1. STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY
Dept of Sociology, Demography Unit / www.suda.su.se
Leave Policy Preferences in a Comparative
Perspective
Isabel Valarino, Ann-Zofie Duvander, Linda Haas
and Gerda Neyer
Stockholm
Research Reports
in Demography
2015: 26
© Copyright is held by the author(s). SRRDs receive only limited review. Views and opinions expressed
in SRRDs are attributable to the authors and do not necessarily reflect those held at the Demography
Unit.

2. 2
Leave Policy Preferences in a Comparative Perspective
Isabel Valarino*
Stockholm University and University of Lausanne
Ann-Zofie Duvander
Stockholm University
Linda Haas
Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis
Gerda Neyer
Stockholm University
Abstract: Leave policies such as maternity, parental and paternity leaves enable
employed parents to take job-protected time off work to care for their children. Such
policies are implemented in most OECD countries, but there are substantial
differences between countries. Little is known about what preferences individuals
have regarding leave policies. What is the ideal leave length? How should parents
share the leave? Who should pay for it? In this paper we analyze leave policy
preferences in four OECD countries with contrasting leave schemes, namely Austria,
Sweden, the United States and Switzerland. We draw on three theoretical approaches
to welfare attitudes, i.e., an institutional and cultural approach, self-interest theory and
finally ideational theory. We combine them with a gender perspective. We analyze
data from the International Social Survey Programme of 2012: Family and Changing
Gender Roles IV (N=4108). We use multinomial logistic regressions to analyze leave
policy preferences and their social determinants.
Our results show that leave policy preferences are mostly influenced by the
institutional and cultural context in which individuals are embedded. Socio-economic
characteristics such as sex, age, parenthood, education and employment have a
significant influence, as do gender ideology and attitudes to the welfare state. At the
aggregate level, leave preferences roughly reflect the current leave scheme in each
country. In social democratic Sweden, individuals prefer moderate to long leaves that
are financed by the state and that are shared equally by parents. In conservative
Austria, individuals want a long leave paid by the government that is mainly or
exclusively used by mothers. In more liberal societies such as the USA and
Switzerland, expectations are more modest, but they tend to exceed the leaves that
exist in these countries. The paper discusses the mismatches between policies and
preferences.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF grant
n°158920) and the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet) via the Linnaeus
Center on Social Policy and Family Dynamics in Europe (SPaDE), grant 349-2007-
8701.
* Except for the first author, the authors have been listed in alphabetical order.

3. 3
1. Introduction
Leave policies enable employed and self-employed parents to care for their newborn
child during the first months or years while receiving job-protection and often
financial compensation too. Leaves are one of the key family policy measures in
contemporary welfare states. Across most industrialized countries, by the end of the
1950s paid maternity leave had been gradually implemented (Kamerman & Moss,
2009; Thévenon & Solaz, 2013). And between 1970s and 1990s, leave entitlements
for both mothers and fathers had become more common. Yet substantial differences
exist between countries regarding the length, payment and uptake modalities of the
leaves parents may receive (Moss, 2012). Leave schemes are embedded in countries’
welfare state development and they reflect different paths of policy making as well as
diverse political objectives (Kamerman & Moss, 2009).
To this day research on leave policies has focused on the politics of leaves as well as
on their use and their implications for a number of outcomes such as father
involvement (e.g., Haas & Hwang, 2008), maternal employment (e.g., Thévenon &
Solaz, 2013) and fertility behavior (e.g., Duvander, Lappegard, & Andersson, 2010).
But far less attention has been paid to individuals’ attitudes toward parents’ leave
entitlements.
In the field of welfare attitudinal research, scholars have studied individuals’
perception of state responsibility and overall support of welfare policies (e.g.,
Gelissen, 2008; Svallfors, 2004), or of traditional social security schemes such as
pension, health and unemployment social insurances (e.g., Blekesaune & Quadagno,
2003; Jordan, 2013). Yet very few studies have looked at attitudes toward specific
family policies such as leave entitlements, and even less so in a comparative
perspective.
With this article we therefore aim to contribute to fill this research gap and to shed
light on the determinants of leave policy preferences in four countries; Sweden,
Austria, Switzerland and the USA. These countries display contrasting leave schemes,
ranging from well established and gender-equal to non-existent and gender-biased.
We study three dimensions of leave policy preferences. What leave length do

4. 4
individuals consider as legitimate? How should parents divide this time between
them? And who should pay for this leave? To do so we rely on recent data from the
International Social Survey Programme 2012 module Family and changing gender
roles IV that provides unique and comparable information on leave preferences. To
understand the determinants of leave preferences, we draw on three theories of
welfare attitudes – institutional and cultural, self-interest and ideational theories – and
combine them with a gender approach. We then use descriptive statistics and
multinomial logistic regressions to provide new insights on individuals’ leave
preferences.
This study not only contributes to the leave policies research literature as well as to
the welfare attitudinal research field, but it also has essential social policy
implications. National leave policies are continuously evolving and being reformed,
as a result of changing governments, political coalitions and objectives as well as
economic pressures (see for example Thévenon & Solaz, 2013, pp. 42-45). All social
groups do not use leave schemes equally and overall take-up rates can vary
significantly. More knowledge about what people consider as appropriate leave
policies represents useful information for policy makers, as it is likely that attitudes
predict individuals’ behavior of leave take up. It provides information on how the
population in specific countries would possibly respond to policy reforms and what
kind of policy set-up they would be likely to use.
Furthermore, it is important to understand the policy attitudes in different societies,
and what might influence individuals’ advocacy for change. The more salient an issue
is in public opinion, the more elected officials are likely to respond to it. Public
opinion may influence policymaking through opinion polls, interest groups pressure
and political representation (e.g., Burstein, 2003). And in countries with direct
democracy, such as Switzerland, civil society can have a direct influence by
proposing new laws or by rejecting legislative amendments (Bonoli & Häusermann,
2009).
The article contains seven sections. In section 2 we present our theoretical framework
as well as the results of the few studies tackling leave policy preferences. Section 3
provides background information on welfare state and leave policies in each case-

5. 5
study country. We then present the research design, including hypotheses, data and
methods in Section 4. Results are divided in three parts, where the descriptive and
multinomial logistic regression results are reported separately for leave length
preferences, gender division of leave preferences and financing source preferences
(Section 5). We then discuss the results (Section 6) and conclude by pointing out the
limitations and implications of the study (Section 7).
2. Literature Review
2. 1. Theoretical framework
Welfare states can protect and promote to different degrees the economic and social
well-being of its citizens by covering risks such as unemployment, accident and old
age, by ensuring access to care and services, as well as by providing benefits in case
of parenthood. “Welfare attitudes” refer to individuals’ values and preferences
regarding the degree and type of state intervention for citizen’s social and economic
security (Gelissen, 2008, p. 247). They tap into individuals’ views of what a “good
society” is, and of the legitimacy of existing social arrangements. Welfare attitudes
are thus “central components of social order, governance, and legitimacy of modern
societies” (Svallfors, 2012, p. 2).
Welfare attitudinal research provides valuable insights about how individuals’
attitudes towards the welfare state are shaped and about how leave policy preferences
may work.1
However, since leave policies may address or affect women and men
differently, a gender approach should also be adopted when analyzing them. Leave
policies preferences do not only concern the role of the state, but also conceptions
about the role of the family and the gender division of work (Rostgaard, 2002). They
suggest specific ideas about what “good parenthood” is, i.e., how long parents should
care for newborn children and how parents should share this work. They also reflect
views on whether the state should help parents balance work and family lives or
whether this is considered a private issue.

6. 6
Depending on their set-up, leave policies may have very different outcomes for
gender relations and parenthood (Haas & Rostgaard, 2011; Ray, Gornick, & Schmitt,
2010). They may promote leave uptake by both parents and an equal division of care
work and labor market participation by mothers and fathers. But they may also
support a traditional family model where only the mother takes leave, often for a long
time, specializing in childrearing. The gender dimension should therefore be
incorporated in any theoretical framework adopted to analyze leave policies
preferences.
Three main theories dominate the field of comparative welfare attitudinal research:
institutional and cultural, self-interest and ideational theories (see for example Arts &
Gelissen, 2001, pp. 286-289; Blekesaune & Quadagno, 2003, pp. 415-417; Gelissen,
2008, pp. 252-254; Svallfors, 2012, pp. 10-12; Van Oorschot, 2010, pp. 21-22).
Institutional and cultural theory posits that individuals’ representations of solidarity
and justice principles as well as their acceptance and support of the welfare state are
shaped by contextual factors and therefore that they differ across countries. The
theory relies mainly on the welfare regime literature, which argues that welfare states
can be grouped into three ideal types – social democratic, conservative and liberal
regimes (Esping-Andersen, 1990). These regimes differ according to their degrees of
social stratification and decommodification; i.e., the extent to which all individuals
can maintain livelihood outside pure market forces. They are also based on different
ideological assumptions regarding who - between the state, the market and the family
or individuals themselves - is considered responsible for the provision of social
welfare. The institutional context in which individuals are embedded therefore acts as
a frame of reference and orients individuals’ attitudes and expectations in terms of
distribution of resources (Arts & Gelissen, 2001, p. 287). Following our gender
approach, we also integrate gender scholars’ argument, that welfare regimes shape
gender relations and support specific family models, from traditional to more gender
equal ones (e.g., J. Lewis, 1992). Welfare regimes also constitute different normative
contexts for parenthood and regarding how social care should be organized (Knijn &
Kremer, 1997).

