The effects of ECEC provision on mothers’ employment intentions

Many scholars have discussed the role family policies play in shaping gender relations and the associated assumptions about the social positions of the sexes (see, e.g. Lewis, Reference Lewis1992; O’Connor, Reference O’Connor1993; Orloff, Reference Orloff1993, Reference Orloff, Krook and Childs2010; Pateman, Reference Pateman, Pierson and Castles2006; Sainsbury, Reference Sainsbury1994). A key argument in this literature is that the reliance on a male-breadwinner model – in which the man engages in a full-time job, while the woman is responsible for the care work and the household duties – has underlain the development of the modern welfare systems across Europe and beyond (Mahon, Reference Mahon, Sonya and Mahon2002; Lewis, Reference Lewis2001). This is also reflected in the fact that social policy entitlements traditionally “assumed the existence of a family wage” (Daly, Reference Daly, Castles, Leibfried and Lewis2010, 104) provided by male employment, and thus targeted the income security of the male breadwinner. In contrast, women were viewed as primarily responsible for the care of dependent family members, especially young children and aging parents.

However, recent decades have seen “a series of farewells to maternalism” (Orloff Reference Orloff and Levy2006, 230) within “affluent” welfare democracies. In Orloff’s (Reference Orloff and Levy2006, 230) perspective, many “countries are moving from a ‘maternalist’ policy model, under which mothers were expected to stay home full-time with their children and eschew employment, to a model of ‘employment for all,’ under which women are expected to enter the labor force, as are men”. This shift is visible in the emergence and promotion of different policies that seek to increase women’s participation in the labor market by facilitating the reconciliation of family and work duties. Such policies include parental leave schemes and childcare policies, as well as policies regulating work hours and taxation. Among these policies, measures promoting the supply of external childcare for preschool children have been the most salient issue in “academic and political debates on the reconfiguration of paid and unpaid work” (Ciccia and Bleijenbergh, Reference Ciccia and Bleijenbergh2014, 53; see also Lewis, Reference Lewis2001; Petitclerc et al., Reference Petitclerc, Côté and Doyle2017).

The existing scientific evidence shows that ECEC services are crucially related to increased maternal employment (Chevalier and Viitanen, Reference Chevalier and Viitanen2002; Ferragina, Reference Ferragina2019; Hegewisch and Gornick, Reference Hegewisch and Gornick2011; McLean et al., Reference McLean, Naumann and Koslowski2017; Morrissey, Reference Morrissey2017; Motiejunaite and Kravchenko, Reference Motiejunaite and Kravchenko2008; OECD, 2018; Stadelmann-Steffen, Reference Stadelmann-Steffen2011; Stahl and Schober, Reference Stahl and Schober2020; Vuri, Reference Vuri2016). The persistence of gender-based labor market inequalities and women’s continued performance of the lion’s share of unpaid care and household labor make the explanation of these findings quite straightforward: ECEC services (partially) relieve mothers of toddlers of their care activities, thereby leaving them more time to engage in paid labor. Moreover, in line with policy feedback theories (Ellingsæter et al., Reference Ellingsæter, Kitterød and Lyngstad2017; Kumlin and Stadelmann-Steffen, Reference Kumlin, Stadelmann-Steffen, Kumlin and Stadelmann-Steffen2014), expanding the provision of external childcare does not only enhance opportunity structures by improving mothers’ access to care resources. Childcare policies may also produce normative effects and trigger a change in individual and societal attitudes towards gender roles with regards to paid and unpaid work (Ellingsæter et al., Reference Ellingsæter, Kitterød and Lyngstad2017; Stadelmann-Steffen and Oehrli, Reference Stadelmann-Steffen and Oehrli2017). By outsourcing women’s sole responsibility for care-giving to external institutions and promoting mothers’ entrance into the labor market, childcare policies also alter traditional work–family relations and undermine patriarchal norms and the cultural imperatives of how labor should be allocated between the genders associated with them (Mahon, Reference Mahon, Sonya and Mahon2002; Blofield and Martínez Franzoni, Reference Blofield and Martínez Franzoni2015). Making non-parental childcare a (normatively acceptable) option may also generate normative changes at the individual level and promote women’s intentions to participate more in the labor market (Stadelmann-Steffen, Reference Stadelmann-Steffen2011).

Thus, at its foundation, this literature assumes that the provision of external childcare contributes to more frequent and more intense female employment not only by dismantling existing structural constraints and providing mothers with the opportunity to engage in paid labor, but also by promoting their intentions to do so (Chevalier and Viitanen, Reference Chevalier and Viitanen2002; Kangas and Rostgaard, Reference Kangas and Rostgaard2007; Sjöberg, Reference Sjöberg2004).

However, this general expectation needs to be qualified by the possibility that the effects of external childcare supply may differ across mothers (Brayfield et al., Reference Brayfield, Alder and Luo2001; Ferragina, Reference Ferragina2019; Hook and Paek, Reference Hook and Paek2020; Kangas and Rostgaard, Reference Kangas and Rostgaard2007; Petitclerc et al., Reference Petitclerc, Côté and Doyle2017; Stadelmann-Steffen, Reference Stadelmann-Steffen2011; Vuri, Reference Vuri2016; Wendt et al., Reference Wendt, Mischke and Pfeifer2011). Initially, we expect that the effects that improving ECEC supply exerts on mothers’ intentions to spend more time on paid labor is limited for mothers who already have high levels of employment and, thus, little potential for further increasing the time they spend on paid labor. Improvements in the supply of ECEC services may make their lives easier, but are not likely to have a major effect on their intentions to increase their involvement in paid labor. In contrast, the elasticity to change labor patterns is generally larger for mothers with relatively low levels of part-time employment, as well as for mothers who are not engaged in paid labor. We therefore formulate the following hypothesis:

We expect further differences within the group of mothers with no or with low levels of employment because this group is likely to be quite heterogeneous in its options and preferences. This is because dismantling the constraints related to ECEC provision may be a necessary but not sufficient condition for these mothers’ patterns of labor to change. Existing research has shown that childcare policies’ impact on mothers’ division of labor is very complex and, often, contingent on the economic need to engage in paid labor, as well as on individual norms, attitudes, lifestyle preferences, and childcare ideals. Hakim (Reference Hakim2003a, Reference Hakim2003b), for example, argues that the heterogeneity in women’s work-lifestyle choices is important and thereby distinguishes between home-centered, work-centered, and adaptive women. Stadelmann-Steffen (Reference Stadelmann-Steffen2011) finds that work-centered and, especially, adaptive women’s participation in the labor market crucially depends on the supply and design of external childcare (Brayfield et al., Reference Brayfield, Alder and Luo2001; Kangas and Rostgaard, Reference Kangas and Rostgaard2007; Petitclerc et al., Reference Petitclerc, Côté and Doyle2017; Wendt et al., Reference Wendt, Mischke and Pfeifer2011). In contrast, mothering may remain an important source of self-identity, satisfaction, and autonomy for women who readily embrace more “traditional” societal norms. External childcare provision may be less decisive in determining these “home centered” (Hakim, Reference Hakim2003a) women’s involvement in the labor market.

These considerations and findings lead us to expect that even if the elasticity to change labor patterns exists – namely, for mothers with low levels of employment or no employment whatsoever – improving the supply of ECEC may not necessarily translate into intentions to increase individual engagement in the labor market.

We test this assumption by analyzing whether differences exist within the group of mothers with no or with low levels of employment contingent on their childcare ideals (Kremer, Reference Kremer2006, Reference Kremer2007). In particular, improving the external supply of childcare may change the behavior of those mothers who are actually willing to leave their preschool children with external care providers. More specifically, we expect mothers who do have preferences for external childcare to be more reactive to improvements in ECEC services than mothers who prefer not to use supplementary care. After all, such ECEC policies can enable mothers to make real choices, which may include being more active in the labor market than they already are. Accordingly, we formulate the following hypothesis:

Methodology

Our analysis is based on survey data collected in 2017 in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. The survey took the form of a web questionnaire and contained both classic survey questions and a conjoint part. The classic survey part was comprised of socio-demographic questions and questions about respondents’ household situations and the way paid and unpaid labor were distributed within their households.

The conjoint part of the survey exposed respondents to varying policy constellations. Survey takers had to indicate their intended amount of paid and care work for each constellation. While some of these combinations reflected the policies in place in Switzerland, others described hypothetical scenarios - namely, more extensive provisions of childcare than those currently in place. Thereby, we adopt a fully randomized conjoint design (Hainmueller et al., Reference Hainmueller, Hopkins and Yamamoto2014): policy constellations were constructed through a random allocation of attribute levels. Respondents were randomly exposed to a total of five different scenarios. Our original sample consists of more than 1,300 individuals in their reproductive years (aged between 25 and 50), living in partnerships. For the analyses, we limited our sample to individuals who participated in the entire survey. More precisely, our analyses are based on a sample of 968 individuals. Multiplied by the five different scenarios, this sample results in a total of 4,840 observationsFootnote ² . The size of the dataset makes it possible to estimate the causal effects of all varying attribute combinations and, hence, to assess their relative power in explaining individuals’ work intentions.

What did our (hypothetical) policy contexts look like? We included six attributes, three of which describe the design of external childcare supply (for an overview, see Table 1 in the Appendix (A1)).Footnote ³ A first attribute has to do with varying degrees of availability of childcare spots (the latter can either be scarce or guaranteed). A second attribute indicates whether the external childcare is close to the parents’ home/workplace or whether some detour is necessary. A third attribute describes its cost (fully subsided vs. based on parents’ income vs. households have to pay the real cost). Taken together, these three attributes allow us to measure childcare supply as a multidimensional concept and to consider that these services’ potential to reshape parents’ employment intentions hinge not only on their availability, but also on their accessibility and affordability (Ciccia and Bleijenbergh, Reference Ciccia and Bleijenbergh2014; McLean et al., Reference McLean, Naumann and Koslowski2017; Schober, Reference Schober, Nieuwenhuis and Van Lancker2020; Stahl and Schober, Reference Stahl and Schober2020).Footnote ⁴ Thus, for example, we can expect childcare effects to be particularly strong in contexts where parents can count on guaranteed slots located within a reasonable distance from their homes and/or workplaces. Conversely, logistical challenges may result in situations whereby available ECEC slots remain unused (McLean et al., Reference McLean, Naumann and Koslowski2017). In contrast, we expect that childcare supply does not significantly affect adults’ employment intentions in contexts where external childcare provisions are scarce. Moreover, parents may only enroll their children in childcare services if such services are affordable (Vuri, Reference Vuri2016).

Unlike standard survey questions, the results of a factorial survey experiment reflect reactions to a particular policy situation (a combination of childcare policies and other factors). Although this experimental design mainly has its advantages with respect to internal rather than external validity, recent studies that apply conjoint analyses have also produced relevant results in terms of the latter. For example, Hainmueller et al. (Reference Hainmueller, Hangartner and Yamamoto2015) have shown that stated preference experiments can produce results based on hypothetical decisions that come very close to the electorate’s actual voting behavior. Conjoint analyses are also increasingly applied in the social field (Auspurg et al., Reference Auspurg, Hinz and Sauer2017; Häusermann et al., Reference Häusermann, Traber and Kurer2015; Iten et al., Reference Iten, Stern, Menegale, Filippini, Pioro, Banfi, Farsi, Tassinari and Schrottmann2005; Stadelmann-Steffen and Dermont, Reference Stadelmann-Steffen and Dermont2020).

