Michelle J. NeumanMichelle J. NeumanColumbia UniversityColumbia University

Hildesheim, GermanyHildesheim, Germany19-21 October, 200619-21 October, 2006

THE POLITICS OF THE POLITICS OF (DE)CENTRALIZATION(DE)CENTRALIZATION

Early Childhood Services in France and Early Childhood Services in France and SwedenSweden

2

Rationale for the StudyRationale for the Study

Why France and Sweden?Why 1980-2005?Why decentralization?

3

Research QuestionsResearch Questions

1. What were the origins and process of decentralization in France & Sweden?

2. What were the consequences for politics and policy?

4

Research DesignResearch Design

Part of a larger study of governance

Data collection: Fieldwork- Document research- Semi-structured interviews

Comparative case study analysis

FRANCEFRANCE

6

Limited and Incremental ChangeLimited and Incremental Change

Strong Republican values and centralizationPreschool part of ed system since 19th cent.Socialists initiated decent. in early 1980sResistance of teacher unions1989 law – right to a place in école maternelleCloser links between preschool and schoolMore (pre)school-based management

7

Decentralization & Decentralization & DiversificationDiversification

Child care linked to health and social policy domains

Expansion of crèches = national priority in 1981

Decentralization - child care a local political issue

CAF contrats-enfance in 1988 to provide incentives

No clear responsibility for child careRhetoric of “free choice” = shift toward more individual arrangements and long paid parental leave

Concern with unemployment underlies policy

8

Possible Consequences: Possible Consequences: AccessAccess

Early Education:Institutionalized with a strong constituency by 1970sUniversal (free) access of 3-5 year oldsVariation in enrolment of 2 year olds

Child care:Demand far exceeds supply of center placesGeographical disparities in funding, supply, and accessNon-profit provision expanding rapidly“Free choice” is a myth esp. for low-income families

9

Proportion of children enrolled in Proportion of children enrolled in French preschools by age, 1960-French preschools by age, 1960-20022002

0102030405060708090

100

1960- 61 1970- 71 1980- 81 1990- 91 2001- 02

2 years

3 years

4 years

5 years

Source: OECD

10

Primary child care arrangement Primary child care arrangement for children under age 3 (2002)for children under age 3 (2002)

4%

18%

8%

2% 4%

64%

Parents

AssistantesMaternelles

Creches

Grandparents

Individualarrangements

Other

Source: DREES

11

Possible consequences: Possible consequences: QualityQuality

Early EducationMore integration with elementary edBetter transitions…More school-like?

Child careContrats-enfance support qualityMore diverse and flexible forms of provisionNational regulations still exist

12

Possible Consequences: Possible Consequences: CoherenceCoherence

Some improved local coordination across care and educationChallenge because of different levels of responsibility – 2 strong sectorsLack of coherence between individual and group child care arrangements

SWEDENSWEDEN

14

““Educare” ApproachEducare” Approach

Early childhood – key part of welfare stateExpansion of services in 1970s and 1980sNon-socialist government from 1991-1994Rising unemployment & large budget deficitsSupported private providers and care allowance

15

Shift to Goal-GoverningShift to Goal-Governing

Child care = a municipal responsibilityPart of Local gov’t Act of 1991Earmarked funds —> block grantsGreater responsibility and decision-making to preschools and work teams1995 - requirement to provide child careEconomic crisis – higher fees, larger ratios

16

Recentralization?Recentralization?

Return of Social Democrats in 1994Improved economy, kept decentralizationShift to Ministry of EducationPre-school curriculum – pedagogical steeringUniversal pre-school for 4 and 5 year oldsMax Taxa to rectify disparities in local fees

17

Possible consequences: Possible consequences: AccessAccess

Higher access across age groupsMore affordable for parentsUneven distribution of public/non-publicDecline in family day care and open preschoolSome regional variation in supply

18

Number of children registered in Number of children registered in child care 1975–2003child care 1975–2003

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Pre-school

Leisure-time centre

Family day-care home

Source: Skolverket

19

Proportion of children ages 1-5 in Proportion of children ages 1-5 in preschool, 1980 - 2003preschool, 1980 - 2003

0

1020

3040

50

6070

80

1980 1985 1990 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Source: Skolverket

20

Proportion of children 1-5 Proportion of children 1-5 enrolled in pre-school (2003)enrolled in pre-school (2003)

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 yrs 2 yrs 3 yrs 4 yrs 5 yrs

Per

cent Family day-care home

Pre-school

Source: Skolverket

21

Possible consequences: Possible consequences: QualityQuality

Larger groups and higher child-staff ratiosVariation between/within municipalitiesHigher staff training (but staff shortages)Strengthened pedagogical task of preschoolConcerns about “schoolification”

22

Quality standards 1980-2003Quality standards 1980-2003

Average group size 1980 – 13.0 children/group 1990 – 14.0 children/group 1995 – 16.7 children/group 2003 – 17.0 children/group

Staff-child ratio 1980 – 4.2:1 1990 – 4.2:1 1995 – 5.5:1 2003 - 5.4:1

23

Possible consequences: Possible consequences: CoherenceCoherence

Geographic variation in access & qualitySmoother transitions across ed. systemChallenging partnership - preschool & schoolTension between “care” & “education”?(Staffing, Opening hours, Pedagogical

approach)

Implications: Politics & Implications: Politics & PolicyPolicy

25

Shifting Objectives of ECEShifting Objectives of ECE

FrancePersistent division between care and edChild care not a rightRole in fighting unemployment“Free choice” = more individual arrangements

SwedenUnified goals for systemSupport parent employmentGender equalityPromote lifelong learningLess family day care

In both countries, universal approach to preschool

26

Role of the EconomyRole of the Economy

Decentralization during economic crisisCost-shifting to lower government?May have accelerated existing trendNegative consequences for childrenRecent Swedish policy - temporary retreat not significant welfare retrenchmentLess clear in France (also harder hit?)

27

New actors and institutions in New actors and institutions in policy processpolicy process

Local elected officialsProgram directors and staffFrench CAFsTeachers unionsNon-public providersParents??

Role of state has changed, not diminished

28

Diversity and Equity Diversity and Equity ConcernsConcerns

Decentralization can meet local preferences

Local politics and resources determine services available to families

Parent “choice” may not benefit children

National steering may help minimize inequities

29

Conclusions…Conclusions…

Decentralization less of an impact on early childhood than on other sectors

Important for access, quality, and coherence

France and Sweden – on different paths

Institutional history, economic context, and political ideology play roles

Need to tease out these relationships