Yueh-Ching Chou, Teppo Kröger The universal breadwinner model ...

2012 EASP & SPA Joint conference
Social Policy in an Unequal World
July 16-18
1
The universal breadwinner vs universal
caregiver model:
Mothers of children with an intellectual disability
Yueh-Ching Chou* & Teppo Kröger**
*Institute of Health & Welfare Policy, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei,
Taiwan; choucyc@ym.edu.tw
** Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyväskylä, Finland;
teppo.kroger@jyu.fi

2
Introduction
• Nancy Fraser (2000)--a universal caregiver model is more
progressive in terms of gender equity than universal
breadwinner and caregiver-parity models.
• work is good for Taiwanese women of working age
▫ e.g. women who were also family carers while compared to those
women family carers who were non-employed women-carers
(Chou et al.’s study (2012)
• a shifting framework of analysis between the male breadwinner and
dual (or universal) breadwinner model in Taiwanese society
▫ e. g. the increase of women's employment and dual earner
couples, and the decline of extended families

3
Research hypotheses
• Definitions:
▫ four sub-groups:
• (1) both fathers and mothers employed
• (2) fathers employed but not mothers
• (3) mothers employed but not fathers; and
• (4) both fathers and mothers non-employed
• While both parents are employed
• the universal breadwinner model : father’s hours of caregiving
lower than to those of the mother
• the universal caregiving model: father’s hours of caregiving are
equal or higher to those of the mother
• hypothesis of this study:
▫ the universal caregiver model would have more positive effects
than the universal breadwinner model on the overall well-being
of mothers of children with ID--

Methods
-Face-to-face
interview surveys in
2011;
-in the Hsinchu area;
-876 working-age
mothers having a
child with ID
- participants N=574,
mothers living with
their husbands
Table 1. Characteristics of the participants (n=574)
VARIABLES Mean ± SD (range) N (%)
ID child age (years) 21.6±8.7(4-44)
ID child sex
Male 360(62.7)
Female 214(37.3)
ID child level of disability
Profound/sever 160(27.9)
Moderate/mild 414(72.1)
ID child ADL 88.2±23.6(0-100)
ID child IADL 11.1±7.0(0-24)
ID use residential services (N/%) 35(6.1)
ID use day care services (N/%) 95(16.6)
Mother Age 48.3±8.5(22-65)
Mother education 9.8±3.6 (0-24)
Mother employment status
Full-time 226(39.4)
Part-time 47(8.2)
Non-employed 301(52.4)
Employment type
Self-employed 71(26.0)
Public sector 23(8.4)
Private sector 179(65.6)
Family income (NT$) a
Below 20,000 94(16.4)
20,001-40,000 208(36.3)
40,001-60,000 148(25.8)
60,001-80,000 61(10.6)
Over 80,000 62(10.8)
Mother Hours of caregiving (weekly) 41.4±41.7(0-168)
Father Hours of caregiving (weekly) 18.8±29.7(0-168)
Mother Hours of work (weekly) 21.9±25.9(0-120)
4

5
Measures -1
• Measurement of the variables of the child with ID
― age
― care demands: ADL and IADL scales
• Assessment of the mother's and father's employment status
― employment status: whether they had a paid job (“yes” or “sometimes yes and
sometimes no”)
― full-time or part-time
• Assessment of the mother's and father's hours of caregiving for the
child with ID
― “How many hours do you spend looking after offspring with ID per week”
and “how many hours does your husband spend looking after offspring with
ID per week”
• Measurement of the mothers’ variables
― age, marital status, years of education completed, health status, hours of
paid work weekly and family income

6
Measures -2
• Measurement of mothers’ work satisfaction
― “In general, are you satisfied with your current work conditions”
very satisfied (4) ~ very dissatisfied (0)
• Measurement of mothers’ marital satisfaction
― “In general, are you satisfied with your current marital conditions”
very satisfied (4) ~ very dissatisfied (0)
• Measurement of mothers’ family life satisfaction
― In general, are you satisfied with your current family life conditions”
very satisfied (4) ~ very dissatisfied (0)
• Measurement of mothers’ quality of life
― WHOQOL-BREF Taiwan version scale

7
Data Analysis
• Unit of analysis: the individual mother
• SPSS 18.0
• Anova and a cross-table
• linear regression analysis
▫ control variables:
• level of behavioral functioning of the adult with ID (ADL & IADL)
• mother’s age
• mother’s education level
• mother’s health status
• hours of paid work
• family income level
• mother’s social support level, and
• mother’s attitudes towards employment and motherhood

8
Results -1
• Comparison of four subgroups of mothers and fathers’
employment status (table2)
― non-employed mothers with non-employed fathers were the most
disadvantaged compared with their counterparts in the other three
groups
― Mothers were older, less educated, less healthy, poorer, had a lower level
of informal support, felt a lower level of marital and family life
satisfaction, and had a lower level of QoL
― employed mothers with employed fathers
― younger
― higher level of SES
― Healthier
― higher level of family income
― higher level of informal support
― higher level of marital and family life satisfaction and had better QoL
than their counterparts

9
Results -2
• Comparison of mothers classified in the universal
caregiver model and the universal breadwinner model
(table3)
― the universal caregiving model
― mothers were more likely to have higher level of marital satisfaction
(p

10
Results -3
• Father’s involvement in caregiving related to mother’s
well-being (table4)
― mothers in the universal caregiver model (hours of the fathers’
caregiving equal to or more than those of the mothers)
― were more likely to have a higher level of marital satisfaction (p

11
Discussion -1
• In general, dual breadwinner families, with both father and mother
employed, show better life conditions than single breadwinner
families, including single father and single mother breadwinner
families.
• Working-age mothers of children with an intellectual disability or
working-age women who combine both paid work and childcare
responsibilities generally have a higher level of quality of life or
family life satisfaction while comparing their non-employed
counterparts.
• We did not find differences in terms of fathers' involvement in
caregiving for the child with ID among the four groups, regardless of
fathers’ employment status.
▫ Fathers only devoted half of the time that mothers did in caring
for the child with ID.

12
Discussion -2
• The fathers’ involvement in caregiving was good for
marital relationships and family life, but not the mothers’
quality of life or work involvement.
• The caregiving tasks, qualitatively, the fathers carry out
may be different from the mothers', or the fathers’
involvement in caregiving, for the mothers, was more
likely to be a kind of emotional support rather than an
instrumental one.
• The fathers' involvement in caregiving cannot be
simplified for study into only the number of hours devoted
to caregiving; instead, the extent to which the fathers are
involved in caregiving should be of concern as well.

13
Implications
• The families with both fathers and mothers non-employed show the
priority to be paid concerned by social intervention, ageing families
or families having financial difficulty.
• What extent fathers are involved in the caregiving work warrants
further exploration and discussion in future studies and policy
making.
• In Taiwan, developing “father-friendly” policies and support for
fathers involvement is warranted, like the program in Sweden that
offers paid and non-transferable father care leave.
• The culture of labour market and the attitudes of employers and the
society, including the gender role identities such as the social
structures of “good father” and “good mother”, also need to be
amended as well.

Table 2. Mothers characteristics by care and work reconciliation (n=574)
Variables
G1: both father &
mother employed
(N=216) (37.7%)
G2: father
employed not
mother
(N=197) (34.4%)
G3: mother
employed not
father
(N=57) (9.9%)
G4: both father
& mother not
employed
(N=103) (18.0%)
ID child age (M/SD) 19.4±7.3(4-38) 19.6±8.5(4-42) 25.4±7.9(8-44) 27.8±8.8(5-44)
ID child ADL (M/SD) 89.3±23.0(0-100) 86.2±24.9(0-100)
89.4±18.0(30-
100)
F or χ 2
(post hoc)
33.929***
(G2G3*;G1G4*)
(Back)
Formal support (M/SD) 5.8±3.4(0-18) 5.4±3.2(0-15) 5.7±4.0(0-18) 4.7±3.3(0-14) 2.253
Informal support (M/SD) 17.6±6.4(2-37) 15.9±5.4(1-30) 16.1±6.7(1-33) 14.0±4.5(1-24)
9.116***
(G1>G4;G1>G2*;G1>G4*)
Marital satisfaction (M/SD) 3.7±0.8(1-5) 3.7±0.7(1-5) 3.4±0.8(1-5) 3.3±0.9(1-5)
8.586***
(G2>G4*;G1>G4*)
Family life satisfaction
9.731***
3.6±0.7(1-5) 3.4±0.8(1-5) 3.2±0.8(1-5) 3.1±0.9(1-5)
(M/SD)
(G2>G4*;G1>G4*)
Attitude to work &
9.607***
34.5±3.6(21-48) 36.5±3.9(22-48) 35.6±4.2(23-46) 35.6±3.7(22-45)
motherhood (M/SD)
(G1G4*;G3>G4*;G1>G4*;G1>

Table 3 ANOVA comparing mothers’ QoL between the two groups (universal breadwinner vs universal caregiving) (n=216)
Variables
Universal breadwinner
(mother > father in caregiving)
(n=112) (51.9%)
universal caregiving
(mother ≦ father in caregiving)
(n=104) (48.1%)
F or χ 2
M±SD
M±SD
The child ADL 89.3±20.2(0-100) 89.2±25.9(0-100) .001
The child IADL 10.7±7.0(0-23) 12.8±7.1(0-24) 4.892*
Mother age 45.1±7.4(22-60) 46.0±7.4(27-65) .817
Mother education 10.3±3.1(0-16) 10.9±3.3(0-24) 1.768
Mother health 3.1±0.9(1-5) 3.2±0.8(1-4) 1.030
Family income (N/%) .521
< NT$20,000 7(6.3) 7(6.8)
NT$20,000–40,000 40(35.7) 32(31.1)
> NT$40,000 65(58.0) 64(62.1)
Attitudes to work &
34.9±3.5(26-48) 34.1±3.8(21-47) 2.837
motherhood
Mother working hours
46.2±18.4(8-105) 47.0±14.5(4-91) .137
(weekly)
Formal support 5.9±3.5(0-18) 5.6±3.3(0-17) .554
Informal support 17.8±6.6(4-36) 17.3±6.3(2-37) .273
Social support (overall) 23.7±8.9(5-54) 22.9±8.3(4-48) .469
Work satisfaction 3.4±0.8(1-5) 3.4±0.7(1-5) .179
Marital satisfaction 3.5±0.8(1-5) 3.9±0.6(2-5) 14.695***
Family life satisfaction 3.4±0.8(1-5) 3.7±0.7(1-5) 7.433**
QoL (overall) 93.3±12.9(61-126) 95.0±11.8(62-120) 1.101
(Back)

Table 4: Regression analyses of father’s involvement in caregiving affecting mothers’ well-being (work satisfaction, marital
satisfaction, family life satisfaction and quality of life) between the two groups (mothers in universal breadwinner model and
universal caregiver model) (N=216)
Work satisfaction Marital satisfaction Family life satisfaction QoL
B SEB β B SEB β B SEB β B SEB β
Independent variable
Mother > father
in caregiving
(reference)
Mother ≦ -.087 .099 -.058 .351 .096 .229*** .207 .092 .140* .543 1.276 .022
father in
caregiving
Controlled variables
Child ADL .002 .003 .069 -.001 .003 -.016 -.001 .003 -.038 .022 .037 .041
Child IADL .012 .009 .113 .005 .009 .043 .013 .009 .123 .230 .121 .133
Mother age .002 .007 .018 .012 .007 .117 .007 .006 .068 -.055 .090 -.033
Mother .010 .018 .045 -.004 .018 -.017 .030 .017 .129 .338 .236 .088
education
Mother health .143 .063 .156* .152 .061 .161* .159 .058 .174** 7.688 .815 .504***
Family income .097 .027 .275*** .089 .026 .244** .095 .025 .269*** 1.436 .344 .245***
Mother social .003 .006 .031 .017 .006 .192** .012 .006 .138* .230 .077 .161**
support
Attitudes to -.007 .015 -.035 .001 .014 .002 -.002 .014 -.008 -.156 .189 -.045
work &
motherhood
Mother -.001 .003 -.019 -.003 .003 -.069 -.003 .003 -.071 -.066 .038 -.089
working
hour(weekly)
Adjusted R 2 .112*** .211*** .239*** .473***
(Back)