Re-conceptualising the relationship between de-familialisation and familialisation and the implications for gender equality – the case of long-term care policies for older people

Abstract

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.

The discursive politics of marketization in home care policy implementation in Ireland

“…These analyses establish the broad contours of change yet place little emphasis on care policy implementation or how ground-level implementing actors interpret such changes. As home care policy implementation can reinforce and/or relieve familial and especially women's responsibilities for care, ideas about marketizing home care have relevance for challenging or reproducing dominant gendered ideas of care (Eggers, Grages, Pfau-Effinger, & Och, 2018). In this research, I draw on ideational and gender discursive approaches to examine how implementing actors discursively engage with the marketization of home care policy in Ireland.…”

Migrant Caregivers of Older People in Spain: Qualitative Insights into Relatives’ Experiences

“…However, the perspectives and experiences of relatives who hire these women are barely addressed in the literature. These family members are one of the great pillars on which this system of care is based [19,29,30,53], which is in accordance with the family values of the older person who is being cared for at his/her own residence [13,33,47,54].…”

“…However, the inadequacy of the government to respond is forcing families to solve the problem. Thus, emancipated women hire other women, migrants, as a solution to the global shortage of means for long-term care [5,[17][18][19][20].…”

Conceptual Approaches in Comparative Family Policy Research

“…Most importantly, a number of scholars have pointed out that familization and defamilization should not be framed as negatives or as opposite poles on a continuous scale (Eggers, Grages, Pfau-Effinger, & Och, 2020;Leitner, 2003;Lohmann, 2009;Lohmann & Zagel, 2016), but may be regarded as two related but distinct concepts. The fact that a number of welfare states combine familizing and defamilizing policies shows that the two are not mutually exclusive (e.g., in the form of optional individualism or optional familialism; Leitner, 2003;Lohmann & Zagel, 2016).…”