June 2, 2006
SOCIALISM = LOVELESSNESS:
Canada's Universal Childcare Hurt Children and Families (National Bureau of Economic Research)
In both Canada and the United States, there are large subsidies for early child care for low-income families, with modest tax subsidies for middle- and upper-income families for either childcare or pre-school. But interest has been growing in moving towards more universal subsidies towards early childcare along the lines of many nations in Europe. In Canada, the province of Quebec introduced universal subsidies to childcare over the period 1997-2000, and a major point of contention in the recent Parliamentary election was the extension of similar programs nationwide. In the United States, universal pre-school programs have been passed by states such as Georgia, New York, and Oklahoma, and there is a major battle shaping up over a ballot initiative for universal pre-school in California. Unfortunately, these debates are raging largely in an evidence vacuum.In Universal Childcare, Maternal Labor Supply, and Family Well-Being (NBER Working Paper No. 11832), authors Michael Baker, Jonathan Gruber, and Kevin Milligan measure the implications of universal childcare by studying the effects of the Quebec Family Policy....
The authors first find that there was an enormous rise in childcare use in response to these subsidies: childcare use rose by one-third over just a few years....
Disturbingly, the authors report that children's outcomes have worsened since the program was introduced along a variety of behavioral and health dimensions. The NLSCY contains a host of measures of child well being developed by social scientists, ranging from aggression and hyperactivity, to motor-social skills, to illness. Along virtually every one of these dimensions, children in Quebec see their outcomes deteriorate relative to children in the rest of the nation over this time period. Their results imply that this policy resulted in a rise of anxiety of children exposed to this new program of between 60 percent and 150 percent, and a decline in motor/social skills of between 8 percent and 20 percent. These findings represent a sharp break from previous trends in Quebec and the rest of the nation, and there are no such effects found for older children who were not subject to this policy change.
The authors also find that families became more strained with the introduction of the program, as manifested in more hostile, less consistent parenting, worse adult mental health, and lower relationship satisfaction for mothers.
Who'd've suspected that abandoning young children to the care of the Department of Motor Vehicles would make them anxious?
This experience shows that it is mistaken to argue that financial benefits for child-bearing will not increase fertility rates, because the fundamental problem is spiritual. Yes, but the Quebec program shows that parents will abandon children for a little extra money. That argues that they will take on the care of children for extra money too. The truth is that ordering financial incentives so that they reward loving behavior will foster a culture and spirituality of love; while ordering financial incentives so that they reward selfishness will foster a culture of selfishness.
The welfare state was a giant experiment in rewarding selfish behavior and punishing (through the accompanying high taxes) generous (productive of benefits to others) behavior. Is there any coincidence that two generations later the welfare states have become pathologically selfish?
Posted by pjaminet at June 2, 2006 8:34 AMTHAT is not a headline you will see in the NYT. Ever.
Posted by: jim hamlen at June 2, 2006 10:30 AMFinally a study we can learn to love.
Posted by: erp at June 2, 2006 10:31 AMDoes the article actually say that these programs increased fertility rates, or simply that they increased enrollment in state sponsored daycare & preschool? I don't see how these programs incentivize having children, but they pretty strongly are disincentives agaist stay-at-home parenting.
Posted by: b at June 2, 2006 11:53 AMThat argues that they will also take care of children for extra money too
Maybe so, maybe not enough to matter at a price we can afford. The answer depends on our old friend elasticity. Putin hasn't had much luck with cash bounties in Russia, for example.
Posted by: joe shropshire at June 2, 2006 12:10 PMb - The latter. I would expect the daycare programs to decrease fertility rates, although the article didn't discuss that question.
I'm sorry if my last comments could be construed as an endorsement of socialized day care. My comments were intended as support for cash bonuses for children, or larger tax deducations for children, as have been considered in some countries such as Japan.
Posted by: pj at June 2, 2006 12:10 PMpj: I didn't think you were endorsing such programs, I just couldn't tell if you (or their backers) were claiming that they would boost fertility.
Posted by: b at June 2, 2006 12:28 PMjoe - Agreed. But how do you change the spirituality? You start adding carrots for goodness and sticks for badness. When people are behaving like lovers, they'll come to be lovers.
The spirit is formed in all kinds of activities, so if most aspects of society reward selfishness, a cash bonus for childbearing will have to fight against selfish impulses inculcated by other programs. But it would induce some positive changes nevertheless.
As for how much we can afford, well, in the US today we spend well over $500 billion a year on welfare. Spending a comparable amount on child bonuses would give a $125,000 bonus to each newborn. I suspect that would make a difference.
Posted by: pj at June 2, 2006 12:40 PMThat argues that they will also take care of children for extra money too
Not at all, most people are more willing to not do something for money than they are to dosomething. It's far easier.
Posted by: Brandon at June 2, 2006 12:41 PMBrandon - If you take care of your kids at home, but will shuffle them off to government day care for $1000, then it's logical to suppose that rescinding the $1000 will lead you to go back to taking care of your kids.
It also suggests that there are people in the reverse case -- who shuffle their kids off to government day care, but if you gave them $1000, would take care of the kids themselves at home.
I'm not saying it's an exact mirror image and that both groups are equally sized; but the tendency will be the same.
Posted by: pj at June 2, 2006 1:08 PMThere are all kinds of things going on here in Georgia, in attempt to raise "our" children's educational outcomes. "Universal Public Preschool" (paid for by Lottery proceeds) is touted as one way to close the "success" gap, but does "everyone" really "need" it, then? The funding is limited, resulting in a certain number of slots in each District. Here, they were distributed in a first-come first-served basis. The parents in our District literally camped out overnight in line to get these spots - more valuable than 'Stone's tickets, after all!...Frankly, our area is practically a Brain Trust, and few of these people's kids will suffer from lack of early educational intervention , but they must figure that our "stellar" local school system will do a much better job than the "chains". (Besides, it is "Free"!)...Does this mean they will not get their "child care tax credit" (and why could I not get one, since I stayed at home to "take care" of my own children?)
PJ, there's some advertising going on that must be part of the equation. Children raised in a solid home, raised at home, by a parent, are fun to be around(as a rule). Children from a broken home, raised by day care, or by a nanny, are painful to watch(as a rule). The more unhappy children seen in public, the lower the birthrate is going to be, money or no.
Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at June 2, 2006 3:37 PM