Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 523–531

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /ch i ldyouth

Parental leaves and early childhood education and care: From mapping the terrain toexploring the environment

Peter Moss ⁎Thomas Coram Research Unit, Institute of Education University of London, 27–28 Woburn Square, London WC1H 0AA, United Kingdom

⁎ Tel.: +44 207 612 6957; fax: +44 207 612 6927.E-mail address: Peter.moss@ioe.ac.uk.

0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. Alldoi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.10.018

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Available online 14 October 2011

Keywords:Parental leaveEarly childhood education and careComparative researchDemocracy

Parental leave and early childhood education and care have gained a high profile in child and family policyfields, and both have been the subject of substantial cross-national mapping, describing and comparingtheir main features across a range of countries. This article provides overviews on parental leave and earlychildhood services in affluent countries, and reflections on this mapping. The article argues that such map-ping is important and can still be taken further, to give ‘thicker’ descriptions of the policy terrain, but thatmore of another, related activity is required: exploration of the environment, using maps as one contextualtool to better understand what goes on within this terrain. It offers suggestions for comparative explorationof different national environments including the comparative study of pedagogical theories, values and prac-tices. While the article takes a broadly positive, even enthusiastic, view of comparative work, it acknowledgesthat it has its dangers too, not least the problems that may arise from the increasing and uncritical acceptanceof English as an academic lingua franca. In conclusion, the case is made for comparative research as an instru-ment for sustaining democracy, through its contribution to critical thought and awareness of alternatives.

© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Policies focused on young children and their parents (usuallymothers) are not new. Concerns about the health and welfare of rap-idly urbanising societies led to the development of various measuressuch as maternity leave, welfare clinics, home visiting and day carecentres during the late 19th century. Today, at another time of crisis,such policies have re-appeared high on the policy agenda, both of na-tion states and of the international organisations whose proliferationand growing influence have been so strong a feature of the periodsince the Second World War. Among such organisations showing anactive interest are the Organisation for Economic Co-operation anddevelopment (OECD), the United Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organisation (UNESCO), the United Nations Children's Fund(UNICEF) and the World Bank. While at a regional level, the EuropeanUnion (EU) has adopted an active role that includes statutory mini-mum standards (in the case of Maternity and Parental leave) andguidelines (for example, the 2011 European Commission Communica-tion on Early Childhood Education and Care (European Commission,2011)), as well as funding a range of research and exchange projects.

This active interest by international organisations has contributed toa growing body of work that involves what might be termed ‘mapping’,describing and comparing themain structural features of the two policyareas that are the focus of this article: Parental Leaves (PL), statutory

rights reserved.

entitlements to parents of young children to take time away from em-ployment, with guaranteed reinstatement, for reasons of infant andma-ternal health and the provision of child care, in particular Maternity,Paternity and Parental leaves; and formal services providing care and/or education for children below compulsory school age, commonly re-ferred to today as Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). Suchcross-national policy mapping of PL and ECEC enables comparison ofthe design of policies, at least on somemajor dimensions of potential dif-ference. For example, in the last 3 years there have been at least fourmapping exercises of ECEC in EUmember states (Amerijckx & Humblet,2008; Bennett & Moss, 2010; Eurydice, 2009; Plantenga & Remery,2009), reflecting EU policy goals and enabled by EU comparative datasources and EU support for cross-national networks and research.

This article will draw on such mapping work to provide a broadbrush cross-national overview of the main structural features of PLand ECEC, identifying some of the most obvious similarities and dif-ferences between a range of affluent countries. Such mapping pro-vides a broad picture of the main characteristics of the policylandscape, and the article will argue that such mapping can still betaken further, to give ‘thicker’ descriptions of this environment. Butit will further argue that more of another, related activity is required:to explore what goes on within different policy landscapes, in partic-ular the relationships and activities that the environment helps toshape, using our maps as a contextual tool. While the article takes abroadly positive, even enthusiastic, view of comparative work, andends by advocating its benefits, it also acknowledges that it has itsdangers too, not least the problems that may arise from monolingualexploration teams working in multilingual environments.

524 P. Moss / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 523–531

2. Parental leave policies

One problem with current maps is that they do not all cover thesame terrain. To take the most obvious example, the member statesof OECD and of the EU, organisations that provide a framework andresources for comparative mapping, are not the same; and neithercover, nor will this article, the great majority of the world's countries.The source used here for overviewing PL covers yet a third set ofcountries, the 29 that are included in the 2010 annual review of theinternational network on leave policies and research (Moss, 2010),all except two (the Russian Federation and South Africa) being eithermembers states of OECD (including Australia, Canada, New Zealandand the United States) or of the EU or the European Economic Areaor (in the case of Croatia) an accession state to the EU. The rationalefor selecting this source is that it provides a good spread of developed

Table 1Length of post-natal leave for families and for ‘fathers only’, 2010.

Period of post-natal leave available to two parent family

Total Total paid Total66%+

Australia FN 24 0 0Austria 24 24 2Belgium FN 33.5 33.5 3.5Canada 12 12 0Québec 18 18 14.5Croatia FN 36+2 12+2 12Czech Rep. 72 36 0Denmark FN 11 11 11Estonia 36.5 36.5 18Finland 37+1 37+1 11+1France FN 72 36 3.5Germany FN 36 12+2 12+2Greece FN

a.private sector 19 12 6b.public sector 60 12 12Hungary 36 24 24Iceland 15 9 9Ireland 16 6 6Italy 13.5 13.5 3.5Luxembourg 14 14 2Netherlands FN 14.5 14.5 2.5New Zealand 12.5 3.5 3.5Norway 37 13 12.5Poland 36 36 5Portugal FN 12+25 12+1 6+1Russian Fed. 36 18 2.5Slovenia 14 11.5 11.5South Africa 4 4 0Spain FN 72 5.5 5.5Sweden FN 36 16.5 13.5UK 18.5 9.5 1.5USA 0 0 0

Key:The Table indicates the maximum number of months of leave available after the birth of a chbe taken either before or after birth, all leave is counted as being after birth. Where parents h: ceiling on earnings-related payment.

