This paper examines issues of affordability and justice using the concept of “basic structure” as developed by Iris M. Young in order to produce a more nuanced account of the Pre-primary Education Voucher Scheme. We draw on the experiences of Hong Kong mothers of different socio-economic status who have participated in the voucher scheme. The scheme aims to provide affordable quality early education by giving parents a flat-rate voucher so as to assist them in enrolling their children in non-profit local kindergartens. We base our arguments on the central premise that socially just policy requires meticulous attention to the basic structure that determines distributive patterns. We go on to argue that the basic structure is governed by institutional assumptions, rules, and practices about class, gender, and markets. Our analysis references both quantitative and qualitative data of a three-phased mixed-method study with > 1400 mothers. The key findings reveal how mothers of different socio-economic backgrounds experienced the voucher scheme where power structures and relations are legitimized, thus contributing to the structural processes that reproduce constraints and injustice. Mothers' articulation regarding the policy recommendation of free early education adds insights into the constraints they experience and a notion of collective responsibility in supporting the education of young children.
[Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.]

This paper seeks to question what impact education vouchers have on the process of school choice. The context examined in the paper is the Pre-primary Education Voucher Scheme ('Voucher Scheme') introduced in 2007 in Hong Kong. Using a Straussian grounded theory method, data collected from 40 parent interviews are coded, analysed and developed into categories. The paper analytically situates the findings within a model, derived from the data, which is based on two properties: orientation and time. Orientation differentiates and emphasises the significance of choice factors in relation to the school versus the family, and time is related to focus on the present versus the future. The paper subsequently presents the data related to these properties and reflects on the intricate dynamic of parents' school choice decisions under the Voucher Scheme.
[© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group]

This paper examines choice of kindergarten by mothers of different socio-economic status (SES) for children aged 3 while using vouchers in Hong Kong. It identifies potential market failure to meet needs and preferences and ensure access to preferred options for all, and thus challenges the global prevalence of the market approach to early childhood services. It questions gendered responsibility and policy that prevents mothers from fulfilling care responsibilities for young children. This paper presents data from a mixed-method study including an analysis of mothers' options in terms of convenience and their views on the impact of the Pre-primary Education Voucher Scheme (thereafter voucher scheme) and local provision. Data were collected from two questionnaires, seven focus groups, and government documents. The quantitative data covered two-parent households using vouchers, with 1572 and 1360 mothers responding to the initial and follow-up questionnaires, respectively. The qualitative data from 33 mothers were coded and analyzed to capture recurring themes and nuances. Official figures were tabulated to investigate market adjustments relating to changes in demand and supply. The results reveal mothers' strong emphasis on convenience when making choices of kindergarten, the significance of SES in their choice and views, and issues of access linked to market situations and failure. They are discussed in terms of the nature, allocation, and fulfillment of care responsibilities in markets. The results lend support to the international call for active government involvement to achieve the dual goals of early childhood services (meeting children's educational needs and parents' employment needs) and show how markets may neglect the specific nature of care responsibilities, which in turn can exacerbate historical injustices in society.
[Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.]