RIANNE MAHON
Child Care: Toward What Kind
of “Social Europe”?
Abstract
Child care is central to contemporary welfare state redesign. The
emergence of the dual-earner family challenges states to take on
new responsibilities as families can no longer provide full-time care,
nor can they afford to rely exclusively on markets. There are, however,
different ways of addressing the care deficit, and each holds
different implications for equality. This article examines the three
dominant alternatives being pursued in Western European countries,
arguing that each establishes a different “horizon of legitimate expectations.”
Welfare state redesign no longer takes place exclusively
within national boundaries, however. The struggle to build a
“social Europe” is engaging member states in reflexive practices,
opening them to new and different ideas. The article thus concludes
by examining which, if any, of the competing models of care provision
has come to define “best practice” for Europe and what this
tells us about the emergent contours of social Europe.
This article examines the changing and variable mix of child
care arrangements within the European Union. The first section argues
that child care is central to contemporary welfare state redesign.
The “defamilialization” of care, resulting from women’s rising labor
force participation rate, is one of the “new” developments generating
demands for states to take on new responsibilities, as families cannot
rely exclusively on markets to meet these needs. As the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) noted, “In many
Social Politics Fall 2002
 2002 Oxford University Press
344 ᭜ Mahon
countries, the education and care of young children is shifting from
the private to the public domain, with much attention to the complementary
roles of family and early childhood education and care institutions
in young children’s early development and learning” (OECD
2001a, 9). There are, however, different ways of addressing the care
deficit, and each holds different implications for equality in general
and for gender equality in particular. In Europe, there are three rival
models: the “third way” design,1
inspiring child care policy reforms
in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom; the neofamilialist turn
taken in Finland and France; and the egalitarian horizons of Danish
and Swedish child care policy. Each approximates one of Nancy
Fraser’s (1997) alternatives to the male breadwinner model that
formed the postwar norm.2
These are examined later in this article.
Globalization is altering the environment in which states make
choices, however, especially in Europe. Although national politics
still matters, the struggle to build a “social Europe” is engaging member
states in reflexive practices, opening them to new and different
ideas for welfare state redesign. This article accordingly examines the
way in which early childhood education and care (ECEC) now forms
part of the agenda for a social Europe. Initially brought onto the
agenda as part of the European Union’s (EU) growing interest in
gender equality, child care has become part of the post-Delors employment
strategy. Like the European Monetary Union, the employment
strategy utilizes a new method of governance, “open method
coordination” (OMC), in which European guidelines and benchmarks
play a critical role.3
We ask which of the competing models
of care provision, if any, has come to define “best practice” for
Europe and what does this tell us about the contours of social
Europe?
On the Agenda: Child Care and Welfare State Redesign
During the 1980s and 1990s, considerable attention was focused
on the politics of welfare state retrenchment, driven by globalization,
the demographics of aging, and the shift to postindustrialism.4
Yet
the pressures driving retrenchment are only part of the broader process
of welfare state redesign. New patterns of risk are emerging, and
states are being pressed to take on new responsibilities in response.
The provision of extrafamilial care is one of these. Concerns about
access to and the quality of care both speak for some form of public
role. Welfare state redesign at the dawn of the twenty-first century
therefore includes the reconfiguration of public and private responsibility
for the financing and provision of child care (Jenson and Sineau
2001; Michel and Mahon 2002).
Child Care ᭜ 345
The forces behind the defamilialization of care constitute an important
set of pressures leading states to assume new responsibilities.
Changes in labor markets (notably, women’s rising labor force participation
rates) and in families (rising rates of divorce, separation,
and single parenthood) are undermining the male breadwinner family
norm that formed one of the core assumptions of postwar welfare
regimes across the OECD. It thus can no longer be assumed that
care—for young children as well as for the frail elderly, the sick, and
the disabled—will be provided as an unpaid labor of love by women
within the private realm of the family. The need for new care arrangements
is also underscored by the way defamilialization intersects
with debates about the shift to a postindustrial economy. There
is a growing chorus of experts arguing that early childhood education
and care are necessary to lay the foundation for subsequent lifelong
skill acquisition, a requisite for effective participation in the
emergent knowledge-based economy and society. As the authors of
an influential Canadian study put it, “The entrants to the workforce
of 2025 will be born next year. From this generation will come a key
factor in determining the wealth base of Ontario. . . . Brain development
in the period from conception to six years sets a base for learning,
behaviour and health over the life cycle. Ensuring that all
our future citizens are able to develop their full potential has to be a
high priority for everyone” (McCain and Mustard 1999, 2). In addition,
policies that support nonfamilial care can be seen as critical
to a postindustrial full-employment strategy. The time-pressed dualearner
(or single parent) family needs to be seen as a potential source
of demand for job-rich personal and social services (Esping-Andersen
1999). Such families find it difficult to avoid substituting external
sourcing for self-provision, and they are more likely to have the disposable
income to purchase at least some of these services. Policies
that support the development of nonparental child care thus can
come to form an important component of an effective postindustrial
employment strategy.
Families cannot rely solely on markets to deliver the quality and
quantity of care required, however. Some form of public support is
needed, especially financial support. States can use regulation and
the provision of training to address issues of quality, and they can
help remove information barriers to the effective functioning of a
market in child care spaces. Such policies will mean little, however,
if the question of cost is ignored. Child care provided on the black
market by untrained child minders strains the budgets of lower income
families. Even for many middle-income families, quality child
care is beyond reach without some form of subsidy. In this context,
the latter may turn to the import of nannies from third world coun-
346 ᭜ Mahon
tries (Arat-Koc 1989; Hondagneu-Soleto 2000). As the OECD noted,
“While early childhood education and care may be funded by a combination
of sources, there is a need for substantial government investment
to support a sustainable system of quality, accessible services”
(OECD 2001a, 11).
For all of these reasons, public child care policies form an integral
component of welfare state redesign. As in the past, however, there
are different blueprints—or, as Marshall put it, “designs for community
living” (Marshall 1963, 109)—reflecting different understandings
of what is both desirable and possible.5
In this context it is important
to consider which alternative models are on offer and probe
their ethical-normative foundations. In North America, attention has
focused on the neoliberal challenge to the ideals that inspired postwar
institutional designs, whereas in Europe, three other models enjoy
greater currency: the neofamilial, the “third way,” and the egalitarian
models.
The neofamilialist model, while seeking to modernize, draws on
conservative views of gender difference. It shares with neoliberalism
an emphasis on choice, but here choice is understood as women’s
right to choose between a temporary housewife-mother role and labor
force participation, rather than as choice among different forms
of nonparental care.6
Thus neofamilialists advocate public support
for child care leaves, with a marked preference for longer-term
(three- to four-year) leave packages. In this respect, the neofamilial
model approximates Fraser’s caregiver parity model. As we shall see,
this model falls short not only when it comes to gender equality but
also with regard to class and even racial-ethnic equality.
The third way model embraces a form of gender equality that differentiates
it from the “new familialism”—a conservative response
to women’s rising labor force participation rates. Whereas the latter
seek solutions that permit elements of the older “gender difference”
model to survive, third way advocates favor a gender sameness view
in which gender equality comes to be defined largely in terms of
policies designed to enable women to (re-)enter the labor market. In
this sense, they seek to universalize the breadwinner model. As Fraser
argues, however, rather than addressing the unequal distribution of
the care work that remains within the home, third way advocates
largely focus on public support for nonparental child care. Publicly
funded parental leave, with the right to return to one’s job, is acceptable—but
only in the form of relatively short-term leave (six to
twelve months) to prevent the devaluation of women’s human cap-
ital.
The third way’s interpretation of a post–male breadwinner gender
order has to be seen as part of its broader effort to adapt social
Child Care ᭜ 347
democracy to postindustrial conditions. That is, third way advocates
argue that welfare state redesign necessarily includes a “normative
recalibration” (Ferrera et al. 2000, 74–75). At the root of this is the
belief that postindustrialism has rendered equality in the here and
now no longer feasible due to the stubborn (and growing) productivity
gap that exists between the goods-producing and service sectors.
Net job growth will have to occur in the latter sector, and politicians
have to choose between equality and employment.7
In this context,
departures from equality can be justified to the extent that they are
designed to improve the lot of the worst off. Core workers should
thus be induced to accept some deregulation of labor markets, including
greater wage dispersion, in the interests of promoting job
growth for the less skilled (Ferrera et al. 2000, 74). Many of these
jobs are likely to be unstable nonstandard jobs—part time, temporary,
or self-employment—usually offering low wages and limited
fringe benefits. Unlike neoliberals, however, third way advocates see
a role for governments and the social partners in mitigating the im-
pact.8
Third way advocates also justify the abandonment of equality in
the here and now in favor of policies promoting equality over the
life cycle. Here Schumpeter’s poverty bus metaphor is invoked. In
other words, the emphasis shifts to policies that enable those who
are in low wage jobs today—women, immigrants, youth—to get off
the poverty bus in the future (Esping-Andersen 1999, 182). Thus for
third way advocates,
In knowledge-intensive economies . . . the equality that matters
has to do with those resources which allow people to “keep
pace” and cope with change. This means focusing on how effectively
(and equitably) such resources are delivered by high quality
education, health care and social services and how successfully
opportunities for mobility provide escape routes from
permanent entrapment in conditions of disadvantage. (Ferrera
et al, 2000:75)
From a third way perspective, public support for early childhood
education is “good” because it helps children ultimately leave the
bus—or avoid boarding it altogether. Second, child care subsidies
can be targeted at the working poor as a way of inducing people
to accept low-wage employment. The Blair government’s Working
Families Tax Credit is a good example of the kind of child care policy
sanctioned by this logic.9
Nonparental child care can also be
treated as one of those low-waged postindustrial occupations whose
expansion government policies should encourage to absorb the low
skilled.10
Accordingly, there is little need to upgrade skills, from un-
348 ᭜ Mahon
trained child minders to preschool teachers with postsecondary edu-
cation.
