EC Social Agenda and ECE work

The unmet Barcelona targets on
childcare: the end of the story?
Care: between work and welfare
Ewa Ruminska - Zimny, Warsaw School of Economics, Poland
Expert Conference Accompanying the Informal Meeting of Ministers for
Family and Gender Equality
20-21 October 2011, Cracow
Female factor in Europe 2020: beyond
employment targets
Quantity argument – source of new labour (except
migration) in aging societies
 Quality argument - diversity in innovation,
production and management („Lehman Brothers and
Sisters”, „pink computer” case)
 Allocation argument – better use of human resources
(women have 66% share in tertiary education and
only 1/3 senior positions)

Barcelona targets: a condition to mobilize the
female factor

Lack of affortable services -- a reason why almost 1/3 of
women with care responsibilities are inactive/or work part-time
 „Employment first then childbearing” –two models: (1) more
work - more babies (Northern E); (2) less work –less babies
(Eastern and Southern Europe)
 Barcelona is only half of women’s unpaid work – care for the
elderly (no targets)
 Regional aspects: women’s employment and unpaid care in
depressed regions (more SMEs, tourism, social innovation –
case of old industrial region in Silesia Poland)
Why concerns on „the end of the story”?




Slow progress in work-family reconcilliation: how effective is
the EU gender architecture
Problems with policy space (fiscal and monetary)
Short-term -- the crisis made worst (usual) tensions between
Mastricht criteria and social spendings; exchange rate
constraints (Eurozone); austerity measures incl. planned
conditionality in releasing funds for depressed regions (link
EU regional policy - country’s public debt)
Longer term: pressure of aging on welfare systems (a reversal
of the postwar baby boom – „Santa Claus” effect is over)
EU gender architecture: pushing for
progress






Progressive legislation: EU Directives over national laws
Legal obligation to mainstream gender into national policies
and all EU strategies and policies (Treaty of Amsterdam 1977)
Gender strategies (Road Maps, Strategy for equality between
men and women 2010-2015, Pact for Gender Equality 20112020 )
Monitoring employment (Lisbon, Europe 2020) and child care
(Barcelona 2002) targets, reporting, peer pressure
Substantive improvement of gender dissegregated data (labour
market, public expenditure, time –use etc)
Complience with the acqui a condition for the EU
membership
Mixed evidence in terms of implementation
and funding





Gender equality in preambles (as core value), but de facto
marginalized in strategies and initiatives (Europe 2020,
European Recovery Plan, Cohesion Policy)
Remains outside policy priorities (except female employment)
to build a new Europe through intelligent (inovation, R&D,
education), sustainable (SMEs, green economy) and inclusive
growth
European Regional Development Fund: equal opportunities as
a horizontal priority –but only 8% of gender related
programmes had specific strategy, budget and quantified
targets (2000-2006)
European Social Fund --only 7% of financing went on equality
measures incl. reconciliation (2000-2006); EQUAL --15%
Structural funds: challenges for 2013-2020
budget






5th Cohesion Report – a base for negotiating the budget 20132020 supporting Europe 2020 -- has only some reference to
gender isolated from the rest of the report
Gender discused under well-being (with reference to women’s
contribution to growth)
No links between gender equality and the analysis of sources
of growth, human capital and national policies (ch. I and II)
No data -- only one map shows men-women data (tertiary
education) out of 108 maps, 78 figures and 10 tables
How to mainstream gender equalty into structural funds in
2013-2020 (distribute over 1/3 of the EU budget) ?
Especially now when countries call for cuts and focused
actions on infrastructure (energy, green economy)
Female factor: why mainstreaming is „lost in
translation”?





