Market-based approaches to service provision are heterogeneous. The point is often lost in comparative welfare state research due to the dominance of the welfare regime approach, which emphasizes the prevailing locus of provision (state, market or family) over other dimensions of a mixed economy: finance and regulation. Comparing the cases of the British and American approaches to early childhood education and care, this paper argues that these broadly similar ‘liberal’ welfare regimes exhibit qualitatively different approaches to market-based service provision – market manager (UK) versus market moderator (US) – through the state’s role as financier and regulator. Evidence is drawn from a variety of primary and secondary sources, including prior academic studies, national policy documents, and national and international statistics.
AbrahamsonP. (1999) ‘The Welfare Modelling Business’, Social Policy and Administration33(4): 394–415.
2.
AnttonenA.SipiläJ. (1996) ‘European Social Care Services: Is it Possible to Identify Models?’, Journal of European Social Policy6(2): 87–100.
3.
ArtsW.GelissenJ. (2002) ‘Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism or More? A State-of-the-Art Report’, Journal of European Social Policy12(2): 137–58.
4.
AudS.HussarW.KenaG.BiancoK.FrohlichL.KempJ.TahanK. (2011) The Condition of Education 2011. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education.
5.
BarnettS.CarolanM.FitzgeraldJ.SquiresJ. (2011) The State of Preschool 2011. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), Rutgers University.
6.
BettioF.PlantengaJ. (2004) ‘Comparing Care Regimes in Europe’, Feminist Economics10(1): 85–113.
7.
BlackburnP. (2012) Children’s Nurseries UK Market Report 2012. London: Laing and Buisson, Ltd.
8.
BlauD.M. (2001) The Child Care Problem: An Economic Analysis. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
9.
BraithwaiteJ.MakkaiT.BraithwaiteA. (2007) Regulating Aged Care: Ritualism and the New Pyramid. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
10.
BrennanD.CassB.HimmelweitS.SzebehelyM. (2012) ‘The Marketisation of Care: Rationales and Consequences in Nordic and Liberal Care Regimes’, Journal of European Social Policy22(4): 377–91.
11.
BrindR.NordenO.McGinigalS.OsemanD.SimonA. (2012) Childcare and Early Years Providers Survey 2011. London: Department for Education.
12.
Brown-LyonsM.RobertsonA.LayzerJ. (2001) Kith and Kin – Informal Child Care: Highlights from Recent Research. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University.
13.
CookeG.HenehanK. (2012) Double Dutch: The Case against Deregulation and Demand-led Funding in Childcare. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
14.
DalyM.RakeK. (2003) Gender and the Welfare State. Cambridge: Polity Press.
15.
De HenauJ.MeuldersD.O’DorchaiS. (2007) ‘Support for Market Care: Comparing Child Cash and Tax Benefits’, in del BocaD.WetzelsC. (eds) Social Policies, Labour Markets and Motherhood: A Comparative Analysis of European Countries. Cambridge: University Press.
16.
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage: Setting the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for Children from Birth to Five. London: Department for Education.
17.
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2010) Securing Sufficient Childcare: Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities in Carrying Out Their Childcare Sufficiency Duties. London: Department for Education.
18.
Department for Education (2012a) Statistical First Release: Provision for Children under Five Years of Age in England: January 2012. London: Department for Education.
19.
Department for Education (2012b) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage: Setting the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for Children from Birth to Five. London: Department for Education.
GormleyW.T. (2000) ‘Early Childhood Education and Care Regulation: a Comparative Perspective’, International Journal of Educational Research33: 55–74.
25.
GormleyW.T.PetersB.G. (1992) ‘National Styles of Regulation: Child Care in Three Countries’, Policy Sciences25: 381–99.
26.
Government Accountability Office (2012) Early Child Care and Education: HHS and Education Are Taking Steps to Improve Workforce Data and Enhance Worker Quality. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.
27.
GuoJ.GilbertN. (2007) ‘Welfare State Regimes and Family Policy: a Longitudinal Analysis’, International Journal of Social Welfare16(4): 307–13.
28.
HakimC.BradleyK.PriceE.MitchellL. (2008) Little Britons: Financing Childcare Choice. London: Policy Exchange.
JohnsonN. (1999) Mixed Economies of Welfare: A Comparative Perspective. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall Europe.
35.
JordanaJ.Levi-FaurD. (2004) ‘The Politics of Regulation in the Age of Governance’, in JordanaJ.Levi-FaurD. (eds) The Politics of Regulation: Institutions and Regulatory Reforms for the Age of Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
36.
KamermanS.KahnA. (1997) ‘Introduction’, in KamermanS.KahnA. (eds) Family Change and Family Policies in Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
KingR. (2007) The Regulatory State in an Age of Governance: Soft Words and Big Sticks. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
38.
LandH. (2002) ‘Spheres of Care in the UK: Separate and Unequal’, Critical Social Policy22(1): 13–32.
39.
Le GrandJ. (1991) ‘The Theory of Government Failure’, British Journal of Political Science21(4): 423–42.
40.
LeónM. (2005) ‘Welfare State Regimes and the Social Organization of Labour: Childcare Arrangements and the Work/Family Balance Dilemma’, Sociological Review53: 204–18.
41.
LewisJ. (1992) ‘Gender and the Development of Welfare Regimes’, Journal of European Social Policy2(3): 159 –73.
42.
LewisJ. (2011) ‘From Sure Start to Children’s Centres: An Analysis of Policy Change in English Early Years Programmes’, Journal of Social Policy40(1): 71–88.
43.
LloydE.PennH. (eds) (2012) Childcare Markets: Can they Deliver an Equitable Service?Bristol: Policy Press.
