THE POLITICS OF
(DE)CENTRALIZATION
Early Childhood Services in France and Sweden
Michelle J. Neuman
Columbia University
Hildesheim, Germany
19-21 October, 2006
Rationale for the Study
Why France and Sweden?
Why 1980-2005?
Why decentralization?
2
Research Questions
1. What were the origins and process of
decentralization in France & Sweden?
2. What were the consequences for
politics and policy?
3
Research Design
Part of a larger study of governance
Data collection: Fieldwork
- Document research
- Semi-structured interviews
Comparative case study analysis
4
FRANCE
Limited and Incremental Change
Strong Republican values and centralization
Preschool part of ed system since 19th cent.
Socialists initiated decent. in early 1980s
Resistance of teacher unions
1989 law – right to a place in école maternelle
Closer links between preschool and school
More (pre)school-based management
6
Decentralization & Diversification
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 care
Rhetoric of “free choice” = shift toward more
individual arrangements and long paid parental leave
Concern with unemployment underlies policy
7
Possible Consequences: Access
Early Education:
Institutionalized with a strong constituency by 1970s
Universal (free) access of 3-5 year olds
Variation in enrolment of 2 year olds
Child care:
Demand far exceeds supply of center places
Geographical disparities in funding, supply, and access
Non-profit provision expanding rapidly
“Free choice” is a myth esp. for low-income families
8
Proportion of children enrolled in
French preschools by age, 1960-2002
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1960-61
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
1970-71
1980-81
1990-91
2001-02
Source: OECD
9
Primary child care arrangement for
children under age 3 (2002)
2%
4%
Parents
4%
Assistantes
Maternelles
8%
Creches
Grandparents
18%
64%
Source: DREES
Individual
arrangements
Other
10
Possible consequences: Quality
Early Education
More integration with elementary ed
Better transitions…More school-like?
Child care
Contrats-enfance support quality
More diverse and flexible forms of provision
National regulations still exist
11
Possible Consequences: Coherence
Some improved local coordination across
care and education
Challenge because of different levels of
responsibility – 2 strong sectors
Lack of coherence between individual and
group child care arrangements
12
SWEDEN
“Educare” Approach
Early childhood – key part of welfare state
Expansion of services in 1970s and 1980s
Non-socialist government from 1991-1994
Rising unemployment & large budget deficits
Supported private providers and care allowance
14
Shift to Goal-Governing
Child care = a municipal responsibility
Part of Local gov’t Act of 1991
Earmarked funds —> block grants
Greater responsibility and decision-making
to preschools and work teams
1995 - requirement to provide child care
Economic crisis – higher fees, larger ratios
15
Recentralization?
Return of Social Democrats in 1994
Improved economy, kept decentralization
Shift to Ministry of Education
Pre-school curriculum – pedagogical steering
Universal pre-school for 4 and 5 year olds
Max Taxa to rectify disparities in local fees
16
Possible consequences: Access
Higher access across age groups
More affordable for parents
Uneven distribution of public/non-public
Decline in family day care and open preschool
Some regional variation in supply
17
Number of children registered in
child care 1975–2003
400,000
Pre-school
300,000
Leisure-time centre
200,000
100,000
Family day-care home
0
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Source: Skolverket
18
Proportion of children ages 1-5 in
preschool, 1980 - 2003
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1980
1985
1990
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Source: Skolverket
19
Proportion of children 1-5 enrolled
in pre-school (2003)
100
Percent
80
60
Family day-care home
Pre-school
40
20
0
1 yrs
2 yrs
3 yrs
4 yrs
5 yrs
Source: Skolverket
20
Possible consequences: Quality
Larger groups and higher child-staff ratios
Variation between/within municipalities
Higher staff training (but staff shortages)
Strengthened pedagogical task of preschool
Concerns about “schoolification”
21
Quality 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
22
Possible consequences: Coherence
Geographic variation in access & quality
Smoother transitions across ed. system
Challenging partnership - preschool & school
Tension between “care” & “education”?
(Staffing, Opening hours, Pedagogical approach)
23
Implications: Politics & Policy
Shifting Objectives of ECE
France
Persistent division
between care and ed
Child care not a right
Role in fighting
unemployment
“Free choice” = more
individual arrangements
Sweden
Unified goals for system
Support parent employment
Gender equality
Promote lifelong learning
Less family day care
 In both countries, universal approach to preschool
25
Role of the Economy
Decentralization  during economic crisis
Cost-shifting to lower government?
May have accelerated existing trend
Negative consequences for children
Recent Swedish policy - temporary retreat
not significant welfare retrenchment
Less clear in France (also harder hit?)
26
New actors and institutions in
policy process
Local elected officials
Program directors and staff
French CAFs
Teachers unions
Non-public providers
Parents??
 Role of state has changed, not diminished
27
Diversity and Equity Concerns
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
28
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
29