Health inequalities between lone and couple mothers and policy under different welfare regimes - The example of Italy, Sweden and Britain
This study examines the welfare state arrangements and social policy, living conditions and health among lone and couple mothers in three contrasting policy environments: Italy, Sweden and Britain. These countries fall into distinctive family policy categories. Data were drawn from representative national household interview surveys. The findings highlight both similarities and differences. Lone mothers had significantly worse health than couple mothers in all three countries, were more likely to suffer material disadvantage and were much more likely to be smokers. They could be considered a disadvantaged group in particular need in all three countries, irrespective of the policy regime. It is the differences between countries, however, in the experiences of lone and couple mothers that indicate that the prevailing policy regime really does matter. There were telling differences in the prevalence of lone motherhood, their composition, rates of joblessness, poverty and health status of lone mothers in relation to couple mothers in each country. These may be traced back to the main policy regimes of each country, but also partly reflect culture and traditions. The study illustrates an emerging approach to investigating the health inequalities impact of complex social policy contexts. The experiences of lone mothers as a group may serve as a 'litmus' test of how each family policy system is operating and offer an early warning of adverse impacts when policies change.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 70 (2010)
Issue (Month): 6 (March)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:6:p:912-920. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.