Third way advocates thus envision a more positive role for the
public sector than neoliberalism and a more egalitarian gender contract
than modern conservatives. At the same time, they accept that
growing labor market inequality is a necessary feature of a dynamic
postindustrial economy. In the name of social inclusion, they accept
policies that support the formation of a market for personal and
social services as low wage, low skill jobs (Levitas 1998). With
this comes the growth of nonstandard (though not necessarily precarious)
employment—part time, temporary work, self-employment—
and women hold a disproportionate share of such jobs. Blindness to
the link between persistent gender inequality in the distribution of
nonstandard employment and women’s continued primary responsibility
to provide care, is consistent with their acceptance of the (partial)
masculinization of women, while balking at the “feminization”
of men.11
In this sense, they share with their conservative counterparts
an acceptance of a one and one half earner model (Lewis
2001).12
As we shall see, both the neofamilialist and third way models have
their advocates within Europe, and each figures in the remodeling
plans of certain member states. Yet they are not the only possible
alternatives. Just as third way advocates challenged neoliberalism’s
claim that there is no alternative, so, too, can the argument that in
the postindustrial era it is impossible to combine job growth, equality,
and a sound fiscal policy be challenged.13
The argument for accepting greater inequality in the here and now
rests on Baumol’s hypothesized “cost-disease,” which assumes a systematic
and growing productivity gap between the goods-producing
sector, where productivity gains mean fewer workers are required to
produce more, and the service sector, where most of the new jobs are
being generated. This ignores the contribution of the service sector to
productivity and lower costs in the goods-producing sector. It also
assumes that with some exceptions, there are limited opportunities
for productivity gains in the service sector. Not only is there room
to enhance service productivity through more extensive and effective
use of information technologies. Productivity gains can be achieved
through the application of strategies that recognize the particular
nature of service production, as Herzenberg et al. (1998) have so
cogently argued. The key point here is that such strategies can be
used to enhance performance in the social services, including care
work, and thus provide the material basis for rising wages in this
sector, too.
It may be economically feasible to achieve a more egalitarian
Child Care ᭜ 349
socioeconomic order than the third way admits, but it will only
be possible politically if the accepted “design for community living”
hews to a radical vision of equality such as that which inspires
Fraser’s universal caregiver model. The latter aims to make it desirable
and possible for men and women to provide care and to participate
in the labor market. As Nancy Fraser has argued,
The trick is to imagine a social world in which citizens’ lives
integrate wage earning, caregiving, community activism, political
participation, and involvement in the associational life of
civil society—while also leaving time for some fun. This world
is not likely to come into being in the immediate future, but it
is the only imaginable postindustrial world that promises true
gender equity. And unless we are guided by this vision now, we
will never get any closer to achieving it. (Fraser 1997, 62; emphasis
added)
Such an approach agrees with the third way that equality in the here
and now may be utopian today, but it develops the Marshallian view
of citizenship,14
the insight that such utopias must not be abandoned
for they establish a horizon of legitimate expectations needed to animate
the struggle to realize equality in the longer run. In other words,
collective endorsement of a utopian egalitarian blueprint is important
precisely because it can inspire and support the very forces needed
to sustain the drive to achieve it.
A child care policy inspired by an egalitarian blueprint might incorporate
the following features:
1. Parental leave structured to actively foster an equitable sharing
of domestic child care between fathers and mothers;
2. Provision of universally accessible, affordable, nonparental
care services;
3. Children have a right to early childhood education and care,
whether or not their parents are working or involved in some
form of training;
4. Care is provided by skilled providers and the value of such
skills is recognized through equitable wages and good working
conditions;
5. Provision is made for democratic control, including parental
and community voice.
As we shall see, this kind of vision has inspired certain actors within
the European Union. Nor is it an impossible utopia for postindustrial
societies. Although two member states (Finland and France) appear
to have exchanged this blueprint for a neofamilialist one, two others
(Denmark and Sweden) continue to be guided by it.
350 ᭜ Mahon
European Responses to Defamilialization:
Three Blueprints in Practice
Pressure for the (partial) defamilialization of child care15
began
earlier in some European countries than in others, but it is now being
felt in all, albeit unevenly. Thus countries like Finland, Denmark,
and Sweden began an accelerated move toward the dual-earner family
form in the 1960s and 1970s, and women’s labor force participation
rates in these countries remain the highest in the European
Union (64.4 percent, 71.6 percent, and 71.0 percent, respectively, in
2000).16
Now, however, most northwestern EU member states are
not far behind. By 2000, women’s labor force participation rates had
reached 64.6 percent in the United Kingdom, 63.7 percent in the
Netherlands, 59.4 percent in Austria, 57.9 percent in Germany, 55.3
percent in France, 54 percent in Ireland, 51.5 percent in Belgium,
and 50.3 percent in Luxembourg.17
With the exception of Portugal
(60.3 percent), women’s labor force participation rates in the member
states to the south remain substantially lower: Greece, 40.9 percent;
Spain, 40.3 percent; and Italy, 39.6 percent. Even here, however,
the trend is for participation rates to rise, and this is especially
marked among women in their prime child-bearing years.18
In this section, I examine the child care policies of three groups of
countries, each following one of the blueprints for welfare state redesign
sketched: the neofamilial, third way, and egalitarian models.
I begin with Finland and France, who abandoned the egalitarian design
conceived in the 1960s and 1970s for a neofamilial blueprint. I
then turn to the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, two countries
that are pioneering a third way trajectory. Finally, I look at steps
taken by Denmark and Sweden, which have hewed to an egalitarian
design.
From Egalitarian Ideals to the New Familialism:
Finland and France
Developments in France and Finland reflect a move away from
earlier attempts to institutionalize child care as a right of social citizenship,
pertinent to achieving both equality of the sexes and equal
opportunities for children, toward the new familialism (Jenson and
Sineau 2001b, 259). In both Finland and France, “the 1970s emphasis
on building up publicly funded collective child care provisions has
been eroded by a relative consensus on the necessity of developing
cash benefits, framed as a means of ensuring ‘parental choice’, as well
as addressing what was presented as a budgetary ‘fatality’” (Heinen
and de Koenigswater 2001, 172). “Choice” has a dual meaning in
this model: choice between (temporary) homemaker status and paid
employment, and choice among different forms of nonparental care.
Child Care ᭜ 351
Each of these has significance for class, gender, and racial-ethnic
equality.
As in Fraser’s caregiver parity model, neofamilialist strategies provide
support for those who choose to stay at home, and not only
those who choose to work. A key feature of this model therefore is
a child home care allowance that enables parents to stay at home for
up to three years after the birth of a child.19
The Finnish allowance
was introduced in 1986 as part of a compromise package combining
the care allowance for those who wished to stay home with a guarantee
of the right of a child to a place in municipal child care for those
who wanted it. Like other child home care allowances, it is based on
the less generous flat-rate principle, rather than income replace-
ment.20
Eligibility was restricted in 1995 by deducting the allowance
from unemployment insurance—which eliminated most of the father
care givers.21
In combination with the economic crisis, the new policy
has visibly affected women’s labor force participation. Thus the labor
force participation rates of mothers with children under age
twelve fell from 76 percent in 1985 to 53 percent in 1991 (Salmi
2000). Although Finnish municipalities are still obliged to provide a
child care place for those who want it, 60 percent of Finnish twoyear-olds
are cared for at home, normally by their mothers. A similar
allowance was introduced in France in the mid-1980s for families
with three or more children.22
Like the Finnish allowance it was a
flat-rate allowance, well below the minimum wage. In 1994 the program
was revised, making it available after birth or adoption of a
second child. It was also now possible to keep the allowance while
working part-time (Jenson and Sineau 2001b, 105).
The second way “choice” is transforming the 1970s citizenship
ideal in these countries is through the opening up of new, lowerquality
jobs in child care. Here France has led the way. In 1986 new
legislation was introduced, offering to cover the social security costs
for parents hiring a nanny as well as a tax credit to reduce the actual
salary cost to parents (Jenson and Sineau 2001a, 102). In 1994, the
program was extended to families with children aged three to six,
and new incentives were offered to choose family home care.23
In
Finland, too, parents can request a private child care allowance to
cover some of the costs of nonparental care in the home or offered
by a private day care center.24
Both policies break with the egalitarian ideals of the 1970s. The
child home care allowances deal with the pressure for defamilialization
by making the choice of “temporary homemaker” status attractive,
at least for some. Though the language is often gender-neutral,
the underlying philosophy is clearly one of gender difference: “Mothers
perform a large part of all unpaid care work, work that profits
352 ᭜ Mahon
the entire society. For the sake of equity, it is therefore necessary to
provide individual remuneration and social security during this
phase” (Schattovits 2000, 15). The effect is to reinforce gender inequality
in the labor market. The allowances reinforce employers’
views that women will be absent for sustained periods, and this affects
recruitment choices and wages, not to mention the career development
prospects of those whose human capital has been devalued
by relatively long spells of absence from the labor market (Salmi
2000). Yet such allowances do not affect all women equally. As the
OECD noted, “Mothers with lower levels of education, who have
worked in less skilled occupations are most likely to take these lowpaid
leaves, which may further marginalise them from the labour
market. In some cases, children are not allowed to attend public early
childhood education and care during the leave period which raises
equity concerns” (OECD 2001a, 33).
These policies also favor the growth of labor market flexibility
through the expansion of low-wage, part-time employment for
women. As Jenson and Sineau note, a new model has emerged in
which “some women would work part time and care for their own
children part time. Other women would be employed to care for the
children of women who were working full or part time” (Jenson and
Sineau 2001a, 106). Rather than supporting the expansion of secure,
reasonably skilled jobs in the public (or para-public) sector, subsidies
for nonparental care in the home (the child’s or the providers’) support
the expansion of low-wage, low-skill work for women. There
has been a substantial growth in part-time employment in France to
32 percent—though it remains relatively low (17 percent) in Finland
(Heinen and de Koenigswater 2001). In Finland, however, two-fifths
of women under age thirty are in temporary jobs. This might be
dismissed by third way advocates as a tolerable “inequality in the
here and now” because it affects youth of both sexes. The rate, however,
is higher for women than for men, and though the latter seem
to turn temporary into permanent jobs as they enter their thirties,
this is much less true for women (Salmi 2000).
Part of the explanation for breaking with the egalitarian path
of the 1970s clearly has to do with the fiscal and economic crisis
that hit France in the 1980s and Finland in the early 1990s. Child
care provided by stay-at-home parents or by child minders is cheaper
than care provided by professionals in cre`ches and age-integrated
child care centers. As Martin et al. point out, “Institutional care is
considered too costly compared to family-based child care, mainly
because of the higher quality of services required in terms of facilities,
number of qualified employees and higher wages. The job of
employees in the home and of child minders are precarious, low paid,
Child Care ᭜ 353
of limited duration, most often part time, with flexible hours and few
prospects” (Martin et al. 1998, 154). Yet economic circumstances do
not dictate policy: There are different blueprints for welfare state
redesign, and as we shall see, some countries have held to the egalitarian
model despite economic pressures. Politics matters and an important
part of the explanation for moving toward a neofamilialist
model is the political effectiveness of pro-family forces.25
A Third Way View of Child Care: The Netherlands
and the United Kingdom
Whereas Finland, France, and Belgium had earlier moved toward
the egalitarian model, neither (liberal) Britain nor the (conservative)
Netherlands did much to support the development of non-parental
child care until the 1990s. The struggle had barely gotten off the
ground in the United Kingdom before Thatcher’s victory put a neoliberal
chill on the very idea of public support for child care (Randall
2002). Pressures for the defamilialization of child care began to
mount in the 1960s and 1970s, but it was only with the election of
Blair’s government that public policy began actively to encourage the
provision of child care, establishing the goal of a preschool place for
all three-year-olds by 2004.26
The Netherlands had once been known
for its generous support for the male breadwinner family (Sainsbury
1996), and defamilialization pressures here remained low throughout
the 1970s.27
The crisis of the early 1980s triggered a major process
of institutional redesign, which involved a precocious experiment
with third way activation strategy. The new strategy had marked
gender implications, taking at least a half step toward the universal
breadwinner model.
