The childcare gap in EU Member States.
Date: 2021-11-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
Subjects: EU Member State, child care, family policy, female work, labour market, social policy

The childcare 
gap in EU 
Member States

PB

Employment,
1
Social Affairs 
and Inclusion

In most – but not all – EU Member States, there is a period in which families with young children are unable to benefit from 
well-compensated childcare leave or a guaranteed (or otherwise state-supported) place in Early Childhood Education 
and Care (ECEC). We refer to this period as the childcare gap. There is wide variation between EU Member States, from 
no childcare gap (in Denmark, Germany, Slovenia, Finland and Sweden, and by some estimates Estonia and Malta) to five 
to six years (in Lithuania, Ireland, Italy and Romania). 

This policy memo offers an overview of what is known about the childcare gap, discusses policies to address the gap and 
reflects on how future research might build on this knowledge base. Member States might look to reduce the childcare 
gap by expanding childcare leave policies, ECEC provision, or a combination of the two, but this is a complex policy area 
with competing pressures and trade-offs. 

Introduction

The concept of a ‘childcare gap’ has been used to describe 
the discrepancy between the demand for and provision of 
childcare,1 as well as a period in which families with young 
children are unable to benefit from either childcare leave or 
a guaranteed (or otherwise state-supported) place for their 
child in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC).2,3,4,5 The 
gap between childcare leave and ECEC (henceforth referred 
to as the childcare gap) matters because it shapes parents’ 
options, which – without state support – could be limited 
to private care (for those who can afford it) and/or informal 
care  (if  available).  Parents  for  whom  these  options  are 
unaffordable  or  inaccessible  could  be  forced  to  drop  out 
of the labour market. Women are more often affected than 
men,  since  they  are  more  likely  to  drop  out  of  the  labour 
market  or  reduce  their  working  hours  when  they  become 
parents.6 

This policy memo focuses on the childcare gap as a concept, 
as well as on how the concept has been operationalised in 
existing  literature.  Desk  research  identified  three  studies 

that  measure  or  quantify  the  childcare  gap.7,8,9  All  three 
reports  focus  on  Europe  and  highlight  wide  variation 
between countries. There are some differences in how these 
studies  define  and  measure  the  childcare  gap,  including 
how  they  define  well-compensated  childcare  leave10  and 
whether  they  focus  on  a  guaranteed  ECEC  place11  or  a 
publicly provided and/or financed place.12 

Drawing on these data,13 this memo offers an overview of 
what is known about the childcare gap, discusses policies 
to  address  the  gap  and  reflects  on  how  future  research 
might further develop this knowledge base. 

Comparing the childcare gap across EU 
Member States 

There is wide variation across Member States in the length 
of the childcare gap, as shown in Figure 1. 

Several  Member  States  experience  no  childcare  gap: 
Denmark,  Germany,  Slovenia,  Finland,  Sweden,  and  – 
according  to  some  sources  (depending  on  the  legal  and

2

FIGURE 1. ESTIMATES OF THE CHILDCARE GAP (IN YEARS) IN EU MEMBER STATES 

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

DK

DE EE

FI

SE

SI HU LV CZ PL

LU ES BE FR EL PT AT BG CY MT NL HR SK LT RO IT IE

Notes: discrepancies in the childcare gap estimated by the two sources could be due to methodological differences.14 

Eurydice report (2019)

Blum et al. (2018)

practical  aspects  taken  into  account)  –  Estonia15  and 
Malta.16  Discrepancies  in  countries  identified  as  having 
no  childcare  gap  relate  to  varying  approaches  between 
studies, such as whether ECEC places are guaranteed17 or 
publicly provided and/or financed.18 

• 

• 

For instance, Lithuania offers 20 hours of free childcare 
for children from less than 1 year of age, but there is 
no legal framework guaranteeing an ECEC place until 
attendance  becomes  compulsory  at  the  age  of  6, 
hence it is counted as having a long childcare gap in 
some sources19 but no childcare gap at all in others.20 

Ireland  and  Italy  are  also  noted  in  the  literature  as 
countries  where  the  de  facto  childcare  gap  is  shorter 
than  the  estimated  gap,  because  provision  is  widely 
available even if there is no legal guarantee.21 

There are also discrepancies in countries that are identified 
as having no childcare gap in terms of how a guaranteed 
ECEC  place  is  defined:  either  as  a  universal  guarantee 
available to all families22 or subject to certain conditions. 

2

3

• 

• 

the  case  of  Malta,  ECEC  entitlement 
in 

is 
In 
full-time  employment 
restricted 
or  education; 
legal 
guarantee  in  some  sources23  but  not  in  others.24 

counted  as  a 

to  parents 

this 

is 

In the case of Estonia, discrepancies relate to whether 
the legal guarantee of an ECEC place is met in practice; 
some sources25 adjust estimates on the grounds that 
shortages  in  provision  mean  that  the  obligation  is 
often not met until a child is older.

There are four categories into which EU Member 
States fall in terms of the childcare gap
Plotting  the  length  of  childcare  leave  against  the  age  at 
which  an  ECEC  (or  school)  place  is  guaranteed  (Figure  2), 
four broad groups of countries can be identified. The first two 
groups  of  Member  States  offer  a  relatively  long  period  of 
well-compensated childcare leave. Well-compensated leave 
ranges  from  none  in  Ireland  and  Slovakia26  to  2  years  in 
Hungary, Romania and the Czech Republic;27 the EU average 
is just over 6 months.28 

 
MT

NL

CY

NL

IE

FR

BE(DE)

BE(FR)

BE(NL)
BE(DE)

FR

ES

BE(FR)
BE(NL)

LV

LV

6

IE

)
s
r
a
e
y
n

i

d

l
i

h
c

f
o
e
g
a
(
e
c
a
l
p
y
r
a
m

i
r
p
/
C
E
C
E

5

4

3

2

1

0
0.0

FIGURE 2: WELL-COMPENSATED LEAVE AND THE AGE AT WHICH AN ECEC OR SCHOOL PLACE IS GUARANTEED

IT

RO

LT

SK

HR

PT

EL

BG

AT

AT

PT

FR

ES

EL

PL

LU

LU

PL

CZ

EE

CZ

HU

FI

FI

SI

DE

SE

SI

SE

DK

DE

EE

DK

MT

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Well-compensated childcare leave (in years)

Eurydice report (2019)

Blum et al. (2018)

Notes: discrepancies in the childcare gap estimated by the two sources could be due to methodological differences (see European Commission/
EACEA/Eurydice  (2019));  some  countries  are  mentioned  twice  because  they  appear  in  both  sources;  red  lines  reflect  the  mean  from  the 
Eurydice report (used to compute the average because the data covers all Member States). 

Group  1  (located  in  the  lower  right-hand  quadrant  of 
Figure 2, shaded in purple) offers a relatively long period 
of  leave  and  guarantee  an  ECEC  place  early  on.  In 
some Member States (Sweden, and by some estimates 
Slovenia,29 Finland,30 Germany31 and Denmark32) there is 
an overlap between well-compensated childcare leave 
and  a  guaranteed  place  in  ECEC,  maximising  flexibility 
and  choice  for  parents  in  navigating  the  transition 
between home-based care and ECEC.

Group 2 of Member States (upper right-hand quadrant 
of  Figure  2,  shaded  in  green)  offers  a  relatively  long 
period of leave but guarantee a place in ECEC relatively 
late.  Most  Member  States  guarantee  an  ECEC  place 
before  the  start  of  primary  education,  but  the  age  at 
which this is guaranteed includes 4 years in Greece to 
6  years  in  Croatia  and  Lithuania;33  the  EU  average  is 
around 3 years34).

Group  3  of  Member  States  (lower  left-hand  quadrant 
of  Figure  2,  shaded  in  orange)  offers  relatively  short 
childcare leave but guarantee a place in ECEC early on 
in a child’s life. Most Member States without a childcare 
gap offer a relatively long period of childcare leave, but 
the example of Denmark (6 months of childcare leave, 
guaranteed place in ECEC from 6 months35) shows that 
this is not a prerequisite. 

Group 4 of Member States (upper left-hand quadrant of 
Figure 2, shaded in blue) offers a relatively short period 
of  leave  and  guarantee  a  place  in  ECEC  (or  primary 
education) relatively late. 

A  more  in-depth  analysis  of  specific  Member  States  offers 
greater  insight  into  variation  across  the  EU  in  policies 
contributing to the childcare gap, and the complex interplay 
between  different  policies.  Four  Member  States  –  Latvia, 

4

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sweden,  the  Netherlands  and  Croatia  –  are  selected  to 
represent  a  diversity  of  approaches  spanning  the  four 
quadrants  in  Figure  2.  Information  is  drawn  primarily  from 

the Eurydice report (2019), supplemented with other sources 
where available. 

Examples of how well-compensated childcare leave and ECEC interact in each category

Representative of Group 3 in the lower left-hand quadrant of Figure 2 (shaded in orange), Latvia offers 
a relatively short period of well-compensated childcare leave (16 weeks, comprised solely of maternity 
leave) but guarantees a place in ECEC early on in a child’s life (at 18 months of age). Municipalities in Latvia 
should ensure that all children from 18 months of age have access to a free place in the ECEC facility 
closest to their home.36 If such a place is not available, the municipality must cover some of the costs of childcare from 
a private service provider.37 Despite this offer, ECEC participation, particularly for children aged under 3, is lower than 
the EU average (28.4% compared to 34.2%38) and is variable across regions (e.g. difficulties with transportation lower 
attendance in rural areas).39 The legal entitlement to ECEC in Latvia does not stipulate a minimum number of hours, but 
the average number of childcare hours per week (38.9 hours per week for children aged under 3; 41.2 hours per week 
for children aged 3 and over) is one of the highest in the EU, and is commensurate with full-time employment.40

Offering a relatively long period of well-compensated childcare leave (over a year) and guaranteeing a place 
in ECEC early on in a child’s life (at 1 year of age), Sweden is representative of Group 1 in the lower right-
hand quadrant of Figure 2 (shaded in purple). Comprised of maternity (13 weeks), paternity (13 weeks) and 
parental leave (30 weeks), well-compensated childcare leave is paid at almost 80% of previous salary.41 90 
days of parental leave are reserved for the mother and father respectively (the mother’s quota and father’s quota) and 
cannot be transferred to the other parent.42 There is an overlap of around a month between well-compensated leave 
and a guaranteed ECEC place.43 Although an ECEC place is guaranteed from a young age (the municipality must provide 
a place if requested within 4 months), this is on a part-time basis (15 hours per week).44 Despite this, the average 
number of weekly hours attended is higher than the EU average (31.8 hours per week for children aged under 3, and 
35.2 for those aged 3 and over; the EU average is 27.4 and 29.5 hours respectively).45 Prior to 3 years of age, ECEC is 
heavily subsidised with fees capped at 3% of family income.46 Families with lower incomes or more children in ECEC 
pay reduced or no charges. ECEC is free of charge from 3 years of age and for younger children with special educational 
needs. Overall, 7% of the costs of a preschool place are financed through parent fees; the remaining 93% is paid by the 
municipality.47 Over half (52.7%) of children aged under 3 attend formal childcare – considerably higher than the EU 
average (34.2%).48 

Representative of Group 4 in the upper left-hand quadrant of Figure 2 (shaded in blue), the Netherlands 
offers a relatively short period of well-compensated leave (17 weeks, consisting of 16 weeks of maternity 
leave and 1 week of paternity leave) and guarantees a place in ECEC relatively late in a child’s life (at 5 
years of age, when attendance becomes compulsory). In 2020, the duration of well-compensated paternity 
leave was extended to 5 weeks.49 Whilst there is no legal framework guaranteeing an ECEC place prior to 5 years of 
age, there is financial support available for parents. Employees are reimbursed by their employer for a third of childcare 
costs for children under 12 (or a sixth of the cost if both parents are in employment), and the government pays an 
income-dependent subsidy.50 Families are offered a free place in ECEC from the child’s fourth birthday.51 Participation 
in ECEC for children aged 3 and under is high in the Netherlands compared to the EU average (61.6%, compared to 
34.2%52). However, the Netherlands stands out in having the lowest average hours of ECEC attendance of all Member 
States (16.7 hours for children aged under 3, compared to the EU average of 27.4; 21.6 hours for children aged three 
and over, compared to the EU average of 29.5) – the legal guarantee from 5 years of age does not stipulate a minimum 
number of hours. 53 

4

5

Croatia is representative of Group 2 in the upper right-hand quadrant of Figure 2 (shaded in green) since 
it offers a relatively long period of well-compensated childcare leave (61 weeks, comprised of 26 weeks 
of maternity leave and 35 weeks of parental leave), and guarantees a place in ECEC relatively late in a 
child’s life (at 6 years of age, at which point attendance is compulsory for a year prior to primary education). 
Maternity leave is compensated at 100% of previous earnings, and mothers must take a minimum of 70 days of leave 
after the birth.54 Although there is no statutory paternity leave, fathers can take parental leave compensated at 100% of 
previous earnings.55 Participation in formal childcare – particularly for younger children aged under 3 – is low (15.9% for 
children under the age of 3, compared to the EU average of 34.2%56). However, children who do attend formal childcare 
tend to do so on a full-time (or almost full-time) basis – the average number of weekly hours is 39.4 for children under 
3 and 35.3 hours for children aged 3 and over.57 There is no free childcare provision in Croatia, but fees are low58 and 
the cost of childcare is rarely cited as a reason for not making use of formal childcare services.59 However, the funding 
system is decentralised and childcare fees vary across regions. Some municipalities offer financial support to families 
whose children do not attend ECEC, which disincentivises participation.60 Low participation in ECEC has also been linked 
to a lack of childcare places – priority is given to families where both parents are working, which disadvantages families 
with one or more unemployed adults.61

An overview of policies to address the 
childcare gap 

This  section  presents  an  overview  of  research  into  policy 
decisions relating to childcare leave and ECEC, both of which 
can  reduce  the  childcare  gap.  The  literature  shows  that 
reducing the childcare gap is a complex issue: policy decisions 
must be reached by balancing likely benefits against potential 
disadvantages for children, parents, society and the economy. 

Extending or improving childcare leave 
This  section  presents  an  overview  of  the  evidence  on  the 
advantages and disadvantages of extending various forms 
of  childcare  leave  (studies  generally  focus  on  one  type  of 
leave rather than aggregate leave). 

Under the EU Maternity Leave Directive (92/85/EEC), women 
have the right to a minimum of 14 weeks of maternity leave 
(including both pre- and post-natal leave), of which at least 
2 weeks are compulsory. Evidence shows that longer spells 
of  maternity  leave  are  associated  with  improvements  in 

6

maternal  health62  and  longer  duration  of  breastfeeding.63 
Maternity leave promotes labour market attachment (since 
women  have  an  alternative  to  a  complete  withdrawal 
from the labour market when they have a child), but longer 
durations  of  leave  are  associated  with  reduced  earnings 
and slower career progression,64,65,66 which contribute to the 
gender pay gap67 and the ‘motherhood penalty’.68,69 

greater 

paternal 

promotes 

involvement 

Childcare  leave  for  fathers  (paternity  leave  or  shared 
parental leave) strengthens the father–child relationship70 
and 
in 
childrearing,71 leading to more gender equal co-parenting.72 
Increasing  the  uptake  of  paternity  and  parental  leave  by 
fathers to promote a more gender-equal sharing of caring 
responsibilities is a key objective of the new EU Directive 
on Work-Life Balance for Parents and Carers (2019/1158/
EU).73  The  Directive  needs  to  be  transposed  into  national 
legislation by 2022, and a number of Member States have 
enhanced  or  expanded  paternity  and/or  parental  leave  in 
recent years.74,75 

The overall weight of evidence supports offering paid leave 
for a period of several months and encouraging the use of 
leave  by  both  parents.  Recent  efforts  to  expand  childcare 
leave  in  EU  Member  States  have  more  often  focused  on 
paternity  leave  than  maternity  leave,76  perhaps  reflecting 
concerns about the impact of long spells of (maternity) leave 
on earnings and career progression, as well as the potential 
for fathers’ involvement in care to promote gender equality. 

Extending or improving ECEC provision 
For  children  aged  3  and  over,  attending  high-quality  formal 
childcare is associated with gains in cognitive, language and 
social  development.77  The  gains  are  greatest  for  children 
from  disadvantaged  backgrounds,78  meaning  that  ECEC  can 
enhance  life  chances  and  reduce  socio-economic  inequality 
as  assumed  by  the  Council  Recommendation  on  High-
Quality Early Childhood Education and Care Systems (2019/C 
189/02).79 Quality matters when it comes to ECEC – low-quality 
childcare  services  can  have  a  negative  impact  on  children’s 
development.80 Children from disadvantaged backgrounds are 
more likely to be cared for in low-quality settings,81 reinforcing 
the need to make ECEC quality a policy priority. 

Evidence  on  the  effect  of  ECEC  on  outcomes  for  children 
younger than 3 years of age is more mixed.82 Some studies 
identify negative social and emotional outcomes for younger 
children,  such  as  weaker  parent–child  attachment83  and 
behavioural issues,84,85 although other studies find positive86 
or null87 results. Positive effects on cognitive and language 
development  are  observed  for  younger  children  as  well 
as  older  children.88,89  There  are  also  wider  societal  and 
economic  outcomes  associated  with  ECEC.  Investment  in 
ECEC promotes female employment90 and gender equality, 

as outlined in the EU Gender Equality Strategy 2020–2025.91 
Higher employment and more gender-equal labour markets 
drive stronger, more inclusive economic growth.92 

There  could  be  scope  for  Member  States  to  reduce  the 
childcare gap by extending their guaranteed ECEC provision 
to  younger  children.  Evidence  on  the  relationship  between 
ECEC  and  child  development  outcomes  is  somewhat  more 
mixed  for  children  under  3  years  of  age,  but  overall  the 
weight  of  evidence  supports  the  extension  of  high-quality 
provision to children in this age group. However, there could 
be  trade-offs  between  different  factors,  such  as  investing 
in improving the quality of ECEC provision for older children 
relative to extending provision to younger children.

Challenges and opportunities in policy
Policies to address the childcare gap – whether by extending 
childcare  leave  or  ECEC  –  require  substantial  financial 
investment  that  could  be  difficult  for  some  Member  States. 
Particularly  in  the  context  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and 
its  profound  economic  impact,  Member  States  might  find 
it  difficult  to  mobilise  the  resources  needed  to  reduce  or 
eliminate the childcare gap. Moreover, there could be trade-
offs between investment in different areas, such as improving 
ECEC quality versus widening access. From a social investment 
perspective,93 investing in support for children and families – 
particularly ECEC94 – could pay off in the long run by improving 
child outcomes and increasing employment rates. In light of 
the economic devastation wreaked by COVID-19, the impact 
of which is expected to be profound and long-lasting,95 it is 
more important than ever to invest in policy areas that protect 
the  vulnerable,  reduce  inequality  and  generate  long-term 
returns to support future investment. 

6

7

Reflecting on the childcare gap: strengths, 
limitations and areas for further research 

This section reflects on the strengths, limitations and added 
value of the childcare gap as a concept, as well as the way 
in  which  the  concept  has  been  operationalised  in  existing 
studies. 

Rather than viewing the different policies that support children 
and  families  in  isolation,  the  concept  of  the  childcare 
gap  foregrounds  the  interaction  between  different 
elements of state support, and highlights the potential for 
families to ‘slip through the net’ if there are gaps in provision. 
Studies that operationalise the concept of the childcare gap 
and  provide  comparative  data  enable  comparisons  to  be 
drawn, helping Member States to learn from the experiences 
of  other  countries.  Presenting  comparative  data  on  the 
constituent components of the childcare gap (childcare leave 
and  ECEC)  facilitates  a  discussion  about  policies  to  reduce 
the gap, which was the focus of the previous section. 

In  order  to  operationalise  the  concept,  studies  must 
develop  specific  measures  to  estimate  the  childcare 
gap.  No  single  measure  is  perfect,  and  measures  of  the 
childcare  gap  are  no  exception.  Comparing  results  across 
different sources shows that estimates are to some extent 
sensitive  to  measurement  decisions,  such  as  whether  to 
focus on a legal guarantee of ECEC, and if so, how to define 
it. In some cases (Malta and Lithuania), the estimated length 
of  the  childcare  gap  varies  widely  across  sources  due  to 
methodological and measurement differences. Discrepancies 
such as these demonstrate that there is more to understand 
about  the  childcare  gap  than  can  be  revealed  by  a  single 
measure. The complexity of early years policy is highlighted 
by the in-depth focus on four Member States, which shows 
that a legal guarantee of ECEC is not always closely related 
to  levels  of  participation;  issues  of  access  –  availability  of 
places, cost and hours – are key. 

One  limitation  of  current  measures  is  that  they  do  not 
fully  account  for  the  difficulties  that  parents  might 
face  in  accessing  ECEC.  Even  when  the  legal  framework 
guarantees  a  place,  parents  might  still  struggle  to  access 
ECEC provision. In addition to a shortage  of places, access 
might  be  constrained  by  the  cost  and  available  hours  of 
childcare  provision.  Some  studies  focus  on  a  guaranteed, 
subsidised  place  in  ECEC;96  however,  parents  with  multiple 
children  –  particularly  those  from  low-income  households 
–  might  struggle  to  afford  a  subsidised  place.  Moreover, 
the  childcare  gap  as  operationalised  in  existing  literature 
does not reflect the number of hours of childcare offered to 
parents (some sources97 note when guaranteed provision is 
part-time rather than full-time). In most Member States, the 
number of guaranteed childcare hours falls below standard 

full-time working hours.98 This will disadvantage parents with 
multiple  children  and  those  from  low-income  households, 
for  whom  it  is  more  difficult  to  pay  for  additional  hours  of 
childcare. 

Rather than focusing on the childcare gap (singular), it 
might be appropriate to calculate a range of childcare 
gaps.  To  better  understand  difficulties  faced  by  some 
parents, the focus could shift to the length of time between 
adequately compensated childcare leave and a guaranteed, 
free place in ECEC. Only a small number of Member States 
offer guaranteed childcare hours, free of charge, for children 
aged 3 or younger.99 Another approach would be to focus on 
the  gap  between  adequately  compensated  childcare  leave 
and a free or subsidised full-time place in ECEC. This measure 
would  shed  light  on  barriers  to  full-time  employment,  an 
issue that has implications for gender equality, since women 
are  more  likely  than  men  to  reduce  their  working  hours  in 
response  to  parenthood.100  Only  two  Member  States  – 
Romania  and  Malta  –  offer  parents  30  or  more  hours  of 
free  childcare  per  week,  but  neither  country  guarantees  an 
ECEC  place  to  all  families,101  hence  by  some  estimates  a 
comparatively long childcare gap exists. This demonstrates 
the importance of taking into consideration a wider range of 
factors in estimating childcare gaps. 

Conclusion 

This  policy  memo  summarises  and  reflects  on  evidence 
regarding the childcare gap, defined as the period in which 
families  are  unable  to  benefit  from  well-compensated 
childcare 
leave  or  a  guaranteed  (or  otherwise  state 
supported)  place  in  ECEC.  There  is  wide  variation  across 
the  EU  in  the  childcare  gap:  some  Member  States  provide 
continuous  support  for  families  by  offering  a  guaranteed 
place  in  ECEC  at  the  same  time  as  (or  even  before)  the 
end of well-compensated childcare leave, whereas in other 
countries  there  is  a  relatively  long  period  of  time  in  which 
families  might  find  themselves  without  state  support. 
Member  States  could  look  to  reduce  the  childcare  gap  by 
extending childcare leave or ECEC provision. However, this is 
a complex policy area with competing pressures and trade-
offs; there is no clear or uniform ‘solution’. There is value in 
presenting comparative data on the childcare gap, as some 
studies  do,  to  illustrate  different  approaches  taken  across 
Member  States  and  highlight  possible  policy  solutions.  To 
advance  the  literature  and  build  on  the  existing  evidence, 
future  research  might  explore  the  gap  between  childcare 
leave and free and/or full-time ECEC provision. Rather than 
the childcare gap, in reality there are multiple childcare gaps, 
all deserving of research and policy attention.

8

Endnotes
1  Ellingsæter, A.L. and Gulbrandsen, L. 2007. ‘Closing 
the Childcare Gap: The Interaction of Childcare 
Provision and Mothers’ Agency in Norway’. Journal 
of Social Policy 36(4): 649–669. DOI: 10.1017/
S0047279407001225. 

2  Saraceno, C. 2011. ‘Childcare needs and childcare 

policies: A multidimensional issue’. Current Sociology 
59 (1): 78–96. DOI: 10.1177/0011392110385971.

3  Farstad, G. 2014. ‘Difference and equality: Icelandic 

parents’ division of parental leave within the context of 
a childcare gap’. Community, Work & Family. Published 
online. DOI: 10.1080/13668803.2014.965661.

4  Eydal, G.B. and Rostgaard, T. 2011. ‘Gender Equality 

Revisited – Changes in Nordic Childcare Policies in the 
2000s’. Social Policy & Administration 45: 161–179. 
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9515.2010.00762.x.

5  Blum, S., Koslowski, A., Macht, A. and Moss, P. 2018. 
‘14th International Review of Leave Policies and 
Related Research’. International Network on Leave 
Policies and Research. Retrieved 3 May 2020:  
https://www.leavenetwork.org/fileadmin/user_
upload/k_leavenetwork/annual_reviews/Leave_
Review_2018.pdf

6  Grunow, D. and Evertsson, M. (Eds). 2016. Couples’ 

transitions to parenthood: Analysing gender and work 
in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

7  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. 2019. ‘Key 
Data on Early Childhood Education and Care in 
Europe – 2019 Edition. Eurydice Report’. Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. 

8  Saraceno, C. 2011, 2011. ‘Childcare needs 
and childcare policies: A multidimensional 
issue.’ Current Sociology, 59 (1): 78–96. DOI: 
10.1177/0011392110385971op. cit.

9  Blum, S., Koslowski, A., Macht, A, and Moss, P et al. 
2018. , op. cit. ‘14th International Review of Leave 
Policies and Related Research’. International Network 
on Leave Policies and Research. Retrieved 3 May 2020:  
https://www.leavenetwork.org/fileadmin/user_
upload/k_leavenetwork/annual_reviews/Leave_
Review_2018.pdf

10  Saraceno (2011) focuses on ‘effective leave’ (duration 
of leave weighted according to compensation level), 
whereas Blum et al. (2018) and the Eurydice Report 
from the European Commission (2019) focus on leave 
compensated at a certain level of previous earnings 
(66% and 65% respectively). 

11  Blum et al. 2018, op. cit.; European Commission/EACEA/

Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

12  Saraceno 2011, op. cit.

13  The memo draws primarily on two sources: the 
Eurydice Report (2019) and Blum et al. (2018), 
because they offer more recent estimates than 
Saraceno (2011). 

14  Methodological differences between the two sources: 
(a) well-compensated leave is defined as 65% of 
previous earnings in the Eurydice report (2019) and 
66% in Blum et al. (2018); (b) leave estimates by 
Blum et al. (2018) include leave that may be taken 
concurrently (e.g. maternity and paternity leave), 
whereas this is not the case in the Eurydice report 
(2019); (c) both sources focus on a guaranteed place 
in ECEC, but the Eurydice report (2019) also stipulates 
that the place should be both subsidised and universal; 
(d) Blum et al. (2018) adjust the legal entitlement 
to ECEC in countries where this obligation is not met 
in practice, while the Eurydice report (2019) notes 
that this is the case in some countries but does not 
factor it into calculations; (e) Blum et al. (2018) do 
not calculate the childcare gap for countries where 
there is no ECEC entitlement, whereas in the Eurydice 
report (2019) this is measured according to the start of 
primary education; (f) Blum et al. (2018) do not provide 
regional estimates for BE and the UK.

15  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

16  Blum et al. 2018, op. cit.

17  Blum et al. 2018, op. cit.; European Commission/EACEA/

Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

18  Saraceno 2011, op. cit.

19  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

20  Saraceno 2011, op. cit.

21  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

22  In the case of Malta, ECEC entitlement is restricted to 
parents in full-time employment or education. Sources 
that focus on a universal legal guarantee (European 
Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.) do not 
count this. 

23  Blum et al. 2018, op. cit.; European Commission/EACEA/

Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

24  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

25  Blum et al. 2018, op. cit.

26  Estimates of well-compensated childcare leave for 
Slovakia range from none (Blum et al. 2018) to just 
over a year (in the Eurydice report, 2019). Elsewhere, 
Blum et al. estimate 6–6.5 months of well-paid 
maternity leave in Slovakia, although with a ceiling on 
earnings-related payment, which might be why this is 
not factored into estimates of the childcare gap. The 
Eurydice report (2019 – see Annex A) estimates 6.5 
months of well-compensated maternity leave and 
6.5 months of well-compensated paternity leave in 
Slovakia. 

27  As well as Hungary, Blum et al. (2018) class Romania 
and the Czech Republic as offering 2 years of well-
paid childcare leave (estimated as 1 and 1.2 years 
respectively in the Eurydice report, 2019). In the case 
of Romania, this appears to be due to a rule (treated 
differently in the two sources) stipulating that the 
amount of paid leave is reduced if the non-claiming 
parent does not take one month of leave in the first 
year. In the case of the Czech Republic, this could 

8

99

relate to reductions in the compensation level if 
parental leave is claimed over a period longer than 12 
months, and how this is treated in calculations.

55  Dobrotic 2018, op. cit. 

56  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

28  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

57  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

29  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

58  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

30  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

31  Blum et al. 2018, op. cit.

32  Blum et al. 2018, op. cit.

33  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

34  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

35  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

36  Pilipa, N. 2018. ‘Latvia country note’, in Blum et al. 

2018, op. cit.

37  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

38  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

39  OECD. 2016. ‘Early childhood education and care 
in Latvia’, in Education in Latvia, OECD Publishing, 
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264250628-5-en

40  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

41  Duvander, A. and Haas, L. 2018. ‘Sweden country note’, 

in Blum et al. 2018, op. cit.

42  Duvander and Haas 2018, op cit. 

43  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

44  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

45  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

46  Naumann, I., McLean, C., Koslowski, A., Tisdall, K. and 
Lloyd, E. 2013. ‘Early Childhood Education and Care 
Provision: International Review of Policy, Delivery 
and Funding’. Scottish Government Social Research. 
Retrieved 13 April 2020:  
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch

47  Naumann et al. 2013, op. cit.

48  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

49  Rijksoverheid. n.d. ‘Geboorteverlof voor partners’. 

Retrieved 19 October 2020:  
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/
geboorteverlof-en-partnerverlof/geboorteverlof-
voor-partners

50  Naumann et al. 2013, op. cit.

51  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

52  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

53  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

54  Dobrotic, I. 2018. ‘Croatia country note’, in Blum et al. 

2018, op. cit.

59  Eurostat database. 2016. ‘Main reason for not meeting 

needs for formal childcare services (ilc_ats04)’. 
Retrieved 15 July 2020:  
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?query 
=BOOKMARK_DS-887983_QID_5E826B1_UID_ 
-3F171EB0&layout=REASON,L,X,0;GEO,L,Y,0;TIME,C, 
Z,0;INCGRP,L,Z,1;HHTYP,L,Z,2;DEG_URB,L,Z,3;UNIT,L,Z, 
4;INDICATORS,C,Z,5;&zSelection=DS-887983DEG_ 
URB,TOTAL;DS-887983HHTYP,TOTAL;DS-887983IN 
CGRP,TOTAL;DS-887983UNIT,PC;DS-887983INDICA 
TORS,OBS_FLAG;DS-887983TIME,2016;&rankName 
1=HHTYP_1_2_-1_2&rankName2=TIME_1_0_- 
1_2&rankName3=UNIT_1_2_-1_2&rankName4= 
INDICATORS_1_2_-1_2&rankName5=INCGRP_1_2_ 
-1_2&rankName6=DEG-URB_1_2_-1_2&rankName 
7=REASON_1_2_0_0&rankName8=GEO_1_2_0_ 
1&rStp=&cStp=&rDCh=&cDCh=&rDM=true&cDM 
=true&footnes=false&empty=false&wai=false& 
time_mode=ROLLING&time_most_recent=true 
&lang=EN&cfo=%23%23%23%2C%23%23% 
23.%23%23%23

60  European Commission. 2019. ‘Education and Training 

Monitor 2019: Croatia’. Luxembourg: Publications Office 
of the European Union. 

61  European Commission 2019, op. cit.

62  Aitken, Z., Garrett, C. C., Hewitt, B., Keogh, L., Hocking, 
J.S. and Kavanagh, A. M. 2015. ‘The maternal health 
outcomes of paid maternity leave: A systematic review’. 
Social Science & Medicine 130: 32–41. DOI: 10.1016/j.
socscimed.2015.02.001.

63  Mirkovic K.R., Perrine C.G. & Scanlon K.S. 2016. ‘Paid 

maternity leave and breastfeeding outcomes’. Birth 43: 
233–239. DOI: 10.1111/birt.12230.

64  Jacobi, L., Wagner, H. and Frühwirth-Schnatter, S. 2016. 
‘Bayesian treatment effects models with variable 
selection for panel outcomes with an application 
to earnings effects of maternity leave’. Journal of 
Econometrics 193(1): 234–250. DOI: 10.1016/j.
jeconom.2016.01.005.

65  Strang, L. and Broeks, M. 2016. Maternity leave policies: 

trade-offs between labour market demands and 
health benefits for children. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND 
Corporation. Retrieved 30 March 2020:  
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1734.
html

66  Akgunduz, Y. E. & J. Plantenga. 2013. ‘Labour market 

effects of parental leave in Europe’. Cambridge Journal 
of Economics 37: 845–862.

67  Eurostat. 2020. ‘Gender Pay Gap Statistics’. Retrieved 

24 June 2020:  
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/
index.php/Gender_pay_gap_statistics#Gender_pay_
gap_levels_vary_significantly_across_EU

10

68  The motherhood penalty describes the pay gap 

between mothers and non-mothers (generally defined 
as women without dependent children). 

69  Grimshaw, D. and Rubery, J. 2015. The motherhood pay 
gap: A review of the issues, theory and international 
evidence. Working Paper No. 1. 2015. Geneva: 
International Labour Office. Retrieved 24 June 2020: 
https://eige.europa.eu/resources/wcms_371804.pdf.

70  O’Brien, M. & Wall, K. (Eds). 2017. Comparative 

Perspectives on Work-life Balance and Gender Equality. 
Fathers on leave alone. Springer Open. Retrieved 24 
June 2020:  
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%
2F978-3-319-42970-0

71  Petts, R.J. and Knoester, C. 2018. ‘Paternity Leave‐

Taking and Father Engagement’. Journal of Marriage 
and Family 80: 1144–1162. DOI: 10.1111/jomf.12494.

72  O’Brien & Wall 2017, op. cit.

73  Directive (EU) 2019/1158 of the European Parliament 
and of the council of 20 June 2019 on work-life 
balance for parents and carers and repealing Council 
Directive 2010/18/EU. Retrieved 3 May 2020:  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019L1158&from=EN

74  Blum et al. 2018, op. cit.

75  Bruckmayer, M., Picken, N. and Janta, B. Forthcoming. 
Developments in child and family policy in the EU 
– 2019. European Platform for Investing in Children: 
Annual thematic report. RAND. 

76  Bruckmayer et al. Forthcoming, op. cit. 

77  Melhuish, E.C., Ereky-Stevens, K., Petrogiannis, K., 

Ariescu, A., Penderi, E., Rentzou, K., Tawell, A., Slot, P., 
Broekhuizen, M., & Leserman, P. 2015. A review of 
research on the effects of early childhood education 
and care (ECEC) on child development. Oxford 
University Research Archive. Retrieved 24 June 2020:  
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:bb919f6f-cd43-
42d8-89ff-da525dc63554

78  Melhuish et al. 2015, op. cit.

79  COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION of 22 May 2019 on High-
Quality Early Childhood Education and Care Systems 
(2019/C 189/02). Retrieved 19 October 2020:  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
HTML/?uri=CELEX:32019H0605(01)

80  Melhuish et al. 2015, op. cit.

81  Ruzek, E., Burchinal, M., Farkas, G., & Duncan, G. J. 

(2014). ‘The quality of toddler childcare and cognitive 
skills at 24 months: Propensity score analysis results 
from the ECLS-B’. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 
29(1), 12–21.

82  Melhuish et al. 2015, op. cit.

83  NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 1999. 

‘Child care and mother–child interaction in the first 
three years of life’. Developmental Psychology 35(6), 
1399–1413. DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.35.6.1399.

84  Vandell, D. 2004. ‘Early child care: The known and the 
unknown’. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 50(3), 387–414.

85  Bradley, R.H., & Vandell, D.L. 2007. ‘Child care and 

the well-being of children’. Archives of Pediatrics and 
Adolescent Medicine 161(7), 669–676. DOI: 10.1001/
archpedi.161.7.669.

86  Linberg, A., Burghardt, L., Freund, J.D. and Weinert, S. 

2019. ‘Differential effect of duration of early childcare 
under the age of three on socio-emotional outcomes’. 
Published online: Early Child Development and Care. 
DOI: 10.1080/03004430.2019.1588891.

87  Friedman, S.L. & Boyle, D.E. 2008. ‘Attachment in US 

children experiencing nonmaternal care in the early 
1990s’. Attachment & Human Development 10(3), 
225–261.

88  Melhuish et al. 2015, op. cit.

89  Vandell 2004, op. cit. 

90  Christiansen, L., Lin, H., Pereira, J., Topalova, P. B., and 
Turk, R. 2016. Individual Choice or Policies? Drivers of 
Female Employment in Europe. IMF Working Paper 
WP/16/491.

91  European Commission. 2020. ‘Gender equality strategy’. 

Retrieved 19 October 2020:  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-
fundamental-rights/gender-equality/gender-equality-
strategy_en

92  OECD. 2014. ‘Achieving stronger growth by promoting 

a more gender-balanced economy. Report prepared for 
the G20 Labour and Employment Ministerial Meeting 
Melbourne, Australia, 10–11 September 2014’. 
Retrieved 24 June 2020:  
https://www.oecd.org/g20/topics/employment-
education-and-social-policies/ILO-IMF-OECD-WBG-
Achieving-stronger-growth-by-promoting-a-more-
gender-balanced-economy-G20.pdf

93  European Commission. 2013. ‘Towards Social 

Investment for Growth and Cohesion – Including 
Implementing the European Social Fund 2014–2020’, 
COM(2013) 83 final, Brussels: Commission of the 
European Communities. Retrieved 24 June 2020:  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/202419. The 
definition of social investment is as follows (page 3): 
‘Social investment involves strengthening people’s 
current and future capacities. In other words, as well 
[as] having immediate effects, social policies also have 
lasting impacts by offering economic and social returns 
over time, notably in terms of employment prospects or 
labour incomes’. 

94  West, A., Blome, A., and Lewis, J. 2019. ‘What 

characteristics of funding, provision and regulation are 
associated with effective social investment in ECEC 
in England, France and Germany?’ Published online: 
Journal of Social Policy.

95  Fernandes, N. 2020. ‘Economic Effects of Coronavirus 

Outbreak (COVID-19) on the World Economy’. Retrieved 
1 July 2020:  
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3557504 or http://dx.doi.
org/10.2139/ssrn.3557504

10

11

96  European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

97  Blum et al. 2018, op. cit.

98  Most Member States guarantee 20–29 hours of 
childcare per week. Some Member States (BG, 
HR, SE, UK) guarantee 20 hours or less and others 
guarantee 30 hours or more (CZ, DK, EE, SI). European 
Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

99  BE, ES, FR, LV, LU, HU, PL, SE, UK, LV. European 
Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit.

100 Grunow & Evertsson 2016, op. cit.

101 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2019, op. cit., 

page 55. 

Produced for the European Platform for Investing in Children (EPIC), September 2020. 
Authors: Madeline Nightingale and Barbara Janta  
Correspondence: epic@randeurope.org
This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the 
views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use 
which may be made of the information contained therein.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 
© European Union, 2020 
Cover image: © Adobe Stock
The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented by the 
Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission 
documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this 
document is authorised under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 
4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is 
allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated.

PDF ISBN: 978-92-76-25155-2 doi: 10.2767/228659 Catalogue number: KE-02-20-705-EN-N

12