When the poet William Wordsworth declared that “the Child is father of the Man”, he meant that the gifts of childhood endow adults with some of their finest qualities. These days many governments feel the path to happiness for society as a whole lies through spending on the welfare of its youngest members: their health, education and general well-being. A report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a rich-country think-tank, scrutinises these efforts and asks if the aim is being achieved.
With its stress on quantifiable facts, the OECD report differs from a 2007 Unicef study which made waves by saying children in Britain did badly. Unicef relied too much on asking youngsters how they felt — did they have “kind and helpful” schoolmates — while the new study stresses objective things like vaccinations and test scores.
The report indicates that some kinds of spending on children do work, but many should be improved or scrapped. No country gets it all right, though some (like the Nordic ones) do better in general than others (notably, America). Government spending per child varies a lot, as do outcomes, but the correlation between spending and results is not strong.
Hard-pressed parents are not the only ones doling out money to their children: taxpayers foot a hefty bill too. The study says that in 2003, OECD governments spent an average of $126,000 (Rs.63 lakh) per child (excluding health) up to the age of 18. Some of this money went directly to families in the form of cash benefits and tax credits. Governments also spent heavily on indirect or in-kind provisions like schools and child care. With big variations, on the whole governments spent more money on older children than on under-fives.
Children’s lobbies always want more funds, but the OECD report suggests that more money does not reliably yield better results. America has one of the highest levels of spending per child, and among the worst outcomes. In contrast, says Dominic Richardson, an author of the report, Australia spends less, with better outcomes.
Why does high-spending America fare badly? One explanation is the lack of universal health insurance and the inadequacy of provisions for child health. But American children also fare worse than their European peers in other areas like education and living standards. Over a fifth of American children live in relatively poor households, earning less than half the national average household income of $50,233 (Rs.24.5 lakh).
Though the report exposes some unflattering things about America, the critique is even-handed and empirical, and comes to some clear conclusions. For example, conditional cash transfers like grants for mothers who get a prenatal screening, or child tax credits, are hailed as a way to nudge poorer families towards better health care for children. The study also urges a shift in spending from teenage years to the prenatal period and early childhood.
The OECD report offers many insights into how and why child welfare varies and what the state can do. It does not, however, settle the argument over what role the state should have in nurturing the young.
(Excerpted and adapted from The Economist)