Sweden has long been heralded as having developed an encompassing welfare state with strong universal provisions. Drawing on seven focus group interviews carried out in different parts of the country between May and July 2023, the chapter examines the experiences of low-resourced families in Sweden. The evidence showed that low-resourced families made substantial efforts to stretch scarce resources, yet experienced stark contrasts to the high living standards enjoyed by many in Sweden. They also faced growing material and psychological insecurity in the wake of recent societal developments. Various forms of social support and policy initiatives were felt to be unavailable or ineffective, especially for families with compounded difficulties, leaving some families with few options but to try to accept their situation of depleting resources and well-being. The chapter contextualizes these findings in relation to the role of family in the Swedish welfare state and reflects on whether Sweden's universal family policy enables low-resourced families to maintain and improve well-being sufficiently in the light of societal developments.

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.

Policy reform evaluations are an important source of knowledge regarding the (in)effectiveness of policies and have become increasingly influential in informing policymaking. A key advantage of these studies lies in their careful description of a single reform, observing outcomes before and after the reform was implemented, and making precise statements about the effectiveness of the policy reform among its beneficiaries. However, the very nature of reform studies also entails a number of limitations that are important to reflect on – particularly given their popularity in the context of evidence-based policymaking. We highlight five blind spots relevant to evidence-based policymaking, by critically reflecting on a focused literature review of reform studies of early childhood education and care (ECEC) policies published between 2000 and 2021, conducted by the authors and commissioned by the European Commission. The critical reflection highlights: (a) the context-specific nature of reform studies; (b) the limited focus on reducing inequality in the use and benefits of ECEC; (c) a focus on short-term outcomes; (d) a focus on individual-level rather than macro-level outcomes; and (e) various forms of publication bias.

The social partners often attain a more central role in decision-making during social or economic crises. This article examines whether this held true in Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands during the COVID-19 pandemic. These are countries with strong institutionalised power relations. It assesses whether the crisis affected institutional stability and social partner representation, referred to as crisis corporatism. Drawing on 30 interviews with representatives of social partner organisations and government agencies, as well as labour market experts, we demonstrate strong institutional stability and path dependence in industrial relations during the crisis. While Sweden's institutionalised power relations remained stable, Finland and the Netherlands experienced temporary shifts, with governments bypassing the social partners on health-related issues. The health-care sector and precarious workers emerged as especially vulnerable. Lors des crises sociales ou & eacute;conomiques, les partenaires sociaux jouent souvent un r & ocirc;le plus central dans la prise de d & eacute;cision. Cet article examine si tel a & eacute;t & eacute; le cas pendant la pand & eacute;mie de COVID-19 en Finlande, en Su & egrave;de et aux Pays-Bas, des pays qui se caract & eacute;risent par des relations de pouvoir particuli & egrave;rement institutionnalis & eacute;es. Les auteurs examinent dans quelle mesure la crise sanitaire a affect & eacute; la stabilit & eacute; institutionnelle et la repr & eacute;sentation des partenaires sociaux - ce que l'on appelle le corporatisme de crise. & Agrave; partir de 30 entretiens men & eacute;s aupr & egrave;s de repr & eacute;sentants d'organisations de partenaires sociaux et d'agences gouvernementales, ainsi que d'experts du march & eacute; du travail, les auteurs mettent en & eacute;vidence la persistance, pendant la crise, d'une forte stabilit & eacute; institutionnelle et d'une d & eacute;pendance vis-& agrave;-vis du pass & eacute; dans les relations industrielles. En Su & egrave;de, les relations de pouvoir institutionnalis & eacute;es sont rest & eacute;es stables, alors que la Finlande et les Pays-Bas ont connu des changements temporaires, les gouvernements contournant les partenaires sociaux sur les questions li & eacute;es & agrave; la sant & eacute;. Le secteur des soins de sant & eacute; et les travailleurs pr & eacute;caires sont apparus comme particuli & egrave;rement vuln & eacute;rables. In gesellschaftlichen oder & ouml;konomischen Krisen gewinnt die Rolle der Sozialpartner bei der politischen Entscheidungsfindung oft an Bedeutung. Der vorliegende Artikel geht der Frage nach, ob dies in Finnland, Schweden und den Niederlanden auch w & auml;hrend der Covid-19-Pandemie der Fall war. Diese L & auml;nder sind durch stark institutionalisierte Machtverh & auml;ltnisse gekennzeichnet. Die Autoren untersuchen, ob die Krise sich auf die institutionelle Stabilit & auml;t und die Mitsprache und Wahrnehmung der Sozialpartner ausgewirkt hat. Dies wird als Krisenkorporatismus bezeichnet. Anhand von 30 Interviews mit Vertreterinnen und Vertretern von Sozialpartnerorganisationen und Regierungsbeh & ouml;rden sowie mit Arbeitsmarktexperten weisen wir eine starke institutionelle Stabilit & auml;t und Pfadabh & auml;ngigkeit der industriellen Beziehungen w & auml;hrend der Krise nach. W & auml;hrend die institutionalisierten Machtverh & auml;ltnisse in Schweden stabil geblieben sind, hat es in Finnland und den Niederlanden zeitlich begrenzte Verschiebungen gegeben, als die Regierungen die Sozialpartner bei gesundheitsrelevanten Themen & uuml;bergangen haben. Der Gesundheitssektor und Besch & auml;ftigte in prek & auml;ren Arbeitsverh & auml;ltnissen haben sich dabei als besonders vulnerabel erwiesen.

