New paper with Garmina Singh and Minna van Gerven, in Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10242589251385915

Five blindspots in reform studies of early childhood education and care (ECEC) policy.

At breakneck speed, with a very short deadline, we delivered the work, and a report (available online). The report had some interesting findings, we think, and demonstrated again how important the accessibility, affordability and quality of childcare policies are.

However, our commissioned focus was very much on reform studies, and in particular impact assessments with very strong research designs aim to isolate the causal effect. The value of such studies is indisputable, but a tradeoff is that these reforms studies tend to be empirically narrow. We kept wondering: “What are we missing?”.

So, we reflected on five blindspots:

Blindspot A: The context-specific nature of reform studies.

The research design of reform studies explicitly seeks to exclude the influence of ‘confounding’ or contextual factors. Consequently, such studies generally focus on a single country, and are less able to explain how to increase effectiveness depends on its interplay with other institutional and structural conditions.

Blindspot B: The limited focus on reducing inequality in the use and benefits of ECEC.

It is well established that parents with higher levels of education and income are more likely to enrol their children in ECEC. Yet, reform studies are silent on the degree of cross-country inequality in ECEC use. Consequently, which aspects of ECEC policy lead to an increase or decrease in inequality in ECEC use remains unknown.

Blindspot C: The focus on short-term outcomes.

A substantial share of studies in the ECEC reform database examined the immediate and short-term effects of policy changes. Only a few reform studies included in the database have examined how long it takes for implemented policy reforms to have an effect.

Blindspot D: The focus on individual-level rather than macro-level outcomes.

Reform studies focus on individual-level outcomes, which facilitates causal inference but overlooks higher-order outcomes and thus the relationship between ECEC and important societal developments.

Blindspot E: Various forms of publication bias.

Very few studies reported on ineffective reforms, and only a handful of studies examined fathers.

Countries known for extensive provision of ECEC were overrepresented. This means that the evidence base for the revision of the Barcelona targets might be the weakest for those countries that might be furthest away from achieving them.

In the conclusion, we critically reflect on our own role in taking on this commissioned work, the importance that policy makers involve academics already at the design stage of the tender/commissioned work, and the importance of methodological pluralism.

It was a great pleasure to discuss Work-life balance in times of recession, austerity and beyond with the book’s editors Suzan Lewis, Deirdre Anderson, Clare Lyonette, Nicola Payne, and Stephen Wood. The book seeks to broaden the dual agenda of promoting WLB to improve both gender equity and workplace productivity, to develop a triple agenda that also promotes social justice toward greater equality, social mobility, and workforce inclusion. The diversity of approaches in the different chapters of this book contributes important insights to the literature, for instance combining insights from action research (that can be criticized for its lack of generalizability) with cross-national compari- sons (that can be criticized for their lack of specificity). As such, the book does what an edited book does at its best: relating diverse perspectives on an important topic to a sum that is greater than its parts.

Ellen Kossek reworked our comments to the form of a book review, which now has been published in the recent issue of Community, Work & Family journal.

Nieuwenhuis, R., & Kossek, E. E. (2018). Work-life balance in times of recession, austerity and beyond (Book Review). Community, Work & Family, 21(1), 106–109. http://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2017.1388002

Family policies are those public policies that directly affect families with children. Given the fact that definitions of what constitutes a family are constantly changing, and with changing goals of governments, the nature of family policies has been changing since their early inception (in their modern form) at the time of industrialization. Family policies are understood as having a variety of goals, including 1) poverty reduction and income maintenance, 2) direct compensation for the financial cost of raising children, 3) fostering employment, 4) improving gender equity, 5) support for early childhood development, and 6) raising birth rates (see Thévenon 2011 in Origin and Variety of Family Policies).

The available research on family policies is vast, and naturally difficult decisions had to be made to end up with the selection of studies presented here. Important works and topics had to be left out, although many of the topics that are not explicitly discussed emerge in one form or another in our selection of research. Although our selection seeks to cover a broad range of perspectives, we have focused on 1) empirical research, often (but not exclusively) quantitative in nature, 2) research on outcomes of family policies, 3) research on family policy outcomes that include employment, wages, poverty, and fertility, and 4) in addition to some classics, some recent works that point to current frontiers in family policy research.

The references are organized in six major categories, which necessarily show some overlap. We begin with several General subsections that cover the Origin and Variety of Family Policies, selected Classics, concepts, Research Overviews, discussions on Gender in Welfare State Regimes, and recent perspectives on family policies such as social investment. Next, we detail studies that examined various forms of family Policies as their object of study, covering parental leave, childcare, and cash support for families, including child support and alimonies. Third, we selected studies on Outcomes pertaining to employment, unpaid work, occupations and earnings, poverty, and fertility. Fourth, we highlight several Debates that are ongoing in the literature, including on the Matthew Effect and on using aggregated data to study the link between fertility and (women’s) employment. Fifth, we highlight several research Frontiers: areas of more recently developed topics that include the role of fathers, family policies outside the EU or OECD, company-level (rather than public) family policies, and the use of experimental approaches. We conclude by listing a range of Data Sources that are relevant for the continued study of family policies and their outcomes.

The chapter is available online