particularly its choice to channel (some) funding through the demand side.
Nonetheless, there is little of the sense of excitement around ECEC in Scotland that is
present in both England and Wales.
The contrast with Wales is instructive. British devolution is asymmetric; the scope
and depth of the powers of the nations varies; Wales has the weakest powers of all.
Moreover, prior to political devolution, Welsh ECEC provision was fairly typical of
the UK in general. Although it did have an important distinct, community-based
ECEC sector in the medium of the Welsh language, in general Wales did not enjoy an
enhanced provision equivalent to that available in Scotland. Since devolution,
however, the Welsh Assembly Government has made very successful use of its
limited powers to redesign ECEC provision in radically innovative ways. Of
particular interest here is the Welsh Foundation Stage Curriculum, a policy that
recasts the relationship between pre-school and the first three years of primary school.
Here the opportunity for innovation seems to have been greater in the setting that
appeared institutionally more feeble, and with a weaker policy legacy in ECEC.
Working under lighter constraints, in Wales entrepreneurial policy-makers seem to
have had more scope to shape the ECEC policy space.
Overall, then, the expansion of ECEC in Britain shows some of the features we might
expect of the ‘liberal’ regime. It is certainly not a wholly publicly provided system.
Indeed, so far from being forced into it, New Labour seems to have been keen to
protect the role of the private and voluntary sectors in ECEC. Moreover, elements of
ECEC are consistent with a recommodificatory logic, helping to ensure that as large a
proportion as possible of the adult population are in paid work. Nevertheless, it is
hard to account for the increasing emphasis on child development and the growing
role of the state both as provider and as guarantor of ECEC solely from within the
42
Cohen et al. A New Deal for Children? p.133
43
Which is not to say that they have been unconstrained. It is striking that the Welsh innovations have
been mainly in the regulatory area; in terms of levels of funding, there is some evidence that these are
lower in Wales than, say, in England. (Although another peculiar feature of British devolution is that
reliable comparative data are almost impossible to construct.) For a discussion of the Welsh case see
Daniel Wincott ‘Devolution and the Welfare State: Lessons from Early Childhood Education and Care
Policy in Wales’, Environment and Planning C Government and Policy forthcoming. Wincott
‘Reshaping Public Space?’ develops the internal British comparison in more detail.
19
Convention