7. 7
Accordingly, we would expect these regime differences to influence leave policies
preferences. Individuals living in social democratic regimes such as the Nordic
countries, which are highly redistributive societies and whose public policies promote
gender equality would be most supportive of statutory leave policies that promote
gender equality. By contrast, in Anglo-Saxon liberal countries where individual
responsibility and the free market are central values, we expect that individuals would
be the least supportive of statutory leave policies and parents’ time off work to care
for children would not be seen as the state’s responsibility. In conservative welfare
regimes - often found in continental Europe - the influence of corporatism, statism,
and catholic values tend to preserve status and class differentials and to promote a
male breadwinner family model. This would result in individuals’ support for
statutory leave policies that support a traditional family model.
Self-interest theory posits that there is a direct relationship between individuals’
position in the social structure and their welfare attitudes. Those benefitting from, or
at risk of becoming recipients of social protection are expected to have more positive
attitudes toward the welfare state. For instance, the elderly are more likely to support
pension and health insurances and the rich are less likely than the poor to favor public
assistance benefits. In the case of leave policies, it would be hypothesized that parents
and adults in childbearing age would have more positive attitudes toward the
provision of leave policies than others. Since women’s employment is more affected
by children than men’s (Craig & Mullan, 2010) and since mothers tend to be the main
parental leave recipients (Bruning & Plantenga, 1999), we would expect gender
differences in leave preferences. This theory might therefore predict that mothers
would be more in favor of parental leave than fathers.
Ideational theory suggests that subjective characteristics, such as individuals’ ideas,
values and political orientation also influence their attitudes toward the welfare state.
Adherence to social equality and solidarity values result in positive attitudes toward
welfare state development. Conversely, economic individualism generally results in
more negative attitudes. Here the gender perspective suggests that in addition to
attitudes toward redistribution and social equality, individuals’ gender attitudes are of
prior importance to understand their leave policy preferences. Individuals hold more
or less traditional gender attitudes; i.e., views about gender relations and family life

8. 8
and about how women and men should divide paid and unpaid work (e.g., Davis &
Greenstein, 2009). Therefore, they may favor to different degrees state support for
mothers’ continued participation to the labor market and fathers’ involvement in
childcare. Accordingly, this theory would predict that individuals with more
egalitarian and solidaristic values will be more likely than others to support the
development of government financed leave policies and well as a leave structure that
supports fathers’ use of leave.
2. 2. Previous research
The review of the literature suggests that leave policy preferences is an under-
researched area. The majority of welfare attitudinal studies use aggregate indicators of
welfare state perception (e.g., Gelissen, 2008; Svallfors, 2004; Van Oorschot,
Reeskens, & Meuleman, 2012), or compare public opinion towards specific social
policy programs such as unemployment, health and pension insurances (e.g.,
Blekesaune & Quadagno, 2003; Bonoli, 2000; Jordan, 2013). Attitudes towards
family policies and leave policies have received far less attention. While these studies
are mostly single-country case studies and focus on attitudes of specific populations
rather than representative samples, they nonetheless provide useful information on
leave preferences mechanisms. Their results also confirm the relevance of mobilizing
the three mainstream welfare attitudinal theories and of combining them with a gender
perspective.
Welfare regime effects and country differences – consistent with the institutional and
cultural theory - are observed in two comparative studies. A 2004 report (European
Opinion Research Group, 2004) on men’s attitudes towards parental leave in 15 EU
countries showed systematic country differences regarding their awareness of parental
leave and perception of obstacles and incentives for men’s leave use. Results
suggested that living in a context where there was a comparatively long history with
parental leave and well-compensated entitlements influenced men’s attitudes and
awareness.
Similarly, a large-scale qualitative study compared young adults’ sense of entitlement
to receive employer and state support for work-life balance (S. Lewis & Smithson,

9. 9
2001). Authors concluded that individual differences reflected the actual provisions in
each country. Swedes and Norwegians had a high sense of entitlement for state
support, which was interpreted as the result of the influence of the social democratic
welfare regime, characterized by an equality gender contract and universal social
benefits. By contrast, Irish, Portuguese and English interviewees had low sense of
entitlements. They expected to rely on the family and on themselves for reconciling
work and family lives, which was interpreted as the outcome of a persisting traditional
gender contract and weak state support to families.
Results show that the self-interest theory also contributes to explaining leave policy
preferences. For instance, being a parent or intending to have a child was found to
increase individuals’ fairness perception of implementing a paid parental leave
(Grover, 1991), as well as their sense of entitlement to statutory family policies (S.
Lewis & Smithson, 2001). Age reflects how childcare and childrearing may be salient
in individuals’ lives. Young cohorts were found to have comparatively more positive
attitudes than older cohorts towards men’s take-up of leave (European Opinion
Research Group, 2004), towards parental leave implementation (Grover, 1991) and
towards maternity insurance implementation (Bonoli & Häusermann, 2009; Staerklé,
Roux, Delay, Gianettoni, & Perrin, 2003). Women were found to be significantly
more supportive than men of maternity insurance, parental leave and family policies
(Grover, 1991; S. Lewis & Smithson, 2001; Staerklé et al., 2003), and even of father-
friendly parental leaves (Fox, Pascall, & Warren, 2009; Hyde, Essex, & Horton, 1993;
Warren, Fox, & Pascall, 2009). But sex was not systematically a significant predictor
of individuals’ voting behavior on maternity insurance proposals in Switzerland
(Bonoli & Häusermann, 2009).
Further socioeconomic variables also seem to be influential. Having a medium or high
education results in a somewhat higher sense of entitlement to family policies (S.
Lewis & Smithson, 2001) and in higher support for maternity insurance
implementation (Bonoli & Häusermann, 2009; Staerklé et al., 2003) and for men’s
use of parental leave (European Opinion Research Group, 2004). There is some
evidence that occupational or employment statuses influence individuals’ attitudes
(European Opinion Research Group, 2004; Fusulier, Laloy, & Sanchez, 2007; S.
Lewis & Smithson, 2001). Finally, income appears to have little or no influence on

10. 10
leave preferences (Bonoli & Häusermann, 2009; European Opinion Research Group,
2004; Staerklé et al., 2003).
There is also some support for the ideational theory and for the inclusion of welfare
attitudes and gender ideology. Political stance (being left-wing) was associated with
increased support for incentives to promote men’s leave uptake (European Opinion
Research Group, 2004). Individuals’ belief about welfare state responsibility and their
recognition of structural gender inequalities in society were found to significantly
influence their support for statutory paid maternity insurance (Staerklé et al., 2003).
Gender equal attitudes also significantly predicted perceptions of fairness of parental
leave implementation (Grover, 1991). Finally, results from a qualitative study suggest
that men with more traditional representations of parental roles tend to have
ambivalent feelings about father-friendly leave policies (Fox et al., 2009; Warren et
al., 2009).
3. Presentation of case study countries
The countries selected vary with regard to the welfare regime they belong to and the
leave scheme they display (see Table 1). Each leave scheme has a particular history
and is embedded in the broader development of its welfare state. This background and
the social and political context of implementation of leave policies are central for
understanding public opinion differences across countries. The current use of leaves
by mothers and fathers is also an indicator of their social acceptance. The countries
also vary with respect to the prevailing family norms and reliance on the state as the
provider of social welfare. We provide short presentations of each country.
3. 1. Sweden
Sweden was characterized as a prototype of social democratic welfare states (Esping-
Andersen, 1990). It has a long history of social welfare promoting social and gender
equality, many reforms dating back to the 1930s. Since the 1970s, welfare state
policies have been directed towards furthering the earner-carer family model, in

11. 11
which both parents are employed and share unpaid work (Ferrarini & Duvander,
2010).
Table 1 - Key family and leave policies characteristics of the four case study countries
Sweden Austria Switzerland USA
Welfare regime
Social-
democratic
Conservative
Conservative
with liberal
traits
Liberal
Public
expenditure on
family
% of GDP in
2011
3.6% 2.7% 1.4% 0.7%
Leave scheme
in 2012
Parental leave:
480 days (390
days paid at
80% and 90
days flat rate)
Paternity
leave: 10 days
paid at 80%
Maternity leave:
16 weeks paid at
100%
Paternity leave:
none
Parental leave:
job protection for
2 years; 5
childcare benefits
options
Maternity
leave: 98
days paid at
80%
Paternity and
parental
leaves: None
(collective
labour
agreements)
None
(12 unpaid
weeks in
companies
with 50+
employees;
legislations
in some
states)
Total statutory
paid leave
length
16 months 24 months 3.5 months 0
Gender
equality
incentives
++ + - - -
Financing
system of leave
scheme
Government (+
complements
from some
employers)
Government
Government
(+complemen
ts from some
employers)
None
Source: (Haas, Duvander, & Chronholm, 2012; Kamerman & Waldfogel, 2012; OECD, 2015; Rille-
Pfeiffer, 2012; Valarino, 2012)
Sweden was the first country to introduce in 1974 a gender-neutral and income-
related parental leave scheme. It entitled parents to share the leave as they wished
(Duvander & Ferrarini, 2013; Lundqvist, 2011). The length of the leave was gradually
extended from six months to 16 months, 13 of which (or 390 days) are paid at 80% of
a parent’s previous gross earnings up to a certain income ceiling (Haas et al., 2012).
Three months (or 90 days) are paid at a low flat rate. Parental leave benefits are paid
by the Swedish Social Insurance Agency and financed through employers’
contributions based on employees’ wages. Collective agreements may entitle parents

12. 12
to additional payments through their employer. Most parents meet the requirement of
having worked for 240 days prior to the leave in order to claim income-dependent
benefit. Parents who do not meet the requirement receive a low flat-rate benefit.
The paid leave can be taken full time, continuously, in segments or in various
amounts of part time (half-time, quarter-time, one-eight-time). The possibility to take
part-time leaves (with corresponding part-time benefit) allows parents to stretch the
leave accordingly over more than the 390 days (or 16 months), until the child’s 8th
birthday (Duvander & Ferrarini, 2013). The majority of leave benefits are used over
the first two years of the child (Haas et al., 2012, p. 263).
Father’s uptake of parental leave has increased substantially since the 1970s. It has
been spurred by the introduction of a “father’s quota” in 1995, which reserved one
month of the parental leave for each parent (Duvander & Johansson, 2012). In 2002,
the non-transferable leave period was extended to two months, and more recently the
possibility to extend it to three months was put forward. Today, almost 9 out of 10
fathers take some parental leave. However, the majority of available paid leave days
are still taken by mothers. Fathers use about 25% or on average 91 days of the
available (paid) leave (data for 2012; Duvander & Ferrarini, 2013). A “gender
equality bonus” system was introduced in 2008 as an incentive to parents to share
parental leave more equally. It entitles parents to a tax reduction for each day that they
share the transferable parental leave equally (Duvander & Ferrarini, 2013). However
it had no effect on fathers’ use of parental leave (Duvander & Johansson 2012).
3. 2. Austria
Austria is typically regarded as a conservative welfare state (Obinger & Tálos, 2010).
It relies mainly on social insurance and promotes status security. Leave entitlements
have a long history in Austria (Neyer, 2010) and are marked by a familistic policy
orientation that support a gendered division of work and care (Leitner, 2003). Parental
leave for previously employed mothers was already introduced in the late 1950s to
extend the (compulsory) maternity leave period. From the 1960s until 1990, it lasted
to the child’s first birthday. In 1990, the leave was extended to the child’s second

13. 13
birthday and part-time leave was implemented. In 1995, a form of “father-quota” was
introduced, but hardly any father used it, as parental leave benefits were low.
In 2002, the parental leave benefit was replaced by a universal child rearing benefit
for parents who devoted most of their time to childcare (independent of previous
employment). The benefit could be drawn during the first three years of the child,
provided six of the 36 months were taken by the father (30 + 6 “rule”). However,
because the job-protected leave only lasted two years, the rate of women’s return to
work after parental leave dropped (Riesenfelder, Sorger, Wetzel, & Willsberger,
2007). The consequences of this familistic reform led to the re-implementation of the
right to part-time work, although it is restricted to certain groups of employees and
workers,2
and to the gradual introduction of shorter benefit options.
Since 2010, parents can choose between five different variants of childrearing benefit;
four are flat rate, and one is income dependent. Besides the 30+6 flat-rate version
parents can opt for 20+4 months, 15+3 months, or 12+2 months, with correspondingly
higher benefits for the shorter durations. The income-dependent childrearing benefit
can be drawn for 12 +2 months and is paid at 80 per cent of the previous income (up
to a certain ceiling). Benefits are paid from the Family Relief Fund
(Familienlastenausgleichsfond) to which employers contribute a certain percentage of
the total wages of their employees.
The greater options of childrearing benefits have led to more variability in the use of
leaves. Previously employed mothers and fathers tend to opt increasingly for the short
income-dependent parental-leave option (Riesenfelder & Danzer, 2015).
Nevertheless, in 2012 the vast majority of recipients were still women (95%) and
most parents chose either the longest version, 30+6 months (66%) or the second
longest version, 20 + 4 months (22%) (Leibetseder, 2013, p. 552).
3. 3. Switzerland
Switzerland is often described as a conservative regime with liberal traits
(Armingeon, 2001) or as a hybrid of the two (Ferragina & Seeleib-Kaiser, 2011). The
delayed and incremental development of the Swiss welfare state is mainly due to its

14. 14
particular political institutions: federalism and direct democracy (Armingeon, 2001).
Traditional social security schemes were implemented between the 1970s and 1990s
and swiss family policies still have more in common with liberal countries than with
conservative ones (Thévenon, 2011; Thoenen, 2010).
Although in the late 19th
century Switzerland had been a forerunner in maternity
protection legislation for employed women, federal maternity insurance was
implemented only a decade ago after long political debates (FCWI, 2001, 2011;
Valarino, 2014). Since the implementation of the law in 2005, employed and self-
employed mothers receive 80% of their salary for 98 days (3.5 months), starting on
the day of the child’s birth. The job protection continues for two additional weeks (4
months in total) but with no financial compensation. Benefits are financed by equal
contributions from employees and employers, each paying 0.5% contribution on
wages.3
Approximately 70% of women giving birth meet the eligibility criteria to
receive maternity allowances and the large majority use up all the days available
(Sottas & Millioud, 2008). More generous maternity allowances may be granted
through collective labor agreements or in work contracts and women tend to take a
longer leave than the legal minimum, either paid or unpaid (Aeppli, 2012, pp. 70-71).
Switzerland represents an exception in Europe: fathers have no access to state
guaranteed (paid or unpaid) paternity or parental leave (Valarino, 2012). As it is not
part of the European Union, it must not conform to the EU directive on parental leave.
Although there is no legal minimum, employers usually grant their male employees 1
or 2 paid days of leave in case of birth. Collective labor agreements also sometimes
include the right for employees to take an unpaid parental leave of several months.
However, this concerns a minority; a government report estimated that in 2009 27%
of individuals submitted to collective labor agreements (only half of the employed
population) had access to paternity and/or parental leave (FSIO, 2013, p. 12).
In the last decade, the lack of statutory parental or paternity leave has increasingly
been problematized in the Swiss society (Valarino, 2014; Valarino & Bernardi, 2010).
In parliament, an increasing number of policy proposals were submitted, yet without
success. The main disagreement between supporters and opponents concern the
legitimacy of state intervention in the realm of leave policies, as well as financial

15. 15
costs and consequences for small and medium sized companies (Lanfranconi &
Valarino, 2014).
3. 4. USA
The USA liberal welfare state is based on strong belief in individualism (Williamson
& Carnes, 2013). Government policies have been mainly directed to those considered
most economically in need. Modest, means-tested benefits are offered to low-income
individuals and are stigmatizing. The USA has a “market-centered family policy
model,” (Korpi, 2000) with low levels of public support for parental employment and
private solutions for family care. This is due to a strong opposition to government
involvement in family life and the influence of religious beliefs and churches
promoting the male breadwinner ideal.
The USA is the only industrialized nation to lack both subsidized childcare and paid
maternity or parental leave. There is also no universal statutory right to unpaid family
leave (Kamerman & Waldfogel, 2012; Klerman, Daley, & Pozniak, 2014). The
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) enacted in 1993 offers some coverage, but
only to those who work for larger employers (50+ employees). Therefore, only 58%
of US employees are eligible for it, and higher-wage and childless workers are more
likely than others to be eligible for the leave. The FMLA allows eligible employees to
take up to 12 weeks of unpaid job-protected federal “family and medical leave” each
year for a variety of reasons, including childbirth and care of a child up to 12 months.
Few employees take advantage of this policy; only 16% of eligible employees used
federal FMLA in 2012, mainly for their own illnesses. Only 1 in 5 took leave to care
for a newborn (Klerman et al., 2014). Consequently, the FMLA has been found to
have had limited impact on mothers’ likelihood of taking time off from work at
childbirth and little or no effect on time off by new fathers (Han, Ruhm, & Waldfogel,
2009).
About 28% of US workers have access to paid family leave to care for a newborn -
half because they work for progressive employers and half because they live in one of
the five states with paid leave legislation (Council of Economic Advisors, 2014; US
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014). Research on New Jersey and California, two states

16. 16
with paid leave legislation has shown that these leaves are most likely to be used by
mothers, in particular disadvantaged mothers, to care for a newborn, but that the
leaves have also increased fathers’ leave taking by small amounts (Baum & Ruhm,
2014; Lerner & Applebaum, 2014).
Cultural beliefs and values as well as political and economic institutions largely
explain USA’s lag in family and leave policies (Morgan, 2006; Williamson & Carnes,
2013). Recently slight changes were noted. There is a legislative proposal to convert
the FMLA to a paid entitlement through the social security system, financed by
employee contributions. Democratic candidates for President in 2016 have included
paid leave in their campaign rhetoric for the first time. Finally, several states are in the
process of developing paid leave programs.
4. Research design
4. 1. Hypotheses
We formulate hypotheses building on our theoretical framework and on countries’
welfare state and leave scheme characteristics. We also take into account the research
results from single-country studies previously presented. We propose hypotheses for
which there are strong assumptions, but we will comment on the influence of all
predictors in the results section. The following hypotheses can be made regarding
leave length preferences:
 In support of institutional theory, respondents in Austria and Sweden are
expected to favor a long leave, while respondents in the US and Switzerland are
more likely to favor a short leave (H1a).
 In support of self-interest theory, women are expected to be more likely to favor a
long leave than men (H1b).
 Respondents in their childbearing years will favor a long leave compared to older
cohorts who are more likely to favor a short leave (H1c), in accordance with self-
interest theory.
 Parents will be more likely to favor longer leaves than non-parents, in line with
self-interest theory (H1d).

17. 17
 In accordance with ideational theory, individuals with strong state responsibility
attitudes will be more supportive of a long leave (H1e).
We expect the following relationships with gender division of leave preferences:
 Based on institutional theory, we expect that in Sweden a strong gender equality
norm of leave division will exist, while in other countries a preference for a
gendered use of the leave may dominate (H2a).
 We expect young cohorts to be more likely to favor a gender equal division of
leave than the older cohort who will tend to prefer a fully gendered division of
leave (H2b), in line with self-interest theory
 Also according to self-interest theory, we hypothesize that highly educated
individuals will also favor a gender equal division of the leave (H2c).
 Finally, as inspired by ideational theory, we expect that individuals with a
traditional gender ideology will favor a fully gendered division of the leave and
will reject a gender equal division (H2d).
Finally, regarding hypotheses about the preferred financing source of the leave:
 In agreement with institutional theory, Swedish and Austrian respondents will
favor government payment only, while Swiss residents may favor a mix of
government and employers’ financing. Considering the absent role of the state in
the USA in leave financing, respondents in this country may be more in favor of
employers’ financing (H3a).
 In accordance with self-interest theory, women are expected to be more
supportive of the government financing of leave than men (H3b), since they are
generally more prone than men to support the welfare state overall.
 In line with ideational theory, individuals who support state intervention will
prefer government financing over employer financing, while those with less
positive attitudes toward the state will prefer employer financing (H3c).
4. 2. Data
Sample
We use data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), a cross-
nationally comparative survey of rotating modules covering a wide range of social

18. 18
issues. The module Family and changing gender roles IV collected in 2012 included
for the first time several questions on attitudes towards leave for working parents,
giving a unique opportunity to compare public opinion on this issue and including
countries outside the European Union. The data allows to capture different
dimensions of leave policy preferences such as leave length, gender division and
financing source.
Surveys in Austria, Switzerland and the USA were conducted through face-to-face
interviews and in Sweden respondents returned the survey by mail. Samples were
randomly selected within the countries, but sampling strategies and response rates -
ranging from 52.2% in Switzerland to 71.4% in the USA - vary across countries. The
total sample for the four countries comprises 4108 men and women aged 18 and over
who answered the main question of interest regarding the ideal length of paid leave
and for whom complete data was available (516 respondents with missing data were
excluded). See Table 1A in appendix for more details on sample characteristics.
Measurement of dependent variables
The main dependent variable captures individuals’ preferred length of paid leave for
employed parents. The question asked was: “Consider a couple who both work full-
time and now have a new born child. One of them stops working for some time to
care for their child. Do you think there should be a paid leave available and, if so, for
how long?” Answers were given in number of months (from 0 to 95) and tend to
cluster around key leave lengths. This results in a non-normal distribution of the data
and high skewness and kurtosis values, especially when looking at country
subsamples.4
To correct for this problem, we recoded the variable into a categorical
one. We distinguish between a) preferences for no paid leave or for a short leave up to
4 months (short leave), b) for a leave ranging from 5 to 12 months (moderate leave),
and c) for a paid leave of over a year (long leave).5
The moderate leave is used as the
reference category.
Two follow up questions were asked to individuals who gave an answer of at least 1
month to the main question. One question concerns individuals’ preferences regarding
the gender division of the leave. “Still thinking about the same couple, if both are in

19. 19
similar work situation and are eligible for paid leave, how should this paid leave
period be divided between the mother and the father?” The question is framed as a
hypothetical situation where structural barriers that could induce a gendered use of
parental leave are removed: the career and financial costs of leave uptake are equal for
the mother and the father and potential restrictions of access to leave are ruled out.
Therefore this question taps into individuals’ preferences and values about the sharing
of parental roles during early childhood. Answers are coded into three categories: a)
“the mother should take the entire period of leave and the father should not take any
paid leave” (fully gendered), b) “the mother should take most of the paid leave period
and the father should take some of it” (partly gendered; reference category), c) “the
mother and the father should each take half of the paid leave” (gender equal).6
The question “And who should pay for this leave?” captures the preferred financing
source of the leave. Possible answers are a) “the government”, b) “the employer”, c)
“both the government and the employer” (reference category).7
The fact that the
response options are generic enables for comparative data. “Government” may be
understood as any social insurance system, financed either through general taxes or
through employers and/or employees wage contributions, which provides income
replacement during the leave. “Employers” refers to work organizations compensating
themselves employees who are on leave. In this case, the costs of leave are not
collectively shared within the labor market or in society. “Both the government and
the employer” suggests a mixed situation where leaves are partly financed by the
government and partly by the employer, who also pays some kind of benefit directly
to individuals.
Measurement of independent variables
Because we consider leave preferences as being shaped by multiple social processes,
we include predictors which account for these various influences (see Table 1A in
appendix for the distribution of independent variables). The institutional and cultural
dimension is accounted for by the country variable, where Sweden is set as the
reference category in the analyses.

