OECD: Finnish family childcare benefits too good
From STT…
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recommends for Finland to curb either the level or the duration of benefits paid for children being cared for at home, as according to OECD logic this way more women would be in working life to compensate for dropping birth rates. If mothers stay away from working life for too long, their career options are permanently hurt, the organisation argues.
Mark Pearson of OECD, speaking Friday at a OECD press conference in Helsinki, said that benefits for families caring for their toddlers at home instead of dropping them at childcare centres lasted far too long in Finland. The benefits encourage people to care for their children themselves: in Finland, 44 per cent of two-year-olds were in daycare outside of the home while in Sweden, the figure stands at 85 per cent.
This is a very encouraging statistic, I’m happy to see so many Finnish children home with a parent rather dumped off at some daycare center. I don’t know if this is true or not, but I’d suspect that giving child benefits to stay-at-home-parents is much cheaper than paying for daycare. Also, OECD’s plan would only send the poorer and single women back to work early - upper income families can afford to stay at home with their children.
Finland’s Minister of Health and Social Services Liisa Hyssälä (centre) as well as Minister of Social Affairs and Health Sinikka Mönkäre (soc dem) defended ardently the current practice at a press conference Friday.
Wow, that’s a first, Mönkäre/Hyssälä and I are actually in agreement! Kudos to those two for taking a stand on this issue.
Shouldnt you be against these kinds of benefits? Doesnt the money belong to the taxpayers?
Comment by Lauri — Mon, May 30th, 2005 @ 11:04 am
The only thing that’s worse than the welfare state is this half-ass, watered-down welfare state that we kinda have in the United States something the OECD might like Finland to have.
So given the two options presented in the article, I definitely choose the current model for child support compared to OECD’s suggestions.
Comment by Phil — Mon, May 30th, 2005 @ 11:26 am
Just to be sure: you would still have the (libertarian) model where there wouldnt be any benefits over the current system in Finland?
Comment by Lauri — Mon, May 30th, 2005 @ 1:25 pm
Giving benefits for stay-at-home-parents may be cheaper than providing daycare facilities for the society, that’s true. However, the benefits are rather small and even with this system, it’s mainly the well-off parents who have the chance to choose between staying home and returning to work after parental leave.
I wouldn’t still talk about “dumping kids off at some daycare center”. Very small kids are often cared for by women or men called perhep?¤iv?¤hoitajat (have no idea what that could be in English) which means that they stay at someone’s home in a group of just a few kids when the parents go to work. And if they ARE dropped at daycare centers, there’s still not too much to worry about. The standards of such centers are high in Finland and the care is generally very good. Most young adults of today have spent their childhood in such centers and they’ve turned out ok :). No reason to judge the parents when it comes to this issue.
The idea behind such benefits AND a network of communal daycare facilities is that the parents have the freedom to choose whether they want to stay home or return to work after parental leave. What works for someone may not work for someone else.
Comment by sanna — Tue, May 31st, 2005 @ 2:35 pm
I was shocked when I read about the OECD suggestion. In Helsingin sanomat it was stated that the women stay home for too long, looking after the childern. What happened to the fathers? Why aren’t the representatives of OECD worried about the lack of time fathers are spending with their children? Why isn’t it suggested that the parental responsibilites should be shared equally? Why the “blame” is - once again - thrown on the shoulders of women? I have yet to see a child that could not be taken care by his/her father, especially after the approx. 9-11 months period of breast-feeding. Many children are looked after at home until they are 2 or 3 years old. This leaves many fathers YEARS to look after the children at home. This would compensate for the maternity leave, physical strains of child birth and the often occurring career disturbances the women must face.
Seems fair, doesn’t it? How did it not occur to the thinkers at OECD?
Comment by An equal parent — Tue, May 31st, 2005 @ 11:51 pm
Phil
How many kids have you raised since yoe seem to be such an “authority” (ha ha) on how this business should be handled?
“Dumping off”. Typical of you (it seems) to debate issues in this way. For many kids (I have such a kid but I won’t go into the details - medical - why he is such a kid) it seems to be really beneficial, to be “dumped off”. The example from other kids is the key. If we (my wife and I) could redo history, we would have “dumped our youngest one off” earlier.
And it seems research - no doubt ideology in your case is more important - shows that kindergarden has benefits as well.
But, libertarians don’t care about these things do they?
Comment by Thomas — Thu, Jun 2nd, 2005 @ 12:36 am
Hey I’m siding with the welfare state here!
And it seems research - no doubt ideology in your case is more important - shows that kindergarden has benefits as well.
Let each family individually decide that for their child.
But, libertarians don???t care about these things do they?
They care about these issues very much!
Comment by Phil — Thu, Jun 2nd, 2005 @ 7:18 am
In fact the kids who have been raised at home are and will be on average worse off than those in day care, in particular when we are talking about the underpriviledged kids. Well, at least, in Sweden - I don’t know if this have been studied in Finland.
Comment by Tomi — Thu, Jun 2nd, 2005 @ 8:44 pm
“Hey I???m siding with the welfare state here!”
In what way?
“Let each family individually decide that for their child.”
Non-libertarian kindergardens give people a right to choose. Libertarian principles gives the RICH a freedom to choose. So what is the libertarian “caring” in this case?
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Jun 4th, 2005 @ 5:42 pm
In what way?
I’m agreeing with M?¶nk?¤re/Hyss?¤l?¤ and not OECD.
Non-libertarian kindergardens give people a right to choose. Libertarian principles gives the RICH a freedom to choose. So what is the libertarian ???caring?? in this case?
Huh?
Comment by Phil — Sun, Jun 5th, 2005 @ 1:22 pm
Phil.
I have friends in the U.K. who - according to what they say - pay 1000 euros per child for child care. Isn’t that exactly what I said, i.e. it gives the RICH the freedom to choose?
Comment by Thomas — Fri, Jun 10th, 2005 @ 12:09 am
pay 1000 euros per child for child care.
Growing up, a neighbor of ours ran an after school day care from her house. She charged just a few dollars a day. The kids were fed, entertained, taught. It was good and cheap, all the kids and parents raved about Mrs. Adams. It’s only when the government steps in and makes daycare mondo-expensive.
Comment by Phil — Fri, Jun 10th, 2005 @ 8:00 am
“Growing up, a neighbor of ours ran an after school day care from her house. She charged just a few dollars a day. The kids were fed, entertained, taught. It was good and cheap, all the kids and parents raved about Mrs. Adams. It???s only when the government steps in and makes daycare mondo-expensive.”
And Mrs. Adams, naturally exists everywhere. Even though Mrs. Adams is an - economically thinking - idiot, she will still always be there, even in the libertarian (and oh so very economically oriented) utopia. Are you really this stupid? What kind of an IT-company would hire anyone as stupid as you? IT is about logic, right? And you are lacking in that department. Sorry.
Tell me what company you’re working for, and I’m going to make sure I’m not using their services anymore.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Jul 16th, 2005 @ 12:50 am