Objective: This study evaluates the reasons behind the gendered use of cash-for-care by comparing first-time parents in female same-sex couples (SSC), adoptive parents in different-sex couples (DSC), and biological parents in DSC, alongside its association with parents' reduction in earnings after parenthood. Background: Cash-for-care is a benefit for parents of children under the age of 3 who do not use publicly financed childcare services. It disproportionally affects women's labor force participation, potentially exacerbating earnings reductions after parenthood for women. By comparing different family types, we evaluate to what extent the use of cash-for-care can be attributed to sex differences between parents, giving birth/breastfeeding, or financial incentives. Methods: Using Finnish register data (1996–2020), 1184 parents in female SSC, 3544 adoptive parents in DSC, and 630,346 biological parents in DSC were identified. Logistic and linear regression analyses assess the use and division of cash-for-care. Results: Cash-for-care is unequally divided in all families, but more so for adoptive and biological parents in DSC than for SSC. Moreover, using cash-for-care is associated with sizable earnings losses for all parents. Conclusion: Comparing different family types shows that gender norms appear to have the strongest role in shaping cash-for-care use, followed by pregnancy/childbirth, whereas financial considerations have no influence. Moreover, cash-for-care extends gendered caregiving divisions, and hence, a diminished or more equal use among parents could reduce post-parenthood earnings losses for mothers in DSC.

Objective

This study describes the childbearing trajectories and earnings of mothers in female same-sex couples (FSSC) in Norway and, through comparisons with mothers in different-sex couples (DSC), explores three factors behind mothers' earnings losses.

Background

Mothers in FSSC experience smaller earnings penalties following parenthood than mothers in DSC. We investigate three potential reasons for this: the number of pregnancies/births the mother goes through, number of children in the family, and the partner's sex.

Method

The study utilized Norwegian register data, 1999–2021, including 1050 women in FSSC and 168,649 in DSC. An event study was used to estimate labor earnings changes after a first and second child, separately for mothers in DSC and FSSC, and for partners in FSSC who gave birth once, twice, or never, isolating the impact of each factor.

Results

Childbirth/pregnancy was the most important factor. Birth mothers experienced large earnings losses after each pregnancy, with no differences between FSSC and DSC. Likely due to strict regulations, high costs, and low availability of fertility treatments, FSSC had fewer children and (only) 50% switched birth parent for a second child.

Conclusion

(Birth) mothers' larger earnings losses stem primarily from time away from the labor market in connection with each pregnancy/birth. Mothers in FSSC on average go through fewer pregnancies, possibly explaining their overall smaller earnings penalties in the first 5 years of parenthood.

The Nordic countries are known as family-friendly welfare states, yet gendered work-care divisions remain. We use a case study approach focusing on the key differences in work-family policy packages in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Using population registers, we compare the earnings trajectories of same- and different-sex couples for the three years before and five years after a first birth. The findings match theoretical arguments linking cash-for-care policies to familialistic outcomes: They show that in Finland, the institutional framework leads to unequal divisions of paid work and care, resulting in large earnings penalties affecting the birth mother in both same-sex and different-sex couples. In egalitarian Denmark and Sweden, but also in supposedly more familialistic Norway, these penalties are considerably smaller for same-sex couples. This exemplifies how inequalities decrease when policies stimulate equality, and as a result can reduce the influence of heterosexual gender dynamics.

We examine the prevalence of gender transitions in Sweden over time and document the sociodemographic characteristics of people transitioning in different periods. Using administrative data covering the transgender population from 1973 through 2020, we analyze two common events in a gender transition: the earliest diagnosis of gender incongruence and the change of legal gender. Our research note presents three main findings. First, the measured prevalence rates of diagnoses and legal gender changes are relatively low in all periods, although they have increased substantially since the early 2010s. Second, the recent increase in transition prevalence is most pronounced among people in early adulthood; in particular, young transgender men drive an increase in overall transition rates through 2018, followed by moderate declines in 2019 and 2020. Third, transgender men and women have substantially lower socioeconomic outcomes than cisgender men and women, regardless of the age at which they transition or the historical period. They are also considerably less likely to be in a legal union or reside with children. These findings highlight the continued economic and social vulnerability of the transgender population.

Until 2013, transgender people in Sweden were required to undergo sterilization surgery and destroy stored reproductive cells before changing their legal gender marker, rendering them permanently infertile. Using population-wide administrative data, we document a threefold increase in yearly legal gender marker changes following the 2013 removal of these requirements. After the policy change, 30 percent of trans women and 56 percent of trans men opted out of sterilization surgery, leading to a one-week reduction in hospitalization days. Additionally, after fertility preservation legalization, 9.5 percent of trans women and 7 percent of men chose to store reproductive cells for future use.

Unequal divisions of paid work and care among new parents contribute to increasing inequalities. One explanation for this is joint utility maximization and the benefits of partners (temporarily) specializing in paid work and care. This paper examines the (dis)advantages of specializing compared to dividing tasks more equally by studying whether differences in specialization between same-sex and different-sex couples lead to differences in household earnings after entering parenthood. Using register data from Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Sweden and examining first-time parents, we show that female couples have a more equal within-couple income development during the transition to parenthood than different-sex couples do. However, we find no differences in household income (including or excluding social transfers) between the two types of couples. Although a more equal task division may be preferred from an individual perspective, our results show no evidence of a “best strategy” when it comes to maximizing household income.

Our study examines the prevalence of gender transitions in Sweden over time and documents the sociodemographic characteristics of people transitioning in different periods. We use national administrative data covering the transgender population from 1973–2020 and analyze two common events in a gender transition: the earliest diagnosis of gender incongruence and the change of legal gender. We have three main findings. First, the measured prevalence of both types of events is relatively low in all periods, although it has increased substantially since the early 2010s. Second, the recent increase in transition prevalence is most pronounced among people in early adulthood; in particular, young transgender men drive an increase in overall transition rates through 2018, followed by moderate declines in 2019 and 2020. Third, transgender men and women have substantially lower socioeconomic outcomes than cisgender men and women, regardless of the age at which they transition or the historical period. They are also considerably less likely to be in a legal union or reside with children. These findings highlight the continued economic and social vulnerability of the transgender population. 

Mothers’ longer time out of the labour market due to parental leave has been proposed as one of the main determinants of the gender pay gap. This study focuses on the mechanisms behind the gendered division of care after entering parenthood. By comparing paid parental leave use of biological parents (where mothers gave birth) to adoptive parents (where they did not), we assess to what extend the unequal division of care can be explained by physiological aspects of motherhood or if other explanations, like gender norms or financial motives, can explain these differences. We analyse Swedish register data from 1994 to 2009 on couples whose first child was biological (N = 114,479) or adopted (N = 5,467) (between-family comparisons) and for families who had both adopted and biological children (within-family comparisons; N = 1,033). We find highly similar patterns in the division, length, and timing of parental leave for biological and adoptive children. Both biological and adoptive mothers take the majority of leave (78–82 per cent), the longest leave, and the first leave period. We conclude that persistent norms of mothers as caregivers/homemakers and fathers as breadwinners shape parents’ use of parental leave to a greater extent than factors related to biological motherhood or financial motives. 

We estimate how labor force participation among married women in Sweden responded to changing work incentives implied by a reform in the tax and transfer system in 1997. Using rich, population‐wide, administrative data, we estimate an average participation elasticity of 0.13, thereby adding to the scarce literature estimating participation elasticities using quasi‐experimental methods. We also highlight that estimated extensive margin responses necessarily are local to the observed equilibrium. Among low‐income earners, elasticities are twice as large in the group with the lowest employment level, compared with the group with the highest employment level.

 This chapter introduces the concept of parentalization, defined as the ability to become parents and be recognized as such, both legally and via social policies. Applying the concept to same-sex couples, we examine how states may facilitate or hinder the transition to parenthood through laws and policies in five Northern European countries; Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Trends in the number of children zero years of age in married/cohabiting same-sex couples suggest a link between parentalization and realized parenthood. As partly indicated by these trends, parentalization is a gendered concept, and parenthood is more readily available to some couples than to others. Perhaps most importantly, very few same-sex couples have been able to jointly adopt a child. The fact that married female couples face fewer barriers to parentalization than other non-traditional couples partly reflects dominant norms on gender and motherhood.