Zagel, Hannah; Hübgen, Sabine
Book Pa — Published Ve sion
A li e-cou se app oach o single mo he s' economic
wellbeing in di e en wel a e s a es
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Zagel, Hannah; Hübgen, Sabine (2018) : A li e-cou se app oach o single mo he s'
economic wellbeing in di e en wel a e s a es, In: Nieuwenhuis, Rense Maldonado, Lau ie C. (Ed.):
The iple bind o single-pa en amilies: Resou ces, employmen and policies o imp o e well-
being, ISBN 978-1-4473-3365-4, Policy P ess, B is ol, pp. 171-193,
h p://www.oapen.o g/ eco d/643492
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/179004
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
171
EIGHT
A li e‑cou se app oach o single
mo he s’ economic wellbeing
in di e en wel a e s a es
Hannah Zagel and Sabine Hübgen
In his chap e , we sugges ha he ela ionship be ween he wel a e
s a e and single mo he s’ economic wellbeing should be analysed
h ough a li e-cou se lens. I is widely accep ed ha he inc ease in
single mo he hood, al hough aking place a di e en a es ac oss
coun ies, is one o he majo demog aphic de elopmen s in socie ies
oday and poses new challenges o wel a e s a es ( o example, Bonoli,
2005). The ac ha single mo he hood is a ely a uni o m ype o
amily bu a he a empo a y s a us, which mo he s en e and lea e
a e y di e en poin s in hei li es, has ecei ed a less ecogni ion
(bu see T eano , Chap e Fou in his book, and Ha kness & Salgado,
Chap e Fi e in his book). Single mo he hood is he esul o such
di e en e en s as di o ce o a ma ied couple, sepa a ion o cohabi ing
pa en s, he dea h o a pa ne , an adul child mo ing back in o
he single pa en ’s house o he bi h o a child o a single woman.
Hence, single mo he hood is associa ed wi h a ying deg ees o
socioemo ional s ess, ca e esponsibili ies and economic secu i y, all
o which a e isks ele an o policy making.
Despi e he plu alisa ion o amily o ms, single mo he s a e o en
ea ed as a homogenous g oup in esea ch on single mo he hood and
social policy. P e ious s udies show ha single mo he s’ po e y isks
a e be e p o ec ed in uni e sal wel a e s a es han in hose ha use
a ge ing s a egies (B ady & Bu oway, 2012), by gene ous a ge ed
child bene i sys ems (VanLancke e al., 2015) and wo k– amily
econcilia ion policies (Maldonado & Nieuwenhuis, 2015; Mis a
e al., 2012). This esea ch conside ably ad ances ou unde s anding
o o e all po e y isks associa ed wi h single mo he hood in di e en
coun ies. Howe e , i is a ely acknowledged ha single mo he hood
goes oge he wi h speci ic social igh s i i is expe ienced a ce ain
li e s ages. This means ha no all policies a e equally ele an o
The iple bind o single-pa en amilies
172
all single mo he s. Fo example, egula ions o alimony paymen s
a e o en es ic ed o di o ced pa en s, while social secu i y ans e
paymen s cease when he de ined age h eshold o he younges child
in he household is eached, and ma e ni y lea e policies conce n
single mo he s wi h a new-bo n baby. In ligh o Nieuwenhuis and
Maldonado’s a gumen (Chap e One in his book), a ia ions in
p o ec ion ac oss di e en li e s ages could also be unde s ood in e ms
o di e en deg ees o ‘adequa e’ policy p o ision o single mo he s.
Wi h coun ies a ying in he c i e ia hey se in he di e en policy
a eas, wel a e-s a e suppo o single mo he s appea s much mo e
mul i ace ed han wha is ypically discussed in p e ious esea ch.
Taken oge he , li le is known abou how wel a e s a es p o ec
he economic isks o single mo he s ac oss di e en li e s ages and
how his is ela ed o coun y a ia ion in single mo he s’ economic
wellbeing. In he p esen chap e , we build on his gap in he
li e a u e. We ask how o concep ualise wel a e-s a e p o ision o
single mo he s, gi en ha single mo he hood is no a s a ic, uni o m
amily s a us. The e a e wo main ad an ages o aking a li e-cou se
pe spec i e. Fi s , accoun ing o he li e-cou se con ex allows o
a mo e nuanced analysis o he ci cums ances ha a e pa icula ly
de imen al o wellbeing and he e o e equi e speci ic suppo .
Second, acknowledging he li e-cou se con ex is impo an because
disad an age may consolida e o accumula e o e ime.
The chap e is s uc u ed as ollows. Fi s , we discuss how single
mo he s’ wellbeing has p e iously been discussed in compa a i e
wel a e-s a e esea ch. Second, we demons a e he need o a li e-
cou se pe spec i e based on desc ip i e analyses o single mo he s’
po e y and employmen . Thi d, we p opose ou own app oach
o concep ualising wel a e-s a e p o ision o conduc ing coun y-
compa a i e esea ch on single mo he s’ wellbeing wi h a li e-cou se
pe spec i e. Fou h, we demons a e he use o his app oach by
compa ing policies selec ed acco ding o hei gene osi y and li e-
cou se condi ionali y.
P e ious esea ch
The e a e wo main app oaches wi hin compa a i e wel a e-s a e
esea ch o explaining di e ences in single mo he s’ ou comes
be ween coun ies. The i s d aws on he classical dis inc ion be ween
uni e sal and a ge ing wel a e s a es, while he second add esses he
ins i u ional con ex o adequa e employmen and ocuses on he
speci ic ield o amily policy. As indica ed, p e ious esea ch has
173
Li e-cou se app oach o single mo he s’ economic wellbeing
ended o concep ualise he wel a e s a e in e ms o i s uni o m impac
on all pe sons quali ying as single pa en s a one poin in ime. In his
sec ion, we demons a e whe e adding a li e-cou se pe spec i e would
be ui ul.
Uni e salism and a ge ing
The e is a longs anding deba e in compa a i e wel a e-s a e esea ch
on he dis inc ion be ween wel a e s a es’ uni e sal p o ision o social
igh s on he one hand and a ge ed suppo o indi iduals and amilies
in need on he o he hand. This dis inc ion has also been applied
o s udy a ia ion in single mo he s’ wellbeing ac oss coun ies. We
will discuss i he e because i illumina es a cen al heo e ical idea in
he s udy o wel a e s a es, bu has no sys ema ically been in eg a ed
wi h a li e-cou se pe spec i e. The deba e on uni e sal and a ge ed
wel a e-s a e suppo can be summa ised as a discussion on e iciency
and e ec i eness o wel a e spending (c .B ady & Bu oway, 2012;
VanLancke e al., 2015). Uni e salism is some imes said o be mo e
e ec i e in lowe ing economic inequali ies in a gi en socie y. I is
associa ed wi h a comp ehensi e app oach o wel a e, suppo ing all
ci izens’ high li ing s anda ds a he han p o iding suppo o hose
who ‘ ail’ o main ain a su icien li ing s anda d in hei own igh . In
a uni e sal wel a e s a e, single-mo he amilies a e seen as jus one o
many possible amily ypes, all o which a e alued equally and none
o which ecei es any special ea men . F om his pe spec i e, in
uni e sal wel a e s a es, single mo he s can be expec ed o ha e simila
isks o po e y as o he s because gene ous social insu ances, ans e s
and se ices p o ide economic secu i y o all (B ady & Bu oway,
2012). Howe e , implica ions o uni e sal wel a e s a es o single
mo he hood a di e en s ages o he li e cou se ha e no been pa
o he discussion in p e ious esea ch.
Ta ge ing, on he o he hand, is o en said o be a mo e e icien
s a egy o wel a e s a es in ha esou ces a e speci ically di ec ed a
hose wi h he highes isk o po e y (Ba y, 1990). Following his
logic, single mo he s should ecei e special a en ion because hey
a e seen as a pa icula ly ulne able household ype. This implies ha
single mo he s’ o e all po e y isk should be smalle in a ge ing
wel a e s a es. A guably, a ge ing single pa en hood is u he mo e
cohe en wi h a s a egy o ackling gende inequali y (O lo , 1993).
This is because single pa en hood is a gende ed phenomenon in he
sense ha i is mainly expe ienced by women, who disp opo iona ely
ca y he disad an ages associa ed wi h i . Coun ies’ a ge ing
The iple bind o single-pa en amilies
174
s a egies di e in he de ini ion o a ge s (quali ying h ough
unemploymen , low income, pu ely based on household s uc u e
o any combina ion o hose c i e ia) and in he le el o ans e s o
bene icia ies. Ta ge ing single mo he s can be de ined as he p o ision
o ans e s o se ices o pe sons who quali y based on hei s a us
as single mo he s (VanLancke e al., 2015). Ta ge ing can, howe e ,
be unde s ood in wo ways. Fi s , i may be a s a egy o p o iding
speci ic ans e s only o people who quali y based on a means es
( o example, social assis ance paymen s o single mo he s). Second,
i can be a s a egy o p o iding a highe le el o (o he wise uni e sal)
ans e s o hose who quali y. An example would be child bene i ,
which may be uni e sally paid o all pa en s bu a a highe a e o
single mo he s han o coupled pa en s. I should be no ed ha e en
i single mo he hood is ound o be an eligibili y c i e ion o a ge ed
measu es in wo gi en coun ies, he de ini ion o single mo he hood
migh di e ; o example, by he age h eshold o he younges child.
The idea o a ge ing can hence easily be applied o a li e-cou se
pe spec i e in ha age o ms a majo ca ego y o eligibili y o wel a e
suppo , and i will be co e ed in ou heo e ical app oach, discussed
sho ly.
Family policy
The second app oach builds on classical wo ks o compa a i e wel a e-
s a e esea ch ha speci ically discuss common pa e ns and change
in policy o single mo he s ac oss coun ies (B adshaw e al., 1996;
Lewis, 1989; Lewis & Hobson, 1997; Milla & Rowlingson, 2001).
The heo e ical discussions include assump ions on he mechanisms
behind single mo he s’ wellbeing. Fo example: ‘In he case o lone
mo he s, he e a e h ee main possible sou ces o income: he labo
ma ke , he absen a he and he s a e’ (Lewis & Hobson, 1997, p.4).
