ABSTRACT
Nationally, tinkering with markets rather than re-establishing clarity in standards and purpose may be said to derive from political and legal expediency. The rationale for intervention should be that the benefit (the welfare of the child) outweighs the costs (restriction upon the number of places locally and nationally available). Intervention is based entirely upon the shortcomings of the market (ie that it would otherwise exploit working mothers by providing day care facilities that may be substandard). Regulation will inevitably reduce numbers if they are to have any meaning. Markets express the relationship between price, costs and supply. Intervention through regulation will automatically alter this equation. Moss (1991 p 84) maintains that:
‘The Government want to see the market provide diversity, choice and good quality ... The clear objective ... is to encourage a market in under fives’ services, paid for by parents (sometimes with the support of employers) and only diluted by a limited amount of state nursery education and very small quantities of public day care for children “in need” ... issues of access, equality, and segregation receive no attention ... childminding has (also) received official support ... (because of) ... low cost and flexibility.’ It could be argued that if the market were perfect in protecting the welfare
of the child, demand for quality child care would automatically insist upon a quality product. As this is patently not the case in the evidence we have explored, the rationale and basis of that intervention should be examined.
