Stream; The impact of the Crisis on Welfare Systems; A new role for Families?

Child Benefit Support for Families in a Time of Crisis; A Comparison of Ireland and the UK

Dr. Anne Coakley, Lecturer in Sociology/Social Policy, Dept. Humanities,

Carlow College, Carlow, Ireland

Email; acoakley@carlowcollege.ie

Tel 00353 059 9153200 and

Dr. Verity Campbell-Barr, Lecturer in early Childhood Studies, Plymouth University,

Faculty of Health, Education and Society, Rolle Building, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA

Email; verity.campbell-barr@plymouth.ac.uk

Tel 01752 585354

Introduction

At a time of great economic uncertainty across Europe it is undoubtedly the case that social policy

reform is on the EU agenda. Times of austerity in Europe have seen a number of countries making

cut backs to their welfare provision. The UK and Ireland have not been exceptions to this with both

countries making cuts in a number of welfare areas. Here we focus on cuts in relation to families.

Whilst we primarily focus on the cuts to Child Benefit payments, we inevitably also explore

interrelated areas such as support for childcare costs. We discuss how the cuts bring to the forefront

debates around the provision of welfare support to families and whether they are about the needs

of the child or a response to global economics and women’s labour force participation. Whilst the

cuts look to refocus welfare provision on vulnerable children and their families, they also reflect the

push towards individualised responsibility for managing new social risks. The new social risks facing

the family are different to the old social risks that welfare states addressed in the post-war period.

These include mothers’ labour force participation,the adult worker model, unstable family

structures,contract employment,and unemployment as part of the lifecycle.

Under new austerity measures across the EU, as well as cutbacks in pensions and health care, there

is evidence of a move away from universal benefits such as Child Benefit to an emphasis on means

1

tested payments (Heise and Lierse, 2011). The principle underpinning Child Benefit as a universal

payment is that all children are a collective risk with shared responsibility between the state and the

family. We debate the extent that the cuts in Child Benefit and related financial support have

actually constrained choices in managing new social risks.

We begin with an overview of policy developments in the area of family support in the last 25 years,

including considering the recent austerity measures in the UK and Ireland. We frame this discussion

as evidence of policy responses to new social risks before exploring some of the concerns around the

implications of the austerity measures.

The Irish Context

The principal child income support in Ireland is Child Benefit introduced as an anti-poverty measure

and paid to the ‘head of household’ and only for the third and subsequent child in 1944, it was later

extended to all children up to 16 years of age in 1963. In 1973 Child Benefit was extended to

children up to 18 years of age and payment previously paid to the father was now made to the

mother. Undoubtedly this coincided with Ireland joining the EU in 1973 and the need for

compliance with EU gender equality directives coming on stream. Other income related cash

benefits include the Qualified Child Increase (QCI)) and the Family Income Supplement (FIS). The QCI

is a cash payment for each child for parents who are dependant on social welfare. FIS was

introduced for families in low paid work in 1984. It has had a chequered history and while eligibility

has extended over the years it has been marked by low take up rates. However at present there is a

12 week waiting list for FIS. In recognition of the costs of older children staying on in full-time

education, the QCI and FIS payments were extended in the 1990s for dependents up to 20 years of

age, and in 2001 up to 22 years. Child Benefit was also extended to those aged 19 years in 1995.

Child Benefit is highly valued in Irish society as the principal universal payment that supports families

with the cost of raising children. Its universal nature appeals to all social groups including low and

middle income working families. In addition families on social welfare or on a low FIS based income

qualify for mainly free medical care. Eligibility for free medical care is valuable as it provides a

passport to other state benefits for families including assistance towards the cost of child care,

school books, uniforms and exam fees. It also gives eligibility to free fees and maintenance grants for

third level courses which is invaluable in the context of the re-introduction of such fees. Apart from

families dependant on social welfare and FIS, other low to middle income working parents do not

2

qualify for any other benefits and have to pay full medical, childcare, and additional education

charges includingthird level fees.

The UK Context

A universal children’s allowance was a central aspect to the 1942 Beveridge Report. In 1946 the

Family Allowance was introduced, a universal entitlement paid weekly for each child after the first.

