Hours of Work and Early Childhood Education and Access to Care Services in Latin America: Evidence From Colombia,Chile,Mexico,and Uruguay

Abstract

This paper explores the relationship between access to early childhood education and care (ECEC) services and family arrangements in the distribution of work in four Latin American countries. We find that households in which all children aged 0 to 5 receive ECEC services exhibit smaller gender gaps in unpaid work, mainly due to a decrease in the amount of time women devote to care work. Women in these households devote more time to paid work, such that the gender gap in total work does not differ between households based on use of ECEC services. However, use of ECEC services for children aged 0 to 5 is associated with reduced hours of unpaid work among women and an increase in women’s hours of paid work. These findings confirm the importance of increasing access to early childhood care and education services to reduce gender gaps in the region.

Keywords

early childhood education and care policies gender gaps Latin America unpaid work time-use

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aguirre

Ferrari

(2014). La construcción del Sistema de Cuidados en Uruguay. En buscas de consensos para una construcción más igualitaria (192). Serie Políticas Sociales, LC/L.3805, Social Development Division, ECLAC, and German Society for International Cooperation.

Altintas

Sullivan

(2017). Trends in fathers’ contribution to housework and childcare under different welfare policy regimes. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 24(1), 81–108. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxw007

Amarante

Rossel

(2018). Unfolding patterns of unpaid household work in Latin America. Feminist Economics, 24(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2017.1344776

Ángeles

Gadsden

Galiani

Gertler

Herrera

Kariger

Seira

(2014). The impact of daycare on maternal labour supply and child development in Mexico. Impact Evaluation Report 6. International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie).

Araujo

M. C.

López Boo

Puyana

J. M.

(2013). Overview of early childhood development services in Latin America and the Caribbean. Inter- American Development Bank.

Araya

Colacce

Vazquez

(2011). Participación laboral femenina y cuidado infantil: Destruyendo a la mujer maravilla [Grado en Economía]. Universidad de la República, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas.

Attanasio

Vera-Hernandez

(2004). Medium and Long-run effects of nutrition and child care: Evaluation of a community nursery programme in rural Colombia. Centre for the Evaluation of Development Policies, The Institute for Fiscal Studies EWP04/06.

Attanasio

O. P.

Maro

V. D.

Vera-Hernández

(2013). Community nurseries and the nutritional status of poor children. Evidence from Colombia. The Economic Journal, 123(571), 1025–1058. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12020

Baker

Gruber

Milligan

(2008). Universal child care, maternal labor supply, and family well-being. Journal of Political Economy, 116(4), 709–745. https://doi.org/10.1086/591908

10.

Berlinski

Galiani

(2007). The effect of a large expansion of pre-primary school facilities on preschool attendance and maternal employment. Labour Economics, 14(2), 665–680.

11.

Berlinski

Galiani

Mc Ewan

P. J.

(2011). Preschool and maternal labor market outcomes: Evidence from a regression discontinuity design. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 59(2), 313–344. https://doi.org/10.1086/657124

12.

Berlinski

Schady

(2015). Los primeros años: El bienestar infantil y el papel de las políticas públicas. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.

13.

Bernal

Fernández

(2013). Subsidized childcare and child development in Colombia: Effects of Hogares Comunitarios de Bienestar as a function of timing and length of exposure. Social Science & Medicine, 97(February), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.10.029

14.

Berniell

de La Mata

Edo

Marchionni

(2018). Motherhood and the missing women in the labor market. In CAF-Documento de trabajo N° 2018/13, Setiembre.

15.

Berniell

de la Mata

Edo

Marchionni

(2019). Gender gaps in labor Informality: The motherhood effect. Documento de Trabajo Nro. 247. CEDLAS.

16.

Bettendorf

L. J. H.

Jongen

E. L. W.

Muller

(2015). Childcare subsidies and labour supply—evidence from a large Dutch reform. Labour Economics, 36(October), 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2015.03.007

17.

Blofield

Martinez Franzoni

(2015). Maternalism, Co-responsibility, and social equity: A typology of work-family policies. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 22(1), 38–59. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxu015

18.

Blundell

Duncan

McCrae

Meghir

(2016). The labor market impact of the working families’ tax credit. In Peichl

En A.

Zimmermann

K. F.

(Eds.), Labor supply and Taxation (pp. 201–226). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198749806.003.0009

19.

Bradshaw

Finch

(2002). A comparison of Child Benefit packages in 22 countries. Research Report No 174.

20.

Budlender

(2007). A critical review of selected time Use surveys. Gender and Development Programme Paper Number 2. UNRISD.

21.

Calderón

(2013). (coord) Redistributing care, Cuadernos de la CEPAL 101. In The Policy challenge. ECLAC.

22.

Campaña

J. C.

Gimenez-Nadal

J. I.

Molina

J. A.

(2017). Increasing the human capital of children in Latin American countries: The role of parents’ time in childcare. The Journal of Development Studies, 53(6), 805–825. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2016.1208179

23.

Cascio

(2009). Maternal labor supply and the introduction of kindergartens into American public schools. Journal of Human Resources, 44(1), 34.

24.

Cascio

Haider

Nielsen

(2015). The effectiveness of policies that promote labor force participation of women with children: A collection of national studies. In IZA discussion papers, No. 9297. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn.

25.

Cascio

E. U.

(2015). The promises and pitfalls of universal early education. IZA World of Labor 2015, No 116, Bonn, Instituto para el Estudio del Trabajo (IZA), enero.

26.

CEPAL . (2017). Panorama social de América Latina 2016. CEPAL.

27.

CEPAL/UNICEF . (2018). América Latina y el Caribe a 30 años de la aprobación de la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño. https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/44271/1/S1800977_es.pdf

28.

Del Boca

(2015). Child care arrangements and labor supply. Inter-American Development Bank, IDB-WP-569.

29.

Doiron

Kalb

(2002). Demand for childcare services and labour supply in Australian families. The Australian Economic Review, 35(2), 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8462.00237

30.

ECLAC . (2010). Social Panorama of Latin America 2009. ECLAC.

31.

Encina

Martínez

(2009). Efecto de una mayor cobertura de salas cuna en la participación laboral femenina: Evidencia de Chile. Serie Documentos de Trabajo, Departamento de Economía, Universidad de Chile, SDT 303.

32.

Espino

(2017). Gender equality in Uruguay. In Ortenblad

En A.

Marling

Vasiljevic

(Eds.), Gender equality in a Global Perspective. Routledge.

33.

Esquivel

(2009). Time use in the City of Buenos Aires measuring, Analysing and valuing unpaid care work [Phd dissertation]. Institute for the Study of the Americas (ISA) School of Advanced Studies University of London.

34.

Filgueira

Rossel

(2017). Social protection for families and early childhood through monetary transfers and care worldwide. In Paper prepared for the economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean Project “social Protection system and inequality”.

35.

Fitzpatrick

M. D.

(2010). Preschoolers enrolled and mothers at work? The effects of universal prekindergarten. Journal of Labor Economics, 28(1), 51–85. https://doi.org/10.1086/648666

36.

Gammage

(2010). Time pressed and time poor: Unpaid household work in Guatemala. Feminist Economics, 16(3), 79–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2010.498571

37.

Geist

Cohen

P. N.

(2011). Headed toward equality? Housework change in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(4), 832–844. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00850.x

38.

Gelbach

J. B.

(2002). Public schooling for young children and maternal labor supply. American Economic Review, 92(1), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282802760015748

39.

Gimenez-Nadal

J. I.

Sevilla

(2012). Trends in time allocation: A cross-country analysis. European Economic Review, 56(6), 1338–1359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2012.02.011

40.

