Ruhm Christopher J
University of Virginia, USA.
Future Child. 2011 Fall;21(2):37-68. doi: 10.1353/foc.2011.0015.
The struggle to balance work responsibilities with family obligations may be most difficult for working parents of the youngest children, those five and under. Any policy changes designed to ease the difficulties for these families are likely to be controversial, requiring a careful effort to weigh both the costs and benefits of possible interventions while respecting diverse and at times conflicting American values. In this article, Christopher Ruhm looks at two potential interventions-parental leave and early childhood education and care (ECEC)-comparing differences in policies in the United States, Canada, and several European nations and assessing their consequences for important parent and child outcomes. By and large, Canadian and European policies are more generous than those in the United States, with most women eligible for paid maternity leave, which in a few countries can last for three years or more. Many of these countries also provide for paid leave that can be used by either the mother or the father. And in many European countries ECEC programs are nearly universal after the child reaches a certain age. In the United States, parental leave, if it is available, is usually short and unpaid, and ECEC is generally regarded as a private responsibility of parents, although some federal programs help defray costs of care and preschool education. Ruhm notes that research on the effects of differences in policies is not completely conclusive, in part because of the difficulty of isolating consequences of leave and ECEC policies from other influences on employment and children's outcomes. But, he says, the comparative evidence does suggest desirable directions for future policy in the United States. Policies establishing rights to short parental leaves increase time at home with infants and slightly improve the job continuity of mothers, with small, but positive, long-run consequences for mothers and children. Therefore, Ruhm indicates that moderate extensions of existing U.S. leave entitlements (up to several months in duration) make sense. He also suggests that some form of paid leave would facilitate its use, particularly among less advantaged parents, and that efforts to improve the quality of ECEC, while maintaining or enhancing affordability, are desirable.
对于家中有五岁及以下幼儿的在职父母来说，努力平衡工作职责和家庭义务可能最为困难。任何旨在减轻这些家庭困难的政策变化都可能引发争议，需要谨慎权衡可能干预措施的成本和收益，同时尊重多样且有时相互冲突的美国价值观。在本文中，克里斯托弗·鲁姆探讨了两种潜在的干预措施——育儿假和幼儿教育与照料（ECEC），比较了美国、加拿大和几个欧洲国家政策的差异，并评估了它们对重要的父母和子女成果的影响。总体而言，加拿大和欧洲的政策比美国更为宽松，大多数女性有资格享受带薪产假，在一些国家，带薪产假可持续三年或更长时间。这些国家中的许多还提供父母双方均可使用的带薪假。在许多欧洲国家，孩子达到一定年龄后，ECEC项目几乎普及。在美国，育儿假即使有也通常很短且无薪，ECEC一般被视为父母的个人责任，尽管一些联邦项目有助于支付照料和学前教育的费用。鲁姆指出，关于政策差异影响的研究并不完全具有决定性，部分原因是难以将产假和ECEC政策的后果与对就业和儿童成果的其他影响因素区分开来。但是，他说，比较证据确实为美国未来的政策指明了可取的方向。确立短期育儿假权利的政策增加了与婴儿相处的时间，并略微提高了母亲的工作连续性，对母亲和孩子有虽小但积极的长期影响。因此，鲁姆表示，适度延长美国现有的休假权利（长达数月）是有意义的。他还建议某种形式的带薪假将便于其使用，尤其是对处境较差的父母而言，并且在保持或提高可承受性的同时努力提高ECEC的质量是可取之举。
