ENHANCING FINANCING MECHANISMS FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD AND SCHOOL EDUCATION FACILITIES: INTERNATIONAL LESSONS FOR UZBEKISTAN
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17777016Keywords:
early childhood education; preschool financing; public–private mix; equity in education; comparative education policy; UzbekistanAbstract
This paper examines international approaches to financing early childhood education (ECE) and explores how
key financing mechanisms can be adapted to support the ongoing expansion of preschool education in Uzbekistan.
Drawing on comparative and theoretical literature, the study distinguishes three broad models of ECE financing—
Nordic, continental European and Anglo Saxon—and analyses their implications for access, equity and quality. The
paper highlights a set of optimization instruments, including per child and weighted funding formulas, demand side
subsidies, and intergovernmental equalization transfers, and discusses their strengths and limitations in diverse welfare
and governance contexts. Using a conceptual “fit gap” assessment, the article argues that Uzbekistan would benefit from
a hybrid financing model that combines a strong public funding base with equity oriented weighting, carefully designed
household subsidies and gradual strengthening of regulatory capacity. The findings provide a conceptual framework and
practical directions for designing financing reforms capable of supporting both rapid expansion and long term sustainability
of ECE services in Uzbekistan
References
Aldashev, A., & Mamedov, O. (2019). Early childhood education reforms in Central Asia: Access, equity and governance
challenges. International Journal of Educational Development, 68, 45–56.
Barnett, W. S. (2011). Effectiveness of early educational intervention. Science, 333(6045), 975–978.
Bennet, J. (2000). Early childhood education and care: An overview of developments in the OECD countries.
International Journal of Educational Research, 33(2), 95–108.
Brennan, D., Cass, B., Himmelweit, S., & Szebehely, M. (2012). The marketisation of care: Rationales and consequences
in Nordic and liberal care regimes. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(4), 377–391.
Cascio, E. U. (2009). Maternal labor supply and the introduction of kindergartens into American public schools. Journal
of Human Resources, 44(1), 140–170.
Daly, M. (2015). Parenting support policies in Europe. Families, Relationships and Societies, 4(2), 159–171.
EspingAndersen, G. (2009). The incomplete revolution: Adapting welfare states to women’s new roles. Polity Press.
Gambaro, L., Stewart, K., & Waldfogel, J. (2014). An equal start? Providing quality early education and care for
disadvantaged children. Policy Press.
Heckman, J. J., Moon, S. H., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P. A., & Yavitz, A. Q. (2010). The rate of return to the HighScope Perry
Preschool Program. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1–2), 114–128.
Kaga, Y., Bennett, J., & Moss, P. (2010). Caring and learning together: A crossnational study on the integration of early
childhood care and education within education. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 4(2), 15–28.
Melhuish, E., ErekyStevens, K., Petrogiannis, K., Ariescu, A., Penderi, E., Rentzou, K., & Tawell, A. (2015). A review of
research on the effects of early childhood education and care (ECEC) upon child development. CARE Project.
Moss, P. (2013). Early childhood and compulsory education: Reconceptualising the relationship. Routledge.
Penn, H. (2011). Gambling on the market: The role of forprofit provision in early childhood education and care. Journal
of Early Childhood Research, 9(2), 150–161.
Silova, I., & Palandjian, G. (2018). Revisiting postsocialist transformations in education: The global and the local in
Central and Eastern Europe, Eurasia and beyond. European Education, 50(3), 163–175
