The starting point for this study was three countries each taking the same step, moving responsibility in national government for a group of services for children from one department, namely, welfare, to another, namely, education. Yet, despite this initial similarity, what has proved more striking is the differences between the countries, in the measures taken before and after this act of transfer and in the meaning of the act itself. We have found differences in the structuring of services and the workforce, in the principles of provision, and in underlying concepts and understandings. Transfer in one case was an important step in a long-term process of educational reform. In the other cases it was a subsidiary measure in a broader process of creating more ‘childcare’ services and better coordinated relations between disparate services.

The cross-national differences we have documented are important in their own right, irrespective of what they mean for children. For they show the continuing influence of the nation state even at a time of increasing global capital flows and economic competition. The nation state may have been ‘hollowed out’ in some respects, losing power over important areas, especially economic. But our cases show that it remains strong in determining social arrangements. Tradition, culture and values still coalesce to create different responses to similar developments, in our cases including the increased policy importance of maternal employment and children’s education. Herein lies the importance of the concept of welfare regime. This combination of typical ways of thinking, acting and allocating responsibility has provided one way of explaining differences between our countries as well as continuities within nations through periods of change.

What seems clear is that the Nordic welfare regime, as practised in Sweden, has worked rather well, at least in the pedagogic and educational areas we have studied, and at least in comparison with the liberal welfare regime exemplified by England and Scotland. Despite having to weather a harsh recession, Sweden has kept poverty and inequality far lower; a strong system of parental leave entitlements has been put in place; and accessible and affordable ‘childcare’ services have been built up to the point where they can now be offered as a universal right.