Background: The concept of resilience in familial and social contexts has gained prominence in academic and policy discussions. However, the interplay between family life and social inequalities, and how these relate to each other in the resilience literature, has yet to be documented.

Objective: This scoping review addresses this gap by analysing 250 articles published between 1998 and 2023. We compare the concept of resilience as applied in family and social resilience studies through four constitutive elements: (1) the unit of analysis, (2) definitions, (3) types, and (4) the risks, outcomes, and explanatory factors that are examined empirically.

Results: While both perspectives study individuals’ resilience, the emphasis in family resilience is on families, whereas social resilience studies focus more on communities and societies. Both perspectives emphasize the centrality of risks in defining resilience, yet family resilience scholarship seeks solutions within the family, while social resilience highlights community dynamics. Additionally, family resilience studies explore topics related to family-specific risks and resources, while social resilience studies examine external risks and resources.

Conclusions: The family resilience scholarship follows the clinical tradition in the resilience literature, viewing families as a separate entity that is resourceful and agentic. Socioeconomic risks are recurrent themes in social resilience literature, but not in family resilience.

Contribution: Understanding resilience through the lens of family inequalities in socioeconomic contexts can bridge these two perspectives. Incorporating factors such as labour market dynamics, family transitions, and educational attainment into definitions of risks, outcomes, and explanatory factors of resilience can enhance this integration.

Young women are much more likely to be NEET (Not in Employment, Education or Training) than young men. Little is known about the extent to which institutional and policy contexts can shape the relationship between young motherhood and NEET status – in particular with respect to the potential role of family policy. This paper explores the relationship between the risk that young mothers become NEET and the costs of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). We combine data from the EU-LFS with macro-level indicators of family policies, and analyse NEET risks of 13,737 young mothers (20–29) in 22 EU-countries. We find that higher costs of childcare are associated with lower use of ECEC among young mothers, and that the use of ECEC is related to reduced subsequent NEET risks.

In recent years, the concept of resilience has become increasingly important for understanding how families and communities respond to social challenges. Academic literature often highlights ‘resilience’ as a way to explain why some families fare better than others under similarly challenging circumstances, with a focus on agency and adaptive processes. Rather than focusing on what families lack, resilience research highlights the ways families actively cope with and overcome adversities.  The concept of resilience is also increasingly visible in policy discussions at the European level, to address a variety of social issues, especially in response to crises such as COVID-19. The European Commission’s Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), for example, was launched to promote inclusive growth, economic cohesion, and job availability (European Commission, 2024). Similarly, the High-Level Group on the Future of Social Protection (European Commission, 2023) underscored social resilience as a key factor in navigating long-term challenges and emergent crises.  As resilience becomes more prominent in both academic and policy contexts, it is crucial to investigate how the concept is understood and framed, particularly in relation to structural inequalities and policy implications. The policy-focused interpretation of resilience often overlooks micro-level inequalities following macro-level shocks and instead emphasizes broad societal resilience and the capacity to cope with crises like COVID-19, highlighting a gap in how resilience is incorporated into the policy sphere.   

The concept of resilience is increasingly prominent in the policy discourse of the EU and its member states. It’s conceptualisation and monitoring, however, remain under-developed (Bartova et al., 2023; Nieuwenhuis et al., 2023) – in particular when applied to social issues related to inequalities and families. In this deliverable, we present an interactive visualisation of socio-economic risks, resources, and resilience among families in Europe, alongside descriptive evidence of social policies. Resilience is typically defined around two main concepts: (1) exposure to a risk, and an (2) outcome (Mohaupt, 2009). We defined resilience as absence of a negative (socio-economic) outcome despite exposure to a risk factor (Nieuwenhuis et al., 2023). A determining factor for the ability to cope with negative risk factors are people’s resources. We expect that people with resources are better equipped to absorb risks or adapt to a risk factor and thus avoid a negative outcome. However, people do not live in isolation but tend to form families and/or households. There is a considerable variation in family forms and households, which necessarily shapes the risks individuals and families are facing as well as the resources available to them. In other words, families differ in their exposure to risk and their ability to deal with this risk through their resources, which then lead to different outcomes. We argue that when the concept of resilience is applied to social issues, it should explicitly acknowledge that there are socio-economic inequalities between different families, including the extent to which families are exposed to risks, have the resources to respond to those risks, and how this results in varying socio-economic outcomes. For the deliverable documented here, we compiled individual level survey data from EU-SILC and transformed them into an interactive visualisation to demonstrate how risks, resources and socio-economic inequalities vary across European families and households. To contextualise the variation in risks, resources and outcomes, we also included a visualisation of a wide range of social policies. The visualisation itself is the deliverable D2.3 and is accessible through the rEUsilience website (http://www.reusilience.eu/compendium).Show less  

