Brace yourself if you are a parent, because I am about to tell you something shocking: Families pay nothing for childcare in Berlin. That is right, daycare is free for all kids from age one until they start school at six.
Universal, low-cost early-years education might seem a pipe dream to those spending more on this essential service than on rent, but it need not be.
The independent, nonprofit kita or daycare my daughter attended is open from 8am to 5:30pm, five days a week, meaning her parents could both work full time. A handful of doting staff was responsible for about 25 children; my daughter adored going there and was soon speaking German fluently.
Illustration: Louise Ting
Free supervision continues now at primary school, where breakfast, afterschool and vacation clubs, called hort, are all provided at no cost. Not having to worry about who would look after her or how we would pay is an incredible privilege — one I think your family should enjoy too.
Of course, the Berlin system is not perfect — it can be difficult to find an available spot, and employees at the minority of facilities run by the state recently went on strike for better working conditions, for example.
The city-state also remains an outlier in Germany, where since 2013 all children have been guaranteed a daycare place from age one, but costs and the quality of provision vary widely.
Nevertheless, Berlin’s boldness is helping reframe the way childcare is viewed by society; rather than being a private commodity, it is shared infrastructure every bit as essential as libraries and parks. The idea is catching on: All children in Portugal born since 2021 are to be offered free daycare, for instance.
These policies sound radical, but kids in advanced economies attend primary school for free, so why not before? Relying on a tribe of near-relations to help is no longer realistic for many folks.
Affordable care for parents benefits us all by allowing mothers to stay in the workforce, which is even more important in places affected by shrinking working-age populations, such as Germany. Their kids also develop important social and cognitive skills.
Largely market-driven childcare systems such as those in the US and the UK have been a disaster. Daycare centers charge massive fees, but operate on razor-thin margins. High staffing is required to ensure quality care, but governments do not provide enough financial support.
The good news is politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are finally taking this crisis more seriously. As a dual national, I have been delighted to see England edge closer to the Berlin model, albeit with significant caveats.
From next year, working parents in England are set to receive 30 hours a week of free childcare during term time, from nine months until their children start school. That is welcome news considering a full-time nursery place for under-twos costs an average of nearly ￡15,000 (US$19,379) — and far more in London. (Previously, only working parents of three and four-year-olds were eligible for 30 free hours.)
This is expected to double the childcare entitlements budget to ￡8 billion by 2028, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said, meaning the government would pay for roughly 80 percent of preschool care in England, compared with 50 percent currently (based on existing use patterns).
The policy was one of the most radical of the last Conservative government, yet there remain big questions about whether the funding is sufficient. If it is not, centers would either close or find ways to charge more for non-funded hours and sundry items. This is why some on the left have characterized the Conservatives’ parting gift as a “trap.” However, I think Labour should not only honor the policy, it should push for an even more comprehensive plan.
Regrettably US President Joe Biden was unable to deliver free public preschool for three and four-year-olds, and cap other childcare expenses at 7 percent of household income for all but the wealthiest families. In the meantime, COVID-19-era daycare subsidies have expired.
Happily, states are filling the gap: Kudos to California for following in New York’s footsteps and rolling out universal preschool for four-year-olds.
Of course, governments must not neglect supply-side incentives to ensure the number of workers and facilities match rising demand — England’s ￡1,000 bonus for new recruits might not suffice. Expanding free hours too hastily could backfire by causing quality to suffer: Berlin began gradually reducing fees about a decade before they were abolished in 2018.
Budgetary constraints might necessitate more affluent families paying at least a token amount. In France for example, fees for children up to age two who attend a creche or a nursery are means-tested (subject to a cap, while from age three nursery is mandatory and free).
Sweden caps childcare expenses at just 3 percent of income for the first child (with a hard cap of 1,572 kroner (US$147) a month in 2022) and a progressively lower percentage burden for subsequent children.
However, policymakers should avoid too much complexity: In England, parents earning more than ￡100,000 are not entitled to additional funds, creating a perverse incentive to earn less. Similarly, denying funding to parents who are not working is wrong, because disadvantaged children stand to benefit most from daycare.
This might all sound daunting, but the US provided universal childcare during World War II when women were needed in the labor force to help defeat the Nazis. Eight decades later, the German capital is leading the way.
Chris Bryant is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering industrial companies in Europe. Previously, he was a reporter for the Financial Times.
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS