Under the social investment paradigm, formal childcare services are heralded as being the policy instrument par excellence to combat social exclusion. However, it was shown that a Matthew effect (ME) in its use is present in almost all European countries: disadvantaged children are less likely to use childcare than more advantaged children. In this contribution we aim to uncover the cause of the ME by distinguishing between supply-side and demand-side explanations. This refers to constraints in the availability or affordability of childcare and to dominant cultural norms on motherhood. In doing so, we take due account of the role of employment. The results show that the ME in formal childcare cannot be explained by class differences in employment. Moreover, the ME is related to the supply-side and much less to the demand-side. Structural constraints in childcare provision matter everywhere and tend to limit the uptake of childcare, especially for disadvantaged children. In contrast, cultural norms on motherhood are a less important predictor of the ME in childcare use. This means that more investment in the provision of childcare services is necessary in order to achieve its ambitious policy goals.

In this article we critically assess the social investment perspective that has become the dominant paradigm in European social policymaking. We identify and discuss some of its shortcomings that may hamper social progress for all. In doing so, we focus on three pillars central to the idea of social investment: social inclusion through work, individual responsibility and human capital investment. We find that the social investment perspective has some serious flaws when it comes to the social protection of vulnerable groups. This is strongly related to the continuing relevance of social class in explaining and remedying social inequalities. We conclude that investment cannot be the only rationale for welfare state intervention and that protecting people should remain equally high on the policy agenda.

The main goal of this article is to unravel the social distribution of childcare policies: Who benefits from government investment in public childcare? The analysis complements earlier research on the distribution of social policy outcomes and confronts the growing concern over selectivity. By nature, childcare services tend to be used mainly by people in work, i.e. those in higher income brackets. Concern therefore arises about the consequences of increasing childcare budgets for the overall distribution of the benefits of social policy. This relates to the immediate outcome of social policy (net family income), but also to its increasingly central component: labour market participation. Indeed, if childcare actually benefits ‘labour market insiders’ only, one may wonder whether it is effective as an instrument activating mothers with young children. In this contribution, we look into the distributional impact of subsidized childcare for two countries (Flanders/Belgium and Sweden) already reaching the Barcelona targets for under 3s and interpret the results in a European perspective. Although both cases report high coverage rates, we find that Sweden and Flanders have different – even opposite – distributional outcomes. Both examples provide us with valuable lessons on the redistributive nature of ‘new risk policies’ and the effectiveness of childcare as an instrument of labour market activation.

Childcare services are increasingly regarded a major policy lever to combat social inequalities in early life. Yet, it was shown that inequality in the use of childcare services is the norm rather than the exception in European and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. As a result, social inequalities between disadvantaged and advantaged children are likely to be reinforced instead of being narrowed. The aim of this article is to conduct a macro-level analysis exploring which welfare state characteristics are associated with inequality in childcare use. We find that government involvement in the availability, affordability and quality of service provision is related to lower levels of inequality in childcare use. The results also suggest an impact of labour market opportunities and parental leave schemes. The findings contribute to a proper understanding of the institutional mechanisms underlying inequality in childcare service use.