The Transformation of Care in European Societies

León, Margarita

doi:10.1057/9781137326515

Cited by 29 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 129 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the early 90s, welfare states supporting the male breadwinner model through traditional family policy have undertaken a major policy path departure to improve and enhance their repertoire of policies giving support to dual-earner families. Welfare typologies blurred as they were decisively moving towards similar policy reforms which broadly implied a widespread growth of public childcare provision; a reduction in the generosity of universal family benefits; and changes to care leaves to reduce the time mothers spent outside the labour market (Dobrotić et al, 2022;León, 2014). All these changes had to harmoniously move in the same direction if they were to succeed in fostering the employability of women and alleviate tensions with the private sphere of the home.…”

Section: Understanding Inclusiveness Flexibility and Complementarity ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Composite analysis: synthesising cross-national differences in policy case studies

Leon

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building upon the evidence collected in the previous reports of work package 5, this report identifies patterns of cross-national differences and similarities in three policy domains (cash transfers, parental leaves and childcare services) and through the lenses of the three criteria of inclusivity, flexibility and complementarity. With the intention to explore complementarity of policies, we elaborate on how the different policies in interaction with one another intervene in the relationship between paid employment, benefits, provision or services, and demands for family care. As in all other reports of WP 5 the focus is on the policy design and how this might have an impact on outcomes although the measuring of this impact is outside the remit of this work. Our interest lies in examining the distribution of benefits – who receives what, when, and how (Lasswell, 1936) – with a particular emphasis on diverse family types and circumstances. We assess the policy mixes across the six countries based on their potential to address gaps in protection related to the relationship between employment, social policy and care. In particular, we focus on how this relationship is configured and understood in (1) national minimum income programmes; (2) in the complementarities between parental leaves and early childhood education and care (ECEC); and (3) in the specific protection offered to families affected by severe illness and disability. This analysis identifies cases where specific family types or circumstances may be better or worse covered depending on the way in which the policy is designed. As a work in progress, it aims to establish relevant hypotheses that can build ground for future research.

show abstract

Section: Understanding Inclusiveness Flexibility and Complementarity ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Composite analysis: synthesising cross-national differences in policy case studies

Leon

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While only a handful of training programs are operational in the United States, caregivers receive far more extensive support and training in Germany and the Netherlands (Harris-Kojetin et al 2019). New forms of paying for care have been recently introduced widely in European countries to purchase not only formal but also informal care (León 2014;Deusdad et al 2016). Informal care is typically provided by unpaid relatives and family members (see Formal and Informal Care in this volume).…”

Section: Challenges Reforms and Prospectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-Term Care Financing

Wang¹,

Gu²,

Zhong³

et al. 2020

Encyclopedia of Gerontology and Population Aging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Financing long-term care; Long-term care cost; Long-term care fund Definition Long-term care (LTC) financing refers to the collection, management, and distribution of funds by legal approaches (private insurances, co-payments, taxes, social insurances, etc.) to support the LTC insurance and services for older adults who may require assistance with daily living activities (Stone 2000; Ranci and Pavolini 2013; European Commission 2015) and to ensure the quality and appropriateness of LTC services (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)/European Commission 2013; Feng 2019). In most countries, LTC funds can pay for the range of home-and communitybased services, including personal care (bathing, toileting, or eating) and supportive services (house cleaning, meal preparation, or shopping) as well as traditional home healthcare (nursing, therapy, and home health aide care) and community services (home-delivered meals and adult daycare) (Ikegami and Campbell 2002; Manton et al. 2006; Ranci and Pavolini 2013; World Health Organization 2015; Brugiavini et al. 2017). As the definitions and services of LTC vary across countries (World Health Organization and Milbank Memorial Fund 2000), the scope of LTC financing that should be included varies across countries, or even within a country over time, because of different socioeconomic and policy-based considerations. Regardless of its varying scope, LTC financing usually consists of four important components: coverage, financing sources, management, and payment. Overview In tandem with aging populations, the demand for LTC services for a growing number of older people with disabilities or chronic illnesses is increasing rapidly worldwide (O'Leary and Chow 2016). For example, in Europe, the demand is projected to grow from 27 million people in

show abstract

“…In 2016, most LTC systems in Western Europe had some kind of CfC programme in place (Da Roit et al, 2016). In many countries, these programmes were introduced in the 1990s or early 2000s both to support the demand for care and to limit the financial impact of coverage widening through demand-side support measures, therefore reducing the potential trade-off between universalism and cost containment (Ranci & Pavolini, 2013;León, 2014). Starting from 2007, newly emerging financial and demographic pressures have increased tensions and trade-offs in the LTC policy field.…”

Section: The Trade-off Between Coverage and Generosity Of Benefitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coverage versus generosity: Comparing eligibility and need assessment in six cash‐for‐care programmes

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the potential trade‐offs between extension of coverage and adequate generosity in cash‐for‐care (CfC) programmes in six European countries (Austria, Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, and Spain), which are characterised by different configurations of CfC programmes. Building on an empirical analysis of the eligibility rules, of the regulation applied to classify beneficiaries according to their level of dependency, and the ways CfC benefits are distributed among them, it becomes clear that these programmes differ substantially in terms of coverage and generosity. Such differences reflect the variety of ways by which universalism, selectivity, and adequacy are built up together throughout Europe.

show abstract

The Transformation of Care in European Societies

Cited by 29 publications

References 129 publications

Composite analysis: synthesising cross-national differences in policy case studies

Composite analysis: synthesising cross-national differences in policy case studies

Long-Term Care Financing

Coverage versus generosity: Comparing eligibility and need assessment in six cash‐for‐care programmes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About