The wel a e s a e, hen, is concep ualised in e ms o he deg ee o
which i s eps in o he ‘male b eadwinne ’ in he case o single
mo he hood. The s a e can suppo single mo he s’ employmen
o p o ide ans e s o compensa ing lacking income – o indeed,
bo h a he same ime. In addi ion, s a u o y in e en ion ope a es
no only h ough a ge ing mo he s bu also h ough egula ions
di ec ed a he ex-pa ne ( o example, main enance egula ions) o
he child ( o example, educa ion). This app oach may be pa icula ly
use ul o picking up nuances in wel a e-s a e ea men o single
mo he s, because gene osi y o amily policy in i sel is ound o ha e
mul idi ec ional consequences o amilies (c .Lei ne , 2003). Fo

175
Li e-cou se app oach o single mo he s’ economic wellbeing
example, amily policy o a gi en coun y may simul aneously os e
he employmen o mo he s and p o ide ans e s ha incen i ise
ma e nal home ca e. Fo single mo he s’ economic wellbeing, bo h
ac o s can be c ucial (see Nieuwenhuis and Maldonado, Chap e
One in his book). Policy di ec ed a amilies is unde s ood o a ec
single mo he s’ economic disad an age, ei he di ec ly wi h ans e s o
indi ec ly by suppo ing ma e nal employmen . Empi ical applica ions
o hese ideas ha e shown, o example, ha amily allowances,
gene ous pa en al lea e and childca e p o isions elie e single mo he s
om po e y isks (Maldonado & Nieuwenhuis, 2015; Mis a e al.,
2012). Howe e , his pe spec i e does no conside ha because single
mo he hood is expe ienced a di e en s ages in he li e cou se, he
deg ee o which wel a e s a es impac on single mo he s’ wellbeing
is unlikely o be uni o m. Fo example, pa en al-lea e policy is only
ele an o single mo he s whose child is below he eligibili y age o
pa en al lea e. Likewise, he p o ision o gene ous ea ly childhood
educa ion and ca e ma e s o mo he s o p eschool child en, bu no
o hose wi h olde child en. Mo eo e , he e ec s o he (lack o )
hese policies can be el much la e in he li e cou se.
Single mo he s’ economic wellbeing by li e s age
In his sec ion, we use da a om he EU S a is ics on Income and
Li ing Condi ions (EU-SILC) o ake a c oss-na ional pe spec i e
on he une en dis ibu ion o employmen and po e y isks. To
ob ain a easonable numbe o single mo he s pe coun y, we pool
h ee consecu i e c oss-sec ional wa es (2012–14). We compa e ou
coun ies: Finland, Ge many, I aly and he UK. These coun ies co e
a wide spec um o wel a e p o ision o single mo he s and exempli y
es ablished wel a e-s a e ypes. Finland ep esen s a No dic coun y
wi h a uni e sal wel a e s a e, al hough he idea o a ge ing has c ep
in o he Finnish social p o ec ion sys em mo e ecen ly (Kui alainen
& Niemelä, 2010). Ge many is he classical example o a conse a i e,
social-insu ance-based wel a e s a e. Mo e ecen changes ha e implied
a weakening o he adi ional male b eadwinne ocus o Ge man
social policy (Os ne , 2010). I aly ep esen s a Sou he n Eu opean
wel a e s a e wi h a amilialis hands-o app oach, and he UK a libe al
wel a e s a e wi h a s ong eliance on he ma ke . Mo e ecen ly, he
B i ish wel a e s a e has inc easingly ocused on educing child po e y,
including a ge ing single mo he s.
Single mo he hood is de ined as ollows: a woman who li es wi h
he dependen child( en) bu wi hou a pa ne in he household.
The iple bind o single-pa en amilies
176
Dependen child en a e de ined as ei he being below he age o 18
o up o 24 i economically inac i e. O he adul pe sons ( o example,
pa en s o o he ela i es) migh be p esen . We use his a he b oad
de ini ion o single mo he hood o allow o he di e si y o single
mo he hood ac oss coun ies. Fu he mo e, he sample is es ic ed
o single mo he s aged 18 o 59. The inal sample coun s 923single
mo he s in Finland, 1,518 in Ge many, 1,844 in I aly and 2,457 he
UK.
Fo measu ing he li e s age in which single mo he hood is
expe ienced, we use he age o he younges child as he cen al
indica o . This is a pa icula ly use ul indica o o ope a ionalising
he link be ween li e cou se and policy, because i is bo h indica i e
o he di e en amily-li e eali ies o single mo he hood and assumed
c ucial o he eligibili y o many policies. We measu e he younges
child’s age in i e ca ego ies: 0–2, 3–5, 6–11, 12–17 and 18–24yea s.
Ou wo indica o s o economic wellbeing a e income po e y and
employmen . In line wi h he o icial EU de ini ion, a single mo he
is a isk o po e y i he annual ne household income makes less
han 60% o he median o he na ional ne equi alen household
income. Single mo he s’ employmen s a us is measu ed by wo
dicho omous a iables: 1)being employed a all (1 = ull- ime o
pa - ime employed; 0 = unemployed o inac i e); and 2)being ull-
ime employed (1 = ull- ime employed; 0 = pa - ime employed,
unemployed o inac i e).
Figu e8.1 shows wo phenomena. Fi s , he ba s show he sha e o
single mo he s ca ego ised as being a isk o po e y among he single
mo he s wi h a child in he espec i e younges child’s age g oup.
Second, he do s ep esen he dis ibu ion o single mo he hood
ac oss child age ca ego ies ( ela i e equencies). Figu e8.1 no only
demons a es ha he ou coun ies di e in e ms o he dis ibu ion
o po e y ac oss li e s ages o single mo he s bu also e eals ha he e
a e di e ences in how common single mo he hood is ac oss li e s ages.
The combina ion o hese ac o s gi es an idea o he scope o he
li e-s age g ading o po e y isks in he ou coun ies. Fo example,
in Ge many and Finland, single mo he s wi h babies (0–2yea s) ace
pa icula ly high isks o po e y. Bu in bo h coun ies, his g oup is
compa a i ely small. In hese wo coun ies, and in I aly, single mo he s
wi h child en be ween 12–17yea s show he highes p e alence. In
Finland, his g oup aces he lowes po e y isk. In Ge many, whe e
almos 40% o single mo he s wi h child en aged 12–17 all below
he po e y line, he po e y isk o his g oup is simila o ha o
mo he s wi h 6–11-yea -old child en. I aly esembles Ge many in
177
Li e-cou se app oach o single mo he s’ economic wellbeing
he dis ibu ion o po e y isks ac oss child en’s age g oups in ha ing
ela i ely high le els o all g oups ins ead o he oldes one. The UK
s ands ou in wo espec s. Fi s , p e alence o single mo he hood is
ela i ely e enly dis ibu ed ac oss child en’s age g oups. Second, he
same can be obse ed o po e y isks – excep o he oldes age
g oup, which has he lowes p e alence bu also he highes po e y
isk.
Figu e8.2 shows single mo he s’ o al and ull- ime employmen
a es, again by age g oups o he younges child. In all coun ies, o al
employmen a es and ull- ime employmen a es a e lowes o single
mo he s wi h babies. Also in all coun ies, o al employmen inc eases
wi h he age o he younges child; bu he pa e n is less clea -cu
in I aly, whe e e en single mo he s wi h e y small child en ha e an
employmen a e o 60%. In Finland (and o a lesse ex en in I aly),
ull- ime employmen almos ma ches o al employmen o single
mo he s in all subg oups. The s onges di e gence o his pa e n is
seen in Ge many and he UK.
Figu e 8.1: Rela i e equency and po e y o single mo he s by younges
child’s age g oup
%
Sou ce: EU-SILC 2012–14, pooled
100
80
60
40
20
10
50
40
30
20
10
0
0–2 3–5 6–11 12–1718–24 0–2 3–5 6–11 12–1718–24
Age o younges child (yea s)
Po e yRela i e equency o age g oup
I aly
Finland
Uni ed Kingdom
Ge many
The iple bind o single-pa en amilies
178
Taking he in o ma ion om Figu es 8.1 and 8.2 oge he , i seems
as i high employmen a es, and pa icula ly ull- ime employmen ,
o en coincide wi h lowe a es o po e y isks (especially in Finland
and o mo he s wi h olde child en in Ge many). Howe e , he
associa ion does no hold o all coun ies: I aly shows highe a es
o po e y isk ac oss he subg oups han he UK, despi e also ha ing
highe employmen a es. The analyses do no allow us o disen angle
he causal ela ionships be ween employmen and po e y in di e en
li e s ages. Howe e , he coun y di e ences obse able on he
agg ega e le el d aw ou a en ion o he ole o policies. How can
we concep ualise wel a e s a es i we wan o accoun o li e-s age-
speci ic isks?
%
S
ou ce: EU-SILC 2012–14, pooled
100
80
60
40
20
10
100
80
60
40
20
10
0–2 3–5 6–11 12–1718–24 0–2 3–5 6–11 12–1718–24
Age o younges child (yea s)
To al employmen a e
Rela i e equency o age g oup Full- ime employmen
I aly
Finland
Uni ed Kingdom
Ge many
Figu e 8.2: Employmen o single mo he s by younges child’s age g oup
185
Li e-cou se app oach o single mo he s’ economic wellbeing
Table 8.2: Pa en al lea e and child main enance egula ions as o 2013
Risk Policy Finland
Ge many I alycUni ed Kingdom
Pa en al lea e o single pa en s
Child bi h/
child ea ing
Gene osi y
To al numbe o mon hs 6.1 (38.1a)
36 10 3.25e
Numbe o paid mon hs 6.1 (38.1)
14 10 0
Replacemen a e 70–75% annual ea nings
65-67% o a e age mon hly
labou income o e las
12 mon hs be o e bi h
30% o p e ious ea nings 0
Age es ic ions Begins immedia ely a e ma e ni y lea e
Eligibili y ends wi h child’s
8 h bi hday
Paid: up o age 3
Unpaid: up o age 8
Eligibili y ends wi h child’s 18 h
bi hday
Union
dissolu ion
Main enance ad ance paymen s
A ailabili y
Yes
Yes NodNo
Age es ic ions Paid un il child eaches 18
o 20 i s ill in school
Amoun a ies by child age;
no mo e han 6 y s. up o
age 12
Low pay In‑wo k bene i s o single pa en s
Gene osi y Social assis ance
Mon hly a e (inc eased SP a e)
Unemploymen Bene i II
(Kombilohn)
Child p emium
(Kinde zuschlag)
No special in-wo k bene i s
bu mos amily allowances
a e ese ed o employees
(no SP p emium)
Income Suppo (IS)
Wo king less han 16 h s./week:
mon hly a e
+paymen pe child
+ amily p emium
Uni e sal C edi
mon hly s anda d a e
+ paymen pe child
+ housing cos p emium
Wo king Tax C edi
≥16 hou s pe week
Age es ic ions Ra es a y wi h child age
Child p emium: es ic ed
paymen o child en age
18–25
n.a. IS: paid un il child is age 5; UC:
Lowe a e o claiman age 18-24
Job loss Social assis ance
Gene osi y Social assis ance
Mon hly a e (inc eased SP a e)
Labo Ma ke Subsidy (LMS)
long- e m unemployed (>500 days)
o ailed 1s ansi ion in o labou ma ke
a e age basic a e
+ paymen pe child
(No SP p emium)
Unemploymen Bene i II:
Mon hly a e
+ paymen pe child
(SP p emium Meh beda )
Social assis ance
no na ion-wide scheme,
esponsibili y: egions and
municipali ies
(No SP, bu amily p emium)
Income Suppo
Wo king less han 16 h s/week:
mon hly a e
+paymen pe child
+ amily p emium
Income‑based Jobseeke ’s
Allowance
Wo king less han 16 h s./week:
weekly basic a e
(No amily supplemen s)
Age es ic ions LMS: Ra es a y wi h child’s age
Ra es a y wi h child’s age No IS: paid un il child is age 5; JSA:
lowe a e o claiman age 18–24
No es o Table 8.2 o e lea

The iple bind o single-pa en amilies
186
u he limi s (beyond, o example, p e ious employmen ) o he
applicabili y o ce ain p o isions o single mo he s become appa en .