20. 20
According to the self-interest theory, individual level socioeconomic and family life
variables are also important predictors. A parenthood dummy variable captures
whether respondents have one child or more (being childless is the reference
category). Age was recoded into three meaningful categories which reflect
individuals’ advancement in the life course: young adults and adults in their
childbearing and childrearing years (between 18 and 44 years old); respondents in
their active years (between 45 and 65 years; the reference category) and retirement
years (over 65 years old). Sex is a dummy variable, where men are the reference
category. In order to reflect individuals’ position in the social structure, we include a
dummy variable capturing their education; distinguishing between those who hold a
tertiary degree and those who do not (reference category).8
The employment status is
a dummy variable which distinguishes between individuals in paid work (reference
category) who are potentially targeted by paid leave and those not (i.e., retired,
unemployed, homemakers, in education, or receiving disability benefits, or other).
Finally, two variables capture the influence of ideational factors. In order to create a
reliable indicator of gender ideology, we conducted principal component analysis
(PCA) on items tapping into family and gender roles, such as “A pre-school child is
likely to suffer if his or her mother works”.9
Five items were found to form a single
scale, with a good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .80). Mean gender ideology scores
were computed for each individual.10
The score measures the degree of traditionalism,
ranging from 0 (denoting an egalitarian gender ideology) to 4 (denoting a traditional
gender ideology).
State responsibility is a mean score capturing individuals’ attitudes towards the role
of the state with regard to the provision and payment of care services to dependent
individuals (children and the elderly).11
The four survey items we use form a reliable
scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .76). We recoded respondents’ answers to questions such
as “People have different views on childcare for children under school age. Who do
you think should primarily provide childcare?” in order to capture whether the
government was seen as the responsible actor or not. Mean scores for each individual
range from 0 (the state is not seen at all as the responsible actor for the welfare of
dependents and the provision and payment of care services) to 1 (the state is seen as
the primary responsible actor).12

21. 21
Although the theoretical framework and literature review suggests we should also
consider individuals’ political orientation, we are unfortunately not able to take this
variable into account. This is due to the large percentage of missing data in our
sample.13
4. 3. Analytical techniques
To answer our research questions, we did descriptive statistics on the three dependent
variables, presenting country differences regarding leave policy preferences. Then we
applied multinomial logistic regressions to model leave preferences. For each
dependent variable, we ran three models where we progressively integrated the
different sets of predictors. Model 1 only shows the institutional (country) effect on
individuals’ leave preferences. Model 2 integrates the self-interest predictors related
to socio-economic status and family life, and finally in Model 3 ideational variables
examining gender ideology and welfare attitudes are added. This enables us to see
how the model improves with the three sets of variables and their respective
predictive power. The estimates for each model are presented in the appendix (tables
2A, 3A and 4A), however in the result section we only show and comment estimates
for Model 3.
5. Results
5. 1. Leave length preferences
Descriptive statistics
In support of institutional theory, descriptive statistics show there are striking
differences across the four countries as regards leave preferences. Figure 1 displays
the frequencies of responses in percent in each country of the leave length individuals
consider appropriate. The average response of preferred length of paid leave is 29
months in Austria, 17 months in Sweden, 6 in Switzerland and 5 in the USA.14

22. 22
Figure 1 - Paid leave length preferences by country (continuous variable)
In Austria and Sweden, answers tend to reflect overall the well-established leave
possibilities available in the country. In Sweden, the most cited leave lengths (over
20% of respondents in the sample) are 12 and 18 months. In addition, 19% of the
sample answered 24 months of paid leave. Only 5% of the sample answered that no
paid leave should be available. In Austria, the leave lengths which find the largest
consensus are longer than in Sweden: 33% think there should be 36 months of paid
leave and 25% think it should last 24 months. There is only a small minority of
respondents (7%) who consider that paid leave should last 12 months. Finally, 8% of
respondents consider there is no need for any paid leave.
Turning to Switzerland and USA, the distribution for both countries is positively
skewed, showing a clear preference for shorter leaves as well as less consensus on key
leave lengths. In both countries, however, 6 months of paid leave is the most cited
length. It gathers 27% of individuals in Switzerland and 22% in the USA. In both
countries, three months is the second most cited leave length; it gathers 19% of
responses in the USA. A larger proportion of respondents than in Sweden and Austria
considers there is no need of paid leave for employed parents. This is the case of 16%

23. 23
of respondents in the USA and 12% in Switzerland. Nonetheless, taking the current
statutory leave scheme in each country as reference, we observe that the large
majority of respondents in the USA (83%) consider there should be at least one month
of paid leave for parents. They can be considered as being “dissatisfied” with the
current scheme. In Switzerland, about two thirds of the sample is also dissatisfied;
63% consider there should be a paid leave of 4 months or more.15
Figure 2 - Paid leave length preferences by country (categorical variable)
Using the categorical variable created for the multinomial logistic regression, the
country differences appear even more sharply (Figure 2). In the USA, individuals tend
to favor short leaves. In Switzerland, there is a fairly even distribution of responses
between the short and moderate leave length categories. Long leaves are a minority
among surveyed residents of these two countries. In Sweden, individuals are in favor
of moderate (40%) or long leaves (54%). Finally, in Austria, the preferred leave is
clearly a long one (81% of responses).
Multinomial logistic regression
Turning to the multinomial logistic regression results on leave length preferences, we
observe that our hypotheses are overall confirmed. Table 2 shows that the country
effect visible in the descriptive statistics still holds even after entering in the model

24. 24
the different sets of predictors, including socioeconomic and family life as well as
ideational variables (for more details, see Table 2A in appendix, Model 3).
As expected, compared to Swedes, Swiss and American residents are significantly
more likely to consider that a short leave is legitimate rather than a moderate one.
They are also significantly less likely to prefer a long leave. The effect size is large:
the change of odds is .11 for Swiss residents, which means that they are 9 times less
likely than Swedes to want a long leave (1/0.11=9). Americans are 11 times less
likely than Swedes to prefer a long leave (change of odds of .09). We observe that
Austrians are significantly more likely than Swedes to want a long leave (change of
odds of 9.15) rather than a moderate one. Considering that only a very small minority
in Sweden wants a short leave, Austrians are also found significantly more likely to
want a short leave compared to Swedes. These results partly support hypothesis H1a.
Table 2 - Multinomial logistic regression on the preferred leave length (odds ratios)
Short leave
(0-4 months)
Moderate
leave (5-12
months)
Long leave
(> 12
months)
Country (Sweden ref)
Austria
Switzerland
USA
3.28***
3.59***
6.49***
9.15***
0.11***
0.09***
Sex (Men ref)
Women 0.88 1.36**
Age (45-65 ref)
18-44
> 65
0.96
1.38*
Reference
category
1.39**
0.71*
Parenthood (childless ref)
Parent 1.01 1.67***
Education (non-tertiary ref)
Tertiary degree 0.71*** 1.05
Employment status (in paid work
ref)
Not in paid work
0.87 0.84
Gender ideology score 1.14* 1.16*
State responsibility score 0.23*** 2.89***
Significance levels: * p ≤ .05, ** p ≤ .01, *** p ≤ .001
All individual socioeconomic and family life variables – except the employment
status - significantly explain leave preferences. However effect sizes are smaller than
for the country influence. Hypotheses H1b, H1c and H1d predicted by self-interest

25. 25
theory are confirmed. Women are more likely than men to favor a long leave than a
moderate one. Being a parent also predicts wanting a long leave rather than a
moderate one. Individuals in their pension years are less likely than those middle aged
to favor a long leave and more likely to prefer a short leave.
Interestingly we find that holding a tertiary degree, as compared to any other degree,
significantly decreases the odds of wanting a short leave verses a moderate one. This
suggests that tertiary degree holders may value a moderate leave length which enables
a better work-family life conciliation and which prevents from labor market exit,
especially for highly qualified women.
We find that ideational variables are also significant predictors of leave preferences.
Confirming hypothesis H1e, a highly significant and fairly large influence of the state
responsibility variable is observed. The more individuals consider the state as
responsible for the well-being of dependents (high state responsibility mean score),
the more likely they are to favor a long leave over a moderate one (change of odds of
2.89). Also, as individuals’ state responsibility mean score increases by one unit, they
are about 4 times less likely to favor a short leave (1/0.23=4.35).
Finally, an unexpected relationship is observed between gender ideology and leave
preferences – even though the effect size is small. Individuals holding more
traditional gender ideology are both more likely to favor a short leave and a long
leave over a moderate one. This suggests that traditional representations of gender
roles may translate into either a preference for a family organization along traditional
lines where mothers are homemakers and exit from the labor market (preference for a
short leave or none) or for a similar family organization, but where mothers benefit
from pay during a long absence from work life (preference for long leave).
5. 2. Gender division of leave preferences
Descriptive statistics
Individuals’ preferences in terms of gender division of leave are the most clear-cut in
Sweden, while there is more variability in the three other countries (see Figure 3). The

26. 26
gender equal division of the leave where both parents take half each is clearly the
preferred option in Sweden (70% of respondents). The rest of respondents in Sweden
prefer a scenario where the mother takes most and the father takes some (28%) and
barely none consider that leave should only be taken by the mother.
Figure 3 - Preferred gender division of the leave by country
There is no similar strong norm in the other countries. In fact in the USA, all three
options gather approximately the same proportion of respondents. Switzerland seems
slightly more gender equality oriented than Austria. Approximately the same
proportion of Swiss residents favor a gender equal and a partly gendered division. The
least preferred scenario is the fully gendered one (20%). By contrast, in Austria, the
least preferred scenario is the gender equal one (22%).
Multinomial logistic regression
The three sets of variables that test the three theories significantly predict individuals’
preferences as to how the leave should be divided between the mother and the father.
Results in Table 3 confirm hypothesis H2a and show that the institutional and cultural
effect is extremely large (see also Table 3A in appendix, Model 3). Swiss residents
are about 18 times more likely than Swedes to prefer a fully gendered leave over a

