In the “Mainstreaming Gender in Global Affairs” course at SIPA, professor Kristy Kelly gave us a very interesting assignment: choosing an existing gender-related policy, then using Carol Bacchi’s “What’s the Problem?” approach (WPR) to dissect that policy. The WPR approach is based on a commonsensical insight that every policy proposal has its own problem representation – explicit or implicit diagnosis of the problem that will later affect what we think ought to be done about that problem (Bacchi, 1999). I found this approach particularly interesting in the sense that it challenged me to read beyond the text of a policy, interrogate the problem represented, the underlying assumption, the consequences, who gains and who loses, and the alternatives that could happen if the problem is represented differently.
Below is a home-made example of how I apply this approach in analyzing Article 53, Item 2 of the Vietnam’s Social Insurance Law 2024 No. 41/2024/QH15, which grants male employees paternity leave when their wives give birth. The law specifies varying durations, ranging from 5 to 14 working days, depending on factors such as the mothers’ delivery method, gestational age, and number of children. I choose this policy as the subject of study as it represents one of Vietnam’s noticeable legalized recognitions that caregiving is not solely the responsibility of mothers but also of fathers. I would also want to examine the effect of this representation when juxtaposing the paternity benefit with the 4-to-6-month maternity leave entitlement, highlighting how the government’s effort to promote gender equality continues to reflect deeply embedded assumptions about gender and care work.
Policy Analysis Using Bacchi’s WPR Framework
What is the problem represented in the policy?
As I am not able to find any official document stating the rationale of legalizing paternity leave in Vietnam, and the Proposal for revising the 2024 Social Insurance Law does not seem to explicitly show the necessity of the regulation, I choose to deduct the problem representation based on Bacchi’s WPR suggestion of examining policy instruments, which are how the policy is provided and paid for.
The paid paternity leave in Vietnam is granted to male employees whose wives give birth if these fathers are currently contributing to the compulsory social insurance scheme. The benefit is financed by Vietnam’s Social Insurance Fund and applies only to Vietnamese men in formal employment. From the way the policy is structured and financed, the “problem representation” could be inferred as: male workers will find it challenging to share parental responsibilities with their partners if they cannot ensure income as usual for their families.
Within this framing, the issue is not conceptualized as one of gender inequality or the systemic, gendered labor division of care work, but rather as men’s inability to assist their wives due to economic obligations.
What presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation?
This representation might rest on several possible assumptions:
- Without formal and paid leave entitlements, fathers would be less likely to participate in caregiving.
- A brief leave period (5–14 days) is sufficient for paternal involvement.
- As mothers are already entitled to extended maternity leave, it is reasonable to expect fathers to continue working not only to maintain household income but also to contribute to the national economy.
- The policy’s inclusion in the Social Insurance Law implies an institutional motive of expanding social insurance coverage. The Proposal Paper for the revised law states that one of the key objectives is to increase the number of workers participating in the social insurance system nationwide. Although this political aim is not explicitly linked to the introduction of paternity leave, the addition of this provision in the Law may also function as an instrument to attract more male workers into formal employment and social insurance enrollment.
What effects are produced by this representation?
As I searched for critiques of the policy online, I found limited public discussion or debate. The regulation appears to have provoked neither strong approval nor disapproval, suggesting that it has probably been broadly accepted as commonsensical.
In my opinion, this representation produces mixed effects. On one hand, it redefines fatherhood as a legitimate site of care, subtly destabilizing traditional bias that domestic work should be only reserved for women. On the other hand, its short duration reproduces gendered hierarchies of care: Men are still positioned as supportive partners whose caregiving role is temporary and auxiliary, while women remain the primary caregivers whose employment is expected to pause during early childcare.
Overall, while the law could be considered as progressive, it leaves the underlying gender asymmetry of caregiving largely intact.
Who is likely to benefit from this representation? What is left unproblematic in this representation?
While formally employed men might benefit most from this policy, informal workers are not accounted for in the policy.
How would “responses” differ if the “problem” were thought about or represented differently?
If we shift the way we look at the problem, from “male workers will find it challenging to share parental responsibilities with their partners if they cannot ensure income as usual for their families” to “the structure of labour division within the household places the burden of care and unpaid work on women and the burden of economic provision on men,” then new set of policies would need to focus more directly on reshaping how labour is divided within the household. Below are a few policy directions that could follow from this newly represented problem, drawn from the OECD’s “Paid leave for fathers” (2025) report, with priority given to options that would not create further a burden on the Social Insurance Fund:
- Establishing non-transferable quotas of parental leave for both the father and the mother, alongside a shared period that parents can negotiate between themselves and take turns using.
- Establishing non-transferable quotas of parental leave for both the father and the mother.
For both options, the quotas would need to be allocated roughly equally but sensibly given that mothers need time to recover after childbirth. The father’s and mother’s quotas combined would equal the total leave currently granted to male and female employees under the 2024 Social Insurance Law. For households in which only one parent is eligible for the benefit, that parent could take no more than their own allotted quota.
Beyond helping to address the newly represented problem, these hypothetical policies could also strengthen emotional bonds between fathers and their children, raise life satisfaction for both parents, and promote gender equality in the workplace.
That said, these provisions still leave the needs of informal workers unaddressed, making room for private and non-governmental stakeholders to intervene.
Conclusion
All told, Vietnam’s paternity leave policy is a step forward for gender equality, though reaching substantive gender equality will take considerably more effort.
This post, however, is not meant to present any policy recommendation but simply aims to introduce Bacchi’s WPR approach, as I think it is a useful analytical framework for development practitioners and policymakers. When we read a policy, we should look beyond what the text says on the surface and ask: what problem is being represented, what assumptions underlie that representation, who gains and who loses. More importantly, the WPR approach can help us to acknowledge the trade-offs and the shortcomings of a policy so that we can view the problem differently and develop policies that are more efficient and better meet the needs of the current context.
Duyen Nguyen
Disclaimer:
Although we have taken all possible measures to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this writing, we shall not be liable for any damage caused to users by the use of the information contained herein.
Reference:
Bacchi, Carol. 1999. Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems.
Bacchi, Carol. 2012.. Why Study Problematizations? Making Politics Visible. Open Journal of Political Science 2(1): 1-8.
Skip to PDF content