C Explanatory
memorandum by Mr Luca Volontè, rapporteurNote
1 Introduction
1. The revised European Social Charter stipulates that
“the family as a fundamental unit of society has the right to appropriate
social, legal and economic protection to ensure its full development”
(Article 16). The rapporteur takes the view that the family is a
powerful factor and driving force for social cohesion and development.
The relationship between family and society is mutual, self-sustaining
and empowering: a strong family is a fundamental asset for a good
society and a cohesive and “family-friendly” society is necessary
for the well-being of families.
2. The Council of Europe Revised Strategy for Social Cohesion
stresses that the family is where social cohesion is first experienced
and learnt and that any social cohesion strategy should seek to
be supportive of families, while fully respecting the autonomy of
the private sphere. The rapporteur therefore acknowledges that the
bonds and relationships within the family should be designated as
a domain of public policy and that the utmost should be done to
create the requisite conditions for its well-being and development.
3. The family constitutes a primary, original and irreplaceable
social relationship which represents a fundamental resource providing
indispensable types of public and common assets. It develops innumerable social
functions and, according to recent European surveys, it represents
an important and stable value for European citizens.
Note The family provides
multiple types of support for its members throughout its specific
life cycle, particularly in times of social and economic crisis.
4. Owing to its properties (the structure and quality of its
relationships) and capacities (of mediation between individuals
and society), the family and its kinship network is the main social
structure capable of alleviating much of the negative impact of
the economic and social downturn and recession, especially in terms of
increasing unemployment, job and financial insecurity, mortgage
repayments, family indebtedness and poverty.
5. The rapporteur believes that in a complex and changing society,
support and legal protection for families in fulfilling their functions
are critical and should be at the top of the political agenda in
all member states. Solidarity, mutual trust, the ability to give
freely mutual responsibilities, the ability to care for others,
that is, the family “social capital”, are personal virtues that
are initially generated within the family and then transmitted to society.
6. The Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible
for Family Affairs on Public Policies Supporting the Wish to Have
Children: Societal, Economic and Personal Factors, organised on
16 and 17 June 2009 in Vienna, offered an opportunity for the rapporteur
to gain a better insight into the recent developments and the main
challenges of family policies in the Council of Europe member states.
The Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee also organised a
hearing with Professor Linda Hantrais in London on 11 June 2009 to
develop its reflections on this subject.
2 Family
restructuring in Europe
7. The rapporteur identified a variety of relevant changes
in the family life and structure In Europe. Actually, the family
as a living system has always adapted to social change and new developments
and new challenges for the family are emerging.
8. Trends such as population decline and ageing, increased diversity
of family living arrangements, the impact of new gender roles on
family life and higher female participation in the labour market
exist in all European countries, albeit with variations within and
between them.
9. The rapporteur notes that the rate and pace of these changes
vary greatly between and within countries. The present-day structure
of the family includes a variety of settings in which children are
brought up and cared for (for example, single-parent families, reconstituted
families, families of multi-ethnic origin, heterosexual and homosexual
unions, civil unions).
