The disproportionate burden that yesterday’s budget placed on the structures of care in our society – family relationships, health and education – will no doubt receive much justified critique in the coming days. As the recent report from the ‘Growing Up in Ireland’ study revealed – consistent with evidence from the ‘New Urban Living’ study – throughout the boom Irish people continued to rely on extended family relationships to provide care, in the context of comparatively weak state investment in social infrastructure. In the new era of austerity – with high levels of unemployment and even fewer public resources for the elderly, disabled and sick – those family relationships will be stretched further.
In this context, I was puzzled to note an odd whiff of anti-natalism in yesterday’s announcements, specifically in the decision to remove the additional level of child benefit to third children, and to reduce maternity benefit. Now many commentators from across the political spectrum think increasing women’s labour force participation is a good idea. Over on Irish Economy, Richard Tol has argued that increasing women’s economic opportunities would contribute to economic recovery by increasing productivity. Sociologist Lane Kenworthy has argued that increasing female employment can form part of a strategy to reduce social inequality – not just between men and women, but across the social class hierarchy.
It is true that caring for young children can act as a barrier to women’s employment. It is also true that, despite the substantial increase in women’s labour force participation, a sizable minority of Irish women continue to withdraw from paid work following the birth of children, to a greater extent, perhaps, than in some European countries. But as our European partners must know, dis-incentivizing people from having children is a self-defeating response to the problem of balancing work and family responsibilities.
In fact, our comparatively high fertility rate is one big advantage Ireland has over the other troubled peripheral Eurozone economies, where underdeveloped welfare states have contributed to plummeting fertility in the context of rising female employment. Ireland got away with rising levels of female employment in the context of an economic boom because of the availability of part-time employment and informal support from grandparents and other extended family members.
During the first phase of the ‘Celtic Tiger’ (when our economic growth rates reflected real increases in economic activity) researchers in the ESRI noted the importance of our ‘demographic dividend’ in making it all possible. That same demographic dividend has ensured that the problems associated with ageing societies are not nearly as pressing in Ireland as elsewhere in Europe, such that we can raid the National Pension Reserve Fund with some regret, but with relative equanimity. I can understand that Scandinavian-style investment in supports for working parents may seem out of the question in the current economic climate – although I think an argument could be made that such investments would foster sustained economic recovery and a more equitable society. I don’t know if removing these small supports in the form of child benefit and maternity leave will have a material effect on Irish fertility levels. But I do think the decision to do so is bizarre and unprecedented in Ireland.
Jane Gray
December 8, 2010 at 11:05 am
I think “employment” is putting it a bit too simply: there are jobs, and then there are careers. In the definitions I’m using, a job is something you do to earn money, while a career is a path you take through your working life, always improving as you go. If you’re lucky enough to have a career, I don’t see how you can interrupt it without consequences.
An analogy: say you are studying to be an engineer – but become pregnant and miss the whole of the 3rd year of study. Would you expect to be awarded full credit for that 3rd year, as if you had been to the lectures and sat all the exams, and progress to 4th year as if nothing had happened? Well, a career is like that: you’re always learning and being tested, and you can’t move ahead at full speed if you aren’t fully engaged in the process. If you give less, you’ll have to settle for receiving less – that’s fair on everyone. I think we’re long past the point at which procreation is a “service to society in general”!
December 8, 2010 at 11:11 am
The consumer economy has given us a hangover. Credit was a part of that? Bankers made money out of getting greater econ participation by all.
As the boom is over, there will be a need to allow and encourage, by proper support, those who stay at home to take care of those who have been believe me, neglected. Society gets wealthier but once the credit is removed, all that wealth is revealed to be paper! Real wealth is in people.
Women have rights so do children. We cannot afford taxed child care…. in the absence of a credit boom.
Simple. Not a choice!
December 8, 2010 at 11:13 am
It’s good to see someone raising this issue which has been absent from media debate. The social transfers for children are high in Ireland compared to other countries because the service provision for families is so poor and there is no other recognition of children in the tax system. The figures were interesting, a married couple with 3 children earning 75000 will have a fall of 191.95 a month in their income, a single person a fall of aprox 100/month. A single person may have to go to a doctor 4 times a year – about 200 multiply that by 5 for the family. A single person might eat their way though 150 worth of food a month, again by at least 5 for a family. Children are not a commodity like a car, you bought it you pay for it, they are the future of our country.
December 9, 2010 at 1:56 pm
You’re assuming that the decision to have children is based principally on financial issues. Culture is a significant factor too and Ireland is a country that likes (relatively) big families. The birth rate is holding up well considering we are in year 3 of a recession. I think it’s too easy to predict either that a €10 reduction in benefit for child 1&2 will affect childbirth rates or that the reduction was part of a deliberate policy to encourage women out of the workforce.
December 9, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Thanks for your comment, Sarah.
However, I’m not predicting that the reduction will affect birth rates – as I said I don’t know whether or not it will have such an effect.
As you say, Ireland is a country that seems to like relatively big families, and it is in that context that I think the decision to cut the additional payment for third children is symbolically very significant. Does it signal a shift in thinking about family size at political level?
And also, if there is any policy thinking behind the decision, I suspect it is oriented towards encouraging women into the workforce, not out of it.
December 9, 2010 at 9:14 pm
I see the National Women’s Council claims it’s to force women out of the workforce!
I don’t there is any thought or policy behind it other than saving money!
December 20, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Based on analysis of SILK panel data that covers the 1980s it was established that unemployment of the male partner impacted positively on delayed maternity. This, however, has a small effect relative to the time since completion of education on the part of women.
Based on this analysis I would think it unlikely that the reductions in children’s allowance will have much impact. Unemployment or the risk thereof, will have the greatest impact on the decision to postpone maternity.
For more see: http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/05/06/cje.beq010.abstract?sid=db8badd7-5bc9-4934-9b11-9fc94efffe3c