The exclusionary side of (women’s) social citizenship in Southeastern Europe: childcare policy development in Bosnia-Herzegovina and gender, social and territorial inequalities

Abstract

The article explores the shifts in (women's) social citizenship in Bosnia-Herzegovina and its effect on the development of childcare policy in the 1945-2019 period. Gendered, selective childcare policy, which was inherent in the socialist notion of social citizenship and aimed to emancipate women as 'workermothers', deteriorated in the transition period when ethnicity became prioritised over gender and class. Exclusionary citizenship practices increased with the post-1990 reforms as gender and social inequalities incorporated in childcare policy design become intertwined with inequalities based on ethnicity and/or locality. The post-1990 period is characterised by discontinuity, retrenchment and weak implementation of childcare-related rights.

The (in)equality dynamic of childcare-related policy development in post-Yugoslav countries

“…Also, ECEC affordability did not improve, rather, Montenegro (in 2016) and Serbia (in 2017) abolished the state-defined ECEC affordability mechanisms (Table 1), opening space for greater providers' autonomy in defining (higher) parental fees and possible deepening of class and territorial inequalities in ECEC affordability. Providers' autonomy in determining parental fees remains in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia, primarily affecting low-income mothers in less developed (typically rural) areas where fees are typically higher (Dobrotić et al, 2018;Dobrotić and Obradović, 2020). Instead of investments in ECEC with the transition, the other four PYCs started to prioritize reforms aiming to support familial (that is, women's) care in the early parenting phase.…”

“…In addition, ECEC services remained underdeveloped, limiting female employment. For example, in 1990, less than one-tenth of children aged 3–6 participated in ECEC in Bosnia-Herzegovina, around one-quarter in Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro and 55.7% in Slovenia, much less than 75.2% in Czechia or 85.3% in Hungary (Dobrotić and Obradović, 2020; Zrinščak, 2002). Enrolment rates also varied within countries, with more developed (typically urban) areas performing better (Stropnik, 1989), thus limiting affordable ECEC to employees in more developed areas, and dual-earners were prioritized through preferential enrolment criteria (Dobrotić, 2019; Savezna skupština, 1966).…”

“…Notes: ‘ Well-paid ’ leave indicates leave paid at least 80% of previous earnings whereby leave months with a ceiling lower than two average salaries are excluded (see Gornick and Meyers, 2003; Javornik and Kurowska, 2018); ‘ Fathers-only ’ leave refers to an individual, nontransferable father’s entitlement (that is, fathers’ quotas, paternity leave); ‘ Child’s age at ECEC entitlement ’ refers to child’s age when ECEC place in a regular programme is guaranteed; short pre-school programmes in a year before entering primary school at the age of 6/7 are excluded: 150–250 h in Croatia (since 2014); 3 h per day in Montenegro (since 2011); 4 h per day for 9 months in Serbia (since 2009); 240 h in Slovenia (since 2018); regional variations in Bosnia-Herzegovina (see Eurydice, 2019a); ‘ Childcare gap ’ refers to the difference between the child’s age at the end of well-paid leave and the beginning of ECEC entitlement (or age of starting primary school if there is no ECEC entitlement).1=to ensure data comparability across time and countries, TransMonee data are used if not stated differently; 2=estimation for 0–6 based on Federal Bureau of Statistics data; 3=data refer to 2017, for Bosnia-Herzegovina to Dobrotić and Obradović (2020) data; 4=entitlements varies across regions and employment sectors; 5=state-level defined criteria give priority to children in need; however, implementation varies across regions; 6=state-level defined criteria clearly define priority groups together with the admission point system (since 2012).Source: Dobrotić (2019); TransMonEE (2019).…”

“…1=to ensure data comparability across time and countries, TransMonee data are used if not stated differently; 2=estimation for 0–6 based on Federal Bureau of Statistics data; 3=data refer to 2017, for Bosnia-Herzegovina to Dobrotić and Obradović (2020) data; 4=entitlements varies across regions and employment sectors; 5=state-level defined criteria give priority to children in need; however, implementation varies across regions; 6=state-level defined criteria clearly define priority groups together with the admission point system (since 2012).…”

“…More precisely, after maternity benefits in Bosnia-Herzegovina were decentralized in the late 1990s, they were paid continuously in only a few geographical areas. 11 In others, maternity benefits were possibly provided through collective agreements, typical for the public but not the private sector, resulting in inequalities in access to leave benefits (and their scope) based on locality and occupational status (Dobrotić and Obradović, 2020). In Croatia, reforms – the 1997 transformation of earnings-related childcare (future parental) benefit into a flat-rate benefit and a low ceiling set on maternity benefits (in the 1993–2008 period) – protected low- but not middle-earners as did Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia.…”