10. Despite major differences between countries, the rapporteur
believes that it is possible to forecast some general features of
family structuring and restructuring in Europe, as follows:
10.1 the number of households will
probably further rise, due to the increase in single-person households,
falling birth rates and to processes of family disruption. At the
same time, there will be a prospective increase in numbers of step-families,
remarriages and new types of families;
10.2 nuclear and heterosexual families will likely remain the
main forms of combining parenthood with conjugality and will reorganise
themselves in new ways, but other forms of publicly recognised and socially
accepted family life will also develop;
10.3 family relationships will become more fluid and family
make-ups will probably change more frequently over individual lifetimes;
all in all, the great majority of European people are likely to
live their lives more or less in a “family context”;
10.4 the culture of egalitarian family arrangements and fair
division of labour will be further promoted, giving rise to new
gender roles;
10.5 parent-child interactions and educational activities will
be increasingly promoted and in younger families, parents will try
to spend more time with their children;
10.6 the demographic profile of Europe will result in a growing
proportion of elderly people. Intergenerational ties will remain
important, with grandparents playing a key role in providing informal care
and supporting dual-earner families;
10.7 a possible change in the balance between immigration and
emigration will have a dramatic impact on family issues, with radical
implications for public services and the role of the family in society;
10.8 broadly speaking, family wealth may increase, driven up
by a rise in the number of dual-earner families. However, not all
families will benefit equally from this growth, especially the more
vulnerable families, namely unemployed households, lone-parent families,
single-earner households and families with disabled or dependent
members or with more than two children;
10.9 services, especially health and social services, will
be increasingly important. This increasing demand can only be met
by networking and ensuring the co-operation of public, private and
civil organisations;
10.10 social services will move on from an assistance approach
to a culture of subsidiarity and personal development; the treatment
of social relations or of individuals in relation to others will
be the new focus for social and health services, sustaining the
“social bond” required for a cohesive society.
11. In the rapporteur’s view the growing importance of the quality
of family relationships, both conjugal and parental, is clearly
emerging as a new issue for scientific and political debate; its
internal “social capital” will have a greater effect on later events
than the mere legal structure of the family.
12. This family “social capital” can be sustained and promoted
by direct and indirect social policies run not only by the state
but also by the private sector, voluntary and non-profit organisations
and family associations.
3 Different national
paths and the emergence of new family policy models
13. Many researchers have tried to model European “family
policies”. Today, consensus has been reached on the difficulty of
securing a simple approach to this field of analysis. The rapporteur
is of the opinion that there are two potentially conflicting and
interconnected policy processes: a. the continuous differentiation
of national policy paths; and b. the need for a new European political
pattern, based on the idea of linking up personal and family responsibilities,
individual and family rights, personal and family subjectivity.
In this section the rapporteur shall be dealing with the former
issue.
14. Each national structure and culture vis-à-vis family policies
stresses a specific central issue, thus supporting a certain idea
or vision of the family. Below are some well-known examples.
Note
14.1 In Sweden (and more generally
in the Nordic countries), family policy was first framed in the
early 20th century when social reforms were advocated to bring about
a new society based on social solidarity and the vision of a “home
for the people” (folkhemmet).
In the early 1970s, Swedish family policy began strongly emphasising
a dual-earner/dual-carer family model, which was also geared to
strengthening gender equality. Various complementary social programmes
coexist, such as widespread availability of subsidised childcare,
generous parental leave and equal employment legislation. Policy
focuses on individual rights and gender equality. There are no specific,
direct policies for the family per se.
14.2 Family policies in France target multiple goals such as
encouraging parents (especially mothers) to become and remain involved
in gainful employment, tackling social inequality, maintaining a
high fertility rate and lowering levels of (child) poverty. Several
policy measures continue to contribute to this, such as the long-standing
and well-established preschool system (école
maternelle). There seems to be widespread cultural support
for public expenditure for children and large families. Policy orientation
is towards la famille, conceived
as a social good; however, the individualistic trend is also developing
ever faster.
14.3 In early 2007, the Russian Government launched a new national
reform to boost fertility rates and increase the well-being of families
with children. The so-called “maternity capital” was designed to encourage
multiple births. From 2010 onwards, mothers will have access to
new opportunities, such as purchasing accommodation, covering educational
costs and increasing pension savings. This family policy reform
includes municipal vouchers for childcare and preschool facilities,
equality bonuses to encourage fathers to take parental leave and
childcare allowances.
14.4 From the late 1990s onwards, the discussions on the direction
which German family policy could or should take were strongly dominated
by the dilemma of encouraging young couples to have children, while
reducing the costs of childbearing for mothers. The declining competitiveness
of the German economy also triggered a discourse linking a new family
policy with economic growth, a higher fertility rate and greater
prosperity. Policies are basically centred on the family relationship,
emphasising subsidiarity and the role of civil society organisations.
14.5 Tackling child poverty has been central to recent family
policies in the United Kingdom. Getting more parents into work has
been one of the government’s main means of combating child poverty.
Lone parents, who constitute the family type that most risks poverty,
have been specifically targeted by these measures. The United Kingdom
has also prioritised parenting in its social exclusion and criminal
justice agendas and clearly considers the promotion of good parenting
as a key tool in fostering social cohesion. In order to increase
employment rates, various measures have been introduced to reconcile
parenting and paid employment. All in all, rather than any specific
family policy, a range of policies have been implemented to target
significant strands of family and individual well-being, as well
as social control.
14.6 In southern Europe, fertility and female workforce participation
rates are generally lower and poverty rates are also higher. These
countries are characterised by a “deficit” of family policies. The volume
of cash benefits for families is very low. Parental leave may be
relatively long but is poorly or not at all remunerated. Portugal
is an exception, with slightly shorter periods of parental leave,
cash benefits specifically targeting low-income families and much
higher proportions of children under the age of three in formal
childcare.
15. Many family policies reviews have found that no clear policy
effects could be attributed either to the welfare regime or to specific
family policy measures. The rapporteur takes the view that if policy
is to effectively pursue social objectives, it must expand choice
in terms of family life. This, in turn, is contingent upon a wide variety
of factors such as: welfare state structures; the wider economic
environment; access to labour markets, remuneration and opportunities
and career development; social and personal time organisation, including flexibility
of working arrangements; dominant societal and cultural norms regarding
the employment of mothers with young children; family living arrangements,
geographical proximity and availability of relatives; perceptions of
the material, social and psychological benefits of employment; the
direct economic, social and opportunity costs of parenting, especially
for women; and individual lifestyle preferences, attitudes and value
systems.
16. The difficulties of observing clear causal effects among policies
and family life and formulating a single European family policy
programme represent only the known side of the problem. The “dark
side” is due to invisible or unclear effects of the current family
policies on lifestyle and population.
17. The rapporteur is aware that there are a number problems arising
from mainstream family policies which latently deconstruct the family
relationship and make it difficult to consider the family as a single
focus for policies, namely:
17.1 growing
discrepancies and contradictions between policy goals: governments
are faced with policy dilemmas which fuel the debate on the legitimacy
and effectiveness of state intervention in the private lives of
families. For instance, incentives to encourage more women to participate
in the labour force can compete with policy measures to curb falling
birth-rates and encourage childbearing;
17.2 the risk that policies promoting flexible working time
and leave arrangements perpetuate gender inequality and may be based
on a simplistic view of “femininity” and “masculinity”. For example, emphasis
is often put on the desire to be employed full-time, if society
provides widespread childcare services, despite evidence of the
willingness to stay at home with the children, especially when they
are very young. Parents usually combine several sources of formal
and informal care, the more so when they have responsibility for
both their children and their own parents;
17.3 the rise of a mother-friendly “workfare”. Although it
is described as “family-friendly”, childcare policy (including services,
parental leaves, etc.) could more aptly be described as “work-friendly”,
since the main objective is to make women available for work when
they have children as a solution to welfare budget deficits and
labour shortages. Another unintended consequence of those policies
is to disregard the status of care work and the balance between
formal and informal work;
Note
17.4 risks of individualism and “genderism”: instead of considering
the family as a social relationship and as the sole target of family
policies, some policies target individuals outside of any relationship, unconnected,
disembodied from their actual context. Individuals are considered
as being within a frame of contemporary gender roles, rather than
as being able to transcend them.
Note
18. Taking these risks into consideration, the rapporteur is also
deeply concerned by the current economic crisis which has undoubtedly
created a generally unfavourable social environment for most families
all over Europe. He believes that it is worth recalling the ways
in which policy makers have responded to a shortage of resources
for financing family policy measures in the past.
4 The impact of the
crisis on families: policy reactions and lessons from the past
19. Global economic crises hit the budgets of many governments.
No research results or analyses of the actual impact of the current
crisis on families in Europe are available so far but the rapporteur
takes the view that it is not difficult to predict some of the consequences.
20. In times of crisis, most governments cut social expenditure
in order to counter severe budgetary deficits. Among the strategies
that many of them have applied in the past are the introduction
of benefit targeting in place of universal family benefit and the
subtler strategy of reducing benefits by omitting to index cash
benefits. High levels of inflation therefore generally led to the
gradual erosion of purchasing power and of the real value of child
benefits.
21. Among other measures implemented have been: entitlement reduction
or possible extension of the duration of entitlement (for example,
parental leave), although not paid and/or not guaranteeing a return
to one’s former job; a decrease in wage compensation; and abolishing
certain benefits or former price subsidies for goods consumed particularly
by children and families.
22. Some governments have introduced a compensation benefit or
an income threshold for entitlement. A move from universal child
benefits (horizontal redistribution) towards more targeted benefit
allocation, or means-tested benefits (stressing vertical redistribution)
reflected the pressure on government budgets and the need to reform
their social protection systems, as well as the growing concern
to tackle increased poverty levels.
Note
23. At the same time, other measures or benefits have also been
introduced: provisions for large families are one example, or extending
coverage to additional categories of citizens/residents, such as
entitlement to insurance-based maternity benefit for uninsured mothers,
pregnancy benefits for uninsured student mothers, the right to parental
leave for full-time students, parental benefit for all uninsured
mothers, coverage of child benefits, which long came under social
insurance, being gradually extended to families outside formal employment
as increasing levels of unemployment have eroded the coverage, more
flexible types of leave arrangements or the introduction of additional
types.
24. The rapporteur observes that even in times of socio-economic
hardship, governments not only remove or reduce certain benefits
but may also introduce or increase other types. They may also reorganise
the systems governing such services between the state and private
and social providers. This clearly expresses the different kinds
of objectives that policy makers are pursuing by means of their
family policy measures.
5 The family as a
social and cohesive capital: the relevance of relationship quality
for its members and for society
25. Given the new economic situation and the paradoxical
effects that mainstream family policies have on the population,
the rapporteur calls for a different vision of the family and of
the social policies needed in times of crisis. In this regard he
wishes to draw attention to the added value of the family relationships.
26. The family is a social institution which is important not
only for the well-being of its members but also for societal, economic,
political, civic, cultural and other public reasons.
27. In the rapporteur’s view, what really counts in a family is
the quality of relations among its members and between them and
society. The way in which members of the family behave towards one
another, namely generously, confidently, reciprocally, supportively,
altruistically, fairly, or not as the case may be, generates what
we can call “family subjectivity” and strongly influences the way
in which the family performs its social functions.
28. One can distinguish four different functions of the family
which are relevant both to its member and to society:
28.1 economic and instrumental functions:
creating labour force, employment, entrepreneurship and therefore
economic growth and development, that is, creating economic capital;
28.2 educational and enabling functions: caring for children
and the elderly, nurturing newborn babies, supervising and educating
children, supporting and helping elderly people, helping family
members to fulfil their potential in life, preparing young people
for positive entry into society, that is, generating and regenerating
human capital;
28.3 cohesive and integrative function: working on community
development, creating strong social ties and bonds, bridging and
bonding between different communities, providing inter-generational
and informal support between the family and other relations, creating
and transmitting social capital and generating social inclusion.
This social capital is connected with the production of such social
assets as academic achievement for children, reduction of crime
rates, reduction of neighbourhood problems, internalisation of civic
virtues, participation in public life, promotion of trust, etc.;
28.4 cultural and expressive functions: generation and regeneration
of cultural capital and identity assets, such as risk-sharing between
partners and children, personality formation, caring relationships, a
sense of belonging, stress management, healthy living, ensuring
emotional fulfilment, etc.