In this deliverable, we critically analyse the tax-benefit systems of Belgium, Croatia, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, for their capacity to function as an automatic stabiliser and protect the income and reduce the risk of poverty for a range of different household- and family types. It was found that in none of the countries in focus and in none of the scenarios were full-time workers found to be at-risk-of-poverty. However, single parents (for whom working full-time is often already a challenge), are very close to the poverty threshold when working at two-thirds of the average wage in most of the countries studied here. Differences between family- and household types tend to be larger than the differences between different countries: single-earner households are closer to the poverty thresholds, as are households with dependent children – this accumulates in single-parent households usually being close to the at-risk-of-poverty thresholds. Short-term unemployment is compensated for reasonably well, at least when one partner of a dual-earner couple becomes unemployed and if they are eligible for unemployment benefits. Long-term unemployment of both partners results in an income below poverty. Finally, the findings suggest that neither part-time employment, nor living with grandparents, are guaranteed ways in all countries to avoid poverty for (previously) unemployed single parents. These analyses highlighted two relevant findings. The first was that in some countries, income taxation was found to be related to part-time working single parents falling into poverty. The second was even though (the sharing of) pension income can reduce poverty in households of multigenerational households, we found that this poverty-reduction capacity is lowest in countries where multigenerational households are more common (Croatia and Poland), whereas it is more effective in countries where such households are least common (i.e. Sweden).

Background: The concept of resilience in familial and social contexts has gained prominence in academic and policy discussions. However, the interplay between family life and social inequalities, and how these relate to each other in the resilience literature, has yet to be documented. Objective: This scoping review addresses this gap by analysing 250 articles published between 1998 and 2023. We compare the concept of resilience as applied in family and social resilience studies through four constitutive elements: (I) unit of analysis, (II) definitions, (III) types, and the (IV) topics of risks, outcomes, and explanatory factors empirically examined. Results: While both perspectives study individuals’ resilience, the emphasis in family resilience is on families, whereas social resilience studies focus more on communities and societies. Both perspectives emphasize the centrality of risks in defining resilience, yet family resilience scholarship seeks solutions within the family, while social resilience highlights community dynamics. Additionally, family resilience studies explore topics related to family-specific risks and resources, while social resilience studies examine external risks and resources. Conclusions: The family resilience scholarship follows the clinical tradition of resilience literature, viewing families as a separate entity that is resourceful and agentic. Socioeconomic risks are recurrent themes in social resilience, but not in the family resilience literature. Contribution: Understanding resilience through the lens of family inequalities in socioeconomic contexts can bridge these two perspectives. Incorporating factors such as labour market dynamics, family transitions, and educational attainment into definitions of risks, outcomes, and explanatory factors of resilience can enhance this integration.

Rising inflation in the Nordic societies has changed the living standards for many families. The situation differs not only between the four Nordic countries analysed, but even within each of the Nordic countries. The needs for intervention have varied. Several elements have been used to determine who is facing the most risks. This article shows how to combine automatic stabilisers with temporary policy interventions to deal with increased inflation in general or specific sub-elements (such as oil, natural gas). Focus is on the degree of and criteria for targeting. Possible distributional consequences of the adopted measures will be discussed. Lastly, the article considers whether the observed responses to the crisis have implications for the understanding of the Nordic welfare state model. The article investigates institutional, political and economic reasons for the variations in the interventions. The article concludes that in managing the crisis, the Nordic countries have adopted stronger targeting towards those considered to be in need, displaying some innovations in their social policy approach. Yet, one can trace a high degree of path-dependency, with the countries adhering to universalist principles, with an aim of redistributing resources.

