Suchergebnisse

Throughout Europe migrant workers are increasingly employed to provide elderly care services. This article presents a comparative analysis of the role of migrant workers in elderly care in Italy, the Netherlands and England. It incorporates both private and agency-based employment. Based on the analysis of survey data and expert interviews it is found that in all cases migrant workers work longer hours and do more night shifts than their native peers. Between-country differences in the importance of migrant workers in social care can be explained primarily by differences in social care policies and care regimes, while the impact of immigration policies is more ambiguous. It is argued that a familialistic care regime induces a 'migrant in the family' model of care, while a liberal care regime leads to a 'migrant in the market' model of employment and a social democratic care regime creates no particular demand for migrant workers.

Defence date: 31/05/2011 ; Examining Board: Prof. Martin Kohli, European University Institute Dr. Virginie Guiraudon, Ceraps, Université Lille 2 Prof. Anton Hemerijck, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Prof. Chiara Saraceno, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung ; This study analyses the role of migrant workers in social care and the policy responses to this phenomenon in Italy, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. In contrast to previous research on migrant care work, this study incorporates both private and agency-based employment in child and elderly care. It applies a comparative case study approach relying on micro level survey data, expert interviews, policy documents, newspaper articles and secondary sources. Theoretically the research engages with welfare regime theory and with theories on the politics of migration and the politics of the welfare state. The demand for migrant workers in social care is strongest in elderly care. Cross country differences are related to variation in employment conditions. Migrant workers are overrepresented when social care jobs are badly paid, offer limited career opportunities and require extensive shift work. These employment conditions are significantly shaped by social care policies. It is argued that a Familialistic care regime, as demonstrated by the Italian case, fosters the emergence of a 'migrant in the family' model of employment. A Liberal care regime, as revealed by the UK case, induces a 'migrant in the market' model. By contrast, a Social Democratic care regime, as approximated by the case of Dutch elderly care, does not create any particular demand for migrant workers in the social care sector. Differences in care regimes influenced Italian, British and Dutch migration and care policies divergently. In Italy the presence of private migrant care workers absolved the state from reforming its social care system and meanwhile relatively generous migration policies for migrant care workers were enacted. In the Netherlands strong stakeholders guaranteed continuous investments in employment conditions of the elderly care workforce and migration policies have not granted any privileges to care workers. UK immigration policy reform has tightened eligibility criteria for care workers; nonetheless, it is questionable whether public investments in elderly care are sufficient to attract enough native employees.

This article investigates the extent to which a social investment paradigm has guided policy reforms in long-term care for the elderly in France and the Netherlands and how this relates to the resilience of the sector during the Covid-19 pandemic. It conceptualizes the theoretical impact of social investment on long-term care policy and analyzes its use to justify reforms since the early 2000s. It concludes that social investment has not played any role in Dutch long-term care reforms and a moderate role in France. Meanwhile, in both countries a neoliberal emphasis on the efficiency of the market has contributed to a rise in for-profit service provision and fragmentation of the long-term care sector. While long-term care provision in both countries proved relatively resilient in the first phase of the pandemic, at a later stage its resilience was undermined by fragmentation and marketization, limiting the government's ability to respond adequately to new challenges and, crucially, to improve working conditions in the sector. The article concludes that a social investment approach cannot resolve these problems and that there is a need for a new paradigm that acknowledges the inherent value of care work and prioritizes the long-term sustainability of care provision.

Ambivalence about rights is well known: rights may both challenge existing injustices while simultaneously re-enforcing sovereign regulatory control over citizens. In this article, we focus on the paradox that potentially radical and transformative claims to rights are made at a site – civil society – that under liberal governmentality has increasingly become a site of government. By exploring the unionization of undocumented migrant domestic workers (MDWs) in the Netherlands, we aim to show how rights claims are shaped and controlled by civil society. Using the analytical category of (in)visibility, the case study discloses the dualistic role of the union. On the one hand, the union operated as a site of resistance supporting undocumented MDWs to make their rights claims. On the other hand, it operated as a site of government of the same undocumented MDWs by selectively promoting work-related rights claims and excluding more radical claims for the right to come and go.

Ambivalence about rights is well known: rights may both challenge existing injustices while simultaneously re-enforcing sovereign regulatory control over citizens. In this article, we focus on the paradox that potentially radical and transformative claims to rights are made at a site – civil society – that under liberal governmentality has increasingly become a site of government. By exploring the unionization of undocumented migrant domestic workers (MDWs) in the Netherlands, we aim to show how rights claims are shaped and controlled by civil society. Using the analytical category of (in)visibility, the case study discloses the dualistic role of the union. On the one hand, the union operated as a site of resistance supporting undocumented MDWs to make their rights claims. On the other hand, it operated as a site of government of the same undocumented MDWs by selectively promoting work-related rights claims and excluding more radical claims for the right to come and go.

Ambivalence about rights is well known: rights may both challenge existing injustices while simultaneously re-enforcing sovereign regulatory control over citizens. In this article, we focus on the paradox that potentially radical and transformative claims to rights are made at a site – civil society – that under liberal governmentality has increasingly become a site of government. By exploring the unionization of undocumented migrant domestic workers (MDWs) in the Netherlands, we aim to show how rights claims are shaped and controlled by civil society. Using the analytical category of (in)visibility, the case study discloses the dualistic role of the union. On the one hand, the union operated as a site of resistance supporting undocumented MDWs to make their rights claims. On the other hand, it operated as a site of government of the same undocumented MDWs by selectively promoting work-related rights claims and excluding more radical claims for the right to come and go.