These a e bes discussed by d awing on ou ou example coun ies.
In e ms o pa en al-lea e policy, he compa ison e eals ha Ge many
has he mos gene ous egula ion in e ms o ime, bu ha mo he s
in Finland ecei e a highe a e o eplacemen paymen . The UK
has he leas gene ous lea e policy o he ou coun ies in e ms o
bo h ime and money. As o li e-cou se condi ionali y, he UK has
he weakes age es ic ion, g an ing he ime igh s un il he child
u ns 18. Finland has he s onges age es ic ion, obliging mo he s
o ake hei igh o paid lea e in he six mon hs di ec ly ollowing
childbi h. Howe e , Finland p o ides a homeca e allowance wi h a
mon hly la a e bene i o pa en s who wan o ca e o he child up
o he age o h ee (Moss, 2013). In Ge many, he 14mon hs o paid
pa en al lea e o single mo he s can be aken wi hin he i s eigh
yea s o he child’s li e. Compa ed o Ge many, he gene ous Finnish
policy can hence be expec ed o each o e all ewe single mo he s
(only hose wi h child en unde he age o h ee). Simila ly, in I aly,
only single mo he s wi h a pe manen con ac a e en i led o ake
No es o Table 8.2:
‘SP’: single pa en ; ‘No SP a ge ing’: policy does no speci ically conside single pa en s.
a Pa en s a e en i led o ake childca e lea e igh a e pa en al lea e un il a child’s hi d
bi hday. €341.27 a mon h, wi h an addi ional €102.17 o e e y o he child unde h ee
yea s and €65.65 o e e y o he p eschool child o e h ee yea s, plus a means- es ed
supplemen (up o €182.64 a mon h).
b A educed a e is paid by he s a e i he liable pa en can only co e he main enance
paymen o a ce ain ex en . The s a e would co e he di e ence; he minimum amoun is
€5.
c Pa en al Lea e scheme does only apply o employed pa en s wi h pe manen con ac s.
d In 2015, I aly in oduced a means- es ed main enance ad ance o poo households
(Comma 226- e , Legge di s abili á, ac i e om 2016).
e Employed pa en s a e en i led o ake lea e o up o 4 weeks pe yea .
Excep ions a e ad ance paymen s o single mo he s whe e he non esiden pa en does
no pay and who quali ies o means- es ed bene i s, including access o ‘Social Fund’ loans
(in he case o an eme gency, sho - e m need); Main enance ad ance paymen , o he
es ic ions: Finland: no paymen o a) esiden child wi h own income (€764.40/mon h
du ing a pe iod o 6 mon hs), b) child own household and income ≥€1,092/mon h; In-wo k-
bene i s: Housing bene i s apply in Finland, Ge many and UK; UK: Uni e sal C edi canno
be ecei ed oge he wi h Wo king Tax C edi , Income Suppo , Jobseeke s’ Allowance, e c.;
Social Assis ance: Finland: subo dina e bene i , child main enance mus be exhaus ed i s ;
UK: sa ings: <£16,000 subo dina e bene i : child main enance mus be exhaus ed i s .
Sou ces: Moss (2013) (all coun ies); Hako i a and Hiilamo (2012), Salmi and Lammi-
Taskula (2013) (Finland); BMFSFJ (2013), Lenze (2014) (Ge many); MISSOC (2016) (I aly);
Finn (2011), Jaeh ling e al. (2012) (UK)
187
Li e-cou se app oach o single mo he s’ economic wellbeing
he 10mon hs o pa en al lea e a a compa a i ely low eplacemen
a e o 30%.
The compa ison o child main enance egula ions again e eals
Ge many and Finland as he mo e gene ous coun ies among he ou .
Bo h g an s a u o y ad ance paymen s i he non esiden pa en ails
o pay. Howe e , in Ge many, age es ic ions a e s ic e . Sepa a ed
mo he s in Finland can d aw on s a u o y ad ance paymen un il he
child eaches majo i y age, bu in he pe iod unde conside a ion,
eligibili y is es ic ed o a maximum o six yea s o paymen un il he
child u ns 12.3 Nei he I aly no he UK g an s ad ance paymen upon
noncompliance wi h pa en s’ paymen obliga ions. The compa ison
sugges s ha employed women who become single mo he s h ough
he bi h o a child a e ela i ely well p o ec ed in Ge many, a leas
o he i s yea . The igh s o child main enance ad ance paymen a e
compa a i ely gene ous in Ge many, bu wi h age-g aded eligibili y
and le els o paymen . In Finland, p o ec ion by child main enance
ad ance paymen is g an ed un il he child eaches majo i y age. The
ela i ely mode a e le els o paymen could mean ha Finnish mo he s
wi h p e ious low labou -ma ke a achmen and p ospec s o low pay
a e u he incen i ised o s ay a home. I can also mean, howe e , a
educ ion o po e y isks o sepa a ed single mo he s, who a e less
likely o ha e small child en han mo he s who ha e a child ou side
a pa ne ship.
In he UK’s labou -ma ke -o ien a ed wel a e sys em, in-wo k
bene i s a e mo e widely used policies han in he compa ison
coun ies. Pa en s (coupled o single) ecei e income op-ups
h ough he Income Suppo scheme o as Uni e sal C edi i hei
employmen is no ull ime. Single pa en s who wo k mo e han
16hou s pe week bu ea n less han a ce ain amoun (depending
on wha else hey ecei e and whe he hey a e paying o childca e)
can ge a Wo king Tax C edi . While I aly does no ha e a ede al
in-wo k bene i scheme, single mo he s in bo h Finland and Ge many
can ecei e op-ups o hei employmen income i i keeps hem
ou o social assis ance. As o age es ic ions, he a es in Finland
a y wi h he child en’s ages and Uni e sal C edi in he UK is paid
a a lowe a e o mo he s age18–24. Va ia ions in he le el o
paymen s also exis in he social assis ance schemes. In he case o
Income Suppo in he UK, once he child eaches he age o i e,
claiman s a e ans e ed o Jobseeke ’s Allowance, which ollows a
s ic e ac i a ion egime. In p inciple, single mo he s in Ge many
also ace s ic e ac i a ion moni o ing a e he child eaches he
age o h ee, bu he e some excep ions exis . Single mo he s in
The iple bind o single-pa en amilies
188
Ge many ecei e addi ional paymen s o he basic a e wi hin he
social assis ance scheme o Unemploymen Bene i II, which a y
by numbe and ages o child en. In Finland, oo, single mo he s can
ecei e a single-pa en p emium o he basic a e o social assis ance.
Long- e m-unemployed single mo he s may also ecei e he Labo
Ma ke Subsidy paymen , he amoun o which is g aded by child en’s
ages. In I aly, no special single-pa en p emium is paid in he ede al
social assis ance scheme.
F om his compa ison, Finland and Ge many eme ge as he o e all
mo e gene ous wel a e s a es in secu ing di e en isks associa ed
wi h single mo he hood. I aly does no appea o ha e any speci ic
suppo s a egy o single mo he s, which is in line wi h he
idea ha he I alian wel a e sys em adi ionally elies hea ily on
amily ne wo ks (see also B adshaw e al., Chap e Fi een, and
Byun, Chap e Ten, bo h in his book). The B i ish wel a e s a e
has ela i ely ex ensi e cash suppo schemes in place om which
single mo he s can d aw. Howe e , mos o he cash suppo schemes
a e ied o employmen ac i i y. Beyond hese indings, which a e
cohe en wi h p e ious esea ch, he indings illus a e ou a gumen
ha wel a e s a es di e in hei isk-managemen sys ems. The
analysis sensi ises o di e ences in how wel a e s a es p o ec agains
he isks associa ed wi h single mo he hood a di e en li e s ages.
In e ms o li e-cou se condi ionali y o he discussed policies, we
ound ha , in p inciple, age g ading o suppo paymen s seems
o a ou mo he s o young child en (highe amoun s o mo he s
o younge child en). This is pe haps mos appa en in he Finnish
sys em – which is, howe e , also he mos gene ous in e ms o
du a ion o main enance ad ance paymen s. Al hough only a iny
sha e o single mo he s in Finland has small child en, hese also
ha e he highes isk o po e y (see Figu e8.1). In Ge many, he
ocus o he isk-managemen sys em on single mo he s wi h young
child en is in disco d wi h he po e y isks, which a e concen a ed
a his li e s age bu also high a la e s ages. In he UK, despi e
he ela i e equency o single mo he s wi h young child en, he
isk-managemen sys em has only ecen ly begun o ocus on his
li e s age. I aly ea u es high po e y isks ac oss all he li e s ages
o single mo he hood, which a e no well secu ed in he coun y’s
isk-managemen sys em. These indings sugges ha i may be
wo hwhile o open up he commonly used ca ego ies o amily
policy egime o new social isk p o ec ion o he analysis o
di e ences in single mo he s’ economic wellbeing.
189
Li e-cou se app oach o single mo he s’ economic wellbeing
Discussion
This chap e has sugges ed ha u he insigh s in o he ela ionship
be ween he wel a e s a e and single mo he s’ wellbeing may be
gained by applying a li e-cou se pe spec i e. Fi s , we showed ha
p e ious app oaches ha e ended o discuss wel a e-s a e suppo o
single mo he s in e ms o ca e ing o a uni o m claiman ca ego y.
We con as ed his obse a ion wi h he g owing empi ical e idence
desc ibing single mo he hood as a di e se amily s a us, which akes
di e en o ms and shapes a di e en s ages o he li e cou se. And
we complemen ed hese indings wi h an illus a ion o he di e en ial
dis ibu ion o li e-cou se isks among single mo he s in ou Eu opean
coun ies. The analysis also poin ed o he impo ance o conside ing
he p e alence o single mo he hood ac oss li e s ages alongside he
dis ibu ion o isks. We hen asked how we could concep ually
accoun o his he e ogenei y o single mo he hood in an analysis o
wel a e-s a e impac .
Based on a e iew o he exis ing wo k on he ela ionship be ween
wel a e s a e and li e cou se, we used he no ion o isk-managemen
sys ems (Leise ing 2003) o o mula e ou own isk- ype amewo k.
Di e ging om he new social isk li e a u e, we ound ha single
mo he hood is no one isk bu associa ed wi h se e al di e en ones,
which a e ele an a di e en li e s ages. As an impo an addi ion
o ou amewo k, we in oduced he dimension o li e-cou se
condi ionali y. This implies ha he policies o en con ain es ic ions
on eligibili y ha a e ela ed o li e s ages (‘age g ading’). Using he
example o ou policies – pa en al lea e, child main enance ad ance
paymen s, in-wo k bene i s and social assis ance – we illus a ed
di e ences in gene osi y and li e-cou se condi ionali y o he policies
o ou selec ed coun ies. We ound Finland and also Ge many o be
ela i ely gene ous coun ies, while I aly and he UK we e o e all less
gene ous. Age es ic ions we e ound in all coun ies, bu wi h la ge
di e ences. Wi h his, we we e able o poin o a c ucial ac ha is
o en neglec ed in c oss-na ional esea ch on single mo he s: he li e
s age in which single mo he hood is mos common in a espec i e
coun y is nei he necessa ily he one wi h he highes economic isks,
no he one ha policy is ailo ed o p o ec .
The scope o his chap e only allowed o a b oad ou line o ou
a gumen . Fo a mo e sophis ica ed analysis, mo e comp ehensi e
measu es o child main enance (such as he p opo ion and le el o
paymen s by liable pa en s) and he inclusion o o he ele an policies
would be necessa y. We u he encou age u u e esea ch o ake
The iple bind o single-pa en amilies
190
in o accoun single mo he s’ sociodemog aphic backg ound p io o
becoming a single mo he , because his o en impac s on eligibili y
o policy suppo .
No es
1 Fu he cha ac e is ics o indi idual li e cou ses ha e been de ined i s as
being insepa able om li e cou ses o ela ed pe sons (linked li es concep ;
see Elde , 1994), and second in e ms o he empo al dependencies o li e
episodes (Maye , 2004).
2 This assump ion should no be con used wi h he inc easing ocus on
‘social in es men ’ ea ly in he li e cou se (c .Esping-Ande sen, 2002;
Jenson, 2008; Lis e , 2003).
3 F om 1Janua y 2017 his es ic ion was d opped in Ge many, whe e
child en may be eligible o ad ance paymen un il hey u n 18.
Re e ences
Ba y, B. (1990). The wel a e s a e e sus he elie o po e y. E hics,
100(3), 503–529.
Bonoli, G. (2005). The poli ics o he new social policies: P o iding
co e age agains new social isks in ma u e wel a e s a es. Policy &
Poli ics, 33(3), 431–449.
Bonoli, G. (2007). Time ma e s: Pos indus ializa ion, new social
isks, and wel a e s a e adap a ion in ad anced indus ial democ acies.
Compa a i e Poli ical S udies, 40(5), 495–520.
B adshaw, J., Kennedy, S., Kilkey, M., Hu on, S., Co den, A., Ea dly,
T., Holmes, H., & Neale, J. (1996). The employmen o lone pa en s:
A compa ison o policy in 20coun ies. London: Family Policy S udies
Cen e/Joseph Rown ee Founda ion.
B ady, D., & Bu oway, R. (2012). Ta ge ing, uni e salism, and single-
mo he po e y: A mul ile el analysis ac oss 18 a luen democ acies.
Demog aphy, 49(2), 719–746.
Elde , G. H. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change:
Pe spec i es on he li e cou se. Social Psychology Qua e ly, 57(1), 4–15.
Esping-Ande sen, G. (2002). A child-cen ed social in es men
s a egy. In G. Esping-Ande sen (Ed.), Why we need a new wel a e s a e
(pp 26–67). Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.

191
Li e-cou se app oach o single mo he s’ economic wellbeing
Finn, D. (2011). Coun y epo on labou ma ke pa icipa ion and socio-
economic si ua ion o lone pa en s in he Uni ed Kingdom. Cen e o
Economic and Social Inclusion and Uni e si y o Po smou h.
Re ie ed om www.iaq.uni-due.de/ak uell/ e oe /2011/
alleine ziehende02.pd .
Hako i a, M., & Hiilamo, H. (2012). Child en’s igh s and pa en s’
esponsibili ies: Child main enance policies in Finland. Eu opean
Jou nal o Social Secu i y, 14(4), 286–303.
Jaeh ling, K., E linghagen, M., Kalina, T., Mümken, S., Mesa os, L., &
Schwa zkop , M. (2012). A bei sma k in eg a ion und sozio-ökonomische
Si ua ion on Alleine ziehenden. Ein empi ische Ve gleich: Deu schland,
F ank eich, Schweden, Ve einig es König eich [Labou ma ke in eg a ion and
socioeconomic posi ion o single pa en s. An empi ical compa ison: Ge many,
F ance, Sweden, Uni ed Kingdom] (Fede al Minis y o Labou and
Social A ai s, BMAS Resea ch Repo ). Be lin: BMAS.
Jenson, J. (2008). The LEGO pa adigm and new social isks:
Consequences o child en. In J. Lewis (Ed.), Child en, changing amilies
and wel a e s a es (pp27–50). Chel enham: Edwa d Elga .
Kui alainen, S., & Niemelä, M. (2010). F om uni e salism o
selec i ism: The idea ional u n o he an i-po e y policies in Finland.
Jou nal o Eu opean Social Policy, 20(3), 263–276.
Leise ing, L. (2003). Go e nmen and he li e cou se. In J. T. Mo ime
& M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook o he li e cou se (pp 205–225).
New Yo k: Sp inge US.
Lei ne , S. (2003). Va ie ies o amilialism: The ca ing unc ion o he
amily in compa a i e pe spec i e. Eu opean Socie ies, 5(4), 353–375.
Lenze, A. (2014). Alleine ziehende un e D uck. Rech liche
Rahmenbedingungen, inanzielle Lage und Re o mbeda [Single pa en s
unde p essu e: Legal amewo k, inancial si ua ion and need o e o m].
Gü e sloh: Be elsmann-S i ung. Re ie ed om www.be elsmann-
s i ung.de/de/publika ionen/publika ion/did/alleine ziehende-
un e -d uck/.
Lessenich, S. (1995) Wohl ah ss aa liche Regulie ung und die
S uk u ie ung on Lebensläu en [Wel a e s a e egula ion and he
s uc u ing o li e cou ses: On he selec i i y o policy in e en ions].
Soziale Wel , 46(1), 51–69.
Lewis, J. (1989). Lone pa en amilies: Poli ics and economics. Jou nal
o Social Policy, 18(4), 595–600.
Lewis, J. (1992). Gende and he de elopmen o wel a e egimes.
Jou nal o Eu opean Social Policy, 2(3), 159–173.
Lewis, J. (1997). Gende and wel a e egimes: Fu he hough s. Social
Poli ics: In e na ional S udies in Gende , S a e & Socie y, 4(2), 160–177.
The iple bind o single-pa en amilies
192
Lewis, J., & Hobson, B. (1997). In oduc ion. In J. Lewis (Ed.), Lone
mo he s in Eu opean wel a e egimes: Shi ing policy logics (pp 1–20).
London and Philadelphia, PA: J. Kingsley.
Lewis, J. (1999). The ‘p oblem’ o lone mo he hood in compa a i e
pe spec i e. In J. Clasen (Ed.), Compa a i e social policy: Concep s,
heo ies, and me hods. Ox o d and Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Lis e , R. (2003). In es ing in he ci izen-wo ke s o he u u e:
T ans o ma ions in ci izenship and he s a e unde New Labou .
Social Policy & Adminis a ion, 37(5), 427–443.
Maldonado, L. C., & Nieuwenhuis, R. (2015). Family policies and
single pa en po e y in 18 OECD coun ies, 1978–2008. Communi y,
Wo k & Family, 18(4), 395–415.
Maye , K. U. (1998). Lebens e lau [Li e cou se]. In B. Schä e s & W.
Zap (Eds.), Handwö e buch zu Gesellscha Deu schlands [Handbook o
Socie y in Ge many] (pp 438–451). Opladen: Leske + Bud ich.
Maye , K. U. (2004). Whose li es? How his o y, socie ies, and
ins i u ions de ine and shape li e cou ses. Resea ch in Human
De elopmen , 1(3), 161–187.
Milla , J., & Rowlingson, K. (Eds.). (2001). Lone pa en s, employmen
and social policy: C oss-na ional compa isons. B is ol: Policy P ess.
Mis a, J., Molle , S., S ade , E., & Wemlinge , E. (2012). Family
policies, employmen and po e y among pa ne ed and single
mo he s. Resea ch in Social S a i ica ion and Mobili y, 30(1), 113–128.
MISSOC. (2016). MISSOC da abase: Compa a i e ables on social
p o ec ion. Re ie ed om www.missoc.o g/MISSOC/index.h m.
Moss, P. (2013). In e na ional e iew o lea e policies and ela ed esea ch
2013. London: In e na ional Ne wo k o Lea e Policies and Resea ch.
Re ie ed om www.lea ene wo k.o g/ ileadmin/Lea ene wo k/
Annual_ e iews/2012_annual_ e iew.pd .
Myles, J. (1990). S a es, labo ma ke s and li e cycles. In R. F iedland
& A. F. Robe son (Eds.), Beyond he ma ke place: Re hinking economy
and socie y (pp 271–298). New Yo k: T ansac ion Publishe s.
O lo , A. (1993). Gende and he social igh s o ci izenship: The
compa a i e analysis o s a e policies and gende ela ions. Ame ican
Sociological Re iew, 58(3), 501–518.
Os ne , I. (2010). Fa ewell o he amily as we know i : Family policy
change in Ge many. Ge man Policy S udies, 6(1), 211–244.
Salmi, M., & Lammi-Taskula, J. (2013). Finland. In P. Moss (Ed.),
In e na ional e iew o lea e policies and ela ed esea ch 2013. Re ie ed
om www.lea ene wo k.o g/lp_and_ _ epo s.
Skinne , C., & Da idson, J. (2009). Recen ends in child main enance
schemes in 14coun ies. In e na ional Jou nal o Law, Policy and he
Family, 23(1), 25–52.
193
Li e-cou se app oach o single mo he s’ economic wellbeing
Taylo -Gooby, P. (2004). New isks, new wel a e: The ans o ma ion o he
Eu opean wel a e s a e. Ox o d and New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
VanLancke , W., Ghysels, J., & Can illon, B. (2015). The impac
o child bene i s on single mo he po e y: Explo ing he ole o
a ge ing in 15 Eu opean coun ies. In e na ional Jou nal o Social
Wel a e, 24(3), 210–222.