1 / 42

How did we get the ‘magic 3’? The timing of parental leaves and child care services

How did we get the ‘magic 3’? The timing of parental leaves and child care services. Dorottya Szikra and Hana Haskova. Introduction. Only countries in the world where paid parental leaves last three years: Hungary, the Czech Republic , Slovakia (+ Austria).

onofre
Download Presentation

How did we get the ‘magic 3’? The timing of parental leaves and child care services

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How did we get the ‘magic 3’? The timing of parental leaves and child care services Dorottya Szikra and Hana Haskova

  2. Introduction • Only countries in the world where paid parental leaves last threeyears: Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia (+ Austria). • Lowest daycare coverage in Europe: 3-7% of children under 3: Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia (and Poland). • Highest difference in percentage points in employment rates of 20-50 year old women without and with a child: Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. • Lowest employment rates of mothers in Europe: Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and (Italy).

  3. Increasing importance of (child)care policies in the EU • Barcelona agreement • Daycare for at least 1/3 of children <3 and 90% of children between 3 and 5 years of age by 2010 • Lisbon agreement • Female employment at least 60% by 2010 • Discourse in the EU • Economic competitivness, demographic sustainability, gender equality, equal opportunities, investments into humancapital

  4. Czech presidency to the EU in 2009 – launched a critical debate • …I’m skeptical about some trends in western European countries, which unlike us have no experience with a long-term totalitarian regime and the negative effects of an attempt by the state to take over the natural functions of the family. • ...the new member countries can contribute their own specific historical experiences and findings on childcare. ...no one should attack the decisions of those countries that do not fulfillthe Barcelona objectives and have no intention of increasing their efforts to do so.

  5. Hungarian presidency in 2011 „demography” vs „gender equality” • Secretary of State: • „The issue of ‘family’ has remained a taboo for a long time: this is breaked by the Presidency’s ‘Week of the Family’.” • “’Strong Europe’„is only to be reached by solving the problem of economic growth and of demography.” • Prime Minister: • “Europe can not build its future on immigration -- it has to reverse demographic trends”

  6. Research questions • When and how was the time-frame of parental leaves and daycare set in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary? • How did we get the “magic three” years that seems to be so difficult to change?

  7. Time-politics of child-care • Edu-care model • Dual earner model • 1-7 y. together • Children’s needs inthe center • Scandinavian countries. • Kindergartens as educating institutions with all-day coverage • Male breadwinner + part-time female earner (moving to full-time) • Sharp division between care and education (just like in 3.) • France, Belgium (Italy, Spain) + CEE • Kindergartens as educating institutions with half-day coverage • Mother’s central role remains after 3 years • Male breadwinner + Female caretaker + part time female earner • UK, Germany (West), Austria, Holland

  8. CZECH REPUBLIC: DEVELOPMENT 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century Maternity leave since 1888 Childcare facilities since first half of the 1850s - First childcare facility in Prague for poor children from the age of two whose parents were employed - First kindergarten in Prague for children from the age of two (in 1869) - Existence of different types of childcare facilities (no unified rules for their operation) Decree no. 4711 from 1872 - codified the division of pre-school children into 2 age groups (chi - prioritized kindergartens for children from the age of three

  9. 1918-1939 – betweenthewars - disputeoverchildcarefacilities but no lawintroduced - oldlegislationapplied - maternity leavestill not coveringallworkingmothers - about20% of children in kindergartens (two, three and fiveyearold) - but only 80 nurseriesexisted 1939-1945 – the WWII - nurseries and kindergartens declined - “opatrovna” abolished - childrens´ sheltersforchildrenfromtheageof 2 established (oftenwomen´sself-helpactivity) but replaced by prioritizedkindergartensafter WWII

  10. After the communist coup in 1948 • 1948: Kindergartens for children from the age of 3 under the Ministry of Education • 1951, 1952: Nurseries for children < 3 under the Ministry of Health

  11. Reformist 1960s criticism of nurseries translated into: - new types of childcare facilities - nurseries included into pre-schools but remained under the Ministry of Health - extension of maternity leave and introduction of “extended maternity leave” - income-related maternity leave extended from 18 to 22 weeks (1964), 26 weeks (1968), 28 weeks (1987)

