Aisenbrey, Evertsson & Grunow - 2009 - I

Is There a Career Penalty for Mothers' Time Out?
A Comparison of Germany, Sweden and the

United States
Author(s): Silke Aisenbrey, Marie Evertsson and Daniela Grunow
Source: Social Forces, Vol. 88, No. 2 (December 2009), pp. 573-605
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40645817 .
Accessed: 14/06/2014 22:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Is Therea Career forMothers'
Penalty TimeOut?
A Comparison ofGermany,
SwedenandtheUnited
States
SilkeAisenbrey,
Yeshiva
University
MarieEvertsson,
StockholmUniversity
DanielaGrunow, ofAmsterdam
University
Thisarticlefocuses
on threecountries
withdistinctpoliciestowardmotherhood and
work:Germany, Swedenand theUnitedStates.We analyzethelengthof mothers'
timeout of paidworkafterchildbirth and theshort-term careerconsequencesfor
mothers.In theUnitedStates,we identifya careerpunishment evenforshorttime-
outperiods;longtime-out theriskofa downward
periodsincrease moveandreduce
thechancesofan upwardmove.In Germany, long time-out periodsdestabilize
the
and,thelongertheleave,thegreater
career theriskofeither an upwardordownward
move.In Sweden, wefinda negativeeffect
oftimeouton upwardmoves.Hence,even
in "woman-friendly"Sweden,women'scareerprospects arebetteriftheyreturn to
paidwork sooner ratherthanlater.
Introduction
Thelegalparentalleavelengthis oftenconsidered to be themostimportant indica-

torof the"family friendliness" of a welfarestate.However,family-friendly poli-
cies,whicharenormally aimedat reducinggenderinequality, appear at times to
increase
genderinequality (e.g.,Mandel and Semyonov 2005, 2006; Ruhm 1998).
When presumably gender-neutral familypoliciesare utilizedmainlybywomen
and whenmen takelittleor no timeofffromworkto carefortheirchildren,
genderinequality in paidandunpaidworkremains. Although job-protected leave
policiesstrengthen women'stiesto thelabormarket, cross-national comparative
researchindicatesthatwomenhave moredifficulty reaching and maintaining
powerful occupational positionsin countries withextensive parentalleavepolicies
(Mandeland Semyonov2005, 2006). Eventhoughthisresearch is intriguingand
informative in itself,findings basedon large-scale, multi-national data setsgive
thereaderlittlesenseofwhatis goingon in specificcountries witha particular
policycontext(Mayer2005). To assessthe roleof familypoliciesin women's
Wegratefullyacknowledge supportfromtheCenter forResearchon Inequalitiesand theLifeCourse

at Yale University.
SpecialthankstoKarl UlrichMayer,whomadethiscollaborative projectpossible.
Marie Evertssonalso acknowledgesfinancialsupport fromtheSwedishCouncilfor Working Lifeand
SocialResearch(FAS Dnr.2004-1335). WewishtothankIreneBoeckmann, Hannah Bruckner, Ann-
ZofieDuvander,AnetteFasang,AnneGrönlund, Sanjiv Gupta,fuhoHärkönen,RobertMare,Debra
Minkoff, JoyaMisra,MagnusNermo,VickySchulzand Ida Öunforhelpfulsuggestions. Weare abo
forconstructive
grateful comments fromthreeanonymous reviewers.
All threeauthorshavecontributed
equallyto thisarticle.Directcorrespondence DepartmentofSociology,Yeshiva
to SilkeAisenbrey,
University,
Belfer501, 500 West 185th New
Street, NY
York, 10033. E-mail:silke.aisenbrey@yu.edu.
©TheUniversity
ofNorth
Carolina
Press SocialForces
88(2)573-606,December
2009

574 • SocialForces
88(2)
careers,moreelaboratecontextual comparisons areneeded.In particular, we lack

cross-national evidenceofhowparental/family leavelengthaffects thecareersof
mothers. Thisresearch gap is the starting point of our study. comparethree
We
countries, West Germany, Sweden and the United States,eachrepresenting differ-
entwelfare stateregimes at theturnofthe21stcentury. Our aim is to investigate
how familyleavepoliciesin thesecountriesworkwithregardto (1. fostering
mothers'labormarketattachment and (2. buffering thenegativeemployment
consequencesresulting frommothers'timeout. Aremotherspunishedforlong
time-outperiodsand are therebetween-country differences in mothers'subse-
quent career paths?Empirically, we first explore how long women in thedifferent
institutional contexts interrupt employment afterthebirthofa child.Second,we
examinetheirprospects on returnto theworkforce. Do mothersreturnto a job
similarto theone theyhad beforethebreak,or aretheymorelikelyto experience
a downward occupational move?Finally, we assesswhether thetimewomenspend
away from work after childbirth affects their subsequent careers.
Althoughresearchon themotherhoodand family-wage penaltyforwomen
nowadays abounds (see e.g., Albrecht et al. 1999; Baum 2002; Budigand England
2001; Datta Gupta and Smith 2002; Gangl and Ziefle2009; Lundbergand Rose
2000; Waldfogel1997, 1998; Ziefle2004), lessis knownabouthowchild-related
careerbreaksaffect women'soccupationalmobility. In thisstudy,occupational
changes -i.e., upward and downward occupational moves -are indicated bychanges
in occupational prestige (seeGanzeboomandTreiman1996;Treiman1977).1
By focusing on thehistorical periodfromthelate 1970s to theearly21stcen-
we
tury, compare women at a time whenfemaleemployment is no longerex-
ceptional,butratherthenorm.However,thethreewelfare statescomparedhere
reflect
distinct ideasaboutmothers' rolesin society. Swedenis oftencharacterized
as thearchetype ofa women-friendly welfare stateoran earner-carer regime (Misra,
Budigand Möller2007; Sainsbury 1999),withgenerousparentalleaveinsurance
and high-quality, subsidizedpublicchildcare. WestGermanyis oftenreferred to
as a male-breadwinner/female-homemaker state,applyinga caregiver-parity strat-
egyin supportofwomen'scareratherthanemployment (Sainsbury1999). lhe
combinationof Germany's tax,educationaland occupationalsystem,together
withthelack of adequatedaycareforchildren,providesan incentivestructure
thatrewards family decisionsin favorofthetraditional family model.The United
Statesis sometimes accusedoflackinga family policyaltogether. In thisuniversal
breadwinner state(Sainsbury1999), familyleave coverageis low.Amongthe
threecountries studiedhere,theUnitedStateshasthehighest numberofchildren
lessthana yearold in somekindof careawayfromparents(OECD 2006). In
thisstudy, we use theterm"family leave"moreoftenthan"parental leave"both
becauseleavepoliciesdiffer greatly among the countries, but also as our focusin
thisarticleis on timeout of theworkforce, that
something may extend beyond
thelegalparentalleaveperiod.

IsThere
a Career forMothers'
Penalty TimeOut?• 575
By usingdata fromtheNationalLongitudinal SurveyofYouth,theGerman

LifeHistoryStudyand theSwedishLevelofLivingSurvey, we analyzehowdiffer-
enttypesofwelfare statesproduceand institutionalize
different ofreturn
patterns
to thelabormarketformothersand how thesestructures shape thesubsequent
ofwomen.
careertrajectories
AnInternationally Perspective
Comparative
Earlierstudieshave shownthatthe rightto maternity leave leads to a higher
proportion of mothers reentering the labor market after childbirth, but also to
a longerabsencefromthe labor market(Gustafssonet al. 1996; Ronsenand
Sundström1996; Ruhm 1998). Accordingto Ruhm (1998), maternity leave
coverage of nine months or more is related to higher female employment in a
country(see also R0nsen and Sundström the
2002). However, positive effectsof
legalfamilyleaveare diminished withlongerleaveprovisions, and leavelonger
thanthreeyearsdiscouragesemployment among women with smallchildren
(Pettit and Hook 2005). Extended leave in a
periods country also reduce women's
hourlywages(Ruhm1998). One reasonforthismaybe thatlongmaternity leave
are
periods costly forthe employer, and this costaffects and reduces all women's
wages.A secondimportantfactoris humancapitaldepreciation(Mincerand
Polachek1974). The longerwomenstayoutsidethelabormarket, thehigherthe
depreciation of their human capitaland consequently the lower the wage upon
returnto thelabormarket.Women'saccessto managerial positionsalso appears
to be lowerin countrieswithextendedmaternity leavecoverage(Mandel and
Semyonov 2005, 2006). An important factor here is statisticaldiscrimination.
Employers will refrain from hiringwomen to important positionsiftheyrunthe
riskoflosingthemforan extendedperioddue to maternity leave.Hence,highly
educatedwomenwithstrongcareercommitment are assumedto benefitfrom
beingin a countrysuchas theUnitedStates,as statistical discrimination against
all womenin sucha contextshouldbe small(Mandeland Shalev2006). Women
witha lowereducationlevelorwomenin lowersocialclasses,on theotherhand,
benefitfrombeingin countries wherethelegalparentalleaveperiodis long,as
thisallowsthemto keeptheirjob evenduringlongertime-outperiods.
It is worthnotingthatat leasttwoothermechanisms maycontribute to the
explanation of slower career progressamong women with children. First,women
maybe selectedintomotherhood partly on thebasisofworkeffort orproductivity.
Hence,womenwithlowerworkeffort beforethebirthofa childaremorelikelyto
havea child.Thesewomenmaytakea longtimeout and be lesslikelyto advance
in theircareerson returnto theworkforce (Sigle-Rushton and Waldfogel2007).
Second,mothers'investment in workmaychangeas a resultof theirbecoming
mothers.This would be the case if motherspreferstabilityand a well-known
workenvironment to changesand careerprogress whentheyhavesmalland time-
consumingchildren(S0rensen1983). Althoughthesefactors undoubtedly affect

576 • SocialForces88(2)
o o co
1 &fj
TO |^2
0 e? öS *OÍS^õ-§ ^ con oooo T- o c'j f- co^

O)hJ- Oi_ o <O C£)0O C£>^ CNJI^-I^-OO CNJ
^ ÍD C C
CNJ "O r= CI
co co
I
E CD O)
E 2"Sû
•s g>8sq
>
¿"»■•s
Co ° CO r-r,^.
> TO £s CE r
CÛ. CO -£cO O o
g
a>§ cm£^"2cn °° ^^ cocoooin cnj

^^
LU -" ' CD
«1.1 ^^
m "O E CL
•S CÖ ^ ^S O
^2^ O r ^ 5 CX)O CT>CO CDOOCNJCNJ LOCNJ
0ÛÛ h*- - o S" CON LD-^r T-(DIDCD CNJ
E VI g* E
= 1 lo
E «
(/) <1> Q) CD
21 "o "o p
I s iiSi
O
I *!. ^ E CD CD
"~~
b
■4-»
l|í f ï I :fS fllí

ïîi I % ï S! mil
C
O
o
'S
ills ï ¡??l I! itili I
nit i iiiisi um i
c
o
</>
os
a
?iii ïi
o
O
fumi i ¡¡ih m
¡¡II |8S¡ifI¡íit¡ Hi
_a>
-Q
»2

