Abstract

The question of whether protective labor legislation is beneficial to female workers has triggered much debate among feminist scholars. Like proponents of laissez-faire, some feminist scholars and activists have argued that such legislation harms the economic interests of women by lowering their wages and diminishing their employment prospects on the free labor market. This article reexamines the arguments made by opponents of protective labor legislation in the light of the historical development of the welfare state in Britain and France. It is shown that the case against gender-specific protective labor legislation does not hold on empirical grounds. A strong body of evidence shows that protective labor legislation historically brought increasing economic returns and expanded opportunities to women in both countries. This has important implications for contemporary debates about the relationship between protective labor legislation and gender discrimination in the European Community, the International Labor Organization, and developing countries.