major societal transformations: 1) the feminisation of the labour force, changing attitudes and norms regarding female work and the gender division of labour, 2) the tendency towards greater work intensity and the growing incidence of atypical working hours, and 3) the increasingly blurred frontier between time devoted to paid work and other individual, family and social activities such as leisure and domestic activities, triggered by, among other things,technological changes. This presentation also provides evidence that the work–life balance opportunities are unevenly presented in Europe and that men appear to be less satisfied with their work–life balance than women. 5

6. Aims To explore : On individual level which factors influence the gender specific norm, ruling obligations towards care and paid work after becoming children, the importance of WLB in the context of the job-search, and of the behavior, measured through the time spent on unpaid housework among young men and women across European countries. To describe specific combinations of individual factors, which prevent young women and men for having the freedom to choose jobs with regard to WLB On macro level to see the importance of gender regime types for differentiating the freedom to choose among young men and women in Europe 6

7. Theoretical Model : Choice of job, considering WLB Traditional norm says, that women should reduce paid work after becoming a childe ↓ Individual choice ―depending on: Micro level: gender, education, ethnicity, having children and Macro level: institutional factors captured in gender regimes ↙ ↖ in line with the norm ↓ gender specific opposing the norm ↓ universal division of paid and unpaid work ↙ inequality ↘ ↙ measured by the time spend on unpaid work ↓ theoretical expectation: ↙ ↘ women spend ≥ 20 hours, women and men spend the same time and don’t consider WLB on unpaid work and consider WLB ↘ equality 7

8. Data and Methods (1) Data  individual-level data from the rotating module of the European social survey which was devoted to Work, Family and Wellbeing (2010/2011). Limitations  people aged 15-29 years, because of the two transitions they make at this stage of life: from school to work and the transition to adulthood which includes leaving home, establishing own family and having children.  the number of countries was limited to those for which there was sufficient information on all country-level variables of interest (meaning that we were left with 24 countries to include in the analysis).  the missing values were deleted from the individual level variables, so that we could work with the same number of cases over the models. 8

9. Data and Method (2) Variables  Dependent variables  whether the respondent agrees that women should be prepared, for the sake of the family, to cut down on paid work.  whether a person considers as important if a potential job will allow him/her to combine work life with family life, or if they would not take this into consideration.  whether more or less than 20 hours per week are spent on it by respondents. Independent variables  at the individual level o level of education (low = ISCED 0-2, medium = ISCED 3-4 and high = ISCED 5-6), o Whether or not they belong to some minority ethnic group, o if they had children living at home or not, o Family status: If they were living with a husband/wife/partner, and o Employment status: Main activity of respondents at the time of the survey (paid work, education, unemployment, inactivity).  At the country level o Country regime types Method  Multilevel modelling  separate multilevel models for women and men for each of the dependent variables.  9

10. Average marginal effects derived from multilevel logistic regression models to analyse the probability of agreeing with the following three statements Source: ESS (2010/2011, own calculations). N (country level) = 24. Significance: +p < 0.10 , ** p < 0.01. Note: The omitted reference category is Man Agreeing that women should be prepared to cut down on paid work for the sake of the family -0,02+ Considering the work-life balance as important when choosing a job 0,08** Spending 20 hours or more per week on housework 0,33** -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 10

11. Results for two-level random intercept logistic regression models on agreement that women should be prepared to cut down on paid work for the sake of the family Source: ESS (2010/2011, own calculations). N (country level) = 24. Significance: +p < 0.10 * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. 1,16+ Low vs Medium education 1,29** Women 0,81* Higher vs Medium education Men 1,54** Belongs to a minority, ethnic group vs Not 1,62** 1,35** Having a child vs Not 1,47** Living with husband/wife/partner vs Not Being in education vs In paid work 1,5** Being unemployed vs In paid work 1,23+ 1,57** Being inactive vs In paid work Social-Democratic vs Liberal Conservative vs Liberal 2,4* Mediterranean vs Liberal 2,51* Post-Socialist vs Liberal 2,71** 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 11

12. Results • In the acceptance of the norm the differences are among low vs medium educated both men and women who accept significantly more the traditional norm Higher vs middle educated women disagree and tend to more universal understanding. There is not significant difference for men Women and men with an ethnic/minority background agree more with the traditional norm. Intersectionality , based on sex, education and ethnicity, is best expressed in the support for the traditional view that women should reduce their paid work after having children. For the other two dependant variables – importance of WLB when choosing job and time spent on unpaid work, the effects of intersectionality are lower. Men and women in Mediterranian , but only men in post sociaist regime agree with the traditional norm compared to the liberal regime. • • • • 12

13. Results for two-level random intercept logistic regression models concerning whether a person considers the work-life balance as important when choosing a job Source: ESS (2010/2011, own calculations). N (country level) = 24. Significance: +p < 0.10 * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. 0,78* Low vs Medium education Higher vs Medium education 1,43** 0,73+ Belongs to a minority, ethnic group vs Not 2,69** Having a child vs Not 1,62** Living with husband/wife/partner vs Not 1,48** 1,35* Being in education vs In paid work Women 0,75+ Being unemployed vs In paid work 0,74* Men Being inactive vs In paid work Social-Democratic vs Liberal Conservative vs Liberal 2,06+ Mediterranean vs Liberal 2,71** Post-Socialist vs Liberal 1,83+ 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 13

14. Results • Differences between women are between low and medium educated. For women the additional control factor with high significance is among women with children that increases the importance of WLB. Women with lower education support the traditional norm and don’t consider WLB as important • Differences among men are between high and medium educated men. In the case of men we can see the positive effects of tertiary education for adopting more universal role models and the need for better WLB among higher educated men. • At the macro level differences could be observed among men but not among women in the tree of them - conservative, Mediterranean and post socialist. 14

15. Results for two-level random intercept logistic regression models on whether women and men spend 20 hours and more per week on housework Source: ESS (2010/2011, own calculations). Notes: Only people living with a partner were asked this question. Therefore, this variable was excluded from the models. N (country level) = 24. Significance: +p < 0.10 * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. Low vs Medium education Women Higher vs Medium education Men 1,72* Belongs to a minority, ethnic group vs Not 4,07** Having a child vs Not 1,88** Being in education vs In paid work 2,98** Being unemployed vs In paid work 3,04** Being inactive vs In paid work Social-Democratic vs Liberal Conservative vs Liberal 3,37** Mediterranean vs Liberal 3,57** Post-Socialist vs Liberal 4,96** 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 15

16. Summary Bildung/ Norm WLB considering when choosing a job Time spend on unpaid work Regime Men Women Men Women Men Women Low vs. Medium Higher vs. Medium Belonging to minority ethnic group or not Soc.-dem-. Vs. liberal + + n.s. - n.s. n.s. n.s. - + n.s. n.s. n.s. + + n.s. - n.s. + n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. Cons.vs.liberal n.s. n.s. + n.s. n.s. n.s. Meditarenian vs. liberal Post-soc. Vs. liberal + + + n.s. n.s. + + n.s. + n.s. + +

17. Summary of results Our findings:  show that the differences between young men and women, which are related to education as an individual-level factor, differentiating between low vs. secondary and higher vs. secondary education. Low vs. medium education gives support to the traditional norm both for women and men Higher vs medium educated women don’t accept the traditional norm . Higher education does not exert significant difference among men in the acceptance of the norm , but increases the importance of WLB when choosing job.   17

18. Contributions An advantage of the analysis is the observed inconsistency between supporting norms, needing options for WLB and doing unpaid work: Theoretical , following the concept of patriarchy, we could expect support for the traditional norm on the side of men to go together with the lower value of WLB and lower participation in the unpaid work. But we observe among men in post socialist countries significant chance to support the norm, higher educated men value WLB, when searching for a job and are doing more than 20 hours per week in un paid work . Conclusion : there is a change in the gender role models and it is marked by this type of inconsistency 18

19. Direction for further research • On micro level: Intersectionality , based on gender, education and ethnicity, is best expressed in the support for the traditional view that women should reduce their paid work after having children. For the other two dependant variables – importance of WLB when choosing job and time spent on unpaid work, the effects of intersectionality are lower. That brings further questions for the research of intersectionality based on education, gender and ethnicity and how the negative effects could be reduced through raising education. On macro level: We intend to analyse further the effects on choices of different policies within countries, grouped in different welfare regimes. Through mixed method approach, could be added information on the return to work after maternity leave. Contextualization could be done, on the basis of the qualitative biographical interviews, carried out within the Negotiate and ENLIVEN, two Horizon 2020 projects. • • 19

20. Acknowledgements ESS in Bulgaria, has been included in the National Research Map for Scientific Infrastructures, funded by the Ministry of Science and Education, 2018 20

21. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! Contact details: RStoilova@bas.bg petya.ilievat@gmail.com http://issk-bas.org/institute/ 21