Rethinking the Welfare State: The prospects for ... - e-Library

Early childhood education 123
There is significant evidence supporting the long-term private (and public) benefits of
child care programs. Early childhood development contributes to the future well-being of
society by making infants more independent, more socially adept and more selfconfident.
7 “It is widely agreed that the experiences and environment faced by children in
the preschool years have an important influence on their subsequent development.” 8 A
Swedish study focusing on academic achievement among 13-year-olds concluded that
academic performance was highest among “children who entered child care before the
age of one and lowest among those with home care only. For those entering child care in
their second year of life, school performance is higher by 11 percent at 13 and by 19
percent for those who enter at 9–12 months.” 9 A French study determined that children
who received early childhood education outperformed their counterparts in a broad range
of subjects, including language and mathematics, at every level of primary education and
throughout secondary school. 10 The positive impact of early childhood education was
particularly marked among low-income students. 11 In the United States, empirical
evidence clearly supports the medium-term benefits of early child care programs like
Head Start, but is more equivocal on the long-term benefits realized from these
interventions. 12
There is also significant empirical evidence for the role that child care programs play
in promoting labour market participation, particularly for working class women. Over the
past several decades, most developed countries have seen substantial increases in the
number of women participating in the paid labour force, 13 but despite these trends many
mothers do not work. For some, this choice is based on personal preference, but for
others the unavailability of affordable, reliable child care precludes employment. For
women with lower earning capacity the average cost of market-based care, estimated at
between US$3,000 and $5,000 annually, is prohibitive. 14 “More than 70 percent of fouryear-olds
from affluent families were enrolled in a center or preschool in 1995, compared
with 45 percent of those from low-income households.” 15 Many women must become
dependent on social assistance, rely solely on their spouse’s income and remain in
poverty, or reluctantly place their children in sub-standard care while they work. None of
these options is acceptable. Lemke et al. found that marginal reductions in the cost of
child care result in significant reductions in parental unemployment. 16 In a landmark
study, Berger and Black found that an “average weekly subsidy of $46 induced an
increase in maternal employment of 8.4 to 25.3 percentage points.” 17 Blau and Tekin
found that the receipt of a child care subsidy is associated with a 13 percent increase in
the likelihood of employment and a 2 percent increase in the likelihood of attending
school. 18 All of these studies found that the receipt of a child care subsidy is positively
correlated with a higher probability of working. Surveys report that over a quarter of
mothers with children under age 5 would enter the labour force if they had access to
satisfactory child care at reasonable costs. 19 Sheila Kamerman found that “the countries
with the most generous ECEC [Early Childhood Education and Care] policies and the
most extensive coverage tend to have higher rates of female labor force participation.” 20
In light of the substantial benefits associated with child care, what is the rationale for
government intervention in this area? Put differently, why is public action necessary in
order to realize the promise of early childhood education and care? Ron Haskins, for
instance, has argued that the vast majority of the benefits and burdens from the care of
children are internalized by parents, and therefore we can be confident that parental child