A life-course approach to single mothers' economic wellbeing in different welfare states

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.