Science is unequivocal in its support for the importance of early childhood development.
Calls for increased investment in young children cite neuroscience, developmental
psychology and health. It is hazardous, however, to make a direct leap from neuroscience to
policy recommendations. Simply because early childhood provides opportunities for more
economically efficient interventions which have dramatic impact on inequality, this does not
mean that the ECD policies actually implemented by communities, provinces, or national
government are worthy investments. Firstly, it is difficult to design programmes that improve
children’s cognitive or behavioural development. Secondly, the costs of even effective
programmes might outweigh the benefits they generate for children, their families, and
taxpayers. And finally, programmes in early childhood require upfront and politically brave
investments that may take decades to pay off.
Nationally the field of early childhood learning1 is characterised by remarkably little data, and
even amongst quasi-programme evaluations, there is limited focus on child outcomes. From
an economist’s perspective, it is therefore challenging to make and build the economic case
for increased investment in the Pre-R year based solely on the benefit side of the equation.
As a result, this paper looks carefully at the cost side of the equation: the financial
implications of a phased national scale-up of centre-based support for a pre-R year, focused
on 4 year olds,2 within a cost per child and per model framework. This paper presents an
independent analysis of the issues raised by the recent National Planning Commission’s
preschool proposals, and as such is a timely and important contribution to the national
debate.