Family policy and welfare state in Southern Europe

FAMILY POLICY AND WELFARE STATE IN SOUTHERN EUROPE Lluís Flaquer Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona WP núm. 185 Institut de Ciències Polítiques i Socials Barcelona, 2000 1 The Institut de Ciències Polítiques i Socials (ICPS) was created by the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and the Diputació de Barcelona in 1988. The ICPS is attached to the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. These “Working Papers” -thought of as subject for discussionare the result of research work in progress. Appearance in this series does not preclude further publication. This paper must not be reproduced without the author’s licence. © Lluís Flaquer Design: Toni Viaplana Printer: A.bis c/ Leiva, 3, baixos. 08014 Barcelona ISSN: 1133-8962 LD: B-4.1004-2001 2 INTRODUCTION In the last few years Southern European countries have come to the fore as far as the analysis of public policy is concerned. Omitted for a very long time from comparative research, they have recently attracted the attention of students of social policy in so far as they seemingly provided a model featuring in a prominent role a strong and resilient family, which supposedly was a safeguard against social exclusion. There is no reason whatsoever to exclude these countries from cross-national analysis. Their income maintenance programmes are not vestigial, their welfare states are substantially developed, and their data are no longer reported inadequately (Castles, 1995). They can teach us a lot about the complex relationships between the state, the market, and the family, considered the three cornerstones of the welfare edifice (Esping-Andersen, 1999). This chapter deals with family policy in Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece. The study of family policy is most relevant here because, far from only concerning the area of ‘family policy’, it has a much wider scope. The ‘family question’ is not sectoral, but central in so far as the allocation of responsibilities between the state, the market, and the family constitutes one of the critical features for characterizing various welfare-state models (Martin, 1997). The question that I am addressing is the following: to what extent can we talk of a family policy model for Southern European countries? In trying to answer this question, I consider family policy in a very broad sense. In my view, not only explicit but also implicit family policy should be taken into account so that the scope of comparison is enlarged. It is useful to examine not only specific measures targeted to families, but also other provisions that indirectly serve an analogous purpose, although their official status may be different. It is possible that categorizations such as ‘family policy’, arising out of a different sociopolitical context, are unable to grasp thoroughly the specificity of Southern European nations. What is to be compared are not individual social policies but whole systems of welfare in which these policies can make sense. This brings me to a second question: what do we mean by a model? A model must be explanatory rather than descriptive, comprehensive in the sense that it takes into account all relevant factors, and it must specify how their features are reproduced over time. Two main concepts have been suggested to account for welfare similarities and differences among countries as evidenced by contrasting clusters using various criteria, i.e. ‘welfare-state regimes’ and ‘families of nations’. The notion of welfare-state regime rests on the assumption that ‘in the relation between state and economy a complex of legal and organisational features are systematically interwoven’ (Esping-Andersen, 1990: 2). For this approach, in the intellectual tradition of political economy, issues of decommodification, social stratification, and employment are keys to a welfare state’s identity, and the purpose of research is to identify the internal logic underlying their relationships. On the other hand, the scope of the ‘families of nations’ approach is larger than Esping-Andersen’s. ‘Policy similarities between groups and their 3 differences from other groups may be attributable as much to history and culture and their transmission and diffusion amongst nations as to the immediate impact of the economic, political and social variables that figure almost exclusively in the contemporary public policy literature’ (Castles, 1993: xv). For Castles, although rather similar policy outcomes may be explained in terms of economic, political, and social antecedents, the question of the extent to which those antecedents are themselves conditioned by shared historical and cultural experience must be left open, considering that this kind of legacy may influence to a large extent the present behaviour of those