The federal government is looking to play a larger role in childcare policy. Our analysis argues for the opposite: responsibility should remain primarily within cantons and municipalities. They are better positioned to tailor solutions to local needs, through clearer accountability, less bureaucracy, and more targeted support for families.

In this article, we address six of the most common points of criticism.

Good childcare policy generates tax revenue at all levels so why should municipalities bear most of the costs?

This logic runs counter to the idea behind Switzerland’s federal system. This would imply that all levels of government should co-finance virtually every policy that promotes economic activity. But federalism depends on a clear division of responsibilities. The guiding principle here is subsidiarity: public tasks should, wherever possible, be handled at the lowest effective level. In addition, experience to date suggests that childcare subsidies have little to only modest effects on labor supply and thus on tax revenues. This calls into question the expectation that such spending will largely pay for itself or even generate net returns.

Financially weaker municipalities cannot afford well-developed childcare systems. To reduce these inequalities, we need cantonal or federal solutions.

Differences between regions are not a flaw. They are a defining feature of federalism. Swiss cantons and municipalities enjoy a degree of fiscal autonomy that is exceptional by international standards, allowing them to develop their own solutions to local challenges. This decentralization encourages learning: jurisdictions can observe what works and what does not. Citizens, in turn, can bring their concerns directly into the political process at the local level.

To prevent disparities in public services from becoming excessive, Switzerland has a fiscal equalization system, through which resources flow from wealthier to poorer regions. This ensures that all municipalities and cantons have a minimum level of financial capacity without sacrificing their autonomy. Balancing regional differences should rely on such instruments, rather than shifting more responsibilities to higher levels of government.

Childcare should be part of a universal public service to which everyone is entitled.

In Switzerland, compulsory schooling typically begins at age four. Until then, parents are free to decide how they organize childcare. A city like Geneva may rightly choose to expand publicly provided early childhood services. However, it is equally important that other municipalities remain free to opt for different approaches.

Preferences in early childhood care vary. Surveys show that 28 percent of mothers would not use external childcare even if it were free.

Families with two children sometimes face childcare bills of up to 50,000 francs a year. Work is meant to pay but at current childcare costs, it often doesn’t, especially for second earners.

What matters is not just the headline cost of childcare, but what remains after taxes and subsidies. Many municipalities provide income-based support, meaning that low-income households often pay only a fraction of the full cost. Higher-income families, in turn, benefit from tax deductions for childcare expenses, which have been significantly expanded in recent years. Reforms such as individual taxation would further strengthen incentives for second earners to participate in the labor market.

Moreover, the period during which families rely heavily on childcare is relatively short compared to an entire working life. Over the medium and long term, employment typically pays off through pension accumulation, career development, and future earning potential. Yet there is a tendency to overestimate short-term costs and underestimate long-term benefits. A recent Swiss study illustrates this point: many mothers increase their working hours once they better understand how reduced employment affects their retirement savings.

You call for support for disadvantaged children but oppose a strong, universal childcare system. Isn’t that contradictory?

No. Universal coverage does not mean targeted support. The current problem is precisely that the children who would benefit most from early education are less likely to attend childcare facilities.

What matters, therefore, is not primarily expanding access for everyone, but providing targeted social and language support to those who need it most. Municipalities are best placed to identify where such support is required. Many already use childcare vouchers to target social integration, rather than simply increasing overall labor force participation.

Childcare is about children. Your study criticizes regulation, but is childcare quality really the right place to deregulate?

Caring for young children requires certain minimum standards, given the complexity and responsibility involved. Accordingly, we do not advocate minimal regulation, but the measured application of adequate rules. A review of cantonal regulations, however, shows that some requirements are highly detailed. For instance, guidelines in the canton of Vaud specify exactly which floor coverings are permitted in childcare facilities which are limited to parquet, linoleum, or Novilon. They also require that windows in each room account for at least one-eighth of the floor area.

While such regulations are generally well-intentioned and aimed at ensuring quality and safety, they can have unintended consequences: higher operating costs and a reduced diversity of services. Many aspects of quality can be assessed by parents themselves. For less observable factors, transparency requirements may suffice to make quality visible. Ultimately, parents’ requirements are a key driver of both the quality and diversity of childcare provision.