Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:16:12.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of Market Forces on Child Care Provision: Insights from the 2005 Child Care Act in the Netherlands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2009

JOËLLE NOAILLY  and
SABINE VISSER
JOËLLE NOAILLY*
Affiliation:
CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, P.O. Box 80510, 2508GM The Hague, The Netherlands
SABINE VISSER
Affiliation:
CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, P.O. Box 80510, 2508GM The Hague, The Netherlands
*
*email: J.Noailly@cpb.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the impact of the introduction of market forces on child care provision in the Netherlands. In January 2005, the Dutch government introduced the Child Care Act, replacing the former financing system, which had elements of both supply- and demand-financing, with a fully demand-financing system. As a result, the provision of child care is now driven by market forces. Using data on the geographical location of child care facilities, this article compares the factors affecting the provision of child care in the Netherlands before and after the introduction of the Child Care Act. The results suggest that after the regulatory reform the provision of child care has shifted towards wealthy urbanised areas, characterised by high demand and high purchasing power. This shift has largely benefited for-profit providers particularly active in these markets. In parallel, the results indicate an important drop in child care provision by non-profit organisations, most pronounced in less wealthy rural areas. These findings suggest that the introduction of demand-financing may have implications for the accessibility of child care.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , July 2009 , pp. 477 - 498
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blau, D. M. and Mocan, H. M. (2002), ‘The supply of quality in child care centers’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 84: 3, 483–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blau, D. and Currie, J. (2004), ‘Preschool, day care, and afterschool care: who's minding the kids’, NBER Working Paper 10670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blau, D. and Robins, P. (1988), ‘Child care costs and family labor supply’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 70, 374–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bressers, C., Raab, J. and Vermeulen, P. A. M. (2006), ‘Institutionele verandering in de kinderopvangbranche: een empirische analyse’, Tilburg University and MOgroep.Google Scholar
Cleveland, G. and Krashinsky, M. (2004), ‘The quality gap: a study of nonprofit and commercial child care centres in Canada’, Division of Management, University of Toronto at Scarborough, Toronto, ON.Google Scholar
Cleveland, G. and Krashinsky, M. (2005), ‘The nonprofit advantage: producing quality in thick and thin child care markets’, Division of Management, University of Toronto at Scarborough, Toronto, ON.Google Scholar
CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (2007), Macro Economische Verkenning 2008, The Hague: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar
Dobbelsteen, S. H., Gustafsson, S. S. and Wetzels, C. M. (2000), ‘Child care in the Netherlands Between government firms and parents: is the deadweight loss smaller than in the public day care system of Sweden?’, mimeo, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Donders, J. and Gradus, R. (2006), ‘Toegang tot de collectieve sector’, Rijksacademie voor Financieen en Economie, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, M. A. and Vidal, T. S. (2006), ‘Where do I leave my baby? Use and development of early childcare in Spain’, Recherches et Prévisions, no. 83, Paris: CNAF.Google Scholar
Grout, P. A. and Yong, M. J. (2003), ‘The role of donated labour and not for profit at the public/private interface’, CMPO Working Paper Series 03/074.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, S. S. and Stafford, F. (1992), ‘Child care subsidies and labor supply in Sweden’, Journal of Human Resources, 27: 1, 204–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansmann, H. (1980), ‘The role of nonprofit enterprise’, Yale Law Journal, 89, 835–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Japel, C., Tremblay, R. E. and Côté, S. (2005), ‘Quality counts! Assessing the quality of daycare services based on the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development’, IRPP Choices, 11: 5, 1–41.Google Scholar
Jongen, E. L. W. (2008), ‘Een analyse van de groei van de formele kinderopvang in het recente verleden en in de nabije toekomst’, CPB Notitie 14 mei 2008.Google Scholar
Kjulin, U. (1995), ‘The demand for public child care in Sweden’, Occasional papers, Boteborg University.Google Scholar
Lakdawalla, D. and Philipson, T. (2006), ‘The nonprofit sector and industry performance’, Journal of Public Economics, 90: 8–9, 1681–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maskin, E. and Tirole, J. (2004), ‘The politician and the judge: accountability in government’, American Economic Review, 94: 4, 1034–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mocan, H. N. (1995), ‘The child care industry: cost functions, efficiency, and quality’, NBER Working Paper 5293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mocan, H. N. (2001), ‘Can consumers detect lemons? Information asymmetry in the market for child care’, NBER Working Paper 8291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mocan, H. N. and Terkin, E. (2000), ‘Nonprofit sector and part-time work: an analysis of employer-employee matched data of child care workers’, NBER Working Paper 7977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, J. R. and Helburn, S. W. (2000), ‘Child care center quality differences: the role of profit status, client preferences, and trust’, Nonprofit an Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29: 3, 377–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD (2006), ‘Starting strong 2 – Early childhood education and care’, OECD report.Google Scholar
PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2005), ‘Financiële positie kinderopvangorganisaties per 31 December 2003’, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Rose-Ackerman, S. (1986), ‘Altruistic nonprofit firms in competitive markets: the case of day-care centres in the United States’, Journal of Consumer Policy, 9, 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribar, D. C. (1992), ‘Child care and the labor supply of married women: reduced form evidence’, Journal of Human Resources, 27: 1, 134–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCP (2006), ‘Emancipatiemonitor 2006’, SCP-publicatie 2006/22.Google Scholar
Statistics Netherlands (2002), ‘Veel vraag naar professionele kinderopvang’, Webmagazine, 7 October.Google Scholar
Van Der Kemp, S. and Kloosterman, M. (2005), ‘Het aanbod van kinderopvang per eind 2004 – Eindrapport’, Research voor Beleid.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, L., Koot-du Buy, A. H. E. B. and Siegers, J. J. (1993), ‘Day-care supply by Dutch municipalities’, European Journal of Population, 9: 4, 315–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, J. (1992), ‘New evidence on the supply of child care’, The Journal of Human Resources, 27: 1, 40–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitebook, M., Howes, C. and Phillips, D. (1990), ‘Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in America, Final report of the national child care staffing study’, Child Care Employee Project, Oakland, California.Google Scholar