This article was downloaded by: [University of Bath]On: 04 October 2014, At: 01:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Community, Work & FamilyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccwf20

Differences in women's employmentpatterns and family policies: easternand western GermanyBirgit Pfau-Effinger a & Maike Smidt aa Institute for Sociology, Centre for Globalisation andGovernance , University of Hamburg , Allende-Platz 1, 20146,Hamburg, GermanyPublished online: 20 May 2011.

To cite this article: Birgit Pfau-Effinger & Maike Smidt (2011) Differences in women's employmentpatterns and family policies: eastern and western Germany, Community, Work & Family, 14:2,217-232, DOI: 10.1080/13668803.2011.571401

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2011.571401

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Differences in women’s employment patterns and family policies: easternand western Germany

Birgit Pfau-Effinger* and Maike Smidt

Institute for Sociology, Centre for Globalisation and Governance, University of Hamburg,Allende-Platz 1, 20146 Hamburg, Germany

(Received 17 November 2010; final version received 15 December 2010)

Individuals do not react in a simple manner to the incentives and restrictions of awelfare state’s policies. The impact of policies on their behaviour is mediated bymany factors, primarily cultural, but also social, economic, and institutional.Germany presents an ideal case study of family policies, culture, employment, andchild care practices. Though family policies of the central welfare state haveremained the same in eastern and western Germany during the last 20 years, theemployment patterns of women with preschool children differ systematically inboth regions. It will be shown below that in their behaviour regarding employ-ment vis-a-vis childcare, women with young children in both parts of Germanyuse the options differently. These differences can largely be explained bydifferences in the cultural values and models of the family in western and easternGermany, and their interaction with institutional and economic factors in twodifferent development paths.

Keywords: family policies; culture; West and East Germany

Mit ihrem Verhalten reagieren die Individuen nicht einfach auf Anreize undRestriktionen der Familienpolitik. Der Einfluss der Politiken auf das Verhaltenwird insbesondere durch kulturelle Faktoren und weiter auch durch soziale,okonomische und institutionelle Faktoren modifiziert. Deutschland eignet sichin besonderer Weise dazu, den Zusammenhang von Familienpolitiken, Kultur,Frauenerwerbstatigkeit und Praktiken der Kinderbetreuung zu analysieren.Obwohl Ost- und Westdeutschland seit zwei Jahrzehnten unter dem Einflussderselben Familienpolitik des deutschen Wohlfahrtsstaates stehen, unterscheidensie sich erheblich im Hinblick auf die Erwerbsbeteiligung der Mutter kleinerKinder und die Muster der Kinderbetreuung. Frauen nutzen die Optionen derFamilienpolitik in Ost- und Westdeutschland jeweils unterschiedlicher Weise. Dieslasst sich, so das Argument, vor allem mit Differenzen in den vorherrschendenkulturellen Leitbilder zur Familie erklaren und damit, wie diese mit institutio-nellen und okonomischen Faktoren in zwei unterschiedlichen Entwicklungspfa-den interagieren.

Stichwort: familienpolitik; kultur; West- und Ostdeutschland

Introduction

Social-policy researchers have argued at times that family policies influence the

employment behaviour of women to a large degree when they have children below

*Corresponding author. Email: pfau-effinger@sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de

Community, Work & Family

Vol. 14, No. 2, May 2011, 217�232

ISSN 1366-8803 print/ISSN 1469-3615

# 2011 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13668803.2011.571401

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

1:52

04

Oct

ober

201

4

school age. However, policies can also have unanticipated consequences. Therefore, it

is also possible that in a welfare state, the actual employment behaviour of women

can vary substantially. Germany after unification is a good example of unpredicted

consequences of family policies, since there are remarkable differences in theemployment behaviour of women with children below school age in eastern and

western Germany.1

At the time of unification, the institutional framework of the family differed

fundamentally in the former East German and former West German states. Whereas

central institutions in the former supported an employment-centred life course for all

adult workers, the institutional system in the latter promoted a family break and

part-time work for women with dependent children. After unification, family policies

of the former West German state substituted the policies of erstwhile easternGermany. Many social scientists, therefore, expected that the employment behaviour

of women in eastern Germany after childbirth would converge to the pattern of

western Germany, with the assumption that family policies are central to women’s

employment behaviour (Klauder, 1994). Contrary to this assumption, substantial

differences in the employment behaviour of women with children have persisted until

today, two decades later, between eastern and western Germany.

There was broad interest among researchers in these differences. However,

explanations for these differences are still rare and were mostly developed in the firstdecade after unification in the 1990s. The aim of this article is to analyse why the

differences persist two decades later. The term ‘family policies’ here refers to the ways

in which the central welfare state regulates childcare and its relationship with the

employment of parents.

We will show that in their behaviour on employment vis-a-vis childcare, women

with young children in eastern Germany still use their options differently from

mothers in western Germany. We argue that the main reason is the path dependence

in two different gender arrangements that affect women’s behaviour in these twoparts. These two arrangements are based on different cultural values towards

childcare and the family, and a different relationship of formal and informal

childcare. The persistence of the differences has been in part supported by differences

in the economic situation.

First, the differences in the employment behaviour of women with children below

six years of age in western and eastern Germany are analysed. Then, a brief overview

of common approaches to an explanation is given. The next part gives the theoretical

approach of this paper. Then, it is shown how central cultural and institutionalfactors have interacted and created path dependence in two different development

paths of the gender arrangement. The next part outlines how culture, actors, and

institutions currently interact and influence women’s employment behaviour in these

two paths. The findings are summarised in the last part.

