To what extent have gender inequalities been reinforced, rather than reduced, by social policy in
Germany and Sweden?

Social policy in the modern western world is constantly developing in terms of equality, especially in the promotion of gender equality in society. Radical improvements such as the right for women to work, to vote and the equal opportunities available in terms of education; has radically improved the position of women, mothers and single parents in economic forerunners such as Germany and
Sweden, with the gender gap being arguably non-existent if compared to previous generations.
However, it is still apparent that there are startling differences between the two countries in terms of welfare benefits and social policy affecting men and women, with neither achieving the desired goal of an egalitarian society. Within his ground-breaking study on welfare state regime-types, Gøsta
Esping-Andersen argues that gender imbalances within social policy is the outcome and production of the specific welfare-regime type the state possesses, suggesting that whether traditionalist or socialist in their views, welfare states dominate policies, consequently determining which social group benefits such as the bourgeoisie or proletariat, the majority or minority or men or women for example. (Esping-Andersen, 1990: 24)
The first chancellor of Germany, Otto Von Bismarck created a social insurance system in 1873, of which became a pioneering model for the basis of the German welfare state, which to this day is still dominated by his ideas on welfare benefits. “Bismarck was motivated to introduce social insurance in Germany both in order to promote well-being of workers in order to keep the German economy operating at maximum efficiency, and to starve off call for more radical socialist alternatives.” (SSA, 2012) Bismarck emphasised the importance of a welfare regime which was stratified along occupational and class lines, with the main priority of protecting the German economic position of the state. According to Gøsta Esping-Andersen, Bismarck’s conservativecorporatist regime sought to achieve two simultaneous results in terms of such stratification, “[t]he first was to consolidate divisions among wage-earners by legislating distinct programs for different class and status groups, each with its own conspicuously unique set of rights and privileges which was designed to accentuate the individual's appropriate station in life. The second objective was to tie loyalties of the individual directly to the monarchy or the central state authority.” (EspingAndersen, 1990:24)
In his study, 'The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism' Esping-Andersen categorised three varying welfare state regimes found in societies throughout the world, which include; liberal systems, conservative-corporatist and social-democratic welfare state regimes (Esping-Andersen, 1990).
According to his definition, Germany falls rigidly into the category and is a prime example of a

conservative-corporatist regime-type, where historical influences of Otto Von Bismarck are still a prominent feature of modern day, social policy. Conservative-corporatist welfare regimes revolve around traditionalist beliefs, the institution of the family as the initial means of care, loyalty towards the Catholic Church and the protection of the economy and society as a whole. Within such states, the decommodification of labour is based upon the stratification of the social strata. EspingAndersen identifies three ways in which the German conservative regime commodifies the workforce; initially by addressing how the patronage of feudal societies had been transferred to the modern corporate world, reiterating the notion of belief being based traditionally as the responsibility of the landowner and how this has transcended to the modern world, albeit in the updated guide of the state. Secondly, commodification is achieved through the origins of the
Catholic Church; that protection is issued as a reward for loyalty towards the institution,
“corporatist regimes are... typically shaped by the Church, and hence strongly committed to the preservation of traditional family-hood” (Esping-Andersen, 1990: 27). Thirdly, the notion of the
'paternalistic authoritarian' state which argues that the bourgeoisie, rather than the state, are obliged to provide welfare for those who cannot provide for their selves, with the desire to protect the workforce and consequently maintain the economy (Esping-Andersen, 1990).
State intervention is minimalist within Germany, and patriarchal structures govern welfare ideologies, with primary focus upon “'subsidiarity', the priority of the smaller unit, comprising couples, parents, mothers and fathers of all sorts before the wider community and the state: hence the priority of transfers over publicly provided social care services.” (Schmitt, 2005). Subsidiarity results in many restrictive measures upon the lives of women, as welfare entitlements are primarily attached to status, rather than individuals, such as; husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, employer and employee, in order to uphold the stratification of society. Highlighting gender inequalities inbuilt within social policy regarding benefits and social insurance. Ergo it is suggested that the best investment in the welfare system for women still remains, “a stable marriage” (CCG,
2011). Tax rates also prevent women from returning to the labour market and enforce stress upon two-parent families, “[i]n [Germany]... the tax burden of the single-earner family is less than dualbreadwinner families, while the tax systems of...Sweden... did not penalize two-earner families in the mid-1990s.” (Sainsbury, 1999: 247) It is inferred that Germany punishes women or mothers who work, through steep taxes burdened upon the family in the case of two earners rather than dependency upon the solo breadwinner.
Inversely, the welfare system within Sweden is a sharp contrast from that of the conservativecorporatist regime found in Germany. As noted by Esping-Andersen in 'The Three Worlds of
Welfare Capitalism', the Swedish welfare system is a prime example of the socio-democratic model.

