The rise and fall of cash for care in Norway
Changes in the Use of Child-Care Policies
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 3057467 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Brita Bungum (0000-0003-1064-3133), Elin Kvande (0000-0002-8685-9232, Institute of Semitic Studies) |
| Year | 2013 |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue | 0 |
| Publication date | 2013-03-29 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Nordic Journal of Social Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1892-2783 • E-ISSN: 1892-2783 |
| Publisher | Scandinavian University Press (PUBLISHER • NO) |
| DOI | 10.15845/njsr.v4i0.241 |
| OpenAlex | W4236450714 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 20 |
| References cited | 17 |
The cash-for-care scheme was introduced in 1998 in Norway. During the first period after its introduction, the percentage of users was high at 91 per cent. Since 2005, however, the use has decreased substantially year by year. Thus, the use of cash for care has changed over the 15 years it has existed. In this article we take these changes as our point of departure and analyse more closely what we might call ‘the rise and fall of the cash-for-care scheme’ in Norway. Over the last 15 to 20 years, Norway has become a multicultural society and we need to include ethnicity when conducting research in the field of family policy. The focus is therefore on the intersection of gender, class, and ethnicity in parents’ use of cash for care over this period. Our analysis is based on different sources of data. We have used data from the evaluative programme undertaken by the Norwegian Research Council, including two surveys conducted before and after the reform (Gulbrandsen & Hellevik, 1998; Hellevik, 2000), and a qualitative case study focusing on fathers and mothers working in three different workplaces (Bungum et al. 2001). We have also used three other statistical studies which were carried out at two different points in time (Pettersen, 2003; Hirch, 2010; Bakken & Myklebø, 2010). Our findings indicate that cash for care is a scheme that mainly encourages mothers who have low income and a low educational level and who are to a large degree from immigrant backgrounds to remain outside the labour market. By distinguishing between three phases, we have aimed to illustrate how the intersection of gender, class, and ethnicity enters in different ways into both the discourse and the practices connected to the cash-for-care scheme since it was introduced in 1998
Cash · Demographic economics · Economics · Ethnic group · Immigration · Norwegian · Payment · Political science · Sociology · Discrimination and Equality Law · Finance · Law · Social Policy and Reform Studies · Work-Family Balance Challenges
The Gender Impact of Social Protection Policies
Job loss and births. A couple-level study of Norwegian plant closures
Cash‐for‐Care and the Cost of Parenthood
Trap or opportunity—What role does geography play in the use of cash for childcare
Cash‐for‐care policy in Sweden
What About Fertility? The Unintentional Pro-natalism of a Nordic Country
The Performativity of Choice
Incorporating ‘class’ into work–family arrangements
Gendered Citizenship in a Multidimensional Perspective
A Qualitative Multiple Case Study of the Division of Labor across the Transition to Parenthood in South-Brazilian Families
Why do Swedes use less cash-for-childcare than Norwegians
Work
National Family Policies and Mothers’ Employment
The rise and fall of cash for care in Norway
The triple bind and beyond
Not just daycare
The part-time paradox
Working Parents and the Welfare State
From Unequal Freedom
Politicising Parenthood in Scandinavia
Doing Gender, Doing Difference
Symposium
Symposium
Når familiepolitikk ikke virker… Om kontanstøttereformen og mødres lønnsarbeid
The complexity of family policy reform
Caring as Social Right
Fedres valgfrihet og arbeidslivets tidskulturer
The rise and fall of cash for care in Norway
Doing Difference
Doing Gender
The Complexity of Intersectionality
| Unique citing works | 16 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,54 |
| Citation span | 2013 - 2026 (14) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 19 |