How do we theorise the employment of migrant women in home-based care work in European welfare states?
Paper presented to RC19 Conference, University of Florence, Sept. 6-8. 2007
Fiona Williams
Professor of Social Policy
School of Sociology and Social Policy
University of Leeds
Leeds LS2 9JT
UK
Email:
Please do not quote or cite without author’s permission
Introduction
This paper is about the increased employment of migrant women in domestic and care work in private households, a phenomenon captured by the term ‘the global care chain’. Helpful as this concept is in identifying a phenomenon that previously had no name, most of the studies in this field explore the gendered and racialised dynamics of migration and employment policies and practices; relatively few explore the role that care policies and practices may have in shaping, directly or indirectly, these dynamics. Drawing on the methods and findings from a qualitative empirical research project, which takes as its context the intersections between child care and migration policies and practices in three European countries, the paper builds a ‘Russian doll’ approach[1] to the theoretical and normative frames for understanding this phenomenon, moving from meso- to micro- and on to macro-level.
The framing starts by nesting the indicators used for the cross-national empirical study in an analysis of the welfare state responses to changes in Family, Nation and Work (Williams, 1995). It argues that the employment of migrant women is emerging in some countries as a significant strategy in work/care reconciliation policies. This is important in two ways: first, because current policy scenarios for gender equality and work/care reconciliation policies often make few references to the permeability of the boundaries of nation-welfare-states (e.g. to the impact of EU policies), whereas child care policies exist in a world characterised not only by national, supranational and global governance but by the transnational movement of care labour, capital and campaigns. Second, the practice of employing home-based labour, as illustrated by the findings of the research, throws up complexities and limitations in moves towards and meanings of gender equality. These observations move the paper on to a further frame in the exposition of the dimensions of a transnational political economy of care. This in turn forces us to contend with two things: that nation-welfare-states are caught up and operate in a situation of unequal geo-political interdependence; and the (often unrecognised) centrality of care policies to the quality of people’s lives in all countries. Turning to the to the normative analyses developed in the relatively recent sub-field of ‘global social policy’ I propose that these could be enhanced by new work on global justice and the ethics of care. At the same time, I argue that the methods of both ‘global social policy’ and the ‘global ethics of care’ would benefit from a more historical application.[2]
The Context: Changes in Family, Nation and Work
Williams (1995) proposes that welfare states exist in a dynamic relationship to three interconnected domains – Family, Nation and Work - which signify the conditions, organisation, social relations of, and resistances to (i) social production, including caring and intimacy (‘Family’); (ii) the nation-state and its sense of nationhood (‘Nation’); and (iii) production and capital accumulation (‘Work’).[3] The case of migrant domestic care workers illustrates the changing nature of work (e.g. women’s participation in the labour market; the rise in service jobs; as well as features of economic globalisation), of families and personal relationships (ageing population, increase in female earners, ‘care deficit’), and the changing internal and external boundaries of the ‘nation’ and its governance - the dynamics between the (external) international geo-political context in which nation-welfare-states exist (e.g. EU, World Bank, increased migration and asylum, Islamaphobia, anti-globalisation movements, post-colonialism etc) and (internal) processes of inclusion and often racialised exclusion (e.g. effects of migration policies, racism, citizenship rules, anti-discrimination policies etc.).
More specifically, the global increase in women’s involvement in waged work is associated in the West with the move away from the male-breadwinner model for welfare provision to varieties of ‘adult worker’ model in which it is expected that both women and men will be earning in the labour market. Individuals and welfare states in Europe have now been forced to develop strategies to cover care responsibilities which were formerly attributed almost entirely to mothers. In child care, which is the starting point for this paper, there has been a remarkable transformation across much of Europe (although not in Central and Eastern Europe), adding up to what some identify as the emergence of a new set of social rights for parents of young children, as well as for children (Lister et al, 2007). However, in the poorer regions of the world, it is the destruction of local economies, unemployment and poverty that have pressed women into assuming a greater breadwinning role, but without any form of state support. This has been one factor behind the increased migration of women in search of work and their take up of domestic and care work.
However, three points should be made here. First, in Europe this transnational dynamic is not only part of a simple rich world-poor world relationship and economic globalisation, but one which has been shaped by geo-political changes within Europe. Enlargement of the European Union, war, and the effects of neo-liberal changes in Russia, Central and Eastern Europe have also led to an increase in migration of women to Western Europe in search of new opportunities, with the result that there are increasing numbers of women without children from Eastern and Central Europe, Russia and the Balkans entering quasi-au pair/nanny work in other parts of Europe. A manager of an agency for nannies and au pairs in London observed of the increase that :[4]
‘This has changed the nanny world: they are willing to combine childcare with domestic work. The term nanny used to refer to a qualified child carer, but it doesn't mean anything now. Girls come over as au pairs and stay. Now employers can get childcare and cleaning for less than 9 pounds per hour -- they love it!’
Second, the transnational dynamic in Europe reflects not only a lack of public policies that shapes the demand for child care (as explained in many of the US studies on global care chains, e.g. Ehrenreich and Hochschild, 2002), but the very nature of state support that is available. In particular, the shift in a number of countries from providing care services (or, in the case of Southern Europe, no services at all) to giving individuals cash payments to buy in home-based care provision has shaped care provision for children, (also for older people and disabled people). These might take the form of cash or tax credits or tax incentives to pay child minders, nannies, relatives or domestic workers for their services. The UK and Spain, Finland and France have all introduced some form of cash provision or tax credit to assist in buying help for child care in the home (Lister et al, 2007: chapter 4). There are also forms of ‘direct payments’ which allow older people or disabled people to buy in support and assistance, for example, in the UK, Netherlands, Italy and Austria (Ungerson and Yeandle, 2007; Bettio et al, 2006). Both of these types of provision encourage the development of a particular form of home-based, often low-paid commodified care or domestic help, generally accessed privately through the market. And this is where low cost migrant labour steps in. Indeed, in Spain, Italy and Greece, this strategy of employing migrant labour to meet care needs has become so prevalent that Bettio and colleagues (2006:272) describe it as a shift from a ‘family’ model of care to a ‘migrant-in-the-family’ model of care.
The third point is that this particular strategy of meeting care needs of the West and the needs of households in poorer regions, presents an analytical challenge for both the study of care, and for normative analysis. In terms of the latter, it has become commonplace in discussions of child care policies and work/ care reconciliation policies to invoke what Nancy Fraser called a decade ago (Fraser, 1997) the universal caregiver model. This is where both men and women have the opportunity though publicly subsidised care support, maternity and paternity leaves, and shorter and more flexible working hours, to become workers and carers. More recently Janet Gornick and Marcia Meyers (2006) have fleshed out this vision of ‘a dual-earner/dual-carer society, a society in which women and men engage symmetrically in employment and care-giving, and where gender equality, paid work and care-giving are all valued’ (2006:3). They present a very convincing and detailed blueprint for the US of key policies for work/family reconciliation and gender equality, including non- transferable paternity and maternity leave for mothers and fathers at a capped100% replacement level, reduction of working time and rights to flexible working, universal, affordable, good quality child care paid for out of taxes and parental contributions; and high quality professional training and remuneration for care workers. The proposals are contained within an analysis of the relationship between work, family and gender equality and draw on the successes and limitations of other countries’ policies, being most influenced by the Nordic countries. They could be criticised for having little to say about other forms of care, but that is not within the remit. However, lacking the analytical dimension of ‘Nation’ and making no reference to the transnational dynamics of care support is significant for it is difficult to assess whether these strategies will in themselves be sufficient to counteract the conditions that give rise to the employment of migrant women in home-based care and the complex forms of gendered, racialised and citizenship inequalities that are its consequence. To enable us to consider this, we need first to know a bit more about what it is that sustains this employment in different countries, and it is to this the paper now turns.
Migration Regimes and Child Care Regimes in Europe
The question of how Western welfare states articulate the relationship between the need for child care and the transnational movement of migrant labour lay behind a qualitative research project on the experiences of employers and migrant workers in home based child care. This was a cross-national study comparing the UK, Sweden and Spain, with interviews carried out in London, Stockholm and Madrid.[5] The project was framed within a broad understanding of Family, Nation and Work, as described above, and conceptualised in terms of the dovetailing of child care regimes[6] ( representing state policy responses to changes in Family and Work) with migration regimes (representing state policy responses to changes in Work, population movement, nationahood and change) in different countries. Both these regimes have, from a policy point of view, undergone significant changes in the last decade. A recent assessment of trends in nine European countries[7] identifies a breaking down of the old distinctions of care regimes (Lister et al, 2007:chapter 4). These used to be between the state subsidised public commitment to care represented by the Nordic countries, the family care systems represented at its most extreme by Spain and Italy, with the Netherlands, UK and Germany representing a combination of male breadwinner model with some levels of support for mothers. As far as child care is concerned, new distinctions are emerging especially around the use of the state, voluntary sector or private market but with converging trends. These trends have conflicting outcomes for gender equality, but may be termed as policy tendencies towards:
· the sharing of responsibility between the state and family – child care going public
· a growing attempt to sharing of economic and caring responsibilities between mothers and fathers (especially with the endorsement of paternity leave)
· the transnational provision of care work (in the growing reliance in some countries on the employment of migrant workers for home based child care).[8]
While these tendencies refer mainly to policy shifts, the concept of ‘regime’ used in developing indicators for the study denotes the cluster of relevant policies as well as practices, discourses, social relations, and forms of contestation. The indicators that were developed for cross-national comparison identified as salient the following aspects of child care regimes:
· the extent and nature of public and market childcare provision, especially for children of under school age;
· policies facilitating parents’ involvement in paid employment such as maternity, paternity and parental leave;
· the nature of direct support – e.g. cash benefits, tax credits etc
· the care workforce (e.g. conditions, gaps, skills)
· ‘care cultures’ that is, dominant national and local cultural discourses on what constitutes appropriate child care, such as surrogate mothering, mothers working and caring part-time; intergenerational help; shared parental care, or professional day care. It should be noted that national variations in care cultures may also be cut across by sub-national differences of class, ethnicity and location.
· historical legacies of care policies and practices
· the significance of movements, organisations and mobilisations around child care (’pressure from below’)
In common with child care provision, the past decade has seen some important shifts in migration policies. In 1993 it was possible for Castles and Millar (1993) to identify three main types of migration regime, based upon acquisition to citizenship that was ethnic - based (jus sanguinis), and exclusionary (such as Germany); residence-based (jus soli) and assimilationist (such France), or multiculturalist based on acceptance of core political values (such as the UK and Sweden). A decade later, countries that were previously assimilationist, such as France, are becoming more exclusionary; those previously exclusionary, such as Germany, have introduced residence-based nationality rights; and those previously culturally pluralist, such as Britain and Netherlands, are asserting the need for greater assimilation. This has been combined with a greater regulation in immigration policies, especially towards refugees and asylum seekers, with a priority on migrants who meet labour force needs. Social assistance to these groups has also been curtailed in many countries. On the other hand, within a number of countries there have been moves to tighten up on both gender and ‘race’ discrimination, and the EU issued a ‘race Directive’ in 2003. Yet this is combined with a growing emphasis within the EU on surveillance of borders to control drugs, crime and terrorism. There has also been, as mentioned above, increased movement within the EU especially from Central and Eastern Europe to Western Europe. In terms of salient factors for the relational between migration and care, the following were identified: