In the Spain Spain has managed to get at the vanguard of the OECD in paternity permits. It has been a progressive but determined increase, and (rarity to celebrate in the times that run) pushed from several points of the parliamentary arch. In 2018, the PP would access Citizens to extend the permission of two to five weeks. And, after the motion of censure, the PSOE would approve a calendar calendar: eight weeks in 2019, twelve in 2020 and sixteen in 2021.
It is true that parents in other places have more available weeks on paper, but the Spanish particularity is that it reserves 16 weeks exclusive to them. This policy was due to a double reason. On the one hand, facilitate access to time with their newborns to men. On the other, when making the 16 weeks not transferable, increasing equality in the labor market equalizing home care: the idea (backed by evidence) was that the penalty in their careers that women tend to pay for motherhood at least reduce in what comes after childbirth.
That Spain has put in front on this combined front of equality and care does not remove to continue advancing. Apparently, this is what motivates the recent increase in permits to 17 weeks, in addition to two weeks up to eight years and move to 32 for monomarental families, something that places the country in the high band of Europe.
However, it is worth planting if there are no other levers for this to which we have dedicated less attention and that keep this same double potential. And they do not go through the home as much as the school, or through the centers of education and care in general.
The most obvious is that of education 0-3. Here Spain is not at the forefront, although in the percentage indicator of children under 3 years that spend at least a few hours of their week in some center belongs to the group that is above the EU average.
It is true that most do less than 30 hours. Something that probably has its relationship with the high incidence of involuntary part -time between women in Spain. And it is that the availability of centers for minors of 3 is a splendid mechanism to close gender gaps in the labor market, precisely because most of the time destined for care still falls to women. To this are added the positive effects that they would have on the creatures themselves, or to improve social fabric in the neighborhoods. Here it is important to note that although the total percentage of coverage is not low, the fundamental thing is to understand who we already cover who does not. Territorially, there are indications that in large cities the waiting lists of public centers are long (and if there is waiting list, there is demand to cover). By income, the improvement in the last years of coverage comes mostly from the homes that earn less, excellent news that should encourage us to continue working in that direction (where there is a gap still to close).
All this with a percentage of GDP dedicated to Early Childhood Education that has remained stable in recent times. This suggests that it can be done a lot with not much (also because the total number of minors of a certain age descends in Spain by the demographic decline, giving us an interesting per capita dividend). But the international comparison of this indicator also indicates that, marking other expenditure priorities, there would be room to grow.
But not only at the early ages are care. The paid permits until the age of eight accept it, but perhaps we should consider other fronts in which Spain has not only won ground, but perhaps it has lost it in recent times. The consolidation of the morning day instead of full day in multiple public educational centers attests to it. This is not a neutral policy. And not only for students, but also for their mothers: Marta Ferrero, Lucas Gortázar and Ángel Martínez have demonstrated it with clear numbers: in comparison, mothers with children in a continuous day and without access to additional care hired at home stop winning, on average, 1,850 euros gross
All this also occurs in a context in which the percentage of households with material lack expressed in the difficulty in having at least one meal every two days with meat or fish has been growing: and has done it especially in homes with children; especially single -parent.
This increase cannot be linked to the change of day, but of course it will not help to reverse it. Third sector entities that have been working on this problem for years point out that policies that favor access to food in schools serve to alleviate this dimension of vital precariousness. An issue that I bring up because it emphasizes how we can do policies that are both of conciliation and fight against poverty. Any extension of school schedules, even if it does not include dining room, it is likely to end up resulting in benefits for the most vulnerable families: departure, extended, tutorials … we have to choose.
It may be surprised to see all these policies together when they do not obey the same competence: neither by issues nor by administration levels. But to the motivation to facilitate conciliation while promoting equality, to improve the lives of children’s families to mothers and fathers, and do so especially for those who need it most. It is not, but to recover the impulse we have already taken with the permits, but now with another path, that follows. More arduous (precisely because of the varied areas and the complex to implement), but also, reached to this point, more necessary.
