Child care services– demographic and social

context –

András Gábos (TÁRKI Social Research Institute)

ADAPT2DC Transnational Study Tour, 20-22 May 2014, Budapest

Outline of the presentation

1. General context

2. Demographic processes

3. Childbearing and labour market participation

4. Poverty and social exclusion

5. Family policies and the Visegrád countries in Europe

1General context

Child care services – a framework

Childcare

services

LM participa

tion

Social inclusion

Child develop

ment

Childbearing

The availability and the quality of childcare services:

- affect parents’ decisions on - childbearing- labour supply

- affect household resources needed for social inclusion- in short term: parental

resources- in long-term: child

development

Work-life balance

Breaking the intergenerational transmission of poverty

Use of childcare and Barcelona target, 2010

Source. C. Thévénet (DG EMPL): Child poverty and child well-being in the European Union. Presentation at the InGRID Expert workshop on ‘Framework and methods for indicator building for various vulnerable groups’ Budapest, 27-29 November 2013. Based on data from EU SILC, 2010.

2Demographic processes in the Visegrád countries

Falling fertility in the Visegrád countries, 1950-2010

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

Czech Republic Hungary Poland Slovakia Italy Sweden

Source: United Nations Population Statistics.

Systemic change

↘ − / ↗ ↘↘ − / ↗

Falling share of the population aged 0-4 as % of total population, 1950-2010

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Czech Republic Hungary Poland Slovakia Italy Sweden

Source: United Nations Population Statistics.

Systemic change

3Childbearing and labour market participation

Maternal employment rates compared to female employment rates, 2011

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Female employment rate (25-54 age cohort) Maternal employment rate - child under 15 (2)

OECD average maternal employment rate = 65.2%

Source: OECD Family Database.

Visegrád countries

- low maternal employment (similar to the Southern countries)

- the gap between female and maternal employment is large (among the largest within the OECD)

- Poland is an exception (with higher than OECD-average figures)

Maternal employment rates by age of youngest child, 2011

Source: OECD Family Database.

0

20

40

60

80

100

< 3 years (2) 3-5 years (3) 6-14 years (4)

Visegrád countries

- Huge disparities in ME by the age of child

- Very low employment for mothers with a child younger than 3 (among the lowest within OECD)

- Poland is again an exception

- Not the same pattern for mothers with an older child

Maternal employment rates by number of children under 15, 2011

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 child 2 children (3) 3 children or more

Source: OECD Family Database.

Visegrád countries

- Huge disparities in ME by the number of children

- Very low employment for mothers with 3 or more children (among the lowest within OECD)

- Poland is again an exception

Female employment and fertility

50 60 70 80 901.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

AUS

AUT

BEL

CAN

CZE

DNK

EST

FIN

FRA

DEU

GRC

HUN

ISL

IRL

ITAJPN

KOR

LUX

NLD

NZL

NOR

POLPRTSVK

SLV

ESP

SWE

CHE

GBR

USA

MEX

R² = 0.0671974722272685

Employment rates of women aged 25-54 yearsTo

tal F

ertil

ity R

ate

30 40 50 60 70 801.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

AUS

BELCAN

DNKFIN

FRA

DEU

GRC

IRL

ITAJPN

KOR

LUXNLD

NOR

NLZ

PRT

SWE

GBRUSA

R² = 0.163766872302227

Employment rates of women aged 25-54 years

Tota

l Fer

tility

Rat

e

1980 2010

Source: OECD Family Database.

The negative relationship predicted by economic theory changed in the 1980’s.E.g. Ahn and Mira (2002) Rindfuss, Guzzo és Morgan 2000; Billari et al. 2002; Del Boca et al. 2003; d’Addio and d’Ercole 2005.

Female employment and fertility

1980 2010

Source: OECD Family Database.

Cross-sectional macro-level correlations might be misleading. At micro level, the negative relationship is still there, although weakened in this period.Engelhardt, Kögel and Prskawetz 2001; Engelhardt and Prskawetz 2002; Kögel 2003; Kögel 2006.

4Poverty and social exclusion

Child poverty risk outcomes

Joblessness: children living in

jobless households

In-work poverty: children living in

households confronted with

such poverty

Impact of social transfers (cash benefits excl.

pensions) on child poverty

Grou

p A

Finland +++ +++ ++ +++ Denmark +++ + +++ ++

Sweden ++ + ++ ++ Slovenia ++ +++ + ++

Netherlands ++ ++ + + Austria ++ ++ + +++

Germany ++ + + + France + + + +

Czech Republic + + + +

Grou

p B

United Kingdom + – – – + ++ Belgium + – – ++ + Estonia + – ++ +

Hungary – – – ++ ++

Grou

p C

Bulgaria – – – – – – –

Slovakia – – – – –

Lithuania – – – – +

Grou

p D

Malta + + – – Portugal – + – –

Greece – ++ – – – – Luxembourg – +++ – – +

Poland – + – – Italy – – ++ – – – –

Latvia – – + – – Spain – – + – – – –

Romania – – – + – – – – –

Relative outcomes of countries related to child poverty risk and main determinants of child poverty risk, 2010

Source. Gábos (2013) based on the methodology developed by the EU Task-Force on Child Poverty and Child Well-being in the EU (2008).

Visegrád countries

- Considerable variation across V4- Czech Republic: good (but not very good) performance in all dimensions- Hungary: the risk of poverty is strongly related to poor LM outcomes. Cash transfers and LM participation are protective - Slovakia: the risk of poverty is strongly related to poor LM outcomes. - Poland: in-work poverty is the concern

Use of childcare and gradient

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 900

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.48105843385206

4.12823044988426

1.70414494014229

0.883889592785661

1.19546463033661

1.99593566448363

3.14469281577848

4.55468211476111

2.24847200129896

4.7

2.24489743672948

3.179449834126953.00182953653684

2.02854624965448

5.5

2.87475040226426

3.85810724073686

2.95232109419332

2.61387244298316

1.77905568115098

2.90374275480241

3.71843626397301

0.576049389895106

2.89939579867932 2.887727717424883.11805785279426

1.83470450176668

Use of childcare and number of hours (factor) Children aged less than 3

Gra

die

nt

in t

he u

se o

f ch

ildca

re

(based o

n m

oth

er'

s level of

educa

tion)

large use of childcare, low gradient

large use of childcare, large gradientlow use of childcare, large

gradient

low use of childcare, low gradient

Source. C. Thévénet (DG EMPL): Child poverty and child well-being in the European Union. Presentation at the InGRID Expert workshop on ‘Framework and methods for indicator building for various vulnerable groups’ Budapest, 27-29 November 2013. Based on data from EU SILC, 2010.

5Family policies and the Visegrád countries in Europe

Public spending on family benefits in cash, services and tax measures, in per cent of GDP, 2009

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5Tax breaks towards families Services Cash

OECD-33 average =2.6%

Source: OECD Family Database.

Visegrád countries

- Considerable variation across countries- Czech Republic, Slovakia: spend near OECD average- Hungary: spends at Scandinavian level, strongly cash focused- Poland: spends at Mediterranean level.

Family policy country groups

Most flexible- high female employment rate- high part-time rate- good childcare provision- generous leave and benefits- good work-life balance

Mixed, mainly flexible- medium or high female employment rate- good childcare options, or significant recent efforts to increase these- mix of traditional policies and flexible policies

Mixed, mainly traditional- usually low female employment rate- low part-time rate- few children in childcare- long parental leave

Most traditional (family-oriented)- few children in full-time childcare or relatives commonly look after children- low female employment rate- support to large families

Source: Eurofound 2014.

BEDKFINLSEUK

CZHULVMTPLROSK

ATCYDEFRIELUPTSI

BGEEELESHRITLT

ImPRovE – Poverty Reduction in Europe: Social Policy and Innovation

- FP7, 2012-2016, U of Antwerp

InGRID – Integrating Expertise in Inclusive Growth

- FP7, 2013-2017, KU Leuven

STYLE – Strategic Transitions for Youth Labour in Europe

- FP7, 2014-2017, U of Brighton

Thank you for your attention!www.tarki.hugabos@tarki.hu

Summary

Increase in mean age at birth in the Visegrád countries, 1950-2010

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Czech Republic Hungary Poland Slovakia Italy Sweden

Source: United Nations Population Statistics.

Systemic change