Unequal access to childcare in cities: Is equal public funding sufficient?

IF 4.2 1区 经济学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Urban Studies Pub Date : 2024-07-28 DOI:10.1177/00420980241258298
Astrid Pennerstorfer, Dieter Pennerstorfer, Michaela Neumayr
{"title":"Unequal access to childcare in cities: Is equal public funding sufficient?","authors":"Astrid Pennerstorfer, Dieter Pennerstorfer, Michaela Neumayr","doi":"10.1177/00420980241258298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines inequalities in the spatial accessibility of childcare between high- and low-status neighbourhoods in the city of Vienna and asks (i) whether specific public and non-profit provider types contribute to these inequalities and (ii) which factors may cause these inequalities in a mainly tax-funded childcare system. For our analysis, we combine data on the location and characteristics of childcare providers with spatially granular information on demand and neighbourhood characteristics. The results show that two provider types – church-related and independent non-profit providers – are mainly responsible for the higher accessibility of childcare in neighbourhoods with higher socio-economic status. Specifically independent providers charge significantly higher prices and offer more special services in these high-status areas. Public funding of a large part of the production costs, therefore, seems insufficient to ensure equal access in all neighbourhoods. These findings suggest that the exclusive comparison between public, private non-profit and private for-profit providers often found in the literature may be too narrow.","PeriodicalId":51350,"journal":{"name":"Urban Studies","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Studies","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980241258298","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines inequalities in the spatial accessibility of childcare between high- and low-status neighbourhoods in the city of Vienna and asks (i) whether specific public and non-profit provider types contribute to these inequalities and (ii) which factors may cause these inequalities in a mainly tax-funded childcare system. For our analysis, we combine data on the location and characteristics of childcare providers with spatially granular information on demand and neighbourhood characteristics. The results show that two provider types – church-related and independent non-profit providers – are mainly responsible for the higher accessibility of childcare in neighbourhoods with higher socio-economic status. Specifically independent providers charge significantly higher prices and offer more special services in these high-status areas. Public funding of a large part of the production costs, therefore, seems insufficient to ensure equal access in all neighbourhoods. These findings suggest that the exclusive comparison between public, private non-profit and private for-profit providers often found in the literature may be too narrow.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
城市中儿童保育机会不平等:平等的公共资金是否足够?
本文研究了维也纳市高地位和低地位社区之间在儿童保育空间可及性方面的不平等,并提出了以下问题:(i) 特定的公共和非营利提供者类型是否导致了这些不平等;(ii) 在一个主要由税收资助的儿童保育体系中,哪些因素可能导致这些不平等。在分析中,我们将儿童保育机构的位置和特征数据与需求和邻里特征的空间粒度信息相结合。分析结果表明,在社会经济地位较高的居民区,有两种类型的托儿所--与教会相关的托儿所和独立的非营利性托儿所--是造成托儿所可获得性较高的主要原因。特别是在这些地位较高的地区,独立托儿所的收费要高得多,而且提供的特殊服务也更多。因此,由公共财政承担大部分生产成本似乎不足以确保所有居民区的平等入托。这些研究结果表明,文献中经常出现的将公共、私营非营利和私营营利服务提供者相提并论的做法可能过于狭隘。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Urban Studies
Urban Studies Multiple-
CiteScore
10.50
自引率
8.50%
发文量
150
期刊介绍: Urban Studies was first published in 1964 to provide an international forum of social and economic contributions to the fields of urban and regional planning. Since then, the Journal has expanded to encompass the increasing range of disciplines and approaches that have been brought to bear on urban and regional problems. Contents include original articles, notes and comments, and a comprehensive book review section. Regular contributions are drawn from the fields of economics, planning, political science, statistics, geography, sociology, population studies and public administration.
期刊最新文献
Book review: The Urban Question in Africa: Uneven Geographies of Transition Book review: Researching Otherwise: Pluriversal Methodologies for Landscape and Urban Studies Book review: The Routledge Handbook of Architecture, Urban Space and Politics, Volume II: Ecology, Social Participation and Marginalities Book Review: Markets, Capitalism and Urban Space in India: Right to Sell The entrepreneurial creative city and its discontents: The politics of art-led urban regeneration in Incheon, South Korea
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1