The turn to optional familialism through the market: Long‐term care, cash‐for‐care, and caregiving policies in Europe

Abstract

Cash‐for‐care (CfC) schemes are monetary transfers to people in need of care who can use them to organize their own care arrangements. Mostly introduced in the 1990s, these schemes combine different policy objectives, as they can aim at (implicitly or explicitly) supporting informal caregivers as well as increasing user choice in long‐term care or even foster the formalization of care relations and the creation of care markets. This article explores from a comparative perspective, how CfC schemes, within broader long‐term care policies, envision, frame, and aim to condition informal care, if different models of relationships between CfC and informal care exist and how these have persisted or changed over time and into which directions. Building on the scholarly debate on familialization vs. defamilialization policies, the paper proposes an analytical framework to investigate the trajectories of seven European countries over a period of 20 years. The results show that, far from being simply instruments of supported familialism, CfC schemes have contributed to a turn towards “optional familialism through the market,” according to which families are encouraged to provide family care and are (directly or indirectly) given alternatives through the provision of market care.

Between Migrant Care Work and New Occupational Welfare Tools: Changing Home Care Arrangements in Italy

“…Finally, the provision of care services is aimed at supporting the fulfilment of care needs [9,39]. The main beneficiaries of these measures are therefore, in the first place, the employees' disabled relatives, who become users and direct beneficiaries of specific OW measures assigned to their working relative (i.e., their family caregiver).…”

“…The turn to optional familialism through the market: Long-term care, cash-for-care, and caregiving policies in Europe. 2019 [ 39 ] 19. Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) I lavori domestici, statistiche annuali 2019 [ 40 ] 20.…”

Work–family balance in the second half of life: Caregivers' decisions regarding retirement and working time reduction in Europe

“…Studies comparing the uptake of elder and grandchild care or caregivers' labour market participation indicate that, in welfare states with cash benefits, caregivers are more likely to care intensively (Brandt, Haberkern, & Szydlik, 2009) or alone (Bertogg & Strauss, 2018), and are less likely to be integrated into the labour market (Le Bihan, Da Roit, & Sopadzhiyan, 2019), particularly if they are female. Conversely, welfare states that offer public elder and child care services do not “crowd out” family caregivers and reduce the likelihood of providing care per se (for an overview, see Broese van Groenou & De Boer, 2016), but reduce the intensity (Brandt et al, 2009) and promote a more equal sharing between the genders (Schmid, Brandt, & Haberkern, 2012).…”

“…First, with regard to upward and lateral care, the formal provision of services directly to the care‐receiver (care‐in‐kind) should enable caregivers to remain in employment because their care provision is less likely to be intensive and more likely to complement formal services. Second, policy schemes that enable informal caregivers to take care of their relatives (cash‐for‐care) should lead to caregivers giving up employment, because they motivate predominantly those individuals with a weak labour market attachment to take over caregiving duties, which are then often intensive and time‐consuming (Czaplicki, 2012; Frericks, Jensen, & Pfau‐Effinger, 2014; Le Bihan et al, 2019). We thus formulate the following hypothesis with regard to upward and lateral care:H2 Higher expenditure for cash‐for‐care increases upward and lateral caregivers' labour market exits and decreases their working hours, care‐in‐kind expenditure decreases upward and lateral caregivers' labour market exits and increases their working hours .…”

Specialist support for persons with disabilities living in the community: Review of international practice

“…While some schemes aim primarily to promote independent living, others seek to improve the capacity of families to take on responsibilities for support. For example, individualised funding schemes in European countries are found to have helped establish a scenario where families are encouraged to provide family care, but are given alternatives through the provision of market care (Le Bihan, Da Roit and Sopadzhiyan, 2019). Fused with these various policy objectives, common influences for reforming services in favour of individualised funding include consumerism, disability lobby groups and the shifting of the 'locus of care' from the state to the community, home and individual (Carr and Robbins, 2009).…”