536 ANDREB,BORGLOH,BROCKEL,GIESSELMANN,AND HUMMELSHEIM family policies.2As already mentioned,extensive fam- Andref assumes that these four types of family support ily policies can have two different orientations.If fam- create specific dependencies within the family,which in ily policies are only rudimentarily developed,either the case of separation or divorce may have negative economic market or the family has to step in.Including these consequences for the weaker partner.Using a term intro- subdivisions,four different models of family support duced by Orloff(1993),one can ask how much autonomy result: is granted to the weaker family members within each of 1.Welfare states with an extensive family policy can be the four models.3 Obviously,gainful employment and found in continental European and North-European own income are the basis of financial autonomy.On the countries.There are two different ways of govern- basis of Andref's typology it can be supposed that there is mental support:either through financial compensa- little gender-specific division of labour in the dual earner tion for children and other dependent household model.Both partners have more or less equal chances to members in the form of cash transfers or tax relief or combine work and family life.In the two models of rudi- by support for sufficient care facilities and gainful mentary family policy,a definite form of labour division employment for all adult family members.Accord- does not exist.It is rather left to the partners to coordinate ingly,Andref distinguishes between what he calls: employment and childcare.The model of traditional divi- sion of labour ranks in between,because on the one hand a.the model of traditional division of labour and a traditional division of labour is supported by granting b.the dual earner model. tax privileges for marriages with one principal earner and In the first model,a traditional gender-specific divi- by not offering sufficient full-time childcare facilities. sion of labour predominates.In most cases,men are Therefore full-time employment for a married mother is the main breadwinners,while women at most con- inefficient or utterly impossible.On the other hand this tribute a supplemental income,especially if they model affords a compatibility of childcare and work based have children.Given additional financial support on part-time employment of the mother. from the state for the dependent family members, Like every typology these four models of family sup- the male breadwinner's income will suffice for the port are 'Idealtypen'in a Weberian sense.They represent family's living.In contrast,employment of women hypothetical configurations of state,market,and family, is more supported in the dual earner model,and while the real world of nation states uses mixtures and childcare responsibilities are more evenly distrib- combinations of these models.Our comparative analysis uted between men and women.Family policy is ori- is based on data from Belgium,Germany,Great Britain, ented towards employment,thus sufficient care Italy,and Sweden.This selection was partly determined facilities for children and/or the elderly are offered. by the availability of adequate longitudinal data and Accordingly,double income households prevail. partly because preliminary analyses with aggregate data 2. Welfare states with a rudimentary family policy (AndreB,2003)indicated these countries as possible support families to a minor degree,if at all.This pol- representatives of the four models of family support.In icy orientation is dominant in the Anglophone and the following,we give a detailed account of each coun- Southern European countries.In countries with try's welfare mix and based on this information allocate rudimentary family policy,the few existing benefits each country to Andref's typology of family support. are established only to prevent poverty.Here the safeguard occurs either via the market or by the Belgium family,which AndreB calls a.the market model and Social policy in Belgium is family orientated,but its main focus is the traditional family with a male principal b.the model of extended family solidarity. earner.There are no special measures that help individu- The market model emphasizes individual freedom als coping with the economic consequences of separation of the members of a society and,therefore,prefers and divorce or with the situation of being a single parent private solutions based on the market to state inter- (Ruspini,2000:224).Extensive and generous family bene- vention in family matters.The model of extended fits contribute quite an extent to disposable household familial solidarity also prefers private solutions to income-independent of family constellation.Thus,child state intervention,but in this case the family net- allowances in Belgium constitute a large part of the work and its support capabilities play a greater role income package and social assistance benefits are the than the market. highest out of the five selected countries.The appreciation536 ANDREß, BORGLOH, BRÖCKEL, GIESSELMANN, AND HUMMELSHEIM family policies.2 As already mentioned, extensive fam￾ily policies can have two different orientations. If fam￾ily policies are only rudimentarily developed, either the market or the family has to step in. Including these subdivisions, four different models of family support result: 1. Welfare states with an extensive family policy can be found in continental European and North-European countries. There are two different ways of govern￾mental support: either through financial compensa￾tion for children and other dependent household members in the form of cash transfers or tax relief or by support for sufficient care facilities and gainful employment for all adult family members. Accord￾ingly, Andreß distinguishes between what he calls: a. the model of traditional division of labour and b. the dual earner model. In the first model, a traditional gender-specific divi￾sion of labour predominates. In most cases, men are the main breadwinners, while women at most con￾tribute a supplemental income, especially if they have children. Given additional financial support from the state for the dependent family members, the male breadwinner’s income will suffice for the family’s living. In contrast, employment of women is more supported in the dual earner model, and childcare responsibilities are more evenly distrib￾uted between men and women. Family policy is ori￾ented towards employment, thus sufficient care facilities for children and/or the elderly are offered. Accordingly, double income households prevail. 2. Welfare states with a rudimentary family policy support families to a minor degree, if at all. This pol￾icy orientation is dominant in the Anglophone and Southern European countries. In countries with rudimentary family policy, the few existing benefits are established only to prevent poverty. Here the safeguard occurs either via the market or by the family, which Andreß calls a. the market model and b. the model of extended family solidarity. The market model emphasizes individual freedom of the members of a society and, therefore, prefers private solutions based on the market to state inter￾vention in family matters. The model of extended familial solidarity also prefers private solutions to state intervention, but in this case the family net￾work and its support capabilities play a greater role than the market. Andreß assumes that these four types of family support create specific dependencies within the family, which in case of separation or divorce may have negative economic consequences for the weaker partner. Using a term intro￾duced by Orloff (1993), one can ask how much autonomy is granted to the weaker family members within each of the four models.3 Obviously, gainful employment and own income are the basis of financial autonomy. On the basis of Andreß’s typology it can be supposed that there is little gender-specific division of labour in the dual earner model. Both partners have more or less equal chances to combine work and family life. In the two models of rudi￾mentary family policy, a definite form of labour division does not exist. It is rather left to the partners to coordinate employment and childcare. The model of traditional divi￾sion of labour ranks in between, because on the one hand a traditional division of labour is supported by granting tax privileges for marriages with one principal earner and by not offering sufficient full-time childcare facilities. Therefore full-time employment for a married mother is inefficient or utterly impossible. On the other hand this model affords a compatibility of childcare and work based on part-time employment of the mother. Like every typology these four models of family sup￾port are ‘Idealtypen’ in a Weberian sense. They represent hypothetical configurations of state, market, and family, while the real world of nation states uses mixtures and combinations of these models. Our comparative analysis is based on data from Belgium, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and Sweden. This selection was partly determined by the availability of adequate longitudinal data and partly because preliminary analyses with aggregate data (Andreß, 2003) indicated these countries as possible representatives of the four models of family support. In the following, we give a detailed account of each coun￾try’s welfare mix and based on this information allocate each country to Andreß’s typology of family support.4 Belgium Social policy in Belgium is family orientated, but its main focus is the traditional family with a male principal earner. There are no special measures that help individu￾als coping with the economic consequences of separation and divorce or with the situation of being a single parent (Ruspini, 2000: 224). Extensive and generous family bene￾fits contribute quite an extent to disposable household income—independent of family constellation. Thus, child allowances in Belgium constitute a large part of the income package and social assistance benefits are the highest out of the five selected countries. The appreciation