27. 27
partly gendered one (the mother takes most of the leave and the father takes some -
reference category). The change in odds rises to 27 for Austrians and to 46 for
Americans. On the contrary, Austrians and Swiss residents are also less likely than
Swedes to favor a gender equal division of leave over a partly gendered division of
leave.
Socioeconomic and family life variables also significantly influence individuals’
attitudes, which confirms the relevance of self-interest theory. Individuals in their
pension years are about twice more likely than the middle aged to prefer a gender
traditional leave use. However contrary to what we expected, no significant effects are
found for the young cohort (H2b is partly confirmed). Also, education degree
significantly decreases the odds of favoring a gendered division of the leave over a
partly gendered one, but it does not increase the likelihood to want a gender equal
division of leave (H2c is partly confirmed).
Table 3 – Multinomial logistic regression on the preferred gender division of leave (odds ratios)
Fully gendered
(mother all,
father none)
Partly
gendered
(mother most,
father some)
Gender equal
(half-half)
Country (Sweden ref)
Austria
Switzerland
USA
26.91***
18.27***
45.83***
0.29***
0.63***
0.79
Sex (Men ref)
Women 0.75** 0.98
Age (45-65 ref)
18-44
> 65
0.96
2.34***
Reference
category
0.96
1.30
Parenthood (childless ref)
Parent 1.21 0.71***
Education (non-tertiary ref)
Tertiary degree 0.46*** 0.83
Employment status (in paid work
ref)
Not in paid work
0.98 1.29*
Gender ideology score 1.45*** 0.67***
State responsibility score 2.02*** 1.73***
Significance levels: * p ≤ .05, ** p ≤ .01, *** p ≤ .001

28. 28
We find that women are significantly less likely than men to prefer a fully gendered
division over a partly gendered one. Being a parent significantly decreases the odds of
wanting a gender equal division of the leave, as compared to preferring a partly
gendered use. Results also indicate that not being in paid work significantly increases
the odds of wanting a gender equal division of leave verses a partly gendered one.
Ideational variables are also highly significantly related to the preferred gender leave
division. As expected, and confirming hypothesis H2d, as the gender ideology score
increases, the odds of preferring a fully gendered leave use over a partly gendered one
also do, while preferences for a gender equal leave decrease. Finally, we find an
unexpected relationship between state responsibility and the likelihood of favoring a
fully gendered division of leave as well as a gender equal division compared to a
partly gendered one.
5. 3. Leave financing source preferences
Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics show that Sweden and Austria display very similar preferences
regarding the financing source of leaves for parents (see Figure 4). A majority of
respondents in both countries (respectively 71% and 68%) consider it to be the
government’s responsibility to finance paid leave. The rest of respondents mainly
consider employers should co-finance the leave with the government.
Switzerland and the USA differ considerably from Sweden and Austria. This is
particularly the case for the USA, where the liberal ideology is clearly visible. Indeed,
only 8% of respondents consider the government alone should pay for parental leave.
A little over half of respondents think that the government and employers should
share the costs of a paid leave. Finally, far above the other countries, 38% of
respondents consider that employers alone should pay for the leave. In Switzerland, a
large majority - 65% of respondents - considers that the leave should be co-financed.
About one fifth of respondents are in favor of a government-financed leave and
employers alone are only rarely considered legitimate financers.

29. 29
Figure 4 – Preferred financing source by country
Multinomial logistic regression
Logistic regressions results confirm the previous description of a strong country
influence even after controlling for other variables (see Table 3 and for more details
Table 4A in appendix, Model 3). In Switzerland and in the USA, individuals are
respectively about 5 times (change in odds of .19) and 11 times (change in odds of
.09) less likely than Swedes to prefer government financing only over a joint
financing between the government and the employers (reference category). Because
individuals hold very similar views in Austria and in Sweden, there is no significant
effect for Austria. We also find that Americans are 7 times more likely than Swedes to
prefer employers’ financing over a joint financing. These results confirm hypothesis
H3a.
Socioeconomic and family life variables are not systematically significantly
associated to leave financing preferences. We find that being a parent, as opposed to
being childless, significantly increases the odds of preferring government financing
verses a joint financing. Also, not being active on the labor market (as opposed to

30. 30
being active) increases the odds of considering employers alone as legitimate leave
financers. Unexpectedly, we find that women are more likely than men to favor
employer financing rather than joint financing. No significant influence is found on
their preference for government financing, as we had hypothesized (H3b is
invalidated).
Table 3 – Multinomial logistic regression on the preferred financing source (odds ratios)
Government Government
&
employers
Employers
Country (Sweden ref)
Austria
Switzerland
USA
0.99
0.19***
0.09***
0.86
1.55
7.47***
Sex (Men ref)
Women 1.03 1.42**
Age (45-65 ref)
18-44
> 65
0.96
0.87
Reference
category
0.98
0.99
Parenthood (childless ref)
Parent 1.26* 1.24
Education (non-tertiary ref)
Tertiary degree 0.90 0.95
Employment status (in paid work
ref)
Not in paid work
1.04 1.46**
Gender ideology score 1.15** 1.02
State responsibility score 1.86*** 0.26***
Significance levels: * p ≤ .05, ** p ≤ .01, *** p ≤ .001
In line with the ideational theory and confirming hypothesis H3c, results show that the
state responsibility variable has a highly significant and fairly large influence on leave
financing source preferences. For each unit change in individuals’ state responsibility
mean score, the likelihood of preferring government financing increases by 1.86.
Conversely, respondents are almost 4 times less likely to favor employers as sole
financing actors (1/0.26=3.85). Finally, results also show an unexpected association;
i.e., individuals with traditional gender ideology are more likely to favor government
financing over joint financing.

31. 31
6. Discussion
Two main observations can be drawn from the descriptive results of this study. First,
at the aggregate level leave preferences reflect roughly the current leave scheme in
each country and are in line with the underlying welfare regimes and ideologies that
prevail in these different contexts. Secondly, when comparing between the leave
scheme and the leave policy preferences in each country, we can observe however
interesting mismatches. We summarize the distinct patterns of leave preferences
which emerged for each country and we discuss the mismatches identified in each
case.
Swedish respondents are predominantly in favor of moderate to long leaves financed
by the government and that are shared equally by parents. Interestingly, respondents’
answers vary between one and two years and do not reflect the benefit lengths defined
in the Swedish legislation (13 months of well paid leave and 16 months of paid leave
in total). This can be interpreted in the light of the leave scheme’s flexibility which
implies that parents tend to spread out leave over a longer period of time (Haas et al.,
2012, p. 263). The fact that the state’s financial responsibility to provide for these
benefits is unquestioned reflects the strong norm of social redistribution and the
social-democratic ideology (Esping-Andersen, 1990). About a quarter of respondents
consider employers should also participate in leave financing, which can be
understood in the light of employers’ current practice to complement income
compensation of their employees on leave (Haas et al., 2012). The clear gender
equality norm can be understood in the light of the “half-half” norm of leave up-take,
which has been actively promoted by the government (Klinth, 2008). These
preferences regarding the gender division of leave actually lend support to the recent
political proposal to increase the quota of leave for each parent to three months
(Duvander, Haas, & Hwang, 2015, p. 5).
However, a mismatch exists between these preferences and the take-up behavior
among Swedish parents - mothers still use about 3/4th
of parental leave days
(Duvander & Ferrarini, 2013). There are many reasons for the persistence of a
gendered leave use, including economic constraints and the gender wage gap. Work-
place influences have also been identified as obstacles to men’s leave uptake (Haas &

32. 32
Hwang, 2007). The results of this study point to a mismatch between positive public
opinion toward men’s use of parental leave and gendered norms in work organizations
which may deter male employees’ uptake.
Austrians overwhelmingly prefer a long leave paid by the government that is used
mainly or exclusively by mothers. The influence of the conservative ideology is
clearly visible in this pattern where the state is considered as responsible for
supporting a gendered family arrangement (Leitner, 2003). The prevalence of a
parenthood norm where mothers stay at home for an extended period follows from
Austria’s conservative family policies, and not least from the 2002 policy reform
introducing three years of universal childcare benefits. The two most cited leave
lengths are two and three years of leave. These preferences reflect closely the
prevalence of the 20+4 and the 30+6 options among recipients (Riesenfelder &
Danzer, 2015).
However, these results confirm the mismatch with the current leave scheme, which
only guarantees two years of job protection. This has clear negative implications for
gender equality, as mothers tend to exit the labor market (Riesenfelder et al., 2007).
Even though governmental efforts to increase men’s leave uptake and to support
women’s return on the labor market were made, these comparatively shorter leave
options are not mirrored in individuals’ attitudes. This may be due in part because of
the short period elapsed between the introduction of shorter benefit options (2010)
and the data collection for this study (2012). It is also possible that parents facing
multiple options and a complicated system fall back on tradition when it comes to
making a choice. Research shows that the introduction of the five benefit options
resulted in increased stratification of uptake behavior (Leibetseder, 2013; Riesenfelder
& Danzer, 2015). It is therefore possible that leave policy preferences will in the
future increasingly diverge across class and employment statuses.
In Switzerland leave policy preferences are mixed. Almost half of respondents want
a short leave, which corresponds roughly to the length of the current maternity
insurance, which may act as a reference point in individuals’ minds. The rest of
respondents prefer a moderate leave length exceeding the current legal frame. The
most frequently cited leave length is six months. This suggests that in Switzerland

