Article The business of care: Marketization and the new geographies of childcare Aisling Gallagher Massey University, New Zealand Abstract The aim of this article is to outline a geographical research agenda for studying the marketization of childcare in Western neoliberal contexts. While childcare has been a key site of interrogation for feminist geographers, highlighting the profound inequities of marketized care for many who work in and use childcare, the contours of the childcare market as a situated and constructed economic entity has remained under-examined. I suggest that at a time when more families than ever rely on extra-familial childcare, an appreciation of how childcare markets function is urgently needed. Keywords childcare, markets, neoliberalization, welfare reform, women’s work I Introduction The delivery of care,1 as a key pillar of the welfare system, has undergone profound change in the last 20 years. Characterized in many con- texts as the move towards neoliberal and third way approaches to welfare (Haylett, 2003; Milligan and Power, 2010; Mohan, 2003), there has been a significant restructuring in how, where and by whom care services are now deliv- ered. While the means through which this restructuring occurs can vary, the objective in many cases is argued to be the same: to reduce the role and responsibility of the state in the delivery of care. Geographers have been inten- sely interested in the socio-spatial inequities being produced through the restructuring of care delivery. Within this work, childcare has long been an important site of analysis for highlight- ing the expression of gender inequality (Dyck, 1990; England, 1996; Halliday and Little, 2001; Pinch, 1987; Pratt, 2003). A primary site of acti- vism for second wave feminist movements, the initial provision of formalized childcare repre- sented an important axis on which gender equity battles were waged. More recently childcare has gained renewed attention as a key part of the social infrastructure and increasingly as an edu- cational resource in its own right (Gallagher, 2013b; Jupp, 2013; Jupp and Gallagher, 2013; Lister, 2003; Prentice, 2009). The primary focus of this article is to con- sider the marketization of childcare provision in neoliberal contexts. Before doing so, there are a number of points of clarification to be made in Corresponding author: Aisling Gallagher, School of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University, Private Bag 11222, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand. Email: a.gallagher@massey.ac.nz Progress in Human Geography 1–17 ª The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0309132517702970 journals.sagepub.com/home/phg https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/journals-permissions https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132517702970 http://journals.sagepub.com/home/phg http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F0309132517702970&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-04-25 order to situate the scope of the article. While there has been an increasing interest in the care of school-age children by geographers (Holloway and Pimlott-Wilson, 2016; Smith and Barker, 2001), in this article I refer to childcare specifically as the formalized extra- familial care of pre-school children, increas- ingly also known as early childhood care and education. Secondly, although there is signifi- cant variation in how childcare markets interna- tionally are funded, structured and organized, this article is further limited to a consideration of neoliberal childcare markets in Western wel- fare states (see Lloyd and Penn, 2013, for other types of childcare markets). Thus the arguments put forward in this article relate specifically to welfare states which have adopted market mechanisms in the delivery of childcare, in lieu of developing childcare as a publically funded and provided service. This has been more prevalent in Anglophone contexts (nota- bly Australia, Canada, the US, the UK and New Zealand), countries which have already been chosen for critical work by feminist geo- graphers because of the impact of their trends towards large scale commodification in the organization and delivery of care (England, 1996; Fincher, 1996; Pratt, 2003). There is a particular neoliberal imaginary of the childcare market which has gained currency in the policy communities of the countries out- lined, and which has ultimately influenced debates over the last decade (Lloyd and Penn, 2013; White and Friendly, 2012). This represen- tation of the childcare market is a significant departure from the notion of childcare as a pub- lic good (Daly, 2002). Instead, the market is purported to be the most ‘efficient’ means of meeting the changing needs of parents in dynamic working environments (see for exam- ple the OECD document Babies and Bosses, 2007). In this form of the market, the private sector takes on a more prominent role. Increas- ing its involvement allows for new investment, particularly with regards to the cost of infrastructure, and is anticipated to offset reli- ance on a financially lean state. Under this arrangement parents are ‘empowered’ to exer- cise their consumer choice in seeking out the service that best fits their needs (Plantenga, 2012b). Moreover, strengthening the ability for parents to choose and move between services is thought to generate competitive pressures amongst providers, which will increase quality and reduce costs. Those services which are capable of meeting change in parental demand will succeed while those that do not will become obsolete, allowing for a more ‘responsive’ mar- ket environment. However, the notion of a competitive child- care market is not without purview from the state. As Stephen Ball suggests with regard to education reform, ‘changes [are] taking place at the nexus between regulation and midwifery, that is the role of the state in setting limits to the market while at the same time creating con- ditions within which the market can flourish and expand’ (Ball, 2012: 17). While the state is a regulator of quality rather than a provider of services, it also has a significant hand in shaping the contours of the childcare market through market mechanisms. Although not all countries have introduced market mechanisms into child- care to the same extent (see Penn, 2014, for a discussion of this in the EU context), there has been some uniformity in the types of incentives introduced. Most notable of these has been demand-led subsidies to encourage the greater use of formalized services by parents. These incentives tend to take the form of childcare vouchers or subsidies, but can also operate as tax breaks for parents (Warner and Gradus, 2011). In most cases, funding has been made available to both for-profit and not-for-profit providers, with the intention to generate as much consumer ‘choice’ in the market as pos- sible. That said, the injection of demand side investment has led to a sharp rise in the number of for-profit providers over existing forms of community and co-operative provision in the 2 Progress in Human Geography XX(X) last decade (Lloyd, 2012), as it is regarded as a state-funded business opportunity.2 Illustrating the scale of this dramatic shift, Sumsion (2006) states, for example, that for-profit provision in Australia has increased by 400 per cent in the decade between 1991 and 2001. A recent trend within for-profit provision has been the growth of corporate childcare chains (Press and Woodrow, 2005).3 As these organizations expand their share of the market, often through acquiring already established services, they have attracted the interest of domestic and inter- national investors (White, 2013). Indeed, many of the largest international childcare chains, such as Bright Horizons or Busy Bees,4 are cur- rently trading on the stock market, which means that they are ultimately responsible to their shareholders and are charged with returning revenue for those investors. Based on these identified trends within neo- liberal childcare markets, the primary aim of this article is to outline a research agenda for studying the marketization of childcare. Childcare has not been immune to economic re-visioning (Prentice, 2009), and the preva- lence of market mechanisms to deliver child- care to working households has been a cause of much concern (Brennan et al., 2012; Lloyd and Penn, 2013; Penn, 2011). As early child- hood expert Helen Penn suggests, for the most part academics and advocates have tended to ignore the impacts of neoliberalization on child- care, labelling it the ‘elephant in the room’ which nobody wants to talk about because ‘they believe that early childhood could or should be an exception to the trend towards privatization’ (2007: 193). More broadly, this article speaks to recent calls in economic geography for the need to take the creation of markets as a central object of study (Berndt and Boeckler, 2009; Christo- phers, 2014; Peck, 2012). As Peck suggests, markets have until recently been ‘hidden in plain sight’ from geographers (2012: 114). Cen- tral to much of this work has been a concern about the power and reach of orthodox economic representations of the market, not least because the idea of the market has been a key tenet to processes of neoliberalization. However, despite the extension and deepening of processes of marketization, we are no closer to seeing the wholesale realization of the ‘per- fect’ market. Moreover, socio-spatial differ- ences remain pertinent to how marketization processes materialize in practice. To bring these two aims together, in the latter half of this article I will explore the potential that engaging with a social studies of economization and marketiza- tion (SSEM) (Callon, 2007b; Mackenzie et al., 2007) perspective affords us as a means of studying childcare, and potentially other care markets, differently. In so doing I hope to offer avenues of research into the new political- economic alliances which are being put in place in order to meet the growing demand for child- care in an increasingly ‘post-welfare’ environment. II Who cares? Women’s work and problems with the childcare market The dramatic rise in women’s employment over the last 30 years, most notably of mothers into the workforce, has been a key driver behind the increased demand for extra-familial child- care (OECD, 2001). However, the outsourcing of reproductive labour has not occurred evenly, leading many to raise concerns over who in society carries responsibility for the increasing burden of the ‘second shift’ (Hochschild and Machung, 2003). Geographers have been at the forefront of work which has looked at the daily implications of childcare provisioning for how families manage their work-life balance. Exist- ing research has considered the disincentives for women re-entering the labour market when childcare options are either too scare and/or expensive (Van Ham and Mulder, 2005). Others have considered the complex space-time pat- terns of mothers who try to manage their work Gallagher 3 and care commitments, particularly where com- muting between work and home is a factor (Jar- vis, 2005; Schwanen et al., 2008). While the increased demand for childcare was initially met by informal childminders working in the home in many countries (such as the UK and Ireland; Gallagher, 2013a; Gregson and Lowe, 1995), there has been a change in the socio- spatial contexts within which much care is now being delivered (Boyer et al., 2012). Although home-based care remains an important part of the childcare market, there has been a more uni- form shift towards formalized childcare, pri- marily in the form of centre-based care, a move which has been fuelled to a large extent by policy changes in the field around the role of early education for the long-term development of the child (Lister, 2003). A key site of concern for many feminist geo- graphers has been the growing inequities between women, in terms of who now does the majority of the outsourced care work in post-industrial economies (Lawson, 2007; McDowell, 2001; McDowell et al., 2005). As McDowell (2008) argues, while the gendered nature of the workforce in neoliberal childcare markets has gained attention, there is also an increasingly important class dimension, as it is a workforce which is largely fuelled by lower socio-economic and migrant labour groups (see also Ehrenreich and Hochschild, 2003; Pratt, 2003). The opening up of global labour markets, coupled with mass migration in search of work from ‘developing’ to ‘developed’ contexts, has fuelled a sub-sector of migrant women to pro- vide childcare work in many Western econo- mies. These women are doubly disadvantaged by being amongst the working poor, but also migrant workers with potentially precarious employment status. However, it is important to emphasize the role the state is also playing in shaping the dynamics of the childcare workforce. As Smith et al. (2008) have warned, strategies like the UK ‘New Deal for Lone Parents’ can channel single mothers (who such programmes are addressing) into forms of low-paid employment, like that of childcare. The UK Department for Education and Skills, which conducted research into the childcare recruitment crisis, advises that a potential pool of childcare workers could be found in single mothers (see Osgood, 2006, for a discussion of class-based recruitments strategies for the Sure Start Unit, UK). As such, women are being retrained for employment in gendered sectors like childcare as it offers a relatively quick entry point into the workforce and signals a reduction in welfare ‘dependency’. Although the majority of research by geographers into the politics of reproductive labour has emphasized the under- valued and underpaid nature of the work (by focusing on care work by nannies and childmin- ders for example), a recent important paper by Boyer et al. (2012) has brought forth a different set of insights into the increasingly professiona- lized workforce of daycare in the UK which, as they suggest, is now the second most popular form of childcare. The idea of the ‘parent consumer’ has become central to the regulation and govern- ance of neoliberal childcare markets. It is inter- esting to note, however, that increasingly for parents (particularly working-class parents) the discourse of ‘choice’ which pervades policy and media discussions of childcare markets no lon- ger relates to whether or not they choose to care for their children at home or place them into daycare, but rather it is choice of which service they will be placed in (Vincent et al., 2008). As Holloway and Pimlott-Wilson (2016) have recently argued, women’s decision-making around productive and reproductive labour in the New Economy is increasingly shaped by the state through an extension of its role in childcare provisioning, notably afterschool care. Under neoliberal policy frameworks, for families in middle and lower socio-economic groups, the expectation across both economic and social policy is for the (re)entry of mothers to the workforce as the best means of mitigating the 4 Progress in Human Geography XX(X) potential long-term effects of social and eco- nomic disadvantage on children (Clarke, 2006; Smith et al., 2008). As Katz (2008) has argued, this reflects just one of the ways that parents are being made singularly responsible for prudent decision-making on behalf of their child(ren) and their future success, leading some to raise concerns over the dangers of ‘intensive parent- ing’ (Furedi, 2008; Shirani et al., 2012). How- ever, the idea of parents as informed consumers is highly problematic, as many have argued that parents rarely have access to sufficient informa- tion to make the best decisions (Brennan, 2007; Plantenga, 2012a). Indeed, as Sarah Holloway (1998) has pointed out, parental decision- making around care takes place within situated childcare cultures (rather than through the notion of rational economic actors), such that what qualifies as ‘good’ care is often repro- duced within place-based (and class-based) net- works. Moreover, access to childcare plays a significant part in the constitution of class- based differences through the perpetuation of parenting cultures (Vincent et al., 2008). An important paper by Vincent and Ball (2001) delved further into how middle-class mothers engaged with the childcare market, considering their strategies and choices when it came to sourcing appropriate care for their child. Within this work, they refer to the way mothers attempt to personalize the transaction of care in the market (through sourcing care services via friendship networks or the ways parents seek to relate to their child’s carer). Parental ‘choice’ in these instances was driven as much by affect as it was by more objective measures like distance and cost. A more recent political imperative motivat- ing the growth of childcare has been the pur- ported long-term benefits as an educational resource in its own right (OECD, 2001, 2006). The encouragement of children into pre-school environments is being justified as it speaks to the policy aim of combating the effects of edu- cational disadvantage in later life, and has become a site of government investment and subsidy, particularly for 3- to 5-year-olds (see, for example, the UK Sure Start Programme and the US Head Start Program). As Susan Prentice has illustrated, there has been an important change in the discourse of childcare in both Canada and the US such that it is increasingly positioned within an economic frame around that of the ‘investable child’ (Prentice, 2007, 2009). Moreover, this emergent ‘business case’ for spending in childcare in order to yield future gains has become a unifying narrative, see- mingly speaking to diverse interests of corpo- rate providers, feminist advocacy groups, and parents at the same time. The extension of this ‘business case’ for childcare in Canada and the US, but also in the policy debates of countries like New Zealand, the UK and Australia (Elizabeth and Larner, 2009; Lister, 2003), is founded on a number of influential longitudinal studies5 which have produced cost-benefit anal- yses to suggest that, from a policy perspective, investing in early education has the potential to reduce spending on social problems like crime and labour inactivity for the future (Schweinhart et al., 2005). To that extent, under a ‘social investment’ framework, spending on forma- lized childcare as early education has increasing political support as it is seen to potentially save on welfare spending on the child in later life, when the long-term effects of child poverty and marginalization are potentially more difficult to address (see Clarke, 2006, for a critical review of these outcomes). Overall, much of this multidisciplinary work has sought to highlight the considerable disparities between the market ideal which has captured the imagination of policy-making com- munities, and the reality of marketized care as experienced by those who both use and work in childcare. On a more fundamental level, the use of markets to organize and deliver care as a social good has been contested (Green and Lawson, 2011; Lawson, 2007; Lloyd and Penn, 2010). Stemming from this work is a questioning of the viability of a childcare market at all, given the Gallagher 5 deeply competing logics at work (Folbre and Nel- son, 2000; McDowell et al., 2005). Critics have argued that the market ideal which has gained traction is fundamentally based around a set of assumptions derived from economics, assump- tions which do not hold true when care and repro- ductive labour more generally are rendered into new forms of fictitious commodities (Fraser, 2014). Viewed through a capitalocentric lens, the market is criticized for equating value solely with economic value and, by extension, undermining the relational work at the heart of care labour (Folbre, 2001). This tension is understood to have become more pronounced, as processes of neoli- beralization have extended the reach and penetra- tion of markets into all aspects of life. Despite the extent of criticism for the use of markets to organize and deliver childcare, attempts to redirect political debate from the pol- icy acceptance of markets as the only viable solu- tion have been met with little enthusiasm. However, I suggest that we need to move beyond a critique of the effects of the market on the delivery of care, as in so doing we leave untroubled the idea of the market itself and the neoliberal belief of the proliferation of markets to solve social problems. Furthermore, overlooking the constructed and situated nature of the market limits our ability to see beyond neoliberalism as a situated set of political and economic processes and to find new ways of understanding the pro- found changes which are occurring in the nature of the state in order to facilitate a market in care. In response, in the next section I will give a brief overview of some of the key aspects of an SSEM approach, and signal how it may be used by geo- graphers to gain a deeper insight into the con- struction of childcare markets as situated and actually existing phenomena. III SSEM and the geographies of marketization There is now a well-established interdisciplin- ary literature, inspired by actor-network theory, which seeks to offer an empirically detailed understanding of how markets are made (Çalış- kan and Callon, 2009; Callon, 2007b; Macken- zie et al., 2007; Muellerleile, 2013). Known collectively as the social studies of economiza- tion and marketization (SSEM), the work of Michel Callon has been central to this field of study (Callon, 1999, 2007a, 2007b). Born from a ‘pragmatic turn’ in the study of markets (Muniesa et al., 2007), this approach has sought to produce an anti-essentialist account of mar- kets and the actors involved in their creation, and has been influenced by theories of performativity (Butler, 1990; Muniesa, 2014; Roelvink et al., 2015), and more generally by the post-structural vantage points afforded through the cultural turn which sought to over- come analytical essentialism. Building on this ontological perspective, seemingly stable con- cepts like ‘the economy’ and ‘the market’ are called into question, instead turning analysis to how such dominant ideas are actively con- structed through interconnected webs of social relations and meaning. Taking nothing as hav- ing an a priori existence outside network rela- tions, the SSEM approach seeks to ‘uncover the (often hidden) presuppositional arrangements that organise the world, including “economic life”’ (Ouma, 2015: 24). Markets then are taken as a primary object of study, and are viewed as diverse ‘socio- technical agencements’ (STAs), comprised of actors, rules and regulations, texts, discourses and material devices (Berndt and Boeckler, 2011). As such, those working in this vein seek to avoid reducing markets to a singular object (‘the market’), acknowledging there are multi- ple ways of structuring and ordering markets (depending on whether it is a care market or a market for derivatives, for example). Influenced by actor network theory, agency in shaping the market STA can be exercised by both the human and non-human, through their networked posi- tion in the market assemblage. Agency is dis- tributed through the network, exceeding the 6 Progress in Human Geography XX(X) embodied capacity of the individual. Scope is made in the analysis for the potential agency of material objects and technologies to shape the conditions of the market STA (such as the impact of the shopping trolley to present-day consumption practices (Cochoy, 2009). Agency can be understood then as the outcome of mate- rial elements, devices, discourses, and embo- died skills which act in conjunction to position an actor within the network. Power to act within the market, and to influence its design, is deter- mined by where different actors are situated in relational networks, producing a flattened view of market interaction. In examining how markets are constituted as ‘practical accomplishments’ (Berndt and Boeckler, 2011: 567), significant attention is given to the often overlooked role of market devices in making markets. Indeed as Muniesa et al. (2007: 2) provocatively ask, ‘can a market exist without a set of market devices?’ A market device can include ‘banal’ aspects, such as pric- ing models, accounting methods or regulatory frameworks. However, these devices are crucial in order to allow for the extension of processes of marketization into new and uncharted fields, through setting the rules of markets in terms of the kinds of products and/or services deemed as having value (as nothing has value a priori in the market) and through setting the basis for their commodification and exchange (Müller, 2014). The work they do in shaping the market involves a highly selective ordering process, where certain connections are cut and others established (and to some extent made temporar- ily irreversible) in order to stabilize or ‘frame’ the market as an economic entity. In an increas- ingly dynamic environment, attempts to stabi- lize or frame the market STA are regularly tested. The actors enrolled are connected to dif- ferent networks and worlds, through which other logics emerge to destabilize the market, leading to a process known as ‘overflowing’. As Callon (2007a) has suggested, it is the genera- tion of overflows which leads to a ‘proliferation of the social’, such that new and unanticipated concern groups (such as new consumer interest groups) may be generated. It is precisely because agents, whether human or non-human, have links to other worlds that overflows are a dialectical part of the process of framing mar- kets. Indeed for a market to gain stability they need to be constantly (re)performed into being. One of the most pertinent insights from this work, which has been adopted widely across the social sciences, has been the relationship between bodies of knowledge (particularly eco- nomic knowledge) and the proliferation of mar- kets (Callon, 2007b; Mitchell, 2005). Rather than reinforce the claims of orthodox econom- ics, that ideal markets do exist and that devia- tions from this are ‘market failures’, it is suggested that it is a misrepresentation to under- stand economic models as abstractions from the world (Callon, 2007b). Instead, economic knowledge has a direct role in creating the world which it seeks to describe. In other words, it is performative (Mitchell, 2005). Apart from the work of academic economists (referred to as confined economists) producing such knowl- edge, attention is also given to the work of the ‘economist in the wild’ in realizing the market STA (Callon, 2007a). Economists in the wild are those actors who practise and perform eco- nomic knowledge in the world through their work, including formal economists (acting as consultants, for example), but also the increas- ingly important work of accountants, marketers and other kinds of business school graduates (Hall, 2008). Indeed, these kinds of economic intermediaries have proliferated under neoliber- alism, as markets are increasingly used as the means of both providing and regulating all sorts of resources, from housing to aged care. Recent work in geography has illuminated points of productive engagement with