The coalition risks following the wrong path on childcare reform

Global experience shows that increasing subsidies to parents, rather than investing in services directly, is a costly and ineffective approach.

As part of next week’s Budget, the Chancellor is expected to announce reforms to the funding of childcare. While action on childcare is welcome, it is likely the changes will see a greater proportion of childcare funding flowing via parents to purchase childcare, rather than invested in services free at the point of use. The experience of other countries with a similar market-led system is that rather than leading to cheaper care, pumping more money into the market via parents leads to greater cost inflation, with little change in affordability. If the government really wants to go big on childcare, it should invest more money in services, rather than benefits.

What is going to be announced? Since the 're-launch' of the coalition in January, there have been numerous hints in the media. Despite widely-reported disagreement between the coalition partners, it appears the government has settled on offering greater funding to better-off parents via some kind of tax relief, combined with additional money tied to Universal Credit for poorer families. Beyond the previously-announced extension of the free Early Years Entitlement to the 40 per cent of poorest two-year olds, there is little sign that the coalition is looking to expand the free offer, preferring instead to give money to parents.

While it is good that the government is looking at greater childcare funding, we have to ask whether this is the best use of extremely scarce resources. The coalition hopes that putting more money in the hands of parents will lead to greater purchasing power in the market for childcare, with increased competition and innovation among providers acting to keep prices low and stable. But will this actually be the case?

In order to answer that question, we should look to the country that has been most committed to this style of funding. Australia enacted wide-reaching reforms to childcare over the last two decades, combining a mixture of de-regulation and increases in childcare benefits, whilst at the same time effectively shutting off direct funding to childcare providers.

What happened to prices? The Australian Bureau of Statistics collects robust inflation data on the cost of childcare. Looking at how prices evolved before and after the reforms provides a stark picture of the dangers attached to the changes being considered here in the UK.

In the ten years before the 1997 reforms, the price of childcare rose on average by 5.2 per cent a year, around a fifth higher than the general rate of inflation. But in the decade after 1997 relative cost inflation rocketed, with childcare prices rising by 7.2 per cent annually, more than two and a half times wider inflation. In 2008, rather than reverse course, the Australian government doubled down on their inflationary approach, increasing the value of the tax rebate offered to families. If anything it appears this worsened childcare costs – In the year to March 2012 prices rose by almost 10 per cent.

What is it about childcare that leads to this outcome? Why doesn’t parental purchasing power manage to keep costs low? Simply put, the market for childcare does not function like most competitive markets. It is inherently localised, risky for those looking to set up a business and vulnerable to severe cost pressures from staff outlays and rent inflation. Like many other public goods, it is better to let the state pool these risks and offer long-term and sustainable funding to keep costs low, rather than leave it to the market.

Will this experience be repeated here in the UK? All the signs are that the UK, which already has internationally high childcare prices, is set for further inflationary pressure. The sector in general is unprofitable, with a quarter of childminders operating at a loss last year, meaning prices may need to rise just to keep many businesses afloat. And surveys of the UK market suggest that the qualifications profile of staff in the sector has risen in recent years, but with little change in real wages. Having a higher-skilled workforce in the sector is welcome, but is likely to exert cost pressures in the near-term. All this will be compounded by the changes that will be made next week.

Throwing more money into a system that is struggling to stay afloat, as the coalition is planning to do, may look good on paper, but without controls on prices there is a real risk that the instant benefit families feel after next weeks changes will soon be eroded by price rises. Providers will see their existing set of users have a greater ability to pay, and, because of the difficulty of turning a profit in the sector, will understandably look to raise prices. Far from being a gold rush for the sector, these changes are more likely to re-enforce the status quo. At a time when there is little money around, this risks being a highly wasteful use of public resources.

What the childcare sector and parents really needs is higher and more sustainable funding for providers, with a greater number of hours offered free or at low cost to parents. It would be wrong to claim this comes cheap. Indeed, countries that have followed such a route, like Denmark and Sweden, tend to spend a larger proportion of GDP on childcare and early years provision. But by controlling the cost to parents directly, and offering a longer-term and more predictable source of funding to providers, there are real efficiency gains to be made under such a system.

All three main political parties realise the importance of childcare, and accept there is a role for the public sector in making it affordable. This is welcome. But how we go about funding childcare, either via parents or through providers and price controls, needs to be rigorously debated. We currently have a mixed system in the UK, with some free places through the Early Years Entitlement and some subsidies via the benefits system. It appears the coalition favours the latter. It is important that we realise the dangers of such an approach, and look towards a much more sustainable future for UK childcare.

David Cameron is pictured during a visit to a London Early Years Foundation nursery in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

Spencer Thompson is economic analyst at IPPR

Getty
Show Hide image

Stop saying identity politics caused Trump

It's a wildly unsophisticated analysis that ignores the fact that all politics is inflected by identity.

Look, I don't mean to be funny, but is there something in the water supply? When Mark Lilla wrote his jeremiad against "identity liberalism" in the New York Times, it was comprehensively picked over and rebutted. But this zombie take has risen again. In the last 24 hours, all these tweets have drifted across my timeline:

And then this (now deleted, I think, probably because I was mean about it on Twitter).

And finally, for the hat-trick . . .

Isn't it beautiful to see a Blairite, a Liberal Leaver and a Corbynite come together like this? Maybe there is a future for cross-spectrum, consensual politics in this country.

These are all versions of a criticism which has swilled around since Bernie Sanders entered the US presidential race, and ran on a platform of economic populism. They have been turbocharged by Sanders' criticisms since the result, where he blamed Clinton's loss on her attempt to carve up the electorate into narrow groups. And they are now repeated ad nauseam by anyone wanting to sound profound: what if, like, Black Lives Matter are the real racists, yeah? Because they talk about race all the time.