33. 33
too, a mismatch between leave preferences and policies exists, at least for a
significant part of respondents. This result illustrates the tension in Switzerland
between on the one hand the liberal ideology and the idea that family is a private issue
and that public policies should be kept to a minimum, and on the other hand the trend
toward welfare state development. Results also show a divide between two equally
sized groups; one that prefers a partly gendered use of the leave and another in favor
of a gender equal division. This indicates that the current situation of a fully gendered
leave (only mothers are entitled to statutory paid leave) is the least preferred option
among respondents. This result suggest that while gender equality is not equally
valued by all, there is ground for furthering the recent claims for parental and/or
paternity leave implementation which would give fathers access to some statutory
paid leave (Lanfranconi & Valarino, 2014).
Results indicate that leave payment is the most consensual dimension of leave policy
preferences; a mixed financing by the government and employers clearly dominates.
This result can be understood in the light of Switzerland’s tradition of social
partnership and businesses’ and unions’ involvement in welfare schemes (Armingeon,
1997; Trampusch, 2010). Leave financing preferences can also be viewed as being
path dependent, since in the current financing system of maternity leave, employers
and collective agreements often complement state benefits (Valarino, 2012, p. 270).
In the USA, since there is no paid statutory leave at the federal level, public opinion
towards such leave is also not clear-cut. There is a majority group in favor of a short
leave. The 3-month leave frequently mentioned corresponds in fact to the 12 unpaid
weeks granted through the FMLA legislation. However, over twenty percent of the
sample favors a 6-month paid leave. Overall these results suggest there would be
public support for the proposals recently submitted both at the federal and state-levels
to develop paid leave for employed parents. As regards leave payment, there is a
majority for a joint financing by the government and employers. USA’s welfare
liberalism is well illustrated by the fact that the least preferred financing option
among respondents is the state – a result in sharp contrast with responses in other
countries. The high proportion (38%) in favor of employers’ financing may reflect the
current practice in the USA where employers occasionally cover the salary of their
employees on FMLA (Council of Economic Advisors, 2014; US Bureau of Labor

34. 34
Statistics, 2014). Finally, also worth noting is the absence of a norm regarding the
leave gender division, which may result from the liberal ideology. Thus, the lack of
state policies that regulate gender relations and that shape parenthood implies there
are less clear social norms about parental roles and gender relations.
Overall, these results emphasize the way in which the institutional context in which
individuals are embedded act as a frame of reference and orient their expectations and
representations of what they consider normal and legitimate public policies (Arts &
Gelissen, 2001, p. 287). However in Switzerland and the USA, preferences tend to
exceed the statutory paid leaves that are currently available and a large proportion of
individuals can be considered as being “dissatisfied” with the leave scheme in their
country. Of course, the concrete obstacles individuals encounter in these countries to
balance work and family lives certainly contribute to explain this result. But the
mismatch between policies and preferences can further be interpreted as the possible
result of a “spill-over” effect from national contexts with more developed schemes.
Individuals’ awareness of - and social comparison with - other countries where more
extended entitlements exist was found to increase their sense of entitlement to work-
life reconciliation measures (S. Lewis & Smithson, 2001). It is also possible that
supra-national legislations such as the ILO convention on maternity protection and
EU directives on maternity and parental leaves also exert a normative influence and
shape individuals’ expectations.
Turning to the multinomial logistic regressions, the results confirmed the majority of
our hypotheses. This indicates that the three theories mobilized - institutional and
cultural, self-interest, and ideational theories – significantly contribute to explaining
leave policy preferences in the four countries studied. Hereafter we summarize these
results and discuss unexpected relationships in more depth.
Institutional and cultural theory proved to be the most influential predictor of leave
preferences, even after controlling for other variables. This was observed through the
extremely large odds ratios of the country variable explaining leave length, gender
division and financing source preferences. The relationships follow the patterns
described in the descriptive results. These results confirm that the institutional and

35. 35
cultural context powerfully shape individuals’ representations of what is considered
legitimate state responsibility and good parenthood.
Self-interest theory is also relevant to explain leave preferences, even though effect
sizes are considerably smaller. As predicted by this theory, individuals who have a
personal interest in this policy or who are closest to a life course stage including
childbearing, are more likely to be supportive. For instance parents are more likely to
prefer long leaves rather than moderate ones and to prefer government financing
rather than a mixed one. We also find that parents are less likely than childless
individuals to favor a gender equal division of leave. This result can be interpreted in
the light of the traditionalizing effect of the transition to parenthood on couples (e.g.,
Craig & Mullan, 2010). The need to adopt a gender approach when studying leave
policy preferences is further illustrated by the significant influence of sex. We find
that women are significantly more likely than men to want a long leave, but that they
are also more likely than men to reject a fully gendered division of leave. This
suggests that while women may favor a long paid leave because they are usually the
main child carers and recipients of leave policy (e.g., Bruning & Plantenga, 1999),
they are also ready to share leave with men and to involve them in childcare. This
result is consistent with previous studies showing women’s more positive attitudes to
father-friendly leave policies (Fox et al., 2009; Hyde et al., 1993; Warren et al., 2009)
and their propensity to have more gender equal attitudes than men (Davis &
Greenstein, 2009).
More surprising is the result that shows women’s higher likelihood to want
employer’s financing rather than a joint financing with the state. This result
invalidates our hypothesis. We had expected – in accordance with previous research
showing women’s higher welfare state support (e.g., Gelissen, 2008) – that they
would be more likely to favor government financing. When looking at descriptive
statistics by sex and country, we find that this result is mainly true for the American
subsample, which is in line with the general attitudes in the USA rejecting state
intervention in work-family life issues.16
The influence of age on leave policy preferences followed overall our expectations.
Individuals in their pension years are more likely to favor short leaves and to reject

36. 36
long ones compared to middle aged respondents. They are also more likely to favor a
gendered use of the leave. Respondents in their childbearing and childrearing ages are
more likely to favor long leaves, but no effect on the gender division of the leave is
observed. We find that individuals outside the labor market were more likely to
consider employers as legitimate leave financers, as well as to favor a gender equal
division of leave.
Education also significantly predicts leave policy preferences. Tertiary-degree holders
are more likely to reject a fully gendered division of leave over a partly gendered one.
This may be related to the more widespread norm of gender equality among higher
educated (Davis & Greenstein, 2009, p. 94) and to their higher likelihood to support
men’s use of parental leave (European Opinion Research Group, 2004, p. 19). We
also find that higher educated individuals are more likely than others to reject short
leave lengths. While this result may come as surprising in an economic perspective
(leave uptake has a higher opportunity cost for higher educated), it may in fact
indicate that tertiary-degree holders view leave as a reconciliation measure that
enables them to combine work and family life, especially for women. A moderate
paid leave would therefore be seen as a measure preventing from labor market exit
and enabling the pursuit of family and work lives.
Finally, our results suggest it is relevant to consider ideational theory. Expected
relationships were confirmed. The more individuals believe in state responsibility, the
more likely they are to prefer a long leave and to reject a short one, as well as to
prefer government funding and to reject employers’ financing. We also find that
gender traditional individuals are more likely to favor a fully gendered division of
leave, as well as to reject a gender equal division of leave.
In addition, some interesting and unexpected relationships were observed, which calls
for exploring further the complex relationship between welfare state representations,
gender ideology and leave policy preferences. For instance, gender traditionals were
found more likely to favor both a short leave as well as a long one. Thus some
individuals may interpret a long leave (to be used by mothers only in that case) as a
way to achieve a male breadwinner model, and others may find that a short leave or
none at all corresponds to their traditional views. Gender traditionals are also found

37. 37
more likely to support government financing over joint financing. Also, those who
attribute high responsibility to the state were more likely to prefer a fully gendered
division of leave as well as a gender equal division. This shows that individuals who
believe in state intervention expect either a support for a traditional family or for a
gender equal one.
7. Conclusion
In this study we analyzed three dimensions of leave policy preferences – length,
financing and gender division – across four different welfare regimes and policy
contexts. We were able to give new insights on this understudied research topic
thanks to the ISSP 2012 module Family and changing gender roles IV. This survey
provides for the first time comparable data sets on this issue. However, some
limitations and considerations follow from using this dataset.
First, in order to surpass the national specificities of leave policies, the survey items
were formulated in general and hypothetical terms. As a consequence, there is some
leeway regarding the interpretation of the meaning of questions by respondents and
the meaning of answers by researchers. For instance, the first item asked about “paid
leave”, with the assumption that individuals would think about all types of leaves
(including maternity, paternity and parental leaves) when answering. It is however not
clear whether respondents have done so, and the translation of the question may have
oriented respondents’ answers.17
Also, as researchers we interpreted for example the
meaning of the possible financing sources respondents had to chose from. What
individuals mean when they answer that they prefer leave to be jointly financed by the
government and by employers may still be very context-dependent. We tried to
account for these differences when analyzing descriptive statistics by country and
interpreting results.
Secondly, the non-normal distribution of the data had important consequences for the
study. It required that we recode answers in broad categories, and although we were
cautious when constructing the leave length categories, this implied undoubtedly a
loss in how individuals’ answers can be accounted for. Furthermore, working with a

38. 38
categorical variable limited our analyses to multinomial logistic regression and
obliged us to interpret leave preferences in reference to the situation in one country. It
is important to note that we decided to estimate the determinants of leave preferences
in relation an “extreme” country – Sweden - where gender equality and leave policies
are strongly rooted. This choice clearly oriented our analysis of leave policy
preferences and our results.
Notwithstanding these limitations, the study adds to leave policy and welfare
attitudinal research. Our results confirm that welfare attitudinal theories should be
combined with a gender approach to understand the determinants of leave policy
preferences. We find attitudes towards leaves are mostly influenced by the
institutional and cultural context in which individuals are embedded. However self-
interest and ideational theories also contribute to shape leave policy preferences; sex,
age, parenthood, education and employment, as well as gender and state responsibility
ideologies also play a significant role. These elements together shape individuals
conception of how childcare should be organized after childbirth and whether or not
the state should support them in this endeavor.
We conclude by emphasizing some of the policy implications of our study. Although
Sweden and Austria have since long established statutory paid leave policies, large
gaps can still be noted. For instance, the dominant norm in Sweden that leave should
be shared equally does not match leave uptake rates. This mismatch calls for more
research on this issue as well as policy measures that would support men’s effective
leave uptake. In Austria, the gap between the 3-years leave preference and the 2-years
job protection leave period calls for a harmonization of measures in order to prevent
women’s exit from the labor market. In more liberal tainted societies such as the USA
and Switzerland, individuals’ expectations regarding statutory paid leave are more
modest, but they nonetheless exceed the current legal frame. This suggests that
political actors and interest groups would find some support within civil society to
implement more extended paid leaves.

39. 39
8. References
Aeppli, D. C. (2012). Wirkungsanalyse. Mutterschaftentschädigung [Analysis of
effects. Maternity benefits]: Office fédéral des assurances sociales OFAS.
Armingeon, K. (1997). Swiss corporatism in comparative perspective. West European
Politics, 20(4), 164-179. doi:10.1080/01402389708425223
Armingeon, K. (2001). Institutionalising the Swiss welfare state. West European
Politics, 24(2), 145-168. doi:10.1080/01402380108425437
Arts, W., & Gelissen, J. (2001). Welfare States, Solidarity and Justice Principles:
Does the Type Really Matter? Acta Sociologica, 44, 283-299.
Baum, C. L., & Ruhm, C. J. (2014). The Effects of Paid Family Leave in California
on Labor Market Outcomes. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Blekesaune, M., & Quadagno, J. (2003). Public Attitudes toward Welfare State
Policies: A Comparative Analysis of 24 Nations. European Sociological
Review, 19(5), 415-427.
Bonoli, G. (2000). Public Attitudes to Social Protection and Political Economy
Traditions in Western Europe. European Societies, 2(4), 431 - 452. Retrieved
from http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/713767005
Bonoli, G., & Häusermann, S. (2009). Who Wants What From The Welfare State?
European Societies, 11(2), 211-232. doi:10.1080/14616690801942116
Bruning, G., & Plantenga, J. (1999). Parental leave and equal opportunities :
experiences in eight European countries. Journal of European Social Policy,
9, 195-209. doi:10.1177/095892879900900301
Burstein, P. (2003). The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an
Agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(1), 29-40. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3219881
Council of Economic Advisors. (2014). The Economics of Paid and Unpaid Leave.
Retrieved from Washington D.C:
Craig, L., & Mullan, K. (2010). Parenthood, Gender and Work-Family Time in the
United States, Australia, Italy, France, and Denmark. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 72(5), 1344-1361. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00769.x
Davis, S. N., & Greenstein, T. N. (2009). Gender Ideology: Components, Predictors,
and Consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 87-105.
doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115920
Duvander, A.-Z., & Ferrarini, T. (2013). Sweden's Family Policy under Change: Past,
Present, Future International Policy Analysis (pp. 13): Friedrich Ebert Stiftung
http://www.eif.gov.cy/mlsi/dl/genderequality.nsf/0/DC5683BCC5AD4C
77C22579A7002890B0/$file/sweden_familypolicy_v01_online (1).pdf.
Duvander, A.-Z., Haas, L., & Hwang, P. C. (2015). Sweden: Country note. In P. Moss
(Ed.), International Review of Leave Policies and Related Research 2015.
Available at
http://www.leavenetwork.org/fileadmin/Leavenetwork/Country_notes/
2015/Sweden.pm.pdf.
Duvander, A.-Z., & Johansson, M. (2012). What are the effects of reforms promoting
fathers' parental leave use? Journal of European Social Policy, 22(3), 319-
330. Retrieved from http://esp.sagepub.com/content/22/3/319.abstract
Duvander, A.-Z., Lappegard, T., & Andersson, G. (2010). Family policy and fertility:
fathers' and mothers' use of parental leave and continued childbearing in
Norway and Sweden. Journal of European Social Policy, 20(1), 45-57.

40. 40
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
European Opinion Research Group. (2004). Special Eurobarometer 189 / Wave 59.1.
Europeans' attitudes to parental leave: Directorate General Employment and
Social Affairs Available at:
http://www.fatherhoodinstitute.org/uploads/publications/74.pdf.
FCWI. (2001). Femmes Pouvoir Histoire. Histoire de l'égalité en Suisse de 1848 à
2000. Berne: Swiss Confederation Available at
http://www.ekf.admin.ch/dokumentation/00444/00517/index.html?lan
g=fr.
FCWI. (2011). Femmes Pouvoir Histoire. Dès 2001. Berne: Swiss Confederation
Available at
http://www.ekf.admin.ch/dokumentation/00444/00516/index.html?lan
g=fr.
Ferragina, E., & Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2011). Welfare regime debate: past, present,
futures? Policy & Politics, 39(4), 583-611.
Ferrarini, T., & Duvander, A.-Z. (2010). Earner-Carer Model at the Crossroads:
Reforms and Outcomes of Sweden's Family Policy in Comparative
Perspective. International Journal of Health Services, 40(3), 373-398.
Fox, E., Pascall, G., & Warren, T. (2009). Work-family policies, participation, and
practices: fathers and childcare in Europe. Community, Work & Family, 12(3),
313-326. Retrieved from
http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/13668800902966323
FSIO. (2013). Congé de paternité et congé parental. Etat des lieux et présentation de
divers modèles. Bern: Federal Department of Home Affairs Available at
http://www.bsv.admin.ch/aktuell/medien/00120/index.html?lang=fr&m
sg-id=50638.
Fusulier, B., Laloy, D., & Sanchez, E. (2007). L'acceptabilité sociale de l'usage de
congés légaux pour raisons parentales : le point de vue des cadres d'une grande
entreprise. Recherches sociologiques et anthropologiques, 38(2), 18.
Gelissen, J. (2008). European scope-of-government beliefs: the impact of individual,
regional and national characteristics. In W. Van Oorschot, M. Opielka, & B.
Pfau-Effinger (Eds.), Culture and Welfare State (pp. 247-267). Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Grover, S. L. (1991). Predicting the Perceived Fairness of Parental Leave Policies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 247-255.
Haas, L., Duvander, A.-Z., & Chronholm, A. (2012). Sweden: country note. In P.
Moss (Ed.), International Review of Leave Policies and Related Research
2012. Available at
http://www.leavenetwork.org/fileadmin/Leavenetwork/Annual_reviews
/2012_annual_review.pdf.
Haas, L., & Hwang, P. C. (2007). Gender and organizational culture - Correlates of
companies' responsiveness to fathers in Sweden. Gender & Society, 21(1), 52-
79. doi:10.1177/0891243206295091
Haas, L., & Hwang, P. C. (2008). The impact of taking parental leave on fathers'
participation in childcare and relationships with children : Lessons from
Sweden. Community, Work & Family, 11(1), 85-104.
doi:10.1080/13668800701785346
Haas, L., & Rostgaard, T. (2011). Fathers' rights to paid parental leave in the Nordic
countries: consequences for the gendered division of leave. Community, Work
& Family, 14(2), 177-195. doi:10.1080/13668803.2011.571398

41. 41
Han, W.-J., Ruhm, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2009). Parental leave policies and parents'
employment and leave-taking. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,
28(1), 29-54. doi:10.1002/pam.20398
Hyde, J. S., Essex, M. J., & Horton, F. (1993). Fathers and Parental Leave. Attitudes
and Experiences. Journal of Family Issues, 14(4), 616-641.
doi:10.1177/019251393014004008
Jordan, J. (2013). Policy feedback and support for the welfare state. Journal of
European Social Policy, 23(2), 134-148.
Kamerman, S. B., & Moss, P. (2009). The politics of parental leave policies.
Children, parenting, gender and the labour market. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Kamerman, S. B., & Waldfogel, J. (2012). United States: Country note. In P. Moss
(Ed.), International Review of Leave Policies and Related Research 2012:
Available at
http://www.leavenetwork.org/fileadmin/Leavenetwork/Annual_reviews
/2012_annual_review_october.pdf.
Klerman, J. A., Daley, K., & Pozniak, A. (2014). Family and Medical Leave in 2012:
Technical Report. Retrieved from Washington, D.C.:
Klinth, R. (2008). The Best of Both Worlds? Fatherhood and Gender Equality in
Swedish Paternity Leave Campaigns, 1976-2006. Fathering, 6(1), 20-38.
doi:10.3149/fth.0601.20
Knijn, T., & Kremer, M. (1997). Gender and the Caring Dimension of Welfare States:
Toward Inclusive Citizenship Social Politics, 4(3), 328-361. Retrieved from
Retrieved from http://sp.oxfordjournals.org/content/4/3/328.short
Korpi, W. (2000). Faces of inequality: Gender, class, and patterns of inequalities in
different types of welfare states. Social Politics, 7(2), 127-191.
Lanfranconi, L. M., & Valarino, I. (2014). Gender Equality and Parental Leave
Policies in Switzerland. A Discursive and Feminist Perspective. Critical
Social Policy, 34(4). doi:10.1177/0261018314536132
Leibetseder, B. (2013). Parental leave benefit in Austria. Stratified take-up in a
conservative country. International Review of Sociology, 23(3), 542-563.
doi:10.1080/03906701.2013.856160
Leitner, S. (2003). Varieties of familialism: The caring function of the family in
comparative perspective. European Societies, 5(4), 353-375.
doi:10.1080/1461669032000127642
Lerner, S., & Applebaum, E. (2014). Business As Usual: New Jersey Employers’
Experiences with Family Leave Insurance. Washington, D.C.: Center for
Economic and Policy Research.
Lewis, J. (1992). Gender and the Development of Welfare Regimes. Journal of
European Social Policy, 2(3), 159-173. doi:10.1177/095892879200200301
Lewis, S., & Smithson, J. (2001). Sense of Entitlement to Support for the
Reconciliation of Employment and Family Life. Human Relations, 54(11),
1455-1481.
Lundqvist, Å. (2011). Family paradoxes: gender equality and labour market
regulation in Sweden, 1930-2010. Bristol: Policy Press.
Morgan, K. J. (2006). Working Mothers and the Welfare State - Religion and the
Politics of Work-Family Policies in Western Europe and the United States.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Moss, P. (Ed.) (2012). International Review on Leave Policies and Related Research
2012. International Network on Leave Policies and Research: Available at:
http://www.leavenetwork.org/fileadmin/Leavenetwork/Annual_reviews
/2012_annual_review.pdf.

42. 42
Neyer, G. (2010). Familienpolitik in Österreich zwischen Beharrung und
Veränderung. Revue d'Allemagne et des pays de langue allemande, 42(1), 57-
70.
Obinger, H., & Tálos, E. (2010). Janus-faced Developments in a Prototypical
Bismarckian Welfare State. Welfare Reforms in Austria Since the 1970s. In B.
Palier (Ed.), A Long Good Bye to Bismarck. The Politics of Welfare Reforms
in Continental Europe (pp. 101-128). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University
Press.
OECD. (2015). OECD StatExtracts. Social expenditure - aggregated data. Retrieved
from http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=33817
Ray, R., Gornick, J. C., & Schmitt, J. (2010). Who cares? Assessing generosity and
gender equality in parental leave policy designs in 21 countries. Journal of
European Social Policy, 20(3), 196-216. doi:10.1177/0958928710364434
Riesenfelder, A., & Danzer, L. (2015). Wiedereinstiegsmonitoring. Retrieved from
Wien:
Riesenfelder, A., Sorger, C., Wetzel, P., & Willsberger, B. (2007). Das
Kinderbetreuungsgeld in Österreich. Auswirkungen auf das Erwerbsverhalten
und die Beschäftigungsfähigkeit. Berlin: Lit-Verlag.
Rille-Pfeiffer, C. (2012). Austria: Country note. In P. Moss (Ed.), International
Review on Leave Policies and Related Research 2012 (pp. 56-61): Available
at
http://www.leavenetwork.org/fileadmin/Leavenetwork/Annual_reviews
/2012_annual_review_october.pdf.
Rostgaard, T. (2002). Setting time aside for the father: father's leave in Scandinavia.
Community, Work & Family, 5(3), 343 - 364.
doi:10.1080/1366880022000041810
Sottas, G., & Millioud, P. (2008). Allocations pour pertes de gain en cas de maternité
- premier aperçu. Sécurité sociale, 5, 304-307.
Staerklé, C., Roux, P., Delay, C., Gianettoni, L., & Perrin, C. (2003). Consensus and
conflict in lay conceptions of citizenship: Why people reject or support
maternity policies in Switzerland. Psychologica Belgica, 43, 9-32.
Svallfors, S. (2004). Class, Attitudes and the Welfare State: Sweden in Comparative
Perspective. Social Policy & Administration, 38(2), 119-138.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9515.2004.00381.x
Svallfors, S. (Ed.) (2012). Contested Welfare States. Welfare attitudes in Europe and
Beyond. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Thévenon, O. (2011). Family Policies in OECD Countries: A Comparative Analysis.
Population and Development Review, 37(1), 57-87. doi:10.1111/j.1728-
4457.2011.00390.x
Thévenon, O., & Solaz, A. (2013). Labour Market Effects of Parental Leave Policies
in OECD Countries. OECD Social, employement and migration working
papers, No. 141, OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/1815199x
Thoenen, O. (2010). Reconciliation of Work and Family Life in Switzerland. German
Policy Studies, 6(3), 13-48. Retrieved from Retrieved from
http://www.spaef.com/article/1233/Reconciliation-of-Work-and-
Family-Life-in-Switzerland
Trampusch, C. (2010). The welfare state and trade unions in Switzerland: an historical
reconstruction of the shift from a liberal to a post-liberal welfare regime.
Journal of European Social Policy, 20(1), 58-73. Retrieved from
http://esp.sagepub.com/content/20/1/58.abstract

