2018
DOI: 10.1177/2158244018774823
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Long-Term Educational Outcomes of Child Care Arrangements in Finland

Abstract: This study asks how Finnish 6-year-olds who stay at home before school start compare in educational outcomes with children who attend public day care. Earlier studies have shown that participation in public day care can enhance school performance especially among disadvantaged children. In Finland, the child home care allowance scheme supports the home care of 6-yearolds if they have a younger sibling under the age of 3 who is also not attending public day care. We used as outcome variables grade point average… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The quasi-experimental evidence from Norway and Germany points towards the positive effects of formal childcare on child outcomes (e. g., Havnes and Mogstad, 2011;Cornelissen et al, 2018), whereas analyses in Canada and the United States come to the opposite conclusion (e. g., Baker et al, 2008;Herbst, 2013) or find only positive effects for children from particularly disadvantaged households (Fitzpatrick, 2008;Kottelenberg and Lehrer, 2017). Cash-for-care reforms that reduced maternal labor supply and enrolment in formal childcare and after-school care in Finland (Kosonen, 2014) and Norway (Drange and Rege, 2013), improved long-run educational outcomes in Norway (Bettinger et al, 2014), but had adverse effects on schooling outcomes in Finland (Hiilamo et al, 2018). Only a few studies provide evidence for children below the age of three.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The quasi-experimental evidence from Norway and Germany points towards the positive effects of formal childcare on child outcomes (e. g., Havnes and Mogstad, 2011;Cornelissen et al, 2018), whereas analyses in Canada and the United States come to the opposite conclusion (e. g., Baker et al, 2008;Herbst, 2013) or find only positive effects for children from particularly disadvantaged households (Fitzpatrick, 2008;Kottelenberg and Lehrer, 2017). Cash-for-care reforms that reduced maternal labor supply and enrolment in formal childcare and after-school care in Finland (Kosonen, 2014) and Norway (Drange and Rege, 2013), improved long-run educational outcomes in Norway (Bettinger et al, 2014), but had adverse effects on schooling outcomes in Finland (Hiilamo et al, 2018). Only a few studies provide evidence for children below the age of three.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a result, the costs of the unemployment tunnel increased substantially for large firms with more than 500 employees, while smaller firms enjoyed somewhat lower liabilities (Hakola and Uusitalo, 2005[10]). The reform is estimated to have reduced the risk of unemployment among older workers by 16% (Hakola and Uusitalo, 2005 [10]), most likely by restraining large employers from targeting older workers in collective dismissals (see below).…”
Section: Box 4 Unemployment Benefits In Finlandmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This has been found out to be true for various socioeconomic outcomes-including education, occupational status, and income (Björklund and Jäntti, 2000;Jäntti et al, 2006;Pfeffer, 2008;Erola, 2009;Grätz et al, 2019). The reasons for openness are subject to debate, but often cited explanations which include high-quality early childcare (Karhula et al, 2017;Hiilamo et al, 2018), high-quality and a free of charge educational system (Pekkarinen et al, 2006;OECD, 2008) and strong public support for the egalitarian welfare state (Forma, 2012).…”
Section: Institutional Contextmentioning
confidence: 99%