One of the reasons I’ve been so interested in paid leave policies is because they are an interesting case study in how one policy can be viewed through different lenses. Our first time studying paid family leave was part of our work with an anti-poverty group, but most people approach it from a labor market perspective.
The reason paid leave policies get so much attention from people studying labor markets is because they attempt to address the gender wage gap. The idea is that by allowing paid leave policies allow mothers to remain more attached to the workforce, which in turn might lead to higher wages should they choose to return. Results looking at the introduction of paid leave programs so far have been mixed on its impacts.
However, a new study on reform in the paid leave program in Denmark offers some new insights about this issue.
Denmark has long had a paid parental leave program that combines some weeks reserved for each parent with additional weeks that families can divide however they choose. In 2022, Denmark reformed the system to require a more even split between mothers and fathers.
Before the reform, mothers had 14 weeks of non‑transferable leave and fathers had just two, with another 32 weeks that either parent could use. After the reform, both parents received 11 weeks of earmarked leave, and the shared portion shrank to 26 weeks.
Importantly, Denmark didn’t expand the total amount of leave, families still get 48 weeks off in total. The change was purely about how those weeks are allocated.
The first thing the researchers find is that the reform worked exactly as intended. Fathers increased their leave by about three and a half weeks, and mothers reduced theirs by a bit more than five. These researchers weren’t just measuring labor market outcomes though, they also surveyed parents to understand their attitudes about people taking leave.
After the reform, parents became more supportive of paternity leave and more likely to say that fathers taking leave is socially acceptable at work. They changed their responses to certain questions about traditional gender roles, for example being less likely to agree that young children suffer when mothers work full time.
These belief changes translated into behavior. The study finds that the reform narrowed gender gaps in earnings and hours worked. Some of this is mechanical in the first year because fathers are out of work more and mothers less, but the effects persist into the second year, after both parents have returned to work. The earnings gap shrank by nearly three percentage points in year two, and the hours gap by about one and a half.
But the study also highlights a real tradeoff. Parents were less satisfied with their leave arrangements after the reform, largely because they felt mothers should have had more flexibility. By reducing the number of flex weeks from 32 to 26, the state is meaningfully reducing the number of options people have when deciding how to split up their paid leave time.
This Danish reform is a useful reminder that the same policy can look very different depending on the lens we use. From a labor‑market perspective, it clearly narrowed gender gaps and shifted norms in a more equal direction. From a family‑autonomy perspective, it reduced flexibility and left many parents less satisfied. As more states adopt paid leave, this case study shows why it’s important to consider a range of relevant outcomes when considering policy reforms. Policy myopia can make a policy look good while ignoring broader impacts that can be very relevant to the policy at hand.