43. 43
US Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). Employee Benefits in the United States
National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in the United States,
March 2014 (Tables 16 and 32). Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2014/ebbl0055.pdf.
Valarino, I. (2012). Switzerland: country note. In P. Moss (Ed.), International Review
of Leave Policies and Related Research 2012 (pp. 269-276): Available at
http://www.leavenetwork.org/fileadmin/Leavenetwork/Annual_reviews
/2012_annual_review.pdf.
Valarino, I. (2014). The Emergence of Parental and Paternity Leaves in Switzerland:
A Challenge to Gendered Representations and Practices of Parenthood.
(Ph.D. in social sciences), University of Lausanne, Lausanne. Retrieved from
http://serval.unil.ch/?id=serval:BIB_EC9A89C2A3A6
Valarino, I., & Bernardi, L. (2010). Fertility Discourse in Parental Leave Policies'
Media Coverage. A Frame Analysis of French-speaking Swiss Press Articles
from 1999 to 2009. Population Review, 49(2), 47-69.
doi:10.1353/prv.2010.0006
Van Oorschot, W. (2010). Public perceptions of the economic, moral, social and
migration consequences of the welfare state: an empirical analysis of welfare
state legitimacy. Journal of European Social Policy, 20(1), 19-31.
Van Oorschot, W., Reeskens, T., & Meuleman, B. (2012). Popular perceptions of
welfare state consequences: A multilevel, cross-national analysis of 25
European countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(2), 181-197.
Warren, T., Fox, E., & Pascall, G. (2009). Innovative Social Policies: Implications for
Work–life Balance among Low-waged Women in England. Gender, Work &
Organization, 16(1), 126-150. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00433.x
Williamson, S., & Carnes, M. (2013). Partisanship, Christianity, and Women in the
Legislature: Determinants of Parental Leave Policy in U.S. States. Social
Science Quarterly, 94(4), 1084-1101. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00882.x

44. 44
9. Appendix
Table 1A – Distribution of the sample by key variables
N Percentage
Country
Sweden
Austria
Switzerland
USA
882
1029
1134
1063
21.5%
25%
27.6%
25.9%
Sex
Women
Men
2152
1956
52.4%
47.6%
Parenthood
Parent
Childless
2764
1344
67.3%
32.7%
Age category
18-44
45-65
>65
1831
1484
792
44.6%
36.1%
19.3%
Employment status
In paid work
Not in paid work
2557
1551
62.2%
37.8%
Education degree
Tertiary degree
Primary or secondary
1118
2990
27.2%
72.8%
State responsibility
Mean score (range 0-1) 0.42
Gender ideology
Mean score (range 0-4) 1.60

45. 45
Table 2A – Multinomial logistic regression on the preferred leave length
Model 1:
Country
Model 2:
Country & family and
life course
Model 3:
Country, family and life
course & ideational
B (SE) Odds
ratio
B (SE) Odds
ratio
B (SE) Odds
ratio
Short leave
vs. moderate leave
Intercept -1.89 (0.14)*** -1.78 (0.17)*** -1.09 (0.24)***
Country (Sweden ref.)
Austria 1.88 (0.19)*** 6.51 1.85 (0.20)*** 6.34 1.19 (0.24)*** 3.28
Switzerland 1.85 (0.15)*** 6.34 1.93 (.016)*** 6.88 1.28 (0.19)*** 3.59
USA 2.38 (0.15)*** 10.84 2.50 (0.16)*** 12.21 1.87 (0.19)*** 6.49
Sex (male ref.)
Female -.16 (0.08)* .85 -.13 (0.08) .88
Age (45-65 ref.)
Childbearing (< 44) -.08 (0.09) .92 -.04 (0.10) .96
Pension (> 65) .39 (0.12)** 1.48 .32 (0.14)* 1.38
Parenthood (childless ref.)
Parent -.03 (0.09) .97 .01 (0.09) 1.01
Education (non-tertiary ref.)
Tertiary degree -.34 (0.09)*** .71 -.34 (0.09)*** .71
Employment status (paid
work ref.)
Not in paid work -.10 (0.09) .90 -.13 (0.10) .87
Gender ideology .13 (0.06)* 1.14
State responsibility -1.45 (0.15)*** .23
Long leave vs.
moderate leave
Intercept .29 (0.06)*** -.23 (0.15) -1.28 (0.24)***
Country (Sweden ref.)
Austria 1.85 (0.12)*** 6.34 1.91 (0.13)*** 6.79 2.21 (0.16)*** 9.15
Switzerland -2.60 (0.15)*** .075 -2.64 (0.16)*** .07 -2.19 (0.19)*** .11
USA -2.73 (0.18)*** .065 -2.84 (0.18)*** .06 -2.42 (0.22)*** .09
Sex (male ref.)
Female .28 (0.09)** 1.32 .31 (0.10)** 1.36
Age (45-65 ref.)
Childbearing (< 44) .28 (0.11)* 1.33 .33 (0.12)** 1.39
Pension (> 65) -.39 (0.15)** .67 -.34 (0.16)* .71
Parenthood (childless ref.)
Parent .54 (0.11)*** 1.71 .51 (0.12)*** 1.67
Education (non-tertiary ref.)
Tertiary degree .06 (0.11) 1.06 .05 (0.12) 1.05
Employment status (paid
work ref.)
Not in paid work -.16 (0.12) .85 -.18 (0.13) .84
Gender ideology .15 (0.06)* 1.16
State responsibility 1.06 (0.18)*** 2.89
Likelihood ratio test X2 (6)= 2959.20*** X2 (18)= 3063.88*** X2 (22)= 3038.69***
Pseudo R-Square
Cox and Snell .473
.532
.489
.550
.523
.588Nagelkerke
N 4624 4563 4108
Notes: reference category is the preference for a paid leave between 5 and 12 months. * p ≤ .05, ** p ≤ .01, *** p
≤ .001.

46. 46
Table 3A – Multinomial logistic regression on the preferred gender division of leave
Model 1:
Country
Model 2:
Country & family and
life course
Model 3:
Country, family and life
course & ideational
B (SE) Odds
ratio
B (SE) Odds
ratio
B (SE) Odds
ratio
Mother entire, father none
vs. mother most, father some
Intercept -3.10 (0.31)*** -3.10 (0.33)*** -4.44 (0.42)***
Country (Sweden ref.)
Austria 3.06 (0.32)*** 21.39 2.97 (0.32)*** 19.52 3.29 (0.38)*** 26.91
Switzerland 2.35 (0.32)*** 10.54 2.39 (0.32)*** 10.88 2.90 (0.39)*** 18.27
USA 3.13 (0.32)*** 22.80 3.23 (0.32)*** 25.26 3.82 (0.39)*** 45.83
Sex (male ref.)
Female -.36 (0.09)*** .70 -.29 (0.10)** .75
Age (45-65 ref.)
Childbearing yrs (< 44) .006 (0.11) 1.01 -.04 (0.11) .96
Pension yrs (> 65) .91 (0.15)*** 2.48 .85(0.16)*** 2.34
Parenthood (childless ref.)
Parent .22 (0.11)* 1.25 .19 (0.11) 1.21
Education (non-tertiary ref.)
Tertiary degree -.90 (0.13)*** .41 -.78 (0.13)*** .46
Employment status (paid
work ref.)
Not in paid work .06 (0.11) 1.06 -.02 (0.12) .98
Gender ideology .37 (0.06)*** 1.45
State responsibility .70 (0.17)*** 2.02
Mother and father half each
(or father most)
vs. mother most, father some
Intercept .91 (0.08)*** 1.09 (0.13)*** 1.09 (0.20)***
Country (Sweden ref.)
Austria -1.52 (0.11)*** .22 -1.57 (0.12)*** .21 -1.25 (0.14)*** .29
Switzerland -.97 (0.10)*** .38 -1.03 (0.11)*** .36 -.47 (0.14)*** .63
USA -.76 (0.11)*** .46 -.79 (0.11)*** .45 -.24 (0.15) .79
Sex (male ref.)
Female .09 (0.08) 1.10 -.02 (0.08) .98
Age (45-65 ref.)
Childbearing yrs (< 44) -.03 (0.09) 0.97 -.04 (0.10) .96
Pension yrs (> 65) .14 (0.14) 1.15 .26 (0.14) 1.30
Parenthood (childless ref.)
Parent -.44 (.09)*** .64 -.34 (0.09)*** .71
Education (non-tertiary ref.)
Tertiary degree -.02 (0.09) .98 -.18 (0.09) .83
Employment status (paid
work ref.)
Not in paid work .23 (0.10)* 1.26 .26 (0.10)* 1.29
Gender ideology -.39 (0.05)*** .67
State responsibility .55 (0.15)*** 1.73
Likelihood ratio tests X2 (6)= 730.24*** X2 (18)= 928.61*** X2 (22)= 1067.54***
Pseudo R-Square
Cox and Snell .175
.198
.219
.248
.265
.300Nagelkerke
N 3802 3759 3470
Notes: reference category is the preference for a partly gendered division of leave (mother most, father some leave). *
p ≤ .05, ** p ≤ .01, *** p ≤.001.