Country footnotes (FN):Australia: the second 12 months of leave is subject to employer agreement.Belgium: in addition to Parental leave, men and women employees are entitled to at least onany reason including the care of a child.Croatia: two months ‘bonus’ if father uses three months of Parental leave.Denmark: each parent is entitled to 32 weeks paid Parental leave, but the total leave takenFinland: fathers taking the last two weeks of Parental leave get a four week ‘bonus’.France: both parents are entitled to take Parental leave until child is three years. A flat-ratechild, benefit is paid for only six months.Germany: two months bonus if father uses at least two months of Parental leave.Greece: family entitlement based on both parents working in same sector. Includes possibiliNetherlands: payment for Parental leave in form of tax reduction.Portugal: 30 days bonus if both parents share Maternity leave; two years unpaid leave if paSpain: both parents are entitled to take unpaid Parental leave until child is three years. Perhours as a shorter period of full-time leave.Sweden: each parent is entitled to take Parental leave until a child is 18 months; but the 4Source: Moss, 2010, Table 2.2

countries, the main exceptions being East Asian countries, and is up-to-date and detailed. This overview confines itself to just three policymeasures – statutory Maternity, Paternity and Parental leaves – butthe international review itself contains information on other typesof leave and employment measures intended to support workingparents.

With the exception of the United States, all countries covered bythe review have a statutory entitlement to at least one of the threepolicy measures; indeed EU member states are required by Europeanlaw to provide Maternity and Parental leaves. But countries vary con-siderably in the design of their leave policies, especially along fourmain dimensions: length, payment, whether leave is an individualor family entitlement (in the case of parental leave) and flexibility.Table 1 summarises the total length of post-natal leave per family(combining Maternity, Paternity and Parental leaves), the length of

(months) Period of ‘father-only’ leave (months)

paid atof earnings

Total (paid+unpaid) Total paid at66%+of earnings

12 00 015.5 0.50 01 13 336 08 80.5 00.5+1 0.5+136.5 0.50 0

3.5 (2 days) 024 0(1 week) (1 week)6 33 06 06 06 00.5 03 2.50 04 10 03 0.50 00.5 0.52.5 2.53.5 00 0

ild. It does not include Maternity leave that must be taken before birth; where leave canave options (e.g. longer leave but a lower benefit), the longest leave option is included.

e year of time credit or career break, paid at a low flat rate, and which may be taken for

cannot exceed 32 weeks per family.

benefit is paid per family until child's third birthday if more than one child; if only one

ty of consolidating right to working reduced hours as a shorter period of full-time leave.

id parental leave fully used.iod of paid leave includes possibility of women consolidating right to working reduced

80 days of paid leave can be taken until a child is eight years.

525P. Moss / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 523–531

leave that is paid at any level and at a high level of wage replacement(i.e. at two-thirds or more of normal earnings, though often, it shouldbe noted, with a ceiling imposed above which benefit is not paid); aswell as the period of ‘father-only’ leave and the length of this leavepaid at a high level — the significance of which will become apparent.

The total length of leave in the 29 countries ranges from none to72 months, with a median length of 24 months. Broadly, countries di-vide into those where the total length of post-natal leave availablecomes to around nine to 15 months; and those where leave can runfor up to three years or more. The former includes Australia, Belgium,Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,New Zealand, Slovenia and the UK; the latter includes the Czech Re-public, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Norway, Poland,Portugal, Russia and Spain. Sweden falls in between: paid leave isexpressed in days (to emphasise that it can be taken very flexibly),roughly equivalent to 15 months if taken continuously, while eachparent is also entitled to take unpaid leave until a child is 18 months.So, too, does Austria, with leave lasting until a child's second birthday.

Total paid leave ranges from none to 38 months, with a medianlength of around 13 months. Most countries pay Maternity leave ata high income-related level; the UK is a notable exception, combiningthe longest period of Maternity leave, 52 weeks, with the shortest pe-riod of high income-related payment (6 weeks). Payment for Parentalleave is much more varied. A majority of countries (22) provide someelement of payment, but in 13 cases (Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croa-tia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands,Poland, Portugal and Russia) payment is modest: flat-rate or set at alow earnings-related rate or means-tested or paid for only part ofthe leave period, or a combination of these. Applying the two-thirdsearnings standard – an indicator used by the European Commission(European Commission, 2010: Table 18.M3) – the median length ofpaid leave reduces to just over four months, with only five countries,plus the province of Québec in Canada, offering more than 12 months.

On the basis of this indicator of high payment, countries can be di-vided into three groups:

a. Countries providing high earnings-related post-natal leave (at two-thirds or more replacement rate) of nine months or over: thisgroup includes the five Nordic countries, four countries from Cen-tral and Eastern Europe (Croatia, Estonia, Hungary and Slovenia),Germany, Greece (public sector) and the Canadian province ofQuébec. In all of these cases, the earnings-related leave includesa period of Parental leave.

b. Countries providing three to six months of high earnings-relatedpost-natal leave, in all cases confined to Maternity leave: thisgroup includes a number of Continental Western European coun-tries (Belgium, France, Italy, Spain). Ireland also comes here, al-though the effect of a ceiling on the earnings-related benefit isthat the maximum payment is only €270 a week, showing theneed to take account of such ceilings in assessing the generosityof national schemes (and, more generally, the importance of read-ing the small print when making comparisons: any comparativetable worth its salt should include a string of qualifying footnotes).

c. Countries providing less than three months of high earnings-relatedpost-natal leave: this group includes five of the six mainlyEnglish-speaking countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Unit-ed Kingdom, United States), plus Austria, Czech Republic, Luxem-bourg, Netherlands, the Russian Federation and South Africa. Itshould be noted that Québec, which now has responsibility forits own leave policy, is on a par with the top group of countries;the rest of Canada offers up to 50 weeks of earnings-relatedleave, but at 55% of earnings it falls just below the EC indicatorfor a high level of benefit payment; it also has a rather low ceiling.

Previous analysis has indicated a relationship between fathers' useof leave entitlements and the availability of well-paid ‘father-only’leave (Moss, 2008) — the more such leave there is, the more leave

fathers take. Seven countries provide no father-only leave, four lessthan one month (usually just a short stint of Paternity leave), nineone to five months, and nine six months or more, with a medianlength of three months. But length of leave paid at two-thirds of earn-ings is much lower: only the three Scandinavian countries plus Ice-land offer more than two months.

Parental leave is a family entitlement in 13 countries, to be dividedbetween parents as they choose (Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark,Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland,Russia and Spain); an individual entitlement in eleven countries (Bel-gium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,Portugal, Slovenia, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom); andmixed (part family, part individual entitlement) in three countries(Iceland, Norway and Sweden). It should be noted, however, thatcountries where leave is an individual entitlements vary in whetherunused entitlements can be transferred to a partner (e.g. in Croatiaand Slovenia) or whether entitlements, if not used, are forgone (i.e.use it or lose it).