This glib analysis has the logical endpoint that if only people didn't point out racism or sexism or homophobia, those things would be less of a problem. Talking about them is counterproductive, because it puts people's backs up (for a given definition of "people"). She who smelt it, dealt it.

Now, I have strong criticisms of what I would call Pure Identity Politics, unmoored from economics or structural concerns. I have trouble with the idea of Caitlyn Jenner as an "LGBT icon", given her longstanding opposition to gay marriage and her support for an administration whose vice-president appears to think you can electrocute the gay out of people. I celebrate female leaders even if I don't agree with their politics, because there shouldn't be an additional Goodness Test which women have to pass to be deemed worthy of the same opportunities as men. But I don't think feminism's job is done when there are simply a few more female CEOs or political leaders, particularly if (as is now the case) those women are more likely than their male peers to be childless. Role models only get you so far. Structures are important too.

I also think there are fair criticisms to be made of the Clinton campaign, which was brave - or foolish, depending on your taste - to associate her so explicitly with progressive causes. Stephen Bush and I have talked on the podcast about how hard Barack Obama worked to reassure White America that he wasn't threatening, earning himself the ire of the likes of Cornel West. Hillary Clinton was less mindful of the feelings of both White America and Male America, running an advert explicitly addressed to African-Americans, and using (as James Morris pointed out to me on Twitter) the slogan "I'm With Her". 

Watching back old Barack Obama clips (look, everyone needs a hobby), it's notable how many times he stressed the "united" in "united states of America". It felt as though he was trying to usher in a post-racial age by the sheer force of his rhetoric. 

As Obama told Ta-Nehisi Coates during his last days in office, he thought deeply about how to appeal to all races: 

"How do I pull all these different strains together: Kenya and Hawaii and Kansas, and white and black and Asian—how does that fit? And through action, through work, I suddenly see myself as part of the bigger process for, yes, delivering justice for the [African American community] and specifically the South Side community, the low-income people—justice on behalf of the African American community. But also thereby promoting my ideas of justice and equality and empathy that my mother taught me were universal. So I’m in a position to understand those essential parts of me not as separate and apart from any particular community but connected to every community."

Clinton's mistake was perhaps that she thought this caution was no longer needed.

So there are criticisms of "identity politics" that I accept, even as I wearily feel that - like "neoliberalism" - it has become a bogeyman, a dumpster for anything that people don't like but don't care to articulate more fully.

But there are caveats, and very good reasons why anyone pretending to a sophisticated analysis of politics shouldn't say that "identity politics caused Trump".

The first is that if you have an identity that any way marks you out from the norm, you can't change that. Hillary Clinton couldn't not be the first woman candidate from a major party running for the US presidency. She either had to embrace it, or downplay it. Donald Trump faced no such decision. 

The second is that, actually, Clinton didn't run an explicitly identity-focused campaign on the ground, at least not in terms of her being a woman. Through the prism of the press, and because of the rubbernecker's dream that is misogyny on social media, her gender inevitably loomed large. But as Rebecca Solnit wrote in the LRB:

"The Vox journalist David Roberts did a word-frequency analysis on Clinton’s campaign speeches and concluded that she mostly talked about workers, jobs, education and the economy, exactly the things she was berated for neglecting. She mentioned jobs almost 600 times, racism, women’s rights and abortion a few dozen times each. But she was assumed to be talking about her gender all the time, though it was everyone else who couldn’t shut up about it."

My final problem with the "identity politics caused Trump" argument is that it assumes that explicit appeals to whiteness and masculinity are not identity politics. That calling Mexicans "rapists" and promising to build a wall to keep them out is not identity politics. That promising to "make America great again" at the expense of the Chinese or other trading partners is not identity politics. That selling a candidate as an unreconstructed alpha male is not identity politics. When you put it that way, I do accept that identity politics caused Trump. But I'm guessing that's not what people mean when they criticise identity politics. 

Let's be clear: America is a country built on identity politics. The "all men" who were created equal notably excluded a huge number of Americans. Jim Crow laws were nothing if not identity politics. The electoral college was instituted to benefit southern slave-owners. This year's voting restrictions disproportionately affected populations which lean Democrat. There is no way to fight this without prompting a backlash: that's what happens when you demand that the privileged give up some of their perks. 

I don't know what the "identity politics caused Trump" guys want gay rights campaigners, anti-racism activists or feminists to do. Those on the left, like Richard Burgon, seem to want a "no war but the class war" approach, which would be all very well if race and gender didn't intersect with economics (the majority of unpaid care falls squarely on women; in the US, black households have far fewer assets than white ones.)

Those on the right, like Daniel Hannan, seem to just want people banging on about racism and homophobia to shut up because he, personally, finds it boring. Perhaps they don't know any old English poetry with which to delight their followers instead. (Actually, I think Hannan might have hit on an important psychological factor in some of these critiques: when conversations centre on anti-racism, feminism and other identity movements, white men don't benefit from their usual unearned assumption of expertise in the subject at hand. No wonder they find discussion of them boring.)

Both of these criticisms end up in the same place. Pipe down, ladies. By complaining, you're only making it worse. Hush now, Black Lives Matter: white people find your message alienating. We'll sort out police racism... well, eventually. Probably. Just hold tight and see how it goes. Look, gay people, could you be a trifle... less gay? It's distracting.

I'm here all day for a discussion about the best tactics for progressive campaigners to use. I'm sympathetic to the argument that furious tweets, and even marches, have limited effect compared with other types of resistance.

But I can't stand by while a candidate wins on an identity-based platform, in a political system shaped by identity, and it's apparently the fault of the other side for talking too much about identity.

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.