Introduction
Over recent decades, higher maternal labour market participation has generated greater needs for childcare. Barriers to formal early childhood education and care (ECEC) services, such as limited affordable, accessible, flexible childcare options (Adamson, Reference Adamson2017), and a preference for familial care in some contexts (Wheelock and Jones, Reference Wheelock and Jones2002), mean that many parents draw on grandparents as a source of childcare. Emerging research examines the nature of grandparent childcare, the characteristics of families that draw on it, its benefits for grandparents, parents, and grandchildren, and the impacts of grandparent childcare on the labour supply of both parents and grandparents.
Grandparent childcare is common in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, though the prevalence and patterns of care vary, with greater intensity in some nations (e.g. southern and eastern Europe), than in others (e.g. northern Europe) (Glaser et al., Reference Glaser, Price, Di Gessa, Ribe, Stuchbury and Tinker2013; Price et al., Reference Price, Ribe, Di Gessa, Glaser and Timonen2018). In European countries, the prevalence of at least weekly care by grandparents is around 30 per cent (Bratti et al., Reference Bratti, Frattini and Scervini2018). Grandmothers provide much more childcare than grandfathers. Some research suggests more intensive levels of grandparent childcare in low socio-economic status (SES) families compared with high SES families (Bordone et al., Reference Bordone, Arpino and Aassve2017; Floridi, Reference Floridi2022).
There is substantial research showing that grandparent childcare increases maternal labour supply (Gray, Reference Gray2005; Zamarro, Reference Zamarro2011; Aparicio-Fenoll and Vidal-Fernandez, Reference Aparicio-Fenoll and Vidal-Fernandez2015; Garcia-Moran and Kuehn, Reference Garcia-Moran and Kuehn2017; Bratti et al., Reference Bratti, Frattini and Scervini2018). In one study of fourteen European countries, having access to at least weekly grandparent childcare increased maternal labour supply by 17 per cent and had no impact on paternal labour supply (Barslund and Schomaker, Reference Barslund and Schomaker2019). Research has also explored the relationship between grandparenthood/grandparent care and grandparents’ labour supply (Gray, Reference Gray2005; Zamarro, Reference Zamarro2011; Van Bavel and De Winter, Reference Van Bavel and De Winter2013; Rupert and Zanella, Reference Rupert and Zanella2018; Backhaus and Barslund, Reference Backhaus and Barslund2021; Floridi, Reference Floridi2022; Frimmel et al., Reference Frimmel, Halla, Schmidpeter and Winter-Ebmer2022), suggesting that becoming a grandparent negatively affects grandparents’ (particularly grandmothers’) labour supply (Barslund and Schomaker, Reference Barslund and Schomaker2019; Backhaus and Barslund, Reference Backhaus and Barslund2021). Backhaus and Barslund found that being a grandmother ‘reduces the probability that a woman aged between fifty-five and sixty-four years is employed by more than 30 per cent’ (Reference Backhaus and Barslund2021: 8). Grandparents’ involvement in childcare is therefore shaped by their labour market participation, other socio-demographic factors, and family circumstances.
Grandparent childcare arrangements are also shaped by public policy settings. Over the last few years, scholars have begun to use a work/care regime analysis to understand country differences in the organisation of grandparent childcare. Research on grandparenting regimes explores the relationship between grandparent childcare prevalence and intensity, and different combinations of ECEC access or use, parental leaves, and cultural and gender norms about work and childcare (Glaser et al., Reference Glaser, Price, Di Gessa, Ribe, Stuchbury and Tinker2013; Di Gessa et al., Reference Di Gessa, Glaser, Price, Ribe and Tinker2016; Bordone et al., Reference Bordone, Arpino and Aassve2017; Floridi, Reference Floridi2022). This work has been highly important in beginning to understand how policy configurations shape grandparent childcare. However, it focuses on ECEC and parental leave policies with only limited engagement with the broader range of policies that shape configurations of grandparent childcare. A very small body of research (i.e. Van Bavel and De Winter, Reference Van Bavel and De Winter2013; Ho, Reference Ho2015; Lakomý and Kreidl, Reference Lakomý and Kreidl2015) has begun to identify how other policy settings shape grandparental involvement in childcare. However, this work is disparate and draws on diverse methodological approaches. A holistic approach to understanding the relationship between different policies and grandparent childcare is important to capture the intergenerational dynamics of family decisions about childcare, and the complementarities (or not) of policy settings in different domains. For example, policies that aim to increase mothers’ labour market participation may, if not accompanied by strong ECEC policy settings, conflict with policies to boost mature age labour market participation by simultaneously drawing grandparents into childcare, and out of work.
Using an intergenerational lens that encompasses factors driving the demand for grandparent childcare among parents, and supply of childcare by grandparents, this article maps the existing evidence on the relationship between public policies and grandparents’ childcare across policy settings that span the life course. Through a scoping review of the literature, the article asks: what is known about the relationship between public policy and the demand for, supply of, and configuration of grandparent childcare? The article contributes new knowledge by bringing together the research evidence on the role of different policy domains in shaping grandparent childcare. It is the first to assess these according to different criteria, including whether the relationships identified between policies and grandparent childcare are direct or indirect, whether public policies shape the availability, patterns or nature of grandparent childcare, and which policy domains are foregrounded, and neglected.
Understanding the ways public policies shape grandparent childcare is important for both scholarship and policy. Understanding the policy/grandparent childcare nexus provides the structural backdrop for empirical studies on family decision-making about intergenerational childcare. It also makes grandparent childcare visible to public policymakers by revealing the ways in which it is a product of policy programmes and constellations that intersect with family preference and circumstances to create patterns of grandparent childcare.
Method
The project was approved by the University of Sydney Ethics Committee [2022_HE000074]. To chart what is known about the relationship between public policy and the demand for, supply of, and configuration of grandparent childcare, we conducted a scoping review of the literature. A scoping review is ideally suited to identify and map literature on a given topic, particularly where the evidence is broad in scope and diverse in methodological approach (Levac et al., Reference Levac, Colquhoun and O’Brien2010; Peters et al., Reference Peters, Godfrey, Khalil, McInerney, Parker and Soares2015; Munn et al., Reference Munn, Peters, Stern, Tufanaru, McArthur and Aromataris2018), but unlike a systematic review, there ‘is no expectation or possibility of statistical pooling, formal risk of bias rating, and quality of evidence assessment’ (Peters et al., Reference Peters, Marnie, Colquhoun, Garritty, Hempel, Horsley and Langlois2021: 3).
We conducted a scoping review following the five-stage framework devised by Arksey and O’Malley (Reference Arksey and O’Malley2005), reviewing the available evidence from the last thirty-three years. The PRISMA ScR JBI Checklist was followed to ensure rigorous application of Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. Scoping review methodology is an increasingly common approach to evidence synthesis and is developing as a policy- and decision-making tool (Peters et al., Reference Peters, Marnie, Colquhoun, Garritty, Hempel, Horsley and Langlois2021).
Stage 1: identifying the research question
We set out to answer the question: What is known about the relationship between public policy and the demand for, supply of, and configuration of grandparent childcare?
Stage 2: identifying relevant studies
Searches were conducted on the seventh of September 2023 across three multi-disciplinary databases with strong and broad coverage of the social sciences and public policy and their intersections with other disciplines: Scopus, ProQuest Central, and JSTOR. The initial search terms for all searches were (grandparent* OR grandmother* OR grandfather*) AND (childcare OR child care OR child-care OR child*) AND polic*. Boolean operators and truncation symbols, applicable to these databases, were used.
Search parameters included: titles in English and limited to books, reports, scholarly journals and working papers published between the first of January 1990 and the seventh of September 2023. This time span was selected because of rising maternal labour market participation and transformation of ECEC and family policies during this period. The number of titles increased over the search period: for example, from an initial nine titles in the Proquest database over the decade 1990–99, to eighty-three titles since 2020 (see Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Example of increase in articles in this area.
Three hundred and twenty-two titles resulted from the Proquest search, 564 titles from Scopus, and thirty-seven from JSTOR. These were exported into MS Excel to create one file with 923 entries. Duplicates were deleted, leaving 701 entries.
Stage 3: study selection
Two researchers reviewed the 701 titles using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included studies were: studies in English; studies focused on full member OECD countries (to allow comparison between more similar familial and governmental structures); and studies focusing on all household types, including intergenerational households (i.e. where parents and grandparents resided in the same premises) to incorporate the full range of grandparent childcare from highly intensive to more peripheral. Excluded studies were: studies focused on health outcomes (of grandparents and/or grandchildren); and studies focused on kinship caring (where grandparents act permanently in loco parentis i.e. take over all or nearly all responsibilities pertaining to raising a child, often through custodianship or guardianship arrangements), as the research is part of a larger study that is focused on the sharing of childcare by parents and grandparents and kinship care has very different dynamics. The reviewers applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria in five phases (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Selection process.
Phase 1 involved two researchers independently reviewing each entry by title. Where assessments differed, resolution was achieved through discussion. One hundred and seventy-nine titles remained. In Phase 2, abstracts were reviewed by two researchers. Disagreement was resolved through discussion, after which eighty-nine titles remained. In Phase 3, the same reviewers independently read the full text, reducing the number to fifty-three titles, of which they had high confidence in twenty-nine that addressed both the research topics of public policy and grandparental childcare. A third team member resolved the differences in their assessment of the remaining twenty-four titles, retaining five, so that thirty-four scholarly titles remained. In Phase 4, an additional nine titles were included after evaluating the reference lists of the chosen titles, resulting in forty-three titles. Phase 5 involved a rigorous re-examination of these articles in relation to the research question, and a further five titles were removed, resulting in thirty-eight.
Stage 4: charting the data
Following Arksey and O’Malley’s descriptive/analytical method, we charted key aspects of the thirty-eight titles – including author, year, title, country/region, publication type, methods, policy area, and aim(s) of the study, using a ‘data charting form’ (Arksey and O’Malley, Reference Arksey and O’Malley2005) created in MS Excel (Table 1).
Table 1. Charting the data
Summary of categorised studies
Country/Region
Half the thirty-eight studies (eighteen) focused on Europe (Table 2). Within this group, almost two-thirds (eleven studies) used multi-country databases that included between ten and twenty-two countries.
Table 2. Country/region of study
Type of publication
Most of the studies were published as journal articles (thirty-three), with two working papers and single instances of a book, book chapter, and policy brief.
Study design
Nearly half the studies (twenty) were quantitative, seven were qualitative, five used mixed methods, three case studies, two document analyses, and one literature review. Of the quantitative studies, nearly half (eight) involved analyses of the European Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe (SHARE).
Stage 5: collating, summarising and reporting the results
Three authors reviewed the corpus and identified policy areas shaping grandparent care patterns. Five key themes were divided among the first three authors who then sought input from authors four and five to refine the themes.
Results
We identified five policy domains that shape patterns of grandparent care. A domain encompasses a set of policies that address a shared substantive issue and has ‘integrative properties’ or a shared logic (May et al., Reference May, Sapotichne and Workman2006). For example, the first domain, ‘parental and grandparent leaves, and flexible work’ encompasses workplace accommodations of childcare responsibilities, and the second, ‘childcare and education policy’, encompasses formal settings in which children receive education and care. The findings for each policy domain are presented separately below. The methodological approach used in some studies made it difficult to untangle the impact of different policies. This was particularly evident for parental and grandparental leaves, and childcare and education policies.
Parental and grandparent leaves and flexible work
The literature suggests that longer parental leaves reduce grandparent childcare, particularly intensive childcare, except where parental leaves are transferrable to grandparents. In the Czech Republic, extending maternity/parental leave to three or four years saw an increase in mothers caring for their children aged three and under, and a concomitant decrease in grandparents’ childcare (Souralová, Reference Souralová2019). Floridi (Reference Floridi2022) examines the relationship between countries’ parental leave schemes, ECEC use, and grandparents’ daily childcare provision, finding that, when ECEC policies and patterns of use are roughly comparable, longer parental leaves paid at a higher rate reduce rates of intensive (daily) grandparent childcare.
In Lithuania, Bulgaria and Hungary, grandparents can use ‘parental’ leave (Van Bavel and De Winter, Reference Van Bavel and De Winter2013; Aidukaite and Telisauskaite-Cekanavice, Reference Aidukaite and Telisauskaite-Cekanavice2020). In Lithuania, for example, if both parents want to return to work, parental leave can be transferred to a grandparent. Baird et al. (Reference Baird, Hamilton, Dinale, Gulesserian, Heron, Dobrotić, Blum and Koslowski2022) find this policy is also available in Cuba, Russia, Portugal, and Germany and is mooted in other countries. However, Osuna (Reference Osuna2021) suggests that increasing ECEC subsidies is more effective in boosting maternal labour market participation than making parental leaves available to grandparents.
Other forms of leave help shape grandparent care arrangements. Wheelock and Jones (Reference Wheelock and Jones2002) report both mothers and fathers draw on their annual leave to meet childcare needs during school holidays in ways that complement grandparents’ availability. Hamilton and Suthersan (Reference Hamilton and Suthersan2020) report grandparents saving their annual leave to provide intensive childcare during school holidays. The availability of annual leave, therefore, can shape parents’ need for grandparent childcare, and grandparents’ availability for childcare, particularly during school holidays. Baird et al. (Reference Baird, Hamilton, Dinale, Gulesserian, Heron, Dobrotić, Blum and Koslowski2022) also identify emerging models of employer-provided grandparent leave, however we found no research examining the impacts of these policies on grandparent childcare arrangements
Employment policy and the availability of part-time employment also shape grandparent childcare. A lack of part-time employment, combined with poor access to ECEC, fosters more intensive grandparental childcare (Floridi, Reference Floridi2022). According to Bordone et al. (Reference Bordone, Arpino and Aassve2017), countries with low maternal part-time work see the highest intensive (daily) grandparent care, because mothers who do work, do so full-time and (where formal ECEC services are lacking) daily grandparent childcare is required. In contrast, countries with high maternal part-time work had higher prevalence of grandparent care, but the care was less intensive (weekly). This is because although more mothers work, they require less childcare from grandparents because part-time hours facilitate providing some childcare themselves (Bordone et al., Reference Bordone, Arpino and Aassve2017).
Childcare and education policy
A growing literature examines the impact of ECEC policies (and primary education) on grandparent caregiving. Childcare and education policies were the most common structural variable identified. The measurement of ‘childcare’ differed across studies, sometimes with multiple indicators used (see Glaser et al., Reference Glaser, Price, Di Gessa, Ribe, Stuchbury and Tinker2013; Price et al., Reference Price, Ribe, Di Gessa, Glaser and Timonen2018). Most studies considered availability (enrolment or coverage), but some identified the importance of affordability (Del Boca et al., Reference Del Boca, Locatelli and Vuri2005), and flexibility (Wheelock and Jones, Reference Wheelock and Jones2002; Le Bihan and Martin, Reference Bihan and Martin2004).
Availability
Wide availability and use of formal childcare tends to create complementary or occasional patterns of grandparent childcare, whereas low availability tends to generate intensive grandparent care (Di Gessa et al., Reference Di Gessa, Glaser, Price, Ribe and Tinker2016; Bordone et al., Reference Bordone, Arpino and Aassve2017; Price et al., Reference Price, Ribe, Di Gessa, Glaser and Timonen2018). Di Gessa et al. (Reference Di Gessa, Glaser, Price, Ribe and Tinker2016: 150) found that ‘as the percentage of formal childcare provision in a country increases, parents are less likely to receive intensive grandparental childcare’. Studies using the Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) dominate the literature on the relationship between childcare availability and grandparent care patterns. When public investment in ECEC is high, grandparent care complements formal care. Glaser et al. (Reference Glaser, Price, Di Gessa, Ribe, Stuchbury and Tinker2013: 68) hypothesise that in ‘countries with large percentages of children in formal childcare institutions (particularly more than thirty hours per week) … we would expect lower levels of intensive grandmaternal childcare’. Their analysis finds a strong negative relationship between the percentage of children under two years of age in formal childcare and the provision of intensive (daily) grandmaternal childcare.
Price and colleagues’ (Reference Price, Ribe, Di Gessa, Glaser and Timonen2018) analysis predominantly using SHARE data shows that as the proportion of children under two years of age in formal care increases, the proportion of grandmothers providing intensive care drops. However, consistent with Bordone et al. (Reference Bordone, Arpino and Aassve2017), Price et al. (Reference Price, Ribe, Di Gessa, Glaser and Timonen2018) find that as the proportion of children under two years of age in formal care increases, the proportion of grandmothers providing any care increases. This is likely because countries with well-developed ECEC systems have more mothers employed, and parents use grandparents to fill gaps, or to collect and deliver children to/from ECEC. Consistent with this, using SHARE data for eleven European countries, Igel and Szydlik conclude ‘expenditure on childcare infrastructures [has] a positive effect on the occurrence of grandchild care, but a negative effect on its intensity’ (Igel and Szydlik, Reference Igel and Szydlik2011: 214). Bordone et al. (Reference Bordone, Arpino and Aassve2017) build on Igel and Szydlik (Reference Igel and Szydlik2011) and Di Gessa et al. (Reference Di Gessa, Glaser, Price, Ribe and Tinker2016), showing that public childcare availability ‘crowds in’ grandparent childcare. In countries with low state support for childcare, predicted probability of daily (high intensity) grandparent care is highest, with values up to 41.7 per cent for Poland, compared with 1.9 per cent for the Netherlands, which has a well-developed ECEC system. However, the Netherlands also has the highest predicted probability of weekly (low intensity) grandparent care (42.1 per cent), where grandparents bridge the gaps between formal childcare and parental availability.
Cabrera-Hernández and Padilla-Romo (Reference Cabrera-Hernández and Padilla-Romo2021) examined the impact on grandmothers’ labour supply of a primary education policy change in Mexico. In one municipality, extending the school day for students aged six to twelve years from four and a half to eight hours increased grandmothers’ employment, likely through a substitution effect in which primary school aged children moved from morning and afternoon grandparent care into longer stays at school.
The quantitative studies identified above are complemented by qualitative and mixed method studies that produce similar results. Can’s (Reference Can2019) study of grandparent caregiving in Turkey proposes that scant childcare facilities combined with ‘the patriarchal division of labour at home’ result in high levels of care by grandmothers. Hamilton and Suthersan (Reference Hamilton and Suthersan2020) also found that Australian grandparents’ decisions about employment and caregiving were shaped by the (lack of) available formal childcare.
Affordability and flexibility
Availability intersects with affordability and flexibility in shaping access to formal ECEC. Where ECEC is expensive, grandparent care tends to substitute for formal care (Del Boca et al., Reference Del Boca, Locatelli and Vuri2005; Osuna, Reference Osuna2021). Zamarro (Reference Zamarro2011) used SHARE data from ten European countries to examine how public investment in childcare and patterns of use among children aged three and under, related to grandparent care. They find that in Greece and Italy, where generosity of public funding for ECEC is lowest, grandmothers are most likely to provide regular care for grandchildren (i.e. at least weekly care). They suggest that ‘grandmothers of young children in countries with higher childcare fees provide care with a higher probability’ (Zamarro, Reference Zamarro2011: 16).
Bryson et al. (Reference Bryson, Brewer, Sibieta and Butt2012) find that, while childcare places in the UK increased by 50 per cent between 1997 and 2008, there was a simultaneous increase in grandparent care provision. They identified (lack of) affordability, flexibility and appropriateness (including for children with additional needs) as key reasons grandparent care remained high. Hamilton and Suthersan (Reference Hamilton and Suthersan2020: 3) also note that grandparents report that sparse access to flexible and affordable formal ECEC in Australia was a key reason driving their care. In Zhou’s (Reference Zhou2013) study of childcare by Chinese grandparents in Canada, migrant mothers perceived grandparent care as their only option due to the expense and inflexibility of formal childcare.
Aidukaite and Telisauskaite-Cekanavice (Reference Aidukaite and Telisauskaite-Cekanavice2020), in Lithuania, found that a combination of limited formal childcare places and the short operational hours of ECEC centers fosters high reliance on grandparents. Wheelock and Jones (Reference Wheelock and Jones2002) suggest that the (in)flexibility of formal settings shapes grandparent care provision. This aligns with Le Bihan and Martin (Reference Bihan and Martin2004) who examine the impact of atypical working hours in Finland, France, and Portugal and different family types: lone parent, dual-earner, and male breadwinner. They show that, particularly where public childcare provision is inflexible, more families require support from grandparents. Lie’s (Reference Lie2006) qualitative study with ethnic minority parents in the UK highlighted that it is particularly important that children’s services are culturally appropriate and inclusive. When they are not, families are more likely to rely on grandparental care.
Income support policy
In addition to childcare subsidies, other income support policies shape grandparent childcare, including direct payments to grandparents. In 2017, the Turkish Government announced a pilot programme to pay grandmothers (not grandfathers) providing daily childcare one-third of the minimum wage. The policy was designed to boost maternal labour market participation. Can argues that it will likely further increase ‘the already rising percentage of grandmothers providing daily and intensive care for their grandchildren’ (Can, Reference Can2019: 91), though the article did not provide direct data on the policy’s impact. In contrast, many other countries provide cash benefits to support mothers to stay at home to care for their children (Glaser et al., Reference Glaser, Price, Di Gessa, Ribe, Stuchbury and Tinker2013), which has the effect of reducing the extent of grandparent childcare required.
There is more literature on the effects of policies intended to boost employment among low-income parents, particularly single mothers. Studies suggest that welfare reform policies that increase work requirements for mothers on income support do increase their labour supply, with implications for childcare (e.g., Løken et al., Reference Løken, Lommerud and Holm Reiso2018). Studies have examined the relationship between such welfare reform measures and grandparent childcare. In a US study of ten small welfare reform programmes aimed at increasing the employment of low-income parents, Robins (Reference Robins2007) found that childcare needs rose and that most of this need was met by informal carers, particularly grandparents.
In a qualitative study on mothers in a US welfare-to-work programme, Mensing et al. (Reference Mensing, French, Fuller and Kagan2000) found that mothers’ childcare decisions were primarily driven by trust in the provider. Consequently, most relied on grandparents for childcare. In another US study of a work activationFootnote 1 policy for low-income mothers, Estes et al. (Reference Estes, Goldberg, Wellin, Linkins, Shostak and Beard2006) found that when these parents entered work, grandparents took on more childcare, especially in three-generation households. Conversely, in an article on the same reforms, Ho (Reference Ho2015) found that while more mothers were employed and required more childcare, the reforms may have partially crowded out grandparent childcare due to higher childcare subsidies accompanying the policy (Ho, Reference Ho2015). Grandparent childcare is also shaped by income support policies in retirement, discussed below.
Mature age employment, retirement, and pensions
Broadly, policies focusing on mature age employment reduce grandparent childcare, while policies offering opportunities for early retirement increase grandparent childcare. In the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Slovenia, the statutory retirement age is not only several months lower for women than for men but is further lowered by between twelve and eighteen months for every child a woman (but not a man) has (Souralová, Reference Souralová2019: 676). This provision is underpinned by the presumption that older women should be available to care for grandchildren. The Czech Republic’s pension scheme also has an option to retire five years before the statutory age, and research suggests that women are more likely to do this. Male and female retirement ages are being slowly equalised, which is likely to reduce the supply of grandparent (especially grandmaternal) childcare (Souralová, Reference Souralová2019).
Gray (Reference Gray2005) finds UK women aged forty-five to sixty-four are twice as likely to provide regular care for grandchildren if they are not employed. Using different data, she also finds that women who are over fifty are half as likely to provide childcare if they are employed and concludes that policies encouraging or compelling grandparents to continue working later are likely to reduce their availability for childcare. Zamarro (Reference Zamarro2011) also found employment participation negatively affected the probability of providing regular grandchild care. Di Gessa et al. (Reference Di Gessa, Glaser, Price, Ribe and Tinker2016) found that, as the percentage of women aged fifty-five to sixty-four in paid work increases, the likelihood of intensive grandparental childcare decreases. Van Bavel and de Winter (Reference Van Bavel and De Winter2013) find that in countries with low grandparental employment rates, regular care of grandchildren is more prevalent.
Lakomý and Kreidl (Reference Lakomý and Kreidl2015) find that grandparents working part-time report considerably greater childcare involvement than grandparents working fulltime. This relationship is strongest among paternal grandmothers (suggesting that maternal grandmothers are more likely to provide intensive childcare while working part and fulltime, probably due to greater normative expectations directed at mothers). However, Lakomý and Kreidl (Reference Lakomý and Kreidl2015) suggest other factors are at play, such as family norms about caregiving, and grandparents may reduce their hours to provide care for their grandchildren. Greater access to part-time work increases opportunities for grandparents to combine paid work with childcare and create a more manageable work-care juggle for themselves (Lakomý and Kreidl, Reference Lakomý and Kreidl2015: 330).
Aparicio-Fenoll and Vidal Fernandez (Reference Aparicio-Fenoll and Vidal-Fernandez2015) find that grandmothers below the statutory retirement age are less likely to provide childcare and suggest that raising statutory retirement ages will likely decrease grandparent childcare. Similarly, Backhaus and Barslund (Reference Backhaus and Barslund2021: 13) find that ‘retirement eligibility of maternal grandmothers matters for the labour force participation of mothers’, suggesting an indirect relationship between grandmothers’ retirement age and propensity for childcare provision. Bratti et al. (Reference Bratti, Frattini and Scervini2018: 1268), modeling the impacts of Italian pension reforms, estimate that ‘the potential availability of maternal grandmothers for childcare increases their daughters’ LFP [labour force participation]’. Increasing the retirement age or tightening requirements for age pensions may therefore reduce grandparental childcare. Floridi (Reference Floridi2022) argues that it is not just the retirement age that can shape grandparent childcare, but the replacement rate of retirement pensions. She finds that the association between being a grandparent and early retirement is stronger in countries with higher pension replacement rates. In contrast, a US study of retirement intentions, Lumsdaine and Verneer (Reference Lumsdaine and Vermeer2015) found no relationship between the existence and type of retirement benefit (i.e., defined contribution versus defined benefit) and the likelihood of providing grandparent childcare.
Several countries have introduced measures that support grandparents to balance paid work and childcare, such as credits to pension accounts during periods spent caring or introducing a right-to-request flexible work for grandparents providing regular childcare (AHRC, 2013). However, we found no research examining the impacts of these policies on grandparent childcare arrangements.
Migration policy
Some research has examined migration policy and grandparent care. This research has focused on Canada (Aggarwal and Das Gupta, Reference Aggarwal and Das Gupta2013; Zhou, Reference Zhou2013; Ferrer, Reference Ferrer2015), Australia (Hamilton et al., Reference Hamilton, Kintominas and Brennan2018, Reference Hamilton, Kintominas and Adamson2024, Reference Hamilton, Hill and Kintominas2021), Singapore (Chiu and Ho, Reference Chiu and Ho2020) and the United Kingdom and China (Tu, Reference Tu2023). Host country migration policies are sometimes deliberately constructed to facilitate unpaid, temporary grandparent care, with limitations to grandparents’ participation in work and access to benefits (Zhou, Reference Zhou2013; Ferrer, Reference Ferrer2015; Hamilton et al., Reference Hamilton, Kintominas and Adamson2024; Chiu and Ho, Reference Chiu and Ho2020).
Hamilton et al. (Reference Hamilton, Kintominas and Adamson2024) conducted a critical discourse analysis of Australian policies and debates concerning migrant grandparents during a time of visa reform (2013–2019) and Ferrer (Reference Ferrer2015) conducted a case study and policy analysis of a new sponsored temporary Parent and Grandparent Supervisa in Canada. These articles identify how specific long stay (grand)parent visas facilitate long-term, but time-limited, periods of intensive grandparent childcare in migrant families.
The impact of grandparents’ temporary or visitor visas on family care dynamics was explored in several articles (Aggarwal and Das Gupta, Reference Aggarwal and Das Gupta2013; Zhou, Reference Zhou2013 ; Ferrer, Reference Ferrer2015; Tu, Reference Tu2023; Hamilton et al., Reference Hamilton, Hill and Kintominas2021). Migrant grandparents in these studies typically co-resided with their children and grandchildren and undertook both childcare and domestic duties, but had no legal pathways into paid employment, thus creating the context for very intensive childcare responsibilities (Ferrer, Reference Ferrer2015; Hamilton et al., Reference Hamilton, Hill and Kintominas2021). However, these periods of intensive childcare were time limited (Tu, Reference Tu2023).
Discussion and conclusion
A review of existing literature suggests that public policies relating to leaves, flexible work, ECEC, mature age employment, retirement incomes, income support and migration shape the availability, patterns, and nature of grandparental childcare. Most reviewed articles on policies influencing grandparent childcare focus on ECEC and parental leave policies, with considerably fewer articles on mature age/retirement incomes policies and other policy areas and an absence of articles on some policy areas, including disability and housing policy. In many cases untangling the factors that are shaping patterns of work and childcare across generations is difficult. Many studies showed how policies interact to shape care arrangements (Van Bavel and De Winter, Reference Van Bavel and De Winter2013; Bordone et al., Reference Bordone, Arpino and Aassve2017; Bratti et al., Reference Bratti, Frattini and Scervini2018).
Across all policy areas except ECEC, there is evidence of policies that have been designed to directly shape grandparent involvement in childcare by boosting the supply of grandparents, in all cases, enabling or increasing grandparent involvement in childcare. This included transferable parental leaves in countries such as Lithuania and Bulgaria (and emerging instances of grandparent leaves), income support payments for grandparents providing childcare in Turkey, the lowering of the statutory retirement age for each child a mother has in the Czech Republic and Slovenia (to make them available to provide grandparent childcare), and grandparent visas in countries like Australia and Canada.
However, most policies do not directly or explicitly aim to shape the demand, supply, or involvement of grandparents in childcare, but rather do so indirectly through altering the opportunities for paid work and unpaid care among parents and grandparents and access to alternative formal care options. The evidence suggests that access to ECEC plays the strongest role in shaping the demand for, and nature of, grandparent childcare. Widely available, formal, state-subsidised ECEC plays a clear role in reducing intensive grandparental childcare. Parental leave also plays a strong role in shaping demand for grandparent care, as longer leaves provide greater opportunities for parents to provide care for their very young children, obviating the need for grandparent care. The exception is where parental leaves are transferrable to a grandparent, which increases the involvement of grandparents in childcare.
The articles taking a regime analysis approach combine analysis of ECEC, mothers’ patterns of work, and parental leave. In countries with generously, publicly-resourced ECEC services (such as Northern European countries) occasional grandparent childcare is common to fill gaps around formal childcare while mothers work, but intensive grandparent childcare is uncommon. These are described as ‘no grandparent childcare assumed’ regimes (Glaser et al., Reference Glaser, Price, Di Gessa, Ribe, Stuchbury and Tinker2013), or ‘defamilialised regimes’ (Floridi, Reference Floridi2022). In contrast, countries with poor access to ECEC (such as the Southern and Eastern European countries) tend to have lower levels of grandparent care overall, because many mothers take time out of paid work to provide childcare, but where grandparent childcare is provided, it is intensive due to the lack of formal ECEC. These have been described as ‘assumed grandparent childcare’ regimes (Glaser et al., Reference Glaser, Price, Di Gessa, Ribe, Stuchbury and Tinker2013), or familialised regimes, though the nature of familialisation depends on the design of the parental leave schemes. Countries with generous parental leave schemes are described as ‘supported familialism’, where the state supports parents to provide family care when their children are young and grandparent care becomes intensive at the end of the parental leave period (Floridi, Reference Floridi2022). Countries with ungenerous parental leave schemes are described as ‘familialism by default’, where levels of intensive grandparenting are high due to the absence of any other support (Floridi, Reference Floridi2022). A third group of countries, described as ‘middling’ (Glaser et al., Reference Glaser, Price, Di Gessa, Ribe, Stuchbury and Tinker2013) or ‘grandparent childcare neutral’ (Floridi, Reference Floridi2022) (such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia), have patchy ECEC and modest parental leaves which leads to a mix of occasional and intensive grandparent care.
While the literature on the impacts of ECEC and parental leave policies on grandparent childcare is more developed, it focuses on the policies’ impact on parental demand for grandparent childcare. A wider, intergenerational, policy lens that considers the impacts of the ‘ageing’ policy agenda, used in this review, reveals that policies affect both parents’ demand for grandparent childcare, and grandparents’ supply of childcare. For example, mature age employment and retirement incomes policies, alongside workplace leave for grandparents, shapes the availability of grandparents for childcare. Early retirement schemes, for example, increase grandparent availability for and involvement in childcare. Conversely, delayed retirement ages decrease the supply, and prevalence, of grandparental childcare.
