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). ...

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.

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.