In contrast to Germany, Sweden advocates individualism, full employment and strives to remove reliance from the family institution as the initial alternative from the market. Hence, the primary concern is not to wait until the family can no longer provide assistance, but “to pre-emptively socialize the costs of family-hood.” (Esping-Andersen, 1990: 26). Social-democratic regimes stress the importance of equality within the family, workplace and concerning welfare rights, it is apparent through social policies that “the social democrats... [pursue] a welfare state that would promote an equality of the highest standards, not an equality of minimal needs” (Esping-Andersen, 1990:27).
Under such regimes, decommodification of workers is a priority and achieved through universal, comprehensive welfare policies and the belief that, “[a]ll benefit; all are dependent; and all will presumably feel obliged to pay” (Esping-Andersen, 1990:28).
Sweden is considered as being one of the most equal societies on Earth in almost every aspect; including the distribution of income and wealth, promotion and strive for gender equality and full social rights to minorities. As Bergh notes in his wide ranging discussion of reform processes in
Sweden since the nineteenth century, “[d]uring about 125 of the latest 150 years, Sweden has done well, often remarkably well, in combining high levels of economic growth with increasing equality among it's citizens.” (Bergh, 2008: 2). In comparison to other countries within the Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Swedish state plays a huge role in the lives of individuals and is highly interventionist. However, it has been argued that the Swedish state could be criticised as being too interventionist, to the point where the state interferes with the lives of individuals.
Where as in Sweden, equality is at the forefront of many social policies and is a desired goal;
Germany provides a different approach regarding its social policies, with it's traditionalist values and protection of the family as well as the gendered roles which are associated with it.
Subsequently, the Swedish gender gap appears to be non-existent and as Wilkinson and Pickett
(2010) state, Swede's are among the happiest in the world, with Swedish women having the best economic chances than elsewhere, whereas in Germany, gender equality is recognised as being a relatively mixed reality. Although political participation is relatively high among women and a commitment to gender-based social policy programmes is evident, salary and employment differences between men and women are amongst the worst in Europe. These statements are echoed by the 'World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Index 2011' where it is unveiled that Germany ranked eleventh on the scale for gender equality, arguably a relatively high ranking for one of the most advanced countries in the western world, in comparison, Sweden ranked fourth for gender equality. (World Economic Forum; 2012)
The institution of the 'traditional' nuclear family is central to German social policy and consequently

affects the problematic gender gap visible within the state. The roles of the male breadwinner and female carer are desired within the family, the notion that women should be reliant upon their husbands rather than expressing more freedom and independence. It is also expected for women to care for their children until they are able to care for themselves, again restricting mothers freedom, especially involving her career opportunities. Although arguably, the best investment for women within the welfare state is “a stable marriage” (CCG, 2001), it is apparent that “Germany's tax system contains the most severe employment penalty for wives.” (Sainsbury, 1999: 247). Women are encouraged to stay out of employment and hence, be dependent upon the earnings and generous social insurance benefits provided by the breadwinner, as Sainsbury adds, “[t]he male breadwinner policy regime which accords high wages and generous social and tax benefits to the family provider, enables married women to provide care in the home and to engage in volunteer care work outside the home.” (Sainsbury, 1999: 255). The social insurance system of Germany rewards workers and is granted directly from the employer, with little intervention from the state. This scheme also encourages women to stay at home as benefits reward the traditional family structure as a whole, and also could account to more money than if the woman was employed, “[s]ocial insurance typically excludes non-working wives, and family benefits encourage motherhood.”
(Esping-Andersen, 1990: 27).
The reunification of Germany in 1990 which saw the German Democratic Republic join the Federal
Republic of Germany also greatly impacted upon gender equality social policies in Germany as a whole. Reunification saw the contrasting policies of the Deutsche Demokratische Republik compete against those within the Bundesrepublik Deutshland. This had a dramatic effect, especially upon
Eastern Germany, and saw thousands of its residents flood to western Germany as a result of the removal of Hungary's boarder fence, which consequently created a hole within the 'Iron Curtain'.
Rapid de-industrialisation of eastern Germany between 1990-93, occurred as a consummation, with
40% of jobs in the former Deutsche Demokratische Republik being eliminated, which impacted greatest upon female employment in particular as part time and temporary jobs were the first to be dropped. According to Offe, there was a “mass death of east German firms and a resulting level of unemployment unheard of in an industrial society” (Offe, 2000: 23). The impact of reunification also saw many female-friendly social policies scrapped, such as the closure of work-based childcare facilities which resulted in greater restrictions upon mothers opportunities to return to the labour market than ever before and further pressures within the home.
As a result of reunification western German family policies strengthened women's dependence upon their husbands and fortified the traditionalist notion of the breadwinner providing for the family.
Whereas, in eastern Germany where the economy suffered greatly as a result of reunification,

female dependence shifted from the breadwinner to the state. Consequently, a new found freedom was identified and women were finally emancipated from their roles within the home and family through economic activity. For instance, the Deutshce Demokratische Republik established the 'Law on the Protection of Children and Mothers' and 'Women's Rights' which formally abolished women's economic dependence on husbands. However, the suggestion that women were granted more freedom is misleading, as although independent from men in an economic sense, women are still expected to perform tasks within the home and family, as well as participating within the market. Women therefore face a 'double burden', in that they are expected to work and provide an income in conjunction with caring for the family. Sainsbury (1999), depicts the situation of women by stating that, “[t]he gendered consequences of four interlocking features- the subsidiarity principle, the male breadwinner, continental family law and the Bismarckian solution- are that women find themselves in a double bind.” (Sainsbury, 1999: 254)
Reunification affected many policies due to contrasting views of the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany, in particular, views on abortion were highly contested. “After years of fierce debates the Christian Democrat-Liberal Government passed a new abortion legislation in 1995.” Where abortion laws were finally balanced between the east and west, as previously abortion was viewed as an illegal, stigmatised act within the west.
Childcare plays a huge role within the lives of mothers, affecting their opportunities to return to work, the impact of the costs of childcare upon the family and whether paying for childcare in order to participate within the labour market is economically beneficial and how it affects social insurance benefits granted through the breadwinner. However, although a vital aspect to the lives of mothers, childcare is an area overlooked by Esping-Andersen throughout his analysis of the conservativecorporatist welfare-regime in Germany. One third of childcare facilities are ran through the government and the other two thirds are the responsibility of the church, a prime example of the traditional, patriarchal welfare system within Germany. (Gormley and Peters, 1992: 391). The example of childcare in German is focussed upon as it highlights that throughout Esping-Andersen's ground breaking study, he fails to draw attention on children as a part of society unable to compete within the labour market. Hence, illustrating the notion of hierarchical protection over those unable to participate as commodified workers.
At the start of the twenty-first century the welfare regime within Germany was criticised for being restrictive, outdated and dysfunctional. It was viewed as undermining productivity, economic growth and therefore, social stability, as well as disrupting the “social peace” (Offe, 2000). As a result of welfare reforms, prostitution laws were legalised in Germany in 2002 following rates of unemployment and rising figures of those claiming unemployment benefits. The Reichstag

