Journals / Ombudsman Akademik / 2026 / Sayı: ÖZEL SAYI 3 (AİLE) Özel Sayı

The Relative Effectiveness of Family Policies: A Multi-Criteria Evaluation Across European Countries

AİLE POLİTİKALARININ GÖRELİ ETKİLİLİĞİ: AVRUPA ÜLKELERİ ARASINDA ÇOK KRİTERLİ BİR ÖLÇÜMLEME

Pages
453–481
Publication Date
2025-11-27
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this context, the study emphasizes that family policies should be considered not only as instruments of welfare transfer but also as dynamic intervention areas that reduce social inequalities, transform care labor and improve the life chances of children.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The family plays a central role in the socialization process of the individual and in the reproduction of the welfare system.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In recent years, demographic changes, women's increasing participation in the labor force, declining fertility rates and the transformation of care work have redefined the institution of the family; accordingly, the scope, content and target groups of social policies for the family have also diversified.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this context, the study emphasizes that family policies should be considered not only as instruments of welfare transfer but also as dynamic intervention areas that reduce social inequalities, transform care labor and improve the life chances of children.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Aile Politikaları · Sosyal Refah · Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitliği

Abstract

The family plays a central role in the socialization process of the individual and in the reproduction of the welfare system. In recent years, demographic changes, women's increasing participation in the labor force, declining fertility rates and the transformation of care work have redefined the institution of the family; accordingly, the scope, content and target groups of social policies for the family have also diversified. In the face of this transformation, the capacity of states to protect and support the family should be assessed not only in terms of the level of expenditure, but also in terms of multidimensional effects such as service provision, elimination of inequalities and sharing of care responsibility. This study measures the relative effectiveness of social policies for the family in European countries. Using data from 2021, 28 countries were evaluated based on 17 indicators. The criteria cover areas such as public expenditures, women's employment, early childhood education, child poverty and family structure. Criteria weights were objectively calculated using the Entropy method and country rankings were created using the MOORA method. The findings show that countries such as Switzerland, the Netherlands and Germany are at the top in terms of the effectiveness of their family policies. Moreover, the analysis draws attention to the multidimensional nature of social policy performance and reveals that it should be evaluated not only by financial investment but also by policy outputs. In this context, the study emphasizes that family policies should be considered not only as instruments of welfare transfer but also as dynamic intervention areas that reduce social inequalities, transform care labor and improve the life chances of children.

Özet

Aile, bireyin toplumsallaşma sürecinde ve refah sisteminin yeniden üretiminde merkezi bir rol üstlenmektedir. Son yıllarda yaşanan demografik değişimler, kadınların iş gücüne artan katılımı, doğurganlık oranlarındaki azalma ve bakım emeğinin dönüşümü, aile kurumunu yeniden tanımlamış; buna bağlı olarak aileye yönelik sosyal politikaların kapsamı, içeriği ve hedef grupları da çeşitlenmiştir. Bu dönüşüm karşısında devletlerin aileyi koruma ve destekleme kapasitesi, yalnızca harcama düzeyiyle değil; hizmet sunumu, eşitsizliklerin giderilmesi ve bakım sorumluluğunun paylaşımı gibi çok boyutlu etkiler üzerinden değerlendirilmelidir. Bu çalışmada, Avrupa ülkelerinde uygulanan aileye yönelik sosyal politikaların göreli etkinliği ölçülmüştür. 2021 yılına ait veriler kullanılarak 28 ülke, 17 gösterge doğrultusunda değerlendirilmiştir. Kriterler, kamu harcamaları, kadın istihdamı, erken çocukluk eğitimi, çocuk yoksulluğu ve aile yapısı gibi alanları kapsamaktadır. Kriter ağırlıkları Entropi yöntemi ile nesnel biçimde hesaplanmış; ülke sıralamaları MOORA yöntemiyle oluşturulmuştur. Elde edilen bulgular, İsviçre, Hollanda ve Almanya gibi ülkelerin aile politikalarının etkililiği bakımından en üst sıralarda yer aldığını göstermektedir. Ayrıca analiz, sosyal politika performansının çok boyutlu doğasına dikkat çekerek yalnızca finansal yatırımla değil, politika çıktılarıyla da değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu kapsamda çalışma, aile politikalarının yalnızca refah aktarımı sağlayan araçlar olarak değil; toplumsal eşitsizlikleri azaltan, bakım emeğini dönüştüren ve çocukların yaşam şanslarını iyileştiren dinamik müdahale alanları olarak ele alınmasının gerekliliğine vurgu yapmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çalışır, Y. C. (2025). The Relative Effectiveness of Family Policies: A Multi-Criteria Evaluation Across European Countries. Ombudsman Akademik, Sayı: ÖZEL SAYI 3 (AİLE) Özel Sayı, 453–481. https://doi.org/10.32002/ombudsmanakademik.1697856

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (45)

  1. Bonoli, G. (2005). “The politics of the new social policies: Providing coverage against new social risks in mature welfare states”, Policy & Politics, 33(3), 431–449.
  2. Brauers, W. K., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2006). “The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy”, Control and cybernetics, 35(2), 445-469.
  3. Chen, T.-Y., & Li, C.-H. (2010). “Determining objective weights with intuitionistic fuzzy entropy measures: A comparative analysis” Information Sciences, 180(20), 4207–4222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2010.07.009
  4. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.), SAGE Publications.
  5. Ellingsaeter, A.-L., & Leira, A. (2006). Politicising Parenthood in Scandinavia: Gender Relations in Welfare States. Policy Press.
  6. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press.
  7. Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford University Press.
  8. Esping-Andersen, G. (2009). The incomplete revolution: Adapting to women’s new roles. Polity Press.
  9. Eurostat (2025). “Living conditions by household type – Main indicators (ilc_lvph01)”, Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ilc_lvph01/default/table?lang=en
  10. Eurostat (2025). “Marriage and divorce statistics”, Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Marriage_and_divorce_statistics
  11. Eurostat. (2025). “Social protection expenditure by function – COFOG”, Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/spr_exp_func__custom_15666139/default/table
  12. Ferrarini, T., & Sjöberg, O. (2010). “Social policy and health: Transition countries in a comparative perspective”, International Journal of Social Welfare, 19(S1), S60–S88.
  13. Gauthier, A. H. (2016). “The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: a review of the literatüre”, Population Research and Policy Review, 38(1), 1–29.
  14. Gornick, J. C., & Meyers, M. K. (2003). Families That Work: Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment, Russell Sage Foundation.
  15. Hafezalkotob, A., Hafezalkotob, A. (2016). “Extended MULTIMOORA method based on Shannon entropy weight for materials selection” J Ind Eng Int 12, 1–13 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-015-0123-9
  16. Heckman, J. J. (2006). “Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children”, Science, 312(5782), 1900–1902.
  17. Hua, X. J., Wan, Q. L., & Wang, L. (2012). “Security assessment of power systems based on entropy weight-based gray relational method”. In 2012 International Conference on Advances in Power Conversion and Energy Technologies (APCET) (pp. xx–xx). IEEE.
  18. Hughes, N. (2010). “Models and approaches in family-focused policy and practice”, Social Policy and Society, 9(4), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746410000266
  19. Jenson, J. (2004). “Changing the paradigm: Family responsibility or investing in children”, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 29(2), 169–192.
  20. Jenson, J. (2009). “Lost in translation: The social investment perspective and gender equality”, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 16(4), 446–483.
  21. Lewis, J. (1992). “Gender and the development of welfare regimes”, Journal of European Social Policy, 2(3), 159–173.
  22. Lewis, J., & Campbell, M. (2007). “UK work/family balance policies and gender equality, 1997–2005”, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 14(1), 4–30.
  23. Lister, R. (2006). “Children (but not women) first: New labour, child welfare and gender”, Critical Social Policy, 26(2), 315–335.
  24. Morel, N., Palier, B., & Palme, J. (2012). Towards a Social Investment Welfare State? Ideas, Policies and Challenges. Policy Press.
  25. Neyer, G. (2021). Welfare state regimes, family policies, and family behaviour. In N. Farris & J. Treas (Eds.), Research Handbook on the Sociology of the Family (pp. 22–39). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788975544.00009
  26. O’Connor, J. S., Orloff, A. S., & Shaver, S. (1999). States, Markets, Families: Gender, Liberalism and Social Policy. Cambridge University Press.
  27. OECD (2022). “Public social spending: Family benefits”, https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/family-benefits-public-spending.htm
  28. OECD (2023). “CO2.2.C: Poverty rates in households with children by household type, 2021 or latest available year”, OECD Family Database. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/social/family/database.htm
  29. OECD (2023). “LMF1.2.A: Maternal employment rates, 2021. OECD Family Database”, Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/social/family/database.htm
  30. OECD (2023). “Percent of children enrolled in early childhood education and care services (ISCED 0 and other registered ECEC services), 0- to 2-year-olds, 2005–2022”. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/social/family/database.htm
  31. OECD (2023). “SF2.1 Fertility rates”, OECD Family Database. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/social/family/database.htm
  32. OECD (2024). “Education at a glance 2024: OECD indicators”, Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/education-at-a-glance-2024_c00cad36-en.html
  33. OECD (2025). “OECD Family Database”, Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/oecd-family-database.html
  34. Özbek, A. (2021). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ve Excel ile problem çözümü: Kavram – Teori – Uygulama (3. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  35. Plantenga, J., & Remery, C. (2005). Reconciliation of work and private life: A comparative review of thirty European countries. European Commission.
  36. Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2012). Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process (Vol. 175). Springer Science & Business Media.
  37. Saraceno, C. (2011). Childcare needs and childcare policies: A critical perspective. In J. Clasen & D. Clegg (Eds.), Regulating the Risk of Unemployment (pp. 252–272). Oxford University Press.
  38. Shannon, C. E. (1948). “A Mathematical Theory of Communication”, Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423.
  39. Thévenon, O. (2011). “Family policies in OECD countries: A comparative analysis”, Population and Development Review, 37(1), 57–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00390.x
  40. UNICEF (2019). “Family-friendly policies: Redesigning the workplace of the future”. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund. https://www.unicef.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/UNICEF-policy-brief-family-friendly-policies-2019.pdf
  41. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2024). World population prospects 2024. Retrieved from https://population.un.org/wpp/
  42. Wang, J. J., Jing, Y. Y., & Zhang, C. F. (2009). “Weighting methodologies in multi‐criteria evaluations of combined heat and power systems”, International Journal of Energy Research, 33(12), 1023-1039.
  43. Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2011). “Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: An overview”, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(2), 397-427.
  44. Zeleny, M. (2012). Multiple criteria decision making Kyoto 1975 (Vol. 123). Springer Science & Business Media.
  45. Zhu, Y., Tian, D., & Yan, F. (2020). “Effectiveness of entropy weight method in decision-making”, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2020, Article ID 3564835, 5 pages. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3564835