Childcare Arrangements During the ‘Gap Year’

  • Borbála Kovács


Following the structure of the previous chapter, the discussion in this one focuses on routine care arrangements for children aged two-to-three, the ‘gap year’ of Romanian family policy given the absence of paid leave schemes and the severely limited availability of public ECEC service provision for under-threes. Following a detailed account of the care ideals and the competing hierarchies of care ideals informing families’ childcare decisions, the chapter expands on care arrangements typical for children of this age. Another contribution of this chapter is the articulation of a taxonomy of childcare decision-making, developed inductively using interview dyads with mothers and fathers in the same families. Describing three different models of childcare decision-making, this chapter questions whether decisions to do with young children’s routine care are first and foremost those of mothers.


  1. Baldock, J., & Hadlow, J. (2004). Managing the family: Productivity, scheduling and the male veto. Social Policy & Administration, 38, 706–720. Scholar
  2. Duncan, S., & Edwards, R. (1999). Lone mothers, paid work, and gendered moral rationalities. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hochschild, A. R. (1990). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. London: Piatkus.Google Scholar
  4. Holzmann, R., & Guven, U. (2009). Adequacy of retirement income after pension reforms in Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe. Directions in Development (Washington, DC). Finance. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  5. Kovács, B. (2014). Nannies and informality in Romanian local childcare markets. In J. Morris & A. Polese (Eds.), The informal post-socialist economy: Embedded practices and livelihoods (pp. 67–84). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Kovács, B. (2015). “The totality of caring”: Conceptualising childcare arrangements for empirical research. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 35, 699–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kovács, B. (2016). Socio-economic deficits and informal domestic childcare services in Romania: The policy drivers of the commodification of care from a micro-level perspective. Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe, 24, 239–254. Scholar
  8. Kremer, M. (2007). How welfare states care: Culture, gender and parenting in Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Morel, N. (2007). From subsidiarity to “free choice”: Child- and elder-care policy reforms in France, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. Social Policy & Administration, 41, 618–637. Scholar
  10. Morgan, K. J. (2002). Does anyone have a “libre choix”? Subversive liberalism and the politics of French child care policy. In S. Michel & R. Mahon (Eds.), Child care policy at the crossroads: Gender and welfare state restructuring (pp. 143–167). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Stativă, E., & Anghelescu, C. (2004). Studiul Național asupra Educației Timpurii în Creșe—2002 [National Study regarding Early Education in Nurseries—2002]. UNICEF with Centrul pentru Educație și dezvoltare Profesională and IOMC, Bucharest.Google Scholar
  12. Szelewa, D., & Polakowski, M. P. (2008). Who cares? Changing patterns of childcare in Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 18, 115–131. Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations