Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T18:44:08.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lone parents and activation – towards a typology of approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2020

Tina Haux
Tina Haux*
Affiliation:
School of Social Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There has been an international trend towards activating lone parents, with the United Kingdom being the most recent example. It has been argued that the most common criterion for deciding which lone parents should have to be available for work is the age of the youngest child. However, by examining the activation policies in the OECD countries more closely, a number of criteria used in conjunction with age of the child have been identified, such as the availability of childcare and the employability of lone parents. It is therefore argued that a typology can be developed consisting of three main approaches: general activation, age of child and no activation, with three sub-categories for the age of child approach. The different (sub-)categories will be illustrated using country case studies as examples.

Keywords

activationlone parentswelfare-to-workUnited KingdomOECD
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 122 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 Taylor & Francis

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bell, K. (2009). Benefits for single parents: The permanent revolution. Benefits, 17(3), 285–288.Google Scholar
Brewer, M., Browne, J., & Sibieta, L. (2010). Child Poverty in the UK since 1998–1999: Lessons from the past decade. IFS working paper 10/23, London.Google Scholar
Carcillo, S., & Grubb, D. (2006). From inactivity to work: The role of active labour market policies. OECD Social Employment and Migration Working Papers, no. 6, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
Chzhen, Y., & Bradshaw, J. (2012). Lone parents, poverty and policy in the European Union. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(5), 487–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citizens Information. (2013). One-parent family payment. Retrieved May 1, 2013, from http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/social_welfare_payments_to_families_and_children/one_parent_family_payment.htmlGoogle Scholar
Department for Children and Families. (2013). Wisconsin works manual release 03-2013. Retrieved May 1, 2013, from http://dcf.wisconsin.gov/w2/manual/whnjs.htmGoogle Scholar
Department of Women and Families. (2008). Wisconsin works manual release 08-02. Retrieved February 19, 2009, from http://dcf.wisconsin.gov/w2/manual/release0802/default.htmGoogle Scholar
Duncan, S., & Edwards, R. (Eds.), (1997). Single mothers in an international context: Mothers or Workers? London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
Ellingsaeter, A. L., & Gulbrandsen, L. (2007). Closing the childcare gap: The interaction of childcare provision and mothers’ agency in Norway. Journal of Social Policy, 36(4), 649–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finn, D., & Gloster, R. (2010). Lone parent obligations: Early findings of implementation as well as experiences of the Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowances regimes (DWP research report no. 645). Leeds: CDS.Google Scholar
Goldberg, W. A., Prause, J.-A., Lucas-Thompson, R., & Himsel, A. (2008). Maternal employment and children's achievement in context: A meta-analysis of four decades of research. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 77–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gooder, S., Doolittle, F., & Glispie, B. (2001). Matching applicants with services: Initial assessment in the Milwaukee County W-2 program. Washington: MDRC.Google Scholar
Gregg, P. (2008). Realising potential: A vision for personalised conditionality and support, an independent report to the department for work and pensions. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Gregg, P., Washbrook, E., Propper, C., & Burgess, S. (2005). The effects of mother's return to work decision on child development in the UK. The Economic Journal, 115(501), F48–F80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haux, T. (2007). Lone parents with older children and welfare reform. CASP working paper. Bath: University of Bath.Google Scholar
Haux, T. (2012). Activating lone parents: An evidence – Based appraisal of the welfare – To – Work reform in Britain. Social Policy and Society, 11(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HC42-1. (2008). Alleviating deprivation, improving social mobility and eradicating child poverty. Department for Work and Pensions Committee, Second report of the session 2007-8, volume 1, London: Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Hering, S. (1998). Makel, Muehsal, Privileg? Eine hundertjaehrige Geschichte des Alleinerziehens. Frankfurt: dipa.Google Scholar
