Family policy and welfare state in Southern Europe

FAMILY POLICY AND WELFARE STATE IN SOUTHERN EUROPE Lluís Flaque Uni e si a Au ònoma de Ba celona WP núm. 185 Ins i u de Ciències Polí iques i Socials Ba celona, 2000 1 The Ins i u de Ciències Polí iques i Socials (ICPS) was c ea ed by he Uni e si a Au ònoma de Ba celona and he Dipu ació de Ba celona in 1988. The ICPS is a ached o he Uni e si a Au ònoma de Ba celona. These “Wo king Pape s” - hough o as subjec o discussion- a e he esul o esea ch wo k in p og ess. Appea ance in his se ies does no p eclude u he publica ion. This pape mus no be ep oduced wi hou he au ho ’s licence. © Lluís Flaque Design: Toni Viaplana P in e : A.bis c/ Lei a, 3, baixos. 08014 Ba celona ISSN: 1133-8962 LD: B-4.1004-2001 2 INTRODUCTION In he las ew yea s Sou he n Eu opean coun ies ha e come o he o e as a as he analysis o public policy is conce ned. Omi ed o a e y long ime om compa a i e esea ch, hey ha e ecen ly a ac ed he a en ion o s uden s o social policy in so a as hey seemingly p o ided a model ea u ing in a p ominen ole a s ong and esilien amily, which supposedly was a sa egua d agains social exclusion. The e is no eason wha soe e o exclude hese coun ies om c oss-na ional analysis. Thei income main enance p og ammes a e no es igial, hei wel a e s a es a e subs an ially de eloped, and hei da a a e no longe epo ed inadequa ely (Cas les, 1995). They can each us a lo abou he complex ela ionships be ween he s a e, he ma ke , and he amily, conside ed he h ee co ne s ones o he wel a e edi ice (Esping-Ande sen, 1999). This chap e deals wi h amily policy in Po ugal, Spain, I aly, and G eece. The s udy o amily policy is mos ele an he e because, a om only conce ning he a ea o ‘ amily policy’, i has a much wide scope. The ‘ amily ques ion’ is no sec o al, bu cen al in so a as he alloca ion o esponsibili ies be ween he s a e, he ma ke , and he amily cons i u es one o he c i ical ea u es o cha ac e izing a ious wel a e-s a e models (Ma in, 1997). The ques ion ha I am add essing is he ollowing: o wha ex en can we alk o a amily policy model o Sou he n Eu opean coun ies? In ying o answe his ques ion, I conside amily policy in a e y b oad sense. In my iew, no only explici bu also implici amily policy should be aken in o accoun so ha he scope o compa ison is enla ged. I is use ul o examine no only speci ic measu es a ge ed o amilies, bu also o he p o isions ha indi ec ly se e an analogous pu pose, al hough hei o icial s a us may be di e en . I is possible ha ca ego iza ions such as ‘ amily policy’, a ising ou o a di e en sociopoli ical con ex , a e unable o g asp ho oughly he speci ici y o Sou he n Eu opean na ions. Wha is o be compa ed a e no indi idual social policies bu whole sys ems o wel a e in which hese policies can make sense. This b ings me o a second ques ion: wha do we mean by a model? A model mus be explana o y a he han desc ip i e, comp ehensi e in he sense ha i akes in o accoun all ele an ac o s, and i mus speci y how hei ea u es a e ep oduced o e ime. Two main concep s ha e been sugges ed o accoun o wel a e simila i ies and di e ences among coun ies as e idenced by con as ing clus e s using a ious c i e ia, i.e. ‘wel a e-s a e egimes’ and ‘ amilies o na ions’. The no ion o wel a e-s a e egime es s on he assump ion ha ‘in he ela ion be ween s a e and economy a complex o legal and o ganisa ional ea u es a e sys ema ically in e wo en’ (Esping-Ande sen, 1990: 2). Fo his app oach, in he in ellec ual adi ion o poli ical economy, issues o decommodi ica ion, social s a i ica ion, and employmen a e keys o a wel a e s a e’s iden i y, and he pu pose o esea ch is o iden i y he in e nal logic unde lying hei ela ionships. On he o he hand, he scope o he ‘ amilies o na ions’ app oach is la ge han Esping-Ande sen’s. ‘Policy simila i ies be ween g oups and hei 3 di e ences om o he g oups may be a ibu able as much o his o y and cul u e and hei ansmission and di usion amongs na ions as o he immedia e impac o he economic, poli ical and social a iables ha igu e almos exclusi ely in he con empo a y public policy li e a u e’ (Cas les, 1993: x ). Fo Cas les, al hough a he simila policy ou comes may be explained in e ms o economic, poli ical, and social an eceden s, he ques ion o he ex en o which hose an eceden s a e hemsel es condi ioned by sha ed his o ical and cul u al expe ience mus be le open, conside ing ha his kind o legacy may in luence o a la ge ex en he p esen beha iou o hose who shape he policies and hose who make demands o he s a e (Cas les, 1993). E en i he heo e ical in en o my con ibu ion is modes , he cla i ica ion o he model used seems mos ele an . Do simila public policy ou comes in Sou he n Eu opean coun ies esul om cul u al a ini y o om common socio-economic ci cums ances? A e we endo sing some o m o mode niza ion heo y, i.e. ha economic de elopmen , cul u al change, and poli ical change go oge he in cohe en and e en o some ex en p edic able pa e ns, al hough i is clea ha he mode niza ion p ocess is no linea (Ingleha , 1997: 5), o do we belie e ha alues associa ed wi h pa icula socie ies a e qui e s able and dis inc i e and he e o e end o shape social s uc u e? Do social alues de i e om a ma ix o (mainly economic) cons ain s and oppo uni ies, o om dis inc cul u al pa e ns? Is he Sou he n Eu opean clus e o be unde s ood in e ms o delayed mode niza ion o in e ms o a di e en pa h o mode ni y? I he i s pa o he sen ence is ue, Medi e anean wel a e s a es could be desc ibed as unde de eloped, udimen a y, la ecome s, o adi ional. An al e na i e cou se o ac ion would be o de e mine he peculia i ies, adi ions, o alues ha uphold hei model, i he e is one. The analysis o amily policy in Sou he n Eu ope seems e y app op ia e o illumina e such ques ions because many o hese na ions’ commonali ies ela e o he amily as an ins i u ion. They a e cha ac e ized bo h by e y s ong amily-o ien a ed alues associa ed wi h a low deg ee o indi idualiza ion and by he lack o an explici amily policy as e idenced by a e y limi ed numbe o amily- iendly social p o isions. Should we assume ha he e is a kind o causal ci cula i y be ween hese wo e ms o ha hei condi ion is he esul o a peculia se o socio-economic ci cums ances? This chap e is di ided in o wo pa s. In he i s pa , I p o ide an o e iew o he gene al sys em o social p o ec ion o Sou he n Eu opean coun ies, wi h a special emphasis on he measu es speci ically add essed o amilies, and a b ie desc ip ion o he Medi e anean amily sys em. The second pa deals wi h o he aspec s o he wel a e-s a e egime such as labou ma ke cha ac e is ics and access o housing and concludes wi h some no es on he ep oduc ion o he sys em. WELFARE STATE AND FAMILY IN SOUTHERN EUROPE Sou he n wel a e s a es can be desc ibed as a ia media wi h espec o o he sys ems o social p o ec ion, as hey encompass elemen s o bo h Bisma ckian and Be e idgian adi ions (Almeda and Sa asa, 1996; Mo eno, 1997). In e ms o social p o ec ion expendi u e as pe cen o GDP, all Sou he n Eu opean coun ies a e well below he EU a e age1. While in 1996 he EU a e age was 28.7%, he igu es o G eece, Spain, I aly, and Po ugal we e 23.3%, 22.4%, 24.8%, and 21.6%, espec i ely. In he 4 same yea , social p o ec ion expendi u e pe capi a o hese ou coun ies was also below he a e age. On he o he hand, he analysis o he s uc u e o expendi u e on social p o ec ion bene i s by unc ion shows impo an con as s no only be ween Sou he n coun ies and he EU a e age bu also among hem. Thus, whe eas in 1995 he a e age o expendi u e on amily and child en was 8%, Spain only spen 1%, I aly 4%, and Po ugal 6%2. Rega ding u he a eas o social p o ec ion o he peculia i ies o Sou he n coun ies we e appa en . Bo h Spain and Po ugal spen mo e on sickness and heal h ca e, I aly and G eece spen a lo on old age and su i o s’ pensions, and Spain’s expendi u e on unemploymen bene i s was excep ionally high, as much as wo imes he a e age. One o he epo ed cha ac e is ics o social secu i y in Sou he n Eu opean coun ies is i s high deg ee o agmen a ion along occupa ional lines (Fe e a, 1997). This is pa icula ly ue in he G eek case. In G eece he sys em is cha ac e ized by a mosaic o insu ance unds (236 in 1995), in which eligibili y and bene i s di e g ea ly (Symeonidou, 1997; Papadopoulos, 1997). The I alian and Spanish wel a e sys ems also show a conside able measu e o agmen a ion, while Po ugal has he leas (T i ile i, 1998; Guillén, 1997; Fe e a, 1996). The mix o uni e salis heal h-ca e sys ems wi h p o essional pension schemes is common o all Sou he n Eu opean coun ies (Guillén, 1997). Fo some analys s, he Sou he n ype can be ea ed as a model in so a as i p esen s an o iginal blend o ‘occupa ionalism’ (main enance sys em) and ‘uni e salism’ (heal h se ice) ha is no ound in o he pa s o Eu ope (Fe e a, 1996). In 1978 a na ional heal h se ice was c ea ed in I aly, he eby ende ing heal h ca e a igh o all ci izens (Sa aceno, 1998). In 1979 a simila sys em was se up in Po ugal, bu p i a e medicine con inued o de elop in pa allel wi h he public se ice (Guiben i , 1997). Finally, a na ional heal h se ice was ins i u ed in G eece in 1983 and in Spain in 1986 wi h p oduc ion and p o ision o heal