The childcare triad? indicators assessing three fields of child policies for working mothers in the EU-15

Abstract

This paper compares EU-15 members' public policies to help women have children while pursuing a career: public childcare, maternity/paternity leave, childcare benefits. Parental leave is assessed from a very critical stance. Based on existing theoretical and empirical findings on the effects of child policies on female employment and on previously built indicators summarizing quantitative and qualitative early childhood data (2003), the paper (1) assesses countries' relative positions in each of the policy fields; (2) draws up a new country typology by showing which type of policy is most promoted and whether countries choose either one policy or sequentially/simultaneously implement a bundle of policies. Results suggest three groups of countries.

Acknowledgment

This research was undertaken within the MOCHO project, funded by the fifth Framework Programme of the EU Commission.

Notes

1. For a detailed review of policy outcomes, see Gornick and Meyers (2003).

2. At the Barcelona European Council of March 2002, two very precise targets were adopted: by 2010, first, at least 90% of children aged between three and the age at which compulsory schooling begins and, second, at least 33% of children below three years of age should be covered by public provisions.

3. The different variables used in each particular field are presented throughout the next sections.

4. See note to Table 2 for an example.

5. For example, monetary amounts, expressed either in PPP or in percentage of the relevant level of average national earnings.

6. For example, number of available maternity days combined with the average replacement rate (multiplication), or number of available places per 100 children combined with percentage of public share in the total costs. We thus assume that, for example, 100 days of maternity leave paid at 50% are equivalent to 50 days paid at 100%. See also note 15.

7. For example, public spending for preschoolers and average coverage rates of childcare are not directly “combinable” (amounts in PPP versus percentages).

8. Due to length limitations, we do not include a detailed account of our data and methods in this article. See De Henau et al. (2004) for more information,

9. For more details on the linear scaling technique, its strengths and weaknesses and different applications, see Salzman (2003).

10. For example, Denmark scores 100 on childcare coverage while it is far from offering a place to each infant (next section, Figures 1 and 3).

11. Using the Euclidian distance as a dissimilarity measure. Clusters are processed through the software Intercooled Stata 8.0.

12. We have chosen these age categories in accordance with prevailing institutional care solutions and harmonized our national data accordingly. For a more detailed discussion, see De Henau et al. (2006a).

13. We have not considered staff qualifications since they are difficult to harmonize. However, staff have some degree of higher education in care or education fields in all countries.

14. Our figures refer to the number of full-time equivalent childminders.

15. We only have reliable comparable data to include an expenditure dimension for preschoolers, not for infants (OECD education database 2002: a country's level of spending per child aged 3–6 enrolled in a public or private education program).

16. In our case, because we use the LST method, outcomes are particularly sensitive to weights because the aggregated indicators are arithmetic averages. However, we find it justified to consider all underlying criteria as equally important: if full-time employment of all mothers is the goal – whatever the cultural or institutional labor market arrangements such as the prevalence of part-time jobs – 100% coverage of children at part-time rate is assumed to be equal to 50% coverage of children for full-day sessions. This is implicitly what we assume when we construct an equivalent full-time free coverage rate.

17. This only concerns Italy and its 22 weeks of leave. Note that for Sweden there is no paid post-natal maternity leave because it is integrated in the general parental leave scheme. However, since we must take into account that Swedish working women are protected during this period and receive a wage replacement rate of 80%, we have considered 18 weeks of paid leave as the duration of maternity leave to make comparison with the other countries possible.

18. Note that in Sweden an extra two months of paid leave are available for fathers under the parental leave scheme. However, we have not considered this period in our paternity leave indicator as we did for mothers given that most fathers take this leave when the child is aged between 11 and 15 months and mostly during holiday periods (Rostgaard 2002). Parental leave is discussed in the next section.

19. And especially when the leave is long as it is the case in France, Spain, Germany, Austria and Finland.

20. Moreover, take-up rates of women are nearly 100% in all countries (around 2002), except for Ireland, the UK and the Netherlands (unpaid leave). We do not have data for Belgium and Luxembourg (De Henau et al.2004).

21. In Italy, fathers can take up to 7 months and mothers up to 6 months with a joint maximum of 11 months. However, leave is paid at 30 per cent of wages only for 6 months.

22. In Norway, when payment was set to 80% of one's previous wage, fathers' take-up rose to about 70% (Bruning and Plantenga 1999). In the Netherlands, fathers' share of benefits is much higher in the public sector (37.3%) – where replacement rates are above 75% – than in the private sector (16.6%) – where in the main no replacement income is offered (De Henau et al.2004).

23. For more detailed data on all these criteria, see De Henau et al. (2004).

24. For a broader discussion on issues related to the child benefit package, see De Henau et al. (2006c).

25. If we ignore the French and Finnish allowances.

26. Although limited by the amount of personal social security contributions paid.

27. This means that we do not consider the whole benefit package granted to families with children, for example we exclude those benefits associated with the presence of multiple children and those received by older children, since we assume they are not linked to preschool care expenses. Again, the whole benefit package is analyzed in detail in De Henau et al. (2006c). Moreover, in our calculations we do not consider birth allowances either, due to harmonization difficulties.

28. Note that benefits for infants and for preschoolers are the same so that we use the expression “preschoolers” for all children under six in this section.

29. We do not consider Denmark as part of this group since it provides just a very low cash supplement for infants.

30. This explains why amounts are lower for couples than for lone parents at the same female earnings level.

31. For example, note that support granted to a preschooler's mother (who is single) with half average national earnings amounts to 50% of her income (in excess to the amount granted to the same mother with a child older than six). This supplementary support falls to 2% of income at one and a half times average female earnings ( Table 3).

32. That is, the indices relative to: childcare for infants, childcare for preschoolers, maternity leave, paternity leave, parental leave attractiveness, potential gender balanced parental leave take-up and childcare-related direct support.

33. Regional coverage rates are available upon request from the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jérôme De Henau

Jérôme De Henau is a researcher in the Department of Applied Economics at the Université Libre de Bruxelles (DULBEA). He is finishing a Ph.D. in Management Science at the Solvay Business School (ULB). His main research interests are gender, female employment, family policies, especially related to young children and long term home care. He is also a member of the International Association for Feminist Economics (IAFFE).

Danièle Meulders

Danièle Meulders is Professor of Economics at the Université Libre de Bruxelles and head of the unit of Employment and Labour Economics at the DULBEA. She is also Guest Professor at the University of Strasbourg. Her fields of research and teaching are gender economics, European employment policy, public finance, public economics. She is the Belgian member of the Expert Group for Gender and Social Inclusion (EGGSIE) at the European Commission. She is also a member of the International Association for Feminist Economics (IAFFE).

Síle O'dorchai

Síle O'Dorchai is a researcher and doctoral student at the Department for Applied Economics of the Université Libre de Bruxelles (DULBEA). She graduated with honors in Russian and Polish studies in the Catholic University of Leuven in 1997, she was awarded an honors degree in Applied Economics in the Free University of Brussels in 2001 and has obtained a postgraduate degree in economics (economic policy) in 2005 at the same university. Her main research interests are gender, female employment, motherhood and child and tax policies. She is actively involved in the work of the Expert Group for Gender and Social Inclusion (EGGSIE) at the European Commission. She is also a member of the International Association for Feminist Economics (IAFFE).