Equal treatment, social protection and income security for women

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2000.tb00408.x
• Date: 01 June 2000
• Author: Linda LUCKHAUS
• Published date: 01 June 2000

Equal treatment, social protection and income security for women 149

Copyright © International Labour Organization 2000

International Labour Review, Vol. 1 39 (200 0), No. 2

Equal treatment, social protection and

income security for women

Linda LUCKHAUS *

Ensuring income security is a major function of social protection.1 Arguably,

that is its defining task. However, the ability of social protection to pro-

vide an adequate and reliable source of income for women is problematic —

partly because of the other functions that, histo rically, social protection h as

been required to perform . These include t he prom otion of specifi c fo rms of

financial dependency which are rooted in and characteristic of gender and em-

ployment relat ions in the wider society.2 These relation s of dependency pro-

vide a fragile source of i ncome for women; thi s fragility is then import ed into

the social protection systems giving them effect. The insistence on sex- and

gender-based equalit y 3 in the field of social prot ection can m inimize or even

eliminate this fragility, depending on how the notion of equality is defined and

its purpose constru ed, and there are many ways o f doing this. Which of t hese

definitions dominates legal and poli tical discourse at any one time depends on

prevailing views of the proper role of social protection and the appropriateness

of the pattern of income provision and dependency to which this role relates. It

also crucially d epends on the changing nature of cultural and economic prac-

tices which ultimately set new l imits in this sphere.

* Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Warwick. The research on which this article is

based was funded partly b y the British A cademy, under its Research Leave Scheme, and b y the

Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies of the European University Institute, Florence.

The article is based on a background paper commi ssioned for the ILO’s World Labour Report

2000: Income security and social protection in a changing world .

1Here defined as social insurance, social assistance and private schemes, the pr emia for

which are not wholly m arket determined.

2Social protection systems may also reinforce non-financial aspects of gender and em-

ployment relations by, for example, facilitating the recruitment, retention and disciplining of

labour. Additional fu nctions of social protectio n include: encoura ging social cohesion a nd

stability and the avoidance of public disorder; promoting growth of capital markets and finan-

cial services; facilitating economic growth (through expansion of demand or, alternatively, b y

encouraging savi ng).

3The term “gender” is sel dom, i f ever, used in national and international instrum ents

prescribing equality, equal treatment or non-discrimination between men and women. The term

normally used in this legal context i s “sex” and this applies especially to instruments adopted by

the European Com munity (hereinafter the EU) which are the main legal focus of this article.

Claims to equality under the relevant EU legislation m ust be made in terms of sex rather than

gender and this, rather than any insistence on “biological differences” accounts for use of the

term alongside gender which, for all other purposes in this article, is the more appropriate term.

International Labour Review150

This article first explores the links between income security, sources of

income support, and definitions of sex and gender equality in social protection.

The focus is social protection as prov ided in developed countries, particularly

those of western Europe; reference is made to developing and transition econo-

mies where possible. Next, the article identifies the different types of discrimi-

nation still to be found in social protection systems, applying the definitions of

equality develop ed in the preceding section. Discriminatory practices are se-

lected for examinati on from among recent developm ents in those systems for

what they show of shifts towards greater or lesser discrimination. F inally, the

article examines the relationship between equal treatment, social protection and

income security, concludin g with some normative thoughts on which of the

various definiti ons of equal treatment is to be preferred, and with some ideas

on how sex and gender equali ty may be secured in social protection.

Income security and social protection

In everyday term s, the two important aspects t o income security are: the

amount and adequacy of i ncome; and the regular fl ow of income. In ot her

words, income security means that there should be a constant flow o f income

adequate to live on. Probing further, it is clear that both adequacy and reliabil-

ity are contingent on the source of the i ncome, that there is more than one

possible sou rce, and that one source may be more effective than another. In

developed, western economies, there are three m ain sources: sexual relation-

ships between cohabiting married or non-married partn ers of the opposite sex;

social protection systems; and employment and self-employment.4 Income de-

rived from employment may take the form of pay or benefits. Benefits derived

from the employment relationship may be regarded both as deferred pay and as

a form of social protection.

However, these main income sources are not immutable; nor is the pattern

of use made of them by individuals and groups. As the econom ic activity of

married women in most west European states has increased in recent years, so

has their reliance on paid employment as an income source. There is, however,

one fairly constant feature in t he pattern of use. People caring at hom e for

children, the elderly or persons with disabilities (i.e. not as part of a comm er-

cial arrangement) are precluded from engaging in paid employment during that

period and thus from access to in come from this source. Such people, there-

fore, must lo ok either to their partner o r to social protection for material sup-

port so long as they are engaged in this activity. However, they are not free to

choose in this. Social protection systems are generally structured in such a way

as to ensure that a partn er is th e first por t of call in these sit uations. There is,

for example, no social insurance benefit to cover the risk involved in giving up

4A developing count ry and t ransition econom y p erspective would requi re the list to

incorporate wider “fam ily” relationships, national and international aid organizations, and em-

ployment relationships in the informal economy.