Introduction

Childcare markets in high income countries are subject to some kind of external intervention, in the form of regulation, tax credits, subsidies, data collection and monitoring. The chapters in this book describe many such interventions, from weak demand-led interventions to very strong regulatory controls and high supply-led public subsidies. But some childcare markets are ‘raw’ markets, a term that I have coined to describe a situation where there is minimal or no government intervention of any kind. Examples of raw markets are commonly found in low-income countries where there are no curbs or controls on childcare entrepreneurial activities (ADEA, 2004). In raw childcare markets there is no routine information collected, no regulation and no subsidy. These circumstances exist for a variety of interconnected reasons: lack of government finance for early education and care; low prioritisation and lack of expertise within government; or more disabling still, weak or dysfunctional government or a history of national conflict. In the case of post-socialist countries it may be because the government, having once provided an entirely state-led system of ECEC, has found it difficult to consider how markets might operate and what legislation or regulation might be necessary, and entrepreneurs themselves are unsure of their rights and powers (Mandel and Humphrey, 2002). In this case I use the expression ‘emerging markets’ to describe the process of transition from state services to a mixed economy of childcare.

In this chapter I consider examples of childcare markets, both in low income countries, and in post-socialist countries, where there is little or no government intervention. I explore the consequences of these raw or emerging markets, for parents and for entrepreneurs themselves. First I discuss the example of Namibia, as an example of an African childcare market where there is no intervention. Then I discuss some examples of childcare markets in post-socialist countries. These examples are of interest because one of the claims for early childhood education and care is that such services can promote equity. They are supposed to enhance children's long-term chances of becoming productive adults as well as improve their more short-term opportunities in achieving good school outcomes (UNESCO, 2007).