AbstractThe different development of child and elderly care in the Netherlands reflects the hybrid character of its welfare system, which, until the 1980s, featured both social democratic and conservative elements. While public involvement in the provision of elderly care services rapidly increased after the Second World War, childcare remained a family affair well into the 1980s. Under recent neo‐liberal influences these trends have been reversed. Public investments in childcare have grown exponentially, while several governments have attempted to cut expenses on elderly care services. This article descriptively compares these contrasting processes and puts them into historical and comparative perspective. It is argued that pillarization has contributed to the comparatively strong hybridization of the Dutch system of welfare and social care. In addition, different cultures of child and elderly care contributed to different developments in both policy fields.

Part I: MAPPING THE DYNAMICS OF WELFARE MARKETS. - 1. Introduction: From the Emergence to the Dynamics of Welfare Markets; Clémence Ledoux, Karen Shire, Franca van Hooren -- 2. Changing States, Changing Citizens, Changing Politics?; Jane Gingrich -- 3.The European Union and Multi-Level Contention Over Welfare Markets; Amandine Crespy. - Part 2: (RE)CONSTRUCTING WELFARE MARKETS. - 4. Welfare Markets and Home-Based Domestic/Care Services: Market Dynamics and Mechanisms in Two Different Institutional Contexts — Spain and Sweden; Zenia Hellgren and Barbara Hobson -- 5. The Failure of a Welfare Market: State-Subsidized Private Pensions between Economic Developments and Media Discourses; Frank Nullmeier -- 6. The Role of Evidence and Commissions in the Dynamics of German and Swedish Pension Markets; Stephan Köppe -- Part III: THE DYNAMICS ON THE USER SIDE -- 7. 'Disorientation' in a Capricious Welfare Market: The Case of the German Pension System; Ingo Bode and Ralph Lüth -- 8. Being Dependent and an Employer: The Realities of Private Individual Employment for Dependent Elderly People in France; Eve Meuret-Campfort -- 9. The Political Dynamics of Welfare Markets: The Emergence of Consumer Organisations in the Field of Social Policy; Florian Blank -- Part IV. THE DYNAMICS OF FIRMS AND EMPLOYERS -- 10. The Politics of Segmentation and De-Segmentation of the French Market for Private Retirement Accounts; Marek Naczik -- 11. The Development of Occupational Pension Markets in the European Union and Lithuania: Regulation and Challenges; Audrius Bitinas -- 12. Becoming an Organised Actor in a Welfare Market: Employers' Organisations in the French In-Home Domestic/Care Services Sector; Clémence Ledoux Rafael Encinas de Munagorri, Virginie Guiraudon -- Part V. THE DYNAMICS ON THE LABOUR SIDE -- 13. Informalisation of Work and Workers' Voice in Welfare Markets for In-Home Domestic/Care Service in Germany; Birgit Apitzsch and Karen Shire -- 14. Trade Unions and Welfare Markets: Comparing Dynamics in Three Domestic/Care Markets in the Netherlands; Franca van Hooren. - 15. Workers on Welfare Markets and the Appropriation of Their Rights: The Case of Mothers' Assistants in France since 1977; Marie Cartier. .

This paper maps and explains the reactions of four welfare states - Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden - to three global crisis situations - the oil shocks of the 1970s, the worldwide recession of the early 1990s, and the financial crisis from 2008 onwards. Two main conclusions follow from the analysis: First, using a comprehensive typology of social policy reactions to crises, we show that crisis reactions were surprisingly diverse. There is no uniform policy response, as policies range from retrenchment through non-response to welfare state expansion. Second, explaining the variation regarding expansion vs. retrenchment we focus on the partisan composition of government, and the size of the existing welfare state, which may operate as an important automatic stabilizer during recessions. While none of these factors alone is sufficient, their interaction is able to explain most of the specific social policy responses adopted in the four countries studied. ; Das Arbeitspapier beschreibt und erklärt die Reaktionen von vier Wohlfahrtsstaaten - Australien, Belgien, die Niederlande und Schweden - auf drei globale Krisensituationen - die Ölpreisschocks der 1970er Jahre, die weltweite Rezession in den frühen 1990ern und die Finanzkrise nach 2008. Zwei Schlussfolgerungen können gezogen werden: Erstens zeigen wir, basierend auf einer umfassenden Typologie sozialpolitischer Krisenreaktionen, dass Krisenreaktionen überraschend unterschiedlich ausfielen. Es gibt keine einheitliche Krisenantwort, Reaktionen reichen vielmehr von Kürzungen, über bewusste Nicht-Reaktion, bis hin zu sozialpolitischem Ausbau. Zweitens konzentrieren wir uns zur Erklärung der Variation im Hinblick auf Rückbau und Ausbau einerseits auf die parteipolitische Zusammensetzung der Regierung und andererseits auf die Größe des existierenden Wohlfahrtsstaats, der in Zeiten wirtschaftlicher Rezession als wichtiger automatischer Stabilisator wirken kann. Obgleich keiner dieser Faktoren allein ausreicht, ist ihre Interaktion in der Lage, die meisten spezifischen sozialpolitischen Reaktionen der vier Länder zu erklären.