Suchergebnisse

The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified families' struggles to reconcile caregiving and employment, especially for working mothers. How have different countries reacted to these troubling circumstances? What policies have been implemented to alleviate the pernicious effects of the pandemic on gender and labor inequalities? We examine the policies offered in Denmark, Germany, and the United States, three countries that represent distinct welfare regimes. We find important differences among the policy solutions provided, but also in the "cultural infrastructures" that allow policies to work as intended, or not. In Denmark, a social-democratic welfare state, robust federal salary guarantee programs supplemented an already strong social safety net. The country was among the first to lock down and reorganize health care—and also among the first to reopen schools and child care facilities, acknowledging that parents' employment depends on child care provisioning, especially for mothers. Germany, a corporatist regime, substantially expanded existing programs and provided generous subsidies. However, despite an ongoing official commitment to reduce gender inequality, the cultural legacy of a father breadwinner/mother caregiver family model meant that reopening child care facilities was not a first priority, which pushed many mothers out of paid work. In the U.S. liberal regime, private organizations—particularly in privileged economic sectors—are the ones primarily offering supports to working parents. Patchwork efforts at lockdown and reopening have meant a lengthy period of limbo for working families, with disastrous consequences for women, especially the most vulnerable. Among such varied "solutions" to the consequences of the pandemic, those of liberal regimes seem to be worsening inequalities. The unprecedented nature of the current pandemic recession suggests a need for scholars to gender the study of economic crises.

The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified families' struggles to reconcile caregiving and employment, especially for working mothers. How have different countries reacted to these troubling circumstances? What policies have been implemented to alleviate the pernicious effects of the pandemic on gender and labor inequalities? We examine the policies offered in Denmark, Germany, and the United States, three countries that represent distinct welfare regimes. We find important differences among the policy solutions provided, but also in the "cultural infrastructures" that allow policies to work as intended, or not. In Denmark, a social-democratic welfare state, robust federal salary guarantee programs supplemented an already strong social safety net. The country was among the first to lock down and reorganize health care—and also among the first to reopen schools and child care facilities, acknowledging that parents' employment depends on child care provisioning, especially for mothers. Germany, a corporatist regime, substantially expanded existing programs and provided generous subsidies. However, despite an ongoing official commitment to reduce gender inequality, the cultural legacy of a father breadwinner/mother caregiver family model meant that reopening child care facilities was not a first priority, which pushed many mothers out of paid work. In the U.S. liberal regime, private organizations—particularly in privileged economic sectors—are the ones primarily offering supports to working parents. Patchwork efforts at lockdown and reopening have meant a lengthy period of limbo for working families, with disastrous consequences for women, especially the most vulnerable. Among such varied "solutions" to the consequences of the pandemic, those of liberal regimes seem to be worsening inequalities. The unprecedented nature of the current pandemic recession suggests a need for scholars to gender the study of economic crises.

This methodological review starts one step before Small's classic account of how many cases a scholar needs. We ask, "Which cases do I need?" We argue that a core feature of most qualitative research is case construction, which we define as the delineation of a social category of inquiry. We outline how qualitative researchers construct cases and observations and discuss how these choices impact data collection, analysis, and argumentation. In particular, we examine how case construction and the subsequent logic of crafting observations within cases have consequences for conceptual generalizability, as distinct from empirical generalizability. Drawing from the practice of qualitative work, we outline seven questions qualitative researchers often answer to construct cases and observations. Better understanding and articulating the logic of constructing cases and observations is useful for both qualitative scholars embarking on research and those who read and evaluate their work.

ObjectiveThis article examines whether the availability of Head Start during the Great Recession mitigated the impact of this crisis on poverty rates among families with young children.BackgroundThe first 2 decades of the 21st century have witnessed two major economic crises: the Great Recession and the COVID‐19 pandemic. Poverty rates among families with young children grew substantially during the Great Recession. Families with young children are also more vulnerable to instability during the COVID‐19 pandemic because job losses have been steeper and childcare availability has been significantly curtailed. Programs such as Head Start that support at‐risk families may mitigate such negative consequences.MethodThis study used data from the American Community Survey from 2006 through 2016 and state‐level data on Head Start availability from Program Information Reports. Growth curve modeling was used to examine how the availability of Head Start predicted poverty growth during the Great Recession and the speed of recovery post‐recession.ResultsStates with higher rates of Head Start enrollment had a smaller increase in family poverty during the Great Recession and a more stable recovery than states with lower Head Start enrollment.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that greater access to Head Start programs prevented many families from falling into poverty and helped others exit poverty during the Great Recession.ImplicationsThe findings provide clear, evidence‐based policy recommendations. Increased federal funding for Head Start is needed to support families during a COVID‐19 recession. States should supplement these allocations to expand Head Start enrollment for all eligible families.