MajoneG. (1997) ‘From the Positive to the Regulatory State: Causes and Consequences of Changes in the Mode of Governance’, Journal of Public Policy17(2): 139–67.
47.
MeyersM.K.GornickJ.C. (2003) ‘Public or Private Responsibility? Early Childhood Education and Care, Inequality, and the Welfare State’, Journal of Comparative Family Studies34(3): 379–411.
48.
MoranM. (2002) ‘Review Article: Understanding the Regulatory State’, British Journal of Political Science32(2): 391–413.
49.
MuntonT.MooneyA.MossP.PetrieP.ClarkA.WoolnerJ. (2002) ‘A Review of International Research on the Relationship between Ratios, Staff Qualifications and Training, Group Size and the Quality of Provision in Early Years and Childcare Settings’, Research Report 320. Research on Ratios, Group Size and Staff Qualifications and Training in Early Years and Childcare Settings. London: Thomas Coram Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
50.
National Child Care Information and Technical Assistance Center and National Association for Regulatory Administration (2010) 2008 Child Care Licensing Study, available at www.naralicensing.org/Licensing_Study
51.
NaumannI. (2011) ‘Towards the Marketization of Early Childhood Education and Care?: Recent Developments in Sweden and the United Kingdom’, Nordic Journal of Social Research2: 1–17.
52.
O’ConnorJ.S.OrloffA.S.ShaverS. (1999) States, Markets, Families: Gender, Liberalism and Social Policy in Australia, Canada, Great Britain and the US. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
Office of Child Care (2010) Characteristics of Families Served by Child Care and Development Fund. Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services, available at www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/data/ccdf_data/data_fact_sheet.htm
54.
Office of Head Start (2013) Head Start Services. Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services, available at www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/about/head-start
55.
Ofsted (2012) Registration not Required: A Childcare Factsheet. London: Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills.
56.
Ofsted (2013) Guide to Registration on the Early Years Register: Childcare Provider on Domestic or Non-Domestic Premises. London: Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills.
57.
OgusA. (1998) ‘Rethinking Self-Regulation’, in BaldwinR.ScottC.HoodC. (eds) A Reader on Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58.
OgusA. (2004) ‘W(h)ither the Economic Theory of Regulation? What Economic Theory of Regulation?’ in JordanaJ.Levi-FaurD. (eds) The Politics of Regulation: Institutions and Regulatory Reforms for the Age of Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
59.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2006) Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: OECD.
60.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012) OECD Family Database. Paris: OECD, available at www.oecd.org/social/family/database
61.
OrloffA.S. (1996) ‘Gender in the Welfare State’, Annual Review of Sociology22: 51–78.
62.
PennH. (2007) ‘Childcare Market Management: How the United Kingdom Government has Reshaped its Role in Developing Early Childhood Education and Care’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood8(3): 192–207.
63.
PennH. (2011) ‘Gambling on the Market: The Role of For-profit Provision in Early Childhood Education and Care’, Journal of Early Childhood Research9(2): 150–61.
64.
PlantengaJ.RemeryC. (2009) The Provision of Childcare Services: A Comparative Review of 30 European Countries. European Commission Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities.
65.
PowellM. (2007) ‘Introduction: the Mixed Economy of Welfare and the Social Division of Welfare’, in PowellM. (ed.) Understanding the Mixed Economy of Welfare. Bristol: Policy Press.
66.
PowellM.BarrientosA. (2011) ‘An Audit of the Welfare Modelling Business’, Social Policy & Administration45(1): 69–84.
67.
RoseR. (1986) ‘Common Goals but Different Roles: The State’s Contribution to the Welfare Mix’, in RoseR.ShiratoriR. (eds) The Welfare State East and West. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
68.
SainsburyD. (ed.) (1994) Gendering Welfare States. London: Sage Publications.
69.
SainsburyD. (1999) ‘Gender, Policy Regimes and Politics’, in SainsburyD. (ed.) Gender and Welfare State Regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
70.
SkinnerC.FinchN. (2006) ‘Lone Parents and Informal Childcare: A Tax Credit Childcare Subsidy?’ Social Policy and Administration40(7): 807–23.
71.
SmithP.GilbyN.DobieS.HobdenS.SullivanL.WilliamsM.LittlewoodM.D’SouzaJ.FloreG. (2012) Childcare and Early Years Survey of Parents 2010. London: Department for Education.
72.
SosinskyL.S. (2012) ‘Childcare Markets in the US: Supply and Demand, Quality and Cost, and Public Policy’, in LloydE.PennH. (eds) Childcare Markets: Do They Deliver an Equitable Service?Bristol: Policy Press.
73.
StierH.Lewin-EpsteinN.BraunM. (2001) ‘Welfare Regimes, Family-Supportive Policies, and Women’s Employment along the Life-Course’, American Journal of Sociology106(6): 1731–60.
74.
ThévenonO. (2011) ‘Family Policies in OECD Countries: A Comparative Analysis’, Population and Development Review37(1): 57–87.
75.
US Census Bureau (2010) ‘Child Care Arrangements of Preschoolers Living with Mother, by Employment Status of Mother and Selected Characteristics: Spring 2010’, Who’s Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements: Spring 2010. Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) 2008.
76.
WhiteL.A.FriendlyM. (2012) ‘Public Funding, Private Delivery: States, Markets, and Early Childhood Education and Care in Liberal Welfare States – A Comparison of Australia, the UK, Quebec, and New Zealand’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice14(4): 292–310.
77.
YandleB. (2011) ‘Bootleggers and Baptists in the Theory of Regulation’, in Levi-FaurD. (ed.) Handbook on the Politics of Regulation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