To test which attributes hinder or boost mothers’ intended allocation of time to paid and care work, we rely on the so-called average marginal component effects (AMCEs) that represent the “marginal effect of an attribute averaged over the joint distribution of the remaining attributes” (Hainmueller et al., Reference Hainmueller, Hopkins and Yamamoto2014). We thereby use random intercept models to estimate changes in an attribute’s propensity to increase mothers’ engagement in paid labor compared to the reference category. Such hierarchical models account for the lack of independence between observations linked to the same respondent (as each respondent successively evaluates several policy scenarios). More substantively, this means that the random intercept captures individual differences in the general propensity to work.

Given our theoretical focus on how ECEC provisions affect the employment intentions of mothers with children up to the age of 4, we mainly report the results for this subgroup of our sample, which consists of 146 individuals (making up a total of 730 observations).Footnote ⁵

Theoretically, we assumed that the effect of external childcare would differ across mothers. Methodologically, if true, such differences would reflect in group-specific AMCEs, estimated by interactions between the policy attributes and individual-level variables. As we expect that the effects of childcare policies vary across mothers based on the latter’s actual engagement in paid labor, we construct a variable that differentiates between mothers who have a high level of employment (21 hours a week or more) and mothers who are either engaged in a low level of employment (less than 21 hours a week) or who are not engaged in paid labor at all. About 63 percent of the mothers with children up to the age of 4 in our sample belong to the latter group.

In order to account for different ideals of care (Kremer, Reference Kremer2006, Reference Kremer2007) we use a dummy variable that captures whether respondents consider ECEC and other external childcare services a good supplementary care option for preschool children.Footnote ⁶ More precisely, we distinguish mothers who prefer that their children receive care from external services or who do not have any preferences from those who indicated that they do not want any supplementary out-of-home care options. About 54 percent of all mothers with children up to the age of 4 in our sample belong to the latter group.

Empirical Results

Figure 1 presents the results of the full conjoint model for mothers of children younger than 4 years. At first glance, these results show that women report an increase in the amount of time they intend to devote to paid work contingent on specific policy configurations.Footnote ⁷ Most important, mothers clearly indicate that they would increase the time they spend on paid work if ECEC spots are guaranteed, if the service is free of charge, and if facilities are close to either their homes or their workplaces.Footnote ⁸ These results are in line with our first hypothesis and with existing findings that the provision of external childcare affects mothers’ intended participation in the labor market. Especially free and accessible ECEC services therefore have the potential to increase mothers’ engagement in paid labor. Such services’ close proximity to either mothers’ workplaces or residences reduces the logistical challenge of organizing both childcare and employment (McLean et al., Reference McLean, Naumann and Koslowski2017) and increases the likelihood that families make use of available childcare slots.

FIGURE 1. ECEC features and changes in mother’s employment intentions

Note: Results of the conjoint analyses. Full model for mothers with children up to 4 years.

Furthermore, and even though this is not the focus of this paper, these models show that flexible work schedules and work locations increase mothers’ intentions to increase their participation in the labor market. In contrast, different tax incentives and parental leave policies seemingly do not affect mothers’ labor market intentions. Future research needs to identify the reasons for this lack of significance and clarify whether the wide confidence intervals result from the heterogeneity in mothers’ opinions or from the uncertainty associated with policies with which the Swiss population has relatively little familiarity.

We proceed by testing ECEC services’ impact on the intended amount of time spent on paid labor for different groups of mothers. The theoretical part justified our assumption that mothers’ intentions to increase their engagement in paid labor may be limited for those who already have high levels of employment as their potential for change is rather limited. In contrast, mothers with low levels of employment may have a higher elasticity in changing the amount of time they allocate to paid labor. To test this assumption, we run models that include interactions between our ECEC attributes and the variable that captures mothers’ current levels of employment.Footnote ⁹ The models presented in Figure 2 partially support our assumption about the moderating role of mothers’ actual employment levels.

FIGURE 2. The moderating role of mothers’ actual employment level

Note: Results of the conjoint analyses for mothers with children up to 4 years by employment level.