This report presents the analysis of the primary research conducted with a range of families in Swedenfor Work Package 4 (WP4) of the rEUsilience project. It outlines the methodological approach taken todata collection and analysis and presents the findings of the empirical work undertaken. The report’sunderpinning evidence was obtained through seven focus groups conducted with 38 members of familiesin different parts of Sweden between May and July 2023. The focus of the research was on family-relatedrisks and so the participants were chosen by virtue of potentially or actually experiencing risks or difficultsituations. The participants were drawn from families on a low income, lone-parent families and familieswith a migrant background. The evidence was analysed using thematic analysis. The study providesinsights into the obstacles facing families in responding to labour market risks when caring for children orother family members, as well as the resources and skills people mobilise to overcome the pressures theyface.The following are the main findings.

•Families were found to be faced with a series of risks, with problems relating to income,employment and care intersecting together and with other background difficulties.

•Insecurity in income and other aspects of life–such as housing and employment–emerged asan important defining feature of participants’ lives.

•Income pressures threaded through various aspects of everyday life and needs. The costs ofchild-related expenses were identified as a primary budget item that was especially felt toincrease income pressures.

•Matters relating to jobs and employment were the source of significant comment, especially inregard to the availability of work, discrimination, work-life balance and, in the case of policiesthat have job-search requirements, coping with rules and regulations.

•As well as money, time was a scarce resource for some people. This led to emphasis on work-lifebalance as one of the challenges facing families–by which was meant especially time for familylife and child-related activities.

•Children were prominent in people’s concerns and a strong sense of child-centredness wasevident. This was expressed in terms of a good life for children, with mention made of their rightto engage in leisure and other developmental activities as well as not to feel different or excludedbecause their parents cannot afford to give them what other children have or what is seen as thenorm.

•Lone parents especially expressed a sense of being differentially treated and indicated that therewas a general lack of recognition of their particular challenges and needs.

•The particular difficulties in the situation of immigrants also came out very strongly from theevidence. As well as being subject to a whole series of bureaucratic difficulties, they often feltlike ‘outsiders’.

•Social pressure was a strong thread running across the focus groups. In this regard, people mademention of strong social norms in Sweden around being in paid work and optimum child-rearingpractices. It was clear that some did not feel included or were unable to be included because oftheir circumstances.

•For this and other reasons, people bore the weight of considerable negative emotions as parents,such as anger and feelings of relative deprivation or fear (of the authorities). They often carrieda moral weight as well, such as feelings of guilt in relation to their children and feelings of notcontributing sufficiently.

•When asked a series of questions about it, people mentioned a range of supports but theirsupport networks seemed fragile. Wider family was the most mentioned form of informalsupport but, generally, people’s support systems were not especially based on wider family andmost relied on support from one source which suggests some fragility in their support systems.

•People showed considerable resourcefulness and even creativity in managing their situations. Itwas clear that they used a wide range of behaviours and skills, including cognitive skills andbehavioural and attitudinal change management. The latter often manifested in an attitude ofstoicism and determination.

•Participants were critical of service availability, especially childcare services, health services andhousing provision. As well as matters of supply and hence availability, some found it difficult toaccess services because of timing, delays and bureaucracy. The system of public support wasperceived as having rigidities.

•Participants had clear ideas about what measures would help to significantly improve theirsituation. In this regard, they prioritised better income support especially. In line with theperceived need for a better recognition by the state of the needs of families, people sought moreperson-oriented services as well as higher benefits to cover the cost of living. Those whosefamilies had specific needs, for example a health-related need, spoke in favour of extending the family contact service. Childcare services and housing were also identified as areas needingimprovement

The rEUsilience project is concerned with labour market changes and how these changes affect the ability of families to balance income security and care. We consider families as agents who respond to these challenges to cushion potentially negative impacts. In the project, we try to understand what are the conditions that support family resilience. The specific questions for the rEUsilience project are: 

What challenges and difficulties are created or exacerbated for families by labour markets in the ‘new world of work’ and how do families try to overcome these? 

How do social policies contribute to familial resilience especially in terms of the extent to which they are inclusive, flexible and complementary? 

The concept of resilience is increasingly used in EU and national policy making. Yet, empirical foundation for monitoring social policies and their ability to strengthen family resilience is currently lacking. This deliverable builds a groundwork for development of tools for monitoring family resilience in the context of social policy. The first step we take is a construction of family profiles and analyse them on the distribution of risks, resources, and socio-economic outcomes.