The High-Stakes Gamble of Father Leave: Why Political Courage still Falters

This blog is based on an article published in the Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy by Martin Gurin and Janet C. Gornick.

Imagine a policy so emblematic of gender equality that it ticks every box for progressives: dismantling breadwinner–caregiver stereotypes, promoting work–family balance, and boosting birth rates in ageing societies. And yet, in the world of real politics, father leave (paternity leave and father-specific parental leave entitlements) reforms remain the wallflowers of electoral campaigns — noticed, admired, but rarely asked to dance.

As researchers of welfare states and gendered policy reforms, we embarked on a comparative journey into the politics of father leave in two countries that, on paper, shared the same ambition: encouraging dads to step into the nursery and the school run. But while South Korea soared ahead, transforming father leave into a centrepiece of political bidding wars, the Czech Republic remained cautious, even resistant — stalling reforms with whispers of “too risky” and “too soon.”

And herein lies the paradox: if a majority agrees that modern fatherhood is good policy, why does it remain such dangerous politics?

Why father leave policies stay on the sidelines

In our research, we found that father leave reform is often haunted by an invisible shadow: the fear of electoral backlash. Nowhere is this more striking than in countries where social democratic or radical left parties — ostensibly the natural champions of gender equality — hesitate or retreat from bold proposals. Why? Because even among their own voters, the appetite for ambitious, mandatory, father-specific leave remains tepid. The political calculation becomes brutally simple: Why risk alienating the base over an issue that, while symbolically powerful, remains socially delicate?

Consider the Czech Republic. Here, father leave reform has been not only cautious but actively derailed by shifting political winds. Parties that once supported the idea, like the centre-right ODS, have reversed course, evolving from tentative backers of paternity leave to vocal critics. Meanwhile, radical right parties have weaponised the very design of non-transferable father entitlements, framing them as an assault on personal freedom and family autonomy. To these actors, policies like the “daddy quota” are no longer about gender equality — they are state overreach, social engineering masquerading as progress.

This creates an environment where reforms become toxic by association. Even parties that might ideologically support father leave hesitate to push forward, wary of handing their opponents a populist rallying cry. The result? Political paralysis. Incremental reforms inch along — a few days of leave added here, minor tweaks there. Always just enough to comply with external mandates — like the EU’s Work–Life Balance Directive — but any move toward more transformative, equality-promoting models stalls under the weight of potential backlash.

In such a climate, the spectre of electoral defeat looms large over even modest proposals. For politicians, the safest path is often no path at all.

When crisis becomes opportunity

Contrast this with South Korea, where an existential fertility crisis rewrote the political rulebook. Facing a demographic freefall, father leave became more than just a gender equity tool; it was reframed as a national survival strategy. And once the stakes shifted from ideological to existential, politicians took notice.

Suddenly, father leave was no longer a quiet policy niche. It exploded onto centre stage, with electoral candidates one-upping each other to promise longer leaves, higher wage replacement, and more generous entitlements. The country’s once sceptical business community — even notorious opponents of paid leave — softened their resistance as the reality of a shrinking workforce dawned.

But here’s the kicker: Even in Korea’s case, where electoral competition became a powerful driver of reform, deep-rooted resistance lingered. Many pledges went unfulfilled. Policies were diluted, caps imposed, and structural barriers kept take-up rates modest. Despite bold rhetoric, the actual implementation of father leave reforms often became a careful balancing act between public demand and business interests.

The dilemma of political imagination

What unites these two cases — despite their divergent trajectories — is the extraordinary caution that surrounds father leave reform. It’s as if political systems, regardless of geography, struggle to fully trust the idea of men as caregivers. Even where public opinion is favourable and crises demand action, reforms are hedged, compromised, and, at times, intentionally under-ambitious.

This reflects a broader truth about welfare state change: policies like father leave exist in a delicate dance of public sentiment, institutional pushback, and political risk. Unlike other family policies, which have become staples of electoral competition (think childcare or parental leave), father-specific entitlements are still seen as fragile, niche, or even experimental.

And yet, what if they’re not?

Making father leave the next big thing

For father leave policies to move from the periphery to the centre of welfare state innovation, they must be reimagined — not as luxury add-ons but as structural necessities. The stakes are too high to keep them as afterthoughts. Fertility rates are collapsing, gender equality remains stalled, and the pandemic has exposed the brittle scaffolding of work–family reconciliation.

What our research shows is that waiting for public support to magically align, or for crises to create perfect openings, may not be enough. Political courage matters. And, crucially, reframing matters.

The next frontier for welfare states is to stop treating father leave as electorally risky and start presenting it as electorally irresistible — a cornerstone of modern family life that benefits everyone, from businesses struggling with talent retention to parents craving balance, and to societies trying to sustain themselves in the face of demographic decline.

This is not just a policy tweak. It’s a cultural pivot. And if done right, it might just turn the wallflower into the belle of the ballot box.

---

Reference

Gurín, Martin, and Janet C. Gornick. 2024. “Pushes and Pulls of Father Leave Policy Reform: Unpacking Divergent Father Leave Reforms in the Czech Republic and South Korea.” Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy 40(3): 265–83. doi: 10.1017/ics.2025.12.

About the Authors

Martin Gurín is a Post-Doctoral Researcher at the University of Bremen, Germany.

Janet C. Gornick is a Professor at the CUNY Graduate Center, New York (NY), United States.