Vol. 1 No. 1 (2018): Dignity and Value of the Family
Articles

Cash for Childcare as a Policy Instrument – advantages and limitations

Jorma Sipilä
Bio
Published 12.12.2018
Keywords
  • childcare,
  • family policy,
  • government support,
  • parenthood
How to Cite
Sipilä, J. (2018). Cash for Childcare as a Policy Instrument – advantages and limitations. The Legal Culture, 1(1), 86-97. https://doi.org/10.37873/legal.2018.1.1.12

Abstract

The presented article is an attempt to draw attention to the economiccontexts of the functioning of families in Europe. The author presentsvarious types of financial support for families using the examples fromselected European countries. The idea of paying the mother for lookingafter her children at home is analysed in detail.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Aalto A.-M., Katsausosittaisenhoitorahankäyttöön 2000 luvulla, Helsinki: Kela, 2013.
  2. Anttonen A., Lasten kotihoidon tuki suomalaisessa perhepolitiikassa, Helsinki 1999.
  3. Anttonen A., Sipilä J., Care capital, stress and satisfaction, [in:] Women, Men, Work and Family in Europe, ed. R. Crompton, S. Lewis and C. Lyonette, Houndmills 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230800830_9
  4. Avdeyeva O., Social policy reforms in Hungary: Towards a dual-earner model?, Paper prepared for the EUSA Eleventh Biennial International Conference, Los Angeles, California, April 23–25, 2009.
  5. Bungum B., Kvande E., The rise and fall of cash for care in Norway: changes in the use of child-care policies, „Nordic Journal of Social Research”, vol. 4, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7577/njsr.2065
  6. Cash-for-childcare: The consequences for caring mother, ed. J. Sipilä, K. Repo and T. Rissanen, Cheltenham 2010.
  7. Haataja A., Kotihoidon tuki kehittyy omaan tahtiinsa Pohjoismaissa, „Sosiaalivakuutus” 17.3.2016.
  8. Haataja A., Juutilainen V.P., Kuinka pitkään lasten kotihoitoa? Selvitys äitien lastenhoitojaksoista kotona 2000-luvulla, Helsinki 2014.
  9. Heckman J.J., Schools, Skills, and Synapses, „Economic Inquiry”, vol. 46, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w14064
  10. Heckman J.J., Masterov D.V., The Productivity Argument for Investing in Young Children, „Review of Agricultural Economics”, vol. 29, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w13016
  11. Himmelweit S., Caring: the need for an economic strategy, „Public Policy Research”, vol. 12, 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1070-3535.2005.00398.x
  12. Kotihoidontuki kyllä vai ei? Tätä mieltä ovat suomalaiset, „Aamulehti” 6.4.2017.
  13. Lalive R., Zweimüller J., How does parental leave affect fertility and return to work? Evidence from two natural experiments, „The Quarterly Journal of Economics”, vol. 125, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2009.124.3.1363
  14. Lasten kotihoidon tukea saaneet, „Findikaattori”, http:/www.Findikaattori.fi/fi/111.
  15. Leitner A., Wroblewski A., Welfare State and Work–Life Balance, „European Societies”, vol. 8, 2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616690600645092
  16. Lister R., Williams F., Anttonen A., Bussemaker J., Gerhard U., Heinen J., Johansson S., Leira A., Siim B., Topio C., Cavanas A., Gendering Citizenship in Western Europe. New Challenges for Citizenship Research in a Cross-National Context, Bristol 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qgzcn
  17. Mahon R., Child care: towards what kind of „Social Europe”?, „Social Politics”, vol. 9, 2002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/9.3.343
  18. Nyberg A., Cash-for-childcare systems in Sweden: history, political contradictions and recent developments, [in:] Cash-for-childcare: The consequences for caring mother, ed. J. Sipilä, K. Repo and T. Rissanen, Cheltenham 2010.
  19. Pohjola K., Haataja A., Juutilainen V.P., Lasten yksityisen hoidon tuki osana päivähoitoa, Helsinki 2013.
  20. Rakastettu ja vihattu kotihoidon tuki, ed. J. Sipilä, M. Rantalaiho, K. Repo and T. Rissanen, Tampere 2012.
  21. Rakkaudesta, velvollisuudestavairahasta?, ed. J. Sipilä, Helsinki 1994.
  22. Ramkvist K., Pappamakten, „Arena”, vol. 4, December 2006.
  23. Repo K., Finnish child home care allowance – users’ perspectives and perceptions, [in:] Cash-for-childcare: The consequences for caring mother, ed. J. Sipilä, K. Repo and T. Rissanen, Cheltenham 2010.
  24. Sipilä J., Lasten kotihoidon tuki poliittisena kysymyksenä, [in:] Rakastettu ja vihattu kotihoidon tuki, ed. J. Sipilä, M. Rantalaiho, K. Repo and T. Rissanen, Tampere 2012.
  25. Sipilä J., Anttonen A., Kröger T., A Nordic welfare state meets globalization: from universalism toward privatization and informalization, [in:] The welfare state in post-industrial society: A global perspective, ed. J. Powell and J. Hendricks, Dordrecht: Springer, 2009.
  26. Sipilä J., Repo K., Rissanen T., Viitasalo N., Cash-for-childcare: unnecessary traditionalism or a contemporary necessity?, [in:] Cash-for-childcare: The consequences for caring mother, ed. J. Sipilä, K. Repo and T. Rissanen, Cheltenham 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849804615
  27. Tervola J., Maahanmuuttajien kotihoidon tuen käyttö 2000-luvulla, „Yhteiskuntapolitiikka”, vol. 80, 2015.
  28. Trägårdh T., The ‘civil society’ debate in Sweden: The welfare state challenged, [in:] State and civil society in Northern Europe. The Swedish model reconsidered, ed. L. Trägårdh, New York 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1x76dkp
  29. Ungerson C., Yeandle S., Cash for care in developed welfare states, Houndmills 2007.