Towards inclusive service markets through social investment in the EU: the case of early childhood education and care

This report provides an overview of social investment for early childhood education and care (ECEC) in Europe in general and in eight of the RE-InVEST partner countries in particular ‑ Belgium, England, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, and Scotland ‑ employing a review of the literature, European-wide statistical analyses and two country case studies. Especially when it is high quality, ECEC has a great effect on the learning potential of all children. It is especially effective as a preventive (rather than curative) measure for disadvantaged children who risk getting stuck within the vicious cycle of intergenerational disadvantage and lower SES. It also enables paid work to be combined with parenthood and helps working mothers prevent career breaks. ECEC is one of the fundamental pillars for the goals of social investment since it focuses on the future opportunities of citizens instead of assisting to the needy in the present. However, as the RE-InVEST team, we believe that the social investment approach in ECEC should also employ a ‘children’s rights perspective’, and consider children as ‘beings’ here and now instead of future employees or ‘becomings’. Moreover, governments should take additional measures for disadvantaged children in order to bring them to the same level of learning and school readiness. The findings indicate that European countries do make an effort to attain the goals set by the European Union in terms of increasing participation through improved accessibility, availability, affordability and quality of ECEC services. While some countries need to make a much bigger effort than others to get to the desired level of accessibility and participation, all countries need to work hard on the accessibility of childcare for younger children (0-3 year-olds). However, ‘more investment’ cannot solve all problems by itself. Pure universalism may end up producing Matthew effects. Hence, the investment should be smart, especially if governments want to achieve the maximum benefit at the lowest possible cost in a short period of time. Our recommendation is adopting ‘progressive universalism’ where the ECEC system is ‘universal when possible, targeted when necessary’. In other words, public ECEC services should be universal and egalitarian in principle: all children should be able to access and benefit from the system equally, ideally, in a segregation-free setting. However, children who need intervention the most, should also receive priority and special treatment; because these are the children who have problems with the access to quality services in the first place, and leaving them behind would be more detrimental to their future educational and professional trajectory than their non-disadvantaged peers. It is also in disadvantaged populations that public investment in ECEC produces the highest net impact, as it does not substitute for the families’ own investment