29. An endless list of research projects, focusing in particular
on legally recognised relationships, has shown the importance of
family ties. Below are some recent findings:
Note
29.1 stable couples tend to have
higher incomes and a lower risk of poverty and to accumulate more wealth;
they are happier, less prone to depression and suicide and live
longer;
29.2 the male partner’s earnings, occupation or education are
positively associated with the transition to marriage; low income
seems to be a major reason for long-term cohabitation rather than
marriage;
29.3 divorced individuals have lower physical and emotional
well-being than married individuals; parental separation is associated
with a range of childhood, adolescent and adult problems for children;
29.4 the decrease in income after a relationship breakdown
is usually greater for women than for men; however, men, too, experience
negative effects in terms of employment; stable economic, emotional
and physical circumstances also promote relationship quality before
and after separation;
29.5 the positive effect of women’s employment and the resulting
financial independence in terms of the divorce risk is not significant
for women who hold egalitarian gender role attitudes, suggesting
that for these women, employment may at the same time have a positive
effect on relationship quality. Most studies find little or no negative
effect of a mother’s employment on her child’s development, which
is more than offset by the positive effects on family wealth;
29.6 perceptions of unfairness in the division of domestic
work lower women’s relationship satisfaction and well-being;
29.7 long working hours and work overload can reduce relationship
and parenting quality for men and women;
29.8 children whose parents are predictably responsive to their
needs form more secure attachments; secure attachment increases
the likelihood of positive peer interaction and behavioural advantages
in preschool and early school years;
29.9 more parental time spent on stimulating child-centred
activities is associated with better behavioural and cognitive results
for children. Good relationship quality between mother and father
are positively associated with the warmth of the parent-child relationship;
29.10 how parents interact with their children (parenting style)
and the quality of parental time seem more important for a child’s
development than the fact that time is reduced by the mother’s employment;
29.11 while there are exceptions, generally early childhood
attachment is a strong predictor of adolescent behaviours and later
educational and employment situations.
30. In short, the rapporteur is of the opinion that good internal
quality of family relations reduces the need for public services
and welfare intervention. In this sense, primary relationships (internal
to the family) are strongly linked to later public or common relationships.
A recent study by the American sociologist Paul R. Amato stresses
that changes in family structure have had substantial costs for
the American society. For example, the decline in married households
during the second half of the 20th century was an important contributing
factor to the growth in child poverty in the United States during
the 1970s and 1980s. Teenage childbearing, in particular, cost taxpayers
US$7.3 billion in 2004.
31. These costs are due to increase taxpayer expenditure to combat
poverty, criminal justice and school nutrition programmes, and to
the lower levels of taxes paid by individuals whose adult productivity
has been undermined by growing up in poverty caused by family break-ups.
Clearly, non-marital births, divorce and marital dysfunction are
extremely costly for American society. In summary, changes in American
marriage and family structure since the 1960s have decreased the
average level of child well-being in the population, lowered the
well-being of many adults, increased child poverty and placed a
large financial burden on society.
Note
32. These consequences are now being perpetuated by economic shocks,
as unemployment increases the probability of couples splitting and
crisis. For these reasons, attempts to strengthen families and increase
the percentage of children raised in healthy two-parent families
has recently emerged as an important public policy objective also
in Europe.
6 Conclusions
33. The rapporteur very much agrees with the analyses
of the Council of Europe High-level Task Force on Social Cohesion
in the 21st Century, namely that policy can no longer take the existence
of families for granted. A comprehensive family policy should be
a core priority for each European country, linking income, childcare facilities,
gender equality, education, social and cultural services, inter-generational
solidarity, employment and infrastructural provision and planning.
34. Like other forms of intervention, government support and action
are subsidiary to those of families. Government and other policy
actors are responsible for helping families constantly to build
strong and healthy relationships and achieve their full potential,
creating equal opportunities and ensuring that families flourish
by supporting and enhancing their special status and encouraging
family social capital. Family intervention programmes must be proportionate
to the families’ capacities for shouldering their responsibilities.
