Understanding the Disparities in Formal Childcare Uptake Among Migrants in Europe and Australia

This blog post is based on an article published in the Journal of Social Policy by Jonas Wood.

In an era marked by population aging, labour shortages, and high pension costs, formal childcare offers numerous potential benefits. It supports parental employment, which in turn might reduce welfare dependency and poverty risks. Additionally, it can stimulate household gender equality, support the realisation of fertility intentions, and contribute to family satisfaction. For young children, formal childcare is believed to promote cognitive development, laying the foundation for future educational and economic success. Despite these benefits, disparities in formal childcare uptake persist, with widely documented differentials by socio-economic class (e.g. level of education and income), but also depending on parents’ migration background, creating challenges for policymakers aiming to ensure equal access to these services.

This post explores a study that investigates the question: To what extent can differences in formal childcare uptake between natives without a migration background, migrants, and migrants’ descendants be explained by household characteristics, socio-economic status, employment, and work-family attitudes in Europe and Australia? The study compares data from seven countries and reveals key insights into why migrants and their descendants (i.e. the so-called “second generation”) tend to use formal childcare less frequently than natives.

Differences in Formal Childcare Uptake

The study highlights significant disparities in formal childcare usage, particularly for first-generation migrants. In most countries examined, first-generation migrants show lower uptake of formal childcare, except in Sweden. This result resonates with previous cross-national research on socio-economic differentiation in formal childcare uptake, finding the weakest to virtually non-existent gradients in Sweden. For the descendants of migrants, the gap in formal childcare uptake compared to natives without a migration background is generally weaker. However, there are still notable differences, particularly in Belgium. 

There is no one dominant underlying explanation

When looking at the reasons behind the differences in formal childcare use between ethnic groups, there isn’t one clear factor that explains the lower uptake by migrants. However, several factors combined help explain why migrants and their descendants are less likely to use formal childcare services. These include demographic characteristics, socio-economic status, employment prospects, and attitudes towards maternal employment.

For example, when we take into account people’s demographic characteristics—such as age, family size, and other factors—the gap in childcare use between first-generation migrants and natives becomes smaller. Socio-economic status also plays a big role. Migrants tend to have lower levels of education and homeownership, and research shows that families with higher education and those who own their homes are more likely to use formal childcare services.

Employment potential is another key factor. Migrants often have lower employment prospects, which means they are less likely to need or use formal childcare. Across different countries, employment opportunities seem to explain the gap in childcare usage more than any other factor. Finally, attitudes towards maternal employment—how much people believe mothers should work outside the home—also affect childcare use. Migrants tend to have less progressive views on this, and when we account for these attitudes, the gap in childcare use between migrants and natives becomes smaller.

Cross-National Variation and Policy Contexts

Our findings also suggest that cross-national differences in formal childcare systems play a significant role. In Sweden, where formal childcare is widely accessible and designed to meet demand, there is no significant negative differential in childcare use for migrants, despite relatively large employment gaps between natives and migrants. In contrast, countries like Belgium, Germany, and France, where employment disparities for migrants are more pronounced, also show the most significant negative gradients in formal childcare uptake. These findings align with available research highlighting the importance of socio-economic position and employment as explanations for differential formal childcare uptake by migration background in Belgium and France. We find more limited gradients in Austria, Australia and Russia, which are also countries with more limited differences in labour market outcomes. This suggests that both the design of childcare systems and broader labour market inequalities contribute to varying levels of access to childcare across migrant groups.

Conclusion: Addressing Disparities in Formal Childcare Uptake

In conclusion, this study documents clear disparities in formal childcare uptake by migration background, and further research using larger data to distinguish between different origin groups should be encouraged. Furthermore, in contrast to stereotypical monocausal explanations for the under-representation of the children of migrants and their descendants in formal childcare which are still present in the wider debate concerning integration and social inclusion, this study indicates that there is no one dominant underlying explanation for differences in formal childcare uptake.

Consequently, to reduce these disparities, policymakers need to consider both the socio-economic challenges faced by migrants, potential differential perceptions of formal childcare, and the structural features of childcare systems. Universal access to affordable, high-quality childcare services—combined with policies that promote labour market integration for migrants—can help ensure that all families, regardless of their background, can benefit from the advantages of formal childcare. By addressing the underlying causes of unequal uptake, we can move toward a more inclusive society where the benefits of formal childcare are available to everyone.

---

Reference

Wood J. Differential formal childcare uptake amongst migrants and their descendants in Europe and Australia: the role of socio-economic status, employment and work–family attitudes. Journal of Social Policy. Published online 2025:1-22. DOI: 10.1017/S004727942500008X.

About the author

Jonas Wood is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Antwerp, Belgium.