h se ices based on a public-/p i a e-sec o mix (Symeonidou, 1997; Almeda and Sa asa, 1996). Ano he cha ac e is ic o Sou he n wel a e s a es is ha no na ional s a u o y minimum income scheme is gua an eed o indi iduals and amilies. The e is no na ional las - eso sa e y ne , al hough in Spain and I aly, whe e social assis ance is unde he exclusi e con ol o egional au ho i ies, some local schemes ha e been de eloped wi h e y i egula le els o p o ision (T i ile i, 1998; Symeonidou, 1997). P o isions o explici amily policy In e ms o child bene i packages, he leas gene ous EU membe -s a es a e Po ugal, I aly, Spain, and G eece (Han ais and Le ablie , 1996; P ingle, 1998). Po ugal is he only Sou he n na ion wi h uni e sal, hough modes , amily allowances (Fe e a, 1997). G eece has ne e had an explici amily policy, and amily bene i s a e e y low, al hough la ge amilies in pa icula a e p o ec ed in many ways (Symeonidou, 1997). Along wi h Spain, G eece p o ides one o he leas gene ous child suppo packages (Papadopolous, 1998). In I aly he e is no uni e sal child bene i . Since 1988 he e is a so-called bene i o he amily nucleus ha is payable o low-income employed wo ke s a a le el ha a ies by household composi ion (Sa aceno, 1998). In Spain amily allowances, albei ex emely low, we e uni e sal un il 5 1990 when hey we e inc eased in amoun and became means- es ed. In he las decade, child bene i s ha e become measu es o social assis ance in bo h I aly and Spain. Ma e ni y lea e wi h ull ea nings is p o ided in Po ugal, Spain, and G eece. In I aly he bene i is only paid a 80% o ea nings, and sel -employed wo king mo he s a e no co e ed. The du a ion o he lea e is 16 weeks in G eece and Spain, 18 in Po ugal, and 22 in I aly. G eece pays he lowes ma e ni y bene i s o all he EU coun ies (Papadopolous, 1998). I ha e no da a on he ake-up o ma e ni y bene i s in Sou he n Eu opean na ions, bu he e a e some indica ions ha i is qui e low3. In Sou he n Eu opean coun ies pa en al lea e is unpaid, excep in I aly whe e 30% income eplacemen is p o ided (P ingle, 1998). Leng h o pa en al lea e a ies om 3.5 mon hs in G eece (6 mon hs o lone pa en s) only o wo ke s in la ge companies, 6-24 mon hs in Po ugal, 9 mon hs in I aly, and 12–36 in Spain (Papadopolous, 1998)4. Rega ding child-ca e acili ies in Sou he n Eu opean coun ies, publicly unded day-ca e p o ision o unde - ou s is gene ally a he low. On he o he hand, he le els o p o ision o 3–6-yea - olds a e compa able wi h hose achie ed by he No dic s a es (P ingle, 1998)5. High co e age in Spain and I aly is due o he ac ha p o ision o day ca e o 3–6 yea -olds is a pa o he educa ional sys em and ha se ice is he e o e ee. The econcilia ion be ween amily and paid wo k is no a ou ed by he ac ha in Sou he n Eu opean na ions pa - ime jobs o women a e a e. Acco ding o Eu os a da a, while in 1995 he EU a e age o women employed pa - ime was 31%, pe cen ages o Sou he n coun ies we e much lowe (G eece: 8.4%; Spain: 16.6%; I aly: 12.7%, and Po ugal 11.6%). The pauci y o public se ices o e y small child en, he lack o cash suppo o amilies, and he limi ed amoun o p o isions o econciling amily and employmen lea es amilies hemsel es wi h he esponsibili y o dealing wi h hei di icul ies. Clea ly, he pi o al ole o he amily in social p o ec ion canno be o e -emphasized. In Sou he n Eu ope he wel a e s a e is o a la ge ex en he Medi e anean wel a e amily, wi h an impo an sha e o bo h ma e ial and non-ma e ial in a- amilial ans e s (Mo eno, 1997). Conside ing ha in his pa o he wo ld he key wel a e p o ide is less he s a e han he amily, le us u n o i s main cha ac e is ics. The Medi e anean amily sys em Mos sociodemog aphic indica o s show ha Sou he n Eu opean na ions exhibi a numbe o unique ea u es. Al hough he a e age household size o Medi e anean coun ies has g adually dec eased in he las decade, i is s ill he highes in Eu ope (P ingle, 1998). This is la gely ela ed o a signi ican p opo ion o mul i-gene a ional households and o a e y limi ed amoun o one-pe son households. Thus, while in 1995 as a Eu opean a e age 12% o men and 10% o women in he age g oup 20–29 we e li ing on hei own, in Po ugal only 2% o men and 3% o women did so; and in Spain only 1% o ei he sex. I aly and G eece we e also well below he mean bu close o i 6. 