Who benefits? The social distribution of subsidized childcare in Sweden and Flanders

Abstract

The main goal of this article is to unravel the social distribution of childcare policies: Who benefits from government investment in public childcare? The analysis complements earlier research on the distribution of social policy outcomes and confronts the growing concern over selectivity. By nature, childcare services tend to be used mainly by people in work, i.e. those in higher income brackets. Concern therefore arises about the consequences of increasing childcare budgets for the overall distribution of the benefits of social policy. This relates to the immediate outcome of social policy (net family income), but also to its increasingly central component: labour market participation. Indeed, if childcare actually benefits 'labour market insiders' only, one may wonder whether it is effective as an instrument activating mothers with young children. In this contribution, we look into the distributional impact of subsidized childcare for two countries (Flanders/Belgium and Sweden) already reaching the Barcelona targets for under 3s and interpret the results in a European perspective. Although both cases report high coverage rates, we find that Sweden and Flanders have different -even opposite -distributional outcomes. Both examples provide us with valuable lessons on the redistributive nature of 'new risk policies' and the effectiveness of childcare as an instrument of labour market activation.

The Welfare State and Antipoverty Policy in Rich Countries

“…Van Mechelen and Bradshaw (2013) also show that child benefit packages are often also above average in countries with universal cash benefits, but combined with income-related cash benefits, housing allowances or supplementary benefits from social assistance (Ireland, France, Austria, Finland). This finding may in effect confirm and reinforce the assertion in empirical literature that that targeting may be not so bad, if embedded in a universal social insurance context (Skocpol, 1991;Whiteford, 2008;Kenworthy, 2011;Van Lancker et al, 2012).…”

“…Wasteable tax credits can only be used if tax liability is positive. Both cash and tax benefits tend to vary by the age and the number of children (Bradshaw and Finch, 2002;Van Lancker et al 2012).…”

“…Bradshaw and Finch, 2002;Bradshaw, 2006;, Corak et al (2005, Matsaganis et al (2005), Van Lancker et al (2012) have documented the adequacy of child support arrangements in terms of poverty alleviation using empirical income surveys. Corak, Lietz and Sutherland (2005) find that universal child related benefits that also have some degree of targeting at the poorest protect best against poverty.…”

Fifty shades of freedom. Voluntary childlessness as women's ultimate liberation

“…Welfare policies such as financial support to families with children, long parental leave with high level of economic compensation and public, subsidized childcare have lowered the "opportunity costs" of childbearing for women that participate in the labor force (Haavind & Magnusson, 2005). This kind of welfare system has made life less limited for mothers as it becomes possible for many of them to participate more actively in society outside the home (Van Lancker & Ghysels, 2010). Freedom, referring to social and financial independence and personal fulfillment -before only available for childless women, according to Movius -now seems obtainable also for (working) mothers.…”

Missing Out on the Parenthood Bonus? Voluntarily Childless in a “Child-friendly” Society

“…Previous research has investigated how a parenthood bonus to some degree relieves anxieties and eliminates burdens that keep people from wanting and having children and therefore influencing decisions about becoming parents or about family-size (Dribe and Stanfors 2009;Ellingsaeter and Leira 2006;Hoem 1993;Roman and Peterson 2011;van Lancker and Ghysels 2012). This article adopts a different approach to the question about citizens' responses to policy interventions aimed at supporting parents and encouraging more births.…”