Differences in the employment behaviour of women with children below six years

Women in eastern Germany in the early 1990s faced particularly unfavourable labourmarket constraints, and the unemployment rate was clearly higher than in western

Germany (1991: 16% vs 9%, Holst, 2000, p. 15). Nevertheless, full-time employment

rates of women remained clearly above the employment level of women in western

Germany, where the labour market situation was more favourable for women

218 B. Pfau-Effinger and M. Smidt

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

1:52

04

Oct

ober

201

4

(Mayer, Diewald, & Solga, 1999). These differences persist. At the end of the 2000s,

the labour force participation of women in eastern Germany was at the same high

level again (74%) as it had been in 1990 after a minor decline during the 1990s. In

West Germany, fewer women participated in the labour force 1990 (56%), and their

labour force participation rate has been lower compared with eastern German

women (68%), until today. The differences in employment are particularly

pronounced for women with children (Table 1, Statistisches Bundesamt, 2008a).2

When their children are younger than three, a higher share of women in eastern

Germany is employed compared with western Germany (33% vs 27%). This is the

case even if the labour market situation is more problematic for women in eastern

Germany, which is indicated by the differences in the unemployment rates of women

in both parts of Germany (6.8% in the east vs 13.4% in the west, Statistik der

Bundesagentur fur Arbeit, 2009, p. 27). There are also considerable differences in the

employment rates of women with children 3�6 years of age. Even if each child of this

age group in western and eastern Germany has an equal right to public childcare

Table 1. Differences in employment, care, and income between women in eastern and western

Germany.

Eastern Germany

(including Berlin)

Western

Germany

Employment rate of women with childrena,1

Children 0B3 years 33 27

Children 3B6 years 63 57

Children in elementary school 71 64

Share of part-time employed women with children in

all employed women with children (%)1

1996 32 57

2010 49 75

Motives of women with children for working part-

time (%)2

Could not find full-time employment 64 17

Personal/family reasons 14 57

Other 22 2

Type of childcare that is used for children 0�3 years

(type of childcare that parents would prefer in

brackets,%)b,3

Public childcare

Total 71 (59) 35 (42)

Less than half day 8 (13) 10 (13)

Part-time 28 (30) 16 (19)

Full-time 35 (17) 9 (11)

Parents exclusively

Total 14 (20) 36 (34)

aProportion of women with children in employment to all women with children.bIt was possible to give several answers.Sources: 1Mikrozensus, after Statistisches Bundesamt 2010, GENESIS-Online: Ergebnis-12211-0606.2Mikrozensus, after Statistisches Bundesamt 2009, Destatis, STATmagazin 4/2009.3Representative Survey ‘Junge Familie’ Rheinisch-Westfalisches Institut fur Wirtschaftsforschung (2008,pp. 53�55), after RWI, 2008, p. 53f.

Community, Work & Family 219

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

1:52

04

Oct

ober

201

4

since 1986 (Pfau-Effinger, 2004), a lower share of mothers of these children is

actually employed in western Germany compared with eastern Germany (57% vs

63%). There are even differences in the employment rate of mothers of children in

elementary school, in that a lower share of them is employed in western Germany

(64%) than in eastern Germany (71%). This finding indicates that women in western

Germany in part even made less use of the options to be employed than it was

possible in the context of family policies.

Also, women with children in western Germany are more likely to be employed

part-time than women in eastern Germany (75% vs 49%). While the part-time

employment rate of women has increased considerably since 1996 in both parts of

Germany, the difference has persisted (Table 1; Statistisches Bundesamt, 2010).

Common approaches to explaining the differences in women’s employment behaviour

Since unification, there was a strong interest in analysing the differences in

employment behaviour of mothers with young children in both parts of Germany.

The unemployment rates in eastern Germany were considerably higher and male

wages were clearly lower than in western Germany in the 1990s. It was, therefore, a

common argument that economic differences contribute largely to explaining the

differences after unification. It was assumed that women in eastern Germany were

often forced to continue in employment and work full-time after they gave birth to a

child, since it was not possible for men to act as breadwinners (Klauder, 1994).

However, the differences in the employment rates did not converge, even though the

proportion of men who are fully integrated into employment is very similar today in

both parts of Germany (93% in the east vs 95% in the west: Statistisches Bundesamt,

2010). Also, the difference in the income of men has shrunk considerably. The real

differences in income are even lower, since consumer prices are considerably lower in

eastern Germany (Goebel, Frick, Grabka, & Markus, 2009). Therefore, economic

differences may contribute in some measure to explaining the differences but they are

not the main reason.

It is also misleading to assume that women have a higher share in employment if

the household income is low. In contrast, in both parts of Germany, women from

low-income households have a greater tendency to stay outside the labour force after

they get children than women with higher household incomes. This is possible since

they can rely on financial transfers by the welfare state as an alternative, at least until

the child is three years of age (Konietzka & Kreyenfeld, 2005).In general, it is important to explain why family policies had unanticipated

consequences for the basic employment pattern of women in eastern Germany.

However, it is problematic to proceed with the explanation one-sidedly on women in

eastern Germany and treat their behaviour as deviant. It should be considered that

women who choose the pattern that is dominant in western Germany take particular

risks of poverty after divorce (after they lose their male breadwinner) and in old age

(Frericks, 2010). Women, therefore, do not apparently act according to rational

economic principles if they voluntarily choose the employment pattern that is

dominant in western Germany. We must, therefore, also explain why women in

western Germany made less use of the options to be employed than it was possible in

the context of family policies towards public childcare for children 3�6 years of age.

220 B. Pfau-Effinger and M. Smidt

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

1:52

04

Oct

ober

201

4

According to other authors also, other factors like differences in the availability

of full-time jobs for women, the actual availability of public childcare (Konietzka &

Kreyenfeld, 2002), and the contribution of fathers to family childcare (Hofmeister,

Baur, & Rohler, 2009) contribute to explaining the differences. Other authors havestressed the role of cultural values and attitudes in that women in eastern Germany

have a stronger work orientation as a legacy from former socialist times (Adler, 1997;

Pfau-Effinger & Geissler, 2002). However, analyses of the role of different factors for

the explanation are rare and were mainly conducted only during the first decade after

unification (e.g., Kreckel & Schenk, 2000.).

Gender arrangement and gender culture: a theoretical framework for the explanation of

the impact of family policies on social practices

We will use the approach of the ‘gender arrangement’ introduced by Birgit Pfau-

Effinger (1998, 2004) for comparative analyses of the development of gender

relations and family structures. It is based on the assumption that analyses of the

impact of family policies on gendered social practices of individuals and of their non-

anticipated consequences should consider the wider societal context. This context

includes institutional, economic, and social factors outside family policies. Moreover,

it includes cultural values and models in relation to the work�family relationship,and gender and generational relations at the macro-level of a society or a region.3

Such values and cultural family models are what Pfau-Effinger (2004, 2005a) calls

‘gender culture’. They refer to the ways women and men should best be integrated

into society, the division of labour between women and men, and how it should

interact with childcare. The ‘gender arrangement’ is conceptualised as the result of

conflicts, negotiation processes, and compromises of a former generation of social

actors. It can be based on one (or more, competing) cultural family model(s). They

form an important basis for the (often contradictory) ways in which institutions,social structures, economic factors, and agencies interact and frame the employment

behaviour of women when they are mothers (Pfau-Effinger, 2004). This field is not

necessarily coherent, but can be characterised by various discrepancies, contra-

dictions, asynchronies, and conflicts.

The different types of actors behave on the basis of the family models that are

dominant in the specific historical and spatial contexts. These actors include, for

example, policy makers, organisations, as well as large groups of the population as

‘primary actors’ (Archer, 1996) in their role as clients of the welfare state, consumers,and the electorate. The actor approach of this concept means that it is also important

to consider that parents of young children have some space of action vis-a-vis the

institutional framework, like, for example, towards gaps in the public provision of

childcare. They can find other options for childcare or exert pressure with regard to

the public provision of childcare by their demand, as part of the electorate and as

members of civil society organisations. Since such arrangements are often based on

relatively stable cultural pillars, they tend to develop path dependence, even if

contradictory developments and conflicts lead to change. To explain differences ofwomen’s employment behaviour in different gender arrangements, it is, therefore,

also important to consider the role of historical development paths.

In the following parts, this theoretical framework is used to identify the main

factors that contribute to explaining why the employment behaviour of women in

Community, Work & Family 221

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

1:52

04

Oct

ober

201

4

both parts of Germany is different, and the ways they have interacted and

contributed to path dependence of the two different gender arrangements.

Two development paths during 40 years of political separation of Germany until 1990

In the former West German state in the 1950s and 1960s, a cultural model of the

family based on the concept of the female as housewife and the male as breadwinner

was dominant. Men were regarded as breadwinners who earned for the family in thepublic sphere through gainful employment, whereas women were primarily regarded

as being responsible for the work in the private sphere, i.e., the household including

childcare. These separate competencies were also based on a particular social

construction of childhood, according to which children needed special care in the

family from their mother, and to be extensively supported as dependent individuals.

This family model was also strongly supported by the welfare state (Sommerkorn,

1988).

Rapid modernisation since the early 1970s meant that the dominant family modelstarted to change as women increasingly questioned the traditional division of labour

within the family. Although women were increasingly oriented towards professional

qualifications and participation in the labour force at the time of German

unification, mothers still attached high priority to the task of caring for their

children at home in the family during the first couple of years of a child’s life. Within

the male breadwinner/female part-time carer model now dominant, an employment

break of several years for home-based childcare and part-time work during the phase

of active motherhood was regarded as the most appropriate behaviour for women(Pfau-Effinger, 2004).

Change in family policies in the former West German state since the 1970s lagged

behind change in gender culture. However, since the 1980s, public daycare for

children 3�6 years of age was considerably extended, mainly on a part-time basis.

Since the 1980s, some initial steps have also been taken towards more autonomous

income and social security for private childcare providers. In the mid-1980s, a

parental leave system was introduced that allowed parents to return to their previous

jobs latest after three years, with 24 months paid 300 euros on a means-tested basis.Since the parental leave benefit was below subsistence level, the law placed financial

dependency of the caring parent (nearly always the mother), on the breadwinner,

usually the father (Kaufmann, 1995).

The heteronomy of the dual breadwinner/state carer model in the former East German

state

In the former East German state a ‘dual breadwinner/state carer model’ was

stipulated for women by the totalitarian state at the cultural level. Full integration of

women into gainful employment was equated with gender equality, which was

regarded as a major goal of socialist policies. Comprehensive control of children,

their socialisation, and education was also a central political objective of the state.The state and the Socialist Party had a monopoly in defining the main family model,

and from the start efforts were made to devalue the housewife’s role culturally by

defaming it publicly. Even if women of the middle class also initially rejected this new

family model, it was increasingly accepted by the population over time (Kreckel &

222 B. Pfau-Effinger and M. Smidt

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

1:52

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Schenk, 2000). For later generations of women who were born and grew up in the

former East German state, the combination of motherhood with full-time waged

work that gave them financial autonomy was a central element of their identity, as

several studies demonstrated on the basis of interviews with young women in easternGermany (Dolling, 2000). Also, wage structures were such that families usually

needed two full-time incomes to be able to afford an average standard of life

(Obertreis, 1986). The state infrastructure of childcare institutions was comprehen-

sive and supported parents in fulfilling their employment duties, and women were

fully integrated into the employment system. Moreover, a maternal leave scheme

existed based on one year’s maternal leave during which an income substitute was

paid (Hagemann, 2006; Rosenfeld, Trappe, & Gornick, 2004).

Family policies of the central welfare state after unification

After unification in 1990, family policies of the welfare state of the united Germany

were based on the western German tradition. Also, the cultural family model that

was dominant in western Germany was propagated to the eastern German

population (Konietzka & Kreyenfeld, 2002, p. 334). Family policies supported a

pattern of behaviour of the parents that was based on three years of parental leave

(assuming that the child’s mother took it). During this time, the employmentrelationship of the caring parent was protected. A parental leave benefit was paid

that over time has increased in size from about 150�300 euros per month. It was paid

for two years and the third year was unpaid.4 It was means-tested at a medium level

of household income and clearly below subsistence level. These policies relied

strongly on the concept of the male breadwinner: It was expected that the husband of

the child’s mother would finance a large part of the subsistence of the family as long

as his wife was on parental leave and was working only part-time.

The German government introduced an individual right in 1996 for all childrenof 3�6 years of age to public childcare. Parents could also apply for full-time care.

Public childcare facilities for young children below three, in contrast, remained

scarce in western Germany (Kaufmann, 1995). Also, in eastern Germany, soon after

unification, there was a strong reduction in the availability of public childcare,

particularly for children below three years of age (from 58% in 1991 to 35% in 2002,

Kreckel & Schenk, 2000).

Since 2000, it has become easier for parents to work part-time, since a legal right

for parents of children below nine years of age to reduce their working time in thefirm to part-time was introduced.

Married couples also get considerable tax relief, which increases with the degree

to which the income of both spouses differs (‘income splitting’). It is particularly

advantageous for married couples in which the women (who usually earn lower

incomes) reduce their working time or interrupt their employment in favour of family

childcare. In such cases, the tax reduction is added to the income of the main (usually

male) breadwinner.

Nevertheless, it would be misleading to conclude that women did not have otheroptions than to stay at home for three years after the birth of a child and work part-

time afterwards. The practical availability of public childcare at the local level

and the daily hours of care provision also depend on the demand of parents for

childcare. This is the main reason why there are considerable differences in both parts

Community, Work & Family 223

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

1:52

04

Oct

ober

201

4

of Germany in the public provision of childcare for children below three (Spieß,

Berger, & Groh-Samberg, 2008). Also, many parents have additional options to

organise care, like care by grandparents or other relatives. Middle-class families also

have the possibility of childcare by paid childminders at their homes. They can get

considerable tax relief if they declare the employment, or use unemployed or migrant

women who offer childcare in private households on the basis of undeclared work

and cheap wages (Pfau-Effinger, 2009).

Analyses of the differences between western and eastern Germany show that

women used the options in different ways. Also, the gender culture remained

different. Although cultural values with regard to gender equality since unification

have become more popular in western Germany and eastern Germany as well, Lee,

Alwin, and Tufis (2007), analysing survey data of the ALLBUS, found that the gap

between western and eastern Germany in gender beliefs has even increased from the

early 1990s till 2002.

The German government changed its family policies substantially in the middle

of the 2000s. Since then, the aim is to offer public childcare for all children 0�3 years

of age who are in need of care, and a general option for full-time care (Henninger,

Wimbauer, & Dombrowski, 2008). The data of the representative Survey ‘Junge

Familie’ (‘Young Family’) that the Rheinisch-Westfalisches Institut fur Wirtschafts-

forschung conducted in 2007 show that public provision of childcare for children

from 0 to 3 years of age was already 40% in 2007 (Rheinisch-Westfalisches Institut

fur Wirtschaftsforschung [RWI], 2008).

Also, a new programme for parental leave was introduced. Parental leave is still

possible for a period of three years. What has changed is the method and period of

pay. In this regard, policies support the financial autonomy of caring parents. Those

mothers or fathers who were employed before the child was born receive an income

substitute of 67% of their previous income during parental leave (14 months for

single parents), with an upper limit of 2700 euros.5 The period in which it is paid

was reduced from two years to one year. Parents who were employed with a low

income level receive 100% of their previous income.6 Also, three years of child-

rearing are counted towards independent pension entitlements (Frericks, 2010).

This means that for one year, many parents are able to act as autonomous

caregivers when they are providing family care on a full-time basis. With the new

law, the German welfare state has also introduced paternity leave to promote a

more equal sharing of family care. Parental leave is 14 months if the father

contributes at least two months. If only one parent takes time off, the leave is

capped at 12 months (Bundesministerium fur Familie, Senioren, Frauen u. Jugend

[BMFSFJ], 2008). The evaluation of the effects of the legislation after three years

shows that the participation of fathers in parental leave has increased considerably,

even if the percentage of fathers of children below three who take-up parental leave

is still only about 15% (RWI, 2008).

As a result of this paradigm shift in family policies, the welfare state now

supports the employment pattern of women with young children that had been

dominant in East Germany. After one year of parental leave, parents have the option

to take-up full-time employment. During parental leave, each parent who was

previously employed is independent from the breadwinner’s role of a spouse.

224 B. Pfau-Effinger and M. Smidt

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

1:52

04

Oct

ober

201

4

The role of cultural, institutional, and economic factors

In this part, we analyse how cultural differences and the way they interact with

institutional, economic, and social factors in each of the two gender arrangements

contribute to the explanation of the differences in the behaviour of women with

children 0�3 years of age between eastern and western Germany.

Differences in the availability of and preferences for public childcare

In comparative research on family policies, the quantum of publicly provided

childcare is often treated as a key factor for the explanation of differences in the

employment behaviour of mothers with preschool children. Therefore, many authorsassume that the employment rate and the proportion of women working full-time are

higher if the public provision of childcare is more. Therefore, in this part differences

in the actual public provision of childcare and how they contribute to explaining the

differences are analysed.

Since the early 1990s, the proportion of children aged 0�3 years of age availing

public daycare was clearly higher in eastern Germany than in western Germany. The

ratio was 4�5% between 1991 and 2002 in western Germany. In eastern Germany,

58% of all children aged 0�3 years of age availed public daycare in 1991. The ratedecreased to 35% in 2002 but was still much higher than in western Germany

(Kreyenfeld & Geisler, 2006, p. 339). Today, the proportion of children below three

who receive public daycare is clearly higher in eastern Germany than in western

Germany (71% vs 35%). Also, provision of public day care in eastern Germany is

usually full-time (35%); a somewhat smaller proportion of children receive

B30 hours (30%). Children below three who receive public daycare in western

Germany are usually part-timers (18%), or visit ‘play groups’ together with their

mothers for a few hours every week (10%). Full-time care is not very common(9%; Table 1, RWI, 2008, pp. 53�54).

According to the findings, fewer children in western Germany are using public

daycare, and if they use it, it is for fewer hours. This finding does not necessarily

mean that gaps in the public provision of daycare are the main reason why the

employment rates of women in western Germany are lower and their part-time rates

are far higher when they have children below six. Instead, it is also possible that

women in western Germany do not want to use public childcare to a greater extent

and with longer caring times. In that case, differences in the use of public childcarewould largely also reflect differences in women’s cultural orientations in relation to

childcare. Therefore, the specific preferences of women with children 0�3 years of age

in relation to childcare have also been compared. Data from a representative survey

for the Family Ministry that was conducted in 2008 (RWI, 2008) have been analysed.

Table 1 shows that the demand for public daycare is far higher in eastern than in

western Germany.

The great majority of mothers of young children in each part of Germany is

satisfied with the current provision of childcare. If mothers with children below threein western Germany themselves exclusively care for their own children, this is usually

also the type of childcare that they prefer (34%). The share of those who would prefer

public daycare (42%) is somewhat higher than the share of those who actually use it,

but the difference is not very large (7%). Women in western Germany who prefer

Community, Work & Family 225

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

1:52

04

Oct

ober

201

4

public childcare usually also want to restrict the caring time to half a day (32% out of

42%) or even less (13%); only 10% prefer full-time care (Table 1; Statistisches

Bundesamt & Puch, 2009).

The preferences of women in eastern Germany are clearly different. Theproportion of those who prefer public daycare is considerably higher (59%) than

in the west (42%). Also, the share of those who prefer full-time daycare is higher

(17%). This finding indicates that the main reason why the majority of women in

western Germany work part-time is not that public childcare is not available: they

voluntarily decide to stay at home for half the day to spend time with their children.

Among women in eastern Germany, exclusive care by parents is clearly less

popular than in western Germany (20% vs 34%). However, a smaller share of women

in eastern Germany would prefer less public childcare and to be able to care for theirchildren themselves, particularly among those who are using full-time public

childcare (Table 1). In this regard, economic differences seem to hinder these women

from availing the more family-related types of employment that they would prefer.

We can conclude from these findings that cultural value orientations concerning a

‘good childhood’ exert an influence on behaviour and, to some rather minor degree,

also economic differences.

Differences in the availability of full-time jobs

The proportion of women who are working part-time is clearly higher in western

than in eastern Germany. Also, women’s part-time employment comprises on the

average only 22.5 hours per week in western Germany, whereas it is 28 hours perweek in eastern Germany. Part-time working women in western Germany usually do

so voluntarily, and not because they had no other options in the labour market. Only

5% gave priority to part-time employment because they did not find a full-time job.

Most women with children who are working part-time in western Germany say that

this is because of family reasons (79%). This is different in eastern Germany, where

women more often work part-time involuntarily. More than half (55%) of all part-

time working women in eastern Germany accepted part-time work only as a second-

best solution after they did not find full-time employment. The share of women whosay that they work part-time because of family reasons is much lower in eastern

Germany (29%; see Table 1).

As the analyses of women’s preferences in relation to provision of public childcare

have shown, a much higher proportion of women in western Germany prefer part-

time to full-time care. Therefore, deficiencies in full-time public care are not the main

reason why so many women in western Germany prefer part-time to full-time

employment when they have children below six years of age.

Differences in the support by the child’s father

Some authors argue that differences in the contribution of fathers of newborn children

can also explain differences in the labour market behaviour of women in eastern andwestern Germany. Hofmeister et al. (2009) found that men in eastern Germany are

somewhat more oriented towards doing childcare than men in western Germany.

However, the share of fathers of dependent children who are fully integrated into

waged work differs only slightly between both parts of Germany (east 93%, west

226 B. Pfau-Effinger and M. Smidt

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

1:52

04

Oct

ober

201

4

95%).There are also only minor differences in the share of fathers who take paternity

leave: 14.9% in the west and 17.2% in the east in 2007 (Statistisches Bundesamt,

2008b). Differences in the contribution of the child’s father to family childcare,

therefore, can only be a minor contribution to explaining the differences in the

employment behaviour of women with children below six.

Differences in relation to gender culture

Clear differences in the preferences of women with preschool children towards

childcare and working time in both parts of Germany have been found. A higher

proportion of women in western Germany prefer care exclusively by the child’s

parents, or a restriction of caring times in public childcare to part-time. Also, a much

higher proportion of western German women is working part-time voluntarily.

Women in eastern Germany are clearly more oriented towards employment and

public childcare � and in that case full-time care.

We now analyse how far these differences are connected with differences in the

cultural value orientation in East and West Germany. According to the data of the

Eurobarometer in 2006 (see Table 2), people in western and eastern Germany differ

in their opinions about the ‘adequate’ and ‘good’ gender division of labour in the

family. The majority of people in the west support the traditional cultural values of

the division of labour between the (employed) male breadwinner on the one hand

and the caring mother on the other (54%). This value orientation is shared by a

similar proportion of women and men (52% women, 55% men; RWI, 2008), and all

age groups of the adult population below 65 appreciate this model to about an equal

degree (18�30 years of age: 47%; 31�45 years of age: 49%; and 46�65 years of age:

50%; Dittmann & Scheuer, 2007, p. 35).

This model is much less popular in eastern Germany (20%; Table 2). In a

European perspective, eastern Germany is even among those countries in which the

share of the population is highest who reject this traditional family model (Dittmann

Table 2. Differences in cultural value orientations in relation to the employment of mothers

between West and East Germany.

Item

West

Germany

East

Germany

Values in relation to the employment of mothers of children

below six and the parental division of laboura

A man’s job is to earn money; a woman’s job is to look after the

home and family

54 20

All in all, family life suffers when the woman has a full-time job 72 34

Values regarding the well-being of childrena

A working mother can establish just as warm and secure a

relationship with her children as a mother who does not work

75 93

A pre-school child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works

(strongly agree/agree)

60 23

a‘agree’ and ‘fully agree’.Source: Data from Eurobarometer 2006, Population 18 years old and older, weighted, after Dittmann andScheuer, 2007.

Community, Work & Family 227

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

1:52

04

Oct

ober

201

4

& Scheuer, 2007, p. 35). It would, therefore, be misleading to interpret the difference

in the popular value orientation in eastern Germany simply as a reflection of the

higher provision of public daycare. It seems, instead, that the cultural value of gender

equality is more deeply ingrained in the gender culture of eastern Germany

compared to western Germany and forms much more of the guideline of institutional

settings and behaviour.

The cultural values about a ‘good childhood’ differ as well (Table 2). Although

most people in western Germany accept that women orient their life-planning

towards professional qualifications and continuous participation in the labour force,

it is a common assumption that a preschool child needs care by her mother in the

first few years. The majority of people in western Germany think that a preschool

child suffers if her mother is employed (60%), whereas this belief is less common in

eastern Germany (23%). This opinion is strongly supported, even though 40% of

children below three years of age are in public daycare (Table 2).These cultural differences contribute to explain why the employment patterns of

mothers with children below six differ between both parts of Germany to a

substantial extent, and that they are even more relevant than differences in the public

provision of childcare. Economic factors also contribute to some degree to explain

why the differences in employment behaviour of women were maintained in both

parts of Germany.

Conclusion

Even if family policies of the central welfare state have been the same in eastern and

western Germany during the last 20 years, the employment patterns of women with

preschool children differ systematically in the two regions. It has been shown that

this is because, in their behaviour regarding employment vis-a-vis childcare, women

with young children in eastern Germany still use their options in a different way from

mothers in western Germany. The main question of this article is how the differences

can be explained.

Differences in the employment patterns of women with young children between

both parts of Germany can largely be explained by the path-dependent development

of two gender arrangements in each part of Germany after it was divided into two

separate states in 1949. In each of these arrangements, a different cultural family

model is dominant and has developed in a path-dependent way. After unification,

only the more family-oriented employment pattern that was dominant for a long

time in western Germany was promoted by the central welfare state. Nevertheless,

women in eastern Germany did not adapt their behaviour to this pattern, even if the

labour market was in deep crisis. This was largely a consequence of the ‘longue duree’

of a more employment-oriented family model in eastern Germany, together with an

institutional and economic framework that has contributed to stabilising this

behaviour for a long time. As a reaction to cuts in public childcare, parents’

organisations put strong pressure against these cutbacks and were very successful

(Opielka, 2002). Until today, we find a different system of childcare institutions and

of cultural values towards childcare in western and eastern Germany, even if both

parts of Germany do not have a separate government and institutional system at the

macro-level.

228 B. Pfau-Effinger and M. Smidt

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

1:52

04

Oct

ober

201

4

As it was shown, it is possible that some factors can contribute to stabilising and

strengthening the role of a specific gender culture, like the unfavourable economic

conditions in eastern Germany, particularly in the first decade after unification.

Another factor was the higher availability of public care facilities. This was clearly

also a consequence of the orientation of the majority of women to the dual

breadwinner/state care model after unification. On the other hand, some conditions

can also restrict the realisation of the dominant cultural family model(s). This was

(and still is, to some extent) the case with public provision of daycare in western

Germany.

If the impact of family policies on the behaviour of large groups of the population

is examined in a comparative perspective, it has to be done in its societal context.

Cultural, economic, social, and institutional factors interact in different (and

sometimes also contradictory) ways in framing women’s employment behaviour.

Thus, the social practices of relevant social groups � as in the example of the eastern

German region discussed here � can in part differ from the aims of state family

policies, whether these refer to more traditional, more innovative or, as in this case,

to partial cultural ideals about the family.

Notes

1. To differentiate between the two different German states during 40 years of separation,the terms ‘former East German state’ and ‘former West German state’ are used, and foridentifying both parts of Germany after unification ‘eastern Germany’ and ‘westernGermany’ are used.

2. It would be useful to also include here the development of the participation rates ofwomen in the labour force in relation to the age of children for both parts of Germany.However, these data are not part of the official statistics.

3. Culture is defined here as: ‘the system of collective constructions of sense by which peopledefine reality, that complex of general ideas by which they distinguish what is important ornot, what is true or wrong, what is good or bad, beautiful or ugly’ (Neidhard, 1986, p. 11).This ‘complex of general ideas’ consists of values and models.

4. An alternative option, much less used, was to receive a higher benefit of 450 euros permonth for one year.

5. If parents choose parental leave of two years, they get half of the monthly pay.6. Those parents who were not active in the labour force before the child was born still get

300 euros per month on the basis of a means-test in relation to their household income.Unemployed parents receive the benefit for at maximum one year.

Notes on contributors

Birgit Pfau-Effinger is a Full Professor of Sociology at the University of Hamburg andDirector of the Research Institute ‘Centre for Globalisation and Governance’ at the Faculty ofEconomics and Social Sciences. Her main fields of research include cross-national differencesof welfare states, family policies, gender arrangements, undeclared work, childcare and elderlycare, and the cultural and structural forces underlying such differences. Her publicationsinclude 14 books and more than 90 scholarly articles and chapters with articles ininternational journals like British Journal of Sociology, British Journal of Industrial Relations,Comparative Social Research, Environment and Planning A, European Societies, Innovation: theEuropean Journal of Social Sciences, Journal of Social Policy, Social Policy & Administration,Social Politics, and Work, Employment and Society.

Maike Smidt has finished her Master in Sociology and is a Doctoral Student in Sociology atthe Institute for Sociology of the University of Hamburg. She is working as a researcher in a

Community, Work & Family 229

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

1:52

04

Oct

ober

201

4

research project on ‘Tensions Related to Care Work’ in the Framework of the Network ofExcellence ‘Reconciling Work and Welfare in European Societies’ (RECWOWE), which iscoordinated by Denis Bouget, University of Nantes.

References

Adler, M.A. (1997). Social change and decline in marriage and fertility in Eastern Germany.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59(1), 37�49.

Archer, M.S. (1996). Culture and agency: The place of culture in social theory. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Bundesministerium fur Familie, Senioren, Frauen u. Jugend (BMFSFJ) [Federal Ministry ofFamily, Seniors, Women and Youth]. (2008). Elterngeldbericht. Bericht uber die Auswirkun-gen des Bundeselterngeld-und Elternzeitgesetzes sowie uber die gegebenenfalls notwendigeWeiterentwicklung [Report on childcare benefits. Report on the impact of the Federal Lawon childcare benefits and childcare time]. Berlin: Author.

Dittmann, J., & Scheuer, A. (2007). Berufstatigkeit von Muttern bleibt kontrovers:Einstellungen zur Vereinbarkeit von Beruf und Familie in Deutschland und Europa[Employment of mothers still contested]. Informationsdienst Soziale Indikatoren [Informa-tion Service Social Indicators], 38, 1�5.

Dolling, I. (2000). Ganz neue Inhalte werden im Vordergrund stehen: Die Arbeit zuerst,Erfahrungen junger ostdeutscher Frauen mit dem Vereinbarkeitsmodell (1990�1997)[Totally new contents will be in the centre: Work first, experiences of young easternGerman women with the reconciliation model, 1990�1997]. In I. Lenz, H.M. Nickel &B. Riegraf (Eds.), Geschlecht, Arbeit, Zukunft [Gender, work, future] (pp. 222�242).Munster: Westfalisches Dampfboot.

Frericks, P. (2010). Capitalist welfare societies? Trade-off between economic efficiencyand social solidarity. European Societies, 13(5), 719�741.

Goebel, J.F., Frick, J., Grabka, R., & Markus, M. (2009). Preisunterschiede mildernEinkommensgefalle zwischen West und Ost [Price differences reduce the income differencesbetween West and East], nos. 51�52. Berlin: Wochenbericht des DIW [German Institute forEconomic Research].

Hagemann, K. (2006). Between ideology and economy: The time politics of child care andpublic education in the two Germanys. Social Politics, 13(2), 217�260.

Henninger, A., Wimbauer, C., & Dombrowski, R. (2008). Demography as a push towardgender equality? Current reforms of German family policy. Social Politics, 15(3), 287�314.

Hofmeister, H., Baur, N., & Rohler, A. (2009). Versorgen oder Fursorgen? Vorstellungen derDeutschen von den Aufgaben eines guten Vaters [Ideas of the Germans about the tasks of agood father]. In P.-I. Villa & B. Thiessen (Eds.), Mutter-vater: Diskurse, Medien, Praxen[Mothers-fathers. Discourses, media, practices] (pp. 135�154). Munster: Verlag Westfa-lisches Dampfboot.

Holst, E. (2000). Die ‘Stille Reserve’ des Arbeitsmarktes [Hidden unemployment in Germany].Opladen: Leske und Budrich.

Kaufmann, F.X. (1995). Zukunft der Familie im vereinten Deutschland. [Future of the family inthe united Germany]. Schriftenreihe des Bundeskanzleramtes [Series of the Office of theGerman Chancellor], Bd. 16. Munchen: Beck.

Klauder, W. (1994). Tendenzen und Bedeutung der Frauenerwerbsarbeit heute und morgen[Trends and role of women’s employment today and tomorrow]. In P. Beckmann &G. Engelbrech (Eds.), Arbeitsmarkt fur Frauen 2000 [Labour Market for Women 2000](pp. 32�55). Nurnberg: IAB.

Konietzka, D., & Kreyenfeld, M. (2002). Women’s employment and non-marital childbearing:A comparison between East and West Germany in the 1990s. Population-E, 57(2), 331�358.

Konietzka, D., & Kreyenfeld, M. (2005). Nichteheliche Mutterschaft und soziale Ungleichheitim familialistischen Wohlfahrtsstaat: Zur soziookonomischen Differenzierung der Famil-ienformen in Ost- und Westdeutschland [Non-marital motherhood and social inequality inthe familialistic welfare state: the socio-economic differentiation of family forms in Easternand Western Germany]. Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 57(1), 32�61.

230 B. Pfau-Effinger and M. Smidt

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

1:52

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Kreckel, R., & Schenk, S. (2000). Full-time or part-time: The contradictory integration of theEast German female labor force in Unified Germany. In V.W. Marshall, W.R. Heinz,H. Krueger & A. Verma (Eds.), Restructuring work and the life-course (pp. 167�195).Toronto: Toronto University Press.

Kreyenfeld, M., & Geisler, E. (2006). Muttererwerbstatigkeit in Ost- und Westdeutschland[Mother’s employment in East and West Germany]. Zeitschrift fur Familienforschung, 18(3),333�360.

Lee, K.S., Alwin, D., & Tufis, P.A. (2007). Beliefs about women’s labour in the ReunifiedGermany, 1991�2004. European Sociological Review, 23(4), 487�503.

Mayer, K.U., Diewald, M., & Solga, H. (1999). Transitions to post-communism in EastGermany: Worklife mobility of women and men between 1989 and 1993. Acta Sociologica,41(1), 35�53.

Neidhard, F., Lepsius, R.M., & Weiss, J. (Eds.) (1986). Kultur und Gesellschaft [Culture andsociety]. Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 5, 5�28.

Obertreis, G. (1986). Familienpolitik in der DDR 1945�1980 [Family policies in the former EastGerman State 1945�1980]. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.

Opielka, M. (2002). Familie und Beruf: Eine deutsche Geschichte [Family and occupation. AGerman story]. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 22�23, 49�66.

Pfau-Effinger, B. (1998). Gender cultures and the gender arrangement: A theoreticalframework for cross-national comparisons on gender. Innovation: The European Journalof Social Sciences, 11, 147�166.

Pfau-Effinger, B. (2004). Development of culture, welfare states and women’s employment inEurope. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Pfau-Effinger, B. (2005a). Culture and welfare state policies: Reflections on a complexinterrelation. Journal of Social Policy, 34(1), 1�18.

Pfau-Effinger, B. (2005b). Welfare state policies and the development of care arrangements.European Societies, 7, 321�347.

Pfau-Effinger, B. (2009). Varieties of undeclared work in European societies. British Journal ofIndustrial Relations, 47, 79�99.

Pfau-Effinger, B., & Geissler, B. (2002). Cultural change and family policies in East and WestGermany. In A.D. Carling, S.S. Duncan & R. Edwards (Eds.), Analyzing families: Moralityand rationality in policy and practice (pp. 67�89). London: Routledge.

Rheinisch-Westfalisches Institut fur Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI). (2008). Evaluation desGesetzes zum Elterngeld und zur Elternzeit: Forschungsvorhaben des Bundesministeriumsfur Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend [Evaluation of the law on childcare benefits andchildcare time: Research project of the Federal Ministry of Family, Seniors, Women andYouth]. Essen: Author.

Rosenfeld, R., Trappe, H., & Gornick, J.C. (2004). Gender and work in Germany: Before andafter reunification. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 103�124.

Scheuer, A., & Dittmann, J. (2007). Berufstatigkeit von Muttern bleibt kontrovers:Einstellungen zur Vereinbarkeit von Beruf und Familie in Deutschland und Europa[Employment of mothers remains contested: attitudes towards the reconciliation ofemployment and family in Germany and Europe]. Informationsdienst Soziale Indikatoren(ISI), 38, 1�4.

Sommerkorn, I. (1988). Die erwerbstatige Mutter in der Bundesrepublik: Einstellungs undProblemveranderungen [The employed mother in Germany: Change of attitudes andproblems]. In I. Nave-Herz (Ed.), Wandel und Kontinuitat der Familie in der BundesrepublikDeutschland [Change and continuity of the family in Germany] (pp. 115�144). Frankfurt:Leske & Budrich.

Spieß, C.K., Berger, E., & Groh-Samberg, O. (2008). Die offentlich geforderte Bildungs undBetreuungsinfrastruktur in Deutschland: Eine okonomische Analyse regionaler und nutzer-gruppenspezifischer Unterschiede [The publicly financed infrastructure of education and carein Germany: An economic analyses of regional and user group specific differences](Innocenti Working Paper 2008-03). Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

Statistik der Bundesagentur fur Arbeit [Statistics of the Federal Labour Office]. (2009).Analyse des Arbeitsmarktes fur Frauen und Manner [Analysis of the labour market ofwomen and men] February 2009, Nurnberg: BA.

Community, Work & Family 231

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

1:52

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Statistisches Bundesamt [Federal Office of Statistics]. (2008a). Mikrozensus, Fachserie 1, Reihe3, 2007: Bevolkerung und Erwerbstatigkeit, Haushalte und Familien [Micro Census, Series 1,3, 2007: Population and employment, households and families]. Wiesbaden: Author.

Statistisches Bundesamt [Federal Office of Statistics]. (2008b). Offentliche Sozialleistungen:Statistik zum Elterngeld, Elterngeld fur Geburten 2007 [Public social benefits: Statistics ofchildcare benefits, childcare benefits after birth 2007]. Wiesbaden: Author.

Statistisches Bundesamt [Federal Office of Statistics]. (2010). Alles beim Alten: Mutter stellenErwerbstatigkeit hinten an [Everything as always: Mothers give low priority to employment].Retrieved from http://www.destatiss.de/jetspreed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Content/Publikationen

Statistisches Bundesamt [Federal Office of Statistics], & Puch, K. (2009). FrauendomaneTeilzeitarbeit: Wunsch oder Notlosung? [Women’s domain part-time work: Preference orobligation?], Statmagazin. Wiesbaden: Author.

232 B. Pfau-Effinger and M. Smidt

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

1:52

04

Oct

ober

201

4