6 A c ucial a iable is he high p opo ion o young people in hei wen ies li ing wi h hei pa en s, which in Sou he n na ions is much highe han in o he pa s o Eu ope. Thus, o example, in 1996 65% o men and 44% o women in he 25–29 age g oup we e s ill li ing wi h hei pa en s in Spain, G eece, and I aly; in 1986 he p opo ions o he same age g oup we e 52% o men and 29% o women. This shows he ex en o which he si ua ion o young people in G eece, I aly, and Spain has de e io a ed in ecen imes in so a as mos o hem ail o achie e ull social in eg a ion as esponsible and independen adul s (Fe nández Co dón, 1997). Howe e , his complex issue canno be simply dismissed -as many w i e s ha e done- by saying ha i is he esul o high unemploymen a es o young people. I is also ela ed o he peculia s uc u e o he labou ma ke , o he lack o social p o isions o young people, and o a numbe o amily alues. Young people’s dependence on hei pa en s may no only be seen by bo h as a yoke bu also as a aluable asse . I is a use ul s a egy o maximize child en’s esou ces o hei en y in o adul li e unde a ou able condi ions. Especially in he case o young women, i allows hem o make p o i able in es men s in educa ion (Flaque , 1995). I also helps hem o ind a good job h ough pe sonal ne wo ks. Thus, in Sou he n Eu opean socie ies young people mo e o en ind employmen h ough hei amily connec ions. Whe eas a subs an ial p opo ion o young people in Sou he n Eu opean coun ies go a job hanks o hei amilies (69% o G eeks, 65% o I alians, 61% o Spania ds, 58% o Po uguese), only a low pe cen age o young people in No he n Eu ope did so (18% o Du ch, 19% o Danes, and 21% o Ge mans) (Mend as, 1997: 171). Finally, i enables young people o sa e o he pu chase o a home, possibly wi h inancial help om hei pa en s. As a esul o his co- esidence o pa en s and child en un il he la e ma y7, in Medi e anean coun ies a es o non-ma i al cohabi a ion a e e y low, as is he numbe o child en bo n ou o wedlock. Wi h he excep ion o Po ugal, li e bi hs ou side ma iage a e well below he Eu opean a e age8. In e gene a ional dependency akes place bo h a he beginning and a he end o he li e cycle. Using di e en indica o s, Medi e anean s a es display abo e-a e age composi e alues o he impac on amilies o old and young age dependency (Han ais, 1999: 296). Fo he age g oup 75 and o e he numbe o people li ing on hei own in Sou he n coun ies is below he Eu opean mean. Wi h he excep ion o I aly, whe e he p opo ion o women o 75 yea s and o e li ing alone was abo e he mean, in he es o he Sou he n coun ies all pe cen ages o men and women we e below he a e age, wi h Spain showing e y low alues. As hese da a only epo household composi ion, hey do no e lec o he Medi e anean amily a angemen s such as kin esiden ial p oximi y, which is also a dis inc phenomenon in his pa o he wo ld. Kin clus e ing is a p e equisi e o he collabo a ion ac oss gende s and gene a ions. The deli e y o se ices such as ca e o child en o o he elde ly needs some daily in e ac ion, which would no be possible i pa en s and child en did no li e close o each o he . Needless o say, adul ma ied women a e he main p o ide s o hese ca e se ices and a e mo i a ed by a s ong sense o mo al obliga ion ha uels he sys em. A p ope unde s anding o how his wo ks mus ely on he analysis o alues unde lying he Sou he n amily, which has been a iously desc ibed as a ‘clea ing-house’ (Cas les and Fe e a, 1996: 7 181) and as a ‘syn hesis o b eadc umbs’ (T i ile i, 1999: 52). As Sa aceno pu s i , ‘ he I alian amilis wel a e egime is no exclusi ely no e en p ima ily based on a s ong b eadwinne model, bu on he amily as pe cei ed as a uni o income and esou ces, o which e e yone con ibu es acco ding o his/he oppo uni ies, al hough hey may di e by gende . Wha is assumed is no he igu e o b eadwinne bu amily solida i y -including kin- and he p ima y esponsibili y o women -ma ied and mo he s- in he p o ision o ca e’ (Sa aceno, 1995: 279-80). The unc ion o he Medi e anean amily is he e o e e y di e en om he classic model o he male b eadwinne . The s a e does no ake on he esponsibili y o gua an eeing a amily wage, bu i me ely allows nuclea o ex ended amilies o pu sue s a egies o ensu e ha a leas one membe has a good, secu e job (T i ile i, 1999). As a as ma iage b eak-up is conce ned, a es o di o ce and lone pa en hood in Sou he n Eu ope a e qui e low. Al hough i is ue ha , pa icula ly in Spain and I aly, he di o ce a e is no he bes indica o o b eak-up because a signi ican numbe o sepa a ed people do no ha e ecou se o di o ce9, c ude di o ce a es in Po ugal, Spain, I aly, and G eece a e well below he a e age. This is usually explained by he opposi ion o he Roman Ca holic Chu ch o he dissolu ion o ma iage. Howe e , despi e he ac ha di o ce was adi ionally pe mi ed by he O hodox Chu ch, he G eek a e is also low. This sugges s ha o he ac o s such as amily solida i y and a low