35. There is evidence that when family-friendly policies are pursued
consistently over a long period, they do have a positive effect
on individual decisions to have children and tackle the demographic
problems of Europe. Policy makers should recognise and promote family
rights in all the areas covered by the policy, recognise the fundamental
rights of parents to educate their children and promote the active
participation of parents and family associations in the formulation,
organisation, implementation and evaluation of the family policies.
36. The rapporteur considers that governments work more effectively
when in partnership with the other actors in the policy system of
the welfare society: corporations, civil society organisations and
families. Family policy is a multi-actor field of action in which
local authorities, non-governmental organisations, civil society
and the families themselves all have an essential role to play.
***
Reporting committee:
Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee
Reference to committee: Doc. 11782, Reference
3521 of 26 January 2009
Draft resolution and recommendation adopted
unanimously by the committee on 11 December 2009
Members of the committee: Mrs Christine McCafferty (Chairperson),
Mr Denis Jacquat (1st Vice-Chairperson),
Ms Liliane Maury Pasquier (2nd Vice-Chairperson), Ms Fátima Aburto Baselga, Mr Francis Agius,
Mr Farkhad Akhmedov, Mr Milos Aligrudić, Ms Karin Andersen, Ms Magdalina
Anikashvili, Mr Konstantinos Aivaliotis, Ms
Sirpa Asko-Seljavaara, Mr Lokman Ayva,
Mr Mario Barbi, Mr Andris Berzinš, Mr Roland Blum, Ms Olena Bondarenko,
Ms Monika Brüning, Ms Bożenna Bukiewicz, Ms Karmela Caparin, Mr Igor
Chernyshenko (alternate: Mr Parfenov),
Mr Desislav Chukolov, Mr
Agustín Conde Bajén, Mr Imre Czinege, Mr Karl Donabauer, Ms
Emilia Fernández Soriano (alternate:Mrs
Blanca Fernández-Capel Baños), Ms
Daniela Filipiová, Ms Ilija Filipović, Mr Paul Flynn, Ms Pernille
Frahm, Ms Doris Frommelt, Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Ljubo Germič, Mr Luc
Goutry, Mr Neven Gosović, Ms Claude Greff, Ms Dzhema Grozdanova, Mr Michael Hancock, Ms Olha Herasym’yuk,
Mr Ali Huseynov, Mr Fazail İbrahimli, Mr Birkir Jón Jónsson, Ms
Marietta Karamanli, Mr Włodzimierz
Karpiński, Mr Michail Katrinis, Mr
András Kelemen, Mr Peter Kelly, Baroness Knight of Collingtree,
Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Oleg Lebedev,
Mr Paul Lempens, Mr Bernard Marquet,
Mr Patrick Moriau, Mr Felix Müri, Ms Christine Muttonen, Ms Carina Ohlsson, Mr Peter Omtzigt, Ms Lajla Pernaska, Mr Zoran
Petreski, Ms Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin, Mr Cezar Florin Preda, Mr Vjerica Radeta,
Mr Maria Pilar Riba Font, Mr Walter Riester, Mr Nicolae Robu, Mr
Ricardo Rodrigues, Ms Maria de Belém Roseira, Ms Marlene Rupprecht
(alternate: Mr Wolfgang Wodarg),
Mr Indrek Saar, Mr Maurizio Saia, Mr Fidias Sarikas, Mr
Ellert Schram, Ms Anna Sobecka, Ms Michaela Šojdrová,
Mr Marc Spautz, Mrs Arūnė Stirblytė, Mr Oreste Tofani, Mr Mihai
Tudose, Mr Alexander Ulrich, Mr Mustafa Ünal,
Mr Milan Urbáni, Mr Luca Volontè,
Mr Victor Yanukovych, Mr Vladimir Zhidkikh
NB: The names of the members who took part in the meeting
are printed in bold
Secretariat of the committee: Mr Mezei, Ms Lambrecht, Ms Arzilli
