The Nordic welfare regimes are often referred to as ‘caring states’ (Vabø and Szebehely, 2012), care-work-friendly (Wrede et al, 2008), social-democratic welfare regimes characterised by universalism (Esping-Andersen, 1990) and as potentially women-friendly welfare states (Hernes, 1987). However, major changes have taken place within these welfare regimes prompted by policies promoting neoliberalism and austerity. Neoliberalising1 has involved a wave of change with marketisation (contracting out) of elder care, self-responsibilising the elderly with concepts of ‘self-care’ and ‘re-ablement’ as well as the increasing amount of documentation, performance measurement and quality control in institutions providing care (Clarke and Newman, 1997; Meagher and Szebehely, 2013; Dahl et al, 2015; Dahl, 2017). Simultaneously, there are recurring recruitment problems with training and retaining sufficient numbers of professional carers for the elderly and for pre-school children (Wrede et al, 2008; Danmarks Radio, 2018). Given these profound changes, the question arises as to how to describe these changes and their effects upon care.
A convenient term that has emerged to describe these trends is ‘care crisis’. The ‘care crisis’ concept was first introduced two decades ago by US sociologists (Phillips and Benner, 1994; Hochschild, 1995). The use of the term ‘crisis’ signals a derangement of matters, which can be thought of as relating to arrangements, decisions and beliefs (Wolin, 1969: 1080). While ‘care crisis’ can be seen as a useful shorthand for a wide gamut of trends, there are also risks in simply using a general, aggregate term and transferring an Anglo-American framing of care crisis into a different context.
May 2022 onwards
Past 30 Days
Full Text Views
You are not currently authorised to access the full text of this chapter or article.
To access the full chapter or article then please choose one of the options below.
Pay to access content (PDF download and unlimited online access)