Equality is still seen as a „social” cost to growth despite
advancing the economic case for gender equality (Swedish
Presidency:2009)
Economic case is not sufficient to fill the „translation gap”
Economists and gender „people” (finance – social ministries)
use different frameworks, concepts and language; they have
also different objectives and priorities
We need a common „roof” to bring them together provided by a
broader heterodox/feminist economics framework
And more women in economic decision making – now rarely
above 35% in Parliaments; 10% Board members public
companies, no women as a Governor of central bank
Traditional mind set of economists: a
problem




Shaped by concepts, institutions and policies based on classical
economics (excludes domestic/unpaid sector, assumes free of
charge reproduction of labour)
It reflects men’s contribution to GDP (that of women is largely
undermined due to unpaid care work) and men’s preferences in
its distribution (infrastructure/football stadiums over
kindergardens)
Economists have thus conceptual and practical problems
(models) to include unpaid work/caring into strategies
And to revise objectives and priorities -- they wait to „have
money” (GDP growth) to cover „the costs” of the Barcelona
targets
Investing in care for job creation and growth




Investing in child care as growth factor– well known argument
in the context of developing countries – still new in Europe
Deficit of formal care in Europe -- over 50% (EU average)
and up to 70% children and close to 60% (EU average) and up
to 90 % of elderly cared by parents/family (www.mpis.gov.pl)
A shift from unpaid to paid care creates new jobs
(grandmother „by hours”), increases female participation rates
and tax base (public finanse), promotes growth (incl. through
multiplier effect)
And improves well-being of children and elderly
Job creation through investing in care: a
study from US)




Objective – compare job creation potential of investments in
social care services (early childhood development; home based
health care) as opposed to infrastructure, construction and
energy (Antonopoulos 2010 www.levyinstitute.org)
Methodology: macro level (input-output analysis- 2006 US
table) combined with micro-simulation model
Results: 50 bln $ investment in care would bring twice as
many jobs (1.2 mln) as investments in infrastructure (556
mln) --- in addition to more equitable distribution of new jobs
Importance for of such approach at local and regional levels –
helping depressed regions, comunities and vulnerable groups
Good practices




GEM- IWG – an international network of economists
established in 1994– and its work on Knowledge Networking
and Capacity Building for Gender Sensitive Macroeconomic
Research and Policy www.genderandmacro.org
Since 2003 organizes global and regional workshops/Summer
Schools on gender aspects of macroeconomic theory and
practice (fiscal and monetary, trade, employment, care,
globalization)
First GEM –Europe Workshop, hosted by the Istanbul
Technical University (2011); next, to be hosted by the Warsaw
School of Economics and Jagiellonian University (Cracow,
July 2012)
Good practices cont.
WINNET 8 promoting women’s role in innovation,
technology and entrepreneurship through Women’s
Resource Centers (8 countries- 9 regions), one of
only 2 gender pojects financed by Interreg IVC
www.winnet8.eu
 Polish Presidency main theme – reconciliation of
work and family (Report –www.mpis.gov.pl),
International Congress of Polish Women (17-18
October 2011) www.kongreskobiet.pl

The impact of the crisis

Need to rethink policy framework, economic governance and
„best” policy mix; addressing structural causes of the crisis
 And challenge a common perception that economics is gender
neutral -- space for feminist economics
 New textbooks on economics will have to adjust to new
(heterodox) reality -- ageing, work-family balance, costs of
reproduction of labour and central role of care sector
 Objectives and new measures of progress– OECD better life
index multi-dimensional includes work-family balance
Conclusions



The crisis is a wake up call that Europe cannot affort to waste
women’s economic potential in planning short- and long-term
recovery in ageing societies
This requires a broader policy framework based on a hetrodox
approach to economics to include unpaid work into economic
theory and practice – only then the Barcelona targets and other
reconcilliation measures will fall into place and will be
sustained financially
We need also a platform for a dialogue between ECOFIN
(Ministers of Finance) – EPSCO (Ministers of Labour, Social
Affairs, Health incl. gender, Barcelona targets) to jointly work
on the current crisis in Europe and beyond
Thank you

[email protected]