This chapter contextualizes the situations and experiences of families with low resources in Belgium, Croatia, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom by looking at the intersections of family, care and paid work. It presents descriptive evidence on the prevalence of various family types, considers aspects of their financial well-being, and explores how the policy context has changed and differs across countries. The evidence shows a clear link between family type and poverty rates, and demonstrates that a high work intensity is no guarantee against poverty. In relation to care responsibilities, the share of families with young children under the age of 3 is shown to have declined, being particularly low among lone parents. There are marked differences in policy development across the countries, but a weakening of employment protection legislation is observed across all six. Based on a review of social policy literature, it is argued that, although income protection, employment legislation and childcare policies can be effective in supporting individuals and families, these policies are associated with inequalities in terms of family diversity, gender, migration background and socioeconomic status. Social policy can play a key role in attenuating these inequalities, but can also perpetuate inequalities between precarious and core workers.

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.

Studying families with social surveys is not always as straightforward as it may seem. The reasons for the challenges are both conceptual and methodological, stemming from the specificity of the data collection process. We explored several international social surveys in Europe to identify how they measure family relationships. We found that standard classification of families rarely use the full information of family relations available in surveys. This obstructs the identification of family types in households (e.g. multigenerational households). The shortcomings in identification of family relations between household members have consequences for our better understanding of interdependencies, the burden and consequences of informal care, and people’s abilities to cope with adverse circumstances. To address these issues, we propose a family-centred household typology – the Families in Households Typology (FHT) – which helps to uncover the complexity of European households. 

This article connects crisis corporatism with welfare regime and labour market segmentation theories to examine the responsiveness of social dialogue during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using data from the Eurofound EU PolicyWatch database, covering policy measures (N = 1139 measures) implemented across the EU from 2020 to 2022, it analyses the extent to which tripartite alliances, namely between trade unions, employer organisations and government, were associated with the implementation of policies that targeted the situation of (employment-related, and family- and health-related) vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 crisis in Europe. The findings show that the role of social partners – and in particular tripartite alliances for the vulnerable – was limited in implementing policies for the vulnerable. Regime-specific variations indicate that although social dialogue structures exist across countries, their operational significance and capacity to shape policies vary. Crisis corporatism, rather than reworking systems to foster inclusion, risks reproducing established boundaries.

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