Poverty in Slovenia: A Conseqence of Economic Transition

Slovenia is considered to be one of the most successful Central and Eastern European countries undergoing the process of transition. It has a high GDP per capita (the highest in the Visegrad group) amounting to about 7200 US dollars (at the exchange rates pertaining during Ms. Stropnik's research). In 1994, a low rate of inflation, a low level of public debt and almost balanced public finances, were all positive elements. However, there is a darker side, for instance the dramatic increase in unemployment and (somewhat less dramatic) fall in production during the transition period. This analysis aimed to provide insights into what is actually happening at the household level, since households are the ultimate bearers of macroeconomic and social change. The final output totalled 166 pages in English and Slovenian, available also on disc. The income concept used by Ms. Stropnik is that of the disposable (monetary) household income, i.e. the cash income of all household members - including social security transfers and family benefits, and the net sum of taxes and social security contributions - plus the equivalent of domestic production, used in the household. Non-monetary income sources, such as household own production, benefits in kind, subsidies for goods and services, and fringe benefits, were not taken into account. The concept of relative and objective poverty was followed. Poverty means having less than others in society, it is a state of relative deprivation. Objective aspects of the situation, e.g. command over resources (i.e. the household income) and the relative position of the household in the income distribution, determine who is poor and who is not. Changes in household composition - an increase in the number of pensioners, unemployed and self-employed, concomitant with a large decrease in the number of employees - obviously played a part in the changing structure of household income sources during this period. The overall decrease in the share of wages and salaries from primary employment in 1993 is to be observed in all income deciles. On the other hand, the importance of salaries gained from secondary employment has increased in all deciles. The lower seven deciles experienced a sharp rise in the share of social benefits in the period 1988-1993, mostly because of the increase in the number of persons entitled to claim unemployment benefits. In Slovenia, income inequality has increased considerably during the 1988-1993 period. To make matters worse, the large increase in income inequality occurred in a period of falling real incomes. In 1983 the bottom decile disposed of 3.8 percent and the top decile disposed of 23.4 percent of total monetary income in Slovenia, whereas by 1993 the same statistics revealed 3.1 percent and 18.9 percent respectively. Unemployment greatly increases the risk of living in poverty. In 1993, 35 per cent of all unemployed persons in Slovenia were living in the lowest income quintile. Ms. Stropnik found certain features that were specific to Slovenia and not shared by most countries in transition. For example, the relative income position of pensioners has improved. Retirement did not increase the risk of poverty in 1993 as much as it did in 1983 and 1988. Also, it appears that children have not been particularly hard-hit by the transition upheavals. The incidence of poverty amongst children has not increased in the period 1983-1993. Children were also fairly evenly distributed across income quintiles. In 1983, 11.8 percent of households with children aged 18 or less were poor. In 1993, this figure was 8.4 per cent. On the other hand, poor households with children were, in comparison with other households of the same type, poorer in 1993 than in 1983. Ms. Stropnik also analysed the impact of social transfers. Her conclusion was that the level of social transfers prevented them from being successful in alleviating poverty. Family policy transfers (child allowances, child tax allowances, subsidised child care) did, however, contribute to the lowering of income inequality between families with and without children, and amongst families with different numbers of children. Ms. Stropnik is determined that the results of her research be used in the creation of social policy aimed at helping the poor. She quotes Piachaud approvingly: "If the term 'poverty' carries with it the implication and moral imperative that something should be done about it, then the study of poverty is only ultimately justifiable if it influences individual and social attitudes and actions."

Towards a Variety of Family Models: Economic Contributions of Spouses and Family Power

In Western societies the increase in female employment (especially among married women) is seen as having brought about the crisis of the traditional model of the family, reinforcing the position of the "modern" model - the egalitarian family with two working spouses and a "dual-career" family. In contrast, the transitional situation in the post-communist countries during the 1990s is producing a crisis of the family with two working spouses (the basic type of the communist period) and leading to new power relations within the family. While the growth of dual-earner households in this century has implied modification of family models towards greater symmetry of responsibility for breadwinning and homemaking, there is considerable evidence that women's increased employment does not necessarily lead to a more egalitarian approach to gender roles within the family. The group set out to investigate the economic situation of families and economic power within the fame as a crucial factor in the transformation of families with two working spouses in order to reveal the specific patterns of gender contracts and power relations within the family that are emerging in response to the current political and economic transformation. They opted for a comparative approach, selecting the Czech Republic as a country where the very similar tendencies of a few years ago (almost 100% of women employed and the family as a realm of considerable private freedom where both women's and men's gender identities and the traditional distribution of family responsibilities were largely preserved) are combined with a very different experience in terms of economic inequalities during the 1990s to that of Russia. In the first stage of the study they surveyed 300 married couples (150 in each country) on the question of breadwinning. They then carried out in-depth interviews with 10 couples from each country (selected from among the educated layers of the population), focusing on the process of the social construction of gender, using breadwinning and homemaking as gender boundaries which distinguish men from women. By analysing changes in social position and the type of interpersonal interaction of spouses they distinguished two main types of family contracts: the neo-traditional "communal sharing" (with male breadwinner, traditional distribution of family chores and negotiated family power) and the modern one based on negotiated agreement. The most important pre-conditions of husband-wife agreement about breadwinning seemed to imply their overall gender ideology rather than the economic and/or family circumstances. In general, wives were more likely to express egalitarian views, supporting the blurring or even elimination of many gender boundaries. Husbands, on the other hand, more often gave responses calling for the continued maintenance of gender boundaries. The analysis showed that breadwinning is still an important gender boundary in these cultures, one that is assumed unless it is explicitly questioned and that is seen as part of what makes a man a "real man". The majority of respondents seemed to be committed to egalitarian ideology on gender roles and the distribution of family tasks, including decision making, but this is contradicted by the persistent idea of the husband as the breadwinner. This contradiction is more characteristic of the Russian situation than of the Czech. The quantitative study showed a difference in prevailing family models between the two countries, with a clearer shift towards the traditional family contract in the Russian case. The Czechs were more likely to consider their partnerships as based on negotiated agreement, while the Russians saw theirs as based on egalitarian contract, in both cases seeing this as the norm. The majority of couples said they felt satisfied with their marriage, although in both countries wives seemed to be less satisfied. There was however a difference in the issues that aroused dissatisfaction, with Czech women being more sensitive to issues such as self-realisation, personal independence, understanding and recognition in the family, and Russians to issues of love, understanding and recognition. The most disputed area for the majority of families was chores in the home, presumably because in many families both husband and wife were working hard outside the home and because a number of partners had differing views as to the ideal distribution of chores within the family. The distribution of power in the family seems to be linked to the level of well being. The analysis showed that in the dominant democratic model there is still an inverse connection between family leadership and well being: the more prominent the wife's position as head of the family is, the lower the level of family income. This may reflect both the husband's refusal to play the leading role in the family and even his rejection of any involvement in family issues in such a family. The qualitative research revealed that both men and women see the breadwinning role to be an essential part of masculine identity, a role which the female partner would take on temporarily to assist the male but not permanently since this would threaten the gender boundaries and the man's identity. At the same time, few breadwinners expressed a sense of job satisfaction and all considered their choice as imposed on them by the circumstances (i.e. having a family in difficult times). The group feel that family orientation and some loss of personal involvement in their profession is partly reflected in the fact that many of the men felt more comfortable and self-confident at home than at work. Women's work, on the other hand, was largely seen as a source of personal and self-realisation and social life. Eight out of ten of the Russian women interviewed were employed, although only two on a full-time basis, but none saw their jobs as adding substantially to the family budget. Both partners see the most important factor as the wife's wish to work or stay at home, and do not think it wise for the wife to work at the expense of her part of the "family contract", although husbands from the "egalitarian" relationships expressed more willingness to compromise. The analysis showed clearly that wives and husbands did not construct gender boundaries in isolation, with the interviews providing clear evidence of negotiation. At the same time, husbands' interpretations of their wives' employment were less susceptible to the influence of negotiation than were their gender attitudes and norms about breadwinning. One of the most interesting aspects of the spouses' negotiations was the extent to which they disagreed about what they seemed to have agreed upon. Most disagreements about the breadwinning boundaries, however, were over norms and were settled by changes in norms rather than in behavioural interpretation. Changes in norms were often a form of peace offering or were in response in changes in circumstances. The study did show, however, that many of the efforts at cooperation and compensation were more symbolic than real and the group found the plasticity of expressed gender ideology to be one of the most striking findings of their work. They conclude that the shift towards more traditional gednder distributions of incomes and domestic chores does not automatically mean the reestablishment of a patriarchal model of family power. On the contrary, it seems to be a compromise formation, relatively unstable, temporary and containing self-defeating forces as the split between the personal and professional value of work and its social value expressed in a money equivalent cannot be maintained for generations.