'Women-Friendly' State Interventions and Occupational Gender Segregation: Paradise or Paradox?

虽然联合王国和其他地方的决策者试图通过扩大儿童保育服务和其他工作/家庭政策来提高妇女的就业率，但研究表明，这些措施无意中造成的后果是加强了男女在不同“类型”的工作和部门中的隔离（Mandel和Semyonov，2006年）。研究表明，慷慨的家庭政策导致雇主在雇用、培训和晋升方面歧视妇女，因为雇主认为妇女更有可能利用法定假期和灵活工作。此外，国家提供的保健、教育和护理服务吸引妇女从事公共部门中陈规定型的女性服务性工作，而远离私营部门中的（薪酬较高的）工作。因此，研究表明，福利国家越是“对妇女友好”，妇女就越难进入男性主导的工作和部门，包括最赚钱的管理职位，特别是如果她们拥有高技能的话（Mandel，2012年），然而，最近的证据表明，在慷慨的福利政策下，妇女在获得更好工作方面处于不利地位并非不可避免。例如，在瑞典，女性在高级管理职位中所占的比例为36%，瑞典对女性友好的政策最为发达;相比之下，英国的这一数字为28%，英国的性别就业隔离历来较低（欧盟统计局，2018年）。因此，本项目的目的是提供一个更清晰和更全面的了解福利国家如何影响性别就业隔离，使用创新的方法和途径，还没有被用来检查这个研究难题之前。为此，该项目分为三个“工作包”（WP）。WP 1研究了国家层面的条件如何在21个发达经济体中调解福利国家和就业性别隔离之间的关系。这包括中欧和东欧国家，以前的研究往往忽略了这些国家。国家一级的条件包括文化规范、关于妇女在公司董事会任职的规定以及劳动力市场的特点。数据将来自国际社会调查方案、经合组织、欧统局、全球媒体监测项目、世界银行和德勤公司的“董事会中的妇女”项目。第二工作方案然后利用欧洲社会调查的区域和个人层面数据，调查福利国家政策对妇女职业发展的影响如何因其社会经济地位和生活的具体经济和社会背景而异。随后，WP 3进行了系统的比较案例研究，深入探讨了解释为什么某些福利国家和地区表现出高水平的性别不平等，但低水平的阶级不平等，而在其他地方，情况正好相反的潜在机制。数据来自与第一工作方案和第二工作方案相同的来源，以及学术文献和其他相关来源该项目很重要，因为其研究结果将使决策者了解其政策如何影响不同的妇女群体，以及如何克服“包容-不平等”的困境（Pettit和Hook，2009年），即通过提供适当的家庭政策和服务，使更多的妇女加入劳动力队伍，但又不引导妇女从事陈规定型的女性职业，不妨碍她们的职业发展。解决这种隔离问题很重要，因为它是性别工资差距的主要原因（Mandel和Semyonov，2014年），并支持妇女工作的低估（Grimshaw和Rubery，2007年）。与此同时，让更多的女性进入权力岗位可以为低技能职业女性带来积极的“涓滴效应”，因为性别平衡的高层管理团队与女性友好的工作场所特征和做法相关，可以使所有女性受益（Kowalewska，2017年b）

While policymakers in the UK and elsewhere have sought to increase women's employment rates by expanding childcare services and other work/family policies, research suggests these measures have the unintentional consequence of reinforcing the segregation of men and women into different 'types' of jobs and sectors (Mandel & Semyonov, 2006). Studies have shown that generous family policies lead employers to discriminate against women when it comes to hiring, training, and promotions, as employers assume that women are more likely to make use of statutory leaves and flexible working. Furthermore, state provision of health, education, and care draws women into stereotypically female service jobs in the public sector and away from (better-paid) jobs in the private sector. Accordingly, research suggests that the more 'women-friendly' a welfare state is, the harder it will be for women - especially if they are highly skilled - to break into male-dominated jobs and sectors, including the most lucrative managerial positions (Mandel, 2012).Yet, more recent evidence indicates that women's disadvantaged access to better jobs is not inevitable under generous welfare policies. For instance, women's share of senior management positions in Sweden, where women-friendly policies are most developed, now stands at 36%; this compares to a figure of 28% in the UK, where gender employment segregation has historically been lower (Eurostat, 2018). Thus, the aim of this project is to provide a clearer and fuller understanding of how welfare states impact on gender employment segregation by using innovative methods and approaches that have not been used to examine this research puzzle before. To this aim, the project is organised into three 'work packages' (WPs). WP1 examines how conditions at the country-level mediate the relationship between welfare states and gender segregation in employment across 21 advanced economies. This includes Central and Eastern European countries, which prior research has tended to overlook. The country-level conditions included are cultural norms, regulations regarding women's representation on corporate boards, and labour-market characteristics. Data will be compiled from the International Social Survey Programme, OECD, Eurostat, the Global Media Monitoring Project, the World Bank, and Deloitte's Women in the Boardroom project. WP2 then investigates how the impact of welfare-state policies on a woman's career progression varies according to her socioeconomic position and the specific economic and social context in which she lives, using regional and individual-level data from the European Social Survey. Subsequently, WP3 carries out systematic comparative case studies to explore in depth the underlying mechanisms that explain why certain welfare states and regions exhibit high levels of gender inequality but low levels of class inequality, while in other places, the opposite is true. Data are drawn from the same sources as for WP1 and WP2, as well as academic literature and other relevant sources (e.g. government websites).The project is important because its findings will inform policymakers about how their policies affect different groups of women and how to overcome the 'inclusion-inequality' dilemma (Pettit & Hook, 2009), i.e. bring more women into the workforce by providing adequate family policies and services, but without channelling women into stereotypically feminine occupations and undermining their career progression. Tackling such segregation matters because it is a leading cause of the gender pay gap (Mandel & Semyonov, 2014) and underpins the undervaluation of women's work (Grimshaw & Rubery, 2007). At the same time, bringing more women into positions of power can have positive 'trickle-down' benefits for lower-skilled working women, as gender-balanced top-management teams are associated with female-friendly workplace characteristics and practices that can benefit all women (Kowalewska, 2017b)