The Family Allowance worked in conjunction with Child Tax Allowances that helped to target

additional benefits to those below the tax threshold. The provision of Family Allowance was

motivated by the welfare of children (Blow, Walker and Zhu, 2012). In 1977 the Family Allowance

and Child Tax Allowance were replaced by Child Benefit. Payments have always been made to the

primary carer (Greener, 1998), the advantage being that for households where income was not

pooled it would enable the care provider (most commonly women) some economic freedom.

There have been debates over what the money is spent on and whether it is really spent on the

needs of the child (Blow, Walker and Zhu, 2012), but Child Benefit was a universal entitlement for

families to spend as they wished. The lack of state interest in supporting childcare (see Randall,

2000, Campbell-Barr, 2010) meant that for some families Child Benefit was used to support

purchasing childcare. There is also acknowledgement that the rate of Child Benefit in real terms was

less in 1999 than it was in 1978 (Blow, Walker and Zhu, 2012). Greener (1998) discusses how whilst

the real rate of the benefit fell it regained its 1979 value in the mid 1980s before falling again in

1985. An additional payment of £2.50 per week in 1999 increased its real value above the 1979 rate,

but it has since declined again. However, whilst the monetary value of Child Benefit in the UK is

arguably declining, it now works in conjunction with a number of other policy initiatives, such as the

provision of tax credits.

In 1999 New Labour introduced the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) and the Childcare Tax

Credit, which offered assistance to lower income families with the cost of their childcare on a means

tested basis. In April 2003, these changed to the Working Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. Initially

parents were able to claim up to 70% of their childcare costs on a means tested basis, with this going

up to 80% in 2007 and then returning to 70% under the coalition government. Whilst in theory those

on lower incomes receive the most support for the cost of childcare via the tax credit system, there

have been criticism that it is complicated, that parents who have applied once are put off by the

claiming process and they fear overpayments (Butt et al 2007, Goddard and Knights, 2009). The shift

3

to support the cost of childcare reflects changes in gender roles in the UK, but also the shift in

welfare provision as a response to the changing economic conditions and the rise in new social risks.

The EU Context

According to Matzke and Ostner (2010) the ‘early birds’ countries of which the Scandinavian

countries are a good example, managed the transition from the male breadwinner model to post-

industrialism and dual earners households. They adapted their institutions and put policy

programmes in place that met the role of women as workers and parents and that perceived

children as ‘public goods’ and as an investment for the future. The ‘new’ social risks were addressed

through the individualization of the tax and welfare system, recognition of the importance of

employment for all adults, the expansion of care services and reconciliation policies.

At the same time EU social policy moved towards a social investment state in the 1990s with

education, training and activation for all adults. There was a particular focus on those outside of the

labour market including young people and mothers caring for children. A series of agreements and

targets setting out the activation model for mothers caring at home followed. The development of

childcare provision became central to the Lisbon Council’s agreement of 2000 with a target of sixty

per cent female employment by 2010. This was followed on in 2002 by the Barcelona Council

agreement which set targets for childcare provision of 90 percent for children between 3 years old

and school age and 33 percent for under threes by 2010. The “Europe 2020” (2010) framework plan

following on from the Lisbon Strategy sets a target of 75% employment rate for men and women

aged 20-64 by 2020 clearly placing the adult worker model centre stage.

Pfau-Effinger’s (2005) analysis shows that the development of care policies in different welfare

states is linked to different development paths. Pfau-Effinger (2005) concludes that the care

arrangements of eight European countries studied changed during the post-war period along two

differing cultural paths of development linked to family values. One path of development is the dual

breadwinner family model evident in France, Denmark, Sweden and Finland (Pfau-Effinger,2005).

The second path of development is the modernisation of the male breadwinner model which

entailed major cultural transformation in countries including the UK, Norway, the Netherlands and

West Germany. This path of development saw the integration of women into paid employment but

4

with recognition that women may interrupt their employment in favour of care and part-time work

at some stage. In the Irish case the high rate of part-time work for mothers, the lack of paid parental

leave and the absence of statutory family friendly practices is evidence of adherence to this path.

