IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i15p9423-d877708.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Care Task Division in Familialistic Care Regimes: A Comparative Analysis of Gender and Socio-Economic Inequalities in Austria and Slovenia

Author

Listed:
  • Ricardo Rodrigues

    (European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research, 1090 Vienna, Austria
    ISEG Lisbon School of Economics and Management, University of Lisbon, 1649-004 Lisbon, Portugal
    SOCIUS, Research Centre in Economic and Organizational Sociology, 1249-078 Lisbon, Portugal)

  • Stefania Ilinca

    (European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research, 1090 Vienna, Austria)

  • Maša Filipovič Hrast

    (Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

  • Andrej Srakar

    (Institute for Economic Research (IER), University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

  • Valentina Hlebec

    (Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

Abstract

Demographic aging has led to an increase in the number of people with multiple needs requiring different types of care delivered by formal and informal carers. The distribution of care tasks between formal and informal carers has a significant impact on the well-being of carers and on how efficiently care is delivered to users. The study has two aims. The first is to explore how task division in care for older people differs between two neighboring countries with different forms of familialism: Slovenia (prescribed familialism) and Austria (supported familialism). The second is to explore how income and gender are associated with task division across these forms of familialism. Multinomial logistic regression is applied to SHARE data (wave 6, 2015) to estimate five different models of task division, based on how personal care and household help are distributed between formal and informal carers. The findings show that the task division is markedly different between Slovenia and Austria, with complementation and supplementation models more frequent in Austria. Despite generous cash benefits and higher service availability in Austria, pro-rich inequalities in the use of formal care only are pervasive here, unlike in Slovenia. Both countries show evidence of pro-poor inequalities in the use of informal care only, while these inequalities are mostly absent from mixed models of task division. Generous cash transfers do not appear to reduce gender inequalities in supported familialism. Supported familialism may not fundamentally improve inequalities when compared with less generous forms of familialism.

