Global out-of-home childcare and world culture

Abstract

The focus of this article is the link between the modern world culture and national public policy commitments. Drawing on world society theory and using data for 193 countries between 1990 and 2020—1411 documents in total—we analyze the global pattern of policy commitments to out-of-home childcare deinstitutionalization. Deinstitutionalization refers to the policy of moving children from institutional residential care (e.g. orphanages) to family-based and family-like care in the community. Using the reports by state parties of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, we find that 85 percent of countries make at least some commitment to deinstitutionalization. At the same time, the data reveal significant variation in the interpretation of deinstitutionalization. We also find that similar policy commitments are underpinned by diverse motives that reflect different normative frames within the dominant world culture—human rights, scientization, and cost efficiency. This diversity does not fit the standard world society concepts of convergence, resistance, or decoupling. We argue that countries can selectively adopt specific aspects of world culture, with important policy implications.

Advancing global and transnational approaches to the study of out-of-home childcare

“…We cannot do the whole field justice within the limits of this paper. So here are just a few examples of different strands of beyond-national-borders study of child institutionalization: cross-country comparative studies of care systems (Islam and Fulcher, 2022;James et al, 2021;Kendrick et al, 2011;Milligan et al, 2016;Nicklett and Perron, 2010;Ulybina, 2022aUlybina, , 2022bUlybina, , 2022c; international legal studies analyzing care in the context of international law and policy (Cantwell and Holzscheiter 2007;Van Doore 2022); the global travel of childcare ideas and policy models (Harlow, 2021;Hoffman, 2021;Ulybina, 2020Ulybina, , 2022a. A growing number of studies reveal the geopolitics of out-of-home childcare, and more specifically the hegemony of Western powers and international organizations representing Western ideologies and assumptions about childhood and care (Brown et al, 2002;Harlow 2021;Hoffman 2021;Islam and Fulcher 2022).…”

“…There is a widespread consensus among practitioners that institutions provide “suboptimal caregiving environments” and are harmful to children (van IJzendoorn et al, 2020: 703). Today, many countries have adopted the policy of childcare deinstitutionalization (DI) and overhauled their systems of out-of-home childcare to ensure that every child grows up in a family or a family-like environment (Davidson et al, 2017; Milligan et al, 2016; Ulybina, 2022a). The rate of child institutionalization has significantly dropped in many countries (e.g.…”

Deinstitutionalization of children in residential care facilities: Experiences and perceptions of professionals in Ghana

“…Although many LMICs have made some commitment to DI, implementation of DI is influenced by stakeholders' perspectives. These stakeholders, such as practitioners, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and policymakers, frequently hold opposing views or interpretations of what DI should be, including framing DI from a human rights and cost efficiency perspective (Ulybina, 2023). Some stakeholders advocate for the urgent abolishment of all residential facilities (Abdel Aziz, 2021; Miseki, 2018) whereas others favour the gradual abolition or marginalization of residential care (Goldman et al, 2020), with some favouring the strengthening of small family‐like facilities as the solution to DI (Islam & Fulcher, 2021; Murthi & Jayasooriya, 2020).…”