deg ee o indi idualiza ion should also be aken in o accoun . One o he ou pu s o his amily sys em is a he low le els o e ili y. While o al e ili y a es in G eece and Po ugal s and a he Eu opean mean, he a es in Spain and I aly a e he lowes in he wo ld. Bu i we a e o unde s and his pa adox, i is necessa y o in es iga e o he aspec s o he model. IN SEARCH OF A MODEL In my iew, iden i ying a model o amily policy o Sou he n Eu opean coun ies should ely less on he analysis o measu es explici ly add essed o amilies and mo e on he s udy o o he ea u es o he wel a e-s a e egime such as income main enance sys ems, labou ma ke p o isions, and housing policies. The speci ici y o Sou he n Eu opean coun ies in he ield o amily policy is no so much o be ound in he s uc u e o wel a e schemes o amilies, bu in he assump ion ha amilies a e c ucial in p o iding suppo and se ices o dependen people. On he ace o i , i may seem a con adic ion ha a sys em in which he cen ali y o amily is so ob ious has no de eloped a ully- ledged amily policy. Bu looking in o i mo e closely, he connec ion be ween he wo e ms becomes ob ious. As Esping- Ande sen pu s i , ‘ amilialism easily goes hand-in-hand wi h a e y passi e and unde eloped amily policy’ (Esping-Ande sen, 1999: 51). Sou he n amily policy, h ough i s inac ion, implici ly nu u es and ep oduces he ideological assump ion ha he amily is he main p o ide in socie y (Papadopolous, 1998). Bu his assump ion is no only emphasized in a nega i e way h ough amily policy. I is also ein o ced by means o o he elemen s o Sou he n wel a e egimes ha in luence he shaping o amily s uc u e o an e en la ge ex en . In he nex wo sec ions I will del e in o he s uc u e o he labou ma ke and in o housing policy in o de o gi e a ew examples o his e ec . 8 The s uc u e o he labou ma ke One o he cha ac e is ics o he Sou he n socio-economic model is he p e alence o an illici economy. Es ima es o his hidden in o mal sec o in Sou he n Eu opean coun ies ange om 15 o 30% o GDP (Fe e a, 1997; Mo eno, 1997; Cousins, 1999). This ea u e is connec ed wi h a high pe cen age o ax e asion, which c ea es a e y une en dis ibu ion o inancial bu dens ac oss a ious occupa ional g oups. All in all, sala ied wo ke s a e ypically mo e hea ily axed because being unde a pay-as-you- ea n scheme hey canno a oid paying a single penny in axes. This e eals a de ici o ‘s a eness’, which is e lec ed in a weak s a e pene a ion o wel a e ins i u ions (Fe e a, 1996). This kind o in o mal economic a angemen s is appa en om he s uc u e o employmen . In Po ugal, Spain, I aly, and G eece he p opo ion o sel -employed and amily helpe s in 1998 was well abo e he Eu opean a e age. G eece was an ex eme case wi h mo e han one- en h o wo ke s being employed by hei amilies and one- hi d being sel -employed. The low pe cen age o sala ied wo ke s in hese coun ies is e idence ha he cash nexus has no ully eplaced amily solida i y and ha he p ocess o commodi ica ion is a om comple ed. One o he labou ma ke cha ac e is ics ha has mo e o en a ac ed he a en ion o esea che s is he low a e o emale economic ac i i y. Wi h he single excep ion o Po ugal, which in mos espec s shows an ou s anding pe o mance on he labou ma ke , he es o Sou he n na ions ha e he lowes a es in Eu ope, 8-10 pe cen age poin s below he a e age. This ea u e, in conjunc ion wi h hea y emale unemploymen , p oduces e y low employmen a es o women. Di e en le els o pa icipa ion o men and women in he labou ma ke a e coupled wi h speci ic wo k oppo uni ies in e ms o sex. Di e en ials be ween male and emale unemploymen a es in G eece, I aly, and Spain a e huge. I ha e calcula ed he gaps be ween men’s and women’s unemploymen a es in 1997 using Eu os a da a: no only we e hey he la ges in Eu ope in hese h ee coun ies, bu in G eece and Spain hey had widened in he las decade. In he case o men and women unde 25 dispa i ies conce ning unemploymen a e s ill mo e appa en . You h unemploymen a es o Po ugal, Spain, I aly, and G eece a e much highe han a es o he o e all ac i e popula ion, and he gap be ween males and emales is conside able. Fo example, while he a e age a e in G eece was 10.3%, he a e o young males was 22.2% and o young emales 40.6%. In I aly he espec i e igu es we e 12.2%, 29.1%, and 39.3%, and in Spain 20.6%, 30.3%, and 46.1%. I ha e no been able o ind compa a i e da a on unemploymen a es o male amily heads, bu da a o Spain indica e ha hey a e nea ly hal he a es o he whole ac i e popula ion. This si ua ion sha ply con as s wi h ha o coun ies such as Ge many o he UK whe e unemploymen a es o household heads a e much highe han hose o dependan s. Wha is mo e, in G eece, I aly, Po ugal, and Spain, heads o households a e he leas likely o be long- e m unemployed o any o he majo Eu opean coun ies (Cousins, 1999). This would mean ha Medi e anean labou ma ke s end o disc imina e in a ou o male amily heads and agains women and young people. 