Gornick

Meyers

(2003). Families that work: Policies for reconciling parenthood and employment. Russell Sage Foundation.

41.

Haeck

Lefebvre

Merrigan

(2015). Canadian evidence on ten years of universal preschool policies: The good and the bad. Labour Economics, 36(October), 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2015.05.002.

42.

Havnes

Mogstad

(2009). No child Left behind: Universal child care and children’s long-run outcomes. IZA Discussion Paper 4561.

43.

Havnes

Mogstad

(2011). No child left behind: Subsidized child care and children’s long-run outcomes. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(2), 97–129. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.3.2.97

44.

Heckman

(1974). Effects of child-care programs on women’s work effort. Journal of Political Economy, 82(suppl), 136–163.

45.

Hojman

López Boo

(2019). Cost-effective public daycare in a low-income economy benefits children and mothers. In IDB WORKING PAPER SERIES No IDB-WP-1036 A ugust. https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Cost-Effective_Public_Daycare_in_a_Low-Income_Economy_Benefits_Children_and_Mothers_en.pdf

46.

Hook

J. L.

(2010). Gender inequality in the welfare state: Sex segregation in housework, 1965–2003. American Journal of Sociology, 115(5), 1480–1523. https://doi.org/10.1086/651384

47.

Kitterød

R. H.

Lyngstad

T. H.

(2005). Diary versus questionnaire information on time spent on housework – the case of Norway. electronic International Journal of Time Use Research, 2(1), 13–32. https://doi.org/10.13085/eIJTUR.2.1.13-32

48.

Lara

(2006). Las metas del Milenio y la igualdad de género. El caso de Colombia. In Serie Mujer y Desarrollo, No 81. CEPAL. http://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/5801/S0600672_es.pdf?sequence=1

49.

LeFebvre

Merrigan

(2005). “Low-fee ($5/day/child) regulated childcare policy and the labor supply of mothers with young children: A natural experiment from Canada”. CIRPÉE Research Paper 05-08, Centre Interuniversitaire sur le Risque, les Politiques Économiques et l’Emploi, University of Quebec at Montreal.

50.

Leira

(1992). Welfare States and working mothers. The Scandinavian experience. Cambridge University Press.

51.

Lentz

Bezner Kerr

Patel

Dakishoni

Lupafya

(2019). The invisible hand that rocks the cradle: On the limits of time use surveys. Development and Change, 50(2), 301–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12426

52.

Liu

Xiong

(2022). Non-parental childcare services and time allocation of mothers with young children in China. Feminist Economics, 28(2), 303–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2021.2006736

53.

Lundin

Mörk

Öckert

(2008). How far can reduced childcare prices push female labour supply? Labour Economics, 15(4), 647–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2008.04.005

54.

Martínez Franzoni

(2008). Domesticar la incertidumbre en América Latina. Mercado laboral, política social y familia. Editorial Universidad de Costa Rica.

55.

Mateo Díaz

Rodríguez Chamussy

(2013). Childcare and women’s labor participation: Evidence for Latin America and the Caribbean. World Bank Publications.

56.

Mateo Díaz

Rodríguez Chamussy

(2016). Cashing in on education: Women, childcare, and Prosperity in Latin America and the Caribbean. World Bank Publications.

57.

Mateo Díaz

Rodríguez Chamussy

(2017). Educación que rinde. Mujeres, trabajo y cuidado infantil en América Latina y el Caribe. World Bank Publications. https://publications.iadb.org/publications/spanish/document/Educaci%C3%B3n-que-rinde-Mujeres-trabajo-y-cuidado-infantil-en-Am%C3%A9rica-Latina-y-el-Caribe-Resumen.pdf

58.

Medrano

(2009). Public Day care and female labor force participation: Evidence from Chile (p. 31). Universidad de Chile, Economics Department Working Paper 306.

59.

Nollenberger

Rodríguez-Planas

(2015). Full-time universal childcare in a context of low maternal employment: Quasi-experimental evidence from Spain. Labour Economics, 36(October), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2015.02.008

60.

OECD . (2016). Typology of childcare and early education services” (PF13). OECD Family Database. OECD - Social Policy Division - Directorate of Employment, Labour and Social Affairs.

61.

Padilla-Romo

Cabrera-Hernández

(2019). Easing the constraints of motherhood: The effects of all-day schools on mothers’ labor supply. Economic Inquiry, 57(2), 890–909. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12740

62.

Plantenga

Remery

(2015). Provision of childcare services: A comparative review of eu member states. CESifo DICE Report, 13(1), 20–24.

63.

Prentice

(2005). “El cuidado infantil y los presupuestos de género: Las políticas públicas y los resultados obtenidos en Canadá y otros países”. In En Cohesión Social, Políticas Conciliatorias y Presupuesto Público. Una mirada desde el género. CEPAL-UNFPA.

64.

Pribble

(2006). Women and welfare: The politics of coping with new social risks in Chile and Uruguay. Latin American Research Review, 41(2), 84–111.

65.

Prince Cooke

Baxter

(2010). Families” in international context: Comparing institutional effects across western societies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 516–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00716.x

66.

Querejeta

(2020). Impacto de la maternidad en la trayectoria laboral de las mujeres. Evidencia para Uruguay. Documento No. 02/20. Departamento de Economía, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de la República. https://www.colibri.udelar.edu.uy/jspui/bitstream/20.500.12008/24586/1/DTE2020-2.pdf

67.

Rosero

Oosterbeek

(2011). Trade-offs between different early childhood interventions: Evidence from Ecuador. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers, 11(103), 38.

68.

Rossel

Courtoisie

Marturet

(2010). Servicios de cuidado infantil: Condiciones de calidad y resultados. PNUD-Proyecto Desarrolla.

69.

Sainsbury

(Ed.), (1994). Gendering welfare States. Sage.

70.

Schulz

Grunow

(2012). Comparing diary and survey estimates on time use. European Sociological Review, 28(5), 622–632. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcr030

71.

Staab

(2010). Social investment policies in Chile and Latin America: Towards equal opportunities for women and children? Journal of Social Policy, 39(4), 607–626.

72.

Staab

Gerhard

(2010). Childcare service Expansion in Chile and Mexico for Women or Children or both? Gender and development programme paper number 10. UNRISD.

73.

Tenenbaum

(2011). Políticas orientadas a los hogares con niños: Una evaluación ex ante para el caso uruguayo’ [Tesis de Maestría en Economía Aplicada]. Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona.

74.

Thévenon

(2013). Drivers of female labour force Participation in the OECD (OECD social, employment and migration working papers N^o 145. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, 145, 58. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k46cvrgnms6-en

75.

UNDP . (2020). 2020 gender social norms index (GSNI): Tackling social norms: A game changer for gender inequalities. UNDP.

76.

UNICEF . (2019). Identificar las desigualdades para actuar: Resultados y determinantes del desarrollo de la primera infancia en América Latina y el Caribe. UNICEF. https://www.unicef.org/lac/media/9806/file/PDFPublicaci%C3%B3nIdentificarlasdesigualdadesparaactuar:ResultadosydeterminantesdeldesarrollodelaprimerainfanciaenAm%C3%A9ricaLatinayelCaribe.pdf

77.

Van Lancker

Ghysels

(2011). Who reaps the benefits? The social distribution of public childcare in Sweden and Flanders. University of Antwerp, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, WP 1106.

78.

Vegas

Santibáñez

(2010). La promesa del desarrollo en la primera infancia en América Latina y el Caribe. World Bank.

79.

Villamizar

M. E.

(2011). Uso del tiempo de mujeres y hombres en Colombia. Midiendo la inequidad. Serie Mujer y Desarrollo, N^o 107. CEPAL.

80.

Zellner

(1962). An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57(298), 348–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1962.10480664