Since 2007 paid maternity leave for mothers was extended to 26 weeks. Irish men still have no

statutory right to paternity leave and it is at the discretion of their employer. Since 1998, men and

women have a statutory entitlement to unpaid parental leave. However very few men utilise this

option since it is unpaid. There are similarities here with the UK with adaptation and expansion of

existing policies but within the current framework. There is a continuing preference for marketised

solutions and targeting (Matzke and Ostner, 2010).

Responding to Changes

Ireland

By the late 1990s the cultural model of motherhood had changed considerably in Ireland. There was

a significant increase in women’s labour force participation and with it economic independence and

the statutory recognition of women’s rights in employment and social welfare. Women’s new found

economic independence and EU driven statutory equal rights gave rise to a gathering momentum in

society for the Government to address the issue of childcare.

An EU funded Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme (EOCP) commenced in Ireland 1998 and

was superceded in 2006 by the National Childcare Investment Programme (NCIP 2006) both aimed

at facilitating women’s labour market participation. The lobbying by women’s organisations at the

time played a significant role in demands for public childcare and services. Following a report by the

Expert Working Group on Childcare the budget of 2000 implemented a package of supply measures

for the childcare sector (Department of Finance, 2005). The focus was very much on incentivised

growth of the privatised childcare sector and to only provide direct services to the disadvantaged.

Structural funding was made available to increase the supply of centre based childcare places by

50% by 2006. The outcome was high non-subsidised childcare costs for working parents. This policy

approach has not led to the resolution of the problem of affordability or the development of a

sustainable, high quality childcare sector (Hayes and Bradley, 2006). Successive government working

parties and commissioned reports have both emphasised the value of high quality childcare and in

many cases have recommended a national programme of childcare facilities. However Ireland does

not match up to the integrated national programme of childcare facilities evident in countries such

5

as France and Denmark (Fine-Davis, 2007). When childcare is calculated as a proportion of family

income the cost is just under 30% in Ireland compared to an average of around 12.5% in the EU and

other OECD countries (NWCI, 2009a).

In the late 1990s and early 2000s as the economy continued to grow and employment expanded

there was increasing pressure and expectation that the Government would introduce a childcare tax

relief. Liberal welfare states rather than direct investment in childcare tend to use universal Child

Benefit which it is argued gives parents choice (Hayes and Bradley, 2006). As Child Benefit became

the preferred choice of Government for supporting all families the rate consistently increased during

the 1990s. As a result Child Benefit rates were approximately four times higher in 2001 than they

had been in 1990 (Dept of Social Protection, 2011). Increases in the rate of Child Benefit have been

the most significant factor in increased child income support spending (Department of Social

Protection, 2010). Between 2001 and 2004 the rates increased to 166 euro per month for the first

and second child and with further increases for families with 3 or more children. Child Benefit, in the

absence of tax credits for children, offsets the impact of taxes on disposable income which would

otherwise pull more people below the ‘at risk of poverty’ line (Department of Social Protection,

2010) .

UK

As in Ireland, models of motherhood changed considerably in the 1990s in the UK. The lack of

political interested that had characterised childcare provision prior to the 1990s started to shift,

partly as a response to the rise in maternal employment, but also as a response to shifts in global

socio-economics. Initial developments for childcare support were tentative with the introduction of

the Childcare Disregard, out of school childcare initiative and funding for early years education

places for four year olds under Norman Major’s Conservative government (see Campbell-Barr,

2010). The election of New Labour in 1997 brought with it the introduction of the National Childcare

Strategy and a flood of policy developments that looked to address the quality, affordability and

accessibility of early years education and childcare provision (Lloyd, 2008). The Strategy had two

elements running through it, one centred on the developmental advantages of good quality early

years education and care and the other on the role of childcare in supporting maternal employment.

With regards to the former, the introduction of free early years education places for all three and

four years olds and now two year olds living in deprived areas reflects the child development aspects

of the Strategy. Even the drive to support maternal employment in order to reduce child poverty

6

was argued on the basis of minimising the negative consequences of poverty on children. As such

there was a child centred focus to the National Childcare Strategy.

However, the influence of global economics on policy formation has seen a shift from social policy

objectives towards economic ones, with the National Childcare Strategy clearly looking to influence

parental decision making. The underlying aim of the National Childcare Strategy was to support,

chastise and discreetly (or not so discreetly) influence the context of child rearing (Henricson, 2003).

Childcare had come out of the privacy of the home and was now firmly a public issue. Within the

National Childcare Strategy it was clear that there was a focus on the role of childcare in supporting

maternal employment and the subsequent role that this would have on lifting children out of

poverty. The targeting of the expansion of childcare in deprived areas and the focussing of tax

credits on lower income families reflected that it was is only the bottom of the income distribution

that the Government should be concerned with (Brewer et al 2002: 11), arguably as poverty is only a

problem when it generates additional costs that could be avoided (Penn, 2010). These policy

advancements reflect wider global socio-economic developments, whereby global economics have

undercut the social and economic foundations of the welfare state (Pierson, 2001). The focus on

parental employment reflected the need for a sustainable welfare state, where open-ended welfare

was to come to an end (Lloyd, 2008).

Austerity Measures

Ireland

The onset of the recession saw the introduction of cuts in Child Benefit in a series of budget

measures to tackle the deficit. Following much public debate, in 2009 Child Benefit was targeted and

a cut of 10% was announced on all payments. In addition, from 2010 the benefit is no longer paid

once a child is 18 years even if they are in full-time education. The 2011 Budget ushered in additional

cuts in child benefit which shows that Irish policy is taking a further step along the path of whittling

away at the only universal payment for families in Ireland. Being the only direct payment to all

mothers, and the only non-means tested payment it is a very significant development. It is expected

that Government will make further cuts in Child Benefit in future budgets. In the Irish context there

are strong arguments as to why child benefit should remain a universal payment and at current

levels in recessionary times (NWCI, 2009b).

It is significant that prior to the recession women’s and children’s rights groups lobbying for a

national childcare programme and tax relief did not favour the use of Child Benefit to subsidise

7

childcare. While child income support was reduced the introduction in 2010 of a free pre-school year

of early childhood care and education for all children over the age of 3 years and 3 months was a

bonus development emanating from the EU. It was welcomed by the National Children’s Nurseries

Association as possibly the most significant development in the history of Irish childcare. It was the

first rights based entitlement to pre-school care ever in Ireland. While it was introduced in the

middle of an economic recession it is directly linked to the Barcelona compliance agreement which

sets targets for provision for pre-school children. It is worthwhile noting that the EU equality agenda

is still influencing Irish social policy, despite the recession. This is in stark contrast to the recessionary

measures currently targeting public service workers and public services and cash benefits.

The National Recovery Plan (2010) suggests that the development of a rebalanced and integrated

child income support payment system would provide for a universal component to replace Child

Benefit with one single payment rate per child. This payment will be supplemented with a further

payment in the case of children of families in receipt of a social welfare payment or in low income

employment.

It is evident that groups representing women’s and children’s rights support support the retention of

Child Benefit as a universal payemnt. For example, the Children’s Rights Alliance; ‘Particularly now,

in difficult and uncertain economic times, a regular, reliable payment to families is of critical

importance’ (CRA,6:20.09). A briefing paper on child benefit published mid-2009 by the National

Women’s Council (NWCI,2009a) argued for the retention of Child Benefit on the basis of its

universality and as a support to mothers. The report highlights its benefits for childcare costs for

working mothers and as a payment for care for those who stay at home. In addition it highlights its

importance as a direct payment to mothers in contrast to some other social welfare payments and

cognisant that household income is not always shared equally in couple households. Recently the

Minister for Social Protection has stated that she is in favour of taxing Child Benefit for high earners

a move similar to the UK.

UK

The introduction of the National Childcare Strategy coincided with a period of relative economic

prosperity for the UK. However, the onset of the global economic crisis meant the UK, along with

other countries was faced with harsh economic realities. In 2010 New Labour lost political power,

with a coalition Conservative-Liberal Democrat government succeeding. One of the first steps of the

coalition government was to make a number of cuts welfare provision (HM Treasury, 2010). The

focus was on ‘welfare that works’ and the summer of 2010 saw some of the most severe benefit cuts

8

in UK history (Heise and Lierse, 2011). Included in these cuts was the scaling back of tax credits and

Child Benefit. Tax credits were cut back to only covering up to 70% of childcare costs and payments

of the rate of Child Benefit were frozen in the 2010 Spending Review (HM Treasury, 2010) at £20.30

a week for the first child and £13.40 for any subsequent children. In addition to this, from January

2013, households where one parents earns more than £50,000 will not be able to claim the full rate

of Child Benefit, with those earning £60,000 not being able to claim it at all. Under current plans,

parents will have to declare their earnings and stop their Child Benefit payments. Failure to do so

will see the Government reclaiming the money.

