The discussion over plans to give extra votes for mothers in Hungary may have something to do with mothers' concern to have enough money to care full-time for newborn children, and to return to earning a living when they're ready (This Hungarian children's vote is grossly dishonest, 18 April).
Hungary pioneered quantifying the work of carers. The famous Multinational Time Budget Study (1966) was co-ordinated by the Hungarian sociologist Alexander Szalai. It showed that mothers who went out to work averaged three hours a day on housework versus men's 17 minutes, and that they cut down on sleep to cope with this double day. The following year Hungary introduced universal maternity provision: six months' leave with 100% wage replacement and two additional years at a flat rate. In 1985 an alternative two-year leave at 75% of the wage was introduced. Jobs were secured in either case. The provisions were popular, with 85% takeup.
After the collapse of the Soviet bloc, benefits were cut and universality was replaced by means-testing. While many benefits were reintroduced in 2002, spending on the family has declined. All Hungarians caring full-time for children under three – mostly mothers – can still claim a benefit equivalent to the minimum pension. For the over-threes there is highly subsidised and readily available childcare, with an 86% takeup.
But unemployment has skyrocketed, especially among the discriminated Roma community, where it is reportedly 90%. There is no longer job protection for anyone. How does the offer of an extra vote address this reality?
Solveig Francis