IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Was verspricht der Koalitionsvertrag der schwarz-gelben Bundesregierung im Bereich der Bildungs- und Familienpolitik?: Eine Bewertung ausgewählter Aspekte

Listed author(s):
  • C. Katharina Spieß

The present paper first discusses and evaluates the educational and family policy measures mentioned in the coalition agreement of the CDU-FDP coalition government. As research in educational and family economics has shown, early childhood education and care is extremely important for both of these fields of public policy. There is no particular emphasis on early childhood education and care in the coalition agreement, however, and the educational policy and family policy measures that it does mention appear entirely disconnected from each other. In sum, the coalition agreement displays an evident lack of an overarching concept for educational and family policy in particular. Second, this paper presents arguments highlighting the need for a stronger focus on the main target groups of German educational and family policy. The coalition shows such a focus only in certain isolated areas. Furthermore, many of the measures mentioned are placed under the jurisdiction of the Länder (state) and municipal governments. What this means, however, is that these government bodies will need to be provided with sufficient funding, and that this funding must be protected from cuts under the pretext of reforms in other areas (such as in tax policy). Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden sowohl bildungs- als auch familienpolitische Maßnahmen, wie sie im Koalitionsvertrag der gegenwärtigen schwarz-gelben Bundesregierung genannt werden, diskutiert und bewertet. Für beide Politikbereiche ist die frühkindliche Bildung und Betreuung von hoher Relevanz; dies lässt sich bildungs- und familienökonomisch begründen. Im Koalitionsvertrag kommt diesem Bereich jedoch kein besonderer Schwerpunkt zu. Darüber hinaus stehen die Maßnahmen, die im Kontext der Bildungspolitik und im Kontext der Familienpolitik genannt werden, unverbunden nebeneinander. Offenkundig mangelt es an einem bildungs- und insbesondere an einem familienpolitischen Gesamtkonzept. Der Beitrag beleuchtet auch die Notwendigkeit einer größeren Zielgruppenorientierung der deutschen Bildungs- und Familienpolitik. Diese findet sich im Koalitionsvertrag nur sehr vereinzelt wieder. Hinzu kommt, dass viele Maßnahmen im Zuständigkeitsbereich der Länder und Kommunen genannt werden. Das bedeutet aber, dass diesen Gebietskörperschaften entsprechende Finanzierungsspielräume gegeben werden müssen, die nicht durch Reformüberlegungen in anderen Politikbereichen (wie der Steuerpolitik) eingeschränkt werden dürfen.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://ejournals.duncker-humblot.de/DH/doi/pdf/10.3790/vjh.79.1.101
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research in its journal Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung.

Volume (Year): 79 (2010)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Pages: 101-116

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:79-1-7
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Mohrenstraße 58, D-10117 Berlin

Phone: xx49-30-89789-0
Fax: xx49-30-89789-200
Web page: http://www.diw.de/en
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Haan, Peter & Wrohlich, Katharina, 2011. "Can child care policy encourage employment and fertility?: Evidence from a structural model," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 498-512, August.
  2. C. Katharina Spieß & Charlotte Büchner, 2009. "Children Who Attend Formal Day Care Do Better in School: Even Many Years Later in Secondary School," Weekly Report, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 5(5), pages 31-34.
  3. Flavio Cunha & James J. Heckman & Susanne M. Schennach, 2010. "Estimating the Technology of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skill Formation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(3), pages 883-931, 05.
  4. James Heckman & Flavio Cunha, 2007. "The Technology of Skill Formation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(2), pages 31-47, May.
  5. Markus M. Grabka & Joachim R. Frick, 2010. "Weiterhin hohes Armutsrisiko in Deutschland: Kinder und junge Erwachsene sind besonders betroffen," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 77(7), pages 2-11.
  6. Naci Mocan, 2007. "Can consumers detect lemons? An empirical analysis of information asymmetry in the market for child care," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 20(4), pages 743-780, October.
  7. Katharina C. Spiess & Eva M. Berger & Olaf Groh-Samberg, 2008. "Overcoming Disparities and Expanding Access to Early Childhood Services in Germany: Policy consideration and funding options," Papers inwopa08/52, Innocenti Working Papers.
  8. Axel Werwatz & Heike Belitz & Tanja Kirn & Jens Schmidt-Ehmcke, 2006. "Innovationsindikator Deutschland 2006," DIW Berlin: Politikberatung kompakt, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, volume 22, number pbk22, March.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:79-1-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Bibliothek)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.