The cut backs reflect the fact that in Europe welfare states are not up to date with global economics

and that many face collapse if they do not introduce austerity measures (Heise and Lierse, 2011).

The UK is looking to reduce their level of debt through making cuts, yet in making the cuts they are

also looking to refocus benefits on the poor. Such a focus on the poor has a long history in British

policy (Heise and Lierse, 2011).

However, there are a number of puzzling outcomes that lead to questions around the extent to

which the policy has been thought out.

Determining the phasing out of Child Benefit based on one member of the household

earning more than £50,000 means that where a couple are each earning £45,000

respectively (totalling £90,000 for the household) they will still receive Child Benefit, but a

single parent earning £50,000 would see their payments decrease and then stopped once

they were earning £60,000. Such a system has clear inequalities within it.

The change to having a cut-off point of £60,000 to Child Benefit payments means that there

is a disincentive for people to increase their earning (Edmonds, 2005, Brown, 2012).

For households that do not pool their income and the primary carer does not work, they will

become dependent on the primary earner.

Reed (2012) estimates that families will be between £1,000 and £2,400 worse off by 2015, with a

fear that this could lead to a rise in vulnerable families. Beyond the puzzling detail of the changes to

Child Benefit it was clear that there is a focus on personal responsibility (Heise and Lierse, 2011).

9

Discussion

The developments in Child Benefit and related payments in Ireland and the UK represent

developments in female labour force participation and attempts by both governments to respond to

new social risks.

New social risks are the risks that people now face in the course of their lives as a result of

the economic and social changes associated with the transition to a post industrial society.

Taylor-Gooby (2004: 2-3)

Social and economic changes during the 1960’s and 1970’s saw de-industrialisation and a rise of

service sector employment, a rise in female employment, instability in family structures and a shift

towards a privatisation of the welfare state (Cermai, 2008). As a response to these changes in family

structures and global economics, welfare provision shifted from social protection to investment. This

is evident in the proceeding discussions on Ireland and the UK. Both countries witnessed a growth in

female labour force participation, but rather than develop a welfare system that was based on a dual

worker model, both countries continued under a male-breadwinner model. Arguably a modernised

version of the male-breadwinner model, both countries supported the integration of mothers into

the workforce, but the gender-typing of parental practices still follow traditional lines ( Pfau-Effinger,

2005). Support for childcare has not been comprehensive in either country as it has been in Nordic

countries for example. Whilst the UK has developed childcare provision extensively in comparison

to Ireland there are still gaps in service provision (Campbell-Barr and Garnham, 2010). While there

are child tax credits in the UK towards the cost of childcare, increases in Child Benefit was the main

solution offered by the Irish Government to assist working parents. So any cuts have a serious

impact on family finances.

The reliance on the market (whereby private, voluntary and independent sectors are all involved) in

the delivery of early years education and childcare services is evidence of the privatisation of the

welfare state. Mixed markets help to supplement public expenditure, widen the sources of supply

and offer choice to consumers. The reliance on the mixed market is thus about building on what is

already there, whilst ensuring that it is the parents’ responsibility to select childcare and assume

accountability for the risks involved in this (Cohen et al., 2004). Families are therefore responsible

for managing new social risks.

In the UK, the focus on the worker first model for managing new social risks is overt. Policy

developments in the last 15 years, particularly under the National Childcare Strategy, have clearly

10

emphasised the role of maternal labour force participation in protecting against child poverty, whilst

also recognising the developmental advantages of early years education and childcare (Jenson,

2006). This represents the duality of the investment in early years education and childcare provision.

Firstly there is an investment in activation policies to support parental employment and secondly

there is an investment in the needs of the child, both in regard to preventing the negative

consequences of poverty, but also in the advantages that good quality childcare can offer a child.

However, as policy developments have taken place the focus on the economic aspects of the

National childcare Strategy and in particular the role of parental employment have been emphasised

(see Lloyd, 2008). In Ireland in the late 1990s, the shortage of labour in a growing economy

witnessed a significant increase in mothers’ labour force participation. The push towards an adult

worker model was supported by gender equality focused chidcare funding.