this vein of economic sociology, through a call for a ‘geographies of marketization’ as a critical research agenda (Berndt and Boeckler, 2012; Birch and Siemiatycki, 2015; Ouma, 2015). Gallagher 7 As Peck (2012) suggests, the purpose of such a project would not be to add to the accounts of ideal market ‘exceptionalism’ nor to report on markets behaving badly (and leave untroubled the normalization of markets under neoliberal- ism). Rather, it would be to substantiate hetero- dox claims regarding the workings of actual markets, along with their primary axes of socio-economic differentiation. While the SSEM approach can offer some novel avenues through which to study markets, it has not been without criticism (Christophers, 2014; Fine, 2003; Miller, 2002). For some, concerns have been raised about the move away from systema- tic and more generalizable analyses of markets under capitalism, instead producing fine- grained, descriptive ethnographies which some argue lack explanatory power (Christophers, 2014). Muellerleile and Akers (2015), while endorsing the approach, query the politics inherent in the kinds of research conducted through a SSEM lens, and suggest a greater emphasis is needed on answering the ‘why’ questions (for example, why do some markets get performed over others? [2015: 1785]). Lastly, some have considered how power inequities are captured through a relational and flattened view of market interaction endorsed via this approach. Questions of power and mate- rial distribution are certainly important, as mar- kets are very seldom egalitarian in their outcomes (as discussed in the previous section with regard to childcare). A close reading of work in SSEM suggests that there is scope for a critical account of how inequality is (re)pro- duced, with the strength of its contribution in its ability to produce a detailed examination of power relations as expressed in and through markets, taking account of the discourses and material devices involved in maintaining them (Berndt and Boeckler, 2011). Influenced by the growing literature in geography which seeks to engage with this work and open the conceptual and empirical ‘black box’ of markets to critical scrutiny, in the subsequent section of this paper I will outline what this approach can offer to the study of neoliberal childcare markets (given that care markets have yet to feature in the SSEM literature to date). In so doing, I hope that the suggested research trajectories could also have relevance for the analysis of care markets more generally. IV Studying the childcare market: Some avenues for geographical enquiry 1 A ‘flattened’ view of childcare markets In geography, existing research on childcare has tended to focus on the local and national level, where disparities between policy objectives and access to services are more visible (for example see edited collection by England, 1996). While it is not desirable to completely abandon the notion of hierarchical scalar relations in regard to care, as much policy and service delivery is created through these governance structures (see Mahon, 2006), I suggest that there is value in re-theorizing the scalar understandings we have been using to examine the childcare mar- ket. To that extent drawing on a networked approach to studying the market will offer dif- ferent insights and allow for intersecting rela- tions, which may cut across and through scalar hierarches as articulated in policy, to become evident. One area this ‘flattened’ view of market interaction could fruitfully be used to study is the increase in foreign ownership of childcare through international investment funds. The growth of international education investment funds (such as G8 Education), who are actively seeking out opportunities in new care markets,6 calls into question the way we examine the delivery of childcare as solely involving rela- tionships between state, providers and parents and the policy/delivery interface. As with the example of the collapse of international child- care corporate ABC Learning Australia in 2008,7 the flows of capital outwards from 8 Progress in Human Geography XX(X) locally-embedded services to overseas investors can create inherent instability in what is an increasingly crucial social service, not only for meeting the needs of working families but also for delivering on some important policy aims in relation to young children. There are also important lines of connection opening up between pension funds seeking out international investment opportunities and the domestic growth of childcare, such that we may be wit- nessing the leveraging of care of the young to furnish the retirement of the current working generation.8 Thus I suggest that working with a SSEM approach, and a more topological understanding of market relations, can allow for a revived examination of how existing and new inequities are being (re)produced. Using a flattened view of market relations can also be insightful for understanding some of the changes taking place in the daily practice of marketized childcare. An example from my current fieldwork which illustrates this relates to the wide-scale introduction of e-portfolios and other forms of online parent-child-teacher engagement which has ‘gone viral’ within many of the childcare markets identified.9 These com- munication platforms, facilitated by the integra- tion of computing devices like tablets into the care environment, allow for carers to capture and record key moments in the child’s day. These stories are then shared online with who- ever has been granted access to the child’s port- folio (such as parents or grandparents, for example). Recipients of the story are then encouraged to respond, via the text or recorded message function, thus fuelling continuous engagement between parent, child and carer. The proliferation of this technology within childcare centres in New Zealand since 2012 has been dramatic, as it is seen by many as offering an innovative advantage in an increas- ingly competitive market.10 On the one hand, these technologies are opening up new topolo- gical relations, as (grand)parents, carers and children are drawn closer through the online interaction. On the other, the data being cap- tured via the online platform are generating new economic objects, in the form of pictures, stor- ies, recordings and so forth. As such, this data is already taking on alternative and unexpected functions, as it has facilitated the production of graphs and other visual representations of levels of engagement between carer, parent and child (such as how many stories were created per child and if/when parents logged on to view them), and offers a new perspective into the daily work of childcare for managers of services using the technology. Moreover, the space of the care centre is being made visible in new ways for potentially distant owners, who are now able to render the care relationship between parents, child and carer quantifiable through the data being generated. There is scope for these new networked and topological relationships to be critically examined by geographers, as they are profoundly changing both the experience and practice of childcare for children, parents and carers in the emergent market. 2 Commodifying childcare: Market devices and the role of the non-human The commodification of childcare has been a source of ongoing concern for feminist geogra- phers and theorists more generally over the past 20 years, with much work focusing on the neg- ative impacts of the commodification of care, once it becomes a service for sale. I argue that the SSEM approach can extend in new ways existing insights into how care is commodified, most notably around how care is being rede- fined as a commodity through emergent socio- technical networks within the market. A focus on the work of market devices in rendering care into a service for sale can offer a more detailed and historically specific understanding of how care is commodified within specific markets. What kinds of market devices exist in each mar- ket STA would itself require empirical investi- gation, but for childcare they may include things Gallagher 9 like consultancy reports (for example, the UK Childcare Market Report [Laing and Buisson, 2015]), government funding programmes, or planning regulations. Secondly, the commodification of care through the market involves an increasingly diverse range of actors. Apart from the work of formal economists (through consultancy work or policy engagement), there has been a proliferation of what can be identified as ‘econ- omists in the wild’ (such as specialized finance companies, software developers and childcare property sales specialists). In examining how care is being commodified, there is a need for a better understanding of the work of these actors as part of the emergent market and their role in shaping how the market is constituted. Rather than view such groups as opportunistic individuals trying to benefit from the new profit-making spaces made available through the neoliberalization of the sector, or indeed as fuelling a more ‘efficient’ childcare market