In this article, Prof. Dr. Ingela Naumann, University of Fribourg, explores UK childcare policy through the Nordic perspective on parental work, and the struggle to balance choices for families in the face of societal and economic constraints
In spring 2023, the government pledged to expand its UK childcare policy (currently 30 hours free childcare for three- and four-year-olds) to one- and two-year-old children.
Finally! I thought, as a Swedish academic who has been researching childcare, gender equality and work/life balance issues in the UK for many years.
Sure, the current funding system for UK childcare is insufficient, causing many problems in the sector; however, the fact that a Tory government acknowledged the importance of childcare services for young children was a milestone.
With fascination, I watched on as angry commentaries poured in from the right and left spectrum.
It was revealed that the UK government would expect parents on social benefits to be available for work once the offer for under-threes was in place.
Many commentators found this to be outrageous: “Forcing parents into work is atrocious,” one exclaimed (The Observer, 26 March 2023).
UK childcare policy from a Nordic perspective
From a Nordic perspective, the UK debate is puzzling: in Sweden and Denmark, parents are expected to go back to work once parental leave is over (approximately 16 months in Sweden; 12 months in Denmark).
In return, there is an entitlement to universal, affordable childcare for all children from the age of one. Society pays for this social right; that is, citizens collectively do through high labour force participation and taxes.
The underlying idea is that universal good quality childcare supports children’s rights to equal educational opportunities, fosters gender equality and reduces the risk of income poverty for families.
From a Nordic vantage point, it would thus seem reasonable to expect parents to work, as long as there is sufficient affordable childcare.
Interestingly, the debate in the UK has not been so much about whether a childcare entitlement of 30 hours/week is actually adequate to support parental employment – which it is not – but whether parents should have the choice whether they want to stay at home with their young children or go to work.
We could, of course, brush this debate off as the remnants of traditional gender norms and practices, as it tends to be the mothers who choose to stay home, not the fathers.
However, cultural “lost in translation” moments aside, the question of “choice” is an important one as it places responsibility back into society regarding what work/life balance model it wishes to support via policy.
Freedom of choice for childcare is masked by economic perspective
“Freedom of choice” is an important ideal in our liberal democracies. We value “free choice” in all aspects of life: in our career choices, what partner we choose to live with, what cucumber we buy in the supermarket (organic or not) – so why not also free choice on how we organise our personal work/care arrangements?
A problem with the “freedom of choice” rhetoric when it comes to family life is that it masks the lack of options most families actually have; only very wealthy people that have income other than from waged labour can freely choose whether they wish to engage in gainful employment or prefer to stay at home and care for their kids.
For most families, everyday life presents itself as a series of constraints rather than choices: the need to provide financially for the family; the need to find childcare services during working hours, or alternatively to find work that fits around available childcare and so forth. For most families, the experience of organising their work and care arrangements is a series of compromises rather than “free choices”.
Importantly, it is particularly women who compromise, or even sacrifice, their needs and interests for the benefit of the rest of the family: by reducing their working hours to fit around school or nursery opening hours; by giving up their job to look after their family; or by reducing sleep and personal recuperation time to find space to juggle work and care responsibilities (see Naumann et al 2022).
Sometimes also the children make sacrifices, for example by spending long hours in nursery or having to cope with frequently shifting and instable care arrangements due to their parents’ working hours (such as shift work); or when being denied access to early childhood education due to costs their families can’t carry.
From the outset, family members sacrificing their wishes, interests or needs for the benefit of their close ones would seem a positive act of love and care. Which of course it often is.
However, from a sociological and economic perspective, we can observe increased risks to the health, wellbeing and financial security of individuals, particularly of mothers and children, as a consequence of this sacrificial logic of love and care.
The effect of lockdown on family wellbeing
Research on the effects of lockdowns during the Covid pandemic on family wellbeing recorded how the attempt by women to compensate for the closures of childcare facilities and schools by providing home schooling and home care while also working led to high levels of exhaustion and a spike in mental health problems of mothers; in turn also increasing mental health risks for their children (see eg Naumann et al 2022).
Families are relational systems and where one family member sacrifices key needs and interests, this may also have negative effects on other family members.
So where do these observations lead us? Firstly, what is considered as an appropriate form of childcare for young children, whether parental care or formal care services, is strongly linked to cultural context – there are differences between countries, such as between the UK and Sweden, for instance, but there are also cultural differences within countries: some families find it perfectly acceptable to put their toddlers into childcare in order to pursue gainful employment; others consider this an “atrocity”.
What is then needed in a pluralist, liberal democracy is an open discussion about what actual choices families have within existing socio-economic structures and what policies are needed to avoid sacrifice scenarios and their negative effects.
Social protection for childcare is linked to earnings
Currently, the welfare state set-ups of Western democracies are work-centred, meaning social protection is linked to contributions via earnings, such as pension entitlements; non-employed parts of the population, including parents dedicating their time to childcare, have to rely on less generous social safety nets such as social assistance. In a work-centred welfare system, it makes sense to encourage all adults to engage in gainful employment – as well as to demand of society to provide adequate childcare services to support parental employment.
Parents who choose not to be in employment are structurally disadvantaged and experience economic insecurity and reduced social entitlements.
In other words, if Western European societies accept their current work-centric baseline, they need to establish work/life balance systems that allow families to engage in gainful employment while also looking after their families.
To date, most Western welfare states lack sufficiently developed policies for this: for example, only a few countries offer all-day, all-year-round universal and affordable childcare services to children of all age groups, even though this would be essential to accommodate the requirements of employment.
UK childcare policy frameworks fail to accommodate working parents’ needs
In contrast, childcare policy frameworks such as in the UK, that offer 30 hours/week of free childcare (that is six hours/day) provide a poor fit to accommodate working parents’ needs.
Instead, this policy intensifies the logistical childcare challenges families face as they have to scramble for alternative solutions to fill the childcare gaps during the working day or have to find part-time work that fits around childcare opening hours.
Which brings me back to the question of “choice” for families: a work-centric society needs to be conscious of the various pressure points working families experience, regarding the logistical challenges to coordinate working times, school and nursery opening hours, commute journeys and so forth.
A work-centric society needs to offer families flexible working time arrangements and coordinated opening hours of childcare facilities and schools to help with these logistical challenges. A work-centric society also needs to offer “compromise” options, such as entitlements to reduced working hours for parents with young children to allow families to balance work and family time.
On the other hand, a society that wishes to promote “free choice” for all families needs radically new policy initiatives that value paid work and unpaid family care equally and avoid penalising parents who choose to provide full-time unpaid care, which tends to be the mothers. Policy suggestions for a basic universal income for all could meet this requirement.
In any case, whether society wishes to encourage all parents of young children to take up gainful employment or to support more choice for families regarding their work/care arrangements, accessible, good quality childcare provision is essential to prevent sacrifice scenarios and ensuing costs to individuals, families and society.
From this perspective, the UK government’s pledge to expand childcare entitlements to under three- year-olds is a good start. Much more is needed in terms of funding and policy development to improve access to childcare for all families in the UK and to reduce the many pressure points and constraints families experience today.
References:
- Naumann et al. (2022), Child and Parental Wellbeing during the Covid-pandemic, Working Paper 1, Childcare and Wellbeing Project, Edinburgh Research Area (ERA).
- Malik, J. (2023), From the Cradle to the Grave, there is something rotten in the welfare state, The Observer, 26. March 2023.
Address:
Prof. Dr. Ingela K. Naumann, Professor of Social Policy, Department of Social Work, Social Policy and Global Development, University of Fribourg, Rte des Bonnesfontaines 11, 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland, Ingela.naumann@unifr.ch
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International.
