Search

How much, and in what ways, do cultural ideas contribute to understanding cross‐national differences in the extent of long‐term care (LTC) policy marketisation? We argue that differences in cultural ideas in the political sphere about 'ideal' ways of organising the provision of care shed light on these differences, relatively independently of the governing parties' positions on the left/right spectrum. Our comparative case study of two conservative welfare states, Germany and Austria, supports this argument. LTC policy marketisation in the mid‐1990s was, in both cases, based on left‐libertarian ideas. While these ideas gained strong political support from parties across the left/right spectrum in Austria, they were combined with etatist ideas in Germany, resulting in a substantially lower potential for marketisation in Germany's LTC policy. Our study also shows that, by contrast with neo‐liberal ideas, left‐libertarian ideas address care recipients' self‐determination and divert attention away from social problems associated with LTC marketisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Sozialreform is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: To determine how European care policies for older people differ in terms of their potential social risks to family carers, as well as the extent to which these differences can be explained by different types of welfare and care regime. Background: It is often assumed that welfare state support for family care entails high social risks to the carer, such as loss of employment income and social security rights. This paper challenges these assumptions and argues that care policies that generously support family carers might also alleviate some of the social risks related to family care. Method: This paper introduces an innovative approach to systematically measuring the generosity of policies that support family carers, and it theorises how these policies connect to family carers' social risks. It then applies this approach to a comparative study of five European welfare states based on analyses of these countries' care policy documents, standardised policy reports by national experts and data from comparative social policy databases. Results: The findings reveal large cross-national differences in care policy design, which is only in some cases able to significantly mitigate social risks for family carers. Furthermore, these cross-national differences only partly correspond with assumptions based on welfare and care regime affiliation according to classic typologies. Conclusion: The paper sheds new light on the ways in which welfare states design their policies towards family carers, and on the extent to which these policies are associated with social risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores how far the concepts of de-familialisation/familialisation are adequate to the classification of long-term care (LTC) policies for older people. In the theoretical debate over LTC policies, de-familialising and familialising policies are often treated as opposites. We propose re-conceptualising the relation between de-familialisation and familialisation, arguing that they represent substantially different types of policy that, in theory, can vary relatively autonomously. In order to evaluate this theoretical assumption, this article investigates the relation between the generosity level of LTC policies on extra-familial care, and the generosity level of LTC policies on paid family care, introducing a new multi-dimensional approach to measuring the generosity of LTC policy for older persons. It also explores the consequences of this for gender equality. The empirical study is based on a cross-national comparison of LTC policies in five European welfare states which show significant differences in their welfare state tradition. Data used are from document analysis of care policy law, the Mutual Information System on Social Protection, the European Quality of Life Survey and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The findings support the argument that de-familialising and familialising LTC policies can vary relatively independently of each other in theory. It turns out that we get a better understanding of the relationship between LTC policy and gender equality if we analyse the role of different combinations of extra-familial and familial LTC policies for gender equality. The paper brings new insights into the ways welfare states act in regard to their LTC policies. It helps to clarify how the concept of de-familialisation/familialisation can be understood, and what this means for the relationship between LTC policies and gender equality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article aims to answer the following research questions: (a) How far do European welfare states differ in the use of the policy concept of the active social citizen? and (b) How far is it possible to explain the differences with welfare regime types and welfare culture? The article distinguishes between two different types of the policy concept of active social citizenship with regard to self-responsibility. It argues that the active social citizen's self-responsibility could be underpinned either by a major role of the welfare state, which promotes the citizens' self-determination, or by a minor role of the state, which forces citizens to be self-reliant for funding and for organizing their own social security and services. The article is based on a cross-national comparative study for two policy fields (unemployment and long-term care policies for older people) in three welfare states (Denmark, England, and Germany), and analyzes legal frameworks, data from MISSOC (Mutual Information System on Social Protection) and secondary literature. The comparative analysis shows that countries differ in the type of the policy concept of active social citizenship they use. Differences in the type of welfare regime and also differences in the welfare culture contribute to an explanation of these differences. The article is innovative in that it offers a systematic analysis of the differences in the ways in which welfare states of different regime types conceptualize "active social citizenship" with regard to the citizens' self-responsibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]