Set within a discursive frame of reconciliation, part-time work
plays an important role in the Dutch employment strategy.28
For
some, like the Dutch Equal Opportunities Council, the ideal is that
both fathers and mothers will participate in the labor market less
than the old standard forty-hour week and will share responsibility
for unpaid work (Plantenga et al. 1999, 103). Ferrera et al. in fact
suggest that the Netherlands is on the way to achieving such a model:
A new model of employment relations is in the making whereby
both men and women share working time, which enables them
to keep enough time for catering after their families. If parttime
work is recognised as a normal job, supported by access
to basic social security and allows normal career development
and basic economic independence . . . part time jobs can generate
gender equality and active security of working families.
(Ferrera et al. 2000, 49)
354 ᭜ Mahon
Steps have indeed been taken to increase the attractiveness of parttime
work in the Netherlands.29
Yet only 15 percent of Dutch men
and 7 percent of fathers of younger children work part-time (Kremer
2001), and the gap in normal weekly working hours of men and
women remains high.30
As Plantenga et al. admit, “The once strict
division of labour between breadwinner and care-provider has been
transformed in the space of a few decades into a one-and-a-half
earner model, with women emphatically in the role of secondary
earner” (Plantenga et al. 1999, 102). Women’s employment pattern
in the United Kingdom matches that of the Netherlands. Both countries
stand out not only for the high rate of part-time employment,
especially among women,31
but also for the high rates of short-term
employment.32
Child care arrangements cannot be seen as the cause behind the
move toward the one-and-a-half earner solution, but they certainly
contribute. In the United Kingdom, policy instruments, such as the
Working Family Tax Credit, which only require parents to work sixteen
hours a week or more, reinforce this pattern, “making (short
part-time) work pay”—just as the Dutch “flexicurity accords” do.
In both countries, moreover, preschool programs are normally offered
on a part-time basis so that parents have to turn to relatives,
child minders, and play groups—or work part-time, with schedules
adjusted to fit preschool hours. The Blair government’s plans to increase
the supply of child care places in fact assumes that each place
can be used by three children because “parental choice and work
patterns mean that many parents use facilities part time or not at
all” (OECD 2000, 11). In other words, mothers’ (short) part-time
working pattern is taken as a given. Moreover, little is being done to
support the development of quality nonparental care for under-agethrees
in either country. Play groups and informal arrangements remain
the norm.33
Just as the third way seeks to promote diversity and choice by
affording more of a role to markets than postwar social democracy,
so, too, do the British and Dutch child care policies. In both, parents
pay a substantial share of the costs—averaging at 44 percent in the
Netherlands and between 30 and 60 percent of the costs in the
United Kingdom (OECD 2001a, Table 3.4). In both, moreover,
governments have exhibited a preference for demand-side incentives
via tax relief for parents and/or companies.34
To improve the functioning
of local child care markets, the U.K. government is supporting
the development of information services.35
The Blair government
has committed a substantial amount for child care (1998–2003)
through the Early Years Partnerships,36
but it explicitly eschewed a
role in provision (OECD 2000, 22).37
This approach does little to
Child Care ᭜ 355
overcome class inequality in access. As the OECD noted, “Despite
the availability of fee subsidies, affordability is cited as a major barrier
to access to non-school ECEC services in countries [which rely
primarily on them], including the UK, the Netherlands and the US,
leading to a lower percent of low income families enrolled than
higher income families” (OECD 2001a, 92).
Of course, while the third way accepts a growing inequality on
the labor market, it is prepared to mitigate the effects by increased
targeting of social policies and “social investment” in children at risk
of boarding the poverty bus of their own accord in the future. This
is visible in the child care policies of the United Kingdom and the
Netherlands. The Blair government’s Working Parents Tax Credit,
the value of which declines as income rises, is one such measure. Its
Sure Start program aims at preventing poverty in the future by investing
in enriched ECEC for children in low-income families.38
Like
Sure Start (and the U.S. Head Start program on which it is modeled),
the Dutch have integrated extra funds for quality ECEC into their
national policy for big cities, aimed at enhancing social infrastructure
in areas with a higher proportion of low-income and at-risk families.
The idea here is that targeting low-income areas, often with a higher
concentration of immigrants and visible minorities, avoids the stigma
associated with means-tested programs. It shares this feature with
the recourse to tax credits (working parents) rather than the older
means-tested transfers.
Finally, the demand-side orientation of Dutch and British child
care policy does little to support the development of high-quality
supply—provided by qualified providers at decent wages. In the
Netherlands, child care workers are “not always perceived as professionals
and they are not accorded a high status by society,” and this
is especially the case for those providing care for under-age-threes
(OECD 1999a, 21). This is also the case in the United Kingdom,
although there have been some marginal improvements. Thus the
enactment of minimum wage legislation is expected to benefit the
lowest-paid child care workers. The United Kingdom nevertheless
remains behind the Netherlands when it comes to associated social
benefits (OECD 2000, 19). The Blair government has also set up an
Early Years National Training Organisation “to improve the knowledge
and skill of workers in each sector” (OECD, 2000: 28). At the
same time, inclusion of key child care providers in the jobs-training
program for unemployed eighteen- to twenty-four-year-olds has
given rise to concern about the quality of training on offer (BeddowsWilkinson
1999).39
The child care policy trajectory being followed by Britain and the
Netherlands thus goes some way toward addressing the pressure to
356 ᭜ Mahon
deal with the defamilialization of care. Like the neofamilialist model,
however, it does so in a way that may be more women-friendly but
is hardly egalitarian in gender or class terms. As Plantenga et al. note,
“A gender-friendly working-time regime . . . does not imply genderequal
working times” and a marked gender gap in paid working time
exists for both countries. Their child care policies are consistent with
the institutionalization of the one-and-a-half earner model. The choice
of policy instruments, focused on the demand side, does little to encourage
the development of a high-quality child care infrastructure,
offering good jobs to those who provide care. Nor does it do much to
counteract inequality in market power, though enrichment programs
for designated areas may improve access for the very worst off.
Hewing to the Egalitarian Course: Denmark and Sweden
Both the new familialist and third way responses to defamilialization
involve abandonment of the (class and gender) egalitarian ideals
that had come to inform the left’s project by the 1970s. At least part
of the rationale for this break is that living in a globalized, postindustrial
world means facing the trilemma, a trade-off pitting equality
against employment and sound fiscal policy. It is, however, still possible
to keep equality as a central principle of welfare state redesign,
as the Danish and Swedish experiences suggest. It may be argued
that these countries have been able to do so because they got an
earlier start, which they did—but so did France and Finland. What
is impressive is that even in the tougher years, Denmark and Sweden
managed not only to maintain what had earlier been achieved but
also to come closer to their egalitarian ideal. This happened not as a
result of a technocratically conceived plan but rather because the
“legitimate expectations” embedded in their citizenship regimes
nourished political forces that could be mobilized repeatedly to fight
for reforms in the spirit of the universal caregiver model.
The deepening commitment to gender equality in the sharing of
care work is clear in the parental leave arrangements for care of infants
adopted in both countries. Legislation giving parents the right
to leave was introduced in Sweden in 1974 and in Denmark a decade
later (Bergqvist et al. 1999, 127, Table 7.1).40
In both countries, the
leaves are generously financed, based on the income replacement
principle (80–90 percent), which should make it attractive to the
often higher-earning fathers. When it became apparent that this was
not enough of an incentive,41
in 1994 the Swedish government allocated
one month each exclusively to the father (and one to the
mother). In 2002, parental leave was increased by 30 days, to a total
of 480 days—with the addition of another daddy month. In 1998,
the Danes added two additional weeks of paternity leave (at 100
Child Care ᭜ 357
percent replacement rate), which had the same effect.42
Although a
care allowance similar to the Finnish one was briefly introduced in
Sweden in 1994, it was abolished as soon as the social democrats
returned to office later that year. Both countries offer incentives for
parents to share infant care for the first year, albeit not on a fiftyfifty
basis, and both keep the leave period short enough to limit adverse
effects on parental income and careers.43
In this sense, they come
closer to the egalitarian view of what it means to reconcile work and
family life than do either of the competing blueprints.
Generous but bounded provisions for parental leave are complemented
by publicly financed (largely publicly provided) nonparental
child care services. As noted, Denmark and Sweden lead the league
when it comes to provision of nonparental care for one to threes,
and are among the top in terms of preschool provision. The foundations
for a universal child care system were laid in more prosperous
times—though the Danish system had to withstand an early test, as
unemployment soared in the 1970s (Borchorst 2002). Both countries
continued to expand during the 1980s and 1990s, however. Concern
about unequal access across classes helped fuel the expansion of
Swedish child care in the 1980s.44
In 1995, it became a legal obligation
for Swedish municipalities to provide a place for all children
over a year old, within “a reasonable time” (i.e., three months) (Bergvist
and Nyberg 2002).45
Denmark, too, made access to publicly financed
child care an entitlement for all children from one to five,
and all six-year-olds have the legal right to free preschool in both
countries.46
Though parents may have to pay up to one third of the
costs in Denmark, fees are based on a sliding scale. In Sweden, parents
are normally expected to cover between 10 and 20 percent of the
costs. When it became apparent that parental share was beginning
to vary substantially across municipalities, moreover, the national
government introduced legislation effectively establishing a cap on
fees (“maxtax”).
Even more impressive is the move to make early child care a service
that is as universally available as education. Thus when Sweden
was suddenly confronted with both soaring unemployment and burgeoning
deficits in the 1990s, it became apparent that the system
offered no guarantees to the children of the unemployed, a disproportionate
number of whom were immigrants.47
The government allocated
special funds to ensure that all children of immigrant parents
(or living in poor areas) were guaranteed access to 525 hours of
ECEC per annum from the age of three.48
In the debate that ensued,
it also became apparent that children of parents who were on leave
were also being excluded. As of July 2002, all six-year-olds are guaranteed
at least 525 hours and by 2003 all four- and five-year-olds
358 ᭜ Mahon
will be included. In 1991, the Danish government made it explicit
that children of the unemployed should not lose their place, and it is
now mandatory to offer ECEC to the children of “bilingual” (i.e.,
immigrant) parents from the age of four.
These moves suggest that although gender equality constitutes an
important part of the underlying rationale for Danish and Swedish
child care arrangements, access to quality child care is also understood
as a right for all children. In fact, from the outset,49
Danish
and Swedish child care policy sought to combine care and education
in one system (Borchorst 2002; Lindberg 2002). This orientation was
strengthened considerably in Sweden in the latter part of the 1990s
when the Ministry of Education and Science assumed jurisdiction
over care for the under-threes. The new nationally designed curriculum
for preschool centers nicely balances the “child as investment”
and “child as a special stage” philosophies of ECEC (OECD 1999b,
18–19). The establishment of an integrated “preschool” system for
children from one to six years was feasible because the long-standing
emphasis on education and care had led successive national governments
to induce local authorities to expand age-integrated centerbased
care relative to family day care from the 1970s on (DauneRichard
and Mahon 2001; Lindberg 2002).50
The structure in Denmark differentiates more sharply between
care for one to threes, with nearly half that group in family day care
and only 14 percent in the age-integrated facilities that predominate
in Sweden. It should, however, be noted that Danish family day care
providers are organized by the municipality into networks, which
reduces isolation among providers (OECD 2000, 16, 2001a, 85). The
majority of three- to six-year-olds are in all-day preschool and onethird
are in age-integrated centers. There is no national curriculum
as there is in Sweden. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Social Affairs
has been working with the National Association of Local Authorities
and the National Union of Child and Youth Educators on a quality
initiative since 1996, and there have also been efforts to promote
closer collaboration between the child care and school systems
(OECD 2000, 31). As in Sweden, the new training program for
preschool teachers has courses in common with those for elementary
school teachers, to facilitate children’s progression from ECEC to
school (European Commission Network on Childcare 1996, 33).
What of democratic control over the child care system? The neofamilial
and third way blueprints address this by stressing “choice”—
between parental care and nonparental and between different forms
of care. The Danish and Swedish systems have also evolved so as
to permit greater choice and “voice.” Though municipal provision
remains the predominant form,51
there has been an opening to pri-
Child Care ᭜ 359
vate, even commercial provision over the last decade or so, and the
Danes have become well known for innovative forms such as their
“forest kindergartens,” which embody green values.52
At the same
time, the vast majority of private provision is publicly subsidized,
and private providers must follow the same rules as municipal centers.
There is also greater room for parental and community voice.
The Danish Social Services Act, introduced in the 1990s, moreover,
requires municipal child care centers to establish parent boards and
establishes the basic parameters of their authority,53
and in Stockholm,
there are numerous experiments with the Reggio-Emilia model
of parent and community involvement (OECD 1999a, 29). There are
also efforts to give children themselves a say (OECD 2001a).
Decentralization, too, has been framed as a move to democratize
by bringing decision making closer to those being served. This is a
trend across all countries being examined, though for the most part,
insufficient attention has been paid to maintaining/achieving equity
while permitting greater diversity.54
In Sweden, however, when the
government shifted to block funding, it also passed the law requiring
municipalities to provide places for children who wanted it, without
reasonable delay.55
When it found that some municipalities were
charging parents much more than others, it developed strong incentives
to encourage the adoption of the maxtax. The Danish system is
much more decentralized, but the national government also establishes
a ceiling on fees. In both countries, then, greater diversity—
and local democracy—have been permitted, without sacrificing national
concerns for equity (Jenson and Mahon 2002).
Finally, as the Danish and Swedish systems are built on the principle
of universally accessible, quality child care, they have also contributed
to the more egalitarian pattern of postindustrial employment
growth (Esping-Andersen 1990). This is not to suggest that there are
no issues. Thus Danish and Swedish women still take the majority
of “parental” leave, despite the daddy quota, and domestic child care
still remains primarily—though no longer exclusively—a feminine
responsibility. This is reflected in the gender difference in working
time and wage levels. Here, too, mothers are more often found in
part-time jobs—roughly one-third of Danish women and 37 percent
of Swedish women (Daly 2001, 475). The gender gap in working
time is substantially lower,56
however, than it is in the United Kingdom
or the Netherlands (Eurostat 1995, 45; Daly 2001, 475). More
important, the 1970s feminist ideal of reducing the normal working
day for all has not disappeared from the agenda.57
A gender wage
gap remains, but in Denmark and Sweden, for less educated women,
it was in the order of 70–75 percent as compared to 45 percent for
the United Kingdom.58
In Sweden, the issue of pay equity remains
360 ᭜ Mahon
very much on the agenda.59
Thus equality in the here and now has
not been attained in these countries either, but it remains very much
part of the horizon of legitimate expectations.
Child Care as a “European” Issue
Until recently, much of the literature on welfare states focused on
the national level. The late twentieth century discovery of globalization
challenged that, but the debate tends to pit those who argue that
globalization is leading to convergence around a neoliberal norm
against those who argue that common challenges are not experienced
in the same way as a result of cross-national differences in welfare
state design. In the European context, the debate sets neofunctionalists,
who look to the development of new European capacities as a
way of shifting people’s allegiance from the national to the supranational
level, against those who see Europe as simply another arena
of intergovernmental relations. Neither view is capable of grasping
the complex multiscalar mode governance that is emerging within
the European Union (De la Porte 2001; Teague 2001). The thickening
of a European discursive (and legislative) space in turn opens up
the possibility of injecting new ideas and different ways of doing
things into national regimes, altering the logic of path dependency.
This insight is beginning to infiltrate the European literature on
welfare state redesign. For instance, Ferrera et al. suggest that
while this sequence of institutional experimentation has primarily
taken place at the national (in some cases, sub-national)
level, an increasingly important role has been played by the
supra-national level as a catalyst for learning. . . . EU institutions
have been active promoters of change by channelling information
and facilitating the exchange of experience but above
all, by providing specific incentives and “focusing events and
procedures.” (Ferrera et al. 2000, 66–67)
Esping-Andersen, whose earlier work established the main typology
of welfare regimes, also seems prepared to acknowledge that the rule
of path-dependent change may have to be relaxed, at least for Europe,
where learning explicitly takes place in a multi-scalar world:
“welfare reform in the first decade of the 21st
century will increasingly
involve a combination of domestic learning, learning from and
with others, possibly ahead of failure in Europe. . . . Moreover, innovative
combinations of domestic policy (failure induced) learning and
supranational learning (ahead of policy failure) may cause considerable
hybridisation in welfare and labour market policy” (Anton
Hemerijck in Esping-Andersen et al. 2001, 252).
Child Care ᭜ 361
During the 1970s and the Delors years, the main instruments for
introducing European elements into national policy and practice
were the enactment of hard laws (e.g., directives and regulations,
backed by rulings of the European Court of Justice).60
In the current
period, more emphasis is being placed on soft measures, notably the
open method of coordination (OMC). Initially used to secure the
convergence in monetary policy considered essential for European
Monetary Union, the Lisbon Council extended this to social policy
goals (reform of social protection and measures to counteract social
exclusion). As De la Porte et al. argue, this method seems well designed
for multiscalar governance:
Whereas subsidiarity defines the level of power that is most
appropriate for each sphere of action, OMC recognizes the interrelation
between different spheres, promoting interaction between
different levels of power and spheres of action. Moreover,
the principle of subsidiarity is often associated with the
principle of proximity. . . while OMC underlines the need to
proceed via a widely meshed interactive process, in which the
actors—ranging from those at the European to the local level—
have to articulate their strategy and actions in a multi-level
logic. (De la Porte et al. 2001, 294)
What OMC entails is a combination of the establishment of European
guidelines, which involves reaching a consensus on common
challenges, objectives, and indicators;61
the preparation of national
action plans (NAPs) through which member states define how they,
in conjunction with subnational units and the social partners, are
planning to meet these; and peer assessment of the annual reports.
This encourages a degree of concertation of national processes of
policy reflexivity. Where benchmarks are established, it is also a way
of injecting best practices from other systems, thus engendering the
formation of hybrid if not identical social policy regimes.
Although directives and OMC refer to important processes through
which national regimes are opened to European learning, they say
nothing about what is being learned. In other words, what design for
community living informs the drive to establish a social Europe, and
what are the gender dimensions of this? An analysis of (changing)
European views on child care can offer insight here.
Although several member states had begun to deal with the issue
of child care arrangements in the 1960s and 1970s, child care appeared
as little more than a footnote during Europe’s first decade of
activism, aimed at moving toward to equality of the sexes in work
life. Thus the 1974 Social Action Programme, which helped launch
directives concerning equal pay, equal treatment in employment, vo-
362 ᭜ Mahon
cational training, and promotion as well as in social security, simply
noted that lack of adequate facilities contributed to inequality between
men and women in the labor market (Ross 2001, 180). Over
the course of the next decades, however, child care policies came to
form part of a series of broader agendas for a social Europe.
Child care became part of the European social agenda during the
1980s. The First Action Programme (1982–1985) for Promoting Equal
Opportunity62
may only have reiterated the link between availability
of nonparental child care and equal opportunity initially suggested
in the 1974 document, but the second Action Programme, prepared
on the eve of Delors’s presidency, was prepared to go further, inspired
by an egalitarian vision of what it took to reconcile work and
family life. In this period, the concept of reconciliation acted as “the
bridge concept that allowed the Commission to slide towards new
areas whose treaty base was shakier than the solidly grounded Directives
of the 1970s. The logic . . . was clear. In order for women and
men to be equal in the labour market . . . the indirect, non-market
relationships between them had to be reconciled” (Ross 2001, 183–
184). The second program explicitly called on member states to improve
child care facilities to promote such reconciliation.
Unless they were enshrined in directives, however, such statements
could be taken as little more than wishful thinking. Recognizing that
a directive on child care was not on at this juncture,63
the Equal
Opportunities Unit established a mechanism to pave the way for
future action. In 1986 a new European Commission Network on
Childcare was created.64
With a director committed to an egalitarian
vision of care and work not all that different from Fraser’s universal
caregiver, and encouraged by Delors’s determination to create a social
Europe, the network began to develop a blueprint for a European
child care strategy. The instruments used to enlist support for
its vision included the collection and dissemination of comparative
information,65
the formation of links with child care and feminist
circles across the member states, and the production of reports connecting
child care to the commission’s core agenda.
The network did attempt to persuade the commission to develop
a framework directive. It envisaged “requiring member states to develop
publicly funded services for children up to at least ten years of
age, with suggested minimum targets for expansion” (Randall 2000,
355). The targets were modest, however. It sought approval for a
goal of public support for 5 to 10 percent of under-threes, preschool
for 60–79 percent of three to sixes, and after-school care for 10–15
percent of children age ten to fifteen, to be achieved over a five-year
period. Although the Women’s Committee of the European Parliament
supported this, the commission was not prepared even to go
Child Care ᭜ 363
that far. It did, however, back a recommendation on child care,
which was ultimately agreed to by the Council of Ministers in 1992.