15 NOTES 1. Eu os a , ESSPROS sys em, GDP a ma ke p ices, 1996. 2. Da a o G eece we e no epo ed in ha yea bu ea lie Eu os a da a indica e ha hey we e close o hose o Spain. 3. Escobedo (1999) epo s ha in Spain only one- hi d o mo he s gi ing bi h ecei e he ma e ni y bene i . 4. In Po ugal he 6 mon hs basic lea e pe iod may be ex ended in he case o he bi h o a hi d o highe o de child. In Spain du ing he i s yea he employee is en i led o e u n o his/he o me job. O he wise, he/she is only en i led o e u n o a job o he same le el (Moss and De en, eds., 1999). 5. The co e age is as ollows: G eece: 70%; Spain: 84%; I aly: 91%; Po ugal: 48%. 6. Eu os a da a. 7. In Sou he n Eu opean socie ies ma iage, usually in he chu ch, is cons ued as an ac o social emancipa ion and is he e o e seen as he p ope s ep p elimina y o amily o ma ion. 8. Acco ding o Eu os a da a, in 1995 he EU a e age o li e bi hs ou side ma iage was 23%, compa ed o 3% in G eece, 8% in I aly, 11% in Spain, and 19% in Po ugal. 9. In he legal sys em o hese coun ies being judicially sepa a ed is a p econdi ion o di o ce bu cou p oceedings may conclude a he s age o sepa a ion. 10. Acco ding o my own calcula ions using da a om he Spanish Labou Fo ce Su ey, he a e age a e o co e age o bo h con ibu o y and non-con ibu o y bene i s o he es ima ed unemployed was 37%. In con as , he a e o men was 47%, o women 29%, o he age g oup 16-19 3.5%, o he age g oup 20-24 13%, and o he age g oup 25-34 34%. 11. In 1998 he Eu opean pe cen age o employees wi h ixed- e m con ac s was only 12.6%. Pe cen ages o Sou he n Eu opean coun ies we e he ollowing: Po ugal: 17.3%; Spain: 32.9%; I aly: 7.4%; G eece: 11.8%. 12. Wi h he no able excep ion o Po ugal. 13. Acco ding o Eu os a da a (1994), he Eu opean a e age was 59%. By con as , he Spanish a e was 79%, he G eek and I alian ones 77%, and he Po uguese one 61%. 14. Own calcula ions using Spanish s a is ical sou ces. 15. This model no only depa s om he adi ional in e se ela ionship be ween emale pa icipa ion and e ili y, which appea s o ha e b oken down in he Wes e n indus ialized coun ies, bu also om he posi i e ela ionship be ween bo h phenomena ha has ecen ly eme ged in hese na ions. 16. Fo example, in 1985 he gap be ween he unemploymen a e o males and emales in Spain was 4.8 pe cen age poin s; in 1987 i had isen o 10.4 (Flaque , 1995). 17. In 1980 he a es o schooling o males and emales aged 15-19 and 20-24 we e simila . A he beginning o he 1990s he e was a gap o abou 10 pe cen age poin s. REFERENCES ALMEDA, E.; SARASA, S.: ‘Spain: G ow h o Di e si y’ in GEORGE, V.; TAYLOR-GOOBY, P. (eds.): Eu opean Wel a e Policy: Squa ing he Wel a e Ci cle. Houndmills, Macmillan, 1996, p. 155-176. ANTUNES CAPUCHA, L.: ‘Pob eza, Exclusao Social e Mi ganalidades’ in LEITE VEGAS, J.; FERMINO DA COSTA, A. (eds.): Po ugal, Que Mode nidade? Oei as, Cel a Edi o a, 1998, p. 209-242. BENTOLILA, S.; DOLADO, J.: ‘Spanish Labou Ma ke s’, Economic Policy. 1994, p. 53–99. 16 BETTIO, F.; Villa, P.: ‘A Medi e anean Pe spec i e on he B eakdown o he Rela ionship be ween Pa icipa ion and Fe ili y’, Camb idge Jou nal o Economics 22/1998, p. 137-171. BIMBI, F.: ‘La debolezza delle poli iche amilia i in I alia: Un caso di ede alismo manca o?’ in BIMBI, F.; DEL RE, A. (eds.): Gene e e Democ azia: La Ci adinanza delle Donne a Cinquan ’Anni dal Vo o. Tu in, Rosenbe g & Selie , 1997, p. 193-215. CANTÓ-SÁNCHEZ, O.; MERCADER-PRATS, M.: ‘Child Po e y in Spain: Wha Can Be Said?’, Innocen i Occasional Pape s, Economic and Social Policy Se ies, n. 66/1998. Flo ence, UNICEF In e na ional Child De elopmen Cen e. CASTLES, F.: ‘In oduc ion’ in CASTLES, F. (ed.): Families o Na ions: Pa e ns o Public Policy in Wes e n Democ acies. Alde sho , Da mou h, xiii-xxiii, 1993. CASTLES, F.: ‘Wel a e S a e De elopmen in Sou he n Eu ope’, Wes Eu opean Poli ics 18 (2)/1995, p. 291-313. CASTLES, F.: Compa a i e Public Policy: Pa e ns o Pos -Wa T ans o ma ion. Chel enham, UK and No hamp on, Mass., Edwa d Elga , 1998. CASTLES, F.; FERRERA, M.: ‘Home Owne ship and he Wel a e S a e: Is Sou he n Eu ope Di e en ?’, Sou h Eu opean Socie y and Poli ics 1 (2)/1996, p. 163-184. COUSINS, C.: ‘Women and Social Policy in Spain: The De elopmen o a Gende ed Wel a e Regime’, Jou nal o Eu opean Social Policy 5 (3)/1995, p. 175-197. COUSINS, C.: Socie y, Wo k and Wel a e in Eu ope. London, Macmillan, 1999. DELGADO, M.; LIVI-BACCI, M.: ‘Fe ili y in I aly and Spain: The Lowes in he Wo ld’, Family Planning Pe spec i es 24 (4)/1992, p. 162-171. ESCOBEDO, A.: ‘Doing C oss-Na ional Wo k on Pa en al Lea e’ in MOSS, P.: DEVEN, F. (eds.): Pa en al Lea e: P og ess o Pi all? Resea ch and Policy Issues in Eu ope ol. 35/1999. The Hague/B ussels, NIDI/CBGS Publica ions, p. 173-192. ESPING-ANDERSEN, G.: The Th ee Wo lds o Wel a e Capi alism. Camb idge, Poli y P ess, 1990. ESPING-ANDERSEN, G.: Social Founda ions o Pos indus ial Economies. Ox o d, Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 1999. FAWCET, H.; PAPADOPOLOUS, T.: ‘Social Exclusion, Social Ci izenship and Decommodi ica ion: An E alua ion o he Adequacy o Suppo o he Unemployed in The Eu opean Union’, Wes Eu opean Poli ics 20 (3)/1997, p. 1-30. FERNÁNDEZ CORDÓN, J.: ‘You h Residen ial Independence and Au onomy: A Compa a i e S udy’, Jou nal o Family Issues 18 (6)/1997, p. 576-607. FERRERA, M.: ‘The “Sou he n Model” o Wel a e in Social Eu ope’, Jou nal o Eu opean Social Policy 6 (1)/1996, p. 17-37. FERRERA, M.: ‘Gene al In oduc ion’ in Mi e Flo ence Con e ence, Compa ing Social Wel a e Sys ems in Sou he n Eu ope ol. 3/1997. Pa is, Mi e, p. 13-24. FLAQUER, L.: ‘El modelo de amilia española en el con ex o eu opeo’ in SARASA, S.; MORENO, L. (eds.): El Es ado del bienes a en la Eu opa del su . Mad id, Consejo Supe io de In es igaciones Cien í icas/Ins i u o de Es udios Sociales A anzados, 1995, p. 289-311. FLAQUER, L.: ‘La amilia en la sociedad del siglo XXI’, Pape s de la Fundació Ra ael Campalans n. 117/1999, Ba celona. FLAQUER, L.: Las polí icas amilia es en una pe spec i a compa ada. Ba celona, Fundació La Caixa ( o hcoming). FLAQUER, L.; GINER, S.; MORENO, L.: ‘España en la enc ucijada’ in GINER, S. (ed.): España: Sociedad y polí ica. Mad id, Espasa-Calpe, 1990, p. 19-74. GINER, S.: ‘Poli ical Economy, Legi ima ion and he S a e in Sou he n Eu ope’, The B i ish Jou nal o Sociology 33 (2)/1982, p. 172-199. 17 GUIBENTIF, P.: ‘Changes in he Po uguese Social Secu i y Sys em’ in Mi e Flo ence Con e ence, Compa ing Social Wel a e Sys ems in Sou he n Eu ope ol. 3/1997. Pa is, Mi e, p. 47-66. GUILLÉN, A.: ‘Wel a e S a e De elopmen in Spain: A His o ical and Explana o y App oach’ in Mi e Flo ence Con e ence, Compa ing Social Wel a e Sys ems in Sou he n Eu ope ol. 3/1997. Pa is, Mi e. p. 67-91. HAMANN, K.; MANUEL, P.: ‘Regime Changes and Ci il Socie y in Twen ie h-Cen u y Po ugal’, Sou h Eu opean Socie y and Poli ics 4 (1)/1999, p. 71-96. HANTRAIS, L.: ‘Socio-Demog aphic Change, Policy Impac s and Ou comes in Social Eu ope’, Jou nal o Eu opean Social Policy 9 (4)/1999, p. 291-309. HANTRAIS, L.; LETABLIER, M.-T.: Families and Family Policies in Eu ope. London and New Yo k, Longman, 1996. INGLEHART, R.: Mode niza ion and Pos mode niza ion: Cul u al, Economic, and Poli ical Change in 43 Socie ies. P ince on, P ince on Uni e si y P ess, 1997. JANOSKI, T.; Ci izenship and Ci il Socie y: A F amewo k o Righ s and Obliga ions in Libe al, T adi ional and Social Democ a ic Regimes. Camb idge, Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 1998. JURADO GUERRERO, T.; NALDINI, M.: ‘Is he Sou h so Di e en ? I alian and Spanish Families in Compa a i e Pe spec i e’, Sou h Eu opean Socie y and Poli ics 1 (2)/1996, p. 42-66. KATROUGALOS, G.: ‘The Sou h Eu opean Wel a e Model: The G eek Wel a e S a e, in Sea ch o an Iden i y’, Jou nal o Eu opean Social Policy 6 (1)/1996, p. 39-60. LEIBFRIED, S.: ‘Towa ds a Eu opean Wel a e S a e: On In eg a ing Po e y Regimes in o he Eu opean Communi y’ in FERGE, Z.; J. KOLBERG, J. (eds.): Social Policy in a Changing Eu ope. F ank u am Main and Boulde , Colo ado, Campus Ve lag/ Wes iew P ess, 1992, p. 245-279. MALEFAKIS, E.: ‘Sou he n Eu ope in he 19 h and 20 h Cen u ies: An His o ical O e iew’, Wo king Pape 1992/35. Mad id, Cen o de Es udios A anzados en Ciencias Sociales/Ins i u o Juan Ma ch de Es udios e In es igaciones, 1992. MARTIN, C.: ‘Social Wel a e and he Family in Sou he n Eu ope: A e The e Any Speci ici ies?’ in Mi e Flo ence Con e ence, Compa ing Social Wel a e Sys ems in Sou he n Eu ope ol. 3/1997. Pa is, Mi e, p. 315-335. MATSAGANIS, M.: ‘Social Assis ance in Sou he n Eu ope: The Case o G eece Re isi ed’, Jou nal o Eu opean Social Policy 10 (1)/2000, p. 68-80. MEIL LANDWERLIN, G.: ‘L’é olu ion de la poli ique amiliale en Espagne: Du salai e amilial à la lu e con e la pau e é’, Popula ion 49 (4–5)/1994, p. 959-984. MEIL LANDWERLIN, G.: ‘P esen e y u u o de la polí ica amilia en España’, Re is a Española de In es igaciones Sociólogicas 70/1995a, p. 67-90. MEIL LANDWERLIN, G.: ‘La polí ica amilia española du an e el anquismo’, Re is a In e nacional de Sociología 11/1995b, p. 47-88. MENDRAS, H.: L’Eu ope des Eu opéens: Sociologie de l’Eu ope occiden ale. Pa is, Gallima d, 1997. MORENO, L.: ‘The Spanish De elopmen o Sou he n Wel a e’, Wo king Pape 97-04/1997. Mad id: IESA-CSIC. Online: h p://www.iesam.cisc.es. MORENO, L.; SARASA, S.: ‘Génesis y desa ollo del Es ado del bienes a en España’, Re is a In e nacional de Sociologia 6/1993, p. 27-69. MOSS, P.; DEVEN, F. (eds.): Pa en al Lea e: P og ess o Pi all? Resea ch and Policy Issues in Eu ope ol. 35/1999. The Hague/B ussels, NIDI/CBGS Publica ions NUNES DE ALMEIDA, A. e al.: ‘Relaçoes Familia es: Mudança e Di e sidade’ in LEITE VEGAS, J.; FERMINO DA COSTA, A. (eds.): Po ugal, Que Mode nidade? Oei as, Cel a Edi o a, 1998, p. 44-78. PAPADOPOULOS, T.: ‘Family, S a e and Social Policy o Child en in G eece’ in BRANNEN, J.; O’BRIEN, M. (eds.): Child en in Families: Resea ch and Policy. London, Falme P ess, 1996, p. 171-188. 18 PAPADOPOULOS, T.: ‘Social Insu ance and he C isis o S a ism in G eece’ in CLASEN, J. (ed.): Social Insu ance in Eu ope. B is ol, The Policy P ess, 1997, p. 177-204. PAPADOPOULOS, T.: ‘G eek Family Policy om a Compa a i e Pe spec i e’ in DREW, E.; EMEREK, R.; MAHON, E. (eds.): Women, Wo k and he Family in Eu ope. London and New Yo k, Rou ledge, 1998, p. 47- 57. PEREIRINHA, J.: ‘Wel a e S a es and Pa e ns o An i-Po e y Regimes: Elemen s o a Compa a i e Analysis wi h a Focus on Sou he n Eu opean Coun ies. The Speci ic Case o Po ugal’ in Mi e Flo ence Con e ence, Compa ing Social Wel a e Sys ems in Sou he n Eu ope ol. 3/1997. Pa is, Mi e, p. 479-513. PÉREZ DÍAZ, V.: The Re u n o Ci il Socie y: The Eme gence o Democ a ic Spain. Camb idge, Mass., Ha a d Uni e si y P ess, 1993. PICONTÓ-NOVALES, T.: ‘Family Law and Family Policy in Spain’ in KURCZEWSKI, J.; MacCLEAN, M. (eds.): Family Law and Family Policy in he New Eu ope. Alde sho , Da mou h, 1997, p. 109-127. PRINGLE, K.: Child en and Social Wel a e in Eu ope. Buckingham and Philadelphia, Open Uni e si y P ess, 1998. RHODES, M.: ‘Sou he n Eu opean Wel a e S a es: Iden i y, P oblems and P ospec s o Re o m’ in RHODES, M. (ed.): Sou he n Eu opean Wel a e S a es: Be ween C isis and Re o m. London, F ank Cass, 1997a, p. 1-22. RHODES, M.: ‘Spain’ in COMPSTON, H. (ed.) The New Poli ics o Unemploymen : Radical Policy Ini ia i es in Wes e n Eu ope. London, Rou ledge, 1997b, p. 103-122. SARACENO, C.: ‘The Ambi alen Familism o he I alian Wel a e S a e’, Social Poli ics Sp ing/1994, p. 60-82. SARACENO, C.: ‘Familismo ambi alen e y clien elismo ca egó ico en el Es ado del bienes a i aliano’ in SARASA, S.; MORENO, L. (eds.): El Es ado del bienes a en la Eu opa del su . Mad id, Consejo Supe io de In es igaciones Cien í icas/Ins i u o de Es udios Sociales A anzados, 1995, p. 261-288. SARACENO, C.: Mu amen i della amiglia e poli iche sociali in I alia. Bologna, Il Mulino, 1998. SYMEONIDOU, H.: ‘Wel a e S a e and In o mal Ne wo ks in Con empo a y G eece’ in Mi e Flo ence Con e ence, Compa ing Social Wel a e Sys ems in Sou he n Eu ope ol. 3/1997. Pa is, Mi e, p. 337-362. THERBORN, G.: ‘Beyond he Lonely Na ion-S a e’ in CASTLES, F. (ed.): Families o Na ions: Pa e ns o Public Policy in Wes e n Democ acies. Alde sho , Da mou h, 1993, p. 329-340. TOBÍO, C.: ‘The Family-Employmen Rela ionship in Spain’ in LETABLIER, M.-T.; HANTRAIS, L. (eds.): The Family-Employmen Rela ionship. C oss-Na ional Resea ch Pape s, Fou h Se ies, ‘Concep s and Con ex s in In e na ional Compa isons o Family Policies in Eu ope’. Loughbo ough, Eu opean Resea ch Cen e, 1994, p. 41-47. TRIFILETTI, R.: ‘Res uc u ing Social Ca e in I aly’ in LEWIS, J. (ed.): Gende , Social Ca e and Wel a e S a e Res uc u ing in Eu ope. Alde sho , Ashga e, 1998, p. 175-206. TRIFILETTI, R.: ‘Sou he n Eu opean Wel a e Regimes and he Wo sening Posi ion o Women’, Jou nal o Eu opean Social Policy 9 (1)/1999, p. 49-64. VALIENTE, C.: ‘Family Obliga ions in Spain’ in MILLAR, J.; WARMAN, A. (eds.): Family Obliga ions in Eu ope. London, Family Policy S udies Cen e, 1996, p. 325-358. VALIENTE, C.: ‘Las polí icas de cuidado de los niños a ni el nacional en España (1975-1996)’, Pape s. Re is a de Sociologia 53/1997a, p. 101-136. VALIENTE, C.: ‘The Rejec ion o Au ho i a ian Policy Legacies: Family Policy in Spain (1975–1995)’, Mi e Flo ence Con e ence, Compa ing Social Wel a e Sys ems in Sou he n Eu ope ol. 3/1997b. Pa is, Mi e, p. 363- 383.