Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:07:19.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collective Protection for New Social Risks: Childcare and the Dutch Welfare State

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2014

MARA A. YERKES
MARA A. YERKES*
Affiliation:
Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 1, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Issues such as caring and family policy have received increased attention within the sociological literature on the welfare state during the past decades. At the same time, there has been much debate about the protection of social risks. In particular, scholars have questioned the ability of welfare states to respond to so-called new social risks, such as reconciling work and care. The literature on new social risks assumes welfare states will have difficulty addressing these risks due to pressures for reform and assumed individual responsibility for new social risks. In contrast, the Dutch welfare state has been successful in re-orienting existing institutions to develop a semi-collectivised yet market-driven form of childcare policy. Using qualitative interview data and document analysis, this article analyses the development of Dutch childcare policy from 1995 to 2009. The development of childcare policy is attributed to three social mechanisms: a common perception among actors viewing childcare as a solution to improve women's employment; a party politics mechanism, which creates a distinct Dutch approach to childcare; and a corporatist mechanism, referring to the interaction between the state and industrial relations, which failed in the area of childcare policy. The development of childcare policy has not been wholly unproblematic, however, and therefore a critical discussion of these developments is offered. Also, an update of policy developments through to 2013 is provided.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 811 - 828
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bonoli, G. (2005), ‘The politics of the new social policies: providing coverage against new social risks in mature welfare states’, Policy and Politics, 33: 3, 431–49.Google Scholar
Bonoli, G. (2006), ‘New social risks and the politics of post-industrial social policies’, in Armingeon, K. and Bonoli, G. (eds.), The Politics of Post-Industrial Welfare States: Adapting Post-War Social Policies to New Social Risks, Oxon and New York: Routledge, pp. 3–26.Google Scholar
Bonoli, G. (2007), ‘Time matters: postindustrialization, new social risks, and welfare state adaptation in advanced industrial democracies’, Comparative Political Studies, 40: 5, 495–520.Google Scholar
Campbell, I., Whitehouse, G. and Baxter, J. (2009), ‘Australia: casual employment, part-time employment and the resilience of the male-breadwinner model’, in Vosko, L. F., Macdonald, M. and Campbell, I. (eds.), Gender and the Contours of Precarious Employment, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 60–75.Google Scholar
CBS (2010), CBS Statline, Retrieved 7 January 2010, from Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (Statistics Netherlands).Google Scholar
Clasen, J. (ed.) (2011), Converging Worlds of Welfare? British and German Social Policy in the 21st Century, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Commissie Arbeidsparticipatie (2006), Naar een Toekomst die Werkt (Towards a Workable Future), Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Cooke, L. P. and Baxter, J. (2010), ‘“Families” in international context: comparing institutional effects across western societies’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 72: 3, 516–36.Google Scholar
Crompton, R. (2006), Employment and the Family: The Reconfiguration of Work and Family Life in Contemporary Societies, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Daguerre, A. (2006), ‘Childcare policies in diverse European welfare states: Switzerland, Sweden, France and Britain’, in Armingeon, K. and Bonoli, G. (eds.), The Politics of Post-Industrial Welfare States: Adapting Post-War Social Policies to New Social Risks, Oxon and New York: Routledge, pp. 227–47.Google Scholar
Daly, M. (2011), ‘What adult worker model? A critical look at recent social policy reform in Europe from a gender and family perspective’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 18: 1, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebbinghaus, B. (2011), ‘The role of trade unions in European pension reforms: from “old” to “new” politics?’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 17: 4, 315–31.Google Scholar
Engster, D. and Stensöta, H. O. (2011), ‘Do family policy regimes matter for children's well-being?’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 18: 1, 82–124.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1999), Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (2009), The Incomplete Revolution: Adapting to Women's New Roles, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Eydal, G. B. and Rostgaard, T. (2011), ‘Gender equality revisited – changes in Nordic childcare policies in the 2000s’, Social Policy and Administration, 45: 2, 161–79.Google Scholar
Fleckenstein, T. and Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2011), ‘Business, skills and the welfare state: the political economy of employment-oriented family policy in Britain and Germany’, Journal of European Social Policy, 21: 2, 136–49.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1998), The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Gornick, J., Meyers, M. and Ross, K. (1996), Public Policies and the Employment of Mothers: A Cross-National Study (Working Paper No. 140), Luxembourg: Luxembourg Income Study.Google Scholar
Hedström, P. and Swedberg, R. (1996), ‘Social mechanisms’, Acta Sociologica, 39: 3, 281–308.Google Scholar
Hicks, A. and Misra, J. (1993), ‘Political resources and the growth of welfare in affluent capitalist democracies, 1960–1982’, The American Journal of Sociology, 99: 3, 668–710.Google Scholar
Huber, E., Ragin, C. and Stephens, J. D. (1993), ‘Social democracy, Christian democracy, constitutional structure and the welfare state’, The American Journal of Sociology, 99: 3, 711–49.Google Scholar
Huber, E. and Stephens, J. D. (2000), ‘Partisan governance, women's employment, and the social democratic service state’, American Sociological Review, 65: 3, 323–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, A., Kornelakis, A. and d’Acri, C. R. (2011), ‘Social partners and the welfare state: recalibration, privatization or collectivization of social risks?’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 17: 4, 349–64.Google Scholar
Kemp, P. (ed.) (2010), Social Protection for a Post-Industrial World, Oxford: Inessentia.Google Scholar