This recommendation blended the tamer version of the reconciliation
discourse that had developed around Article 119 with the network’s
vision, seeking to transform the very division of care work in the
family (Ross 2001,194–195).
The council recommended “that Member States gradually develop
and/or encourage measures to enable women and men to reconcile
family obligations arising from the care of children and their own
employment, education and training.”66
The vision of child care services
underlying the recommendation had much in common with the
egalitarian blueprint. It sought affordable ECEC, available in urban
and rural areas alike, and greater flexibility to meet different needs,
but not at the expense of an overall coherence. A positive work environment
for care workers, moreover, was understood to mean establishing
systems in which “the training . . . of workers in child care
services is commensurate with the great import and social and educational
value of their work.” Finally, sharing the democratic ideals of
the egalitarian blueprint, the council encouraged child care services
to work with parents and local communities.
In 1998 a report on the steps member states had taken to implement
the recommendation was filed. The report reaffirmed the “central
role” of child care measures in reconciling work and family life.
It went on to note, however, that “only some of the Member States
are known to have taken initiatives specifically to implement the
recommendation” and that none had established the capacity to
monitor their national systems. The report, however, went on to document
the continued paucity of arrangements for under-threes, children
of school age, and families with special needs (e.g., bilingual
immigrant children). Nor were member states treating child care as
a way of generating good postindustrial jobs: “In spite of growing
number of jobs generated by the sector, efforts to re-evaluate the
importance of people employed in child care services and in ensuring
adequate training remain modest.”67
To be sure, provision for overthrees
had improved and laggards like the United Kingdom and Portugal
were poised to launch major efforts to catch up.68
A general
move to decentralization and increased choice—both in line with its
emphasis on greater flexibility—might also have been noted.69
The report was received in a context that had changed, however.
The network had been disbanded in 1996, not long after the Delors
presidency came to a close and a backlash against commission activism
had set in (Ross 2001). This is not to suggest that child care
dropped from the agenda nor that efforts to create a social Europe
came to a standstill. High unemployment and concerns about the
364 ᭜ Mahon
political and social repercussions of the European Monetary Union
sparked the development of a European employment strategy and
efforts to coordinate social policy renewal. Cutting across both is a
commitment to gender equality.70
Thus employment and gender
equality were incorporated into the Treaty of Amsterdam as areas
for community action.71
Subsequent council meetings have sought to
put them into practice.
There is a pronounced third way cast to the new employment
agenda: “Investing in people and developing an active and dynamic
welfare state will be crucial both to Europe’s place in the knowledge
economy and for ensuring the emergence of this new economy does
not compound existing social problems of unemployment, social exclusion
and poverty” (European Commission Staff Working Paper,
2001, 2). In other words, social investment—for example, activation
and preventive measures—is to be emphasized over the social consumption
orientation of the Keynesian era. Guideline 14 spells this
out in concrete terms: each member state is committed not only to
reducing taxes in general but to reducing fiscal impediments to job
creation for the low skilled and to removing “poverty traps” from
social programs. This is to be complemented by making “flexicurity”
central to employment and social policies at the European, national,
and regional/local levels.72
Measures supporting the emergence of
two-earner (or working single parent) families clearly form part of
this agenda.
The employment policy objectives agreed to at the Lisbon Council
in March 2000 included the objective of reaching at least 60 percent
employment rate among women within a decade.73
Though this level
is well below that achieved by the majority of member states, it does
represent a policy challenge not only for Italy, Spain, and Greece but
also for Belgium and France. Public support for nonparental child
care is clearly understood to form an important part of the solution.
Accordingly, child care has been incorporated into the European employment
strategy.74
According to Guideline 18, “Member States and
the social partners will design, implement and promote family friendly
policies, including affordable, accessible and high quality care services
for children and other dependents (including national targets),
as well as parental and other leave schemes” (European Commission
Staff Working Paper 2001, 107).
No benchmark has yet been established for child care, however.75
There are those who advocate a third way approach. For example,
an expert report to the Belgian president rejects the egalitarian blueprint
pioneered by Denmark and Sweden, given the constraints imposed
by the monetary union and the hypothesized trilemma of postindustrial
growth.76
Rather, the Dutch solution is seen as the more
Child Care ᭜ 365
“realistic” (Esping-Andersen et al. 2001, 233). In their report to the
Portuguese president, Ferrera et al. also reject the Danish/Swedish
blueprint for the Dutch (Ferrera et al. 2000, 41).
Although these recommendations fit the third way thrust of European
employment policy, other documents suggest the presence of
the other contenders’ models. Thus the commission’s assessment of
NAPs on employment and social goals for 2001 defines a good package
as one that combines “provision of care services with basic adequate
leave time (preferably paid) plus a temporary reduction of
working time or other flexible working time arrangements for both
parents” (European Commission Staff Working Paper 2001, 108).
On the surface this seems to favor an egalitarian model, but on closer
examination it fudges the distinction between the neofamilialist and
egalitarian blueprints. Thus France and Finland, as well as Denmark
and Sweden, are cited as good examples. This leaves open important
questions, such as how long an adequate leave time is. It also skirts
the critical issue of whether and at what level parents are compensated
for leave time.77
It may sanction the reduction of working time
for both parents, but says nothing about what might be done to ensure
that both parents share equally in working time reduction. It is
silent on the need for measures to ensure the sharing of leave time
itself.78
Conclusions
The parameters of social Europe have yet to be decided. As the
child care example suggests, at least three alternatives jostle for support.
Does it matter which (if any) of three is chosen? The thrust of
my argument is that it does. Although each seeks to address the challenge
posed by the defamilialization of child care, only one aims to
do so in such a way as to foster (class and gender) equality. As the
Swedish and Danish examples suggest, equality is not something that
can be achieved overnight but what matters most is the “horizon of
legitimate expectations” established in the blueprint for welfare state
redesign (Marshall 1963, 108). This sustains those forces that continue
to push to achieve it in the here and now. Students of national
welfare regimes should not find this surprising (Esping-Andersen
1999, chap. 9). In the past, however, it was domestic visions and the
domestic politics that they both developed out of and inspired that
were decisive. The formation of a social Europe has not replaced
national politics, but European guidelines can affect national outcomes,
by shifting the political opportunity structure and/or introducing
new discursive elements (De la Porte and Pochet 2001, 48).
It thus does matter which vision of a post–male breadwinner world
366 ᭜ Mahon
the European Union embraces. Embedding the universal caregiver
model in European benchmarks and guidelines can contribute to the
establishment of a new horizon of legitimate expectations, encouraging
egalitarian forces in all member states and thus helping shift the
balance in their favor.
NOTES
1. The term “third way” has come to refer to the programmatic response
of some left-liberals and social democrats to neoliberalism’s claim to represent
the only possible response to contemporary challenges. The policy
claims of the Blair, Schroeder, and Clinton governments are often considered
exemplars, but earlier reforms in the Netherlands, Denmark and the
Antipodes paved the way. The third way has been taken up by scholars such
as Giddens (1998), Ferrera et al. (2000) and Esping-Andersen et al. (2001).
2. These are the universal breadwinner model, the caregiver parity model,
and the universal caregiver model. See Olson (2002, in this issue) for an
interesting engagement with Fraser’s approach.
3. De la Porte and Pochet (2001) provide the most detailed assessment of
OMC and its impact available to date. Teague (2002) helps situate OMC
as part of an emergent pattern of multilevel governance, which stops short,
however, of a fully formed model of European citizenship.
4. See especially Iversen and Wren (1998) and Pierson (1998). EspingAndersen
(1999) takes up the question of the challenges posed to postwar
regimes by these forces but shifts attention to the “new” pattern of risks
and thus the positive pressures on states.
5. Or, as Olson (2002, this issue) puts it, different welfare regimes “naturalize”
distinct visions of society. Both of us examine the underlying ethicalnormative
foundations of these visions, but we develop the argument somewhat
differently. Olson emphasizes the impact of gendered welfare cultures
on individual choice, but I will stress the “political culture”—that is, the
way the visions embedded in different welfare regimes shape the horizons
of (manifest and latent) collective actors by legitimating some claims and
marginalizing others.
6. Looking at the Belgian debates, Marquez-Pereira and Paye´ characterize
the new familialism as a blend of equality and difference arguments: “It
both accepts women’s right to lead a life, especially a work life, equal to
that of men, and seeks to protect women’s right to continue certain traditional
activities, such as devoting themselves to child rearing when their
children are young” (Marquez-Pereira and Paye´ 2001, 70).
7. Iversen and Wren (1998) call this the postindustrial “trilemma,” arguing
that states can simultaneously pursue two (but not all) of the following
goals: employment, equality, and fiscal balance. As a result of financial
liberalization, however, policies that lead to growing deficits are all but
ruled out by the global financial institutions.
8. Governments would thus replace universal with targeted policies designed
to make work pay while the social partners would be induced to
Child Care ᭜ 367
negotiate equivalent hourly wages for part-timers and pro-rated benefits
packages.
9. In 1996, the Blair government introduced a Working Families Tax
Credit guaranteeing low-income working parents a minimum level of income
and an allowance to cover child care costs. In 1999 the level was
raised to £70. This policy is reminiscent of the welfare reforms of the Clinton
administration. See Levy and Michel 2002.
10. Writers like Esping-Andersen (1999, 103) and Ferrera et al. (2000,
50) see personal and care services as largely low-skilled occupations, externalizing
work once done in the private sphere of the home. See Jenson
(1989) for a critique of this view.
11. Esping-Andersen et al. consider the feminist demand for a more egalitarian
distribution of care work in the home but conclude that it remains
largely utopian: “The masculinisation of women’s lives reaches limits if they
want children, or prefer part-time employment, regardless of how ‘women
friendly’ is policy” (Esping-Andersen et al. 2001, 80).
12. This refers to the model pairing a male full-time earner with a woman
working short (twenty hours or less a week) part time.
13. See Mahon (2000) for a more developed version of the argument that
follows.
14. As Marshall put it, “Expectations officially recognized as legitimate
are not claims that must be met in each case when presented. They become,
as it were, details in a design for community living” (Marshall 1963, 109).
This insight is developed in the literature advocating a constructivist conception
of citizenship. See, inter alia, Jenson and Phillips (1996) and Shaw
(2000) for a discussion of this literature.
