Early work on gender and the welfare state generally took one of two approaches: 1) the state reproduces gender inequality or 2) the state reduces gender inequality. Typical definitions of the welfare state have focused on unemployment, pensions, and caring for the ill. Feminist researchers have pushed to broaden that definition to include services such as daycare, housing, education, and medical services aimed at citizens with dependents. Recent work (Orloff “Gender in the Welfare State”) has called for a move beyond these somewhat simplified accounts to focus on explaining variation amongst different regimes and programs.

As noted above, early research on gender and the welfare state has taken two distinct positions. A number of researchers have focused on the ways that the welfare state reproduces gender inequality (e.g. Jensen, Holter). In most cases, these researchers focus on the ways that the state establishes gender through male-oriented or female-oriented services. Some of the key mechanisms for this are the sexual division of labor, gender inequity in payment—men are seen as needing more money to support a family, traditional marriage, and the “double standard” of sexual morality. Other researchers have looked at ways that welfare states amelriorate gender inequity. By and large, these amelioration theories rest on the premise that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” In essence, more social spending generally leads to less inequality generally and therefore less gender inequality specifically. However, these “rising tide” analyses have tended to focus exclusively on poverty which ignores many of the structural and institutional inequalities faced by women such as unpaid care work, the male breadwinner model, and the symbolic inequality of “citizen” vs. “worker” (especially in the U.S.).

Both of the approaches outlined above assume a certain amount of uniformity either in mechanisms of reproduction or in the ameliorating effects of social programs. Recent work has challenged this assumption by focusing on variation. Different states promote qualitatively different types of gender relations. This is affected by 1) relations between labor, employers, and the state, 2) discourses and ideologies around motherhood, especially whether motherhood was compatible with paid work, and 3) population concerns, especially in the context of military competition. For example, Koven and Michel found that the U.S. and Britain are both “weak” welfare states with strong women’s movements but weak protections for women and children. But there is even variation between these two. Skocpol as well as Sklar found that gender was a more central issue in the U.S. than in Britain which could explain why the U.S. was more open to a “maternalist” welfare state. In Scandanavian countries where gender is less of a central issue, women must be incorporated into labor and labor must be incorporated into the governing coalition (Ruggie). Thus, in the Scandanavian countries, the strength and organization of working-class groups seems to be a major factor in explaining gender differences in the welfare policies.

I agree with Orloff (“Gender in the Welfare State”) on a number of issues that need to be addressed to further this variation-oriented research. For one, researchers need to clarify the nature of gender interests but this is difficult given the way that the interests of women and men are influenced by class, race, etc. Researchers need to pay more attention to state commitments to various models of eligibility for benefits in order to address women’s exclusion from paid work. These models include the male-breadwinner versus the dual-breadwinner as well as the individual versus the family model (Sainsbury, Shaver). Scholars should address the gender basis of legal personhood, especially related to “body rights”. Orloff suggests that researchers should pay more attention to the stratification dimension of the welfare state including gender differentiation and gender inequality. She also calls for work to augment Esping-Andersen’s decommodification dimension (Orloff, O’Connor).