Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T22:24:48.434Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Closing the Childcare Gap: The Interaction of Childcare Provision and Mothers' Agency in Norway

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2007

ANNE LISE ELLINGSÆTER  and
LARS GULBRANDSEN
ANNE LISE ELLINGSÆTER
Affiliation:
Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, PO Box 1096 Blindern, 0317 Oslo email: [email protected]
LARS GULBRANDSEN
Affiliation:
Senior Research Fellow, Norwegian Social Research (NOVA), PO Box 3223 Elisenberg, 0208 Oslo email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In most European countries a ‘childcare gap’ exists: that is, a discrepancy between the demand for and provision of childcare. Among the countries that are succeeding in closing the gap are the Nordic welfare states. Hence, knowledge about how childcare provision in these countries has developed is of wide interest. This article stresses the importance of studying how the interactive processes of changing provision and demand explain the building up and the closing of national childcare gaps. Although there are similarities in the development of Nordic childcare services, some differences stand out. The comparison indicates that complex societal processes interact in shaping provision and demand. These dynamics are explored in more detail in the Norwegian case, where the interactive processes have produced an ever-increasing demand for childcare. The demand side is crucial, particularly the role of mothers in generating momentum for policy change. Mothers' changing labour market patterns and their demand for childcare are important driving forces for policy change.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , October 2007 , pp. 649 - 669
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

Anttonen, A. and Sipilä, J. 1996, ‘European social care services: is it possible to identify models?’, Journal of European Social Policy, 6: 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asplan Viak 2004, Analyse av barnehagetall per, 20 April, Oslo.Google Scholar
Beck, U. and Giddens, A. 2005, ‘Discovering real Europe: a cosmopolitan vision’, http://www.policy-network.net/php/print_preview.php?aid=471.Google Scholar
Bergqvist, C. and Nyberg, A. 2001, ‘Den svenska barnomsorgsmodellen – kontinuitet och förändring under 1990-talet’, in SOU 2001:52 Med välfärdsstaten som arbetsgivare, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Berman, Y. 2006, ‘Book review’, Journal of Social Policy, 35: 324–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blix, K. W. and Gulbrandsen, L. 1993, ‘Småbarnsmødre er ikke noe B-lag på arbeidsmarkedet’, Søkelys på arbeidsmarkedet, 9: 17–21.Google Scholar
Borchorst, A. 2002, ‘Danish childcare policy: continuity rather than radical change’, in Michel, S. and Mahon, R. (eds), Childcare Policy at the Crossroads: Gender and Welfare State Restructuring, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Crompton, R. 2006, Employment and the Family, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, M. 2000, ‘A fine balance: women's labor market participation in international comparison’, in Scharpf, F. W. and Schmid, V. A. (eds), Welfare and Work in the Open Economy, Volume II, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deacon, A. and Mann, K. 1999, ‘Agency, modernity and social policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 28: 3, 413–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, S. and Strell, M. 2004, ‘Combining lone motherhood and paid work: the rationality mistake in Norwegian social policy’, Journal of European Social Policy, 14: 1, 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, R. and Duncan, S. 1996, ‘Rational economic man or lone mothers in context?’, in Silva, E. B. (ed.), Good Enough Mothering?, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellingsæter, A. L. 2003, ‘The complexity of family policy reform: the case of Norway’, European Societies, 5: 4, 419–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellingsæter, A. L. 2006, ‘The Norwegian childcare regime and its paradoxes’, in Ellingsæter, A. L. and Leira, A. (eds), Politicising Parenthood in Scandinavia: Gender Relations in Welfare States, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Ellingsæter, A.L. and Gulbrandsen, L. 2003, Barnehagen – fra selektivt til universelt velferdsgode, Oslo: NOVA.Google Scholar
Elster, J. 1983, Sour Grapes:. Studies in the Subversion of Rationality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. 2002, ‘A child-centred social investment strategy’, in Esping-Andersen, G. et al. , Why We Need a New Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evers, A., Lewis, J. and Riedel, B. 2005, ‘Developing child-care provision in England and Germany: problems of governance’, Journal of European Social Policy, 15: 3, 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagan, C. 2001, ‘Time, money and the gender order: work orientations and working-time preferences in Britain’, Gender, Work and Organization, 8: 3, 239–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. 1996, ‘Meninger om barneomsorg og yrkesaktivitet’, in NOU (1996:13): Overføringer til barnefamilier, Vedlegg nr 13.Google Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. and Hellevik, T. 2000, Kontantstøtteordningens konsekvenser for barne-hagesektoren, Oslo: NOVA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakim, C. 1999, ‘Models of the family, women's role and social policy: a new perspective from preference theory’, European Societies, 1: 1, 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelweit, S. and Sigala, M. 2004, ‘Choice and the relationship between identities and behaviour for mothers with pre-school children: some implications for policy from a UK study’, Journal of Social Policy, 33: 3, 455–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoggett, P. 2001, ‘Agency, rationality and social policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 30: 1, 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, E. and Stephens, J. 2000, ‘Partisan governance, women's employment, and the social democratic service state’, American Sociological Review, 65: 323–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Håland, I. and Næringsrud, G. 2004, ‘7 av 10 mødre med barn i kontantstøttealder jobber’, Magasinet, Oslo: Statistics Norway.Google Scholar
Jenson, J. 2004, ‘Changing the paradigm: family responsibility or investing in children’, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 29: 2, 169–92.Google Scholar
Jenson, J. and Sineau, M. 2001, ‘Citizenship in the era of welfare state redesign’, in Jenson, J. and Sineau, M. (eds), Who Cares? Women's Work, Childcare, and Welfare State Redesign, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, J. D. 1984, Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Korpi, W. 2000, ‘Faces of inequality: gender, class and patterns of inequalities in different types of welfare states’, Social Politics, 7: 127–91.Google Scholar
Leira, A. 1992, Welfare States and Working Mothers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnussen, M.-L., Godal, B. and Leira, A. 2001, Hvem skal passe barna? Kontantstøtte, barnetilsyn og foreldres lønnsarbeid, Oslo: University of Oslo, Dept of Sociology and Human Geography.Google Scholar
Mahon, R. 2002, ‘Childcare: toward what kind of “social Europe”?’, Social Politics, 9: 343–79.Google Scholar
Michel, S. 1999, Children's Interests/Mothers’ Rights: The Shaping of America's Childcare Policy, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Nordic Council of Ministers 2006, Nordic Statistical Yearbook 2006, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Nyberg, A. 2003, ‘From foster mothers to care centres: a history of working mothers and childcare in Sweden’, Feminist Economics, 6: 1, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD 2001, Starting Strong. Early Childhood Education and Care, Paris.Google Scholar
Olson, K. 2002, ‘Recognising gender, redistributing labor’, Social Politics, 9: 380–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau-Effinger, B. 2005, ‘Culture and welfare state policies: reflections on a complex interrelation’, Journal of Social Policy, 34: 1, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plantenga, J. and Remery, C. 2005, Reconciliation of Work and Private Life:. A Comparative Review of Thirty European Countries, Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Roseneil, S. and Williams, F. 2004, ‘Introduction to the special issue’, Social Politics, 1: 2, 147–53.Google Scholar
Rønsen, M. 2005, Kontantstøttens langsiktige effekter på mødres og fedres arbeidstilbud, Oslo: Statistics Norway.Google Scholar
Salmi, M. 2006, ‘Parental choice and the passion for equality in Finland’, in Ellingsæter, A. L. and Leira, A. (eds), Politicising Parenthood in Scandinavia: Gender Relations in Welfare States, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Schøne, P. 2002, ‘Kontantstøtten og effekter på arbeidstilbudet: Hva er en god sammenligningsgruppe?’, Søkelys på arbeidsmarkedet, 19: 1, 23–30.Google Scholar
Smart, C. 2005, ‘Texture of family life: further thoughts on change and commitment’, Journal of Social Policy, 34: 4, 541–56.Google Scholar