  12. 1964: “extended maternity leave” (later parental leave)until the first birthday of the child - unpaid! 1970: until 2 years of age + maternity allowance (later parental allowance) for mothers of 2 children, until the first birthday of the younger child. 1971: allowance extended to the 2nd year of the child. 1985: allowance extended to all full-time mothers up to age 1. 1987: allowance extended up to the child´s age of 3for mothers of 2 children. 1989: leave extended until the age of 3. 1990: allowance up to the child´s age of 3 for all full-time mothers.

  13. 1990s • 1995: Parental allowance extended up to 4 years. • The full-time parent´s child allowed to attend kindergarten on a part-time basis if it was already 3 years old. • Job protection was not extended from 3 up to 4 years. • Sharp drop in the number of nurseries. 2000s • 2004: Parental allowance does not limit parent´s gainful activity. • 2008: Parents can choose between 2,3 and 4 years – mostly 3 years. • 2012: 2+ children allowed to attend kindergartens full-time while parent on leave BUT: lack of childcare facilities.

  14. SLOVAKIA: DEVELOPMENT • Identical childcare policies to the Austro-Hungarian Empire (influence of Hungary) until 1918 • But affecting Slovakiangroups differently: the process of „magyarization“! • Identical policies to the Czech territories under Czechoslovakia in 1918-1939 and 1945-1992.

  15. 1990s Slovakia • The same factors as in the CR led to drop in nurseries: • Legacy of nurseries (Ministry of Healthcare, criticism) • Lengthy parental leave • Postponement of childbearing • Political milieu (conviction to reduce the role of the state) BUT CR moved into more gender conservative direction.

  16. 2000s Slovakia Incentive to mothers to return to work: childcare allowance to cover daycare/nanny etc. for a child <3 of working parents. Parental leave more flexible than before. However, no direct state funding to childcare facilities for children <3.

  17. To conclude, despite the fact that some major differences in childcare policies emerged in the two countries, the historical legacy of dividing preschool children into two categories along the age of three together with the legacy of bad reputation of nurseries for children under the age of three and the three year long paid extended maternity leave, contributed to the post-1989 decline in availability of nurseries and then denial of investments into childcare facilities that would provide care for children younger than three. However, under the pressure of the EU and the OECD, both countries introduced some legislative changes recently that make it easier at least for some parents to use childcare services for their children younger than three. These seem to be rather private services though since no financial support is given by these states directly to childcare facilities for children under the age of three. Mothers´ care for children under the age of three still remains the most the popular among the two populations while from the age of three, majority of children attend publically funded kindergartens. CONCLUSION: CR and SR Dividing daycare along the age of three - kindergartens as education institutions - nurseries as non-edu. inst. with bad reputation translated into long paid leave. The legacy of daycare and leaves together with - demographic and labor market factors - political milieau and weakness of feminist organizations led to drop in nurseries in the 1990s and denial to re-invest in them.

  18. CONCLUSION: CR and SR • Investments into developmentofdaycare infrastructure are declared to betoohigh • EU/ OECD pressure • Privatisation of care

  19. HUNGARY • 1891. Kindergarten are to be established by the state, municipalities, churches and private persons. • …for children between 3-6 years. • „In areas where there are kindergarten children should be enroled by law” – fines!

  20. Kindergarten 1891 • …education as described in Act 1868 is not to be carried out in kindergarten • … children should be tought „to pray, speak with reason and sing; their minds have to be developed…” • Kindergarten as means of „magyarization” (Bicskey 2006) • Ministry of Education and Culture is responsible

  21. Kindergarten 1936 • The supervision of kindergarten becomes the task of the Ministry ofInterior. • Afternoon care in schools extended to reach more needy children • Nationalist education

  22. 1946-1948 • Factories are obliged to create and maintain child-care institutions • 1948. All educational institutions are nationalized. • 1949. shifted toMinistry of Education

  23. 1950s • 1953. „socialist pedagogy” • Kindergartens to be extended • Afternoon care is to be provided • In case both parents work children can be accepted from the age of 2.5. • 1955. Most of existing kindergarten are taken over by the local councils: state subsidy!

  24. Discourses 1960s • Post-1956 • More welfare in general • „Demographic crisis” • Back to „motherly obligations” • But: suggestions for „vouchers” • Women’s organization continously lobbying for more childcare!

  25. Kindergarten 1970s • It is obligatory to have places for lone mothers in kindergarten. • 1971. New Program for Kindergarten Pedagogy: • a good bases for the school-education. • differentiated treatment • “familial atmosphere”

  26. Slow increase in kindergarten coverage • Obligation from 5 years of age (3 years?) • Steady state-support

  27. Nurseries • 1948-1950: Factories and local councils responsible (over 250 female employees compulsory!) • 1951: supervision of Ministry of Health • 1953: creation of seasonal and “travelling crèches” • 1954: Operation of nurseries regulated in detail

  28. 1965. All crèches run by firms are taken over by the local councils (!) • 1966. “Methodological crèches” set up • 1970. Institute for Créches (BOMI) set up • 1978. Development of education of nurses

  29. 1990s. Decrease in the number of créches • No sharp decrease in coverage • 1997. Administration taken over by the Ministry of Public Welfare

  30. Constantly under-financed + over-crowded • Weaker state-support than to kindergarten • New institution: Family-care center (CSANA) for children 0.5 – 14 years

  31. Long maternity leaves: GYES • Earlier plans for 9 or 12 months sick leave • 1967: Until 2.5 years of the child (together with maternity leave) • Eligibility: 12 months full-time employment • 600 HUF/month for public employees/industrial workers, 500 for co-operative members • 1969: Until 3rd birthday of the child.

  32. GYES • 1973: Becomes progressive with the number of children • Is available separately for all children (even if they are at home at the same time) • 1982: Fathers can take GYES • Parents can work 4 hours a day

  33. GYES • 1985: parents working besides GYES are eligible for child care services • 1989. Disabled child: available until the child’s 10th birthday. • 1996. GYES made means-tested + detached from work record! • Rate set at minimum pension

  34. GYES • 1998. Universally available again. • 2002. Grandparents can receive GYES • 2006. Parents can work full time besides GYES. • 2009. Period to be shortened: available until the 2nd birthday of child • 2010: GYES available for 3 years again.

  35. Long maternity leaves: GYED • 1985. Available until the first birthday of the child • The same as sickness leave: 65-75% of the daily wage • 1986. Extended until age 1.5. + fathers become eligible • 1987. Extended until age 2.

  36. 1996. GYED stopped. • 2000. GYED taken back in. • 2009. Eligibility criteria becomes stricter plans for decreasing to one year • 2010. Eligibility becomes the same as previously

  37. Summary: Time-politics of Hungarian child-care • Long history of maternalist politics • Child-care as education for 3-6 years old children • 1960s: new maternalist turn • 1970s: public créches intitutionalized

  38. 1990s: „cushion” against economic hardship • GYES: • cheaper solution • hides unemployment • public opinion • GYED • Strenthening middle-class

  39. Back to the research questions • When and how was the time-frame of parental leaves and daycare set in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary? • How did we get the “magic three” years that seems to be so difficult to change?

  40. Why Czech R, Slovakia and Hungary? Possible explanations: • Legacy of nationalist maternalism + concern about demography • Weak feminism: gender equality has no strong promoters • Economic reasons

  41. Extension of leaves shows strong correlation with economic surplus! • Channelling unemployment through long maternity leaves -- intentional • Failed attempts of „path departure” • Weaker institutionalization of nurseries in CR and SR than in HU • More flexibility included into the SL and CZ system of parental leaves than in HU

  42. Future? • To change the existing pattern logics of the system needs to be changed: Not to use long maternity leaves instead of unemployment benefits. • Development of nurseries and mixed institutions would be needed for increasing mother’s employment. • Change of gender relations and share of caring duties needed – family patterns!

More Related