Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:11:25.565Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Perspectives On Quality in Mixed Economies of Childcare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2020

Helen Penn
Helen Penn*
Affiliation:
Cass School of Education, University of East London
*
e-mail H.Penn@uel.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper briefly reviews international perspectives on quality in mixed economies of childcare in a number of countries; in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the USA, the Netherlands and South Africa. In all these countries the private market is dominant; that is, the Government takes the view that childcare is best provided by private for-profit or non-profit entrepreneurs, even if part-subsidised by the state through tax credits or some other form of subsidy. This contrasts with countries like France where for-profit care is simply not permitted, and the state provides universal services through the école maternelle system.

Keywords

Private for profit childcaremixed economy of childcarechildcare tax creditsquality childcare
Type
Articles
Information
National Institute Economic Review , Volume 207 , January 2009 , pp. 83 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 National Institute of Economic and Social Research

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.)

Footnotes

This paper briefly reviews international perspectives on quality in mixed economies of childcare. It explores the particular features of the childcare market and suggests that conventional economic rationales do not apply in such a market. It claims that, contrary to government predictions, competition in the private for-profit childcare sector does not lead to ‘quality’ childcare.

References

Brewer, M., Browne, J. and Phillips, D. (2008), Options for Tax Credit Reform, London, Barnardo's/IFS.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. and Shepherd, A. (2004), Has Labour Made Work Pay? London, Joseph Rowntree Foundation/ Institute of Fiscal Studies.Google Scholar
Cleveland, G., Forer, B., Hyatt, D., Japel, C. and Krashinsky, M. (2007), An Economic Perspective on the Current and Future Role of Nonprofit Provision of Early Learning and Childcare Services in Canada, TorontoUniversity/HRSD, Canada.Google Scholar
-(2008), ‘New evidence about childcare in Canada: use patterns, affordability and quality’, Institute for Research in Public Policy: Choices V14 (12), http://www.irpp.org/choices/archive/vol14no12.pdf.Google Scholar
Dean, H. (2007), ‘Tipping the balance: the problematic nature of work-life balance in a low income neighbourhood’, Journal of Social Policy, 36 (4), pp. 519–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EU (2008), Early Matters, Conference organised by the EU Education and Culture Directorate, Brussels, 14 October.Google Scholar
Goux, D. and Maurin, E. (2008), Preschool Enrollment, Mothers' Participation in the Labour Market and Children's Subsequent Outcomes (in France), Paris, CEPREMAP.Google Scholar
Laing and Buisson (2007, 2008), Annual Childcare Market Report, 2007/2008, London, Laing and Buisson.Google Scholar
Lloyd, E. (2008a), Informal Care too costly, London, Nursery World, p.11.Google Scholar
-(2008b), ‘The interface between childcare, family support and child poverty strategies under New Labour: tensions and contradictions’, Social Policy and Society, 7 (4), pp. 479–94.Google Scholar
Mathers, S. and Sylva, K. (2007), National Evaluation of the Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative: The Relationship between Quality and Children's Behavioural Development, LondonDCSF, SSU/ 2007/FR/022.Google Scholar
Mathers, S., Sylva, K. and Joshi, H. (2007), Quality of Childcare Settings in the Millenium Cohort Study, London, DCSF, RR025.Google Scholar
Maurin, E. and Roy, D. (2008), L'effet de l'obtention d'une place en crèche sur le retour a l'emploi des meres et leur perception du developpement de leurs enfants, Grenoble, CEPREMAP.Google Scholar
Mooney, A., Cameron, C., Candappa, M., McQuail, S., Moss, P. and Petrie, P. (2003), Early years and Childcare International Evidence Project, London, DCSF.Google Scholar
National Audit Office (2006), Sure Start Children's Centres, London, NAO, Stationery Office.Google Scholar
National Children's Bureau (2007), National Quality Improvement Network: A framework for local authorities and national organizations to improve quality outcomes for children and young people, London, National Children's Bureau.Google Scholar
Nicholson, S., Jordon, E., Cooper, J. and Mason, J. (2008), Childcare and Early Years Providers Survey 2007, London, BMRB/DCSF RR047.Google Scholar
Noailly, J., Visser, S. and Grout, P. (2007), ‘The impact of market forces on the provision of childcare: insights from the 2005 Childcare Act in the Netherlands’, CPB Memorandum 176, The Hague, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis. www.cpb.nl/nl/.Google Scholar
NICDH Early Child Care Research Network (2005), Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, NY, Guildford Press.Google Scholar
Nursery World (2008a), News Items, 19.9.2008, 26.9.2008.Google Scholar
-(2008b), Nursery Chains Supplement Autumn 2008, 19.9.2008.Google Scholar
Oecd (2008), Growing Unequal: Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD countries, Paris, OECD.Google Scholar
Ofsted (2008), Early Years: Leading to Excellence. A Review of Childcare and Education Provision 2005-2008, London, Office for Standards in Education.Google Scholar
Paull, G. (2008), ‘Children and women's hours of work’, The Economic Journal, V.118 (526).Google Scholar
Penn, H. (2008a), Early Childhood Education and Care in Southern Africa: A Perspective Piece for CfBT Educational Trust, Reading, CfBT.Google Scholar
-(2008b), The Social Benefits of Early Education and Care, Brussels, EU Education and Culture Directorate / NESSE.Google Scholar
Penn, H. and Maynard, T. (2009), Syabonana: We all see each other. Childcare in South Africa, Edinburgh, Children in Scotland (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Sosinky, L., Lord, H. and Zigler, E. (2007), ‘For-profit/non-profit differences in center-based child care quality: results from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development’, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, V28(5), pp. 390–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumsion, J. (2006), ‘The corporatization of Australian childcare: towards an ethical audit and research agenda’, Journal of Early Childhood Research, V4 (2), pp. 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, C., Braun, A. and Ball, S. (2008), ‘Childcare, choice and social class: caring for young children in the UK’, Critical Social Policy, V. 28 (1), pp. 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)(2005), Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood. General Comment no 7, NY, UN.Google Scholar
Unicef (2007), Child Poverty in Rich Countries, Florence, UNICEF Innocenti Centre.Google Scholar