Flexibility takes a number of forms, including: the possibility to useall or part of leave when parents choose until their child reaches acertain age; the possibility to take leave on a full-time or part-timebasis (i.e. so parents can combine part-time employment with part-time leave); additional leave in the case of multiple births or, in afew cases, other exceptional circumstances; the possibility of takingleave in one continuous block or several shorter blocks; the optionto take longer periods of leave with lower benefits or shorter periodswith higher benefits; and the possibility to transfer leave entitle-ments to carers who are not parents. Of these options, the firstthree are most common. While the countries with the greatest flexi-bility in leave-taking –with four types of flexibility – are Croatia, Ger-many, Slovenia and Sweden.

Parental leave is a popular field of social policy, being in tune withthe welfare state zeitgeist of promoting employment and genderequality. The sections on policy developments in successive annualinternational reviews show much activity, with most changesrecorded over the last five years intended to enhance leave provi-sions, far outnumbering the few examples of cuts. Measures to in-crease paternal use of leave are receiving particular attention, andthere is clear evidence that well designed policies have an impact;the introduction of well-paid, father-only (individual) leave entitle-ments are typically followed by substantial increases in use by fathers(Moss, 2008). At the same time, the distinction between differenttypes of leave is beginning to blur in some countries, for example bypart of ‘Maternity’ leave being transferable to the father (currentlyin Croatia, Czech Republic, Poland, Portugal, Spain and the UK), andby the emergence of a single generic ‘Parental’ leave entitlementavailable equally to women and men (e.g. Iceland, New Zealand,Portugal).

An overview of PL highlights four main issues:

1. The relatively weak showing of English-speaking countries. Cana-da has the best provisions in terms of length and payment —

though the Francophone province of Quebec has a better devel-oped policy than the remaining, mainly Anglophone provinces.The US is the only OECDmember state to have no statutory entitle-ment to maternity or parental leave, Australia has only recently in-troduced some element of paid leave (from January 2011), whilethe UK has a highly unusual leave policy, centred on a 52 weekMa-ternity leave plus a period of unpaid Parental leave that is not onlyminimal (the least possible under EU law) but can only be used inshort periods (i.e. four weeks per year).

2. The continuing poor design of PL in many countries, tending to re-duce use by both women and men (e.g. unpaid periods of Parentalleave) or to increase the likelihood that leave will be taken mostlyor wholly by women, so making leave a gender equality pitfall (e.g.family entitlement to Parental leave, invariably used by mothers).

526 P. Moss / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 523–531

3. The limited movement beyond Parental leave to develop broader‘time credit’ policies available across the life course. Althoughthere is recognition of the care needs of older children and adultsin some countries, where this exists it is typically limited in lengthand low or not paid. Only one country, Belgium, has introduced alife-course policy, with a ‘time credit’ system that permits allworkers at least one year of (low paid) leave, with longer periodsavailable under some collective agreements, to be taken at anytime during working lives and for any reason, with full-time orpart-time leave options (Fusulier, 2009; Vandeweyer & Glorieux,2009). Elsewhere, leave policy remains largely confined to one rel-atively short stage of the life cycle: having and caring for veryyoung children.

4. An absence of coordination in many countries between PL andECEC. A coordinated systemwould ensure a consecutive or concur-rent relationship, i.e. a well paid period of leave followed immedi-ately by an entitlement to ECEC, or both available at the same timefor parents to choose from. With a few exceptions, notably theNordic countries and Slovenia, this does not happen; far morecommon is a gap, often of several years.

3. Early childhood education and care

As mentioned above, ECEC as discussed here refers to ‘formal’ ser-vices for children below compulsory school age, so excluding

Table 2Formal and informal early childhood education and care.

Participation rate (%) in formal ECEC services (2006) an(2008)

0–3 years

Formal Informal

Belgium 42 (30) 21Bulgaria 31 (NI) 26Czech Rep 3 (17) 35Denmark 63 (34) 1Germany 14 (22) 15Estonia 18 (36) 32Ireland 25 (25) 14Greece 18 (31) 53Spain 34 (28) 20France 43 (30) 18Italy 29 (30) 32Cyprus 20 (34) 45Latvia 8 (40) 12Lithuania 8 (41) 13Luxembourg 43 (31) 29Hungary 11 (29) 32Malta 7 (22) NINetherlands 54 (17) 52Austria 11 (23) 20Poland 9 (35) 30Portugal 44 (40) 25Romania NI 46Slovenia 33 (36) 41Slovak Rep 5 (33) 11Finland 26 (35) 1Sweden 45 (29) 2U. Kingdom 40 (18) 32EU27 27 (NI) 24Iceland 54 (36) 2Norway 42 (31) 4Australia 25 (18) 24Canada 24 (32) NINew Zealand 38 (20) NIUnited States 31 (31) 33

Key:Formal services include nurseries, crèches, kindergartens, pre-school education, family dayclude relatives, friends and nannies.

— Attendance compulsory from this age. — end of well-paid PL and entitlement to ECSource: OECD Family Database, Tables PF3.2.A, 3.2.B, 3.3.A. Retrieved 1 April 2011 from ww

‘informal’ provision made by relatives, neighbours or friends and nan-nies. Recent data from the OECD Family Database covering EU mem-ber states plus the remaining Nordic countries and 4 other English-speaking countries, summarised in Table 2, shows the level of use offormal and informal provision for children under 3 years and be-tween 3 and compulsory school age. While there are variations forall four categories, it is greatest for children under 3 years.

High levels of participation by these young children in formal ser-vices (at 40% or more) are found in 4 of the 5 Nordic states (Finland islower due to its extended PL system); Belgium, France and Luxem-bourg; and the Netherlands and the UK. In the first group of countries,this reflects high levels of provision for children from 12 months (orearlier); in Belgium and France, it is a combination of moderate levelsof provision for children from a few months of age, plus many 2 yearolds being admitted to nursery school; while in the Netherlands andthe UK, high rates of attendance in part reflect extensive part-timeprovision, including widespread attendance by 2 year olds atplaygroups (note the low average hours of attendance per week com-pared to the other countries). Low rates of attendance (under 10%)are (with the exception of Malta) in former Communist bloc countriesin Central and Eastern Europe, reflecting in part a reaction to stateprovision under the former regime.

Informal provision continues to be widely used, with one notableexception; in the Nordic countries less than 5% of children under 3were recorded as using this provision in ‘a typical week.’ This reflects

d use of informal arrangements Age at which entitlement toformal ECEC begins

3-CSA

Formal Informal

100 27 2½ years69 31 No entitlement82 36 No entitlement91 0 6 months89 17 3 years85 31 No entitlement49 17 4 years47 39 No entitlement98 9 NI

100 20 3 years99 37 No entitlement71 43 4.8 years77 7 5 years61 9 No entitlement85 24 4 years87 39 5 years91 NI NI58 48 4 years75 30 5 years41 30 No entitlement79 36 No entitlement73 48 No entitlement78 50 End of PL73 24 No entitlement70 4 From birth86 1 12 months91 37 3 years80 2995 1 NI91 2 12 months59 21 No entitlement57 NI No entitlement95 NI NI58 21 No entitlement

care. Figure in brackets = average hours of attendance per week. Informal services in-

EC coordinated.w.oecd.org/els/family/database.

527P. Moss / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 523–531

the demise of informal care as a source of regular care in these ‘socialdemocratic’ welfare states — though whether this is due to parentspreferring formal services or informal providers (in particular rela-tives such as grandparents) being unwilling or unable to providetheir services, or both, is not clear. Whatever the reason, the day ofgrandmothers looking after young grandchildren on a regular basisseems to be over, and early admission of children to formal serviceshas become a normal part of childhood.

Participation in services for children over 3 is, in all cases, higher,averaging 80% across the whole of the EU.1 Levels among English-speaking countries are relatively low, except for New Zealand and theUK, the latter now offering children from 3 years upwards an entitle-ment to free but part-time nursery education. As Table 2 shows, a num-ber of countries have such entitlements, usually from 3 years or older,but from much younger ages in the Nordic countries and Slovenia;such entitlements also enable these countries to coordinate PL andECEC policies, so that an ECEC place is available as of right whenwell-paid PL ends. Not surprisingly, a recent analysis of family policiesclusters Nordic countries into a category labelled ‘continuous, strongsupport for working parents of children under age 3’ (Thévenon, 2011).

If leave policies have some bearing on when ECEC services start tobe used by children, the age at which children start primary or ele-mentary school affects when they finish. In most cases this coincideswith compulsory school age, but as ever there are exceptions. In theEU, for example, the age of compulsory attendance is seven years insix countries (including Denmark and Sweden), six years in 15 coun-tries (including France, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Slovenia),and under six years in the remaining seven countries (including Hun-gary and the UK). However, there are two caveats. It is common insome countries for children to start attending primary school on avoluntary basis before compulsory school age; examples include Ire-land, Netherlands, the UK and three of the Nordic states (Denmark,Finland and Sweden). This means that, in effect, children start prima-ry school proper (as opposed to a ‘nursery’ school or kindergarten)mainly at six years, but in some cases as early as four years (Ireland,Netherlands, the UK). Second, in a few countries there is now a periodof compulsory attendance at ECEC services, for one or two years. Forexample, children in Luxembourg start primary school at six years,but attendance at nursery school is compulsory from four; while inHungary five-year-olds must attend kindergarten, a year before start-ing school.

Apart from levels of attendance, how else can ECEC be typifiedfrom a cross-national perspective? One way is in terms of the wayservices are structured. Countries in the richer, OECD world divideinto three groups.

1. Well integrated ECEC. A group of countries that have integratedgovernment responsibility for ECEC, mostly into education thoughvery occasionally into welfare, and have further integrated most orall of six other key structural dimensions — curriculum, regulation,access, workforce, funding and type of provision. These countriesgenerally have high levels of provision for children under andover 3 years, a well-developed workforce with a high or rising pro-portion of graduate workers, and have accepted ECEC services,across the age range, as primarily a public good and responsibility,requiring high levels of public funding, mostly applied through di-rectly financing services themselves (i.e. supply funding). In mostcases, ECEC provision is based around a single age-integratedtype of provision, variously termed (e.g. ‘preschool’ in Sweden,‘kindergarten’ in Norway, ‘playschool’ in Iceland). Main examplesinclude the five Nordic countries, New Zealand and Slovenia. The

1 Table 2, based on the OECD Family Database, may underestimate the proportion ofchildren between 3 and compulsory school age attending a formal service, as it is con-fined to pre-school services, which may not always include children admitted beforecompulsory school age to primary school.

five Nordic countries are in the top six of 25 OECD countries in-cluded in UNICEF's ‘league table of early childhood education andcare in economically advanced countries’ (Adamson, 2008).

2. Split ECEC system, childcare dominant. A group of countries whoseECEC provision is split between ‘childcare’ and ‘education’ sectors,with divided government responsibility (typically welfare for‘childcare’, education for ‘education’), and separate curricula, regu-lations, access, workforce, funding and types of provision for eachsector. Typically ‘childcare’ services, mainly intended for employedparents and their children, are seen as primarily a private respon-sibility, albeit with lower income parents able to access some formof financial subsidy, and are provided through a market of mainlyprivate providers, often with a substantial for-profit element; the‘childcare’ workforce in these services has lower qualificationsand far lower pay than teachers in the ‘education’ workforce. The‘education’ part is relatively limited, usually consisting of 1 or2 years of often part-time provision, immediately before schoolentry. Such countries often have substantial programmes targetedat disadvantaged families. Public expenditure on ECEC is substan-tially lower than in the other two groups of countries, and for‘childcare’ mainly takes the form of ‘demand subsidy’, that is par-ents rather than services are subsidised. Main examples includeEnglish-speaking countries such as Australia, Canada (excludingQuebec), Ireland and the United States, which occupy the lastfour places in the UNICEF league table.

3. Split ECEC system, education dominant. A group of countries whoseECEC provision is also split between ‘childcare’ and ‘education’,again with divided government responsibility and separate curric-ula, regulations, access, workforce, funding and types of provisionfor each part. But unlike group 2, ‘childcare’ services are seen asprimarily a public responsibility, often provided by local govern-ment or else by non-profit private organisations with direct publicfunding, though parents are also expected to contribute financially.The main feature, however, of these countries is a well-developed‘education’ sector with the universal provision of 3 years of freeand often full-time education, for children from 3 years of age up-wards. If ‘care’ and ‘education’ are integrated in the first group ofcountries and ‘care’ dominates ECEC in the second, in this thirdgroup ‘education’ is the dominant player. Main examples includeBelgium, France, Italy, and much of Central and Eastern Europe;these countries occupy the middle part of the UNICEF league table.

Of course, like all attempts to categorise, some countries do not fitcomfortably. England has integrated responsibility for all ECEC ser-vices into education, and developed an integrated system of regula-tion and curricula across all ECEC services. But other key structuralaspects of services – notably access, funding and workforce – remaindivided, reflecting a continuing tendency to see ‘childcare’ and ‘edu-cation’ as separate and leaving England straddling groups 1 and 2.Spain, too, has integrated responsibility for ECEC into education, andhas developed an integrated approach to workforce, built around anew profession of a specialised early years teacher. Yet it has not fol-lowed through to develop a fully integrated 0–6 system, building upeducation for over 3 s while leaving provision for under 3 s largelyto a market of separate, often private for-profit services; it is leftstraddling groups 1 and 3.

Despite the clear distinctions between groups 2 and 3, they arecloser to each other than to group 1. What the group 1 countrieshave largely or wholly done is to get beyond the divided and divisiveorigins of ECEC, common to all countries, and which have left mostcountries today with a split system conspicuous by discontinuitiesand inequalities. In such split systems services for children under 3lag behind services for children over three, in terms of access, costs,and workforce pay and qualifications, and there are wide social differ-ences in access favouring children from more advantaged back-grounds (Bennett & Moss, 2010, Table 5.5).

528 P. Moss / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 523–531

The move to full integration is usually, in part at least, an acknowl-edgement of the dysfunctionality of split systems. It also marks a rec-ognition and enactment of the inseparability of care and education,often based on an integrative concept that defines ECEC services asadopting a holistic approach to work with young children. Thus theSwedish Preschool Curriculum says that ‘the pre-school should becharacterised by a pedagogical approach, where care, nurturing andlearning form a coherent whole’ (Swedish Ministry of Education,1998). While as two leading authorities on recent major reforms inNew Zealand comment:

[around 1993] “early childhood education” (ECE) again becamethe integrating concept and official term as people took for grantedthat early education involved care as well. Early childhood educationcontinues to be used as the generic term covering the diverse range oftypes of ECE services in New Zealand. (Meade & Podmore, 2010,p.32).

4. From mapping the terrain to exploring the environment: anagenda for future comparative work

OECD's Starting Strong, its thematic review of early childhood edu-cation and care, has also provided one of the most important mappingexercises of recent years (OECD, 2001, 2006). The work is both sur-prising and innovative. Surprising because this review, which hasbeen described as stressing “a rights-based argument that featuredchildren as active citizens in the here and now” (Mahon, 2010,p.185), is at odds with the usual approach taken by OECD and otherinternational organisations, which places greater emphasis on thechild as ‘human capital in the making’ (see the interesting analysisby Mahon, 2010). Innovative because of its methods. Recourse wasmade to a range of statistical sources, but the heart of the endeavourwas ‘site’ visits by review teams, expert groups drawn from severalcountries who visited each reviewed country for up to two weeks.Each team received a background report on the country prior totheir visit, drawn up by or for the government of that country; andeach team prepared a country note after their visit, offering their find-ings and conclusions. The second and final country report also con-tains a detailed country profile on each of the 20 participatingcountries, a substantial description covering certain common themessuch as auspices, context, access and provision, quality, and develop-ments (OECD, 2006, Annex E).

What Starting Strong offers is both more detailed mapping, for ex-ample on structural issues such as funding, workforce and adminis-tration, but also some exploration of the terrain described by thesemaps. It begins to delve beneath the surface, digging into issuessuch as curriculum, pedagogy, quality improvement and the relation-ship between ECEC and the compulsory school system. Its approachhelps to define an agenda for further comparative work in PL andECEC, an agenda that calls for two types of work: better map-making of the policy territory and further exploration of the terri-tory's environment. The two are closely connected. Better map-making can both guide exploration, suggesting interesting routes topursue, and enhance contextual understanding of what explorationuncovers. While exploration of the environment can feed back intobetter mapping.

Better mapping calls for the development and refinement of whatmight be termed ‘thick’ descriptions of systems in different countries,going beyond statistical data and tables (though these are importantand need constant critical review and refinement) to provide morewide-ranging national profiles, combining quantitative and qualita-tive material. One example is the country notes on leave policiesand research prepared for the annual review of the international net-work on leave policies and research, which provide a detailed picturenot only of the various leave measures, but also information on take-up of these measures, recent policy developments, publications and

research (see Moss, 2010 for the latest review, with 29 countrynotes). Another example is the ‘country profiles’ in Annex E of thesecond report of OECD's Starting Strong review, referred to above.

This approach has been further developed in the extended countryprofiles for the ten countries participating in a recent EC-funded pro-ject on the role of the early years workforce in addressing poverty andpromoting social inclusion (http://www.childreninscotland.org.uk/wfi/wfi5.htm). Each profile has the same headings, a mix again ofthe quantitative and the qualitative: a glossary of key terms; contex-tual items (including demographic, social and economic data; gov-ernment, tax and social expenditure; leave policies; current culturalattitudes to child-rearing); an historical overview; key concepts andimportant influences on ECEC; the structure of ECEC; the governanceof early childhood services, including financing, data collecting, mon-itoring and research; access levels and strategies to promote inclu-sion; conditions for quality improvement and assurance, includingworkforce; relationship and transitions between ECEC and school; anote on out-of-school services; and current developments. Such‘thick’ descriptions provide an important resource for those wishingto explore PL and ECEC in greater depth and detail. There is a need,I would argue, for an open access data-base of such descriptions, na-tional profiles that are publicly accessible, regularly updated and sub-ject to review, a common resource for anyone interested incomparative work.

But what parts of the PL and ECEC terrain require further cross-national exploration, supported by the kind of detailed mapping ad-vocated above? There will be many proposals for what to explore. Ioffer some examples from my agenda, not in an attempt to claimthe high ground but as a stimulus to discussion.

1. Usage of systems. Who uses leave policies and early childhood ser-vices (and who does not), why do they use them (or not usethem), and what kind of use do they make of them?Who is includ-ed and who excluded? Why do particular designs of PL and ECECproduce the patterns of usage that they do? How does use of stat-utory leave and formal ECEC services relate to use of non-statutoryleave (for example, provided via the workplace) and informal ser-vices, such as relatives and friends? Tables 1 and 2 provide a start-ing point for such an exploration, showing as they do very markeddifferences in availability of paid leave and in use of formal and in-formal ECEC services.

2. The politics of systems. Mapping shows that countries vary widelyin leave policies and early childhood services. But far less isknown about why this is so, except perhaps for reference to wel-fare state typologies, a useful perspective but not capable of pro-viding comprehensive and fine-grained explanations. To proceedfurther, the political process of policy formation needs to be betterunderstood. How, why and by whom are particular policies creat-ed and subsequently developed in particular countries? What ar-guments are deployed and which are influential? A recent bookon the politics of parental leave policies, initiated and edited bySheila Kamerman, and drawing on contributions by experts from15 countries shows the potential of this approach (Kamerman &Moss, 2009). A similar study of the politics of early childhood edu-cation and care would prove equally rewarding.

3. Transformative change. While there are plentiful examples of conti-nuity in policies and structures, exhibiting the phenomenon of‘path dependency’, there are examples of countries that makemajor turns in their whole approach to PL or ECEC. Germany inPL and New Zealand in ECEC spring to mind. Such turns producingnew policy environments can be usefully explored through inter-rogating certain questions: Why? How? How far? With what con-sequences? A recent example is a UNESCO-funded study of fivecountries that have chosen to locate their full range of ECEC ser-vices within the education system — either integrating their splitsystems at the same time (Brazil, Jamaica, New Zealand) or moving

529P. Moss / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 523–531

already integrated systems from welfare to education (Slovenia,Sweden) (Kaga, Bennett, & Moss, 2010).

4. Pedagogical theories, values and practices. I devote more space tomy last example, in recognition of its complexity and importance.Few comparative mapping studies take us behind ECEC systemsto explore and compare what actually happens in them and why.One reason may be that those interested in policies and structuresare less interested in practice; while for those interested in peda-gogical work, policies and structures hold less appeal than actualpractice. Another reason may be the difficulty of comparativestudy of pedagogical work, either of the theories and values thatunderpin it or actual practices.

It is not, however, impossible. There have, for example, been com-parative studies of understandings of practice in early childhood ser-vices, going behind differences in practice itself to study howeducators understand the nature of their work and the defining fea-tures of their practice including important concepts, social construc-tions and values. Tobin and his colleagues have twice adopted thisapproach to compare pre-schools in China, Japan and the USA(Tobin, Hsueh, & Karasawa, 2009; Tobin, Wu, & Davidson, 1989). Part-ly inspired by this work, an exploratory study of method formed partof an EC-funded project titled ‘Care Work in Europe’. This study wasled by two Danish researchers, Helle Krogh Hansen and Jytte Juul Jen-sen. Jensen here describes the method — SOPHOS: Second Order Phe-nomenological Observation Scheme, which she has been workingwith subsequently in Denmark:

The data gathering uses a research method where focus groups ofpedagogues and others involved with pedagogical work are shownhalf-hour films of everyday life and practice in centres for pre-school children in Denmark, England and Hungary. Each film focusesin particular on two members of staff, pedagogues in the case of theDanish centre. The films pose an open interview question: What doyou think when you see this? And through the responses of thefocus groups to this question, what the pedagogues and others talkabout and discuss, what we might call the provocation of the film, itis possible to investigate and create a picture of their ideals andtheir understandings of central values in pedagogical practice.

The power of this method to give insight into understandings partlyarises from its aesthetic form, the immediacy and power of the medi-um of film; and partly from the ‘exotic’ nature of the two films showingpractice from abroad. They provoke two types of verbal response: onthe one hand viewers talk about what they see on the films; and onthe other hand they talk about notions of how pedagogues as a profes-sion should act ideally in practice (Jensen, 2011, pp.142–143).

In the early European study and subsequent Danish research, thefilms have been shown to groups of practitioners, educators of practi-tioners and academics. The discussion of the films in each group isrecorded and transcribed, and these transcriptions are the primaryempirical data. It is important to emphasise that the focus of the re-search is not the three countries' practices per se, as shown on thefilm; it is understandings of good pedagogical work, by differentgroups in different countries, using films of practice from severalcountries to provoke discussion and reflection. What is apparentfrom this and Tobin's work is that early childhoodworkers in differentcountries –whether pedagogues, teachers or childcare workers – holdvery particular understandings of what constitutes good practice andwhy. Not only are systems different, but so too are pedagogical envi-ronments: the concepts, understandings, values, goals and practicesthat create the everyday lives and experiences of children and adultsalike. This is rich ground for further exploration.

5. Everything is dangerous

After a working life steeped in comparative work, I am an enthu-siast. Not only is it fascinating and provoking, but it has potential to

improve policies, systems and practices if used properly. But as Fou-cault reminds us, ‘everything is dangerous’ (1988, p.343), not leastbecause everything is bound up in power relations. As comparativework is no exception, consideration should be given to one of the pos-sible dangers: an important, yet little discussed, issue in comparativeresearch, the question of language.

English has become the modern lingua franca in many fields, in-cluding academic communication. Whether writing journal articles,attending international conferences or participating in cross-national research, today's academic requires a good grasp of the lan-guage. This seems to have been accepted as a fact of life, yet it raisessome critical questions (as well as placing a great responsibility onnative English speakers who are privileged by the current situation).

Who gains and who loses? The dominance of English inevitablygives native English-speakers a head start. Everyone else may gainsomewhat by having a common language for communication, butthey also lose. Fluency can only come through opportunities to learnand practice and much hard work; even the most fluent speakerwill admit that working in English for several hours in a meeting orconference is a draining and difficult experience. But native English-speakers also lose, because of reliance on translation.

What is lost in translation? Understanding the concepts, valuesand practices of a place is intimately bound up with the native lan-guage, for language bears culture and meaning. Sometimes a precisetranslation can be found, but other times not. Yet many academics(especially native English-speakers) continue to assume translationto be a merely technical matter that can ensure the perfect transmis-sion of meaning. In practice, though, meanings often get distorted orlost. The Other has been made into the Same, thus denying identityand otherness; the world appears to be a more homogeneous andreadily comprehensible place than it is.

