Μη-Τυπικά Εργασιακά Πρότυπα των Γυναικών στην Ευρώπη: Τι μπορούμε να μάθουμε από το SHARELIFE;

The second half of the twentieth century was a time of rapid social transformation. Nowhere were the changes more radical than in women’s participation in society and work. This period of rapid change corresponds to the lifetime of individuals in the SHARE survey. The long term social changes correspond to lived experience of women in the sample. This paper begins exploring how factors as labour and social policy transformation were reflected in the lives of women in the SHARE-LIFE sample. For purposes of clarity of exposition, this paper utilizes the device of examining groups whose characteristics place them in a minority in their own country, yet which are very similar to majorities in other countries in the SHARE sample.  In defining female work patterns a number of ideal-types stand out; these are usually associated with the country groups in which they are prevalent. Our first concern is to identify whether such groups exist. In doing so, the simple expedient of comparing years worked introduces bias, as older respondents will include years of work after 50 and will systematically exhibit longer careers than 50-year olds who are still working.  To allow for this, the key variable to be analysed is years of work of each respondent until the age of 50 – regardless of age. Having established a number of different work-family patterns and their prevalence in different countries and regions, we examine women following a-typical work-family patterns (exceptions to a broader rule in their country) by means of: First, comparing ‘minority women’ with women following the same pattern but in contexts where this constitutes the rule (‘majority women’). Second, try to establish whether ‘minority women’ share more similarities with women following the same pattern elsewhere where this is the majority case or with the ‘majority’ or ‘canon’ women in their own context. The ‘naked eye’ analysis may uncover sea-changes in the patterns of female employment that have taken place in Europe over the life-span of the SHARE sample. To start uncovering relationships and the role of the policies, a multidimensional analysis must be the next step. Firstly, the participation decision is modelled for the ever-entered group of women. Given that this is a decision adopted in their 20s, care is taken to include only those variables that would have been known at that time. Secondly the decision of how long to work is conditional on having entered. The dependent variable is years of work to aged 50, in order to avoid bias as between women with completed working lives and those still working. The structure of decisions is essentially recursive, where the participation and career length decisions are separated in time.  Nevertheless, the fact that the group of women remaining in the labour market is essentially self-selected creates a bias, implying that a simultaneous treatment of the two decisions is necessitated. Thus, a two stage Heckman type model is estimated, there being evidence of selection bias. The econometric evidence finds some evidence for convergence. Social policy matters more for the length of career, rather than for participation – which was taken earlier and on the basis of the situation pertaining before the 1980s. Do policies matter?  Our verdict is ‘undoubtedly yes’. However, the same policies may produce very different outcomes, while similar outcomes may correspond to very different policies.