Is Therea CareerPenaltyforMothers'Time Out? • 577
le CD
women'soccupationalchoice,we get rid
Q.
03 "o
O)
c s ofsomeoftheselectioneffects and partof
co ? theheterogeneity women, first,
among by
CD CD
"cd
E "O ÇD cm
CD C
CD CD onlyfocusing on mothers and second,by
O
CO
CI $ comparing increasesand decreasesin occu-
Ï3 O 05
pationalprestige eachwoman,relative
for
CD
o ■o
Í
CD
q
¿ O) "c to thepositionsheheldbeforetheleave.
o 8
1 li
ZJ "co
'5 1 1 » CD
SwedenandtheUnitedStates
Germany,
i I
-
"<- -Bi
"e
Different havebeenusedto
J E ■8 terminologies
CD
"O defineGermany, Swedenand the United
ci o fc
"°
CD
E co
CD O
TO ^
CD Statesin termsofwelfarestateregimesor
O3 "u_ "5 CO CD
_Q
T3
strategies(e.g., Esping-Andersen1990;
_Q CO
O) "O
c >%
Ü
CD
"E S
Korpi 2000; Misra, Budig and Möller
CO "CD
I II I>^
LO*
T- CD
2007). FollowingSainsbury(1999), the
Ç
"O
£ CD United States applies a universalbread-
CI
o So (Z E CD
"O winnerstrategy with equal employment
"■e.ç CD
.g CD ^ and state
CD "TO "o ^ CD E legislation policiesencouraging
1c
O
C co
CD g>
?
CD
TO
^>
co women'semployment, butproviding little
_C LU CN
"O
c
CO C'l
"2 supportforchildcare.Germanypromotes
o- o
a caregiver-parity
S
s by emphasizing
strategy
O3
CD C
CO
o Q_ CD o
£ .S2 a mother's roleas caregiverand providing
1 O CD ■Q
CD
s
co
^™
^ CD
ig
CD °
E _^ |
e
¿>
incentivesformarriedwomen to reduce
■§ -5
«-
8f
.E o
CD workhours.Swedenencouragesan earner-
Q
%ë
CD
'CO <*-
^^ CO
_^
o carerstrategy
byoffering incentivesforboth
CD CD _ÇD
Q h= CD CD -a women and men to combine care with
co CD jd
-
paidwork.The indicators forassessingthe
o ^ I <^ to CD
1 8 -^
.> CD Z3
s
© CD
co *O
institutionalframeworks withrespectto
£ o>
11 CO CN
CO -^
CO
CD C m cl ç women'scareersaresummarized inTable 1.
co
o
I
03
■O CD
_<P. CD
3 CD ¡fi
o iS
i-
CD
CD 8
GenderedPolicies and Institutions2
E
-^
o <i> "o
CO i^
1 8 % 32 g
§CD
"d CO £
§^
Our firstcomparative s
indicatoris thefam-
ID
■S ^
ÌLI» LU ~
Q_
C=>
s
ilytax benefit,i.e., the ratioof the taxes
II li 11
oo
-Q fe
{ I s
paid by a male breadwinnerwith a de-
CD
pendentwifeand two childrencompared

CN
TÍ 8 <D ÇD
I §
co Q- -a
li X _CD e co
S O)
_
fit CZ
^)
^
Q-
CD
q
cLsI
f
to the taxespaid by a singlepersonwith
similarearnings.The estimatesshownin
1 are takenfromSainsbury(1999).
CD
^ CD
|
Table CD
CD %
A figureof 100 percentshowsthatthereis
■
-o
j-
ïf
i5 cd
co ^D
Œ O TO £
¡g S? ¡g ¿_ no difference in thetaxespaid bya single
so S CN Û_ c O_ a
CD CZ>
- O . CD
CD
person
-
and
CD
a
CD
family
CD
provider, as is thecase
evi S -Q LO -Q
CO CN] ^r
CD
co

88(2)
forSweden.This modelof individualtaxationencouragesfemaleemployment,

evenformothers. In contrast to Sweden,theGermansystem taxesspousesjointly.
Jointtaxationincludesa marriagepremiumforcoupleswithunequalearnings,
whilethepremiumis zeroforcoupleswithsimilarearnings. Thiscreatesan incen-
tivestructure thatencourages married womento reducetheirworkhours,as their
wages are often lower.Husbands therefore oftenbecomethemain(orsole)family
In
provider. Germany,family a provider onlypays53 percentofthetaxesa single
personwould.Jointtaxationis also used in theUnitedStates.However,witha
family taxbenefit ratioof70 percent, tax-based disincentives forworking women
arelowerthanin Germany.
Thefamilyleavepoliciesin thethreecountries aredistinctly different,withthe
UnitedStatesoffering theshortest of
period protected time out, Sweden offering
longand financially well-compensated leavesand Germanyoffering evenlonger
butlessgenerously compensated timeout.The history offamily leaveis shortest
in theUnitedStates,wherethe 1993 Familyand MedicalLeaveAct is thefirst
nationallyprotectedleave policy.It requiresthatemployers with50 or more
employeesprovide12 weeksof unpaidleaveto employees who haveworkedat
least1,250 hoursin theprevious12 months.Becauseof theserestrictions, only
45 percentofwomenin thelaborforceare eligibleforfamilyleave(Waldfogel
2001). Germanfamily leavepoliciesconsistoftwomajorinstruments: maternity
leaveand parentalleave.Maternity leavehasa longtradition (since1952 inWest
Germany)and assureswomena leaveof sixweeksbeforeand eightweeksafter
childbirth withsickpay.In 1979,an additionalfourmonthsofleaveforworking
mothers was introduced, resulting in a maximumleaveperiodofsixmonths.In
1986, the first parental leavewas introduced and itsinitialduration(10 months)
was extendedseveraltimesto a maximumof threeyearsper childfrom1992
onwards.Until2007, parentson leavewereentitled to a monthly payment of300
Euro, limited to two yearsperchild, with eligibility based on household income
and individual workhours.Thiscorresponds to a netweeklybenefit of 16 percent
of an averageproductionworker's wage in the year 2000 (Ferrarini 2006). For
children bornJan.1, 2007 onwards, a newregulation limitstheperiodforfinancial
compensation duringparentalleaveto a maximumof 14 months,wherethelast
twomonthsareconditional on bothparentssharing theleave(seeMoss andWall
2007, fordetails).The periodfrom2007 onwardsis howevernot represented in
ourdata.In orderto putthemorecurrent in
figures perspective, we also providea
limitedtableintheAppendix(TableA.1) withinformation on publicparental leave
policies and child caresupport of the mid 1980s. These data stem from Gornick,
Meyers andRoss(1997). In themid1980s,Germany had 14weeksofjob-protected
paidmaternity leave,compensated at 100 percent wagereplacement. In theUnited
States,pregnant womenwerecoveredbythePregnancy Disability Actin fivestates
(TableA. 1. 1) and wereprotected against loss of income for six weeks ata 60 percent
wagereplacement level.The Swedish parental leave insurance, introduced in 1974,

IsThere
a Career TimeOut?• 579
forMothers'
Penalty
gaveparentstherightto sixmonthsofleaveat 90 percentincomereplacement (up

to a ceiling).Theparentalleaveinsurance hasbeenextendedseveraltimes,notably
to 12 monthsin 1980 and 15 monthsin 1989. In 1995, the"daddymonth"was
introduced andone monthreserved forthemother/father couldnotbe transferred
to theotherparent.3 The replacement levelhasvariedsomewhatovertheperiod,
and since1998 insurancecovers80 percentoftheparents'grossincome.
Childcareprovision is anotherkeyfactorinfluencing women'semployment. In
theUnitedStates,whereprivatesolutionsto thework-family conflictarefavored,
childcare is mainlyprivate andoftenexpensive. Apartfrom some taxsubsidiesthat
protectparents from the fullcost of childcare, the
only verypoorest are entitled
to publicfunds.In Germany, publicchildcareis highlysubsidized, whileprivate
careis moreexpensive.Publickindergartens havemainlypart-time slotsand are
usuallydesigned forchildren ages3-6. School daysforthe firstyearsnormally end
at noon,thereby considerably limiting mothers'abilityto investin a workcareer.
Complementary full-time daycare is rarein manyregions,
still althoughattempts
havebeenmade in recent yearsto increase boththenumberofchildcare placesand
dailyhourscoveredbyschoolsand kindergartens. Childcarein Swedenhas been
dominatedbypublicinstitutions (cf., Appendix,TableA. 1.2), eventhough
the
privatedaycarehasincreased recentyears.Public,as wellas private,
in childcareis
inexpensive, fulltimeand ofhighquality. we findthelargestnumber
Accordingly,
ofchildrenunderage 3 in licensedchildcarearrangements in Sweden:66 percent
comparedto only9 percent Germany(OECD 2006). theUnitedStates,the
in In
corresponding figure is closeto 40 percent.
Gendered
WorkOutcomes
Corresponding to the institutional framework,women'seconomicactivity rate
and shareof theadultlaborforcearehighestin Swedenand lowestin Germany
(Table1). Thisrankorderhasbeenthesameforyears(seeTableA.2 andMcMahon
1986). Employment amongmothers withchildrenunderage 3 is also highestin
Swedenand lowestin Germany.4 In Germany, thetaxand transfer system,but
alsothelackofan all-daychildcare system,encouragesa male-breadwinner model.
Part-time employment is also most common among women in Germanywhere
schoolscloseearlyin theafternoon.
Thegenderwagegap is oftenusedas an indicatorofgenderequality. Thewage
gap is in
smallest Sweden and in
highest Germany. However, earlierresearch has
shownthatSweden'sadvantagein thisrespectis moredue to collective bargaining
and the (resulting)compressedwage structure thanto family-friendly policies
(e.g.,Blau and Kahn 1992, 2003; Rosenfeldand Kalleberg1991). At thesame
time,theUnitedStateshas thehighestshareof femalelegislators and managers
and Swedenthelowest,suggesting thateconomicgenderequalitydoes notauto-
matically into
translate genderequalityin accessto positionsof authority (U.N.
Division2007).
Statistics

mi)
Finally,we look at two demographic factorsthatreflect thedifferent institu-

tionaland culturalsettings in focus:themothersmeanage at first birthand the
rate.
fertility Total is
fertilityhighest in theUnited States,where women alsotend
to havechildren It is lowestin Germany.
earlier. In bothSwedenand Germany, a
womanon averageis 28 yearsofage at thebirthofherfirst childcomparedto 25
of
years age in theUnited States (UNECE 2006). Althoughage at first birthhas
increasedin all threecountries, it has increasedthemostin Germany;in 1970,
Germanand Americanwomenwereon average24 yearsofage at first birthand
in Sweden,26 yearsof age (D'Addio and d'Ercole2005). Also,in Germany, a
growingproportion of women opt out of motherhood and
altogether, childless-
nessis especially pronouncedamongthehighlyeducatedwhereone out of four
highlyeducatedwomen,butonlyone outofeightloweducatedwomen,remains
childless(StatistischesBundesamt2007). In Sweden,theproportion ofwomen
who remainchildlessat theend of thefertile periodhas beenratherstableover
time,varyingbetween10 and 15 percentwitha cohortfertility of about two
childrenperwoman(Andersson et al. 2008). Also,fieldofeducationappearsto
be a betterpredictor ofa woman'sreproductive behaviorthanis educationallevel
(Hoem, Neyer and Andersson 2006). In the United States,thetotalfertilityrate
has persistently beenhigheramong blacks than whites (e.g.,Morgan1996) and
higheramonglow-educated thanhigher-educated womenwithinteraction effects
indicating that racialdifferences in exist
fertility mainlyamong thelow educated
(Yangand Morgan2003). Not onlydoes thisindicateregime-specific selectivity
intomotherhood, butthenumbers alsoreflect an impactofdifferent institutional
structures on thelifecoursesofwomen.In orderto maximizethecomparability
of our country-specific samples,we focuson womenwithcleartiesto thelabor
marketin theempiricalanalyses.Hence,thefindings can not be generalized to
all womenin eachcountry as employedwomenarea selectgroupofwomenand
moreso in Germanyand theUnitedStatesthanin Sweden(see theeconomic
activityrateofwomenin ourthreecountries inTable1). Thisisworthconsidering
wheninterpreting theresults;anyoutcomeon thelabormarketcould to some
extentbe due to thediffering selectivity ofwomenintoemployment and mother-
hood in ourthreecountries.
PreviousResearchonWomen'sCareerMobility
Researchindicatesthatwomen'swagessuffer littlefromfamilyleavebreaksin
Sweden(Albrecht et al. 1999). This finding supportedbyJonssonand Mills
is
(2001) and byGranqvist job changes.Jonssonand
and Persson(2004) as regards
Mills' studyfocusedon women'sreturnto workaftertimeout forfamilyleave.
Usingdata fromtheSwedishLevelof LivingSurveyof 1991, theydid not find
thatthelengthof thecareerbreakaffected women'schancesof gettinga higher
prestigejob upon return to the labor market.Usingthesame data,Granqvist
and Persson(2004) foundthatwomenhaveabouthalfthechancemenhaveof

IsThere
forMothers'
Penalty
makingan upwardcareermove.However,timeout in family leavedid notaffect

women'scareerchances,althoughresultsdid indicatethatlongfamily leavescan
havenegativeconsequencesforhighlyeducatedwomen'scareerpossibilities (cf.,
also Albrechtet al. 1999). Korpiand Stern(2004), usingmorerecentdata (i.e.,
LNU 2000), foundthatwomenhavelowercareermobility(in termsof upward
and downwardjob moves)thanmen do and thatmotherswithsmallchildren
havethelowestcareermobility ofall.
FortheUnitedStates,Budigand England(2001) foundan overall7 percent
wage penaltyformothers.Theyshowedthatreducedworkexperienceamong
mothersis a minorpartof the reasonforthispenalty.Anderson,Binderand
Krause(2002) foundthat,forwhitemothers witha collegedegree,thewagegap
betweenmothers and non-mothers in theUnitedStatescan be entirelyexplained
bythetimeoutsidethelaborforce.Motherswho do notleavethelabormarket
at all faceno penalties(Lundbergand Rose2000). Bycontrolling forfactors such
as durationof workinterruptions, employerchangeupon return to the labor
market,humancapitaland job statusvariables,Gangl and Ziefle(2009) were
able to accountforcloseto theentirefamily wagegap in theUnitedStates.In a
similarvein,accordingto Baum (2002), thewagepenaltyforchild-related work
interruptions diminishes and hardlypersistsaftertwoyearsifmothersreturnto
thesameemployer afterthebirthofthechild.Theseresultsarein contrastto those
ofJacobsen and Levin(1995), whofoundthatnegative effects
on wagesfollowing
a careerbreakremaindiscernible even20 yearsaftertheinterruption.
Grunow,Hofmeisterand Buchholz (2006) compared changes in West
Germanand U.S. women'slabormarketexitsand re-entries forcohortsbornin
the1940sand 50s. Theyfoundthatcareerinterruptions in bothcountriescome
withgreaternegativeconsequencesforwomen overtime.Job interruptions
are oftenassociatedwithdownwardoccupationalmobility,and in Germany,
thereturnto workis moredifficult formothersof veryyoungchildren.Most
Americanwomen maintaintheirties to the labor marketthroughouttheir
children's upbringing, whereasin Germany,thevastmajorityof womenleave
thelaborforcealtogether forseveralyears(BMFSFJ 2005; Engelbrech1997).
Withina five-year windowaftertakingup familyleave,onlyabout 50 percent
of mothersin Germanyhave returnedto thelabormarket(Engelbrech1997;
Engelbrechand Jungkunst 2001; Kenjoh2005). The majorityreturnon a part-
timebasisand lessthan25 percentreporta returnto previousjobs (Engelbrech
1997). Longitudinal evidenceshowsthatsubsequentwagesarenegatively related
to lengthoffamilyleavein Germany(Ziefle2004). The negativeeffect of time
out is onlypartlycompensatedforifwomenreturnto theirpreviousemployer.
In a morerecentstudy,Gangland Ziefle(2009) foundthata considerablepart
of thewage penaltyformotherhoodin Germanyremainsunexplained.They
concludethatstatistical discrimination againstmothersis one likelyreasonfor
thispenalty.As longas mentakelittleor no familyleaveand thelegalparental

88(2)
of motherswill be
leave periodis long, employers'statisticaldiscrimination
sustainableand rational.
financially
Hypotheses
Our goalis to disentangle
theeffectsthatpolicieshaveon mothers'
careers byusing
a comparative lens.Basedon earlier
researchandthedifferentwelfare
statestrategies
thatdominatethethreecountries in focus,we expectthefollowing
results:
HI: Germanmothers havethelongest

careerinterruptions
a
after childis mothers
born; in theUnited
Statestheshortest.
Thisis a directeffect parentalleavelengthsin thethreecountries.

ofthedifferent
In theUnitedStates,mostwomenarenotprotected byfamily leavepoliciesand
therefore we expecta highproportionofwomento returnmoreor lessimmedi-
atelyafterchildbirth.Becauseparentalleavelengthin Swedenand Germanyhas
beenextendedoverthepast30 years,we also expectlongercareerinterruptions
in laterperiodsforthesetwocountries.
H2: Returning tothesamejob (ora job ofthesameprestige)

is morecommonthanreturning to a job ofhigheror lower
in all three
prestige countries.
Ifparentalleavepolicieswork,theyinstitutionally
protect womenfromhavingto
changejobswhentheyreturn withinthelegallyprotected leaveperiod.In
parental
theUnitedStates,notleavingthelabormarketat all,or onlyverybriefly,
ensures
careercontinuity.
Thosewho areable to returnto thesamejob willalso return
faster
thanthosewho lacka permanent employment contract.
H3: Theslowertherateof return,thehighertheriskof

toa job oflower
returning in all three
prestige countries.
Eventhoughparental policiesprovidesomeprotection,
individuals'
humancapital
decreasesin valuewhenit is notused.Hence,thelongerwomenstayawayfrom
thejob,thehighertheirhumancapitaldepreciation(MincerandPolacheck1974),
and consequently,thehighertheriskofa downwardmoveupon return.
H4: Afterinitial returnto thelabor market,a mothers

previoustimeoutnegatively herfuturecareerchances
affects
in Germany and theUnitedStates,butnotin Sweden.
Thisexpectation
focuseson mothers'careersaftertheyhavealreadyreturned to
work.Herewe expectto findtracesofa "memoryeffect."
Thiseffect
indicatesthe

IsThere
penaltiesmothersexperience afterprevioustimeout. Anylowercareermobility

amongmotherstakinglongleavecould also be due, in part,to higherskillatro-
phyin thisgroupcomparedto thosetakingshorterleave.It could also be that
anylowercareermobility to someextentis due to lowercareerambitionsamong
thosetakinglongleaves.We do notknowwhichone of thesefactors dominates,
butmostlikelytheyall playsomerole.Basedon resultsfromearlierresearch,we
mainlyexpect to find of
consequences previous
negative timeout on occupational
mobilityin theUnitedStatesand Germany.
Data andMethods
For theUnitedStates,we use theNationalLongitudinal SurveyofYouth(fora

detaileddescription oftheNLSY and theNLS data,seeBureauofLaborStatistics
2004). The NLSY is a nationally representative sampleof 12,686youngmenand
womenborn1957-1964.The sampleis re-interviewed everytwoyears.
ForGermany, we usetheWestGermancomponent oftheGermanLifeHistory
Study(GLHS West).5Thesedata containdetailedretrospective lifecourseinfor-
mationforsevencohortsofGermansborn1919-1971 in a representativesample
of 8,639 realizedinterviews. The data werecollectedin the 1981-2005 period.
Forall cohorts,thesurveyinstruments containeddetailedquestionsaboutfamily
oforigin,residential history, education,worklife,workinterruptions and family
formation, including theformation and dissolution of marital and (foryounger
cohorts)non-marital unions,as well as children.The timeperiodcoveredby
our subsample(beginningwithtransitions to motherhoodin the late 1970s),
comparesvery wellwith the time windows used in theUnitedStatesand Swedish
studies;thisis one advantage of the GLHS for our purposes,comparedto other
data materials, suchas theGermanSocioeconomicPanel.The periodfromthe
late 1970sto 1986 is ofgreattheoretical interestfortheGermancaseas it covers
thetimebeforeparentalleavewas introduced in WestGermany.
In thisstudy, we includecohortsbornin 1954-56,1964 and 1971. Forthese
cohorts,we havelifecoursedataup to theageof35 (forthe1971 cohortup to 34).
Due to thesmallerobservation window,ourfocusforGermanyis on womenwho
in
gavebirth their20s, rather than in their30s. Thisimpliesthathighlyeducated
womenareunderrepresented in theriskset,as theyon averagehavetheirfirst child
laterthanwomenwitha lowereducationlevel.Due to censoring at youngerages,
we also observerelatively fewmobilityeventsupon mothers'returnfromtime
out.The estimates presented forGermanyprovedveryrobustto different model
specifications
though and even to different definitions of the threshold considered
in definingupwardand downwardmobility. Still,thedatarestrictions needto be
keptin mindwheninterpreting theresultsforGermany.
For Sweden,we use the SwedishLevel of LivingSurveyof 1991 and 2000.
LNU wasfirst conductedin 1968.Thereafter, ithasbeenreplicated in 1974, 1981,
1991 and 2000. The basis for LNU is a random sample of 1/1000 of theSwedish

88(2)
Figure1: Analyzingthe Timingand Outcomeofthe ReentryProcess intothe

Labor Market
intothe
Reentry
Childbirth LaborMarket JobChange
I
LU
*►
ModelAand
ModelB :- *
ModelC
Time
Job TimeOutoftheLaborMarket
TimeMeasuredinModels
populationages18 through 75. LNU is a panelsurvey, andineachsurvey, thepart

of thepanelthatwas olderthanthesampleframewas replacedwithnewyoung
individualsand immigrants so thatitwouldrepresent theSwedishpopulationin
a givensurvey In
year. 1991,retrospective employment werecollected
biographies
forindividualsbornfrom1925 to 1965. Detailedretrospective information was
also collectedregarding theireducationhistory, cohabitationhistoryand any
childrenlivingin thehousehold.Thesebiographies wereupdatedin the2000
survey,when 5,142 respondents were interviewed (corresponding to a response
rateof76 percent).
As ourfocusin thisresearch is on thecareerconsequences ofinterruptedlabor
marketcareers, we selectedwomenwhoweregainfully employed at leastone out
ofsevenmonthsbeforetheirfirst childwasborn.We arethereby choosingwomen
who return fasterto thelabormarketthanthosewho did notworkat all during
theirpregnancy (Bergerand Waldfogel 2004; Hoffert and Curtin2006). We also
excludewomenwhoareself-employed, as theiractivity
statusandprestige changes
arehardto determine. Following theseselection the
criteria, U.S. sample includes
3,531womenbornin 1957-1964,theGermansampleconsists of963 womenfrom
birthcohorts1954-56,1964 and 1971,and forSwedenwe include718 women

IsThere
bornintheperiod1950-1975.It is important tokeepin mindthatouranalyses are

representative forthismorehomogenous groupofmothers only,and thepotential
implications ofthis selectionshould be considered when interpreting thefindings.
In Figure1 theprocessand themeasuredtimeof our analysesaredisplayed.
The figurealso mapstheeventsthatanchortheanalysis:childbirth, reentryinto
thelabormarketafterchildbirth and changeofjob.
Our analysisis threefold. Firstwe focuson thetimeit takeswomento return
to thelabormarketafterchildbirth (ModelA, Figure1, see also Figure2; Figure
3). We analyzecountry differencesin the timingof the reentry processwitha
descriptive survivalanalysisof the time takeswomen returnto thelabor
it to
marketaftertheirfirstchild is born.In Model A, whichis motivatedby the
firsthypothesis, observations arenotcensoredwhenmothershaveanotherchild.
Hence,ourobservation oftimeout is extendedforthosewhohaveanotherchild
beforereturning towork,measuring theentiretime-out periodevenifthewoman
has a secondor a thirdchildwithinthesame coherenttime-outperiod.Some
women,especially in theUnitedStates,do notinterrupt theiremployment at all
upon givingbirth.To includethesewomenin theanalysis, we ascribedtheman
artificial timeout oftwoweeks.
In a secondstep,Model B (seeFigure1; Figure4 andTable2), we focuson the
sametimeperiodinwomen'slives,butnowthistimeperiodbetweenbirthandfirst
reentry intothelabormarket is considered an explanatory factorforthetypeofre-
entry intothelabormarket itself. if
We ask theamountsoftimewomenspendout
ofthelabormarket aftera childis bornhasanyeffect on theoccupational prestige
ofthefirst employment position afterchildbirth.Specificallywe analyzetherisksof
womenreturning to a job withhigher, lowerorthesameprestige comparedto the
job they had before the childwas born. In thispart and for thefollowing analyses,
we includenotonlyspellsfollowing first butalso secondand laterbirths.6
births,
Each birthresultsin a newspellof absence.Episodes(or spells)arecensoredfor
thosewho returned to thelabormarket laterthan100 months(i.e.,slightly more
thaneightyears)afterthechildwas born.Model B is inspiredbythesecondand
thethirdhypotheses as we studythecompeting risksofreturning to a job ofhigher
prestige (upward move), lower prestige (downward move) or thesame prestige(no
change). Piecewise constant exponential models are used to estimate the changes
in mothers' transition ratesto eitherofthesedestination statesovertime(Blossfeld,
Golschand Rohwer2007). We distinguish betweenfourtimeperiods(definedby
fourparameters) thatcapturethere-entry processesin thethreecountries reason-
ably well: lessthan 3 months, 3 to 18 months, 18 to 36 months and more than 36
months. Withthepiecewiseconstant exponential model,we assumethattransition
ratesareconstant withintheseintervals butthattheycan varybetweenthem(for
information on thismodel,see Blossfeld, Golschand Rohwer2007).
In a laststep,following hypothesis four(Model C, Figure1; Table3), we take
a closerlook at job changesaftertheinitialreturn.In Model C, theobservation

88(2)
windowopenswhenmothers forpayagain(seeFigure1) and closes

startworking
whenmothersexperience upwardor downwardoccupationalmobility(alterna-
when
tively, theydrop out oftheworkforceor theepisodeis censoredforother
We a
reasons). apply competing riskmodelforupwardand downwardmoves.In
orderto controlforthebaselinehazardof upwardand downwardmobility, we
estimateCox proportional Golschand Rohwer2007).
hazardmodels(Blossfeld,
We estimate ofprevioustimeout in twoways,oncewitha linearterm
theeffects
comparableacrosscountries and oncewithcountryand policyspecifictime-out
durations,lhe lattermodelsare onlyshownfortheUnitedStatesand Sweden,
wherewe foundsignificant effects.
DependentVariables
Our conceptoftimeout is rigorous in thesensethatwe regardall kindsofbirth-

relatedphasesof"notbeingpresent atwork"as an employment This
interruption.
is in contrast
to register datadefinitionsand relatednationalstatistics on female
employment participation thattreat women on leaveas active in thelabor force,
thereby blurring the individual-level
consequences ofchildbirth-related timeout.
Upwardand downwardoccupationalmovesare measuredby changesin
Treiman'sStandardInternational OccupationalPrestigeScale (Treiman1977;
In
GanzeboomandTreiman1996). Model B, ourfocusis on whether a woman
changedjobs at all from thetime before to the time after the careerbreak,and
a
here, one-pointpositive/negative change is considered as an upward/downward
occupationalmove,whereas0 indicates"no change,"definedas eithera return
to thesamejob or to a newjob withthesameprestige. In Model C, our focus
is on a careermovethatindicatesa significant improvement (or changeforthe
worse)in thekindofjob thewomandoes.As theprestige scaleis finegraded,a
one-pointchangemight be between two rather similar occupationsand therefore,
a changeof 10 percentor moreis definedas an upward/downward movein this
model.As an example,withregardto prestige differences, the 10 percentdefini-
tioncapturesmovesbetweenoffice worker(SIOPS = 37) and secretary (SIOPS =
44), and between secretaryand office manager(SIOPS 55).=
Variables
Independent
Education
FortheUnitedStates,theeducationlevelscapture"nohighschooldegree,""only
highschooldegree"and "atleastsomecollege."ForGermany, we distinguishbe-
tweenthosewithlow (Hauptschule),medium(Realschule)and high(Abitur)lev-
elsofgeneralschooling.ForSweden,thelowestlevelrepresents
elementaryschool
the
(nineyears), middle-levelgymnasium fortwo or three
years(correspondingto
highschoolfortheUnitedStates)andthehighest levelrepresents with
individuals
at leastsomeuniversity to
(corresponding "some college"fortheUnited States).

IsThere
forMothers'
Penalty
LaborForceParticipation
and TimeOutsidetheLaborForce
The cumulativetimespentin the labor forceis used as an indicatorof labor
forceexperience. in thethree
Timeoutsidethelaborforceis measureddifferently
countries.In theUnitedStates,thisis an accumulation
oftimeoutsidethelabor
force,excludingphasesof unemployment. In Germanyand Sweden,timeout
representstime out on leave
parental or in housewifery ofwhether
regardless itis
beforeor afterthebirthofa child.
FamilyStructure
In themodels,we includefourdummyvariablesto capturetheeffects offamily
on careermoves.Thesevariablesindicatethepresenceofone child,two
structure
morethantwochildrenand a partner.7
children, The dummyforpartneris mea-
suredtime-varyingforall threecountries, notnecessarily
cohabitation,
indicating
defined
legally marriage.
Characteristics
Background
For all countries,the woman'sage at childbirthis includedas a continuous
variable.For the UnitedStates,we also includerace.8Threedummyvariables
indicatethetimeperiodsin whichchildrenareborn.The timeperiodsarecho-
sento matchmajorpoliticalchangesin family leavepolicyin thethreecountries.
For Germanyand the UnitedStateswe wereable to use similartimeperiods:
before1987, withshortprotectedmaternity leavein Germanyand no leavein
theUnitedStates.The secondperiod,1987-1992,coincideswiththeintroduc-
tionof Germanparentalleavepolicy.The thirdperiod,from1993 on, is based
on theUnitedStatesenactmentof the FMLA and Germany'sachievement of
thelongestparentalleavethusfar.ForSweden,thefirst period denotesthetime
until1979 whentheparentalleaveperiod(forall butthelasttwoyears)was set
to a maximumof 180 days.9The secondperiodstartsin 1980, whentheleave
was extendedto 360 daysand the thirdis the periodfrom1989, when leave
was extendedto 450 days.
Results
Returnto theLaborMarketafterFirstBirth,DescriptiveResults
We startbyestimating survival
curvesforwomen'sreturn toworkafterchildbirth.
The survivalcurvesin Figure2 showestimates of theproportion of respondents
who havenotreturned to workat a specific
point in time,or in otherwords,the
proportionof women "surviving"in thestateof a stay-at-home mom at a given
pointin time.As an example,Figure2 showsthatin theUnitedStatesonly25
percentofallwomenin oursamplearesurviving thestateof"notworking" longer
thansixmonths;in otherwords75 percentofall mothers in theUnitedStatesare
backat workonlysixmonthsafterthebirthofa first child.

88(2)
Figure2: Kaplan-MeierSurvivalCurves of Mothers'TimeOut afterFirstBirth
' - Germany
■8j'
- Sweden
•7) >SS|( '
ft '• V*N.'
'a ' '

' '. .
3
^ ^
.2 „ ^___ ^
1
0 -I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96
In linewithourfirst hypothesis,Figure2 demonstrates thedifferences between

thethreecountries in thetiming ofreturn to thelabormarket forworking mothers.
In theUnitedStates,40 percentof mothersdo notleavethelabormarketat all
afterthebirthofa first child.Afterthreemonths, 65 percent ofwomenarebackat
work,after oneyear80 percent. Thepictureisverydifferent forGermany where17
percent ofwomen return immediately afterthe compulsory leave
maternity period
ofeightweeks.10 However, thevastmajority ofGermanmothers takean extended
periodofleave.After12 months, only30 percent ofwomenarebackat workand
afterthreeyears,closeto 50 percent. Eveneightyearspastentryintomotherhood,
30 percent ofwomenhavenotreturned tothelabormarket. Severalofthesewomen
had a secondor thirdchild,thereby extending theirinitialparentalleaveperiod.
Althoughourobservations forGermanmothers areright-censored at age 35, the
figures correspondto those reported in earlier
research and
(Engelbrech Jungkunst
2001; Kenjoh2004). In Sweden,somewhatmorethan25 percentofwomenare
backaftertwoyearsand about50 percent afterthreeyears.It is worthmentioning
in thiscontexta policythathasbeenpopularly referredto as the"speedpremium"
in Sweden.Ifa womanhasa secondchildwithintwoanda halfyearsafter herfirst,
sheavoidsa reduction in theparentalleaveallowancecausedbyreducedincome
between thebirths(dueto,e.g.,part-time work).11 Thispolicysignificantly affected
thespacingofchildren inSwedenandshortened theaverage period of timebetween
thebirthsoffirst and secondchildren (Hoem 1990). Consequently, manywomen
whostayoutfor24 monthsormorehavea secondchildwithinthesametime-out
period.Overall,womenin Swedeninterrupt theircareersforone ortwoyears,but
afterthat,mostwomenreturn to thelabormarket again.

IsThere
Lookingatdifferent timeperiods,we finda cleartrendovertimefortheUnited

Statestowardmoreand moremothersnotleavingthelabormarketat all (Figure
3). In theperiodbefore1987, about70 percenttooksometimeout in connec-
tionwithchildbirth. However,in the 1988-1993period,thisnumberdecreased
morethanhalfofall women.In thelatestperiod,from1993 onward,
to slightly
lessthan40 percenttooktimeoffin connectionwithchildbirth.
Also forSweden,thetrendtowardsshorterlabormarketinterruptions over
timeis obvious,even if the rateof returnis much slowerthanin the United
States.To some extent,thisresultconflictswithearlierfindingsshowingthat
womentendto takemoreor lessthefullparentalleaveperiodtheyareentitled
to and thisperiodhas been extendedovertime.In thepresentanalysis,howev-
er-and due to thewayinwhichthemodeland thegrapharesetup- differences
thatoccurin the periodup untilthe child is 2 yearsold are almostinvisible.
The factthatwomen returnto the labor marketfasterin laterperiods(once
thisinitial,two-yeartimeperiodis over)reflects thedecreasingtimespentin
full-timehomemaking. Also,duringtherecessionofthe1990s,thereplacement
levelin theparentalleaveinsurancewas lower,and itis likelythatfewerwomen
wereable to spreadout theirleaveand havea secondchildbeforereturning to
thelabormarketafterthefirstchild.
In contrastto theothertwocountries and in linewiththeextendedleavepoli-
ciesintroduced in (West)Germany in themid-1980s,mothers ofchildrenbornin
1987 through1992 tooklongerleavesthandid thosewhohad a childduringthe
firsthalfofthe1980s.Mothersofchildrenbornafter1992,whenparentalleave
was extendedto a maximumof threeyears,seemto be dividedintotwo major
groups:thosewhoreenter immediatelyaftermaternity leaveand thosewhoclaim
themaximumleaveperiodtheyareentitledto. Thereis a cleardropin thecurve
forthisgroupat 36 months.Afterthisperiod,thepatterns ofreturnto paidwork
do notdiffer significantly.
Women's Movesupon
Occupational totheLabor
Return Market
In thenextstep,we modeltheprocessof reentering thelabormarketfollowing

hypotheses twoand three.In otherwords,we comparethetiming, frequency and
estimated riskof returningto a job of thesameprestige to returning to a job of
higheror lowerprestige (relativeto thejob heldbeforetheleave).
Acrosscountries, we see a homogenouspicturewithreference to thetypesof
reentries intopaid employment afterchildbirth:Mostwomenreturn to thesame
job or a job of similar
prestige as the one held beforetheleave (Figure4). In all
threecountries, womenwhoreturn to thesame(ora similar)job alsoreturn faster
thanthosereturning to a job of higheror lowerprestige.More thanhalfof all
mothers in theUnitedStateseitherremainon thejob orreenter thesame/asimilar
job within threemonths after
childbirth. In thesame time period,only4 percent
reenter witha downwardor upwardmove.

590 • SocialForces88(2)
Figure3: Kaplan-Meier
Survival TimeOutafterFirstBirth,
CurvesofMothers' by
BirthPeriod
1
.9- U.S. I- Before
1987
.8- .„1987-1992
•7- ' | After
1992
•5r'
■6iA
o -I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1-
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96
1
■9 - Germany I- Before
1987
if -v»
-
•8 tx.. - 1987-1992
7" ' S^
'"V^ After
1992
•6 -
^N^__^%?"*!'»"'iv^>,
6
2
.1-
0 -I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-
1r*"5*^
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96
•9- ^V Sweden
. _ Before
1980
.
•8- "" 198°-1989
■7-
'''
X'' | After
1989
•8-
N''
X
¿ a
"-^^z .*;- •*
;~;
0 -I r- ■ , - T- ■ . ■ ■
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96

a Career
IsThere forMothers'
Figure4: Kaplan-MeierSurvivalCurves of Mothers'TimeOut afterChildbirth,

by
Changes in OccupationalPrestige
.8 !
.7 ;
.6 '
.5 '
.4 '^_ U.S.
Upward
.2 - Downward
.1 - Lateral
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96
T
*- "<~^11=a!!a!====^=====^ •-- ^
.8 - v
.6 • ~~~V
.4 Germany
.3- . .
Upward
- Downward
■1 | - Lateral
0 -I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96
1F^
•9-' v. Nîv»---
8 '
•7" ' .
.6- '
.5- ' -'
.3- X_
Upward .
- Downward
•1" - Lateral
0 -I , , , , , . . 1
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96

mi)
In Sweden,wherereturn to workafterchildbirth is slowerthanin theUnited

States,about90 percentof thosewho willlaterreturn withan upwardor down-
wardmovearestillout after18 months,comparedto only40 percentof those
who reenter on thesameprestige level.
Germanmothersreturnmoreslowlyand in muchsmallernumbersthando
theirAmericanand Swedishpeers.Afterthreeyears,themaximumleaveperiod
granted in Germany, only60 percent ofwomenhavereturned to theirformer jobs
or havefounda positionwiththesameoccupationalprestige. By thattime,less
than10 percentofthewomenhaveexperienced a downwardoccupationalmove
and evenfewerwereupwardly mobile.
InTable2,wetakea closerlookatfactors thataffect women's occupational moves
upon their return to thelabormarket. Looking at the fourth column in Table 2 we
for
can, example,compare the effectsof certain time-out periods on the chances of
a lateralmovebackintothelabormarketin theUnitedStates.The chancesfora
lateralmovearebetteraftera time-out periodof0-3 months(withan estimate of
-36.37) than after
a time out of 4-18 months (with an estimate of -38.36).
For the UnitedStatesand Germany,the chancesof returning to the same
or a similarjob decreaselinearly withincreasing length of time out. In Sweden,
thechancesof returning to thesame/asimilarjob arehighestbetween4 and 36
monthsafterchildbirth.
Womenwhoareableto return to thesameora similarjob in theUnitedStates
are disproportionately highly educated womenand thisis due to thefactthat
highly educatedwomentakeshorter leavesthanlower-educated women.However,
leaving the labormarket forlongerperiods seems to put women at a verysimilar
riskof makingan upwardor downwardmove,and thereare no significant dif-
ferences betweenwomenwithdifferent levelsofeducationin thisrespect(Table
2). Mainly due to ceilingeffects,women withhighprestige occupationsareless
likely to return with an upward move and instead more likelyto returnwitha
downward move.Thisis thesameforall threecountries, and in theUnitedStates
and Germany, high-prestigewomen tend to return to the same/similar job faster
thanlow-prestige women.In the UnitedStates,womenwithmorethantwo
childrenhavea higherriskof a downwardchangethanof an upwardchangein
prestige upon returnto work.The chanceofreturning to thesame/asimilarjob
is also lowerforwomenwithmorethanone child.
In Sweden,highlyeducatedwomenaremorelikelyto return withan upward
moveafter a periodoutsidethelabormarket. Still,an upwardmoveissignificantly
lesslikelythelongerthewoman'saccumulated earliertimeoutofthelabormarket.
The longerSwedishwomenstayout,thelesslikelytheyareto return to thesame
job, and thetransition rateto a downward moveinsteadincreases somewhat. The
factthathavingmorethantwochildrensignificantly increases thechancesofan
upwardmovemaybe due to selectivity intothirdbirthsin Sweden.Highlyedu-
catedwomenaremorelikelyto havea thirdchildin Sweden,and thepropensity

Is Therea CareerPenalty TimeOut? • 593
forMothers'
1 CD
Ä *
*
>¿ *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-K
*
*
!È
CÔJIDOO OCOOCO^t-CON COOv
<2 oq o ct>cq " "
^-qqqoLnr-cowOT-co
•' •' ' f-1 •' Z ii" co co
o ^ , xf
o i co, io, co co
o ^;oo
5 * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
o> ccNinom ^-cocdcot- o t- cncon
•* •" " " " ' " "
Sì o co' ^ ' co■ co■ ~Z- '" ' "Z. '" co o
> Q co co
I *
îî*î
*
CO CNJ^J- CN
-K *
% % %
OXMIDIDt-
*
% % %
^- CO
*
^1- ^c- CO
¡
Qcqininco LT>T-cz>cz>cz>co'^:oqcoOT-
" •" " '" " " "=*;
"
ÎOCNÌ^CvÌ
ili!
t-^'" 2 Z COLO
CO
-
CM
"^1"*
CD * * * * -x *** -k
Z¿! -K * * -K ■¥■■¥■■¥■ * * * -K
^"<!tO)OT- T- OOr- CslLOCNjO^'^f COCOLO
^ c'j co ^ cg CNcoooôqcsjT-cnqinT-
" " ' i" " •" " ' " "
1 O^^"^1^
K->
o
■ « i • evi
■
Z cOt-
co co
h- co
~Z. ^
a.
e. **** ***** ***
^ ***** **
■*■**■*
1
m C CO T- T- T- CO CO LO CN CO T- T- O) t- 1^- CN
c^cocncot- csj^pCNcqcoh^^cocNjcoLq
i" ^ i" Z i" T-: i" coco
E/P'^:'^:co'^:
Û ' ' • • ' ' CO CT>
5
o ^
** * ***
******* *** *
*** *
^t^tCON ì- OJ N CM O) O O) OO I^-OÔO
ã
QOCOlfìCNj ITjCOOt-CDCNICNN;
" " COÎÔsJ
DcmVt^cnì
■■ii t-^cnì '" Vco■■ Z i" i" t^
i coco
co co
i gì
mSCDOCO
¿CÓCONO
O co co' ai o
î ï Î 5 ï î î î î î
COIOt-OCDOOOOCvIOOOOCOCM
" ^ CZ) T- CN O ^ -^ -«- CZ) CN
CN" CO" CZ)
i" i' i" i* i
î Ï * 5
<£ r^-
■i o *? «? °? T S SS
<o z ^ co'
*** * **
1
^2****
*= **** *** * **
S
W CS-CnCMO)
^c'jc'io)cd
CNlOO'Ci^tCßTi-OOCDcbNOOOOT-
qcNOT-qcsj^cNqcncOT-T-
" " " " " ' "
T3 Ooocòoòoò "'" t-1'" T- "cOt-
©ÛOOOOCOCO ' Ot-
o
-*"
♦S • i i i 1^- "^J-
I "^
5 ****
****
****
T- COCZ5LO
qCOt-IOCO "
****
****
****
t-LOÎ-CNCDCOOOCNLOCNCOCDCN
CZ>t-CZ>t- OCOt-
" " x-CZ>CZ>COCOCZ)
" "
**
**
***
D^LOiriin «" 'V «V^ '"cor- 35
OO ■ CD CT> -2
• CO• OO
■ CO
i
i^co cj5
-îj- CL
.2
8 § I
I ,e IììIip
I
*s g « a -^ -° v
g 8 ¡ï^§i
öS 22S -ocaîcî
I ili it|!U czez liti

-° ^ liiiif
e e: e e: e:
GL °? V co co y-S^=c -ì= _cr
04
O
2
CLCLCLCL LULUÜ I <CM^CL^ <ÜÜQUCOU_ Z^cnoo^lo*0"

mi)
ofhavinga thirdchildis moresensitive toeconomicfluctuations (SCB 1998; RFV

2003). Havingthreeor morechildrenalso increasesthetransition rateto a job
ofthesameprestige. We alsoknowfromearlierresearch thatwomentendto stay
outlongerwitha first childthanwithsubsequentchildren(BergerandWaldfogel
2004; Duvander2006).
Cohabitingwomenin Swedenhavea lowertransition rateto all moves(al-
thoughonlysignificantly so for upward moves and returns to the same level)
comparedto singlewomen.Thismayindicatetheneedof singlewomenforan
incomeoftheirown;forthatreasonthesewomenreturn to thelabormarket faster
thando cohabiting/married women.Finally, reentry to thesame a
(or similar)job
in Swedenwas lesslikelyduringthe 1990s.Thismaybe due to thefactthatthe
modelincludesepisodesin unemployment as timeout,12and consequently the
estimateshowseffects ofthe 1990s' recession. the
Hence,during 1990s, women
on family leavehad greater difficulties
returning to thesamejob aftera periodof
leavethantheyhad duringthe1970sand 1980s.
As is also thecasein Sweden,highereducationis a strongpredictor ofupward
mobilityupon mothers'returnto the labormarketin Germany.Educational
effects arealso pronouncedforreturnto thesameor a similarjob. Laborforce
experience has a significantpositiveeffecton bothkindsof directional mobility,
indicating thatmoreexperienced womenarenotprotected fromatypicalmoves
whentheyreturn to thelabormarket. Atthesametime,womenwhogavebirthin
their30s ratherthanin their20s havelowerupwardor downwardmobility rates.
Priortimein unpaidcaregivinghas a positiveeffect on all typesof directional
mobility, and the longer the time
earlier out,the fastertherateofreturn. Taking
careof morethanone child,in contrast, reducesmothers'rateof returnto the
labormarket,as eithertypeof reentry is negatively affected by the numberof
childrenin thehousehold.
In linewiththesecondhypothesis, we haveshownforall threecountriesthat
themajorityofwomenreturnto thesamejob or a job withthesameprestige
as theone theyhad beforetheleave.Thisis whatwe expectedas parentalleave
policiesgivewomentherightto returnto thesamejob, giventhattheyreturn
withinthelegallydefinedintervalforeach country. Withinthe eight-year ob-
servation window,a totalof 8 1 percentof all reentries in theUnitedStatesare
to thesame/asimilarjob; thecorresponding figures are80 percentin Germany
and 75 percentin Sweden.
We alsohypothesized thattheslowertherateofreturn to thelabormarket after
childbirth, thehighertheriskofreturning to a job oflowerprestige (Hypothesis
3). However,in theregression analysisin Table 2, we findthat,fortheUnited
States,downwardand upwardmobilityrisksare rathersimilar,independent of
time-out duration(seetheestimates forperiod).ForGermany, we finda somewhat
heightened mobility riskbetween18 and36 monthsofleaveforbothupwardand
downward moves.ForSweden,we findan increasing downward mobility riskover

Is Therea CareerPenaltyforMothers'Time Out? • 595
time,and womenaremostlikelyto return withan upwardmoveat between18

and 36 monthsofleave.
Themodelspresented inTable3 aremotivated ofa negative
byourexpectation
effectofearliertimeout (Hypothesis4). Thesemodelsfocuson careers
mothers'
aftertheyhavealreadyreturned towork,a periodinwhichmothers areno longer
protectedbyspecialpolicies.
* -le * *
* * * * ■*
E¿ O co -«- CO CO CVJ^t CO NOOt-COOÌ

^ o■ 2|s*"0)00000° Wi^>ooot-o
o Z
'
,-,■ ■,■ ,■,■•,■
gO co S
^j coco T,
lg
"S 2.
I II ï * î ï =
CO -*- CM O CT>^t Cvl CO CD ^J- O CN x- O^ R
°
QO " " "
cpNT-T-inqqwoqcMOcoco " " ^j
Z) i" i" t^ •" ~Z- •' •" oo co c
^5
T
«
^
^Q-
CD
* * * "O o
00 00 1^- m E -
^ m 001s- co ^ ^
ers i^- E Ü2
2? Ë * * * * * "w 8
Q_ o> î î $ * $ % m % -S o
15 3 " z
^^ ,:.■■.■ ."zz W(O cd
o ^ cr>
¡g
> cd
üQ. h- +_, *g _s¿
*
O Ct-(D
ï ! i í i i î «î î
CDO^-CMincOCM^CDinCDNCO
! ! ! I
i+= CO !
-°
ëe </) ^ cz> T-
-is
' ■"' ' i i ■ " •' ■
cNjx- oqcoqov- co o t-
•■■■■■
^^-cnj
ss
^
i5 2 g
cz
o
O)
e "S
.+5
î* .-K-teï ï*****+:
ï î ï î î ï* î-*: 1Oe !&
O CD
(ü ■= T- in^r o)cocoincooooNcoco^-T-T- r. -ss
.e Cqc^.^-c^j OJCOCNIOOOOOOt-tJ-CMO
~
>^R
o
<=> ss g |§
^ O CD
-g g^
CNlfi CD ^ 10
"O
o + ^55 C^ *§ T3
ÔQ)0 "O C£ O
_^ CD CD O O C i-I . »-
w oOczC
-d C ^ CD CD
CD 0 CM O
Q_
»w -C
b¿ c^-Sd-c:
O)
.^^^cli
i
imi ?e|ì^
o ci
</> S
S 5 8S888Í . Se 8ë ^ggu,
s-s-s-s-s-IIë^s
00) 0CD OE
<S €§.g.
=CLa- sJggîŒ
^COCC
Ec cCOg^
V!
co
S ^^■^^^^^.O.OCO^cD^c^-ë^fe 05^ ^ .g CD CD
e O O O O O g g-CO-CD Otí- ÇD c5 ^ ^ ? •
.2 5 0) CD 0 0 0>> O ü> O= OC CD-^SS-
ra^^^
g
Q ^ ^
g 0)0 0
"g« E E E E E cd çD-g-g çD-o-5 fe-g g,^^ ^-§~ ^^û^q^v

88(2)
we presentresultsfroma modelassuminga lineareffect

Initially, of timeout
on subsequentoccupationalmovesacrossall countries(controlling forthesame
variablesas before).For theUnitedStatesand Germany, we finda positiveef-
fecton bothupwardand downwardmoves.Hence, the longerwomenstayed
outsidethe labor forceafterthe birthof a child,the higherthe riskof both
upwardand downwardmoves.ForSweden,thelineartermis notsignificant. As
theassumption of a continuously increasing/
decreasinglineareffect of time out
on upward/downward occupationalmobilitymayseemunlikely, we also tried
country-specific models with dummies forgiventime-out periods.The results
fromthesemodelsareshownfortheUnitedStatesand Swedenonly,as results
werenotsignificant forGermany.
For theUnitedStates,we findthatanyprevioustimeout is costlyformoth-
ers.In thesecondcolumnofTable 3 we see thatwomenwho reenter thelabor
market between4 and 12 monthsafterthebirthofa childhavea 15 percentlower
chanceof makingan upwardmovecomparedto thegroupthatonlystaysout
forlessthan4 months(someofwhichwerecoveredbythefamilyleavepolicy).
Forthosereentering aftera year,thechancesof an upwardmoveareevenlower.
What mattersfordownwardmovesis whetherwomenleftthelabormarketat
all. Stayingin thelabormarketwithno interruptions lowersthechancesof a
downwardmoveby 16 percent.Havingmorethanone childraisestheriskofa
downwardmovesignificantly. Youngermothershavelowerchancesof changing
to a job witha differentprestige level.Educationhas a positiveeffect on upward
movesand decreasestheriskofa downwardmove.
Similarto thepatterns observedfortheUnitedStates,we findthathighlyedu-
catedmothers in Germany seemto be morelikelyto experience an upwardcareer
move(significant at the 10 percentlevelonly).ForGermany, thelineartermfor
time-outexperience indicatesthatmothers who stayat homelongerhavebetter
upwardcareerchances,butalsoa higherdownward mobility risk.It couldbe that
thereis something distinctaboutmothersreturning veryearlyin Germany, and
thecharacteristicsofthisgroupor thefactors thatdrivethembackmayworkto
theirdisadvantage whenitcomesto upwardmoves.Longinterruptions obviously
de-stabilizemothers'subsequentcareermoves,as thesewomenlessoftenreturn
to theirpreviouspositions(cf.Figure4). Fromthisperspective, mobility to some
extentreflectssearchprocesses. A recentstudyindicatesthattheexplainedwage
penaltyforchild-related careerbreaksis smallerin Germanythanin theUnited
States(and Britain)and thatstatistical discrimination
ofmothers insteadappears
to be morecommonin Germany(Gangl and Ziefle2009). This maybe one
reasonwhywe findsmalleffects of timeout on mothers'subsequentcareersin
Germany.Still,climbingthecareerladderseemsto be harderforwomenwith
morethanone child.Finally, itisworthbearingin mindthattheworklifecareers
ofGermanwomenarecensoredat age35, and theresults presented heremaynot
be representativeofoldermothers.

IsThere
ForSweden,we finda significant negativeeffect on upwardmovesofprevious

child-relatedcareerbreakslongerthan15 months.Hence,womenwho return to
thelabormarketbeforea childturns16 monthshavebettercareerprospects than
do thosereturning later.Womenwho havemorethantwo childrenare signifi-
cantlylesslikelyto makean upwardmoveaftertheyarebackon thejob. Finally,
womenwho wenton leavein the 1980s movedto a job ofhigherprestige faster
thandid womenwhowenton leavein the 1970sor 1990s.
Our expectation ofrisingcareerpenaltiesformothers' previoustimeout is sup-
ported for all countries.In the United States,even short interruptionsincrease
women'sdownward mobility risks
and decreasetheirupwardmobility chances.For
Germany, longtime-out periodsareassociated withoverallincreased mobility and
hence,lowercareerstability. In Sweden,interruptions of 16 monthsor moreseem
to be penalizing,as womenwho stayout longerfacelowerupwardcareerchances.
Still,wecannotdetermine herewhether thesecareerpenaltiesaretheresultofmoth-
ersnotwantingto advanceor ofemployers' discriminating women
against on the
basisofleavelength.Itcouldalsobe thatskillatrophy affectswomen'soccupational
mobility andlowerstheirtransition ratestojobswithhigherprestige. However, the
factthatwe findsomekindofthreshold valueforwhentimeoutturnsnegative in
Swedenand the United States makes us reluctantto concludethatskillatrophy is
likelyto be themainfactor. Ifthiswerethecase,we wouldexpecta lineareffect of
timeoutand alsogreater similaritybetween the countries.
andConclusions
Summary
In thisarticle,we showhow the birthof a childcan affect women'scareersin
Germany, Sweden and theUnited These
States. threecountries
employdifferent
welfarestatestrategies and havestrikingly ways dealing-or notdeal-
different of
ing-withthework-family conflictfacedbywomenwithchildren. As a result,
the
differences betweenthesethreecountries in termsofwomen'sreturn toworkafter
childbirth are remarkable. In theUnitedStates-where a universal-breadwinner
strategyis promoted -75 percentofall womenarebackat workonlysixmonths
afterthebirthof a firstchild.In Sweden-the country withan earner-carerstrat-
egy-7 5 percent areback afterfiveyearsand in Germany- withitscaregiver-parity
'-less than75 percentare back evenaftereightyears.It is worthnoting
strategy
thatthefigures we presentherereferto womenwho werein thelabormarketat
leastone ofthesevenmonthspreceding thebirth.Hence,werewe to look at all
women(employedor notright beforethebirth)we wouldfindlargernumbersof
womenout ofthelabormarketat anygivenpointin time;especially in Germany
but also to some extentthe UnitedStates,whereselectivity into employment
amongrecentmothersis higherthanin Sweden.
In line withour secondhypothesis, resultsshowthatamongthosewho do
return to thelabormarket, family leavepoliciesaffect
thetimingofreentry,rather
thanthetypeofreentry. Most mothersreturnto thesameor a similarjob as the

88(2)
one heldbeforethebreakin all threecountries, andwomenreturning to thesame/

similarjob also tendto interrupt forshorter periodsthando theirpeers.Our as-
sumption that the riskof a downward move would increasewithtimeoutdid not
receiveunconditional support, and in manyrespects, thereare no cleardifferences
betweenthegroupswhoreturn withan upward,comparedto a downward, move.
Consequently, out
staying longerappears to be riskier-some do OK upon return,
somedo not.Thiscouldalsoindicatethediversity amongthosestaying outlonger
and theextentto whichtheycan afford to waitforbetterjob opportunities or if
financialcircumstances forcethemto returnto a job of lowerprestige thanthe
one theyhad before.
Whenwe turnourfocustoprestige changesthatoccurafter womenarebackat
workagain,we findthatprevioustimeoutaffects women'soccupationalmobility
in all countries.In theUnitedStates,wherefewwomentakefamily leave,we find
an increaseddownwardmobilityriskand lowerupwardmobilitychances,also
aftershorttime-outperiods.In Sweden,we finda negativeeffect oftimeout on
upward moves when the time out exceeds 15 months. This finding is in contrast
withearlierresearchshowingno effectof timeout on women'soccupational
careers,apartfroma possiblenegativeeffectforhighlyeducatedwomen(e.g.,
Granqvistand Persson2004; Jonssonand Mills 2001). Hence,whenwe use a
non-linear indicator oftimeoutand includethe1990sin theanalysis, theconclu-
sionschangesomewhat.In Germany, wherethelegalfamily leaveperiodis long
and mothers'timeout thenorm,thelongerthetimeout,thegreater theriskof
changing toa newjob,whether itis associated withan upwardordownward move.
Thisindicatesthatlongtime-out periods destabilizewomen's careers. Still,it also
showsthatreturning in
early Germany is notnecessarily associatedwith improved
careeropportunities, at leastnotforfairly youngwomen,as in oursample.
The punishingeffect of timeout is moststriking in theUnitedStates;moth-
ers'careersdo suffer iftheyleavethelabormarketat all aftergivingbirth.This
resultshouldbe seen in contextof the nearlycompleteabsence-especiallyin
comparisonto Swedenand Germany-of affordable publicchildcareand family
leavepoliciesin theUnitedStates.Thiscombination leaveswomenin theUnited
Stateswithoutprotection againsttheforcesofthelabormarketand consequently,
women'scareerssuffer forveryshorttimeouts. In Sweden,on theotherhand,
whereanynegativeeffect oftimeout startslater,parentalleavepoliciesaregener-
ous, childcare is inexpensive, fulltimeand availableto everyonewithchildren
between1 and 6 yearsofage.
Giventhatourfocushereis on womenwhokeeptheirtiesto thelabormarket
to someextent, our analysesshowthatdifferent policycontexts and institutional
settings shapethelivesand livingconditions ofwomenverydifferently. Byprovid-
ing women with incentives to return towork sooner ratherthan income
later, losses
as wellas humancapitaldepreciation is reducedand thismakeswomen-and their
children -less financially vulnerable in thecaseofa divorce.Familyleavebreaksof

IsThere
forMothers'
Penalty
severalyears,as in Germany,destabilize
women'scareers and makemothers depen-
denton a malebreadwinner. Still,whenthelegalfamily leaveperiodisveryshort, as
in theUnitedStates,manywomendropoutofthelaborforcealtogether forsome
years.Ifwomenstayoutformorethaneightyears, we do notobservetheirreturn to
thelabormarket andanycareerchangesfollowing uponthatreturn. We canassume
thatwomentakingverylongfamily leavehavelowercareerchancesandaspirations
uponreturn towork,andthisgroupofwomenwouldbe larger in Germany thanin
theUnitedStatesandSweden.Theearner-carer promoted
strategy in Swedenallows
womento takeleavesofa yearor moreand stillkeeptheirtiesto thelabormarket.
However,evenin thisfamily-friendly policyregime, women'scareerprospects im-
proveiftheyreturn toworksoonerrather thanlater.In theend,thisfinding points
to theneedforgreater of
sharing parentalresponsibilitiesbetween the parentsand
in particular,
theneedforfathers to increasetheirshareofthefamily leave.
Notes
1. While earningsare sometimesconsideredthe moreinformative indicatorin terms
thistypeof information
of social inequality, also has itsdrawbacks.Earningsvary
considerably overtimeand countries,requiringseveralcompromisedadjustments
to the data. Second, as mothersoftenworkparttime,any earningschangemay
capturereducedtimespentin paid workratherthanany actualchangein power
or privilege.Third,surveydata on earningsare oftenbiasedby recallor reporting
errorand therefore, mostsurveysrefrain fromcollectingthiskindof information
Occupationalprestige statusmeasures,thoughless prominent,
retrospectively. and
haveprovento be stableacrosstimeand contextand arewell-established in social
research(e.g.,Blossfeldand Hofmeister
stratification 2006).
2. betweeninstitutional
Thedistinction framework workoutcomeswasfirst
andgendered
byRosenfeld,
suggested Trappe and Gornick(2004).
3. Since2002, theparentstogether havetherightto take480 daysofleave(ofwhich90
are
days replaced at thelowerbasic level)and parentscan giveup all but60 daysto
thepartner.The latterchangeswill,however, notbe capturedin thepresent empirical
as thelastyearstudiedis 2000.
analyses,
4. Worthnotingis thatwomenon parental leavefroma job in Germany and Swedenare
counted
officially as employed while on leave.
5. As thehistoryand thetraditionof familyleaveareverydifferent in East Germany
comparedto West Germany,we only focuson West Germanyin thisstudy.For
information abouttheGLHS intheEnglishlanguage, seeBruckner andMayer(1995).
A public-useversionofthesedataandEnglish-language codebooksformostcohortsare
availablethroughtheCenterforResearchon Inequalities and theLifeCourseat Yale
University(www.yale.edu/ciqle).
6. FortheUnitedStates,we excludedwomenwithmorethanfourchildren, as thiswasa
smallgroupwithverydifferent laborforcemobility.
7. In thosecaseswheretherewas no difference between"twochildren" and "morethan
twochildren" forGermany, thesecategories werecollapsedintoone dummyfortwo
or morechildren.

88(2)
8. Althoughboth Germanyand Swedenhave ethnicminority groups,thesegroups

ethnicdescentfacingverydifferent
consistof people of different labor market
conditions.Our data does not allow us to breakdown the immigrant groupinto
smallersubgroups.Giventhatwe onlyincluderespondents who havehad a job for
at leastsixmonths,we excludetheonesmostmarginalized in thelabormarket.
9. In 1978,theleavelengthwasextendedto 270 daysofleave.
10. Fromthegraphitappearsthatmostofthesewomenreturned withintwoweeks.This
thatstemsfromthefactthattheeight-week
is a dataartifact leavefunctions
maternity
as sickleave.Womenwho did nottakeadditionalleavedid notreportthisphaseas a
timeoutoftheworkforce.
11. Thispolicywasfirst in 1980, andthetimeperiodwithinwhichthewoman
introduced
had to havehersecondchildwas 24 months.In 1986,thetimeperiodwas extended
to 30 months.
12. Ifa periodoffamily
leaveendswithan unemployment spell,we continueto countthe
unemployment periodas timeoutin connection
withchildbirth.
References
Albrecht,JamesW., Per-Anders Edin, MarianneSundström,Susan B. Vroman.1999.

"CareerInterruptions and SubsequentEarnings:A ReexaminationUsing Swedish
Data."JournalofHumanResources 34(2):294-311.
Andersson,Gunnar,MaritRonsen,LisbethKnudsen,TrudeLappegârd,Gerda Neyer,
in
Patterns
KariSkrede,KathrinTeschnerandAndresVikat.2008. "CohortFertility
theNordicCountries."StockholmResearchReportsin Demography. Availableat:
http://www.
suda.su.se/publications_sub_srrd.
asp.
Anderson,DeborahJ.,MelissaBinderand Kate Krause.2002. "The MotherhoodWage
WhichMothers
Penalty: PayItandWhy?"TheAmerican Economic
Review92(2):354-58.
Baum,CharlesL. 2002. "TheEffect ofWorkInterruptionson Women'sWages."Labour
16(l):l-37.
. 1992. "The GenderEarningsGap: LearningfromInternational Comparisons."
American Economic Review82(2): 533-38.
Blau, FrancineD., and LawrenceM. Kahn. 2003. "UnderstandingInternational
Differences in theGenderPayGap."JournalofLaborEconomics 21(1): 106-44.
Berger,Lawrence M., and JaneWaldfogel. 2004. "MaternityLeave and theEmployment
ofNew Mothersin theUnitedStates." Journal Economics
oj Population 17(2):331-49.
Blossfeld,Hans-Peter,KatrinGolschand Götz Rohwer.2007. EventHistory Analysiswith
Stata.LawrenceEarlbaum.
Bruckner, Hannah, and Karl UlrichMayer.1995. Lebensverläufe undgesellschaftlicher
Wandel:Konzeption,Design und Methodikder Erhebungvon Lebensverläufen
der Geburtsjahrgänge 1954-1956 und 1959-61. Berlin:Max-Planck-Institut für
Bildungsforschung.
Budig,MichelleJ., and Paula England.2001. „The Wage PenaltyforMotherhood."
American Review66(2): 204-25.
Sociological
Bundesministerium fürFamilie,Senioren,FrauenundJugend. 2005. Gender-Datenreport.
Availableat: www.bmfsrj.de/Publikationen/genderreport/root.html.

IsThere
Bureauof Labor Statistics.2004. U.S. Departmentof Labor. National Longitudinal

SurveyofYoungWomen,1968-2003 (rounds1-23) [computerfile].Producedand
by the CenterforHuman ResourceResearch,Ohio StateUniversity.
distributed
Columbus,OH: 2004. Availableat: http://vvrsvw.nlsinfo.org.
D'Addio,AnnaCristina,MarcoMirad'Ercole.2005. "Policies,Institutionsand Fertility
Rates:A Panel Data AnalysisforOECD Countries."OECD Economic Studies
4l(2):7-43.
Datta Gupta,Nabanita,and Nina Smith.2002. "Childrenand CareerInterruptions: The
FamilyGap in Denmark." Economica 69(276):609-29.
Duvander,Ann-Zofie.2006. "Föräldrarnas användningav föräldraförsäkringen" Pp. 23-
37. Analyserar 2006:5. Stockholm: National Social Insurance Agency.
Engelbrech,Gerhard.1997. "Erziehungsurlaub -und was dann? Die Situationvon
Frauenbei ihrerRückkehrauf den Arbeitsmarkt. Ein Ost/West- Vergleich."IAB
Kurzbericht 8:1-5.
Engelbrech, Gerhard,and MariaJungkunst. 2001. "Erziehungsurlaub undBerufsverlauf."
Informationen fürdie Beratungs- und VermittlungsdienstederBundesanstalt fürArbeit
(ibv)20:131 1-22.
Esping-Andersen,Gosta. 1990. TheThreeWorlds ofWelfare Capitalism. PolityPress.
Ferrarini,Tommy.2006. Families,Statesand LabourMarkets.Institutions, Causesand
Consequences ofFamilyPolicyin Post-War WelfareStates.EdwardElgarPublishing.
Gangl, Markus,and AndreaZiefle.2009. "Motherhood,Labor Force Behaviorand
Women'sCareers:An EmpiricalAssessment oftheWagePenaltyforMotherhoodin
Britain,Germanyand theUnitedStates."Demography 46(2) :34 1-69.
Ganzeboom,HarryB.G., and Donald J.Treiman.1996. "Internationally Comparable
MeasuresofOccupationalStatusforthe 1988 International StandardClassification
ofOccupations."SocialScienceResearch 25(3):201-39.
Gornick,JanetC, Marcia K. Meyersand KatherineE. Ross. 1997. "Supportingthe
Employment of Mothers:PolicyVariationAcrossFourteenWelfareStates."Journal
ofEuropean Social Policy7 ( 1) :4 5-70.
Granqvist, Lena, and Helena Persson.2004. "Kvinnoroch mäns karriärvägar pâ den
svenskaarbetsmarknaden." Pp. 313-37. Den könsuppdelade arbetsmarknaden. SOU
2004:43. Asa Löfström, editor.Stockholm:Fritzes.
Grunow,Daniela, HeatherHofmeister and SandraBuchholz.2006. "Late20th-century
Persistence and Decline of the Female Homemakerin Germanyand the United
States."International Sociology 21 (1): 101-31.
Gustafsson, Siv S., Cécile M. M. P. Wetzeis,JanDirk Vlasblomand ShirleyDex. 1996.
"Women'sLabor ForceTransitionsin ConnectionwithChildbirth:A Panel Data
ComparisonBetweenGermany, Swedenand GreatBritain." JournalofPopulation
Economics 9(ò)-22ò46.
Hoem,JanM. 1990. "Social-Policy and RecentFertility Changein Sweden."Population
and Development Review16(4):735-48.
Hoem, JanM., GerdaNeyer,GunnarAndersson.2006. "Educationand Childlessness.
The RelationshipBetweenEducationalField,EducationalLevel and Childlessness
amongSwedishWomenBornin 1955-59."Demographic Research 14:331-80.
Hofferth, SandraL.,andSallyC. Curtin.2006. "Parental LeaveStatutes andMaternal Return
toWorkafter Childbirth in theUnitedStates."Work and Occupations 33(l):73-105.

88(2)
Jacobsen,JoyceP.,and LaurenceM. Levin. 1995. "Effects of Intermittent Labor Force

Attachment on Women'sEarnings." Monthly Labor Review 1 18(9): 14-19.
Jonsson,JanO., and Colin Mills.2001. "TheSoonertheBetter? ParentalLeaveDuration
andWomen'sOccupationalCareer."Pp. 97-114. CradletoGrave.Life-course Change
in ModernSweden.J.O. Jonssonand C. Mills,editors.Sociologypress.
Kenjoh,Eiko.2005. "NewMothers'Employment and PublicPolicyin theUK, Germany,
theNetherlands, and
Sweden, Japan." Labour 19(SpecialIssue):5-49.
Korpi,Tomas,and CharlottaStern.2004. "Kvinnai karriären-kön, familjoch karriär
aren 1950-2000."Pp. 226-48. Familj ochArbete-vardagsliv i förändring.Magnus
Bygren, MichaelGählerand MagnusNermo,editors.Stockholm:SNS Förlag.
Korpi,Walter.2000. "FacesofInequality:Gender,Class,and Patterns ofInequalitiesin
Different Types ofWelfare States."SocialPolitics
7(2) :127-9 1.
Lundberg, Shelly,and ElaineRose.2000. "Parenthood and theEarningsofMarriedMen
and Women."LabourEconomics 7(6):689-710.
Mandel, Hadas, and Moshe Semyonov.2005. "FamilyPolicies,Wage Structures, and
GenderGaps: SourcesofEarningsInequalityin 20 Countries. "American Sociological
Review70(6):949-67.
. 2006. "AWelfareStateParadox:StateInterventions and Women'sEmployment
Opportunities in 22 Countries." American JournalofSociology 111(6): 1910-49.
Mandel,Hadas, and MichaelShalev.2006. "A Class Perspective on GenderInequality:
How WelfareStatesShape the Gender Pay Gap." LIS WorkingPaper no. 433.
Availableat: http://www.lisproject.org/publications/liswps/433.pdf.
McMahon,Patrick J. 1986. "AnInternational ComparisonofLaborForceParticipation,
1977-84."Monthly LaborReview109(9):3-12.
Mayer,KarlUlrich.2005. "LifeCoursesand LifeChancesin a Comparative Perspective."
Pp. 17-55. AnalyzingInequality:LifeChancesand SocialMobilityin Comparative
Perspective.StefanSvallfors,editor.StanfordUniversity Press.
Mincer,Jacob,and SolomonPolachek.1974. "FamilyInvestments in Human Capital:
Earnings of Women." TheJournal ofPolitical
Economy 82(2) :S76-S 108.
Misra,Joya,MichelleJ. Budig and StephanieMöller.2007. "ReconciliationPolicies
and theEffects of Motherhoodon Employment, Earningsand Poverty." Journalof
Comparative PolicyAnalysis9(2): 135-55.
Morgan,S. Philip.2008. "Characteristic
Featuresof ModernAmericanFertility."
Population and DevelopmentReview22 (Supplement): 19-63.
Moss, Peter,and KarinWall. 2007. "International
ReviewofLeavePoliciesand Related
Research2007." Employment Relations
Research Seriesno. 80. EMAR, Department
forBusiness,Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.Availableat: http://www.berr.gov.
uk/files/file40677.pdf.
OECD. 2006. Starting
Strong II. EarlyChildhoodEducationand Care.OECD Publishing.
Pettit,Becky,JenniferHook. 2005. "The Structureof Women's Employmentin
ComparativePerspective."SocialForces84(2):779-801.
2003.
Riksförsäkringsverket. "När harvi râdattskaffafierbarn?"RFVAnalyserar
2003:8.
Stockholm:Riksförsäkringsverket.
Ronsen,Marit,and MarianneSundström. 1996. MaternalEmployment in Scandinavia:
A Comparisonof theAfter-birth Employment of
Activity Norwegianand Swedish
Women."JournalofPopulation Economics 9(3):267-85.

IsThere
forMothers'
Penalty
. 2002. "FamilyPolicyand After-birth Employment AmongNew Mothers-A

Comparison of Finland, Norway and Sweden." JournalofPopulation-Revue
European
Européenne De Démographie 18(2):121-52.
Rosenfeld,RachelA., and ArneL. Kalleberg.1991. "GenderInequalityin the Labor-
Market-a Cross-National ActaSociologica
Perspective." 34(3):207-25.
Rosenfeld, Rachel A., Heike TrappeJanetC. Gornick.2004. "Genderand Workin
Germany:Beforeand AfterReunification." AnnualReviewofSociology30:103-34.
Ruhm,Christopher J. 1998. "The Economic ConsequencesofParentalLeaveMandates:
LessonsfromEurope."Quarterly JournalofEconomics113(1):285-317.
Sainsbury, Diane. 1999. "Gender,PolicyRegimes,and Politics."Pp. 245-76. Gender and
State
Welfare Regimes. Diane Sainsbury,editor.OxfordUniversity Press.
SCB 1998. "Barnafödande ochsysselsättning."
DemografiskaRapporter 1998: 1. Stockholm:
StatisticsSweden.
Sigle-Rusthon, Wendy,andJaneWaldfogel.2007. "Motherhoodand Women'sEarnings
in Anglo-AmericanContinentalEuropean, and Nordic Countries."Feminist
Economics 13(2)65-91.
Sorensen,Anne-Mette.1983. "Childrenand TheirMothers'Career."Social Science
Research 12(l):26-43.
StatistischesBundesamt.2007. "Frauenwerdenheuteim Durchschnitt mit26 Jahren
Mutter."Pressrelease511/18.12.2007.Wiesbaden.
Treiman, DonaldJ.1977. Occupational in Comparative
Prestige Perpective.AcademicPress.
UNECE 2005. Statistical YearbookoftheEconomicCommission forEurope.New Yorkand
Geneva:UnitedNationsEconomicCommissionforEurope.
U.N. StatisticsDivision. 2007. Availableat: http://unstats.
un.org/unsd/demographic/
products/indwm/statistics.htm.
Waldfogel, ofChildrenon Women'sWages."American
Jane.1997. "TheEffect Sociological
Review62(2):209-17.
1998. "TheFamilyGap forYoungWomenin theUnitedStatesand Britain:Can
Maternity JournalofLaborEconomics
LeaveMake a Difference?" 16(3):505-45.
PoliciestowardParentalLeaveand Child Care." TheFuture
. 2001. "International
ofChildren
''(''3%-'''.
Yang,Yang,and S. PhilipMorgan.2003. "How Big areEducationaland RacialFertility
in theU.S.?" SocialBiology50(3-4):167-87.
Differentials
Ziefle,Andrea,2004: "Die individuellen Eine empirische
Kostendes Erziehungsurlaubs:
Analyseder kurz-und Folgen
längerfristigen fürden von
Karriereverlauf Frauen(The
IndividualCostsofParentalLeave:An EmpiricalAnalysis ofShort-and Longer-Term
ConsequencesforWomen'sCareers)."KZßS 56(2):213-31.

88(2)
1 >. ï il i
-
co
I
Q- 1 g!
8 c ^ o
f
Q-
"E ë g i-i1 i ë
<D
.e
i | g i
■o
| |
e
■o
fl i 1.1,8
I I |í 1 fe i
I
co
>e
CÜ
S
O
ç
¡ ¡is ti i fl 4 tr-fS
î T3 U r 0OOCN d. ZZ- <£ IqO CUCO (/>-r5O Q. ZU-
îi j jìì if Is ir: il
! IIP!!s I!
ii*¿a;fi
(O
o
O
■o
(ü
(/>
a>
"o
It zj ^ìl
I II |S 51,1 e!
%
cu
i!
Sii I- ^1« II ì55 |i
i
CU
Q.
_O
i e Q^^
3
O.
Kg «¡Sisals S? o^
"tñ
O
oo
o>
?°- 1° SII z- lei- S.M 1°
■g'g}
O £ÌSZ.?|"5| ^ ^ co
«S8o
;o F -vt! ">,T 5 F
< 5 I|l ?!*!!irl!¡i5 l!lSs|

.o
JiísIllJsSIÍãíl Jllïll

IsThere
Table A2: Labor Force ParticipationRates ofWomenin Germany,Sweden and the

UnitedStates in 1975 and 1984,WomenAged 16 and Over
Country 1975 1984
WestGermany 38.8 41.0
Sweden 55.2 61.5
U.S. 46.3 53.6
Source:McMahonPatrick J. 1986. "Aninternational oflaborforce
comparison
LaborReview109(5):3-12.
1977-84."Monthly
participation,


Aisenbrey, Evertsson & Grunow - 2009 - I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aisenbrey, Evertsson & Grunow - 2009 - I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Is There a Career Penalty for Mothers' Time Out?

A Comparison of Germany, Sweden and the

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

Thelegalparentalleavelengthis oftenconsidered to be themostimportant indica-

Wegratefullyacknowledge supportfromtheCenter forResearchon Inequalitiesand theLifeCourse

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

careers,moreelaboratecontextual comparisons areneeded.In particular, we lack

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

By usingdata fromtheNationalLongitudinal SurveyofYouth,theGerman

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

0 e? öS *OÍS^õ-§ ^ con oooo T- o c'j f- co^

a>§ cm£^"2cn °° ^^ cocoooin cnj

l|í f ï I :fS fllí

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

pendentwifeand two childrencompared

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

forSweden.This modelof individualtaxationencouragesfemaleemployment,

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

gaveparentstherightto sixmonthsofleaveat 90 percentincomereplacement (up

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

Finally,we look at two demographic factorsthatreflect thedifferent institu-

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

makingan upwardcareermove.However,timeout in family leavedid notaffect

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

HI: Germanmothers havethelongest

Thisis a directeffect parentalleavelengthsin thethreecountries.

H2: Returning tothesamejob (ora job ofthesameprestige)

H3: Theslowertherateof return,thehighertheriskof

H4: Afterinitial returnto thelabor market,a mothers

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

penaltiesmothersexperience afterprevioustimeout. Anylowercareermobility

For theUnitedStates,we use theNationalLongitudinal SurveyofYouth(fora

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

Figure1: Analyzingthe Timingand Outcomeofthe ReentryProcess intothe

populationages18 through 75. LNU is a panelsurvey, andineachsurvey, thepart

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

bornintheperiod1950-1975.It is important tokeepin mindthatouranalyses are

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

windowopenswhenmothers forpayagain(seeFigure1) and closes

Our conceptoftimeout is rigorous in thesensethatwe regardall kindsofbirth-

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

Figure2: Kaplan-MeierSurvivalCurves of Mothers'TimeOut afterFirstBirth

'a ' '

In linewithourfirst hypothesis,Figure2 demonstrates thedifferences between

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

Lookingatdifferent timeperiods,we finda cleartrendovertimefortheUnited

In thenextstep,we modeltheprocessof reentering thelabormarketfollowing

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

Figure4: Kaplan-MeierSurvivalCurves of Mothers'TimeOut afterChildbirth,

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

In Sweden,wherereturn to workafterchildbirth is slowerthanin theUnited

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

I ili it|!U czez liti

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

ofhavinga thirdchildis moresensitive toeconomicfluctuations (SCB 1998; RFV

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

time,and womenaremostlikelyto return withan upwardmoveat between18

E¿ O co -«- CO CO CVJ^t CO NOOt-COOÌ

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM

we presentresultsfroma modelassuminga lineareffect

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:00:08 PM