15. Daly (2000, 487–492) sketches three different patterns of child care
provision. The first, in which care is privatized to the family with little to
no state support especially for under-age-threes, includes the Mediterranean
countries and Ireland. For the others she follows the standard comparative
model—Scandinavian social democracies with generous cash benefits,
parental leaves, and child care services and the continental model, typified
by Austria and Germany, with generous support for parental (maternal)
care and child care offered primarily as a part-time education service. She
acknowledges, as does Esping-Andersen, that France and Belgium do not fit
easily within this scheme. Kautto’s (2002) analysis of the pattern of public
investment in social services, however, shows a strong affinity between
France and the Nordic countries, especially Finland. I am primarily interested
in welfare state redesign—rather than welfare regimes that have as yet
to modify their child care arrangements to meet the challenge of defamilialization—so
I focus on the three dominant trajectories of change.
16. All figures cited in the text of this paragraph are taken from EspingAndersen
et al. (2001) Table 4.1, p. 204. Labor force participation rates for
women aged fifteen to sixty-four years and they include those employed
part-time, as well as full-time employees.
17. Though labor force participation rates have risen over the past two
decades in all of these, the rise is sharpest in the Netherlands (from 39.7
percent in 1985). For the United Kingdom, from 32 percent of women with
368 ᭜ Mahon
children under age five in 1990 (OECD-UK 2000); Belgium, from 37.2 percent
in 1985; Luxembourg, from 40.1 percent in 1985. See Ferrera et al.
(2000) Table 3.17. The labor force participation rate of Irish women aged
twenty-five to thirty-four rose sharply from 34 percent in 1980 to 71.5 percent
in 1999. See OECD 2001a, Figure 2.1 p. 26.
18. Thus the employment rate of women twenty-five to thirty-four years
of age rose from 49 percent in 1980 to 51 percent in 1999 in Italy and even
more dramatically in Spain (from 32.4 percent to 54.1 percent) over the
same period. OECD 2001a, Figure 2.1, p. 26.
19. At least two other countries have adopted similar measures. Belgium
best matches the French and Finnish cases (Marquez-Pereira and Paye´
2001). Other countries forming part of the northwestern conservative regime
seem also to be embracing the new familialism. Thus, in July 2000,
Austria replaced its two-year parental leave policy with a new child care
benefit. It involves a flat-rate cash payment to parents of a child less than
four years (436 euros per month) plus individual social security coverage
for one carer for pension, health, and accident insurance. A third portion
comes in the form of a child care voucher to purchase care for children
aged four to school start. Interestingly, Daly ranks Austria with Finland and
Belgium in terms of extent and continuity of women’s labor force participation.
French women enjoy a somewhat lower degree of continuity but have
higher labor force participation rates than Belgium (Daly 2000, 500, Figure
10.9).
20. Currently 1,500 Finnish marks per month for the first child under
age three, with 500 additional marks for other children under age three and
300 for those over age three. Municipalities can make available as much as
1,000 marks more on a means-tested basis (Korpinen 2000).
21. Between 1993 and 1995, 15–18 percent of the recipients were men.
When the new rule was introduced, recipients fell substantially (6,000–
7,000), much more than were affected by the 23-percent rate cut the following
year (4,000), according to Korpinen (2000, 180).
22. There were actually two bills introduced. The first was conditional
on previous labor market attachment, and the second effectively severed this
link (Jenson and Sineau 2001b, 100–101).
23. Employed in networks of family cre`ches, the assistantes are registered
for five years after a visit of a social worker to the home, a medical exam,
and a moral investigation. Since 1992, they also have to undergo at least
sixty hours of training (Martin et al. 1998, 144).
24. This consists of a basic allowance of 700 Finnish marks per month,
with a possible supplement taking it to 800 marks, dependent on income
and family size. Here the allowance is paid to the provider as part of her
taxable income (OECD 2001b, 12). Only 5 percent of Finnish children are
in private nonparental care, however.
25. For an analysis of the political forces shaping the choices in France,
see Jenson and Sineau (2001b), Morgan (2002), and Morgan and Zippel
(2002); for Belgium see Marquez-Pereira and Paye´ (2001) and Kremer
(2002). With regard to Finland, the OECD report suggests that the Lutheran
church and the Mannerheim League have been important in raising the
Child Care ᭜ 369
question of whether “we have gone too far in our search for benign institutions
which support the child, while removing some of the duties of the
parents in the process” (OECD 2001b, 18).
26. The Blair government announced an ambitious and wide-ranging
National Childcare strategy in 1997. The OECD (2000) provides useful details,
and Randall (2002) puts the current move in a broader historical per-
spective.
27. Daly’s data show that women’s labor force participation rates began
to rise during the 1980s, from a low of about 35 percent in 1980 to over
50 percent in 1990. They continued to rise in the 1990s, reaching over 60
percent by 1996 (Daly 2000, 473, Table 10.2).
28. According to Visser, Dutch feminists and the trade unions were initially
hostile to part-time work. For Visser, “the demand for flexibility and
part-time jobs rose as an unintended consequence of the [unions’] campaign
for reduced working hours” (Visser 2002, 30). He acknowledges, however,
that in the 1980s, women active in the unions embraced part-time work and
persuaded the unions to support this. In the 1990s, the Centre-Left and LibLab
governments made it an important element of their third way welfare
state redesign (Visser 2002, 31–34).
29. In 1993, the legal minimum wage became applicable to part-time
workers. In 1996 a new law prohibiting unequal treatment in working hours
come into effect (Plantenga et al. 1999, 108). Ferrera et al. note that the
“flexicurity” accord included union agreement to abandon opposition to
part-time work and negotiate hourly wages at the level enjoyed by full-time
workers and taxation policies compensating low-income workers (Ferrera
et al. 2000, 49).
30. Dutch women work two-thirds the hours of Dutch men—as compared
to an 80 percent average for women in the European Union (Plantenga
et al. 1999, 101, Table 1). The British gender gap is about the same
(women working 69 percent of the hours of men).
31. In 1993, 55 percent of Dutch women and 46 percent of British
women worked part-time (Eurostat 1995, 44). The only other European
countries nearing this level are Switzerland and Norway.
32. One-third of Dutch women and nearly one-quarter of British women
work less than twenty hours a week (Lewis 2001). Of European countries,
only Switzerland come near this (Eurostat 1995, 45).
33. In the Netherlands, over 50 percent of two- to four-year-olds are in
municipally subsidized play groups run by private, usually nonprofit groups,
offering places for children twice a week for two to three hours at a time.
In the United Kingdom, 20 percent of two-year-olds and 55 percent of threeyear-olds
are in play groups, most of which are run by churches or the
voluntary sector (OECD 2001a, Appendix 1). Preschool classes for threeand
four-year-olds run for two and a half hours a day.
34. The stimulative measures of the 1990s, which did increase supply,
marked a major push to increase supply in the Netherlands focused on tax
incentives for employers. Though the government’s share fell from 55 percent
in 1989 to 33 percent in 1996 and employers’ share rose from 7 to 25
percent in 1996, parents’ share rose from 35 percent to 42 percent (OECD
370 ᭜ Mahon
1999a, 20). U.K. parents currently pay as much as 93 percent of the cost of
nonparental child care for under-threes.
35. The Blair government’s child care strategy includes Childcare Information
Services, “a resource and referral service in each local authority area
to advise parents regarding the quality of childcare and the range of choices
available” and a pilot “Childcare Link” that aims to connect data bases and
signpost child care information services (OECD 2001a, 21).
36. The Early Years Partnerships bring local education authorities together
with other local services (health, social services), employers, trainers,
advisors for New Deal for Lone Parents to assess current provisions, draw
up annual plans and develop local information services.
37. Of the estimated 1.6 million new child care places it expects to see
created by 2004, it anticipates that 80 percent will be provided by play
groups and voluntary and private providers (OECD 2001a, 179).
38. Child poverty is high in the United Kingdom (19.8 percent after taxes
and transfers versus 11.9 in the OECD (OECD 2001a, appendix). Targeted
at low-income areas, Sure Start includes among the bundle of core services
to be provided “good quality play, learning and childcare experiences for
children” (OECD 2000, 25). There are also Early Excellence Centres, pilot
projects that “integrate early years services, high quality early education and
childcare for children up to the age of four years, and training for adults,
bringing together education, health, adult education and community development”
(OECD 2000, 25).
39. Key national child care agencies involved include Kids Club Network,
National Private Day Nurseries Association, and the Preschool Learning
Alliance (Beddows-Wilkinson 1999, 10)
40. In Denmark, the first few weeks following the birth of a child are
reserved for the mother, whereas in Sweden there is no such reservation.
Both countries have provision for paternity leave to coincide with maternity
leave around the birth of the child “to provide the mother with support
during the first few weeks after birth and to give the father an opportunity
to establish an early bond with the child” (Bergqvist et al. 1999, 127).
41. In the 1990s, fathers took as little as 4 percent of parental leave in
Denmark and between 8 and 11.7 percent in Sweden (Bergqvist et al. 1999,
127, Table 7.3). In Sweden at least, part of the reason that the low share
taken by fathers became an issue has to do with the resurgence of feminism
in the late 1980s (Mahon 1999). Bergqvist et al. argue, however, that a
small but influential group of men—the daddy group—brought this particular
issue to the fore in the early 1990s (Bergqvist et al. 1999, 145). Note
that in Sweden, it was a “bourgeois” coalition government that introduced
the daddy leave provision.
42. The new Liberal-Conservative government, which has made headlines
for its anti-immigrant stance, passed a law extending parental leave to
twelve months but eliminating the quota for fathers.
43. In 1994 Denmark introduced a new parental leave option, in addition
to the basic and generously funded parental leave scheme. Parents have
the right to be off work for care of zero–eight-year-old children for at least
Child Care ᭜ 371
eight weeks up to a maximum of thirteen weeks—but twenty-six if taken
during the child’s first year. During this period they cannot place their children
in the municipal child care system if they are under age three (although
there are part-time services for children over age three). The intent was to
encourage parents to provide care for children under a year, though older
siblings would be affected, hence the provision for part-time ECEC for over
age threes. Local authorities are allowed to provide a flat-rate leave allowance,
within clearly specified limits. Initially two-thirds of the municipalities
did so, but that number quickly fell to one-third (European Commission
Network on Childcare 1996, 32).
44. The children of professionals and white-collar workers were disproportionately
represented at child care centers in the 1980s (Mahon 1999).
As Bergqvist and Nyberg (2002) note, the children of blue-collar workers
significantly increased their share as the system expanded.
45. At that time, the requirement only applied to children of parents who
were working or studying.
46. At present 87 percent of the municipalities comply—with the more
reluctant induced by the national government’s offer to allow them to raise
parental fees from 30 to 33 percent of the costs if they did so.
47. In the emphasis on “parents who are working or studying” was interpreted
such that the children of unemployed were not given access to child
care in over 40 percent of municipalities (OECD 2000).
48. As part of its official commitment to multiculturalism, Sweden offers
special bilingual services for immigrant children and parents are encouraged
to help their children develop language skills in their native tongue as well
as in Swedish. See OECD 1999b, 25–26 for a discussion of the kind of
programs developed for areas with high concentrations of immigrants.
49. As in other countries, their systems were initially divided between
day nurseries providing “care” for poor mothers who had to work and
“kindergartens” offering preschool education services to middle- and upperclass
families. When they began to design the foundations of the contemporary
system, however, the principles of education and care were combined.
50. Nearly two-thirds of Swedish children age one to six are in such preschools
and a further 12 percent are in family day care. The curriculum does
not apply to the latter, but the National Agency for Education is responsible
for producing guidelines for this sector (OECD 1999b, 14).
51. For the most part, Swedish and Danish child care is publicly financed
(though parent fees cover a certain share, higher in Denmark) and publicly
provided. About 15 percent of Swedish preschool children are in centers
under nonpublic auspices, for the most part parent co-ops. Private, nonprofit
puljeordninger (often parent co-ops) have played an important role.
Over the past decade, the government has opened the way for municipalities
to contract out to private, including commercial child care providers. Here,
too, the numbers are small.
52. They children spend the day in the countryside, for the most part
outdoors exploring nature (European Commission Network on Childcare
1996, 33 and 35).
372 ᭜ Mahon
53. These include development of the principles governing the use of the
facility, including educational methodology and the principles governing use
of the budgetary framework. They are also make recommendations about
staffing to the local authority (OECD 2000). Puljingordningen do not have
to establish boards if they are parent co-operatives but if not, the local authorities
are to ensure that their contract includes provisions for parent in-
fluence.
54. Like the other Nordic countries, local authorities have always enjoyed
a prominent role in social service provision and enjoy a substantial
tax base. France began to decentralize authority under the socialist government
in the 1980s (Jenson and Sineau 2001a, 49). In child care this
has meant a much larger role for the local Caisse d’allocations familiales
(CAFs) (Morgan 2002). The Dutch, too, have devolved responsibility for
social services to local authorities but, as in France, have not backed this
with a corresponding transfer of fiscal resources (Fargion 2000). Local Early
Child Partnerships play an important role in Blair’s new child care policy,
but there is sense that they have been granted too little autonomy (OECD
2000, 35).
55. The law also contained a quality provision.
56. In 1996, Swedish women worked 84.5 percent of the usual hours
worked by men (Plantenga et al. 1999, 101). The gap would be lower still
for Denmark given the lower rate of part-time work but a similar tendency
to work long part-time.
57. In the 1980s, the Swedish Social Democratic Women’s League was
almost the only voice calling for the introduction of the six-hour day. In the
mid-1990s, however, it was joined by the male-dominated Metalworkers’
Union (Mahon 1999, 2001).
58. The wage gap is not much larger in France (68 percent), but it is
sizable in countries like Germany and Spain (60 percent) (Esping-Andersen
et al. 2001, 78). Esping-Andersen argues that gap for this category of workers
is an important indicator as differentials between highly educated men
and women tend to be much lower.
59. Both the blue-collar Landsorganisation (LO) and the large whitecollar
Tjaw nstemannens Centralorganisation (TCO) support pay equity in
principle, but the real push for equalization comes from the large and influential
public-sector unions within each. See Mahon (1999, 2002) for more
detail.
60. For instance, 40 percent of the measures proposed in the 1998 social
action program were legally binding directives and regulations. In contrast
there were few proposals for legislation in the 1998–2000 social action program
(De la Porte and Pochet 2001, 30).
61. Performance indicators permit comparison with the average of the
best performers among the European Union, establishing a (dynamic) horizon
of action, while policy indicators measure the degrees of effort carried
out by individual member states, thus permitting assessment of the extent
of the progress made by laggards (De la Porte et al. 2001, 293).
62. The program was prepared by the Equal Opportunities Unit with
DG-V. Established in the first wave of activism for a social Europe (1976), it
Child Care ᭜ 373
was strengthened by the establishment of an Advisory Committee on Equal
Opportunity in 1981 (Ross 2001, 181).
63. In November 1983, the commission prepared a draft directive on
parental leave, which proposed that each parent would get a nontransferable
three-month leave (Randall 2000, 355). Nothing was done, however,
until after the ratification of Maastricht, when the commission gained new
leverage over the social partners. In December 1995 the social partners
reached a framework agreement that the Council of Ministers incorporated
into a directive, making it community law (Ross 2001, 198–203). Note that
while the ETUC secured the nontransferability clause, UNICE won on the
issue of no minimum remuneration requirements. Daddy leave without a
link to income replacement is unlikely to have much significance.
64. In addition to creating the network, the Third Action Programme
included New Opportunities for Women (NOW), financed by the European
Social Fund. According to Ross, NOW included support for the development
of child care facilities and training in the child care area (Ross 2001,
193). In areas receiving structural funds, NOW allowed the commission to
support child care provision as well as training (costs of training facilities as
well as training for particular child care workers).
65. Thus, for instance, it chided governments for the revealing lack of
data on child care, noting that “If something matters to governments, they
collect regular information on it, while one of the best ways to ignore a need
or problem is to keep it invisible” (cited in Randall 2000, 349).
66. The recommendation focused on four areas: the provision of care for
children whose parents are in employment, education, or training or seeking
such; special leave arrangements for employed parents; promotion of a positive
work environment in care services; and promotion of sharing responsibility
for care between men and women. See European Commission (nd).
67. Source is “Equality between Men and Women: Childcare.” http://
europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/ch/c10916.htm.
68. Provision of nonparental child care varies substantially among member
states. For the under-threes, the clear leaders are Denmark (48 percent),
Sweden (33 percent), Belgium (30 percent), France (23 percent), and Finland
(21 percent). The laggards here include Portugal (12 percent), the Netherlands
(8 percent), Italy (6 percent), Greece and Austria (3 percent), and the United
Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, West Germany, and Luxembourg (2 percent each).
Provision for children aged three until they start school is better, with some
countries reaching over 90 percent (notably France, Belgium, and Italy) and
even laggards like the United Kingdom and Portugal moving to catch up. In
some—the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and West Germany—however,
preschool normally is only provided on a part-time basis. See Domsch et al.
(1999).
69. Randall (2000) also notes a certain tendency to convergence around
increased use of demand-based subsidies, though as we have seen, it is only
in a few countries like the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, where
these are not complemented by supply-side measures.
70. This includes “mainstreaming.” Thus, for instance, member states are
enjoined to consider the gender implications of actions proposed under all
374 ᭜ Mahon
four pillars (employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability, and equal opportunities)
of the employment strategy. This means applying gender impact
assessment for each guideline and developing indicators to measure progress
toward gender equality for each.
71. Signed in 1997, the treaty, which revised the previous treaties, came
into effect in 1999.
72. That is, a combination of the labor market flexibility sought by neoliberal
advisors, with the kind of social security mechanisms that eliminate
the precarious character of nonstandard jobs. For more on this, see Ferrera
et al. (2000, 49).
73. At Stockholm, the council set an intermediate target of 57 percent.
74. Interestingly enough, the network tried to position child care as
part of employment policy in the lead-up to the Essen Council in 1994
(Ross 2001), but the latter failed as a result of the absence of a control
process. The OMC was first applied to the monetary union and then extended
to employment and, later, social protection and exclusion. At the
same time, gender equality became an area for experimentation with
mainstreaming.
75. Thus in a communication from the council, it was noted, “The European
Council of Lisbon invited the Commission and the Member States to
further all aspects of equal opportunities, including reducing occupational
segregation and helping to reconcile working and family life, in particular
by setting a new benchmark for improved child care provision” (European
Commission 2000, 5). Under the rubric of “more and better jobs” a report
on the Nice Council suggests, however, that this has yet to be achieved. It
called for “a comparative analysis by the Commission, before 2002 on the
structural factors likely to encourage participation in the labour market and
adjustment to the employment guidelines, in particular when it comes to
setting a benchmark on child care provision” (European Commission Staff
Working Paper 2001, 7).
76. That report was coauthored by Esping-Andersen, Gallie, Myles, and
Hemerijck. To judge from a recent intervention, however, Esping-Andersen
still leans to the Nordic model (Esping-Andersen and Sarasa 2002).
77. In the absence of financial compensation, or when levels are relatively
low, it is very unlikely that men will be induced to take their share of parental
leave.
78. The report noted that places had expanded in a number of countries,
including the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria, and Spain, and that several
that had received specific recommendations—Ireland, the United Kingdom,
and Portugal —had responded. The figures reported in Table 11 for Ireland
seem particularly impressive—38 percent of zero to threes and 56 percent
of threes-school start. Ireland has also indicated its intention to increase
child care places by an ambitious 30 percent by 2003 (European Commission
Staff Working Paper 2001, 110). Belgium, Greece, France, the
United Kingdom, and Portugal included quantitative targets in their NAPs,
but several low-coverage countries, including the Netherlands, failed to set
quantitative targets. Nor is the question of the form of child care provided
taken up.
Child Care ᭜ 375
REFERENCES
Arat-Koc, Sedef. 1989. “In the Privacy of Our Own Home: Foreign Domestic
Workers as Solution to the Crisis of the Domestic Sphere in Canada.”
Studies in Political Economy 28.
Beddows-Wilkinson, Stacey. 1999. “New Employment through the New
UK Childcare Quality Concept.” European Network, Family and Work,
1, Employment and Social Affairs, European Commission.
Bergqvist, Christina, and Anita Nyberg. 2002. “Welfare State Restructuring
and Child Care in Sweden.” In Child Care Policy at a Crossroads: Gender
and Welfare State Restructuring, eds. Sonya Michel and Rianne
Mahon. New York: Routledge.
Bergqvist, Christina, Jaana Kuusipalo, and A. Styrkarso´ttir. 1999. “The Debate
on Childcare Policies.” In Equal Democracies? Gender and Politics
in the Nordic Countries, eds. Christina Bergqvist, Anette Borchorst, AnnDorte
Christensen, Viveca Ramstedt-Sile´n, Nina Raaum, and A. Styrka´rsdo´ttir.
Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Borchorst, Anette. 2002. “Danish Child Care Policy: Continuity Rather
than Radical Change.” In Child Care Policy at a Crossroads: Gender and
Welfare State Restructuring, eds. Sonya Michel and Rianne Mahon. New
York: Routledge.
Daly, Mary. 2000. “A Fine Balance: Women’s Labor Market Participation
in International Comparison.” In Welfare and Work in the Open Economy:
Volume II. Diverse Responses to Common Challenges, eds. Fritz
W. Scharpf and Vivien A. Schmidt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Daune-Richard, Anne-Marie, and Rianne Mahon. 2002. “Sweden: Models
in Crisis.” In Who Cares? Women’s Work, Childcare, and Welfare State
Redesign, eds. Jane Jenson and Mariette Sineau. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
De la Porte, Caroline, and Phillippe Pochet (eds). 2001. Building Social Europe
through the Open Method of Co-ordination. Brussels: Peter Lang/
Presses Interuniversitaires Europe´ennes.
De la Porte, Caroline, Philippe Pochet, and Graham Rouse. 2001. “Social
Benchmarking, Policy, Policy-Making and New Governance in the EU.”
Journal of European Social Policy 11(4): 291–307.
Domsch, Michel, De´sire´e Ladwig, and Susanne Falk. 1999. “Household and
Family Services in the USA.” European Network: Family and Work 1.
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1990. Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
. 1999. Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta, and Sebastian Sarasa. 2002. “The Generational
Conflict Reconsidered.” Journal of European Social Policy 12(1): 5–22.
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta, Duncan Gallie, Anton Hemerijck, and John Myles.
2001. A New Welfare Architecture for Europe? Report Submitted to the
Belgian Presidency of the European Union. Final version, September.
European Commission. Nd. “Equality between men and women: Childcare.”
http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/cha/c10916.htm.
376 ᭜ Mahon
European Commission. 2000. Communication from the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Council and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Towards a Community
Framework Strategy on Gender Equality (2001–2005). Brussels
COM (2000) 335 final.
European Commission Network on Childcare. 1996. A Review of Services
for Young Children in the European Union 1990–1995.
European Commission Staff Working Paper. 2001. Assessment of the Implementation
of the 2001 Employment Guidelines. Supporting Document
to the Joint Employment Report 2001. COM (2001) 438 final.
Eurostat. 1995. Women and Men in Europe and North America 1995. Geneva:
Eurostat and United Nations.
Fargion, Valeria. 2000. “Timing and the Development of Social Care Services
in Europe.” West European Politics 23(2): 59–88.
Ferrera, Maurizio, Anton Hemerijck, and Martin Rhodes. 2000. Report for
the Portuguese Presidency of the European Union: The Future of Social
Europe Recasting Work and Welfare in the New Economy.
Fraser, Nancy. 1997. Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist”
Condition. New York: Routledge.
Giddens, Anthony. 1998. The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heinen, Jacqueline, and Heini Martiskainen de Koenigswater. 2001. “Framing
Citizenship in France and Finland in the 1990s: Restructuring of
Motherhood, Work and Care.” Social Politics 8(2): 170–81.
Herzenberg, S., J. Alic, and H. Wial. 1998. New Rules for a New Economy.
Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press
Hondagenu-Soleto, Pierette. 2000. “The International Organization of Caring
and Cleaning Work.” In Care Work: Gender, Care and the Welfare
State, ed. M. H. Meyer. New York: Routledge
Iversen, Torben, and Anne Wren. 1998. “Equality, Employment and Budgetary
Restraint: The Trilemma of the Service Economy.” World Politics
50.
Jenson, Jane. 1989. “The Talents of Women and the Skills of Men: Flexible
Specialisation and Women.” In The Transformation of Work?, ed. S. Wood.
London: Unwin and Hyman.
Jenson, Jane, and Susan Phillips. 1996. “Regime Shift: New Citizenship
Practices in Canada.” International Journal of Canadian Studies 14.
Jenson, Jane and Rianne Mahon. 2002. “Re-scaling Intergovernmental Affairs:
Getting to Better Outcomes for Children in Cities.” CPRN project
F-62.
Jenson, Jane and Mariette Sineau. 2001a. “France: Reconciling Republican
Equality with ‘Freedom of Choice.”’ In Who Cares? Women, Work and
Welfare State Redesign, eds. Jane Jenson and Mariette Sineau. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
. 2001b. “Comparing Childcare Programs: Commonalities Amid
Variety.” In Who Cares? Women, Work and Welfare State Redesign, eds.
Jane Jenson and Mariette Sineau. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Child Care ᭜ 377
Kautto, Mikko. 2002. “Investing in Services in West European Welfare
States.” Journal of European Social Policy 12(1): 53–66.
Korpinen, Johanna. 2000. “Child Home Care Allowance—Framing the
Finnish Experience.” In Perspectives of Equality: Work, Women and
Family in the Nordic Countries and EU, ed. L. Kalliomaa-Puha. Copenhagen:
Nordic Council of Ministers.
Kremer, Monique. 2001. “A Dutch Miracle for Women?” Social Politics
8(2): 182–85.
. 2002. “The Illusion of Free Choice: Ideals of Care and Child Care
Policy in the Flemish and Dutch Welfare States.” Pp. 113–142 in Child
Care Policy at a Crossroads: Gender and Welfare State Restructuring,
eds. Sonya Michel and Rianne Mahon. New York: Routledge.
Levitas, Ruth. 1998. The Inclusive Society? Social Exclusion and New Labour.
London: Macmillan.
Levy, Denise, and Sonya Michel. 2002. “More Can Be Less: Child Care and
Welfare Reform in the United States.” Pp. 219–266 in Child Care Policy
at the Crossroads: Gender and Welfare State Restructuring, eds. Sonya
Michel and Rianne Mahon. New York: Routledge.
Lewis, Jane. 2001. “The Decline of the Male Breadwinner Model: Implications
for Work and Care.” Social Politics 8(2): 152–69.
Lindberg, Ingemar. 2002. “Den Nya Familjens Tid: om;a¨ggningen av den
svenska familjepolitiken under fo¨rsta ha¨lften av 1970 talet—och na˚ra
reflektioner trettio a˚r eftera˚t.” Manuscript (final draft).
.1999. “‘Yesterday’s Modern Times Are No Longer Modern’: Swedish
Unions Confront the Double Shift.” In The Brave New World of
European Labor: European Trade Unions at the Millennium, eds. George
Ross and Andrew Martin. New York: Berghahn.
. 2000. “Death of a Model? Swedish Social Democracy at the End of
the Twentieth Century.” Studies in Political Economy 63: 27–60.
. 2001. “‘Rescaling’ Welfare Regimes: Childcare in Toronto/Canada
and Stockholm/Sweden.” SSHRC grant application.
. 2002. “Sweden’s LO: Learning to Embrace the Differences Within.”
In Gender, Diversity, and Trade Unions: An International Perspective,
eds. Fiona Colgan and Sue Ledwith. London: Routledge.
Marquez-Pereira, Be´renge`re, and Olivier Paye´. 2001. “Belgium: The Vices
and Virtues of Pragmatism.” In Who Cares? Women’s Work, Childcare,
and Welfare State Redesign, eds. Jane Jenson and Mariette Sineau. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Martin, Claude, Antoine Math, and Evelyne Renaudat. 1998. “Caring for
the Very Young Children and Dependent Elderly People in France: Towards
a Commodification of Social Care?” In Gender, Social Care and
Welfare State Restructuring in Europe, ed. Jane Lewis. London: Ashgate.
Marshall, T. H. 1963. “Citizenship and Social Class.” In Sociology at the
Crossroads. London: Heinemann.
McCain, Margaret, and Fraser Mustard. 1999. Reversing the Real Brain
Drain: The Early Years Study Final Report. Online at http://www
.childsec.gov.on.ca.
378 ᭜ Mahon
Michel, Sonya and Rianne Mahon (eds.). 2002. Child Care Policy at the
Crossroads: Gender and Welfare State Restructuring. New York: Rout-
ledge.
Morgan, Kimberly. 2002. “Does Anyone Have a ‘Libre Choix’? Subversive
Liberalism and the Politics of French Child Care.” In Child Care Policy
at a Crossroads: Gender and Welfare State Restructuring, eds. Sonya
Michel and Rianne Mahon. New York: Routledge.
Morgan, Kimberly, and Kathrina Zippel. 2002. “Paid to Care: The Origins
and Effects of Care Leave Policies in Western Europe.” Presented at the
13th Conference of Europeanists, Chicago, 14–16 March.
OECD. 1999a. Early Childhood Education and Care Policy in the Nether-
lands.
. 1999b. Early Childhood Education and Care Policy in Sweden.
. 2000. Early Childhood Education and Care Policy in the United
Kingdom.
. 2001a. Starting Strong: Early Childhood Education and Care.
. 2001b. Early Childhood Education and Care Policy in Finland.
Olson, Kevin. 2002. “Recognizing Gender, Redistributing Labor.” Social
Politics 9(3): 380–410.
Pierson, Paul. 1998. “Irresistible Forces, Immovable Objects: Post-Industrial
Welfare States Confront Permanent Austerity.” Journal of European
Public Policy 5(4): 539–560.
Plantenga, Janneke, Joop Schippers, and Jacques Siegers. 1999. “Towards
an Equal Division of Paid and Unpaid Work: The Case of the Netherlands.”
Journal of European Social Policy 9(2): 99–110.
Randall, Vicky (2000) “Childcare Policy in the European States: Limits to
Convergence.” Journal of European Public Policy 7(3): 346–368.
.2002. “Child Care in Britain, or, How Do You Restructure Nothing?”
In Child Care Policy at the Crossroads: Gender and Welfare State
Restructuring, eds. Sonya Michel and Rianne Mahon. New York: Rout-
ledge.
Ross, George. 2001. “Europe: An Actor without a Role.” In Who Cares?
Women’s Work, Childcare, and Welfare State Redesign, eds. Jane Jenson
and Mariette Sineau. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Sainsbury, Diane. 1996. Gender, Equality and Welfare States Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Salmi, Minna. 2000. “Analysing the Finnish Homecare Allowance System:
Challenges to Research and Problems of Interpretation.” In Perspectives
of Equality Perspectives of Equality: Work, Women and Family in the
Nordic Countries and EU, ed. L. Kalliomaa-Puha. Copenhagen: Nordic
Council of Ministers.
Schattovits, Helmuth. 2000. “New Approaches to Public Part-Time Care
Schemes for Pre-School Children.” Family Observer 3: 12–18.
Shaw, Jo. 2000. “The Problem of Membership in European Union Citizenship.”
In Perspectives of Equality: Work, Women and Family in the Nordic
Countries and EU, ed. L. Kalliomaa-Puha. Copenhagen: Nordic
Council of Ministers.
Child Care ᭜ 379
Teague, Paul. 2002. “Deliberative Governance and EU Social Policy.” European
Journal of Industrial Relations 7(1): 7–26.
Tilly, Charles. 1992. Coercion, Capital and European States, AD 990–
1992. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Visser, Jelle. 2002. “The First Part-Time Economy in the World: A Model
to Be Followed.” Journal of European Social Policy 12(1): 23–42.