(In)Dependence as Dependent Variable: Conceptualizing and Measuring ‘De-familization’

Leitner, Sigrid; Lessenich, Stephan

doi:10.4337/9781847206916.00022

Cited by 20 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Those with limited or no family carers available were more engaged in organizing formal care services according to their preferences, yet were in need of support from care professionals especially in accessing (cash) benefits. Gaps in the availability of informal care were thus partly compensated by health and social care workers, but there are indications that those of lower SES without informal care networks might require increased attention, for example when developing targeted case management programmes (Leitner and Lessenich ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The framework for analysis is rooted in the idea that payments for care allow for different degrees of family dependencies (Keck and Saraceno ), especially when the cash benefit is paid unconditionally to the care recipient (instead of the caregiver) as in Austria. We follow Leitner and Lessenich () in re‐conceptualizing ‘de‐familization’ by highlighting the importance of focusing (also) on the care recipient's perspective. De‐familization is understood as ‘not [being] equal to a “family‐hostile” environment’ (Lohmann and Zagel :7), but as a way of ‘reducing gender‐related and intergenerational dependencies’ (Lohmann and Zagel :7) between family members through statutory support.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Older Persons’ Views on Using Cash‐for‐Care Allowances at the Crossroads of Gender, Socio‐economic Status and Care Needs in Vienna

Schmidt

2017

Soc Policy Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article aims to contribute to understanding social inequalities resulting from familization (or de-familization) tendencies among cash-for-care beneficiaries in a Conservative welfare state. It highlights justifications for choices in accessing and using care in a cash-for-care scheme from the perspective of care recipients aged 80 years and older in Vienna. Along key dimensions characterizing care recipients' experiences, we identify four different user groups, which reflect recipients' individual characteristics, particularly gender, socio-economic status (SES), and care needs, and the respective care arrangement. The groups are dubbed: (1) the self-confident; (2) the illiterate; (3) the dependent; and (4) the lonely. Narrative interviews with 15 frail older people were held in 2014 and analyzed using the framework analysis method. Results show that familiarity with support structures associates with higher SES, while those who depend on others for acquiring information or organizing care express ambivalence in choosing between formal and informal care. Engagement in deciding which care type to use is limited among people of lower SES or with complex care needs, but own experience as informal caregiver for a family member increases care recipients' long-term care (LTC) system literacy. Gender differences among care recipients were limited, yet middle-class female recipients often expressed normative claims for family care from female relatives. We conclude that unconditional care allowance schemes may reinforce existing gender relations, particularly among informal caregivers, as well as underpin socio-economic differences among LTC users in old-age. Results also partly question the assumptions of choice and empowerment implicit in many cash-for-care schemes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Older Persons’ Views on Using Cash‐for‐Care Allowances at the Crossroads of Gender, Socio‐economic Status and Care Needs in Vienna

Schmidt

2017

Soc Policy Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Intergenerational responsibilities are, in fact, shaped and implemented at the interface between collective and private forms of provision, both in the form of care and financial support (Lewis 1998;Anttonen et al 2003). In order to understand the division of intergenerational responsibilities between the state and the family, elaborating on Korpi's (2000), Leitner's (2003), Leitner and Lessenich's (2007) and Saraceno's (2004Saraceno's ( , 2010 conceptual frameworks, we propose a distinction between four different patterns along the familialism/ de-familialisation continuum: (1) Familialism by default, or unsupported familialism, when there are neither publicly provided alternatives to, nor financial support for family care. This dimension can be implicit, but also explicit, as in the case of financial obligations within the generational chain and kinship networks prescribed by law.…”

Section: A Conceptual Framework For Identifying Institutional Patternmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can We Identify Intergenerational Policy Regimes in Europe?

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines whether it is possible to recognise specific patterns of institutionally regulated downward (towards children) and upward (towards the old) intergenerational obligations with regard to care and financial support, and to identify specific country profiles and clusters of countries in Europe. Based on the three-fold conceptualisation of familialism by default, supported familialism and de-familialisation, and using a complex set of indicators, we describe how countries, by means of policies, allocate intergenerational responsibilities between families and the state, also paying attention to their gender impact. The study includes all 27 EU countries and for the first time offers a comparative overview of a diversified set of policies with regard to both children and the old. It concludes that although specific policy profiles emerge with regard to the two sets of obligations, these do not always coincide. Furthermore, contrary to widespread opinion, supported familialism and de-familialisation are not always contrasting policy approaches. In some countries, they actually represent part of an integrated approach to public support of intergenerational obligations. Moreover, the gender impact of supported familialism may be different and even contrary, depending on the specific instrument. Finally, once the road of oversimplification is excluded, only one statistically sound cluster of countries emerges. It is, however, possible to detect groups of countries that are similar. These only partly overlap with prevalent welfare regime types.

show abstract

“…De‐familisation is understood as ‘the terms and conditions under which people engage in families and the extent to which they can uphold an acceptable standard of living independently of (patriarchal) “family” participation’ (McLaughlin & Glendinning, , p. 65). Thus, de‐familisation refers to social, emotional and economic independence within families for both the persons in need of care and their family members (Leitner & Lessenich, ). Eldercare services have a de‐familising potential for both frail older persons and their children and other family members, offering both parties a more genuine choice regarding the terms and conditions under which they would like to give or receive family care.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

From the state to the family or to the market? Consequences of reduced residential eldercare in Sweden

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses the changing roles of the state, family and market in providing care for older people in Sweden, in relation to Scandinavian welfare ideals of universalism and de‐familisation. Since 2000 every fourth residential care bed has disappeared and the increase in homecare services has not compensated for the decline. Instead family care (defined here as help from adult children and other non‐cohabiting family or friends) has increased in all social groups: help by daughters mainly among older people with shorter education and help by sons among those highly educated. Use of privately purchased services has also increased but continues to play a marginal role. Family care remains more common among older people with less education whereas privately purchased services are more common among those with higher education. This dualisation of care challenges universalism, and working‐class daughters continue to be most affected by eldercare cutbacks.

show abstract

(In)Dependence as Dependent Variable: Conceptualizing and Measuring ‘De-familization’

Cited by 20 publications

References 0 publications

Older Persons’ Views on Using Cash‐for‐Care Allowances at the Crossroads of Gender, Socio‐economic Status and Care Needs in Vienna

Older Persons’ Views on Using Cash‐for‐Care Allowances at the Crossroads of Gender, Socio‐economic Status and Care Needs in Vienna

Can We Identify Intergenerational Policy Regimes in Europe?

From the state to the family or to the market? Consequences of reduced residential eldercare in Sweden

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About