Negotiating the value of “corporations’ capital” in Norwegian Early Childhood Education and Care provision

Abstract

In this article I investigate how corporate Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) providers negotiate their position by contributing to a national ECEC policy development process. I discuss how their political engagement connects to changes in the institutional arrangements of the ECEC sector. The ECEC provider corporations' written responses to a policy consulting process are obtained and analyzed in light of Bourdieu-inspired theories of institutonalized organizational fields. The proposed new regulations are both countered and reframed in their responses. Providers with corporate organizational structures in unison call for for firmer national guidelines on ECEC centre quality and funding. I interpret their responses as attempts to increase the relevance of 'corporations' capital' over the raditional, local network embedded capital forms in quality ECEC provision. At this juncture, the corporate providers failed to shift competence from municipalities to national ECEC authorities The following parliamentary debate illuminates how non-profit provision in corporate organizational structures may appeal to left-wing parties rejecting commercial welfare provisions. A subgroup of for-profit corporate providers emphasizes sector cost-efficiency, connecting strongly to right-wing politicians' ambitions to limit public spending. Corporate providers hence represent an impetus for institutional change, able to build allies across the whole left-right spectre of politics.

Privatization and Coercive Isomorphic Pressure in Norwegian Early Childhood Education and Care (1987-2020)

“…Corporate providers have the resources to develop their own ECEC quality systems and standards (Børhaug 2018, p. 78;Dahle 2020), as well as the political means to monitor and influence the development of national ECEC policy (Haugset 2021a). However, they must also front up in the face of doubts about their mission and existential legitimacy, thus requiring them to provide continuous reassurances about their commitment to enhancing and levelling up ECEC quality.…”

“…However, they must also front up in the face of doubts about their mission and existential legitimacy, thus requiring them to provide continuous reassurances about their commitment to enhancing and levelling up ECEC quality. Recent research indicates that in their attempts to achieve more robust quality standards, nationwide norms for private ECEC centre funding, and sustained or enhanced scope for private providers, the provider corporations continue to focus their arguments on the enhancement and levelling up of ECEC quality (Haugset 2021a).…”

“…It is interesting to note that the field legitimacy maintenance strategies employed by smaller private ECEC providers appear to lean heavily on the freedom exercised by municipalities to guide, supervise and adapt the local ECEC quality enhancement initiatives (Haugset 2021b) that the corporate providers are striving to diminish (Haugset 2021a). The tensions that this situation brings about are likely to fuel more gradual institutional change processes, stimulating the mobilisation of both change agents and defenders of the status quo with their differing stances and resources (Mahoney and Thelen 2009).…”

“…Such proposals clearly resonate with the private provider values and capacity field legitimacy challenges discussed above. The principle of equal treatment for all public and private providers is, however, keenly defended by the corporate ECEC providers (Haugset 2021a).…”