Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:40:20.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Doing It for the Kids? The Determinants of Attitudes towards Public Childcare in Unified Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2011

ACHIM GOERRES  and
MARKUS TEPE
ACHIM GOERRES*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Management, Economics and Social Sciences, University of Cologne, Germany
MARKUS TEPE
Affiliation:
Center for Social Science Methodology, CvO University Oldenburg, Germany email: [email protected]
*
email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In order to explain why people differ in their attitudes towards public childcare, we present a theoretical framework that integrates four causal mechanisms: regime socialisation, political ideology, family involvement and material self-interest. Estimation results obtained from multivariate regressions on the 2002 German General Social Survey and replications on the 2008/9 European Social Survey can be condensed into three statements: (1) Regime socialisation is the single most important determinant of attitudes toward public childcare, followed by young age as an indicator of self-interest and political ideology. Family involvement does not have any sizeable impact. (2) Regime socialisation conditions the impact of some indicators of political ideology and family involvement on attitudes toward public childcare. (3) Despite a paradigmatic shift in policy, the dynamics of 2008 mirror those of 2002, highlighting the stability of inter-individual differences in support. The results suggest that the ‘shadow of communism’ still stretches over what people in the East expect from the welfare state and that individual difference in the demand for public childcare appears to be highly path-dependent.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , April 2012 , pp. 349 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Alesina, A. and Fuchs-Schündeln, N. (2007), ‘Good bye Lenin (or not?): the effect of communism on people's preferences’, The American Economic Review, 97: September, 1507–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alwin, D. F., Braun, M. and Scott, J. (1992), ‘The separation of work and the family: attitudes towards women's labour-force participation in Germany, Great Britain, and the United States’, European Sociological Review, 8: 1, 13–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alwin, D. F., Cohen, R. L. and Newcomb, T. M. (1991), Political Attitudes over the Life Span: The Bennington Women after Fifty Years, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Andreß, H.-J. and Heien, T. (2001), ‘Four worlds of welfare state attitudes? A comparison of Germany, Norway, and the United States’, European Sociological Review, 17: 4, 337–56.Google Scholar
Andreß, H.-J., Heien, T. and Hofäcker, D. (2001), Wozu brauchen wir noch den Sozialstaat?, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Bartus, T. (2005), ‘Estimation of marginal effects using margeff’, The Stata Journal, 5: 3, 309–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtson, V. L. and Roberts, R. E. L. (1991), ‘Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: an example of formal theory construction’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53: 4, 856–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blekesaune, M. and Quadagno, J. (2003), ‘Public attitudes toward welfare state policies: a comparative analysis of 24 nations’, European Sociological Review, 19: 5, 415–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boix, C. (1997), ‘Political parties and the supply side of the economy: the provision of physical and human capital in advanced economies, 1960–1990’, American Journal of Political Science, 41: 3, 814–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolzendahl, C. (2009), ‘Making the implicit explicit: gender influences on social spending in twelve industrialized democracies, 1980–99’, Social Politics, 16: 1, 40–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolzendahl, C. and Olafsdottir, S. (2008), ‘Gender group interest or gender ideology? Understanding US support for family policy within the liberal welfare regime’, Sociological Perspectives, 51: 2, 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonoli, G. (2005), ‘The politics of new social policies: providing coverage against new social risks in mature welfare states’, Policy & Politics, 33: 3, 431–9.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borck, R. and Wrohlich, K. (2008), ‘Preferences for childcare policies: theories and evidence’, Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW) Discussion Paper, 827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böttcher, A., Krieger, S. and Kolvenbach, F.-J. (2010), ‘Kinder mit Migrationshintergrund in Kindertagesbetreuung’, Wirtschaft und Statistik, 2: 158–64.Google Scholar
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (2000), ‘Reciprocity, self-interest, and the welfare state’, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, 26: 33–53.Google Scholar
