Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Social Policy and Ad...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Social Policy and Administration
Article . 2024 . Peer-reviewed
License: CC BY NC ND
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 1 versions
addClaim

Crowded‐out? Changes in informal childcare during the expansion of formal services in Germany

Authors: Ludovica Gambaro; Clara Schäper; C. Katharina Spiess;

Crowded‐out? Changes in informal childcare during the expansion of formal services in Germany

Abstract

AbstractInformal childcare care by grandparents, other relatives or friends is an important source of support in many Western countries, including Germany. Yet the role of this type of care is often overlooked in accounts of social policies supporting families with children, which tend to focus on formal childcare. This article examines whether the large formal childcare expansion occurring in Germany in the last two decades has been accompanied by similar or opposite trends in informal childcare usage. It argues that accounting for both formal and informal childcare can offer a more accurate assessment of defamilisation effects of family policies. Drawing on representative data from the German Socio‐Economic Panel the analysis identifies long‐run developments of childcare arrangements for children aged 1–10 between 1997 and 2020, offering for the first time a comprehensive picture of how families with children of different ages mix informal care and service provision. Results show that on average the expansion of formal childcare was not associated with an equal reduction in informal childcare, lending little support to the crowding‐out hypothesis. Further analyses distinguishing between population groups with different propensity to use formal childcare reveal, unexpectedly, remarkable similarities in the use of informal care throughout the period examined. The only exception are families with a migrant background, who tend to use informal childcare less than their counterparts. The general trend is, however, one whereby informal and formal care are increasingly combined.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    5
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
5
Top 10%
Average
Top 10%
hybrid