ECEC structures do have an impact on all mothers’ work intentions regardless of their levels of employment. However, ECEC supply’s effects on the intended level of employment of mothers who are already intensively engaged in paid labor are substantively small. In fact, these mothers generally report that they would increase their levels of employment further if childcare spots were guaranteed. Hence, while these mothers hardly make their participation in paid labor conditional on external childcare structures, they see guaranteed ECEC spots as an opportunity to slightly increase the time they spend on paid work. This finding makes sense in the case of Switzerland, where having children attend ECEC institutions full time (i.e. four or five days a week) is rather uncommon and difficult. Guaranteed spots, therefore, send a signal that more extensive ECEC is not only available but also (more or less) normatively acceptable.

In contrast, guaranteed childcare spots do not seem to affect the level of employment of mothers of toddlers with low levels of employment (including the not employed). However, these mothers’ propensity to increase their engagement in paid labor is quite elastic, contingent on ECEC services’ cost structure. More precisely, these mothers report that they would work longer hours in paid labor if childcare spots were free. This result supports theories that stress that ECEC costs and subsidy structures do create particularly strong incentives to enroll children in childcare services (Vuri, Reference Vuri2016). This is especially true in contexts like Switzerland’s, where the costs of additional ECEC services often exceed mothers’ earning potential (Bütler, Reference Bütler2007).

In addition to their material costs, the location of ECEC services also affects the employment intentions of mothers with low levels of employment. This effect can be interpreted as a further sign that this group of women is particularly “cost-sensitive” in its employment intentions and decisions. When ECEC spots are not close by, the reconciliation of paid work and work at home (i.e. housework and childcare) becomes more complicated (McLean et al., Reference McLean, Naumann and Koslowski2017) – “costs” that reduce the “add on” value of increasing mothers’ labor market involvement (Stadelmann-Steffen, Reference Stadelmann-Steffen2011).

In sum, the results presented in Figure 2 demonstrate that the way mothers in Switzerland organize their paid work does not simply align with traditional gender norms about women’s labor. Our results for mothers with low levels of employment imply that structural conditions affect the degree to which traditional norms and related preferences translate into (intended) work patterns. To further test this assumption we run additional models including a variable that accounts for mothers’ ideals of care. The results for mothers with low levels of employment (0-21 hours) are presented in Figure 3.

FIGURE 3. The moderating role of childcare preferences among mothers with low levels of employment

Note: Results of the conjoint analyses for mothers with children up to 4 years and with low levels of employment.

Overall, the patterns of mothers with preferences for parental or home-centered childcare do not greatly differ from those of mothers who prefer external childcare. In particular, varying childcare ideals do not substantially moderate the effects of childcare’s cost structure. The financing of childcare seems to be a decisive factor for the employment intentions of mothers who prefer that their children receive childcare at home, as well, which is quite interesting.

Nevertheless, some heterogeneity does exist in the group of mothers with low levels of employment as far as ECEC availability is concerned. Similar to the intensively employed mothers, mothers with preferences for external childcare report that guaranteed childcare spots could result in greater engagement in paid labor. Conversely, ECEC availability’s lack of a significant effect for the group with low levels of employment (reported above in Figure 2), was obviously produced by mothers who do not want to rely on external childcare services.

These findings highlight the fact that the role early childhood education and care services play in mothers’ employment intentions is multifaceted and shaped by the particular circumstances of each woman and household. Several aspects of external childcare provision are relevant to the group of mothers who are not employed or only marginally employed, depending on their childcare ideals. For mothers with preferences for external childcare, the current ECEC structures in Switzerland seem to act as a structural impediment to more intense employment. These mothers exhibit the strongest elasticity in increasing the time they spend in paid labor and would increase their employment if ECEC spots were more readily available and free. Conversely, the availability of ECEC services does not change the intended employment levels of the mothers who prefer home-centered childcare. Only a drastic cost reduction would produce some elasticity in their employment intentions.