The modern child and the flexible labour market:
Institutionalisation and individualisation of children in the light of changes in the welfare state
Norsk senter for barneforskning,
NTNU 7491 Trondheim
Telephone: 73 59 62 40
Fax: 73 59 62 39
E-post:
3. Welfare state policy towards small children at a cross road?
An historical-comparative study of Norway, Sweden and Germany
It is well known that some Nordic countries in many ways have been an avant-garde as far as institutionalisation is concerned – for better or worse, some might argue. Sweden has in this respect been a pioneering country, while Norway and Germany for various and often controversial reasons were lagging behind. At the same time the three countries have in common a modern politics in terms of neo-liberal strands and a post-fordist labour market, which raises the question if welfare state policy towards small children have come to a cross road, where notions of solidarity is being sacrificed. The three countries’ development in the day-care area is in project 3 subjected to closer scrutiny to answer this question and to illuminate similarities and differences by departing from and addressing the following questions:
- Which clear similarities/differences in development of child care and day-care centres do we find in the three countries as far as scope, tempo, design and contents are concerned? Which are the forces that have been working for or against expansion and development? How do we over time appreciate a stronger market orientation and what is its impact on the formation of childhood?
- Which images of ‘the good childhood’ are becoming apparent? What do we find in terms of changing or contradictory views on small children in institutions as well as of changing perceptions of femininity and masculinity?
The project will continue and develop insights from previous research on state involvement in the transformation of childhood (Korsvold 1997, 1998) by a follow up until the present time as well as widening the perspective by a historical-comparative dimension. The inclusion of a comparative perspective implies a clearer visibility of national (regional) similarities and differences. A comparative study will be focusing on the relative and the contextual in the historical development and not least on categories and concepts that structure our understandings of reality. It will be scientifically appropriate to make comparative studies of a few selected phenomena and processes that have advanced in parallel but in different tempo so as to uncover similarities and differences in the development. In the first place some ideals and clues in politics and public discourse on child care are identified and analysed. Ideals of equality (Scandinavia) appear as an obvious choice, and these ideals are critically explored and compared with German conditions as far as formation of childhood institutions is concerned and with the purpose of revealing policy changes over time. The understanding of the notion of ‘the good childhood’ varies and is connected to changing socio-historical condition, cultural values and different ways of life (James, Jenks and Prout 1998, Qvortrup et al. 1994) and has implication also for institutional childhood. The historical-comparative perspective focuses on processes that have contributed to shaping different understandings. In these processes gender is a decisive category. The project will be drawing on research that has demonstrated how gender has been structured in discourses on day-care policy (Leira 1992, 2002, Kolbe 1999).
It is currently part of political intentions to emphasise day-care centres as an arena for integration. Similarly, in the history of day-care centres, ideological and pedagogical ideas have been imminent that such institutions should be accessible for every one, as for instance in the launching of the ‘Volkskindergarten’ in late 19th century (Korsvold 1997).
The development in recent decades has however been characterised by an increased differentiation, individualisation, but also marginalisation of particular groups of children, who have not had access to what has been understood as welfare services. Thus, a lack of a pre-school offer, for instance in Germany, has among other things implied deteriorated school achievements compared with same age children receiving such an offer (Bos 2003).
One research question would therefore be to identify and further explore processes which over time would lead to marginalisation and their consequences not merely for children themselves but also for childhood as such. The historical-comparative study of Norway, Sweden and Germany might in this context provide a broader illumination on evident differences, but also obvious similarities between the countries as far as processes of marginalisation are concerned.
The methodological approach will be text analysis of a discourse analytical orientation, where points of departure in terms of philosophy, theory and methods form a unity (Winther Jørgensen 1999, Neuman 2001). Documents from child/family/social- and consumption ministries (propositions, commission reports, prescriptions etc.) will be serving as the main source material. The study on Sweden and Germany will primarily be exploiting available research literature on the issue from the two countries.
References
Bos, W (2003): Erste Ergebnisse aus IGLU. Schulerleistung am Ende der vieten Jahrgangsstufe. Berlin.
James, A., Jenks, C., Prout, A. (1998): Theorizing childhood. London
Kolbe, W. (1999): Gender and parenthood in West German family politics from the 1960s to the 1980s. In: In: Torstendahl, R. (red) (1999): State Policy and Gender System in the Two German States and Sweden 1945-1989.Opuscula Historica Upsaliensia 22.
Kolbe, W. (2002): Elternschaft im Wohlfahrtsstat. Schweden und die Bundesrepublik 1945-2000. Campus: Frankfurt, New York. (Dr. avh.)
Korsvold, T. (1997): Profesjonalisert barndom. Statlige intensjoner og kvinnelig praksis på barnehagens arena 1945-90. Skriftserien nr. 20, Historisk institutt. Trondheim: Det historisk-filosofiske faktultet / Norsk senter for barneforskning NTNU. (Dr.avh.)
Korsvold, T. (1998): For alle barn! Barnehagens framvekst i velferdsstaten.Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.
Korsvold, T. (2002): Kinder und Familienpolitik. Vereinbarkeit von Familie und Beruf in Skandinavien. Das Beispiel Norwegens am Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts. (Teil I, II) I: Norröna. Zeitschrift für Kultur, Geschichte und Politik der skaninavischen Länder.Berlin.
Leira, A. (1992): Welfare States and Working Mothers: The Scandinavian Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Dr.avh.)
Leira, A. (2002): Working Parents and the Welfare State. Family Change and Policy Reform in Scandinavia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Neumann, I.B. (2001): Mening, materialitet, makt. En innføring i diskursanalyse. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Qvortrup, J. et all. (1994): Childhood Matters. Social Theory, Practice and Politics.Alderhot: Avebury.
Winther Jørgensen, M. og L. Phillips (1999): Diskursanalyse som teori og metode. Frederiksberg: Samfunnslitteratur/Roskilde Universitetsforlag.