A case in point. Researchers at the Thomas Coram Research Unithave been studying for some years the theory and practice of socialpedagogy and the profession of pedagogue. Social pedagogy and ped-agogues are to be found throughout Continental Europe in a widerange of services for children (including ECEC), but are little knownin the United Kingdom, or indeed throughout the English-speakingworld (Hämäläinen, 2003). One reason is language and translation.The term ‘pedagogy’ is usually understood in English as the ‘scienceof teaching and learning’, concerned with educational practices inschools, so ‘education’may be offered as a translation, with its conno-tation of a narrow focus on cognitive learning. But ‘social pedagogy’has a wider perspective, on the whole child and overall well-being,sometimes expressed in English as ‘education in its broadest sense’.‘Pedagogue’, similarly, may be translated as ‘teacher’, again withstrong school associations, yet ‘pedagogue’ and ‘teacher’ are quite dis-tinct professions (for a fuller discussion of social pedagogy and peda-gogues, see Cameron & Moss, 2011).

What are the consequences of one-way linguistic traffic? As justargued, if countries whose first language is not English are studiedin English, their concepts, values and practices may be lost — perfecttranslation, providing exact understanding, is impossible. But thedominance of English also spreads the influence of concepts, valuesand practices that are dominant in the English-speaking world. TheEnglish-speaking world is not just defined by language; it also sharesto a considerable extent certain ways of thinking about the world andcertain ways of structuring its societies. To take two examples: stu-dents of the welfare state often categorise English-speaking countriesas examples of liberal welfare regimes (as opposed, for example, toeither conservative or social democratic welfare regimes found inmany Continental European countries) (Esping-Andersen, 1990);while neo-liberal capitalism has re-emerged, from the mid-1970s,most strongly in countries like the UK and the USA, producing a par-ticular economic and political regime that attaches high value to com-petition, markets, individual choice and responsibility, andcontractual relationships (Harvey, 2005).

530 P. Moss / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 523–531

Participation in comparative research is increasingly limited tothose with a good command of English. Such research is indeedoften led or co-ordinated by native English speakers, who see theworld in a particular way, not only because English is their languagebut also because they come from English-speaking societies wherecertain assumptions, values, practices and policies are widespread.Researchers may not necessarily subscribe to these dominant dis-courses, yet cannot stand entirely outside of them.

The danger, then, is that the growing dominance of English mayreduce diversity and complexity, enhancing the position of certainperspectives and practices over others. Yet, all is silence. Silencefrom native English-speakers themselves, who, superficially at least,do well out of this (whether they do in the long run is, of course,open to question). Silence, too, from those who are not nativeEnglish-speakers, whether because of politeness, hopelessness, or be-cause no one asks their views. So when a voice breaks the silence, it isall the more startling. Here are the comments of Moss (2010) a lead-ing figure in the field of social pedagogy, a native German speaker butfluent in English, talking about his experiences of participating in across-national European project:

The actual difficulties, the resources required in acquiring a foreignlanguage in the course of studies have been totally miscalculated at alllevels. This has led to a pragmatism of settling for more commonlyspoken languages and of course among them for the English languagepredominantly, with all the associated exclusionary consequences.I must admit I am almost at a loss over these dilemmas. There is alwaysthe need to get results, to be pragmatic, to overcome language differ-ences as barriers, and not enough time and space to explore the sub-tleties of discovering meaning through non-comprehension, throughthe pain not only of working through interpreters but of clarifying ter-minology so it can be used by interpreters. This seems to hold up theworks, those representing lesser spoken languages come to regardthis as their personal problem, their personal deficit, and the wholelanguage project is tilted and distorted. And yet, it would be preciselythe non-understanding which could give us themost valuable clues todifferences in meaning, to the need for further clarification of familiarterms and concepts, to the transformation of taken-for-granted per-spectives into creative, shared knowledge (p.20).

What can be done? First, to acknowledge and discuss the problemand its potential consequences. Second, to invest resources in mitigat-ing the exclusionary consequences. At the very least, Anglophone coun-tries, researchers and institutions (such as journal publishingcompanies) should consider more carefully the implications of Englishas a lingua franca and how to support non-native speakers, for examplewhenwriting for publication in English-language journals; while nativeEnglish-speakers need to prioritise learning other languages. Third,more attention should be given to developing conventions to reducethe loss of otherness in translation and to increase the two-way flowof concepts, values and practices; for example, conventions aboutwhat should and should not be translated, and how to deal withterms that do not readily translate. Conventions are not enough though.They need to be underpinned by an ethic – the ethic of an encounter –that values respectful listening and resists the act of grasping by whichwe make the Other into the Same (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005).

6. Comparative research as an instrument of democracy

Comparative research, like all other forms of research, needs acritical sensibility, an awareness of power relations and other waysin which it may act to normalise and to produce simplified anddecontextualised conclusions; we must bear in mind Morin's insis-tence on the need to think in context and to think with complexity(Morin, 1999). Yet having acknowledged these caveats and warnings,the potential benefits of comparative research remain substantial andimportant and provide a strong rationale for further work in fieldssuch as PL and ECEC.

Different researchers will value different benefits and have differ-ent rationales. From my perspective, the main rationale concerns de-mocracy. There is today widespread concern about the ailing state ofdemocracy, especially those facets of democracy that can be de-scribed as representative, procedural and formal. As Morin observes,we are in the midst of a draining and sclerosis of traditional politics,incapable of fathoming the new problems that appeal to it; in themidst of a politics that encompasses multi-faceted issues, handlingthem in compartmentalized, disjointed, and additive ways; and inthe midst of a debased politics that lets itself be swallowed by ex-perts, managers, technocrats, econocrats, and so on (ibid., p.112).

The political and ethical have collapsed into the economic, reduc-ing issues to a matter of economic calculation and technical practice,which assume one right answer.

Comparative research can contribute to reclaiming primacy forpolitical and ethical practice within democratic societies, which re-quires inter alia a recognition that there are many answers to anyquestion and indeed many questions. For what comparative researchcan and should do is to make the familiar strange, contesting what wemay take to be natural and neutral. It is an aid to critical thinking,which involves introducing

ba critical attitude towards those things that are given to our pre-sent experience as if they were timeless, natural, unquestionable:to stand against the maxims of one's time, against the spirit ofone's age, against the current of received wisdom. It is a matterof introducing a kind of awkwardness into the fabric of one's expe-rience, of interrupting the narratives that encode that experienceand making them stutter (Rose, 1999, p.20)Q.

So it seems to me that comparative exploration of the PL or ECECenvironment should help create a questioning, critical, scepticalframe of mind that makes dominant narratives stutter in the faceof questions provoked by encounters with difference. It shouldhelp democratic societies to resist what Unger (2005) terms ‘the dic-tatorship of no alternatives’, by showing the possibility of alternatives,not only in utopian thinking (important as that is), but also in practice.

We may not agree with or welcome the alternatives, but there canbe no denying they exist. The US or the UK may not be ready, willingor able to emulate the Nordic countries; but there seems little questionthat these countries–with their democratic and egalitarian values, theirstrongwelfare states and high taxes – are far more successful on a widerange of social indicators (see, for example, Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009).It may not be feasible (or desirable) to try and export the pedagogicalwork in the municipal ECEC services of Reggio Emilia, though manymay gain inspiration and knowledge from relationship with them; butthis experience indicates the possibility that under certain conditionslocal democratic government can be capable of creating an experimen-tal pedagogical project, a new public education for their children.

Cross-national studies cannot instruct a country what it should do:context and complexity make simple models of learning, based ontransmission and reproduction, fanciful and superficial. A more so-phisticated model is needed of how to work with the results of com-parative research, such as Bent Flyvbjerg's phronetic model of socialscience, in which social scientists contribute their understandings todemocratic processes of public deliberation, in which they are butone of many voices offering a particular interpretation:

No one voice, including that of the researcher, may claim final au-thority. The goal is to produce input to dialogue and praxis in social af-fairs. [If] the arguments of researchers carry special weight in thedialogue, it would likely derive from their having spent more time on,and being better trained at, establishing validity than other actors. Thegoal of the phronetic approach becomes contributing to society's capac-ity for value-rational deliberation and analysis (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p.41).

To make such a contribution to democratic deliberation seems afitting and commensurate ambition for comparative work.

531P. Moss / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 523–531

References

Adamson, P. (2008). The child care transition. A league table of early childhood educationand care in economically advanced countries. Florence: UNICEF.

Amerijckx, G., & Humblet, P. (2008). Typologies et indicateurs des systèmes d'éduca-tion et d'acceuil des jeunes enfants (EAJE) en Europe'. Brussels Economic Review,51(2/3), 317–345.

Bennett, J., & Moss, P. (2010). Working for inclusion: An overview of EuropeanUnion early years services and their workforce. Edinburgh: Children in Scotland.Retrieved April 1, 2011. http://www.childreninscotland.org.uk/docs/WFI_Researchoverviewreport_Jan10.pdf

Cameron, C., & Moss, P. (Eds.). (2011). Social pedagogy and working with childrenand young people: Where care and education meet. London: Jessica KingsleyPublishing.

Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. London:Routledge.

Esping-Andersen (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: PolicyPress.

European Commission (2010). Indicators for monitoring the Employment Guidelines in-cluding indicators for additional employment analysis: 2010 compendium. Brussels:European Commission (DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities).

European Commission (2011). Communication from the commission. Early ChildhoodEducation and Care: Providing all our children with the best start for the worldof tomorrow (COM(2011)66final. Brussels: European Commission.

Eurydice (2009). Tackling social and cultural inequalities through early childhood ed-ucation and care in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice. Retrieved April 1, 2011. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/about/eurydice/documents/098EN.pdf

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Social science that matters. Foresight Europe (October 2005–March2006) (pp. 38–42).

Fusulier, B. (2009). Belgium: Articulating work and family — the gendered use of insti-tutional measures. Retrieved April1, 2011. In P. Moss (Ed.), International review ofleave policies and related research 2009 (Employment Relations research Series No.102). London: Department for Business, Innovations and Skills. http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file52778.pdf

Hämäläinen, J. (2003). The concept of social pedagogy in the field of social work. Jour-nal of Social Work, 3(1), 69–80.

Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Jensen, J. J. (2011). Understandings of Danish pedagogical practice. In C. Cameron, & P.

Moss (Eds.), Social Pedagogy and Working with Young Children: where Care and Ed-ucation meet (pp. 141–158). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishing.

Kaga, Y., Bennett, J., & Moss, P. (2010). Caring and learning together: A cross-nationalstudy of integration of early childhood care and education within education. Paris:UNESCO.

Kamerman, S., & Moss, P. (Eds.). (2009). The Politics of Parental Leave Policies. Bristol:Policy Press.

Mahon, R. (2010). After Neo-liberalism? The OECD, theWorld Bank and the child. Glob-al Social Policy, 10(2), 172–192.

Meade, A., & Podmore, V. (2010). Caring and learning together: A case study of NewZealand. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved April 1, 2011. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001872/187234e.pdf

Morin, E. (1999). Homeland Earth: A Manifesto for the New Millennium. Cresskill, NJ:Hampton Press.

Moss, P. (2008). Making parental leave parental; an overview of policies to increase fa-thers' use of leave. Retrieved April 1, 2011. In P. Moss, & M. Korintus (Eds.), Inter-national review of leave policies and related research 2008 (Employment Relationsresearch Series No. 100). London: Department for Business, Innovations and Skills.http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file47247.pdf

Moss, P. (2010). English as a Problem Language. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood,11(4), 432–434.

Retrieved April 1, 2011. Moss, P. (Ed.). (2010). International review of leave policies andrelated research 2010 (Employment Relations Research Series 115). London: Depart-ment for Business, Innovations and Skills. http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/employment-matters/docs/i/10-1157-international-review-leave-policies.pdf

OECD (2001). Starting strong 1. Paris: OECD.OECD (2006). Starting strong 1I. Paris: OECD.Plantenga, J., & Remery, C. (2009). The provision of childcare services: A comparative re-

view of 30 European countries. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities.

Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Swedish Ministry of Education (1998). Curriculum for pre-school: LpFö 98 (Englishtranslation). Stockholm: Ministry of Education and Science.

Thévenon, O. (2011). Family policies in OECD countries: A comparative analysis. Popu-lation and Development Review, 37(1), 57–87.

Tobin, J., Hsueh, Y., & Karasawa, M. (2009). Preschools in three countries revisited. Chica-go: University of Chicago Press.

Tobin, J., Wu, D., & Davidson, D. (1989). Pre-schools in three cultures. New Haven CT:Yale University Press.

Unger, R. (2005). What should the Left propose? London: Verso.Vandeweyer, J., & Glorieux, I. (2009). Belgium: Career breaks in Flanders. Retrieved

April 11, 2011. In P. Moss (Ed.), International review of leave policies and related re-search 2009 (Employment Relations research Series No. 102). London: Departmentfor Business, Innovations and Skills. http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file52778.pdf

Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The Spirit level: Why more Equal Societies almost al-ways do better. London: Allen Lane.