who shape the policies and those who make demands of the state (Castles, 1993). Even if the theoretical intent of my contribution is modest, the clarification of the model used seems most relevant. Do similar public policy outcomes in Southern European countries result from cultural affinity or from common socio-economic circumstances? Are we endorsing some form of modernization theory, i.e. that economic development, cultural change, and political change go together in coherent and even to some extent predictable patterns, although it is clear that the modernization process is not linear (Inglehart, 1997: 5), or do we believe that values associated with particular societies are quite stable and distinctive and therefore tend to shape social structure? Do social values derive from a matrix of (mainly economic) constraints and opportunities, or from distinct cultural patterns? Is the Southern European cluster to be understood in terms of delayed modernization or in terms of a different path to modernity? If the first part of the sentence is true, Mediterranean welfare states could be described as underdeveloped, rudimentary, latecomers, or traditional. An alternative course of action would be to determine the peculiarities, traditions, or values that uphold their model, if there is one. The analysis of family policy in Southern Europe seems very appropriate to illuminate such questions because many of these nations’ commonalities relate to the family as an institution. They are characterized both by very strong family-orientated values associated with a low degree of individualization and by the lack of an explicit family policy as evidenced by a very limited number of family-friendly social provisions. Should we assume that there is a kind of causal circularity between these two terms or that their condition is the result of a peculiar set of socio-economic circumstances? This chapter is divided into two parts. In the first part, I provide an overview of the general system of social protection of Southern European countries, with a special emphasis on the measures specifically addressed to families, and a brief description of the Mediterranean family system. The second part deals with other aspects of the welfare-state regime such as labour market characteristics and access to housing and concludes with some notes on the reproduction of the system. WELFARE STATE AND FAMILY IN SOUTHERN EUROPE Southern welfare states can be described as a via media with respect to other systems of social protection, as they encompass elements of both Bismarckian and Beveridgian traditions (Almeda and Sarasa, 1996; Moreno, 1997). In terms of social protection expenditure as per cent of GDP, all Southern European countries are well below the EU average1. While in 1996 the EU average was 28.7%, the figures for Greece, Spain, Italy, and Portugal were 23.3%, 22.4%, 24.8%, and 21.6%, respectively. In the 4 same year, social protection expenditure per capita for these four countries was also below the average. On the other hand, the analysis of the structure of expenditure on social protection benefits by function shows important contrasts not only between Southern countries and the EU average but also among them. Thus, whereas in 1995 the average for expenditure on family and children was 8%, Spain only spent 1%, Italy 4%, and Portugal 6%2. Regarding further areas of social protection other peculiarities for Southern countries were apparent. Both Spain and Portugal spent more on sickness and health care, Italy and Greece spent a lot on old age and survivors’ pensions, and Spain’s expenditure on unemployment benefits was exceptionally high, as much as two times the average. One of the reported characteristics of social security in Southern European countries is its high degree of fragmentation along occupational lines (Ferrera, 1997). This is particularly true in the Greek case. In Greece the system is characterized by a mosaic of insurance funds (236 in 1995), in which eligibility and benefits differ greatly (Symeonidou, 1997; Papadopoulos, 1997). The Italian and Spanish welfare systems also show a considerable measure of fragmentation, while Portugal has the least (Trifiletti, 1998; Guillén, 1997; Ferrera, 1996). The mix of universalist health-care systems with professional pension schemes is common to all Southern European countries (Guillén, 1997). For some analysts, the Southern type can be treated as a model in so far as it presents an original blend of ‘occupationalism’ (maintenance system) and ‘universalism’ (health service) that is not found in other parts of Europe (Ferrera, 1996). In 1978 a national health service was created in Italy, thereby rendering health care a right for all citizens (Saraceno, 1998). In 1979 a similar system was set up in Portugal, but private medicine continued to develop in parallel with the public service (Guibentif, 1997). Finally, a national health service was instituted in Greece in 1983 and in Spain in 1986 with production and provision of health services based on a public-/private-sector mix (Symeonidou, 1997; Almeda and Sarasa, 1996). Another characteristic of Southern welfare states is that no national statutory minimum income scheme is guaranteed for individuals and families. There is no national last-resort safety net, although in Spain and Italy, where social assistance is under the exclusive control of regional authorities, some local schemes have been developed with very irregular levels of provision (Trifiletti, 1998; Symeonidou, 1997). Provisions of explicit family policy In terms of child benefit packages, the least generous EU member-states are Portugal, Italy, Spain, and Greece (Hantrais and Letablier, 1996; Pringle, 1998). Portugal is the only Southern nation with universal, though modest, family allowances (Ferrera, 1997). Greece has never had an explicit family policy, and family benefits are very low, although large families in particular are protected in many ways (Symeonidou, 1997). Along with Spain, Greece provides one of the least generous child support packages (Papadopolous, 1998). In Italy there is no universal child benefit. Since 1988 there is a so-called benefit for the family nucleus that is payable to low-income employed workers at a level that varies by household composition (Saraceno, 1998). In Spain family allowances, albeit extremely low, were universal until 5 1990 when they were increased in amount and became means-tested. In the last decade, child benefits have become measures of social assistance in both Italy and Spain. Maternity leave with full earnings is provided in Portugal, Spain, and Greece. In Italy the benefit is only paid at 80% of earnings, and self-employed working mothers are not covered. The duration of the leave is 16 weeks in Greece and Spain, 18 in Portugal, and 22 in Italy. Greece pays the lowest maternity benefits of all the EU countries (Papadopolous, 1998). I have no data on the take-up of maternity benefits in Southern European nations, but there are some indications that it is quite low3. In Southern European countries parental leave is unpaid, except in Italy where 30% income replacement is provided (Pringle, 1998). Length of parental leave varies from 3.5 months in Greece (6 months for lone parents) only for workers in large companies, 6-24 months in Portugal, 9 months in Italy, and 12–36 in Spain (Papadopolous, 1998)4. Regarding child-care facilities in Southern European countries, publicly funded day-care provision for under-fours is generally rather low. On the other hand, the levels of provision for 3–6-yearolds are comparable with those achieved by the Nordic states (Pringle, 1998)5. High coverage in Spain and Italy is due to the fact that provision of day care for 3–6 year-olds is a part of the educational system and that service is therefore free. The reconciliation between family and paid work is not favoured by the fact that in Southern European nations part-time jobs for women are rare. According to Eurostat data, while in 1995 the EU average for women employed part-time was 31%, percentages for Southern countries were much lower (Greece: 8.4%; Spain: 16.6%; Italy: 12.7%, and Portugal 11.6%). The paucity of public services for very small children, the lack of cash support for families, and the limited amount of provisions for reconciling family and employment leaves families themselves with the responsibility for dealing with their difficulties. Clearly, the pivotal role of the family in social protection cannot be over-emphasized. In Southern Europe the welfare state is to a large extent the Mediterranean welfare family, with an important share of both material and non-material intra-familial transfers (Moreno, 1997). Considering that in this part of the world the key welfare provider is less the state than the family, let us turn to its main characteristics. The Mediterranean family system Most sociodemographic indicators show that Southern European nations exhibit a number of unique features. Although the average household size of Mediterranean countries has gradually decreased in the last decade, it is still the highest in Europe (Pringle, 1998). This is largely related to a significant proportion of multi-generational households and to a very limited amount of one-person households. Thus, while in 1995 as a European average 12% of men and 10% of women in the age group 20–29 were living on their own, in Portugal only 2% of men and 3% of women did so; and in Spain only 1% of either sex. Italy and Greece were also well below the mean but closer to it6. 6 A crucial variable is the high proportion of young people in their twenties living with their parents, which in Southern nations is much higher than in other parts of Europe. Thus, for example, in 1996 65% of men and 44% of women in the 25–29 age group were still living with their parents in Spain, Greece, and Italy; in 1986 the proportions for the same age group were 52% for men and 29% for women. This shows the extent to which the situation of young people in Greece, Italy, and Spain has deteriorated in recent times in so far as most of them fail to achieve full social integration as responsible and independent adults (Fernández Cordón, 1997). However, this complex issue cannot be simply dismissed -as many writers have doneby saying that it is the result of high unemployment rates for young people. It is also related to the peculiar structure of the labour market, to the lack of social provisions for young people, and to a number of family values. Young people’s dependence on their parents may not only be seen by both as a yoke but also as a valuable asset. It is a useful strategy to maximize children’s resources for their entry into adult life under favourable conditions. Especially in the case of young women, it allows them to make profitable investments in education (Flaquer, 1995). It also helps them to find a good job through personal networks. Thus, in Southern European societies young people more often find employment through their family connections. Whereas a substantial proportion of young people in Southern European countries got a job thanks to their families (69% of Greeks, 65% of Italians, 61% of Spaniards, 58% of Portuguese), only a low percentage of young people in Northern Europe did so (18% of Dutch, 19% of Danes, and 21% of Germans) (Mendras, 1997: 171). Finally, it enables young people to save for the purchase of a home, possibly with financial help from their parents. As a result of this co-residence of parents and children until the latter marry7, in Mediterranean countries rates of non-marital cohabitation are very low, as is the number of children born out of wedlock. With the exception of Portugal, live births outside marriage are well below the European average8. Intergenerational dependency takes place both at the beginning and at the end of the life cycle. Using different indicators, Mediterranean states display above-average composite values for the impact on families of old and young age dependency (Hantrais, 1999: 296). For the age group 75 and over the number of people living on their own in Southern countries is below the European mean. With the exception of Italy, where the proportion of women of 75 years and over living alone was above the mean, in the rest of the Southern countries all percentages for men and women were below the average, with Spain showing very low values. As these data only report household composition, they do not reflect other Mediterranean family arrangements such as kin residential proximity, which is also a distinct phenomenon in this part of the world. Kin clustering is a prerequisite for the collaboration across genders and generations. The delivery of services such as care for children or for the elderly needs some daily interaction, which would not be possible if parents and children did not live close to each other. Needless to say, adult married women are the main providers of these care services and are motivated by a strong sense of moral obligation that fuels the system. A proper understanding of how this works must rely on the analysis of values underlying the Southern family, which has been variously described as a ‘clearing-house’ (Castles and Ferrera, 1996: 7 181) and as a ‘synthesis of breadcrumbs’ (Trifiletti, 1999: 52). As Saraceno puts it, ‘the Italian familist welfare regime is not exclusively nor even primarily based on a strong breadwinner model, but on the family as perceived as a unit of income and resources, to which everyone contributes according to his/her opportunities, although they may differ by gender. What is assumed is not the figure of breadwinner but family solidarity -including kinand the primary responsibility of women -married and mothersin the provision of care’ (Saraceno, 1995: 279-80). The function of the Mediterranean family is therefore very different from the classic model of the male breadwinner. The state does not take on the responsibility of guaranteeing a family wage, but it merely allows nuclear or extended families to pursue strategies to ensure that at least one member has a good, secure job (Trifiletti, 1999). As far as marriage break-up is concerned, rates of divorce and lone parenthood in Southern Europe are quite low. Although it is true that, particularly in Spain and Italy, the divorce rate is not the best indicator of break-up because a significant number of separated people do not have recourse to divorce9, crude divorce rates in Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece are well below the average. This is usually explained by the opposition of the Roman Catholic Church to the dissolution of marriage. However, despite the fact that divorce was traditionally permitted by the Orthodox Church, the Greek rate is also low. This suggests that other factors such as family solidarity and a low degree of individualization should also be taken into account. One of the outputs of this family system is rather low levels of fertility. While total fertility rates in Greece and Portugal stand at the European mean, the rates in Spain and Italy are the lowest in the world. But if we are to understand this paradox, it is necessary to investigate other aspects of the model. IN SEARCH OF A MODEL In my view, identifying a model of family policy for Southern European countries should rely less on the analysis of measures explicitly addressed to families and more on the study of other features of the welfare-state regime such as income maintenance systems, labour market provisions, and housing policies. The specificity of Southern European countries in the field of family policy is not so much to be found in the structure of welfare schemes for families, but in the assumption that families are crucial in providing support and services for dependent people. On the face of it, it may seem a contradiction that a system in which the centrality of family is so obvious has not developed a fully-fledged family policy. But looking into it more closely, the connection between the two terms becomes obvious. As EspingAndersen puts it, ‘familialism easily goes hand-in-hand with a very passive and undeveloped family policy’ (Esping-Andersen, 1999: 51). Southern family policy, through its inaction, implicitly nurtures and reproduces the ideological assumption that the family is the main provider in society (Papadopolous, 1998). But this assumption is not only emphasized in a negative way through family policy. It is also reinforced by means of other elements of Southern welfare regimes that influence the shaping of family structure to an even larger extent. In the next two sections I will delve into the structure of the labour market and into housing policy in order to give a few examples of this effect. 8 The structure of the labour market One of the characteristics of the Southern socio-economic model is the prevalence of an illicit economy. Estimates of this hidden informal sector in Southern European countries range from 15 to 30% of GDP (Ferrera, 1997; Moreno, 1997; Cousins, 1999). This feature is connected with a high percentage of tax evasion, which creates a very uneven distribution of financial burdens across various occupational groups. All in all, salaried workers are typically more heavily taxed because being under a pay-as-youearn scheme they cannot avoid paying a single penny in taxes. This reveals a deficit of ‘stateness’, which is reflected in a weak state penetration of welfare institutions (Ferrera, 1996). This kind of informal economic arrangements is apparent from the structure of employment. In Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece the proportion of self-employed and family helpers in 1998 was well above the European average. Greece was an extreme case with more than one-tenth of workers being employed by their families and one-third being self-employed. The low percentage of salaried workers in these countries is evidence that the cash nexus has not fully replaced family solidarity and that the process of commodification is far from completed. One of the labour market characteristics that has more often attracted the attention of researchers is the low rate of female economic activity. With the single exception of Portugal, which in most respects shows an outstanding performance on the labour market, the rest of Southern nations have the lowest rates in Europe, 8-10 percentage points below the average. This feature, in conjunction with heavy female unemployment, produces very low employment rates for women. Different levels of participation of men and women in the labour market are coupled with specific work opportunities in terms of sex. Differentials between male and female unemployment rates in Greece, Italy, and Spain are huge. I have calculated the gaps between men’s and women’s unemployment rates in 1997 using Eurostat data: not only were they the largest in Europe in these three countries, but in Greece and Spain they had widened in the last decade. In the case of men and women under 25 disparities concerning unemployment are still more apparent. Youth unemployment rates for Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece are much higher than rates for the overall active population, and the gap between males and females is considerable. For example, while the average rate in Greece was 10.3%, the rate for young males was 22.2% and