Content uploaded by Chantal Remery
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Chantal Remery
Content may be subject to copyright.
CESifo DICE Report 2/2009
47
Reform Models
PARENTAL LEAVE IN THE
NETHERLANDS
JANNEKE PLANTENGA* AND
CHANTAL REMERY*
Introduction
This article addresses the development of leave poli-
cies, in particular parental leave, in the Netherlands.
This development can be characterised as a search for
the most accurate interpretation of the leave instru-
ment and the corresponding division of responsibili-
ties between the government, social partners and par-
ents.Starting from a position in which parental leave
was interpreted as a way to facilitate part-time em-
ployment, the Act on Parental Leave of 1991 provid-
ed a basic entitlement to take part-time,unpaid leave
for a relatively short period of time. It was left to the
social partners to supplement this minimum, for ex-
ample, in terms of length or in terms of income sup-
port. Over time, however,the public responsibility re-
garding leave has increased. This is apparent not on-
ly in the increasing number of leave policies,but also
in a growing public involvement in the provision of
income support. During this process, the interpreta-
tion of parental leave seemed to have changed from
a labour market instrument pure and simple,towards
a more complex instrument also targeting the facili-
tation of parenthood and the wellbeing of children.
Legal entitlements
In 1991, after some years of debate, the Act on
Parental leave came into force in the Netherlands.
This act granted an unpaid part-time parental leave
for a maximum of six months to employees who had
been employed by their current employer for at least
one year to be taken within four years after the birth
of a child (TK 1987–1988).
The design of the parental leave was mainly inspired
by practical feasibility and labour market effects;
leave policies were hardly discussed as part of the
care system with young children as the primary ben-
eficiaries (Plantenga and Remery 2009). Given the
importance attached to part-time working hours as a
means of increasing the female participation rate,the
parental leave policy was to enable young parents to
work part-time during a period of heavy care re-
sponsibilities. The leave entitlement was therefore
structured as a part-time right: the employee was to
remain active in the labour market for at least
20 hours per week.A second important consideration
in the early debates was that the leave arrangement
should favour the equal division of paid and unpaid
work between men and women.As a result, parental
leave was defined as an individual, non-transferable
right and not as a family right. Finally,the entitlement
was unpaid, because parents were considered pri-
marily responsible for raising their children. In addi-
tion, it was argued that a paid leave would result in
an undesirable increase in the tax burden for both the
private and collective sector.
Although the parental leave legislation was wel-
comed as a first important step towards a more gen-
der equal society, there were several problems with
the actual design of the leave policy.The stipulations
of the act, especially the 20-hour threshold,excluded
quite a number of (part-time) working mothers from
taking leave. Another problem referred to the fact
that the actual design of the leave policy did not
favour an equal sharing of paid and unpaid work; it
was presumed that a more flexible approach, espe-
cially the possibility to spread the leave hours over a
longer period of time, would increase the take-up of
men. A final argument against the rather rigid part-
time orientation of the parental leave legislation was
that this approach was not in line with the draft di-
rective on parental leave of the European Union,
which (either implicitly or explicitly) favoured a full-
time leave (Spaans and Van der Werf 1994).
The remedy for these problems was to take a differ-
ent approach to parental leave. While in the act of
1991 parental leave could be interpreted as introduc-
* Utrecht University School of Economics.
ing a statutory right to reduce working hours against
the background of a rather standard working-time
regime, the new proposal brought parental leave in
line with the growing reality of rather divers and in-
dividualised working hours. In the new draft (TK
1995–1996), the total number of leave hours was set
at 13 times the number of the contractual weekly
working hours. The statutory right is still part-time:
parents have the legal right to lower their working
hours by 50 percent over a period of 26 weeks.
However, employees may request the employer’s
permission to spread the leave hours over a longer
period than six months or to take more hours per
week. Employers may not refuse unless compelling
business reasons dictate otherwise.As a result of this
proposal, the flexibility of the leave policy was in-
creased, while it also became accessible for part-
timers.Moreover, it was suggested that the period un-
til which the leave could be taken should be extend-
ed from four years to six years (TK 1995–1996). This
extension would facilitate the transition from day
care facilities to primary school. In the final negotia-
tions over the parental leave act, the period during
which the leave can be taken was further extended
until the child was eight years old. This was in line
with the EU Directive on Parental Leave, which was
accepted in 1996 (TK 1997). Despite these major
changes,the leave remained unpaid.The government
persisted in its original point of view that income sup-
port during leave is an issue to be settled by the so-
cial partners through collective labour agreements.
The changed Act on Parental leave came into force
on 1 July 1997.
A few years later, the leave legislation was streamlined
in the Work and Care Act of 2001 (TK 1998–1999).The
act included the right to paid maternity leave (16
weeks), paid paternity leave (2 days),unpaid parental
leave (for a maximum of 6 month on a part-time ba-
sis) and provisions in case of adoption and multiple
births.In addition to the specifically child-related leave
benefits, provisions to care for family or household
members include paid emergency leave, paid short-
term carers’ leave and a regulation to finance a career
break in order to care or to study. Since June 2005 the
Work and Care Act has been extended with an enti-
tlement of all employees to take (unpaid) long-term
leave to care for a terminally ill child, partner or par-
ent. The design of the long-term care leave follows to
some extent the logic of the parental leave legislation.
The maximum duration of this leave is 6 times the
weekly number of working hours in a period of 12 suc-
cessive months.In contrast to parental leave,however,
long-term care leave is not a statutory right; employ-
ers may refuse because of compelling business reasons.
Employers’ involvement
From the very start, the employer has been given an
important role in the introduction of leave policies
within the Dutch working-time regime. By way of
collective labour agreements,the social partners are
expected to top up public policy, which is mainly con-
cerned with guarantying the minimum right. In order
to create some flexibility and to allow for tailor-made
solutions, the leave legislation is also of a so-called
three-quarter mandatory legal nature. This means
that deviation from the standard legal provision is al-
lowed by way of collective agreement or by decision
of the employee’s council. In case of parental leave,
divergent agreements are for example possible with
regard to the splitting up of the leave and/or the
spreading of the leave over the year. Also the age
stipulation (the fact that the leave has to be taken up
before the eight birthday of the child) may be
changed.The particular role of the employers in this
dossier reflects the overall system of industrial rela-
tions with consultation and involvement at the cen-
tral level, but which at the same time, emphasises the
importance of decentralisation and tailor-made so-
lutions. Yet the division of responsibilities is rather
fluid. As the OECD puts it: “The government speci-
fies issues that it thinks should be the topics under
discussion in industrial bargaining. If the outcomes
are unsatisfactory as they have been over leave,
working time flexibility and childcare, to some ex-
tent, it may then consider imposing legislation”
(OECD 2002: 16).An interesting illustration of this
search for the optimal division of responsibilities is
offered by the payment issue.
Within the context of the Act on Parental leave, the
payment was left to the employees and the employ-
ers; collective agreements are expected to provide for
income support. However, several studies indicated
that the majority of employers did not offer any pay-
ment during the period of parental leave,and this ma-
jority proved to be fairly stable.The unpaid character
of the leave had a negative impact on the take up rate.
An evaluation in 1999 indicated that only one in five
eligible parents actually made use of this right
(Grootscholte et al. 2000).Yet in branches with paid
leave the take-up rates were five times higher than in
branches without paid leave.Two third of the parents
that were entitled to the leave but did not use it stat-
CESifo DICE Report 2/2009 48
Reform Models
CESifo DICE Report 2/2009
49
Reform Models
ed that they would have taken it if 70 percent of the
wages had been paid.
The rather reluctant attitude of the employers and the
effects of this attitude in terms of take-up rates creat-
ed a growing public support for additional measures.
A more positive approach on the part of the employ-
ers was also favoured because of the presumption that
higher take-up rates would contribute to a more equal
sharing of unpaid care work, which was still an im-
portant goal of the emancipation policy. Finally,
arrangements for paid leave would fit with develop-
ments in Europe, showing an increasing number of
member states offering paid parental leave (TK
2000–2001:5). Making paid leave mandatory was still
considered unrealistic, however, given the primary
role employers were expected to play in matters con-
cerning labour conditions.The solution was to change
the fiscal incentive structure. By 2001, employers
could deduct 50 percent of the costs of paid leave,un-
der the condition that payment during parental leave
was at least 70 percent of the minimum wage. In ad-
dition, payment was to be included in the collective
agreement or made available to at least three-quarter
of the employees in the firm. With this tax deduction
the actual payment became the shared responsibility
of the government, the employer and the employee.
Employers,however, have never been particularly ea-
ger to supplement legal provisions. Research carried
out in 2004 indicated that only half of the employers
were familiar with the Work and Care Act;small com-
panies in particular did not have a positive view on
these matters (Van der Linden and Van der Werf
2004). It seemed that the employer was overburdened
by the specificity of the measures.It also implied that
– more than 15 years after the introduction – only a
minority of the potential leave takers were entitled to
a paid parental leave.
Parental leave: take-up rates
The fact that young parents in the Netherlands are
not entitled to paid parental leave presumably ex-
plains why the take-up is still far from 100 percent; see
the Table for further details. In 2006 the take-up
among women amounted to 44 percent while 21 per-
cent of the entitled men took up parental leave.
Although the take-up rate of men is considerably
lower, it is fairly high compared with that of other
European countries (Plantenga and Remery 2005).
The Table indicates that there are also slight differ-
ences in the average length of the leave taken up by
men or women. Men on average take up eight hours
of leave and spread the number of leave hours over 11
months.Women take up more hours of leave,resulting
in a somewhat shorter duration of the leave period.
The data seem to indicate that, in a typical case, both
parents use the possibility of spreading the leave hours
over a longer period of time. Part-time parental leave
is thus still the usual option despite the possibility to
organise leave on a full-time basis.This is in line with
the overall emphasis on part-time working hours with-
in Dutch society. Whereas in some of the other
European countries leave is scheduled before the use
of childcare facilities,in the Netherlands a parallel ap-
proach is advocated. To balance work and family life,
parents use part-time working hours,partly facilitated
by parental leave legislation, in combination with a
part-time use of childcare facilities. By implication,
childcare facilities are open to very young children,
starting directly after the 16 weeks of maternity leave.
Latest developments
Although the Work and Care Act was considered to
be a final piece of legislation, the debate over this
dossier never completely stop-
ped. Improving the possibilities
to take up leave for the purpose
of care or study became an im-
portant element in the debate on
modernising social security. At
the same time there was a grow-
ing reluctance to add just anoth-
er piece of legislation to an al-
ready complex dossier. Rather
the emphasis was on finding an
innovative and flexible approach
which would solve several prob-
lems and fit into a more mature,
individualistic approach towards
Table
Take-up of parental leave among entitled employees, 2000–06
Take up of parental
leave
Average length of
leave,
in hours per week
Average length of
leave,
in months
Female Male Female Male Fe male Male
2000 39.0 15.8 12 9 8 11
2001 45.3 15.7 12 8 8 10
2002 37.3 15.9 12 9 8 11
2003 42.1 15.9 12 8 8 10
2004 39.6 18.0 11 9 9 10
2005 44.1 18.9 11 8 8 11
2006 43.8 21.0 10 8 9 11
Source: C BS Statline .
social security. In this context, the life-course perspec-
tive became an important frame of reference for both
policy makers and academics (Plantenga 2005). The
first initiative to develop a life-course savings scheme
was undertaken in 2002 but it was not until 2006 that
the Dutch scheme came into effect. According to this
scheme employees may save up to 12 percent of their
gross annual income tax-free for a “life-course prod-
uct”. Employees may use it to finance a period of non-
labour-force participation. In principle, the period of
leave may be used for all kinds of different purposes,
like going on holidays,care obligations or a sabbatical.
A maximum of 210 percent of the last-earned yearly
wage may be saved, which amounts to three years of
leave at 70 percent of the last earned income.The de-
ferred tax principle is applicable implying that no tax-
es are paid on the savings account, but solely on the
withdrawal. In addition,there is a fiscal bonus for each
participating year as a result of which the life-course
scheme can be characterised as a tax-favored private
savings scheme. Finally, parents who take up parental
leave and participate in the life-course scheme have
access to an extra fiscal benefit of 50 percent of the
minimum wage for the statutory period of parental
leave. As a result, although the statutory right for
parental leave was still unpaid, since 2006 young par-
ents had access to paid parental leave as long as they
participated in the life-course savings scheme.
The organisation of the income support for leave tak-
ers may not be a very elegant nor a very transparent
solution – the time component of parental leave is
now organised within the context of the Work and
Care Act, whereas the payment is organised within
the context of the life-course scheme.Yet it indicates
a shift from the interpretation of the leave instrument
from only enabling part-time working hours for par-
ents towards a broader perspective in which the well-
being of young parents and children also plays a role.
The introduction of a tax credit also indicates the dif-
ficulty of generating a full coverage by collective
labour agreements.The reluctance of the employers
to provide income support is thereby acknowledged,
and the government has taken over the responsibili-
ty. Within this context it is only logical that by intro-
ducing the parental credit within the life-course
scheme,the tax relief for employers who provide paid
parental leave has been terminated.
In addition to the payment issue, the length of the
parental leave period also became a subject of policy
concern. At the start of the fourth Balkenende cabi-
net in 2007 the Coalition Agreement (2007) stated
that “parents should be able to combine labour and
care, working and raising children. In the rush hour
of life it should be possible to organize a time out.The
life-course scheme also serves that purpose. The
statutory right to parental leave will be lengthened
from 13 to 26 weeks per employee and will not be
transferable.The life-course scheme will be reorgan-
ised accordingly” (p. 29). Indeed, as of the first of
January 2009,the length of parental leave is now fixed
at 26 times the contractual number of working hours.
Young parents are thus entitled to a part-time (50
percent) leave of 52 weeks. Contrary to the original
statement, however,the fiscal benefit is now granted
to all employees taking-up parental leave and no
longer reserved for employees also participating in
the life-course scheme.This can be interpreted as an
important first step to develop a more broadly ac-
cepted, paid parental leave legislation.
This slight reorientation also seems to imply a shift
from a concurrent towards a more consecutive rela-
tionship between leave arrangements and childcare
provision. The latest Equal Opportunities Policy
Note, for example, points out that the 26 weeks per
parent was chosen so that working parents,when tak-
ing up parental leave, can care for their child during
his/her first year (OCW 2007, 31). This indicates a
clear break from earlier policies, according to which
the leave taker was supposed to remain attached to
the labour market and the parental leave scheme on-
ly to facilitate part-time working hours.
Concluding remarks
The Dutch policies on parental leave seem rather lim-
ited compared to other European countries. In fact,
it seems fair to state that Dutch policy makers always
had some ambivalence towards the instrument of
leave.Presumably,this rather austere attitude is part-
ly inspired by the Dutch working-time regime that is
characterised by relatively short full-time working
hours and a high part-time rate.As a result, the pres-
sure for extended leave policies has never been
strong. Rather the parental leave policy was intend-
ed to facilitate the attachment to the labour market
in a period in which care responsibilities were rather
heavy. As such the parental leave legislation entitles
parents to work part-time. Consistent with this view,
the payment issue is of only secondary importance.
The developments within the parental leave legisla-
tion also demonstrate an underlying search for the
CESifo DICE Report 2/2009 50
Reform Models
CESifo DICE Report 2/2009
51
Reform Models
proper design. On the whole this search seems rather
“incremental” and problem-oriented; there was no
particular, goal-oriented plan.As such the specific de-
tails of the parental leave legislation illustrate the typ-
ical Dutch problem-solving style of decision-making
(e.g.,Hemerijck and Visser 1999).This particular style
and the heavy reliance on party-political compromis-
es may not always translate into extremely transpar-
ent regulations.This is also illustrated by the parental
leave case in the sense that the entitlement to leave
and the entitlement to income support is organised by
different legislation. As stated before, this is not a
very carefully considered design and it is quite per-
ceivable that it will lower the use of parental leave
(Haan and Plantenga 2007).
Nevertheless, there are clear signs of a somewhat
broader perspective on the leave instrument. With
hindsight, the inclusion of payment within the life-
course scheme may be assessed as a slight detour that
has made financial support for leave takers from pub-
lic funds more acceptable. Within a European per-
spective,the extension of the period of parental leave
to 26 weeks (in full time equivalents) is certainly an
improvement. The level of payment remains rather
low, however, despite improvements, which raises
concern about affordability and related to this the
take-up of parental leave.
References
Coalition agreement (2007), Coalition Agreement between the Par-
liamentary Parties of the Christian Democratic Alliance, Labour Party
and Christian Union.
.
Grootscholte, M., J.A. Bouwmeester and P. de Klaver (2000), Eva-
luatie Wet op het ouderschapsverlof, Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en
Werkgelegenheid, ’s-Gravenhage.
Haan, P. de and J. Plantenga (2007), “Ouderschapsverlof in de lev-
ensloop”, Economisch Statistische Berichten, 5 October, 598–99.
Hemerijck, A. and J. Visser (1999), “Beleidsleren in de Nederlandse
verzorgingsstaat”, Beleid en Maatschappij 26(1), 13–26.
Linden, L. van der and C. van der Werf (2004), Ervaringen van
werkgevers met de Wet arbeid en zorg, Research voor Beleid,Leiden.
Plantenga, J. (2005), “Dutch Debates: Modernising Social Security
by Introducing the Life Course as a Frame of Reference”, in P. de
Gijsel and H. Schenk,eds., Multidisciplinary Economics.The Birth of
a New Economics Faculty in the Netherlands, Springer, Dordrecht,
53–64.
Plantenga, J. and C.Remery (with the assistence of P.Helming; 2005),
Reconciliation of Work and Private Life: a Comparative Review of
Thirty European Countries,Office for the Official Publications of the
European Communities, Luxembourg.
Plantenga, J. and C. Remery (2009), “The Netherlands: Bridging
Labour and Care”, in S. Kamerman and P. Moss,eds., The Politics of
Parental Leave Policies, Policy Press, Bristol.
OCW (Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap; 2007),
Meer kansen voor vrouwen. Emancipatiebeleid 2008–2011, Ministerie
van OCW, Den Haag.
OECD (2002), Babies and Bosses:Reconciling Work and Family Life,
vol. 1,Australia, Denmark and the Netherlands, Paris.
Spaans, J. and C. van der Werf (1994), Evaluatie van de Wet op het
ouderschapsverlof, VUGA,‘s-Gravenhage.
TK (Tweede Kamer; 1987–1988), Regelingen betreffende de aan-
spraak op ouderschapsverlof (Wet op het ouderschapsverlof),Tweede
Kamer vergaderjaar 1987–1988, 20 528, no. 3, Den Haag.
TK (Tweede Kamer, 1995–1996), Wijziging van titel 7.10 (arbei-
dsovereenkomst) van het Burgerlijk Wetboek met betrekking tot oud-
erschapsverlof,Tweede Kamer vergaderjaar 1995–1996, 24 869,no. 3,
Den Haag.
TK (Tweede Kamer; 1997), Handelingen Tweede Kamer over het
wetsvoorstel Wijziging van titel 7.10 (arbeidsovereenkomst) van het
Burgerlijk Wetboek met betrekking tot het ouderschapsverlof (24869),
Tweede Kamer 45e vergadering, 28 January 1997, 3577–87.
TK (Tweede Kamer; 1998–1999), Arbeid en zorg, Tweede Kamer ver-
gaderjaar 1998–1999, 26 447, no. 2, Den Haag.
TK (Tweede Kamer; 2000–2001), Wijzigingen van belastingwetten
c.a. (Belastingplan 2001),Tweede Kamer vergaderjaar 2000-2001,27
431, no 3, Den Haag.