The decision for Child Benefit to no longer be a universal entitlement continues the focussing of

policy developments on the worker first model. However, the focus on a worker first model is

underpinned by instrumental rational choice theory (Taylor-Gooby and Wallace, 2009) as this is what

is good for governments economically. The wider body of literature around parental preferences has

clearly demonstrated that such an approach to the decision to work and use childcare is flawed (see

Duncan and Edwards, 1999; Aveling, 2002; Repo, 2004; Byrne, 2006). In the UK, the cut-off point in

Child Benefit payments suggests that families are going to struggle to make a rational choice and in

some instances even be faced with a disincentive to work or to increase their pay levels.

The worker first model is in sharp contrast to the initial introduction of Child Benefit in both Ireland

and the UK, whereby the focus was the needs of the child. Policy developments have seen a shift

away from their social foundations of providing support for families towards an economic focus that

stresses the responsibility of families to respond to challenging economic times. Unlike Scandinavian

countries which adapted their insitiutions and put policies in place to meet the role of women as

workers and that perceived children as an investment in the future, liberal welfare states like the UK

and Ireland continued a policy of targeting funding towards disadvantaged families. This has been

the case in much childcare subvention and more recently in both Governments’ proposing arbitrary

income lines as cut off points for Child Benefit. They are arbitrary and contentious as in the current

economic recession the boundaries of poverty and of economic vulnerability are fluid and changing.

There is the exposure of workers and families to new social risks including increases in all social

charges, negative equity and increased personal indebtedness. The responses of liberal welfare

states from a policy framework of advantage / disadvantage duality may no longer be appropriate

11

to address new social risks. New policy paradigms are required which support people in their care

and work commitments throughout the lifecourse.

References

Aveling, N. (2002). "'Having It All' and the Discourse of Equal Opportunity: reflections on

choices and changing perceptions." Gender and Education, 14(3): 265 - 280.

Blow, L. and Walker, I. And Zhu, Y. (2012) Who Benefits From Child Benefit? Economic

Inquiry, 50(1): 153-70

Brewer, M., Clark, T., and Wakefield, M. (2002) Social Security Under New Labour: what did

the Third Way mean for welfare reform, London Institute of Fiscal Studies

Brown, J. (2012) The Impact of Austerity Measures on Households with Children, Family and

Parenting Institute and Institute of Fiscal Studies: London

Butt, S., Goddard, K., La Valle, I. and Hill, M. (2007). Childcare Nation? Progress on the

childcare strategy and priorities for the future, London: Daycare Trust and National Centre

for Social Research.

Byrne, B. (2006). "In Search of a 'Good Mix': 'Race', Class, Gender and Practices of

Mothering." Sociology, 40 (6): 1001-1017

12

Campbell-Barr, (2010a) The Research, Policy and Practice Triangle in Early Childhood

Education and Care, in Parker-Rees, Leeson, Willan and Savage, Early Childhood Studies:

an introduction to the study of children’s lives and worlds, Exeter: Learning Matters

Campbell-Barr, and Garnham, A. (2010) What Parents Want - parents and childcare: a

literature review, Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission available at:

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/here-for-everyone-here-for-

business/working-better/

Cerami, A. (2008) New Social Risks in Central and Eastern Europe: The Need for a New

Empowering Politics of the Welfare State, Czech Sociological Review, 44(6). Available at

SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1308424

Cohen, B., Moss, P., Petrie, P., and Wallace, J. (2004) A New Deal for Children? Re-forming

education and care in England, Scotland and Sweden, Bristol: Policy Press

Children’s Rights Alliance 2009. Pre-Budget Submission to the Dept of Social and Family

Affairs. www.childrensrights.ie accessed 17/07/11

Central Statistics Office 2011. Women and Men in Ireland 2010. Dublin. Stationery Office

Dail Debates 1 December 2009. ‘Child Benefit Motion’www.kildarestreet.com/debates.

accessed 9/03/11

Department of Finance 2005. Discussion Paper on Childcare. www.finance.gov.ie. accessed

18/07/11

Department of Finance 1998. ‘Tax Relief for Childcare TSG 98/37’. www.finance.gov.ie

Accessed 18/07/11.

Department of Social Protection (2010)

Dept of Social Protection (2011)

13

Duncan, S. and Edwards, R. (1999), Lone mothers, paid work and gendered moral

rationalities, London: UCL Press.

Edmonds, E. (2005) Targeting Child Benefits in a Transition Economy, Economics of

Transitions, 13 (10): 187-210

European Commission 2010. ‘Europe 2020’. http://.ec.europa.eu. accessed 10/02/11

Fine-Davis (2007). ‘Childcare in Ireland Today; briefing paper to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions’.

University of Dublin, Trinity College. Accessed 12/03/12

Greener, K. (1998). Child Benefit: Research Paper 98/79, Social Policy Section, House of

Commons Library: London

Hayes, N. and S. Bradley (2006). ‘The Childcare Question’ pp163-178 in Fanning, B. and

Rush, M (eds.), Care and Social Change in the Irish Welfare Economy. Dublin. UCD Press

Heise, A and H. Leirse, (2011) ‘The effects of European Austerity Programmes on Social

Security Systems’, in Modern Economy, 2011, 2, 498-513.

Henricson, C. (2003) Government and Parenting: Is there a case for a policy review and

parents code, London, Joseph Rowntree Foundation

HM Treasury (2010) Spending Review, London: The Stationary Office

Jenson, J. (2006) The LEGO Paradigm and new Social Risks: Consequences for children in

Context Jane Lewis (ed), Children, Changing Families and Welfare States, Edward Elgar

Publishing: Northamton

Lloyd, E. (2008).’ The interface between childcare, family support and child poverty

strategies under New Labour: tensions and contradictions, Social Policy and Society, 7 (4):

479-494

Matzke,M. and Ostner, I. 2010. ‘Postscript; ideas and agents of change in time’. Journal of

European Social Policy. 20;468-476

14

National Children’s Nurseries Association (2009). ‘The State of the Nation’s Childcare; an

analysis of the findings if the 2008 NCNA members survey’. www.ncna.ie. Accessed

24/06/09

National Children’s Nurseries Association (2010). ‘Irish Childcare in Recession? An analysis of

the 2009 NCNA Member’s Survey’ www.ncna.ie. Accessed 25/03/10.

National Recovery Plan 2010-2014 (2010). Dublin. Stationery Office.

National Women’s Council of Ireland (2009 a). Who Cares? Challenging the Myths about

gender and care in Ireland’, www.nwci.ie accessed 3/11/09

National Women’s Council of Ireland, (2009 b) All Our Children. Briefing paper on Child

Benefit. www.nwci.ie accessed 3/11/09

Penn, H. (2010). Shaping the future: how human capital arguments about investment in

early childhood are being (mis)used in poor countries (pp49-65) in Yelland, N. (ed),

Contemporary Perspective on Early Childhood Education, Maidenhead: Open

University Press

Pfau-Effinger, B (2005) ‘Culture and Welfare State Policies; Reflections on a Complex

Interrelation’ Journal of Social Policy Vol. 34,1,3-20.

Pierson, P. (2001) Coping with Permanent Austerity: Welfare State Restructuring in Affluent

Democracies, in The New Politics of the Welfare State Paul Pierson (ed), Oxford University

Press: Oxford

Randall, V. (2000) The Politics of Child Daycare In Britain, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Reed, H. (2012) In the Eye of the Storm: Britain’s Forgotten Children and Families, A

research report for Action for Children, The Children’s Society and NSPCC, available at:

http://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/media/4012135/in_the_eye_of_the_storm.pdf,

accessed 6 Aug 2012

Repo, K. (2004) ‘Combining Work and Family in Two Welfare State Contexts: A discourse

Analytical Perspective’, Social Policy & Administration, 38 (6): 622-639

15

Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004) New Risks and Social Change in New Risks, New Welfare The

Transformation of the European Welfare State, Edited by Peter Taylor-Gooby, Oxford

University Press: Oxford

Taylor-Gooby, P.F. and Wallace, A. (2009). Public Values and Public Trust: Responses to

Welfare State Reform in the UK, Journal ofSocial Policy, 38(3). pp401-419

16