<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Rense Nieuwenhuis &#187; motherhood-employment gap</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/tag/motherhood-employment-gap/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl</link>
	<description>&#34;The extra-ordinary lies within the curve of normality&#34;</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 14:51:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Proposition 3: People don&#8217;t just act out of interest; they also need opportunities</title>
		<link>http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/proposition-3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/proposition-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2014 11:00:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rense Nieuwenhuis]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Policy Outcomes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Propositions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comparative research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial support policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inequality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motherhood-employment gap]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reconciliation policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women's employment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/?p=2600</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[People don&#8217;t just act out of interest; they also need opportunities. This third proposition refers to one of the key theoretical contributions of my dissertation, tested in Chapter 4. A lot of research on (family) ...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>
People don&#8217;t just act out of interest; they also need opportunities.
</p></blockquote>
<p>This third proposition refers to one of the key theoretical contributions of my dissertation, tested in Chapter 4. A lot of research on (family) policy outcomes only focus on the characteristics of policy. In my case, my hypotheses in <a href="http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/proposition-2/">Chapter 2</a> and <a href="http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/proposition-3/">Chapter 3</a> of my dissertation were derived from the assumption that policies provide opportunities.</p>
<p>In Chapter 4 of my dissertation I argue that opportunities for employment will only be effective for those (women) with an interest in employment. In other words, the outcomes of opportunities are dependent on the interests of the actors. </p>
<p>From this I derived the hypothesis that reconciliation policies are more effective among higher educated women. This hypothesis was supported by the empirical analyses. The hypothesis that financial support policies were more effective among lower educated women, however, had to be rejected, although it was shown that financial support policies suppress the employment of mothers of all educational levels.</p>
<p>The summary of the Chapter reads: </p>
<blockquote><p>
In Chapter 2 we found that the size of the motherhood-employment gap was reduced by reconciliation policies and increased by financial support policies for families. In this Chapter, we answered the question of to what extent the outcomes of reconciliation policies and financial support policies differ between more and less educated mothers. Thus, we challenged the theoretical assumption held in Chapters 2 and 3 that all mothers are equally affected by family policies. Our data were obtained from the ‘Comparative Motherhood-Employment Gap Trend File’, combined with country-level data from the Comparative Maternity, Parental, and Childcare Database (Gauthier &#038; Bortnik, 2001). The data covered 17 OECD countries, the period from 1980 to 1999, and 116,874 observations on individual women living in partnered households. The data were analysed using multilevel logistic regression. We found that paid leave &#8211; a reconciliation policy &#8211; reduces the motherhood-employment gap more strongly among more educated women than among the less educated.
</p></blockquote>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;<br />
<i>This is a series on the 10 propositions that are part of my PhD dissertation. These propositions are a Dutch tradition to highlight key findings of a dissertation and some additional insights by the author. My dissertation is titled &#8220;Family Policy Outcomes: Combining Institutional and Demographic Explanations of Women’s Employment and Earnings Inequality in OECD countries, 1975-2005&#8243; and I will defend my dissertation on January 10 2014. So, this series is also a count down. <a href="http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/family-policy-outcomes/">Find out more about my dissertation</a></i>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/proposition-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Proposition 2: It is too simple to only think of childcare leave as a mechanism of inclusion of women in the labour market, as it can also be a mechanism of exclusion.</title>
		<link>http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/proposition-2-it-is-too-simple-to-only-think-of-childcare-leave-as-a-mechanism-of-inclusion-of-women-in-the-labour-market-as-it-can-also-be-a-mechanism-of-exclusion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/proposition-2-it-is-too-simple-to-only-think-of-childcare-leave-as-a-mechanism-of-inclusion-of-women-in-the-labour-market-as-it-can-also-be-a-mechanism-of-exclusion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:00:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rense Nieuwenhuis]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Policy Outcomes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Propositions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[childcare leave]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comparative research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leave]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motherhood-employment gap]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/?p=2596</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is too simple to only think of childcare leave as a mechanism of inclusion of women in the labour market, as it can also be a mechanism of exclusion. With this proposition I respond ...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>
It is too simple to only think of childcare leave as a mechanism of inclusion of women in the labour market, as it can also be a mechanism of exclusion.
</p></blockquote>
<p>With this proposition I respond to various studies addressing the question whether there is such a thing as too long childcare leave. Moreover, I address how it is possible that I found (<a href="http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/proposition-1/">in Chapter 2 of my dissertation</a>) that leave increases mothers&#8217; employment, whereas other authors (most prominently Pettit and Hook, in their Gendered Tradeoffs Book) found that leave reduces mothers&#8217; employment. I not only hypothesize a curvilinear effect of leave with short periods of leave improving women&#8217;s employment and (overly) long periods of leave reducing women&#8217;s employment, but also suggest several methodological improvements. </p>
<p>I tested the hypotheses using the Comparative Motherhood-Employment Gap Trend File on 192,484 individual women, 305 country-years, and 18 countries, combined with country- level data from the Comparative Maternity, Parental, and Childcare Database. The abstract reads:</p>
<blockquote><p>
In Chapter 2 we found that longer childcare leave facilitates women’s employment by reducing the size of the motherhood-employment gap. In this Chapter we follow up on this finding and test whether women’s employment is facilitated in societies with short-term childcare leave but negatively affected in societies with very long periods of child- care leave. We start by stating that this ‘long-leave question’ has not yet been satisfactorily answered. We argued that to correctly answer the long-leave question (1.) the relationship between duration of leave and employment of women should be explicitly hypothesised as being curvilinear and (2.) childcare leave should be expected to affect only mothers, not women without children. Based on this we formulated the long-leave hypothesis: In countries with short periods of childcare leave the motherhood-employment gap is smaller than in countries with no childcare leave, but in countries with long periods of childcare leave the motherhood-employment gap is larger than in countries with short periods of leave. In addition, we argued that to test the long-leave hypothesis one should use data in which countries are observed repeatedly over time, and one should evaluate for the presence of influential data. This can be done using the ‘Comparative Motherhood-Employment Gap Trend File’ on 192,484 individual women, 305 country-years, and 18 countries, combined with country-level data from the Comparative Maternity, Parental, and Childcare Database (Gauthier &#038; Bortnik, 2001). We found that in countries with short periods of childcare leave the motherhood-employment gap is smaller than in countries with no childcare leave, while in countries with long periods of childcare leave the motherhood-employment gap is bigger than in countries with short periods of leave.<br />
</blockqoute></p>
<p>The findings, thus, indeed show that long periods of leave exclude women from the labour market, but it was also shown that relatively short periods of childcare leave include women into the labour market. So, leave works as intended, but it can be overdone. </p>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;<br />
<i>This is a series on the 10 propositions that are part of my PhD dissertation. These propositions are a Dutch tradition to highlight key findings of a dissertation and some additional insights by the author. My dissertation is titled &#8220;Family Policy Outcomes: Combining Institutional and Demographic Explanations of Women’s Employment and Earnings Inequality in OECD countries, 1975-2005&#8243; and I will defend my dissertation on January 10 2014. So, this series is also a count down. <a href="http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/family-policy-outcomes/">Find out more about my dissertation</a></i>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/proposition-2-it-is-too-simple-to-only-think-of-childcare-leave-as-a-mechanism-of-inclusion-of-women-in-the-labour-market-as-it-can-also-be-a-mechanism-of-exclusion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Proposition 1: Although both are family policies, reconciliation policies facilitate women&#8217;s employment while financial support policies suppress women&#8217;s employment</title>
		<link>http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/proposition-1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/proposition-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jan 2014 11:00:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rense Nieuwenhuis]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Policy Outcomes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[My Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Propositions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comparative research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cross-national]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family allowance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial support policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motherhood-employment gap]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reconciliation policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/?p=2593</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is a Dutch tradition that a PhD dissertation contains a leaflet with propositions. I have 10 such propositions, and during the countdown towards my very own PhD defense, on January 10th, I am presenting ...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is a Dutch tradition that a PhD dissertation contains a leaflet with propositions. I have 10 such propositions, and during the countdown towards my very own PhD defense, on January 10th, I am presenting one each day. </p>
<blockquote><p>
Proposition 1: Although both are family policies, reconciliation policies facilitate women&#8217;s employment while financial support policies suppress women&#8217;s employment.
</p></blockquote>
<p>The first proposition corresponds to the second Chapter in my dissertation, and provides the first test of a crucial argument in my work: reconciliation policies have markedly different effects on women&#8217;s employment than financial support policies to families with children. Indeed, I did find in this Chapter that reconciliation policies close / reduce the size of the motherhood-employment gap, while financial support policies increase the size of the motherhood-employment gap. </p>
<p>This study was <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00965.x/full">published in the Journal of Marriage and Family</a>, and <a href="http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/fewer-children-more-employed-women-international-edition/">recently gained some exposure on Philip Cohen&#8217;s Family Inequality blog</a>. The abstract of the study reads:     </p>
<blockquote><p>
This study combined demographic and insti- tutional explanations of women’s employment, describing and explaining the degree to which mothers in industrialized societies are less likely to be employed than women without children. A large number of cross-sectional surveys were pooled, covering 18 Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development countries, 192,484 observations, and 305 country-years between 1975 and 1999. These data were merged with measures of institutional context and analyzed with multilevel logistic regression. The results indicate that, over time, women were increasingly likely to combine motherhood and employment in many, but not all, countries. Both mothers and women with- out children were more likely to be employed in societies with a large service sector and low unemployment. The employment of women without children was generally unaffected by family policies. Mothers were more likely to be employed in societies with extensive reconcilia- tion policies and limited family allowances.
</p></blockquote>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;<br />
<i>This is a series on the 10 propositions that are part of my PhD dissertation. These propositions are a Dutch tradition to highlight key findings of a dissertation and some additional insights by the author. My dissertation is titled &#8220;Family Policy Outcomes: Combining Institutional and Demographic Explanations of Women’s Employment and Earnings Inequality in OECD countries, 1975-2005&#8243; and I will defend my dissertation on January 10 2014. So, this series is also a count down. <a href="http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/family-policy-outcomes/">Find out more about my dissertation</a></i>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/proposition-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