Knijn, T. and Kremer, M. (1997), ‘Gender and the caring dimension of welfare states: toward inclusive citizenship’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 4: 3, 328–61.Google Scholar
Knijn, T. and Saraceno, C. (2010), ‘Changes in the regulation of responsibilities towards childcare needs in Italy and the Netherlands: different timing, increasingly different approaches’, Journal of European Social Policy, 20: 5, 444–55.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. (1992), ‘Gender and the development of welfare regimes’, Journal of European Social Policy, 2: 3, 159–73.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. (2006), ‘Employment and care: the policy problem, gender equality and the issue of choice’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 8: 2, 103–14.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. and Giullari, S. (2005), ‘The adult worker model family, gender equality and care: the search for new policy principles and the possibilities and problems of a capabilities approach’, Economy and Society, 34: 1, 76–104.Google Scholar
Lewis, J., Knijn, T., Martin, C. and Ostner, I. (2008), ‘Patterns of development in work/family reconciliation policies for parents in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK in the 2000s’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 15: 3, 261–86.Google Scholar
Lister, R. (1997), Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives, New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackor, R. A. (2010), ‘Legally enforced performance measurement of public services: crowding-out or crowding-in of motivation?’, Legisprudence, 4: 3, 285–306.Google Scholar
Martin, B., Hewitt, B., Baird, M., Baxter, J., Heron, A., Whitehouse, G., et al. (2011), Paid Parental Leave evaluation: Phase 1, http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/06_2012/op44.pdf.Google Scholar
Merens, A., Brakel, M. V. D., Hartgers, M. and Hermans, B. (2010), Emancipatiemonitor 2010, The Hague: Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau.Google Scholar
MinFin (2007), Memorie van Toelichting, Belastingplan 2007 (Legislative Appendix, Tax Plan 2007), The Hague: Ministerie van Financiën (Ministry of Finance).Google Scholar
Morgan, K. J. (2012), ‘Promoting social investment through work–family policies: which nations do it and why?, in Morel, N., Palier, B. and Palme, J. (eds.), Towards a Social Investment State? Ideas, Policies and Challenges, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 153–79.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2000), ‘Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics’, The American Political Science Review, 94: 2, 251–67.Google Scholar
Plantenga, J. (2012), ‘A market for childcare services? Private provision and public finance in the Dutch childcare sector’, in Mayes, D. G. and Thomson, M. (eds.), The Costs of Childcare, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 92–107.Google Scholar
Plantenga, J. and Remery, C. (2005), ‘Reconciliation of work and private life: a comparative review of thirty European countries’, Directorate-General for Employment Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
Portegijs, W., Cloïn, M., Ooms, I. and Eggink, E. (2006), Hoe het werkt met kinderen: Moeders over kinderopvang en arbeidsparticipatie, The Hague: Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau.Google Scholar
Portegijs, W., Hermans, B. and Lalta, V. (2006), Emancipatie Monitor 2006: Veranderingen in de leefsituatie en levensloop, The Hague: Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau.Google Scholar
Rijksoverheid (2011), ‘Waarom betaal ik in 2011 meer voor kinderopvang?’, http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/kinderopvang/vraag-en-antwoord/waarom-betaal-ik-in-2011-meer-voor-kinderopvang.html (accessed 29 January 2011).Google Scholar
Saraceno, C. (2011), ‘Childcare needs and childcare policies: a multidimensional issue’, Current Sociology, 59: 1, 78–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saraceno, C. and Keck, W. (2010), ‘Can we identify intergenerational policy regimes in Europe?’, European Societies, 12: 5, 675–96.Google Scholar
Scharpf, F. (1997), Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centred Institutionalism in Policy Research, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
SCP (2008), Nederland deeltijdland: Vrouwen en deeltijdwerk, The Hague: Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau.Google Scholar
Seeleib-Kaiser, M., Dyk, S. v. and Roggenkamp, M. (2008), Party Politics and Social Welfare: Comparing Christian and Social Democracy in Austria, Germany and the Netherlands, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
SER (1998), Arbeid, Zorg en Economische Zelfstandigheid (No. 98/11), The Hague: Sociaal-Economische Raad.Google Scholar
StAr (1999), Aanbeveling Kinderopvang (Childcare Recommendation), The Hague: Stichting van de Arbeid (Labour Foundation).Google Scholar
StAr (2004), Aanbeveling Kinderopvang 2004 (Childcare Recommendations 2004), The Hague: Stichting van de Arbeid (Labour Foundation).Google Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. (ed.) (2004), New Risks, New Welfare: The Transformation of the European Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tijdens, K. G. and Lieon, S. (1993), Kinderopvang in Nederland: Organisatie en financiering, Utrecht: Jan van Arkel.Google Scholar
Trampusch, C. (2006), ‘Industrial relations and welfare states: the different dynamics of retrenchment in Germany and the Netherlands’, Journal of European Social Policy, 16: 2, 121–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal (2000), TK 26 587, Lower House of the Parliament, The Hague.Google Scholar
Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal (2006), TK 28 447, Lower House of the Parliament, The Hague.Google Scholar
van Kersbergen, K. (1995), Social Capitalism: A Study of Christian Democracy and the Welfare State, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weyers, H. (2010), ‘Smoking bans in the Netherlands: a mix of self-regulation and regulation by government’, Legisprudence, 4: 3, 347–2.Google Scholar
Yerkes, M. A. (2010), ‘Childcare as a social risk in the Netherlands’, in Kemp, P. (ed.), Social Protection for a Post-Industrial World, Oxford: Intersentia, pp. 77–92.Google Scholar
Yerkes, M. A. (2009), ‘Part-time work in the Dutch welfare state: the ideal combination of work and care?’, Policy and Politics, 37: 4, 535–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yerkes, M. A. and Tijdens, K. (2010), ‘Social risk protection in collective agreements: evidence from the Netherlands’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 16: 4, 369–83.Google Scholar
Yerkes, M. A. (2011), Transforming the Dutch Welfare State: Social Risks and Corporatist Reform, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar