Labour Markets, Care Regimes and Foreign Care Worker Policies in <scp>E</scp>ast <scp>A</scp>sia

Song, Jiyeoun

doi:10.1111/spol.12081

Cited by 23 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The alternative of a no-strings-attached cash payment is, however, also present, leaving room for a type of supported familialism and for indirect supported defamilialization via the market through the 'migrant in the family' model. Migrant care workers are also present in private households in Korea, although there is a specific selection insofar as only co-ethnic migrants are allowed (Song, 2015). From this perspective, the exception is Japan, where no form of 'migrant in the family' care pattern is detectable or legally possible (Song, 2015).…”

Section: Care For the Frail Oldmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Varieties of familialism: Comparing four southern European and East Asian welfare regimes

Saraceno

2016

Journal of European Social Policy

163

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this article is to articulate the concepts of familialism and defamilialization as well as their indicators to assess whether and how welfare states, or regimes, differ not only in the degree to which they are defamilialized but also in the specific familialism form. In other words, it assesses whether family responsibility in a given area (and its gender dimension) is only assumed without public policy support or, on the contrary, whether it is actively enforced by laws or supported by income transfers and time allocation. The same diversification also exists for the opposite concept, defamilialization, which may happen through positive, direct or indirect policy interventions or because of the lack of such interventions, encouraging recourse to the market. The article shows that when considering these distinctions in the analyses, the profiles of countries that are usually generically described as ‘familialistic welfare states’, such as Italy and Spain in Europe or Japan and Korea in East Asia, and their similarities and differences partly differ from those that emerge when considering only a simplified familialism – defamilialization dichotomy, in so far both familialism and defamilialization may occur, and be combined, through distinct means, offering, therefore, also different options.

show abstract

Section: Care For the Frail Oldmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Migrant care workers are also present in private households in Korea, although there is a specific selection insofar as only co-ethnic migrants are allowed (Song, 2015). From this perspective, the exception is Japan, where no form of 'migrant in the family' care pattern is detectable or legally possible (Song, 2015).…”

Section: Care For the Frail Oldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Varieties of familialism: Comparing four southern European and East Asian welfare regimes

Saraceno

2016

Journal of European Social Policy

163

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Literature in the ECEC domain illustrates the need to include regulation of quality in comparative analyses (Gambaro et al . ), and, as mentioned above, recent comparative care regime research identifies migration policies as an integral policy element in comparisons of funding and regulation of care sectors (Simonazzi ; Song ; Shutes and Chiatti ; Williams and Gavanas ). These are grouped as three distinct, yet intersecting, policy elements: Public funding through specific programmes, subsidies and tax measures eligible to users of in‐home childcare, where government funding represents increased public responsibility. ECEC regulation in relation to in‐home childcare, where regulation, including qualifications for care workers, represents greater public responsibility and also a shift from the informal to formal domain. Immigration policies to facilitate families hiring a care worker in their own home.…”

Section: Analytical Approachmentioning

confidence: 97%

Return of the Nanny: Public Policy towards In‐home Childcare in the UK, Canada and Australia

Adamson

Brennan

2016

Soc Policy Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on early childhood education and care (ECEC) policy focuses overwhelmingly on formal, centre‐based provision and, to a lesser extent, on family day care (or childminding) provided in the homes of registered carers. Comparatively little research addresses the policy treatment of care provided in the child's home by nannies and au pairs. This article examines the position of in‐home childcare in Australia, the UK and Canada, and the varied nature and extent of public funding and regulation. Introducing a new dimension into comparative studies of ECEC, it also explores how shifts in migration policy in each country have intersected with ECEC funding and regulation to reshape the recruitment and employment of in‐home child carers. Australia, the UK and Canada are all liberal, market‐oriented countries, but there is considerable diversity in the way governments support and regulate in‐home childcare, their rationales for so doing, and in the connections between childcare and migration. We argue that connecting the analysis of in‐home childcare to migration policies raises new questions about the classification and comparison of ECEC policies.

show abstract

“…Since most of the previous studies focus on either the demand or supply side, or on a specific geographical area (e.g. Kvist ; Morel ; Song ; Michel and Peng ), research covering the most prevalent approaches in affluent countries has been scarce. In this study, the scope of the analysis includes affluent countries that have specific policies targeting domestic employment, which mostly applies to countries of Europe, Northern America and East Asia.…”

Section: Policy Approaches To Domestic Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A growing number of scholarly works have examined the ways that different policy regimes, such as migration, care, employment and gender regimes, sustain specific patterns in paid domestic work (Da Roit and Weicht ; Williams ; Song ; Hellgren ). However, research on policies explicitly targeting domestic employment, especially outside European countries, has been scarce (Calleman ; Kvist ; Morel ; Michel and Peng ), and the little there is tends to focus on one specific type of policy, for example tax reduction schemes or migrant care worker programmes, or on one geographical area.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Domestic Employment Policies in Shaping Precarious Work

Jokela

2017

Soc Policy Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article compares policy approaches regarding domestic employment in affluent countries and examines their impact on precarious work. Drawing on secondary literature and policy documents, this study identifies five policy approaches commonly applied in affluent countries to regulate and develop domestic employment: (1) affordable services; (2) simplifying use; (3) regulating employment; (4) regulating labour migration; and (5) no policy. The comparative analysis of different policy types shows that policy design is crucial in regulating employment conditions and the level of precariousness in paid domestic labour. Based on a literature review, three dimensions of precarious work are studied: (1) the nature of employment (formal/informal); (2) the employment relationship; and (3) the form of employment (temporary or permanent, part time or full time). I argue that the current policy measures in place may increase precariousness either directly by promoting, for example, informal and irregular work, or indirectly through households (offering incentives for households that weaken workers' positions). The analysis also identifies positive measures that contribute to creating more secure employment conditions in domestic work through formalizing the sector. While there are differences in the outcomes of the different policy types, the findings suggest that across welfare states, domestic employment policies are still mostly demand driven and sustain the traditional, special nature of domestic work – often at the workers' expense.

show abstract

Labour Markets, Care Regimes and Foreign Care Worker Policies in East Asia

Cited by 23 publications

References 32 publications

Varieties of familialism: Comparing four southern European and East Asian welfare regimes

Varieties of familialism: Comparing four southern European and East Asian welfare regimes

Return of the Nanny: Public Policy towards In‐home Childcare in the UK, Canada and Australia

The Role of Domestic Employment Policies in Shaping Precarious Work

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About