Suggested Citation

  • Ricardo Rodrigues & Stefania Ilinca & Maša Filipovič Hrast & Andrej Srakar & Valentina Hlebec, 2022. "Care Task Division in Familialistic Care Regimes: A Comparative Analysis of Gender and Socio-Economic Inequalities in Austria and Slovenia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-18, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9423-:d:877708
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9423/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9423/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carmichael, F. & Charles, S. & Hulme, C., 2010. "Who will care? Employment participation and willingness to supply informal care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 182-190, January.
    2. Courtin, Emilie & Jemiai, Nadia & Mossialos, Elias, 2014. "Mapping support policies for informal carers across the European Union," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 84-94.
    3. Jenny Gierveld & Pearl A. Dykstra & Niels Schenk, 2012. "Living arrangements, intergenerational support types and older adult loneliness in Eastern and Western Europe," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 27(7), pages 167-200.
    4. Francesca Bettio & Janneke Plantenga, 2004. "Comparing Care Regimes In Europe," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 85-113.
    5. Saraceno, Chiara, 2016. "Varieties of familialism: Comparing four southern European and East Asian welfare regimes," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 26(4), pages 314-326.
    6. Bonsang, Eric, 2009. "Does informal care from children to their elderly parents substitute for formal care in Europe?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 143-154, January.
    7. Bremer, Patrick & Challis, David & Hallberg, Ingalill Rahm & Leino-Kilpi, Helena & Saks, Kai & Vellas, Bruno & Zwakhalen, Sandra M.G. & Sauerland, Dirk, 2017. "Informal and formal care: Substitutes or complements in care for people with dementia? Empirical evidence for 8 European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(6), pages 613-622.
    8. Tim Muir, 2017. "Measuring social protection for long-term care," OECD Health Working Papers 93, OECD Publishing.
    9. Allin, S. & Masseria, C. & Mossialos, E., 2009. "Measuring socioeconomic differences in use of health care services by wealth versus by income," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 99(10), pages 1849-1855.
    10. Cubbin, C. & Pollack, C. & Flaherty, B. & Hayward, M. & Sania, A. & Vallone, D. & Braveman, P., 2011. "Assessing alternative measures of wealth in health research," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 101(5), pages 939-947.
    11. Marco Albertini & Emmanuele Pavolini, 2017. "Unequal Inequalities: The Stratification of the Use of Formal Care Among Older Europeans," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 72(3), pages 510-521.
    12. Francesco Barbabella & Carlos Chiatti & Joseph M. Rimland & Maria Gabriella Melchiorre & Giovanni Lamura & Fabrizia Lattanzio, 2016. "Socioeconomic Predictors of the Employment of Migrant Care Workers by Italian Families Assisting Older Alzheimer’s Disease Patients: Evidence From the Up-Tech Study," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 71(3), pages 514-525.
    13. Van Ourti, Tom, 2003. "Socio-economic inequality in ill-health amongst the elderly: Should one use current or permanent income?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 219-241, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ricardo Rodrigues & Stefania Ilinca & Andrea E. Schmidt, 2018. "Income‐rich and wealth‐poor? The impact of measures of socio‐economic status in the analysis of the distribution of long‐term care use among older people," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 637-646, March.
    2. Carrino, L.; & Nafilyan, V.; & Avendaño Pabon, M.;, 2019. "Should I Care or Should I Work? The Impact of Working in Older Age on Caregiving," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 19/23, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    3. Sean Urwin & Yiu‐Shing Lau & Thomas Mason, 2019. "Investigating the relationship between formal and informal care: An application using panel data for people living together," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(8), pages 984-997, August.
    4. Maria Gabriella Melchiorre & Sabrina Quattrini & Giovanni Lamura & Marco Socci, 2021. "A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Care Arrangements of Older People with Limited Physical Abilities Living Alone in Italy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-35, December.
    5. Maria Gabriella Melchiorre & Sabrina Quattrini & Giovanni Lamura & Marco Socci, 2022. "Role and Characteristics of Personal Care Assistants of Frail Older People with Functional Limitations Ageing in Place in Italy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-25, March.
    6. Joan Costa-Font & Sergi Jiménez-Martín & Cristina Vilaplana-Prieto, 2016. "Thinking of Incentivizing Care? The Effect of Demand Subsidies on Informal Caregiving and Intergenerational Transfers," Working Papers 2016-08, FEDEA.
    7. Urwin, Sean & Lau, Yiu-Shing & Grande, Gunn & Sutton, Matt, 2021. "The extent and predictors of discrepancy between provider and recipient reports of informal caregiving," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    8. Alberto Pench, 2018. "Intra Generational Solidarity and Long Term Care: A Role for In Kind Transfers," ECONOMIA PUBBLICA, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(1), pages 35-57.
    9. Wang, Yixiao & Yang, Wei & Avendano, Mauricio, 2022. "Does informal care reduce health care utilisation in older age? Evidence from China," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
    10. Nguyen, Ha Trong & Connelly, Luke Brian, 2014. "The effect of unpaid caregiving intensity on labour force participation: Results from a multinomial endogenous treatment model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 115-122.
    11. Virginia Rodrigo-Baños & Marta del Moral-Pairada & Luis González-de Paz, 2021. "A Comprehensive Assessment of Informal Caregivers of Patients in a Primary Healthcare Home-Care Program," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-14, November.
    12. Zhu, Chen & Jin, Zhuo & Lee, Chien-Chiang, 2022. "The impact of informal care from children to their elderly parents on self-employment? Evidence from China," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    13. Cinzia Di Novi & Elenka Brenna, 2013. "Is caring for elderly parents detrimental for women�s mental health? The influence of the European North-South gradient," Working Papers 2013:23, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    14. Longobardo, Luz María Peña & Rodríguez-Sánchez, Beatriz & Oliva, Juan, 2023. "Does becoming an informal caregiver make your health worse? A longitudinal analysis across Europe," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    15. Michio Yuda & Jinkook Lee, 2016. "Effects of Informal Caregivers’ Health on Care Recipients," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 192-210, June.
    16. Estrada Fernández, Mª Eugenia & Gil Lacruz, Ana I. & Gil Lacruz, Marta & Viñas López, Antonio, 2019. "Informal care. European situation and approximation of a reality," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(12), pages 1163-1172.
    17. Joan Costa-Font & Martin Karlsson & Henning Øien, 2015. "Informal Care and the Great Recession," CINCH Working Paper Series 1502, Universitaet Duisburg-Essen, Competent in Competition and Health, revised Feb 2015.
    18. repec:ctc:serie1:def4 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Stefania Ilinca & Ricardo Rodrigues & Stefan Fors & Eszter Zólyomi & Janet Jull & Johan Rehnberg & Afshin Vafaei & Susan Phillips, 2022. "Gender differences in access to community-based care: a longitudinal analysis of widowhood and living arrangements," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1339-1350, December.
    20. Elisa Labbas & Maria Stanfors, 2023. "Does Caring for Parents Take Its Toll? Gender Differences in Caregiving Intensity, Coresidence, and Psychological Well-Being Across Europe," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 39(1), pages 1-29, December.
    21. Alexander L. Janus & Alison Koslowski, 2020. "Whose responsibility? Elder support norms regarding the provision and financing of assistance with daily activities across economically developed countries," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 95-108, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9423-:d:877708. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.