Periodic Reporting for period 1 - rEUsilience (Risks, Resources and Inequalities: Increasing Resilience in European Families)
Période du rapport: 2022-09-01 au 2023-11-30
The problem that rEUsilience tackles is of lack of adaptive capacities or resilience (understood from a familial rather than individual perspective) and resulting dilemmas and inequalities. The context is one of fast-paced changes in labour markets and income security to which families have to act as key responsive entities, cushioning potentially negative impacts and enabling/disabling risk-taking and change. In focusing especially on families that may not be able to respond and understanding the conditions that make for familial resilience more generally, the project answers 2 research questions: 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?
To answer these questions rEUsilience looks at what different families actually do in situations calling for adaptiveness (e.g. need to change labour supply, need to manage or reorganise care, need to change gender and/or generational arrangements, need to engage in training or other activities to garner additional resources) and identifies perceived trade-offs in the context of families’ relations, commitments and different resource levels (broadly conceived). The project places this in a societal and policy context through both pan-European analyses of existing data (on policy and practice) and new focus group research in 6 quite different welfare states (BE, ES, HR, PL, SE, UK). Taken as a whole, the project’s research will identify the level of risk and socio-economic insecurity faced by families across Europe and the relative capacity of different family types to absorb socio-economic shocks by adjusting behaviours and structural arrangements and it will critically examine the role of policy as a contributory factor to related processes and outcomes.
The project is organised into 2 pillars: a Stocktaking pillar and a Policy Lab. The pillars are designed to closely interlink in terms of mission and evidence flow, to use appropriate and diverse methodologies and to have inbuilt pathways to impact especially through active engagement with a range of ‘sectors’. More specifically, the Policy Lab involves citizens and experts directly in policy review and problem solution and also uses simulations and other methods to road-test policy solutions.
To answer these questions rEUsilience looks at what different families actually do in situations calling for adaptiveness (e.g. need to change labour supply, need to manage or reorganise care, need to change gender and/or generational arrangements, need to engage in training or other activities to garner additional resources) and identifies perceived trade-offs in the context of families’ relations, commitments and different resource levels (broadly conceived). The project places this in a societal and policy context through both pan-European analyses of existing data (on policy and practice) and new focus group research in 6 quite different welfare states (BE, ES, HR, PL, SE, UK). Taken as a whole, the project’s research will identify the level of risk and socio-economic insecurity faced by families across Europe and the relative capacity of different family types to absorb socio-economic shocks by adjusting behaviours and structural arrangements and it will critically examine the role of policy as a contributory factor to related processes and outcomes.
The project is organised into 2 pillars: a Stocktaking pillar and a Policy Lab. The pillars are designed to closely interlink in terms of mission and evidence flow, to use appropriate and diverse methodologies and to have inbuilt pathways to impact especially through active engagement with a range of ‘sectors’. More specifically, the Policy Lab involves citizens and experts directly in policy review and problem solution and also uses simulations and other methods to road-test policy solutions.
During the first period of the project, the focus was on taking stock of evidence. We list four major efforts here.
1.) Work was done to develop a Compendium of the Risks, Resources and Socio-economic Inequalities among Europe’s Families. This included the development of tools for the monitoring of family resilience in the context of social policy.
2.) Longitudinal data was analysed to study whether and how women respond to the deterioration of the working conditions of their male partner by increasing their labour supply
3.) Original empirical research was conducted to explore family strategies to cope with risks and challenges and the resources they need to avoid negative outcomes. The evidence set was based on 41 focus groups with 313 individuals across the six countries completed between January and June 2023.
4.) Policy case reports were conducted, each of them focusing on inclusiveness and flexibility of specific policies. Three reports focused on income support policies, on care policies, and policies for work-life balance, respectively.
1.) Work was done to develop a Compendium of the Risks, Resources and Socio-economic Inequalities among Europe’s Families. This included the development of tools for the monitoring of family resilience in the context of social policy.
2.) Longitudinal data was analysed to study whether and how women respond to the deterioration of the working conditions of their male partner by increasing their labour supply
3.) Original empirical research was conducted to explore family strategies to cope with risks and challenges and the resources they need to avoid negative outcomes. The evidence set was based on 41 focus groups with 313 individuals across the six countries completed between January and June 2023.
4.) Policy case reports were conducted, each of them focusing on inclusiveness and flexibility of specific policies. Three reports focused on income support policies, on care policies, and policies for work-life balance, respectively.
Not least because the concept of resilience is increasingly used by EU institutions in high-level and public-facing contexts, it is pertinent for rEUsilience’s work to critically assess the concept and to develop an understanding of how it relates to other well-established concepts in the social sciences. Based on critical analyses of the literature on the concept, we concluded that while we may be able to investigate resilience as a feature of a social entity, this cannot be theorised without countenancing differences in vulnerability, in resourcefulness and in the short- versus long-term sustainability of outcomes.
Empirical results showed showed inequalities between family types in the risks they are exposed to, the resources they have at their disposal, and the outcomes that are associated with these patterns. Examples were given of how those with more resources (such as education) are less exposed to risks (such as unemployment), as well as that among those who are exposed to a risk (such as unemployment) resources (such as work intensity of other household members) play an important role in shaping who are subject to undesirable outcomes (such as income poverty).
Analyses of longitudinal data showed how inactive women increase their labour supply by entering unemployment or employment while part-time working women switch into full-time work. However, and highly relevant to the critical analysis of resilience, this response was not strong.
Research based on focus group interviews suggested the importance of resourcefulness, indicating clearly that families are resourceful with what they have, employing a wide range of imaginative strategies to attempt to keep afloat. The research also showed that this often comes at an emotional cost and a material cost in terms of scarce time and ultimately too few resources.
Empirical results showed showed inequalities between family types in the risks they are exposed to, the resources they have at their disposal, and the outcomes that are associated with these patterns. Examples were given of how those with more resources (such as education) are less exposed to risks (such as unemployment), as well as that among those who are exposed to a risk (such as unemployment) resources (such as work intensity of other household members) play an important role in shaping who are subject to undesirable outcomes (such as income poverty).
Analyses of longitudinal data showed how inactive women increase their labour supply by entering unemployment or employment while part-time working women switch into full-time work. However, and highly relevant to the critical analysis of resilience, this response was not strong.
Research based on focus group interviews suggested the importance of resourcefulness, indicating clearly that families are resourceful with what they have, employing a wide range of imaginative strategies to attempt to keep afloat. The research also showed that this often comes at an emotional cost and a material cost in terms of scarce time and ultimately too few resources.