for young females 40.6%. In Italy the respective figures were 12.2%, 29.1%, and 39.3%, and in Spain 20.6%, 30.3%, and 46.1%. I have not been able to find comparative data on unemployment rates of male family heads, but data for Spain indicate that they are nearly half the rates of the whole active population. This situation sharply contrasts with that of countries such as Germany or the UK where unemployment rates for household heads are much higher than those for dependants. What is more, in Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain, heads of households are the least likely to be long-term unemployed of any of the major European countries (Cousins, 1999). This would mean that Mediterranean labour markets tend to discriminate in favour of male family heads and against women and young people. 15 NOTES 1. Eurostat, ESSPROS system, GDP at market prices, 1996. 2. Data for Greece were not reported in that year but earlier Eurostat data indicate that they were close to those for Spain. 3. Escobedo (1999) reports that in Spain only one-third of mothers giving birth receive the maternity benefit. 4. In Portugal the 6 months basic leave period may be extended in the case of the birth of a third or higher order child. In Spain during the first year the employee is entitled to return to his/her former job. Otherwise, he/she is only entitled to return to a job of the same level (Moss and Deven, eds., 1999). 5. The coverage is as follows: Greece: 70%; Spain: 84%; Italy: 91%; Portugal: 48%. 6. Eurostat data. 7. In Southern European societies marriage, usually in the church, is construed as an act of social emancipation and is therefore seen as the proper step preliminary to family formation. 8. According to Eurostat data, in 1995 the EU average of live births outside marriage was 23%, compared to 3% in Greece, 8% in Italy, 11% in Spain, and 19% in Portugal. 9. In the legal system of these countries being judicially separated is a precondition for divorce but court proceedings may conclude at the stage of separation. 10. According to my own calculations using data from the Spanish Labour Force Survey, the average rate of coverage of both contributory and non-contributory benefits for the estimated unemployed was 37%. In contrast, the rate for men was 47%, for women 29%, for the age group 16-19 3.5%, for the age group 20-24 13%, and for the age group 25-34 34%. 11. In 1998 the European percentage of employees with fixed-term contracts was only 12.6%. Percentages for Southern European countries were the following: Portugal: 17.3%; Spain: 32.9%; Italy: 7.4%; Greece: 11.8%. 12. With the notable exception of Portugal. 13. According to Eurostat data (1994), the European average was 59%. By contrast, the Spanish rate was 79%, the Greek and Italian ones 77%, and the Portuguese one 61%. 14. Own calculations using Spanish statistical sources. 15. This model not only departs from the traditional inverse relationship between female participation and fertility, which appears to have broken down in the Western industrialized countries, but also from the positive relationship between both phenomena that has recently emerged in these nations. 16. For example, in 1985 the gap between the unemployment rate for males and females in Spain was 4.8 percentage points; in 1987 it had risen to 10.4 (Flaquer, 1995). 17. In 1980 the rates of schooling for males and females aged 15-19 and 20-24 were similar. At the beginning of the 1990s there was a gap of about 10 percentage points. REFERENCES ALMEDA, E.; SARASA, S.: ‘Spain: Growth to Diversity’ in GEORGE, V.; TAYLOR-GOOBY, P. (eds.): European Welfare Policy: Squaring the Welfare Circle. Houndmills, Macmillan, 1996, p. 155-176. ANTUNES CAPUCHA, L.: ‘Pobreza, Exclusao Social e Mirganalidades’ in LEITE VEGAS, J.; FERMINO DA COSTA, A. (eds.): Portugal, Que Modernidade? Oeiras, Celta Editora, 1998, p. 209-242. BENTOLILA, S.; DOLADO, J.: ‘Spanish Labour Markets’, Economic Policy. 1994, p. 53–99. 16 BETTIO, F.; Villa, P.: ‘A Mediterranean Perspective on the Breakdown of the Relationship between Participation and Fertility’, Cambridge Journal of Economics 22/1998, p. 137-171. BIMBI, F.: ‘La debolezza delle politiche familiari in Italia: Un caso di federalismo mancato?’ in BIMBI, F.; DEL RE, A. (eds.): Genere e Democrazia: La Cittadinanza delle Donne a Cinquant’Anni dal Voto. Turin, Rosenberg & Selier, 1997, p. 193-215. CANTÓ-SÁNCHEZ, O.; MERCADER-PRATS, M.: ‘Child Poverty in Spain: What Can Be Said?’, Innocenti Occasional Papers, Economic and Social Policy Series, n. 66/1998. Florence, UNICEF International Child Development Centre. CASTLES, F.: ‘Introduction’ in CASTLES, F. (ed.): Families of Nations: Patterns of Public Policy in Western Democracies. Aldershot, Darmouth, xiii-xxiii, 1993. CASTLES, F.: ‘Welfare State Development in Southern Europe’, West European Politics 18 (2)/1995, p. 291-313. CASTLES, F.: Comparative Public Policy: Patterns of Post-War Transformation. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, Mass., Edward Elgar, 1998. CASTLES, F.; FERRERA, M.: ‘Home Ownership and the Welfare State: Is Southern Europe Different?’, South European Society and Politics 1 (2)/1996, p. 163-184. COUSINS, C.: ‘Women and Social Policy in Spain: The Development of a Gendered Welfare Regime’, Journal of European Social Policy 5 (3)/1995, p. 175-197. COUSINS, C.: Society, Work and Welfare in Europe. London, Macmillan, 1999. DELGADO, M.; LIVI-BACCI, M.: ‘Fertility in Italy and Spain: The Lowest in the World’, Family Planning Perspectives 24 (4)/1992, p. 162-171. ESCOBEDO, A.: ‘Doing Cross-National Work on Parental Leave’ in MOSS, P.: DEVEN, F. (eds.): Parental Leave: Progress or Pitfall? Research and Policy Issues in Europe vol. 35/1999. The Hague/Brussels, NIDI/CBGS Publications, p. 173-192. ESPING-ANDERSEN, G.: The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge, Polity Press, 1990. ESPING-ANDERSEN, G.: Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999. FAWCET, H.; PAPADOPOLOUS, T.: ‘Social Exclusion, Social Citizenship and Decommodification: An Evaluation of the Adequacy of Support for the Unemployed in The European Union’, West European Politics 20 (3)/1997, p. 1-30. FERNÁNDEZ CORDÓN, J.: ‘Youth Residential Independence and Autonomy: A Comparative Study’, Journal of Family Issues 18 (6)/1997, p. 576-607. FERRERA, M.: ‘The “Southern Model” of Welfare in Social Europe’, Journal of European Social Policy 6 (1)/1996, p. 17-37. FERRERA, M.: ‘General Introduction’ in Mire Florence Conference, Comparing Social Welfare Systems in Southern Europe vol. 3/1997. Paris, Mire, p. 13-24. FLAQUER, L.: ‘El modelo de familia española en el contexto europeo’ in SARASA, S.; MORENO, L. (eds.): El Estado del bienestar en la Europa del sur. Madrid, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas/Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados, 1995, p. 289-311. FLAQUER, L.: ‘La familia en la sociedad del siglo XXI’, Papers de la Fundació Rafael Campalans n. 117/1999, Barcelona. FLAQUER, L.: Las políticas familiares en una perspectiva comparada. Barcelona, Fundació La Caixa (forthcoming). FLAQUER, L.; GINER, S.; MORENO, L.: ‘España en la encrucijada’ in GINER, S. (ed.): España: Sociedad y política. Madrid, Espasa-Calpe, 1990, p. 19-74. GINER, S.: ‘Political Economy, Legitimation and the State in Southern Europe’, The British Journal of Sociology 33 (2)/1982, p. 172-199. 17 GUIBENTIF, P.: ‘Changes in the Portuguese Social Security System’ in Mire Florence Conference, Comparing Social Welfare Systems in Southern Europe vol. 3/1997. Paris, Mire, p. 47-66. GUILLÉN, A.: ‘Welfare State Development in Spain: A Historical and Explanatory Approach’ in Mire Florence Conference, Comparing Social Welfare Systems in Southern Europe vol. 3/1997. Paris, Mire. p. 67-91. HAMANN, K.; MANUEL, P.: ‘Regime Changes and Civil Society in Twentieth-Century Portugal’, South European Society and Politics 4 (1)/1999, p. 71-96. HANTRAIS, L.: ‘Socio-Demographic Change, Policy Impacts and Outcomes in Social Europe’, Journal of European Social Policy 9 (4)/1999, p. 291-309. HANTRAIS, L.; LETABLIER, M.-T.: Families and Family Policies in Europe. London and New York, Longman, 1996. INGLEHART, R.: Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1997. JANOSKI, T.; Citizenship and Civil Society: A Framework of Rights and Obligations in Liberal, Traditional and Social Democratic Regimes. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998. JURADO GUERRERO, T.; NALDINI, M.: ‘Is the South so Different? Italian and Spanish Families in Comparative Perspective’, South European Society and Politics 1 (2)/1996, p. 42-66. KATROUGALOS, G.: ‘The South European Welfare Model: The Greek Welfare State, in Search of an Identity’, Journal of European Social Policy 6 (1)/1996, p. 39-60. LEIBFRIED, S.: ‘Towards a European Welfare State: On Integrating Poverty Regimes into the European Community’ in FERGE, Z.; J. KOLBERG, J. (eds.): Social Policy in a Changing Europe. Frankfurt am Main and Boulder, Colorado, Campus Verlag/ Westview Press, 1992, p. 245-279. MALEFAKIS, E.: ‘Southern Europe in the 19th and 20th Centuries: An Historical Overview’, Working Paper 1992/35. Madrid, Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Ciencias Sociales/Instituto Juan March de Estudios e Investigaciones, 1992. MARTIN, C.: ‘Social Welfare and the Family in Southern Europe: Are There Any Specificities?’ in Mire Florence Conference, Comparing Social Welfare Systems in Southern Europe vol. 3/1997. Paris, Mire, p. 315-335. MATSAGANIS, M.: ‘Social Assistance in Southern Europe: The Case of Greece Revisited’, Journal of European Social Policy 10 (1)/2000, p. 68-80. MEIL LANDWERLIN, G.: ‘L’évolution de la politique familiale en Espagne: Du salaire familial à la lutte contre la pauvreté’, Population 49 (4–5)/1994, p. 959-984. MEIL LANDWERLIN, G.: ‘Presente y futuro de la política familiar en España’, Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociólogicas 70/1995a, p. 67-90. MEIL LANDWERLIN, G.: ‘La política familiar española durante el franquismo’, Revista Internacional de Sociología 11/1995b, p. 47-88. MENDRAS, H.: L’Europe des Européens: Sociologie de l’Europe occidentale. Paris, Gallimard, 1997. MORENO, L.: ‘The Spanish Development of Southern Welfare’, Working Paper 97-04/1997. Madrid: IESA-CSIC. Online: http://www.iesam.cisc.es. MORENO, L.; SARASA, S.: ‘Génesis y desarrollo del Estado del bienestar en España’, Revista Internacional de Sociologia 6/1993, p. 27-69. MOSS, P.; DEVEN, F. (eds.): Parental Leave: Progress or Pitfall? Research and Policy Issues in Europe vol. 35/1999. The Hague/Brussels, NIDI/CBGS Publications NUNES DE ALMEIDA, A. et al.: ‘Relaçoes Familiares: Mudança e Diversidade’ in LEITE VEGAS, J.; FERMINO DA COSTA, A. (eds.): Portugal, Que Modernidade? Oeiras, Celta Editora, 1998, p. 44-78. PAPADOPOULOS, T.: ‘Family, State and Social Policy for Children in Greece’ in BRANNEN, J.; O’BRIEN, M. (eds.): Children in Families: Research and Policy. London, Falmer Press, 1996, p. 171-188. 18 PAPADOPOULOS, T.: ‘Social Insurance and the Crisis of Statism in Greece’ in CLASEN, J. (ed.): Social Insurance in Europe. Bristol, The Policy Press, 1997, p. 177-204. PAPADOPOULOS, T.: ‘Greek Family Policy from a Comparative Perspective’ in DREW, E.; EMEREK, R.; MAHON, E. (eds.): Women, Work and the Family in Europe. London and New York, Routledge, 1998, p. 4757. PEREIRINHA, J.: ‘Welfare States and Patterns of Anti-Poverty Regimes: Elements for a Comparative Analysis with a Focus on Southern European Countries. The Specific Case of Portugal’ in Mire Florence Conference, Comparing Social Welfare Systems in Southern Europe vol. 3/1997. Paris, Mire, p. 479-513. PÉREZ DÍAZ, V.: The Return of Civil Society: The Emergence of Democratic Spain. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1993. PICONTÓ-NOVALES, T.: ‘Family Law and Family Policy in Spain’ in KURCZEWSKI, J.; MacCLEAN, M. (eds.): Family Law and Family Policy in the New Europe. Aldershot, Darmouth, 1997, p. 109-127. PRINGLE, K.: Children and Social Welfare in Europe. Buckingham and Philadelphia, Open University Press, 1998. RHODES, M.: ‘Southern European Welfare States: Identity, Problems and Prospects for Reform’ in RHODES, M. (ed.): Southern European Welfare States: Between Crisis and Reform. London, Frank Cass, 1997a, p. 1-22. RHODES, M.: ‘Spain’ in COMPSTON, H. (ed.) The New Politics of Unemployment: Radical Policy Initiatives in Western Europe. London, Routledge, 1997b, p. 103-122. SARACENO, C.: ‘The Ambivalent Familism of the Italian Welfare State’, Social Politics Spring/1994, p. 60-82. SARACENO, C.: ‘Familismo ambivalente y clientelismo categórico en el Estado del bienestar italiano’ in SARASA, S.; MORENO, L. (eds.): El Estado del bienestar en la Europa del sur. Madrid, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas/Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados, 1995, p. 261-288. SARACENO, C.: Mutamenti della famiglia e politiche sociali in Italia. Bologna, Il Mulino, 1998. SYMEONIDOU, H.: ‘Welfare State and Informal Networks in Contemporary Greece’ in Mire Florence Conference, Comparing Social Welfare Systems in Southern Europe vol. 3/1997. Paris, Mire, p. 337-362. THERBORN, G.: ‘Beyond the Lonely Nation-State’ in CASTLES, F. (ed.): Families of Nations: Patterns of Public Policy in Western Democracies. Aldershot, Darmouth, 1993, p. 329-340. TOBÍO, C.: ‘The Family-Employment Relationship in Spain’ in LETABLIER, M.-T.; HANTRAIS, L. (eds.): The Family-Employment Relationship. Cross-National Research Papers, Fourth Series, ‘Concepts and Contexts in International Comparisons of Family Policies in Europe’. Loughborough, European Research Centre, 1994, p. 41-47. TRIFILETTI, R.: ‘Restructuring Social Care in Italy’ in LEWIS, J. (ed.): Gender, Social Care and Welfare State Restructuring in Europe. Aldershot, Ashgate, 1998, p. 175-206. TRIFILETTI, R.: ‘Southern European Welfare Regimes and the Worsening Position of Women’, Journal of European Social Policy 9 (1)/1999, p. 49-64. VALIENTE, C.: ‘Family Obligations in Spain’ in MILLAR, J.; WARMAN, A. (eds.): Family Obligations in Europe. London, Family Policy Studies Centre, 1996, p. 325-358. VALIENTE, C.: ‘Las políticas de cuidado de los niños a nivel nacional en España (1975-1996)’, Papers. Revista de Sociologia 53/1997a, p. 101-136. VALIENTE, C.: ‘The Rejection of Authoritarian Policy Legacies: Family Policy in Spain (1975–1995)’, Mire Florence Conference, Comparing Social Welfare Systems in Southern Europe vol. 3/1997b. Paris, Mire, p. 363383.