1. Conceptualizing and Measuring Families and Family Policies in Europe 

2000 pp 60 £6.50; also available online with password (click here)

Editors: Louise Appleton and Linda Hantrais

The first issue in the sixth series of papers examines some of the methodological questions raised in the first stage of the IPROSEC project. The papers discuss differences in social constructions of the key concepts used in the project, as well as problems of ensuring comparability when measuring socio-demographic change across EU member and applicant states. The first paper describes the aims and objectives of the project before going on to locate the research in relation to the wider context of cross-national theory, methods and practice. It reviews critically the methodological choices that had to be made by the project team and their possible implications for the findings from the project. The second paper examines issues concerned with conceptual equivalence in different cultural and linguistic settings, taking account of the ways in which cultural traditions contribute to the social construction of phenomena. The project sought to identify indicators of societal coherence by studying the relationship between social phenomena and their socio-cultural settings. A number of the key concepts selected to exemplify societal differentiation, particularly between the member and applicant states represented in the project, are discussed: biological ageing, lifelong learning, parenting skills, intergenerational solidarity, welfare dependency, informal economy, labour market concentration and segregation, reconciliation of paid and unpaid work, distribution of household labour and individualization of social rights. Although Eurostat uses internationally agreed definitions of social indicators, the data it collates and harmonizes are collected at national level. They are, therefore, dependent on national statistical tools, traditions and practices. The third paper looks at the definitions of some of the more problematic indicators used in the project. Issues of measurement and comparability are discussed, with reference to data availability and consistency over time (within countries) and space (between countries). The indicators selected for analysis are grouped around the topics that are central to the themes of the project: family forms, fertility, population ageing and aspects of labour market activity and inactivity that impinge on family life. The final paper explores national interpretations of the place of the family in the relationship between the public and private spheres in the EU member states and candidate countries included in the project. From a comparative perspective, it examines the extent to which family policy is legitimized institutionally, for example through references in a country’s constitution, by falling within the remit of a designated government department and by being identified in law and practice as a specific policy domain. Drawing on the examples discussed throughout the paper, an attempt is made in the conclusion to characterize family policy in EU member and applicant states, by reviewing changes in the way it has been conceptualized over time in different policy contexts.