Boye, K. (2011), ‘Work and well-being in a comparative perspective – the role of family policy’, European Sociological Review, 27: 1, 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewster, K. L. and Rindfuss, R. R. (2000), ‘Fertility and women's employment in industrialized nations’, Annual Review of Sociology, 26: 271–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, C. and Manza, J. (2007), Why Welfare States Persist: The Importance of Public Opinion in Democracies, Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busemeyer, M. R., Goerres, A. and Weschle, S. (2009), ‘Demands for redistributive policies in an era of demographic aging: the rival pressures from age and income in 14 OECD countries’, Journal of European Social Policy, 19: 3, 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerami, A. and Vanhuysse, P. (eds.) (2009), Post-Communist Welfare Pathways: Theorizing Social Policy Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, L. P. (2006), ‘Policy, preferences, and patriarchy: the division of domestic labor in East Germany, West Germany, and the United States’, Social Politics, 13: 1, 117–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corneo, G. (2001), ‘Inequality and the state: comparing US and German preferences’, Annales d'Économie et de Statistique, 63/64: 283–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corneo, G. and Grüner, H. P. (2002), ‘Individual preferences for political redistribution’, Journal of Public Economics, 83: 1, 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crompton, R., Brockmann, M. and Lyonette, C. (2005), ‘Attitudes, women's employment and the domestic division of labour: a cross-national analysis in two waves’, Work, Employment and Society, 19: 2, 213–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cusack, T., Iversen, T. and Rehm, P. (2006), ‘Risks at work: the demand and supply sides of government redistribution’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22: 3, 365–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daatland, S. O. (2001), ‘Ageing, families and welfare systems: comparative perspectives’, Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 34: 1, 16–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daatland, S. O. and Lowenstein, A. (2005), ‘Intergenerational solidarity and the family-welfare state balance’, European Journal of Ageing, 2: 174–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Durkheim, É. (1893), 23-01-09, De la division du travail social, Livre I. LES CLASSIQUES DES SCIENCES SOCIALES (electronic), from http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/Durkheim_emile/division_du_travail/division_travail.htmlGoogle Scholar
Ellingsaeter, A. L. and Gulbrandsen, L. (2007), ‘Closing the childcare gap: the interaction of childcare provision and mothers’ agency in Norway’, Journal of Social Policy, 36: 4, 649–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Ferrarini, T. and Sjöberg, O. (2010), ‘Social policy institutions and health outcomes: transition countries in comparative perspective’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 19: S1, S60–S88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garand, J. C. and Monroe, P. A. (1995), ‘Family leave legislation in the American States: toward a model of state policy adoption’, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 16: 4, 341–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaulthier, A. (2007), ‘The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: a review of the literature’, Population Research and Policy Review, 26: 3, 323–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelissen, J. (2000), ‘Popular support for institutionalized solidarity: a comparison between European welfare states’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 9: 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghysels, J. (2004), Work, Family and Childcare: An Empirical Analysis of European Households, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Goerres, A. (2009), ‘Die Einstellungen zu umverteilender Politik von einer starken Generation: die Babyboomer in Großbritannien und Westdeutschland im Vergleich’, Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 19: 2, 205–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goerres, A. and Tepe, M. (2010), ‘Age-based self-interest, intergenerational solidarity and the welfare state: a comparative analysis of older people's attitudes towards public childcare in 12 OECD countries’, European Journal of Political Research, 49: 6, 818–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goerres, A. and Tepe, M. (2012), ‘The family and the welfare state: the impact of public provision for families on young people's demand for public childcare across 21 nations’, in Vanhuysse, P. and Goerres, A. (eds.), Ageing Populations in Post-Industrial Democracies: Comparative Studies of Politics and Policies, London: Routledge, pp. 178–205.Google Scholar
Goerres, A. and Vanhuysse, P. (2012), ‘Mapping the field: comparative generational politics and policies in ageing democracies’, in Vanhuysse, P. and Goerres, A. (eds.), Ageing Populations in Post-Industrial Democracies: Comparative Studies of Politics and Policies, London: Routledge, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Hank, K. and Kreyenfeld, M. (2003), ‘A multilevel analysis of child care and women's fertility decisions in Western Germany’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 65: 3, 584–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henninger, A., Wimbauer, C. and Dombrowski, R. (2008), ‘Demography as a push towards gender equality? Current reforms of German family policy’, Social Politics, 15: 3, 287–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiilamo, H. and Kangas, O. (2009), ‘Trap for women or freedom to choose? The struggle over cash for child care schemes in Finland and Sweden’, Journal of Social Policy, 38: 3, 457–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, T. and Soskice, D. (2001), ‘An asset theory of social policy preferences’, American Political Science Review, 95: 4, 875–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, M. M. (2006), ‘Welfare regimes and attitudes towards redistribution: the regime hypothesis revisited’, European Sociological Review, 22: 2, 157–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, M. M. (2009), ‘United but divided: welfare regimes and the level and variance in public support for redistribution’, European Sociological Review, 25: 6, 723–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, C. (2009), ‘Institutions and the politics of childcare services’, Journal of European Social Policy, 19: 1, 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korpi, W. (2000), ‘Faces of inequality: gender, class, and patterns of inequalities in different types of welfare states’, Social Politics, 7: 127–91.CrossRefGoogle 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, 15: 3, 261–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Finance (2010), ‘Entwurf des Bundeshaushalts 2010 und der Finanzplan des Bundes 2009 bis 2013’, http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/nn_82794/DE/BMF__Startseite/Aktuelles/Monatsbericht__des__BMF/2009/07/analysen-und-berichte/b01-bundeshaushalt2010-2013/bundeshaushalt2010-2013.html#6.10, accessed 19 April 2010.Google Scholar
Montanari, I. (2000), ‘From family wage to marriage subsidy and child benefits: controversy and consensus in the development of family support’, Journal of European Social Policy, 10: 4, 307–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mood, C. (2010), ‘Logistic regression: why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it’, European Sociological Review, 26: 1, 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morel, N. (2007), ‘From subsidiarity to “free choice”: child- and elder-care policy reforms in France, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands’, Social Policy and Administration, 41: 6, 618–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noailly, J. and Visser, S. (2009), ‘The impact of market forces on child care provision: insights from the 2005 Child Care Act in the Netherlands’, Journal of Social Policy, 38: 3, 477–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehm, P. (2009), ‘Risks and redistribution: an individual-level analysis’, Comparative Political Studies, 42: 7, 855–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J. (2011), ‘Trust and early years childcare: parents’ relationships with private, state and third sector providers in England’, Journal of Social Policy, 40: 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roller, E. (1992), Einstellungen der Bürger zum Wohlfahrtsstaat in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roller, E. (1996), ‘Abbau des Sozialstaats: Einstellungen der Bundesbürger zu Kürzungen von Sozialleistungen in den neunziger Jahren’, WZB Diskussionspapiere, FS III, 96-205.Google Scholar
Roller, E. (1999), ‘Shrinking the welfare state: citizens’ attitudes towards cuts in social spending in Germany in the 1990s’, German Politics, 8: 1, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheve, K. and Stasavage, D. (2008), ‘Religion and social insurance: evidence from the United States, 1970–2002’, in Donno, D., Shapiro, I. and Swenson, P. (eds.), Divide and Deal: The Politics of Distribution in Democracies, New York: New York University Press, pp. 149–85.Google Scholar
Sears, D. O., Lau, R. R., Tyler, T. R. and Allen, H. M. (1980), ‘Self-interest vs. symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting’, The American Political Science Review, 74: 3, 670–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sotiropoulou, V. and Sotiropoulos, D. A. (2007), ‘Childcare in post-communist welfare states: the case of Bulgaria’, Journal of Social Policy, 36: 1, 141–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starke, P., Obinger, H. and Castles, F. (2008), ‘Convergence towards where: in what ways, if any, are welfare states becoming more similar?’, Journal of European Social Policy, 15: 7, 975–1000.Google Scholar
Sunström, E. (1999), ‘Should mothers work? Age and attitudes in Germany, Italy and Sweden’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 8: 3, 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svallfors, S. (1997), ‘Worlds of welfare and attitudes to redistribution: a comparison of eight western nations’, European Sociological Review, 13: 3, 283–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svallfors, S. (2003), ‘Welfare regimes and welfare opinions: a comparison of eight western countries’, Social Indicators Research, 64: 3, 495–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szydlik, M. (2000), Lebenslange Solidarität? Generationenbeziehungen zwischen erwachsenen Kindern und Eltern, Opladen: Leske & Budrich.Google Scholar
Tepe, M. and Vanhuysse, P. (2010), ‘Elderly bias, new social risks, and social spending: change and timing in eight programs across four worlds of welfare, 1980–2003’, Journal of European Social Policy, 20: 3, 218–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, J. (2002), ‘The first decade of post-communist elections and voting: what have we studied, and how have we studied it?’, Annual Review of Political Science, 5: 271–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhuysse, P. and Goerres, A. (eds.) (2012), Ageing Populations in Post-Industrial Democracies: Comparative Studies of Politics and Policies, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
West, P. (1984), ‘The family, the welfare state and community care: political rhetoric and public attitudes’, Journal of Social Policy, 13: 417–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Goerres Supplementary Appendix

Goerres Supplementary Appendix

Download Goerres Supplementary Appendix(File)
File 78.3 KB