Context:In response to increasing care needs, the reform or development of long-term care (LTC) systems has become a prominent policy issue in all European countries. Cash-for-care schemes-allowances instead of services provided to dependents-represent a key policy aimed at ensuring choice, fostering family care, developing care markets, and containing costs. Methods:A detailed analysis of policy documents and regulations, together with a systematic review of existing studies, was used to investigate the differences among six European countries (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden). The rationale and evolution of their various cash-for-care schemes within the framework of their LTC systems also were explored.Findings: While most of the literature present cash-for-care schemes as a common trend in the reforms that began in the 1990s and often treat them separately from the overarching LTC policies, this article argues that the policy context, timing, and specific regulation of the new schemes have created different visions of care and care work that in turn have given rise to distinct LTC configurations. Conclusions:A new typology of long-term care configurations is proposed based on the inclusiveness of the system, the role of cash-for-care schemes and their specific regulations, as well as the views of informal care and the care work that they require.Keywords: Long-term care, cash-for-care, care work, informal care. Address correspondence to: Since the 1990s, cash-for-care schemes have been a common trend in social policies, particularly in the field of longterm care (LTC). Instead of services, these schemes give people monetary benefits, which they can use to purchase care services.Most of the literature on this topic concerns the common objectives and possible implications of cash-for-care schemes. One of the main ideas behind cash-for-care is "free choice"; that is, disabled (older) people and/or their families may choose among different kinds of care and care providers, thereby giving them both autonomy and control, which disabled people's organizations have sought since the 1970s (Glendinning 2008). The resulting competition among care providers also has enhanced the quality and efficiency of care (Kremer 2006) in accordance with a "new public management" perspective (Ferlie, Lynn, and Pollitt 2007). Another objective is the recognition of (formerly unpaid) informal care, since many cash-for-care schemes allow beneficiaries to compensate or employ their relatives (Ungerson 1997). Finally, cash-for-care schemes can be seen as opportunities to offer LTC policies that are less expensive than traditional services.A closer inspection of cash-for-care schemes in various European countries also reveals some striking differences among them. First, the strict regulation of cash-for-care schemes has strongly influenced the "commodification of care" (Ungerson and Yeandle 2007), as well as the development of specific forms of care work and informal care (Da Roit, Le Bihan, andÖsterle 2008). ...

Migrant care work has emerged as an increasingly important solution to the challenges of growing eldercare needs in both the private and the public sphere. Migrant workers are employed in domestic services in Southern European and in some continental European countries, and they are a significant part of the work force in the formal care sector in many national contexts. The article provides an exploratory cross-country analysis of the phenomenon. After assessing the extent of migrant care work based on individually contracted workers in the domestic sector vs. organization-based care workers in nine European welfare states, it investigates which conditions sustain specific national patterns. Using fuzzy-set analysis the article demonstrates how the intersection of care, migration and employment regimes shapes different patterns of migrant care work. © The Author(s) 2013

Intergenerational solidarity within families is the traditional source of support for dependent elderly people in southern European countries, where care needs have been mainly fulfilled by the unpaid work of women. Recently, the decline of informal care and the persistent lack of supply of formal services have been accompanied by the growth of commercial services mostly provided by migrant women hired by families in the grey market. The article is based on a qualitative study and explores the social processes underlying these changes. It suggests that although intergenerational solidarity is still crucial, it is expressed less through the direct provision of care and more through the supervision of paid services. This shift, which results mainly from a strategy adopted by middle-class women, challenges traditional gender relations and divisions of work. Moreover, it produces employment relations characterized by low pay and underprotection and reflecting conflicts over time and space typically present in informal care relations.keywords: commodification of care ✦ dependent elderly ✦ informal care ✦ intergenerational solidarity ✦ Mediterranean welfare state ✦ paid care

Cash benefit provisions have been at the core of many recent reforms in the long-term care sector in Europe. The respective schemes, however, vary widely in terms of the definition of entitlements, the level of benefits, and the ways in which benefits can be used by recipients. This article investigates cash-for-care schemes in three European social insurance countries. It asks whether the diversity of these schemes indicates different paths or just differences in the pace with which the respective policies address the risk of dependency. A characterization of the three schemes and a discussion of the implications for care work arrangements lead to the conclusion that the context and timing of long-term care reform processes are in fact quite variegated. All three countries have histories of cash schemes and of applying the cash approach to support -and to some extent relieve -traditionally strong family obligations. Differences predominate in terms of linking cash to employment, although some convergence is apparent in the effects on qualifications, working conditions and wages in care work.

The Dutch home-care system is embedded in a universalistic and comparatively generous long-term care (LTC) scheme that was introduced in the late 1960s. The tension between guaranteeing access to good-quality care and controlling costs has been a key issue since the inception of the LTC scheme. The article addresses the question of how these two distinct objectives have been dealt with in the political debate and by policy-making in the past 20 years. It does so by looking at existing studies, official statistics and policy documents. First, the analysis shows that home care - the development of which results from the de-institutionalisation policies pursued since the 1980s - has shifted from being considered a cost-containment measure to representing a battlefield on cost containment. Second, the article argues that the issue of cost containment is a leitmotif in the development of home care that has been accompanied and legitimised over time by distinct normative views. On the one hand, traditional forms of cost containment - namely direct budgetary controls - have been predicated on the need to ensure the financial sustainability of the system and its universalistic features. On the other hand, the discourse and practice of cost containment has, since the early 1990s, also been accompanied by normative views that structurally challenge universalism through the introduction of new ideas about the responsibility for LTC risks, resource allocation and regulation of the system.