The policies shaping demand and supply are not always aligned. In some countries, such as some of the Central and Eastern European countries, policies increasing parental demand for grandparent childcare, such as poor access to ECEC, are aligned with policies facilitating grandparent supply of childcare, such as early retirement schemes. In others, such as Italy, policies increasing parental demand for grandparent childcare, such as poor access to ECEC, conflict with policies that reduce grandparental supply, such as increasing pension eligibility ages. The intergenerational lens used in this article allows us to identify policy coherence across grandparenting regimes. It also enables us to understand policy areas that are less obvious drivers, but nonetheless drive parental demand for (i.e. income support policy) and grandparental supply of (i.e. migration policy) grandparent childcare.
Hence, while some policies are explicitly designed to facilitate or encourage grandparent childcare (there were no policies designed to reduce grandparent childcare), most policies are not directly aimed at shaping grandparent childcare but do so indirectly. Direct interventions can be positive insofar as they make visible and, in some instances, remunerate, grandparents who provide regular childcare, rather than expecting them to take on an invisible, ‘assumed’ or ‘default’ role in families. However, in most instances, policies directly targeting grandparent childcare emerge in deeply familialised policy settings such as Central and Eastern European countries and focus on promoting the role of grandparents as ‘mother relievers’ rather than being situated in a broader framework that balances equity across genders and generations.
The review also identified critical gaps in the literature on the relationship between policies and patterns of grandparent care. While there is now a modest but disparate body of work on the relationship between public policy and grandparent childcare, there is a notable gap on how employer policy – flexible work arrangements, annual leave and carer leave entitlements – influences patterns of grandparent care. Qualitative literature reveals that employer policies are likely to affect parents’ demand for grandparent childcare, and grandparents’ supply of childcare (Hamilton and Suthersan, Reference Hamilton and Suthersan2020). More research needs to be done in this field. The review also uncovered two other policy areas that have the potential to shape grandparent childcare but have not yet been directly linked with it: disability policy and housing policy. During the review process, two articles on disability policy and services were excluded (Hillman et al., Reference Hillman, Marvin and Anderson2016; Moffatt et al., Reference Moffatt, Laurence and Pennington2019). The studies suggested that grandparents were stepping in to care for grandchildren with disability to compensate for gaps in the service system. They did not, however, examine the impact of these policy settings on grandparent childcare so they were excluded from the study. The second example is housing policy. A UK study draws attention to changes to housing benefit eligibility which led many low-income families to move out of metropolitan London, with possible effects on the supply of grandparent childcare (because they are no longer living near their grandchildren) (Wellard, Reference Wellard2012). These articles suggest a need for further research to examine the impacts of disability and housing policy on grandparent childcare.
Finally, this review identifies room for more research mapping the impacts of policies beyond ECEC and parental leave on grandparent childcare. It makes the case for policymaking and policy discourse that explicitly identifies the consequences of policymaking for gender inequalities across, as well as within, generations.
Limitations
This scoping review, unlike a systematic review, does not provide new evidence on the impact of policies on grandparental childcare. Rather, it identifies, interrogates and brings together existing literature to reveal how different policy settings shape grandparents’ involvement. The scoping review method enables authors to bring together studies that employ a range of research aims and methodological designs to indicate the size and characteristics of a field of research (Levac, et al., Reference Levac, Colquhoun and O’Brien2010). As such, a scoping review does not seek to ‘combine statistical or qualitative data from different sources to develop synthesised results’ (Peters et al., Reference Peters, Marnie, Colquhoun, Garritty, Hempel, Horsley and Langlois2021) and there ‘is no expectation or possibility of statistical pooling, formal risk of bias rating, and quality of evidence assessment’ (Peters et al., Reference Peters, Marnie, Colquhoun, Garritty, Hempel, Horsley and Langlois2021: 3). Further reviews are required to examine the integrity of the methods employed in studies that examine the relationship between public policy and grandparent childcare.
Gender differences were not the focus of the review, so we cannot draw conclusions about whether policies shape grandmothers’ and grandfathers’ care patterns differently. Our analysis was limited by the methodological approaches taken in the studies, whereby in some quantitative studies gender was controlled for (Bordone et al., Reference Bordone, Arpino and Aassve2017), while in others, grandfathers were explicitly excluded from the sample (Zamarro, Reference Zamarro2011; Price et al., Reference Price, Ribe, Di Gessa, Glaser and Timonen2018; Cabrera-Herández et al., Reference Cabrera-Hernández and Padilla-Romo2021) because most grandparent caregivers were grandmothers. Some studies found that policies were more likely to affect grandmothers’ childcare provision, compared to grandfathers (Floridi, Reference Floridi2022). Many studies also recognised the central role of cultural norms concerning gender in shaping grandparent care. It is thus important that further research about policy impacts on grandparent childcare pays attention to gender differences across generations. Importantly, future analysis needs to pay attention to the gendered implications of policies targeted to different generations. More research is also needed to fill gaps in our understanding about how policies, culture, and individual preferences interact to shape patterns of grandparental childcare.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Australian Research Council under ARC Discovery Project Grant DP210101107.
Competing interests
The author(s) declare none.
Open access
