Author: SherrySongSHSF

Should childcare service become a business? [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 4

Post time 2017-12-4 16:02:22 |Display all floors
sfphoto Post time: 2017-12-4 04:11
My view is that taxes on consumption and real-estate assets should pay for social welfare services  ...

Long story short: I think that as long as private care services are not banned (this you agreed to), the public will vote with their feet. If they think that they can get better service from the commercial service providers, they will choose those.

Questionable is then, how happy they will be paying taxes to provide services that they don't use.

For example you mentioned that you will not be spending your elder days in a retirement home. I suspect that you said it just to brush away my questions. Otherwise you would not only have considered where you live, but what public services you use.

But in case you want to consider that more, you would still be paying taxes, so others can get state funded services. If what you propose to chldcare would extend to elder care, then most of the population would have state funded elder care.

You would be a small minority funding the needs of the majority - in my opinion it should be the opposite. Both in childcare and eldercare.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2017-12-4 18:44:03 |Display all floors
This post was edited by sfphoto at 2017-12-4 19:34
Jaaja Post time: 2017-12-4 16:02


Long story short: I think that as long as private care services are not banned (this you agreed to), the public will vote with their feet. If they think that they can get better service from the commercial service providers, they will choose those.

Sorry but the national stats prove otherwise: only a small fraction choose commercial service providers because it's a SOCIAL not an ECNOMIC decision. Chinese society view childcare as its moral obligation not as a consumer service that can be bought from the market.

Questionable is then, how happy they will be paying taxes to provide services that they don't use.

Again, that's more of an ideological question which is orthogonal to the childcare problem as a social welfare issue.

For example you mentioned that you will not be spending your elder days in a retirement home. I suspect that you said it just to brush away my questions. Otherwise you would not only have considered where you live, but what public services you use.

I don't intend to live in a retirement home, regardless of whether it's public or private.

But in case you want to consider that more, you would still be paying taxes, so others can get state funded services. If what you propose to chldcare would extend to elder care, then most of the population would have state funded elder care. You would be a small minority funding the needs of the majority - in my opinion it should be the opposite. Both in childcare and eldercare.

But that's same for the State-funded public school system, isn't it? Rich parents who send their kids to private-schools also pay taxes that go to State-funded public schools, even though their children don't attend public schools. The difference is in the way you look at the problem in economic terms: if all you care about is consumer choice, then the Market is where consumers can buy whatever they want. But if I look at the social welfare problem as the moral obligation of Society, then the State has the political duty to fund, support and regulate the social welfare industry.

You need to look at childcare as a SOCIAL rather than as an ECONOMIC issue.

Between the State and the Market, Society has the moral obligation to provide social welfare services but the Market can provide whatever is lacking in Society in the same way the State can support whoever is in need of social welfare services and regulate whatever is needed in the social welfare industry. Indeed, the national stats prove my case: social welfare services such as childcare is being provided by Society rather than the Market. The State should then support Society by institutionalizing social welfare services for all its citizens.


Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2017-12-4 21:25:09 |Display all floors
sfphoto Post time: 2017-12-4 18:44
Sorry but the national stats prove otherwise: only a small fraction choose commercial service provi ...

Stats don't have to prove anything in this case - I don't claim that the fraction choosing commercial providers is big currently.

I think that we disagree about following:

I believe that it is moral obligation of families (Chinese included) to provide best possible care for their children. Sometime that may call for external care provider.

You seem to believe that the moral obligation is for famlies to take care of their children themselves, whether they do it well or not. I would question whether this kind of moral obligation is healthy at all.

I'm not sure if that's what you believe, but that's how your comments come out.

The relationship between commercial and nonprofit care I see as follows: if commercial providers are allowed, then they must build their services so good, that they outperform the services provided by nonprofits - otherwise they don't have business.

Therefore, if there are commercial providers surviving in this scenario, they must be providing better service than the nonprofits do - or at least make such impression to their customers.

This is why, with my definition of forementioned "moral obligation", increasing number of parents will choose those commercial providers.

State-funded public school system, isn't it? Rich parents who send their kids to private-schools also pay taxes


Correct me if I'm worng, but it has been my understanding that in China the state-funded public schools have monopoly in providing education that aims for Chinese gaokao. To my knowledge, private schools cannot offer this (they can only provide extra curricular tutoring, or education that aims directly for overseas higher education).

You could also argue that someone pays taxes to fund railways, even if they never take train in their life. But if they don't take train, they fly or drive car instead, and roads and airports are funded by tax revenues too. So it doesn't really matter to the taxpayer.

It is same with primary education in China - it doesn't really matter if you choose this or that, because you will have to choose something that is funded by your tax contributions anyway.

In childcare the situation is different. If you don't choose the nonprofit childcare that you pay with your tax contributions, you will not choose some other tax-funded option in its place either.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2017-12-5 05:44:52 |Display all floors
This post was edited by sfphoto at 2017-12-5 08:50
Jaaja Post time: 2017-12-4 21:25
Stats don't have to prove anything in this case - I don't claim that the fraction choosing commerc ...
Correct me if I'm worng, but it has been my understanding that in China the state-funded public schools have monopoly in providing education that aims for Chinese gaokao. To my knowledge, private schools cannot offer this (they can only provide extra curricular tutoring, or education that aims directly for overseas higher education).

Not true at all. China's private education industry is a booming business with for-profit companies offering elementary, high school and college programs to Chinese students who can take the gaokao. Many of them are just diploma mills with profit as their main goal which is why they're listed in the HK or NY stock exchange. This Chinese for-profit private-school industry is different and separate from the non-profit international school system for the foreign children of expat families from the USA, Europe, East Asia, Canada, etc.

The quality of these for-profit private schools is questionable. And the fact that most Chinese middle-class parents including those from elite families continue to enroll their children in the State-run public school system including the best Universities in China proves my point. Even the Chinese children who don't pass the gaokao end up going abroad for their college studies because the local for-profit private colleges have a bad reputation as nothing more than diploma mills. The best Universities in China are all State-run: Beida, Tsinghua, Shanghai Jiaotong, Fudan, Xiamen, Xi'an Jiatong, Sichuan and the numerous Universities of Science and Technology. Those technological schools are world-class, comparable to MIT, Caltech, Technion, etc.

What China needs are more State-funded Science High Schools with an emphasis on Science and Technology. My view is that all these for-profit private schools are just a waste of time and money for rich parents to spoil their kids. I am not a fan of private schools at all because they cater to rich kids who spend most of their time partying instead of studying.


The rest of your post doesn't make sense.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2017-12-5 14:10:47 |Display all floors
sfphoto Post time: 2017-12-5 05:44
Not true at all. China's private education industry is a booming business with for-profit companie ...
Not true at all. China's private education industry is a booming business with for-profit companies offering elementary, high school and college programs to Chinese students who can take the gaokao.


I have from more credible source than you, that until very recently, Chinese private school (grades 1-9) providers were required by law to be essentially non-profits.

They have not been allowed to pay dividends or share profits (though there have been apparent ways to structure the business so that money can flow offshore), and in return they have enjoyed government incentives in taxation and land prices.

That is until September 2017, when Chinese private schools got permission to re-register as for-profit enterprises, but doing so they would lose the privilege of offering formal education in grades 1-9, as well as those government subsidies.

Exception of course are official international schools serving only foreign passport holders. Since they operate "outside China's system" (not providing indoctrination to Chinese system and therefore can not accept Chinese nationals), China does not set many requirements for those.

Relevant reading:

Law of the People's Republic of China on the Promotion of Privately-run Schools (2002)

A quick quote from the law:

"Article 3 Privately-run schools belong to public welfare undertakings and constitute a component part of the cause of socialist education."

Prior to this law, private schools existed unofficially, primarily to provide some (often cheap and low quality) education to migrant children that did follow their parents to cities but were rejected from local school systems.

I think that this specific article in China's law nulls much of your argumentation in this whole thread, since same principles should extend to other elements of public welfare. Unlike you, the state of China recognizes private (=commercial) service providers as integral part of public welfare and socialist system.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2017-12-5 14:59:45 |Display all floors
Jaaja Post time: 2017-12-5 14:10
I have from more credible source than you, that until very recently, Chinese private school (gra ...

China passed a law last year banning for-profit private schools for K-9 because most of the private schools were for-profit even though they were registered as non-profit enterprises. Some of them are even listed in the HK and NY stock exchanges. These commercial enterprises disguised themselves as non-profit organizations to get tax breaks and land grants from local governments but operated as for-profit and publicly-listed companies!!! They're just diploma mills out to make a quick buck from rich but gullible parents!!!

Anyway, most Chinese students from middle-class families attend State-funded public schools not these Capitalist-funded private schools.

So what's your point? China should ban State-funded public schools and allow only Capitalist-funded private schools because Chinese taxpayers should be treated equally by not allocating their taxes to public schools?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2017-12-5 16:24:13 |Display all floors
sfphoto Post time: 2017-12-5 14:59
China passed a law last year banning for-profit private schools for K-9 because most of the privat ...
So what's your point? China should ban State-funded public schools and allow only Capitalist-funded private schools because Chinese taxpayers should be treated equally by not allocating their taxes to public schools?


No, thats not my point.

We have now been talking of China's primary education system (OP is early childhood and nursery), and the relevant part coming from that is that in public welfare (early childhood and eldercare) Chna should and does officially recognize the importance of private service providers.

Primary education is different, because it is compulsory and also China's way to indoctrinate the citizens to China's political system.

Such functions are not important for early childhood and eldercare, therefore China can (as it does) include commercial component of those services, which is still considered part of the public welfare system. Those wealthy enough can use those services, so the poorer have more state-funded resources available to them.

My second point is, that if you build public welfare primarily on non-profits, many of those will seek ways to make profit anyway, and you end up in same situation like China now has with private primary education.

China should prioritize commercial care service providers as part of building up service industry, to create jobs and tax revenues, and then use that to finance services for those who cannot use commercial services (either because they are too expensive, or not available in the location).

Your previous argumentations about traditional moral obligation you did not seem to want to discuss in detail, when I challenged you to clarify the definition.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.