IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/socinc/v9y2021i2p250-261.html

Capturing the Gender Gap in the Scope of Parenting Related Leave Policies Across Nations

Author

Listed:
  • Alison Koslowski

    (School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, UK)

Abstract

This article contributes to the conceptual and technical development of cross-national measurement and analysis of the gender gap in the scope of parenting related leave entitlements. That there is a gender gap in the scope of leave benefits is widely acknowledged, but it is rarely quantified. The nomenclature in use around leave policies is diverse and so a first step is to standardise categories and develop a unit of parenting related leave. There is considerable cross-national variation in the configuration of the scope of leave policies. As such, a second step is to consider how best to include the different dimensions of this scope (e.g., duration, payment level, individual parent versus family design) in an estimate of the gender gap in entitlement. Using data collated by the International Network on Leave Policies and Research, a gender gap indicator is created to contribute to our understanding of the inclusiveness of parenting related leave for men as compared to women. This indicator highlights that only two (Iceland and Norway) of 45 countries included in this analysis had achieved a zero-gender gap in terms of entitlement to ‘well-paid,’ individual parenting related leave during the first 18 months of a child’s life. The average gender gap for the countries in the analysis is between two to three months. Only seven countries offered more than two months leave to fathers as an individual entitlement. This is likely to be part of the explanation in many countries for lower leave taking practice by men compared to women.

Suggested Citation

  • Alison Koslowski, 2021. "Capturing the Gender Gap in the Scope of Parenting Related Leave Policies Across Nations," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 250-261.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:socinc:v9:y:2021:i:2:p:250-261
    DOI: 10.17645/si.v9i2.3852
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/socialinclusion/article/view/3852
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/si.v9i2.3852?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claudia Olivetti & Barbara Petrongolo, 2017. "The Economic Consequences of Family Policies: Lessons from a Century of Legislation in High-Income Countries," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(1), pages 205-230, Winter.
    2. Claudia Olivetti & Barbara Petrongolo, 2017. "The Economic Consequences of Family Policies: Lessons from a Century of Legislation," Working Papers 811, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    3. Claudia Olivetti & Barbara Petrongolo, 2017. "The Economic Consequences of Family Policies: Lessons from a Century of Legislation in High-Income Countries," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(1), pages 205-230, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sonja Blum & Ivana Dobrotić, 2021. "The Inclusiveness of Social Rights: The Case of Leave Policies," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 222-226.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Katrin Huber & Geske Rolvering, 2023. "Public child care and mothers’ career trajectories," Working Papers 228, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    2. Nobel Prize Committee, 2023. "Scientific Background to the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2023," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2023-2, Nobel Prize Committee.
    3. Libertad González Luna & Lidia Farré, 2017. "The effects of paternity leave on fertility and labor market outcomes," Economics Working Papers 1572, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    4. Reyer Gerlagh & Veronica Lupi & Marzio Galeotti, 2023. "Fertility and climate change," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 125(1), pages 208-252, January.
    5. Fitzenberger, Bernd & Seidlitz, Arnim, 2024. "Changing Fertility and Heterogeneous Motherhood Effects: Revisiting the Effects of a Parental Benefits Reform," IZA Discussion Papers 16966, IZA Network @ LISER.
    6. Jan‐luca Hennig & Balazs Stadler, 2023. "Firm‐specific pay premiums and the gender wage gap in Europe," Post-Print hal-04171877, HAL.
    7. Barigozzi, Francesca & Cremer, Helmuth & Roeder, Kerstin, 2020. "Having it all, for all: Child-care subsidies and income distribution reconciled," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 188-211.
    8. Ann P. Bartel & Maya Rossin-Slater & Christopher J. Ruhm & Meredith Slopen & Jane Waldfogel, 2021. "The Impact of Paid Family Leave on Employers: Evidence from New York," NBER Working Papers 28672, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Lukas Mahler & Michéle Tertilt & Minchul Yum, 2025. "Policy Concerns in an Era of Low Fertility: The Role of Social Comparisons and Intensive Parenting," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2025_705, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    10. Francine D. Blau, 2025. "Gender Inequality in the Labor Market: Continuing Progress?," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 78(2), pages 275-303, March.
    11. Iris Delgado & Baltica Cabieses & Mauricio Apablaza & Carla Castillo & Ximena Aguilera & Isabel Matute & Manuel Najera & Juan M Pericàs & Joan Benach, 2019. "Evaluation of the effectiveness and equity of the maternity protection reform in Chile from 2000 to 2015," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-16, September.
    12. Ronja Schaber & Tirza Patella & Josefine Simm & Susan Garthus-Niegel, 2025. "German Parents Attaining Intrapersonal Work-Family Balance While Implementing the 50/50-Split-Model with Their Partners," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 259-276, March.
    13. Olympia Bover & Nezih Guner & Yuliya Kulikova & Alessandro Ruggieri & Carlos Sanz, 2025. "Family-Friendly Policies and Fertility: What Firms Have to Do With It?," Working Papers wp2025_2517, CEMFI.
    14. Branko Bošković & Harriet Churchill & Oriola Hamzallari, 2021. "Family Policy and Child Well-Being: The Case of Montenegro in the European Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-13, August.
    15. Monica Costa Dias & Robert Joyce & Francesca Parodi, 2019. "The gender pay gap in the UK: children and experience in work," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 594, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    16. Simon Rabaté & Externe auteur: Sara Rellstab, 2021. "The Child Penalty in the Netherlands and its Determinants," CPB Discussion Paper 424, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    17. Grigoli, Francesco & Koczan, Zsoka & Topalova, Petia, 2020. "Automation and labor force participation in advanced economies: Macro and micro evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    18. Aksoy, Cevat Giray & Özcan, Berkay & Philipp, Julia, 2021. "Robots and the gender pay gap in Europe," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    19. Glogowsky, Ulrich & Hansen, Emanuel & Sachs, Dominik & Lüthen, Holger, 2025. "The evolution of child-related gender inequality in Germany and the role of family policies, 1960–2018," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    20. Lalive, Rafael, 2021. "Mothers at Work: How Mandating Paid Maternity Leave Affects Employment, Earnings and Fertility," CEPR Discussion Papers 16418, Centre for Economic Policy Research.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:socinc:v9:y:2021:i:2:p:250-261. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.