2018
DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2017.1401108
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Matthew effect in childcare use: a matter of policies or preferences?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

8
94
1
15

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 129 publications
(118 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
8
94
1
15
Order By: Relevance
“…However, there are also signs of emerging complementarities between them. For example, exploration of the Matthew effect (e.g., Pavolini & Van Lancker, 2018) dovetails closely with efforts to use policy analysis to identify heterogeneous treatment effects of human capital development programs (e.g., Schoenberg, Cornelissen, Dustmann, & Raute, 2018). Labor unions are receiving attention on multiple fronts.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, there are also signs of emerging complementarities between them. For example, exploration of the Matthew effect (e.g., Pavolini & Van Lancker, 2018) dovetails closely with efforts to use policy analysis to identify heterogeneous treatment effects of human capital development programs (e.g., Schoenberg, Cornelissen, Dustmann, & Raute, 2018). Labor unions are receiving attention on multiple fronts.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Researchers are particularly interested in the possibility of higher utilization of social investment among the middle and upper classes than the poor, commonly known as the “Matthew effect,” and potential related impacts on economic inequality (Busemeyer et al, ). For example, Pavolini and Van Lancker () find evidence of a “Matthew effect” in European use of child care, related primarily to policy design decisions rather than child‐care demand. Van Lancker () finds that while more government spending on child‐care services in European countries increases child‐care participation rates for all groups, it does not decrease inequality of use between groups.…”
Section: What Is the Relationship Between Social Policy And Economic mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An interesting fact refers to who uses the credits, as there is always a risk that these credits may go to higher income mothers. This has not been the case in Uruguay: the percentage of women using childcare credits is clearly decreasing by pension deciles (Source 3), indicating that the "Matthew Effects" sometimes found in social policies (Bonoli & Liechti, 2018;Gal, 1998;Pavolini & Van Lancker, 2018) do not hold in our case. In the first three deciles around 80% of women use the credits, whereas this percentage decreases to around 26% in the upper decile.…”
Section: The Uruguayan Caregiver Credit Program: Who Is Benefiting mentioning
confidence: 56%
“…These results also highlight the importance of explicitly considering the role of intrafamilial transfers in future analysis as social investments may have a differential impact across childhood and early youth through family investments (Gál, Vanhuysse, andVargha 2018, Francesconi andHeckman 2016). At the same time, we need to be cautious as we did not consider any redistributive/differential effect that such policies can have at the individual levels (Bonoli and Liechti 2018;Pavolini and Van Lancker 2018), nor any regional spillover effects that policies can have among regions. Future research thus need to further investigate possible complementaries between the two types of policies as well as the explicit role of family investments (both in cash and in time), as youth employment remains the crucial node to sustainable economic and social development.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%