through their work (as economists may view them), they can instead be understood as market-making actors in their own right. Furthermore, the work of these actors in shaping the market STA is being facilitated to a signif- icant extent by the non-human. Another exam- ple from my current research in NZ suggests that there has been a wide-scale integration of cloud computing software11 into the manage- ment of childcare facilities in the last decade. Demand for childcare during this time, coupled with the introduction of government subsidies into the sector, has led to a significant increase in enrolments in childcare (with participation at 96% of children under five by 2015 [Ministry of Education, 2015]). This has been further facili- tated by changes to the licensing requirements in 2011 which allowed for a major growth in the average size and capacity of centres. At the same time, government regulation and reporting has increased exponentially in line with accountability structures around new funding systems. Indeed, the system is now such that services are at a disadvantage by not having the software in place as a means of recording and communicating data back to the Ministry of Education. Rather than view the uptake of the management software as solely evidence of creeping managerialism in the sector character- istic of neoliberalization (Osgood, 2004), as a market device, the computing software can instead be seen as having agency in actually facilitating the growth of services by making the storage and management of huge amounts of data possible. To that extent the software has been instrumental in allowing the expansion of centres, changing the economies of scale of these services and thus inciting the interest of corporate investors who can now operate ser- vices at a much larger scale than before (see the prospectus of Evolve Education, 2016, for example). I suggest that studying these changes in relation to the commodification of childcare requires a more central consideration of the work of both human and non-human actors, and the SSEM approach can offer interesting ave- nues of research for those working in/on child- care and care more generally under neoliberalism. 3 Framing the childcare market This article has been limited to a discussion of formalized, regulated childcare. However, a key concern for governments in the contexts dis- cussed has been the continued reliance of fam- ilies on paid ‘informal’ childcare (unregistered childminders and nannies for example) in lieu of the formalized sector. Indeed the very idea of a ‘formalized’ sector throws into sharp relief the highly constructed nature of childcare markets and reminds us of the broader economy of care of which it is a part (Gibson-Graham, 2006). There is considerable scope for a consideration of how the childcare market is being framed in relation to the changing work-life demands of parents in post-industrial economies. Despite the expansion of the formalized sector, for many 10 Progress in Human Geography XX(X) informal childcare remains a crucial element facilitating workforce participation, either through choice (such as trust in a friend to care for your child(ren), cultural reasons (many minority ethnic groups prefer to use informal childcare arrangements) or necessity (the options available in the formalized sector do not meet your needs) (Ball and Vincent, 2005; Wheelock and Jones, 2002). Important ques- tions can be asked as to what kind of childcare is deemed as a legitimate service, and what is marginalized or undermined in the market? Furthermore, who is disadvantaged through a reliance on childcare options which are not deemed to be within the formalized sector? In posing these questions, a consideration of the role of market devices is crucial to understand- ing how legitimization and valuation of partic- ular forms of care occurs, as they are central to how the market is organized and how childcare as a particular kind of commodity is framed. An example of what this could look like empirically relates to the growing demand for childcare outside traditional working hours, which is posing a significant problem in a num- ber of neoliberal childcare markets. For the most part, families with atypical working hours are relying on informal childcare during their working day (such as relatives, nannies or baby sitters), in turn often making them exempt from crucial financial supports like childcare tax credits and subsidies which relate primarily to the formalized sector (Glendinning and Kemp, 2006; Skinner and Finch, 2006). A recent study by the Daycare Trust on atypical working hours estimated that only 35 per cent of employees work standard hours, with almost half of all single parents working atypical hours in the UK (Rutter and Evans, 2012). Given the move towards greater employment in the service sec- tor (Perrons, 2003; Perrons et al., 2005), there is a growing need to recognize the demands for childcare outside the traditional working hours of 9 to 5. One consequence of this shift has been the recent emergence in the UK of co-operative childcare and childminding services for parents with atypical working hours. In Australia the government has tackled the issue directly and commissioned research trials into the possibility of instigating ‘flexible’ childcare (Baxter and Hand, 2016), in the form of weekend centre- based care or home-based nannies. From a SSEM perspective, the demand for childcare outside what already exists and is legitimated in the market can be understood as the rise of a new ‘concerned group’ for care in line with the changing nature of post-industrial employment. At the very least it is calling into question the dominance of centre-based daycare provision within the current market STA and the devices, discourses, and texts used to stabilize and nor- malize its position within the market (such as the scope of the regulations and structure of government subsidies in favour of centre- based care). There is scope then for geographers working on the changing relationship between productive and reproductive labour in post- industrial societies to adopt the SSEM lens to consider how the childcare market is being sta- bilized and/or challenged in response to new employment patterns, and indeed how that dif- ferently affects particular parents and children as consumers of care (see recent work by Holloway and Pimlott-Wilson, 2016). This research agenda could also be extended by tak- ing seriously children’s experiences of and their potential agency in shaping the care they receive (whether it is in the formal or informal sector), rather than view them as passive objects of study within the market (Smith and Barker, 2000). V Conclusion Childcare provision poses a considerable prob- lem for governments and their policy commu- nities in neoliberal contexts. On the one hand, it is a key social infrastructure upon which many new social and economic policy outcomes for families are premised (Esping-Andersen, 2002; Gallagher 11 Lister, 2003). On the other, it represents a bur- geoning financial expectation, which ideologi- cally and politically cannot be justified as a publically provided resource. This article has considered how demands for pre-school child- care are being met in neoliberal contexts, coun- tries which have long adopted a mixed economy of care, involving family, private (for-profit and not-for-profit) and state- supported services (Mahon and Michel, 2002). However, the growing emphasis on market-based restructuring within these wel- fare states has resulted in the reliance on an expanded private for-profit sector within this mix to deliver care services, meet growing par- ental demand and help achieve new policy objectives, characteristic of what Peck and Tickell (2002) termed ‘roll out’ neoliberalism. Contributing to existing work in geography, critical social policy and education on childcare, the primary aim of this article has been to outline a research agenda through which we can study the marketization of childcare. Specifically, it has aimed to shed light on how childcare markets are being constituted, and to consider how exist- ing and new forms of inequality are being pro- duced in and through the market. Issues of social justice remain pertinent to the expression of emergent childcare markets, not least because the initial questions of gender equality which moti- vated early work largely remain (De Meester et al., 2011). In advocating for this research agenda, this article also speaks to a burgeoning literature in economic geography which has called for markets to become a focus of study in their own right. In so doing we are encouraged to question the seemingly natural and taken-for- granted concept of ‘the market’, and to consider it as a geographically and historically situated phenomenon. Making use of an SSEM lens and a broader literature on the performativity of mar- kets, I have sought to illustrate that childcare markets involve much more than the state, pro- viders and parents. There are a wealth of other actors involved, such as advocacy groups, software developers, finance