threatened to seize unemployment benefits to women who refused to take up prostitution as a career if the opportunity arose. Under the passed laws, brothels were granted access to official databases of keen jobseekers, hence granting them access to contact individuals directly over vacancies available. “Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job-including in the sex industry- or lose her unemployment benefit.” (Chapman, 2005). Although many social policies and welfare reforms have enabled women to enter the labour market more freely than in previous years, it could be argued that gender inequalities still play a very prominent position within German social policy. For instance, forcing women to take on jobs within the sex industry is not only dehumanising but immoral for many women. However, for many there is no choice as the threat of losing unemployment benefits and the inability to provide for their families is far to overpowering. Women are left to rely upon job seeker agencies to sympathise with their position in the hope that their benefits will not cease, “[n]ow that prostitution is no longer considered by the law to be immoral, there is really nothing but the goodwill of the centres to stop them from pushing women into jobs they don't want to do.” (Chapman, 2005).
The case within Sweden is much different when comparing gender inequalities; equality is a desired aim and promoted through generous parental leave from work and child care provisions. Although it has been noted that gender inequalities are remarkably fewer compared to other OECD countries and that the Scandinavian countries boast as being most egalitarian in the OECD; it has been argued that the Swedish model, although an endorser of equality, also supports the concept of social control in the form of eugenics. This is exemplified in the Sterilisation Act of 1935, which was in place for over 40 years and could be viewed as the most unequal and sexist act to be passed in terms of women's independence, as it stole women's freedom of choice over their own fertility. Under this sterilisation programme, up to 60,000 women were targeted for either being mentally ill, mixed race, rebels or social misfits (Broberg and Roll-Hansen, 1996). The act specifically targeted women over men, as it was believed that women would be more easily persuaded into such procedures, although it was much easier and safer for a man to be medically sterilised than a woman. To the relief of many, the act was abolished in 1975 as programmes such as the Folkhemmet were hypocritical in their strive for equality.
Sweden endorsed the political concept of the Folkhemmet, a 'middle way' between capitalism and socialism. The aim of welfare was to provide a 'People's Home', consisting of a better society for
Sweden, this notion has been the central device in securing support for the promotion of equality.
The vision of the folkhemmet was that society is a family, in which its members are obliged to contribute. The 'People's Home' ideology is suitably based upon Bismarck's juxtaposing of

conservative stability and continuity of social reforms. As announced by Per Albin Hansson, the central aspect of social policy within Sweden was and continues to be, equality:
“The basis of the home is togetherness and common feeling. The good house does not consider anyone either as privileged or unappreciated; it knows no special favourites or stepchildren. There no one looks down upon anyone else, there no one tries to gain advantage at another's expense, and the stronger do not suppress and plunder the weaker. In the good home, equality, consideration, helpfulness prevail. Applied to the great people's and citizen's home, this would mean the breaking down of all social and economic barriers which now divide citizens into privileged and disadvantaged, rulers and subjects, rich and poor, properties and impoverished, plunders and plundered.” (Per Albin Hansson, 1928)
Since the 1960s, there has been an increasing focus on gender equality policies including a large scale investment into childcare, resulting in radical improvements in the opportunities available for mothers and single mothers to enter the labour market. “Virtually all of Sweden's employment growth between the 1960s and the early 1990s consisted of jobs for women” (Lindert in Bergh,
2006: 219). In the latest manifesto presented by the Swedish government's gender equality policy, it was announced that it would tackle “two principle aims: to combat and transform systems that preserve the gender-based distribution of power and resources in society, and to ensure that women and men enjoy the same power and opportunities to shape their own lives.” (Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality, 2009)
In continuum of this trend, the Swedish government in office between 2007-10 set out to ensure that men and women would have the same power and equality within society, with the aim to equalise the distribution of power and influence conducted by both men and women, to create an economic egalitarianism between the sexes in terms of education and paid work, as well as ensuring that unpaid, domestic and family care was not the sole responsibility of the woman. Domestic violence was also at the top of the government's agenda, stating that “[w]omen and men, girls and boys, shall have equal rights and opportunities in terms of physical integrity.” (Ministry of
Integration and Gender Equality, 2009).
Since the 1990's there has been increasing support in the promotion and support of female employment, with many social policies geared to support female employment. For instance, working mothers are granted up to 18 months parental leave, paid at 90% of their salary, granted 50 days maternity leave and allowed up to 90 days leave per annum, per child, to care for a sick child.
At initial glance Sweden appears to be rapidly approaching an egalitarian society; with more men

taking parental leave from work, 80% in 2004, a third of fathers taking time off work to care for a sick child and more Swedish men adopting the responsibility of childcare than ever before, which was typically considered a role for primarily mothers or women.
Although there are signs of gradual equality within Sweden, women are still at a disadvantage, particularly regarding employment where there remains a substantial gender gap; women are
'ghettoised' into public sector jobs (Bergh, 2006). Women are still fulfilling typical 'female jobs' such as child-minders which is a overwhelmingly female dominated sector, low paid and usually part time. High numbers of female employment does not equate to number of hours women work in comparison to men, the majority of women within the labour market work part-time, suggesting that they are still burdened with unpaid work within the home and family. Posing the question as to whether Sweden is a leader in egalitarianism, as it appears that more women than ever are expected to perform the “dual-burden” of work within the home and labour market (Bergh, 2006). In addition, men still dominate high-paid private sector jobs and women are still earning less in comparison, “[i]n 1994 single women aged 30-49 earned 93% of salary of their male counterparts”(Bergh, 2006).
Bergh argues that there is a misrepresentation of the employment situation within Sweden, especially employment concerning women. Bergh criticises Lindert when he writes, “relative to other OECD countries, Sweden's institutions seem to produce greater employment, especially jobs held by women and the elderly, with positive effetcs on GDP.” (Lindert, 2003: 281) in conjuction with Lindert's statement that “virtually all of Sweden's employment growth between the 1960s and the early 1990s consisted of jobs for women” (Lindert, 2003: 282) (Bergh, 2006: 219). Bergh argues that these statements presented by Lindert as well as figures produced by the OECD, of which demonstrates the employment ratio of men and women in Sweden, are misleading in suggesting that the gap on equality is narrowing and GDP levels are increasing. In order to truly portray whether gender inequalities within employment are being tackled by Swedish social policy an investigation into the numbers of hours worked by women in comparison to men. As Bergh highlights, when “we consider the number of hours actually worked instead of employment ratios, however, total female employment in Sweden is actually lower.” (Bergh, 2006: 220). In addition, extortionate tax wedges inflicted upon employers when employing an individual has also had a huge impact in the numbers of hours available for women to work. Bergh emphasises that with high tax rates attached to employment, women simply cannot afford to hire help within the home with duties such as childcare, housework and the care of elderly relatives. Hence, “[t]he do-it-yourself incentive created by the welfare state helps explain why working women in big welfare states less often work full-time.” (Bergh, 2006: 226).

In conclusion, it could be argued that gender inequalities in both Germany and Sweden have come a long way in the process for egalitarianism. However, social policies restricting women's freedom over employment and the notion of the 'dual-burden' still restrict the lives of women in contemporary society. Therefore, gender inequalities have been reinforced in both countries; although social policy has adapted a long with the modernisation of society, so has the restrictions upon the lives of women.

Word count: 3986

Bibliography
•

Esping-Anderson, G., _The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism_(Princeton University
Press, New Jersey, 1990)

•

Sainsbury, D (1999), ‘Gender, Policy Regimes and Politics’ Chapter 8 in Diane Sainsbury
(ed.), (1999), “Gender and Welfare State Regimes” Oxford, Oxford University Press (245275)

•

Alber, J, 2010. What the European and American welfare states have in common and where they differ: factsand fiction in comparisons of the European Social Model and the United
States. Journal of European Social Polci, [Online]. 20:102, 102-125. Available at: https://vital.liv.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-64640-dt-content-rid-60143_1/courses/SOCI207201112/Alber%20-%20Facts%20and%20fiction%20in%20comparisons%20of%20welfare
%20state%20structures.pdf[Accessed April 2012]

•

Bergh, Andreas, 2011. "The Rise, Fall and Revival of a Capitalist Welfare State: What are the Policy Lessons from Sweden," Working Paper Series 873, Research Institute of
Industrial Economics.

•

Bergh, A, 2006. Is the Swedish Welfare State a Free Lunch?. Econ. Journal Watch, [Online].
3:2, 210-235. Available at: https://vital.liv.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-206187-dt-content-rid706661_1/courses/SOCI207-201112/Bergh%20-%20Is%20the%20Swedish%20Welfare
%20State%20A%20Free%20Lunch%281%29.pdf [Accessed March 2012].

•

Gormley, W. T., and Peters, B. G., "National styles of regulation:Child care in three countries," Policy Sciences_ 25: 381-399, 1992

•

Hakim, C (1996) ‘Key Issues in Women’s Work’ Great Britain:Athlone Press

•

Leitner & Lessenich, 2003. Assessing Welfare State Change: The German Social Insurance
State between Reciprocity and Solidarity. Journal of Public Policy, [Online]. 23:3, 325-347.
Available at:https://vital.liv.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-64640-dt-content-rid60160_1/courses/SOCI207-201112/Leitner%20%26%20Lessenich%20-%20The
%20German%20Social%20Insurance%20State.pdf[Accessed April 2012].

•

Lindert, P (2003) “Why the Welfare State Looks Like a Free Lunch.” NBER Working Paper
No. 9869

•

Offe, C, 2000. The German Welfare State: Principles, Performance and Prospects After
Unification. Thesis Eleven, [Online]. 63:11, 11-37. Available at: https://vital.liv.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-64640-dt-content-rid-60165_1/courses/SOCI207201112/Offe%20-%20The%20German%20Welfare%20State.pdf [Accessed April 2012]

•

Tepe, F, 2005. An Introduction to the Swedish Welfare State. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, [Online]. 4:7, 261-274. Available at: https://vital.liv.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-206187-dt-content-rid706662_1/courses/SOCI207-201112/Tepe%20-%20An%20Introduction%20to%20the
%20Swedish%20Welfare%20State%281%29.pdf [Accessed April 2012

•

Wilks, S, 1996. Class Compromise and the International Economy: The Rise and Fall of
Swedish Social Democracy. Class & Capital, [Online]. 20:89, 89-111. Available at: https://vital.liv.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-201308-dt-content-rid-60176_1/courses/SOCI207201112/Wilks%20-%20The%20Rise%20and%20Fall%20of%20Swedish%20Social
%20Democracy.pdf [Accessed April 2012]

•

The Official Gateway to Sweden. 2012. Sweden.SE, The Official Gateway to Sweden.
[ONLINE] Available at:https://vital.liv.ac.uk/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp? tabGroup=courses&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fcontent%2FcontentWrapper.jsp %3Fcontent_id%3D_206187_1%26displayName%3DLinked%2BFile%26course_id
%3D_11882_1%26navItem%3Dcontent%26attachment%3Dtrue%26href%3Dhttp%253A
%252F%252Fwww.sweden.se%252Feng%252FHome%252F. [Accessed May 2012]

•

OECD Better Life Index. 2012. OECD Better Life Index. [ONLINE] Available at:https://vital.liv.ac.uk/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tabGroup=courses&url=%2Fwebapps %2Fblackboard%2Fcontent%2FcontentWrapper.jsp%3Fcontent_id
%3D_206187_1%26displayName%3DLinked%2BFile%26course_id
%3D_11882_1%26navItem%3Dcontent%26attachment%3Dtrue%26href%3Dhttp%253A
%252F%252Foecdbetterlifeindex.org%252Fcountries%252Fsweden%252F. [Accessed May
2012]

•

Paul Spicker. 2012. An Introduction to Social Policy . [ONLINE] Available at:http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/wstate.htm. [Accessed May 2012]

•

The Telegraph, Chapman. 2005. 'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'. [ONLINE] Available

at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1482371/If-you-dont-takea-job-as-a-prostitute-we-can-stop-your-benefits.html. [Accessed May 12
•

University of York. 2011. Family Policies in Germany . [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/research/nordic/gerpoli.PDF. [Accessed april 2012]

•

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GGGR11/GGGR11_Rankings-Scores.pdf World Economic
Forum