11(38)
3
What is an efficient policy?
The above-mentioned three reforms aim at changing the incentives in
parental leave insurance to increase gender-equal use. This is done by
somewhat different measures and the outcomes of these measures are
compared in this study. To achieve a more nuanced understanding of the
three reforms we have in large part relied on a free interpretation of the
principles of good family support established by McDonald (2006b). These
principles were set up primarily to enhance families’ welfare and more
indirectly to enable a situation where having children is supported. We
think these principles could also serve as the foundation for a broader
discussion of a family policy promoting gender equality.
Perhaps most characteristically, all three reforms are part of
gender-neutral
insurance encouraging childcare by both parents. The reserved months can
be seen as reducing days with the child if leave is not shared between
parents, and the bonus as reducing economic benefits if leave is not
shared. The leave can be used by all parents residing in Sweden but gives a
much higher benefit based on income compensation to parents active in the
labor market. Work participation can thus be seen as a requirement for
efficient use of benefits. The requirement is strengthened by the bonus as it
will only be paid if the parent not on leave is working (or studying) during
the other parent’s leave period.
Regarding
fiscal costs
, all three reforms involve larger costs for the
insurance as fathers have higher earnings than mothers and therefore
claim higher benefits. The anticipated returns are more abstract; for
example, child well-being and gender equality. Direct cost is however very
rarely brought up as an argument against the reforms, but administration
costs are more likely to be targeted when the bonus is evaluated. To
extend the leave further today would also include costs that are more
debatable.
A common argument against reform to encourage gender equality in
parental leave insurance is that it encroaches on free choice. Introduction
of the reforms as part of packages including homecare allowance and
extended leave means they have largely been
politically accepted
and not
perceived as too radical. They may also be seen as political compromises,
especially the bonus which combines the goal of gender equality with that
of parents’ labor force participation, which is the reason for the qualification
that the parent not on leave have to be working. The compromises may
however impact on the efficiency of the reforms. In addition, to add
reforms to a system already in operation may limit the
simplicity
and
transparency
of the same system. Indeed, survey results tell us that
sufficient knowledge of the system is lacking among parents, especially
fathers (National Social Insurance Board 2003, Swedish Social Insurance
Agency, 2010a). The first reserved month received a lot of media attention
and is mostly well-known, whereas the second was introduced with much
less publicity. The idea of the reserved months is nonetheless easy to grasp
and one of the major criticisms of the gender equality bonus is that it is
difficult to disentangle. If changes in the leave system occur often, the
system will lack transparency and may in the end be perceived as
unreliable.