companies and overseas investors, as well as the work of ‘banal’ market devices (like regulations, licensing requirements, or cloud computing software) which all serve to frame the market in a particular way. Thus, examining the provision of childcare through the market increasingly requires a detailed consideration of the broad range of actors (both human and non-human) drawn into the market and the materiality of the market itself. The commodification of care has been a point of continuous concern for many who feel that the fundamental relational nature of care is compro- mised once it becomes a service for sale. Yet as Cox (2013: 494) asks in a special issue on com- modified care, should we assume from the outset that the market is unsuitable or incompatible with the delivery of care? In posing this provocative question she invites us to re-engage with the spaces and practices of marketized care to con- sider what exactly is problematic in the expres- sion of diverse paid care relationships. A similar argument has been made by Boyer et al. (2013) in their study of centre-based childcare, illustrating that centres have the potential to be deeply caring spaces even though they operate for profit. There are undoubtedly problems arising from the way care has been commodified within capitalist economies. Overall, this work and indeed the argument of this article, is not a defence of mar- ketized care, but rather a call to re-visit the com- plex spaces and practices of commodified care anew within a diverse economy of childcare (Gibson-Graham, 2006). I suggest that to under- stand how care is being commodified, we must gain a better understanding of how particular childcare markets are being constructed. As I have suggested, through the use of an SSEM lens this would not only consider the relative position of different providers in the market but also the work of discourses, texts, funding systems, soft- ware packages, regulations and so on, in framing and performing a particular version of the market. 12 Progress in Human Geography XX(X) The ideal of rational actors making exchanges in perfect markets is anathema to the practice and ethics of care, but rarely does neoliberalism come close to producing that ideal (Mirowski, 2013). Nevertheless, it has important effects. A study of the relational nature of childcare markets can help us to better grasp what is changing in the sector, not only (as Penn, 2007, has called for) to understand the impact of processes of neoliber- alization on the care of young children but also to see what possibilities for progressive change might be emerging. Acknowledgments I would like to thank Russell Prince, Deb Brennan, the PHG editors and three anonymous referees for their valuable and insightful feedback on this paper. Declaration of conflicting interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of inter- est with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/ or publication of this article: The research informing this paper has been funded by the Royal Society of New Zealand, Marsden Faststart Grant 2014. Notes 1. In this article I am referring to care in the relatively narrow sense of health, elderly and childcare services, although I recognize that it can be used more broadly to incorporate services like social housing (Smith, 2005) and support shelters (Johnson et al., 2005). 2. ‘This is a business subsidised by government – how can it be unprofitable? (Chairperson, ABC Learning, 2008) 3. There has, however, been a slowdown in the expan- sion of childcare chains in the wake of the financial crisis (Blackburn, 2013). 4. Bright Horizons is US-based but operates 750 child- care centres across the US, the UK, Ireland, the Neth- erlands, India and Canada. Busy Bees, the UK’s biggest childcare chain, was purchased in 2013 by a Canadian Teachers’ Pension Plan group for £220 mil- lion (Farrell, 2013). 5. Notably, the Perry Preschool Study conducted by the Highscope Foundation (www.Highscope.org). One of the often-quoted measures of this investment has come from the Perry Preschool Project, which states that every $1 invested by the state into a Highscope Programme will save society $7 in terms of a reduc- tion in future welfare spending on that child. 6. Policy interventions around early education, but also fertility incentives (such as Australia’s ‘Baby Bonus’ and the drive to increase the fertility rate in Singapore) are described in the investor prospectus as indicators of significant growth in the childcare sector and are rationalized as the basis for investment in these coun- tries (see, for example, G8 Annual Report 2015). 7. As Newbury and Brennan (2013) have identified, the pressure to operate as a viable business has led to some questionable business and accounting practices in the delivery of childcare. Drawing on analysis of the col- lapse of ABC Learning Australia, they explore the impact of its separation of childcare properties from its business operation (something they call the opco- propco model). ABC Learning in effect sold its prop- erties and leased them back at a guaranteed rent, in order to release capital to expand its business and make the most of government subsidies into the sector. While the company held few tangible assets on its books by the end, its value was amassed through a high proportion of intangible assets, like its childcare licences, which allowed its balance sheet to grow from $28 million in 2001 to a reported $296 million in 2009. This complex financialization arrangement (of pur- chase, sale and rental back) even extended to toys and equipment used in the facilities. Rising property ren- tals put pressure on the cost of care for parents until eventually the model was unsustainable and the com- pany collapsed in 2008. 8. It is perhaps somewhat ironic that the Ontario Teach- ers’ Pension Plan bought up Busy Bees in the UK for $400 million in 2014. 9. See, for example, Educa or Storypark in New Zealand. Both of these companies are building up significant traction in other childcare markets, like Australia, Sin- gapore and Canada. 10. See, for example: http://www.educationreview.co.nz/ magazine/november-2013/making-learning-stories- come-alive-with-technology/#.WBqgJk27qpo Gallagher 13 http://www.Highscope.org http:///making-learning-stories-come-alive-with-technology/#.WBqgJk27qpo http:///making-learning-stories-come-alive-with-technology/#.WBqgJk27qpo 11. See, for example, the Infocare software package (http://www.info-care.biz/what_is_infocare.html). References Ball SJ (2012) Global Education Inc.: New Policy Net- works and the Neo-Liberal Imaginary. London: Routledge. Ball SJ and Vincent C (2005) The ‘childcare champion’? New Labour, social justice and the childcare market. British Educational Research Journal 31(5): 557–570. Baxter J and Hand K (2016) Flexible Child Care: Key Findings from the AIFS Evaluation of the Child Care Flexibility Trials. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Berndt C and Boeckler M (2009) Geographies of circula- tion and exchange: Constructions of markets. Progress in Human Geography 33(4): 535–551. Berndt C and Boeckler M (2011) Geographies of markets: Materials, morals and monsters in motion. Progress in Human Geography 35(4): 559–567. Berndt C and Boeckler M (2012) Geographies of market- isation. In: Barnes T, Peck J and Sheppard E (eds) The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Economic Geography. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 199–212 Birch K and Siemiatycki M (2015) Neoliberalism and the geographies of marketisation: The entangling of state and markets. Progress in Human Geography 40(2): 177–198. Boyer K, Reimer S and Irvine L (2012) The nursery work- space, emotional labour, and contested understandings of commoditised childcare in the contemporary UK. Social and Cultural Geography 14(5): 1–24. Brennan D (2007) The ABC of childcare politics. Austra- lian Journal of Social Issues 42(2): 213–224. Brennan D, Cass B, Himmelweit S and Szebehely M (2012) The marketisation of care: Rationales and con- sequences in Nordic and liberal care regimes. Journal of European Social Policy 22(4): 377–391. Butler J (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Sub- version of Identity. New York: Routledge. Çalışkan K and Callon M (2009) Economization, Part 1: Shifting attention from the economy towards processes of economization. Economy and Society 38(3): 369–398. Callon M (1999) Actor-network theory: The market test. The Sociological Review 47(1): 181–195. Callon M (2007a) An essay on the growing contribution of economic markets to the proliferation of the social. Theory, Culture & Society 24(7): 139–163. Callon M (2007b) What does it mean to say that economics is performative? In: Mackenzie D, Muniesa F and Siu L (eds) Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performa- tivity of Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer- sity Press, 311–357. Christophers B (2014) From Marx to market and back again: Performing the economy. Geoforum 57: 12–20. Clarke K (2006) Childhood, parenting and early interven- tion: A critical examination of the Sure Start national programme. Critical Social Policy 26(4): 699–721. Cochoy F (2009) Driving a shopping cart from STS to business, and the other way round: On the introduction of shopping carts in American grocery stores (1936– 1959). Organization 16(1): 31–55. Cox R (2013) Gendered spaces of commoditised care. Social and Cultural Geography 14(5): 491–499. Daly M (2002) Care as a good for social policy. Journal of Social Policy 31: 251–270. De Meester E, Zorlu A and Mulder C (2011) Residential context and the division of household and childcare tasks. Environment and Planning A 43(3): 666–682. Dyck I (1990) Space, time, and renegotiating motherhood: An exploration of the domestic workplace. Environ- ment and Planning D-Society and Space 8(4): 459–483. Ehrenreich B and Hochschild AR (eds) (2003) Global Woman: Nannies, Maids and Sex Workers in the New Economy. London: Granta Books Elizabeth V and Larner W (2009) Racializing the ‘social development’ state: Investing in children in Aotearoa/ New Zealand. Social Politics 16(1): 132–158. England K (1996) Who Will Mind the Baby? Geographies of Childcare and Working Mothers. London: Routledge. Esping-Andersen G (2002) Why We Need a New Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Evolve Education (2016) Investment statement. Available at: http://www.evolveeducation.co.nz/investor-infor mation (accessed 16 January 2017). Fincher R (1996) Childcare: An international review. In: England K (ed.) Who Will Mind the Baby?: Geogra- phies of Childcare and Working Mothers. London: Routledge, 143–168. Fine B (2003) Callonistics: A disentanglement. Economy and Society 32(3): 478–484. Folbre N (2001) The Invisible Heart: Economics and Fam- ily Values. New York: The New Press. Folbre N and Nelson J (2000) For love or money – or both? The Journal of Economic Perspectives 14(4): 123–140. 14 Progress in Human Geography XX(X) http://www.info-care.biz/what_is_infocare.html http://www.evolveeducation.co.nz/investor-information http://www.evolveeducation.co.nz/investor-information Fraser N (2014). Can society be commodities all the way down? Post-Polanyian reflections on capitalist crisis. Economy and Society. DOI: 10.1080/03085147.2014. 898822. Furedi F (2008) Paranoid Parenting: Why Ignoring the Experts May Be Best for Your Child. Chicago: Chicago Review Press Gallagher A (2013a) At home in preschool care? Childcare policy and the negotiated spaces of educational care. Children’s Geographies 11(2): 202–214. Gallagher A (2013b) The politics of childcare provision- ing: A geographical perspective. Geography Compass 7(2): 161–171. Gibson-Graham JK (2006) A Post-Capitalist Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Glendinning C and Kemp P (2006) Cash and Care: Policy Challenges in the Welfare State. Bristol: Policy Press. Green M and Lawson V (2011) Recentring care: Interro- gating the commodification of care. Social and Cul- tural Geography 12(6): 639–654. Gregson N and Lowe M (1995) ‘Home’-making: On the spatiality of daily social reproduction in contemporary middle-class Britain. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 20(2): 224–235. Hall S (2008) Geographies of business education: MBA programmes, reflexive business schools and the cul- tural circuit of capital. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 33(1): 27–41. Halliday J and Little J (2001) Amongst women: Exploring the reality of rural childcare. Sociologia Ruralis 41(4): 423–437. Haylett C (2003) Class, care, and welfare reform: Reading meanings, talking feelings. Environment and Planning A 35(5): 799–814. Hochschild AR and Machung A (2003) The Second Shift, 2nd edn. London: Penguin Books. Holloway SL (1998) Local childcare cultures: Moral geo- graphies of mothering and the social organisation of pre-school education. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 5: 29–53. Holloway SL and Pimlott-Wilson H (2016) New economy, neoliberal state and professionalised parenting: Mothers’ labour market engagement and state support for social reproduction in class-differentiated Britain. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 41(4): 376–388. Jarvis H (2005) Moving to London time: Household co-ordination and the infrastructure of everyday life. Time and Society 14(1): 133–154. Jupp E (2013) Enacting parenting policy? The hybrid spaces of Sure Start Children’s Centres. Children’s Geographies 11(2): 173–187. Jupp E and Gallagher A (2013) New geographies of par- enting, policy and place. Children’s Geographies 11(2): 155–159. Katz C (2008) Cultural Geographies lecture: Childhood as spectacle: Relays of anxiety and the reconfiguration of the child. Cultural Geographies 15(1): 5–17. Laing and Buisson (2016) Children’s Nurseries UK Mar- ket Report, 13th Edition. London: Laing and Buisson. Lawson V (2007) Geographies of care and responsibility. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97(1): 1–11. Lister R (2003) Investing in the citizen-workers of the future: Transformations in citizenship and the state under new labour. Social Policy and Administration 37(5): 427–443. Lloyd E (2012) The marketisation of Early Years Educa- tion and childcare in England. In: Miller L and Hevey D (eds) Policy Issues in the Early Years. London: Sage, 107–121. Lloyd E and Penn H (2010) Why do childcare markets fail? Comparing England and the Netherlands. Public Policy Research 17(1): 42–48. Lloyd E and Penn H (eds) (2013) Childcare Markets: Can They Deliver an Equitable Service? Bristol: Policy Press. Mackenzie D, Muniesa F and Siu L (eds) (2007) Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mahon R (2006) Of scalar hierarchies and welfare rede- sign: Child care in three Canadian cities. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31(4): 452–466. Mahon R and Michel S (2002) Childcare Policy at the Crossroads: Gender and Welfare State Restructuring. London: Routledge. McDowell L (2001) Father and Ford revisited: Gender, class and employment change in the new millennium. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 26(4): 448–464. McDowell L (2008) The new economy, class condescen- sion and caring labour: Changing formations of class and gender. NORA: Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 16(3): 150–165. McDowell L, Ray K, Perrons D, Fagan C and Ward K (2005) Women’s paid work and moral economies of care. Social and Cultural Geography 6(2): 219–235. Gallagher 15 Miller D (2002) Turning Callon the right way up. Economy and Society 31(2): 218–233. Milligan C and Power A (2010) The changing geography of care. In: Brown T, McLafferty S and Moon G (eds) A Companion to Health and Medical Geography. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 567–586. Ministry of Education (2015) Early Childhood Education / Me ngā kōhanga reo: Data Summary Report, 2015. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Mirowski P (2013) Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown. London: Verso. Mitchell T (2005) The work of economics: How a disci- pline makes its world. European Journal of Sociology 46(2): 297–320. Mohan J (2003) Geography and social policy: Spatial divisions of welfare. Progress in Human Geography 27(3): 363–374. Muellerleile C (2013) Turning financial markets inside out: Polanyi, performativity and disembeddedness. Environment and Planning A 45(7): 1625–1642. Muellerleile C and Akers J (2015) Introduction: Making mar- ket rule(s). Environment and Planning A 47: 1781–1786. Müller M (2014) A half-hearted romance? A diagnosis and agenda for the relationship between economic geogra- phy and actor-network theory (ANT). Progress in Human Geography 39(1): 65–85. Muniesa F (2014) The Provoked Economy: Economic Reality and the Performative Turn. London: Routledge. Muniesa F, Millo Y and Callon M (2007) An introduction to market devices. The Sociological Review 55: 1–12. OECD (2001) Starting Strong: Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: OECD, Directorate for Education. OECD (2006) Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Educa- tion and Care. Paris: OECD, Directorate for Education. OECD (2007) Babies and Bosses: Reconciling Work and Family Life. Paris: OECD, Directorate for Employ- ment, Labour and Social Affairs Osgood J (2004) Time to get down to business? Journal of Early Childhood Research 2(1): 5–24. Osgood J (2006) Deconstructing professionalism in early childhood education: Resisting the regulatory gaze. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 7(1): 5–14. Ouma S (2015) Assembling Export Markets: The Making and Unmaking of Global Food Connections in West Africa. Sussex: Wiley Blackwell. Peck J (2012) Economic geography: Island life. Dialogues in Human Geography 2(2): 113–133. DOI: 10.1177/ 2043820612443779. Peck J and Tickell A (2002) Neoliberalizing space. Anti- pode 34(3): 380–404. Penn H (2007) Childcare market management: How the United Kingdom has reshaped its role in developing early childhood education and care. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 8(3): 192–207. Penn H (2011) Gambling on the market: The role of for- profit provision in early childhood education and care. Journal of Early Childhood Research 9(2): 150–161. Penn H (2014) The business of childcare in Europe. Eur- opean Early Childhood Education Research Journal 22(4): 432–456. Perrons D (2003) The new economy and the work–life balance: Conceptual explorations and a case study of new media. Gender, Work and Organization 10(1): 65–93. Perrons D, Fagan C, McDowell L, Ray K and Ward K (2005) Work, life and time in the new economy: An introduction. Time and Society 14(1): 51–64. Pinch S (1987) The changing geography of preschool ser- vices in England between 1977 and 1983. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 5(4): 469–480. Plantenga J (2012a) Local providers and loyal parents: Competition and consumer choice in the Dutch child- care market. In: Lloyd E and Penn H (eds) Childcare Markets: Can They Deliver an Equitable Service? Bris- tol: Policy Press, 63–78. Plantenga J (2012b) A market for childcare services? Private provision and public finance in the Dutch childcare sector. In: Mayes G and Thompson M (eds) The Costs of Children: Parenting and Democ- racy in Contemporary Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 92–107. Pratt G (2003) Valuing childcare: Troubles in suburbia. Antipode 35(3): 581–602. Prentice S (2007) Childcare, the ‘business case’ and eco- nomic development: Canadian evidence, opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Economic Development 9(4): 269–300. Prentice S (2009) High stakes: The ‘investable’ child and the economic reframing of childcare. Signs 34(3): 687–710. Press F and Woodrow C (2005) Commodification, corpor- atisation and children’s spaces. Australian Journal of Education 49(3): 278–291. Roelvink G, St Martin K and Gibson-Graham JK (2015) Making Other Worlds Possible: Performing Diverse 16 Progress in Human Geography XX(X) Economies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Rutter J and Evans B (2012) Childcare for Parents with Atypical Work Patterns: The Need for Flexibility. Lon- don. The DayCare Trust. Available at http://www.famil yandchildcaretrust.org/sites/default/files/files/Atypi cal_Work_Patterns_%E2%80%93_the_need_for_flexi bility_interactive.pdf (accessed 16 January 2017). Schwanen T, Kwan MP and Ren F (2008) How fixed is fixed? Gendered rigidity of space–time constraints and geographies of everyday activities. Geoforum 39(6): 2109–2121. Schweinhart LJ, Montie J, Xiang Z, Barnett WS, Belfield CR and Nores M (2005) Lifetime Effects: The High- Scope Perry Preschool study through Age 40. Avail- able at http://www.highscope.org/file/research/ perryproject/specialsummary_rev2011_02_2.pdf (accessed 16 January 2017). Shirani F, Henwood K and Coltart C (2012) Meeting the challenges of intensive parenting culture: Gender, risk management and the moral parent. Sociology: The Journal of the British Sociological Association 46(1): 25–40. Skinner C and Finch N (2006) Lone parents and informal childcare: A tax credit childcare subsidy? Social Policy and Administration 40(7): 807–823. Smith F and Barker J (2000) Contested spaces: Children’s experiences of out-of-school care in England and Wales. Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research 7(3): 315–333. Smith F and Barker J (2001) Commodifying the country- side: The impact of out-of-school care on rural land- scapes of children’s play. Area 33(2): 169–176. Smith F, Barker J, Wainwright E, Marandet E and Buckingham S (2008) A new deal for lone parents? Training lone parents for work in West London. Area 40(2): 237–244. Sumsion J (2006) The corporatization of Australian childcare: Towards an ethical audit and research agenda. Journal of Early Childhood Research 4(2): 99–120. Van Ham M and Mulder CH (2005) Geographical access to childcare and mother’s labour force participation. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 96(1): 63–74. Vincent C and Ball SJ (2001) A Market in love? Choosing pre-school childcare. British Educational Research Journal 27(5): 633–651. Vincent C, Braun A and Ball SJ (2008) Childcare, choice and social class: Caring for young children in the UK. Critical Social Policy 28(1): 5–26. DOI: 10.1177/ 0261018307085505. Warner ME and Gradus RHJM (2011) The consequences of implementing a child care voucher scheme: Evi- dence from Australia, the Netherlands and the USA. Social Policy and Administration 45(5): 569–592. Wheelock J and Jones K (2002) ‘Grandparents are the next best thing’: Informal childcare for working parents in urban Britain. Journal of Social Policy 31(3): 441–463. White A (2013) Nurseries are proving to be safe places for investors. The Telegraph UK, 18 September. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ retailandconsumer/10319246/Nurseries-are-proving- to-be-safe-places-for-investors.html (accessed 16 Jan- uary 2017). White L and Friendly M (2012) Public funding, private delivery: States, markets, and early childhood educa- tion and care in liberal welfare states: A comparison of Australia, the UK, Quebec, and New Zealand. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Prac- tice 14(4): 292–310. Author biography Aisling Gallagher is a Senior Lecturer in Geography at Massey University, New Zealand. Her research interests are in care markets, welfare restructuring and the geography of care provision. She is currently working on a three-year project examining the creation of a childcare market in NZ, funded by the Royal Society of New Zealand. Gallagher 17 http://www.familyandchildcaretrust.org/sites/default/files/files/Atypical_Work_Patterns_%E2%80%93_the_need_for_flexibility_interactive.pdf http://www.familyandchildcaretrust.org/sites/default/files/files/Atypical_Work_Patterns_%E2%80%93_the_need_for_flexibility_interactive.pdf http://www.familyandchildcaretrust.org/sites/default/files/files/Atypical_Work_Patterns_%E2%80%93_the_need_for_flexibility_interactive.pdf http://www.familyandchildcaretrust.org/sites/default/files/files/Atypical_Work_Patterns_%E2%80%93_the_need_for_flexibility_interactive.pdf http://www.familyandchildcaretrust.org/sites/default/files/files/Atypical_Work_Patterns_%E2%80%93_the_need_for_flexibility_interactive.pdf http://www.familyandchildcaretrust.org/sites/default/files/files/Atypical_Work_Patterns_%E2%80%93_the_need_for_flexibility_interactive.pdf http://www.familyandchildcaretrust.org/sites/default/files/files/Atypical_Work_Patterns_%E2%80%93_the_need_for_flexibility_interactive.pdf http://www.highscope.org/file/research/perryproject/specialsummary_rev2011_02_2.pdf http://www.highscope.org/file/research/perryproject/specialsummary_rev2011_02_2.pdf http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10319246/Nurseries-are-proving-to-be-safe-places-for-investors.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10319246/Nurseries-are-proving-to-be-safe-places-for-investors.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10319246/Nurseries-are-proving-to-be-safe-places-for-investors.html << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness false /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages false /ColorImageMinResolution 266 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Average /ColorImageResolution 175 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages false /GrayImageMinResolution 266 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Average /GrayImageResolution 175 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages false /MonoImageMinResolution 900 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Average /MonoImageResolution 175 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier (CGATS TR 001) /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /ENU >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AllowImageBreaks true /AllowTableBreaks true /ExpandPage false /HonorBaseURL true /HonorRolloverEffect false /IgnoreHTMLPageBreaks false /IncludeHeaderFooter false /MarginOffset [ 0 0 0 0 ] /MetadataAuthor () /MetadataKeywords () /MetadataSubject () /MetadataTitle () /MetricPageSize [ 0 0 ] /MetricUnit /inch /MobileCompatible 0 /Namespace [ (Adobe) (GoLive) (8.0) ] /OpenZoomToHTMLFontSize false /PageOrientation /Portrait /RemoveBackground false /ShrinkContent true /TreatColorsAs /MainMonitorColors /UseEmbeddedProfiles false /UseHTMLTitleAsMetadata true >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /BleedOffset [ 9 9 9 9 ] /ConvertColors /ConvertToRGB /DestinationProfileName (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /DestinationProfileSelector /UseName /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /ClipComplexRegions true /ConvertStrokesToOutlines false /ConvertTextToOutlines false /GradientResolution 300 /LineArtTextResolution 1200 /PresetName ([High Resolution]) /PresetSelector /HighResolution /RasterVectorBalance 1 >> /FormElements true /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles true /MarksOffset 9 /MarksWeight 0.125000 /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PageMarksFile /RomanDefault /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] /SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [288 288] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice