The Nordic countries do well on gender equality, but there is more to do. This section provides an overview of the state of gender equality and gender equality policy in the Nordic countries, comparing these with each other and with other OECD countries. It starts with gender outcomes in education (Section 2.1) as educational performance precedes labour market participation, and indeed is a key driver of labour market outcomes of men and women (Section 2.2). Section 2.3 looks at the Nordic approach to welfare policy in general, and Section 2.4 at gender equality and family policy in particular.
Is the Last Mile the Longest? Economic Gains from Gender Equality in Nordic Countries
Getting a good education is a central determinant of life-chances in OECD countries, and providing boys and girls with equal opportunities at school is key to ensuring equal labour market opportunities. The Nordic countries, like all OECD countries, have made huge progress on closing gender differences in education in recent decades. Five or six decades ago, girls and young women were far less likely than boys and young men to attain secondary education and especially a university degree (Barro and Lee, 2013[32]), but today, on average, they obtain higher levels of educational attainment than their male peers (see e.g. Barro and Lee (2013[32]) and the OECD Education Database).
More so than in other OECD countries, education concerns in the Nordic countries currently relate more to the underperformance of boys in school than to the performance of girls (OECD, 2016[33]; OECD, 2016[34]; OECD, 2018[35]). At age 15, girls on average outperform boys in OECD’s PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) reading tests in all OECD countries, but nowhere more so than in the Nordic countries (Table 2.1). Furthermore, Finland is the only OECD country where girls significantly outperform boys on the PISA maths test, and Denmark the only Nordic country where boys outperform girls. In the other three Nordic countries (Iceland, Norway and Sweden), girls do just as well as boys on mathematics. These performance gaps at age 15 contribute to large gender gaps in the numbers that go on to receive a university education: in 2015, young women (aged 25-34) in the Nordic countries were around 14-18 percentage points more likely than young men to complete tertiary education (Table 2.1).
Key indicators of gender gaps in education, employment and entrepreneurship, Nordic and selected other OECD countries, 2016 or latest available year
Reading note: Shading indicates performance relative to the OECD average and the OECD standard deviation. “Top performer” means a value less than the OECD average by more than half the OECD standard deviation (s.d.), and “bottom performer” a value greater than the OECD average by more than half an s.d. “Moderate performer” means a value within half an s.d. of the OECD average, either way. For the indicators of gender gaps in education, “top performer” indicates a gender gap more strongly in favour of girls/young women, and “bottom performer” a gender gap more strongly in favour of boys/young men.
Note: Data on PISA scores refer to 2015. Where marked with an *, the gender gap in the mean PISA score on the given test subject is statistically significant. "Tertiary education" refers to all types of tertiary-level qualifications (ISCED 2011 Levels 5-8). Part-time employment is defined as average usual weekly working hours in the main job of less than 30 hours per week. Data refer to all employed, except for the United States where they refer to dependent employees only. The gender gap in median earnings is defined as men's median earnings minus women's median earnings, divided by men's median earnings. Data for Sweden refer to 2013, for Italy and France to 2014, and for Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Japan, and Norway to 2015. The “share of the employed who are employers” is the share of the employed that are self-employed and have employees. Data for Canada, the United States, and the OECD average refer to 2015. Data for the United States concern 16-64 year-olds.
Source: OECD PISA 2015 Database (http://www.oecd.org/pisa/data); OECD (2016), OECD Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris (http://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm); OECD Employment Database, (http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/onlineoecdemploymentdatabase.htm); OECD (2017), Entrepreneurship at a Glance 2017, OECD Publishing, Paris (http://www.oecd.org/industry/business-stats/entrepreneurship-at-a-glance-22266941.htm).
However, as elsewhere in the OECD, girls and young women remain much less likely to study science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) subjects. In Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden only one-third or less of tertiary graduates in STEM subjects are women (no comparable data are available for Iceland), with this sometimes falling as low as around 15-20% in some sub-fields like information and communication technology (OECD Education Database). Almost all OECD countries face a similar problem – the OECD average female share of tertiary graduates in STEM is just 31% – but it seems especially surprising for the Nordic countries given that Nordic girls do so well on the OECD PISA mathematics tests (Table 2.1). Stoet and Geary (2018[36]) suggest that a combination of personal academic strength in reading, lower interest in science, and broader financial security help explain why so few women in highly developed countries choose STEM careers, while women are more likely to choose STEM in countries with fewer economic opportunities.
Gender gaps in education and career aspirations start to form very early in life. Data from the OECD’s PISA tests show that even by age 15, boys and girls have already developed very different career expectations (OECD, 2015[37]). OECD-wide, 15-year-old boys are, on average, more than twice as likely as girls to expect to work as engineers, scientists or architects, and ten times more likely to want to be an ICT professional. By contrast, girls are much more likely to expect a career as a health worker or teacher (OECD, 2017[21]). These gender gaps in career expectations are related more to attitudes than aptitudes (OECD, 2015[37]), which only serves to underline the importance of tackling stereotypes and changing views on suitable career paths early on.
Policy-makers in the Nordic countries and in other OECD countries are increasingly introducing measures to address gender stereotyping at school and encourage girls to study STEM subjects (OECD, 2017[28]; OECD, 2017[21]). In Sweden, for instance, the revised 2010 Swedish pre-school curriculum explicitly seeks to counteract traditional gender patterns and gender roles (Skolverket, 2011[38]). To promote a better gender balance in some fields of study the Norwegian government will award from the academic year 2018-2019 onwards extra "study points" to applicants of the under-represented gender for some studies, e.g. men who choose to study nursing and women who choose selected engineering studies (Government of Norway, 2018[39]).
Still, much more can be done, in the Nordic countries as elsewhere. As discussed in more depth in OECD (OECD, 2015[37]) and OECD (2017[21]), training teachers to recognise (and address) any biases they themselves may hold about gender roles (as Sweden has done) could help them teach both girls and boys more effectively, while reviewing school curricula and resources (like textbooks) for biases can help prevent the reinforcement of stereotypes within school itself. Career counselling in schools and mentoring programmes can also be introduced from a young age to challenge girls' and boys' perceptions of gender stereotypes and open up awareness of alternative career paths. Despite these initiatives and prevailing gender-equality policies (see below) gender stereotypes persist and future work may consider how best to address gender stereotyping also considering the role the media and social media play in perpetuating existing gender roles.
The relatively high levels of female educational attainment in the Nordic countries contribute to relatively small gender gaps in labour force participation. Except for Denmark, gender labour force participation gaps are less than five percentage points (Table 2.1), far lower than the OECD average (about 12 percentage points). Apart from Switzerland (where many women work part-time), Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden are the only OECD countries with female participation rates exceed 75%, with Finland close behind on 74% (OECD Employment Database). Gender gaps in part-time employment and especially average working hours are also relatively small compared to OECD and G7 countries (around four hours per week, compared to an OECD average of about six hours per week), except in Iceland, where men are in paid work for an average of 43 hours per week, compared to 35 hours per week for women (Table 1.1; Table 2.1; OECD Employment Database).
While gender participation gaps are small, women in the Nordic countries are still less likely than men to progress in their careers and remain under-represented in management positions (Figure 2.1). In Denmark, for example, women make up about 27% of managers despite composing 47% of the labour force. The female share of managers higher in Finland (34%) and more so Iceland, Norway and Sweden (38-39%), but the “leaky pipeline” still exists and is more pronounced than in the United States, for example (Figure 2.1).
Female share of management employment and female share of labour force, all ages, 2016
Note: Data on the female share of managers refer to women's share of those employed in ISCO-08 category one (as managers), or for Canada and the United States, in ISCO-88 category one (as legislators, senior officials and managers). Data for Canada refer to 2014 and the United States to 2013.
Source: OECD Employment Database, (http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/onlineoecdemploymentdatabase.htm); and OECD calculations based on the ILO ILOSTAT Database (http://www.ilo.org/ilostat).
In 2008, Norway became the first country in the world to introduce a legislated quota for the gender composition of both public limited company (PLC) and state-owned enterprise (SOE) boards, prescribing that at least 40% of board members come from both sexes. Similar legislation came into force in Iceland in 2013 (OECD, 2012[19]), with the other Nordic countries opting for a more voluntary approach. Compared to most OECD countries, the Nordic countries perform relatively well on women’s representation on boards. Of the five Nordics, Denmark has the lowest female share of PLC board members (25%) and Iceland the highest (45%) (OECD, 2017[21]). Women’s representation is sometimes a little higher in state-owned enterprises – in Sweden, for instance, 49% of chairs and directors in wholly and partially state-owned enterprises are women (Government Offices of Sweden, 2016[40]). Still, more broadly, parity is often some way off and in many ways the glass ceiling is still there to be broken.
Women in the Nordic countries are less likely to be entrepreneurs than in most other OECD countries (OECD Gender Data Portal) and gender gaps in the incidence of entrepreneurship are often close to the OECD average or above (OECD, 2017[21]) (Table 2.1). Policy tries to promote women entrepreneurship, and to this end Sweden, for example has had business development programmes for many years including advisory services and training; the current “national strategy for business promotion on equal terms (women, youth and foreign-born) covers the period 2015-20 (OECD, 2017[41]). Alas, the work-life balance supports that are embodied in the Nordic policy model (see below) give women better employment options than in many other countries and reduce the need to use self-employment as a tool to reconcile work and family commitments (Kelley et al., 2017[42]; OECD, 2012[19]).
Another feature of the family-friendly employment conditions in Nordic countries is that most employees are covered by collective labour agreements which provide employees with some control over their working time arrangements. More than anywhere else in Europe, over 60% of employees in Denmark, Norway and Sweden have at least some control over working hours, which can make it easier to match working hours with opening hours of ECEC-services and schools (OECD, 2016[43]). Similarly, around 40% of employees in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden work from home, at least occasionally, while this is 20% or less in most other European countries. At 70% or more employees in Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden are also among the most likely to be able to take off for one or two hours for personal/family reasons, e.g. take a child to the dentist (OECD, 2016[43]).
The public sector is large in the Nordic countries and, at around 70%, the female share of public employment is well above the OECD average of 60% (OECD, 2017[44]). Women often prefer working in the public sector as family-friendly work place supports are widely available and the penalty for using them is much smaller than in the private sector (Nielsen, Simonsen and Verner, 2004[45]). Nevertheless, also in the public sector, are women still under-represented in management positions: in 2015, the female share of managers in central government ranged from 35% in Finland to 55% in Iceland (OECD, 2017[44]).
In terms of gender pay gaps, the Nordic countries score close to the OECD average (14.3%) when considering median monthly earnings for full-time workers. Available data for Denmark and Iceland are based on hourly earnings, and as a result tend to underestimate the pay gap relative to other countries using monthly earnings (OECD, 2017[21]). In the Nordic countries, as in other OECD countries, gender pay differentials widen once children appear in the household (Angelov and Lindahl, 2016[46]; Gallen, Lesner and Vejlin, 2017[47]; Kleven, Landais and Søgaard, 2018[48]). For example, Swedish data suggest that the relatively low intensity of labour force participation during the five years after the first childbirth can explain most of the female disadvantage in career and pay profiles (Keloharju, Knüpfer and Tåg, 2017[49]).
Gender segregation in the Nordic labour markets has fallen slightly in recent years but remains high (Ellingsæter, 2013[5]; Teigen and Skjeie, 2017[6]). Employed women in particular are disproportionately likely to be found working in the (large) public sector (Hansen, 1997[50]; OECD, 2017[44]). Public sector employment often offers greater access to family-friendly working arrangements, and sometimes also pays comparatively high wages for low-skilled jobs (Gornick and Jacobs, 1998[51]) – but the prevailing wage structure is more compressed than in private sector employment (Mandel, 2011[52]; Hansen, 1997[50]). Also, gender differences in the positioning of men’s and women’s jobs in the occupational hierarchy play an important role in the persistent gender pay gaps (Mósesdóttir et al., 2006[53]). Gender pay gaps for top earners in Nordic countries are on par or wider than gender pay gaps for high earners in Canada, France, Italy and the United States (OECD, 2017[21]). In all, gender pay gaps persist, and for a large part these pay differences are related to employment outcomes and characteristics as described above. However, some part of the gender pay differentials remain “unexplained” and may in part reflect discriminatory workplace practices. However, this unexplained part seems smaller than in most OECD countries (Lønkommissionen, 2010[54]; Medlingsinstitutet, 2017[55]; OECD, 2017[56]; OECD, 2017[21]).
2.2.1. Paid, unpaid work and egalitarian attitudes
A disproportionate responsibility for unpaid work limits women's opportunities to enter and progress in the labour market, and across the OECD, women on average engage in more unpaid work than men. This is no different in the Nordic counties, though gaps are noticeably smaller than elsewhere. Figure 2.2 shows that across countries, at the aggregate level, women are more likely to participate in paid work when their male partners take on more housework. In Norway and Sweden gender gaps in unpaid work are smaller than one hour per day (OECD Gender Data Portal) which goes hand in hand with high full-time employment rates, in contrast to Germany and the United Kingdom where more than one in three employed women work part-time (OECD Employment Database).
Mean average minutes per day in unpaid work, by gender, and female employment rates, 15-64 year-olds
Note: Reference years vary across countries, but concern the period 2009-2016. For more information see the OECD Gender Data Portal (http://www.oecd.org/gender/data/).
Source: OECD Gender Data Portal (http://www.oecd.org/gender/data/) and OECD Employment Database (http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/onlineoecdemploymentdatabase.htm).
To some extent, access to generous public services (including childcare and elderly care) and modern technology limit the time required for unpaid work for both men and women in the Nordic countries. Egalitarian attitudes also likely play a role, though. Nowadays, Nordic men appear more gender egalitarian in their opinions and behaviours than elsewhere. For example, the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) shows that men in Denmark, Norway and Sweden are more likely than men in much of the rest of Europe to strongly disagree with statements like “a father must put his career ahead of looking after his young child” and, at least in Denmark and Sweden, to strongly agree with gender‑egalitarian statements like “equality between men and women is a fundamental right” (EIGE, 2018[57]). Another example is that fathers and mothers in Nordic countries are at least equally likely to work from home occasionally to help match work and family commitments (OECD, 2016[43]) .
OECD (2017[3]) showed that, at 40%, the proportion of individuals that believe parental leave should be split equally between men and women was higher in the Nordic countries than all other OECD countries except for France and Germany. In Sweden, the share was as high as 60%. It also showed for a small number of countries for which such data was available that fathers with a child of pre-school age want their partners to work about 35 hours per week in Finland and Sweden, while this was just 20-25 hours per week in “part‑time work countries” as Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
Gender policy does not operate in a vacuum, but within an overall policy stance and its impact is related to the prevailing labour market institutions. The policy approach in the Nordic countries involves a comprehensive social policy model that aims to provide universal health and social protection, education and labour market supports. The policy model also involves a large public sector – employing many women – delivering a wide range of public services. Furthermore, the vast majority of workers is covered by collective bargaining between employers and unions, even though union density has been declining since the turn of the century (OECD Employment Database).1
Broadly speaking, the Nordic social model is characterised by the provision of widely accessible and well-co-ordinated municipal education, employment, family and health services. Public social expenditure comes to around 25-30% of GDP, compared to 21% on average across the OECD (Figure 2.3, Panel A).
Notes: Panel A: data for Japan refer to 2013 and for Canada and Iceland to 2015. Data for Iceland included include public and mandatory private (notably benefits accruing from compulsory occupational pension saving) social expenditure; Panel B: data for Japan refer to 2015; Panel C: The redistributive effect of taxes and transfers is measured as the difference between the Gini coefficient on market income and the Gini coefficient on disposable income (market income plus cash benefits minus income taxes), divided by the Gini coefficient on market income. Data for Japan refer to 2012 and to 2014 for Denmark, Iceland, Germany and Italy; and, Panel D: the relative poverty line is set at 50% of the national median equivalised disposable income (market income plus cash benefits minus income taxes). Data for Japan refer to 2012 and to 2014 for Denmark, Iceland, Germany and Italy.
Sources: OECD Revenue Statistics (http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/revenue-statistics-comparable-tax-revenue-data.htm), OECD Social Expenditure Database (http://www.oecd.org/social/expenditure.htm), and OECD Income Distribution Database (http://www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm).
The model does not come cheap and tax burdens are considerable (OECD, 2017[58]). In 2016, total tax revenue (including social security contributions) amounted to around 45% of GDP in Denmark, Finland and Sweden – about 10 percentage points above the OECD average (Figure 2.3, Panel B). High tax rates may, however, be acceptable to many in the Nordic countries, as it is broadly realised that, in return comes an entitlement to a range of good quality public services, including active labour market policies and family supports such pre-schools and other family services.
Furthermore, the public model is not as expensive as it may appear at first. Nordic countries claw back direct and indirect tax on benefit payments and the associated consumption to the tune of about 4 to 6.5% of GDP in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden (OECD Social Expenditure Database). They also do not rely on voluntary private social spending (e.g. health care and pensions) or associated tax support as, for example in the United States. When these effects are taken into account, total social spending in Nordic countries is below that in France and the United States (see (Adema, Fron and Ladaique, 2011[59]) for the underlying methodology).
Tax levels do not just affect financing and levels of social spending but the design of tax/benefit systems also determines it redistributive nature. Figure 2.3, Panel C compares the degree of income inequality in countries before and after accounting for taxes and transfers, and shows that the tax/benefit systems in the Nordic counties are more redistributive than in most OECD countries (OECD, 2015[11]; Pareliussen et al., 2018[60]), even though the redistributive power of Nordic tax/benefit systems has weakened in recent years (Causa and Hermansen, 2017[61]; Pedersen and Kuhnle, 2017[26]). Furthermore, these indicators likely underestimate the redistributive power of Nordic country systems as they do not account for the redistributive effect deriving from the provision of public services financed out of general tax revenue (Adema, Fron and Ladaique, 2014[62]). Both the redistributive nature of the tax/benefit system and the high male and female employment rates - as facilitated by public ECEC-services - contribute to the relative low poverty rates in Nordic countries (Figure 2.3, Panel D).
All OECD countries provide gender equality policies in at least some form, though the types and intensity of support offered differs. Differences in countries’ histories, labour markets, attitudes towards families and gender norms, the role of government, and the relative weight given to the various underlying policy objectives all mean that each have historically taken and continue to take their own approach to family and gender policy (see, for example, Thévenon (2011[22]) and Adema (2012[23]) for a discussion and overview). The Nordic approach to family and gender-equality policy grew largely out of the wider Nordic welfare model (see above), and especially its core principles of “work friendliness” and full participation (Kuhnle and Hort, 2004[24]; Pedersen and Kuhnle, 2017[26]). The various gender equality interventions are closely linked and interdependent, geared towards the same goal: making it easier for men and women to fully engage in the labour market.
Industrialisation in the Nordic countries started around the 1870s and was spurred on by free trade for export-based goods and manufacturing industry (Iqbal and Todi, 2015[63]). During the initial phase of industrialisation - from the 1870s up to the First World War (WWI) - it was common for women to leave the labour market upon marriage to take care of the household and raise children (as is still common in Asian OECD countries, for example). After WWI, policy started to develop non-discrimination legislation and other initiatives that facilitate widespread female employment participation. For example, in 1921, Denmark adopted a law on equal access to employment for men and women (Danmarks Statistik, 2015[64]) while in 1939 Sweden became one of the first countries in Europe to introduce legislation prohibiting dismissal from employment on the grounds of marriage or parenthood (Hilson, 2007[1]; Statistics Sweden, 2016[2]). Today, all Nordic countries have laws mandating equal pay for work of equal value. They also have extensive legal protection against discrimination in the labour market, legislation against sexual harassment both at work and in wider society (Bladini, 2017[65]; NIKK, 2018[66]), and, to slightly differing extents, rules covering the representation of men and women in the media, such as through the regulation of gender-discriminatory advertising, for instance (Kosunen et al., 2017[67]).
A major step forward came with changes to the Nordic income tax systems during the years between the late-1950s and 1970s. Historically, the Nordic countries operated joint taxation systems, meaning that second earners (typically the female partner) were effectively taxed at the same rate as their (often higher-earning) spouses (usually the male partner). This pushed up marginal tax rates for second earners, providing strong incentives to stay at home. Financial incentives to work for second earners increased with the individualisation of tax systems: in 1959 in Norway, 1971 in Denmark and Sweden, and later on during in the 1970s in Iceland and Finland. Nowadays, tax/benefit systems in Nordic countries favour dual-earner families over one-earner couple families (OECD Family Database). Participation tax rates (see notes to Figure 2.4) for second earners in couple families are low in international comparison in Norway and Sweden (Figure 2.4), and close to the OECD average in other Nordic countries. The high average tax rates on second earners in Denmark, Finland and Iceland may contribute to an income effect on female labour supply, while failing to use childcare supports is like throwing away a highly subsidised good: these two factors help explain the high rate of female labour force participation (OECD, 2002[68]). Tax/benefit systems in Nordic countries generally do not stimulate part-time employment.
Participation tax rate, second earner in a two-earner two-child couple family on 67% of average earnings, 2015
Note: The “participation tax rate” is the proportion of prospective gross earnings that would be “taxed” away through direct taxation (income tax plus social security contributions), reduced out-of-work and income-tested benefits, and out-of-pocket childcare costs, should the individual (in this case the second earner in a two-earner, two-child couple family) enter paid work full-time at 67% of the average wage. The first earner is assumed to be employed full-time earning the average wage. Data for countries marked with an * are based on estimates for a specific region or city, rather than for the country as a whole. See the OECD Tax and Benefit Systems website (http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/benefits-and-wages.htm) for more detail.
Source: OECD Tax and Benefit Systems (http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/benefits-and-wages.htm).
Employers in Nordic countries are encouraged to actively promote gender equality and prevent discrimination. The details of the regulations vary, but in Sweden, for example, employers must develop guidelines to prevent sexual harassment and carry out annual salary assessments. These salary assessments must include transparent wage criteria or bonus schemes to avoid gender discrimination. Employers must also analyse the causes of any discrimination that has come to light and take appropriate action.
Various OECD countries have recently introduced measures to improve pay transparency (OECD, 2017[21]), but Iceland was the first country to introduce a mandatory pay equality certificate. Since 1 June 2017 legislation in Iceland requires companies with 25 or more employees to disclose the gender composition of the workforce and those in management positions (OECD, 2017[56]). The government has developed a certification scheme for gender pay equality to ensure that all jobs of equal value are paid the same, and the certification process has to be undertaken every three years to ensure maintaining standards. The introduction of a mechanism that regularly considers pay practice in companies will maintain a focus on gender pay equality in companies on a recurrent basis. Future evaluations of this and other pay transparency initiatives across the OECD will contribute to enhancing the effectives of such measures with an aim to further reducing gender pay gaps.
One of the key features of the Nordic model is the provision of a comprehensive package of family supports. Public spending on family benefits amounts to around 3- 3.5% of GDP in Nordic countries (the OECD average is around 2.5%), about 60% which is delivered in the form of family services including public childcare. On average across the OECD, only 40% of family spending is spent on family services (OECD Social Expenditure Database). The specifics vary from country to country, but the general emphasis is on encouraging continuous employment for all parents, including single parents, and promoting a “dual earner-dual carer” family model. Recognising that gender gaps often emerge in full once children arrive, the Nordic countries provide a ‘continuum’ of support as children grow up. Parents can access generous paid leave when children are very young, followed by a place in subsidised early childhood education and care (ECEC) and out-of-school-hours (OSH) care activities once they enter full-time education. Tax systems encourage paid work by second earners (see above), while paid parental leave systems often encourage fathers and mothers to share care responsibilities by means of individualised “use it or lose it” paid leave entitlements (NIKK, forthcoming[69]).
2.4.1. Developing early childhood education and care systems
ECEC services are central to most family and gender objectives. Affordable and high-equality ECEC provides parents with options to make the work-life decisions that fit their needs and helps parents with young children fully engage in paid work. As it is mothers far more than fathers who adjust their patterns of paid work when children arrive (OECD, 2016[70]; OECD, 2017[21]), ECEC services are especially important for female labour market opportunities and for ensuring that women have the freedom to engage in paid work even after becoming parents (Jaumotte, 2003[71]; Thévenon, 2013[72]; Del Boca, 2015[73]; Olivetti and Petrongolo, 2017[74]).
ECEC systems and policies differ greatly between countries. All OECD governments support and help fund early childhood education and care in one way or another, but the scale of support and means and methods of delivering assistance are diverse. Some OECD countries, (e.g. Australia, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom), rely mostly on the private market for the provision of ECEC services, with cash supports and demand-side subsidies given to parents to help increase affordability. Others, like many of the Baltic and Eastern European OECD countries (e.g. Estonia, Latvia, Hungary), place a lot of weight on public pre-primary services for children above age three, and provide less support for services for very young children aged 0-2.
The Nordic countries operate comprehensive public-supported early childhood education and care systems, covering children from around (and sometimes before) age one, up. Developed with heavy emphasis on helping parents participate in paid work, especially in Denmark and Sweden (Brandth et al., 2012[25]), ECEC services have played a pivotal role in the expansion of women’s employment in the Nordic countries over the past few decades (see Section 3.1). Long time-series on children enrolment are unfortunately not available for most of the Nordic countries, but data for Sweden provide a good example of how the two have developed hand-in-hand. In 1965, for instance, employment rates for women aged 25-54 were as low as around 55% while at the same time only 3% of children aged 0 to 6 were enrolled in formal childcare (OECD, 2005[30]). Enrolment rates increased rapidly since, however, to 50% of all children age 0 to 6 by 1985, and have been around 75% since the mid-2000s (Figure 2.5). Similarly, for Denmark the enrolment rates among 3-year-olds increased from 35% in 1973 to 60% in 1985 and 75% in 1995 (OECD, 2002[68]). Today, 97% of 3-year-olds in Denmark are enrolled in ECEC programmes (OECD, 2017[75]).
Childcare enrolment rate, 0-6 year-olds, and female employment rates, 25-54 year-olds, Sweden, 1965-2016
Source: For the female employment rate: OECD Employment Database (http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/onlineoecdemploymentdatabase.htm); for the childcare enrolment rate: data provided by the Swedish authorities for 1965-2002, and NOSOSCO Database (http://nowbase.org/da) and NOSOSCO (2017), Social Protection in the Nordic Countries 2015/2016, Nordic Social Statistical Committee (http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1148493/FULLTEXT02.pdf), for 2003-2016.
Participation in ECEC facilities is largely financed through general taxation, and regardless of their structure, ECEC facilities must follow early childhood- and teaching requirements decided at the national level. Fees are heavily subsidised, with services often available at reduced-rates or, in some countries (e.g. Denmark), free for low-income families. Support generally covers full-time participation (around 6 hours per day). Only Norway has a “cash-for-care” benefit (see below) that facilitates use of ECEC facilities on a part-time basis.
Participation in ECEC services is highest in Denmark where two out of three 0-2 year olds are enrolled in such services, and over 95% of all 3-5 year olds in Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden participate in ECEC services (Figure 2.6). Participation rates for 0‑2 year olds also depend on the duration of parental leave benefits (see Section 2.4.2), but are well above the OECD average. The exception is Finland, where the widespread use of the state-funded home care allowance means more parents than in the other Nordics care for children at home until they reach age 3 (see Section 2.4.2).
Note: See OECD Family Database, indicators PF3.2 and PF 4.3 for more detail and country-specific notes.
Source: OECD Family Database Indicators PF3.2 and PF4.3 (http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm).
But childcare needs do not end when children enter primary school. Denmark and Sweden in particular have developed comprehensive out-of-school hours care supports. Rules on participation by age-groups differ (NOSOSCO, 2016[76]), but in general participation tails off when children enter their teens (Figure 2.6).
2.4.2. Leave to care for children
Paid leave policies have become a major feature of family and gender policy in most OECD countries in recent decades. On top of protecting the health of working mothers and their new-born children, paid leave helps keep mothers in paid employment and provides parents with the opportunity to spend time at home with children when they are young (Adema, Clarke and Frey, 2015[77]; Rossin-Slater, 2017[78]).
In all Nordic countries, both mothers and fathers are entitled to paid parental leave, although the design of the national parental leave benefits varies from country to country. In 2016, Sweden had the longest period of paid parental leave in the Nordic countries (69 weeks) and Iceland the shortest (39). In Denmark, Finland and Norway, the period of paid parental leave is around one year, though in Denmark and Norway the duration can be extended slightly (by 8-14 and 10 weeks, respectively) in exchange for a proportional reduction in the payment rate (NOSOSCO, 2016[76]). In addition, both Finland (until a child’s third birthday) and Norway (for children between 1 and 2 years of age) provide “home care” or “cash-for-care” allowances to parents who do not use public childcare services. Home care allowance payment rates are nowhere near those of parental leave - in Finland, the average payment in 2015 was EUR 419 per month (Blum, Koslowski and Moss, 2017[79]), equivalent to about 12% of average gross earnings - but still provide second-earners in couple families (usually the mother) with strong financial incentives to stay at home and not engage in paid work, in particular if they would earn low wages. Indeed, very long periods of leave like these may undo many of the positive effects of paid leave on female employment and hamper women’s earnings and career progression (Thévenon and Solaz, 2013[80]; Adema, Clarke and Frey, 2015[77]).
In order to promote gender equality, both at home and in the labour market, efforts have been made to encourage parents to divide leave entitlements equally, either by means of ensuring high payment rates of income support during leave and/or by providing both fathers and mothers with their own individual paid leave entitlements on a “use it or lose it” basis. Across the Nordic countries payment rates during parental leave are high. Estimates from NOSOSCO, for example, suggest a couple family with a new-born and two other children with earnings at 175% of the average wage can expect a disposable income of 75 to 89% of previous household income when the second earner takes parental leave (NOSOSCO, 2016[76]).
All of the Nordic countries provide fathers with their own individual non-transferable entitlements to paid leave, either through paid paternity leave or through the use of “mother and father quotas” in parental leave systems – that is, non-transferable periods of parental leave that are reserved for each parent respectively. Norway was the first to introduce such a quota in 1993, followed by Sweden in 1995, and Finland2 and Iceland in the early-2000s. Denmark also introduced a father quota in 1997, but this was later abolished in 2002 in a broad reform of leave arrangement that included abolition of “childminding leave” that could be used for prolonged periods (OECD, 2002[68]; Brandth et al., 2012[25]). In 2016, among the Nordic countries, Sweden provided the longest entitlement to fathers-only paid leave (a three-month father quota, plus ten days of paid paternity leave), followed by Iceland (a three-month father quota), Norway (a ten-week father quota) and Finland (a nine-week fathers-only paid leave) (Figure 2.7). Denmark provides fathers with two weeks paid paternity leave.
Duration of paid paternity leave and paid parental leave reserved for fathers, in weeks, 2016
Note: Information refers to entitlements to paid paternity leave, 'father quotas' or periods of parental leave that can be used only by the father and cannot be transferred to the mother, and any weeks of paid sharable leave that must be taken by the father in order for the family to qualify for 'bonus' weeks of parental leave. Data refer to entitlements in place as of April 2016 and do not reflect entitlements introduced or amended after April 2016. Data reflect statutory entitlements provided at the national or federal level only. They do not include regional variations or additional/alternative entitlements provided by states/provinces or local governments (e.g. Québec in Canada, or California in the United States), or any employer-provided benefits that are paid beyond the statutory minimum duration.
Source: OECD Family Database Indicator PF2.1 (http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm).
The introduction of “father quotas” can increase the likelihood of fathers taking leave, especially if well-paid (perhaps around two-thirds or more of last earnings). For example, in Iceland, men’s share of all parental leave days taken was just 3% prior to the introduction of the mother and father quotas in the early-2000s; following the reform, this increased to roughly one-third of total days used (Eydal et al., 2015[81]). However, with the unfolding of the economic crisis and the subsequent reduction in payment rates the intensity with which fathers in Iceland used parent leave declined, especially among low–income fathers, while mothers started using mother leave for longer periods (Sigurdardottir and Garðarsdóttir, 2018[82]).
Over the past 15 years fathers in the Nordic countries have started to use more of their parental leave. Indeed, Icelandic and Swedish fathers are among the most likely in the OECD to take paid child-related leave. In 2015, fathers in Iceland and Sweden took close to 30% of all parental leave days, while those in Norway took roughly 20% and in Denmark about 10% (NOSOSCO, 2016[76]). This is higher than in France and Japan, where eligible fathers can access paid leave for six and 12 months, respectively (Figure 2.7). However, less than 5 % of eligible fathers use these benefits as in France payment rates are low (about one-sixth of average earnings) and in Japan many fathers in regular employment are reluctant to take so as not to jeopardize their career prospects (OECD Family Database).
Despite these developments, mothers still remain the dominant users of sharable parental leave and home-care benefits. Moving towards fully-individualised paid parental leave systems – with both mothers and fathers receiving identical, non-transferable entitlements to paid leave and any sharable elements abolished entirely – could encourage fathers to take more paid leave and could help generate a better sharing of paid and unpaid work, in turn generating a number of benefits for parents and families (OECD, 2017[21]). These include benefits for child health and development, for fathers’ well-being, and, especially relevant here, for women’s careers (OECD, 2017[21]). For instance, on top of reducing women’s unpaid work burdens, the social normalisation of leave taking by fathers may help reduce gender discrimination in the workplace and reduce the risk that women are the only ones taking care-related leave – and with it the subsequent negative effects on female earnings and career advancements (Rønsen and Kitterød, 2015[83]).
On top of entitlements to paid leave, working parents in some of the Nordic countries can also reduce working hours when children are young (Blum, Koslowski and Moss, 2017[79]). In Sweden, for example, employees with children under eight years of age can reduce their weekly working hours by 25% and/or take part-time paid parental leave. Parents in Finland have a right to work part time and those in Norway a right to request a part-time work schedule, though in both countries the new working schedule is subject to negotiation between employers and employees, and employers can deny request in case of compelling business reasons. Parents in Denmark and Iceland are not legally entitled to part-time work or flexible work arrangements. However, in Denmark, parents can request flexible arrangements upon return from parental leave, while in Iceland employers are required to take measures to help employees combine work and family life.
← 1. The socio-economic systems of the Åland Islands, the Faroe Islands and Greenland are based on the same factors as the rest of the Nordic Countries. The welfare system is financed through taxation (including social security contributions) and is universal; the labour market model is based on the same collaborative principles as in the other Nordic countries; and policy development has a strong equality focus with policy supports that include parental leave and subsidized childcare. However, there are certain characteristics of the labour markets and types of jobs in these countries that differentiate them from, for instance, Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
← 2. In Finland, the quota applied only to fathers. It took the form of a bonus, where fathers were entitled to two extra weeks of paid leave if they took two weeks of the sharable parental leave. This was later extended to four week and then, in 2013, simplified into a nine-week non-transferable fathers-only paid leave, of which up to 18 days can be taken while the mother is on maternity or parental leave.