MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1579189619

Québec's Childcare Universal Low Fees Policy 10 Years After: Effects, Costs and Benefits

2010· article· en· W1579189619 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pierre Lefèbvre, Philip Merrigan, Francis Roy-Desrosiers

Bibliographic record

VenueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarningsDemographic economicsEarly childhoodChild careEconomicsLabour economicsDemographyMedicinePsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPediatricsSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More than ten years ago the province of Québec implemented a universal early childhood education and care policy. This paper examines if the two objectives pursued, to increase mothers’ participation in the labour market (balance the needs of workplace and home) and to enhance child development and equality of opportunity for children, were reasonable meet. A non-experimental evaluation framework based on multiple pre- and post-treatment periods is used to estimate the policy effects. First, year after year the number of children and their weekly of hours in childcare have increased. More preschool children are in non-parental childcare at a younger age and the intensity of childcare has increased over the years. Second, the policy has significantly increased the labour force participation and annual weeks worked for mothers with at least a child aged 1 to 4 years compared to mothers in the same situation in the Rest of Canada. Third, the evidence presented show that the policy has not enhanced school readiness or child early literacy skills in general, with negative significant effects on the PPVT scores of children aged 5 and possibly negative for children of age 4. Simulations show the bounds of the public benefits in terms of additional net taxes (income taxes less refundable credits and transfers based on household’s “net” income). Unless one suppose that mothers in the upper part of the earnings distribution are those who returned early to the labour market after giving birth or a maternity leave, and who have worked more weeks, the effect on governments revenues are modest. The main beneficiary of the larger tax base of a higher labour supply of mothers with young children is the federal government which do not support the significant public funding of the program. The policy has some drawbacks in terms of social efficiency and equity. The structure of the program with its very low $7/day fee before taxes creates strong incentives for families to use long hours of daycare for children at a very young age, which may not be the best mechanism for children development. The high transfers in-kind (1.9 billion in 2009) to families using subsidized childcare raise the question of their horizontal and vertical equity. The paper concludes on three modifications to the program that could correct some of its weaknesses.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal)Same topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207