Kennedy, S. (2010). Lone parents and Jobseeker‘s Allowance. House of Commons Library paper SN/SP/5532.Google Scholar
Kiernan, K., Land, H., & Lewis, J. (1998). Lone motherhood in twentieth century Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kilkey, M. (2000). Lone mothers between paid work and care: The policy regime in twenty countries. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Kjelstad, R. (2000). Employment strategy policies and lone parenthood: The case of Norway. Social Politics, 7(3), 343–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knijn, T., Martin, C., & Millar, J. (2007). Activation as a common framework for social policies towards lone parents. Social Policy & Administration, 41(6), 638–652.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. (1995). The problem of lone mother families in twentieth century Britain. London: London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. (Ed.). (1997). Lone mothers in European welfare regimes: Shifting policy logics. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. (2006). Children, changing families and welfare states. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, J., & Ostner, I. (1994). Gender and the evolution of European Social Policies. (Working paper no 4/94). Centre for Social Policy Research, University of Bremen.Google Scholar
Millar, J. (2001). Work-related activity requirements and labour market programmes for lone parents. In Millar, J. & Rowlingson, K. (Eds.), Lone parents, employment and social policy (pp. 189–210). Bristol: Policy Press, chapter 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millar, J., & Rowlingson, K. (Eds.), (2001). Lone parents, employment and social policy. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Social Development. (2013). Domestic purposes benefit fact sheet – Future focus. Retrieved April 5, 2013, from http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/newsroom/factsheets/future-focus/domestic-purposes-benefit.htmlGoogle Scholar
Mutual Learning Programme. (2010). Pathways to work for lone parents. Retrieved April 8, 2013, from http://www.mutual-learning-employment.net/index.php?mact=PeerReviews,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01options=105&cntnt01orderby=start_date%20DESC&cntnt01returnid=59&cntnt01item_id=80&cntnt01returnid=59Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2002). Babies and bosses: Reconciling work and family life: Volume 1: Australia, Denmark and The Netherlands. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2003). Babies and bosses: Reconciling work and family life: Volume 2: Austria, Ireland and Japan. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2004). Babies and bosses: Reconciling work and family life: Volume 3: New Zealand, Portugal and Switzerland. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2005). Babies and bosses: Reconciling work and family life: Volume 4: Canada, Finland, Sweden and the UK. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2007). Babies and bosses: Reconciling work and family life: A synthesis of findings for OECD countries. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2011). Doing better for families. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Ostner, I. (1997). Lone mothers in Germany before and after unification. In Lewis, Jane (Ed.), Lone mothers in European welfare regimes: Shifting policy logics (pp. 21–49).Google Scholar
Peacey, V. (2009). Signing on and stepping up? Single parents’ experience of welfare reform. London: Gingerbread.Google Scholar
Skevik, A. (2001). Lone parents and employment in Norway. In Millar, J. & Rowlingson, K. (Eds.), Lone parents, employment and social policy: Cross-national comparisons (pp. 87–106). Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skevik, A. (2006). Lone motherhood in the nordic countries: Sole providers in dual breadwinner regimes. In Ellingsaeter, A. L. & Leira, A. (Eds.), Politicising parenthood in Scandinavia: Gender relations and the welfare state (pp. 241–264). Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syltevik, L. J. (2003). Norway: Creating a work/'Welfare divide – Lone parents experiencing the new employment strategy. In Millar, J. & Evans, M. (Eds.), Lone parents and employment: International comparison of what works (pp. 65–86). Bath: Centre for the Analysis of Social Policy.Google Scholar
Verband alleinerziehender Muetter und Vaeter. (2012). Alleinerziehend: Tipps und Informationen, Verband alleinerziehender Muetter und Vaeter, 20th edition, Berlin.Google Scholar
Waldfogel, J., Danziger, S. K., Danziger, S., & Seefeldt, K. S. (2001). Welfare reform and lone mothers’ employment in the US. In Millar, J. & Rowlingson, K. (Eds.), Lone parents, employment and social policy: Cross-national comparisons (pp. 37–60). Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar